^{page 301 note 1} Dunn, J. D. G., Christology in the Making. SCM, 1981, p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 2} Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative. George Allen & Unwin, London, Sydney, 1981, p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 3} The particularly Jewish concept of‘holiness’ dominates the passage, but it is notable that the climax, stressing the fulfilment of Jewish hopes, moves out to a more universal vision. God's ‘tender mercy’ is stressed rather than his fearsome ‘holiness’. The daystar (v. 78) could be a Jewish symbol, but is also a universal symbol — dawn. The final symbols are ‘light’ and ‘peace’, in contrast to the opening particularism of the poem — ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel’. The poem's stress on continuity with the old dispensation bears the seeds of discontinuity — the fulfilment of Israel's hopes is greater than Israel.

^{page 304 note 4} This emphasis is to be expected at the opening of a text — cf. e.g. Act I of Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg where ‘the new’ appears primarily as a threat to the old. It is only later (at the very end of Act III of Wagner's opera) that it is possible for the new to recognise its indebtedness to the old.

^{page 304 note 3} Brown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah. Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1979, p. 314.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 6} The annunciation to the shepherds is the third such story we have read within two pages and we are therefore struck by its divergence from the model of the earlier two. Notably: the shepherds are not named by the angel (cf. 1.13, 1.30, 2.10) and they do not answer back (1.18, 1.34). They do not come to life as characters until they spread the news. Note too the function of the sign — the presence of the baby is a ‘sign’ that the angel's interpretation of its significance is true, the angelic message is not the sign of who the baby is!

^{page 308 note 7} Just as Jesus' first words in Luke refer to his Father, so do his final words. Luke is the only writer to include ‘Father forgive them’ and ‘Father into thy hands I commit my spirit’. (23.34, 46) The final words must be a conscious recapitulation of the first words of the 12-year-old about his sonship.

^{page 308 note 8} It is interesting to note the distinctive context into which this ‘hard saying’ is redacted by Luke. Luke 8.10, as in Mark, introduces the interpretation of the parable of the soils, and is followed by the warning that hidden things will be manifest, and that ‘to him who has will more be given’ etc. He then departs from Mark to gloss ‘from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away’ (the italic words are a Lukan addition), by introducing Jesus' mother and his brothers. These people, who so clearly ‘think that they have’ are deprived of it when Jesus insists, ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.’ (Luke 8.21) (N.B. in this respect Luke is the only evangelist to include Luke 11.27–8.)

^{page 309 note 9} The more widely attested reading can be accounted for on grounds of assimilation to Mark and Matthew, and because of unease over the LXX translation of Ps. 2.7 amongst opponents of adoptionism in the third century. It will be clear from my exegesis of Luke's presentation of the baptism that ‘adoptionism’ is in no sense a meaningful category for understanding Luke's concept of Sonship. It is a model which seems to employ a more literal understanding of the Father/Son analogy than that used by the evangelists.

^{page 311 note 10} Schweizer, E., Luke, A Challenge to Present Theology, SPCK, 1982, p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 11} ‘He came to his own home, but his own people received him not.’ I am one of those who believes that Luke is better understood as a ‘Johannine’ than as a ‘Pauline’ Christian. His theology is rooted in epiphany, sign, parable, recognition/rejection, rather than in legal terms.