Luke was written around 110 – 120 AD (maybe even as late as 130 AD) and its author is anonymous [1].
Like Matthew, the Gospel according to Luke uses Mark as its base. In fact, the author of Luke has reproduced half of Marks text[2] and a lot of Matthews. For example;
In Mark 14.65 – ‘Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!”. [3]
Matthew 26.67-68 expands on this – ‘Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”’ [4]
Luke 22.63-64 then goes even better by combining the two – ‘The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65 And they said many other insulting things to him.’[5]
We see that the author of Luke combines both Mark and Matthew to create his narrative. The author is also not above creatively rewriting Matthew. In the Nativity Narrative he reverses almost all of its key elements;
Matthew depicts Jesus family as outlaws who fled Bethlehem and Herod and spent over a decade abroad. Matthew also has Herod searching to kill the baby Jesus. Luke, however, has Jesus’ family obeying the law and going to Bethlehem at the command of the emperor. He also has Jesus being presented in the Temple at Jerusalem where Simeon and Anna proclaim him as the Lords Messiah. Not something that would have escaped the attention of Herod if he was supposedly searching to kill the baby Jesus as Matthew would have us believe. Luke then has the family living in Nazareth and visiting Jerusalem every year during the time when Matthew has them hiding in Egypt.
There are many other incidences where we can see Luke is taking details from Matthew and altering them to suit his purpose. So what was that purpose?
In my post about the Gospel of Matthew (here), I showed how the author was pushing the Torah observant version of the new cult of Christianity and was pushing back against Marks more gentile friendly branding of the same cult.
The Gospel according to Luke was a reaction to both Mark and Matthew. There is evidence to suggest an ideological battle between various sects of the Christianity cult. The Jewish only, Torah observant kind (Matthew) advocating circumcision and dietary laws and the more inclusive, gentile friendly kind as was pushed by Paul and Marks Gospel. Lukes Gospel was an attempt to promote a more harmonious view of the church by having Jesus and Christianity portrayed as a devout, law-abiding sect respected by the Romans and opposed by only a hard-line Jewish elite.
To achieve harmonisation Luke essentially constructs a literary myth. We can see this in how he reworks 1 and 2 Kings.
| 1 Kings 17.10 and 17.17-24 | Luke 7.6 and 7.11-17 |
|---|---|
| It happened after this.. (17.17) | It happened afterwards…(7.11) |
| At the gate of Sarepta, Elijah meets a widow (17.10) | At the gate of Nain, Jesus meets a widow (7.11-12) |
| Another widows son was dead (17.17) | This widows son was dead (7.12) |
| That widow expresses a sense of her unworthiness on account of sin (17.18) | A centurion (whose ‘boy’ Jesus has just saved from death) had expressed a sense of his unworthiness on account of sin (7.6) |
| Elijah compassionately bears her son up the stairs and asks ‘the Lord’ why he was allowed to die (17.13-14) | ‘The Lord’ feels compassion for her and touches her son’s bier, and the bearers stand still (7.13-14) |
| Elijah prays to the Lord for the son’s return to life (17.21). | ‘The Lord’ commands the boy to rise (7.14). |
| The boy comes to life and cries out (17.22) | ‘And he who was dead sat up and began to speak’ (7.15) |
| ‘And he gave him to his mother’(17.23) | ‘And he gave him to his mother’ (17.15) |
| The widow recognises Elijah is a man of God and ‘the word’ he speaks is the truth (17.24) | The people recognise Jesus as a great prophet of God and ‘the word’ of this truth spreads everywhere (17.16-17) |
There are too many links for Luke not to have been lifting this story from Kings. This is in fact, a standard tale retold many times. Essentially the same story is told by Apuleius of the medical doctor Asclepiades and Pliny the Elder references similar tales.[6]
Space prohibits me from going into more detail but there are many examples of Luke playing around with other writers work. Luke was not writing history. Like Mark and Matthew, he invented a story to push his agenda.
In my next post we will look at the Gospel according to John.
Sources
[1] David Fitzgerald. Jesus: Mything In Action, Vol 1, Chapter 7 – ‘The Gospel Truth’, ‘When Was Luke Written?’
[2] David Fitzgerald. Jesus: Mything In Action, Vol 1, Chapter 7 – ‘The Gospel Truth’, ‘When Was Mark Written?’
[3] www.biblegateway.com NIV.
[4] www.biblegateway.com NIV.
[5] ] www.biblegateway.com NIV.
[6] Richard Carrier ‘On the Historicity of Jesus – Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt’ by Richard Carrier – Chapter 10 – ‘The Evidence of the Gospels’ – Section 6 – The Mythology of Luke.
Praise the Lord! thanks for sharing @historicus