Gospel of Luke
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 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 , 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 ; compare with
Luke ). Luke wrote for the "
Hellenic world."
The approximate contents of the Gospel, in order, are as follows:
*
The birth of John the Baptist*The
Annunciation*The
Magnificat*
Nativity of Jesus*
Adoration of the Shepherds*
Baptism of Jesus*
Genealogy of Jesus*
Temptation of Jesus*Choosing of some of the
Twelve Apostles*Parable of
The Patch and the Wineskins*
Sermon on the Plain*Parable of
The Two Debtors*Parable of
The Sower*The saying about
The Lamp*
Feeding the multitude*
Peter's confession*
Transfiguration of Jesus*Parable of
The Good Samaritan*Parable of
The Friend at Night*The saying about
asking, seeking, and knocking*Parable of
The Strong Man Bound *Parable of
The Rich Fool*The saying about
The Birds of Heaven*
Parable of the Faithful Servant*The saying about
The Defendant*Parable of
The Barren Fig Tree*Parable of
The Mustard Seed*Parable of
The Leaven*Parable of
The Great Supper*Saying about
The Discarded Salt*Parable of
The Lost Sheep*Parable of
Lost Money*
Parable of the Prodigal Son*Parable of
The Unjust Steward*Parable of
The Rich Man and the Beggar Lazarus*Saying about
The Master and Servant*Parable of
The Importunate Widow*Parable of the
Pharisee and the Publican*
Parable of the Talents*
Jesus and the Money Changers*Parable of
The Wicked Husbandman*Saying about
Caesar's Coin*
Olivet discourse*
Last Supper*
Empty tomb*
Resurrection appearances of Jesus*
Ascension of JesusAlthough 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 chapters 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" (Phm 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 favourite, 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" ().
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 harmonisation 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 first century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to heterodoxical 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.
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 (P
45) and three others preserving only brief passages (P
4, P
69, P
75). These early copies, as well as the earliest copies of
Acts, date after the Gospel was separated from
Acts.
The
Codex Sinaiticus and
Codex Vaticanus are
4th century codices of the Greek bible that are the oldest manuscripts that contain Luke. The
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 and are not present in early versions and are generally marked as such in modern translations.
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 , , , , and ), 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 ), 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 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 with
Colossians 4:6.
* Luke with
1 Corinthians 2:4.
* Luke with
2 Corinthians 1:3.
* Luke with
Romans 2:19.
* Luke with 2 Corinthians
10:8.
* Luke with 1 Corinthians
10:27.
* Luke with
Titus 1:15.
* Luke with
2 Thessalonians 1:11.
* Luke with
Ephesians 6:18.
* Luke with 1 Corinthians
11:23-29.
* Luke with 1 Corinthians
15:5.
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 (), and details the experience of pregnancy (). Prominent discussion is given to the lives of
Elizabeth and of
Mary, the mother of Jesus (ch. ). Although most scholars understand the evangelist's self-referential use of a masculine participle in Luke to mean that the evangelist was male, this prominence of women through the Luke gospel has led a small number of scholars, including
Randel McCraw Helms, to suggest that the author of Luke may have been female.
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 it final change toward the end into a more secular form of first-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.'"
[ Loveday C.A. Alexander, "What if Luke Never Met Theophilus]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 doesn't particularly seem to be the case.
*
Order of St. Luke*
Martin Luther's commentary on
the Magnificat (Luke1:46-55)[
5]
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 BritannicaThis 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.
