Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 246; Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 246; Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Dunn, “In Grateful Dialogue,” p. 292.

See Dunn, “In Grateful Dialogue,” p. 292. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schröter, “The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony?” p. 208; Catchpole, “On Proving Too Much: Critical Hesitations about Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” JSHJ 6 (2008), pp. 169-81, esp. pp. 171-72.

Schröter, “The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony?” p. 208; Catchpole, “On Proving Too Much: Critical Hesitations about Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” JSHJ 6 (2008), pp. 169-81, esp. pp. 171-72.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rafael Rodriguez, Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance, and Text (LNTS; New York: T&T Clark, 2010), p. 32. To be fair, Rodriguez does not deny redaction. His interest lies in undermining the assumption that redactional material necessarily cannot contain authentic Jesus tradition (see p. 173). In a blog post, Rodriguez writes, “But my point is that the [G]ospels themselves show that copying and editing aren’t very helpful ways for thinking about their patterns of ­similarities and differences” (“[G]ospels scholarship at odds with source and redaction criticism?” Entry posted July 12, 2009, http://thinkinginpublic.blogspot.com/2009/07/gospels-scholarship-at-odds-with-source.html [accessed 30 August 2012]).

Rafael Rodriguez, Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance, and Text (LNTS; New York: T&T Clark, 2010), p. 32. To be fair, Rodriguez does not deny redaction. His interest lies in undermining the assumption that redactional material necessarily cannot contain authentic Jesus tradition (see p. 173). In a blog post, Rodriguez writes, “But my point is that the [G]ospels themselves show that copying and editing aren’t very helpful ways for thinking about their patterns of ­similarities and differences” (“[G]ospels scholarship at odds with source and redaction criticism?” Entry posted July 12, 2009, http://thinkinginpublic.blogspot.com/2009/07/gospels-scholarship-at-odds-with-source.html [accessed 30 August 2012]).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Michael F. Bird, “The Purpose and Preservation of the Jesus Tradition: Moderate Evidence for a Conserving Force in Its Transmission,” BBR 15 (2005), pp. 161-85, (161, emphasis mine). Bird is on record as affirming the usefulness of redaction criticism. I simply question how a study of Jesus tradition in the Gospels, one that depends on Bauckham’s work in particular (pp. 175-77), can elide the process of literary activity.

Michael F. Bird, “The Purpose and Preservation of the Jesus Tradition: Moderate Evidence for a Conserving Force in Its Transmission,” BBR 15 (2005), pp. 161-85, (161, emphasis mine). Bird is on record as affirming the usefulness of redaction criticism. I simply question how a study of Jesus tradition in the Gospels, one that depends on Bauckham’s work in particular (pp. 175-77), can elide the process of literary activity.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

G. Carey, Sinners: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2009), pp. 17-36.

G. Carey, Sinners: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2009), pp. 17-36.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

R.B. Vinson, Luke (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2008), p. 335.

R.B. Vinson, Luke (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2008), p. 335.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See M.E. Boring, Mark (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), p. 343. But if one suggests that Luke removes that story for reasons of stylistic consistency, then one is left with explaining Luke’s intensification of the hostility on the part of the lawyer in the pericope’s new context. Alternatively, as we will see, many commentators perceive a strategic pairing of Luke 10:25-37 with the story of Martha and Mary that immediately follows it (10:38-42). However, we cannot account for why these two stories would be placed precisely as they are within the travel narrative.

See M.E. Boring, Mark (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), p. 343. But if one suggests that Luke removes that story for reasons of stylistic consistency, then one is left with explaining Luke’s intensification of the hostility on the part of the lawyer in the pericope’s new context. Alternatively, as we will see, many commentators perceive a strategic pairing of Luke 10:25-37 with the story of Martha and Mary that immediately follows it (10:38-42). However, we cannot account for why these two stories would be placed precisely as they are within the travel narrative.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

As in Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 433-34. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who suggested this line of interpretation.

As in Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 433-34. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who suggested this line of interpretation.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Reid, Choosing the Better Part?, pp. 147-48.

Reid, Choosing the Better Part?, pp. 147-48.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 (WBC 35B; Waco, TX: Word, 1993), p. 717; Manson, The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1949 [1937]), p. 274. Fitzmyer does cite examples of the argument (Luke X-XXIV, p. 1004), citing G. Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 3; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1977), vol. 1, p. 296. Richard Vinson tentatively suggests the connection between the two accounts (Luke, pp. 449-50).

Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 (WBC 35B; Waco, TX: Word, 1993), p. 717; Manson, The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1949 [1937]), p. 274. Fitzmyer does cite examples of the argument (Luke X-XXIV, p. 1004), citing G. Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 3; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1977), vol. 1, p. 296. Richard Vinson tentatively suggests the connection between the two accounts (Luke, pp. 449-50).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Manson, Sayings, p. 274.

Manson, Sayings, p. 274.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation