"Anti-Judaism and the Passion Narrative in Luke and Acts"

Lloyd Gaston

in Peter Richardson, with David Granskou, eds. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 1 Paul and the Gospels (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986), 127-153.  For footnotes consult the original.

"Who killed Jesus Christ?" is the question raised by the controversial film produced by TV Ontario called The Jesus Trial. "The Jews did," answers a Good Friday liturgy with a dramatic reading of the passion according to St. John. It is in the light of experiencing both of these that the following is being written. We can speak of anti-Judaism in the passion narratives if responsibility for the death of Jesus is assigned to "the Jews" without qualification and if as a consequence "the Jews" are seen to be finally rejected by God with no possibility of repentance. Is that the case with Luke's narrative?

Luke's is in many ways the most complex of the gospels. On the one hand, he is unsystematic enough as a theologian and author that no statement about his work can stand without qualification. On the other hand, he is creative enough as a theologian and author to be able to assert contradictory motifs simultaneously and throughout the course of his two-volume work. Although it seems to be obvious that Luke has used sources other than Mark, no attempt to reconstruct them has won general assent, for he has imposed his own concepts and style fairly consistently on all his material. We may then not be able to give a clear answer to the question as posed.

Luke is the only gospel to be followed by a history of the church. Whereas Matthew and John operate on two levels in their gospels, that of the Jesus of the past and that of their own community in the present, Luke deals with the two levels sequentially. If we are to compare the gospels, it might be helpful to put Acts on top of the gospel of Luke as a kind of overlay. For example, in John "the Jews" without qualification are enemies of Jesus; not so in Luke, but in the second half of Acts "the Jews" without qualification are the enemies of Paul. Matthew has "all the people" cry out, "His blood be upon us and on our children"; not so in Luke, but in Acts 18:6 Paul shakes out his garments on the Jews, saying, "Your blood be upon your heads; I am innocent" (cf. also Acts 5:28). Before coming to the Lukan passion narrative as such, then, we shall first survey the book of Acts, seeking to identify the friends and enemies of Jesus and the church.

When a community-forming story is told, the hearers naturally identify with those characters who help them form their own self-understanding. The identification of friends and enemies of those characters is equally helpful. The enemies are those who define us negatively, what we should not be like, and also help us to perceive contemporary threats to our identity. The sympathetic friends not only lend legitimacy to our movement but are those to whom we can appeal to join it. Keeping such considerations in mind, let us first give a synopsis of significant elements in the six mission speeches to Jewish audiences.

(1) Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazoraean .... delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men .... Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified .... Repent and be baptized every one of' you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins For the promise is to you and your children. (Acts 2:14-39)

(2) Men of Israel ... [God glorified] Jesus whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had given judgment to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Author of Life .... And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore .... Every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed

from the people You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant. (Acts 3:12-26)

(3) Rulers of the people and elders.., by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazoraean whom you crucified [this man is healed] This is the stone which was rejected by you builders. (Acts 4:9-12)

(4) [To the high priest and the council:] God... raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him.., to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5:29-32)

(5) We are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree Every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:34-44)

(6) Those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him. Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they {sic!] took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb .... Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. (Acts 13:16-41)

To these mission speeches to Jews we can add three other passages in a Jerusalem setting which deal with responsibility for Jesus' death. They are: a statement by the Emmaus disciples, a prayer of the disciples after their release from arrest, and the last words of Stephen, which will also be considered in another context.

(7) Our chief priests and rulers delivered him [Jesus] up to be condemned to death and [they] crucified him. (Luke 24:20)

(8) There were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus... both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people (laoi) of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had determined to take place. (Acts 4:27-28)

(9) The Righteous One .... you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it Lord, do not hold this sin against them. (Acts 7:52-53, 60)

It could not be stated more explicitly than in these addresses in Acts that the Jews killed Jesus. Contrary both to what is historically probable and to the Markan passion narrative, the Jews as such are not only morally responsible for the death of Jesus but often the actual agents of the crucifixion (1, 2, 5, 6, 9). That Luke thinks of all Jews and not just some Jews is shown by many of the addresses: men of Israel (1, 2), sons of the prophets, sons of the covenant (2), you who received the law (9). More specifically, it can be said that it was the rulers of the people who murdered.Jesus (3, 4, 7). Although the concept of Jesus being delivered into the hands of the Romans can stand alongside the charge that the Jews did it, with no sense of contradiction (1, 2, 6, 7, and perhaps 9), the Roman authorities are never held responsible for Jesus' death. Pilate found Jesus innocent (2, 6), and while he gave judgment (krinein) that Jesus was to be released (2), the Jews gave judgment (krinein) that he was to be killed (6). Jesus is said to have hung on the tree (4, 5, 6), which may stem from an apologetic sense of Deut. 21:22-23 LXX (cf. Gal. 3:13) and say that Jesus was cursed by the Torah of Israel. The reference to "the stone rejected by the builders" (3) could be connected with a "passion apologetic" in which the builders in turn are rejected. In any case, nowhere in the NT is the place of the Jews in the crucifixion of Jesus so strongly stressed as in Acts.

Although Jews may be held responsible for the death of Jesus in these selections, there are three factors which mitigate any implication of guilt. In the first place, they acted out of ignorance (2, and to a lesser extent in 6). Second, what happened was in accordance with God's will (1, 2, 6, 8). Finally and most important, the speeches end with a call to repentance and the offer of forgiveness (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and perhaps 9).

Selection 7 is an exception to the generalization we just have made, for here responsibility seems to be equally divided, in order to make the situation correspond to Psalm 2. But as a part of the correspondence, Herod must be a king, Pilate must be a ruler, and Israel must be the laoi, all unique in Luke. This exception will simply be noted for the time being.

The sole enemies of the church in these chapters are all associated with the Temple, as can be seen by a simple listing:

the priests and the captains of the Temple and the Sadducees (4:1)

their rulers and elders and scribes.., with Annas the High Priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high priestly family (4:5-6)

rulers of the people and elders (4:8) the council (4:15) the chief priests and the elders (4:23)

the High Priest and all who were with him, that is, the party of the Sadducees (5:17)

the High Priest and those who were with him.., the council and all the senate (gerousia) of Israel (5:21)

the officers (hypēretai 5:22)

the captain of the Temple and the chief priests (5:24) the captain with the officers (5:26) the council and the High Priest (5:27) the council (5:34, 41)

Here and elsewhere Luke has no concept of who elders and scribes might be, and they accompany other groups seemingly at random. Whatever the council might be, whether a "constitutional" institution advising the High Priest or a more informal gathering, it has nothing to do with the rabbinic Beth Din.

We can add to the list those said in the speeches to have been enemies of Jesus: rulers (Acts 3:17; 13:27; Luke 24:20) and chief priests (Luke 24:20). Only in Acts 3:17 are the rulers excused by ignorance and in that sense not enemies.

The first summary statement in Acts states that the church was "having favour with all the people" (2:47), and this is characteristic of the use of laos in these chapters (3:9, 11, 12, 23; 4:1, 2, 10, 17, 21; 5:12, 13, 20, 25, 26, 34). The people in Jerusalem not only hear the preaching of the apostles gladly, but also respond to it in ever-increasing numbers: 3000 (2:41), 5000 (4:4), multitudes (5:14), greatly multiplied numbers, including priests (6:7), tens of thousands (21:20). Especially significant are those passages where the people are aligned with the disciples over against the Temple authorities.

Sadducees... annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. (4:1-2)

[The rulers ensure] that it may spread no further among the people. (4:17) [They let them go] finding no way to punish them because of the people. (4:21)

None of the rest dared join [the apostles] but the people held them in high honour. (5:13)

The captain with the officers went and hrought them, but without violence, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. (5:26)

The most surprising and most important friend of the church in these chapters is "a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honour by all the people" (5:34). He not only defends the apostles against persecution by the council and the priests, but he says in effect that "this plan (and) this undertaking.., is of God," since in fact from a later perspective the priests were not "able to overthrow them," and unlike the fbllowers of Theudas and Judas the Galilean, the Christian movement did not "come to nothing."

In spite of the exaggerated way in which the Jewish people are held accountable fur the death of Jesus, Acts 1 to 5 can in no sense be called anti-Judaic. On the contrary, this motif appears in the context of a call to repentance that is an attempt to stand on the side of the people and to win them for the cause. The response of the people is also exaggerated, thereby increasing the appeal of the gospel to popular opinion: the very success of the preaching of the gospel testifies to its truth. Also the Pharisees, presented as greatly respected by all the people, give powerful testimony for the church. The church is on the side of the people and the Pharisees, and this is further emphasized by underscoring their common enemies: the Temple establishment. The Romans appear only on the periphery, neither friends nor enemies but irrelevant. There are modern analogues and R. Scroggs speaks of "The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement," all accurate way of' describing the tenor of these chapters.

As a presentation of the general attitude of the Jerusalem church, Acts 1 to 5 is also in broad outline true to history. The wealthy, the Sadducees, the High Priest, and the Temple aristocracy were in fact seen by the populace as the oppressing establishment. Although the nature of the Pharisaic movement is currently in dispute, I would argue that it was in fact both popular and anti-cultic. The early Christian movement shared with the Pharisees (and the Essenes) not only an opposition to the aristocracy but also a strong anti-Temple sentiment. That the line-up of forces in Acts is not unreasonable can perhaps be demonstrated by the account of James's death in Josephus, Ant. 20: 197-203: when the High Priest Ananus kills James, the Pharisees protest so much that James is deposed; Josephus presents this as a popular action. Whatever the success or failure of the Christian movement in Jerusalem, it did in fact understand itself to be on the side of the people and the Pharisees, allied with them against the High Priest.

"Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people" (Acts 6:8), is the last time that the laos appears in Acts on the side of the church. Those of the synagogues of the Diaspora "stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes" and they seized Stephen and brought him before the council. The charge of speaking against the Temple and the law are more like the charges later brought against Paul than charges made against Jesus in the gospel. The speech ends with the motif of the killing of the prophets and the rejection of Israel. If the story begins with the semblance of a trial before a council, at the end it is the whole people of Israel who lynch Stephen. They are addressed as: "you stiff-necked ones, uncircumcised in heart and ears.., as your fathers did so do you.., you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it." It is "they" who become enraged and stone Stephen. His last three words are parallel to sayings in the passion narrative in Luke's gospel: 7:56 (-- Luke 22:69); 7:59 (= Luke 23:46); and 7:60 (-- Luke 23:34). The last statement, "Lord do not hold this sin against them," is problematic, since there is no call to repentance and no mention of forgiveness being offered, but only the motif of the rejection of an utterly apostate Israel.

When King Herod persecuted the church and killed James, "he saw that it pleased the Jews" (12:3). When Peter escapes from prison he thanks God, who has "rescued me from the hand of Herod and the whole expectation of the people (laos) of the Jews" (12:11). It has often been noted that Luke uses the word laos to mean the people of Israel. In that sense it is equivalent to "the Jews." The people, the Jews, were favourably disposed toward the church in Acts 1 to 5. The martyrdom of Stephen represents a transition, in that the people and the Jews are seen as enemies at and beyond this point. Whether or not this corresponds to an actual bitterness of the church because of the relative failure of the Jewish mission, it is an important transition in the theology of Acts.

In general, Paul's accusers in Acts 22 to 26 are the same as those who harassed the church in Acts 1 to 5. We hear about meetings of the council (synedrion, 22:30; 23:1, 6, 15, 20, 28; 24:20), but again this has nothing to do with the Pharisaic Beth Din. It is probable that the references are to ad hoc bodies which advise the High Priest, much as Festus confers with his council (symboulion, 25:12, cf. Mark 15:1). In any case, Paul in no sense has a trial before such a body, and its only task in the narrative is to formulate charges against him. The specific leaders mentioned are as follows:

the chief priests and all the council (22:30)

the High Priest Ananias (23:2)

Sadducees and Pharisees (23:6) scribes of the party of the Pharisees (23:9) the chief priest and elders (23:14)

the High Priest Ananias with some elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus (24:1)

the chief priests and the principal men (hoi prōtoi) of the Jews (25:2)

the chief priests and the elders of the Jews (25:15)

the chief priests (at the time of Paul's persecution of the church, 26:10, 12) the leaders (hoi prōtoi) of the Jews (in Rome, 28:17)

Again Luke has no concrete conception of who the scribes or elders are, and the only constant element is the chief priests, as in Acts 1 to 5. The charges made against Paul are similar to those made against Stephen and are also religious in nature: that he preaches against a) the people, b) the law, and c) the Temple (21:28; cf. 21:21; 25:8; 28:17). If such charges were sustained, then Paul would be the anti-Semite, but Luke has taken great pains in his portrayal of Paul to show that he has not offended against any of the three. Paul defends himself in the speeches of Acts not by responding to the separate charges but by insisting at the top of his voice that he is a Pharisee and the best of the Pharisees. Only once is there a hint of a political charge ("an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," 24:5; cf. 25:8), and even this can be understood not so much as an offence against the Empire as against Jewish orthodoxy. In any case, all charges against Paul are rejected by the officials.

Throughout the account of his career, Paul had been protected and defended by officials of the Roman Empire. This is true of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul in Salamis (13:7-12), the jailer in Philippi (16:29-34), the magistrates in Philippi (16:35, 39), the authorities in Thes-salonica (17:8-9), Gallio in Corinth (18:12-17), the Asiarchs (19:31) and town clerk in Ephesus (19:35-41), and now also in Jerusalem: Claudius Lysias, the tribune (21:32-6, 40; 22:24-30; 23:10, 18-31), the governor Felix (24:22-23), the governor Festus (25:1-6, 12), King Herod Agrippa II (26:31-32), Julius, the centurion on the ship (27:3, 43), and Publius of Malta (28:7-10). Not only is Paul protected by these officials from the wrath of the Jews, but the charges of the High Priest are explicitly rejected. Three times Paul is declared innocent:

[Lysias says] he was accused about questions of their law but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment (23:29).

[Festus says] I found that he had done nothing deserving death (25:25).

[The King (Herod Agrippa II) and the governor (Festus) and Bernice say] This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment (26:31).

Paul is held to be innocent and yet he is not released. Why? The answer is significant. Just as Herod Agrippa I arrested Peter because the death of James "pleased the Jews", so also Felix left Paul in prison "desiring to do the Jews a favour" (24:27), and Festus would have sent Paul back to Jerusalem and his death "wishing to do the Jews a favour" (25:9). It has often been asserted that the positive stance of Roman officials toward Paul is part of a political apologetic in Acts, defending the political respectability of the church in the eyes of Roman readers. On the contrary, I believe that all these officials are character witnesses testifying to Paul's innocence of the charges made against him at his real trial--before the Jewish people.

Before we turn to Paul's real enemies we must look at his most surprising friends in Jerusalem: the Pharisees. In the remarkable scene where Paul stands before the council (23:1-10), the Pharisees come to Paul's defence against the High Priest and the Sadducees. They add to the decisions of' the Roman officials one more testimony to Paul's innocence: "We find nothing wrong in this mail" and add, "What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?" (23:9). But most important, they testify to the truth of Paul's gospel, for when he says that "with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am on trial" (23:6), the Pharisees agree and defend the central Christian affirmation of the resurrection. In his defence speeches Paul justifies himself only by the assertion that he too is a Pharisee (23:6; cf. 22:3), while proclaiming the gospel of the resurrection?

The apologetic function of the witness of the Pharisees is clear, and is even more important than the witness of the Roman officials. Luke's predominantly Gentile-Christian community finds its self-understanding called into question by local Jews, who call Paul an apostate from the faith of Israel. Over against them Luke appeals to the great authority of the Pharisees, "the strictest party of [the Jewish] religion" (26:5). In an earlier period they testified to the orthodoxy of Paul and the truth of his message, and even now in Luke's time Paul's Pharisaic life is "known by all the Jews... if they are willing to testify" (26:45). When we remember that Luke-Acts was probably written at the tithe when Rubban Gamaliel I1 had become Nasi at Yavneh and had been recognized by the Roman government as the official spokesman tor the Jewish people, it is not insignificant that the only Pharisee named in the NT is his grandfather Rubban Gamaliel I, who was Paul's teacher (22:3) and the defender of the earliest Jerusalem church (5:34-39). Also in the third context in Acts in which Pharisees appear they function in a positive sense. Luke says that it was Christian Pharisees who initiated the discussion at the council in .Jerusalem (15:5), in order not to present them as intransigent but to appeal to their authority for the final unanimous decision (15:22) of the church to exempt Gentile Christians from most commandments of the Torah. On this mattex' too, the authority of the Pharisees is on the side of the Christian movement and against the position of the Jews contemporary with I.uke and antagonistic to the church. Just as Josephus can hope to win respect for himself by claiming (falsely) that he has been a Pharisee since his nineteenth year (Life, 10-12), so Luke tries to vindicate Paul by claiming that he has been a Pharisee since his youth under Gamaliel and to vindicate Christianity by claiming that on three occasions Pharisees defended the truth of its message. But if the Pharisees are friends of' Paul and the Christians, their enemies are simply the Jews.

If we list the passages which refer to Paul's enemies, "the people" and "the Jews" turn up with a surprising frequency. Any one passage can be understood to mean some Jews of that place (cf. Acts 24:18, "some Jews from Asia"), but the cumulative effect makes inescapable the reference to Jews in general. A listing follows:

The Jews plotted to kill [Paul in Damascus]. (9:23)

The Hellenists... were seeking to kill [Paul in Jerusalem]. (9:29)

When the Jews saw the multitudes [of Jews and Gentiles who believed] they were filled with jealousy.., and reviled [Paul in Antioch]. (13:45)

The Jews incited [the leaders in Antioch] and stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas and drove them out of their district. (13:50)

The unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren [in Iconium]. (14:2)

The people (plēthos) of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles. (14:4)

An attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to molest them and to stone them. (14:5)

The Jews came [to Lystra]... and stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city. (14:19)

[Timothy was circumcised] because of the Jews. (16:3)

The .Jews were jealous [and denounced Jason and some of the brethren before the magistrate in Thessalonica]. (17:5-9)

The Jews of Thessalonica ...came there too [Beroea], stirring up and inciting the crowds. (17:13)

The Jews unanimously made an attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal [in Corinth]. (18:12)

A plot was made against [Paul] by the Jews [in Macedonia]. (20:2)

[Paul speaks in Miletus of the] trials which befell me through the plots of the Jews. (20:19)

[Agabus predicts that] the Jews at Jerusalem [will] deliver [Paul] into the hands of the Gentiles. (21:11)

[Paul is accused of teaching] all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses. (21:21)

The Jews from Asia.·. stirred up all the crowd and laid hands on [Paul in Jerusalem]. (21:27)

This is the man [Paul] who is teaching men everywhere against the people and the law and this place. (21:28)

All the city was aroused and the people (laos) ran together; they seized Paul. (21:30)

The multitude of the people (laos) followed, crying: Away with him. (21:36) The Jews accused [Paul]. (22:30)

The Jews made a plot and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. (23:12)

The Jews [ask the tribune to lead Paul into ambush] (23:20-21). [Claudius Lysias writes] This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them. (23:27)

[Paul is charged with being] a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world. (24:5)

The Jews also joined in the charge [of the High Priest]. (24:9)

[Paul speaks of] some Jews from Asia [as his accusers]. (24:18)

Desiring to do the Jews a favour, Felix left Paul in prison. (24:27)

The Jews who had gone down from Jerusalem stood about him, bringing against him many serious charges. (25:7)

Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favour .... (25:9)

[Paul says] to the Jews I have done no wrong. (25:10)

[Festus says] you see this man about whom the whole Jewish people (to plēthos tōn loudaiōn) petitioned me, both at Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. (25:24)

[Paul speaks oil all the accusations of the Jews. (26:2)

I am accused by the Jews. (26:7)

[The risen Christ says to Paul] I will appear to you, delivering you from the people (laos) and the Gentiles. (26:17)

The Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. (26:21)

[Paul reports that when the Romans wanted to free him] the Jews objected. (28:19)

This people's (laos) heart has grown dull. (28:26-27, quoting Isa. 6:9-10)

Such a lengthy listing seemed to be necessary as a corrective to the well-known and impressive thesis of Jervell that for Luke the Gentile mission presupposes the success of a previous mission to Jews. To be sure, Luke emphasizes that in every city Paul's mission among the Jews was successful: in Antioch (13:43), Iconium (14:1), Thessalonica (17:4), Beroea (17:11-12), Corinth (18:4), Ephesus (19:8-10), and Rome (28:24). But in every case, after saying that some Jews believed, Luke goes on to say that the Jews were violently opposed to Paul. Both motifs, that of continuity and of discontinuity, must be emphasized, and it is clear which one has the final word.

That the theme of Jewish rejection of the gospel and the consequent rejection of the Jews by God is an important one in Acts has been clear since the time of Overbeck. The Jews of Jerusalem are decisively rejected (Acts 7:51-3), as are progressively the Jews of Asia (13:46), Greece (18:6), and as the final word, in Rome (28:28). Even Jervel1 says that "Luke has excluded the possibility of a further mission to Jews for the church of his time because the judgment by and on the Jews has been irrevocably passed." Something similar has been said by H. Cadbury, J. Munck, L. Goppelt, E. Haenchen, J. Gnilka, H. Conzelmann, G. Bornkamm, N. Dahl, A. George, J.C. O'Neill, G. Schneider, W. Eltester, S.G. Wilson, and F. Keck.

It is worth emphasizing the near unanimity on this point, because it is what makes Luke-Acts in its final form and as a totality anti-Judaic. Under the dual impact of the fall of Jerusalem and the shift of the church to an almost completely Gentile Christian movement, Luke must deal with some major theological problems. The status of his community as a legitimate people of God is under attack by Jewish neighbours and is questioned in the minds of Christians themselves. Luke overcomes the problem (1) by stressing the continuity of the church with Judaism, by showing its great popularity among Jews and the approval given to it by the Pharisses, and (2) by relegating this period of continuity to a generation of the past. It is the great merit of Jervell's studies to emphasize the first point, but the second must not be neglected. Quite different from his presentation of the past, Luke's present is characterized by an implacable enmity between the church and "the Jews" (including also the contemporary Pharisees of Yavneh, although this is not said in Acts). Luke is unable to defend the legitimacy of the (Gentile) Christian movement without declaring the Jews as such to be enemies of the church of God. Adopting the position attacked by Paul in Romans 11, Luke is able to assert the election of the church only by coupling it with the rejection of the Jews. The fronts have shifted significantly in Acts. Whereas the people of Israel, the Jews, were once friends of' the church, they now appear on the side of the enemies.

We continue our rather crude method of asking who is on the side of Jesus and the church and who is on the other side. Before the passion narrative in Luke the answer is clear: the Jews are unanimously and enthusiastically on the side of Jesus and the gospel, and their leaders are just as firmly on the other side. The people of Israel, designated by the words laos and ochlos, consistently appear as those who seek out Jesus, as the addressees of the gospel, or as those who receive Jesus and the gospel gladly? Jesus and the people stand together over against the wicked leaders, a fact which would serve to commend the gospel even more widely. Popularity is an advocate for the truth.

At the same time, insofar as the gospel contains a tradition of the preaching of the church to Israel, a warning note has to be sounded. In addition to material which serves as teaching to disciples and crowds and as polemic against Jewish leaders, there are sections which can be understood as prophetic warnings to Jerusalem: "unless you repent you shall all likewise perish" (13:3, 5) and Jerusalem will be destroyed (11:49-51; 12:56; 13:34-35; 17:20-37; 19:41-49; 21:5-28). Especially ominous is Luke 21:23: "Great distress will be on the land, and wrath on this people," the first potentially negative use of the word laos.

Luke seems to have only a vague idea of who the .Jewish leaders are. What they are clearer in this gospel than in any other: the rich, the powerful, the oppressors of the people. M.J. Cook has argued plausibly that Mark does not really know who the scribes and elders are who are joined with the high priests in the source of his passion narrative. The same is even truer of Luke. It can be shown that the "scribes" are in every case taken over from Mark, or are added by Luke under the influence of Mark. With the exception of two passages taken from Mark (20:38, 46), they are always attached to other groups, "Elders" come only from Mark or are added conventionally to other groups in Acts. The references to "high priests," while sometimes conventional, are more firmly anchored in the tradition, More significant are the specific Lukan designations of the enemies: rulers (archontes), leaders (prōtoi tou laou), and captains of the Temple (stratēgoi). The leaders in the gospel are vaguely designated or are all associated with the Sadducees and the High Priest, as in Acts I to 5, with one significant exception: the Pharisees.

After the clear portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts as friends of the church, it is surprising to see how ambiguous is their appearance in the gospel. The Lukan redaction of Mark shows an increased tendency to portray the Pharisees as the enemies of Jesus. The five controversy stories in Mark 2:1-3:6 mention Pharisees in only two episodes and in the conclusion of the collection. Luke has made every story refer to Pharisees, and they are introduced at the beginning of the collection in a way which generalizes the opposition of all Pharisees: "Pharisees (i.e., teachers of the law) were sitting by, who had come from every town of Galilee and Judaea and from Jerusalem." On the other hand, the Pharisees are not at all hostile in some of the material peculiar to Luke. Three times Jesus is invited to dine at the house of a Pharisee (7:36-50, 11:37-54, 14:2-24), which is a way of claiming the witness of respected leaders to Jesus' righteousness. They enter into discussion with Jesus on halakic (14:1-6) and haggadic matters (17:20b), and they do not disagree with his answers. Pharisees warn Jesus when Herod tries to capture him to kill him (13:31) and, if the reference is not redactional, at the entry into Jerusalem when the action of Jesus' disciples could provoke a reaction by the Romans. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:10-12) is like most parables paradoxical: it does not criticize the Pharisee but on the contrary presupposes his righteousness. If the Lukan special material tends to speak favourably of Pharisees as friendly to Jesus and therefore as indirect supporters of the Jesus movement, and if the Lucan redaction of Mark tends to increase Mark's hostility to Pharisees, then we can suspect Lukan redaction of Lukan special material whenever the attitude is hostile. The polemic in Luke 16:14 against the "lovers of money" who "justify themselves" (hstdq) was surely originally directed against the Sadducees, and the close parallel of the woes against the Pharisees (11:39-42, 43) to the Assumption of Moses, which is clearly directed against the Sadducees, might suggest the same for these Q sayings. Also 15:2 and 19:39 are probably redactional. That makes the remaining two passages surely redactional and especially significant, where Luke contrasts the Pharisees and the people of Israel.

All the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. (7:29-30)

The scribes and the Pharisees began to press him hard, and to provoke him to speak of many things, lying in wait fbr him to catch him at something he might say. In the meantime, when so many tens of thousands [myriades, cf. Acts 21:20!] of the multitude had gathered together that they trod upon one another, he began to say to his disciples first: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." (11:53-12:1)

Here and only here the Pharisees appear in the role of the leaders who are contrasted by the people, a role which seems to be very important for the final redaction of' Luke but which is otherwise occupied by the Temple authorities.

Contrary to the recent impressive study by F. Keck, I understand Jesus' speeches in Jerusalem to be addressed primarily to the people of Israel and only secondarily to Christians. Like the mission speeches of Acts, they are a call to repentance, here in the light of the coming catastrophe, and an encouragement to repentance by emphasizing that the enemies of Jesus are also the enemies of the people. The speeches have this character not only by virtue of the original address of the special Lukan material (= S) but also by Luke's redaction of Mark. This can be demonstrated here only by looking at the framework of the speeches, especially those passages which show a sharp contrast between people and leaders. In what follows, "people" always represents laos and "the multitudes" ochloi.

And some [of the Pharisees] in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." [Jesus said to them] Would that even today you knew the things that made for peace. (19:39-44, S)

[The chief priests and the scribes sought to destroy him]~ and the leaders of the people (prōtoi tou laou) found nothing they could do, for the whole people clung to him listening. (19:47, S)

As he was teaching the people [contrast Mark] in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up [and asked a hostile question]. (20:1, Mark)

[The leaders said] all the people [contrast Mark] will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet. (20:6, Mark)

And he began to tell the people [contrast Mark] this parable.., the scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people [contrast Mark], for they perceived that he had told this parable against them. (20:9-19, Mark)

And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him by what he said. (20:26, Mark)

There came to him some Sadducees .... And some of the scribes answered, "Teacher you have spoken well." (20:27-39, Mark)

And in the hearing of all the people [contrast Mark], he said to his disciples "Beware of the scribes." (20:45-46, Mark)

The rich [contrast Mark] putting their gifts into the treasury [contrast the poor widow]. (21:1-4, Mark)

Some spoke of the temple.., they asked him, "Teacher … [as introduction to the apocalyptic fate of Jerusalem]. (21:5-7, S)

And every day he was teaching in the temple ... and early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him. [as end to the apocalyptic discourse on the fate of Jerusalem]. (Luke 21:37f, S)

The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people. (22:1-2 Mark)

[Judas] went away and conferred with the chief priests and the captains [contrast Mark]... and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of the multitude [contrast Mark]. (22:3-6, Mark)

There follows a series of incidents in which neither people nor leaders appear, and then Jesus' farewell discourse to his disciples. In the rest of the gospel, the people appear a few more times in contrast with the leaders: Jesus is accused by the leaders of "perverting the nation.., stirring up the people.., perverting the people" (23:2, 5, 14), and the Emmaus disciples speak of him as "a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, [but] our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death and crucified him" (24:19f). But apart from these, the reversal of the role of the people in the passion narrative is astounding.

We come finally to the passion narrative itself; we shall survey it against the background we have sketched in Acts and the rest of the gospel, identifying friends and enemies. Although I believe that there was another source that Luke preferred to Mark in the passion narrative, that will not be taken into consideration here. We shall look at the narrative only in its present form, but also we will try to take into account the context in the whole of Luke-Acts.

A multitude comes to Jesus, led by Judas, and it remains throughout the narrative (23:4, 13). This is not a crowd from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders, as in Mark, but more significantly just a crowd, which in the light of the previous use of ochlos seems to mean the people of Israel as such. As in the arrest of Paul, the people are on the other side? "Those who had come out against" Jesus are more specifically defined as "the chief priests and captains of the temple," Jewish soldiers are then involved--the Temple police under the direction of the Segan and the High Priest. They appear only in Luke-Acts, as those with whom .Judas conferred (22:4) and as those who arrest the disciples in Jerusalem (Acts 4:1, 5:24, 26). In all references but the last, the chief priests are explicitly named together with them. "This is your hour and the power of darkness," says Jesus to them, raising the drama to a cosmic level. Only in Luke (22:3) and John (13:2, 27) does Satan initiate the events of the passion by entering Judas. Insofar as Satan and the power of darkness are behind the Jews who arrest Jesus, it is perhaps not too fanciful to recall John 8:44: "You are of your father the devil."

There is no question of this scene being in any sense a trial. No witnesses are brought forward, false or otherwise, Jesus does not confess his Messiahship, there is no charge of blasphemy, and there is no decision of condemnation. Even if the trial before the council is a Markan invention and was not in Luke's special material, Luke could have taken it over from Mark had he chosen to do so. There are probably several reasons why he did not. First, Luke knows that the various councils in Acts (4-5; 6; 22-24) were not judicial bodies, and the hearing in the house of the High Priest is therefore not presented as having any official status. Second, Luke is anxious to show Jesus' innocence to the extent that he cannot even be charged with any violation of the Torah let alone be guilty of the charge. Finally and most significantly, Luke thereby is able to suggest that the whole people is responsible for Jesus' death. Paul had no official trial before the council but would have been lynched had Claudius Lysias not intervened. Stephen had no official trial before the council but was lynched by the people. So too Jesus was not tried and condemned but lynched. The mocking of Jesus occurs before he or the council has said a word, and those who mocked him, "the men who were holding him," are the same as those who arrested him and brought him to the house of the High Priest (22:54a). Those who led him away to "their" council are called "the presbyterion of the people" (alongside the conventional Markan chief priests and scribes), which allows for a broader representation. Finally we hear that "the whole company (plēthos) of them" brought Jesus to Pilate, a deliberate vagueness that will be exploited in what follows.

It is not the chief priests as in Mark who accuse Jesus before Pilate but "they" (23:2), namely "the chief priests and the multitudes" (23:4). This is not a crowd summoned by the chief priests to demand the release of Barabbas as in Mark, but they are present from the very beginning before Pilate, as indeed they have been ever since the arrest and implicitly during the council. At that time Jesus had refused to answer a question about his Messiahship but affirmed rather that he is the Son of God (22:70), a claim with no judicial import either in Jewish or Roman law. The charge that is now made against Jesus is seen to be a blatant lie. On all three counts the reader knows that Jesus is innocent, but the reader also knows that Jesus' accusers have no basis for their accusation. Quite apart from the possible historical accuracy of the charge, it is significant that in Luke it is purely political. Lest we miss the point, Jesus is accused a second time of being a Zealot, beginning like Judas the Galilean also from Galilee (23:5). It is then not parallel to the religious charges against Stephen and Paul, again probably to show that Jesus cannot even be charged with an offence against Israel and the Torah. A parallel to the charge against Jesus is found in Acts 17:6-7, but Luke is less interested in showing that Jesus is innocent of political subversion against the Empire than he is in discussing the Jewish apologetic. Pilate does not for a moment contemplate the seriousness of the political charges but rather declares Jesus innocent. Since such charges probably were in fact responsible for Jesus' death at the hands of the Romans, it is incredible that Pilate should so summarily dismiss them. The point is, as we can see from the passion of Paul in our overlay of Acts and the gospel, that Jesus' real trial is before the Jewish people as part of Luke's apologetic against the Jews of his own day. It is not with respect to the trumped-up political charge (22:67-68; 23:2, 5) but with respect to the religious charge of Luke's time (claiming to be Son of God, 22:70-71), that Pilate declares Jesus to be innocent. That the charge of perverting or stirring up the people does for a moment again ally Jesus with the people over against the priests and Romans is an inconsistency that Luke has had to let stand.

There is no trial before Pilate, just as Paul had hearings but never a trial before Felix and Festus and Agrippa. Just as Paul was declared innocent by three different people, Lysias, Festus, and Agrippa, so Pilate three times declares Jesus to be innocent: "I find no crime in this man" (23:4), "Behold nothing deserving death has been done by him" (23:15), "I have found in him no crime deserving death" (23:22).

Later Jesus will be declared innocent also by one of his fellow victims (23:41) and by the centurion under the cross (23:47). This is clearly a major motif in the Lukan passion narrative, and one can say indeed that it is the chief function of Pilate. He does not interrogate, he does not condemn, he does not execute; he only declares Jesus innocent.

This incident has puzzled many interpreters. It is unlikely to be spun out of Psalm 2 via Acts 4:24-28, as Dibelius and Bultmann suggested, because in the Acts Herod and Pilate are enemies while here they are friends. While it is possible that it is a pre-Lukan tradition, even V. Taylor now says that it has been heavily edited. It is even difficult to understand how the story functions in the total narrative, which is seemingly not advanced at all by this digression. One could guess at the source of many of the details. That Herod wanted to see Jesus could be derived from Luke 9:9 and 13:31; that Jesus "made no answer", from Mark 15:5; that "the chief priests and scribes.., accused him" from Mark 15:4; and that the soldiers mocked him, from Mark 15:16-20. This last transfer gives something of a clue. Thereby Luke is able to eliminate Mark's account of Jesus' mocking by Roman soldiers, with major consequences as we shall see, and he can once more (cf. 22:63-65) have Jesus mocked by Jewish soldiers. There is a certain tension between 23:10 where the chief priests go with Jesus to Herod and 23:13 where they stay with Pilate, but this episode provides the necessary background for 23:13-16, where their real point is found. Paul was found innocent not only by the Roman governors Felix and Festus but also by King Herod Agrippa II. It seems likely that Luke wanted a similar testimony with respect to Jesus and has therefore created or edited the account of Jesus before Herod for just that purpose.

Only here in the Lukan passion narrative can we speak of even the semblance of a trial, and it is a trial before the people, who are both judge and executioner. Pilate (and to a lesser degree Herod) appears in the role of a defence attorney desperately trying to dissuade the people from their undertakings. Verses 13 to 16 and 25 are among those which most clearly represent Lukan composition based on no tradition whatsoever, and they are responsible for the present character of the whole passion narrative. "Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people" (v. 13) and it is they who provide the subjects for all of the impersonal verbs which follow? Because of the rearrangement of the Barabbas material, it is they, and not a crowd stirred up by the chief priests, who cry out "Away with this man," (v. 18)just as the people had cried out "Away with" Paul (Acts 21:36; 22:22). In Luke, unlike Mark, there is no point to the story of the release of Barabbas, for there is no mention of an amnesty custom (however improbable this may be in itself), and hence no trade-off of one prisoner for another, no reason for the release of' Barabbas, and no connection between that release and the death of Jesus. Pilate pleads with the people, telling them of his desire (thelōn) to release Jesus (v. 20), but they shouted all the more their desire for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate wants to chastise Jesus and release him, but over against his wish stands their demand (aitoumenoi), that Jesus be crucified. We hear the ominous outcome of the matter: "their voices prevailed" (v. 23). In the light of this situation, Pilate finally yields, and decides that their demand (aitēma) should be heeded; he delivered up Jesus to their will (thelēma, vv. 24-25). In the light of Luke's use of the verb deliver up (paradidōmi) in other places as part of "the passion apologetic of earliest Palestinian Christianity," the reversal of subject and object is striking. Not: Jesus "will be delivered up to the Gentiles" (Luke 18:32, contrast Mark) but Pilate "delivers him up to the will" of the Jews. It is not only in John (19:16) where this happens. Luke gives no motivation for Pilate's action but suggests one elsewhere. Herod Agrippa acted "when he saw that it pleased the Jews" (Acts 12:3), Felix and Festus acted desiring "to do the Jews a favour" (24:27; 25:9). Pilate consistently maintains Jesus' innocence but yields to their demand and so the "trial" turns into a lynching.

"They" led Jesus away, "they" seized Simon of Cyrene, "they" came to the place called Skull, "they" crucified him. By the omission of the mocking of the Roman soldiers, the antecedent of all these verbs is "their" will of verse 25 and ultimately the "chief priests and the rulers and the people" of' verse 13. Nothing in the story is inconsistent with this deliberate impression. Soldiers under the cross mock Jesus (v. 26) but they use words ascribed to Jews in Mark's account (15:30, 31-32), and there is nothing to indicate that they are Roman soldiers. Indeed the only soldiers mentioned heretofore were all Jewish soldiers (22:4, 52; 23:11). The centurion "saw" what had happened, not caused it to happen, and gave once more the Roman verdict: "Certainly this man was innocent." When Joseph of Arimathea asks for Jesus' body, Luke eliminates all reference to Pilate's giving him permission: since Pilate was not responsible for the execution he was also not in charge of the body. Joseph is described as being "from the Jewish town of Arimathea," and when he is called "good and righteous," it is in implied contrast to the other Jews. Joseph had not consented to "their" will and deed, i.e., the crucifixion. (That Joseph, as a member of the boulē --Beth-Din, and not the synedrion = council of the High Priest, was a Pharisee was probably not known to Luke.)

Peculiar to Luke is the presence of the people at the scene of the cross. "The great crowd of the people (laos) and of women" (23:28) who bewailed and lamented Jesus did so because they surmised their fate. "Weep for your children," says Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem. When Luke writes these words he is aware of the destruction of Jerusalem, and they are no longer a warning but an ex eventu prediction. "Blessed are the barren" (23:29) is equivalent to "Alas 1or those who are with child ... in those days" (21:23). The sense of the mourning of the people is given by the Gospel of Peter. "The Jews and the elders and the priests, perceiving what great evil they had done to themselves, began to lament and to say, 'Woe on our sins, the judgment and the end of Jerusalem is drawn nigh'" (7:25). If in Luke 23:35 the echo from Ps. 22:7 (LXX 21:8) is intended then the watching and the mocking go together and the contrast between people and rulers in the RSV is incorrect: "The people (laos) who stood by watching mocked him, and also the rulers .... "By putting together the darkness and the rending of the Temple curtain, Luke makes the reference to the sealing of the fate of the Temple even clearer than in Mark. Finally, after Jesus' death (in contrast to the friends and women who also saw), "the multitudes'' (ochloi) who had done this work and witnessed Jesus' death went sadly home to their punishment, beating their breasts (23:48-49).

It is very difficult to reach a decision with respect to the textual variant in 23:34a. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." On MS evidence alone it was not part of Luke's text, and many textual critics and interpreters have come to this conclusion. I believe it is authentic for the following reasons: (1) There is a recognized motive for its omission in the anti-Judaism of the later scribes; (2) it is deliberately echoed in Acts 7:60; and, most important, (3) it is the lectio difficilior. It completely contradicts the tenor of the Lukan passion narrative, where responsibility for Jesus' death is put on the people of Israel as a whole. It contradicts all of the predictions throughout the gospel of the fall of Jerusalem which Luke knows to have occurred. It contradicts the end of Acts, where the Jewish people have finally been rejected. It is one of the many problematic contradictions and tensions in the Lukan passion narratives and Luke-Acts as a whole which cry out for explanation.

Is the Lukan passion narrative anti-Judaic? In its present form of course it is. We saw how in Acts the Jewish people shifted from the status of being friends of the Jerusalem church to being enemies of Paul. The same pattern can be seen in the gospel, presumably for the same reason, although the shift does not come until the passion narrative itself. Here the Jews as such, without qualification, are held responsible for Jesus' death, and as a result are punished by the fall of Jerusalem. What earlier in the gospel was a warning coupled with a call to repentance has in the passion narrative become a prediction, and no repentance is possible. Although it is expressed very subtly in the gospel, the .Jews ;is such have been irrevocably rejected. There are three charges made against Paul in Acts 91:28, of teaching against the people and tire law and tile Temple; Luke is guilty of all three, and particularly of "teaching men everywhere against file people."

And yet how much of this anti-Judaism is simply a matter of perspective! The question of the readers/hearers addressed is important in any discussion of the hermeneutic of anti-Judaism. Thus Galatians is anti-Judaic, attacking the very foundation of Israel in covenant and Torah, whenever it is read by Jews or is understood to he addressed to .Jews; but if it is read exclusively in a Gentile Christian context, both exegetically and hermeneutically, it is not. The synoptic tradition, insofar as it was once addressed to Jews and Jewish Christians is not anti-Judaic; when it is read in a Gentile Christian context, speaking not to but about Jews, it tends to become so. There is also the perspective of time, which is particularly important in the case of Luke. Thc special Lukan material contains many warnings of a possible national disaster fi)r Israel which call the people to repentance. When this material is read, whether by Luke or by later readers, in the light of what occurred in 66-73 C.E., this threat and warning have turned into mere prediction and become anti-Israel. There is a vital difference between the phenomenon of prophetic warning, in which the prophet at the same time agonizes with his whole being and prays that the threatened disaster for the nation might not occur, and the phenomenon of the self-satisfied assertion that a prophecy has proven true. Determinism is anti-human, but only the past is determined. A prophet or an evangelist may properly speak of judgment, but only if the rider is attached: unless you repent. O.H. Steck, in his important book Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten, analyzes the motif of the persecution of' Israel's prophets in the context of the Deuteronomic concept of judgment within history. He finds that it occurs frequently in early Jewish writings, including Luke-Acts (Luke 6:22-23; 11:47-51; 13:31-33; Acts 7:51-53). Although the motif is harsh, it is never anti-Judaic because of the call to repentance after disaster. It is this element which is missing in the NT. It is the ending of Acts, which relegates all that has been said about tire gospel and the people of Israel to the past, now irrevocably sealed as a part of history, which makes Luke-Acts anti-Judaic. When the gospel was still preached to Jews with a call to repentance, it may have been false, it may not really have been relevant to the history and hopes of Israel, but it was never anti-Jewish.

The juxtaposition of the "trials" of Paul and Jesus reveals motifs which make a Roman apologetic purpose of Luke-Acts very unlikely. In neither case are the procurators presented as models of Roman justice, nor do the trials exhibit the kind of treatment that Christians would desire if they were ever brought before Roman magistrates. The charges against Paul have their setting in the context of a debate with the synagogue, and the function of the Romans is to declare Paul innocent of Jewish religious charges. The charges against Jesus are political in nature, but they are neither considered nor refuted by Pilate, whose major function is to declare Jesus innocent, in sharp contrast to the people of the Jews who reject him. Luke's polemic has its context in the agonizing relationship of his community with an outside group, but that group is to be found in the synagogue and not in the government. Luke's approach is not to appeal for sympathetic understanding from potential friends but to defend the church in the person of Paul and to attack the theological status of enemies. The legitimacy of his Gentile Christian community has been called radically into question, not only by contemporary Jews but also in its own mind. Radical problems call for radical solutions. It is understandable that Luke's solution should emphasize both an exaggerated continuity of the church with Israel and a radical discontinuity with contemporary Jews, the election of the church as the people of God and the rejection of the Jews as those cut off from that people (Acts 3:23). Luke's solution to the problem is understandable but the consequences for the later relationship between Christians and Jews, once the church acquires a measure of self-confidence, are deplorable.

The anti-Judaism of the Lukan passion narrative is extreme but on the surface only. The violent wrenching of the laos from a positive to a negative position in the passion story is in sharp contrast with the rest of the gospel and the early chapters of' Acts. There are tensions and contradictions within the passion narrative itself. Without the redactional 23:13 and 25, the thrust of the story would be quite different, for then the people who appear frequently in the narrative would take up their customary alliance with Jesus against the priests. Many scholars argue for the existence of a non-Markan passion narrative used by Luke as his major source in these chapters. In particular Luke 22 has received extensive attention, by Schfirmann (22:7-38), Rehkopf (22:21-3, 47-53), and Schneider (22:54-71). I have argued elsewhere that a strand (source?) of Luke-Acts can be isolated which contains a consistent theology of a Jewish Christian church preaching to Jerusalem. If this is even partly true, it is our most important source, if not our only one, for the theology of that church. Thus Luke's gospel also contains the most pro-Jewish material in all the gospels, at a level near enough to the surface that the contours are clear even if the mining of it is not easy. I believe that it is possible to reconstruct a Lukan passion narrative about which almost exactly the opposite would have to be said from that which emerged from the analysis above, but that was not the task of this paper. I also believe that one can use the special Lukan passion source as an important witness in reconstructing the historical circumstances of the trial and death of Jesus, but that was also not the task of this paper.

One final matter can be considered only in the context of the wildest speculation. Why did Luke, against the tenor of his non-Markan sources but also against the tenor of Acts, shift in his attitude to the Pharisees in the redaction of the gospel? Why is there such a contradiction between the gospel and Acts in this regard? In my analysis of the Lukan passion narrative it seemed easier to understand the passion of Jesus against the background of the passion of Paul than the other way around. If one were to draw a Lukan trajectory on the basis of a shifting and developing attitude to Israel, it might go something like this: earlier version of the gospel (without Mark), Acts, final editing of the gospel (using Mark). At this point that would be only speculation. In any case the paradox remains that Luke-Acts is one of the most pro-Jewish and one of the most anti-Jewish writings in the New Testament.