1

INTRODUCTION
Studies of the Synoptic Gospels bring with them the issue of the Synoptic Problem. This
matter originates from the existence of multiple canonical GospelsMatthew, Mark, and
Lukethat present the life and ministry of Jesus in similar manner, yet exhibit diversity in their
expression. The strong parallels in these writings (e.g. language and order) demonstrate a literary
relationship between the Gospels.1 This raises questions concerning their order of composition,
purpose, influence on one another, etc. These points of inquiry for students of the New
Testament lead to many other questions, which function as subsets of these broader categories.
The general consensus among scholars is that Mark was the first of the canonical gospels.
Despite this consensus, the theory does not lack its weaknesses. One such issue in Synoptic
studies, the great omission, receives little attention.2
This concept describes a substantial section of Marks gospel (6:458:26) that Luke
appears to expunge from his account. This elimination of data leads readers to ask why Luke
would exclude such a large amount of information. The omission of what amounts to over
seventy verses in todays Bible functions as such a noticeable elimination that Donald Guthrie
states some satisfactory reason is demanded.3
Time and study have produced many theories concerning Lukes omission of these
pericopae.4 Popular theories include: Lukes use of an early version of Mark,5 Lukes use of a

Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 1619.

Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 153. Though Guthrie says the great omission functions as a
problem of Markan priority, the Griesbach Hypothesis would cause the same problem for Matthean priorists, as a
number of the pericope in the great omission appear in Matthews text. This would mean the Farrer hypothesis
would also need to provide some answer regarding this omission. Evaluation of the great omission would be
necessary, no matter the hypothesis to which an individual holds, unless that hypothesis embraces Lukan priority.
Though such an approach is highly improbable, this would eliminate the problem of the omission.
3
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 154.
4
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 154. Guthrie provides a summary of these responses to the great
omission.
5
Brown, An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark.
2

2
mutilated Markan manuscript,6 and Lukes intentional omission of the text.7 The insufficiency of
the most popular explanations begs the development of a new idea to address this issue. Given
the diversity of hypotheses presented in attempts to bring resolution to the Synoptic Problem,
this paper aims to address the topic of the great omission in a manner that provides satisfactory
explanation for the omission in Lukes Gospel.
Initial examination of the omitted text reveals one pericope recalls Jesus interaction with
a Gentile woman whose daughter needs deliverance from a demon. Lukes emphasis on the
charismatic activity of the Holy Spirit and writing for a primarily Gentile audience support the
understanding that such an exclusion appears abnormal.8 Acknowledging Lukes presentation of
the Spirits work and his Gospels view of Gentiles, a closer reading of the Lukan corpus reveals
he establishes these aspects of his writing within a Christocentric framework.9 Accepting a view
that Luke maintains a high Christology, this work asserts Lukes exclusion of the great
omission passages functions as an intentional act, resulting from the theological intent exhibited
by his use of miracle storiesinforming his readers of Jesus identity.10
METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE
The discrepancy between the Lukan and Markan (as well as Matthean) texts will be
analyzed using redaction criticism. Redaction criticism is the method of study that analyzes a
given text in order to determine the changes made to his or her received tradition in the
6

Streeter, The Four Gospels, 175. Streeter notes this as a tentative suggestion.
Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 192-193; Marshall, Luke, 364-365. Sanday, Oxford Studies in the
Synoptic Problem, 24-26. Johnson, Prophetic Jesus, 9.
8
Thielman, Theology, 117; Blomberg, The Gospel for Specific Communities, 118; Contra Bauckham,
The Gospel for All Christians, 1.
9
Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 912. Stronstad presents Lukes unique theological presentations of the
Spirits power. Though this charismatic emphasis exists within Lukes Gospel, readers must understand all the
Gospels present Jesus as the focus of their material.
10
Contra Richardson, Miracle-Stories, 1089. When discussing how the gospel writers utilize miracle
stories, Richardson asserts the composers of the Synoptics all share the same attitude toward miracle stories. Though
he is correct that the miracles stories are used to teach and encourage, he does not provide a complete assessment of
their usage, noted by his lack of acknowledging the diversity among the Gospels or the idea they may have been
written with different intentions.
7

3
composition of their text.11 In the case of the Synoptic Gospels, these actions are noted in an
effort to determine the theological motives of the author/redactor. The approach draws on aspects
of both form and source criticism. The method also builds on the results of source criticism and
seeks to explore how the authors/redactors utilized their tradition in the presentation of their
theology.12
The practice finds its origins in the works of Gnther Bornkamm and Willi Marxsen.
Bornkamms The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew argues that Matthew changes and
reinterprets Marks presentation of the pericope, based on Matthew changing the context of the
pericope in the composition of his gospel.13 Such an idea presents the understanding that the
authors/redactors actions stem from some theological intent for the work. Marxsens Mark the
Evangelist is regarded as the first scholarly work to utilize the term redaktionsgeschichte (the
term from which we get redaction criticism).14
Given the idea that redaction criticism observes the editorial changes an author makes to
the sources used, Scot McKnight presents seven characteristics of this type of activity for which
readers should look: (1) conservation, (2) conflation, (3) expansion, (4) transposition, (5)
omission, (6) explication, and (7) alteration.15 An important factor in discussing Lukes omission
of Markan/Matthean text will be a short analysis of what he has conserved from these texts.

Assumptions
11

McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, 83-84.

Osborne, Redaction Criticism, 663.
13
Bornkamm, The Stilling of the Storm, 53.
14
Osborne, Redaction Criticism, 664.
15
McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, 86-88. Acknowledging that the first six redactional
activities can be seen as alterations, McKnight notes that his seventh action refers to a change in the tradition itself
in an effort to avoid misunderstands. Examples of this include Matthews alteration of Mark 6:5 in Matthew 13:58
and his alteration of Mark 10:17-18 in Mathew 19:16-17.
12

4
As stated above, Redaction Criticism begins with the results of source and form criticism.
Differences in source and form critical conclusions will affect the redaction critical approach and
outcome. As a result, multiple presuppositions must be presented. This work will assume the
priority of Mark in the gospel tradition. This assumption is considered in the form of the Farrer
hypothesis. Not only does this hypothesis present the idea of Markan priority, but also asserts
Lukes access to both the Markan and Matthean texts, thus eliminating the need for a
hypothetical Q document. Though this position does not constitute a widely held view, it
functions as a logical and less complex hypothesis concerning the sources for Matthew and
Luke.
Based on the hypothesis presented, form criticism will aid this study. Because this work
asserts a distinction in Lukes use of miracle stories, such a classification must be defined. This
paper observes miracles and miracle stories as two distinct features within biblical literature. The
use of the term miracle denotes any physical or spiritual miraculous event. Given this
definition, even if a miracle occurs, if that miracle does not function as a focus of the narrative,
the narrative does not function as a miracle story. Miracle stories, on the other hand, denote
miraculous events that occur, where the context, agent (in this case Jesus), and the recipient
function as essential components of the narrative. Though some readers may consider this a
minute difference, it is an important distinction for the sake of this discussion. All miracle stories
contain miracles, but not all miracles are contained in miracle stories.
Procedure
This work will begin by responding to prominent theories concerning the great omission.
After this, Lukan miracles stories of Luke will be analyzed in order to determine the similarities
between them. Comparison will then be made with the omitted the pericopae to determine why

5
they have been omitted. Examination will then be made to determine any common characteristics
of the pericopae omitted. Once these common characteristics have been determined, these
pericopae will be compared with those having the same characteristics in Luke to determine the
difference between Marks (and Matthews) and Lukes use of that type of pericope. Finally,
conclusions will be given concerning Lukes redaction of the text.
RESPONSES TO PROMINENT THEORIES CONCERNING THE GREAT OMISSION
Though scholars have presented a number of responses to the great omission, the most
prominent theories are found lacking against the tests of the text and history. As early as 1907,
Benjamin Bacon asserted that such an assertion required proponents of the Proto-Markan theory
to substantiate their arguments in light of the general acceptance of Matthews priority with
regard to Mark.16 The idea that Lukes use of an early, shorter version of Mark is highly unlikely.
Matthew, which was written prior to Luke, contains majority of the information Luke excludes
from the great omission. Though possible, it seems highly improbable that a later author would
utilize an earlier Markan source, while an earlier author somehow obtains an updated version of
the work.
Lukes use of a mutilated Markan manuscript seems unlikely as well. Such an assertion
raises questions concerning Lukes assertion of his care with regard to his sources.17 Lukes
departure from Marks presentation also commences at the end of a story unit and ends at the
beginning of a pericope. Some presentation of the sections concerning traditions and the
Pharisees appear in other sections of Lukes Gospel, demonstrating Lukes access to and
knowledge of this information. This also presents a reasonable response to any idea of Lukes
16

Bacon, The Treatment of Mark, 132.

Lukes prologue contains information where he states he followed all things carefully. His use of the
term is interesting, as this is the only time the word appears in Lukes gospel, but it occurs five times in the
book of Acts. Each time, the term is used to accuracy. Lukes use of a mutilated source would reflect a gross
deficiency in the accuracy Luke gives his research.
17

6
accidental omission of the text, as he incorporates portions of the material into other sections of
his work. This leaves the idea that Luke intentionally omitted this particular material from his
Gospel for a specific purpose.
LUKES PRESENTATION OF JESUS
The beginning of Lukes Gospel lays the foundation for the entire narrative, which
quickly explains who Jesus is (1:3133). This explanation of Jesus overshadows the presentation
of his name, but presents his mission and function in the plan of God. This declaration of the
angel to Mary sends Lukes narrative on a trajectory, noting Jesus as the Son of the Most High
(1:32). No matter ones approach to the outline of Lukes gospel, one portion of his work stands
out from all others (4:169:50).18 This section of his gospel possesses a unique feature. Lukes
miracle stories are concentrated in this portion of his Gospel.19 Along with these miracle stories,
Luke incorporates repeated interjections of questions, declarations, and Old Testament allusions
concerning Jesus identity.20 The questions, interwoven with the narrators and some characters
statements concerning who Jesus is point the reader to Jesus identity, though most characters in
his Gospel exhibit ignorance concerning this.

LUKES USE OF MIRACLES IN PRESENTING JESUS IDENTITY

18

Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God, 321. Kaiser presents a geographic organization to Lukes Gospel. The
use of this outline results from the understanding that Lukes Gospel can be outlined in this fashion and one of the
prominent arguments concerning the great omission pertains to the geographic order of the writing.
19
Other miracle stories exist outside of this section of Luke, but they are very rare.
20
Goulder, Luke, 105. Goulder presents the idea of doubled visions in which Gods will is relayed to two
separate individuals or groups. Luke applies this principle to questions and declarations concerning Jesus identity;
Goodacre, Goulder, 2701. Goodacre explains that if Goulder is correct in his assessment, the phrase doubled
visions functions as too specific a term. Though some accounts occur in pairs, others occur as a series of more than
two. As a result, it seems Goulder is correct in his assessment of Luke concerning the dissemination of knowledge to
multiple groups/people, but Goodacre broadens this concept to more than two, based on other evidences in Luke.

7
The portion of Lukes gospel dedicated to Jesus ministry in Galilee presents the question
Who is Jesus?21 Questions concerning Jesus identity appear in this section of the Gospel
multiple times (e.g. 4:22; 5:21; 7:19-20, 49; 8:25). Noting Lukes use of characters, he presents
questions concerning Jesus identity through various groups of peoplesome specifically
identified, others vaguely presented as the crowds. Along with this idea of questions, Luke
includes various statements, providing answers to this question, at least for the readers. The
following analyses of the texts will present the situations surrounding the questions and answers
concerning Jesus identity.
Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (Luke 4:1630; Mark 1:1-6; Matt. 13:53-58)
Luke presents the people of Jesus hometown of Nazareth as the first group raising
questions concerning Jesus identity. Though the pericope does not function as a miracle story,
its significance lies in the inauguration of Jesus ministry, as well as questions regarding his
identity. Immediately following the Temptation in the Wilderness, where the devil encourages
Jesus to misuse his authority as the Son of God, this account provides the details of the preceding
summary statement concerning Jesus entering Galilee in the power of the Spirit (vv. 1415).
Thus far, Luke has not presented any specific miracles performed by Jesus. This account
provides the reader with Jesus mission. After Jesus reads the scroll and notes his fulfillment of

21

Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 129. Based on Lukes prologue, Kmmel states, The goal
of Lks work was to arouse full confidence in the content of the Christian teaching in the mind of Theophilusand
his readers as a wholethrough the reliable passing on of the narratives. The Book of Acts demonstrates that the
person of Jesus Christ functioned as a focusif not the focusof the early church kerygma; Bock, Luke, 386. Bock
asserts this functions statement functions as the sections basic theological question; Green, Luke, 352. Green
explains that the beginning of Jesus ministry in Galilee brings with it numerous questions concerning his identity;
Strauss, The Davidic Messiah, 252. Strauss notes that Herods question of Jesus identity occurs after he hears about
Jesus activity. He explains that this miracle, as well as the previous miracles in Lukes Gospel, function as a means
by which Luke reveals Jesus; Marshall, Luke, 357. When discussing the feeding of the five thousand, Marshall states
that the incident again raises the question Who is this? Such a statement implies that the question has been raised
prior to this incident; Nolland, Luke, 202, 399. Though Nolland does not make this assertion for the entire section,
he does state that Luke 4:16-30 identifies Jesus and that Luke 8:1-9:20 maintains a firm orientation to the question.
This also becomes apparent based on evaluation of each pericope; For a summary of statements in this portion of his
Gospel concerning Jesus identity, refer to Appendix C.

8
the Isaianic text, the people ask, Is not this Josephs son (v. 22b)? The infancy narrative (1:35),
Jesus genealogy (3:37), and the Temptation (4:3, 9) provide the reader with information noting
Jesus as the Son of God. Luke allows the characters to raise this question, while the readers
observe the characters lack of knowledge concerning Jesus identity.22
Lukes verbiage closely resembles Matthews; the difference appears in Matthews note
of the peoples reference to Jesus as the carpenters son (15:54), as opposed to Josephs son
(Luke 4:22). Mark makes no mention of Joseph, but refers to Jesus as the carpenter and notes
him as the son of Mary. Observing Lukes narrative, it seems logical the first question regarding
Jesus identity would be in relation to Joseph, especially since Luke has already noted the
peoples belief that Jesus is the son of Joseph (3:23). At the same time, readers would already be
aware of the error in the peoples thinking.23
Luke also utilizes this passage to establish a prophetic motif concerning Jesus identity.24
In response to the crowd, Jesus identifies himself with the prophets of Israels history, noting
their lack of acceptance among their people. He mentions specific miracles the Lord performed
among Gentiles through Elijah and Elisha. The miracles performed on behalf of those Jesus
mentions greatly parallel miracles in Jesus own ministry.25 This unfolding of Jesus ministry
reveals Luke compares him with the prophets, but reveals he is greater than the prophets.
The Man with an Unclean Spirit (Luke 4:3137; Mark 1:21-28)
22

Green, Luke, 215; Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 68. Tannehill explains the question itself
demonstrates their limited knowledge, as readers have been repeated informed that Jesus is Gods son.
23
Green, Luke, 215.
24
Croatto, Jesus, Prophet, 455. Croatto explains the text Jesus uses (Isaiah 61) provides description of a
prophet, not a Messiah. He also asserts that conflictthe result of Jesus activityfunctions as a standard result of
prophetic activity. Croatto explains that these statements, along with Jesus references to the miracles of Elijah and
Elisha foreshadow what follows; Siker, First to the Gentiles, 74. Siker argues that the Elijah/Elisha reference
function as the central point of understanding for the entire narrative and that the parallels between the miracles
Jesus performs and those of Elijah/Elisha demonstrate the central nature of Jesus prophetic role to Lukes gospel
and his references to the miracles of those prophets marks the establishment for the miracles that follow.
25
Siker, First to the Gentiles, 74; Miracles in Luke that parallel the works of Elijah and Elisha include
Jesus Healing a Man with Leprosy (5:12-16) and The Raising of a Widows Son at Nain (7:11-17).

9
After Jesus departure from Nazareth, he remains in the region of Galilee, but goes to the
city of Capernaum. Luke explains there is a man in the synagogue who has an unclean demonic
spirit. This story only appears in the gospels of Mark and Luke. Comparing the texts of these
accounts, Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34 maintain virtually identical verbiage. In both accounts, there
is a specific reference Jesus as (the Holy One of God).26 As opposed to
people asking questions concerning Jesus identity, demons declare it. Strangely, the declaration
occurs in a different location than the question was previously asked. Once again, Luke presents
Jesus identity to his readers, while some characters raise questions concerning who Jesus is.27
The Calling of the First Disciples (Luke 5:111; Mark 1:16-20; Matt. 4:18-22)

26

Domeris, The Office, 35. After Jesus mention of the prophets Elijah and Elisha in Nazareth, this
pericope depicts Jesus encountering a man with a demon. The demon references Jesus as . This
reference parallels the reference to Elisha as . He also notes Aaron the priest was
referenced by a similar title; Beale and Carson, Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, 291. Besides those mentioned
by Domeris, Beale and Carson note the reference also parallels a reference to Samson. Provided the multiple
individuals to whom such a title has been attributed, they propose it should not be limited to a single framework.
The previous reference to Elijah and Elisha leads Luke drawing a parallel with Elisha, which appears in later
miracles in Jesus ministry.
27
Luke presents another pericope in this section of his Gospel where Jesus encounters demons. This account appears
in Luke 8:26-39.
When comparing this story to the accounts of Matthew and Mark, Mark and Luke agree against Matthew
concerning the number of people who have demons. Mark and Luke only note one man who has demons (Mark 5:2;
Luke 8:27); Matthew notes two men (Matt. 8:28). Mark and Luke also call the place the country of the Gerasenes
(Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26) as opposed to Matthews country of the Gadarenes (Matt 8:28). No matter the name used to
refer to the location, all three gospels provide details informing the reader that Jesus has departed from the
predominately Jewish region of Galilee. Luke explains the region is opposite Galilee. All three denote the presence
of swine and swine herdsmen, denoting the location as a region highly populated by Gentiles.
As Jesus arrives in the region, a man who has demons approaches him and cries out, What have you to do
with me Jesus, Son of the Most High God (v. 28). Luke presents the demon as declaring Jesus as the Son of God.
The demons request to enter the swine. Jesus agrees. The demons leave the man and enter the swine. All of the
swine run into the sea and drown. The herdsmen tell the people in the city about these things. When the people see
the man who had been delivered, they become afraid and ask Jesus to leave. After Jesus departure Luke mentions
that the man who had been delivered asked if he could go with him. Jesus turned the man away, telling him
(Return to your home, and tell how much God
did for you, v. 39a). Based on the lack of Matthean material it would appear that Luke is using Mark, but edited the
text for his theological purposes. Luke replaces Marks Lord with the term God. If for Marks readers there was
any ambiguity concerning to whom the term Lord referred (God or Jesus), Luke presents the narrative in such
fashion that the term refers to God. Luke again connects Jesus miracles with his identity, for he explains the man
(proclaimed how much Jesus did for him, v. 39b). The replacement of the
term with utilizes parallel phrases to demonstrate Lukes notation that Jesus is God. Though
Geldenhuys (Luke, 257) states that the former demoniac knows Jesus status as the divine Lord, this essay
assertsnot the mans knowledge of Jesus identity, but the narrators knowledge of it.

10
Thus far, Luke has overtly declared Jesus identity. This does not necessitate Luke
always make these declarations in the same manner. This pericope functions as one of Lukes
subtle declarations of Jesus identity and lays the groundwork for later development in Lukes
narrative. This text presents Jesus calling his disciples and performing a miracle leading them to
follow him as disciples.
Though all the gospels contain information concerning the calling of Jesus disciples,
Luke alone places this occurrence within the context of a miraculous event.28 Luke notes Jesus
gets into Peters boat and tells him to push away from the shore. Jesus then teaches those who
were on the shore. After teaching, he tells Simon to cast his net into the deep water. This occurs
after they had cleaned their nets and completed their work for the night (v. 2). Peter explains they
had caught no fish through the night, but because Jesus had told him, he would cast the nets.29
When this happens, they catch such a large number of fish their nets begin to break and
they need aid from others. In response to this, Peter falls before Jesus and proclaims, Depart
from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man (v. 8). Luke notes the amazement Simon and his
companions exhibit. Jesus makes him a fisher of people. In response, Peter, James, and John
leave their belongings and follow Jesus (v. 11b).
Though Peters use of the term might lead some to see this as an overt declaration
of Jesus as divine, readers must understand the term also serves as a term of respect, much like
28

Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 49. Not only does Luke place this event within the context of a miraculous
event, he places the calling of the disciples after miracles Jesus performs. The Matthean and Markan accounts
present the calling of the disciples before Jesus performs any miraculous works. Lukes postponement of the
disciples call for such a context provides some reasonable explanation for what appears to be a sudden departure of
the disciples from their professions and them following Jesus.
29
Talbert, Reading Luke, 5859. Talbert points out the distinct placement of this pericope. Unlike the
accounts in Matthew and Mark, Luke places the calling of these disciples after a series of miracles. Undoubtedly,
Simon had at least heard of Jesus power, based on Jesus healing his mother-in-law (assuming this is the same
person). Talbert explains his recognition of Jesus previous works lead him to obey; The term used to refer to Jesus,
, is a strictly Lukan term in the New Testament. Appearing seven times, Luke only presents the disciples
using this term. Given the context of this story, it seems Lukes use of the term functions anachronistically, as Peter
has not yet been called by Jesus, received any revelation of who Jesus is, nor has he responded to him.

11
people use the term sir today.30 This does not mean the term simply functions as a formality in
this pericope; Peter responds to Jesus and follows him as his disciple. Luke utilizes this miracle
to reveal who Jesus is and this encourages Peter, James, and John to leave all they have and
follow Jesus.31 Admittedly, these disciples do not have a full understanding of who Jesus is, as
they later raise their own questions concerning his identity.
The Healing of a Paralytic (Luke 5:1726; Mark 2:1-12; Matt 9:1-8)
Luke presents the scribes and Pharisees as the second group asking questions about
Jesus identity. In his account of Jesus healing a paralytic, some men bring a paralyzed
individual to Jesus. Though their purpose is the mans healing, Jesus does not begin by
addressing this issue. When the men place the paralytic before Jesus, he declares, Friend, your
sins are forgiven (v. 20). This statement causes a stir among the scribes and Pharisees, and they
ask, Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins except God alone (v. 21)?
This functions as an interesting question, especially since after Luke reports the scribes raising
the question of Who? Luke has changed Marks question of Why? to once again place an
emphasis on Jesus identity (cf. Mark 2:7).32 Matthew reports the scribes as simply declaring
Jesus so-called blasphemy (Matt 9:3).
Despite Matthew's lack of a question, he also uses this pericope to focus on the identity of
Jesus. Mark and Luke exhibit this more vividly than Mathew. This results from their account of
the question Who can forgive sins but God alone? Jesus responds by performing a miracle. He
30

Green, Luke, 233. Contra Nolland, Luke, 222-223. Nolland argues that Lukes use of the term
probably does not reflect the generic use of the term sir, but likely functions as a designation within Lukan
Christology. Though Nollands assertion is possible, there is little to no evidence to support this position; Marshall,
Luke, 204. Marshall also argues against the term simply functioning as sir, but concedes the impossibility of
accurately specifying any connotation for the term.
31
Green, Luke, 233. Though one cannot build an argument of Jesus identity being revealed through the use
of the term , Green explains Lukes structure and presentation parallels the call of Isaiah (Isa 6:110).
Understanding that it is the LORD who calls Isaiah reveals to the reader that in the midst of this miracle, the LORD is
calls Peter, James, and John.
32
Nolland, Luke, 235.

12
explains the purpose behind the miracle is to demonstrate that the Son of Man has the power to
forgive sins (v. 24).33 This action momentarily removes the focus from the healing and places it
on the agent of the healing.34 If those posing the question are correct that only God has the
authority to forgive sins, Jesus does more than heal a man. Luke presents Jesus declaration of
his role as the agent of Gods forgiveness.35
The Man with a Withered Hand (Luke 6:611; Mark 3:1-6; Matt. 12:9-14)
All three evangelists use the story of the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath to show
Jesus as the lord of the Sabbath; they also recount a story of the healing of a man with a withered
hand. Luke follows his sourcesat least Matthew and Mark, but makes a special effort to
connect this pericope with the preceding one. Though all three gospels present the pericopae
consecutively, Luke more explicitly ties this passage to the previous pericope concerning Jesus
as Lord of the Sabbath. While Matthew and Mark note the man with the withered hand being
healed in the synagogue, Luke continues the idea of Jesus being lord of the Sabbath and creates a

33

Nolland, Luke 237. Nolland asserts the text presents an assumption of Jesus identification with the Son
of Man; Marshall, Luke, 215. Marhsall explains that the title Son of Man is a reference to Jesus.
34
Green, Luke, 241-242
35
Luke presents another account very similar to this in Luke 7:36-50. This account appears in the Synopsis
three times (114, 267, and 306). Comparing the accounts, the Matthean and Markan accounts appear to maintain
recognizable similarities between one another where one can reasonably conclude Matthews use of the Markan
tradition. Lukes account appears so foreign to either of these accounts, that it seems he likely utilized another
tradition for this pericopae. If Luke did utilize either Mark or Matthew, this pericope would exhibit the most liberty
than Luke has taken in his entire Gospel in his use of either tradition.
Quite an ambiguous group raises the question previously posed by others. In this episode, Luke gives few
details concerning the setting and those involved. They include location (the house of a Pharisee) and three of the
individuals present (the Pharisee, Jesus, and a sinful woman). A sinful woman discovers Jesus is dining at the home
of a Pharisee named Simon. When she hears this, she goes to the Pharisees house and anoints Jesus feet. During
this time, Simon (the Pharisee) comments to himself concerning Jesus identity, noting if Jesus were a prophet, he
would know who was touching him (v. 39).
Conversely, the man who made a judgment concerning Jesus identity finds himself perplexed regarding
who Jesus is. After the woman anoints Jesus feet, he forgives her sins. Luke explains the people at the table with
Jesus inquired among themselves, Who is this who even forgives sins (v. 49)? The forgiveness of sins, which is
just as greatif not greatera miracle as a physical one, prompts the question of who Jesus is. Unlike the healing
of the paralytic, Luke does not mention a physical healing to qualify Jesus authority to make such a statement. The
readers need no such qualification; they know who Jesus is.

13
stronger connection by adding the words (on another Sabbath, 6:6,
emphasis mine) to the beginning of his pericope.36
Jesus calls a man with a withered hand to stand before the people.37 He then raises the
question of whether or not it is lawful to do good or harm on the Sabbath. From there, he
commands the man to stretch out his hand. At Jesus command the man stretches out his hand at
it is healed. Given the placement of this miracle immediately following the context of Sabbath
provisions, Lukes presentation of Jesus as the lord of the Sabbath becomes quite obvious, at
least for the reader (6:10, cf. 6:5). The Pharisees continue in their blindness and do not
understand Jesus identity, as they plot against him (v. 11).
The Raising of the Widows Son at Nain (Luke 7:1117)
Only Luke includes this story in his gospel. He connects it to the story of the centurion
with the phrase, Soon afterward (v. 11).38 This account presents a widow who has lost her only
son. Though the son is dead and is the one raised, Luke presents the widow as the center of the
story. Jesus commands the man to get up. He gets up and begins to speak. This causes the people
to glorify God, noting Jesus as a great prophet (v. 16).
Readers familiar with the Hebrew Bible (or a translation thereof) would understand this
reference to Jesus as a great prophet, as this pericope maintains strong parallels with the story of

36

Nolland, Luke, 260.

Bock, Luke, 531. Though This man is the recipient of the healing. Bock argues that the man not being
mentioned after the healing takes place reveals the primary characters in this account are Jesus and the Pharisees.
38
Achtemeier, Lucan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus, 549. Readers may question the exclusion of
the story of the centurion. Admittedly, this story does not have a proclamation or question concerning Jesus
identity, so there is temptation to exclude analysis of this text. Though a miracle occurs in the story, Luke provides
no method or action concerning the healing (common aspects of Lukan miracle stories). He does not even provide a
declaration of healing. As a result, Luke makes the focus of the narrative the fact that the centurion could receive a
miraclenot the miracle itself.
37

14
Elijah and the widow at Zarephath (1 Kings 17:1724).39 Contrasting the two accounts, the story
of Elijah demonstrates his limitation in having to ask God to bring life into the child. Jesus, on
the other hand, simply commands the widows son to get up and he comes back to life.40 As a
result, Lukes story declares Jesus as more than a prophet, but as one who gives life to the
dead.41
The Messengers from John the Baptist (Luke 7:1835; Matt. 11:2-19)
Luke presents John the Baptist questioning Jesus identity. The irony of this passage
appears in the very question John sends his disciples to ask Jesus. He asks,
(Are you the one who is coming? v. 19)?42 This question comes from the very individual who
proclaims, (but the one who is mightier than I is coming Luke
3:16). Even Jesus forerunner questions his identity.
Jesus does not respond with words; he responds by healing many and telling Johns
disciples to report to John what they witnessed. Luke 7:2223 and Matthew 11:46 utilize
similar language, lending weight to Lukes use of Matthew for this pericope, especially since
Marks gospel has no record of this account. The actions noted and the message Jesus sends back
to John relate to the Messianic expectations found in both the Isaianic and Qumranic texts.43
Each of Jesus actions signifies the Messianic Age, revealing to John he is the One of whom
John previously spoke. Luke creates a strong association between Jesus performing miracles and

39

Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 50; Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 72. The parallel between this
text and the story of Elijah with the widow at Zarephath seems to be foreshadowed by Jesus words in Luke 4:24
27. This parallelism lays the foundation for various miracles in this section of Lukes writing.
40
Bock, Luke, 652.
41
Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 97. Though this statement asserts Jesus is more than a
prophet, this does not mean that Jesus is not a prophet. Tannehill argues that the title of prophet should not be
rejected, as Jesus himself identifies himself with the prophets (4:24; 13:33) and such an understanding of Jesus in
this way presents a continuity with the Old Testament prophetic tradition which has been reported in the text.
42
Wagner, Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts, 162. Though all three Synoptics present the question, Luke adds a
greater emphasis to the question of Jesus identity by repetition of the question in the next verse.
43
Evans, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 9697.

15
his identity. After this attestation of Jesus identity through signs and wonders, John the Baptist
no longer functions as a character in Lukes narrative.44

The Calming of the Storm (Luke 8:2225; Mark 4:35-41; Matt. 8:23-27)
The disciples appear as the most perplexing group Luke presents posing the question of
Jesus identity. These individuals do not simply follow along with the crowd; they are men Jesus
called to be his apostles (Luke 6:13). Though the disciples have been with Jesus in his ministry,
this account reveals they do not have an understanding of who Jesus really is. While in a boat, a
storm arises. The disciples wake Jesus noting their impending doom. Jesus responds to this by
arising and rebuking the wind and waves. Luke notes the disciples express their question of who
Jesus is.
Luke utilizes both the Markan and Matthean accounts, evidenced by agreements between
Mark and Luke against Matthew (e.g. Luke 8:25, cf. Mark 4:41; Matt. 8:27), as well as
agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (e.g. Luke 8:22, cf. Matt 8:23, Mark
4:36).45 Luke, like Mark, presents the question of Jesus identity. Luke uses Markan language
and notes the disciples asking Who then is this (Luke 8:25; Mark 4:41) as opposed to
Matthews What sort of person is this (Matt 8:27). Though the disparity may appear minute, it

44

Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 235. Unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke does not even record
the death of John the Baptist. He simply no longer plays a role in the narrative.
45
Neirynck, The Minor Agreements, 95-97. For a full listing of agreements between Matthew and Luke
against Mark for this passage, see the cited pages; Contra Nolland, Luke, 397. Nolland acknowledges what he refers
to as minor agreements, but states that these agreements do not allow one to positively speak of a second source
for this pericope. At the same time, it seems highly improbable that Luke would at times follow the same practices
of omission, addition, and alteration (using the same terms as Matthew) without some influence from the Matthean
tradition.

16
presents Mark, and therefore Luke, as using the narrative to focus on Jesus identity, while
Matthew presents the disciples as looking at Jesus as another kind of man.46
Jairus Daughter and the Woman Who Touched Jesus Garment (Luke 8:4056; Mark 5:21-43;
Matt. 9:18-26)
This pericope possesses the unique feature of presenting two stories that are intercalated,
producing a single miracle narrative.47 The structure of this pericope produces difficulty in
analyzing it. Does the story have one focus or two? Is the focus Jairus daughter, the woman,
both, or someone else? Readers begin a story about Jairus daughter; another story about a
woman with a flow of blood interrupts it.
The story of the woman presents not only a physical healing, but a spiritual one. Upon
her healing, Jesus notes power has gone out of his body and someone has touched him. Peter
simply noted the presence of the entire crowd surrounding them, but Jesus insists that power has
gone out of him. Luke replaces Marks (knowing what had happened to
her, 5:33) with (seeing that she was not hidden, 8:47). This change
implies Lukes presentation of the womans desire to remain hidden.48 Though Mark mentions
the woman falling down before Jesus saying what took place, Luke reiterates the details of the
public setting.49 The woman comes forward and tells why she touched Jesus and reports an
instant healing, in everyones presence. This story contains repetition of words found in another
text. Jesus words to this woman parallel his words to the woman in Luke 7:50. Given this
46

Keener, The Spirit, 69; Nolland, Matthew, 372. Nolland explains the distinction between the two forms
of the question presented in the Gospels. He notes Matthews question concerns how to categorize Jesus. He
continues by noting readers familiar with the Old Testament would understand control of nature functioned solely as
an act of God. Such an understanding would guide them toward the correct response.
47
Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus, 128. Latourelle explains that prior to the compositions of the written
Gospels, this pericope likely existed in an intercalated state.
48
Theissen, Miracle Stories, 135.
49
Theissen, Miracle Stories, 135. Theissen notes Lukes addition of the statement, but he has not added any
new information to the story that could not be gleaned from his previous sources. He notes Lukes addition of the
statement emphasizes the womans response to Jesus.

17
repetition of words in the gospel, it seems likely Jesus is noting that she has been saved
because of her faith.50 The one whose identity was questioned because he told the sinful woman
her sins were forgiven told this woman the exact same thing, your faith has saved you (8:40,
cf. 7:50).
The other story in this pericope now comes to the forefront, but at a time when the
situation appears beyond hope. Jairus receives word of his daughters death. The servant then
tells Jairus he should no longer trouble the teacher. William Kurz explains strong parallels exist
between this story and Elishas raising the Shunammites son from the dead (2 Kgs 5:1837).
The private nature of the miracle serves as a prominent feature of both stories. Once again, Luke
calls the reader to recognize Jesus as more than a teacher or even a prophet, but he presents Jesus
as one who has power over death. Though not as explicit as in other pericopae, Luke continues to
use miracles to reveal Jesus identity.
Herods Anxiety (Luke 9:79; Mark 6:14-29; Matt. 14:1-12)
Beyond the realm of townspeople, members of religious sects, and the disciples, Jesus
grabs the attention of government officials. Luke again raises the question of Jesus identitythis
time through Herod the tetrarch. This short pericope connects back to the previous three. Luke
explains Herod heard about all the things taking place (v. 7). Knowing John the Baptist was
dead (an account of which Luke fails to provide), Herod wants to know the identity of this
50

Green, Luke, 349; Nolland, Luke, 420; Geldenhuys, Luke, 261; Contra Marshall, Luke, 346; Contra
Hendricksen, Luke, 459; Contra Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus, 129. Marshall, Hendricksen, and Latourelle
assert that the use of the term is limited to the womans physical condition. Marshall asserts that without the
womans interaction with Jesus after the miracle took place, her cure might have been no more than physical.
Despite this, the only expansion for her cure beyond the realm of a biological transformation is that of her
reassurance that the healing occurred due to her faith in Jesus and not through the means of magic, leaving her with
peaceGods peace. Henricksen and Latourelle echo this approach. Green, Nolland, and Geldenhuys present the
idea that this statement goes far beyond the idea of a physical healing and touches on the idea of spiritual salvation.
Admittedly, of the four times this phrase appears in the Lukan corpus, three of those instances are directly related to
physical healing. Unlike the other two healing episodes, this one contains two words that relate to healing: (v.
47) and . It would appear quite obvious that Luke presenting the womans use of the term relates to her
physical healing. Green notes Jesus use of the term daughter signals her welcome into the family of God. This
induction is due to her faith, thereby noting her salvation.

18
miracle worker about whom he had heard. Though all that was taking place could refer to all
the works Jesus has done thus far, it minimally points to the previous pericope where Jesus sends
out the Twelve. Readers can see that Luke notes Jesus gave them power and authority over all
demons and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).51
Luke uses this passage differently than either Mark or Matthew. Though all three gospels
have this pericope, only Luke presents Herods statement as an interrogative one. While
Matthew and Mark depict Herod stating Jesus was actually John the Baptist returned from the
dead, Luke shows Herod disregarding this idea (by stating his killing John, v. 9) and wanting to
know who Jesus is.52 Once again, Luke has focused this portion of his work on the question of
Jesus identity, presenting a relationship between Jesus miracles and who he is.
The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Luke 9:1017; Mark 6:30-44; Matt. 14:13-21)
The Feeding of the Five Thousand functions as the last miracle story in this section of
Lukes gospel. This is also the last pericope before the ultimate revelation of Jesus identity. In
verse 12, images begin coming together to demonstrate Jesus is the prophet like Moses (cf. Acts
3:22).53 The disciples tell Jesus to disperse the crowd, as the day is ending and people will need
food and lodging. Jesus tells them to give the people food, but they present the dilemma of
limited resources. Jesus takes these limited resources, blesses them, and has the disciples

51

Green, Luke, 361. The authority Jesus gives his disciples parallels the power he demonstrates in the two
previous pericopae, where he heals the Gerasene demoniac (Luke 8:2639) and heals the woman with a flow of
blood and raises Jairus daughter (Luke 8:4056). Given Lukes comment that Herod heard about all that was
happening, the inclusion of Jesus healings in what Herod heard is reasonable. Even if one does not wish to directly
connect these two pericope with what Herod heard, Luke draws unquestionable parallels between Jesus miracles and
the ones he authorized to do those same miracles.
52
Green, Luke, 362. Green note the crucial nature of Herods question for the advancement of Lukes
narrative. This can specifically be seen in Peters declaration of Jesus identity; Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of
Luke-Acts, 214. Tannehill explains that this question establishes the foreground for Peters declaration of Jesus
identity. He uses not only the proximity of the pericope to discuss the significance of the parallels, but the same
terminology in reference to peoples thoughts concerning Jesus identity.
53
OToole, Parallels Between Jesus and Moses, 23.

19
distribute the food. Matthew, Mark, and Luke note all ate and were satisfied (Matt 14:20; Mark
6:42; Luke 9:17).
Unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke points out the people are (in a deserted
place, v. 12). This language produces images of the Exodus (cf. 16:1, LXX). Not only does the
location produce this image, but the food they eat, (bread), also reminds readers of the
Exodus (cf. 16:15, LXX).54 Just as God provided bread in the wilderness for his people in the
original exodus, God through Jesus provides bread for the people in this desolate place.55 Though
this identification with Moses takes place and is repeated in a number of other pericopae, Luke
explicitly notes Jesus is greater than Moses (9:2836).56 Though he has been compared with
John the Baptist, Elijah, and others, Luke points out that Jesus is greater than all of these
individuals and brings his narrative to a point at which humans come to the realization of Jesus
identity.
Peters Declaration about Jesus (Luke 9:1820; Mark 8:27-29; Matt. 16:13-19)
In response to the repeated question, Who is Jesus? Luke provides an answer.57 For the
first time, the readers are not the only ones who receive an answer to the question; the humans in
the text receive an answer as well. The perplexing twist is the source of the questionJesus.
After such a long break with the Markan and Matthean texts, Luke fails to provide
readers with Jesus location. Instead, the pericope opens noting Jesus at prayer. He asks his
54

Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 44. Stronstad explains the miracle in terms of the parallels between
Elijah, Elisha, and Jesus. Instead of the physical location, he focuses in the multiplication of the food, which was
evidenced in the ministry of both Elijah (1 Kgs 17:16) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4:42ff). Admittedly, the passage presents
Jesus like both of these prophets.
55
There appears to be a dual image of Jesus in this situation where he is also presented not only as a
prophet like Moses, but as greater than Moses. In the Exodus, manna came from God to the people, not from Moses.
In this situation, Jesus multiplies the bread and provides it to the people.
56
Green, Luke, 384. Lukes account of the Transfiguration presents Peter suggesting making three tents
dedicated to Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. When the voice comes from the cloud noting Jesus as Gods chosen, the only
one of the three remaining is Jesus. Though the ministry of Jesus has been a lot like Moses and Elijahs, this
narrative clarifies Jesus is greater than both of these individuals who had major roles in Israels history.
57
Bock, Luke, 838.

20
disciples about the discussions surrounding his identity. They report the words of the people.
These answers parallel the responses of the people to Herod (Luke 9:78). Distinguishing the
disciples from the crowds, Jesus asks, But who do you say I am (v. 20a).58 Peter answers, The
Christ of God (v. 20b). What has been announced by the angels (Luke 2:11), presented by the
narrator (Luke 2:26), and even declared by demons (Luke 4:41) has been confirmed with this
answer to the question of Jesus identity. Based on these previous statements in Lukes Gospel,
readers understand the response to be an appropriate one. This episode concludes the
presentation of the question Who is Jesus?59

COMMENTS CONCERNING MATTHEAN/MARKAN EXCLUSIONS

The presentation of the significance of Lukes miracle stories pointing to the identity of
Jesus also requires analysis of the Matthean and Markan texts to demonstrate the pericopae
excluded do not serve the same function as those in Lukes Gospel. The discussion would not do
justice to the topic if some attention were not given to the pericopae of the great omission. This
short examination provides specific reasons as to why these pericopae would have been
excluded. It also provides responses for pericopae that some may not feel meet the criteria of
exclusion.
As noted earlier, Luke centers his miracle stories on the identity of Jesus. Luke makes a
number of explicit notations concerning who Jesus is by way of declarations concerning Jesus
identity, while he presents characters ignorance of who Jesus is. He also presents a number of
modest assertions via texts that parallel the Old Testament. Observations of both the Matthean
58

Marshall, Luke, 366.

Nolland, Luke, 452. Nolland explains that Lukes question of Jesus identity reaches its completion at
this point in the narrative.
59

21
and Markan material indicate that two of the pericopae in this sectionthe Healing of the Sick in
Gennesaret (Matt. 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56) and the Healing of the Deaf and Mute Man (Matt.
15:28-31; Mark 7:31-37)provide no information concerning the identity of Jesus. Two
othersJesus Walking on Water (Matt. 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52) and Syrophoenician Womans
Faith (Matt. 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30)contain no such information concerning Jesus identity in
Marks Gospel but both contain additional information in Matthews Gospel that make some
reference concerning Jesus identity. This raises two questions for readers: (1) Why didnt Luke
use Matthews versions of these two pericopae, since they included references to Jesus
identity? and (2) Why didnt Luke follow Matthews example and add references to Jesus
identity to the pericopae?
A probable answer to the above questions lies in Lukes redaction method. The Gospel of
Luke demonstrates conservative redaction of the sources used in the compilation of the text, if
the sources we are believed to have (Matthew and Mark) inform readers of Lukan redaction
methods.60 Given the conservative nature of Lukes method, the second question should receive
the first response. Luke simply adding material to a Markan or Matthean pericope to convey his
theological message would likely ruin Lukes credibility. Based on Lukes prologue, he is using
multiple sources in his Gospel composition. The closeness with which Luke follows Marks
Gospel demonstrates Lukan dependence on Mark and that any divergence should lead readers to
the question of Lukes use of another source.61

60

Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 138. Kmmel notes Lukes rewording of his sources and
his replacing many foreign terms. Historically, Luke would have written in a different style of Greek than his
sources; he makes subtle changes to verbal forms and terms used, but attempts to closely match his sources. The
changes made for the sake of Lukes composition demonstrate a consideration for the Greek-speaking reader, but his
presentation of Jesus speech preserves the language of his sources to a greater degree than other portions of his
Gospel.
61
Cadbury, Style, 73. Cadbury explains that compared to other ancient writers, Luke follows his sources
(namely Mark) extremely closely. Given Lukes practice, he explains that strong divergence from Mark would
suggest the presence of some other source.

22
With regard to the first question, it is plausible to assert that Luke was ignorant of
Matthews Gospel based on his failure to include declarations concerning Jesus identity in the
accounts of Jesus walking on water and his interaction with the Syrophoenician woman. The
only problem with this idea is that Luke uses multiple other Matthean additions to Markan
pericopae.62 This leads to the conclusion that Luke was aware of Matthews additions, but chose
not to use them. Given Lukes narrative leading to the climax of the question of Jesus identity in
Peters confession, inclusion of these pericopae would ruin this section of the Lukan narrative.
Throughout this section of Luke, no human makes a declaration of Jesus status; this information
has only come from demons and the narrator.63
Readers of Marks and Matthews gospels must admit the Feeding of the Four Thousand
has strong parallels with the exodus motif and present Jesus as the eschatological prophet like
Moses. Such an acknowledgement requires an assessment of why Luke would exclude this
pericope from his gospel. If Luke placed the pericope in Markan order after eliminating the
others, he would have one feeding story immediately following another.64 Given the strong
similarities between the pericopae, this inclusion would not provide Lukan readers with
additional information concerning Jesus identity. Regarding Lukes placement of the story in
another section of his Gospel, a reading of Lukes gospel does not really present another location
for the placement of this parable.
CONCLUSIONS

62

Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, 180-181. Goodacre also provides a sample list of these uses.
For a summary, please see Appendix D.
64
van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 619-620. van der Loos explains that the similarities between the
accounts and the unlikely nature of the disciples forgetting the results of the first feeding so quickly supports the
idea that these are actually two forms of the same account. If Luke, based on his research, is aware of this, there
would be no reason for him to include this account in his gospel.
63

23
The analyses of the miracle narratives in Lukes portion of his gospel focusing on Jesus
ministry in Galilee (Luke 4:169:50) reveals Luke uses miracle narratives in this section of his
work to present his readers with information concerning Jesus identity. This study also notes
Luke utilizes a number of methods for presenting this information; questions, declarations, and
Old Testament allusions are among the most common. Given Lukes use of his sources, it
becomes apparent that he has some foundational basis for the changesadditions, changes in
languages, and even omissionshe makes to the text. Sometimes this is an issue of grammar and
style. At other times, he utilizes these changes based on the intent of his writing.
Lukes intent to focus on the person of Jesus and utilize miracles as corroborating
evidence of his identity explains why the great omission exists. Luke excludes the miracle
narratives that do not signify who Jesus is. Though he shifts some episodes in his narrative, it
seems unlikely these miracle stories would have fit into his structure, as all the miracle narratives
of Luke point to Jesus identity. Therefore, students of the Gospels should not see Lukes
omission of this large amount of text as an accident or the result of fragmented documents.
Instead, readers should recognize the genius exhibited by the author in compiling a work with
intent of communicating a distinct message to the anticipated audience.

24
Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J. The Lucan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary Sketch.
Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 54762.
Bacon, Benjamin W. The Treatment of Mk. 6:148:26 in Luke. Journal of Biblical Literature
26 (1907): 13250.
Bauckham, Richard. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Beale, G. K. and D. A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Blomberg, Craig L. The Gospels for Specific Communities and All Christians In The Audience
of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, edited by
Edward W. Klink, III, 11133. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010.
Bock, Darrell. Luke. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994.
Bornkamm, The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew. In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew,
52-57. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
Brown, John. An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark. JBL 78 (1959) 215-227.
Cadbury, Henry Joel. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambridge: Harvard University,
1920.
Croatto, J. Severino. Jesus, Prophet like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher like Moses in Luke-Acts.
Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 45165.
Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988.
Domeris, William. The Office of the Holy One. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 54
(1986): 3538.
Evans, Craig. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4. In Eschatology,
Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter Flint. 91100.
Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1997.
France R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

25
Geldenhuys Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. The New London Commentary on the
New Testament. London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1961.
Goodacre, Mark S. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic, 1996.
Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. New York, NY: T & T
Clark, 2001.
Goulder, Michael D. Luke: A New Paradigm. 2 vols. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1989.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.
Guelich, Robert. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 2002.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1990.
Hendricksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. New Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts to
Contemporary Christians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
Kaiser, Walter. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
Keener, Craig. The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1997.
Kmmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Howard Clark Kee.
17th ed. New York: Abingdon Press, 1975.
Kurz, William. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1993.
Latourelle, Ren. The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles. Translated by Matthew J.
OConnell. New York: Paulist, 1988.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

26
McKnight, Scot, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels. Guides to New Testament Exegesis. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Neirynck, Frans, ed. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark with a
Cumulative List. Louven: Louven University, 1974.
Nolland, John. Luke 1:1-9:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 2002.
Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
OToole, Robert F. The Parallels Between Jesus and Moses. BTB 20 (1990) 22-29.
Osborne G. R. Redaction Criticism. In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: 662-668.
Richardson, Alan. The Miracle-Stories of the Gospels. London, England: SCM, 1941.
Sanday, W., ed. Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. Oxford: Clarendon, 1911.
Siker, Jeffrey S. First to the Gentiles: A Literary Analysis of Luke JBL 111 (1992) 73-90.
Strauss, David. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan
Christology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995.
Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: MacMillan and Co., 1924.
Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984
Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke. New York, NY: Crossroads, 1982.
Tannehill, Robert. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991.
Theissen, Gerd. The Miracle Stories of Early Christian Tradition. Edited by John Riches.
Translated by Francis McDonagh. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983.
Thielman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.
van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 1965.
Wagner, J. Ross. Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread. In Early Christian
Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, edited by Craig

27
A. Evans and James A. Sanders, 15478. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1997.