The Gospel According to Luke

By James R. Edwards

This new Pillar commentary devotes attention throughout to the vocabulary, historical background, special themes, and narrative purpose that make the book of Luke unique among the four Gospels.

Though the Gentile focus of Luke is often held to be primary, James Edwards counterbalances that by citing numerous evidences of Luke's overarching interest in depicting Jesus as the fulfillment of the providential work of God in the history of Israel, and he considers the possibility that Luke himself was a Jew. Edwards also draws out other important thematic issues in excursuses scattered throughout the commentary, including discussion of Luke's infancy narrative, the mission of Jesus as the way of salvation, and Luke's depiction of the universal scope of the gospel.

This readable, relevant commentary attends to the linguistic, historical, literary, and theological elements of Luke that are essential to its meaning and considers Luke's significance for the church and the life of faith today.

• Language: English
• Publisher: IVP
• Release date: May 21, 2020
• ISBN: 9781789740066

James R. Edwards

James R. Edwards's teaching career included teaching Bible and theology at two Presbyterian-related colleges for forty years, during which time he authored five books for Eerdmans, one of which, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, was awarded the 2006 Christianity Today Book of the Year in Apologetics. He is currently completing a major commentary on Genesis, also scheduled for publication by Eerdmans.

Book preview

illustration

THE PILLAR NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY

General Editor

D. A. CARSON

The Gospel according to

LUKE

James R. Edwards

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

Illustration

© 2015 James R. Edwards

All rights reserved

Published 2015 in the United States of America by

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /

P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

www.eerdmans.com

and in the United Kingdom by

APOLLOS

Norton Street, Nottingham,

England NG7 3HR

Printed in the United States of America

21 20 19 18 17 16 15     7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-1-7835-9268-5

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-78359-000-0

To my family

Contents

Editor’s Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

Frequently Cited Works

INTRODUCTION

1. TESTIMONY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

2. TITLE OF THE GOSPEL

3. AUTHORSHIP

4. DATE OF COMPOSITION

5. PLACE OF COMPOSITION

6. REFLECTIONS ON THE TESTIMONY TO THE THIRD GOSPEL IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

7. LUKE’S SOURCES

8. NARRATIVE STRUCTURE

9. EPILOGUE ON MARCION

COMMENTARY

1. HEAVENLY ANNOUNCEMENTS OF JOHN AND JESUS (1:1-80)

2. BIRTH AND BOYHOOD OF JESUS (2:1-52)

3. THE FORERUNNER AND THE SON OF GOD INAUGURATE THE KINGDOM OF GOD (3:1–4:13)

4. BEGINNINGS OF THE GALILEAN MINISTRY (4:14–5:11)

5. JESUS — THE AUTHORITY OF GOD IN PERSON (5:12–6:11)

6. JESUS CALLS AND INSTRUCTS HIS DISCIPLES (6:12-49)

7. JESUS MINISTERS AND TEACHES IN GALILEE (7:1–8:56)

8. SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS TO THE TWELVE (9:1-50)

9. DISCIPLESHIP AND MISSION (9:51–11:13)

10. DISCIPLESHIP AND CONFLICT (11:14-54)

11. DISCIPLESHIP: DECISIONS THAT DIVIDE (12:1-59)

12. JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM (13:1-35)

13. JESUS: BOTH GUEST AND LORD OF THE BANQUET (14:1-35)

14. LOST AND FOUND (15:1-32)

15. TRUST IN WEALTH VERSUS WEALTH IN TRUST (16:1-31)

16. DISCIPLESHIP AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD (17:1–18:34)

17. ARRIVAL OF THE KING (18:35–19:44)

18. TEACHER IN THE TEMPLE (19:45–21:4)

19. THE FALL OF JERUSALEM AND THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN (21:5-36)

20. LAST SUPPER AND ARREST 21:37–22:71)

21. TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION (23:1-49)

22. BURIAL AND RESURRECTION (23:50–24:53)

INDEXES

1. SUBJECTS

2. AUTHORS

3. SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

4. EXTRABIBLICAL LITERATURE

Editor’s Preface

Commentaries have specific aims, and this series is no exception. Designed for serious pastors and teachers of the Bible, the Pillar commentaries seek above all to make clear the text of Scripture as we have it. The scholars writing these volumes interact with the most important informed contemporary debate, but avoid getting mired in undue technical detail. Their ideal is a blend of rigorous exegesis and exposition, with an eye alert both to biblical theology and to the contemporary relevance of the Bible, without confusing the commentary and the sermon.

The rationale for this approach is that the vision of objective scholarship (a vain chimera) may actually be profane. God stands over against us; we do not stand in judgment of him. When God speaks to us through his Word, those who profess to know him must respond in an appropriate way, and that is certainly different from a stance in which the scholar projects an image of autonomous distance. Yet this is no surreptitious appeal for uncontrolled subjectivity. The writers of this series aim for an even-handed openness to the text that is the best kind of objectivity of all.

If the text is God’s Word, it is appropriate that we respond with reverence, a certain fear, a holy joy, a questing obedience. These values should be reflected in the way Christians write. With these values in place, the Pillar commentaries will be warmly welcomed not only by pastors, teachers, and students, but by general readers as well.

*    *    *

The challenges associated with writing a good commentary on one of the canonical Gospels are well known. I briefly articulated a handful of them in the Preface to James Edwards’s excellent commentary on Mark (also in the Pillar series). By adding this commentary on Luke, Dr. Edwards has successfully navigated two further challenges: first, he has ensured that Luke speaks in his own voice, and not merely as a slightly-longer-Mark; and second, he has not forgotten that Luke’s Gospel is the first volume of a two-volume work, such that one must be aware of Luke’s companion volume, the Acts of the Apostles, lurking just around the corner. Above all, this commentary carefully explores Luke’s witness to Jesus, never losing sight of the fact that whatever we may reasonably infer about Luke himself, or his readers, Luke’s first aim is to talk about Jesus. Again and again Dr. Edwards displays a sure-footed exegesis that helps readers grapple with the text of Scripture, simultaneously engendering deepening knowledge and grateful reverence.

D. A. CARSON

Author’s Preface

It is my hope that this commentary will be for church, academy, and personal reading a window of understanding and insight into the Third Gospel. The following practical information will assist readers in a profitable use of the work as a whole. I have followed The SBL Handbook of Style in matters relating to bibliographic formatting and abbreviations of source works, both ancient and modern.1 Readers will find a complete list of all abbreviations used in the commentary, beginning on p. xii. A list of Frequently Cited Works beginning on p. xxiv provides full bibliographies of works referenced occasionally or regularly in footnotes. When a Frequently Cited Work is referenced, I include the author’s last name, a key word from the title in italic print, and page number(s). When a source is cited that is not in the Frequently Cited Works, I include full bibliographical reference. Dates in the Christian era are normally given by year alone (without A.D. or C.E.), but dates prior to the Christian era are signified by B.C. Scripture references of only chapter and verse (or verse[s] alone) without identifying book refer to Luke; all other Scripture references (including those to Acts) are identified by book, chapter, and verse. In accordance with the editorial policy of the Pillar series, all Scripture citations in the commentary, unless otherwise noted, follow the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. All English translations of foreign language sources, ancient or modern, are my own, unless otherwise noted. For computer-assisted research I have relied on BibleWorks 7. The commentary on Luke 1–21 was prepared on the basis of the Greek text of Nestle-Aland27, and chaps. 22–24 on Nestle-Aland28, which became available to me in 2013.

Literature on the NT, as in virtually all fields, has become voluminous, but unlike most other fields, literature on the NT has twenty centuries of momentum behind it. A Gospel commentator stands at the intersection of many exciting fields of knowledge, including archaeology, ancient languages, epigraphy, ancient manuscripts, ancient history and social customs, alertness to the theological intention of an author, and the way the church has understood that theological intention over the ages. The scope of the task is both stimulating and humbling. Regarding the last-mentioned field above, the page constraints of the commentary have dictated that the various ways the text of Luke has been received in the past two millennia, commonly called reception history, be treated cursorily. Readers interested in this aspect of Lukan research will find François Bovon’s three-volume commentary in the Hermeneia Series comprehensive and illuminating.

I am grateful to God for energy and inspiration to write this commentary, and to the assistance of many friends and colleagues in the process of its writing. I wish first of all to thank Don Carson, general editor of the Pillar series, who arranged through somewhat unusual circumstances for me to return to the series and contribute, in addition to the commentary on the Second Gospel, now the commentary on the Third. The superb editorial eye and hand of Craig Noll at Eerdmans have improved the manuscript at countless points. Financial resources available to the Bruner-Welch Chair of Theology, which I occupy, enabled me to hire four competent and industrious Whitworth University students as research assistants. My gratitude and indebtedness to Amy Erickson, Travis Niles, Rachel Toone, and Joshua Mikelson are enduring. My colleagues in the Theology Department, particularly Jerry Sittser, Adam Neder, and Jonathan Moo, have been helpful, encouraging, and forbearing conversation partners in the writing of this commentary. The interest and insights of students in my course on the Gospel of Luke at Whitworth University and of members of the adult Bible class at Whitworth Community Presbyterian Church, where I taught on Luke for several years, have informed and enriched this commentary in delightful and substantive ways.

I dedicate this book to my family, whose prayers, support, understanding, and encouragement have meant more than they can know: to my daughter, Corrie, and her husband, Shane, and their sons Anders, Mathias, and Soren; to my son, Mark, and his wife, Janine, and their daughter, Adeline, and son, Elias; and to my sister Diana and her family. Above all, I dedicate this book to my wife, Janie, whose abiding dedication throughout the writing of the commentary has been a gift of grace.

JAMES R. EDWARDS

1. The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. P. Alexander, J. Kutsko, J. Ernest, S. Decker-Lucke, and D. Petersen; Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999).

Abbreviations

Frequently Cited Works

Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. Bromiley and T. Torrance. 13 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956-75.

Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon of the New Testament. Translated by Andrew Fausset. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1873.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke 1:1–9:50. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994.

———. Luke 9:51–24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996.

Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas 1,1–9,50. EKKNT 3/1. Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1989.

———. Das Evangelium nach Lukas 9,51–14,35. 2nd ed. EKKNT 3/2. Zürich: Neukirchener/Patmos Verlag, 2008.

———. Das Evangelium nach Lukas 15,1–19,27. EKKNT 3/3. Zürich: Neukirchener/Patmos Verlag, 2001.

———. Das Evangelium nach Lukas 19,28–24:53. EKKNT 3/4. Zürich: Neukirchener/Patmos Verlag, 2009.

———. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.

———. Luke the Theologian. Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950-2005). 2nd ed. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006.

Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. New York: Image, Doubleday, 1977.

———. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Cadbury, Henry J. The Making of Luke-Acts. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999.

Caird, G. B. Saint Luke. PNTC. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963.

Dalman, Gustaf. Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels. Translated by P. Levertoff. London: SCPC, 1935.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by L. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927.

Denaux, Adelbert, Rita Corstjens, and Hellen Mardaga. The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel. BiTS 10. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.

Edwards, James R. The Gospel according to Mark. PilNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

———. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. NCB. Greenwood: Attic Press, 1977.

Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

———. Luke. NIBC. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., S.J. The Gospel according to Luke (I–IX). AB 28. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981.

———. The Gospel according to Luke (X–XXIV). AB 28A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985.

Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P., R. Chapman, and J. Taylor. The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Jerusalem: Carta, 2003.

García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1997/98.

Garland, David E. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke. ZECS. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Grundmann, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. THKNT 3. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1974.

Harnack, Adolf von. Luke the Physician. London: Williams & Norgate, 1908.

Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Translated by J. Bowden. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.

Isaak, John Paul. Luke. In Africa Bible Commentary. Nairobi: WordAlive Publishers, 2006.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Translated by F. H. and C. H. Cave. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

———. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. SP 3. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Just, Arthur A., Jr. Luke. ACCS 3. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Kealy, Sean P. The Interpretation of the Gospel of Luke. Vol. 1: From Apostolic Times through the Nineteenth Century. SBEC 63. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005.

Keck, Leander E., and J. Louis Martyn, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Klein, Hans. Das Lukasevangelium. KEK I/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

Klostermann, Erich. Das Lukasevangelium. 3rd ed. HNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975.

Lagrange, M.-J. Évangile selon Saint Luc. 2nd ed. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1921.

Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

Leaney, A. R. C. The Gospel according to St Luke. 2nd ed. BNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1976.

Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Markus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Moessner, David P. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1989.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. The Holy Land: An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Neyrey, Jerome H., ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Nolland, John. Luke 1:1–9:20. WBC 35A. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

———. Luke 9:21–18:34. WBC 35B. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

———. Luke 18:35–24:53. WBC 35C. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

Origen. Homilies on Luke. Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J. FC 94. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

Orton, David E., ed. The Composition of Luke’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Pixner, Bargil, O.S.B. Mit Jesus in Jerusalem. Seine ersten und letzten Tage in Judäa. Rosh Pina: Corazin Publishing, 1996.

———. With Jesus through Galilee according to the Fifth Gospel. Translated by C. Botha and D. Foster. Rosh Pina: Corazin Publishing, 1992.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. 5th ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1900.

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. NTD 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937.

Rowe, C. Kavin. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Schlatter, Adolf. Das Evangelium des Lukas. Aus seinen Quellen erklärt. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960.

———. Die Evangelien nach Markus und Lukas. Erläuterung zum Neuen Testament 2. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1961.

Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and P. Vermes. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.

Schürmann, Heinz. Das Lukasevangelium 1,1–9,50. HTKNT 3. Freiburg: Herder, 1969.

Schweizer, Eduard. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. NTD 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

Smyth, H. W. Greek Grammar. Rev. G. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.

Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Edited by K. Aland. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1968.

Talbert, Charles. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

———. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Vinson, Richard B. Luke. SHBC. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2008.

Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. HNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Zahn, Theodor. Das Evangelium des Lukas. 4th ed. Leipzig: Deichert Verlag, 1930.

Introduction

The Gospel of Luke begins with a personal testimony of its author, and I should like to claim the same precedent at the outset of this commentary. It is my understanding that Luke understands Jesus of Nazareth to be the incarnation of the eternal God within human history, who was sent in the fullness of time in fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, and that his death as the righteous Servant of God effects the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, to which the church — which Luke treats in his sequel in Acts — bears saving witness. I have sought to write an understandable and, when possible, insightful exposition of this wonderful evangelical narrative by following a narrow ridge between exegesis and interpretation. With regard to the former, I attempt to give adequate attention to data that make the text as intelligible as possible, and with regard to the latter, to consider the data in terms of their potential meaning for faith and discipleship. The Gospel is determined by both historical and theological purposes, and its proper understanding and interpretation require attention to both purposes. Through these, God’s inspiring breath and providential hand were and are manifested to accomplish their divine purpose in Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God. May those who read Luke’s story of Jesus concur with the two disciples at Emmaus, Did not our hearts burn within us as Jesus talked with us on the way and opened to us the Scriptures? (Luke 24:32).

Important thematic issues related to the Third Gospel, which otherwise might appear in the Introduction, are discussed in excurses at relevant points in the commentary. These include discussions of Luke’s infancy narratives (1:5) and the relation of the infancy narratives to the body of the Third Gospel (2:46-52), Pharisees (5:17), Son of Man (5:26), Luke’s use of Elijah-Elisha typology in his presentation of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (7:15-17), Christ/Messiah (9:18-21), the mission of Jesus as the way of salvation (9:51), Jerusalem in the Third Gospel (13:34-35), Luke’s use of pairs, and especially male-female pairs, in the Gospel (14:1), Son of God (22:66-71), Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate (23:1), and Luke’s depiction of the universal scope of the gospel (24:44-49). Many additional historical, exegetical, and geographic subthemes are identified in bold print and discussed more briefly at relevant points in the commentary.

The Introduction proper will address textual, linguistic, and historical issues that I consider important for understanding the Third Gospel. These include the testimony to the Gospel of Luke in early Christianity, questions related to Lukan authorship, date and place of composition, Luke’s use of sources, the narrative structure of the Gospel, and an epilogue on Marcion.

1. TESTIMONY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

The earliest certain references to the Third Gospel occur in the first half of the second century. Seven quotations in 2 Clem. are close enough in wording to assume their derivation from Luke. 2 Clem. is usually assigned a date of post-120, thus indicating that Luke was known and quoted by the first half of the second century.1 At roughly the same time, Marcion (d. ca. 160) was excommunicated from the church in Rome for producing a violently altered version of the Third Gospel (see 9. Epilogue on Marcion, pp. 19-22). Marcion’s choice of Luke from among the other three Gospels presupposes a fourfold Gospel tradition established well before his time, and certainly in Rome, where he taught. In the wake of Marcion’s mutilation of Luke — and often in reaction to it — a chorus of voices in the latter half of the second century either mention the Third Gospel or quote from it, including Irenaeus (ca. 130-200; Haer. 3.1; 3.14), Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165; 1 Apol. 34; Dial. 78, 88, 100, 103, 105, 106), Tatian (d. ca. 160; Diatessaron), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215; Strom. 1.1), Tertullian (ca. 160-225; throughout Marc.), and the Mur. Can. (ca. 170-80). Second-century antagonists of Christianity, including Celsus (Origen, Cels. 2.32) and the gnostics Basilides and Valentinus (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.9), were also acquainted with the Third Gospel.

From Irenaeus onward the four symbolical creatures of Rev 4:6-7 and Ezek 1:4-21 surrounding the throne of God in heaven — the lion, ox, man, and eagle — were interpreted with reference to the Gospels. Whether the Seer of the Revelation intended the four creatures to signify the Gospels cannot be proven, but the four creatures reappear in Rev 5:6-8 with reference to the Lamb holding a book, which corresponds coincidentally if not intentionally with the function of the Gospels. Three of the creatures are variously ascribed to Matt, Mark, and John, but throughout church history the ox (or calf) is consistently ascribed to the Third Gospel. According to Irenaeus, the ox, like the fatted calf sacrificed at the return of the Prodigal Son, signified the sacrificial and sacerdotal order of the Son of God (Haer. 3.11.8).

Another reference of Irenaeus is among the earliest and most important to the Gospel of Luke:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned on his breast, himself published a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia (Haer. 3.1.1).

Irenaeus is not announcing a new conclusion about the Gospels, but appealing to a tradition established much earlier, perhaps even in the late first century. In response to the novelty — and heresy — of Marcion’s expurgated text of Luke, Irenaeus resorts to a precedent from antiquity, namely, the fourfold Gospel tradition, which for him and all authoritative proponents of the orthodox tradition was an established and unalterable article of Christian faith. Also important in Irenaeus’s report is the order of the Gospels, which corresponds to the chronological order of their composition: Hebrew Matthew written first (the name Matthew may have been later transferred to the First Gospel), followed by Mark, Luke, and John. This order is retained by Origen in the third century, by Eusebius and Athanasius in the fourth, and by nearly all later church fathers, as well as by the great uncial manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries, including Codex Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (ℵ), Alexandrinus (A), and Ephraemi (C). A revised Western order (Matt, John, Luke, Mark) arises in the third century but does not prevail over the tradition identified with Irenaeus, which determined the sequence of the Gospels in subsequent Christian history.2 In both orders Luke remains, literally, the Third Gospel, composed after and indebted to its two predecessors, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and Mark.3

Luke is the third Gospel in other respects as well. It is the third most frequently quoted Gospel in the early church — quoted less frequently than Matt and John, but more frequently than Mark. It is the third most frequently expounded commentary among the Fathers, expounded less frequently than Matt and John, but more frequently than Mark. Origen (185-254), Ambrose (339-97), and Cyril of Jerusalem (375-444) all left Greek commentaries on the Third Gospel, and a fourth in Latin from late antiquity stems from the Venerable Bede (673-735). The Greek text of Luke is also the third best attested in the NT, better than Mark, but not as well attested as Matt and John.4 With respect to textual attestation, the oldest extant manuscript witness to Luke, p4 (ca. 200), preserves excerpts of Luke 1–6; and p75 (also ca. 200) contains substantial portions of the entire Gospel, as does p45 (slightly later in the third c.). The earliest complete copies of Luke appear in the great uncial parchments of the fourth and fifth centuries: Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ), Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B [but with significant lacunae]), and Ephraemi (C).

2. TITLE OF THE GOSPEL

It was customary in Jewish synagogue services to preface sacred readings by their titles or names of authors as verification of their authenticity and authority. An anonymous sacred text, according to Martin Hengel, was something of a contradiction in terms, for an unprovenanced text that lacked a name guaranteeing its authority was an uninspired text.5 The name of the author of the Third Gospel is not given in the Gospel itself, nor can it be derived by implication from the Gospel (something true of all four Gospels). We have no evidence, however, that the Third Gospel circulated anonymously (something also true of all four Gospels). Its earliest title appears at the end of papyrus p75 — Euangelion kata Loukan, Gospel according to Luke. This same title identifies the Gospel in nearly all uncial manuscripts either at the beginning (D K L W Γ Δ Θ Ξ Ψ) or end (ℵ A) of the Gospel. Codex Vaticanus (B), in contrast, entitles the Gospel simply kata Loukan at the end of the text, and both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus include the same abbreviated title at the head of each codex page.6 The important point in these titles is that all contain the name Luke, and as far as we know, the Third Gospel never circulated under any name other than Luke.7 This is more significant than it might appear, for, unlike the First and Fourth Gospels, which circulated under the names of apostles, the Second and Third Gospels circulated under the names of nonapostles. It is unlikely that the early church would have assigned authorship of a Gospel to a nonapostle — i.e., to an uncredentialed author — unless he was known to be its author.8

3. AUTHORSHIP

3.1. Lukan Authorship

Greek Loukas is a shortened form of both Greek Loukios and Latin Lucanus.9 The identity of the bearer of this name must be gleaned from three NT references and a half-dozen patristic references.10 The NT references occur in lists of acquaintances at the conclusion of Pauline letters. In Col 4:14 Luke is called beloved physician, in Phlm 24 Paul names Luke in a list of fellow workers, and in 2 Tim 4:10-11 Paul writes that only Luke is with me. All three references place Luke in Paul’s company when he is in prison. With minor exceptions, this meager information is repeated among patristic writers in the first four Christian centuries. On two points the witness to Luke from NT and patristic sources is unanimous. First, none of the sources claims that Luke was an apostle or knew Jesus in the flesh. The testimony to Luke in all sources assumes, and in some instances explicitly states (Mur. Can.; Tertullian, Marc. 4.2.2), that Luke’s Gospel was indebted to the testimony of others rather than to personal experience of its author.

The second and most constitutive patristic datum is that Luke was a follower and long-time traveling companion of Paul (Mur. Can.; Tertullian, Marc. 4.2.2; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.6; Jerome, Vir. ill. 7.1), who was praised by Paul (Origen, Comm. Matt. [Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.6]) but also inferior to him (Tertullian, Marc. 4.2.2). Irenaeus describes the bond between Luke and Paul as inseparable. Theodor Zahn was surely correct in concluding that Marcion would never have adopted Luke as his preferred Gospel had not its author been acknowledged as the protégé of Paul.11 Irenaeus is also the first to contend that the we-passages in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16) document Luke’s attendance in the Pauline mission (Haer. 3.14.1).12 Following this lead, Eusebius and Jerome report that Luke wrote the Gospel on the basis of what he had heard, but Acts on the basis of what he had seen. So indebted was Luke to Paul for the content of the Gospel, declare Eusebius and Jerome, that Pauline references to my gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8) should be understood as references to the Gospel of Luke rather than to Paul’s proclamation (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.7; Jerome, Vir. ill. 7.4). This final claim appears fanciful, for Paul seldom references the historical Jesus in his epistles. Indeed, he is indifferent to such (2 Cor 5:16), for the gospel was revealed to him by the exalted Jesus (Gal 1:12).

Modern scholars sometimes challenge Luke’s association with Paul on the grounds that characteristic features of Pauline theology, especially regarding natural theology, the law, Christology, and eschatology, are either muted or absent from the profile of Paul in Acts. Others have responded to this challenge more completely than I can afford to here.13 I would suggest only that the differences between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the epistles, although not essential, may in fact argue in favor of Luke’s association with Paul.14 Moderns know Paul primarily from his epistles, and hence as a theologian, whereas Luke knew a Paul who is no longer accessible to moderns — Paul the pastor and charismatic founder of Christian communities on the mission field.15 This latter perspective prevails in Acts, doubtless due to Luke’s experience of Paul on the mission field.

Further information about Luke, though not unanimous, emerges from patristic witnesses. It is widely agreed that Luke consulted with other apostles in addition to Paul in the writing of his Gospel, as he testifies in his prologue (1:2; Irenaeus [Haer. 3.14.1], Anti-Marc. Prolog., Eusebius [Hist. eccl. 3.4.6], Jerome [Vir. ill. 7.5], perhaps Tertullian [Marc. 4.2.2]). It is also assumed and often acknowledged that the Book of Acts is Luke’s sequel to the Gospel (Irenaeus [Haer. 3.14.1], Anti-Marc. Prolog., Eusebius [Hist. eccl. 2.22.1; 3.4.6], Jerome [Vir. ill. 7.2]). Several Fathers agree that Luke was a physician, as Col. 4:14 attests (Mur. Can., Anti-Marc. Prolog., Eusebius [Hist. eccl. 3.4.6], and Jerome [Vir. ill. 7.1]). Finally, Anti-Marc. Prolog., Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.4.6), and Jerome (Vir. ill. 7.1) identify Luke as a native of Antioch. This final point is the first datum presented so far that is not supplied in the NT references or reasonably deducible from the we-passages in Acts.16

3.2. Comparison of External Testimony of the Early Church to Internal Evidence in Luke-Acts

The foregoing details generally correlate positively with the Third Gospel. The Lukan prologue declares what is echoed throughout the patristic testimony, that Luke was not an apostle nor personally present during the ministry of Jesus, but dependent for his information in the Gospel on others who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word (1:2). Luke’s association with Paul can be similarly corroborated. By Pauline testimony, Luke is thrice identified in his entourage (Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11), and the we-passages in Acts are still best explained as personal testimony of Luke, perhaps even from his travel diary.17 We will see numerous points in the commentary where the vocabulary, themes, and theological emphases of the Third Gospel exhibit notable and sometimes unmistakable correspondences with Pauline literature. Luke-Acts thus offers significant internal evidence in support of the early Christian consensus of Luke’s association with Paul.

That the Book of Acts is a sequel to the Third Gospel remains a virtually assured result of Christian scholarship, ancient and modern. Both volumes are addressed to Theophilus (1:3; Acts 1:1), Acts references the Third Gospel as its prequel (Acts 1:1), the vocabulary of Luke-Acts can be ascribed to the same author with a high degree of statistical probability, and the thematic and organizational development of both documents exhibit numerous parallels that argue in favor of a single author. That Luke was a physician may also be reasonably assumed. This particular datum derives from Col 4:14 and is reaffirmed in Mur. Can., Jerome, and Eusebius. More than a century ago Harnack asserted that whole narratives in the Third Gospel are determined by medical themes, and that many stories and much vocabulary of the Third Evangelist are colored by medical and technical terminology.18 This overstates the case considerably.19 Nevertheless, challenges to Luke’s medical profession are invariably directed to overstatements or degree of certainty rather than to the datum itself.20 That Luke was a doctor cannot be proven, nor would his being so materially affect our understanding of the Gospel. Nevertheless, details in the descriptions of illnesses and healings in the Third Gospel, and the unsentimental sensitivity with which Jesus attends the sick, are what we would expect from a medical professional.

3.3. Luke: Jew or Gentile?

It is commonly assumed that Luke is the only Gentile author in the NT.21 Fewer biblical data have been more widely assumed on the basis of less evidence than this particular datum. Occasional patristic sources report that Luke wrote for Gentile converts (Anti-Marc. Prolog., Origen [Comm. Matt., cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.6]), but only Jerome (Vir. ill. 7.1) implies that Luke was a Gentile. He does so by identifying Luke as the unnamed brother of Titus in 2 Cor 8:18, the latter of whom was a Gentile (Gal 2:3). This would obviously make Luke a Gentile and settle the matter. Paul does not identify Luke as the brother of Titus in 2 Cor 8:18, however, and Jerome offers no evidence for his assertion of such. This seems to relegate this particular testimony to the category of conjecture. The otherwise wholesale silence in the patristic tradition on Luke’s ethnicity could be taken as an argument in favor of Luke’s Jewishness, for if he were Jewish, as were all other NT authors, it would be unremarkable and thus go unmentioned. It would be difficult to imagine the Fathers leaving unmentioned his Gentile ethnicity, however, which would distinguish him from all other NT authors.

The sole NT datum on which the assumption of Luke’s Gentile ethnicity rests is an inference in Col. In Col 4:10-11 the author lists Aristarchus; Mark, the cousin of Barnabas; Jesus, called Justus, as being of the circumcision [group], i.e., Jews. Immediately following in vv. 12-13 Epaphras is introduced as one of you, the servant of Christ, commending him for his dedicated and sacrificial service on behalf of the Colossians. One of you ostensibly means "one of you Gentiles, thus differentiating Epaphras from the three Jews mentioned in vv. 10-11. In v. 14 the greetings conclude with reference to Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas." The argument that Luke was a Gentile is made on the basis of association with Epaphras: since Epaphras is identified as Gentile (v. 12), the names that follow (Luke and Demas) are also reckoned Gentile. This may be a justifiable inference, but it is not a necessary inference, for unlike the foregoing names (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus [Justus], and Epaphras), the ethnicity of Luke and Demas is not specified. Moreover, in Phlm 23-24 Paul again mentions Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke as either fellow prisoners or fellow workers, but with no reference to their ethnicities. In 2 Tim 4:10-11 Paul again mentions Demas, Luke, and Mark, along with three other names, again without reference to ethnicities. The indifference to ethnicity in these last two passages raises questions about its exactness in the first passage. The case is further complicated by mention of Loukios (NIV, Lucius) in Acts 13:1 and Rom 16:21. Loukas, it will be recalled, is a shortened form of Loukios. If Loukios refers to the same Loukas in Col 4:14, 2 Tim 4:11, and Phlm 24, then the case for Luke’s Gentile ethnicity is scuttled, for in Rom 16:21 Loukios is identified as a fellow Jew. Origen (Comm. Rom. 10:39) and Ephrem the Syrian (Comm. Acts 12:25–13:3) accepted the Loukios of Rom 16:21 as the same Loukas who traveled with Paul and authored the Third Gospel. Loukios and Loukas may not be the same person, of course. It might be asked why Paul would refer to the same person by two different names. This is a fair question, but it does not settle the question, for in multilingual first-century Palestinian culture, it was not uncommon to refer to the same person by different names (e.g., Peter/Cephas in Gal 2:7, 9).

The inference of Col 4:10-14 that Luke was a Gentile is thus far from secure. It is further complicated by the testimony of Epiphanius (Pan. 51.11.6), who identified Luke as one of the seventy(-two) Jews sent out by Jesus in Luke 10. The historical value of this witness may be debatable, but the fact remains that three Fathers (Origen, Ephrem, and Epiphanius) specify Luke’s Jewishness, and only Jerome suggests his Gentile ethnicity. Moreover, and more important from my perspective, is the fact that the most constitutive element of the Third Gospel is its portrayal of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s sovereign mission to Israel. In contrast to the popular conception of Luke as the Gentile/Greek Gospel, the primary purpose of the Third Gospel is to present Jesus as Messiah, and thus Israel’s long-awaited savior, into whom Gentiles are also engrafted. The Third Gospel is characterized, moreover, by pronounced and repeated reliance on Hebraisms in its construction (see 7. Luke’s Sources). Hengel observes that no ancient non-Jewish author reports on Judaism, Jewish worship in synagogue and temple, and Jewish practices and parties with greater knowledge, accuracy, and positiveness than does Luke.22 To be sure, this does not necessitate Luke being a Jew. (Hengel himself regards Luke a Gentile.) A Gentile outsider might penetrate to the essence of Israel in a way that a Jewish insider might miss because of its familiarity. Especially if Luke was tutored by Paul, he would share Paul’s conviction of Jesus’ fulfillment of the divine plan in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4). The above evidence and arguments are thus not conclusive against Luke being a Gentile, but they seem to argue more decidedly for his being a Jew. At the very least, the Gentile birth certificate that has so freely been issued to Luke in popular tradition should be reconsidered in light of the above.23

3.4. The Tradition of Luke as Artist

In the Middle Ages, Luke emerged as patron saint of artists and painters. The association of an apostle with the enterprise of art may have influenced the development of Christian art in the West much more than is recognized. The tradition antedates the Middle Ages, however. A fourteenth-century writer, Nicephoros Kallistos, attributed to a sixth-century Byzantine, Theodoros Anagnostes (Lector), the memory that an image of the Mother of God [was] painted by the apostle Luke.24 An ancient picture of the Virgin that has been in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome since 1204, when it was brought there following the sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, has some claim to being the image attested by Theodoros. All known portraits attributed to Luke portray him painting the Virgin Mary. The many Byzantine images of the Madonna and Child attributed to him indicate that the tradition of Luke as artist was established by late antiquity. Precisely why Luke is remembered as patron of artists is unknown. The suggestion that the association derives from his literary artistry, and especially his use of verbal imagery in parables and illustrations, is worthy of consideration.25

4. DATE OF COMPOSITION

The date of composition is neither given nor suggested in the Third Gospel. Information regarding dating must be tentatively inferred from Luke-Acts. The Lukan prologue mentions the existence of many accounts prior to the Gospel (1:1), and it can be taken for near-certain that the Gospel of Mark, which can be dated to approximately 65 (plus or minus five years), was one of these accounts. The Third Gospel must have been written later than that date, but how much later cannot be said with any degree of certainty.

A case for an early date shortly after Mark is made on the basis (1) that the two passages in Luke that mention the fall of Jerusalem (19:43-44; 21:20-24) do not reflect the actual conditions of the Jewish War in 66-70; (2) that the use of the present tense in Acts 6:13-14 indicates the temple was still standing when Stephen was stoned; and (3) that Acts concludes while Paul is still alive. These data are cited in favor of a pre-70 date of composition of both Luke and Acts.26 These arguments, neither separately nor combined, seem persuasive. The references to the fall of Jerusalem in Luke 19 and 21 seem to many, myself included, to betray particulars of the Jewish War of 66-70. The present tense in Acts 6:13-14 quite plausibly refers to the time reference of Stephen’s martyrdom rather than to Luke’s authorship. With reference to the dating of Luke, it is difficult to know how much weight should be ascribed to the fact that Acts concludes with Paul alive in Rome, for the primary purpose of Acts was to chart the extension of the gospel to Rome rather than write a biography of Paul.

A case for a date of Luke-Acts between 70 and 80 is made on other grounds. The producing of many accounts of Jesus’ life (1:1) would seem to presuppose a lapse of several decades. Paul, who writes in the 50s, makes no allusion to any Gospel known to us, thus giving the impression of writing before the composition of the Gospels. The reference to John before James in 8:51 and 9:28, which is contrary to their birth order and customary mention in apostolic lists, and the further mention of John without James in 22:8, may suggest that Luke wrote after the death of James in 62, when John’s reputation was second only to that of Peter. Above all, references to the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 19:43-44, and especially 21:20-24, with the description of a Roman defense perimeter (circumvallatio), the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies, and the subjugation and trampling by Gentiles (21-24), seem to presuppose the sacking of Jerusalem by the Roman Tenth Legion (Fretensis) in 70. These observations, and particularly the last, argue — if not conclusively, at least plausibly — for a post-70 date of Luke-Acts. I would provisionally place their composition a decade or slightly more after Mark, perhaps in the late seventies.27

5. PLACE OF COMPOSITION

The place of origin of the Third Gospel may have ceased to be known to the ancient church at a relatively early date. That Luke was a native of Antioch is attested by the Anti-Marc. Prolog., Eusebius, and Jerome,28 the latter two of whom also attest that he wrote Acts from Rome (Eusebius, Chron.; Jerome, Vir. ill. 7.2). This latter suggestion is not surprising, for Acts ends with Paul (and ostensibly Luke) in Rome. Both the Anti-Marc. Prolog. and Jerome (Comm. Matt.) report that the Third Gospel was produced in Achaia (and Boeotia, according to Jerome).29 Jerome’s omission of this particular datum in his authoritative discussion of Luke in Vir. ill. 7 raises questions about its certainty in his thinking.30 No further mention of place of origin is given by Jerome or any other patristic writer. Modern scholars have suggested Antioch, Caesarea Maritima, Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome as places of origin of the Third Gospel, but without consensus. For two reasons I regard Antioch as the strongest of these suggestions. First, the well-attested patristic tradition associating Luke with Antioch might account for the mention of (Syrian) Antioch in Acts more than a dozen times. Second, and more important in my judgment, the frequency of Semitisms in the Third Gospel, as I shall argue in section 7, suggests a Hebrew source of the Third Gospel. The discovery of unusually high numbers of Semitic inscriptions in Syria31 offers additional evidence in favor of a composition of the Third Gospel (and perhaps the Hebrew Gospel itself) in Syria. Evidence connecting Luke with Antioch, though admittedly limited, is thus early, varied, and not unreasonable.

6. REFLECTIONS ON THE TESTIMONY TO THE THIRD GOSPEL IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Luke-Acts is the largest literary corpus in the NT, constituting nearly one-third of its total volume. The second largest NT corpus, the Pauline epistles, is still 15 percent shorter than Luke-Acts. Readers may find it