If you already have Matthew and Mark, why would you need Luke? Aren’t they all the same?
Nope.
Next question: do you know these Gospels very well? If not, AOK: Keep reading! If so – see if you can summarize the themes and emphases of Luke in one sentence (say, 50 words) in a way that both highlights what it’s about and shows what is distinctive about its portrayal of Jesus.
How’d that go for you?
Here’s what I would come up with as a first go (I’ve never tried this before!)
The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus both as a Greco-Roman “divine man” – shown by his supernatural birth, astounding miracles, death, and exaltation – and as the final prophet sent by God to the Jewish people, who rejected him, fulfilling God’s plan for salvation to go to all the peoples of earth.
It would take volumes to fill out this brief summary (many such volumes have been written! I’ll give suggestions for reading in a future post on Luke). Here I will try expand the summary a bit by discussing some of the most important features of our Third Gospel.
Luke concise:
“Luke is the Christian redaction of *Ev, the main gospel with which it all began, and that Mark had started to counter by completing his own rewrite of the narrative, effectively judaising the so very anti-Judaic *Ev
In this second round, Matthew redacts *Ev into Luke, basically turning everything around and on its head”
You mention the pivotal points Bart, juxtaposing Mark next to Luke. *Ev ended with the gruesomely dramatic death of the protagonist, leaving the audience enraged – and in Luke it’s turned into a tea party.
Where *Ev ridicules John the Baptist as failed prophet, he now is Jesus’ BFF and Jesus himself is a very successful prophet
Like Paul, Luke combines the Judaic posture with renewed attention for the original message, that of a spiritual inner kingdom – and we can see the Good God of *Ev being omnipresent here, of course
Last but MOST CERTAINLY not least, you correctly remark that “Jesus’ death is not an atoning sacrifice that pays the price of the sins of others; it is an event that reveals to people how far they (and all others) have rejected God and need to return for him so that they can acquire forgiveness.”
Would you comment on what *Ev stands for, for the non initiates?
Certainly!
*Ev represents Marcion’s Evangelion, I follow Klinghardt’s label in this regard.
“Gospel” is a word from Middle English, yet in the original Greek manuscripts the word is εὐαγγέλιον, ‘the reward for good tidings’, a word that occurs 73 times in the NT, and even twice in the OT, in 2 Samuel
These good tidings are also known to us as the New Testament, a phrase that also comes from *Ev: καινή διαθήκη.
The word διαθήκη, Testament, occurs most abundantly, 295 times in the OT and 33 times in the NT.
Yet most mysteriously, the Gospels hardly use it, with Mark and Matthew having it only once, John never, and Luke… twice! Odd, isn’t it?
On top of that, Luke 22:20 is the only one to use the complete phrase New Testament, which is quite amazing, as it is also present in Jer 31:31, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8 and 9:15
Now what does all that tell us?
(And I haven’t even discussed Justin Martyr, who uses the complete phrase four times in Dialogue with Trypho chapter 11, twice with the words reversed. Once in chapter 34, 67, and twice more in 122.
Yet not once does he use it in his Apologies)
The Road to Eleusis by Wasson, Hofmann, and Carl A. P. Ruck
344 ratings on amazon averaging 4.7 stars, 84% are 5 stars and 10% are 4 stars–94% are 4 stars or better.
Apostle Paul in Athens (c. 50 AD): Paul famously preached at the Areopagus (Mars Hill) (Acts 17:16–34), engaging with Greek philosophers. His speech referenced Greek religious traditions, which likely included elements familiar to Eleusinian initiates.
Ancient sources suggest that thousands attended annually. Some estimates range from 3,000 to 6,000 initiates per year, though numbers may have fluctuated.
Over time, a significant portion of the Athenian population—perhaps up to 50% of adult citizens—may have been initiated.
By the Roman period, initiation became even more widespread across the Mediterranean, with emperors and elites participating, making the Mysteries one of the most influential religious cults of antiquity.
This book is a collection of studies by three authors which point to evidence that psychedelic substances were used in ancient times and even in early Christianity.
Prof. Ehrman,
As an expert in early Christianity, would you agree that psychedelic substances were used in early Christianity, in early Christian mysteries, or when pagan areas were transitioning into Christianity?
No, I don’t think there’s any good evidence of that. It’s become a popular view again, though, lately! (BTW: the Mysteries don’t help us much since despite what people sometimes claim, we now VERY little about htem)
https://youtu.be/ItwuWtKMXi0?si=9QYGM7vx15CfZhI-
Carl A. P. Ruck
There were Christian sects that used psychoactive sacraments.
Bart D. Ehrman
I do not think there’s any good evidence of psychedelic substances being used either in Early Christianity, in early Christian mysteries, or when pagan areas were transitioning into Christianity.
Question 1
So, this is an instance where scholars disagree, right?
Question 2
But, given archaeological finds that vindicated Professor Ruck, you do agree psychoactive substances were used in the Eleusianian Mysteries?
Question 3
Chat GPT says
The Eleusinian Mysteries likely used a psychoactive kykeon (ergot-based hallucinogen).
The Bacchic Mysteries used wine, possibly mixed with hallucinogenic plants.
The Mithraic Mysteries may have had Persian entheogenic influences, but no concrete evidence exists.
While direct proof is lacking, the initiatory, mystical, and ecstatic nature of these cults strongly suggests the use of substances that induced altered states of consciousness.
So, even though we have Greek authors of the Roman Empire for the four gospels and Acts with its Hellenists,
none of those authors let slip in
The Eleusinian Mysteries, the Bacchich Mysteries, or The Mithraic Mysteries?
I’m afraid I haven’t read Prof. Ruck’s analysis of the archaeological findings connectes with Eleusis or Mithras, or of the reviews of his work by experts, so I’m no in a position to say. I am in a position to say, though, that I don’t see the direct relevance for understanding early Christianity. I certainly wouldn’t argue that the practices of Appalachian snake handlers has a lot of relevance for understanding the Roman Catholic Mass, unless someone could show me the clear historical connections. (And I DEFINITELY would not trust Chat GPT for amything connected with antiquity. You need to look at the actual evidence. ChatBots are still terrible on ancient religion)
Regarding the Dionysian Eucharist, define Kykeon
Kykéon (κυκεών) was an ancient Greek beverage associated with the Eleusinian Mysteries and the Dionysian rites. In the Eleusinian Mysteries, it was considered a ritualistic beverage with possible psychoactive properties, potentially containing ergot derivatives (a natural source of LSD-like compounds).
In Dionysian rituals, kykéon may have functioned as a sacred drink, possibly inducing altered states of consciousness to connect with the divine. Its role in these mysteries suggests it was a gateway to spiritual enlightenment or ecstasy, much like wine in later Bacchic rites or the Christian Eucharist.
Transformation and Ecstasy – Dionysian and Eleusinian rituals sought mystical transformation, much like early Christian teachings on the Eucharist as a transformative act (e.g., transubstantiation). Some scholars suggest that kykéon had psychoactive properties, raising the possibility that early Christian practices may have been influenced by such mind-altering sacramental traditions.
Wine, a Spiritual Medium – Kykéon was sometimes mixed with wine, just as Dionysian and Christian rites emphasized wine’s divine nature. Dionysus, as the god of wine and ecstasy, had rites foreshadowing Eucharistic themes of death, rebirth, and communion with the divine.
1 Corinthians 11:30
You don’t die from over-consuming Communion wine and bread.
They were overdosing the psychoactive portion of the Eucharist.
The gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as God’s son and heir and Lord of the cosmos. He becomes man and is executed by crucifixion to fulfill Isaiah 53. He teaches 12 apostles to spread his gospel and promises to return on the clouds in glory to rule in his kingdom.
50 Words incomiiing
Gospel of Luke’s author, new to Palestine, writes to Theophilus, likely the High Priest installed after Herod Antipas’ exile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_ben_Ananus .
There’s equity, women’s empowerment, and pan-Semetism themes. The story of Naaman recasts Isaiah’s heirarchy due to Jewish actions. Notably, gLuke’s Jesus is calm regarding his father’s plans.
Scholars often assert their own gospel message… that Jesus came for Jews and then non-Jews thru Paul’s ministry. And that’s a false gospel. Why? Descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations were non-Jews. Only Jews and their non-Jewish, Israelite brethren were still under the law’s curse, in danger of an end of the age judgement and in need of Jesus, the gospel and salvation. The non-Jews Jesus anticipated would return to the fold later were non-Jewish descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel, also referred to as the “other sheep”. The erroneous belief that the gospels are about Jesus coming for Jews and then the rest of humanity is a religious tradition promoted by scholars and protected by groupthink. It has absolutely zero support from the New Testament when it’s understood consistently according to its Israelite context and audience relevance.
Scholars (like Bart Ehrman here) make vague assertions like “God in this gospel is a living God who will forgive those who repent and turn to him”… (complete with capitalized G!) but they avoid specifically identifying exactly who “those” were according to the text…. Israelites.
Jesus indicates that “those” of all nations who live in teh way the God of Israel wants will enter the kingdom whereas many Israelites will be left out (Matthew 8:11-12; Matthew 25:31-46). If Matthew says it, it’s not too weird that I would say that Matthew says it.
Nope. Mat 8:11-12 doesn’t say anything close to “Those (non-Israelites) who live in the way of God will enter the kingdom”. It also doesn’t mention the word ‘nations’’. This is what it says.
“He said (to his 1st century disciples) “many will come from the East and West and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into outer darkness and there will be gnashing of teeth”.
Outer darkness and gnashing of teeth is symbolic imagery denoting judgment on national Israel. The same term is also used in Mat 22:13 to refer to judgment on 1st century Jews.
Coming from the East and west is referring to the gathering of the elect, which were Israelites who were of faith contrasted with those “sons of the kingdom” (Israelites) who would suffer in judgement.
All it takes is a closer examination of context and audience relevance to show that the gospel of Jesus and message of Paul was only relevant to 1st century Israelites, which means the universal gospel concept came after the real, Israelite Christianity faded into obscurity.
The idea that Jesus came for Jews and then for gentiles through Paul is hardly a message that scholars sometimes make into their own gospel. Have you even gone to an Evangelical church??? I’m talking preachers and pastors who are not scholars, they read the Bible and say specifically, exactly that Jesus came for Jews and only after his resurrection went for gentiles through Paul. It’s well known. It’s common knowledge. A lay person reading the Bible understands it. God clearly did not make clear what you’re talking about.
You can try to redefine “Jew” all you want, but you would only be undermining Acts 13:47.
Jesus was absolutely, positively, undeniably focused on Jews, and I don’t care how you define them because he didn’t make the distinction you are: Matthew 15:24.
Apart from the Canaanite woman and the Roman centurion, there is nothing showing Jesus gave 2 flips about gentiles. Nothing. There is, however, evidence where Jesus told his disciples to stay away from gentiles: Matthew 10:5.
Paul made it crystal clear that his mission was to gentiles Romans 11:13, Romans 15:16.
I didn’t claim that there was no ministry directed to Gentiles. The gospel went out to all nations / Ethnos for purposes of reaching a particular group of Gentiles, non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel. Romans 11:13, 15:16 were these type of Gentiles. Prof. Ehrman has for nearly his entire adult life assumed that the gospel was meant for all Gentiles everywhere. He is learning now why he was wrong.
FYI, There were three types of gentiles in the New Testament.
1. Non-Israelites, never under the Law and its curse and not in need of salvation.
2. Non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations, still under the Law’s curse and in need of salvation, referred to as gentiles because they had stopped being Torah observant and had stopped practicing circumcision.
3. 1st century ex-communicated Jews who later became God-fearers (like Cornelius).
Guess which type of gentile you are?
Also, I was not trying to redefine “Jew”. The definition of a Jew was not static. Originally, Jews were physical descendants of the tribe of Judah. In other times in Jewish history, a Jew was anyone who converted to Judaism and/or lived like a Jew.
This interesting idea that the Lost Sheep might be only the ten tribes has really got my research fingers going today.
Matthew 25:32 has that “all nations” legalese like in Isaiah (and originally Genesis.)
Isaiah is called the 4th Gospel because it was critical to Jesus’ movement:
Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and *bring back those of Israel* I have kept. I will *also make you a light for the Gentiles*… [my emphasis]
Looks like two different tasks?
Why can’t the First Century Jews be the newest Lost Sheep? It’s Herodias’ marriage that John the Baptist protests that had just broke centuries of Jewish participation in the pan-Semetic alliance.
Isaiah 19:23
ʻIn that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria.” Isaiah’s highway is an *exact match* to the First Century Nabataean trade route from Alexandria to Osroene.
It’s about commerce, y’all. Even Ghandi had a billionaire backer.
And who’s blocking the highway? Zealots and the Ituraeans who had Galilee nabbed from them.
Next, trade moves North and a certain rebellious tribe is not permitted around a certain Gihon spring.
“Apart from the Canaanite woman and the Roman centurion, there is nothing showing Jesus gave 2 flips about gentiles. Nothing.”
So, Jesus is a lineage-Jewish Davidic heir in contrast to the not-lineage-Jewish Herodian dynasty heirs. But how many of his parables were relatable to First Century Jews?
There’s the one about sowing. Then, to landlocked Jews, it’s: pearl, pearls, investment >interest > hoarding, royalty disciplining servants, a camel (Arabian), and shepherding—which in the First Century was not an esteemed Jewish profession because they prided themselves on settlement, but was now a Bedouin-associated occupation.
Jesus has a mission to attain the popular support of Jewish people. But just like “The Lord” of the Hebrew Bible also has peoples other than Israelites (though Israelites only have a covenant with him), and like how the Herods *also* had Gentile kingdoms, Jesus may eventually have patrilineal responsibilities to certain Gentiles that took a backseat to the mission.
Proscribing the 12 from Gentile contact for that assignment (doesn’t Thomas eventually go to India?) serves to demonstrate “We Are Very Jewish”, but Jesus ‘sounds’ less Jewish than even Agrippa, lol.
Read any mishna or haggada—it’s very earthy, it’s kinda scrappy. While eloquence is noted as *the* Arabian trait.