Jump to content

Gospel of Luke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.14.217.204 (talk) at 05:15, 11 October 2006 (→Content: merge Son of Man and Coming Kingdom of God). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Books of the
New Testament
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament papyri, showing 2 Cor 11:33–12:9
Gospels and Acts
Four Evangelists
Lukan Acts
Epistles and Apocalypse
Pauline epistles
Catholic epistles
Apocalypse
Authorship
Related topics

The Gospel of Luke is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which tell the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Although neither this gospel nor the Acts of the Apostles, written by the same person, name the author, the traditional view ascribes its authorship to Luke named in Colossians 4:14, a doctor and 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; cf. with Luke 4:18). Luke wrote for the "Hellenic world".

Content

The approximate contents of the Gospel, in order, are as follows:

Authorship and audience

See also: Acts of the Apostles § Authorship

Although the author of Luke is generally considered to be anonymous, there is some suggestion that the author of Luke 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).

Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul. 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 Prologue (second half of the 2nd century).[1][2] 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". [3] According to this view, Paul's "dear friend Luke the Doctor" (Col 4:14) and "fellow worker" (Phlm 24) 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 Q, the Quelle or "source" document. The more traditional theory, advocating Matthew as the earliest Gospel, which the two-source hypothesis usurped as favorite, is known as the Augustinian hypothesis.

The general consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek for gentile 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).

Date of composition

The date of this gospel's composition is uncertain. 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.

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. 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.

Manuscripts

See also: Acts_of_the_Apostles § Manuscripts

The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are four papyrus fragments dating from the first half of the 3rd century [4], 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. The Greek version, also called the Western version, appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. (Verses 22:19–20 and 22:43–44 are not present in early versions and are generally marked as such in modern translations.)

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."

There are 17 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"; 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.

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

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 (ch. 2). Although most scholars understand the evangelist's self-referential use of a masculine participle in Luke 1:3 to mean that the evangelist was male, this prominence of women through the gospel has led Randel McCraw Helms to suggest that the author of Luke may have been female.

Luke's variation in writing style

Another important fact that any biblical scholar would be aware of is the variation of writing style within Luke. 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 more ancient style of Greek which is very similar to 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").

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)

Here, as Joel Green observes, "Luke is apparently recognizing the role of Theophilus in providing inspiration or at least impetus for his writing." [1]

If Luke is merely trying to copy the style of writing of Theophilus, this would explain his lack of consistency in style.

The theory of ancient scholars and religious figures such as Papias, Irenaeus, and Erasmus is that these individuals were under the perception that the Gospel of Luke was originally written in Aramaic. This would be furthered backed up by the Lukan author's familiarity with Judaism with his detailed references to Palestinian locations and practices. This would be a believable theory, for the variations in style could simple be rationalized by being translated by various individuals into Greek. The only problem with this theory is that if Luke was in Aramaic, it would possibly mean that the gospel was directed toward a Jewish audience, which does not particularly seem to be the case.

See also

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:

Related articles:

This article was originally based on text from Easton Bible Dictionary of 1897 and from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897.

Preceded by Books of the Bible Succeeded by
  1. ^ Loveday C.A. Alexander, What if Luke Never Met Theophilus.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Luke&oldid=80761761"