Book of Luke: Wikis

Advertisements

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

(Redirected to Gospel of Luke article)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible
New Testament


The Gospel According to Luke (Greek: Κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον, kata Loukan euangelionτὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν, to euangelion kata Loukan), generally shortened to the Gospel of 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.

The author, commonly understood to be writing from a Gentile perspective, is characteristically concerned with social ethics, the poor, women, and other oppressed groups.[1] Certain popular stories on these themes, such as the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, are found only in this gospel. This gospel also has a special emphasis on prayer, the activity of the Holy Spirit, and joyfulness.[2]

According to the preface[3] the purpose of Luke is to write a historical account[4], while bringing out the theological significance of the history.[5] The author's portrays Christianity as divine, respectable, law-abiding, and international.[1]

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. Other scholars have put forward the possibility that the Gospel of Luke was based on the Hebrew Gospel. [6] [7] Luke may also have drawn from independent written records.[8] There are two serious possibilities regarding the date of composition: the early 60s,[9][10] or the later decades of the 1st century.[11]

Biblical Scholars are in wide agreement that the author of the Gospel of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles.[12] Many believe "the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originally constituted a two-volume work." [13] [14] [15]

Contents

Composition

Although the Gospel of Luke was written anonymously, the most likely candidate for the authorship of Luke-Acts is Luke the physician and sometime companion of Paul.[16] Yet scholars are evenly divided on the historicity of attributing this gospel to Luke.

The Gospel of Luke is a secondary source based on earlier accounts of the life of Jesus. Although semitisms exist throughout the Gospel of Luke, it was probably composed in Koine Greek.[17] 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]

Advertisements

Synoptic Gospels

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 the exact same wording. The relationship of Gospel of Luke to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew is an open question known as the synoptic problem.

One possible solution to the Synoptic problem is the Farrer hypothesis, which hypothesizes that Matthew borrowed material only from Mark, and that Luke wrote last, using both earlier Synoptic gospels.

The most commonly accepted solution is the two-source hypothesis. It hypothesizes that Matthew 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.[18]. Some scholars still support the Augustinian hypothesis while still others defend Griesbach hypothesis.

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a another source, referred to as L and also hypothetical [19], lies behind the material in Luke that has no parallel in Mark or Matthew.[20] (See the Four Document Hypothesis )

Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements to Streeter's hypothesis. In his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker and his later followers posited an early gospel written by St Matthew called the the Hebrew Gospel was the primary source behind Luke.[21][22][23][24][25][26]

Sources

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).[27] 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. This would be consistent with the author's declaration that he has drawn upon a wide-ranging investigation of all sources and witnesses, and the author's statement that many others had already written gospel accounts before Luke, of which the author was aware. [28]

The Gospel of Mark

Scholars agree that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources. Not only does modern critical scholarship support this conclusion, [29] but the writings of Church Fathers do as well. For example, Jerome's Illustrious men, which was a major bibliographical text, contained a list of Early Church authors and their writings (with over 800 Christian works as well as 31 from Josephus and 36 from Phils and 25 lost documents). Mark and his gospel are at the top of Jerome's list in section 1, exactly where the first written account of the life of Jesus Christ should be located. [30]

The scholarship is clear and uncontested. Mark's gospel is quite short, and written in basic Koine Greek. It provides the general chronology for the other synoptic gospels from Jesus' baptism to the empty tomb. Luke, however, was a superior storyteller and sometimes rearranged events in Mark to improve the story. 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 sayings gospel Q

A majority of scholars believe that Luke used Q as his second source. However the issue is far from settled. Even some supporters of the Q source hypothesis have concerns. If Q did exist, these sayings of Jesus would have been highly treasured in the Early Church. It remains a mystery how such an important document, which was the basis of the two canonical Gospels, could be totally lost. An even greater mystery why the extensive Church Catalogs compiled by Eusebius and Nicephorus would omit such an important work, yet include such spurious accounts as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. 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.[22][31][32]

Bruner-Welch Endowed Professor, James Edwards, confronts this issue head on. He too has studied Jerome's Illustrious men When Edwards looked at the first section of Illustrious Men, he found the Gospel of Mark where it should be, as it was the first gospel written and was the basis of later gospels. Following it should be Q. But not only is Q not where it should be at the top of Jerome's list, this treasured work recording the Logia of Christ is mentioned nowhere by Jerome. Rather, the first seminal document is not Q but the Gospel of the Hebrews. Section 2 on James, the largest in the Illustrious Men, is mainly about this Hebrew Gospel (one-third of the section). The entirety of the third section is devoted to the Hebrew Gospel as well. In "the place of honor" that should be given "the phantom Q" we find a Hebrew usurper. [33]

From this basis James Edwards expands the Parker Hypothesis into the Hebrew Gospel Hypothesis. In meticulous detail he puts forward his solution to the synoptic problem. This Hypothesis states Matthew wrote a small Hebrew Gospel called the Gospel of the Hebrews and this was the second source used in the Gospel of Luke . [34]

The Gospel of Matthew

Martin Hengel has made the even more controversial argument that Luke also made use of Matthew,[35] the second synoptic gospel.

Primitive Christian liturgy

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]

Birth and infancy story

The birth narratives in both Luke and Matthew seem to be the latest component of the Gospels.[36] Luke may have originally begun with verses 3:1-7, a second prologue.[36]

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)[37]

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".[38]

Authorship

10th century Byzantine illustration of Luke the Evangelist.

The writer of this anonymous gospel was probably a Gentile Christian.[11] 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.[39] The oldest manuscript of the gospel P75 (circa 200) carries the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke”. [40] [41] however another manuscript P4 from about the same time period[42][43] has no such (surviving) attribution.

Early Christian testimony concerning the gospel's authorship is in full agreement, yet some scholars attach little importance to Patristic documentation.[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] It should be noted that Acts of the Apostles (1:1-2) says, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen."(NIV)

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.[50] 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.”[51] There is further evidence from the Pauline Epistles.[52] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, and some scholars have seen evidence of medical terminology used in both the Gospel and Acts.[53]

Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14) and this traditional view of Lukan authorship is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.” [54] The list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion.[55] However, it must be stated that there is no consensus, and the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship is ‘about evenly divided’.[56]

Luke the Evangelist

Luke was a physician in Antioch, as well as an adherent and constant companion of the Apostle Paul. Scholars know the exact time when Luke joined Paul by the "we" Sections in the Book of Acts. Throughout the Gospel of Luke and the first 15 chapters of Acts, St. Luke is editing earlier sources. Not only does he state this, but his writing style is that of a third party editor. Then, at Acts 16 his style changes from "They did that" to "We did this". He is now a first person participant. Also, the intimate detail from chapter 16 onwards shows that the author himself was traveling with Paul. These "we" sections conclude at the time during which Paul was imprisoned at Rome. Thus, many conclude that this was when the Book of Acts was written or at least concluded.

Luke was also skilled in Koine Greek. Some believe that whenever Paul writes "according to my gospel" he means the Gospel of Luke. St. Luke was buried at Constantinople. During the twentieth year of Constantius his bones and the remains of Andrew the apostle were transferred there. [57] [58] [59]

Date

Some scholars place the date c 80-90.[60][61] 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)[62] 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.[63] Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the first century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[64] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[65]

After 70

Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[66] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. This view also believes that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus miraculously predicting the future but must have been written with knowledge of these events after the fact. 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, if disputed.[67][68] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 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.[citation needed] 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.[69] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on christology, eschatology, and soteriology 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.[70]

The birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[36] Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[36] with John the Baptist.

Marcion circa 144, appears to have used this gospel, but he called it the Gospel of the Lord.[71]

Between AD 37 and AD 70

Some scholars have posited earlier dates for Luke's composition. Arguments for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[72] note that Luke is addressed to "Most Excellent Theophilus," possibly a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. This reference would date the original copy of Luke to within 4 to 8 years after the death of Jesus.

Some think that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him.[73] Paul mentions Luke, in passing, several times as traveling with Paul. However Guthrie notes that much of the evidence for dating the Gospel at any point is based upon conjecture.

Carson, Moo and Morris opt for a date prior to AD 70 based upon 6 factors. Most prominent in their view is that no event beyond AD 62 is mentioned in the book including the death of church leaders such as Paul or James. They note that there is no mention of the Neronian persecution in the early 60's or of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.[74]

Audience and authorial intent

Like Mark (but unlike Matthew), the intended audience is Gentile, and it assures readers that Christianity is an international religion, not an exclusively Jewish sect. Luke portrays his subject in a positive light regarding Roman authorities.[67] For example, the Jews are said to be responsible for Jesus' crucifixion, with Pontius Pilate finding no wrong in him.[67]

The consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek or Syrian[citation needed] for gentile or non-Jewish Christians. The Gospel is addressed to the author's patron, Theophilus, which in Greek simply means friend of God[75] or (be)loved by God or loving God,[76] 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 Early 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).

Content

Formal introduction


Jesus' birth and boyhood


Jesus' baptism and temptation


Jesus' ministry in Galilee


Jesus' teaching on the journey to Jerusalem


Jesus' Jerusalem conflicts, crucifixion, and resurrection

Content summary

The Gospel of Luke tells the story of Jesus' miraculous birth, ministry of healing and parables, passion, resurrection, and ascension. Donald Guthrie claims, “it is full of superb stories and leaves the reader with a deep impression of the personality and teachings of Jesus."[77]

The composition may follow the two-source hypothesis, that the text is based in part on the Gospel of Mark and a now lost document (commonly referred to as Q). However, this hypothesis is also consistent with the author's declaration that Luke is written after widely investigating eyewitnesses and other accounts. A single author may have intentionally drawn upon Mark as part of this investigation.

Introduction

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."[78] 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".

Birth narratives and genealogy

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,[79] in Luke the evangelist traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam, indicating a universal sense of salvation.[79] Unique to Luke is John the Baptist's birth story, the census and travel to Bethlehem, the birth in a manger, and a story from Jesus' boyhood.

Miracles and parables

Luke emphasizes Jesus' miracles, recounting 20, 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, including the Good Samaritan, the Corrupt Steward and the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

Role of women

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).

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. See also Responsibility for the death of Jesus.

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 (the Great 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. The Book of Acts, written by the same author 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

Manuscripts

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,[43] dating from the late 2nd century.[80] P75 dates from the late 2nd century/early 3rd century.[81][82] 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.[82][83] 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.

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

The books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Luke's style is the most literary of these books, ahead of Saint Paul's epistles.[84]

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, the mother of John the Baptist and of Mary, the mother of Jesus (ch. 2).

Disputed verses

Textual critics have found variations among early manuscripts and 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.[85]

When Jesus is baptized, some 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 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 first-century tradition.[86]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  2. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 105.
  3. ^ Luke 1:1-4
  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).
  5. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 107.
  6. ^ Pierson Parker, A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel According to the Hebrews Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Dec., 1940), pp. 471-473
  7. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 pp. 1-376
  8. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Introduction," p 1-30.
  9. ^ D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 704.
  10. ^ 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 0-310-519-40-3.
  11. ^ a b Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Gospels" p. 266-268
  12. ^ Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259.
  13. ^ David Aune The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), p. 77.
  14. ^ The Books of The Bible (Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 2007); The Original New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985).
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The new international commentary on the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997 ISBN 0802823157 p.21
  17. ^ Francis & Mary Peloubet, A dictionary of the Bible: comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, natural history and literature, Porter and Coates Pub. 1884 P. 367
  18. ^ Bart Erhman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p.78-87
  19. ^ http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch9.htm
  20. ^ Burnett H. Streeter,The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London: MacMillian and Co., Ltd., 1924.
  21. ^ Pierson Parker, A Proto-Lukan Basis for the Gospel According to the Hebrews Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Dec., 1940), pp. 471-473
  22. ^ a b 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
  23. ^ Pierson Parker. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
  24. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 pp. xviii-xxxiv
  25. ^ William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis, New York: Macmillan, 1981 p. 196
  26. ^ Interview with James R. Edwards
  27. ^ M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897), "Luke, Gospel According To".
  28. ^ Gospel of Saint Luke, Catholic Encyclopedia on line, New Advent
  29. ^ 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
  30. ^ Section 1:4, of Illustrious Men states, "Then, also, the Gospel of Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter of Peter..."
  31. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 pp. 209 - 247
  32. ^ Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ Trinity Press, SCM 2000 p.207- 210
  33. ^ and, Section 2:11, states "The gospel which is named the Gospel of the Hebrews, and which I have just translated into Greek and Latin, which Origen..." Then, Section 3:1, Jerome continues on about the Hebrew Gospel as follows, " ...composed a Hebrew Gospel of Christ, first published in Judea for the sake of those Hebrews who believed, this was translated into Greek, though by what author is not known. Moreover, the Hebrew itself has been preserved in the library at Cesaera which Pamphilus the martyr so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Boera, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted...
  34. ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 pp. 1-376
  35. ^ 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.
  36. ^ 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.
  37. ^ "An Unpublished Dead Sea Scroll Text Parallels Luke’s Infancy Narrative", Biblical Archaeology Review, April/May 1990
  38. ^ "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 056708468X
  39. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 37-40.
  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.
  41. ^ 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".
  42. ^ Possibly dated earlier than P75
  43. ^ a b Gregory, A. (2003) The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus, Mohr Siebeck, ISBN 3161480864 p.28
  44. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 114.
  45. ^ 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.
  46. ^ on linguistics, see A. Kenny, A stylometric Study of the New Testament (1986).
  47. ^ F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1952), p2.
  48. ^ Udo Schnelle. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259.
  49. ^ 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.
  50. ^ M. A. Siotis, ‘Luke the Evangelist as St. Paul’s Collaborator’, in Neues Testament Gesichichte, pp. 105-111.
  51. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 117.
  52. ^ analyzed in detail in Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 117-118.
  53. ^ e.g. W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt (1906)
  54. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), says the traditional view is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.” p. 119, whereas R. E. Brown says opinion on the issue is "evenly divided" Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. 
  55. ^ 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.
  56. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. 
  57. ^ Thomas Patrick Halton, On Illustrious Men By Saint Jerome Volume 100 of Fathers of the church, CUA Press, 1999 p. 15 ISBN 0813201004
  58. ^ Jerome, De Viris Illustribus Fathers of the Church, New Advent, Chapter 7
  59. ^ Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Commentary Series, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998 P. 52-54 ISBN 0802845010
  60. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 226. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. 
  61. ^ Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, pp. 43
  62. ^ P4, P45, P69, P75, and P111
  63. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 126-126.
  64. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 125.
  65. ^ Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 334
  66. ^ Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 336
  67. ^ 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
  68. ^ 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
  69. ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 29
  70. ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 27
  71. ^ 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: Marcion: "The distinctive teaching of Marcion originated in a comparison of the Old Testament with the gospel of Christ and the theology of the apostle Paul. ... This he did by setting aside the spurious gospels, purging the real gospel (the Gospel of Luke) from supposed judaizing interpolations, and restoring the true text ...
  72. ^ 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.
  73. ^ Guthrie, Donald (1990). New Testament Introduction. Leicester, England: Apollos. pp. 131. 
  74. ^ Carson, D.A.; Moo, Dougals J. (1992). "4". An introduction to the New Testament. Morris, Leon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. pp. 116. ISBN 0-310-519-40-3. 
  75. ^ Strong's G2321
  76. ^ Bauer lexicon, 2nd edition, 1958, page 358
  77. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 102.
  78. ^ translation from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
  79. ^ a b Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Fourth Edition). New York: Oxford. 2008
  80. ^ 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
  81. ^ 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
  82. ^ a b Complete List of Greek NT Papyri
  83. ^ List of New Testament papyri
  84. ^ "Greek." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  85. ^ Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus.
  86. ^ May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.

External links

Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:

Secondary Literature:

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.

Gospel of Luke
Preceded by
Mark
New Testament
Books of the Bible
Succeeded by
John

Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message