Studies in Luke-Acts: Retrospect and Prospect

Let me begin with a personal note. Three experiences in my work on Luke-Acts will explain both the selection of the topics I shall discuss in this article and my view of the present situation in the study of Luke-Acts. (1) After ten years of reading the recent studies of Luke-Acts and then working on the text itself, I made the observation that the general understanding of the theology of the Gospel of Luke on the basis of its redactional elements was rarely helpful in my effort of writing a commentary on this Gospel. Just as contributors to the more recent volumes of the Theological Dictionary to the New Testament no longer propose interpretations generally applicable to all three synoptic Gospels, the exegete working with a particular pericope can no longer be satisfied with generalizations about Lukan theology. Indeed, such general assumptions may actually be impediments rather than useful tools for the understanding of a particular text. This is not universally recognized because the attention of scholars has been held by another problem, namely, the substitution of a diachronic redactional interpretation of the Gospels by a synchronic literary interpretation. The underlying dilemma is, of course, the old question of the connection between exegesis and biblical theology. A promising solution might be to immerse oneself into a single relevant text, as Odette Mainville has done in her recent dissertation on Acts 2:33, and to obtain universality through the understanding of particularity—in other words, to follow Kierkegaard rather than Hege