The Composition Of Luke’S Gospel
THE COMPOSITION OF LUKE’S GOSPEL
The first three gospels exhibit many similarities. This fact, coupled with some striking differences, sets the students of these gospels a problem that has so far defied solution (though much may be learned from a study of the relationships; see chap. 1 above). It seems highly probable that in writing his gospel Luke made use of Mark and a source or sources he shared with Matthew (the so-called Q; this may have been a single document but more probably was a group of documents), together with material not used by either of the others, a source or sources that may have been written or oral (the so-called L).
In the use of his sources, Luke makes alterations that improve the style of passages in Mark and probably also in Q. He does not wholly rewrite such passages, retaining enough for us to see that he is using a source. But his superior literary ability means that he inevitably takes the opportunity of improving the form of expression. He also abbreviates what Mark has written by omitting details that are not essential for his purpose. For example, in the parable of the sower Luke has 90 words where Mark has 151 (Luke 8:4-8; Mark 4:1-9), and there are similar abbreviations in a number of places. Luke’s omissions often involve incidents he has included elsewhere, apparently derived from one of his other sources. This is a somewhat complicated subject, for he sometimes does include matter from two stories, or "doublets.” Thus Luke 9:23-24 seems to come from Mark 8:34-35 and the similar Luke 14:27; 17:33 resembles Matthew 10:38-39 and may well have come from Q.
What seems rather curious to people of our day is that, while he sometimes speaks of Jesus as showing feeling (e.g. Luke 7:13), Luke now and then omits references to Jesus’ emotions, whether of compassion (5:13; cf. Mark 1:41), anger and grief (Luke 6:10; cf. Mark 3:5), or love (Luke 18:22; cf. Mark 10:21); he concentrates on what Jesus did and said, rather than on what he felt. Perhaps he wanted his readers to be clear that Jesus was not unduly swayed by emotions but was always in command of the situation. A curious feature of Luke’s writing, which is very good Greek, is his inclusion of several expressions more common in Semitic languages than Greek (e.g. "it came to pass...”). This may be due to his faithfulness to his sources or to a desire to write in "biblical” language.
It is sometimes held that before he came across a copy of Mark and began his work, Luke produced what is called proto-Luke. It is pointed out that about 60 percent of Luke is not contained in Mark, that about 30 percent of Mark is not found in Luke, that Luke’s passion narrative is apparently quite independent of Mark’s, 21and that some of Luke’s parallels to Mark contain significant differences. Some have advocated the hypothesis that Luke combined matter from Q and his own sources (L) and worked it into a document. 22 It could be argued that this was meant as a gospel, for the total length of Q + L is greater than the length of Mark. 23
There are various reasons for postulating a proto-Luke document. One is that Luke’s Q material is combined with L, not simply inserted by itself, while his Markan material is not combined in this way. In the Lukan manner, Mark’s material may be worked over with stylistic improvements and the like, but it is not combined with Q or L. Again, Luke 3:1 looks like the opening of a book (the infancy stories are thought not to belong to proto-Luke), and the genealogy of Jesus would then come at a very natural point, following the first mention of his name. There is a short section, 6:20-8:3, and a longer one, 9:51-18:14, where Luke seems to make no reference to Mark, which is most curious if Mark gave him his basic framework. Throughout this gospel the Markan and non-Markan matter come in alternate blocks, and Luke’s passion narrative seems to be for the most part independent of that in Mark. Furthermore, in the passages where he is following Mark, Luke sometimes omits an incident that he then places in another context. For example, Mark has Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth between the stories of Jairus’s daughter and the sending out of the Twelve (Mark 6:1-5); Luke has these two stories in the same sequence (Luke 8:40-9:6), but the rejection at Nazareth is at 4:16 30. 24
Another relevant fact is the way Luke uses "the Lord” to refer to Jesus in narrative, a usage not found in Matthew or Mark. This does not occur in Luke’s Markan material, but it is found fifteen times in the rest of Luke, in more or less the same proportion in L and Q. He also has the address κυρίε (Kyrie, "O Lord”, G3261) sixteen times, as against once in Mark, and fourteen of these are in the proto-Luke passages (eight in L and six in Q). Some urge that the use of the term does not belong to the final writing of the gospel, else it would be in the Markan passages as much as in the others, and the conclusion is drawn that it belongs to an earlier stage in the production of the book. It is further pointed out that whereas Luke retains about 53 percent of Mark’s actual words in the Markan passages in the body of the gospel, in the passion narrative he has only 27 percent, and this includes words necessary for telling a passion story. There are many variations in order. Luke has the resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, whereas most agree either that Mark had no such appearances at all or, if he did, that he located them in Galilee (see Mark 16:7). Many conclude that Luke did not depend on Mark in this part of his book. 25
If this hypothesis is correct, we have identified a very old document indeed, for proto-Luke would have preceded the writing of both Matthew and Luke (as Q does). For a variety of reasons, most scholars remain unconvinced, but it is an interesting hypothesis. Those who reject it have not satisfactorily explained two facts: (1) Luke habitually combines his L with Q but never with Mark, and (2) he departs radically from Mark in his passion narrative. If Luke had Mark as one of his principal sources, it seems strange that he should desert it at the high point of the book. Against the hypothesis, many scholars point out that if we take out the Markan sections from Luke, what is left does not read like a book. Perhaps the best solution is to think of Luke as having been busy with such sources as Q and L before he came across Mark. When he received a copy of that gospel, he inserted most of it into the narrative he had been working on but had not yet completed. It is unlikely that Luke took any one document and made that his foundation; he seems rather to have selected his material from a variety of sources. While this seems the most likely solution, it is clearly no more than a hypothesis, and much remains uncertain. 26 An interesting feature of this gospel is the amount of material it shares with the fourth gospel (far more than does either Matthew or Mark). For example, both Luke and John mention Martha and Mary, Annas, and a disciple named Judas in addition to Judas Iscariot. Both have an interest in Jerusalem generally and in the temple. Both speak of Satan as being active in the betrayal of Jesus (Luke 22:3; John 13:27), say that the ear that Peter cut off the slave in Gethsemane was the right ear (Luke 22:50; John 18:10), and tell us that Pilate three times declared that Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6). Most agree that it is highly unlikely either that John used Luke or that Luke used John. The best explanation is that they used a common source or sources.