Loading...So far I have tried to explain why, in the proto-orthodox church of the second century, the Gospels of Matthew and John came to be attributed to two of the disciples of Jesus. My thesis is that an edition of the four Gospels appeared in Rome sometime in the second half of the century and that it differentiated the four Gospels by indicating which was “according to” whom. I now can address the question of how the other two Gospels were given their names, and why they were not assigned to disciples of Jesus but to companions of the apostles, Luke the companion of Paul and Mark the companion of Peter.
Luke is the easier of the two to explain, and in some ways is the easiest of all four Gospels. That’s because the author provides hints of who he is – or at least hints of whom he wants his readers to *think* he is.
The hints do not come in the Gospel of Luke itself. As I have already pointed out, the author of Luke does indeed speak in the first person in 1:1-4. But in that passage he does not indicate his name. Equally important, he intimates that he himself was not an eyewitness to the events that transpired in Jesus’ life or that he was one of the early proclaimers of Jesus. That’s because he states that there were “many” earlier accounts of Jesus’ life, written by others, based on traditions that had been handed down by “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” He does not include himself in either group, but clearly intimates that he was a later writer who, presumably, had heard stories of Jesus that ultimately went back to these groups of people.
But the author later does hint at who he is – not in the Gospel of Luke but in the second volume of his writing, the book of Acts.
There is really very little doubt that …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, COME TO THE LIGHT!!!
RE: the “we” passages. Since Luke appears to cut and paste from his sources, couldn’t that be what is going on here?
To the general point of cutting/pasting in the ancient world in general. I’ve read a few people (including you I think) talk about how various letters of Paul maybe smash several fragments into a single letter. Are there other examples of this in the ancient world and would it be analogous to modern Celebrities/Supreme Court Justices who employ ghost writers/law clerks? Also, does anyone in the ancient world notice this kind of thing or is this purely “modern” analysis
One final Q, maybe some other thread: Your thoughts on the importance of the Chiasmus in the evolution of the gospel texts through Mark-> M&L and then later readers like Papias. Do you think this is an important writing element for conveying meaning, a memory aid for an oral-transmitting culture, or some other use (like rhetorical Rule of 3s)? If Luke and Matthew are sourcing from Mark, then do they see his structures, walk over them, ignore?
Yes, I used to think (and write, and argue!) that Luke had pasted in a travel itinerary from someone else at these four points. But I ended up thinking otherwise for reasons I lay out in my book Forgery and Counterforgery. Maybe I’ll post on this — it’s an interesting topic.
On your other questions, yes, there are clear instances of this sort of thing — an obvious example is the Letter to Diognetus and, somewhat less so, the Didache, from the early Christian tradition.
I tend to by highly sceptical of claims of chiasmus. In a *few* instances it appears to have been used. But not much at all, in my opinion.
Just curious… instead of, Why Luke, how about, Why not Titus? Why didn’t the early church attribute Acts to him? He was a gentile, well known from Gal & 2 Cor as a friend of Paul, and also (like Luke) not mentioned in Acts?
Good qustion! I suppose they had to pick *someone*….
Is there a remote chance that a 2nd century editor reworked the 1st century gospel of Luke and appended his own book, namely Acts, as a companion volume? This would give the appearance that both books originated from the same author.
I suppose there is no current evidence for such a scenario (otherwise it would be well known) however the gospel of Luke seems to have been a focus of attention in the 2nd century battles with Marcion. Or maybe my mind is just running wild with conspiracy theories.
Yup, that’s a possibility! It would mean that he was very good in imitating the style and themes of his predecessor.
If the author of Luke is pretending to have been a companion of Paul, doesn’t that imply that Theophilus was not a real person? After all, a real Theophilus would have known the author of Luke/Acts and would have known that he wasn’t actually a companion of Paul.
Yes, I think it does imply that.
Wow! Quite a line of evidence almost like a calculus proof.
Typo alert: I think it should refer to 2 Tim 4:10 instead of 2 Tim 2:10 above regarding Demas’s abandonment of Paul…
Thanks.
Do you agree with scholars who think Luke was likely a Jewish proselyte or God-fearer prior to his becoming a Christian? A few even think he may have been ‘Jewish’ by birth, but the general tendency of many seems to be merely to recognize a greater degree of familiarty with some form of Judaism than was previously accepted among scholars.
No, I’ve never seen much evidence for that.
I read recently that the church maybe used an early proto-Lukan gospel that was only turned into the gospel as we know it today as a reactionary response to Marcion’s version of Luke. What are your thoughts on that? Also, at some point could you give us some discussion on Marcion’s impact on the formation of the early canon? I think that’s a fascinating early development (and to some extent the Montanists later impact especially their reasons for rejecting John’s Gospel).
I think this is a minority view, but it’s one that I happen to share. I’ll add it to my list of things to post on!
I remember there being some hubbub a decade ago, or so, about a study that found a unusual amount of “medical terminology”, in Luke/Acts, which some scholars used to add confirmation to the viewpoint that Luke/Acts was by a physician, and thus, Luke. I’ve heard other scholars be quite dismissive of the survey as wishful and shortsighted. Can you comment upon this, for us?
Yes, analyses of the language of Luke-Acts have shown that contrary to what used to be claimed, there is no higher incidence of “medical” language there than in other comparable texts (for example, the writings of Josephus).
Dr Ehrman,
what are your arguments against the claim which says that Luke is not writing his account as criticism of the previous accounts, but to “connect and associate with previous accounts”
quote:
However, such an assertion is doubtful. Luke’s phrasing εδοξε καμοι in v. 3 makes it clear that he does not intend to distance himself from the πολλοι (“the many”), but to connect and associate with them (cf. LXX Dan. 4:37; Lysias, Orationes 1:14; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.9).
quote:
Indeed, if you presume that Luke is imitating Dioscorides, επεχειρησαν is best interpreted as a critical remark. However, as Bock 1994 notes, the term is the natural one to use for composing an account in Greek historiography and literature in general
quote:
Josephus, Demetrius of Phalerum, Demosthenes, Hipparchus, Galen – all use ακριβως + παρακολουθειν to describe the care with which the one adheres to facts. Luke uses the term to describe his own work, like all the above did.
I think that’s a misreading of “it seemed good also to me” — i.e., to make yet another attempt. And yes, “put my hand to it” is itself not a critical remark. And yes, Luke is saying that he wants to adhere to to the facts. If all the others had done so (or if any of them had) then there wouldn’t be any reason for him to write his own account! So it does sound critical to me. Moreover, the fact tha the changed Mark so often, and sometimes so significantly, shows that at least he wasn’t happy with *that* account, as it was worded.
Thanks for the reply Sir.