A decade ago J. Kodell, in the first volume of this journal, offered a very competent assessment of the then current status of Lukan research. Several of his statements and conclusions merit attention once again. After surveying the beginnings of redaction critical work on Luke and Acts, he observed that the ground-breaking work of H. Conzelmann on Luke's theology was &dquo;the accepted battlefield for current debate.&dquo; He concluded his study by surmising, on the one hand, that &dquo;the recent interest in the writings of St. Luke shows no sign of subsiding...&dquo; and, on the other, that &dquo;we may expect more attempts to recover the traditions with which Luke worked...&dquo; thereby providing balance to an &dquo;extreme emphasis on the Redactor&dquo; ( 1971:126, 144).A decade later a new assessment is required. To the extent that Kodell's statement regarding Conzelmann as battleground was pertinent for the Sixties, to approximately the same degree the opposite obtains in present research. Kodell's prediction of continued activity in Lukan study has proven to be an understatement; his hope for greater balance in discerning tradition from redaction in the analysis of Luke-Acts has had mixed results. It is with these concerns in mind, therefore, that I offer the following assessment of Luke as writer, theologian, historian.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.