Skip to content

New Volume on Luke-Acts

August 13, 2012

One of my recent PhD students, Sean Adams (who takes up a British Academy Postdoctoral place here in New College in September) is co-editor (with Michael Pahl) of a newly-published multi-author volume on Luke-Acts:  Issues in Luke-Acts:  Selected Essays (Gorgias Press, 2012).  The various contributors address questions of authorship and date, unity of Luke and Acts, the text of Luke and Acts, sources, genre, narrative story-line of Luke-Acts, use of the OT, the speeches, “pneumatology” (the Spirit), depiction of Paul in Acts, patristic reception of Luke and Acts, Luke-Acts and what some (Protestant) scholars refer to as “early catholicism”, and my own essay, “Christology in Acts:  Jesus in Early Christian Belief and Practice”. 

In concept and coverage, it seems a really fine and useful volume, especially for advanced students and other serious readers.  Unfortunately, however,  the counter-productive price the publisher has put on it ($95 USD) will serve to deter it being purchased and read as widely as the volume deserves. 

I’ve placed a pre-publication version of my own contribution under the “Selected Essays” tab of this blog site, marked as “Acts–Christology”.

From → Uncategorized

  1. Dr. Hurtado,

    I was reading through your Acts–Christology pre-publication, and I was reminded of something I heard suggested before. Is it possible that because kurios lacks the definite article in Lu 2:11, that this expression might be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew mashiach Yehowah, “Jehovah’s Christ”? (See Lu 2:26) There is also a handful of support for the genitive reading christos kuriou. (See also Lu 2:9, aggelos kuriou).

    • The expression in Luke 2:11 is unusual, and the variants in the textual tradition suggest efforts by ancient readers to disambiguate the phrase in one way or another. I’d myself think that the “christos kyriou” variant in 2:11 was likely prompted by the secure reading in 2:26, and so is a harmonization to near-context. The reading preferred in the Nestle-Aland text, “christos kyrios”, lacks the definite article both for “christos” and for “kyrios”, although “christos” tends to have the article in Luke-Acts. So, “christos kyrios” is the “difficult” reading that may better explain the emergence of variants in 2:11.

  2. The price is off-putting, but in any case, people would be better off learning Greek and/or Hebrew, as without a knowledge of these languages they would be unqualified to discuss the subject matter of the book.

    • No. Discussion of the book is certainly open and feasible to anyone interested. Taking a position on certain matters in which language-competence is required would, however, require . . . language competence. “Discussion” is one thing, but claiming the authority to overturn the views of those with professional competence in a subject requires the equivalent competence. Do you see??

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: