Gospel of Luke

From Free net encyclopedia

Template:Books of the New Testament

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 the Epistle to Philemon 1:24, a 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

[edit]

Content

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

[edit]

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). See also Acts of the Apostles - Authorship.

Unfortunately, nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul; this ascription is late second century. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the evidence in favor of Lucan authorship is based on two things: first, the beginning of the "we" sections in Acts 14:10; second, the "medical language" used by Luke. [1] Other views of the "we passages" include that a first person travel diary was incorporated into Acts, that the first person narration is generic style for sea voyages (according to V. K. Robbins), and that the author was making a false affectation to being a companion of Paul. Additionally, the thesis that the vocabulary is special to a physician met with a rebuttal by H. J. Cadbury in his dissertation The Style and Literary Method of Luke, which argued that the vocabulary is found in nonmedical works; the saying goes that Cadbury earned his doctorate by depriving Luke of his.

The evangelist does not claim to have been an eyewitness of Jesus's life, but to have investigated everything carefully and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4). The authors of the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and John, probably used similar sources. 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 by scholars as Q, the Quelle or "source" document.

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 (Template:Bibleref).

[edit]

Date of composition

The date of this gospel's composition is uncertain. Estimates range from ca 60 to ca 100 AD.

[edit]

Traditional views of the date

Traditionally, Christians believe that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation, of Paul. This would place it as having been written before the Acts, with Acts being composed around AD 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, 40–60. Evangelical Christians tend to favor this view, in keeping with the tradition to date the gospels very early.

[edit]

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 after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke would not have been written before 70. The Sadducees are another point traditional scholars use to confirm a later date, contrasting Matthew's focus on the tax collecters and Jesus' rebuke of their actions against Luke's hardly mentioning them at all within his gospel, because after the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees lost their power base. Based on this datum, scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to as late as 100, and Acts shortly thereafter, also between 80 and 100. Support for a later date comes from the speculation that the universalization of the message must be taken to mean a much later date than the 60–70 given by the traditional view.

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.

[edit]

Manuscripts

The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are papyrus fragments from the third century, 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 Bezae, in the University Library, Cambridge, contains a 5th or 6th century manuscript that is the oldest complete manuscript of Luke, in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages. The Greek version appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition and departs from familiar readings at many points. Though the text bears many intended corrections, often to bring it into line with the usual readings, the Codex Bezae demonstrates the latitude in manuscripts of scripture that still existed quite late in the tradition. Biblical scholars have minimized the Codex's importance, citing it generally only when it supports the common readings.

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

[edit]

Relationship with other gospels

Most New Testament scholars believe the author of Luke relied on Mark and Q as his primary sources.

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), probably palm wine. 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:

[edit]

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, John the Baptist's mother (ch. 1), and 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 some scholars, including Randel McCraw Helms, to suggest that the author of Luke may have been female.

[edit]

See also

[edit]

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.


<Center>Books of the Bible
Preceded by:
<Center>Mark 		Gospels Followed by:
<Center>John

zh-min-nan:Lō·-ka Hok-im bs:Jevanđelje po Luki cs:Evangelium podle Lukáše da:Lukasevangeliet de:Evangelium nach Lukas es:Evangelio de Lucas fj:Ai Tukutuku-vinaka sa vola ko Luke fr:Évangile selon Luc ko:루카 복음서 id:Injil Lukas ia:Evangelio secundo Luca it:Vangelo secondo Luca jv:Injil Lukas la:Evangelium secundum Lucam nl:Evangelie naar Lucas ja:ルカによる福音書 nds:Lukasevangelium pl:Ewangelia Łukasza pt:Evangelho segundo Lucas ru:Евангелие от Луки scn:Vancelu di Luca sr:Свето Јеванђеље по Луци fi:Evankeliumi Luukkaan mukaan sv:Lukasevangeliet zh:路加福音

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Gospel_of_Luke"