Luke, Gospel According to
(claim tag) |
m (Robot: Category fix) |
||
| Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
[[Category:philosophy and religion]] | [[Category:philosophy and religion]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Art, music, literature, sports and leisure]] |
{{Credit|148562802}} | {{Credit|148562802}} | ||
Revision as of 03:13, 11 September 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. The text narrates the life of Jesus, with particular interest concerning his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection; and it ends with an account of the ascension.
The author is characteristically concerned with social ethics, the poor, women, and other oppressed groups.[1] Certain well-loved stories on these themes, such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan, are found only in this gospel. The Gospel also has a special emphasis on prayer, the activity of the Holy Spirit, and joyfulness.[2] D. Guthrie stated, “it is full of superb stories and leaves the reader with a deep impression of the personality and teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps for this reason that for many it is their favourite gospel.[3]
The introductory dedication to Theophilus, 1:1-4 states that "many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word", and that the author, "after investigating everything carefully from the very first" has decided likewise to compose an orderly account for Theophilus.[4] Luke intended to write a historical account,[5] bringing out the theological significance of the history.[6] The author's purpose was to portray Christianity as divine, respectable, law-abiding, and international.[1]
Scholarship today is in wide agreement that both the Gospel and Acts have the same author.[7] Likewise, the traditional view of Lukan authorship is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.”[8] However, there is scholarly division concerning the traditional attribution that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14), division which R. E. Brown characterized as "evenly divided".[9] Scholars are also in disagreement concerning the date of the Gospel, arguing either for a pre- or post-70 date, though most all would agree that the text is a first century work.
Content
|
Formal introduction
|
|
Content summary
The Gospel of Luke tells the story of Jesus' miraculous birth, ministry of healing and parables, passion, and resurrection.
Introduction
Luke is the only gospel with a formal introduction, in which the author explains that many others have already "undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."[10] The author add that he too wishes to compose an orderly account for Theophilus, so that he "may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."[11]
Birth narratives and genealogy
Like Matthew, Luke recounts a royal genealogy and a virgin birth for Jesus. Unique to Luke is John the Baptist's birth story, the wise men from the East, and a story from Jesus' boyhood.
Miracles and parables
Luke emphasizes Jesus miracles, recounting twenthy, four of which are unique. Like Matthew, it includes the Sermon on the Mount and other important sayings. More than a dozen of Jesus' most memorable parables are unique to Luke.
Role of women
More than the other gospels, Luke mentions women as important among Jesus' followers, such as Mary Magdalene
Trials and crucifixion
Luke emphasizes that Jesus had committed no crime against Rome, as confirmed by Herod, Pilate, and the thief crucified with Jesus. In Luke's Passion narrative Jesus prays that God forgive those who crucify him and his assurance to a crucified thief that they will be together in Paradise.
Resurrection appearances
Luke's accounts differ from those in Mark and Matthew. Luke tells the story of two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and (as in John) Jesus appears to the Eleven and demonstrates that he is flesh and blood, not a spirit. Jesus' commission that the Eleven carry his message to all the nations affirms Christianity as a universal religion. The account of Jesus' ascent at the end of Luke is apparently an addition subsequent to the original redaction.
Composition
Contemporary scholars generally conclude that the author, probably a Gentile Christian, wrote the gospel about 85-90. As sources, he used the Gospel of Mark (written 65-70), the hypothetical Q document, and unique sources (designated L). Like the rest of the New Testament, the gospel was written in Greek. Like Mark but unlike Matthew, the intended audience is Gentile, and it assures readers that Christianity is an international religion, not a Jewish sect. Scholars are divided on whether the author is indeed Paul's physician companion, Luke. Several cities have been proposed as it place of origin with no consensus. .[1]
Alternatively, some scholars hold to the traditional view that Luke is based on Matthew (which was the first-written gospel), and that it was written before the fall of the Second Temple (70).
Author
- See also: Acts of the Apostles#Authorship
Early tradition, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by Luke, a companion of Paul.[12] The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel (ca. 200) carries the title “the Gospel according to Luke”.[13] This tradition, which no ancient source questioned, has been described as one which “could hardly be stronger”.[14]
The claim that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author is considered by contemporary scholarship to be “almost certain”,[15] a rare example of consensus amongst biblical scholars. 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.[16] Both books also contain common interests.[17] 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".[18] Those biblical scholars who consider the two books a single, two-volume work often refer to both together as Luke-Acts.[19]
Given this, the internal evidence of the Acts of the Apostles concerning its author pertains to the authorship of the Gospel. This evidence, especially passages in the narrative where the first person plural is used, points to the author being a companion of Paul.[20] As D. Guthrie put it, of the known companions of Paul, Luke is “as good as any… [and] since this is the traditional ascription there seems no reason to conjecture any other.”[21] There is further evidence from the Pauline Epistles.[22] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physical”, and scholars have long found evidence of technical medical terminology used in both the Gospel and Acts,[23] though this argument has been challenged and it without universal acceptance.
The traditional view of Lukan authorship is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.”[24] The list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion.[25] But there is no consensus, and the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship has been described as ‘about evenly divided’.[26] on who the author was.
Date
The Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the first century, and was certainly fully recognized by the early part of the second.[27] The work is reflected in the Didache, the (Gnostic) writings of Basilides and Velentinius, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[28] Scholars are divided as to whether the text was written before or after the pivotal year of 70.
Before 70
Arguments for a pre-70 date are largely bound up with the complicated arguments concerning the date of the book of Acts, with most proponents arguing for a date around 60-61 for the Gospel.[29] This incorporates the conjecture that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him.[30] Acts does not mention Paul’s martyrdom, which occurred some time in the 60s, nor does the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70. Furthermore, if 1 Timothy 5:18 is to be understood as a quotation of Luke 10:7 and one dates 1 Timothy to the summer/fall of 56 C.E., the date of Luke can be placed prior to the summer of 56. [31].
After 70
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.
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 [1], 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.[32]
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
|
This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes.
This article or section contains insufficiently sourced phrases. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. You may improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. Help on using footnotes is available. This article has been tagged since July 2007. |
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 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.[33]
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
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 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.
- ↑ translation from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 119.
- ↑ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 267-8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- ↑ translation from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
- ↑ translation from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
- ↑ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 37-40.
- ↑ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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, p. 267-8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- ↑ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 125.
- ↑ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 126-126.
- ↑ A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911), p. 90; J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, pp. 86-92; I. H. Marshall, Luke, p. 35; A. J. Mattill Jr., ‘The Date and Purpose of Luke-Acts: Rackham reconsidered, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), pp. 335-350.
- ↑ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 131.
- ↑ Bo Reicke, Re-examining Paul's Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001) p.51-59
- ↑ 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.
