About Opentopia
Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Gospel of Luke

Encyclopedia : G : GO : GOS : Gospel of Luke

 

New Testament
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

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 [4:14], a doctor and follower of Paul.

The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introd.) remarks, is expressed in the motto, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts [10:38]; compare with Luke [4:18]). Luke wrote for the "Hellenic world."

Contents

Content

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

Authorship and audience

There is substantial evidence to indicate 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).[link][link] 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". [link] 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" ([Luke 1:3-4]).

Date of composition

The date of this gospel's composition is uncertain. Estimates range from c. 50 to c. 100.

Traditional views of the date

Traditionally, Christians believe that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation, of Paul. Conservative scholars suggest this would place it as having been written before Acts, with Acts being composed around 63 or 64. Consequently, the tradition is that this Gospel was written about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. If the alternate conjecture is correct, that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there, then it would date earlier, 50–60. Additionally, Acts does not contain the martyrdom of Paul (c. 62), so conservative scholars suggest Luke-Acts were written before this.

Critical views of the date

In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author(s) of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority. Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke probably would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to as late as 100, and Acts shortly thereafter, between 80 and 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Furthermore, Acts is believed to present a significantly different picture of Paul than that which is seen in the undisputed Pauline Epistles. Differences of chronology, 'style', and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death by which point significant 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.

Manuscripts

The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are four papyrus fragments dating from the first half of the 3rd century [link], 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.

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 [22:19-20] and [22:43-44] are not present in early versions and are generally marked as such in modern translations.

Relationship with other gospels

According to Farrar, "Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 peculiar to himself. In many instances all three use identical language."

There are 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 [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", Leviticus [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 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:

Attention to women

Compared to the other canonical gospels, Luke devotes significantly more attention to women. The Gospel of Luke features more female characters, features a female prophet ([2:36]), and details the experience of pregnancy ([1:41-42]). Prominent discussion is given to the lives of Elizabeth and of Mary, the mother of Jesus (ch. [2]). Although most scholars understand the evangelist's self-referential use of a masculine participle in Luke [1:3] to mean that the evangelist was male, this prominence of women through the Luke gospel has led a small number of scholars, including Randel McCraw Helms, to suggest that the author of Luke may have been female.

See also

External links

Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:

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


Books of the Bible
Preceded by:
Mark
Gospels Followed by:
John

[[zh-min-nan:Lō·-ka Hok-im]]

 

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles
0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?

E-mail this article to:

Personal Message: