Luke: Historian & Theologian (New Testament Profiles)

I was assigned this book for a Luke-Acts seminary taught by Darrell Bock. I found it easy to read, and learned not just about Luke but also historical-critical exegesis from a conservative standpoint as well. This book also does a good job of comparing/contrasting Luke's distinct theological focuses and in the process you will learn much about the other gospels as well.Highly recommended for all students of Luke-Acts, Gospels, and NT Biblical Studies.

Slightly repetitive. Long. Type is too small. But very informative--which is why I bought it.Also the binding is very poor. Before I finished reading it the first time a couple pages were falling out. Very poor binding and printing, yet an informative read.

Another useful treatment of scripture from this British scholar.

Excellent is my only response!!!

The book arrived on time and it was what I needed. Great book.

A lot of water has gone over the dam since this book was first published in 1970. Most recently in 2006 the third edition was again reprinted. A total of thirty-seven printings of this book in its three editions have been produced. This is a remarkable tribute to the value seen in this work by scholars and other readers. It was but Marshall's second book and written very early in his distinguished career. However, it represents a seminal point in English language works on Luke-Acts. Early on from F. C. Baur to the late nineteenth century, German scholarship saw the Lucan corpus as late anti-Marcionite apologetics having little to no historical value. Early in the twentieth century with the exception of Harnack and a few others, this trend continued. With the introduction of form criticism, the theology of Luke-Acts was treated as a distortion in favor of the early Catholic Church. Ultimately, Rudolph Bultmann relegated the Lucan corpus to the realm of sacral fiction. Shortly after World War II, German scholarship on the topic began to evolve away from those positions. It is with this later material that Marshall particularly engages. He deals most especially with the work of Hans Conzelmann for whom he has enormous respect. Regardless of this esteem for Conzelmann, Marshall is willing to disagree with him and offer different insights. Also engaged by the author are Martin Debelius, Ernst Heanchen, Ernst Kassemann, and Werner G. Kummel among many others. While mindful of this prior scholarship, Marshall goes on to build on their work while presenting his own clear vision on both the theology and historicity of Luke-Acts.The book is divided into five chapters and a short conclusion. Realistically, the work covers three topics. The first is the writing of history new and ancient. This includes detailed methodological discussions especially as it pertains to the appropriateness of combining history with theology. His well argued conclusion is that Luke should be regarded as a competent ancient historian and that his activities as a theologian in Luke-Acts blend in seamlessly. Luke is not seen as a cut and paste artist. He is an author of talent in his own right. However, while admitting that there are apologetic interests in Luke-Acts, Marshall spends little to no time dealing this aspect of the Lucan corpus. The author finds that Luke constructs his gospel and the Acts as parts of an ongoing "salvation history." While Matthew, for example, deals with matters topically, Luke deals with them in a chronological order. His second topic is the progress of salvation in the gospel. While drawing a rendering of Jesus' life from birth to death to resurrection and assumption, Luke develops his theology of salvation through Jesus as the Son of God. For Luke this is the key to the good news. From ancient times in Israel when salvation meant God's activities to save Israel from its enemies, Luke emphasizes the transition to salvation from sin and death in Jesus. Now revealed, the Son of God is the means of mankind's salvation. His third and final topic is the continuation of "salvation history" in the Acts where God spreads the message through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Here the progression of the "good news" from Jerusalem to Rome is covered with the underlying message that it will be delivered to the ends of the Earth. For Luke, the Holy Spirit is the triumph of Jesus Christ carrying on His message of salvation through the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life. Ultimately, for Marshall, Luke is the evangelist par excellence. Here, I have only been able to touch on the bare basics of what Marshall tries to accomplish.Just prior to the publication of this book, the eminent scholar, W. C. van Unick, had described the writings of Luke as the storm center of modern New Testament studies. If that is so, Marshall did nothing but throw gasoline on a raging fire. His radical rehabilitation of Luke as a historian was exceptional at the time of the writing of this book. Marshall was pushing back hard against a stream of scholarship that had prevailed for well over a century. Also, for a young, conservative scholar, he was doing it very effectively and with remarkable erudition. This revisionism was not without responses then and to this day. He was attacked for his dating of Lucan corpus to the last quarter of the first century CE, his regarding the Acts of the Apostles as reliable history especially in comparison with the Pauline epistles, as well as his wholesale skirting of the apologetic interests in Luke-Acts. Those apologetic issues are glaringly apparent and important. Among modern scholars who opt for a late dating of Luke-Acts would be Joseph B. Tyson and Richard I. Pervo. While I do not agree with their arguments, I respect them both and have read any number of their works to my benefit. Of greater gravity is Marshall's avoidance of the evident apologetic interests especially in Acts. It is easy to accuse the evangelist of both distorting or avoiding historical events that would disturb his explication of a tranquil triumph of the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. For example, how does one square Luke's account of the Jerusalem council with that of Paul? And, many, many other matters could be cited which raise questions. Scholars that have pursued this line of thinking include John Painter, and of late most especially David C Sim and Gerd Ludemann. Many others have taken issue with some aspect or aspects of Marshall's work, and to some extent, I believe they are warranted. However, Marshall's book changed the discourse on the historical value of Luke's writings. That alone attests to the significance of this book. Regardless of your own predilections in these matters, do not disregard this book. This is mandatory reading for any student of Christian origins.

This is a crucially important book for any serious student of the Gospel of Luke, serving as a perfect guide through A Level / first year degree course. It is also highly accessible to non specialists, and definitely worth the read. I Howard Marshal wrote possible the best commentary on the Gospel of Luke, but that commentary has a refreshingly brief introduction - the intention being (I believe) to publish that introduction separately. The author spells out with crystal clarity the basic contours of Lukan scholarship in a way that is thoroughly readable.

The title may serve as a succinct summary of Marshall’s main thesis in the present work.My copy of the book is by Paternoster Press (Third Edition 1988, reprinted 1997). Its back cover has blurbs by different scholars variously describing Marshall’s contribution as “a good book”, “highly recommended”, “a work of fine scholarship”, and “a constructive approach to Luke and Acts.” We may call it a noteworthy achievement toward understanding Luke the evangelist as both historian and theologian: best appreciated as a historian only when it is recognized that he was also a theologian, and vice versa. As Marshall says, “He used his history in the service of his theology.”That said, Marshall maintains that Luke was essentially an evangelist preaching the good news of God’s salvation. In the Gospel, salvation is revealed in the words and deeds of Jesus. In Acts, the early church, empowered by the Spirit, proclaim Christ’s word of salvation. Those who accept the message and believe in Christ experience salvation --their sins are forgiven and they receive the Holy Spirit. In a summary statement pertaining to this theological focus, Marshall writes, “We would claim that it has proved possible to organize the contents of Luke-Acts in terms of this central concept without forcing the material into an unnatural mold … .” Just as Acts continues the Gospel in a unified narrative, it confirms it with the same theological outlook. How does Luke relate history to theology? “We found that it was possible to justify Luke’s claim that theology rests upon history in the sense that the salvation of God is revealed in historical events; theology reflects upon those events and establishes their significance.” And, “Luke’s concern is with the saving significance of the history rather than with the history itself as bare facts.”In over 220 pages of main text (excluding a concluding postscript on Lucan studies since 1979 up to 1987), Marshall methodically drives his theme home. Before discussing Luke as a historian, he goes over the nature of history: We may not presume complete certainty about a historian’s reconstruction of the past; for the accuracy of the report depends on the availability and quality of the evidence at the time of writing. Neither may we expect total objectivity: historians have to decide what is significant among a mass of facts and information at their disposal and prioritize it; they have their presuppositions and viewpoints and put their own interpretations on past events. He tells us, “Historical facts are precisely those facts which a historian thought worthy of being recorded. Historians are *not* disinterested.” One thought-provoking point of the discussion is the function of witnesses, which assumes such an important role in the accounts of the resurrection. Marshall quotes the words of H. von Campenhausen, that history “belongs, in fact, to the witness, which, apart from it, would lose its meaning.” An exposition of the prologue to the Gospel establishes the evangelist’s intent to write reliable history based on careful investigation and sound evidence. A separate chapter evaluates Luke as a historian, best read with the preceding thoughts on the nature of history in mind. A substantial part of the chapter has to do with the sources that Luke used. In the case of the Gospel, the discussion relates to the Synoptic Problem, a well known topic on which much has been written. Marshall leans towards the precedence of Mark without dismissing other theories, and takes into consideration the hypothetical documents “Q” and “proto-Luke.” It is much less certain what sources Luke used in Acts. Marshall’s conclusion is that in both works Luke was faithful to the early traditions and did not try to rework them in support of his theology, though he did express them in his own style; rather, his theology rests upon those traditions (see above). How reliable were the sources themselves is of course another matter outside the scope of the discussion; nonetheless, in the case of the Gospel, “there are some good indications that they incorporated valuable, Palestinian tradition.”The rest of the book deals with Luke as a theologian, some highlights of which I have sketched above. Marshall calls Luke a theologian in his own right; yet one who “does not appear as a profound theologian of the character of Paul, John or the Writer to the Hebrews.” This is partly to be explained by the character of Luke’s work; his concern was to present the Christian message in the form of a historical account, thus establishing a solid foundation for faith. Included too is an important chapter on how, according to Luke, the individual may appropriate salvation. Citing Acts most of the time, Marshall starts with the observation that the individual cannot save himself; the initiative is entirely with God. He then proceeds to discuss such topics as repentance, faith and conversion; baptism; praise and prayers; and their effects. Arguably, the high points of the chapter are provided by the sections, ‘The Spirit and the Individual’ and ‘Through Many Tribulations.’ As the apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit to be the witnesses of Jesus, so too is every believer. Marshall writes, “The suggestion which we now make is that this gift of the Spirit to every believer has the same effect as in the case of the apostles. Its purpose is to constitute a church composed of missionaries.” The upshot is not only glory, but also opposition and suffering. Yet believers (the church) remain confident in the power of God to help them through tribulation; and, like Stephen when he was martyred, look forward to the welcome of their Lord into the presence of God. One gets the impression here that Marshall himself is evangelizing. He concludes, “This is the theology of the cross.”Marshall frequently refers to or interacts with the different and differing works of other scholars, a valuable feature of the book that adds to the theological discussion. Just a few examples follow. Sometimes it is a simple idea, as in a footnote on the speeches of Acts that cites Martin Dibelius and includes the intriguing statement, “The speeches are Luke’s method of preaching to the reader.” Something to think about if you had assumed that Luke merely reproduces typical speeches of the apostles, even if in different words. More involved is Hans Cozelmann’s influential theory of salvation history. Building on the hypothesis that the earliest Christians had lived in the eschatological hope of an imminent parousia which did not occur, Cozelmann proposes that this created a problem for the church which Luke seeks to resolve. On this view, Luke sets out the scheme of a history of salvation in three stages: the period of Israel; the ministry of Jesus; and the period of the church. Eschatological expectation is replaced in effect by a church acting constructively during a period of history that would last until the parousia, whenever that happened as ordained by God. Marshall takes issue with what he thinks is a false dichotomy between eschatology and salvation history. Against Conzelmann he argues that Luke understands the end times not to be in the distant future but to begin with the event of Jesus and onward to the time of the church -- in anticipation of the consummation at the parousia. He also agrees with Oscar Cullmann that the concept of salvation history is not a late or Lucan development but runs throughout the New Testament, even going back to Jesus himself, albeit in the form of preparation and fulfillment. Speaking of eschatology, Marshall helpfully includes a long footnote explaining the meaning of the term and how various theologians have understood and used it -- one of the best concise treatments of the subject that I’ve read. Elsewhere on the same subject, the behavior of Christians awaiting the imminent end was not to be governed simply by the promised blessings or woes of the coming judgment. Taking a cue from a book by Amos N. Wilder, Marshall hits the nail on the head with this gem: “It is not the nearness of a crisis which animated New Testament ethics, but the character of God.”To conclude, this is a serious, well written study that deserves careful reading and re-reading. A good book indeed.

This book was delivered within a reasonable time, but the quality of the book is extremely poor - so discoloured that it is unpleasant to handle.