When Did we See You Naked?. Группа авторов

this to speak into the realia of the Jesus movement in a context different from Galilee.

9 ‘[D]ie Evangelien Passionsgeschichten mit ausführlicher Einleitung nennen’ in Martin Kähler, Der sogennante historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus, 2nd edn (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1896), p. 51.

10 Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 264–7.

11 Werner H. Kelber, Mark’s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 48; Robyn Whitaker, ‘Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013), p. 671. This is not the only time that Mark mentions epitemaō (also in Mark 1.25; 3.12; 4.39; 8.30; 9.25; 10.48).

12 Examples of Mark’s anticipation of the ultimate verbal–physical agonistic interchange that leads to Jesus’ passion and death are seen in Mark 2.1–12, 15–19; 3.1–6; 6.1–6; 7.1–22; 8.11–13; 10.2–9; 11.27–33; 12.12–27, 35–44.

13 Richard L. Rohrbaugh, ‘Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World’, in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament, eds Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris (New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 125–41.

14 On ‘gossip’ in the ancient world, see John W. Daniels Jr, ‘Gossip in the New Testament’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 42 (2012), pp. 204–13.

15 Mark spells out the murderous intent of Jesus’ critics early in the Gospel, in Mark 3.6. This theme runs as an undercurrent through the remaining part of the Gospel narrative, reaching a climax in its final chapters.

16 On the nature of orality as speech-act, see, for example, Richard Briggs, Word in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation: Toward a Theory of Self-Involvement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001); John R. Searle, Ferenc Kiefer and Manfred Bierwisch, eds, Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1980).

17 D. H. Berry and Andrew Erskine, Form and Function in Roman Oratory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 7–17.

18 Plato, Timaeus 90 a, b.

19 Aristotle, Politics, 1, 2; 5, 2; De Anima 2, 1f.

20 My translation here seeks to render Iudaioi as a regional rather than national identity.

21 This interpretation flies in the face of the conventional commentary on the centurion’s words as a high point of Christological identity, and now by a representative of Rome. Contra to this and for the position I take here, see Trainor, Body of Jesus, pp. 114–17.

22 For a helpful summary on the current state of Lucan scholarship, see Peter Anthony, ‘What are They Saying about Luke–Acts?’, Scripture Bulletin 40 (2010), pp. 10–21. Also see Amy-Jill Levine and Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Luke (New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp 1–17; Byrne, Hospitality of God, pp. 4–22.

23 ‘[D]ie Evangelien Passionsgeschichten mit ausführlicher Einleitung nennen’ in Kähler, Der sogennante historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus, p. 51.

24 Bartosz Adamczewski, The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary, European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions (Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH, 2016), p. 65; Pablo T. Gadenz, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), p. 66.

25 Brephós occurs eight times in the NT, six of which are in Luke-Acts, including Luke 2.12, 16; Acts 7.19.

26 On the distinction between paidíon and brephós, see Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1 (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1975), pp. 280–91.

27 On the theme of Lucan hospitality, see Byrne, Hospitality of God, pp. 8–11.

28 On Luke’s appeal to the wealthy elite in the Gospel household, see Michael Trainor, About Earth’s Child: An Ecological Listening to the Gospel of Luke (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), pp. 7, 27–30.

29 The scenes that Luke draws on from Mark and redacts include Luke 5.17–26, 29–39; 4.16–30; 6.6–11; 20.20–40, 41–44.

30 For further on this change that Luke makes to Mark, see John Donahue and Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), p. 183; Byrne, Costly Freedom, p. 105.

31 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament: The Abridged Edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), p. 93.

32 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), p. 270. For further study on Jesus’ absence of emotion in Luke’s Christology, see Jerome Neyrey, ‘The Absence of Jesus’ Emotions – the Lucan Redaction of Lk 22, 39–46’, Biblica 61 (1980), pp. 153–71.

33 Jose Severino Croatto, ‘Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-teacher Like Moses in Luke-Acts’, Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005), pp. 451–65.

34 Albrecht Oerke, ‘λάμπω’ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds Gerhard Kittel, and Gerhard Friedrich, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), p. 17.

35 For a discussion on the social composition of Luke’s household and the elite as the primary addressees of the Gospel see Trainor, About Earth’s Child, pp. 26–39.

36 Susan Deacy and Karen F. Pierce, eds, Rape in Antiquity: Sexual Violence in the Greek and Roman Worlds (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 2002).

37 The recognition of these metaphors (‘windows’ and ‘mirrors’) as descriptors for the Gospels was popular among interpreters