In the first two chapters of Luke, characters acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Lukan characters also speak of John the Baptist going before the Lord God, suggesting that Jesus might be the Lord in view, and connect Jesus with Old Testament YHWH passages. These features have made Luke 1–2 a key locus for discussions of Lukan Christology, raising the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as divine. However, they also create an apparent incongruity with the body of the Gospel. In Luke 3 and elsewhere, human characters are initially ignorant that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Moreover, Jesus’ divinity – if Luke affirms it – does not seem to be recognized until after the resurrection. In this study, Caleb T. Friedeman advances a new model for understanding the christological relationship between Luke 1–2 and the rest of Luke-Acts, in which Luke presents these opening chapters as a christological mystery.

In the first two chapters of Luke, characters acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Lukan characters also speak of John the Baptist going before the Lord God, suggesting that Jesus might be the Lord in view, and connect Jesus with Old Testament YHWH passages. These features have made Luke 1–2 a key locus for discussions of Lukan Christology, raising the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as divine. However, they also create an apparent incongruity with the body of the Gospel. In Luke 3 and elsewhere, human characters are initially ignorant that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Moreover, Jesus’ divinity – if Luke affirms it – does not seem to be recognized until after the resurrection. In this study, Caleb T. Friedeman advances a new model for understanding the christological relationship between Luke 1–2 and the rest of Luke-Acts, in which Luke presents these opening chapters as a christological mystery.

In the first two chapters of Luke, characters acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Lukan characters also speak of John the Baptist going before the Lord God, suggesting that Jesus might be the Lord in view, and connect Jesus with Old Testament YHWH passages. These features have made Luke 1–2 a key locus for discussions of Lukan Christology, raising the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as divine. However, they also create an apparent incongruity with the body of the Gospel. In Luke 3 and elsewhere, human characters are initially ignorant that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Moreover, Jesus’ divinity – if Luke affirms it – does not seem to be recognized until after the resurrection. In this study, Caleb T. Friedeman advances a new model for understanding the christological relationship between Luke 1–2 and the rest of Luke-Acts, in which Luke presents these opening chapters as a christological mystery.

In the first two chapters of Luke, characters acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Lukan characters also speak of John the Baptist going before the Lord God, suggesting that Jesus might be the Lord in view, and connect Jesuswith Old Testament YHWH passages. These features have made Luke 1–2 a key locus for discussions of Lukan Christology, raising the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as divine. However, they also create an apparent incongruity with the body of the Gospel. In Luke 3 and elsewhere, human characters are initially ignorant that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Moreover, Jesus’ divinity – if Luke affirms it – does not seem to be recognized until after the resurrection. In this study, Caleb T. Friedeman advances a new model for understanding the christological relationship between Luke 1–2 and the rest of Luke-Acts, in which Luke presents these opening chapters as a christological mystery.

In the first two chapters of Luke, characters acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Lukan characters also speak of John the Baptist going before the Lord God, suggesting that Jesus might be the Lord in view, and connect Jesus with Old Testament YHWH passages. These features have made Luke 1–2 a key locus for discussions of Lukan Christology, raising the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as divine. However, they also create an apparent incongruity with the body of the Gospel. In Luke 3 and elsewhere, human characters are initially ignorant that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Moreover, Jesus’ divinity – if Luke affirms it – does not seem to be recognized until after the resurrection. In this study, Caleb T. Friedeman advances a new model for understanding the christological relationship between Luke 1–2 and the rest of Luke-Acts, in which Luke presents these opening chapters as a christological mystery.

In the first two chapters of Luke, characters acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Lukan characters also speak of John the Baptist going before the Lord God, suggesting that Jesus might be the Lord in view, and connect Jesus with Old Testament YHWH passages. These features have made Luke 1–2 a key locus for discussions of Lukan Christology, raising the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as divine. However, they also create an apparent incongruity with the body of the Gospel. In Luke 3 and elsewhere, human characters are initially ignorant that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Moreover, Jesus’ divinity – if Luke affirms it – does not seem to be recognized until after the resurrection. In this study, Caleb T. Friedeman advances a new model for understanding the christological relationship between Luke 1–2 and the rest of Luke-Acts, in which Luke presents these opening chapters as a christological mystery.

In the first two chapters of Luke, characters acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Lukan characters also speak of John the Baptist going before the Lord God, suggesting that Jesus might be the Lord in view, and connect Jesus with Old Testament YHWH passages. These features have made Luke 1–2 a key locus for discussions of Lukan Christology, raising the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as divine. However, they also create an apparent incongruity with the body of the Gospel. In Luke 3 and elsewhere, human characters are initially ignorant that Jesus is Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. Moreover, Jesus’ divinity – if Luke affirms it – does not seem to be recognized until after the resurrection. In this study, Caleb T. Friedeman advances a new model for understanding the christological relationship between Luke 1–2 and the rest of Luke-Acts, in which Luke presents these opening chapters as a christological mystery.

The Greeks often saw Egypt as a model of long-term cultural stability; in fact, Egyptian history is full of ruptures – periods of instability or external invasions – and a major theme in Egyptian literature is the methods by which such threats to continuity were resisted. This chapter looks at several modes of resistance illustrated by Greco-Egyptian literature of the first millennium. It looks at three topics: first, heroes of the Egyptian resistance to Persia (in Herodotus and the Inaros Cycle); secondly, resistance narratives in the Ptolemaic Period: the story of Nectanebo’s Dream (which probably presented the Ptolemies as re-establishing legitimate kingship in Egypt after the Persians) and the apocalyptic Oracles of the Potter and the Lamb (probably directed at the ‘Typhonian’ Ptolemies). The chapter closes by looking at Manetho’s narrative of Egyptian resistance to the foreign Hyksos rulers, which corresponds to events in the mid-second millennium BCE and the foundation of the New Kingdom. It asks whether Manetho’s narrative should be interpreted as reflecting contemporary concerns with foreign rule and resistance to it.

This chapter argues that Lucian’s dialogue Timon is best understood as responding to and critiquing polis politics in the Imperial period. Through a number of thinly veiled references to contemporary honorific culture, and in particular to the controversial super-benefactor Herodes Atticus, Lucian makes clear that the target of his satire is not Roman rule itself, but rather the behaviour of the citizens within the Greek cities who were the greatest winners from Roman rule. These individuals had become wealthy and influential through participating in Roman hegemony and now felt that the duties and obligations which membership of a polis imposed on its citizens no longer applied to them, thus threatening the very fabric of polis life. This breaking of the social contract was an abiding concern for polis society, and indeed Lucian makes extensive intertextual use of Classical works addressing precisely this question. The Timon thus not only illustrates the continuing vitality of polis politics in the Imperial period, but also the extent to which the political values which poleis continued to foster were themselves a central part of Greek cultural identity in the Imperial period.