Book Reviews -- By: Anonymous

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 24:1 (Nov 1961)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous


Book Reviews

Hans Conzelmann; The Theology of St Luke. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1960. 255. $5.00.

The author of this volume, occupant of the chair of New Testament in Zurich, is, like GÜnther Bornkamm whose Jesus of Nazareth was reviewed in the May issue ot this journal, one of the disciples of Rudolf Bultmann who have come to hold positions of strategic theological influence in western Europe. The book under review is a translation of Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas which has appeared in a third revised edition in 1960. The first edition was published in 1954, the second in 1957; the English translation is presumably of the last-mentioned edition.

As the English title and the German subtitle rather well indicate, the concern of this study is only to elucidate Luke and Acts as we have them and not to inquire into the pre-Lucan stages of history either by way of a consideration of their sources or of a search for knowledge of the actual historical course of events. Such an emphasis on Luke’s own distinctive witness or point of view is highly useful to one who regards Luke as a trustworthy writer of history and who may understandably think of the question of Lucan sources as secondary. But it is also to be welcomed from one whose critical perspectives are as radically different as are those of Conzelmann. He is constantly engaged in the exposition of the biblical text, and since he does this in fresh and learned fashion, taking accouuut especially in footnotes of other literature, one may consult his treatment with expectation of profit.

Although, however, Conzelmann plays down the questions of literary criticism and of historical credibility, it becomes obvious that his own judgments in these areas constitute decisive factors for his evaluations of the meaning of the text. Thus it becomes evident that he holds to the two-document theory in a radical form similar to that which comes to expression in Creed’s commentary on Luke, according to which the materials in Luke which find no close parallels in Mark or Matthew are generally regarded as stemming from Luke’s own very free manipulation of his sources or free composition in the interest of setting forth his own point of view. In connection with the expression of Conzelmann’s critical approach it is accordingly understandable that there should be a more or less running

criticism in the footnotes of the four-document theory because of its tendency to assign far higher historical worth to that which is distinctively Lucan. As an example of his general approach in this area, one may point to his treatment of Luke 4:16–30 which he characterizes as ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()