Editing Gospel of Luke (section)

==Composition==
===Textual history===
<!-- The last half of this section is partially linked from [[Biblical canon]] -->
{{See also|Acts of the Apostles#Manuscripts}}
{{stack|[[File:P. Chester Beatty I, folio 13-14, recto.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Papyrus 45]], an AD 3rd-century Greek [[papyrus]] of the Gospel of Luke.]]}}
[[Autograph]]s (original copies) of Luke and the other Gospels have not been preserved; the texts that survive are third-generation copies, with no two completely identical.{{sfn|Ehrman|1996|p=27}} The earliest witnesses (the technical term for written manuscripts) for the Gospel of Luke fall into two "families" with considerable differences between them, the [[Western text type|Western]] and the [[Alexandrian text-type]], and the dominant view is that the Western text represents a process of deliberate revision, as the variations seem to form specific patterns.{{sfn|Boring|2012|p=596}}

The [[Manuscript fragment|fragment]] {{Papyrus link|4}} is often cited as the oldest witness. It has been dated from the late 2nd century, although this dating is disputed. [[Papyrus 75]] (= Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV) is another very early manuscript (late 2nd/early 3rd century), and it includes an attribution of the Gospel to Luke. The oldest complete texts are the 4th-century [[Codex Sinaiticus]] and [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Vaticanus]], both from the Alexandrian family; [[Codex Bezae]], a 5th- or 6th-century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke in [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] and [[Latin]] versions on facing pages, appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. Codex Bezae shows comprehensively the differences between the versions which show no core theological significance.{{sfn|Ellis|2003|p=19}}{{efn|Verses {{bibleverse-nb||Luke|22:19–20|31}} are omitted in Codex Bezae and a handful of [[Vetus Latina|Old Latin]] manuscripts. Nearly all other manuscripts including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and Church Fathers contain the "longer" reading of Luke 22:19 and 20. Verse 22:20, which is very similar to 1 Corinthians 11:25, and provides gospel support for the doctrine of the [[New Covenant]], along with Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 (both, in the [[Textus Receptus]] Greek manuscript). Verses 22:43–44|31 are found in Western text-type, are omitted by a diverse number of ancient witnesses, and are generally marked as such in modern translations. See [[Bruce M. Metzger]]'s ''Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (2005) for details. {{Papyrus link|4}}, which dates to sometime between the 2nd and 4th century, contains Luke 1:58–59, 62–2:1,6–7; 3:8–4:2, 29–32, 34–35; 5:3–8; 5:30–6:16. {{Papyrus link|75}}, which also dates to sometime between the 2nd and 4th century, contains Luke 3:18–4:2+; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–18:18+; 22:4–24:53 and [[Gospel of John|John]] 1:1–11:45, 48–57; 12:3–13:10; 14:8–15:10. Finally, {{Papyrus link|45}} (mid-3rd century) contains extensive portions of all four Gospels. In addition to these major early papyri there are 6 other papyri ({{Papyrus link|3}}, {{Papyrus link|7}}, {{Papyrus link|42}}, {{Papyrus link|69}}, {{Papyrus link|82}} and {{Papyrus link|97}}) dating from between the 3rd–8th century which also have small portions of the Gospel of Luke. (See [[List of New Testament papyri]]).}}

==={{anchor|Authorship}}Luke–Acts: unity, authorship and date===
{{see also|Authorship of Luke–Acts}}
{{stack|[[File:Codex Macedoniensis, subscriptio to Luke.jpg|thumb|200px|''Subscriptio'' to the Gospel of Luke in Codex Macedoniensis 034 (Gregory-Aland), 9th century.]]}}
The gospel of Luke and the [[Acts of the Apostles]] make up a two-volume work which scholars call [[Luke–Acts]].{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=195}} Together they account for 27.5% of the [[New Testament]], the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of [[Jesus in Christianity|Jesus]].{{sfn|Boring|2012|p=556}}

The author is not named in either volume,{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=196}} but he was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more [[highbrow]] writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and who were presumably Luke's audience.{{sfn|Green|1997|p=35}} According to a Church tradition first recorded by [[Irenaeus]] ({{c.|AD 130|AD 202}}) he was the [[Luke the Evangelist|Luke]] named as a companion of [[Apostle Paul|Paul]] in three of the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters":{{sfn|Theissen|Merz|1998|p=32}} an example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31,<ref>{{bibleverse|Acts|9:1–31}}</ref> Acts 22:6–21,<ref>{{bibleverse|Acts|22:6–21}}</ref> and Acts 26:9–23)<ref>{{bibleverse|Acts|26:9–23}}</ref> with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event in Galatians 1:17–24,<ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|1:17–24}}</ref>{{sfn|Perkins|1998|p=253}}), and while the author of the Gospel of Luke clearly admired Paul, his theology differs significantly from Paul's on key points and he does not represent Paul's views accurately.{{sfn|Boring|2012|p=590}} Many modern scholars have therefore expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.<ref name="Brown 1997 267–8">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Raymond E. |author-link=Raymond E. Brown |title=Introduction to the New Testament |year=1997 |publisher=Anchor Bible |location=New York |isbn=0-385-24767-2 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/introductiontone00brow_0/page/267 267–8] |url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontone00brow_0/page/267 }}</ref> Most scholars maintain that the author of [[Luke-Acts]], whether named Luke or not, met Paul.<ref>{{cite book |last= Keener |first= Craig |author-link=Craig Keener |year=2015 |title=Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Volume 1) |publisher= Baker Academic |page=402 |isbn=978-0801039898}}</ref>

The interpretation of the "we" passages in Acts as indicative that the writer relied on a historical eyewitness (whether Luke the evangelist or not), remains the most influential in current biblical studies.<ref>"A glance at recent extended treatments of the "we" passages and commentaries demonstrates that, within biblical scholarship, solutions in the historical eyewitness traditions continue to be the most influential explanations for the first-person plural style in Acts. Of the two latest full-length studies on the "we" passages, for example, one argues that the first-person accounts came from Silas, a companion of Paul but not the author, and the other proposes that first-person narration was Luke's (Paul's companion and the author of Acts) method of communicating his participation in the events narrated.17

17. Jurgen Wehnert, Die Wir-Passegen der Apostelgeschitchte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus judischer Tradition (GTA 40; Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); Claus-Jurgen Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulus reisen (WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). See also, Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, and Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles.", Campbell, "The "we" passages in the Acts of the Apostles: the narrator as narrative", p. 8 (2007). Society of Biblical Literature.</ref> Objections to this viewpoint, among others, include the claim that Luke-Acts contains differences in theology and historical narrative which are irreconcilable with the authentic letters of [[Paul the Apostle]].<ref>"The principle essay in this regard is P. Vielhauer, 'On the "Paulinism" of Acts', in L.E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 33-50, who suggests that Luke's presentation of Paul was, on several fronts, a contradiction of Paul's own letters (e.g. attitudes on natural theology, Jewish law, christology, eschatology). This has become the standard position in German scholarship, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts; J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD; Berlin: Evangelische, 1981) 2-5; Schille, Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, 48-52. This position has been challenged most recently by Porter, "The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Some Common Misconceptions', in his Paul of Acts, 187-206. See also I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leister: InterVarsity Press, 1980) 42-44; E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 2nd edn, 1974) 45-47.", Pearson, "Corresponding sense: Paul, dialectic, and Gadamer", Biblical Interpretation Series, p. 101 (2001). Brill.</ref>

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.{{sfn|Theissen|Merz|1998|p=32}} Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around AD 80–90, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.{{sfn|Perkins|2009|pp=250–53}}<ref>{{Cite book
|last = Charlesworth
|first = James H.
|title = The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide
|publisher = Abingdon Press
|year = 2008
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YTIGy5t45WgC&pg=PT64
|isbn = 978-1-4267-2475-6
}}</ref>

===Genre, models and sources===
{{stack|[[File:Relationship between synoptic gospels-en.svg|thumb|350px|Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and most of Mark is also found in Luke. Matthew and Luke share a large amount of additional material that is not found in Mark, and they also contain much higher proportions of unique special testimony.]]}}
Luke–Acts is a religio-political history of the founder of the church and his successors, in both deeds and words. The author describes his book as a "narrative" ({{transliteration|grc|diegesis}}), rather than as a gospel, and implicitly criticises his predecessors for not giving their readers the speeches of Jesus and the Apostles, as such speeches were the mark of a "full" report, the vehicle through which ancient historians conveyed the meaning of their narratives. He seems to have taken as his model the works of two respected Classical authors, [[Dionysius of Halicarnassus]], who wrote a history of Rome (''Roman Antiquities''), and the Jewish historian [[Josephus]], author of a history of the Jews (''[[Antiquities of the Jews]]''). All three authors anchor the histories of their respective peoples by dating the births of the founders (Romulus, Moses, and Jesus) and narrate the stories of the founders' births from God, so that they are sons of God. Each founder taught authoritatively, appeared to witnesses after death, and ascended to heaven. Crucial aspects of the teaching of all three concerned the relationship between rich and poor and the question of whether "foreigners" were to be received into the people.{{sfn|Balch|2003|p=1104}}

Mark, written around AD 70, provided the narrative outline for Luke, but Mark contains comparatively little of Jesus' teachings,{{sfn|Hurtado|2005|p=284}} and for these most scholars believe Luke likely turned to a hypothesized collection of sayings called [[Q source]], which would have consisted mostly, although not exclusively, of "sayings".{{sfn|Ehrman|1999|p=82}}{{sfn|Duling|2010|p=312}} A growing number of scholars support alternative hypotheses, such as the [[Farrer Hypothesis]] and the [[Matthean Posteriority hypothesis|Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis]], which argue for Luke’s direct usage of Matthew and Matthew’s dependence on Luke, respectively, and dispense with Q.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Runesson |first=Anders |title=Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins |date=2021 |publisher=Eerdmans |isbn=9780802868923}}</ref><ref name="TSP2022">{{Cite book |title=The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference |publisher=Peeters Pub and Booksellers |year=2023 |isbn=9789042950344}}</ref>   Mark and Q account for about 64% of Luke; the remaining material, known as the [[L source]], is of unknown origin and date.{{sfn|Powell|1998|pp=39–40}} Most Q and L-source material is grouped in two clusters, Luke 6:17–8:3 and 9:51–18:14, and L-source material forms the first two sections of the gospel (the preface and infancy and childhood narratives).{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=204}} If and to what extent the author of Luke made own amendments is unclear.{{fact|date=April 2025}}

===Audience and authorial intent===
The Gospel of Luke is unique among the canonical gospels for declaring the purpose and method of his work in a prologue, trying to render the Christian message in a higher literary plane. The author both classifies himself as among the many who previously attempted to write narratives of Christ while claiming his work is better and more reliable. Luke’s claims of careful investigation, orderly writing, and access to accounts handed down to his community by eyewitnesses is intended to demonstrate his gospel’s superiority to its predecessors.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bovon |first=Francois |title=Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 |publisher=Fortress Press |year=2002 |isbn=9780800660444 |pages=21-22}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Keith |first=Chris |title=The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2020 |isbn=978-0199384372 |pages=155}}</ref> Luke was written to be read aloud to a group of Jesus-followers gathered in a house to share the [[Eucharist|Lord's Supper]].{{sfn|Balch|2003|p=1104}} The author assumes an educated Greek-speaking audience, but directs his attention to specifically Christian concerns rather than to the Greco-Roman world at large.{{sfn|Green|1995|pp=16–17}} He begins his gospel with a preface addressed to "[[Theophilus (biblical)|Theophilus]]":<ref>[[Luke 1:3]]; ''cf.'' [[Acts 1:1]]</ref> the name means "Lover of God", and could refer to any Christian, though most interpreters consider it a reference to a Christian convert and Luke's literary patron.{{sfn|Maier|2013|p=417}} Here he informs Theophilus of his intention, which is to lead his reader to certainty through an orderly account "of the events that have been fulfilled among us."{{sfn|Green|1997|p=35}} He did not, however, intend to provide Theophilus with a historical justification of the Christian faith – "did it happen?" – but to encourage faith – "what happened, and what does it all mean?"{{sfn|Green|1997|p=36}}