THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
INTRO:
Spent last two classes discussing Gospel of Matthew. Some may wonder why. What has this to do with history? What does it have to do with larger theme the course addresses, the church as a turning point in history of world. First--dealing with works like the Gospel of Matthew the business of true historians. History doesn't come in well-made, ready to use volumes--instead it's pieced together based on what historians can deduct from primary sources, works like the Gospel of Matthew. History (from historia) means investigation--to sift evidence in the same way a good detective does. Any of you who take any of Dr. Grettler's courses know that dealing with the kind of evidence historians use (artificats and primary sources) is a tricky business--but also a lot of fun--and interestingly enough, you often are closer to the truth with your own analysis of primary source material than when you depend on others to tell you what it's all about.
And you people are good at it! Really pleased with the insights you had into Gospel of Matthew--lots of things I didn't see myself, but that are obviously right. Request: please feel free to stop me, ask questions, contribute your own comments--and also to respond to each others comments. This will get us a lot closer to what history is about.
As to the other question, how does our discussion of Matthew relate to central theme of course. Remind you what we are investigating, one of most significant turning points in all history, transition of Roman empire from paganism to Christianity, a transition that affects every aspect of life, marks end of ancient world. Most significantly: transition from polytheism to monotheism--a major, major step. Now the monotheistic alternative had been around for a long time--but not an alternative to too many. One can hardly imagine Phariseeism or Sadduceeism attracting many adherents! For monotheism to catch on, monotheism itself had to be transformed--and you needed a nucleus of Jewish converts to this new kind of monotheism. Matthew gives us the evidence to show how these things came about.
Now--move on to a new Gospel, Luke. Luke in many ways very like Matthew. Two gospels tell same story, many passages are identical. About 50% of material in Luke you had already read in Matthew (wasn't de ja vu!). Gospel of Mark also similar to Luke and Matthew (only 50 vs. in Mark not in either Matthew or Luke--reason I don't assign that gospel). So much alike, these gospels called synoptics (explain).
Despite similarities, gospels differ from each other in some respects. Why? One of most important reasons, each is addressed to a slightly different primary audience. Matthew--to religious Jews or people already familiar with OT--but also for people who need some convincing. Luke doesn't anticipates same audience. One, doesn't assume his audience knows OT scripture. Second, he seems to assume more sympathy for his message, as if he is writing primarily to those already convinced. Luke, then, is a gospel particularly well suited to the needs and interests of gentile believers in the first century.
Not surprising. Luke himself, the man who wrote gospel, himself a gentile--only gentile who wrote any book of Bible. He was a also a companion of apostle Paul, the man who, more than any other, was responsible for the spread of Christianity to the gentile world (calls self apostle to the gentiles). Luke with Paul at cities such as Mytilene, Caesarea and throughout Paul's captivity. On travels, Luke met many of key figures of the early church--certainly Peter and most probably Mary the mother of Jesus. This put him in an excellent position to write what was, for the average gentile reader, probably the most attractive of the four gospels.
What was attractive to gentiles about Luke?
1. Style. Best Greek of NT. Called "most beautiful book ever written," while this has to do with content, also literary quality, beauty of language. Matthew full of Hebraicisms--the kind of Greek spoken my a non-native. Luke: Greek to be set alongside that of the greatest Greek prose writers.
2. Structure. Gospel put together in exactly the pattern gentile audience would expect for the biography of a great man.
--Dedication (expected of a writer to address book to a prominent figure, often the patron who sponsored the book. Dedications to emperor common. Marcus Aurelius "to himself." Luke dedicates to Theophilus (lover of God)
--Statement of purpose (Herodotus: so great deeds wouldn't be forgotten--and to show reasons Greeks and Persians fought--quite frequent intro: to set record straight (Hecataeus? For the Greeks tell many tales--and foolish ones at that). Luke: so Theophilus can be sure of things he has been taught.
--Early hints of a man's future greatness (omens, signs, particularly connected with birth (unusually hard or easy labor, prophecies of future greatness, unusual precociousness, illustrius ancestry. Typical account of Galba (Suetonius, p. 249). Biographer seldom finds all these characteristics, but each clearly seen as a mark of greatness. Caesar: "Many Mariuses"/12 years old delivering eulogy at his grandmother's funeral. How does Luke respond to gentile desire for this kind of info?
virgin birth (Mark and John ignor, Matthew includes as example of fulfilled prophecy)--babe in Elizabeth's womb--teaching in temple--prophecies of Simeon and Anna--not to mention appearance of angels! But note absence of auspices-type signs.
And ancestors? You want illustrious ancestors? Here goes--
3. Use of scripture: less than Matthew, but, when used, quoted if full (compare Luke 3:6-7 with Matt 3:3).
4. Omits things Matthew includes (compare Luke 6: Sermon on Plain with Matthew 5-7, Sermon on Mt: very similar: but some things left out "Ye have heard that it was said..." Standards just set without preceeding contrast. Also, criticism of public alms, prayer, fasting, gone.
Much of what Luke omits in his account can be explained by the
fact he is writing to gentiles. Likewise some parables are left out--e.g.
parable of 10 virgins, probably because it would not have made much sense
to gentile readers.
Here are some other things Luke omits--reason for doing so?
--Syrophonecian woman that Jesus ignores "not fit to give children's bread unto dogs." (Matt. 15:21-28)
--Walking on water
--teaching on what defiles a man (Matt. 15:1-10)
--temple tax (does your master pay the tribute?)
--Pharisees questions on divorce (Matt. 19:1-12)
--parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-10)
--the cursing of the fig tree (Matt. 21:18-19)
--the death of Judas
--the mocking by the soldiers (Matt 27:27-31)
--the guard at the tomb (Matt. 27:62-66)
Note in how many instances what Luke omits can be explained by the fact that he is writing to a different audience. Same might be said of what Luke includes that other gospel do not
--healing of widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-17)
--the ministering women (Luke 8:1-3)
--the strange exorcist (Luke 9:49-50 also in Mark, but not Matt.)
--disciples want to destroy Samaritan villagers (Luke 9:51-56 cf. Acts
8:1-8, note Luke's special concern for Samaritans)
--good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37)
--Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42, note role of women here)
--blessedness of Jesus mother (Luke 11:27-28, tie to women's role above)
--the friend at midnight (Luke 11:5-8, follows Lord's prayer)
--the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21)
--addition to servant watching, degrees of reward (Luke 12:47-48, look
up, note answer to question of righteous gentile, goes along with 13:1-9
which also is in Luke only)
--healing of infirm woman (Luke 13:11-13)
--healing of ten lepers (returnee a Samaritan!! Luke 17:11-18)
--teaching on humility (servant prepares for his master not for reward
but because its his duty--service to god should be like that, analogy to
master/servant works for gentile)
--prodigal son (Luke 15:1-10)
--unjust steward (Luke 16:1-23)
--rich man and Lazarus
--pharisee and pblican
--unjust judge
--road to emmaeus
Danger here--gospels have much in common, and to a certain extent overlooking some central themes of human appeal, e.g. Jesus crucifixion for the sins of mankind and his triumph over death. But even in common themes, differences in treatment show different audience. Cf. Matt 24, Luke 21.
Note what Matt. emphasizes/Luke's translation of a few difficult ideas)