^{page 330 note 1} London, 1961, E.T. of Die Mitte der Zeit (Tübingen, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 18 ff., 101–2.Google Scholar Cf. Grässer, E., ‘Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den Synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte’, B.Z.N.W. XXII, (1957), 197 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 1} ‘Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte’, W.M.A.N.T. v (1961), 101 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 2} Cf. Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1934), p. 21; S.B. IV, 748 ff.Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., ‘Elijah’, T.W.N.T. II, 928 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 3} Conzelmann, , op. cit. p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 331 note 5} The associations of the word are predominantly eschatological: Lk. i. 19Google Scholar; ii, 10; iii. 18; iv. 10, 43; vii. 22; viii. 1; ix. 6; xvi. 16; xx. 1. Acts v. 42; viii. 4, 12, 24, 35, 40; x. 36; xi. 20; xiii. 32; xiv. 7, 15, 21; xv. 35; xvi. 10; xvii. 18. Cf. Flender, H., Heil und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas (Munich, 1965), pp. 26Google Scholar; Friedrich, G., εύαγγελίομαι, T.W.N.T. II, 707 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 1} Caird, G. B., The Gospel of Luke, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries (1963), p. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 2} Robinson, W. C. Jr., Der Weg des Herrn (Hamnurg, 1964), p. 12.Google Scholar This book has a through discussion of Conzelmann's interpretation of the Baptist material. When he is disputing with Conzelmann Robinson is generally, though not always, more convnicing than when he attempts to give his own interpretation of Luke's eschatology in terms of the concept ‘the Way’.

^{page 332 note 3} Conzelmann has been rightly challenged for his refusal to take account of Lk. i–ii. Cf. Oliver, H. H., N.T.S. x (1963–1964), 202–26Google Scholar; Minear, P. S., Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. by Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L. (London, 1968), pp. 111 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 4} Flender, , op. cit. p. 111Google Scholar: ‘Wenn Lukas eine klare Scheidung der Zeit Johannes und der Zeit Jesu beabsichtigte, dann dürfte er den Beginn der Wirksamkeit beider nicht in eins sehen’.

^{page 332 note 5} Carid, , op. cit. p. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 6} Art. cit. pp. 205 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 7} Some of Luke's omissions which Conzelmann mentions (e.g. Mk. xv. 34) have been ignored since they have no obvious eschatological motivation.

^{page 333 note 1} The Marking of Luke-Acts (London, 1961), p. 290.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} Art. cit. p. 938.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 3} Käsemann, E., Essays on N.T. thems (London, 1964), pp. 136–48.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 4} Flender, H., op. cit. p. 48 n. 6Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., art. cit. pp. 935 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 5} He mentions it on numerous occasions, e.g. pp. 16, 20, 25, 40, 101, 160, 185, and 220.

^{page 334 note 1} Op. cit. p. 122.Google Scholar Minear himself does not attempt a full exegesis of the verse.

^{page 334 note 2} Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 294 ff.Google Scholar Daube makes a subtle but unconvincing attempt to find a connection of thought in vv. 16 ff.

^{page 334 note 3} Noted by Wilckens, , op. cit. p. 104 n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 4} Paulus und Jesus (1962), p. 191.Google Scholar He is arguing against Käsemann, (op. cit. pp. 42 ff.)Google Scholar who argues that the original version placed John on the same side of the ‘change of aeons’ as Jesus. Jüngel therefore takes the Phrase άπό τότε to exclude John.

^{page 334 note 5} Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (1963), pp. 63–4.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 6} So Daube, , op. cit. p. 235Google Scholar, and Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 1} For a summary of the main views on the interpretation of the word βιάεται see Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment (1961), pp. 121 ff.Google Scholar Also, Jüngel, , op. cit. pp. 190 ff.Google Scholar, and Daube, , op. cit. pp. 235–300Google Scholar, who offers some fascinating sidelights on the problems.

^{page 335 note 2} It is possible to give Luke a similar meaning to Matthew by taking είς to mean ‘against’—a possible, though rare, meaning of the world—or by taking είς as the equivalent of an Aramaic preposition not needed in the Greek, but included because a direct translation was being made (Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 1946, p. 84).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 3} Conzelmann, , op. cit. pp. 16, 81Google Scholar, 107, and cf. pp. 13, 36, 50, 80, 170, 187, 199, 232, 234.

^{page 335 note 4} ‘A note on Lk. xxii. 35 ff.’, Nov. Test. VII (1964), 128 ff.Google Scholar The summary above is only the bare outline of Minear's view, the detailed arguments for which can be found in his article.

^{page 336 note 1} To this extent the analysis of E. Lohse is more satisfactory (‘Lukas als Theologe der Heilsgeschichte’, Ev. Th. IV (1954), pp. 256 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also Dahl, N. A., Studies in Like–Acts, pp. 139 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 2} Robinson, J. A. T. (Jesus and His Coming, 1957, pp. 54 ff.)Google Scholar argues that the two halves of Mk. xiv: 62 are synonymously parallel, both referring to Jesus’ exaltation. Tödt, H. (The son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, 1965, pp. 36 ff.)Google Scholar has collected conclusive evidence against Robinson's view and there is no need to repeat it here. Equally improbable is the suggestion of Cranfield, C. E. B. (St Mark, 1959, pp. 444–5)Google Scholar, that the Sanhedrin will see the Son of Man coming, but probably after they have died, at the Last Judgement.

^{page 336 note 3} Stählin, G., T.W.N.T. IV, 1106.Google Scholar The other occurrences are in Lk. i. 48, v. 10, xiii. 52, xii. 18 and Acts xviii. 6.

^{page 337 note 1} A different view is found in Klein's, G. article, ‘Die Prüfung der Zeit. Lk. xii. 54–6’, Z.T.K. LXI (1964), 373–90Google Scholar, especially pp. 374–5.

^{page 337 note 2} Tödt, , op. cit. pp. 102–3Google Scholar, and Flender, , op. cit. p. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 3} Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (1963), pp. 99 ff.Google Scholar; Ellis, E. Earle, The Gospel of Luke (1966), pp. 224–5.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 4} Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (1950), p. 212.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 24–8.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 6} Flender, , op. cit. p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 1} I am deliberately avoiding a discussion of the countless attemps to give this verse some other meaning, on which see the various commentaries and Kümmel, , op. cit. pp. 27 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 2} ‘In Menmoriam’, Festschrift for Lohmeyer, E., pp. 116 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} It is no argument against this to say that the community would not create an obviously unfulfilled saying (Kümmel, Ibid.), since for the first generation of Christians hope for an early parousia was still possible (Grässer, , op. cit. pp. 131 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 4} Op. cit. pp. 104–4.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 5} Moore, A. L., ‘The Parousia in the N.T.’, S.N.T. XIII, 130 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 6} Conzelmann gives an analysis of Luke's presentation of the Kingdom on pp. 113 ff. Two points are worth noting: (a) He is correct when he says that language of the ‘coming’ of the Kingdom is usually avoided in Luke, and when it is used (xvii. 20; xix. 11; xxi. 7) Luke often criticizes it. In contrast language of ‘seeing’ or ‘preaching’ the Kingdom is more frequent. We should note, however, that Luke has no monopoly on this kind of language, so we cannot be sure how far this is a change of emphasis (cf. Mk. i. 14; ix. 1; Matt, . iv. 23Google Scholar; ix. 28; and in Mk. iv. 11 we have a close parallel to Luke's use of ‘see’ to mean ‘perceive’). (b) Conzelmann thinks that Luke only speaks of the Kingdom as future, never as present. It is the ‘message’ or ‘image’ of the Kingdom that is present, not the Kingdom itself. This is surely a fales distinction; Lk. xi. 20 and xvi. 16 imply that the Kingdom itself is present and not just its image or message.

^{page 339 note 1} Dodd, C. H., Journal of Roman Studies (1947), pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} Conzelmann, , Z.N.W. L (1959), 219 ff.Google Scholar; Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus (1959), pp. 128 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 3} Conzelmann, , op. cit. pp. 134 ff.Google Scholar and Marxsen, (p. 134).Google Scholar Luke has produced a complete ‘Eliminierung der Parusieerwartung aus dem Zusammenhang mit der Zerstörung Jerusalems’.

^{page 339 note 4} Op. cit. p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 5} Even so, too much has been made of the division between v. 24b and v. 25. The phrase in v. 24b—‘until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’—is ambiguous; it may refer to the Gentile mission or to the military occupation of Jerusalem after its destruction. It certainly suggests a hiatus but as to its length nothing is said. The καί v. 25 a gives some form of a link between v. 24 and vv. 25 ff., though to go on from here and argue that the whole of vv. 25 ff. refers to politico-historical events, albeit in cosmic-eschatological language, is unwarranted (cf. Caird, , op. cit. pp. 232Google Scholar); Leancy, A. R. C., The Gospel According to St Luke, 1958, pp. 262 ff.Google Scholar To argue that the connexion between vv. 20–4 and 25 ff. is symbolical rather than temporal (so Flender, , op. cit. p. 104Google Scholar) is also a bit fanciful.

^{page 340 note 1} On these verses see Conzelmann and Grässer.

^{page 340 note 2} For the various attempts to make sense of this phrase see the various commentaries, but above all the excellent articles by Cranfield, C. E. B. (S. J. Th.. XVI, 1963, 297–301)Google Scholar and Delling, G. (Z.N.W. LIII, 1962, 1–25, especially 17 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 3} Jermias, , Parables, p. 116Google Scholar; Grässer, , op. cit. p. 38Google Scholar; Ellis, , op. cit. p. 214Google Scholar; Ott, W., Gebet und Heil (Munich, 1965), pp. 63–5.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 4} The evidence offered is the LXX of Dt. xi. 17; Josh, . viii. 18; Ps. ii. 2.Google Scholar But (a) the Hebrew, for Ps. ii. 2Google Scholar is and for the other two verses —and for neither of these words do the lexicons give the meaning ‘suddenly’. (b) None of the Greek lexicons gives ‘suddenly’ as a possible meaning for ταχέως or adverbial phrases which use the noun τάχος. (c) In the context of xviii. 1 ff. a reassurance that the end will come suddenly—though not necessarily soon—is scarcely a promise that would bring comfort to the oppressed.

^{page 341 note 1} Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (1961), 44 ff.Google Scholar; Black, M., Exp. T. LXIII (1951–1952), 289 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 2} Clark, K., J.B.L. LIX (1940), 367 ff.Google Scholar; and Kümmel, , op. cit. pp. 167 ffGoogle Scholar; The addition of έφ' ύμας in Lk. x. 9 could possibly be construed to mean that Luke understood it to mean that the Kingdom was ‘here’ not ‘near’ but it could also mean that the Kingdom is near (chronologically) to you (cf. Ellis, , op. cit. pp. 155 ffGoogle Scholar).

^{page 341 note 3} Conzelmann, ,op. cit. p. 109Google Scholar; Dodd, , op. cit. p. 167Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., op. cit. p. 113Google Scholar; Jeremias, , op. cit. pp. 93 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 4} Cf. Ellis, , op. cit. p. 180Google Scholar; Caird, , op. cit. p. 164Google Scholar; Dodd, , op. cit. pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 96 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 1} Grässer, , op. cit. pp. 84 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 3} Op. cit. p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 4} Kümmel, , op. cit. p. 22Google Scholar; Ellis, , op. cit. pp. 182–3.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 5} Manson, T. W., op. cit. pp. 272 ff.Google Scholar; Jeremias, , op. cit. pp. 170 ff.Google Scholar Cadbury is scarcely correct when he see the main point of xiii, 6–9 as being that there will be a delay in the judgement. It is worth nothing that if xiii. 6–9 is Luke's equivalent of Mk. xi. 12 ff., then Luke places more emphasis on the imminence of the end.

^{page 342 note 6} Op. cit. p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 1} Matthew also smooths out Mark's version by using πάντα ταũτα in both xxiv. 33 and xxiv. 34.

^{page 343 note 2} Lk. i. 48, 50.

^{page 343 note 3} Such as those that take it to refer to the Jewish race or the beliecers in the Church. On this see the convenient summary of views by Kümmel, , op. cit. pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar and T.W.N.T. 1, 661 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 4} Op. cit. p. 246.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 5} I have tried to give an interpretation of these verses in relation to their immediate context in my article on ‘The Ascension: A Critique and an Interpretation’, Z.N.W. 59 (1968), pp. 269–81.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 1} Studies in Luke–Acts, pp. 60–3.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} Grässer, , op. cit. pp. 204 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 1} This emphasis on the practical motivation of Luke's eschatology has been neglected in recent work on Luke, though a start has been made by Braumann, G., ‘Das Mittel der Zeit’, Z.N.W. LIV (1963), 117 ff.Google Scholar He also thinks that Luke's motivation was primarily practical, though his analysis of Luke's eschatology differs markedly from mine.

^{page 347 note 1} This could imply a false distinction, since clearly it is possible to be both a pastor and a theologian. However, to say that Luke is a pastor rather than a theologian is not meant to be an exclusive definition, but rather to show the centre of gravity of Luke's interests.

^{page 347 note 2} See the excellent article by Wilckens, U., ‘Interpreting Luke–Acts in a period of Existentialist Theology’ in Studies in Luke–Acts, pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar