If Luke is the most “gentile” Gospel, is it also “anti-Jewish”?
In my earlier post on “The Gospel of Luke in a Nutshell,” I argued that Luke, more than the other Gospels, went out of its way to portray Jesus as a great prophet (like Samuel, like Elijah, etc.). In part, in Luke’s understanding, that is why Jesus had to die. The Jewish people, in his view, always reject their own prophets sent from God. Jesus was the last of the great prophets. He too had to be rejected and killed at the hands of the Jewish people (see Luke 13:33-35).
Some scholars have argued that because of this denigration of the Jewish people for always rejecting the prophets and Jesus, Luke is probably to be seen as an “anti-Jewish” Gospel. In my judgment there is a lot to be said for this view. The only Jews that the Gospel appears to approve of are the ones who recognize Jesus as a great prophet and son of God (his mother, Symeon and Anna, John the Baptist, his own disciples, etc.). The other Jews seemed to be lumped together as those who reject God’s messengers. It is true that Luke is not as forthright in his rejection of “the Jews” as Matthew is (who has “the entire crowd” of Jews at Jesus’ trial cry out responsibility for his death: “His blood be upon us and our children” Matt. 27:25) or as John, who, most remarkably of all, claims that the Jews are not the children of God but the children of the devil (John 8). But still, the anti-Jewish element is strong in Luke, both in his Gospel and the book of Acts.
Excellent essay.
I have read that ancient Hebrew uses “son of man” as an identity for man in general. And “son of God” as to identify a person of high esteem that seemed to have a deep spiritual connection. Is this correct? These were not terms used exclusively for Jesus?
It depends which ancient Hebrew you’re reading! “Son of man” means something like “mortal being” in the book of Ezekiel (God repeated calls the prophet that); but in Daniel 7 “one like a son of man” refers to a cosmic judge of the earth, as it meant also in the book of 1 Enoch. Some scholars think the term was used in Aramaic as a circumlocution for the firt person singular pronoun. “Son of God” in the Hebrew Bible typically refers to a person or group that God uses to mediate his will on earth, for example, the King of Israel is called that, as are angels, as is the nation of Israel.
Thank you for responding to my previous question, Dr Ehrman. Your answer was very helpful.
Was Petrine Christianity similar to Ebionitism or were they entirely unrelated?
The Ebionites certainly claimed Peter as one of their forerunners, but I’m afraid the only things we really know about actualy, hitsorical “Petrine Christianity” are Paul’s references to Peter in Galatians 1-2, where Peter maintains that Jews who believe in Jesus need to continue observing Torah — a view the Ebionites embraced as well.
I’ve been very curious about Baur’s views Dr Ehrman. While the Catholic Church is a Christian church, it seems to be a blend between Peter’s view and Paul’s, or between Judaism and Paul’s Christianity, minus the animal sacrifice for atoning sin. So the question I have Dr Ehrman is – Did Peter start the Catholic Church or have great influence on the early Christians in Rome?
I know I’m very much a rookie, but I find it all fascinating.
Thanks, RD
What we think of the Catholic church is a later development, after the church in Rome became a prominent Christian community and then the prominent Christian community. We see that starting to happen in the second century, but the bishop of Rome was not seen as the “Pope” over the entire church until even after that. It wasn’t Peter’s doing, but happened long after his day. (Historically he didn’t start the church in Rome and almost certainly was not its first leader, contrary to traditional Roman Catholic thinking)
Glad that you pointed out that the authors of Matthew and John are more intense than the author of Luke.
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!” Hey, escape tunnels: https://www.deseret.com/2007/9/10/20040351/tunnel-used-by-jews-to-flee-romans-2-000-years-ago-is-found/
It’s I think academic consensus, but I still haven’t seen the reasoning behind why scholars would think a person as highly literate, Gentile-connected, and seemingly unfettered as the author of Luke-Acts would wait half a century to first write about the most important events of his life? An accreted document over his lifetime that began with a letter nearer events, maybe that I can see. But there’s plenty of Jewish and ‘Roman’ (Roman probably meaning local Syrian enlistees here) letters at Bar-Kokhba written right during the heat of heatier events: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Letters
If you read the haggadah and mishna that supposedly reference Jesus, it seems um, less soft and warm than anything that Jesus supposedly said of the Jewish people. I wonder if it was helpful to let the Jewish diaspora know how Ben Handmaid was rejected, if Early Christianity was associated with supporting the Roman destruction of the Second Temple.
“. . . namely, that the books of the New Testament that tell narratives of the past (i.e., the Gospels and Acts) reflect the theological and ideological views and commitments of their authors as much as (or more than) they reflect the past events that they narrate.”
Wouldn’t that make them works of theology rather than works of history, in that case?
It would make them both. Just as every historical account is written by an author who has ideological views. To use them as historical records we have to figure out ways to get behind the theology that we’re not interested in (if we’re doing the work of the historian) to the history that we are interested in .
“It would make them both.”
I thought you once told Craig Evans during a debate, that there was little history in the Gospel of John. Was that not the case?
“Just as every historical account is written by an author who has ideological views.”
Yes, they may well have, but doesn’t this question relate to the purpose for which they are writing? As you frequently point out, critical scholars, whether Christian or atheist, have a primary interest in deducing what probably happened in the past.
Can you honestly say, that is the primary reason Mark or even John, produced their gospels?
“To use them as historical records we have to figure out ways to get behind the theology that we’re not interested in (if we’re doing the work of the historian) to the history that we are interested in.”
I absolutely agree, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the work they are examine was written as a work of history. There can often be much historical detail in a work of fiction, but that doesn’t mean you would put it in the history section of a library, does it?
In comparison wiht the Synoptics yes, John has much less historical information. But certainly he has some: he knows of Jesus; he came from Nazareth; he was Jewish; he associated with John the Baptist; he had disciples; he taught about how to be right with God; he travelled to jerusalem; was betrayed by one of his disciples; etc. etc.
No, I don’t think Mark or John was mainly interested in writing about historical events for the sake of recording history; their books are “Gospels” — tha tis, proclamations of good news. I.e. they are using what they believe to be historical events to preach a message.
“In comparison wiht the Synoptics yes, John has much less historical information. But certainly he has some: . . . ”
I agree but does a work that is primarily theological in nature, i.e. that explains how Jesus is God incarnate, right from the start, that also happens to contain some historical information, make it a work for history? As I said, there are many fictional books that contain some historical details, but we wouldn’t categorise them as ‘history’ books, would we?
“No, I don’t think Mark or John was mainly interested in writing about historical events for the sake of . . . ”
I agree, the gospels do appear to use a historical backdrop to explain and promote who Jesus was. So in Mark, he portrays him as the Messiah, in Matthew, an Old Testament prophet, Luke sees him as the Son of God and of course, John views him as a God himself. On what basis would anyone categorise books of that nature, as history?
“I.e. they are using what they believe to be historical events to preach a message.”
So you really think that the gospel writers thought that Jesus walked on water or tuned water into wine?
If a modern novel takes place in NYC and describes the direction/streets the protagonist took to get from the Met to the Empire State Building, then that could be accurate information, even if the plot was made up. Even if it was a Christian novel!
Teachings of 2nd-Temple sects who believed in an Eschatological/Yahwehsitic-Messiah were suppressed by rabbinical Judaism/Josephus, but discovery of DSS shed light on these apocalyptic/messianic views.
An Eschatological Messiah would reinstantiate Eden making physical Temple/Torah/chosen-people unnecessary. Predicting Temple’s destruction/gentile-inclusion was natural/expected.
John the Baptist’s sect (Essenes) hesitated to relinquish Torah/privileged status, but agreed with the rest. After John’s death Essenes traveled from Qumran to Galilee for a council-meeting where 5000 selected Jesus as successor. 1,000 left after Jesus declared himself Lord-over-Law. At second meeting, Jesus’s openness to Gentiles further divided the now 4000 Essenes.
Following Jesus’ death, Peter&James moved to Qumran and led the “New-Covenant” subset of Essenes, navigating tensions between them and Paul the Liar. Peter oversaw the Gospel of Matthew to pursuade Essenes (Law=good Aristocracy=bad).
If gospel authors were living when Christians were in conflict with Jews who rejected Jesus, then the church’s shift away from Jerusalem/synagogues around the Temple’s destruction suggest Gospels were written pre-siege.
Themes in Luke-Acts show similarities with Thessalonians 2:14-16, where Paul praises the Jerusalem church (by extension Peter/James), notes their expulsion from Judea, criticizes Jews for hindering Gentile outreach, killing Jesus/prophets, and making themselves ripe for God’s wrath. This is the context Luke wrote his gospel-decades before 70ad.
In a large collection of varied writings like the Bible, it’s probably wrong-headed to even try to summarize the Bible’s main theme. At best there are multiple contenders.
But it seems to me that the main theme goes something like: if you do God’s will he will love you and help you; on the other hand, if you disobey God he will punish you.
Would you say that’s a plausible contender for the Bible’s main theme?
I’d say it’s certainly one of them!
Marcion is the thesis, the Christian Gospels are the antithesis, and the Christian Epistles are the synthesis. That is also what I argue for in my book, although I don’t use those specific words
It is most remarkable that you manage to write all these posts on Luke while mentioning Marcion only once, in passing.
What we see in Luke is the same synthesis yet it is that of Marcion’s and the nascent Christianity that Mark had begun and Matthew continued – and while redacting *Ev / Marcion into Luke, evidently both stories had to be merged
Why was Luke written? To set the record straight according to nascent Christianity, to reprogram the original audience of the main gospel, *Ev (Marcion’s).
Every story is always written to change the course of existing stories, which is exactly what we see in the Gospels – and again, juxtapose Mark 16:8 with Luke 24:9-12 and see who Mark is blaming
But let’s not shy away from the fact that the entire NT is filled to the brim with anti-Judaism, with the protagonist himself breaking every main Judaic custom, vilifying Pharisees and Judaics in general – which, to be fair, all are remnants of the original gospel, *Ev
(I’m writing a few days behind. I hope Pr. Ehrman will see this.) In a previous post (video?) Bart said that another thing that is unique to Luke is how he treats atonement. If I remember correctly, you said that it is apparent that the author of Luke disagreed with Mark (and Paul) on the idea that Jesus’ death was a ransom or a debt paid. Luke sees God’s forgiveness as freely given–as grace. No transaction necessary.
This is a huge deal, theologically. (And attractive to me personally.) Am I quoting you correctly? What passages support this position?
Yup. Luke deletes Mark’s statement that the Son of man came to give ihs life for many (Mark 10:45), and the sayuing at the last supper about the cup being poured out for many; the curtain no longer rips when Jesus’ dies but before his death (so teh death is not what brings access to God); and in the book of Acts, also by Luke, when the apostles preach salvation, they repeatedly say that it comes by repentance that leads to forgiveness; they never preach that Jesus’ death brought an atonement.
Bart, as you wrote, “In [Luke’s] Gospel, and in Acts, the Jews are hard-hearted people who always reject God’s prophets and messengers.” This characterization of the Jews by Luke has always irked me.
The prophets were often obliged to preach against the monarchy and so the kings were hostile to them. But that says nothing about the people as a whole.
When prophets spoke against people for their idolatry or neglect of the poor, then those people — the sinners — opposed them. But that also says nothing about the Jewish people as a whole.
Luke is obviously cherry-picking, exaggerating, and distorting the histories of Israel and Judah for polemical purposes. Jesus’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem is described in all four Gospels. That was hardly a rejection of Jesus by the people!
If Jesus had survived his visit to the city and manifested any of the messianic signs prophesied by the supposedly rejected prophets Luke refers to, you can bet he would have been fully accepted, supported, and celebrated by all the Jewish people of his time.
Luke is just trying to change the subject.