This paper assumes that Luke, by using the term paradoxa in Luke 5.26, intends to convey a significance to the words and deeds of Jesus in Luke 5.17-26 that could not have been captured equally well by standard Greek expressions, such as “extraordinary” or “strange.” A study of Luke’s placement of 5.17-26 in his narrative and a brief survey of the meaning of paradox in antiquity allows for the assumption that paradoxa could mean different things for the various audiences of this scene: “glorious” things for the believer and “inglorious” things for the unbeliever.
BockDarrell L.1994. Luke. Vol. 1. 1:1–9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker.
2.
BovonFrançois. 1989. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Vol 1. Luke 1,1–9,50. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. Zürich: Benziger.
3.
CardMichael. 2010. Luke: The Gospel of Amazement. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
4.
DabbJ. H. M.1933/1934. “Luke 5:26.” Expository Times45: 45.
5.
DunbarR. G.1933/1934. “Contributions and Comments.” Expository Times45: 142.
6.
ErnstJosef. 1976. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet.
7.
FitzmyerJoseph A.1979. The Gospel according to Luke (I–IX). The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.
8.
GrayP.2007. “The Liar Paradox and the Letter to Titus.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly69(2): 302–14.
9.
GrundmannWalter. 1974. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 7th edition.Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
10.
HeijenoortJohn van. 1967. “Logical Paradoxes.” Pages 45–51 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by EdwardsPaul. New York: Macmillan.
11.
JeffreyDavid Lyle. 2012. Luke. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos.
12.
KraftHeinrich. 1992. “Die Paradoxie in der Bibel und bei den Griechen als Voraussetzung für die Entfaltung der Glaubenslehren.” Pages 247–72 in Das Paradox: Eine Herausforderung des abendländischen Denkens. Edited by GeyerPaulHagenbüchleRoland. Stauffenburg Colloquium 21. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
13.
LockerMarkus. 2003. “Hamann-Wittgenstein: Towards a Pre-Critical Biblical Hermeneutics.” The Loyola Schools Review2: 115–31.
14.
LockerMarkus. 2009. “Jesus’ Language-Games: The Significance of the Notion of Language-Game for a Reformulation of ‘New Testament Biblical Theology’.” Heythrop Journal50(3): 392–401.
15.
LockerMarkus. 2013/2014. “Translating the No-Man.” Kritika Kultura21/22: 257–69.
16.
LockerMarkus. 2014. “Jesus’ Option for the Poor or a Poor Cooption of Jesus? Reading Luke 4.18–19 in the Power of the Most High.” Unpublished paper, Ateneo de Manila University.
17.
MarshallHoward. 1978. The Gospel of Luke. A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
18.
MateraFrank J.1999. New Testament Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
19.
MenziesRobert P.2004. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke–Acts. London: T&T Clark International.
20.
PaoDavid W.SchnabelEckhard J.2007. “Luke.” Pages 251–414 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by BealeG. K.CarsonD. A.Grand Rapids: Baker.
21.
PowellMark Allan. 1992. “Salvation in Luke–Acts.” Word & World12(1): 5–10.
22.
PrevalletElaine Marie. 1968. “The Rejection of Nazareth.” Scripture20(49): 5–9.
23.
RichA. T.1932/1933. “Luke V. 26.” Expository Times44: 44.
24.
SchilderKlass. 1933. Zur Begriffsgeschichte des “Paradoxon.” Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Calvins und des nach-kierkegaardschen “Paradoxon.”Kampen: J. H. Kok A.G.
25.
SchreinerThomas. 2008. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker.
26.
SchröderHenning. 1992. “Das Paradox als Kategorie systematischer Theologie.” Pages 61–70 in Das Paradox: Eine Herausforderung des abendländischen Denkens. Edited by GeyerPaulHagenbüchleRoland. Stauffenburg Colloquium 21. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
27.
SchürmannHeinz. 1984. Das Lukasevangelium. Vol. 1. Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1–9,50. Freiburg: Herder.
28.
StegemannWolfgang. 1991. Zwischen Synagoge und Obrigkeit. Zur historischen Situation der lukanischen Christen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
29.
SteinRobert H.1992. Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. The New American Commentary 24. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group.
30.
TurnerMax M.2003. “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke–Acts.” Word & World23(2): 146–53.
31.
TwelftreeGraham H.1999. Jesus, the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove: Intervarsity.
32.
VossenkuhlWillhelm. 1995. Ludwig Wittgenstein. München: C. H. Beck.
