Abstract
Mikael C. Parsons divides his commentary on Luke into five parts: Jesus’s Origins and Training (1:1–4:13), Jesus’s Mighty Works and Deeds in Galilee (4:14–9:50), Jesus’s Mighty Works and Deeds along the Way Part 1 (9:51–14:35), Jesus’s Mighty Works and Deeds along the Way Part 2 (15:1–19:44), and Jesus in Jerusalem: Teachings, Death, and Resurrection (19:45–24:53). Parsons begins by highlighting critical issues of authorship, date, and genre. Of these three, genre seems most important to Parsons. He suggests that Luke falls into the category of encomiastic biography (p. 13). He posits that Luke follows the ancient bios literature insofar as it flows from birth and upbringing of the protagonist to the protagonist’s public accomplishments. He highlights the issues of intertextuality that run throughout the text of Luke. In dealing with the intertextuality of the Third Gospel, one question drives his project: “What would be the rhetorical impact of such modifications [the changes Luke makes to the ‘many’ other gospels] on the authorial audience?” (p. 13). In defining “authorial audience,” Parsons makes clear that this is not a real, flesh-and-blood group but rather a general first-century Christian audience (p. 17). Space allows for discussion of only three distinct themes of his interpretation: dream-vision accounts, synkrisis, and women.
The dream-vision convention of the Greco-Roman world followed four parts: scene setting, dream-vision terminology, dream-vision proper, and reaction/response (p. 33). The theme of dream-vision accounts begins with 1:5–25. Parsons cogently argues that Luke follows the Greco-Roman dream-vision conventions, which the authorial audience would have recognized (p. 33). He notes the “Jewishness” of Luke’s account of the dream-vision of Zechariah by using a well-known Septuagint phrase “it happened in those days” (p. 34). Luke uses this same dream-vision schema again in the heralding of the shepherds in 2:8–21 (p. 53). Finally, Parsons argues that the transfiguration employs the same dream-vision conventions (p. 154). Parsons’ logic here is sound and provides a new critical perspective on the Third Gospel. Moreover, his note of the Jewishness of the dream-vision in 1:5–25 gives pause to reading Luke through a strictly twenty-first-century Christian lens.
The theme of synkrisis, or comparison, also runs throughout Luke’s gospel. Parsons highlights the synkrisis of Jesus and John the Baptist in 1:1–4:13, which he suggests the authorial audience would have understood as part of the pre-public career of Jesus in the vein of ancient bioi (p. 21). Further highlighting this theme, Parsons suggests that the raising of the widow’s son in 7:11–17 shows Jesus as greater than Elijah insofar as Elijah had to petition God three times whereas Jesus simply speaks (p. 122). The feeding of the five thousand in 9:10–17 suggests that while Jesus is a “prophet like Moses” he is a “prophet greater than Elisha” because he has fed more people and had an abundance of leftovers (p. 151). Parsons’ recognition of synkrisis is not new; however, his understanding of the way in which the authorial audience received the intertextuality of Luke is important. That the authorial audience would recognize the symbolism within these particular pericopae suggests a new way in which to read the Third Gospel today. As Parsons notes, “those of us who dare allow ourselves to be oriented by it [Luke’s symbolic world] will find that we are profoundly shaped by where we are, and where we have been,” (p. 161).
I found Parsons’ discussion of women in the Third Gospel particularly interesting. First, he argues, correctly I believe, against the traditional interpretation of the sinner woman in 7:37–38 as being a prostitute. Parsons suggests that the particular sin of the woman is unimportant for Luke; rather it is her status as a sinner which “indicates those persons who recognize their need for repentance and who respond positively to Jesus’s ministry,” (p. 130). Parsons goes on to tear down the traditional view of the woman by suggesting that evidence for the way prostitutes wore their hair in antiquity is scarce (p. 130). He also makes an appeal to the Greek novel Chaereas and Callirhoe, suggesting that the actions of the woman in Luke 7 mirror the actions of Callirhoe in her veneration for a deity (p. 131). I find this appeal both intriguing and helpful. Second, in his interpretation of the women in 8:1–3 Parsons notes the women “are depicted as fulfilling the role of the disciples through service” (p. 133). He further posits that the roles of women in Luke are not limited to traditional domestic service nor are traditional services limited to women, i.e. the male disciples serve the people in the feeding of the five thousand (p. 133). It seems then that the role of the female plays a key role in Luke’s narrative.
The only critique of Parsons’ commentary I can make is in his interpretation of the parable of the lost coin. Noticeably absent from his discussion is a critique of the patriarchal normativity given to God. In his interpretation of the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son Parsons suggests that all three speak to the character of God (p. 235). In the parable of the lost coin 15:8–10 Parsons notes that there is “this radical image: God is like a female householder” (p. 237). Here, if nowhere else in the Third Gospel, a discussion of the image of God as a woman, or at least the way in which God exhibits female characteristics is appropriate. Parsons, however, appeals to Cyril of Alexandria who suggests the reference is in regards to wisdom (Greek sophia, thus feminine), and to the dominant exegetical view of Ambrose that the woman represents the church (p. 238). Likewise, in the “Theological Issues” subsection at the end of the chapter Parsons neglects to reflect theologically on this particular parable. Despite this missing element, Parsons’ commentary is quite accessible for students or lay-people in the church and serves as a helpful tool in interpreting Luke’s Gospel.