The Gospel According to Luke (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Loukan euangelion), commonly shortened to the Gospel of Luke or simply Luke, is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels. This synoptic gospel is an account of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. It details his story from the events of his birth to his Ascension.
The author is traditionally identified as Luke the Evangelist.[1] The Apostle Paul referred to Luke as the beloved physician.[2] Certain popular stories, such as the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, are found only in this gospel. This account also has a special emphasis on prayer, the activity of the Holy Spirit, women, and joyfulness.[3] Luke presented Jesus as the Son of God, but turned his attention especially to the humanity of Jesus, featuring His compassion for the weak, the suffering and the outcast.
According to the preface[4] the purpose of Luke is to write a historical account,[5] while bringing out the theological significance of the history.[6] The evangelist divides history into three stages: the first ends with John the Baptist, the second consists of Jesus' earthly ministry, and the third is the life of the church after Jesus' resurrection.[7] The author portrays Christianity as divine, respectable, law-abiding, and international.[1] Here, Jesus' compassion extends to all who are needy, women are important among his followers, the despised Samaritans are commended, and Gentiles are promised the opportunity to accept the gospel.[8] While the gospel is written as a historical narrative, many of the facts portrayed therein are based on previous traditions of the recorded Gospel story and not on what some might consider to be historical record.[9]
Most modern critical scholarship concludes that Luke used the Gospel of Mark for his chronology and a hypothetical sayings source Q document for many of Jesus' teachings. Luke may also have drawn from independent written records.[10] Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s,[11][12] while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century.[13][14] While the traditional view that Paul's companion Luke authored the gospel is still often put forward, a number of possible contradictions between Acts and Paul's letters lead many scholars to dispute this account.[15][16] According to Raymond E. Brown, it is not impossible that Luke was the author.[17] According to some, the author is unknown.[7]
Biblical Scholars are in wide agreement that the author of the Gospel of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles.[18] Many believe "the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originally constituted a two-volume work",[19][20][21] which scholars refer to as Luke-Acts.[22]
Early on, the gospel was given the title Gospel According to Luke (Greek: κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον, kata Loukan euangelion, or τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν, to euangelion kata Loukan). It is commonly called the Gospel of Luke or simply Luke. "Gospel" means "good news."
The date of the Gospel of Luke is traditionally fixed to some time before the end of the final events of Luke's second volume to Theophilus, Acts, so as early as 59 or 60.[23] The author of the Gospel of Luke acknowledges familiarity with earlier gospels (1:1). Although semitisms exist throughout the Gospel of Luke, it was composed in Koine Greek.[24] Like Mark (but unlike Matthew), the intended audience is the Greek-speaking populations of the region; it assures readers that Christianity is an international religion, not an exclusively Jewish sect.[1]
Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and much of Mark is similarly found in Luke. Additionally, Matthew and Luke have a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark.
The Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark (known as the Synoptic Gospels) include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording. The most commonly accepted explanation for this similarity is the two-source hypothesis. It hypothesizes that Matthew and Luke each borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q. For most scholars, the Q collection accounts for what the gospels of Luke and Matthew share but are not found in Mark.[25]
In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that another source, referred to as L and also hypothetical,[26] lies behind the material in Luke that has no parallel in Mark or Matthew.[27] (See the Four Document Hypothesis )
The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1-4).[28] Critical scholarship generally holds to the two-source hypothesis as most probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel.
Most modern scholars agree that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources.[29] The understanding that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels and that it served as a source for Matthew and Luke is foundational to modern critical scholarship.[10]
Mark's gospel is quite short, and written in Koine Greek (that is, common Greek). It provides a general chronology from Jesus' baptism to the empty tomb. Luke, however, sometimes presented events in a different order to more clearly support his emphases. For example, Mark has Jesus recruit his first disciples before he has performed any miracles, and Luke moves the recruitment scene to a point after Jesus' first miracles.[29]
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second document called "Q" as a source.
Q is defined as the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark
A majority of scholars believe that Luke used Q as his second source. Q (for "Quelle," German for "source") is a hypothetical collection of Jesus' sayings. In the "two-source hypothesis," Q explains where the authors of Matthew and Luke got the material that they have in common with each other but that is not found in Mark, such as the Lord's prayer. The existence of a highly treasured dominical sayings document in circulation going totally unmentioned by the Fathers of the Early Church, remains one of the great conundrums of Modern Biblical Scholarship.[30][31][32]
Material unique to Luke is said to derive from the L source, which is thought to derive from the oral tradition.[10]
Luke apparently draws formal set pieces from the "teachings" of Christianity and incorporates into the gospel. The Magnificat, in which Mary praises God, is one such element.[29]
The birth narratives in both Luke and Matthew seem to be the latest component of the Gospels.[33] Luke may have originally begun with verses 3:1-7, a second prologue.[33]
Comparisons have been made between the annunciation narrative in Luke's Gospel with the Dead Sea scrolls manuscript Q4Q246:
“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High … The power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:32, 35).
“[X] shall be great upon the earth. [O king, all (people) shall] make [peace], and all shall serve [him. He shall be called the son of] the [G]reat [God], and by his name shall he be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High.” (Dead Sea scrolls manuscript Q4Q246)[34]
The similarity in content has been described as such that "it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke is dependent in some way, whether directly or indirectly, on this long lost text from Qumran".[35]
The books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Luke's style is the most literary of all these books.[36] Graham Stanton evaluates the opening of the Gospel of Luke as "the most finely composed sentence in the whole of post-Classical Greek literature."
Although the Gospel survives in anonymous form, it is considered that the name was known to the addressee, Theophilus.[37] The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[13] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time he composed the Gospel, he must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment.[38] Despite the majority opinion that Luke was a gentile writing to other gentiles, a few authors have challenged this view. Birger Gerhardsson notes his opinion that “Luke is very much dependent upon Palestinian tradition.”[39] Adolf Schlatter concluded that the text's character together with other indicators point to the author's provenance from the Jewish church.[40]
Luke presupposes a knowledge of the Old Testament and Jewish history (1:7; 4:38; 9:9-10 & 9:28-36).[41] In fact, “Luke perceives himself to be a Jew.”[42] Finally, Rebecca Denova concludes her book with these words: “Luke-Acts, we may conclude on the basis of a narrative-critical reading, was written by a Jew to persuade other Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah of Scripture and that the words of the prophets concerning ‘restoration’ have been ‘fulfilled.’”[43] Finally it should be noted that Strelan in 2008 not only concluded that Theophilus was Jewish but also that Luke was a priest.[44]
The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author.[45] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, 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.[46] Both books also contain common interests.[47] Linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the books indicate that they are from the same author.[48] Those biblical scholars who consider the two books a single, two-volume work often refer to both together as Luke-Acts.[49]
The "we" passages in Acts, where the first person plural is used, point to the author being a companion of Paul.[50] Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14).
The Church Fathers, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke.[51] The oldest manuscript of the gospel P75 (circa 200) carries the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke”.[52][53] however another manuscript P4 from about the same time period[54][55] has no such (surviving) attribution.
According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.[56][57][58] The Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council.[59][60] Paul placed an emphasis on Jesus' death while the author of Luke instead emphasizes Jesus' suffering, and there are other differences regarding eschatology and the Law.[7] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, leading Hobart to claim in 1882 that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training. However, this assertion was contradicted by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926, and has since been abandoned; instead it is now believed this language reflects merely a common Greek education.[61][62][63][64][65]
The traditional view on Lukan authorship, however, is held by many scholars,[66] and according to Raymond Brown it is "not impossible" that they are right.[17] Since Luke was not prominent there is no obvious reason that this gospel and Acts would have been attributed to him if he didn't write them.[67] If Luke was only a sometime companion of Paul who idealized him long after his death, that could explain the differences between Acts and Paul's letter.[68] Even though the evangelist as depicted in the New Testament doesn't match the patristic description of Luke, the traditional view is still argued today.[38]
Traditionally Luke has been regarded as written by Luke the Evangelist some time between the "we" passages in Acts 16 onwards[69] and the imprisonment of Paul in Rome in Acts 28, leading as with some modern scholars to argue for a date c. 60-65.[70] However many critical scholars consider the "we" passages spurious or inserted and place the date c 80-90,[71][72]
Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[73] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[74] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary.[75][76] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. 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.[77] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[78]
Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[33] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[33] with John the Baptist.
The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[79] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[80] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[81] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[82] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[83]
A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[84] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.
Christian scholar Donald Guthrie reports that some think Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him.[85] Paul mentions Luke, in passing, several times as traveling with Paul. Guthrie notes that much of the evidence for dating the Gospel at any point is based upon conjecture.
An argument for an early date is put forward by Matthew Slick:
"None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D."[86]
It is thought that like Mark (but unlike Matthew), the intended audience is international. Luke portrays his subject in a positive light regarding Roman authorities.[75] For example, the Jews are said to be responsible for Jesus' crucifixion, with Pontius Pilate finding no wrong in him.[75]
The Gospel is addressed to the author's patron, Theophilus, which in Greek simply means friend of God[87] or (be)loved by God or loving God,[88] and may not be a name but a generic term for a Christian.
|
Formal introduction
Jesus' birth and boyhood
Jesus' baptism and temptation
Jesus' ministry in Galilee
|
Jesus' teaching on the journey to Jerusalem
- On the road to Jerusalem (9:51)
- Samaritan rejection (9:52–56)
- Foxes have holes (9:57-58)
- Let the dead bury the dead (9:59–60)
- Don't look back (9:61–62)
- Commission of the Seventy (10:1–12,10:16-20)
- Cursing Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum (10:13–15)
- Praising the Father (10:21–24)
- Great Commandment (10:25–28)
- Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:29–37)
- Visiting Martha and Mary (10:38–42)
- Lord's Prayer (11:1–4)
- The Friend at Night (11:5–13)
- Blind-mute man (11:14–19)
- Finger of God (11:20)
- Strong man (11:21-22)
- Those not with me are against me (11:23)
- Return of the unclean spirit (11:24–26)
- Those who hear the word and keep it (11:27–28)
- Request for a sign (11:29–32)
- Eye and Light (11:34–36)
- Woes of the Pharisees (11:37–54)
- Veiled and Unveiled (12:1–3)
- Whom to fear (12:4–7)
- Unforgivable sin (12:8–12)
- Disputed inheritance (12:13–15)
- The Rich Fool and Birds (12:16–32)
- Sell your possessions (12:33–34)
- Parable of the Faithful Servant (12:35–48)
- Not Peace, but a Sword (12:49–53; 14:25–27)
- Knowing the times (12:54–56)
- Settle with your accuser (12:57–59)
- Tower of Siloam (13:1–5)
- The Barren Fig Tree (13:6–9)
- Infirm woman (13:10–17)
- Parables of Mustard seed and Leaven (13:18–21)
- The Narrow Gate (13:22–30)
- Lament over Jerusalem (13:31–35)
- Man with dropsy (14:1–6)
- Parable of the Wedding Feast, Great banquet, Counting the cost, Lost sheep, Lost coin, Lost son, Unjust steward (14:7–16:13)
- Not one stroke of a letter (16:14–17)
- On divorce (16:18)
- Lazarus and Dives (16:19–31)
- Curse those who set traps (17:1–6)
- The Master and Servant (17:7–10)
- Cleansing ten lepers (17:11–19)
- The Coming Kingdom of God (17:20–37)
- Parables of the Unjust judge, Pharisee and Publican (18:1–14)
- The Little Children (18:15–17)
- Rich Young Man (18:18–30)
- Blind near Jericho (18:35–43)
- Zacchaeus (19:1–9)
- Son of Man came to save (19:10)
- Parable of the Talents (19:11–27)
Jesus' Jerusalem conflicts, crucifixion, and resurrection
|
The Gospel of Luke tells the story of Jesus' miraculous birth, ministry of healing and parables, passion, resurrection, and ascension. Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims, “it is full of superb stories and leaves the reader with a deep impression of the personality and teachings of Jesus."[89]
Luke is the only gospel with a formal introduction, in which the author explains his methodology and purpose. It states 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."[90] The author adds that he too wishes to compose an orderly account for Theophilus, so that Theophilus "may know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught".
Like Matthew, Luke recounts a royal genealogy and a virgin birth for Jesus. Unlike Matthew, who traces Jesus' birth back through the line of David to Abraham in order to appeal to his Jewish audience,[91] in Luke the evangelist traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam, indicating a universal sense of salvation.[91] Luke's birth narrative features the Christmas story,[92] in which Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem for a census, the newborn Jesus is laid in a feeding trough (or manger), angels proclaim him the savior for all people, and shepherds come to adore him. Also unique to Luke is John the Baptist's birth story and three canticles (including the Magnificat) as well as the only story from Jesus' boyhood.
Luke emphasizes Jesus' miracles, recounting 20, four of which are unique. Like Matthew, it includes important sayings from the Q source, such as the Beatitudes. Luke's version of the Beatitudes differs from Matthew's, and Luke's seems closer to the source in Q.[93] More than a dozen of Jesus' most memorable parables are unique to Luke, including the Good Samaritan, the Corrupt Steward and the Parable of the Prodigal Son.
More than the other gospels, Luke focuses on women as playing important roles among Jesus' followers, such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Mary of Bethany. The Gospel of Luke is the only Gospel which contains the Annunciation of the Birth of Jesus to Mary his mother (1:26-38).
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, the mother of John the Baptist and of Mary, the mother of Jesus (ch. 2).
Luke is the only gospel that treats the Last Supper the way Paul does, as the institution of a liturgy to be repeated by his followers.[94] According to Geza Vermes, Paul is to be considered the primary source for this interpretation because he says he received this insight from direct revelation rather than from the other apostles.[94] The verses in question are not found in certain older manuscripts,[95] and Bart Ehrman concludes that they were added in order to support the theme of Jesus' atoning death, a theme found in Mark but that the evangelist excluded from the original Luke.[96]
Luke emphasizes that Jesus had committed no crime against Rome, as confirmed by Herod, Pilate, and the thief crucified with Jesus. It is possible that the author of Luke was trying to gain the respect of the Roman authorities for the benefit of the church by stressing Jesus' innocence.[97] In addition, it is also noted that Luke downplays Roman involvement in Jesus' execution and places responsibility more on the Jews.[98][99] 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.
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. Some scholars suggest that by writing of the "flesh and bones" properties of the resurrected Jesus, the author was making an apologetic response to docetic or gnostic views about Jesus' body, or to views that the disciples had merely seen his ghost. However, scholar Daniel A. Smith writes that the author was more likely concerned with those in Christian circles who may have believed that the resurrection as merely "spiritual" and that it could have occurred without the transformation of the natural body.[100] Jesus' commission (the Great Commission), to the disciples to carry his message to all the nations, affirms Christianity as a universal religion. The Book of Acts, also written by Luke to the same Theophilus, declares about Jesus that "he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days..." Acts 2:3
The detailed narration of the Road to Emmaus appearance in Luke 24:13-32 is at times considered one of the best sketches of a biblical scene in the Gospel of Luke.[101]
The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are three extensive papyrus fragments dating from the late 2nd century or early 3rd century. P4 is probably the earliest,[55] dating from the late 2nd century.[102] P75 dates from the late 2nd century/early 3rd century.[103][104] Finally P45 (mid-3rd century) contains an extensive portion of all four Gospels. In addition to these major early papyri there are 6 other papyri (P3, P7, P42, P69, P82 and P97) dating from between the 3rd-8th century which also have small portions of Luke's Gospel.[104][105] The early copies, as well as the earliest copies of Acts, date after the Gospel was separated from Acts.
The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, 4th-century codices of the Greek bible, are the oldest manuscripts that contain the full text of 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 ancient witnesses and are generally marked as such in modern translations. See Bruce M. Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for details.
Some argue that early Christian scribes introduced numerous accidental and deliberate alterations into New Testament documents.[8] Textual critics have used principles of textual criticism to tentatively identify which variants are original. Bart D. Ehrman cites two cases where proto-orthodox Christians may have altered the text in order to prevent its being used to support heretical beliefs.[106]
When Jesus is baptized, some early witnesses attest that Luke's gospel had God 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 his 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. While probably not original to the text, these verses reflect 1st-century tradition.[8]
- ^ a b c Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
- ^ Colossians 4:14, King James Version of the Holy Bible, 1611
- ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 105.
- ^ Luke 1:1-4
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b c "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 06 Nov. 2010 [1].
- ^ a b c May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977. p. 1240.
- ^ 'Historically reliable information cannot be expected, however, because Luke’s sources were not historical; they rather were embedded in tradition and proclamation.' "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 06 Nov. 2010 [2].
- ^ a b c Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Introduction," p 1-30.
- ^ D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 704.
- ^ Carson, D.A.; Moo, Dougals J. (1992). "4" (in English). An introduction to the New Testament. Morris, Leon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. pp. 116. ISBN 0-310-51940-3.
- ^ a b Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Gospels" p. 266-268
- ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament
- ^ 'Contrary to [the traditional] view, which is occasionally still put forward today, a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.' Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 32.
- ^ "The principle essay in this regard is P. Vielhauer, 'On the "Paulinism" of Acts', in L.E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 33-50, who suggests that Luke's presentation of Paul was, on several fronts, a contradiction of Paul's own letters (e.g. attitudes on natural theology, Jewish law, christology, eschatology). This has become the standard position in German scholarship, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts; J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD; Berlin: Evangelische, 1981) 2-5; Schille, Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, 48-52. This position has been challenged most recently by Porter, "The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Some Common Misconceptions', in his Paul of Acts, 187-206. See also I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leister: InterVarsity Press, 1980) 42-44; E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 2nd edn, 1974) 45-47.", Pearson, "Corresponding sense: Paul, dialectic, and Gadamer", Biblical Interpretation Series, p. 101 (2001). Brill.
- ^ a b 'This proposal for authorship [by Luke] has more to recommend it than other theories, but "not impossible" is all that should be claimed.' Brown, 1997.
- ^ Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, Fortress Press, 1998. p. 259.
- ^ David Aune The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), p. 77.
- ^ The Books of The Bible (Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 2007); The Original New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985).
- ^ In some editions of the Bible, Luke-Acts has been presented as a single book. Both Luke and Acts are addressed to a certain "Theophilus", and there are several theories concerning why.
- ^ Miller, Robert J., The Complete Gospels, pp. 115–117 "Introduction to the Gospel of Luke": "scholars usually refer to Luke's work as "Luke-Acts"". Polebridge Press, 1992. ISBN 0-944344-49-6
- ^ A. T. Robertson Luke the historian in the light of research 1923 "The theological argument strongly confirms the early date ... There remains only one further difficulty of importance in the way of dating the Gospel of Luke so early as 59 or 60 "
- ^ Francis & Mary Peloubet, A dictionary of the Bible: comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, natural history and literature, Porter and Coates Pub. 1884 P. 367
- ^ Bart Erhman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p.78-87
- ^ http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch9.htm
- ^ Burnett H. Streeter,The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London: MacMillian and Co., Ltd., 1924.
- ^ M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897), "Luke, Gospel According To".
- ^ a b c Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Luke," p. 267-364
- ^ Pier Franco Beatrice, The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the Apostolic Fathers, Novum Testamentum 2006, vol. 48, no2, pp. 147-195 ISSN 0048-1009
- ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 pp. 209 - 247
- ^ Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ Trinity Press, SCM 2000 p.207- 210
- ^ a b c d Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Birth & Infancy Stories" p. 497-526.
- ^ "An Unpublished Dead Sea Scroll Text Parallels Luke’s Infancy Narrative", Biblical Archaeology Review, April/May 1990
- ^ "The meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls: Their significance for understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity", James C. VanderKam, Peter W. Flint, p. 335, Continuum, 2005, ISBN 0-567-08468-X
- ^ "Greek." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
- ^ Saint Luke Christopher Francis Evans - 1990 "... author was bound to give his name - 'Luke to Theophilus greeting' - it is considered likely that his name was attached to the work somehow (it is not known whether or not it had a title), or was attached to it by Theophilus. If so,
- ^ a b Fizmyer, Joseph. The Gospel according to Luke: introduction, translation, and notes. The Anchor Bible v. 28-28A. (2 vols) Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-1985.
- ^ Gerhardsson, Birger, Memory and manuscript: oral tradition and written transmission in rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity with Tradition and transmission in early Christianity, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998).
- ^ Schlatter, Adolf, The theology of the Apostles: the development of New Testament theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 327.
- ^ Schlatter, 330.
- ^ Salmon, Marilyn, “Insider or Outsider? Luke's relationship with Judaism,” in Tyson, ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People, 76-82.
- ^ Denova, Rebecca I., The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts, (Sheffield, 1997), 198.
- ^ Rich Strelan, Luke the Priest, 2008.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Udo Schnelle. 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. (what year? who is "M A Soitis"?)
- ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 37-40.
- ^ Gospel of Luke at EarlyChristianWritings.com However, there is probably a bit of a mistake here. According to my sources, P75 does not include the start of the gospel, rather it includes the end, where an attribution to Luke is found.
- ^ Image of Papyrus 75 showing the end of Luke's Gospel and the beginning of John's Gospel, separated by the words Κατά Λουκαν, (Kata Loukan) = "According to Luke".
- ^ Possibly dated earlier than P75
- ^ a b Gregory, A. (2003) The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus, Mohr Siebeck, ISBN 3-16-148086-4 p.28
- ^ "The unknown author of Luke-Acts was certainly not a companion of Paul." Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 2. Christian sources about Jesus.
- ^ '[T]he author of this gospel remains unknown.' "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 06 Nov. 2010 [3].
- ^ "Most modern commentators on the Lukan gospel are skeptical about the validity of the traditional attribution" Fizmyer, Joseph. The Gospel according to Luke: introduction, translation, and notes. The Anchor Bible v. 28-28A. (2 vols) Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-1985.
- ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 2. Christian sources about Jesus.
- ^ 'These differing accounts [of the council] seem to be irreconcilable; but since Paul's is a contemporary witness and Acts was written many years after the event, scholars generally prefer Paul's version.' Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 313.
- ^ "Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician.10 However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving that Luke showed no more “medical” language than other educated writers of his day.11 Of course, the healing stories and “medical” vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.", Black, M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.
- ^ "Colossians 4:14 refers to Luke as a doctor. In 1882, Hobart tried to bolster this connection by indicating all the technical verbal evidence for Luke’s vocation. Despite the wealth of references Hobart gathered, the case was rendered ambiguous by the work of Cadbury (1926), who showed that almost all of the alleged technical medical vocabulary appeared in everyday Greek documents such as the LXX, Josephus, Lucian, and Plutarch. This meant that the language could have come from a literate person within any vocation. Cadbury’s work does not, however, deny that Luke could have been a doctor, but only that the vocabulary of these books does not guarantee that he was one.", Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (7). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books
- ^ Attempts have been made to strengthen the argument for authorship by a physician by finding examples of medical phraseology in Luke-Acts; these are too few to be made the basis of an argument, but there is perhaps just sufficient evidence to corroborate a view more firmly based on other considerations.", Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. The New international Greek testament commentary (33–34). Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press.]
- ^ e.g. W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt (1906)
- ^ 'References are often made to Luke’s medical language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which any educated Greek might have been exposed.' "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 08 Nov. 2010 [4].
- ^ Scholars such as Hengel (2000:48), Fitzmyer (1981:51), Thornton (1991), Nolland (1989: 1. xxxvii), Riley (1993: vii), and Eckey (2004: 49). There are three chief factors cited in favor of the traditional authorship: The tradition that almost unanimously ascribes the Gospel and Acts to 'Luke'; the 'we' passages in Acts suggest the author is an eyewitness and a companion of Paul; and the medical language and interest found in both writings fit the language and interest of a physician, and Luke held that profession, as Col 4:14 states. "But each of these arguments can be, and has been, questioned.", Strelan, "Luke the Priest: the Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel", pp. 99-100 (2008).
- ^ ".. since Luke is not prominent in the apostolic age, if the gospel and Acts were not originally written by him, there is no obvious reason why they should have been associated with him." Fizmyer, Joseph. The Gospel according to Luke: introduction, translation, and notes. The Anchor Bible v. 28-28A. (2 vols) Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-1985.
- ^ "His brief association with Paul led him to idealize Paul and make him the hero of the second part of Acts. He has painted his own picture of Paul, which may not agree in all details with the Paul of the uncontested letters". Fizmyer, Joseph. The Gospel according to Luke: introduction, translation, and notes. The Anchor Bible v. 28-28A. (2 vols) Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-1985.
- ^ Clare K. Rothschild Luke-Acts and the rhetoric of history 2004 Page 264 "Present scholarship still struggles to make sense of the so- called 'we-passages' in Acts 16:10—17; 20:5—15; 21:1—18; ... The primary purpose of Campbell's thesis, however, is to defend the eyewitness quality of Luke's account and its.."
- ^ "Introduction to the New Testament", chapter on Luke, by D. Carson and D. Moo, Zondervan Books (2005)
- ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 226. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- ^ Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, pp. 43
- ^ Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 336
- ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24-27.
- ^ a b c "Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
- ^ S. Brown agrees that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date. Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 24
- ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 29
- ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 27
- ^ P4, P45, P69, P75, and P111
- ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 126-126.
- ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 125.
- ^ Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 334
- ^ "Marcion." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
- ^ A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911), p. 90; I. H. Marshall, Luke, p. 35 (1974); A. J. Mattill Jr., ‘The Date and Purpose of Luke-Acts: Rackham reconsidered, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), pp. 335-350.
- ^ Guthrie, Donald (1990). New Testament Introduction. Leicester, England: Apollos. pp. 131.
- ^ http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom
- ^ Strong's G2321
- ^ Bauer lexicon, 2nd edition, 1958, page 358
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Fourth Edition). New York: Oxford. 2008
- ^ "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 22 Jan. 2011. [5].
- ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Luke" p. 271-400
- ^ a b Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. London, Penguin Books. 2004. p. 301- 307.
- ^ May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977. p. 1279.
- ^ Ehrman, Bart D.. Jesus, Interrupted, HarperCollins, 2009. ISBN 0-06-117393-2
- ^ V. George Shillington, An introduction to the study of Luke-Acts, Continuum International Publishing Group, p. 11. ISBN 0-567-03053-9
- ^ Leigh Gibson, Shelly Matthews, Violence in the New Testament, Continuum International Publishing Group, pg. 132, 2005. ISBN 0-567-02500-4
- ^ Jonathan Knight, Luke's gospel, Psychology Press, pg. 145, 2005. ISBN 0-415-17322-1
- ^ Daniel A. Smith (2010) Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter, Fortress Press, p. 109.
- ^ Luke for Everyone by Tom Wright, 2004 ISBN 0-664-22784-8 page 292
- ^ P4 contains Lk 1:58-59, 62-2:1,6-7; 3:8-4:2,29-32,34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16
- ^ P75 contains Lk 3:18-4:2+; 4:34-5:10; 5:37-18:18+; 22:4-24:53 and John 1:1-11:45, 48-57; 12:3-13:10; 14:8-15:10
- ^ a b Complete List of Greek NT Papyri
- ^ List of New Testament papyri
- ^ Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus.
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. ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24-27.
Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:
Secondary Literature:
Related articles:
|
|
|
| Principal divisions |
|
|
| Subdivisions |
|
|
| Development |
|
|
| Manuscripts |
|
|
| See also |
|
|
|
|
|
vep:Evangelii Lukan mödhe
![The Gospel of Luke - [1/12]](http://web.archive.org./web/20121208030408im_/http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4lpy280nNKI/default.jpg)
![The Gospel of Luke - [2/12]](http://web.archive.org./web/20121208030408im_/http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OuBkDeDCPZE/default.jpg "The Gospel of Luke - [2/12]")
![The Gospel of Luke - [3/12]](http://web.archive.org./web/20121208030408im_/http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VOpipDqul6I/default.jpg "The Gospel of Luke - [3/12]")
