Abstract
Concerning Lk. 24.26 and 44, a scholarly consensus agrees that Luke’s reference to a ‘scriptural’ suffering Messiah is an oxymoron; some hold that Luke’s overt reference to psalms is a consequence of his use of them in his Passion Narrative; most urge that Luke’s ‘Messiah must suffer’ is probably a meld of Davidic Messiah and Isaianic servant motifs. However, because the underlying logic is questionable and its use of Lukan evidence problematic, this consensual case for an Isaianic Servant concept controlling Luke’s passion narrative is flawed. Replying to this consensus, a sixfold, cumulative argument demonstrates that Luke’s statement—that the Messiah must suffer and be raised—more probably emerges from a single David-model derived from the book of Psalms. This cumulative argument begins from Luke’s appeal by name to the book of Psalms, establishes the frequency and density of Luke’s use of psalms, examines occurrences of ‘David’ and ‘Messiah’ in relation to Luke’s using psalms, explores a Davidic autobiography implied in those psalms featuring in Luke’s subtext, reveals that apostolic speeches are arguments textured from psalms and rooted in a comparative biography of David and Jesus, and demonstrates that distinctive elements in Luke’s Passion Narrative are associated with the context-fields of psalm allusions in his portrayal of Jesus’ death and burial. Luke was right; his critics mistaken.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
