^{page 184 note 1} Among the principal works in this area are the following: Hans, Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke, translated by Geoffrey, Buswell (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Ernst, Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (tenth edition; ‘Meyer Kommentar’; Göttingen, 1956)Google Scholar; and O'Neill, J. C., The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (London, 1961)Google Scholar. For a brief summary of this redaktionsgeschichtlich trend in Lucan studies, see Oliver, H. H.Google Scholar, ‘The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts’, N. T. S. X (1964), 203–5.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} English translation, The Theology of St Luke.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 3} Conzelmann, , op. cit. pp. 22 f.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 4} Ibid. p. 172 n. 1.

^{page 184 note 5} In his attempt to uncover the Third Evangelist's peculiar theological stance, Conzelmann rightly concentrates upon those sections of the Lucan Gospel which preserve St Luke's redaction of his Marcan source. Yet one must still grapple with the question why St Luke prefaces this redaction with the infancy traditions.

^{page 185 note 1} Oliver, , op. cit. p. 215.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Oliver, , op. cit. p. 203, pp. 216 f.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 3} Ibid. pp. 224 f.

^{page 185 note 4} Those scholars who emphasize the importance of the Spirit for St Luke include the following: Conzelmann, , op. cit. pp. 173–84Google Scholar; Oliver, op. cit. 224–6Google Scholar; Anderson, Hugh, Jesus and Christian Origins (New York, 1964), pp. 253–61Google Scholar; Lampe, G. W. H., ‘The Holy Spirit in the Writings of Luke’, Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford, 1955), pp. 159 f.Google Scholar, and ‘The Lucan Portrait of Christ’, N.T.S. II (1956), 160 f.Google Scholar, Schweizer, Eduard, Spirit of God, translated by Harvey, A. E. (Bible Key Words from Gerhard Kittel's Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament’, vol. IX; London; 1960), pp. 36–54Google Scholar; Schubert, Paul, ‘The Structure and Significance of Luke 24’, Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Berlin, 1954), pp. 165–86.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 5} Lampe, , ‘The Holy Spirit in the Writings of Luke’, op. cit. p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 6} Insofar as this study of the spirit-motif in Luke i–ii describes the role of the theme in the text as it now stands, it attempts to be independent of any particular source theory relative to the birth narratives. For recent source research, consult Oliver, , op. cit. pp. 205 f.Google Scholar Also see Wilson, R. McL., ‘Some Recent Studies in the Lucan Infancy Narrative’, Studia Evangelica, edited by Aland, Kurt et al. (‘Texte and Untersuchungen’, vol. LXXM; Berlin, 1959), pp. 235–53.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} This does not imply the acceptance of Conzelmann's thesis at every point. In particular, it is a moot question when the Epoch of Jesus’ Ministry begins and ends or the Epoch of the Church begins. We have not had access to the recent critical examination of many of Conzelmann's theses by Robinson, William C. Jr, Der Weg des Herrn: Studie zur Geschichte und Eschatologie im Lukas-Evangelium, Ein Gespräch mit Hans Conzelmann (Hamburg-Bergstedt, 1964Google Scholar). It is significant, however, that reviewer Waetjen, Herman C. states: ‘What is lacking in Robinson's study and still awaiting indictment is Conzelmann's broader construction of a Heilsgeschichte scheme in Luke-Acts which divides history into three distinct epochs’, J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), 301.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Conzelmann, , op. cit. pp. 16, 20 f.Google Scholar, 25 f., 40, 101, 112 f., 160 f.

^{page 186 note 3} Oliver, , op. cit. p. 226.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 4} See the comments by Creed, J. M., The Gospel According to St Luke (London, 1930), p. II.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} Ibid. p. 20.

^{page 187 note 2} Oliver, , op. cit. p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} For examinations of the possible background of the notion of virginal conception, consult Schweizer, , op. cit. pp. 32–3Google Scholar, and Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London, 1947), PP. 5–24.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 4} In listing the references to the Holy Spirit in Luke i–ii, Oliver overlooks this passage ( op. cit. p. 224).Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 1} Schweizer, , op. cit. p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 2} For a more detailed analysis of the structure of Luke i–ii, along with several alternative solutions to the question, consult Laurentin, Pere Rene, Structure et Thdologie de Luc I–II (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1957), pp. 23 f.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} The importance of the Spirit-motif in this regard has been fully recognized by Chevallier, Max-Alain, L’Esprit et le Messie daps le Bas-Judaisme at le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1958), p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} Conzelmann, , op. cit. p. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} Ibid. p. 24.

^{page 190 note 1} For the Old Testament and rabbinic understandings of the Holy Spirit and their proximity to the view of the Spirit of prophecy in the Lucan birth accounts, see Schweizer, , op. cit. pp. I f.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 2} Robinson, James M., The Problem of History in Mark (‘Studies in Biblical Theology’: Naperville, III., 1957), PP. 21–32.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} References to the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of Luke (excluding Luke i–ii) make it clear that the Spirit relates itself only to Jesus during his ministry. These references are of four kinds: (a) the saying of John the Baptist (iii. 16); (b) the sayings of Jesus about the Spirit (xi. 13; xii. 10, 12; xxiv. 49); (c) the quotation of Isaiah by Jesus (iv. 18); and (d) the editorial comments in the narrative sections (iii. 22; iv. 1 (bis), 14; X. 21).

^{page 191 note 2} Schweizer, , op. cit. p. 37Google Scholar, n. 1.

^{page 191 note 3} The messianic hope of Israel included the expectation that the Messiah would in some sense possess the Spirit of God. Schweizer, , op. cit. p. II.Google ScholarChevallier, , op. cit. p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 4} Schweizer, , op. cit. p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 5} Oliver, , op. cit. p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 6} Schweizer, , op. cit. p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} But it does suggest that outside of its function in Luke i–ii, the virgin birth is of little importance to St Luke. If it were of great importance, one would certainly expect to find it mentioned in some of the speeches in Acts.

^{page 193 note 1} As noted at the beginning of this paper, Hans Conzelmann maintains that Luke i–ii preserve a theology different in many respects from the rest of Luke-Acts: themes present in the former are contradicted or suppressed in the latter. For instance, beyond Luke i–ii Mary is pushed further into the background than in the other synoptics; and John is no longer presented as the Elijah-like messianic precursor. Yet if St Luke begins his narration with the nativity stories in order to portray the Epoch of Israel, one might expect him to suppress certain themes in the presentation of the Epoch of Jesus’ ministry which are more appropriate in that earlier Epoch, namely Mary as the mother of the Jew Jesus and John as the Elijah-like messianic forerunner.

^{page 193 note 2} Although St Luke's portrayal of the Epoch of Israel is not as panoramic as his exposition of the Epoch of the Church, his method of presentation is quite similar, i.e. in both instances he strings together a series of dramatic scenes. This similarity has been noted by Professor Oliver, , op. cit. p. 204.Google Scholar For this procedure in Acts, consult Haenchen, , op. cit. pp. 96–102.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 1} Alluding to Malachi, iv. 5Google Scholar, each of these passages suggests that John will prepare the way of the Lord (ò κ⋯ριος). Certainly the primary reference in each passage is to the Lord God of Israel. But Père René Laurentin has convincingly demonstrated how the Old Testament texts concerned with the Lord God tend to be applied to the Lord Jesus in Luke i–ii, op. cit. p. 88.Google Scholar That St Luke would have also seen in these passages references to the Lord Jesus is quite probable; for he alone among the synoptic evangelists frequently speaks of Jesus in narrative sections as‘ the Lord’ (ò κ⋯ριος). For examples, see Luke, vii. 13, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 2} The Gospel According to St Luke (‘Harper's New Testament Commentaries’; New York, 1958), p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 3} Seven times ’λσραήλ appears in these two chapters (i. 16, 54, 68, 80; ii. 25, 32, 34); and once όυ οικου ’ιακώβ appears (i. 33). Also, λαός is employed at least four times with reference to Israel as God's people (i. 17, 68, 77; ii. 32).

^{page 195 note 1} While many students of Luke i–ii (Such as Père Lauren, , op. cit. pp. 12f.Google Scholar) attribute its Semitic style to the original Aramaic or Hebrew sources which underlie the present Greek text, others (notably Père Benoit, , ‘L'Enfance de Jean-Baptiste selon Luc i’, N.T.S. III (1957), 169–94Google Scholar) believe that Luke consciously imitates the Septuagint.

^{page 195 note 2} Luke i–ii, therefore, play a role in the Lucan writings which differs considerably from the role Matthew i–ii play in the First Gospel. For instance, Professor Krister Stendahl suggests that the First Evangelist uses the traditions in his first two chapters to answer two questions about Jesus—Who? and From Where?: ‘Quin et Unde? An Analysis of Mt. 1–2’, Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, edited by Eltester, Walther (Berlin, 1960), pp. 94–105.Google Scholar