Reviewed by:

• Luke: Illuminating the Sage of Galilee by Kenneth L. Hanson
• Zev Garber

Hanson (University of Central Florida) tackles issues of composition, interpretation, and scriptural message of the Gospel of Luke in an unusual way. His methodology to help the reader access teachings and meanings of passages in the Synoptic Gospels follows more or less the standard Hebrew Scriptures approach: introduction, analysis, and commentary that draws out its main themes and comments on individual verses and problems of interpretation. He engages categories of Hebrew Scriptures, rabbinic sources (Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, Targum), and Dead Sea Scrolls to complement and/or contrast episodes, religious belief and practice, and ideologies projected primarily in Luke. Positing, identifying, and defending a Hebrew style of philosophy, ritualism, and argumentation in Luke, he compares and contrasts the Weltanschauung of the third Gospel with comparable Synoptic and Pauline parallels and, where relevant, with Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Hellenism.

The tightly argued chapters and abundant footnotes (some repetitive to avoid seeking the original notation) cover history, geography, culture, language, literature, personalities, philosophy, and religion—in short, Hebraic epistemology, [End Page 607] argumentative narrative, ritualistic belief and practice independent of Hellenistic intellectualism.

Traditional Christian teaching on the Gospel of Luke instructs that the life, teaching, and death of Jesus is a central message of universal salvation addressed to all people. According to tradition, at the close of the second century, based on the authority of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, Luke-Acts has been attributed to Luke, a physician who accompanied Paul in his missionary journeys from Troas to Philippi (Acts 16:10–17) and from Philippi to Jerusalem (Acts 20:5–12), and went with him to Rome, where he stayed during his captivity (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11). Most modern scholars are of the opinion that Luke’s Gospel is composed of two main sources, Mark and the so-called “Q,” while material unique to Luke called “L” and the Birth stories (chaps. 1–2) are attributed to a Jewish-Christian source. Additionally, some have proposed that the Synoptic Luke is an original “Proto-Luke” consisting of “L” and “Q,” to which a later editor added sections of Mark, while the Passion Narrative is said to be derived from an independent source.

For the most part, Hanson’s hypothetical evolution of Luke within the Synoptics agrees with contemporary scholarship (Anthological Text, Reconstructed Text, etc.), but his indebtedness to the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research (Southern Baptist minister Robert Lindsey and Orthodox Jewish Hebrew University professor David Flusser) sees a Hebrew subtext or “under-text” (Grundschrift) to Luke. Though written in idiomatic Greek, the Gospel’s multiple use of Hebrew words and idioms suggests that Hebrew terms and biblical passages were carefully translated and transmitted from a primary Hebrew ur-text. To suggest that Luke’s distinctive emphasis and interpretation on the Holy Spirit and the roles of women and gentiles are actually grounded in an original Hebrew text underscores a strong claim of Jewishness to Jesus (rabbi, king, messiah). Nonetheless, there are narratives that cannot be identified with the original ur-text, such as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. described in detail lacking in the Gospels and thus suggesting a post-70 Lukan redactor (Lk. 19:43–44, 21:20 and 24).

The time is long overdue for Jewish educators, clergy, and laity to penetrate into Christian scriptures to discover and appraise the historical Jesus, which can help to illuminate and correct the misgivings and misdirection about the Jews found in Christendom. Hanson’s mastery of Hebrew and Jewish tradition is a wonderful incentive. He explains and explicates key words and practices, such as adoni (my lord), not Ado-nai (my Lord), a title of respect when addressing [End Page 608] a superior; the proper recitation of the Šĕma` (Lk. 10:27; cf. Mk. 12:30 and Mt. 22:37); and the institution of the Last Supper (a Seder meal?) (Lk. 22:15–20; Mk. 14:22–25; Mt. 26:26–29; 1 Cor. 11:23...

 审阅者：

• 
  路加福音：照亮加利利的圣人 作者：肯尼思·汉森 (Kenneth L. Hanson)
•  泽夫·加伯

汉森（中佛罗里达大学）以一种不寻常的方式解决《路加福音》的写作、解释和圣经信息问题。他帮助读者了解对观福音书中的教导和段落含义的方法或多或少遵循标准的《希伯来圣经》方法：介绍、分析和评论，引出其主要主题以及对个别经文和解释问题的评论。他使用希伯来圣经、拉比来源（米什纳、塔木德、米德拉什、塔尔古姆）和死海古卷的类别来补充和/或对比主要在路加福音中投射的情节、宗教信仰和实践以及意识形态。他在《路加福音》中提出、识别和捍卫了希伯来风格的哲学、仪式主义和论证，将第三福音书的世界观与类似的符类福音和保罗的相似之处进行了比较和对比，并在相关的情况下与古埃及、美索不达米亚和希腊文化进行了比较和对比。

争论激烈的章节和丰富的脚注（有些重复是为了避免寻求原始符号）涵盖了历史、地理、文化、语言、文学、人物、哲学和宗教——简而言之，希伯来认识论、[完第607页]论证性叙事、仪式性独立于希腊化理智主义的信仰和实践。

《路加福音》中的传统基督教教义表明，耶稣的生平、教义和死亡是向所有人传达的普遍救赎的核心信息。根据传统，在第二世纪末，根据圣爱任纽和德尔图良的权威，路加福音-使徒行传被归于路加，一位陪同保罗从特罗亚到腓立比传教的医生（使徒行传 16:10） –17），然后从腓立比到耶路撒冷（使徒行传 20：5-12），并与他一起去了罗马，他被囚期间就住在那里（歌罗西书 4：14；提后书 4：11）。大多数现代学者认为路加福音由两个主要来源组成，即马可福音和所谓的“Q”，而路加福音特有的材料（称为“L”）和诞生故事（第 1-2 章）则归因于犹太基督教来源。此外，一些人提出，对观路加福音是由“L”和“Q”组成的原始“原始路加福音”，后来的编辑添加了马可福音的部分，而据说受难记是来自独立来源。

在很大程度上，汉森对路加福音在对观学中的假设演变与当代学术（选集文本、重构文本等）一致，但他要感谢耶路撒冷对观研究学院（美南浸信会牧师罗伯特·林赛和东正教犹太希伯来大学教授） David Flusser）看到了路加福音的希伯来语潜台词或“底层文本”（Grundschrift）。虽然福音书是用惯用的希腊语写成的，但它对希伯来语单词和习语的多种使用表明希伯来语术语和圣经段落是从原始希伯来语文本中精心翻译和传播的。路加对圣灵以及妇女和外邦人的角色的独特强调和解释实际上是基于希伯来原文，这强调了耶稣（拉比、国王、弥赛亚）的犹太身份的强烈主张。尽管如此，有些叙述无法与原始的原始文本相一致，例如福音书中缺乏详细描述的公元 70 年耶路撒冷的陷落，因此暗示了 70 年后的卢坎编辑者（路加福音 19：43-44， 21:20 和 24)。

犹太教育家、神职人员和平信徒早就应该深入基督教经文来发现和评价历史上的耶稣，这有助于阐明和纠正基督教世界中对犹太人的疑虑和误导。汉森对希伯来和犹太传统的掌握是一个很好的激励。他解释并阐释了关键词和做法，例如adoni（我的主），而不是Ado-nai（我的主），这是对上级的尊称[完第608页]；正确背诵Šĕma`（路加福音10:27；参见马可福音12:30和太22:37）；以及最后的晚餐的制度（家宴？）（路加福音 22:15-20；马可福音 14:22-25；太 26:26-29；哥林多前书 11:23...