YouTube user NonStampCollector recently returned with a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** satirizing the authorship of the Gospel of Luke. I recall learning in church that the message of Luke was geared toward a more Roman audience, but I had not really considered the implications of that orientation. The video presents a fictitious first-century conversation where a man convinces a scribe into altering his copy of the Gospel of Mark to make the character of Jesus Christ more palatable to the Gentiles (with what we know as Luke emerging). It makes light of the idea that the gospels are compatible complements to one another, instead suggesting that the narratives’ details and, indeed, the two descriptions of the figure of Jesus Christ are irreconcilable. For example, the moments of anger from Jesus in Mark are removed from accounts of the same events in Luke, such that the Jesus of Luke is more confident and in control of his situation.
The video is certainly provocative; Is there some veracity to its premises? I would (many) similar, albeit scholarly analyses have been conducted previously. What would be good resources on this subject?
A lot of this is probably true but almost all the evidence provided for Luke editing Mark applies equally well to Luke editing Matthew. Also the idea of later christian writers making the gospel less Jewish is best applied to Matthew being written first. Luke also appears to more Jewish than Mark. Matthew and Luke mention Israel twelve times (which may or may not be coincidental) Mark only mentions it twice. Mention of David is 17 in Matthew, 13 in Luke and 7 in Mark. Luke mentions Abraham being in paradise, Mark doesnt.
Mark has the Roman centurion call Jesus the son of God, Luke has him only call Jesus a righteous man; Mark appearing more pro-Roman here.
I don’t know a scholarly resource to recommend to you…but thank you for posting this; this is hilarious! “Please leave out the story of him getting angry at a tree!” What I like about this dialogue is that it brings out how deliberate ancient scribes were in crafting autobiographical narratives that featured character traits of their protagonists that appealed to target audiences.
I enjoyed this video also. I would like to read a scholarly work on what might have motivated “Luke” to retain some parts of “Mark” while discarding other parts.
I am currently reading, “Who Wrote the Gospels,” by Randel Helms. In this book, Helms makes the case that the author of Luke was female and that there were multiple redactions (edits/additions) made in the Gospel of John. Helms argues that one of authors of the Gospel of John invented the beloved disciple, in part, to downgrade the role of Peter during Jesus’s ministry and after Jesus’s resurrection.
I don’t know if I agree with all of it. But it has made me interested in learning more.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)