Gospel of Luke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lyran (talk | contribs) at 10:32, 29 February 2008 (→‎Role of women: added link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Books of the
New Testament
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament papyri, showing 2 Cor 11:33–12:9
Gospels and Acts
Four Evangelists
Lukan Acts
Epistles and Apocalypse
Pauline epistles
Catholic epistles
Apocalypse
Authorship
Related topics

The Gospel of Luke is a synoptic Gospel, and the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. The text narrates the life of Jesus, with particular interest concerning his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. It ends with an account of the ascension.

The author is characteristically concerned with social ethics, the poor, women, and other oppressed groups.[1] Certain well-loved stories on these themes, such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan, are found only in this gospel. This gospel also has a special emphasis on prayer, the activity of the Holy Spirit, and joyfulness.[2] D. Guthrie stated, “it is full of superb stories and leaves the reader with a deep impression of the personality and teachings of Jesus."[3]

The text is internally anonymous. One of the two oldest surviving manuscripts P75 (circa 200), has the attribution According to Luke [4]. The other P4 which 'is probably to be dated earlier than P75 ...'[5] has no such (surviving) attribution. Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14) but scholars are divided on this issue.[6]

Most scholars accept the two-source hypothesis, that the text is based in part on the Gospel of Mark and a now lost document, and place the composition of Luke between 80 and 90. A few scholars postulate an earlier date. Marcion circa 144, appears to have used this gospel, but he called it the Gospel of the Lord.[7]

The introductory dedication to Theophilus, 1:1–4 states that "many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word", and that the author, "after investigating everything carefully from the very first"[8] has decided to compose an orderly account "so that [Theophilius] may know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught". Thus the author intended to write a historical account[9] bringing out the theological significance of the history.[10] The author's purpose was to portray Christianity as divine, respectable, law-abiding, and international.[1] Scholarship is in wide agreement that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles.[11]

Content

Content summary

The Gospel of Luke tells the story of Jesus' miraculous birth, ministry of healing and parables, passion, resurrection, and ascension.

Introduction

Luke is the only gospel with a formal introduction, in which the author explains his methodology and purpose. It states that many others have already "undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."[12] The author adds that he too wishes to compose an orderly account for Theophilus, so that Theophilus "may know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught".

Birth narratives and genealogy

Like Matthew, Luke recounts a royal genealogy and a virgin birth for Jesus. Unique to Luke is John the Baptist's birth story, the census and travel to Bethlehem, the birth in a manger, and a story from Jesus' boyhood.

Miracles and parables

Luke emphasizes Jesus miracles, recounting 20, four of which are unique. Like Matthew, it includes the Sermon on the Mount and other important sayings. More than a dozen of Jesus' most memorable parables are unique to Luke, including the Good Samaritan and the Corrupt Steward.

Role of women

More than the other gospels, Luke mentions women as important among Jesus' followers, such as Mary Magdalene.

Trials and crucifixion

Luke emphasizes that Jesus had committed no crime against Rome, as confirmed by Herod, Pilate, and the thief crucified with Jesus. In Luke's Passion narrative Jesus prays that God forgive those who crucify him and his assurance to a crucified thief that they will be together in Paradise.

Resurrection appearances

Luke's accounts differ from those in Mark and Matthew. Luke tells the story of two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and (as in John) Jesus appears to the Eleven and demonstrates that he is flesh and blood, not a spirit. Jesus' commission that the Eleven carry his message to all the nations affirms Christianity as a universal religion. The account of Jesus' ascent at the end of Luke is apparently an addition subsequent to the original redaction.

Composition

Contemporary scholars generally conclude that the author, possibly a Gentile Christian, wrote the gospel about 85-90. Most scholars hold the two-source hypothesis as most probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel. The author of Luke is usually agreed to be more faithful to the wording and order of the Q material than was the author of Matthew.[13] As an alternative to the two-source hypothesis, a few scholars hold to the traditional view that Luke is based on Matthew. The two major hypothesis that hold this position are the Griesbach hypothesis and the Augustinian hypothesis. A minority, such as John Knox (not the same as the Scottish reformer John Knox)[14] propose that the Gospel of Luke was the Proto-orthodox edit of the Gospel of Marcion.

Like the rest of the New Testament, the gospel was written in Greek. Like Mark (but unlike Matthew), the intended audience is gentile, and it assures readers that Christianity is an international religion, not a Jewish sect. Scholars are divided on whether the author is indeed Paul's physician companion, Luke. Several cities have been proposed as its place of origin with no consensus. [15]

Author

10th century Byzantine illustration of Luke the Evangelist.
See also: Acts of the Apostles § Authorship

Early tradition, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by Luke, a companion of Paul.[16] The oldest manuscript of the gospel (ca. 200) carries the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke”.[17] Donald Guthrie describes the early Christian testimony concerning the gospel's authorship as in full agreement, although "some scholars attach little importance to it".[18] The claim that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author is considered by contemporary scholarship to be “almost certain”.[19] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, possibly although not certainly the author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[20] Both books also contain common interests.[21] With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "The extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author".[22] Those biblical scholars who consider the two books a single, two-volume work often refer to both together as Luke-Acts.[23]

Given this, the internal evidence of the Acts of the Apostles concerning its author pertains to the authorship of the Gospel. This evidence, especially passages in the narrative where the first person plural is used, points to the author being a companion of Paul.[24] As D. Guthrie put it, of the known companions of Paul, Luke is “as good as any… [and] since this is the traditional ascription there seems no reason to conjecture any other.”[25] There is further evidence from the Pauline Epistles.[26] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, and scholars have long found evidence of technical medical terminology used in both the Gospel and Acts,[27] though this argument has been challenged and it is without universal acceptance.

The traditional view of Lukan authorship is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.”[28] The list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion.[29] But there is no consensus, and the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship has been described as ‘about evenly divided’.[30] on who the author was.

Date

The terminus ad quem or latest possible date for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[31] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[32] Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the first century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[33] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[34] While some scholars argue for a pre-70 date for when the gospel was written, most scholars place the date ca. 80-90.[35][36]

Before 70

Arguments for a pre-70 date are largely bound up with the complicated arguments concerning the date of the book of Acts, with most proponents arguing for a date around 60-61 for the Gospel.[37] This incorporates the conjecture that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him.[38] Acts does not mention Paul’s martyrdom, which occurred some time in the 60s, nor the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70. A few scholars who also argue for an early date of First Epistle to Timothy believe 1 Timothy 5:18 is referencing Luke 10:7, and thus argue Luke pre-dates Paul's death.[39]

After 70

In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority.[40] Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. One argument is that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date.[41] The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[42] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on christology, eschatology, and soteriology that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[43]

Debate continues among non-traditionalists about whether Luke was written before or after the end of the 1st century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to heterodoxical movements of the early 2nd century, for example see Gospel of Marcion.[44] Those who would date it earlier point out both that Luke lacks knowledge of the episcopal system, which had been developed in the 2nd century, and that an earlier date preserves the traditional connection of the gospel with the Luke who was a follower of Paul.[citation needed]

Audience

The consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek or Syrian for gentile or non-Jewish Christians. The Gospel is addressed to the author's patron, Theophilus, which in Greek simply means friend of God[45] or (be)loved by God or loving God[46], and may not be a name but a generic term for a Christian. The Gospel is clearly directed at Christians, or at those who already knew about Early Christianity, rather than a general audience, since the ascription goes on to state that the Gospel was written "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3–4).

Manuscripts

See also: Acts of the Apostles § Manuscripts

The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke are three extensive papyrus fragments dating from the late 2nd century or early 3rd century. P4 is probably the earliest[5], dating from the late 2nd century[47]. P75 dates from the late 2nd century/early 3rd century[48][49]. Finally P45 (mid-3rd century) contains extensive portions of all four Gospels. In addition to these major early papyri there are 6 other papyri (P3,P7,P42,P69,P82 and P97) dating from between the 3rd-8th century which also have small portions of Luke's Gospel[50][49]. The early copies, as well as the earliest copies of Acts, date after the Gospel was separated from Acts.

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are 4th-century codices of the Greek bible that are the oldest manuscripts that contain Luke. Codex Bezae is a 5th- or 6th-century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages. This text-type appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. Verses 22:19–20 are omitted only in Codex Bezae and a handful of 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 Cor 11:25, provides the only gospel support for the doctrine of the New Covenant. Verses 22:43–44 are found in Western text-type. But they 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 for details.


Relationship with other gospels

According to Farrar, "Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 peculiar to himself. In many instances all three use identical language." Mark is widely considered a principal direct source, and Martin Hengel has made the more controversial argument that Luke also made use of Matthew.[51]

There are 17 parables peculiar to this Gospel. Luke also attributes to Jesus seven miracles which are not present in Matthew or Mark. The synoptic Gospels are related to each other after the following scheme. If the contents of each Gospel are numbered at 100, then when compared this result is obtained: Mark has 7 peculiarities, 93 coincidences. Matthew 42 peculiarities, 58 coincidences. Luke 59 peculiarities, 41 coincidences. That is, thirteen-fourteenths of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke describe the same events in similar language. Luke's style is more polished than that of Matthew and Mark with fewer Hebrew idioms. He uses a few Latin words (Luke 7:41; 8:30; 11:33; 12:6; and 19:20), but no Syriac or Hebrew words except sikera, an exciting drink of the nature of wine but not made of grapes (from Heb. shakar, "he is intoxicated"; Lev 10:9), perhaps palm wine. According to Walter Bauer's Greek English Lexicon of the NT, in Aramaic (שכרא) it means barley beer, from the Akkadian shikaru. This Gospel contains 28 distinct references to the Old Testament.

Many words and phrases are common to the Gospel of Luke and the Letters of Paul; compare:

Luke's writing style

The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introd.) remarks, is expressed in the motto, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38; cf. with Luke 4:18). Luke wrote for the "Hellenistic world".

Greek

Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Luke was written originally in Greek. The first four verses of Luke are in more formal and refined Greek, which would be meant to be familiar to the elite citizens of the Greco-Roman era. Then the language changes into a style of Greek which is very similar to the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). Then the language makes its final change toward the end into a more secular form of 1st-century Greek (called "koine").

Popular opinion among scholars is to see these variations in writings as the Lukan author's ability to write in different literary styles. This view could be further substantiated by Luke's praise of Theophilus.

It seemed good to me to write it all up for you, most excellent Theophilus, in order that you might recognize the reliability of the instruction you have received. (Luke 1:3–4)

Attention to women

Compared to the other canonical gospels, Luke devotes significantly more attention to women. The Gospel of Luke features more female characters, features a female prophet (2:36), and details the experience of pregnancy (1:41–42).

Prominent discussion is given to the lives of Elizabeth and of Mary, the mother of Jesus (ch. 2).

Disputed verses

Textual critics have found variations among early manuscripts and have used principles of textual criticism to tentatively identify which versions are original. Bart D. Ehrman cites two cases where proto-orthodox Christians most likely altered the text in order to prevent its being used to support heretical beliefs.[52]

When Jesus is baptized, many early witnesses attest that Luke's gospel had the Father say to Jesus, "This day I have begotten you." In orthodox texts (and thus in most modern Bibles), this text is replaced by the text from Mark. Ehrman concludes that the original text was changed because it had adoptionist overtones.

When Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, the text refers to him being comforted by an angel and sweating drops like blood (verses 43-44 in 22:40-46 Luke 22:40–46). These two verses disrupt the literary structure of the scene (the chiasmus), they are not found in all the early manuscripts, and they are the only place in Luke where Jesus is seen to be in agony. Ehrman concludes that they were inserted in order to counter doceticism, the belief that Jesus, as divine, only seemed to suffer.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  2. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 105.
  3. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 102.
  4. ^ Image of Papyrus 75 showing the end of Luke's Gospel and the beginning of John's Gospel, separated by the words Κατά Λουκαν, (Kata Loukan) = "According to Luke".
  5. ^ a b Gregory, A. (2003) The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus, Mohr Siebeck, ISBN 3161480864 p.28 Cite error: The named reference "Gregory" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), says the traditional view is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.” p. 119, whereas R. E. Brown says opinion on the issue is "evenly divided" Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. p. 267-8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  7. ^ 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: Marcion: "The distinctive teaching of Marcion originated in a comparison of the Old Testament with the gospel of Christ and the theology of the apostle Paul. ... This he did by setting aside the spurious gospels, purging the real gospel (the Gospel of Luke) from supposed judaizing interpolations, and restoring the true text ...
  8. ^ translation from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
  9. ^ N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (1951), pp. 24-45; H. J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity II, 1922, pp. 489-510; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2006).
  10. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 107.
  11. ^ Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259.
  12. ^ translation from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 116-117.
  13. ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Volume II, Doubleday, 1994. p. 159: "This [specific example] would fit in with the general observation that critics make: Luke seems to have preserved the original order and wording of Q more often than Matthew. While such a sweeping 'rule' does not hold true in all cases and much always be tested in the individual instance, it seems to be valid here."
  14. ^ Marcion and the New Testament, 1942
  15. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  16. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 37-40.
  17. ^ Gospel of Luke at EarlyChristianWritings.com However, there is probably a bit of a mistake here. According to my sources, P75 does not include the start of the gospel, rather it includes the end, where an attribution to Luke is found.
  18. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 114.
  19. ^ Horrell, DG, An Introduction to the study of Paul, T&T Clark, 2006, 2nd Ed.,p.7; cf. W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (1948), p. 2-15 for detailed arguments that still stand.
  20. ^ on linguistics, see A. Kenny, A stylometric Study of the New Testament (1986).
  21. ^ F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1952), p2.
  22. ^ The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259.
  23. ^ E.g., C. Kavin Rowe, "History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke-Acts," JSNT 28 (2005): 131-157, raising questions about the literary unity of Luke-Acts.
  24. ^ M. A. Siotis, ‘Luke the Evangelist as St. Paul’s Collaborator’, in Neues Testament Gesichichte, pp. 105-111.
  25. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 117.
  26. ^ analyzed in detail in Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 117-118.
  27. ^ e.g. W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt (1906.
  28. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 119.
  29. ^ To list just some: I. H. Marshall, Acts (1980), pp. 44-45; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1952), pp. 1-6; C. S. C. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles, in Black’s New Testament Commentary (1957); W. Michaelis, Einleitung, pp. 61-64; Bo Reicke, Glaube und Leben Der Urgenmeinde (1957), pp. 6-7; F. V. Filson, Three Crucial Decades (1963), p. 10; M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (1956); R. M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (1963), pp. 134-135; B. Gärtner, The Aeropagus Speech and Natural Revelation (1955), W. L. Knox, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels; R. R. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles; E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, in Tyndale New Testament Commentary (1959), W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 39.
  30. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. p. 267-8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  31. ^ P4, P45, P69, P75, and P111
  32. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 126-126.
  33. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 125.
  34. ^ Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 334
  35. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. p. 226. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  36. ^ Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, pp. 43
  37. ^ A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911), p. 90; J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, pp. 86-92; I. H. Marshall, Luke, p. 35; A. J. Mattill Jr., ‘The Date and Purpose of Luke-Acts: Rackham reconsidered, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), pp. 335-350.
  38. ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 131.
  39. ^ Bragstad, William R. "The Origin of the Gospels" Concordia Theological Quarterly v. 58, No. 4 (October 1994) pp. 288ff
    See also Donald Guthrie's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles ISBN 0802804829
    However, as noted by Bart D. Ehrman p. 385 of The New Testament, most scholars believe 1 Timothy is pseudopigraphical and cannot be used to date Luke before the year 70.
  40. ^ Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 336
  41. ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 24
  42. ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 29
  43. ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 27
  44. ^ John Knox (not the same as John Knox) in Marcion and the New Testament was the first to propose in 1942 that Marcion's Gospel may have preceded Luke's Gospel and Acts, echoing Marcion's own claims. Some recent scholars have agreed. In this case, Luke's gospel was not finished. There are two possibilities: Either Marcion and Luke both based their gospels on an earlier, common source, or the Gospel of Luke was based on Marcion's gospel. For an example of evidence that may support this view, compare Luke 5:39 to Luke 5:36–38; some scholars question whether Marcion deleted 5:39 from his Gospel or whether it was added later to counteract a Marcionist interpretation of 5:36-38. See also New Wine into Old Wineskins.
  45. ^ Strong's G2321
  46. ^ Bauer lexicon, 2nd edition, 1958, page 358
  47. ^ P4 contains Lk 1:58-59, 62-2:1,6-7; 3:8-4:2,29-32,34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16
  48. ^ P75 contains Lk 3:18-4:2+; 4:34-5:10; 5:37-18:18+; 22:4-24:53 and John 1:1-11:45, 48-57; 12:3-13:10; 14:8-15:10
  49. ^ a b Complete List of Greek NT Papyri Cite error: The named reference "Willker" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  50. ^ List of New Testament papyri
  51. ^ Martin Hengel. 2000. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Trans. J. Bowden. London and Harrisburg: SCM and Trinity Press International. Pp. 169-207.
  52. ^ Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus.

External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:

Related articles:

This article was originally based on text from Easton Bible Dictionary of 1897 and from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897.

Preceded by Books of the Bible Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Luke&oldid=194868060"