Gospel of Luke: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:45, 24 December 2005

The Gospel of Luke is the third of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which tell the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Although the text does not name its author, the modern consensus follows the traditional view that this gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author. The traditional view is that this author is the Luke named in the Epistle to Philemon 24, a follower of Paul.

The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introd.) remarks, is expressed in the motto, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38; compare with Luke 4:18). Luke wrote for the "Hellenic world."

Authorship and audience

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of Luke, was Luke himself, who also wrote the book of Acts. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author. With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author" (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259). See also Acts of the Apostles -- Authorship.

The evangelist does not claim to have been an eyewitness of Jesus's life, but to have investigated everything carefully and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4). The authors of the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and John, probably used similar sources. 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 by scholars as Q, the Quelle or "source" document.

The general consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek for the gentile Christians. The Gospel is addressed to the author's patron, the "most excellent" Theophilus.

Date of composition

The date of this gospel's composition is uncertain. Estimates range from ca 80 to ca 130 AD.

Traditional views of the date

Traditionally, Christians believe that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation, of Paul. This would place it as having been written before the Acts, whose date of the composition is generally fixed at about AD 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, 40–60. Evangelical Christians tend to favor this view, in keeping with the tradition to date the gospels very early.

Luke addressed his gospel to "most excellent Theophilus." Theophilus, which in Greek means "Friend of God", may just be a literary expression.

Unfortunately, nowhere in Luke or Acts does it say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul; this ascription is late second century. Furthermore, the text itself reveals hints that it was not written as a dictation of a single author, but made use of multiple sources.

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. Since Mark was probably written after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke could not have been written before 70. The Sadducees are another point traditional scholars use to confirm a later date, contrasting Matthew's focus on the tax collecters and Jesus' rebuke of their actions against Luke's hardly mentioning them at all within his gospel, because after the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees lost their power base. Based on this datum, scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 80 to as late as 150, and Acts shortly thereafter, also between 80 and 150. The de-emphasis of the Parousia and the universalization of the message strongly suggest a much later date than the 60–70 given by the traditional view.

Debate continues among non-traditionalists about whether Luke was written before or after the end of the first century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to hetrodoxical movements of the early second century. Those who would date it earlier point out both that Luke lacks knowledge of the episcopal system, which had been developed in the second century, and that an earlier date preserves the traditional connection of the gospel with the Luke who was a follower of Paul.

Manuscripts

The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are papyrus fragments from the third 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.

The Codex Bezae, in the University Library, Cambridge, contains a 5th or 6th century manuscript that is the oldest complete manuscript of Luke, in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages. The Greek version appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition and departs from familiar readings at many points. Though the text bears many intended corrections, often to bring it into line with the usual readings, the Codex Bezae demonstrates the latitude in manuscripts of scripture that still existed quite late in the tradition. Biblical scholars have minimized the Codex's importance, citing it generally only when it supports the common readings.

Verses 22:19b-20 and 22:43-44 are not present in early versions and are generally marked as such in modern translations.

Relationship with other gospels

Most New Testament scholars believe the author of Luke relied on Mark and Q as his primary sources.

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."

There are seventeen parables peculiar to this Gospel. Luke also attributes to Jesus seven miracles 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", Leviticus 10:9), probably palm wine. This Gospel contains twenty-eight distinct references to the Old Testament.

Many words and phrases are common to the Gospel of Luke and the Letters of Paul; compare:

Luke 4:22 with Colossians 4:6.
Luke 4:32 with 1 Corinthians 2:4.
Luke 6:36 with 2 Corinthians 1:3.
Luke 6:39 with Romans 2:19.
Luke 9:56 with 2 Corinthians 10:8.
Luke 10:8 with 1 Corinthians 10:27.
Luke 11:41 with Titus 1:15.
Luke 18:1 with 2 Thessalonians 1:11.
Luke 21:36 with Ephesians 6:18.
Luke 22:19-20 with 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.
Luke 24:34 with 1 Corinthians 15:5.

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, John the Baptist's mother (ch. 1), and Mary, the mother of Jesus (ch. 2). This prominence of women through the Luke gospel has led Biblical Scholar Randel McCraw Helms to suggest that the author of Luke may have been female.

Chapters

External links

Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:

Template:Biblegateway
Early Christian Writings; Gospel of Luke: introductions and e-texts
French; English translation

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Authorship and audience==
-There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of Luke was Luke and also wrote the book of [[Acts of the Apostles|Acts]].  The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book.  Both prefaces are addressed to [[Theophilus (Biblical)|Theophilus]], the author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus.  Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.  With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author" (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259).  See also [[Acts of the Apostles#Authorship|Acts of the Apostles -- Authorship]].
+There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of Luke, was Luke himself, who also wrote the book of [[Acts of the Apostles|Acts]].  The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book.  Both prefaces are addressed to [[Theophilus (Biblical)|Theophilus]], the author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus.  Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.  With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author" (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259).  See also [[Acts of the Apostles#Authorship|Acts of the Apostles -- Authorship]].
 The evangelist does not claim to have been an eyewitness of Jesus's life, but to have investigated everything carefully and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4).  The authors of the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and John, probably used similar sources.  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 by scholars as [[Q document|Q, the ''Quelle'' or "source" document]].

Books of the Bible
Preceded by: Mark	Gospels	Followed by: John