Luke, Gospel According to
Scott Dunbar (talk | contribs) (Claimed) |
({{Contracted}}) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{Started}}{{Claimed}} | + | {{Started}}{{Claimed}}{{Contracted}} |
| − | + | {{epname|Luke, Gospel According to}} | |
{{Books of the New Testament}} | {{Books of the New Testament}} | ||
The '''Gospel of Luke''' (literally, ''according to Luke''; [[Greek language|Greek]], Κατά Λουκαν, ''Kata Loukan'') is a [[Synoptic Gospels|synoptic Gospel]], and the third and longest of the four [[Biblical canon|canon]]ical [[Gospel]]s of the [[New Testament]], which narrates a story of [[Jesus]]' life, death, and resurrection. | The '''Gospel of Luke''' (literally, ''according to Luke''; [[Greek language|Greek]], Κατά Λουκαν, ''Kata Loukan'') is a [[Synoptic Gospels|synoptic Gospel]], and the third and longest of the four [[Biblical canon|canon]]ical [[Gospel]]s of the [[New Testament]], which narrates a story of [[Jesus]]' life, death, and resurrection. | ||
Revision as of 20:50, 10 July 2007
| New Testament |
|---|
The Gospel of Luke (literally, according to Luke; Greek, Κατά Λουκαν, Kata Loukan) is a synoptic Gospel, and the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which narrates a story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The author was also the author of Acts of the Apostles. Like the other canonical gospels, the gospel originally circulated anonymously. Since at least the 2nd century, authorship has been ascribed to the Luke named in Colossians 4:14, a doctor and disciple of Paul. 'Scholars are about evenly divided on whether [the] attribution to Luke [the companion of Paul] should be accepted as historical ...'.[1]
The introductory dedication to Theophilus, 1:1-4 states that since many others have compiled an "orderly narrative of the events"[2] 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.
Content
The approximate contents of the Gospel, in order, are as follows:
|
Formal introduction
|
|
Author
- See also: Acts of the Apostles#Authorship
Scholars are 'about evenly divided'[3] on who the author was. However 'it is almost certain'[4] 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). Those biblical scholars who consider the two books a single, two-volume work often refer to both together as Luke-Acts.[5]
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), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (second half of the 2nd century).[1][2]. 'The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 C.E.), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke.' [6]. 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 is divided on these points, with many believing that the author of Luke is unknown. A number of theories exist regarding the first-person ("we") passages. According to V. K. Robbins,[citation needed] 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.
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.
G. J. Goldberg published evidence in 1995 that a passage of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93, has parallels in word choice and word order with a brief passage in Luke 24. See Josephus on Jesus for more detail. [7]
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, 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
- 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. 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 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.[8]
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:
- 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
Luke's writing style
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 "Hellenistic world."
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").
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 (ch. 2).
Disputed verses
Textual critics have found variations among early manuscripts and have used to principles of textual criticsm 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.[9]
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 him 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.
See also
- Luke-Acts
- Order of St. Luke
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- ↑ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 267-8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- ↑ Scholars Version translation from The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, editor, 1992
- ↑ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 267-8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- ↑ Horrell, DG, An Introduction to the study of Paul, T&T Clark, 2006, 2nd Ed.,p.7
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
- ↑ Goldberg, G. J. "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus. The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), pp. 59-77
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus.
External links
Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:
- Bible Gateway 35 languages/50 versions at GospelCom.net
- Unbound Bible 100+ languages/versions at Biola University
- Online Bible at gospelhall.org
- Early Christian Writings; Gospel of Luke: introductions and e-texts
- French; English translation
Related articles:
- B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels : A study of origins 1924.
- A textual commentary on the Gospel of Luke Detailed textcritical discussion of the 300 most important variants of the Greek text (PDF, 467 pages)
- Gospel of Saint Luke @ Catholic Encyclopedia
- Luke, Gospel of St. in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
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: Mark |
Books of the Bible |
Succeeded by: John |
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
