[1] Klostermann, Erich, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; 3rd edition; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975), p. 227;Google Scholarcf. Plummer, Alfred, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Luke (ICC: Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1922), p. 528;Google ScholarGeldenhuys, Norval, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), p. 603;Google ScholarLagrange, M.-J., Evangile selon Saint Luc (Paris: Gabalda, 1941), p. 585.Google Scholar

[2] Cf. b. Sanh. 43a.Google Scholar

[3] Käser, W., ‘Exegetische und theologische Erwägungen zur Seligpreisung der Kinderlosen Lc 23:29b’, ZNW 54 (1963), pp. 240–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[4] Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 37, 115–16.Google Scholar

[5] Käser, W., ‘Exegetische und theologische Erwägungen’, pp. 241–4.Google Scholar

[6] Taylor, Vincent, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke (SNTS 19;Cambridge: University Press, 1972), p. 90;Google Scholarcf. Rehkopf, F., Die lukanische Sonderquelle, Ihr Umfang and Sprachgebrauch (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1959);Google ScholarJeremias, J., ‘Perikopen-Umstellungen bei Lukas?’, NTS 4 (1958), pp. 115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[7] Holtzmann, H.J., Die Synoptiker (HCNT I.1; Tübingen: C. B. Mohr, 1901), p. 482;Google ScholarGrundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1971), p. 249;Google ScholarKlostermann, Erich, Das Lukasevangelium, p. 227.Google Scholar

[8] Käser, W., ‘Exegetische und theologische Erwägungen’, pp. 247–53.Google Scholar

[9] Klostermann, Erich (Das Lukasevangelium p. 227) calls it a ‘prophetische Drohwort’.Google Scholar

[10] Dalman, Gustaf, Jesus-Jeshua (New York: KTAV, 1971), p. 193.Google Scholar

[11] Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 430;Google Scholarand Danker, F. W., Jesus and the New Age (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1972), pp. 236–7.Google Scholar

[12] Klostermann, Erich, Das Lukasevangelium, p. 227;Google ScholarGrundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 429.Google Scholar

[13] Most recently in Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of St. Luke (London: Faber and Faber, 1960), pp. 134 and 199;Google Scholarbut this is an old observation, found frequently in German commentaries, see Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 429.Google Scholar

[14] Kodell, Jerome, ‘Luke's Use of LAOS, “People”, especially in the Jerusalem Narrative (Lk. 19, 28–34,53)’, CBQ 31 (1969), p. 328.Google Scholar

[15] The cogency of reading Lk. 23. 13 as a statement that ‘the people’ joined their leaders in rejecting Jesus is weakened in the light of the suggestion of Rau, G. [‘Das Volk in der lukanischen Passionsberichte: eine Konjektur zu Lk 23:13’, ZNW 56 (1965), pp. 41–51] that τοùς ᾅρχονταςκαì τόν λαòν is a corruption of the original text τούς ᾅρχοντας τòū; Rau cites appropriate textual variants in support of his suggestion. If this is correct, then in Lk. 23. 27 ‘the people’ are clearly distinguished from the ‘Daughters of Jerusalem’ who are harshly addressed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[16] For further discussion of the Lucan tendency in dealing with Israel and ‘the people’ in the post-resurrection period, see Jervell, Jacob, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 41–55;Google ScholarGeorge, Augustin, ‘Israël dans l'oeuvre de Luc’, RB 75 (1968), pp. 499–506;Google ScholarCrowe, Jerome, ‘The LAOS at the Cross: Luke's Crucifixion Scene’, The Language of the Cross (ed. Lacomara, A., Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1977), pp. 79–80, 88–90.Google Scholar

[17] Johnson, Luke T., The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBL Dissertation Series 39; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 115–21; Kodell, ‘Luke's Use of LAOS’, p. 340.Google Scholar

[18] Cf. note 3 above. The linguistic basis for this, of course, is the common reference in the OT to ‘daughters of Zion’ (Pss. 9. 14; 72. 28; 96. 8; Ezek. 16. 55; Micah 1. 13; 4. 8, 10;Zeph. 3. 14; Zech. 2. 10; 9. 9; Isa. 1. 8; 10. 32; 35. 22; and Jer. 6. 2, 23; 46. 19); one finds similar expressions in regard to Babylon, cf. ‘daughters of Babylon’ (Ps. 136. 8; Jer. 50. 52; Zech. 2. 7), or ‘daughter of Egypt’ (Jer. 46. 24), ‘daughter of Edom’ (Lam. 4. 21–22), ‘daughter of Moab’ (Isa. 16. 2; Jer. 48.4).Google Scholar

[19] Cf. Isa. 1. 8; 10. 32; Micah 4. 10; Jer. 6. 2, 23.Google Scholar

[20] Judgment is repeatedly pronounced against Jerusalem, part of which material Luke accepts from Q (11. 47–51; 13. 33–35) and from Mark (20. 16, 18; 21. 6), but the bulk of which is unique to Luke (19. 41–44; 21. 20–24; 23. 27–31 and Acts 7. 51–53).Google Scholar

[21] Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 417: Danker, F. W., Jesus and the New Age, p. 229.Google Scholar

[22] It is not my contention that Luke simply created 23. 28 on his own, for there is ample evidence that such expressions are commonplaces on the lips of persons going to death; see Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, p. 193; Grundmann, W., Das Lukasevangelium, p. 227. But by citing Jer. 9. 17–22, I suggest a parallel nearer to what I consider Luke's intention, viz., to employ a prophetic judgment oracle against Jerusalem.Google Scholar

[23] See Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 430; Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegeticat Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 529.Google Scholar

[24] Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, pp. 529–30;Google Scholar cf. Thompson, G. H. P., The Gospel According to Luke (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), p. 270.Google Scholar

[25] Danker, F. W., Jesus and the New Age, p. 237.Google Scholar

[26] See b., Moed Katan 25b: Seder Elijahu R. 14; b. Sanh. 93a; Klostermann, E., Das Lukas Evangelium, p. 228.Google Scholar

[27] The contrast between ‘in the green wood’ and ‘in the dry’ implies that the former situation is somehow explanable, which is just what Acts 3. 17 says when it notes that they acted in ignorancewhen they rejected Jesus. But with the subsequent rejection of Peter's and Paul's preaching, the situation is inexplicable, seasoned, dead, ripe for judgment. Cf. Luke, Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, p. 117.Google Scholar

[28] See Strack-Billerbeck, II. 263–4.Google Scholar

[29] Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 529.Google Scholar

[30] The larger context of ch. 13 supports the observation that Luke's editorial hand is at work; the chapter deals with guilt, repentance and retribution: guilty inhabitants of Jerusalem are punished(13. 4–5); the failure to accept Jesus (which is what ‘un-repentance’ means here) brings judgment by fire (13. 6–9); the urgency to repent (i.e., accept God's message in Jesus) runs all through the passage (13. 3, 5, 8, 24–27). Hence, Jerusalem's guilt in 13. 33–34, its rejection of messengers of repentance (13. 34) and its judgment are part of the larger message of Luke at this point.Google Scholar

[31] Sukka, b. 53a; cf. Abot R. Nat. U;Mek. Tractate Bahodesh XI on Ex. 20. 24Google Scholar

[32] For more on this type of discourse, see Käsemann, Ernst, ‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament’, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969), pp. 66–81.Google Scholar

[33] Cf. Is. 3.26 LXX; Ezek. 31. 12; Nah. 3. 10. Every time έδαφιζεīν is used in the LXX, it signals the ruin of a city (Samaria or Jerusalem) as the object of divine judgment. The noun, ἒδαφος is used in Josephus to refer to the razing of a city to the ground (Vita 99; Ant. V. 248; IX. 41; X. 126, 144; XII. 383; XIII. 215), but only once does he use it in the context of children dashed to the ground (BJ V. 433) and it is done by Jerusalem's own inhabitants during the terrible famine. The proper background, then, is the LXX, in regard to judgment against Jerusalem (cf. also Pss. Solomon 2. 19 and 17. 22).Google ScholarDodd, C. H. [The Fall of Jerusalem and the “Abomination of Desolation”’, JRS 37 (1947), pp. 47–54] argued that έδαφιζεīν cannot come from Josephus’ description of Jerusalem's fall, since he does not mention this horror although he seems to omit no other even in the gruesome ruin of the city.Google Scholar

[34] Cf. Bentzen, Aage, Introduction to the Old Testament (2nd edition, Copenhagen: Gad, 1952), pp. 199–200;Google ScholarGemser, G., ‘The Rîb or Controversy Pattern in Hebrew Mentality’, Wisdom In Israel and the Ancient Near East (VT Sup. 3; ed. Noth, M.; Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 128–33;Google ScholarHuffmon, Herbert B., ‘The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets’, JBL 78 (1959), pp. 285–95.Google ScholarHarvey, Julien, Le Plaidoyer Prophetique Contre Israel Apres La Rupture de L'Alliance (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1967);Google ScholarLimburg, James, ‘The Root and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches’, JBL 88 (1969), pp. 291–304;Google Scholarand Blenkinsopp, Joseph, ‘The Prophetic Reproach’, JBL 90 (1971), pp. 267–78.Google Scholar

[35] Cf. Klostermann, E., Das Lukasevangelium, pp. 202–3Google Scholar

[36] Lk. 18. 31 and 24. 26–27, 44–45 do not specify what texts are appropriate to explain Jesus' death and resurrection ‘according to the Scriptures’. The problem is similar in regard to 21. 22, except that Luke's own report of the coming judgment is phrased in such a way as to appeal, at least allusively, to OT passages and traditions which already speak of Jerusalem' s ruin. He has notleft us as empty-handed here as he has with regard to Jesus' death. Cf. Micah 3. 12; 1 Kg. 9. 7–9 and Dan. 9. 26. C. H. Dodd's investigation of this passage (‘The Fall of Jerusalem and the “Abomination of Desolation”’) examined the military and other terms used in Lk. 19. 43–44 and 21. 20–24 and excluded Josephus or some other contemporary source as the well of Luke's description; rather, he argued, the descriptions of encirclement etc. are to be explained via Luke's use of the LXX. His conclusion seems accurate and therefore I repeat it here: ‘It appears then that not only are the two Lucan oracles (19:41–44; 21:20– 24) composed entirely from the language of the Old Testament, but the conception of the coming disaster which the author has in mind is a generalized picture of the fall of Jerusalem as imaginatively presented by the prophets. So far as any historical event has colored the picture, it is not Titus’ capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but Nebuchadrezzar's capture in 586 B.C. There is no single trai t in the forecast which cannot be documented directlyout of the Old Testament.’ (p. 52).Google Scholar

[37] Of course, Deut. 32.35 (έν ήμέρα έκδ;ικήσεως άνταποδώσω) would serve just as well, as would Jer. 26. 10; 27. 31 (cf. Sirach 5. 7; Ezek. 9. 1); and that might just be the point here - Luke alludes to a sure prophetic tradition of judgment.Google Scholar

[38] No crime is cited in 21. 20–24, but it is surely implied if the coming days are truly ‘days of retribution’ and ‘wrath on this people’. At this point in the narrative the audience has been repeatedly told of Jerusalem's crime of killing the prophets and rejecting God's visitation of salvation.Google Scholar