Nov
A funny way to write a gospel
Posted in Joy Luke Club, Luke 0 - Introduction, Luke 4 | No Comments »Someone asked me the other day about Luke’s biases. Specifically, they wanted to know what biases might “color” Luke’s depiction in a way that might reflect more on Luke’s particular background than that of Jesus.
Indeed, Luke does have biases. One of his less obvious biases is that he’s somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to language. Luke speaks the most “literary” Greek of the gospels. We detect Luke’s literary biases regularly when he “corrects” Mark’s Greek (Mark’s gospel was one of the historical sources used by both Luke and Matthew). To take an example based on modern English usage, if Jesus were to talk into a room and ask, “What’s happening?” Mark would likely have Jesus asking, “Whaddup?” Luke would depict Jesus as saying,”What is going on?”
Another of Luke’s biases – again less obvious, and minor – is that he uses greater precision when it comes to describing medical conditions and body parts. Many scholars believe this attention to medical detail confirms the hypothesis that Luke was a physician (Paul refers to someone named Luke as a “beloved physician” in Colossians 4:14. While we don’t know for sure that this was the same Luke, it is definitely both possible and plausible that Luke the gospel writer and Luke the “beloved physician” are the same.).
Luke’s largest bias, however, stems from his heritage. Of all the New Testament writers, it appears that Luke is the only Gentile. The rest are Jewish Christians. As a Gentile, Luke often reflects in his narrative the perspective of the Outsider. He knows what is is like to have people consider him unworthy of participating in the full life of the Christian community (Remember: The greatest argument of the 1st C Christian church was whether or not to let Gentiles like [most of] us into the church.). So, combined with the fact that Luke is writing his Gospel to and for a Gentile reader (Theophilus, named in Luke 1:3), it is not at all surprising that Luke tends to pay more attention to stories that either depict Gentiles in a positive light or imply that Jesus’ mission and ministry was to more than Jews alone.
Yet Luke’s bias toward Outsiders is not restricted to Gentiles. He also shows more sensitivity and interest in women. I do not mean to imply that Luke or anyone else in his era was a champion of feminism, but in Luke’s gospel we get more information about women, and the prominent roles they played in Jesus’ ministry, than in any other gospel.
Luke also pays a lot more attention to the poor. In fact, it seems that in Luke’s view, the Good News of Jesus was greatest for the poor. A famous example of Luke’s bias toward the poor is found in the comparison between Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew (Matthew 5-7) and Luke’s version of it (Luke 6). First, Luke’s version doesn’t take place on a “mount” at all. Instead of standing at the top of a hill looking down at the gathered crowd, as reported in Matthew’s version, Luke has Jesus standing at the bottom of the hill, looking up to the crowd (“… and Jesus went down with the disciples from the mountain and stood on a level place …”. This is why Luke’s version is technically called the “Sermon on the Plain.”). Second, where Matthew has Jesus saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” Luke’s Jesus says simply, “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” There is no “in spirit” in Luke’s Gospel. While this difference could be as reflective of Matthew’s bias as Luke’s, it does provide one of many examples where Luke’s gospel tends to focus more strongly on the implications of Jesus’ ministry for the poor (Incidentally, we’ll find another example at Christmas time, where Luke has the baby Jesus being visited by poor shepherds, whereas Matthew makes no mention of shepherds and instead calls attention to the visitation by [wealthy] Magi, of whom Luke makes no mention). This is not to suggest that other gospel writers were unconcerned for the poor, or that they fail to show Jesus’ concern. It is only to note that the poor factor most prominently in Luke’s gospel.
Finally, when considering Luke’s biases and how they might color his version of Jesus’ story, I find it just as interesting – if not more so – to consider how firmly Luke seems committed to conveying details of Jesus’ story that may appear unflattering, particularly if one were trying to convince a reader that Jesus is the Messiah.
At Countryside, our Joy Luke Club groups have just encountered one significant example of this tendency toward brutal honesty. Namely in Luke 4′s account of Jesus’ visit to his hometown of Nazareth. In this account, which is Luke’s first story concerning Jesus’ public ministry, Jesus not only picks a fight with his audience but ends up angering them so greatly that they try to throw him over a cliff. If Luke were simply a propagandist trying to gain acceptance for Jesus despite “the facts” of his story, it seems like this story would be the LAST one he would want to write about. Or, if he reported it at all, he would certainly want to perform a major modification: “And Jesus preached in his hometown and they all cheered and marveled and said, ‘We always knew he was special’! Then, they carried him on their shoulders to the edge of town where they sent him on his way by showering him with gifts and pledging their undying support.”
As you continue to read through Luke’s gospel, you may want to make note of stories that you wouldn’t expect Luke to tell, or that you’d expect him to alter significantly if all he was interested in doing was supporting his own bias that Jesus is the Messiah. Something gives Luke a high degree of confidence that he can report not only on “the good,” but also “the bad and the ugly” and still persuade his readers to place their trust in Jesus. It leads one to wonder, what gives Luke that confidence … ?