Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
The Rhetoric of Lukeâs Passion
Lukeâs Use of Common-place to Amplify the Guilt of Jerusalemâs Leaders in Jesusâ Death
in Biblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Peter Rice in
Current site
Google Scholar
Working from Markâs Passion Narrative, Luke shapes much of his own Passion account according to the headings of the ancient rhetorical technique âcommon-place,â as described in the progymnasmata tradition. The headings of common-place include the opposite, comparison, way of thinking, pity, final headings, and ekphrasis. Luke employs this technique because it is designed to amplify the guilt of those who have committed crimesâin this case, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, especially the Temple authorities, regarding Jesusâ execution. Thus Luke paints a positive portrayal of the opposites against which the leaders have offended (Jesus the sage and Jewish hero, and Jesusâ service-based kingdom); presents a comparison with the Jewish leaders and four other questionable individual or groups, always to the Jerusalem authoritiesâ disadvantage; attacks the leadersâ way of thinking, especially by noting its alignment with Satanic will; makes an appeal to pity to his listeners through Jesusâ words and actions after being condemned; paints Jesusâ execution as a thorough affront to the final headings of justice and expedience; and not only retains but also augments ekphrastic elements from Markâs Passion. The sum effect is a Passion Narrative which turns the rhetorical screws, amplifying the guilt of Jerusalemâs leaders regarding Jesusâ death. Luke likely shapes his rhetoric in this way at least in part as a response to the polemical context in which he writes his Gospel, responding especially to problems of theodicy.â©
Kauf
Sofortzugang erwerben (PDF-Download und unbegrenzter Online-Zugang):
Institutszugang
Melden Sie sich mit Open Athens, Shibboleth oder Ihren institutionellen Anmeldedaten an.
Persönliche Anmeldung
Melden Sie sich mit Ihrem brill.com-Konto an
-
2
See M.C. Parsons, Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), pp. 15-39; also, M.C. Parsons, Acts (Paideia Series; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009).
-
5
I follow G.A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), in referring to this technique as âcommon-place,â in distinction from the other âcommon placeâ techniques of the ancient world. All progymnasmata references refer to the page number in Kennedy, Progymnasmata, following the page number in the respective rhetorical reference works (viz. Spengel, Rabe, Felten, Patillon) cited by Kennedy. See Kennedy, Progymnasmata, for citations of these previous works.
-
6
T.D. Frazel, The Rhetoric of Ciceroâs âIn Verremâ (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2009), p. 57.
-
8
Cf. Kennedy, Progymnasmata, p. 43 n. 143; Hermogenes, Prog. 12 (Kennedy, Progymnasmata, p. 79).
-
28
Contra M. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (Handbuch zum NT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 697-98.
-
30
See J.B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 244-45, 749-51.
-
31
See Kurz, âFarewell,â pp. 257-60, 264-65. For a discussion of the potential functions of Lukeâs framing this scene as a farewell discourse, see Kurz, âFarewell,â pp. 264-67.
-
32
See J.H. Neyrey, âThe Absence of Jesusâ Emotionsâthe Lucan Redaction of Lk. 22.39-46,â Bib 61 (1985), pp. 153-71, although J.B. Green criticizes Neyrey for Âoverstating his case (âJesus on the Mount of Olives [Luke 22:39-46]: Tradition and Theology,â JSNT 26 [1986], pp. 29-48 [32-33]).
-
36
Contra A. Neagoe, The Trial of the Gospel: An Apologetic Reading of Lukeâs Trial Narratives (SNTS 116; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 38.
-
38
See F.W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. edn, 1988), p. 342.
-
42
See Soards, Passion, p. 55. Green rightly notes that Luke interweaves indications of Jesusâ proactivity with the theme of divine necessity to show that Jesus is âno helpless victimâ (Luke, p. 755).
-
44
Cf. R.E. Brown, Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 189-90. This is an obvious point of contrast with Markâs Gospel, where Jesus experiences considerably more mental anguish.
-
52
For interpretive options, see Brown, Death, pp. 925-27. See also N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 567-70.
-
57
See Koester, âExplaining Jesusâ Crucifixion,â pp. 16, 48.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 411 | 92 | 16 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 87 | 12 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 156 | 34 | 0 |
The Rhetoric of Lukeâs Passion
Lukeâs Use of Common-place to Amplify the Guilt of Jerusalemâs Leaders in Jesusâ Death
in Biblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Peter Rice in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Working from Markâs Passion Narrative, Luke shapes much of his own Passion account according to the headings of the ancient rhetorical technique âcommon-place,â as described in the progymnasmata tradition. The headings of common-place include the opposite, comparison, way of thinking, pity, final headings, and ekphrasis. Luke employs this technique because it is designed to amplify the guilt of those who have committed crimesâin this case, the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, especially the Temple authorities, regarding Jesusâ execution. Thus Luke paints a positive portrayal of the opposites against which the leaders have offended (Jesus the sage and Jewish hero, and Jesusâ service-based kingdom); presents a comparison with the Jewish leaders and four other questionable individual or groups, always to the Jerusalem authoritiesâ disadvantage; attacks the leadersâ way of thinking, especially by noting its alignment with Satanic will; makes an appeal to pity to his listeners through Jesusâ words and actions after being condemned; paints Jesusâ execution as a thorough affront to the final headings of justice and expedience; and not only retains but also augments ekphrastic elements from Markâs Passion. The sum effect is a Passion Narrative which turns the rhetorical screws, amplifying the guilt of Jerusalemâs leaders regarding Jesusâ death. Luke likely shapes his rhetoric in this way at least in part as a response to the polemical context in which he writes his Gospel, responding especially to problems of theodicy.â©
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 411 | 92 | 16 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 87 | 12 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 156 | 34 | 0 |
