| |  10th century Byzantine illustration
of Luke the Evangelist
(larger image) The introductory dedication to Theophilus, 1:1-4 states that since many others have compiled an "orderly narrative of the events" from the original eyewitnesses, that the author has decided to do likewise, after thorough research of everything from the beginning, so that Theophilus may realize the reliability of the teachings in which he has been instructed. The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introduction) remarks, is expressed in the motto, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38; cf. with Luke 4:18). Luke wrote for the "Hellenistic world". |  St Luke the Evangelist.
Artist: Domenico Ghirlandaio.
Date: 1486-90.(larger image) Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul the Apostle. The earliest surviving witnesses that place Luke as the author are the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), the writings of Irenaeus (c. 180), and the Anti-Marcionite (see Marcionism) Prologue (second half of the 2nd century). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the evidence in favor of Lucan authorship is based on two main things: first, the use of "we" in Acts 16, 20, 21 and 27 suggests the writer traveled with Paul; second, in the opinion of the Roman Catholic writers of the encyclopedia, the "medical language" employed by the writer is "identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and Dioscorides". According to this view, Paul's "dear friend Luke the Doctor" (Col 4:14) and "fellow worker" makes the most likely candidate for authorship out of all the companions mentioned in Paul's writings. Modern scholarship does not unanimously agree on these points, stating that the author of Luke was anonymous. A number of theories exist regarding the first-person ("we") passages. According to V. K. Robbins, the first-person narration was a generic style for sea voyages. Robbins goes on to discuss why the book of Acts also uses first-person narration on land and why it is absent from many other sea passages. It is also possible a first-person travel diary could have been incorporated into Acts from an earlier source, or the author could simply have been untruthful about being a companion of Paul. Additionally, the thesis that the vocabulary is special to a physician was questioned by H. J. Cadbury in his dissertation The Style and Literary Method of Luke, which argued that some of the vocabulary is found in nonmedical works as well. The evangelist does not claim to have been an eyewitness of Jesus' life, but to have "investigated everything carefully" and "writ[ten] an orderly account" "of the events . . . just as they were handed on . . . by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:1–4). According to the two-source hypothesis, the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem, Luke's sources included the Gospel of Mark and another collection of lost sayings known as the The Q Document, the Quelle or "source" document. Date Estimates range from c. 50 to c. 100. Traditional views of the date Traditionally, Christians believe that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation, of Paul. Conservative scholars suggest this would place it as having been written before Acts, with Acts being composed around 63 or 64. Consequently, the tradition is that this Gospel was written about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea [ ] in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. If the alternate conjecture is correct, that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there, then it would date earlier, 50–60. Additionally, Acts does not contain the martyrdom of Paul (c. 62), so conservative scholars suggest Luke-Acts were written before this. Critical views of the date In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author(s) of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority. Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke probably would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to as late as 100, and Acts shortly thereafter, between 80 and 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Furthermore, Acts is believed to present a significantly different picture of Paul than that which is seen in the undisputed Pauline Epistles. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within early Christianity had occurred. However, Luke makes use of many words and phrases that are used by Paul (see Relationship with other gospels below), suggesting Luke may have been familiar with Paul's theology and/or letters. Debate continues among non-traditionalists about whether Luke was written before or after the end of the 1st century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to heterodoxical movements of the early 2nd century, for example see Gospel of Marcion. Those who would date it earlier point out both that Luke lacks knowledge of the episcopal system, which had been developed in the 2nd century, and that an earlier date preserves the traditional connection of the gospel with the Luke who was a follower of Paul. Luke also appears to make use of the work of Josephus in writing Acts, which if true would place it after 93. Audience The consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek or Syrian for gentile/ non-Jewish Christians. The Gospel is addressed to the author's patron, the most excellent Theophilus, which in Greek simply means Friend of God, and may not be a name but a generic term for a Christian. The Gospel is clearly directed at Christians, or at those who already knew about Christianity, rather than a general audience, since the ascription goes on to state that the Gospel was written "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3–4). Manuscripts The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are four papyrus fragments dating from the first half of the 3rd century , one containing portions of all four gospels (P45) and three others preserving only brief passages (P4, P69, P75). These early copies, as well as the earliest copies of Acts, date after the Gospel was separated from Acts. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are 4th-century codices of the Greek bible that are the oldest manuscripts that contain Luke. Codex Bezae is a 5th- or 6th-century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages. This text-type appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. Verses 22:19–20 are omitted only in Codex Bezae and a handful of Old Latin manuscripts. Nearly all other manuscripts including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and Early Church Fathers contain the "longer" reading of Luke 22:19 and 20. Verse 22:20, which is very similar to 1 Cor 11:25, provides the only gospel support for the doctrine of the New Covenant. Verses 22:43–44 are found in Western text-type. But they are omitted by a diverse number of anctient witnesses and are generally marked as such in modern translations. See Bruce M. Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for details. Relationship with other gospels According to Farrar, "Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 peculiar to himself. In many instances all three use identical language." Mark is widely considered a principal direct source, and Martin Hengel has made the more controversial argument that Luke also made use of Matthew. There are 17 parables peculiar to this Gospel. Luke also attributes to Jesus seven miracles (see also miracles of Jesus) which are not present in Matthew or Mark. The synoptic Gospels are related to each other after the following scheme. If the contents of each Gospel are numbered at 100, then when compared this result is obtained: Mark has 7 peculiarities, 93 coincidences. Matthew 42 peculiarities, 58 coincidences. Luke 59 peculiarities, 41 coincidences. That is, thirteen-fourteenths of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke describe the same events in similar language. Luke's style is more polished than that of Matthew and Mark with fewer Hebrew idioms. He uses a few Latin words (Luke 7:41; 8:30; 11:33; 12:6; and 19:20), but no Syriac or Hebrew words except sikera, an exciting drink of the nature of wine but not made of grapes (from Heb. shakar, "he is intoxicated"; Lev 10:9), perhaps palm wine. According to Walter Bauer's Greek English Lexicon of the NT, in Aramaic (שכרא) it means barley beer, from the Akkadian shikaru. This Gospel contains 28 distinct references to the Old Testament (see also: Aramaic of Jesus). Many words and phrases are common to the Gospel of Luke and the Letters of Paul; compare: Luke's writing style Greek Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Luke was written originally in Greek. The first four verses of Luke are in more formal and refined Greek, which would be meant to be familiar to the elite citizens of the Greco-Roman era. Then the language changes into a style of Greek which is very similar to the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). Then the language makes its final change toward the end into a more secular form of 1st-century Greek (called "Koine Greek"). Popular opinion among scholars is to see these variations in writings as the Lukan author's ability to write in different literary styles. This view could be further substantiated by Luke's praise of Theophilus. It seemed good to me to write it all up for you, most excellent Theophilus, in order that you might recognize the reliability of the instruction you have received. (Luke 1:3–4) Attention to women Compared to the other canonical gospels, Luke devotes significantly more attention to women. The Gospel of Luke features more female characters, features a female prophet (2:36), and details the experience of pregnancy (1:41–42). Prominent discussion is given to the lives of Elizabeth and of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 2). Disputed verses Textual critics have found variations among early manuscripts and have used principles of textual criticism to tentatively identify which versions are original. Bart D. Ehrman cites two cases where proto-orthodox Christians most likely altered the text in order to prevent its being used to support heretical beliefs. When Jesus is baptized, many early witnesses attest that Luke's gospel had the Father say to Jesus, "This day I have begotten you." In orthodox texts (and thus in most modern Bibles), this text is replaced by the text from Mark. Ehrman concludes that the original text was changed because it had adoptionist overtones. When Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, the text refers to his being comforted by an angel and sweating drops like blood (verses 43-44 in Luke 22:40-46). These two verses disrupt the literary structure of the scene (the chiasmus), they are not found in all the early manuscripts, and they are the only place in Luke where Jesus is seen to be in agony. Ehrman concludes that they were inserted in order to counter doceticism, the belief that Jesus, as divine, only seemed to suffer. While probably not original to the text, these verses reflect first-century tradition. | Content The approximate contents of the Gospel, in order, are as follows: | | | Those who hear the word and keep it
(11:27-28) Sign of Jonah
(11:29–32) Eye and Light
(11:34-36) Cursing Pharisees and Lawyers
(11:37-54) Veiled and Unveiled
(12:1-3) Whom to fear
(12:4-7) Unforgivable sin
(12:8-12) Disputed inheritance
(12:13-15) Parables of the Rich Fool and Birds
(12:16-32) Sell your possessions
(12:33-34) Parable of the Faithful Servant
(12:35–48) Not Peace, but a Sword
(12:49–53; 14:25–27) Knowing the times
(12:54-56) Settle with your accuser
(12:57-59) Repent or perish
(13:1-5) Parable of the barren fig tree
(13:6-9) Healing a woman on the Sabbath
(13:10-17) Parables of Mustard seed and Leaven
(13:18–21) The Narrow Gate
(13:22–30) Lament over Jerusalem
(13:31-35) Healing the man with dropsy
(14:1-6) Parables of the Guests,
Wedding Feast, Tower and War,
Lost sheep, Lost money,
Lost son, Unjust steward
(14:7–16:9) God and Mammon
(16:13) Not one stroke of a letter
(16:16-17) Teaching about divorce
(16:18) Lazarus and Dives
(16:19-31) Curse those who set traps
(17:1-6) The Master and Servant
(17:7-10) Cleansing ten lepers
(17:11-19) The Coming Kingdom of God
(17:20-37) Parables of the Unjust judge,
Pharisee and Publican
(18:1-14) Little children blessed
(18:15-17) Rich man's salvation
(18:18-30) Blind Bartimaeus
(18:35–43) Zacchaeus
(19:1-10) Parable of the Talents
(19:11–27
(see also Biblical and Talmudic units of measurement)) Entering Jerusalem
(19:28–44) Temple incident
(19:45–20:8) Parable of the vineyard
(20:9–19) Render unto Caesar
(20:20–26) Resurrection of the dead
(20:27–40) Messiah, the son of David?
(20:41-44) Denouncing scribes
(20:45-47) Lesson of the widow's mite
(21:1-21:4) The Coming Apocalypse
(21:5–38) Plot to kill Jesus
(22:1–6) Last Supper
(22:7–23) Who's the greatest?
(22:24-27) Twelve thrones of judgment
(22:28-30) Peter's denial
(22:31–34, 54–62) Two swords
(22:35-38) Arrest
(22:39–53) Before the High Priest
(22:63–71) Before Pilate
(23:1–5, 13–25) Before Herod Antipas
(23:6–12) Crucifixion
(23:26–49) Joseph of Arimathea
(23:50–56) Empty tomb
(24:1–12) Resurrection appearances
(24:13–43) Great Commission
(24:44–49) Ascension of Jesus
(24:50–53) | References - Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 105.
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 102.
- N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (1951), pp. 24-45; H. J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity II, 1922, pp. 489-510; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006).
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 107.
- Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259.
- Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Gospels" p. 266-268
- translation from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Volume II, Doubleday, 1994. p. 159: "This [specific example] would fit in with the general observation that critics make: Luke seems to have preserved the original order and wording of Q more often than Matthew. While such a sweeping 'rule' does not hold true in all cases and much always be tested in the individual instance, it seems to be valid here."
- Martin Hengel. 2000. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Trans. J. Bowden. London and Harrisburg: SCM and Trinity Press International. Pp. 169-207.
- "An Unpublished Dead Sea Scroll Text Parallels Luke’s Infancy Narrative", Biblical Archaeology Review, April/May 1990
- "The meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls: Their significance for understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity", James C. VanderKam, Peter W. Flint, p. 335, Continuum, 2005, ISBN 056708468X 18. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 37-40.
- Gospel of Luke at EarlyChristianWritings.com However, there is probably a bit of a mistake here. According to my sources, P75 does not include the start of the gospel, rather it includes the end, where an attribution to Luke is found.
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 114.
- Horrell, DG, An Introduction to the study of Paul, T&T Clark, 2006, 2nd Ed.,p.7; cf. W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (1948), p. 2-15 for detailed arguments that still stand.
- on linguistics, see A. Kenny, A stylometric Study of the New Testament (1986).
- F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1952), p2.
- Udo Schnelle. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259.
- E.g., C. Kavin Rowe, "History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke-Acts," JSNT 28 (2005): 131-157, raising questions about the literary unity of Luke-Acts.
- Image of Papyrus 75 showing the end of Luke's Gospel and the beginning of John's Gospel, separated by the words Κατά Λουκαν, (Kata Loukan) = "According to Luke".
- Gregory, A. (2003) The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus, Mohr Siebeck, ISBN 3161480864 p.28
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), says the traditional view is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.” p. 119, whereas R. E. Brown says opinion on the issue is "evenly divided" Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- M. A. Siotis, ‘Luke the Evangelist as St. Paul’s Collaborator’, in Neues Testament Gesichichte, pp. 105-111.
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 117.
- analyzed in detail in Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 117-118.
- e.g. W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt (1906)
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 119.
- To list just some: I. H. Marshall, Acts (1980), pp. 44-45; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1952), pp. 1-6; C. S. C. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles, in Black’s New Testament Commentary (1957); W. Michaelis, Einleitung, pp. 61-64; Bo Reicke, Glaube und Leben Der Urgenmeinde (1957), pp. 6-7; F. V. Filson, Three Crucial Decades (1963), p. 10; M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (1956); R. M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (1963), pp. 134-135; B. Gärtner, The Aeropagus Speech and Natural Revelation (1955), W. L. Knox, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels; R. R. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles; E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, in Tyndale New Testament Commentary (1959), W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 39.
- Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 226. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, pp. 43
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 126-126.
- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 125.
- Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 334
- Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 336
- "Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
- S. Brown agrees that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date. Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 24
- Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 29
- Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 27
- 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: Marcion: "The distinctive teaching of Marcion originated in a comparison of the Old Testament with the gospel of Christ and the theology of the apostle Paul. .. This he did by setting aside the spurious gospels, purging the real gospel (the Gospel of Luke) from supposed judaizing interpolations, and restoring the true text ..
- A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911), p. 90; I. H. Marshall, Luke, p. 35 (1974); A. J. Mattill Jr., ‘The Date and Purpose of Luke-Acts: Rackham reconsidered, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), pp. 335-350.
- Guthrie, Donald (1990) (in English). New Testament Introduction. Leicester, England: Apollos. pp. 131.
- Carson, D.A.; Moo, Dougals J. (1992). "4" (in English). An introduction to the New Testament. Morris, Leon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. pp. 116. ISBN 0-310-519-40-3.
- Strong's G2321
- Bauer lexicon, 2nd edition, 1958, page 358
- Complete List of Greek NT Papyri
- List of New Testament papyri
- "Greek." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
- Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus.
- May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.
|
| |