Abstract
The arguments for the separation and relatively late dating of Luke's infancy narrative are not conclusive. On the contrary, while Luke 1 and 2, on analysis, turns out to involve a systematic rewriting of the first part of the Chronicler's history, Luke 3:1-4:22a emerges as its complement - a systematic rewriting of the second part of the Chronicler's work (Ezra-Nehemiah). As the Chronicler had once reshaped Israel's history, Luke re shapes the Chronicler, adapting the building of the Temple to the building of the living Temple, Jesus, and adapting the post-exilic reconstruction to build a picture of moral reconstruction (3:1-4:22a). Thus the pervasive influence of the OT (midrash?) is not limited to the infancy narra tives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.