Yesterday, I received
David Garland's new Luke commentary in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series. I have read through the short introduction and have just started to make way into the commentary proper. I am excited about this work because I consider Garland one of the very best commentary writers going, and if you have yet to get his Mark (NIVAC) or his 1 Corinthians volume (BECNT), you should set some money aside and add these to your library. He, along with R.T. France, Gordon Fee, and Ramsey Michaels actually make the reading of commentaries enjoyable, and that is no small feat!
Since the commentary weighs in at over 1,000 pages, and I do not have the time to read the volume through, I have a question. What are some of the interpretive hot-button issues for Luke's Gospel? I would like to focus on these passages and report what I find in a series of posts or something along those lines.
3 comments:
Garland's commentary on Mark is in the NIVAC series rather than the NAC series.
Craig-
Oops! I stand corrected! :-)
Hi,
thank you for this opportunity to get answers to my questions concerning this new commentary.
As a historian rather than a theologian I am interested in the following stuff:
1) Where does he think that Luke's special material (L) comes from?
2) What about Luke's use of his sources?
3) What does he think about the two famous synchronisms in 2,1ff. (Quirnius) and 3,1f. (15th year of Tiberius)?
4) How does he explain that Luke often tells storys which on the one hand seem to have (close) parallels in the other Synopics but on the other hand seem to be quite different or chronologically out of place(e.g. Lk. 4,16-30; 5,1-11; 7,36-50; 11,1-4)?
4) How does he understand Lk. 21,20ff. and its significance for the dating of the Gospel?
5.) What does he make of "Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod's household" (Lk. 8,3)?
6.) Who was Luke's father? Was it really Darth Vader?
On the more theological side, I'd be interested in
1)the significance of the "Psalms" in Lk. 1-2, esp. for the understanding of Jesus ministry in relationship to Israel.
2)the significance of the female disciples and their role in the "Jesus movement".
3) his understanding of the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son.
4) his understanding of Lk. 18,15f. on Jesus and the little children.
5) his interpretation of the Lord's supper narrative in Lk. 22,7-38 (maybe also in comparison to the synoptic parallels?).
5) his understanding of atonement in Luke.
6.) his understanding of salvation history in Luke.
7). his understanding of Lk. 24,25ff. and its the significance for Biblical hermeneutics.
I am looking foreward to your review!
Regards,
Gerschi
Post a Comment