The Gospel of Luke is unique in the sense that it does not stand alone but in tandem with the Acts of the Apostles. Both books were written by the same author, and together they comprise 25% of the words in the New Testament, far more than that written by any other author of the New Testament. This connection between Luke and Acts becomes obvious by comparing the introductions to both books, as they were written for a certain Theophilus (means 'friend of God'). Scholars debate whether this might have been an actual person or simply a generic address to the intended readership. It could have been to an individual interested in knowing more about the Christian faith, since sometimes a wealthy individual might commission the writing of a book on a topic he/she wished to learn more about. Another interesting feature of Luke's Gospel is that the introduction (Luke 1:1-4) is written in a polished literary style (you cannot tell it from an English translation), whereas the rest of the Gospel was written in a style reminiscent of the narrative portions of the Greek Old Testament, which is also very much like what is found in Matthew and Mark.
When Ehrman speaks of his "comparative method" he is really not doing anything differently from what he did in his discussion of Mark and Matthew. The differences in approach are much less (in my opinion) than Ehrman thinks he is doing, and more a matter of difference in emphasis than any real shift in method. In all cases Ehrman is making use of a style of literary analysis developed by New Testament scholars over the last 35 years in which the scholar is interested in the literary themes in the Gospel as well as the theological interests of the Gospel's author in which it is typical to look at each Gospel separately and in comparison with each other. While most scholars like to say they are evaluating the merits of each individual Gospel, at the same time it is often helpful to compare Gospels and see what an author chooses to put in or leave out, and how they describe the same event in different ways.
The introduction to Luke's Gospel indicates that the author clearly sees himself functioning in the mode of a historian (according to the norms of ancient historiography, which were not as rigorous as what we expect today). This is evident in his mention of having eye-witness accounts that are used in the composition of the Gospel, as well as believing his work is superior to all that was written before on that topic. Now it is hard to know if this comment is intended to indicate the quality of his sources or (as I think) to assure the person who had commissioned the work that his money is buying the best work on the topic.
Most historical critical scholars treat the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke as containing mostly legendary material, if it was not created by Luke himself based on Old Testament patterns (compare Mary's song in 1:46-55 with Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2:1-10). Regarding Luke's genealogy the key feature is that it goes back to Adam, when compared to Matthew which traces Joseph's lineage back to Abraham, modern scholars have long held a consensus that this feature in Luke is pointing toward Jesus as the savior of all humanity, not simply the Jewish savior. Of course, this is especially evident when the second volume (Acts) is taken into consideration. Ehrman does a good job of explaining this on page 100.
Beginning on page 101 Ehrman discusses what he considers to be the overarching theme of the presentation of Jesus in Luke: Jesus the rejected prophet. This theory for interpreting Jesus in Luke has been around for over 20 years, and obviously Ehrman finds it to be most convincing. In Luke, Jesus as the Jewish Messiah does not seem to be important, and the Son of God title does not seem to get much emphasis. As Ehrman points out, Luke portrays Jesus as God's spokesman right from the beginning in Luke 4, and when Jesus gives examples to back up his expectation of rejection ("No prophet is accepted in his hometown," 4:24), he mentions two prophets held in high esteem, Elijah and Elisha (4:25-28). The townspeople, feeling they have been disrespected by their native son, oblige his expectation of rejection by trying to throw him off a precipice at the edge of town (4:29).
Part of the background to this approach to Jesus as a rejected prophet is the parallel with the legends about the Old Testament prophets, that they came to an untimely end, as referred to in Luke 11:49-52 and 13:34-35 ("the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it"). Granted that Matthew also contains these passages. However, when seen in light of the mention of Jesus suffering the same fate as the prophets later in the Gospel at the time he rides to Jerusalem, it becomes clear that the rejection of Jesus is central to Luke's portrayal of Jesus. The theme of rejection of the King appears in the parable of the Pounds(19:14) and in the lament over Jerusalem (19:41-44), which implies that if Jesus had not been rejected the city would not have been destroyed by the Romans.
Another telling feature in Luke's portrayal of Jesus' death are the words spoken by the centurion at the foot of the cross. It Mark he says "Truly this man was God's Son." But in Luke he says, "Certainly this man was innocent" (see Ehrman, page 105, col. 2). As Ehrman states, this alteration brings into question whether or not Luke understood Jesus' death to be an atoning sacrifice (whereas Mark certainly interpreted Jesus' death as an atonement, see Mark 10:45).
Another interesting feature in Luke's crucifixion scene is the statement to one of the two thieves, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (23:43). While Ehrman does not spend much time talking about what I believe is the dominant theme in the message of Jesus in Luke's Gospel, it comes out clearly here: God's forgiving love for sinful humanity. It is not without reason that the parable of the Prodigal Son is placed in the center of the Gospel 15:11-32); it is the centerpiece of Luke's portrayal of Jesus as the messenger of the God's forgiving love, both in word and deed.
New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders even goes so far as to say that repentance is a theme particular to Luke, as references to human repentance in connection with divine forgiveness occur frequently in Luke and Acts, but mention of repentance occurs rarely elsewhere in the New Testament. I had never given this much thought before reading Sanders on the topic, but he does have a point. Even though repentance is a central doctrine in most Christian theologies, the term and the action of repentance occurs rarely in the New Testament outside of Luke and Acts.
In the 1970's much was written about the social concerns of Jesus in Luke's Gospel, and these concerns certainly come to the fore in the ministry and message of Jesus in Luke. This theme is much more obvious in Luke than in the other Gospels, in large part because that is the main point of the passage from Isaiah from which Jesus reads while in the Nazareth synagogue in Luke 4 (4:18-19). This makes it clear that Luke wants to emphasize that aspect of Jesus' message. Ehrman mentions this emphasis in a section on this topic (page 108, col 2). But Ehrman has (in my opinion) only scratched the surface of what can be said on this topic. In particular, many of the parables of Jesus found only in Luke have as their central theme the use and abuse of money and possessions and putting one's possessions above the needs of others, whereas Jesus' message proclaims that the love of God is best demonstrated in showing loving concern to others, and that a concern for possessions will hinder this. For instance, there are the parable of the Good Samaritan (10:29-37), the parable of the Rich Fool (12:13-21), the parable of the Great Dinner (14:7-24), and of special note, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31). Each of these parables carries a warning that one's possessions can be detrimental to one's spiritual well being. The implied message is that being generous with one's money and possessions towards others in need is the proper attitude for a follower of Jesus to exhibit.
No comments:
Post a Comment