Marmorstein Lecture Notes--The Gosple of Luke

We've spent three classes discussing the Gospel of Matthew. Some of you may wonder why. What has this to do with history? What does it have to do with larger theme the course addresses, the church as a turning point in history of world?

Studying the Gospel of Matthew is important for two reasons. As I am sure you history majors know, history doesn't automatically come in well-made, ready to use volumes. Instead, historical works are pieced together based on what historians can deduct from primary sources, works like the Gospel of Matthew. History (from the Greek historia) means investigation, and a good historian is trained to sift evidence in the same way a good detective does. Any of you who take any of Dr. Grettler's courses know that dealing with the kind of evidence historians use (artifacts and primary sources) is a tricky business--but also a lot of fun--and interestingly enough, you often are closer to the truth with your own analysis of primary source material than when you depend on others to tell you what it's all about.

One of the strengths of the NSU history department is that our students do become really good at primary source analysis, and I am often pleased to find my students discovering ideas and possibilities that I hadn't figured out for myself in the sources we read.

But how does our discussion of Matthew relate to central theme of course, how does it help explain the transition of Roman empire from paganism to Christianity, a transition that affects every aspect of life, and, in many ways, marks the end of ancient world?

The growth of Christianity, and with it the transition from polytheism to monotheism is a major, major step. Why wasn't it made earlier? To a very slight degree, it had been made earlier. The monotheistic alternative had been around for a long time among the Jews and among some of the philosophers. But neither the monotheism of the philosophers nor the type of monotheism advocated by the Pharisees or Sadducees was going to attract many adherents. Philosophy was for the elite few. Sadduceeism was dependent on worship in the Jerusalem temple. The Pharisees, with their synagogues in every city, were a bit more successful in proselytizing, but the rigid nature of the Pharisaic life-style made in unlikely for there belief to spread all that widely. For monotheism to spread beyond tiny communities, monotheism itself had to be transformed.

The Gospel of Matthew shows how Jewish monotheism was changed, how a nucleus of Jewish converts were converted to a monotheism very different from that of the Pharisees and Sadduccees. Particularly important, Matthew shows Christianity as a return to core Jewish beliefs, and it explains how, for the original core of Jewish followers of the Gospel, their "new" religion wasn't new at all--just a fulfillment of what had been promised long before in the prophets. Perhaps this is similar in some respects to the growth of Protestantism. The protestant denominations could never have grown so rapidly had it not been for the preceding Catholic church, nor was it likely Protestantism could have succeeded had it not convinced many Catholics that it was really a return to their true roots.

The Gospel of Luke is in many ways very like Matthew. The two gospels tell the same story: many passages are identical. About 50% of material you read in Luke you had already read in Matthew (no, you weren't having de javu!). The Gospel of Mark also is similar to Luke and Matthew: there are only 50 verses in Mark not also included in either Matthew or Luke--one reason I don't assign that gospel. These three gospels are so much alike, we give them the special name "synoptic." Synoptic comes from Greek words "with" and "see." It essentially means Gospels that look alike or that can be easily compared..

Despite the similarities, the three synoptic gospels differ from each other in some respects. Why? Each gospel is addressed to a slightly different primary audience. Matthew seems be addressed to religious Jews or people already familiar with OT, but also for people who need some convincing. Luke doesn't anticipate the same audience. One, he doesn't assume his audience knows the Old Testament scripture. Second, he seems to assume more sympathy for his message, as if he is writing primarily to those already convinced. Luke, then, is a gospel particularly well suited to the needs and interests of gentile believers in the first century.

This isn't surprising. Luke himself, the man who wrote gospel, was himself a gentile, probably the only gentile who wrote any book of Bible. He was a also a companion of the Apostle Paul, the man who, more than any other, was responsible for the spread of Christianity to the gentile world. Paul calls himself the "apostle to the gentiles," and, in many ways, he was just that. Luke was with Paul at cities such as Mytilene and Caesarea and remained with Paul throughout Paul's captivity. On his travels, Luke met many of key figures of the early church--certainly Peter and most probably Mary the mother of Jesus. This put him in an excellent position to write what was, for the average gentile reader, probably the most attractive of the four gospels.

First of all, Luke's writing style. A literary expert of the time would have viewed Luke's Greek is the "best" in the New Testament: the most sophisticated and interesting in terms of language use. Luke has been called "the most beautiful book ever written," and, while this has to do mostly with the content of the book, it also refers to the book's literary quality and the beauty of it's language. Matthew is full of "Hebraicisms," linguistic constructions more "appropriate" for Hebrew than Greek. He writes the kind of Greek spoken many a non-native. Luke's Greek is more sophisticated--good enough to be set alongside that of the greatest Greek prose writers.

In terms of structure, too, Luke would have had a special appeal to gentiles. The gospel is put together in exactly the pattern gentile audience would expect for the biography of a great man. Gentiles would expect such a biography to include some or all of the following elements:

1. A dedication. Greek writers typically dedicated their books to a prominent figure, often the patron who sponsored the book. Dedications to the emperor or another great man were common. Marcus Aurelius, for instance, dedicates his Meditations "to himself." Luke dedicates his book to Theophilus, a "lover of God," but likely a wealthy gentile Christian who is sponsoring the publication and distribution of this book and Acts.

2. A statement of purpose. Herodotus, for instance, begins his great history by explaining that he is trying to make sure that great deeds wouldn't be forgotten--and to explain the reasons why the Greeks and Persians fought one another. Quite often, the writer maintains that his purpose is to set the the record straight, Hecataeus, for instance, noting that, in connection with the events he is going to write about, "the Greeks tell many tales--and foolish ones at that.". Luke indicates that he is going to set the recored straight so that Theophilus can be sure of things he has been taught. Luke also seems to be claiming that he is clarifying the chronology, "setting forth in order" the events of the life of Christ. Matthew tends to organize topically rather than chronologically (a fairly frequent Jewish approach), and Luke may be writing for an audience that prefers things in chronological order.

3. Early hints of a man's future greatness. Gentile biographers looked for omens and signs of future greatness, particularly signs connected with birth, e.g., an unusually hard or easy labor. Also, they would be careful to include any examples of precocious behavior and the comments of those who first recognized their subjects potential for greatness. Julius Caesar's ability to give a eulogy at a very young age and Sulla's comment that there were "many Mariuses" in the young Caesar were noted by Caesar's biographers.

4. Genealogical information. Gentile audiences wanted to know a persons ancestry--and illustrious deeds done by those ancestors.

Luke's emphasis on the virgin birth and on John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth's womb is the kind of thing gentile would find intriguing. The prophecies of Simeon and Anna--and the appearance of the angels--likewise were the kind of thing gentiles would have wanted included in the biography of a great man. Jesus teaching n the temple at twelve? Again, important to a gentile audience. And ancestors? You want illustrious ancestors? Here goes, says Luke--as he traces Jesus lineage back to God--a typically gentile thing to do, by the way.

Another indication that Luke has in mind a gentile audience is his use of scripture. He cites scripture far less than Matthew, but, when he does cite scripture, he tends to quote in full. Compare, for instance, Luke 3:6-7 with Matt 3:3.

Luke omits things many things Matthew includes. Luke's "Sermon on Plain" (Luke 6) parallels the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but some things are left out. The "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time...." verses are all gone. Jesus just indicates the standards without the preceding contrast. Also, the criticism of public alms, prayer, and fasting are gone--probably less critical issues for Luke's intended audience.

Much of what Luke omits in his account can be explained by the fact he is writing to gentiles. Luke, for instance, leaves out the parable of 10 virgins, perhaps because it would not have made as much sense to gentile readers as to Jews: Jewish and gentile marriage customs were vastly different.

Here are some other things Luke omits, and, in at least some instances, it's pretty clear that the omitted material would simply have been more important to a Jewish audience that a gentile audience. Among those things left out:

Remember, though, that Luke is very near the limit of a one-volume book. He has to be selective, and no doubt he sacrificed some material only because he had other material he considered even more important. What Luke *includes* is a better clue to the audience he is trying to reach than what he leaves out. Material in Luke but not Matthew includes the following. Note that Luke seems to go out of his way to include material that would appeal to special groups among the gentiles. There's much of special interest to Samaritans, much of special interest to women, and much of special interest to the poor.

Now it's possible to go way too far in emphasizing Matthew as a gospel for Jews and Luke as a gospel for gentiles. The gospels have much in common, and, to a certain extent, focusing on the differences rather than similarities means overlooking some central themes of human appeal, e.g. Jesus crucifixion for the sins of mankind and his triumph over death. But even in treating common themes, differences in treatment show different audience. Compare, for instance, Matthew 24, and Luke 21, the "little apocalypse." Note that, Instead of Matthew's reference to the "abomination of desolation," familiar to Jews from the the book of Daniel, Luke simply says, "When you see Jerusalem compassed about by armies..."

And a word of caution. Whenever one discovers what seems like "the key" to interpreting a text, it's important to remember that, with virtually any great text, part of it's greatness lies in the fact that it can legitimately be analyzed from many different viewpoints, all of which are, in a certain sense, valid, but aren't any of them the whole story.

IT was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!—but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried:"Ho!—what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 't is mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'T is clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!