The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe

Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie • Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel • Otfried Hofius • Hans-Josef Klauck

169

Andrew Gregory

The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus

Looking for Luke in the Second Century

Mohr Siebeck

A N D R E W G R E G O R Y , born 1 9 7 1 ; 2 0 0 1 Doctor of Philosophy; currently Chaplain and Oakeshott Junior Research Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, and a member of the Theology Faculty of the University of Oxford.

ISBN3-16-148086-4

ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe)

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

© 2003 J. C. B. Möhr (Paul Siebeck) Tubingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was printed by Druckpartner Rübelmann GmbH in Hemsbach on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Schaumann in Darmstadt.

Printed in Germany.

978-3-16-157155-8 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019

for Katherine

àvcv F|S OÙK

Acknowledgements

This monograph is the revised and expanded version of a thesis which was accepted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the University of Oxford in November 2001. A number of institutions provided the financial support which enabled me to undertake this research, and I am glad to record my gratitude to them: the Arts and Humanities Research Board of the British Academy, which awarded me a Postgraduate Studentship in the Humanities;

the Warden and Fellows of Keble College, Oxford, who elected me as Gosden Student and appointed me as Assistant Chaplain; and the Rector and Fellows of Lincoln College, Oxford who elected me to the Oakeshott Junior Research Fellowship and appointed me as Chaplain. The Lincoln College Zilkha Fund also paid for the indexing of this monograph.

Both colleges have provided enriching experiences of collegiate life, and I am grateful that my research and pastoral and liturgical ministries have been able to be combined in these contexts. Particular thanks are due to the John Davies, the Chaplain at Keble, and to Heads of House at both Colleges: Averil Cameron at Keble, and Eric Anderson and Paul Langford at Lincoln. I am also grateful to the people of the parish of St Dunstan with St Thomas, East Acton, who welcomed with open arms both Katherine, my wife, and me, when I joined them as their Assistant Curate during my time at Keble.

Particular thanks go the Rt Revd Graham Dow, then Bishop of Willesden, whose willingness to ordain me allowed me to combine academic research with ordained ministry, and to James Blandford-Baker, Vicar of East Acton.

Not only did James tolerate a far from conventional curate, he also later transformed a rather messy Microsoft Word file into the camera copy ready from which this book was produced.

Many others have also contributed, directly or indirectly, to this research.

Christopher Rowland was an exemplary supervisor, always generous with his time and ideas. He has been a source of constant support and encouragement, ready to let me explore new avenues yet always knowing when to pull me back from the brink. I am grateful for his wise and generous example both in scholarship and in life. I am grateful also to others who have listened to my ideas or shared theirs with me. Those at Oxford who have read some or all of successive stages of this text include Jeremy Duff, Mark Edwards, Paul Foster, Alan Garrow, Robert Morgan and Christopher Tuckett. John

VIII Acknowledgements

Muddiman and Graham Stanton, the examiners of my thesis, helped remove errors and made many suggestions for its improvement, as did Jorg Frey and Martin Hengel when they accepted the thesis for publication in the 2nd series of WUNT. Joseph Veheyden of Leuven also generously read and commented on my thesis.

Many others have also contributed to my education. Particular thanks go to David Wenham and others at Oxford who tutored me in the world of the early Christians, and to members of the Department of Classics in Durham who helped me develop critical skills for engaging with ancient evidence at an advanced level. But it was Robert England who introduced me first to the serious study of the writings both of Luke and also those of Ante-Nicene Christianity more generally.

I am grateful to my parents-in-law, Richard and Jean Brake, both for proof- reading and for other assistance. My parents, Clarke and Dorothy Gregory, continue to provide me with constant loving support, and have made sacrifices to allow me many of the opportunities which I enjoyed in the course of my education. Katherine, my wife, has lived with this research for as long as I have, and she has contributed to its completion in more ways than I can count. I dedicate this book to her, with gratitude and love.

Andrew Gregory Oxford Pentecost 2003

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements VII

Part One: Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology l

1.1 The Scope of This Monograph 1 1.2 The Assumptions of the Monograph 2 1.3 Methodological Issues for the Current Study 5

1.3.1 Introduction 5 13 2 Earlier Approaches to the Reception of Synoptic Tradition 7

1.3 .3 The Significance of Continuing Oral Tradition 15 1.3 .4 The Significance of Our Knowledge That Many Written Texts Have Been Lost 16

1.4 The Structure of the Monograph 21

Part Two: The Reception of Luke

Chapter 2 Previous Research 22 2.1 Conclusion and Prospectus 26

Chapter 3 The Evidence o f the Earliest Manuscripts and N o t i c e s 27

3.1 How Can We Use the Papyri? 27 3.2 The Early Papyri of Luke 28 3.3 External Testimony 32

3.3.1 Papias 33 3.3.2 Irenaeus 38 3.3.3 Muratorian Fragment 40

3.3.4 Anti-Marcionite Prologue 43 3 .4 When and How Could the Author of the Third Gospel be Identified as Luke? 45

3.5 Conclusion and Prospectus 53

Chapter 4 D o Narrative Outlines o f Episodes in the Life o f Jesus

Presuppose Lukel 55

4.1 Introduction 55 4.2 The Gospel According to John 56

X Contents

4.2.1 The Relationship of John and Luke in Recent Scholarship 56 4.2.2 A Test-case to Consider the Relationship of Luke and John '.

Luke 24:12 // John 20:3-10 60 4.2.3 The Authenticity of Luke 24:12 61

4.2.4 John's use of Luke 62 4.2.5 Luke's use of John 64 4.2.6 Conclusion: A Continuing Debate 68

4.3 Ignatius of Antioch 69 4.3.1 Smyrneans 3:2 70 4.4 Ascension of Isaiah 75 4.5 The Gospel of Basilides 77

4.5.1 Hegemonius, Acts of Archelaus 67.1 78 4.5.2 Hippolytus, Refutation 7.26.9 79 4.5.3 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.146.1-3 79

4.6 The Valentinians 80 4.7 Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 83

4.7.1 To Autolycus 3.2 84 4.7.2 To Autolycus 2.13 84 4.7.3 To Autolycus 2.10 85 4.7.4 Conclusion 85 4.8 Gospel Harmonies 85 4.9 The Longer Ending of Mark 86

4.9.1 Date 86 4.9.2 The Relationship of the Longer Ending to Luke (and Acts) 87

4.9.2.1 (a) General methodological considerations 87 4.9.2.2 (b) Specific alleged echoes of Luke and of Acts in the Longer Ending 89

4.9.3 Conclusion 91 4.10 The Gospel of the Ebionites 92

4.10.1 Panarion 30.13.6 & 30.14.3; Luke 3:1-3 II Mark 1:4-5 II Matthew 3:1-5 93 4.10.2 Panarion 30.13.7-8; Luke 3:21-2 // Mark 1:9-l 1 II Matthew 3:13-17 96 4.10.3 Panarion 30.13.2-3; Luke 3:23; Luke 5:27 // Mark 2:14 II Matthew 9:9;

l.uke 9 : 1 2 Mark ?:\4 99 4.10.4 Panarion 30.14.5; Luke 8:20-21 II Mark 3:32-35 II Matthew 12:47-50 101

4.10.5 Panarion 30.22.4; Luke 22:15; cfMark 14:12 II Matthew 26:17 102

4.10.6 Conclusion 103 4.11 The Protevangelium of James 103

4.12 Papyrus Egerton 2 105 4.13 The Diatessaron 107

4.13.1 Tatian and the Diatessaron 107 4.13.2 The Preface to Luke 109 4.13.3 The Genealogy of Luke I l l

4.13.4 Conclusion 112 4.14 Conclusion: Do Narratives Concerning Jesus Show Dependence on Luke? 112

Chapter 5 Collections of the Sayings of Jesus 116

5.1 Introduction 116 5.2 The Didache 117

5.2.1 Introduction 117 5.2.2 Didache \6A;Luke 12:35, 40 // Mark 13:35 // Matthew 22:42, 44 118

Contents X I

5.2.3 Didache 1.3-2.1; Luke 6:27-28, 32-35 II Matthew 5:44 47 120

5.2.4 Conclusion 124 5.3 Apocalypse of Peter 125

5.4 1Clement 125 5.4.1 1 Clement 13:2; Luke 6:31, 3 6 - 3 8 and Parallels 125

5.5 Polycarp, Philippians 129 5.5.1 Philippians 2.3a; 1 Clement 13.2; Luke 6:31, 3 6 - 3 8 II

Matthew 5:7; 6:14; 7:1-2, 12 132 5.5.2 Philippians 2.3b; Luke 6:20 // Matthew 5:3, 10 134

5.5.3 Philippians 12.3b; Luke 6:27 II Matthew 5:44, 48 135

5.5.4 Conclusion 136 5.6 2 Clement 136

5.6.1 Introduction 136 5.6.2 Sayings from Single Tradition 137

5.6.2.1 2 Clement 8.5; Luke 16:10 137 5.6.3 Sayings from Double Tradition 138

5.6.3.1 2 Clement 13.4; Luke 6:32,27 // Matthew 5:46,44 138 5.6.3.2 2 Clement 4.2,5; Luke 6:46; 13:26-27 II Matthew 7:21-23 140 5.6.3.3 2 Clement 5.2-4; Luke 10:3; 12:4 5 II Matthew 10:16,28 142 5.6.3.4 2 Clement 3.2; Luke 12:8 II Matthew 10:32 II Revelation 3:5 144 5.6.3.5 2 Clement 6A; Luke 16:13 II Matthew 6:24 II Thomas 47 145

5.6.4 Sayings from Triple Tradition 145 5.6.4.1 2 Clement 2.4; Luke 5:32 II Mark 2:17 // Matthew 9:13; (2 Clement 2.7;

Luke 19:10) 145 5.6.4.2 2 Clement 9.11; Luke 8:21 II Mark 3:34-35 II Matthew 1 2 : 4 9 - 5 0 / /

Gospel of the Ebionites 147 5.6.4.3 2 Clement 6.2; Luke 9:25 // Mark 8:36 II Matthew 16:26 148

5.6.5 Conclusion 148 5.7 The Naassenes 149

5.7.1 Luke 17:21, cf Thomas 3, 51, 113 149

5.8 The Carpocratians 151 5.8.1 Carpocratians, apud Ireneaus / /L u k e 12:58-59 // Matthew 5:25-26 151

5.9 The Gospel of Thomas 153 5.9.1 Introduction 153 5.9.2 Thomas 31; Luke 4:24 II Mark 6:4 II Matthew 13:57 155

5.9.3 Thomas 5; Luke 8 : 1 7 / / Mark 4:22 II Matthew 10:26 155

5.9.4 Conclusion 156 5.10 Excursus: Other texts from Nag Hammadi 158

5.10.1 Single tradition Only 164 5.10.1.1 Letter of Peter to Philip 164 5.10.1.2 Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles 165 5.10.1.3 First Apocalypse of James 165 5.10.1.4 Interpretation of Knowledge 165 5.10.1.5 Valentinian Exposition 166 5.10.2 Double tradition Only 166

5.10.2.1 Thomas the Contender 166 5.10.3 Single and Double Tradition 167

5.10.3.1 Exegesis on the Soul 167 5.10.3.2 Testimony of Truth 168 5.10.4 Single and Double and Triple Tradition 168

XII Contents

5.10.4.1 Sophia of Jesus Christ 168 5.10.4.2 Gospel of Mary 169 5.10.4.3 Dialogue of the Saviour 170 5.11 Conclusion: Do Collections of the Sayings of Jesus presuppose Luke? 171

Chapter 6 Marcion 173

6.1 Introduction: Marcion as a Witness to Luke 173 6.2 Reconstructing Marcion's Gospel 175

6.2.1 Harnack's assumptions 175 6.2.2 Light on Marcion's Gospel from his Apostle 176

6.2.3 The Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel: Harnack and beyond 178 6.3 Did Marcion Abridge Luke?: Some Ancient Perspectives 183 6.4 Did Marcion Abridge Luke?: Some Modern Perspectives 192

6.5 Why Did Marcion Use Luke? 196 6.5.1 A. von Harnack 197 6.5.2 R . S . W i l s o n 201 6.5.3 J . K n o x 203 6.5.4 E.C. Blackman 203 6.5.5 H. von Campenhausen 204

6.5.6 Irenaeus 206 6.5.7 Tertullian 208 6.6 Conclusion 210

Chapter 7 Justin Martyr 211

7.1 Previous Scholarship 211 7.1.1 H. Koester 212 7.1.2 A.J. Bellinzoni 213 7.1.3 J.C. O'Neill 218 7.1.4 O. Skarsaune 218 7.2 Justin and the Memoirs of the Apostles 222

7.3 Luke-like Tradition in Justin 225 7.3.1 Sayings Material 226 7.3.2 Sayings from Single Tradition 226

7.3.2.1 Dialogue 76.6; Luke 10:19 226 7.3.2.2 Apology 17.4; Luke 12: 48 228 7.3.2.3 Dialogue 105.5: l.ukc 23:46 229 7.3.2.4 Dialogue 76.7, 100.3, 51.2; Luke 24:7 230

7.3.3 Conclusion 231 7.3.4 Sayings from Double tradition 231

7.3.5 Sayings from Double tradition contained in the Sermon on the Plain or in

Lukan tradition parallel to the Sermon on the Mount 231 7.3.5.1 Apology 15.9; Luke 6:27-36 II Matthew 5:44^17 233 7.3.5.2 Apology 16.1; Luke 6:29 // Matthew 5:39^10 233 7.3.5.3 Apology 15.14-16; Lwfe 1 2 : 2 2 - 2 4 , 3 0 , 3 1 , 3 4 / /

Matthew 6:25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 21 236 7.3.5.4 Apology 16.9-10; Luke 6 : 4 6 ^ 7 // Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 10:16 238

7.3.6 Other Double tradition Sayings 241 7.3.6.1 Apology 16.13; Luke 3:9b II Matthew 3:10b 241

Contents XIII

7.3.6.2 Dialogue 103.6, 125:4; Luke 4:8 // Matthew 4:10 241 7.3.6.3 Apology 16.11). 63.5: l.ukc 10:16 II Matthew 10:40 242 7.3.6.4 Apology 63.3, 63.13 // Dialogue 100.1; ¿u/te 10:22 II Matthew 11:27 243

7.3.6.5 Dialogue 107.1; L u t e 11:29 11 Matthew 12:39 II Matthew 16:4 // Mark 8:12 246 7.3.6.6 Dialogue 17.4 II Dialogue \\2A\ Luke 11:42 II Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:52//

Matthew 23:13 246 7.3.6.7 Apology 19.7; L u t e 12:4-5 11 Matthew 10:28 249

7.3.6.8 Apology 16.12 II Dialogue 76.4, 120.6,140.4; ¿wie 13:28-29 //

Matthew 8:11-12 250 7.3.6.9 Dialogue 51.3; Luke 16:16 // Matthew 11:12-15 252

7.3.7 Conclusion 253 7.3.8 Sayings from Triple tradition 253

7.3.8.1 Apology 15.8a; Luke 5:32 // Matthew 9:13 II Mark 2\\1 254 7.3.8.2 Dialogue \25.\; Luke 8:5-8 II Matthew 13:3b-8 // Mark 4 : 3 - 8 255 7.3.8.3 Dialogue 51.2, 76.7, 100.3; Luke 9:22 // Matthew 16:21 II Mark 8:31,

/.i/Ac 24:7 257 7.3.8.4 /Ipo/ogy 15.12; ¿u/te 9:25 // Matthew 16:26 // Mark 8:36-7; Matthew 6:20 .259

7.3.8.5 Apology \9.6\ Luke 18:27 11 Matthew 19:26 II Mark 10:27 261 7.3.8.6 Dialogue 81.4; ¿ n i e 20:35-36 // Matthew 22:30 // Mark 12:25 261

7.3.9 Conclusion 263 7.3.10 Narrative material that might be thought to reflect Justin's knowledge and

use of Luke 264 7.3.11 Narrative material from the beginning of Luke 264

7.3.11.1 The Infancy Narratives 264 7.3.11.2 John the Baptist 266 7.3.11.3 The baptism of Jesus 269 7.3.11.4 The temptation of Jesus 270

7.3.12 Conclusion 271 7.3.13 The passion, resurrection and ascension 274

7.3.13.1 The institution of the Lord's Supper 277 7.3.13.2 The agony in Gethsemane 280 7.3.13.3 The trial before Herod 282 7.3.13.4 The resurrection and ascension narratives 284

7.3.13.5 The resurrection appearances 284 7.3.13.6 The ascension in Justin 287

7.3.14 Conclusion 290 7.4 Conclusion: Is Justin Martyr a Witness to the Reception of Luke'! 291

Chapter 8 Conclusion: The Reception of Luke in the Second Century 293

Part Three: The Reception of Acts

Chapter 9 Introduction: The Reception of Acts in the Second Century 299

9.1 Introduction 299 9.2 Previous Research 300

9.2.1 H.J. Cadbury and the external testimony to Acts 300

XIV Contents

9.2.2 C.K. Barrett and potential allusions to Acts 304 9.2.3 W.A. Strange and the problem of the texts of Acts 307

Chapter 10 Early and Ambiguous Evidence 310

10.1 2 Timothy 310 10.2 The Longer Ending of Mark 312

10.3 ¡Clement 312 10.4 Polycarp, Philippians 313

10.5 Other Texts Showing Knowledge of Characters and Events Included in Acts 315

Chapter 11 Justin Martyr 317

11.1 Apology 50.12 317 11.2 Justin on the Risen Jesus and the Ascension 318

Chapter 12 Narrative Accounts Explicitly Concerning the Post-resurrection Teaching of Jesus and the Activity of Apostles and other

Prominent Figures 322

12.1 Accounts of the Post-resurrection Teaching of Jesus as a Prelude to the

Mission of the Church 322 12.2 The Epistle of the Apostles 322

12.2.1 Conclusion 326 12.3 Accounts of the Post-resurrection Activity of the Apostles and other Prominent

Figures in the Early Church 326 12.4 The Letter from Lyons and Vienne 326 12.5 The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 328

12.5.1 Introduction 328 12.5.2 Recognitions 1.27-71 and the question of its relation to Acts 330

12.5.3 Three alleged examples of a literary relationship between Acts and the

source of Recognitions 1.27-71 333 12.5.3.1 Recognitions 1.65.2-3 // Acts 5:34-39: Gamaliel's address 333

12.5.3.2 Recognitions 1.71.3-4 // Acts 9:1-2: Plans to persecute the believers 336

12.5.3.3 Recognitions 1.36.2 // Acts 3:22-23: A distinctive citation 337 12.5.4 Other possible instances of direct dependence on Acts 338

12.5.5 Conclusion 340 12.6 Eusebius' Anonymous and the Controversy Surrounding the N e w Prophesy 341

12.7 The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 343

12.7.1 The Acts of Paul 344 12.7.2 The Acts of Peter 346 12.7.3 The Acts of John 347 12.7.4 Conclusion: the value of the witness of some early apocryphal Acts to the

reception of the canonical Acts of the Apostles 349

Chapter 13 Conclusion to Part Three: The Reception of Acts in the Period

before Irenaeus 350

Contents X V

Part Four: Conclusion

Chapter 14 Conclusion: The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period

before Irenaeus 352

Bibliography: Primary Sources: Texts, Translations and Commentaries 355

Bibliography: Secondary Sources 364

Index of Sources 393 Index of Names 411 Index of Subjects 415

Chapter One

Introduction and Methodology

1.1 The Scope of This Monograph

The research project which was the basis of this monograph was originally conceived as a comparison of the pneumatology of Luke-Acts with the pneumatologies presented in Christian literature of the second century. Recent scholarship on Lukan pneumatology is agreed that Luke has a particular interest in the Spirit, but it is divided as to whether his pneumatology is part of a homogeneous early Christian understanding or a distinctive presentation that is to be sharply differentiated from that of Matthew and Mark, of John, and of Paul. Noting a lacuna identified by Turner,¹ I set out initially to ask two questions. First, whether it might be possible to identify in second century pneumatologies any characteristics that New Testament scholars might label as distinctively Lukan. Second, whether such characteristics might be sufficient to indicate not only the influence of Lukan pneumatology but also a conscious appropriation of distinctively Lukan theology by other early Christians.

Any attempt to identify Lukan influence on later writers, or any attempt to demonstrate their appropriation of Lukan thought depends on an ability to demonstrate the knowledge and use of Luke and/or Acts in those texts.

Therefore I approached the question of the reception of Luke and Acts as no more than a preliminary investigation that was methodologically necessary as a foundation on which my discussion of pneumatology might stand. Yet ongoing research demonstrated that the fluidity of Christian traditions in the second century and the tendency to harmonise gospel tradition render anachronistic any attempt to speak of the distinctive theological influence of Luke. Not only did it prove very difficult to find evidence for a particularly Lukan stream of pneumatology, but so too it proved very difficult to find evidence for the particular influence of Luke. This realisation pointed to the importance of the prior issue of the reception of Luke-Acts in itself. I discovered that relatively little attention had been paid to the question of whether or how Luke and Acts were known and used in the period before

1 "Most attempts at describing Luke's pneumatology have made little if any attempt to locate his views within a more general history of the development of understanding(s) of the Spirit from Jewish views through to the second century " Turner 1996: 13

2 ^{Chapter 1}

Ireneaus, so a question which I had assumed would be no more than a preliminary one became the focus of my research.

As it now stands, this monograph sets out primarily to ask an open question rather than to demonstrate or to overturn a previously held assumption, although in doing so it will challenge a number of commonly held assumptions in the study of the emerging New Testament. The open question, any answer to which will help to fill a lacuna in contemporary scholarship and its knowledge of Christian origins, is this: what use was made of Luke-Acts in the second century, and what conclusions - if any - may be drawn from the level and kind of use that is discovered? Various assumptions and prior decisions lie behind this question, so it seems helpful to justify or at least to clarify each of them as an introduction to the discussion which follows.

1.2 The Assumptions of the Monograph

First, there is the question of why it is the investigation of the reception of Luke-Acts and not any other early Christian text that is taken as the basis for this study. The short and straightforward answer is that no such detailed investigation of this question has yet been attempted, nor indeed has there been a satisfactory comprehensive treatment of the early reception of either Luke or Acts} Behind this question lies the modern assumption that Luke and Acts are two volumes of one longer work,³ each of which was written by the same author. Therefore it is important to realise that Luke-Acts as an object of study, two separate texts linked by a hyphen, is in fact a modern construct.4

Of course this is not to deny that Luke wrote two successive volumes - and perhaps even set out to write two successive volumes - each of which largely coheres with and informs the other. Rather, it is simply to note that for much of their subsequent history Luke's two volumes have not been read in this way and, consequently, that it is not possible to assume that the knowledge and use of one of these texts by a subsequent reader or text need in itself require or indeed make probable the knowledge and use of the other. Nor do we know if ever they circulated together in this period, for once Luke released each volume he would have had no control over its circulation and copying.

Thus although Irenaeus made use of Luke and Acts together it would appear that this was not typical, either in those who preceded or succeeded him. This means that in order to try to do justice to the historical circumstances of Christian life in this period, it is necessary to investigate the

2 For a survey of previous scholarship, see below, Chapter Two.

3 On the unity of Luke-Acts, see Verheyden 1999.

4 The term was coined by Cadbury. For discussion and references, see Maddox 1982: 3 - 6

Introduction and Methodology 3 reception of Luke and of Acts as two separate entities. Parallels and links may emerge in the course of our investigation, but it is important to reach separate conclusions before these conclusions may be brought together. Further, not only is it important to do this in order to avoid importing anachronistic assumptions unnecessarily into second-century texts, but it may also provide us with a number of methodological checks and balances when we come to compare the results of the two parts of this investigation.

Second, there is the question of why it is the period before Irenaeus that has been chosen as the period to be investigated. Primarily, it is because of the probable importance of this early and still largely unknown period5 for the development of the Christian Church, its practice and its Scriptures, as we know them today. As Gerd Lüdemann has put it: "/« the period from the first Christian generations to the end of the second century, more important decisions were made for the whole of Christianity than were made from the end of the second century to the present day"⁶ Also, the fact that the work of Ireneaus provides a natural upper limit for a study such as this may be seen from its adoption in comparable treatments of the reception of Matthew⁷ and of John*

It is also important that this period is identified as the "period before Irenaeus" rather than strictly as the "second century". Too much should not be made of the second century as a tightly defined historical period with clear opening and closing dates. Much of our chronological information for this period is limited, and it is difficult to reach firm conclusions in dating many of the texts and authors whom I shall discuss. The Against Heresies of Irenaeus, probably dated cl 85, provides a more practical terminus ad quem than does the year 199 or 200, not least because it appears that it is Irenaeus who provides the first explicit external witness to both Luke and Acts. Yet there are a number of texts which although possibly later than Irenaeus may nevertheless shed light on the period prior to Irenaeus.⁹ Similarly, a "fuzzy"

boundary seems to be required also at our starting period. It is possible that some canonical texts might be a witness to the reception of Luke or of Acts, and I shall include a discussion of John and 2 Timothy as potential witnesses to Luke and to Acts respectively, but otherwise I shall use "second century texts" as a form of short-hand equivalent for non-canonical writings.

5 On the difficulties in approaching "the creativity of the second century", see Lieu 1996:

3-5.

6 1996: 12 (his italics). Cf Osborn 2001: xiv, who refers to the second century as "that fertile period which formed Christian thought".

7 Massaux 1990, Kohler 1986.

8 J Sanders 1943, Nagel 2000.

9 For example, early witnesses pertaining to the New Prophecy, the early Apocryphal Acts and the source underlying Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71. See below Chapter Twelve.

4 ^{Chapter 1}

Similarly, some of the texts that I shall discuss might contain material that is earlier than the second century, for example the Didache.

The third prior decision to be justified is that it is either appropriate or helpful to study Luke-Acts in the context of second-century Christian writings.

Some may object to this approach on theological grounds, for it might be thought to undermine the authority of the canon and to lead towards an evaluation of early Christian literature that does not make a sufficient distinction between those texts that came to be recognised as canonical and those that did not. Yet even if it is accepted that there is theological force to this objection, such a theological consideration should be treated with caution in a historical study. On the contrary, it seems likely that for the historian there can only be positive consequences of any attempt to break down the artificial and relatively unexplored boundaries that modern scholarship tends to maintain between the study of canonical ("New Testament") and non- canonical ("Patristic") texts.

Further, with specific reference to the particular texts which constitute the twin foci of this study, there are in fact a number of links which can be made between issues and concerns that appear to be reflected in Luke-Acts and those that are found also in second-century texts and authors. Such links justify the discussion of Luke-Acts in particular against the background of second-century Christianity .10 Indeed, even if it is not possible to demonstrate that Luke and Acts were known and used in the second century, other important similarities or contrasts between Luke, Acts and second-century texts might emerge, and these in themselves may be useful in learning more about some aspects of second-century Christianity as well as in shedding further light on Luke-Acts.

This leads me therefore to justify my fourth prior decision, which is why the approach of this thesis is to investigate the reception of Luke and Acts in second-century Christianity rather than to ask the more open question of what relationship, if any, might be detected between Luke-Acts and Christian texts of the second century. To speak of the second-century reception of Luke-Acts is to assume that those texts were written and available in time to be

"received" in the second century, rather than that they were written in the second century. I have assumed throughout this investigation that the composition of Luke and of Acts should be dated no later than the early 90s.11

10 For a list of the concerns which Luke shares with the second century church, see Shellard 1994: 80-81. Cf also Knox 1942; Talbert 1966; Dairy 1976: 22-25; Wilshire 1974;

Zehnle 1971: 44-60; Townsend 1984 On the particular affinities between Luke and Justin see O'Neill 1970; Skarsaune 1987; and Chapters Seven and Eleven below.

" This is the latest date at which it seems reasonable to believe that a companion of Paul, whose presence seems to be indicated in the we-passages, might have written Acts. This date assumes of course that in these passages the author of Acts did not draw on a source written

Introduction and Methodology 5

This means that it is reasonable to suppose that Christians living after this date may have been in a position to have known and used Luke and Acts in the form in which Luke released them.

1.3 Methodological Issues for the Current Study

1.3.1 Introduction

The question of whether other Christians knew the writings of Luke is not one that can be addressed directly however, for it is impossible to demonstrate knowledge unless it is used. Further, an inability to demonstrate use does not mean that non-use (let alone ignorance) has been proven. Therefore this investigation is limited to the question of whether it is possible to show that other Christian texts have used Luke and/or Acts, and this in turn can be answered only on the basis of whether it is possible to prove either direct literary dependence or the indirect appropriation and use of either Luke or Acts in another writing. Establishing that one text has drawn indirectly on or that it presupposes another is very difficult indeed, and the problem of identifying quotations and allusions is often scarcely less so. A writer may employ expressions in the precise form in which they were first written or spoken by others and yet be unaware that he is "quoting." She may also consciously reproduce an earlier written authority and yet do so in such a loose or tendentious manner that it is difficult for a reader or hearer to ascertain whether or not the "quotation" is intentional. This raises the question of whether a "quotation" is to be defined by a writer-centred or reader-centred approach. By "writer-centred", I mean one in which consideration is given as to whether an author is referring to an earlier text. By "reader-centred" I mean an approach which addresses the question of whether the reader or the hearer of a text is aware that the author of that text is drawing on an earlier text. I shall adopt the former alternative, for the interest of this study lies in the question of whether writers in the period before Ireneaus drew on Luke and/or Acts rather than on whether their readers were likely to be aware of such

by someone else in the first person, and that he consciously claims to have been a companion of Paul.

Other internal arguments used for the dating of Luke-Acts seem less secure than the use of the we-passages. If those arguments that are advanced to date Luke post 70 are accepted, it is not altogether clear why they must keep Luke-Acts to pre-100 unless an argument from the we-passages is introduced

As I shall argue, there is no firm evidence from external sources for the reception of Luke until mid second century at the earliest, and none for Acts until slightly later. This does not require a second-century date for Luke-Acts, but it does make it difficult to rule it out

For discussion of the date of Luke-Acts, see Wilshire 1974, Maddox 1982: 6-9.

6 ^{Chapter I}

dependence. The possibility of an author seeking not to quote but to allude to or to paraphrase an earlier text further complicates the question of what constitutes a quotation or allusion, as does the possibility that many quotations were made from memory.

Studies of quotations from and allusions to earlier authorities abound in the study of the New Testament, whether discussions of the use of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament, or of Jesus tradition in the letters of Paul and elsewhere. Yet there has been perhaps surprisingly little rigorous attention paid to the methodological issues that are raised in the attempt to determine what constitutes either a quotation or an allusion.12 Similar issues must be addressed in setting out the methodological considerations that will guide this discussion of the reception of Luke and Acts, although the precise distinction between a quotation and an allusion is of secondary importance for our purposes. This is because either quotations or allusions, if established, may each be sufficient to indicate the use of Luke or Acts, directly or indirectly. A direct quotation, containing verbatim parallels to material in Luke or Acts and referring explicitly to either of those texts as its source would of course constitute the strongest possible evidence. Almost as strong would be an explicit reference to either Luke or Acts as the source of particular information known to be found in either text, even if the material were not quoted verbatim. Yet such evidence is not generally available in surviving texts from the period before Irenaeus, so it would be foolish to draw any conclusions from its absence. Rather, other criteria must be determined for assessing such evidence as is available.

Such criteria must assess not only whether a writer is referring to an unidentified earlier text, but also whether and how that text may be identified.

A writer may refer to something that is known today otherwise only through Luke or Acts, or through other texts thought to be dependent upon either of them, but this does not of itself constitute proof that a particular writer depended on either Luke or Acts for such information. For example, the only reference in the synoptic tradition to Jesus' age at the beginning of his ministry is found in Luke. Yet it is possible that such information was well known quite independently of Luke. Again, only Luke tells us of the Apostolic Decree. Yet if there were such a decree, then it is possible that the

12 For discussion and bibliography, see Stanley 1992: 31-61, Porter 1997. Note also Thompson 1991: 30-36 (but c/Porter 1992: 85-87) for a set of criteria intended to provide sound method in identifying allusions in biblical literature. Thompson also discusses the citation of Jesus-tradition in other early Christian writers whose works are preserved in the New Testament (1991: 37-44) and in the Apostolic Fathers (1991: 44-60). He finds a general lack of appeal to Jesus tradition in early Christian writers, and argues that this should make it unrealistic to expect anything significantly different in the letters of Paul (1991: 60-63). For another catalogue of criteria for literary dependence, intended to demonstrate the dependence of the Acts of Andrew on Homer, see MacDonald 1994: 302-316.

Introduction and Methodology 1

text, or at least the content, of the decree was widely known through copies of the letter quite independently of any knowledge of the text of Acts. The same issue may present itself even if a later writer includes material that is verbally, formally or conceptually parallel to material now otherwise extant only in either Luke or Acts. This difficulty arises because although there is a great deal of material in Luke and (especially) in Acts that is without parallel in other extant sources, the possibility that it may draw either on an earlier written or oral source means that it may not always be possible to assume that a later writer draws on Luke or Acts rather than on one of the sources that may have been used in the composition of those texts.

If it were possible to be certain that all Luke's single-tradition was his own composition then there would be no need to consider the possibility of such sources, but the question of the origin of such single tradition remains unresolved. Hence I shall discuss, first, the way in which others have approached the question of the use of the Synoptic Gospels in this period and, second, the arguments that persuade me to remain open to the possibility that there may be occasions when later writers may have drawn not only on Luke or on Acts but on sources or traditions that may be older than those texts and used independently of their use by Luke.

1.3.2 Earlier Approaches to the Reception of Synoptic Tradition

That different approaches to such prior questions will lead to very different conclusions may be seen in the examinations of the use of Matthew and of synoptic tradition in the Apostolic Fathers by Massaux and Koester respectively. The results of their investigations are quite distinct, as Neirynck observes.¹³ Whereas Massaux argued for the widespread influence of canonical Gospels, and the preponderance of Matthew, Koester found in favour of the preponderance of oral tradition independent of and often earlier than the written Gospels. Not surprisingly, such different results were obtained from the adoption of different methodological approaches. Neirynck describes Massaux as having been guided by a 'principle of simplicity', for 'a source which is "unknown" does not attract him.'14 Massaux's own initial account of his methodology is quite brief. He notes that he shall speak often of 'literary contact', and states that he shall use the term

in a rather strict sense of the word, requiring, when speaking of contact, sufficiently striking verbal concurrence that puts the discussion in a context that already points towards the Gospel of Mt. These literary contacts do not exhaust the literary influence of

"Neirynck 1990: xiv.

14 Neirynck 1990: xix.

8 Chapter I

the gospel; one can expect, without a properly so-called literary contact, the use of typically Matthean vocabulary, themes and ideas.'15

Thus Massaux seeks passages that are similar to Matthew, and he evaluates whether they depend on Matthew by asking of they are closer to Matthew than to other New Testament writings. This, in effect, is what Neirynck has described as Massaux's principle of simplicity: material that looks like Matthew is likely to depend on Matthew, and little or no consideration is given to the possibility that it depends on the postulated sources M or Q, or on the shared vocabulary of a common community. Massaux assumes the knowledge and use of Matthew in at least some of the Apostolic Fathers, and sets out to determine its extent. Koester, by contrast, sets out to determine whether the knowledge and use of the Synoptic Gospels may be determined at all.

Koester's approach is more complicated, but this is a strength rather than a weakness. He is open to the possibility that Jesus tradition may stem not from the Synoptics but from their sources, written or oral, so he formulates a criterion to assess whether or not parallels to synoptic tradition can be shown rather than assumed to depend on the Synoptic Gospels. This criterion is that literary dependence on the finished form of a text is to be identified only where the later text makes use of an element from the earlier text that can be identified as the redactional work of the earlier author/editor.¹⁶ Koester makes no mention of Massaux in his monograph,¹⁷ but his methodology differs from Massaux's in his cognisance of the difficulty that the presence of similar or even verbally identical material in two texts is not itself sufficient proof of literary dependence, for two texts might each draw independently on a common source. Yet if Massaux may be accused of finding dependence on Matthew too readily, Koester's weakness may be that his criterion makes it virtually impossible to demonstrate any dependence on a Synoptic Gospel except in passages where the redactional activity of an evangelist may be readily identified. This is a point to which I shall return. The importance of Koester's criterion must be noted, but it is important to emphasise that he has not spoken the last word on the question of how literary dependence is best established.

Kohler provides a further important contribution to the debate on how the reception of a Synoptic Gospel may be assessed, and his monograph on the

15 Massaux 1990: xxi-xxii.

16 In discussion of the question whether written gospels or older traditions lie behind passages quoted under the authority of 'the Lord" rather than that of an explicit appeal to a written source, Koester states: " hängt die Frage der Benutzung davon ab, ob sich in den angeführten Stücken Redaktionsarbeit eines Evangelisten findet ", 1957: 3. For a convenient presentation of his argument, see Koester 1994

17 But see Koester 1994 for a direct critique of Massaux

Introduction and Methodology 9

reception of Matthew is in many ways similar to this monograph on the reception of Luke. Köhler's account of earlier research on the reception of Matthew takes its cue from the stand-off between the approaches of Koester and of Massaux,¹⁸ and acknowledges that the methodology of the former is more satisfactory than that of the latter.¹⁹ Köhler notes the importance of Koester's concern for introductory citation formulas, although he concludes that such formulas can neither prove nor disprove the appropriation of Matthew.¹⁰ He also agrees with his emphasis on redactional elements as proof for the use of a particular Synoptic Gospel,21 but notes also the limitations of his approach. Thus Köhler observes that it is not appropriate to argue that written Gospels have not been used just because it may not be possible to demonstrate their use,22 and he sets out to address the problem of how possible literary dependence is to be addressed when neither citation formulas nor redactional material is present. Köhler offers a number of criteria to assist in this process, noting that no satisfactory catalogue of criteria is to be found in other discussions besides those of Koester and Massaux.²³ Köhler offers three main criteria, each sub-divided further, to be used in determining the extent to which Matthew may have been used in Christian texts written in the period before Irenaeus.

Köhler's first criterion concerns the appropriation of Matthew, whether or not it is characterised as such. Such appropriation may consist of either quotations or allusions.²⁴ The second criterion applies more specifically to the possibility of the appropriation of precise wording or phraseology ("Formulierungen") from Matthew, or appropriations of his contents and thought. It is sub-divided into two parts. The first part deals with appropriations of Matthean phraseology, and suggests that such appropriation may indicate either clear reference to a particular pericope or verse or, more generally, the reception and appropriation of Matthean language.²⁵ Examples of such language include expressions that are more frequent in Matthew than elsewhere in the New Testament, eg dvo|iia,²⁶ or in the synoptic tradition in particular, eg IJTTOKPLTT|S\27 or words that occur only in Matthew and nowhere else in the New Testament, eg ßacaXeia TU>V oupavwv.28 Köhler also

18 Köhler 1987: 2-4.

19 Köhler 1987: 5.

20 Köhler 1987: 4, 520.

21 Köhler 1987: 4.

22 Köhler 1987: 5.

23 Köhler 1987: 6 - 7 .

24 Köhler 1987: 8.

25 Köhler 1987: 8.

26 Köhler 1987: 9.

27 Köhler 1987: 9

28 Köhler 1987: 9.

10 Chapter 1

includes Matthean special vocabulary, words that Matthew uses in a singular way, eg evayyeXiov and ^a0r|Tris.²⁹ The second part deals with either narrative details or content-related statements which arise in relation to particular themes from Matthew,30 Köhler recognises that second-century writers may not have been as alert to the distinctive thematic theological interests of particular evangelists as are modern critics, but argues that it is necessary nevertheless to address the possible appropriation of distinctively Matthean theological themes. These include Matthew's christology, the status of Peter, the role of the law and ecclesiology . 31

Both these sets of criteria, we might note, start from the text of Matthew.

Certainly Köhler is open to the possibility that oral tradition rather than direct literary dependence on Matthew may explain some Jesus-tradition that is similar to Jesus-tradition in Matthew. Yet his initial statement of these criteria suggests a tendency to assume the use of Matthew rather than special tradition which may have been available independently to Matthew and to later Christian writers. Köhler's observation that it is not appropriate to argue that written Gospels have not been used just because it may not be possible to demonstrate their use³² is an important methodological point and a useful qualification of the potentially minimalist results that may be obtained by too strict and exclusive an application of Koester's methodology.

But the opposite is also true. Therefore it is also important to balance Köhler's observation with a reminder that it is not possible simply to assume that the canonical Gospels were the only sources on which writers may have drawn for Jesus tradition. Of course this is a problem of which Köhler is not unaware, at least in theory. Thus he notes that the continuing transmission of Matthean Sondergut alongside Matthew precludes a straightforward application of his criteria to possible instances of dependence on Matthew,³³ and he allows that expressions which appear to modern readers to be distinctive to Matthew may originate in Matthew's sources rather than in his own redactional activity.³⁴ Yet Köhler might be accused of adding these concessions almost as an afterthought to the main exposition of his methodology. He also appears to limit the theoretical possibility of the use of Matthean Sondergut independently of its inclusion in Matthew when he suggests that the reception of Matthean Sondergut in a document to be dated at some distance in space and time from the place and time in which Matthew was composed makes very likely ("sehr wahrscheinlich") the reception of

29 Köhler 1987: 9-10.

30 Köhler 1987: 9.

31 Köhler 1987: 10-11.

32 Köhler 1987: 5.

" K ö h l e r 1987: 14.

34 Köhler 1987: 14-15.

Index of Sources

Old Testament

Genesis 18:14 30:23

Exodus 13:2

Leviticus 23:29

Deuteronomy 8:15 18:15-19

I Samuel 13:14

267 105 n.209

82

338 n.73

166 338

313

24 30:6 (LXX) 34(35): 16 36(37): 12 47 68:19 89:21 101:1 110:1-2 111(112): 10

Isaiah 7:14 11:1-3 33:16 40:3

287 229 327 n.28 327 n.28 287 287 313 287 87 327 n.28

265 269 266 268 n.196

Job

16:10(9) 327 n.28

Jeremiah

31:15 265

Psalms 2 2:7

6:9 18:4-6 19 22

282-283

98-99, 115, 269, 271, 273

141 314 287

218 n.36, 223, 229, 274, 276, 280, 283, 286

Lamentations 2:16

Hosea 10:6

Micah 5:2

327 n.28

282 n.248

265

394 Index of Sources

Apocrypha

1 Maccabees

15:15-21 336

New Testament

Matthew 5:4 166, 167

1:1 42, 53 n . l l l 5:6 167

1:16 95 5:7 127-128, 132-134

1:18-25 95 5:10 134-135

1:18-20 265 n.167 5:11 166

1:19-22 105 n.212 5:14b—15 157 n.153

1:20-21 223 n.57 5:14b 157 n.154

1:21 265 n.164 5:17 174 n.9

1:23 265 nn.163,165 5:20 229

2 : 1 - 1 9 105 n.213 5:22 240 n. 107

2 : 1 - 1 2 265 n.168 5 : 2 5 - 2 6 151-153

2:1 265 n.177 5:28 240 n. 107

2:6 265 n.166 5:29 240 n. 107

2 : 1 3 - 1 5 265 n.171 5:34 240 n.107

2:16 265 nn.169,177 5:37 240 n. 107

2 : 1 7 - 1 8 265 n.170 5 : 3 9 - 4 0 2 3 3 - 2 3 5

3 : 1 - 5 9 3 - 9 6 5:41 240 n. 107

3 : 4 , 6 93 n.179, 268 n. 195 5:42 123-124

3:10b 241 5 : 4 4 - 4 8 233 n.85

3 : 1 1 - 1 2 268 n. 199 5 : 4 4 - 4 7 120-122, 233

3:11 268 n.196 5:44 124 n.32, 132 n.73.

3:12 82 n. 134, 207 n.147 135, 138-140,

3 : 1 3 - 1 7 9 6 - 9 9 , 269 n.208 2 3 3 - 2 3 4

4:1 271 5:45 174 n.9

4:3 271 5:46 138-140, 2 3 3 - 2 3 4

4:5 271 5:47 233, 235

4:8 271 5:48 1 3 5 , 2 3 5

4:10 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 , 271 6:14 127-128, 132-134

4:23 46 6:19 240 n. 107

4:24 168 n.202 6:20 2 4 0 n 107, 2 5 9 - 2 6 0

5 - 7 2 3 1 - 2 3 5 6:21 233 n.85, 2 3 6 - 2 3 7

5:3 134-135 6:22 171

Index of Sources 395

6:24 145, 148 n 118 6:25 233 n.85, 236-237

6:26 236-237

6:31-33 236-237

7:1-2 127-128,132-133 7:6-7 157 n.153

7:7 169

7:12 127-128, 132-134 7:15-16 241

7:19 241

7:21-24 239

7:21-23 140-142, 233 n.85, 238-240

8:9 82 n.135

8:11-12 250-252

8:12 171

9:9 99-101

9:13 145-147, 254-255

9:35 46

10:1 83 n.136

10:16 142-143, 144 10:17-18 253 n.143

10:18 249-250

10:26 155-156

10:28 142-144

10:32 144-145

10:37-38 157 n.156

10:37 167

10:38 82 n.135

10:40 238, 240, 242-243

11:5 168 n.202

11:12-15 252-253,268 n.198 11:12-14 267 n. 189

11:13 267 n. 190 11:19 82 n.135 11:25-30 245 n.124 11:27 171,243-245 12:31-35 157 n.153

12:39 246

12:47-50 101-102 12:49-50 147-148 13:3b—8 255-257

13:19 46

13:33 151 n.128 13:35 245 n.124 13:42-43 171,250 13:44 151 n.128

13:50 171,250

13:57 155

15:30 168 n.202

16:4 246

16:21 230-231,257-259

16:24 167

16:26 148, 259-260 17:10-13 267 n. 189 19:1-12 201 19:26 84-85, 261

19:27 168

21:13 253 n.143

22:13 171,250

22:15-21 257 n. 151

22:30 261-263

22:37-39 253 n.143 22:42, 44 118-120

23:13 157 n. 154, 246-248

23:16 248

23:23 246-248

23:24 248

23:27 248

24:4-5 170

24:5 241,253 n.143

24:14 46

24:23 170

24:51 171,250

25:29 82 n.135

25:30 171,250

26:13 46

26:17 102-103

26:26-29 277-280

26:28 180 n.45

26:39 253 n.143, 280 n.233 26:60b 25 n.22

28 288 n.283

28:10 322 n.2

3 9 6 Index of Sources

28:12-15 284 n.254 10:29 46 28:18-20 284 n.254, 285 n.263, 11:17 253 n.143

322 n.2 11:25 127

28:19 284 n.254 12:1-11 157 n.153

12:13-17 257 n.151 'ark 12:18 157 n.154

1:1 42, 45 12:25 261-263

1:4-5 93-96 12:30-31 253 n.143

l:5b-6 93 n.179 13:5 170

1:6 268 n.195 13:6a 253 n.143

1:9-11 96-99, 269 n.208 13:21 170

1:13 271 13:35 118-120

1:14b 46 14:9 45

1:15 46, 170-171 14:12 102-103

1:17-18 253 n.143 14:22-25 277-280

2:14 99-101 14:24 180 n.45

2:17 145-147, 254-255 14:36 253 n.143

3:13 83 n.136 14:57 25 n.22

3:14 99-101 16 66

3:17 224 16:1-8 63, 67

3:32-35 101-102 16:1 89

3:34-35 147-148 16:2-5 55

4 157 n.156 16:2 64

4:3-8 255-257 16:3 289

4:22 155-156 16:6-7 322 n.2

4:24 127 16:9 88

4:30-32 157 n. 156 16:10-14 90

5:22 83 n.137 16:10 90

6:4 155 16:11b 90

6:12-13 91 16:12 90

6:12a 90 16:15-18 312

8:12 246 16:15 90,312

8:31 230-231,257-259 16:17 89, 90, 312

8:34 167 16:18 312

8:35 46 16:19-20 90

8:36-37 259-260 16:19 86, 312

8:36 148 16:20 86-87

9.11-13 267 n. 189 16:20a 90,91

9:37 242 n.l 13

10:1-12 201 Luke

10:27 84-85, 261 1-2 272

10:28 168 1:1-4 110n.234

Index of Sources 397

1:1 42, 59, 114 4:8 241-242

1:2-3 84 4:12 271

1:3 34, 49 n.100, 280, 282 4:13 271

1:5-23 105 n.215 4:22 268 n.200

1:5 42, 95, 96, 115 4:24 155

1:7 267 n.194 5 58

1:25 105 n.209, 267 n. 194 5:27 99-101

1:28-42 105 n.210 5:32 145-147, 253 n.142,

1:31-32 223 n.57, 265 n.177 254-255, 263

1:35 79, 85 5:33-35 154 n.145, 157 n.154

1:36 265 n.174 5:33 157 n.154

1:37 267 n. 194 6:13 83 n.136

1:38 265 n.173 6:20 131-132 n.73,

1:39-44 105 n.211 134-135

1:57 265 n.174 6:20b-49 231-235

1:60 265 n.174 6:21 167

1:78 163 6:21b 166

2:1-5 265 n.175 6:22 166

2:2 265 n.177 6:25b 90

2:4 111 6:27-36 233

2:7 265 n.176 6:27-28 120-122, 124 n.32,

2:11 168 n 201 233

2:12 105 n.214 6:27 132 n.73, 135,

2:23 82 138-140

2:25-26 105 n.215 6:28 234

2:37 44 n.79, 132 n.73 6:29 233-235

2:42 82 n. 128, 207 n.147 6:30 123-124

2:46 268 n.200 6:31 125-128, 132-133

3 58 6:32-35 120-122

3:1-4:15 295 6:32-33 124 n.32, 233

3:1-3 93-96 6:32 70 n.80, 138-140,

3:1 79, 95, 96, 115, 203, 233-234

272, 275 n.220 6:34 235

3:2 95 6:35 174 n.9, 235

3:9b 241 6:35c 128

3:16ff 268 n.199 6:36-38 125-128, 132-134

3:17 82 n.134, 207 n.147 6:38 131 n.72, 131-132

3:18-24:53 28 n.73

3:21-2 96-99, 269 n.208 6:45 154 n.145, 157 n.154

3:23 82 n.129, 99-101,207 6:46-^7 233 n.85, 238-240

n.147 6:46 140-142

4:1 270 n.213 7 58