Journal for the Study of

the New Testament

http://jnt.sagepub.com

Book Reviews : Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel

according to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible, vol. 28),
New York: Doubleday and Co., 1981. Pp. xxvi + 837.
$18.00
David Hill
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1984; 6; 115
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X8400602110
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jnt.sagepub.com

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the New
Testament can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Andreas Gerstacker on

November 29, 2007
1984 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use
or unauthorized distribution.

115

Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
vol.

28),

New York:

The

Gospel according to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible,

Doubleday and Co., 1981. Pp. xxvi + 837. $18.00.

When this first volume of Joseph Fitzmyers Anchor Bible Commentary on

Luke is joined by the second we shall have what must stand, for some length
of time, as the standard commentary in English. It will do for the Third
Gospel what R.E. Brown has done, in the same series, for John. It will be a
classic, as commentaries go, distilling the very best in Lucan scholarship
from the Conzelmann era (and before) down to about 1978. Years of
painstaking research have gone into it and every serious student of the
Lucan writings will consult it with profit. The volume is marked by clarity,
precision, fair and balanced judgment; the bibliographies (both general and
sectional) are invaluable, and they really have informed the text.
It is true that a massive book like this faces time-lag problems in
production. Some quite significant work on Luke-Acts has been emerging
from the SBL and CBA working groups and C.H. Talberts Perspectives on
Luke-Acts (1978) appeared too late to be taken fully into account. But while
Fitzmyer engages throughout his book with Conzelmann (quite critically at
times; cf. on the interpretation of Lk. 16.16), with Bultmann and with R.E.
Brown (on the Infancy Narrative), I am quite sure that the very recent work
can be absorbed by this outstanding commentator into his over-all persLucan matters.
introduction the author deals with the expected issues: the
current state of Lucan studies; the authorship, date and destination of the
Gospel; its composition, style, language and outline. If, in the main,
Fitzmyer agrees with the consensus view, he does so on the basis of a clear
re-presentation of the arguments for and against, and reveals the reasonableness of the orthodox standpoint. Nowhere is this clearer than in his
adoption of a slightly modified two-document solution for Synoptic relationships : this position is argued for with vigour and freshness of insight. When
he takes an independent or unusual line he supports it with the same
balanced argumentation. Thus, he argues against dominant theses about
Luke because they ignore evidence and judge Luke by non-Lucan standards:
therefore he objects to the dichotomy theology of the cross vs. theology of
glory (p. 22). He is less than convinced by the arguments for Lukes Early
Catholicism, and he rightly protests against that canon within the canon
mentality which fails or is unwilling to treat Luke (who wrote about a
quarter of the New Testament) as a major witness to the theology of the New
Testament. Fitzmyer strongly defends Luke as author of the two books,
Luke and Acts: despite some legendary details the evidence is widespread
and uncontested, and there is no obvious reason to attribute Luke-Acts to
such an obscure figure as Luke unless he actually was the author. He
suggests that the Gospel was written in the mid-eighties of the first century
by Luke, who was an incola of Syrian Antioch, with both a Hellenistic urban

pective
In

on

283-page

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Andreas Gerstacker on

November 29, 2007
1984 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use
or unauthorized distribution.

116
education and some knowledge of the indigenous Aramaic dialect. This is
borne out by Fitzmyers findings (as a language expert) that most Lucan
Semitisms are Septuagintisms (pp. 114-16), with a few Aramaisms. The
Lucan differences from Paul-so stressed by Vielhauer-are considered
afresh, largely accepted but accounted for differently. Rather than disproving
acquaintance with Paul they may be accounted for on the basis of a brief
acquaintance on I_ukes part with Paul early in the latters work and a twodecade distance from the controversies surrounding the apostle (pp. 49-51).
Fitzmyer reads the We-passages in Acts as Lukes literary claim to be
present, but only for the second mission (AD 49-52) and after about 58 when
Paul left for Jerusalem.
Fitzmyers outline of Lucan theology (pp. 143-270) amounts to a small
monograph, similar to his sketch of Pauline theology in the Jerome Bihlical
Commentarv. It considers the following topics: the Lucan kerygma, structure,
geography, rooting in history, Christological phrases and titles, soteriology,
the Spirit, eschatology and discipleship. On almost every one of these themes
Fitzmyer has something fresh and illuminating to say. The influence of
Conzelmann is, of course, powerful but, although his three periods-of
Israel, of Jesus and of the Church-is accepted, most of the elements in that
theory which subsequent scholars found unconvincing have been removed
(e.g. that the time of Jesus was a Satan-free era, and the separation of John
the Baptist from Jesus period), and Fitzmyer has many more criticisms of
his own to make of Conzelmanns views. Specific points of interest in the
Christological section include the view (based on evidence that preChristian Jews in Palestine did speak of Yahweh as Lord in Hebrew, Greek
and Aramaic) that the confession Jesus is Lord probably arose in Palestinian
Christianity (p. 202). The Son of God title also has a strong Jewish as well
as Hellenistic background and formed part of the early kerygma (pp. 206f.).
Fitzmyer thinks that Jesus probably used the Aramaic son of man in the
generic sense (human being, man) whilst early tradition, under the
influence of Dan. 7 and its interpretation, applied it to him in a titular sense
(p. 210). He admits that on a few occasions Son of Man seems to stand as a
surrogate for I (e.g. 6.22; 7.34; 9.22) but wonders whether that usage existed
in Aramaic of the time of Jesus or is a coincidental creation of the

evangelists.
In the commentary proper Fitzmyer follows his own very fine translation
with passage-by-passage Comment which deals with structure, sources,
form and redaction. He gives some attention to questions of historical
authenticity (what he calls Stage I of the gospel tradition) but his chief
concern, and rightly, is with the Lucan level (Stage III). Thus he can say of
the virgin-birth and of miracles in general that historians cannot prove their
factuality nor can they disprove it. Other factors, not concerned with
evidence or parallels, influence the judgment either way. (Incidentally, he
calls the infancy narrative imitative historiography to indicate that whatever

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Andreas Gerstacker on

November 29, 2007
1984 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use
or unauthorized distribution.

117

historical matter has been preserved by the two evangelists has been
assimilated by them to other literary accounts, either biblical or extrabiblical:
in the case of Lukes infancy story there are some parallels with his story of

Johns birth, but also unmistakable resonances of the story of the childhood
of Samuel.) The Notes at the end of each section provide what Fitzmyer
calls less essential details, but they are extremely helpful on linguistic,
textual, geographical and general background information. The erudition is
enormous, but it is lightly worn and powerfully used to support or challenge
scholarly views and interpretations.
When one has been so greatly enriched by working through this book, it is
invidious to be making small criticisms. But I would like to have had some
consideration of the jubilee theme in Lk. 4.16-30 as well as of the
consolation of Zion. And when Fitzmyer considers in the Notes agreements

against Mark, he says sometimes that they are very

easily explicable (yes, indeed), sometimes that they are so minor that no firm
conclusion can be drawn from them (and I agree), but sometimes they are
said to be evidence of coincidence-and then I wonder! And occasionally one
is a little irritated by the authors determination not to be drawn from
commenting on Stage III of the Gospel tradition into allowing us to know
what he thinks really took place. I cannot think of a scholar whose views on
the latter would be more worthy of respect, but he is not giving much away
here for the primary concern of this commentary is the Lucan form of Stage
III (p. viii), i.e. a form of what was put in writing concerning Jesus. As such
this commentary is a masterpiece. Fitzmyer mentions virtually every
exegetical possibility and considers the merits of each. One is constantly
learning, even when, on occasion, one disagrees or sees a matter differently.
Readers will turn to this book for many years seeking full information, and
they will not be disappointed. They will also find a wise and fair-minded
guide and a sober critic. We await the appearance of the second volume with
eager expectation.

of Luke and Matthew

David

Hill, Department of Biblical Studies,

The

University, Sheffield

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Andreas Gerstacker on

November 29, 2007
1984 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use
or unauthorized distribution.