Loading...In this post I continue discussing the “comparative method” of analysis (see yesterday’s post), by showing how it works in relation to the Gospel of Luke, again, as taken from my textbook on the NT.
*********************************************************************
A Comparative Overview of the Gospel
We begin by rehearsing several basic points that we have already learned about Luke’s Gospel, in relationship to Matthew and Mark. Like them, it is a kind of Greco-Roman biography of Jesus. It too is anonymous, and like them appears to have been written by a Greek-speaking Christian somewhere outside of Palestine. He evidently penned his account somewhat later than the Gospel of Mark, perhaps at about the same time as the Gospel of Matthew. In the second century, the book came to be attributed to Luke, the traveling companion of the apostle Paul; we will consider the merits of this attribution in the following chapter.
Hi,
Why is it believed that the Gospels were written outside Palestine?
Thanks.
They are written in Greek, not Aramaic; they do not seem to know Palestinian geography; they are often ignorant of Jewish customs; and so on!
Luke is writing a letter to someone called Theophilus, how it made its way to the canon (NT)
you know Sir when anyone debates with Christian scholars and missionaries they always say that all the words of the bible came from God and when you ask how is that they say the holy spirit inspired the writer and so he wrote those inspired words down and so on.
i don’t know how could some one is able to interpret that the holy ghost inspired Luke to write a letter to Theophilus
this is nonsense in my point of view , it appears to be a very human book .
Luke is writing a book and is saying that he depends on some sources and eyewitnesses and describes his scope of work he never said that the holy spirit inspired me or its a God word and i doubt that he knew that people will use this letter or book and claims to be God words
Dear Bart,
You said some posts back that you were not going to do this with all the gospels, (which disappointed me) and here you are now doing Luke, which makes me very happy! If you need any encouragement to keep going with this series, well, you have a lot of support to do so from this reader!
Thanks and best to you on your new book. I’m looking forward to your critique on the response book to know if it is worth reading as well.
I like the Roman offical theory. Jesus as an enlightened teacher of the WAY, not of a religious belief system that we now think of, but as balanced inner:outer human being. Yes, he spoke against the social culture of the day…but he also said – leave that where it belongs and cultivate what is true within. For me, a mystic, everytime he points to His Fathers anything, he points to who we are as Beings rather than DOers. In truth any good religious practice is about cultivating Beings in order that they become good Doers….we tend to prioritize the Doing implications of Jesus’s ministry – its easy, he is, afterall, the human example of mercy and love in the doing. But WHO is he and who are we in Him? We need to interpret his life first as a being and then as a doer. And emulate his first as a being and then as doers. Luke’s account of a teacher – a Guru – of the Way, who is helping people to love themselves in order to forgive others would be the more passivist approach to social in justice. And not necessarily a threat to the system….unless the system decided to make it a threat. That dynamic still goes on…take my (mystical/literal) word for it!
Fascinating! At some point, I may find myself buying that textbook…
Luke wouldn’t have entrusted his magnum opus to a non-Christian official who might have disregarded it or even lost it. Obviously, Luke’s works were kept within the Christianity community where they were preserved, copied and passed on. Otherwise, they probably wouldn’t have survived. “Theophilus” was probably just a general term for any “God lover(s)” who read his work.
Luke corrected what he considered as the error in Mark’s gospel that the resurrected Jesus went to Galilee to meet his disciples. Instead, Luke makes sure that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. Luke made other changes, too, such as recasting Jesus’ baptism from John the Baptist to avoid the implication in Mark’s gospel that Jesus accepted a baptism for repentance of sins. That implies that Jesus wasn’t sinless and he needed baptism. Luke and Matthew both tweaked and supplemented Mark’s gospel to portray Jesus as they saw fit.
Luke also tweaked Mark’s depiction of Pontius Pilate by claiming that Pilate wanted to release Jesus. (Luke 1515). Mark doesn’t say that Pilate wanted to free Jesus. Mark merely says that Pilate wanted to satisfy the insistent crowd that was calling for Jesus’ crucifixion.
Mark doesn’t say that the Jews had a tradition of releasing one prisoner every year. Rather, Mark says that it was merely Pilate’s practice to do so. Luke, however, turns Pilate’s voluntary practice into an obligation to release a prisoner. Then, in John’s gospel, it finally becomes a Jewish tradition to release a prisoner at Passover. Of course, this is nonsense.
Luke changed Mark’s description of a man in a white robe at the tomb into two men whose “clothes gleamed like lightning.”
The gospels stories were changed, exaggerated and falsified with each re-telling. Perhaps, this process of exaggeration and distortion had been going on for years before the gospels were written so that by the time they were written, the original events and the original Jesus were hardly recognizable anymore.
Luke seems to be making a point of bringing Jewish and Gentile Christians together. For examples, Jesus forgives his executors from the cross, and instead of a heated confrontation between Paul and Peter over the Gentile issue, as Paul describes in Galatians, Luke portrays a harmonious meeting in Jerusalem that settles the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. That seems more like an internal matter for believers, not for outsiders. I doubt the Romans cared if the Christians were getting along with each other. (Also, I’d like to know your thoughts on why Acts ends where it does.)
I think Acts ends where it does so that it will be on an upnote: nothing can stop Paul’s preaching, not even imprisonment. Soon after that things got dark.
Another explanation for the ending to Acts is that Luke may have lost track of Paul. Paul could have been killed during Nero’s persecution of Christians. Luke may have been far away at the time and so he didn’t know what happened to Paul.
Your reference to Luke’s better style of Greek is intriguing. Can you suggest parallels in English to the differences in Greek style among the evangelists?
Hmmm. Good question. When you read an article on the front page of the local newspaper you know quite well you’re not reading Faulkner.
Wow, so the difference in style between Mark and say Luke is similar to that between a newspaper and Faulkner?
No, not really. I’m just illustrating that different writing styles are … different. Luke 1:1-4 is more Faulkneresque; that’s where Luke let’s go and lets it rip. But the style of the Gospel is much like Mark, in part because he has taken a lot of his stories from Mark.
Prof Ehrman
How certain are you that the preface is from the same author as the main body of Luke/Acts?
thanks
Pretty certain!
Apologetics seemed to be actually directed toward those who are already believers, to convince them of the correctness of their faith. Very rarely are apologetics considered effective among nonbelievers.
Hi Bart, hope you and Sarah are well.
In a number of discussions over the years, Christians state the Luke’s preface tells us that he interviewed the eyewitnesses.
The NRSVU says:
“2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,”
Note that it says ‘handed on’ rather than ‘handed down’
They read this as the eyewitnesses handed their testimony directly onto Luke.
The translator I use says:
“2 . . . καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου . . . ”
This say something similar, except the word used is ‘γενόμενοι” which seems to mean created.
As someone who worked on a translation, any thoughts o this conundrum?
I’d say it’s a huge strectch. For one thing, it doesn’t say “to me” but “to us”. He either means everyone who has ever written a Gospel (“many” of v. 1) which seems unlikely, since he thinks his predecessors didn’t get it right; or “you and me, Theophilus,” which he obviously doesn’t mean; or “those of us who are Jesus’ followers” or “we Christians” etc., which would mean it does not mean that it was handed on directly to each and every one of them.
But there’s a pretty convincing argument that he doesn’t mean he got it straight from an eyewitness. Luke uses the same phrase in Acts 6:14 on the lips of Stephen to refer to what “Moses handed down to us” Clearly Stephen hadn’t talked with Moses. In any event, the term PARADIDOMI is prequently used in Jewish and Christian tradition to refer to information that is passed on either orally or in writing as something that is thought to be authoritative.
Many thanks.
I may come back if that’s OK. This is really interesting stuff.
Just a minor point, and I will get asked this:
In Luke 1:2, he uses ‘παρέδοσαν’.
and in Acts 6:16 it is ‘παρέδωκεν’
What does the difference in endings signify?
Luke 1:2 is third person plural; and Acts 6 has only 15 verses! But that verb would be third person singular.