The Gospel of Luke

← 12 | 13 →

Introduction

This commentary greatly differs from other modern commentaries on the Gospel of Luke. The difference results from the particular methodological approach which has been adopted therein. Instead of explaining the Lucan Gospel in historical-critical terms as a result of redactional use of earlier sources or traditions, in narratological terms as a set of narrative-organizing devices, etc., this commentary aims at explaining it as a result of twofold sequential hypertextual reworking of the Pauline Letter to the Galatians.

This methodological approach, unlike many others, does not originate from any particular literary theory. It rather reflects the recent discovery of the phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in numerous biblical writings. This phenomenon occurs in the writings of both the Old and the New Testament: Gen, Exod-Lev-Num, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr; Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev.¹ These writings, taken together and measured by their extent, constitute almost a half of the Christian Bible.

Accordingly, it is fully justified to perform a thorough analysis of the Lucan Gospel, taking this important literary discovery into consideration.

Luke and Paul

The problem of the relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters cannot be solved only by means of analysing the similarities and the differences between their respective presentations of various theological ideas ← 13 | 14 → (the law, the significance of the cross, the apostles, etc.),² not least because such ideas were at times presented quite differently in various letters of the Apostle (cf. e.g. Rom and Gal) and Luke’s presentation of them is also not always very consistent (cf. e.g. Lk 16:16.17). Therefore, a literary solution to this problem should finally be found.

Leaving aside the question of the use of Paul’s letters in the Acts of the Apostles,³ modern scholars generally reject the hypothesis of the use of Paul’s letters in the Gospel of Luke, usually without offering any detailed justification of their opinion.⁴ Nevertheless, in the last few decades some scholars opted for a limited literary use of the Pauline letters in the Lucan Gospel.⁵

For example, Gilbert Bouwman has tentatively suggested Luke’s dependence on Paul’s letters, especially First Corinthians, on the basis of some thematic and ← 14 | 15 → linguistic correspondences between these works (virginity in Lk 1:27.34 and 1 Cor 7:38; widowhood in Lk 2:37 and 1 Cor 7:40; not being worried in Lk 10:41 and 1 Cor 7:32–34; etc.).⁶

Morton S. Enslin has noticed some similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the Letter to the Galatians in their respective literary structures. He has suggested that the sequence of some events which are described in the Lucan Gospel (Jesus’ baptism in Judaea, then his return to his hometown Nazareth, and only thereafter his widespread mission in Galilee) corresponds to the sequence of events which are known from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Paul’s first visit in Jerusalem, then his return to Tarsus in Cilicia, and only thereafter his widespread mission among the Gentiles).⁷ Although these correspondences are rather vague, the very idea that Luke assimilated the narrative story of Jesus to the story of Paul is certainly insightful.

In the opinion of William O. Walker, Jr., some verbal parallels between the Lucan work and Paul’s letters suggest that Luke used Paul’s letters in the Acts of the Apostles and in his Gospel.⁸ However, Walker has also noted that the usual scholarly approach to these parallels consists in suggesting that Paul knew the Jesus tradition in its Lucan form.⁹

According to Michael D. Goulder, the presence of several clusters of common matter (comprising words and occasionally also ideas) in 1 Cor and 1 Thes, in which they well suit Paul’s rhetoric, and in the Lucan Gospel, in which they are at times used quite strangely, implies that Luke knew and used 1 Cor and 1 Thes in the composition of his Gospel, and not that Paul used some synoptic traditions.¹⁰ Goulder’s rejection of the hypothesis that Luke also used other Pauline letters (e.g. Rom) was based on the widespread theory that Luke used Q, and consequently the scholar looked for traces of the Lucan use of the Pauline letters ← 15 | 16 → only in the postulated Lucan redaction of Q.¹¹ However, Goulder’s criterion for ascertaining the existence and direction of literary dependence between the Lucan Gospel and Paul’s letters on the basis of the presence of some strange features in the Gospel’s fragments which have some parallel in Paul’s letters (e.g. στρατευόμενοι in Lk 3:14 cf. 1 Cor 9:7), together with the absence of such strange features in the linguistically and thematically corresponding fragments of Paul’s letters (e.g. στρατεύεται in 1 Cor 9:7), is certainly valid.

Similarly, in the opinion of Wolfgang Schenk linguistic criteria of literary dependence (the existence of three or more common words within a short space etc.) reveal several cases in which Luke was most probably dependent on Paul’s letters (esp. Lk 6:28 cf. Rom 12:14; Lk 10:8 cf. 1 Cor 10:27; Lk 10:38–42 cf. 1 Cor 7:32–35; Lk 22:19–20 cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25; Lk 24:34 cf. 1 Cor 15:5).¹² The German scholar has argued that Luke created his own rhetorical images of both Paul and Jesus, which do not have much in common with the real Paul and Jesus, but which suit Luke’s presentation of the origins of Christianity in terms of harmonic accord and integration.¹³

According to Anthony J. Blasi, Paul’s authentic letters were evidently known to those who imitated them (in the Deutero-Pauline letters), and consequently they must have been widely circulating. Therefore also Luke, who made Paul the principal character in the Acts of the Apostles, must have known at least some of them. However, Blasi has rightly noticed that literary dependence does not necessarily consist in copying the source, but it may also be expressed in some compatibility with the ideas of the source. Accordingly, in Luke’s Gospel scholars should look for Pauline views, and not only Pauline wording.¹⁴ In Blasi’s opinion, a number of such detectable compatibilities, like Paul and Luke’s common presentation of both Abraham and Adam as the background to Jesus (Lk 3:23–38; cf. e.g. Rom 4:13; 5:14), implies that Luke in his redactional composition of the Gospel used most of Paul’s authentic letters, with the surprising exception of Galatians.¹⁵ ← 16 | 17 →

In fact, however, Blasi’s argument against Luke’s knowledge of Galatians, namely the different use of the datival phrase concerning the promise ‘to Abraham and to his seed’ (τῷ… Ἀβραὰμ… καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ) in Gal 3:16 and Lk 1:55,¹⁶ is rather unconvincing, especially in view of the fact that this datival phrase rather awkwardly follows the preceding pronominal phrase (πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν) in Lk 1:55.

Paul N. Tarazi has noticed and described a great number of linguistic and thematic connections between the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline letters. Consequently, he has at length argued that Luke extensively used the Pauline letters in the composition of his Gospel.¹⁷

According to Thomas L. Brodie, in the text concerning Jesus’ last supper (Lk 22:14–30) Luke sequentially used the thematically corresponding Pauline text 1 Cor 11:16–34. In fact, Brodie’s argument from the common order of correspondences enabled him to discern some thematic, and not only linguistic, correspondences between the two writings.¹⁸

Paul Elbert has argued that Luke in his use of pneumatological motifs borrowed from Paul’s letters might have worked quite freely, in the expected tradition of ancient narrative-rhetorical composition, which was described, for example, by Theon of Alexandria.¹⁹

Quite recently, Richard I. Pervo has strongly argued for Luke’s use of the First Letter to the Corinthians, having noticed several thematic and linguistic correspondences between the Lucan Gospel and this Pauline letter, as well as disproving other explanations of these correspondences (Lk 3:14 cf. 1 Cor 9:7a; Lk 10:38–42 cf. 1 Cor 7:32–35; Lk 12:41–48 cf. 1 Cor 4:1–2; Lk 18:11 cf. 1 Cor 6:9–10; Lk 22:17–18 cf. 1 Cor 10:16–17; Lk 22:19–20 cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25; Lk 22:24 cf. 1 Cor 11:16; Lk 24:34 cf. 1 Cor 15:4–5).²⁰ Moreover, on similar grounds, he has argued for creative use of Josephus’ Antiquitates in the Lucan Gospel (Lk 2:1–7 ← 17 | 18 → cf. Ant. 18.1–5; Lk 3:1–2 cf. Ant. 18.237; 20.138; Lk 3:10–14 cf. Ant. 18.117; Lk 3:19 cf. Ant. 18.109–119; Lk 19:11–27 cf. Ant. 17.222–342).²¹

It is worth noting that Pervo’s analyses point to the cases of Luke’s highly creative reworking of earlier texts. Pervo does not use the notion of hypertextuality, but his suggestions concerning Luke’s compositional techniques evidently lead in this direction. For example, according to Pervo the Pauline text 1 Cor 5:3–5 was used in Acts 5:1–11 in such a way that the latter story can be classified as ‘a narrative inspired by 1 Corinthians 5:3–5’.²² Likewise, the use of Josephus’ story of a Jewish magician from Cyprus in the entourage of a Roman governor (Ant. 20.141–143) in Luke’s story of Elymas (Acts 13:6–12) must have been highly creative because there are also numerous significant differences between the two stories (the characters involved, the reasons for the activity of the magician, etc.).²³

Somewhat similarly, Simon Butticaz has recently argued that the use of Paul’s letters in the Lucan Gospel and Acts can best be explained in Gérard Genette’s category of hypertextual derivation.²⁴ In the opinion of Butticaz, Luke’s use of the Pauline letters can be classified in terms of (a) narrativizing the Pauline tradition, (b) commenting on some Pauline errors, and (c) negatively reworking Pauline ideas.²⁵ Accordingly, the reception of Paul’s letters in the Lucan work was creative, and not archiving.²⁶

This short presentation of the previous research on the literary dependence of the Lucan Gospel on the Pauline letters reveals that twentieth-century scholars who favoured such dependence (e.g. M. D. Goulder and W. Schenk) mainly concentrated on the linguistic argument from the presence of several Pauline clusters of words in the Lucan Gospel. However, the number of such clusters is ← 18 | 19 → evidently too low to persuade other scholars that Luke knew and used the Pauline letters, especially in view of the fact that there are also more or less evident differences between the Lucan theology and the Pauline ideas.

In line with the development of modern research on intertextuality, especially in the aftermath of Gérard Genette’s introduction of the concept of hypertextuality,²⁷ more recent scholars point to the possibility of Luke’s highly creative use of Paul’s letters, which should not be limited to mere repetition of some particular words, but which could include free reworking of Paul’s (and Josephus’) texts in the Lucan stories.

Luke and Mark, Josephus, and other works

Modern scholars working on the so-called synoptic problem generally accept the hypothesis of Marcan priority, according to which Luke in his literary activity used the Gospel of Mark. However, the use of the Marcan Gospel by Luke was by no means slavish and uniform.

Detailed analyses of the Lucan use of the Marcan material reveal that Luke knew the whole Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:1–16:8, including the so-called ‘Big Omission’: Mk 6:45–8:26) and that he used this material not only in its original order, form, and wording, but also in the form of isolated motifs,²⁸ which were creatively reworked and used by Luke in various other sections of his work (including the so-called ‘Big Interpolation’: Lk 9:51–18:14).²⁹

Accordingly, at times Luke rather faithfully reproduced the Marcan story. However, at times he reworked the Marcan accounts quite freely: ‘Luke repeatedly excises a pericope from its Markan location, strategically advances the pericope to an earlier location in the narrative sequence, and retains only key traces of the original pericope’s basic structure.’³⁰ ← 19 | 20 →

Consequently, it is difficult to prove that in his literary activity Luke used any oral traditions: ‘When one takes seriously the larger patterns of redaction—rather than assessing things one passage at a time—the argument for independent streams of memory simply fails to persuade.’³¹

Moreover, Barbara Shellard has argued that Luke most likely used Josephus’ Bellum, quite likely used Antiquitates, and possibly used Contra Apionem.³² The hypothesis of Luke’s creative use of the works of Josephus is also strongly supported by Steve Mason³³ and Richard I. Pervo.³⁴

Besides, Karl A. Kuhn has recently suggested that Luke knew some texts contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.³⁵

My own research has suggested that Luke, especially in the composition of the Acts of the Apostles, used not only Paul’s authentic letters, but also post-Pauline letters, including the Pastoral Letters, as well as the ethopoeic letters of James and Peter, Josephus’ writings, some Greek classical writings, and some texts known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.³⁶

The problem of the relationship between the Lucan Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, including the hypothesis of the existence of the so-called ‘Q source’, will not be discussed here because the research of myself and other scholars reveals that the Gospel of Luke was used in the Gospel of Matthew, and there was no ‘Q source’.³⁷

Implied author

The implied author of the Lucan Gospel is rather difficult to identify. The vague ‘me’ in the preface to the Gospel (Lk 1:3) yields no particular clue as to his identity. However, if the hypothesis of the intended unity of the Lucan Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles is accepted, the implied author of the Gospel can be identified indirectly through his identification with the implied author of Acts. ← 20 | 21 →

Traditionally, the third canonical Gospel has been attributed to Luke, one of Paul’s co-workers. This attribution can be explained as resulting from the facts that (a) Phlm 24 mentions Luke together with the imprisoned Paul, (b) Col 4:14 likewise presents Luke as the companion of the imprisoned Paul and refers to him as ‘beloved’ by the Apostle, and (c) 2 Tim 4:11 similarly refers to Luke as the only faithful companion of Paul during his Roman imprisonment. In antiquity, these features came to be regarded as compatible with the features of the narrative ‘we’ in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Consequently, they led to the assumption that the third canonical Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, which are anonymous in themselves, were written by Luke.³⁸ The first explicit identification of the author of the third canonical Gospel with Luke, the companion of Paul, can be found in Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1 (c. AD 180?).³⁹

In fact, the Acts of the Apostles presents itself as having been written by a close companion of Paul’s missionary activity, especially of Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem and to Rome (Acts 27:1–28:16). This impression is created by means of the literary device of the narrator’s identification with the character of the narrative ‘we’ in Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16.

However, a close analysis of the particular features and movements of this narrative character reveals that they generally correspond to those of the character of Titus in the letters of Paul the Apostle. In particular, according to Gal 2:1.3 Titus (and consequently also the narrative ‘we’ in Acts) was the only person who, apart from Barnabas, accompanied Paul in his second journey to Jerusalem. Moreover, according to 2 Cor 8:6.16.23; Gal 2:1.3 Titus (and consequently also the narrative ‘we’ in Acts) was the only person who, unlike Barnabas, (John) Mark, and Silvanus/Silas, had access to both Paul and Peter in the critical period of Paul’s missionary career, namely during the organization and delivery of the Gentile Christian collection for the Jerusalem ‘saints’. For this reason, in the Acts of the Apostles Titus became a reliable, although anonymous, ethopoeic transmitter of Peter and Paul’s apostolic tradition (Acts 1:1; cf. Lk 1:2–3) and a narrative witness of the important events which took place in Troas, Philippi, Jerusalem, Crete (cf. Tit 1:4–5), and Rome (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16).⁴⁰

The identification of the implied author of the Acts of the Apostles with the ethopoeic character of Titus also partly explains the phenomenon of the abrupt ending of Acts (Acts 28:30–31). According to 2 Tim 4:10.16, Titus was present ← 21 | 22 → with Paul in Rome, but left Rome before Paul’s trial. Therefore, also the narrative ‘we’ is present in Acts 27:1–28:16, but absent in the concluding section Acts 28:17–31, apparently not knowing what happened to Paul after his two-year-long stay in Rome.

Moreover, since according to Gal 2:2–3 Titus personally knew not only Paul, but also the Jerusalem community, including James the Lord’s brother (hence the presence of the narrative ‘we’ in Acts 21:17–18), thanks to this contact the implied author of Acts could have obtained some family-related information concerning Jesus’ birth and childhood (Lk 1–2; cf. 1:2), as well as that concerning the beginnings of the Jerusalem community (Acts 1–12).

Accordingly, the third canonical Gospel should be called the ‘Gospel of Titus’ or, more adequately, the Gospel of Pseudo-Titus. Nevertheless, in this commentary the traditional terms: ‘Luke’, ‘Lucan’, etc. will be used for the sake of clarity.

Literary genre

The Gospel of Luke cannot be adequately construed as biography because the character of Jesus is presented therein in a highly sophisticated intertextual way, with the use of a lot of allusions to the Septuagint,⁴¹ Paul’s letters, Greek literature, etc. Accordingly, the Gospel of Luke should not be interpreted as a simple biography, but rather as a literary work in which complex intertextual references to other works are presented in the well-known form of biography.