Abstract
James Edwards, Professor of Theology at Whitworth University, has provided a useful and engaging commentary on the Gospel of Luke with this latest installment in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series.
At the outset of his commentary Edwards indicates that he is trying to balance exegesis and interpretation. He tries to focus on the data of the text that makes it intelligible, while also giving attention to theological issues pertinent for faith and discipleship. He discusses thematic issues in the excurses scattered throughout the book.
In the relatively brief introduction Edwards covers some of the usual critical issues pertinent to the study of the Gospel of Luke. He begins with a brief survey of the earliest testimony to the gospel. In his discussion of the title, he notes that although the gospel never identifies the author, there is no evidence that the gospel circulated anonymously; the name “Luke” has always been attached to it. After considering the evidence for authorship, Edwards concludes that there is no substantial reason to question the traditional attribution of authorship to Luke, the physician and travelling companion of Paul. He challenges the common assertion that Luke was a Gentile. He is inclined to think that Luke was a Jew, but he admits that the evidence is not decisive either way. He briefly notes that by the middle ages Luke became the patron saint of artists and painters.
Edwards favors a late 1970s date for the composition of the gospel. He believes that Antioch is the most likely place of composition because of patristic testimony and the frequency of Semitisms. One of the emphases of the commentary is its attention to the sources of the gospel. Edwards identifies three main sources. First, its primary source is the Gospel of Mark. Second, he discerns a Hebrew source, most likely a gospel, underlying the unique Lukan material. He dubs the third source as the “Double Tradition,” which traditionally has been called “Q”, but he argues that this source is not a sayings source but a full-fledged gospel. He frequently draws attention to these putative sources throughout his commentary.
Edwards delineates the narrative structure of the Gospel of Luke. After the opening prologue (1:1–4), the infancy narrative (1:5–2:52) alternates between the annunciations and births of John the Baptist and Jesus. The next section similarly relates, in turn, the commencement of the ministries of John and Jesus (3:1–4:13). The remainder of the gospel focuses exclusively on the ministry of Jesus and can be divided into three major divisions: the Galilean ministry (4:14–9:50), the mission of Jesus as the way of salvation (9:51–18:34), and the passion and resurrection of Jesus (18:35–24:53). The introduction concludes with an epilogue on Marcion. It includes a useful chart delineating the various passages that Marcion omitted in his revised, truncated version of the gospel.
The commentary proper is divided into twenty-two chapters, and the exposition proceeds in a passage-by-passage manner with occasional excurses scattered throughout. The discussion of the Greek text is not overly technical. Text critical issues are rarely mentioned, and Greek (and occasionally Hebrew), when discussed, is transliterated. Grammatical discussions usually amount to defining the meaning of words. On occasion Edwards will highlight a verb tense or some other grammatical feature of the text. The weighing of interpretive options is often kept to a minimum. For example, anaideia in Luke 11:8 has generated multiple interpretations, but Edwards considers only one alternative in a footnote (p. 337). Similarly, he briefly discusses the difficult phrase makrothumei ep’ autois in Luke 18:7, but in a footnote he directs the reader to another commentary to discover the multiple interpretations of this passage (p. 500).
Edwards provides much useful cultural and historical information throughout the commentary. He assumes the historicity of the Lukan stories. When dealing with historical problems, he resorts to more conservative solutions, but he does not try to force a solution when none are readily available. A few examples of his interpretive decisions will suffice. Against the stream of much scholarship he leaves open the possibility that the Magnificat was composed by Mary herself (p. 54). Regarding the dating of the census mentioned in Luke 2:2, Edwards concludes that Luke likely conflated the census of Quirinius with the death of Herod. He admits, however, that a satisfactory solution to the dating of the census ultimately is not possible given our current historical knowledge (p. 71). In an excursus, Edwards argues for the essential unity and originality of the nativity narratives with respect to the remainder of Luke’s gospel (pp. 97–100). Regarding the differences between Luke’s and Matthew’s genealogies, Edwards allows for the possibility that Luke preserves Mary’s genealogy (whereas Matthew contains Joseph’s genealogy), but he admits that ultimately there is no satisfying resolution to this conundrum (p. 123). Edwards avers that the temptation narrative is a historical occurrence whose origin must be derived from Jesus himself (p. 131).
Overall, this is a very solid commentary. Edwards does not get bogged down in minutia, which allows him to write with a very lively and fluid style. His discussions of cultural and historical information are a particular strength of the book. Moreover, he interweaves theological reflection seamlessly throughout the commentary. Naturally, if one wants to get a more detailed analysis of the Greek text, then one would have to consult a more technical commentary. Nevertheless, both pastors and scholars should find much that is useful and beneficial in this commentary.