SAYINGS OF JESUS VS. STORIES ABOUT JESUS
The Gospel of Luke has something significant to offer scholars who study the historical Jesus, at least in terms of the sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus. The main reason for this is that whenever a saying, parable, or teaching of Jesus is found in both the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke but NOT in the Gospel of Mark, that saying, parable, or teaching probably came from an early source of the words and teachings of Jesus known as Q.[1] Without the Gospel of Luke, it would be very difficult to determine the content of this early source of the sayings, parables, and teachings of Jesus.
However, the stories about Jesus found in the Gospel of Luke might not provide historically reliable information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. For example, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, then the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke are also historically unreliable (in general) because most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke come from the Gospel of Mark.[2]
On the other hand, if the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark are historically reliable, then most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke would also be historically reliable (in general), because most of them come from the Gospel of Mark.
CHANGES & ADDITIONS TO STORIES FROM THE GOSPEL OF MARK
However, the author of the Gospel of Luke did make some changes to the stories about Jesus that came from the Gospel of Mark, and did add some stories or events to what is found in the Gospel of Mark. The changes and additions by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark could either be historically reliable or not. If those changes and additions are historically unreliable, then in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke would have very little historical information to offer about Jesus beyond what we already find in the Gospel of Mark.
FOUR REASONS FOR THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
In this post (and future posts in this series), I am going to argue that the changes and additions to the stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark made by the author of the Gospel of Luke are dubious and historically unreliable. There are at least four reasons that support this conclusion:
REASON #1: There are a number of general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that suggest that its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable. I will present such general considerations later in this post.
REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no story about the birth of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds a birth story about Jesus to the stories about Jesus found in the Gospel of Mark, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the birth story in the Gospel of Luke.
REASON #3: The Gospel of Mark has no stories about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, but the Gospel of Luke adds some stories about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of these additional stories in the Gospel of Luke.
REASON #4: The various additions and changes that the author of the Gospel of Luke makes to the Passion Narrative (about the arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus) in the Gospel of Mark are consistently dubious and are thus historically unreliable.
The above four reasons are sufficient to show it is very probable that changes and additions made by the author of the Gospel of Luke to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable, and thus in terms of stories about Jesus, the Gospel of Luke has very little historical information about Jesus to offer beyond what we find in the Gospel of Mark.
REASON #1: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS INDICATING THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
First, there are at least six general considerations about the Gospel of Luke that give us good reason to expect its additions and changes to stories from the Gospel of Mark to be historically unreliable:
- The Gospel of Luke is Christian propaganda: it was written by a Christian believer to promote Christian beliefs about Jesus and God.
- The Gospel of Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the life, the ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, or the burial of Jesus.
- The Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus.
- There are no details in the Gospel of Luke about the specific sources that were used by the author as the basis for any of its stories about Jesus.
- Ancient historical and biographical works, like the Gospel of Luke, are usually not historically reliable.
- The Gospel of Luke was written in Greek by an author who was fluent in Greek and who did not make use of sources or traditions in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and his disciples.
Based on these general considerations, we may conclude that it is probable that the Gospel of Luke is historically unreliable.
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IS CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA
The Gospel of Luke is Christian propaganda: it was written by a Christian believer to promote Christian beliefs about Jesus and God:
The unusual nature of the gospels…arises in part from the fact of their being written by people who were not neutral about the person they were describing and whose life they were purportedly reporting. The gospel writers were all “supporters” of Jesus; they were all Christians. Indeed, we have very little literature anywhere near contemporary with Jesus from someone who was either neutral or hostile towards Jesus. (“Jesus and the Gospels” by Christopher Tuckett in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII, p.72-73.)
Recognition of the essentially religious character of these works [the Gospels] raises questions for how they are best approached within an academic setting. On the one hand, such a setting demands that these books be studied like any other, with rigorous objectivity that does not exempt them from critical scrutiny. On the other hand, to ignore the religious dimension would represent a failure to engage them on their own terms. … An objective dispassionate reception is the last thing the Gospel writers would have wanted their books to receive. We are free to accept or reject, belittle or embrace, but whatever our response, we ought to understand what these books intend to do: they intend to convert us. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.9.)
The authors of our canonical gospels were Evangelists. That means they were primarily focused on proclaiming Jesus. For them, he was the Son of God, the Good Shepherd, and, especially, the long-awaited Messiah. … They knew it was necessary to focus solely on Jesus and to proclaim Jesus’ relation to God and his place within God’s final plan of salvation. (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.xv.)
Because the Gospels in general, and the Gospel of Luke in particular, are instances of Christian propaganda, it is reasonable to anticipate that the authors of the Gospels are more interested in promoting Christian beliefs about Jesus and God than in providing accurate and reliable historical information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY AN EYEWITNESS
The Gospel of Luke was not written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus. The highly respected NT scholar Raymond Brown describes the author of the Gospel of Luke this way:
An educated Greek-speaker and skilled writer who knew the Jewish scriptures in Greek and who was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown, p.226.)
Luke does not number himself among the eyewitnesses, however, but among those who came later and learned the tradition "handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (1:2-3). (“The Gospel of Luke” by R. Alan Culpepper in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.7.)
...we may discern from the Gospel's preface (1:1-4) that the evangelist [the author of the Gospel of Luke] was not an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus but relied on accounts of others. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.97.)
For more than two hundred years most New Testament experts have concluded that the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels] did not know the historical Jesus; moreover, they wrote decades after his death.
The Evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and thought. … (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.xiii-xiv.)
…the gospels as we have them were not written by eyewitnesses on the basis of first-hand knowledge of Jesus. (The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders, p.63.)
Because the author of the Gospel of Luke was not an eyewitness to the alleged events described in that Gospel, all of the information in the Gospel of Luke is hearsay. The Gospel of Luke is a secondary account of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WAS WRITTEN ABOUT FIVE OR SIX DECADES AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION
The Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus (80-90 C.E.):
DATE [when the Gospel of Luke was composed]: 85 give or take five to ten years. (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown, p.226.)
Both Matthew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 period (most likely between 80 and 90) by combining and editing Mark, a collection of Jesus' sayings that scholars arbitrarily label Q, and special traditions peculiar to Matthew and Luke. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I by John P. Meier, p.43-44.)
As already noted, both Gospels [Matthew and Luke] are usually dated in the period of 80-95... (Christianity in the Making, Volume I by James D.G. Dunn, footnote #98 on page 160.)
Since the Gospel according to Mark is usually dated about the year 70, a date for Luke in the mid-eighties appears likely. ... A date for the composition of the Gospel [of Luke] in the mid-eighties is based, therefore, on Luke's use of Mark, the absence of references to Paul's letters in Acts, and the Lukan form of Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. (“The Gospel of Luke” by R. Alan Culpepper, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, p.8-9.)
Most scholars guess that both Luke and Acts were composed in the decade between 80 and 90, around the same time as Matthew's Gospel but, apparently, in a different sector. (Fortress Introduction to The Gospels by Mark Allan Powell, p.97.)
The composition of Luke-Acts is usually dated around 80-90, though some experts now suggest perhaps between 90 and 110. (The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide by James Charlesworth, p.42.)
In any case, it is widely held that the Lucan gospel was composed ca. 80-85 CE, even though one cannot maintain this dating with certainty. ("Luke, The Gospel According To" by Joseph A. Fitzmyer in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.472.)
Luke probably wrote his gospel around 80-85 CE, not far from the time Matthew produced his work. ("Luke" by Eric Franklin in The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.925.)
Mark is probably one Lukan source, so that the date [of the composition of the Gospel of Luke] is post-70, indicated also by 19:43 and 21:20. ...The irenic view of the Roman government and the author's failure to cite Paul's epistles, which had been collected by the early second century, indicate a first-century date, probably in the 80s. ("Luke" by David L. Balch in The Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, p.1104.)
Because the Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, nearly all of the eyewitnesses to the arrest, trials, crucifixion, burial, and alleged appearances of the risen Jesus would have been dead or senile by the time this Gospel was composed. Thus, there might well have been no competent eyewitness available to review or correct the stories in this Gospel when it was being written and when the first copies began to circulate.
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE DOES NOT PROVIDE DETAILS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SOURCES IT USES
The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us that most of his stories about events in the life of Jesus were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark. But it is clear, for example, that the Passion story in the Gospel of Luke is mostly taken from the Passion story in the Gospel of Mark.
However, there is no birth story about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, nor are there any stories about appearances of the risen Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. So, where did the author of the Gospel of Luke get this information or these stories? The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us who gave him information or stories about the birth of Jesus or what books or documents he consulted on this matter. The author of the Gospel of Luke does not tell us who gave him information or stories about appearances of the risen Jesus or what books or documents he consulted on this matter.
Did some of the stories about Jesus' birth come directly from an alleged eyewitness to these alleged events? If so, who was this person, and why should we believe that person? If the storyteller was not an alleged eyewitness, did the storyteller claim to have learned the information from an alleged eyewitness?
Did some of the stories about appearances of the risen Jesus come from an alleged eyewitness to these alleged events? If so, who was this person, and why should we believe that person? If the storyteller was not an alleged eyewitness, did the storyteller claim to have learned the information from an alleged eyewitness?
The author of the Gospel of Luke does not answer any of these important questions, so NT scholars have to construct theories about what sources the author used in composing the Gospel of Luke. Most NT scholars believe that the author used three main sources: the Gospel of Mark, Q (an early collection of sayings and teachings of Jesus), and L (various traditions about Jesus that were maintained by the Christian community to which the author of Luke belonged).
The author of the Gospel of Mark, however, was not an eyewitness to the life, ministry, and death of Jesus, so most of the stories the author of the Gospel of Luke used were, at best, second-hand stories from a non-eyewitness.
We don't know who wrote Q, and it might not be a single document written by one author. It might have been a collection of documents by various authors. In any case, Q, like the Gospel of Mark, was written in Greek, but Jesus and his disciples probably spoke Aramaic, and not Greek. So, Q is probably a translation of previous Aramaic sayings and teachings of Jesus, and thus was probably not composed by an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus.
Furthermore, Q is focused on the words and teachings of Jesus, so it has very little information about events in the life and ministry of Jesus.
Because the Gospel of Luke was probably composed between five and six decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, it is unlikely that the author of this Gospel learned about the life, ministry, or death of Jesus from an actual and competent eyewitness to the alleged events described in the Gospel of Luke.
Also, two of the main sources that NT scholars believe were used in the composition of the Gospel of Luke are the Gospel of Mark and Q, neither of which was a document written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, or death of Jesus.
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IS AN ANCIENT HISTORICAL & BIOGRAPHICAL WORK
THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE USED ONLY GREEK SOURCES
THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK
Six general considerations cast significant doubt on the historical reliability of the changes and additions that the author of the Gospel of Luke made to stories about Jesus that were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark: (1) the Gospel of Luke is Christian propaganda, (2) the Gospel of Luke was not written by an eyewitness, (3) the Gospel of Luke was written about five or six decades after the crucifixion, (4) there are no details in the Gospel of Luke about what specific sources were used for the various stories about Jesus, (5) the Gospel of Luke is an ancient work of history/biography, and (6) the author of the Gospel of Luke wrote in Greek and did not make use of sources or traditions in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and his disciples.
Based on these six general considerations, we may reasonably conclude that it is probable that the changes and additions in the Gospel of Luke to the stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.
COMING UP
In the next post of this series, I will discuss a second reason for believing that the additions and changes made to stories about Jesus from the Gospel of Mark by the author of the Gospel of Luke are historically unreliable:
REASON #2: The Gospel of Mark has no story about the birth of Jesus, but the Gospel of Luke adds a birth story about Jesus to the stories about Jesus found in the Gospel of Mark, and there are good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the birth story in the Gospel of Luke.
END NOTES
1. Whenever a saying, parable, or teaching of Jesus is found in both the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke but NOT in the Gospel of Mark, that saying, parable, or teaching probably came from an early source of the words and teachings of Jesus known as Q.
2. Most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Luke come from the Gospel of Mark.
6. Modern historical and biographical books usually provide evidence in support of their claims and stories. This is often done with footnotes or endnotes that specify particular documents, books, or interviews that were used as sources of information about the person or event under discussion. The Gospels, including the Gospel of Luke, do not do this. The Gospel of Luke has no footnotes or endnotes, and it does not provide details about the specific sources used by the author as the basis of the stories it contains about the life, ministry, arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.
7. The Gospel of Luke was written in Greek by an author who was fluent in Greek, and who did not make use of sources or traditions in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and his disciples.
No comments:
Post a Comment