Article

**Three points: **

• first, that while Luke-Acts names many geographical sites and organizes its narrative and sayings materials around schemata of the movements of his various characters, the quality of his topography knowledge ranges widely. For the interior of palestine, Luke shows only place-name knowledge but nonetheless uses a spatial imaginary as a key part of his presentation of Jesus’ activities. Luke has slight relational knowledge of Jerusalem, but it is slight. For the Levantine coast, however, Luke displays accurate relational or cartographical knowledge. Luke’s knowledge improves dramatically in Acts, especially for the northeast Aegean, where Luke seems to have local knowledge.
• Second, i will argue that the sources of Luke’s topographical knowledge are various: the topographical references embedded in his sources, Mark and Q, which he takes over whether or not he understands that topography. For sites in the northeast Aegean Luke seems to have local knowledge and betrays this knowledge inadvertently. For the Levantine coast, however, he has cartographical knowledge from sources such as Agrippa’s map or its successor, the Tabula Peutingeriana.
• the third point is an inference from contrast between the sheer number of topographical sites named by Luke and his topographic ignorance. Although he appears to have no knowledge of certain topographies, topography is critical to his project. thus, i will explore the social and political values that are embedded in his representation of space and movement through space.

1. What Luke Did and Didn’t Know
2. Luke’s knowledge of geography has been the subject of several studies (e.g., h. conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, new york, Harper & row, 1960, pp. 18-94, esp. 19, 69-70; m. hengel, The Geography of Palestine in Acts, in r.J. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (the Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, 4), Grand rapids, Mi, eerdmans – Carlisle, paternoster, 1995, pp. 27-78).
3. in 1938 C. C. McCown inventoried Luke’s spatial references in the central section of the Gospel (9,51–18,14), concluding: Luke betrays his complete ignorance or his equally complete indifference to geographical notions by concocting a most confusing series of allusions to Jesus’ movements. Knowing of later Christian communities in Samaria (Ac 8,1-25) and having some Samaritan traditions (9,51-56; 17,11-18; 10,29- 37?), he thought that Jesus must have gone through that country, although Mark had not once mentioned it. He evidently knew that Samaria is between Galilee and Jerusalem, if one follow the ancient road through the mountains, but he cannot have had the ability to visualize such a journey. After eight chapters Jesus is still somewhere near Galilee “going up to Jerusalem … through the midst of (or between) Samaria and Galilee” (17,11) (c.c. mccoWn, The Geography of Luke’s Central Section, in JBL 57 (1938) 51-66, p. 59).
4. This view appears to be fully justified. Luke’s gospel is replete with geographical, topographical, and architectural references, beginning with the account of John the Baptist’s birth. Luke or his source knows that the altar of incense in the Herodian temple is not visible from the public court (1,10- 11.21-22) – or perhaps he simply assumed this to be the case, since incense altars, though they were sometimes publicly visible, were also features of the cellae of roman and Greek temples3 . But from this point onward, the credibility of his spatial claims declines rapidly. Luke continues by having Mary, whom he says lives in a πόλις called nazareth (1,26), go to visit elizabeth in the hills to some unnamed πόλις of Judaea (1,39). Apart from the mischaracterizations of nazareth and the unnamed location as πόλεις, Luke seems not to have much appreciation of the fact that the journey from the nazareth ridge to the Judaean hills, undoubtedly via the Jordan Valley and Jericho, is likely to take at least four days by foot and, since Luke does not indicate the presence of any travelling companions, was hardly a trip that an unaccompanied woman would take. Luke’s interest here is not in geographical verisimilitude, but in deploying a spatial imaginary that connects the family of Jesus to the family of John the Baptist, and the Galilee with Judaea.

Luke has a special predilection for calling settlements πόλεις and uses πόλις thirty-nine times (forty-three times in Acts). He calls nazareth a πόλις at 1,26; 2,4.39 and 4,29 (bis) which, in the first century, it most assuredly was not, and says the same of Bethlehem (2,4.11), Capernaum (4,13red) 6 , nain (7,11.12 bis), and Arimathea (23,29red). By Luke’s day, Bethsaida was a πόλις, but Luke refers to it not by its city name, iulias, but rather by its local name (9,10red), Bethsaida; thus it is unclear whether Luke knows of the change of status. While Matthew and Mark locate the anointing of Jesus in Bethany, Luke has relocated it to an unnamed πόλις in the Galilee (7,37). At 4,43 he changes Mark’s κωμοπόλεις (1,38) to πόλεις, adds πόλεις to Mark at 5,12 and κατὰ πόλιν in 8,1.4 when describing Jesus’ itinerant preaching and teaching. Likewise, where Mk 6,11 simply speaks of the disciples exiting a non-receptive “place” (τόπος), Luke specifies ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἐκείνης (9,5), probably under the influence of Q 10,11. Further, he prefaces the sending of the seventy-two with ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς … εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ τόπον (10,1), perhaps again under the influence of Q 10. Luke appears to have taken πόλις from Q’s mission speech at 10,8.10.11.127 , but adds it in a summary statement describing Jesus’ activities at 13,22 (along with κώμαι). the parables of the Great Supper, the Dishonest Judge, and the entrusted Money are all set in cities and extraordinarily in the latter parable, the successful slaves are installed as civic administrators supervising multiple cities (14,21red; 18,2-3S ; 19,17S .19S ).

The confusion surrounding χώρα τῶν Γερασηνῶν in Mk 5,1 = Lk 8,27 is well known. Luke’s redactional explanation of the location as ἀντιπέρα τῆς Γαλιλαίας excludes Gerasa, which was a πόλις of the Decapolis, but is located almost 30 km. southeast of Gadara, that is, neither near the Kinneret nor opposite Galilee. if Luke had any real location in mind (which is not clear), it would be Chorsia (Kursi), which, of course, is not a πόλις (See y. TSaFrir – l. di Segni – J. green, Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea Palaestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Maps and Gazetteer, Jerusalem, israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994, p. 104). At 8,39 he curiously omits Mark’s note that the demoniac proclaimed Jesus’ deeds throughout the Decapolis, substituting instead that he announced them “throughout the entire city” (καθ’ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν). Hence, while Luke occasionally refers to villages (κώμαι), the overwhelming impression that he conveys to the reader is that Jesus’ activity had mainly to do with cities. And since at 9,1 he deletes κώμαι from Mk 6,6b, and prefaces the commission in 10,1 with εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ τόπον, he leaves the impression that the disciples’ preaching tour is, like Jesus”, exclusively to πόλεις. Luke’s editing of Mark and Q has also created some spatial anomalies. the omission of a large block of Markan material (Mk 6,45–8,26) resulted in Luke borrowing Mark’s reference to Bethsaida (8,22), now designated as a πόλις, as the locale of the first feeding miracle (Lk 9,10b-17). yet he retains Mark’s description of the place as an ἔρημος τόπος (Mk 6,35; Lk 9,12) and the Markan disciples’ suggestion that they go to the surrounding villages (τὰς κύκλῳ κώμας καὶ ἀγρούς, Mk 6,36 = Lk 9,12) to purchase food for the crowd. this is either a case of what Mark Goodacre has termed “editorial fatigue” (m.S. goodacre, Fatigue in the Synoptics, in NTS, 44/1 (1998) 45-58).

More serious geographical gaffes appear in the travel narrative. From his last known location near Bethsaida, the Lukan Jesus then appears at least thirty kilometers to the south in villages in Samaria (9,52-56). even more curious is the fact that the woes against the Galilean “cities” of Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum (10,13-15) are delivered while the Lukan Jesus is no longer near any of these towns but far to the south (McCown, Luke’s Central Section, p. 53). And although 9,51– 17,19 appears to be set in Samaria – hence, the stories of the Samaritan traveller (10,29-37) and the Samaritan leper (17,11-19) appear there –, Luke’s placement of the visit to the village of Mary and Martha (10,38-42) would imply, rather improbably, that they too live in Samaria. Luke’s overall geographical plan also locates the woes against the pharisees and lawyers (11,37- 52) and the discourse on precedence at table (14,1-24) in Samaria, where Luke thinks, equally improbably, that pharisees were present (13,31-34; 14,1; 15,1-7; 16,14-15; 17,20). this is also the location of the woe against Jerusalem (13,34-35). Luke’s geographical imagination is extremely vague in this section. there are no named villages or “cities”: we hear only of Jesus teaching in a synagogue at 13,10. Most puzzlingly, while Jesus supposedly makes progress towards Jerusalem, at 17,11 he seems to be back near the Galilee: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ αὐτὸς διήρχετο διὰ μέσον Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλιλαίας (17,11).

1. A “gaffe” is only a gaffe if the author was incompetent in carrying out his intention efficiently.
2. Although Luke seems to have virtually no knowledge of the topography of the Galilee, Samaria, or Judaea, he reflects slightly better knowledge of Jerusalem itself in the gospel, and slightly more in Acts (on which see below). As indicated earlier, he knew or assumed that the altar of incense in the Herodian temple was not visible from the public court (1,10-11.21-22). Luke 21,1-4 takes over from Mark a reference to the treasury (καζοφυλάκιον) and 21,37 relocates Mark’s reference to the Mount of Olives to a summarizing comment relating to Jesus’ iteration between the temple, where the content of chap. 21 is delivered, and Olivet. Likewise the transfer of Jesus to pilate is without any indication of the spatial relationship between the High priest’s house and pilate’s residence (23,1). Luke drops Mark’s mention of the praetorium (15,16) but this is a consequence of his omission of the entire scene in which roman soldiers mock Jesus (Mk 15,16-20). the name of the place of execution is taken from Mark in Luke 23,33.

1. Jerusalem and the Temple

Jerusalem presents a special case, not so much in Luke’s gospel, but in Acts, where Luke appears to have at least modest topographical knowledge. He refers twice to the Beautiful Gate of the temple (Ac 3,2.10: ἡ θύρα τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἡ λεγομένη Ὡραία), and twice to Solomon’s portico (Ac 3,11; 5,12: ἡ στοά ἡ καλουμένη Σολομῶντος). Once he refers to the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians and Alexandrians (Ac 6,9).

The Location of Emmaus

The remaining topographical reference in Luke’s Gospel is the mention of emmaus (24,13), which Luke (correctly) refrains from calling a πόλις, describing it instead as a κώμη. His description of the location is textually disputed: the reading adopted by nA28 places it sixty stadia (7.5 roman miles, 11 km.) from Jerusalem but Codex Sinaiticus reads 160 stadia (= 20 roman miles, 29.5 km.). The question remains, however, whether there is any reason to think that Luke had accurate topographical knowledge of the location of emmaus. Several sites have been proposed as the “biblical” emmaus: the first is Kiryat ye῾arim (Abu Ghosh)36, located 9-10 roman miles (72-80 stadia = 13.3–14.8 km.) from Jerusalem. But while there is evidence of early roman occupation there, including a reservoir and some evidence of presence of Legio X Fretensis which was stationed at Colonia (=Motza), the only sign of Christian interest in the site is a crusader church called Fontenoid built in the twelfth century37. there is no evidence of a Byzantine church nor any sign that the site was identified as emmaus before the Crusader period.

Emmaus-nikopolis in the Shephelah as the likeliest candidate for Luke’s emmaus and implies that Luke’s “sixty stadia” is simply a guess, and an incorrect guess at that. Byzantine writers are almost unanimous in identifying Luke’s emmaus with emmaus-nikopolis, located at the point where the hills begin to rise towards Jerusalem. Why then should Luke mention the figure of sixty? this perhaps indicates that Luke wishes to convey the impression of accurate topographic knowledge. it may not be incidental that this is one of the few villages (κώμαι) in Luke’s spatial imaginary and, as a site of the appearance of the risen Jesus, the most important village in his spatial world. Since this is the only point in Luke-Acts where Luke provides distances between points, we might surmise that he assumes, in the case of cities, that distances are always well known or easily discovered, and therefore unimportant to specify. Villages, on the other hand, of which was a profusion, are important to locate in space. the fact that his locating of emmaus is inaccurate is beside the point. What is important is that villages, especially one as important as emmaus, need to be fixed in space in relation to a city. this again underscores the primacy of cities in Luke’s world.

Luke and the Levantine Coast

While Luke’s knowledge of the interior of palestine is fragmentary at best, his knowledge of the coastal area improves dramatically (scan 1). When Luke moves to the coast, his topographical references become logical (scan 2). Ac 9,32–11,18 details peter’s first contact with non-Jews. peter’s movements are again coherent with geography (scan 3).

Luke’s representation of Levantine travel is also seen in paul’s return to Jerusalem in Acts 21. It is often remarked that Luke seems to distinguish between Judaea and Caesarea, especially in 12,19 and 21,10. Luke thus betrays a kind of geographical knowledge that comes not from knowing about administrative and jurisdic tional boundaries, but from the ethnographic knowledge that is reflected in Josephus and ptolemy (See also kaSher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz Israel, p. 204).

The Sources of Luke‘s Knowledge

**Harnack also concluded that because the “we” passage breaks off at 21:18**, just after paul reached Jerusalem, **and resumes only at 27:1** at the beginning of the voyage to rome, Luke or the author of the “we” passages had “set foot … upon the soil of palestine and Jerusalem … but that he had left again very soon” (Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 72).

**The view that the “we” passages are Luke’s own memories __collides with fact that the author of Acts otherwise seems so badly informed about Paul__** (See a. Wedderburn, The ‘We’-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma, in ZNW 93 (2002) 78-98).

Some hold that the “we” passages either reflect sources that Luke has employed (S.e. porter, The ‘We’ Passages), **__or represent Luke’s imitation of travelogues where, in some cases, the seaborne portion of the travelogue was framed in the first person plural__** (V.k. roBBinS, By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages, in c.h. TalBerT (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Special Studies Series, 5), Macon, GA, Mercer University press – edinburgh, t&t Clark, 1978, 215-242).

When Luke moves to the Aegean, his topographical knowledge becomes much more detailed. three aspects of local knowledge of the northeast Aegean can be seen:

• First, robert Jewett has pointed out that the voyage reported in Acts 16,11-12 from troas to philippi via Samothrace and neapolis reflects the knowledge that in the spring, the southerly wind counteracts the current coming from the mouth of the Bosphorus to allow relatively quick sailing to Samothrace (See k. neumann – J.F.m. parTSch, Physikalische Geographie von Griechenland: mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Alterthum, Breslau, W. Koebner, 1885, pp. 113-116).
• Second, Luke calls philippi πρώτη τῆς μερίδος Μακεδονίας πόλις (Ac 16,12), which text critics have been inclined to emend.
• Finally, whereas Luke typically relates paul’s visits to a town by having him first enter a synagogue, at philippi he departs from this pattern, stating that Jews gathered by the river rather than in a purpose-built building (Ac 16,13).
  There are, then, three qualities of topographic knowledge that Luke displays in his account: almost complete ignorance or indifference, when it comes to the interior of palestine, combined with one or two bits of accurate spatial knowledge of the Herodian temple; accurate, though bare, knowledge of the spatial relationships among principal cities and towns in the Levantine coast; and much deeper knowledge of certain sites in the northeast Aegean. the latter knowledge is likely to have come from direct knowledge of the Aegean. But how does one understand the combination of ignorance and bare topographical knowledge of palestine? We might consider the possibility that Luke availed himself of geographical knowledge in the form of periploi, itineraria, geo graphies, or even ancient maps. Several important geographical works are known from antiquity.