¹ ‘St Luke's Gospel and the Last Chapters of 1 Enoch’, N.T.S. 13 (1966) 1–13.Google Scholar

² The fragmentary papyrus begins with 97. 6; see Campbell, Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (SD 8; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968 reprint of 1937 edition).Google Scholar

³ Cf., e.g., T. Naphtali 8. 1; T. Asher 1. 2; Tobit 4. 20, 12. 11 S; Dan (ó) 9. 23, 10. 14, 21, 11. 2.

⁴ I Enoch 10. 9 Ps. Sol. 12. 6, 15. 12–13; see also Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 272.Google Scholar

⁵ Aalen, ‘Gospel’, p. 6; see Georg, Bertram, ‘ψος, κτλ’, T.D.N.T. 8 (1972), 617–18.Google Scholar

⁶ For closer parallels to the usage in Luke 20. 38 cf. 4 Macc. 7. 19, 16. 25 (cited by Aalen, ‘Gospel’, p. 7) and Herm. Man. passim.

⁷ Luke 12. 5, 13. 3, 5.

⁸ This appears to be the theory propounded by Aalen in his additional note, ‘Gospel’, p. 13.

⁹ The righteous are usually οí δíκαιοι, and four times εσεβεīς; in Eth. uniformly sādeqān. The sinners are usually οí μαρτωλοí, and three times ⋯δικοι; in Eth. always hāte' ān.

¹⁰ On the textual problems in these passages see Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jr, ‘Enoch 97–104: A Study of the Greek and Ethiopic Texts’, Armenian and Biblical Studies (ed. Stone, Michael E.; SionSup I; Jerusalem: St James Press, 1976): On 99. 2, p. 94, n. 23Google Scholar; on 98. 15, p. 107; on 98. 9, p. 93.

¹¹ On this persecution and oppression, see, e.g., 95. 7, 96. 8, 99. 11, 15, 100. 8, 102. 9, 103. 9–15.

¹² This paragraph is a summary of my article, ‘The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Enoch 92–105’, C.B.Q. 39 (1977), 309–28.Google Scholar

¹³ On the text of this passage see Nickelsburg, ‘Enoch 97–104’, p. 129.

¹⁴ On the text of this line see Ibid. pp. 95–6. The first two lines follow the Greek with the word, ‘of sin’, emended from Eth. ad sensum.

¹⁵ 4QEn^g 1 4. 14. Cf. also T. Levi 2. 3.

¹⁶ Eth.: watesateyu hāyla šerwa naqe' = ‘and drink the strength of the root of the fountain’, an obvious corruption. Charles emends a presumed Hebrew corruption, to (‘drink wine in large bowls’), after Amos 6. 6, APOT, ad loc. My emendation accepts a corruption of to and suggests a corruption in Greek, with a form of κρατηíειν read as χρ⋯τη ρíης. On the verb κρατηρíειν, ‘to drink from the krater’, see Liddell–Scott–Jones, s.υ.

¹⁷ On the text of this line see Charles, R. H., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), p. 239.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See the discussion of I Enoch 102. 4–104 below.

¹⁹ Cf. 97. 4, 7, 99. 3, 104. 1.

²⁰ On the text of this passage see Nickelsburg, ‘Enoch 97–104’, pp. 93, 112–13.

²¹ Aalen, ‘Gospel’, pp. 4–5.

²² On the text see Nickelsburg, ‘Enoch 97–104’, pp. 97–8.

²³ On the structure and argument of this passage see Nickelsburg, ‘Apocalyptic Message’, pp. 318–22, and before that, idem, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Interiestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge/London: Harvard/Oxford, 1972), pp. 114–20.Google Scholar

²⁴ On the text of this passage see Nickelsburg, ‘Enoch 97–104’, pp. 125–6.

²⁵ See the discussion of Luke 16. 9 below.

²⁶ Nickelsburg, ‘Apocalyptic Message’, pp. 325–6.

²⁷ See Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 357.Google Scholar

²⁸ For this strophic arrangement see Tannehill, Robert C., ‘The Magnificat as Poem’, J.B.L. 93 (1974), 267–8. On the probable connection between υ. 50b and υ. 51bGoogle Scholar see Brown, Raymond E., The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), p. 362Google Scholar, who also accepts this strophic arrangement.

²⁹ Ibid. p. 363.

³⁰ Tannehill (‘Magnificat’, p. 267) speaks of a ‘triangular tension’ involving the humble, the mighty God, and the oppressive rulers of the world. For a similar analysis of the Enochic Woes see Nickelsburg, ‘Apocalyptic Message’, p. 311.

³¹ The connection in this passage between money/material goods and the formula, ‘what shall we do’ (on which see below) was pointed out to me by my colleague, Barry Crawford.

³² Georg, Strecker, ‘Les macarismes du discours sur la montagne’, L'Évangile selon Matthieu (ed. Didier, M.; BETL 29; Gembloux; J. Duculot, 1972), pp. 193–5, 197–8.Google Scholar

³³ Cf also Luke 1. 14, 47, 2. 10, 13. 17, 15. 5, 7, 10, 32, 24. 41, 52, as well as 10. 20, on which cf. 1 Enoch 104. 1 and Aalen, ‘Gospel’, p. 7.

³⁴ For a similar use of the aphorism cf. Tobit 7. 9–11. The failure of Gos. Thomas 63 to convey this irony speaks for the secondary character of that logion.

³⁵ Cf. Wis. 1–6, where the wicked bring on their own annihilation by espousing a hedonistic philosophy on the grounds that death is annihilation; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, p. 67.

³⁶ See, e.g., Charles, R. H., APOT 2, 268.Google Scholar

³⁷ Aalen, ‘Gospel’, p. 5.

³⁸ Sir. 11 is cited by Scott Easton, Burton, The Gospel according to Luke (New York: Scribner's, 1926), p. 200Google Scholar; Creed, John Martin, The Gospel according to St Luke (London: Macmillan, 1953 reprint), p. 173Google Scholar; and Duncan, J., Derrett, M., ‘The Rich Fool: A Parable of Jesus Concerning Inheritance’, HeyJ 18 (1977), 145.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. also Eccl. 5.,18–6. 6.

⁴⁰ Cf. also Eccl. 6. 2.

⁴¹ The idea of greed may be indicated by the noun, σφιγγíα; cf. Liddell–Scott–Jones, p. 1741. However, in general Ben Sira is more ambiguous on riches than is 1 Enoch. Cf. chapters 12–13 and Tcherikover, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (E.T. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959), pp. 145–51, 258–9.Google Scholar

⁴² Cf., however, Sir. 11. 26.

⁴³ See Nickelsburg, ‘Apocalyptic Message’, pp. 326–8.

⁴⁴ Cf. Luke 10. 26–9, 14. 7–14, 15. 1–2.

⁴⁵ According to Derrett (‘The Rich Fool’, pp. 143–5), the rich fool's failure to share his goods is essential to the meaning of the parable itself, apart from υ. 21, which he considers to be Lukan, Ibid. p. 147.

⁴⁶ Gospel of Thomas 72 parallels υ. 14 but lacks a counterpart to υ. 15.

⁴⁷ Rudolf, Bultmann, ‘μεριμ⋯ω’, T.D.N.T. 4 (1967), 591 n. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For this appeal to nature cf. 1 Enoch 101 and 1 Enoch 2. 1–5. 3, on which it is based.

⁴⁹ Cf., e.g., Tobit 4. 9, Sir. 29. 11, 4 Ezra 7. 77, 8. 33; 2 Bar. 14. 12, 24. 1; Ps. Sol. 9. 5 (9); cf. Rom. 2. 5; James 5 3.

⁵⁰ Cf. Tobit 4. 6–11; James 5. 1–3.

⁵¹ Creed, Luke, p. 175.

⁵² Again cf. Tobit 4. 6–11 and the general emphasis on alms-giving in that book.

⁵³ See the summary and discussion by Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ‘The Story of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16. 1–13)’, T.S. 25 (1964), 26–30Google Scholar, reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 165–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Hauck, F., ‘μαμωνας’, T.D.N. T. 4 (1967), 389–90Google Scholar; and Duncan, J., Derrett, M., ‘Fresh Light on St Luke XVI: I. The Parable of the Unjust Steward’, N.T.S. 7 (1960–1961), 218 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ These friends are most likely the beneficiaries of one's charity; see Hiers, Richard H., ‘Friends by Unrighteous Mammon: The Eschatological Proletariat (Luke 16. 9)’, J.A.A.R. 38 (1970), 33–4Google Scholar. Less likely they are the personification of almsdeeds: Williams, Francis E., ‘Is Almsgivng the Point of the “Unjust Steward”?’, J.B.L. 83 (1964), 295; cf. also 4 Ezra 7. 35; Rev. 14. 13.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See the interpretation of the parable by Derrett, ‘Fresh Light’, pp. 201–17; and the discussion by Fitzmyer, ‘Story’, pp. 34–7 (174–8).

⁵⁷ Cf. Wis. 1. 6; T. Judah 20. 3. For God's knowledge in prayers for judgment, cf. Esth. 13. 12, 14. 15–16; Sus. 42–43; Judith 9. 5–6; 1 Enoch 9. 5, 11.

⁵⁸ For βδέλνγμα and its Semitic referents as terms for cultic abomination see Förster, Werner, ‘βδελσσομαι’, T.D.N.T. 1 (1964), 598–600.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘εφραíνω’, T.D.N.T. 2 (1964), 772–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Joachim, Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (rev. edn; ET New York: Scribner's, 1963), p. 184Google Scholar. On this and other parallels between the parable and 1 Enoch 92 ff. see Aalen, ‘Gospel’, pp. 5f. On the details of judgment as reversal in 1 Enoch 92 ff. see Nickelsburg, ‘Apocalyptic Message’, pp. 302–22.

⁶¹ Meyer, Rudolf, ‘κóλπος’, T.D.N.T. 3 (1965), 825–6; Jeremias, Parables, pp. 184–5.Google Scholar

⁶² For the details of the correspondence between chapters 103 and 104 see Nickelsburg, ‘Apocalyptic Message’, p. 322.

⁶³ Baab, Otto J., ‘Widow’, I.D.B. 4 (1962), 842. For other references to widows in Luke cf. 2. 37, 4. 25–6, 7. 12, 20. 47, 21. 2–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ For the inclusive meaning of ⋯σος see BAG, ⋯σος §2.

⁶⁵ T. Abr. 8–9 Rec. B offers a curious parallel to these passages. The patriarch sees the broad and narrow gates leading to destruction and life. He fears that his adult body is too large to enter the narrow gate (cf. Mark 10. 15), but the angel assures him that he and those like him will do so.

⁶⁶ In addition to the parallels noted below, cf. προσδραμών 19. 4 and Mark 10. 17, ⋯ναβλέψας 19.5; έμβλέψας, Mark 10. 21. If Luke himself is responsible for the composition of this story (see below, n. 68), its insertion here is due to his intended parallelism with 18. 18–23. If he received it from his tradition, a reference to Jericho already in the story might have determined its specific placement.

⁶⁷ The reference to salvation also parallels υ. 5. Jesus is the salvation that comes to his house. Other parallelism is evident in the story; cf. e.g., ‘rejoicing’/‘grumbling’, υυ. 6–7.

⁶⁸ Creed (Luke, p. lxviii) calls attention to this and other Lukan doublets.

⁶⁹ Note the same redactional touch in Luke 5. 28, καταλιπν π⋯ντα; cf. Luke 5. 11.

⁷⁰ Luke 12. 22–31 may be an exception, although I am reading υ. 23 in light of 12. 19–20. In any event, the motif occurs in 12. 33. The pattern I have discussed also sheds light on the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5. 1–10), as was suggested to me by Professor Vernon K. Robbins.

⁷¹ See Creed, Luke, p. 81; and Brown, Raymond E., ‘The Beatitudes According to Luke’, in his New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965), pp. 267–9.Google Scholar

⁷² See also the other references to widows listed above in n. 63.

⁷³ 3. 12, 7. 29, chapter 15, 18. 9–14, 23. 40–3.

⁷⁴ 10. 33, 17. 16.

⁷⁵ Chapters 1–2, 8. 2–3, 10. 38–41, 11. 27–8, 13. 10–17, 15. 8–10, 18. 1–8 and the references to widows above in n. 63; 23. 26–31.

⁷⁶ Creed, Luke, p. lxviii.

⁷⁷ The evidence that Luke is espousing poverty as an ideal is strong. See Brown, ‘Beatitudes’, pp. 267–9; See also Hiers, ‘Friends’, pp. 33–4.

⁷⁸ Cf. Sir. 3. 30, 7. 10, 12. 3, 17. 22, 29. 8, 12, 35. 2, 40. 17, 24; Tobit 1. 3, 16, 4. 7–11, 16, 12. 8–9, 14. 2, 10–11.

⁷⁹ For another similar mixture of apocalyptic and wisdom materials, with many parallels to those discussed in this paper, cf. James 4. 13–5. 11.

⁸⁰ See his discussion of Luke 12. 15–21 (pp.4–5), 16. 19 ff.(p. 5); and aspects of Luke's eschatology (pp.8–11).

⁸¹ On the Magnificat see Brown, Birth, pp. 346–50. On the Lukan form of the Beatitudes as original see Strecker, ‘macarismes’, pp. 193–8. That at least some of the parables unique to Luke were in their original form part of the (eschatological) preaching of Jesus has been argued by Jeremias and many others and is widely (and often, too easily) assumed.

⁸² Barclay Swete, Henry, The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1898), pp. 173–4.Google Scholar

⁸³ Cf. Swete, (Mark, p. 173), who refers to the many sayings on wealth in the gospels and draws historical conclusions on the basis of a conservative view of the genuineness of the traditions. More recent scholars also assume that at least some of these sayings go back to Jesus himself; see the literature cited by Derrett, ‘Rich Fool’, p. 148 n. 108.

⁸⁴ ‘The Beginnings of Christian Theology’, Apocalypticism (J. T.C. vi [1969], ed. Funk, Robert W.New York: Herder & Herder), p. 40Google Scholar; cf. Z. T.K. LVII (5960), 180.

⁸⁵ Running contrary to the general tendency to emphasize Luke's de-eschatologization of Mark is Wilson's critique, S. G. of Conzelmann, ‘Lukan Eschatology’, N.T.S. 16 (1970), 330–47, which sees some Lukan emphasis on an imminent expectation.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Brown (Birth, pp. 350–5) argues that the Lukan canticles derived from circles of Christian Anawim.

⁸⁷ On the Lukan prologue see Cadbury, Henry J., ‘Commentary on the Preface of Luke ’, The Beginnings of Christianity 2 (ed. Foakes-Jackson, F.J. and Lake, Kirsopp; London; Macmillan, 1922), 489–510.Google Scholar On the likelihood that Theophilos was a real person (rather than a type), see Ibid. p. 508.

⁸⁸ This paper was written during a research leave made possible by a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, which I herewith gratefully acknowledge.