Introduction to Luke

There is a general consensus among New Testament scholars that the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author. Acts begins with the words, “In my earlier work.” Both works are dedicated to Theophilus, an unknown person who may have been a Roman official. There are striking similarities in grammatical style, and the vocabulary used in the two books. The two works also represent a logical progression. Luke presents the story of Jesus, and Acts that of the early church. The next five blogs are concerned with the gospel of Luke.

We know little about the author. The fact that the earliest manuscripts are written in Greek suggests that the author was an educated Greek. We also know that he was not an eye witness to the events he writes about because he admits that his material comes from the oral tradition (see 1: 1-4).

The Greek origin of the gospel is further supported by the fact that, like Mark, the author displays confusion about the setting of Palestine. When Jesus preaches in Nazareth (4: 16-30), he addresses a crowd in a synagogue. Because his message is threatening, the crowd attempts to throw him off a cliff. There are three problems here. First, Nazareth has no cliffs. Second, archeological studies of Nazareth indicate that the first synagogue was not constructed until 200 CE. Finally, Nazareth was a tiny village making it unlikely that a speaker would attract a crowd.

The consensus estimate for the time of writing is 90 CE. This date is supported by the fact that 35% of the material found in Luke comes from Mark. The author also corrects mistakes found in Mark. When Jesus appears before Pilate (23: 13-25), the crowds demand that he free Barabbas. Pilate eventually gives into these demands, but no claim is made that there was a precedent for freeing a prisoner during Passover. Mark’s claim that such a precedent existed is not historically accurate. You might also read the Lament of Jerusalem (19: 41-44) and the Siege of Jerusalem (21: 20-24). These passages echo (see the blog that introduces Mark) the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70CE.

As I indicated above, 35% of the material in Luke comes from Mark. The Q gospel (see the blog that introduces Matthew) represents 20% of the material, with 45% coming from sources unique to Luke. The material that is unique to Luke provides for much of the distinctive flavor of the gospel. The miracle stories and parables only found in Luke are subjects of future blogs.

You cannot read the gospel of Luke without sensing that this gospel was written for the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden. In the Magnificat (1: 46-55), Mary sings to the poor and lowly. When Jesus is born, he is visited by lowly shepherds rather than wise men. You also see a clever pattern of editorial change. In the Beatitudes (6:20), the poor are blessed rather than the poor in spirit. The author also changes the parable of the invited guests (14: 15-24). After the first invited guests turn down the invitation with excuses, the master tells the servant to invite the poor, the blind, the crippled, and the lame. Compare this rendering of the story with Matthew 22: 1-14.

It is also possible that Luke was written as an apology to the Romans. Theophilus may have been a Roman official. For whatever reason, the author makes clear that Pilate’s hand was forced in arresting Jesus. He declares Jesus to be innocent three times (23: 2-25). The blame for Jesus’ death is placed squarely on the Jewish elite (19: 47-48). The point here may have been that Rome has nothing to worry about with these early Christians.

Finally, the city of Jerusalem plays a prominent role in Luke’s story. The author mentions Jerusalem thirty-three times which is more than the other three gospels combined. Prophets focus their activity in Jerusalem. As I will explain next week, Luke’s gospel is the story of how God’s prophet is rejected by the Jews with the result that salvation is given to the Gentiles.