|
The Text In the Setting of Its Time |
||||
|
The identity of the writer of the Gospel according to Luke is very
much controversial. Nevertheless, there are varied little facts that
somehow reveal who he really is. From
the sources gathered, Luke, the
constant companion of Paul throughout his journey,
might possibly be the author of the Gospel of Luke. He was referred to as “the beloved physician”,
which is very significant as this is able to disclose a little
something regarding the people he belonged with. “Apparently, his
knowledge and skills as a healer had won him respect, placing him in
the company of those physicians, known in the Hellenistic and Roman
periods, who enjoyed high status as students of medicine and
philosophy” (Freedman, 828). Moreover, there
are some instances in the Book of Acts that implied that the author
was a participant of the events described; in particular, the author
appears to have been a companion of Paul, because the
“we-sections” occur in descriptions of the events that described
Paul’s apostolic activities. The Gospel according to Luke starts with a prologue: “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” (Luke 1:1-4) From
this prologue, we can initially reason out that the author is not an
apostle himself as he stated in the second verse: “just as those
were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have
handed them down to us…” (Lk 1:2) In relation to this, we can
likewise infer that the author was able to gather information and
write down the Gospel through his journey with Paul. There are two
possible sources of Luke’s Gospel—one is the Gospel according to
Mark and the other is, although less likely, from the Q documents
particularly that of Matthew’s.
Nonetheless, his writing differs in a way that, as described by
Allen C. Myers, “Luke omits material found both in Mark and
Matthew, adds material of his own that is not found in either of
them” (667). This tells us of his confidence with regards to the
way he wrote. Myers further states, “he seems to have had
considerable confidence in his own careful research and ability to
organize the material so as to present ‘the truth’ (Luke
1:1-4)” (667) As
one will notice, Luke identified his patron, Theophilus, as his
intended reader. It is stated in the book Mysteries of the Bible
that his opening was very significant since it was “directed to
the ‘most excellent’ Theophilus, a man of Greek name. This
suggests that the readership would include the Gentiles” (271).
This is further fueled by the fact that Luke substituted the Hebrew
names from his sources with Greek and his revealing interest towards
the group of the Gentile Christians as revealed in certain portions
of the Gospel. To add to that, he also had a vague knowledge of the
Palestinian way of life hence telling us that his audience was
unlikely be Palestinian people. It is significant that Luke’s
audience included the Gentiles as these were the people who were
outsiders during those times. They were considered the non-Jewish
people who were uncircumcised. In other words, they indeed were part
of the marginalized people whom Luke was addressing. The
identity of Theophilus is partly debatable as nobody is really
assured of who he was. His name, however, bears a meaning “friend
or beloved of God”. A lot of people believe that he was a real
person as he was referred to as the “most excellent”, which
tells us that he may be a person of high position. In addition to
that, it can be inferred that Theophilus was a Christian. If we look
back to Luke 1:1-2, there was the indication of the word “us”
meaning that it included Theophilus himself. Theophilus
may also be a representation of “a wider Christian audience”
(Freedman, 512), who at that time, received instructions regarding
Christ “but now needed to be reassured of the reliability of this
information” (Freedman, 512) The people during those times were
concerned about the certainty of the earlier teachings taught to
them. Luke responds to this by, as Myers indicates, “Luke’s
concern is that Theophilus (and many more in the Gentile world who
had become Christians) may know the ‘truth’ or reliability of
the facts of the gospel” (668). Similarly, it can be assumed that
Luke is writing for the non-Jews like Theophilus, which explains why
he gave clarifications for some points that a Jew would normally
know and have shortened teaching that Jews would find relevant (seen
in Mt 15:1, Mk 7:1, Mt 32:1ff). Luke also translated some Hebrew
names and deleted all other foreign words except for amen. He
even altered expressions and substituted words to make things clear
to a foreign audience. Furthermore, Luke kept reiterating the
universal range of the gospel, chose Jesus’ statement about the
admission of the Gentiles and the statement, “repentance and
forgiveness of sins are to be preached to all nations” as the last
piece of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel—that Jesus came not only
to save the Jews but also everybody else.
In terms of knowing when the author wrote the Gospel, there
is no definite or exact time that could be pointed out. All the
group can present is a range of time by which is supported by
various sources with varying explanations. Firstly, since the author
made use of the Gospel according to Mark, the earliest period he
would have written is around 70 C.E. According to Freedman, several
scholars “believe that the writings of Luke were written in light
of the actual fall of Jerusalem…” (828). Yet we must not be
limited to this assumption as Freedman further continues, “but the
details of this text are as likely to have been drawn from records
of the siege and fall of cities in the LXX” (828). Similarly,
there is the stand of some scholars who claim that “Jesus’
predictions of Jerusalem’s destruction can be understood as
supernatural prophecies prior to the actual event” (Myers, 668),
hence agreeing with the period around 70 C.E. It is likewise
supposed that the Gospel of Luke was written before the Acts of the
Apostles. By this, there is a set range that it was written between
63 and 80 A.D. If, however, we take into consideration the time when
the letters of Paul were acquired and distributed, the range further
adjusts to 80-85 A.D.
The
text is composed of a few sentences and then a reading from the book
of Isaiah in a form of a prose. And a prose is used to feature the
simplicity of the whole work. It shows that a message from God does
not mean that it should be sweet, fancy and rhyming. It shows us
that in order for the audience grasp what it really means it should
be short, straight and powerful. The
prose is not only seen in the Gospel of Luke but also in Isaiah.
However, there is a difference in the writings of Isaiah and Luke.
In Isaiah the author used words that are kind of misleading for the
audience of Luke. The
author of Isaiah uses words like “lowly” instead of “poor”
and “prisoner” instead of “oppressed”. In the Gospel of Luke
however, we are presented with simple words like “poor” and
“oppressed”. I think the author chose these words over that of
Isaiah’s because the audience of Luke’s Gospel, the poor, can
easily relate to these words; yet more importantly, we are aware of
the different connotations that a single word can bring. We can just
imagine the impact of using the word “lowly”, which also means
modest, ordinary or simple, to the poor whom Luke describes.
Another word that we can delve into is Isaiah’s use of the word
“prisoner” as opposed to the word “oppressed”. Here, Luke
goes from a word that has a kind of negative connotation to a word
that has a slightly positive connotation. We all know that the word
prisoner connotes that a person is a criminal, an inmate or possibly
even a convict, and these words don’t describe the poor at all.
Although some of them do commit crimes, it is wrong to say that all
of them are criminals. It is like saying that all Ateneans are
intelligent or that all Christians go to mass every Sunday. The word
“oppressed” suits the poor better since it means that somebody
has been demoralized or exploited, which is true in most cases. The
poor are demoralized because people look down on them and constantly
bring them injustice. Some people, even in these times, see them as
people who have no dignity, yet ironically, it is these same people
who cause them to be such. The word “oppressed” is better since
the poor are not branded as evil beings in the society. One
obvious difference between the passage taken from the Book of Isaiah
and the Passage written in Luke is that the first belongs to the Old
Testament, or that which is also known as the Hebrew Bible, and the
latter belongs to the New Testament. Despite their wide gap in terms
of time, these two passages indeed complement each other. The Old
Testament contains prophecies that give hope to the people of that
period. The New Testament, on the other hand, is the fulfillment
of these prophecies. What the people had in the New Testament was
that which the people in the Old Testament were longing for.
|
|
Message of the Human Author |
|
The passage Luke 4:16-21 simply put, conveys how just the mere presence of Jesus Christ reading the scriptures in a synagogue, on a Sabbath no less, fulfils a centuries old prophecy of Isaiah about a savior who would bring salvation to the poor. Moreover, the particularity of the Gentiles being mainly included in Luke’s audience tells us that Jesus serves as the embodiment of hope for mankind particularly to the oppressed, people belonging to the marginalized end of the society – those who are in grave need of saving. He is the one who would proclaim the “year acceptable to the Lord,” which could be inferred today as the Jubilee year. In the passage, every detail served a purpose and the synagogue being the venue of this proclamation could have been Luke’s manner of explaining how the synagogue (or now, our Church) could give rise to the Christians’ better understanding of who Jesus really is. In addition, the passage blatantly expresses the purpose of Jesus Christ’s coming to this world, that is, his life sacrifice for the salvation of everyone especially the poor. |
|
GK-theo121f
(www.geocities.com/gk_theo121)
Site Designed by
http://www.quickness.uni.cc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
Links |
|
- Home |
|
Exegesis Pages |