One topic that continues to attract my fascination is that of the relationship of Luke to the Pastoral Epistles (i.e. author, editor, or secretary).
Several works I am hoping to read in this regards are:
F.J. Badock, The Pauline Epistles (1937).
C.F.D. Moule, 'The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles,' in Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: CUP, 1982), 113-32 (= BJRL 47 [1965]: 430-52).
Jerome Quinn, ‘The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke-Acts to the Pastoral Epistles,’ Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C.H. Talbert (Danville: VA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 62-75.
S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastorals (London: SPCK, 1979).
Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations. II. The Acts, the Letters, the Apocalypse (rev. edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 301-3.
Jean-Daniel Kaestli, ‘Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles: The Thesis of a Common Authorship,’ in Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, ed. C. Tuckett (JSNTSup 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 110-26.
I remember talking about S.G. Wilson's proposal to I. Howard Marshall (who has written commentaries on the Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pastorals) and his conclusion was that "the Greek is too different" between both bodies of literature.
2 comments:
Ben Witherington's latest commentary: Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, the pastorals and shorter writings of John, argues that Luke was the amanuensis. So check that out too!
Michael, Sean beat me to the punch but I have finished Witherington's commentary; it is nothing short of an apologetic for Lukan composition. Indeed, it seems that nearly every page has something to say on the issue.
Post a Comment