Luke

Alan J. Thompson, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Robert W. Yarbrough, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Robert W. Yarbrough

• Publisher: B&H Academic
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781433676178
• eBook ISBN:
  9781433691676
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

The Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (EGGNT) closes the gap between the Greek text and the available lexical and grammatical tools, providing all the necessary information for greater understanding of the text. The series makes interpreting any given New Testament book easier, especially for those who are hard pressed for time but want to preach or teach with accuracy and authority.

Each volume begins with a brief introduction to the particular New Testament book, a basic outline, and a list of recommended commentaries. The body is devoted to paragraph-by-paragraph exegesis of the Greek text and includes homiletical helps and suggestions for further study. A comprehensive exegetical outline of the New Testament book completes each EGGNT volume.

LUKE

Introduction

AUTHORSHIP

The unanimous testimony of the manuscripts of this Gospel, early church tradition, and church history until the mid-nineteenth century is that the author was Luke, a traveling companion of Paul’s. The fact that no other names were attached to this work is all the more remarkable since, as the author himself (the ptc. παρηκολουθηκότι is masc., 1:3) states in his prologue, he was not an apostle or original eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry (1:2–3). The following is a brief summary of some of the evidence for Lukan authorship (more may be conveniently found in Bock, Theology, 32–41; the introductions to the commentaries mentioned below; and in a comprehensive recent discussion of these introductory matters by C. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary vol. 1, Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 383–434.

1.The earliest ms., a papyrus from c. AD 200 (ק75), states at the end of the Gospel that it is the “Gospel according to Luke.” This is the title that is consistently found either at the beginning or end of Luke in nearly all uncial mss. (even at the top of each codex page in abbreviated form in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Edwards 4). Thus, it is unlikely to have been an anonymous text (M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ and J. Bowden Harrisburg: [Trinity Press International, 2000], 37).

2.The widespread testimony of the early church is that the author was “Luke” and that this Luke was a traveling companion of Paul’s. Some of this external evidence includes references to Luke as author and companion of Paul in the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1; 3.14.1–4), the “anti–Marcionite prologue” to Luke’s Gospel, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 5.12), Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.2.2), Origen (On First Principles 2.6.7), and Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6; 3.24.15). Justin Martyr (Dialogue 103; c. AD 160) cites the text of Luke 22:44 as written by one of those who followed the apostles.

3.This connection between the author as “Luke” and a companion of Paul finds confirmation (a) within Luke and Acts, and (b) in three allusions in Paul’s letters. First, on the basis of the prologue to Acts (referring to his πρῶτον λόγον and repeating the addressee as “Theophilus”), it is likely that Acts is written by the same author as Luke’s Gospel (this is confirmed with a number of parallels and repeated patterns across Luke-Acts). Within Acts, the “we” passages (where the author uses the first person plural: 16:10–17 [Troas to Philippi]; 20:5–21:18 [Philippi–Troas–Miletus to Jerusalem]; 27:1–28:16 [Caesarea to Rome]) imply that the author of these two works joins the journeys of Paul at these points (noted by Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.14.1). Second, an individual called Luke is also identified in the Pauline literature as a companion of Paul’s (Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11). When one considers all the companions of Paul mentioned in the letters, these few refs. to someone named Luke who is with Paul (in Rome) do not make Luke an obvious choice if late-second-century writers were looking for a name to attach to this Gospel and that would result in unanimity across the mss. and early church tradition (pace Bovon 1.10).

DATE

Estimating a precise date for Luke’s Gospel is more difficult given the fact that (unlike the name) a date is not given in the title. The previous discussion of authorship does, however, have a bearing on this. If the author is a companion of Paul’s, as the internal and external evidence indicates, then the date cannot extend too much later than toward the end of the first century (the citation from Justin Martyr [above] means the latest possible date is c. AD 160). The prologue itself indicates that any date in the second half of the first century would be possible (i.e., based on the reports of original eyewitnesses). The decision about a more precise date, however, depends on how one evaluates the following:

1.Given the likelihood that Acts was written after Luke’s Gospel (Acts 1:1), the date of Luke’s Gospel depends in part on when one dates Acts. This in turn depends on whether the end of Acts indicates the time when Acts was written (i.e., soon after the “two whole years” of Paul’s imprisonment [Acts 28:30; thus, soon after approx. AD 62]; internally, the narrative of Acts does not show an interest in later debates such as Gnosticism, etc.). Although Acts is not primarily about Paul so that Luke must tell of all the events that transpired in Paul’s life (i.e., the outcome of his trial and his [later] execution), nevertheless, it is the arrival of Paul (and companions) in Rome that Luke describes rather than the arrival of the gospel in Rome (note Acts 28:14–15).

2.Given the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels, the date of Luke’s Gospel also depends in part on whether one thinks there is literary dependence among these Gospels and, if so, whether that literary dependence requires Markan priority. Obviously if Luke used Mark, then the date of Luke depends on the date of Mark. Even so, 30–40 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus is plenty of time for Gospels to be written and circulated. There does not appear to be a consensus on the answer to this complex question, and it seems unwise to base too much on proposed reconstructions of literary dependence. The prologue does not require Luke’s Gospel to depend on late written Gospels (see the comments on 1:1–2).

3.The date of Luke’s Gospel may also depend on whether one requires Jesus’ descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem to have been written after that destruction (i.e., after AD 70). This may relate to how one views Jesus’ other predictions in Luke’s Gospel, but, as many have noted, the language is sim. to OT prophetic judgments (see comments on 19:43–44; 21:20–24) and need not require a post–AD 70 date. Other opportunities for pointing out the destruction of the temple do not seem to be taken up by Luke (e.g., 24:53; Acts 3–7).

As indicated above, although not essential for the purposes of this guide, my own preference is for a date somewhere between the mid-50s and early-60s (in addition to the introductions to the commentaries and the sources cited there, see also the often overlooked discussion [for an early date] in J. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991], 223–38; Keener [392–93] argues for a date soon after AD 70 for Luke’s Gospel).

AUDIENCE

The name of the addressee, Theophilus, mentioned in the prefaces of Luke and Acts, does not provide any decisive evidence for the audience of these books (the following brief discussion summarizes Thompson, 23–25; see the exegetical comments on 1:1–4 for more details). A common Greek name, it was used by both Jews and Greeks. Theophilus may well have been an official (κράτιστε) and patron of Luke’s writing project. Even so, a wider audience is assumed even when a patron is named. Luke’s repeated use of the plural pronoun “us” in his preface to the Gospel indicates that he identifies with the readership of his work. As Marguerat notes, “The narrative which follows (the Gospel and Acts) takes place within a readership composed of a common faith in the saving events (the ‘events . . . fulfilled among us’) and a common adherence to a tradition (‘handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses’)” (D. Marguerat, The First Christian Historian [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002], 23–24). Thus, a Christian readership is most likely implied by the preface to Luke’s Gospel (see the exegetical comments on 1:1–4...

Table of contents

• Acknowledgments
• Publisher’s Preface
• General Introduction to the EGGNT Series
• Abbreviations
• Luke
• Exegetical Outline
• Appendix
• Grammar Index
• Scripture Index