[R. P. C.] Hanson pointed out that in the light of James 5.17 (sic) it is not possible to read ‘innocent’ at James 5.6; and while ‘innocent’ is possible at 1 Peter 3.18 it is neither certain nor obvious. Hanson asked whether there were other examples in Luke’s writing of δικαιος used for ‘innocent’, and concluded (1942, p. 76) that there were two indications that Luke did not use it so: first, in Luke’s treatment of the parallel to Matthew 23.35 there is no reference to δικαιος; if Luke borrowed from Mathew, then he dropped this use of δικαιος; if from ‘Q’, then it did not have the phrase and Luke did not add it. Second, because the evangelist used the adverb δικαιος in the sense ‘justly’ at Luke 23.41, it was almost impossible to believe that he should use the adjective δικαιος in the opposite sense six verses later. So the linguistic evidence for ‘innocent’ outside the conventional phrase was very weak indeed. (Peter Doble, The Paradox of Salvation: Luke’s Theology of the Cross [Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 87; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 73-74; this is a summary of “Does δικαιος in Lk xxiii.47 Explode the Proto-Luke Hypothesis?,” Hermathena 60, pp. 74-78)
