Paul Stein RelSt 358 3/3/15

Section A, Question 2 Luke-Acts, the combination of the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, makes up approximately one-quarter of the New Testament. It is truly a magnificent work, and holds many valuable statements about early Christianitys theology and history. The introductory issues, which in this case refer to authorship, date, and recipients, play a valuable role in shaping the message of Luke-Acts or any other canonical Gospel. With Luke-Acts, the questions about introductory issues strongly affect the evangelists message about wealth. Luke-Acts is very possibly a pseudonymous work. There is some evidence for Luke the physician as the author, largely from the infamous we passages of the Acts of the Apostles (hereafter Acts). The most notable of these is Acts 16:10, where Luke recounts the tale of Pauls vision of the Macedonian man. However, it is very possible that these passages are simply forgeries to make it look as though the Gospel is written by a companion of St. Paul. Indeed, a major discrepancy arises between Acts 9:19-30, the Lukan account, and Galatians 1:15-17, the Pauline account of Pauls conversion. In Acts, Paul goes immediately to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles. In Galatians Paul goes to Arabia for three years, then goes to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles, stating nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me (Galatians 1:17). One would think that Luke the physician, a disciple of Paul, would actually know this. With regard to dating, the author of Luke-Acts seems to be familiar with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, in 70 CE. Luke 21:10-24 betray the evangelists knowledge of Jerusalems destruction. Moreover, Luke himself acknowledges that he used other sources and was not an eyewitness to Jesus ministry (Luke 1:1-4). This suggests that Luke is a second or third generation Christian. The narrative of Luke-Acts ends with Paul in Rome, around 62 CE. Therefore, Luke is written between 62 CE and 96 CE, where it is mentioned in the First Epistle of Clement. The most likely date seems to be 80-85 CE. Finally, with regard to audience, it is somewhat difficult to tell. Theophilus, the recipient, can be translated as Friend/Lover of God. Some scholars have claimed that Theophilus was a generic title for all Christians (Brown, 227). However, based on the cost of writing, it is likely that Theophilus was a wealthy patron of a Christian community, a recent convert who wanted an orderly account of what he was told (Luke 1:3-4). Luke is clearly writing for a Christian audience, and therefore avoids many of the apologetic devices of Matthew. As Brown puts it, Luke is written by a believer to encourage belief (Brown, 227). Luke-Acts treats the issue of wealth very differently from the other Gospels. The most obvious example of this is the beatitudes during the Sermon on the Plain (in Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount). In Matthew, Jesus declares Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). However, in Luke, Jesus stated Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20). Here, Luke is clearly showing that the poor are to be preferred to the wealthy. Luke is indicating that since the poor are not tied to their earthly possessions, they will not encounter difficulty in leaving them behind in the service of God. Moreover, Luke is very consistent on stating that those who are rich are inherently less worthy of Jesus. For example, another beatitude that only appears in Luke is But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation (Luke 6:24). As Brown points out, the consistent message of dislike (and spiritual poverty) of the rich may be indicative of the community that the Gospel is addressed to (Brown, 239). However, the beatitudes are not the only example of this apparent antagonism against the wealthy in Luke-Acts.Another example of the Luke-Acts position on wealth comes from the parable of Lazarus and the wealthy man. This parable does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament. In Luke, Lazarus is a poor man who lies before the gate of a wealthy mans home every day. Both Lazarus and the wealthy man die, but whereas the wealthy man is condemned to Hades, Lazarus is rewarded in the afterlife (Luke 16:19-30). Yet again, Luke shows that wealth leads to punishment, but poverty leads to salvation. As Jesus tells the ruler, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:25). Luke, again shows that the poor are to be preferred to the wealthy. This is certainly a central theme of the Gospel of Luke, and when it is understood in the context of Jesus ministry, it makes sense. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus ministry is to those who are on the fringes of society. This is well shown by the consistent healing of lepers, as well as the preaching that the poor are worthy of the kingdom of God (Luke 17:11-18). The final example of Luke-Acts position on wealth comes from the Acts of the Apostles. In the Acts of the Apostles, the latter part of Luke-Acts, wealth is treated very differently. Rather than an outright condemnation, the early Christians create a community of goods (Acts 2:44-45). In short, they are giving up their wealth so that they may enter the kingdom of God. This idea of poverty making someone worthy of Jesus enters the fold again in Acts 4:13, where John and Peter are described as common men, meaning that they are not wealthy, but they have been with Jesus. They are worthy of Jesus, despite their lack of education and (implied) illiteracy. Interestingly, the theme of punishment for wealth comes up again in Acts 5:1-10, where Anaias and Saphira deceive the Holy Spirit by withholding some of the proceeds they have gained from sale of land. Overall, Acts continues the message of wealth making someone unworthy. Explicitly, Peter identifies greed with the work of Satan (Acts 5:3), which indicates that it is sinful to be wealthy. Someone who is sinful can clearly not enter the kingdom of God without first repenting of his sin, which in this case means wealth. This ties nicely into at least one of the purposes for this gospel. The combination of the introductory issues, as well as the treatment of wealth, tells quite a bit about the purpose of Luke-Acts. Rather than literal history, as some very conservative scholars would view it, Luke-Acts is designed to both tell a theological narrative and suit the needs of the community to which it is addressed. That community is, unfortunately, unknown, but there seems to be good evidence that the community was located somewhere in either Greece or Syria (Brown, 226). Regardless, the treatment of wealth strongly indicates that the recipient community was not particularly wealthy. As Brown states, the purpose of this Gospel is to encourage Christians to be Christian. By having a Jesus who has beatitudes such as Luke 6:20, Luke is showing the community that they are worthy of salvation, and the wealthy are not. Indeed, Jesus himself said so, and therefore it must be true. However, the message of wealth, combined with the introductory issues has another purpose. This other purpose is that, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus ministry is to those who are on the outskirts of society, as was previously mentioned. The demonization of the wealthy plays into that. The poor are on outside, looking in on the rest of society. This fits quite well with the community to which this is addressed, especially at the time that this Gospel is written. In the Roman Empire, Christianity is the outsider religion. The majority of Romans are pagan. Indeed, Christianity is technically illegal until Constantine. When combined with the 80-90 date of Luke-Acts, it becomes clear that Luke-Acts serves to show the outsiders worthiness of the kingdom of God. Moreover, early Christians believed themselves to be living in the end times. Jesus was, after all, an eschatological prophet. This is likely attached to the denigration of wealth throughout Luke-Acts. When Lukes Jesus proclaims that the poor are blessed, the community, who are (assumedly) under Theophilus patronage, believe that their poverty will allow them entrance to the kingdom of God. The idea here appears to be that in the world to come, there will be no need for earthly possessions. Therefore, those who have none (or have already gotten rid of them) are worthy of the kingdom, and those who still have wealth are not. Luke-Acts introductory issues elucidate the teaching about wealth. Based on the introductory issues, as well as the cultural elements of the time, the central message about wealth makes sense. Luke-Acts rich theological message is only added to by a consideration of the introductory questions. Indeed, without a thorough consideration of them, the questioning of wealth and Jesus portrayed in Luke would not make much sense. It is only through them that the purpose (or at least one of them) of Luke begins to make sense.

Section B, Question 3 The Gospel of Matthew, the first gospel of the Synoptic Gospels, and the Luke-Acts works have differing depictions of Jesus mission to the Jews and Gentiles. In Matthew, the mission is to the Jews, but after the Crucifixion, becomes a mission to the Gentiles. In Luke-Acts, the mission is always to the Gentiles, and the Jews are essentially excluded. The discrepancy in mission supports the theoretical two-source hypothesis, and therefore the existence of the Q document. First, the mission in Matthew. The evangelist will be called Matthew, for brevitys sake. In Matthew, Jesus mission is explicitly towards the Jews. The genealogy in Matthew 1, while likely a literary device, is designed to establish Jesus descent from King David, which would make him the King of Israel. By extension, of course, this would establish Jesus as the Messiah. This theme continues with the discussion of the Mosaic Law, with Jesus reaffirming or adding onto it. This is clearly targeted toward Jews, as the Gentiles are able to follow the Seven Noahide Laws and be redeemed. However, Jews are not, hence Jesus statement For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). In the same section, Jesus will often say You have heard it was said But I say to you (Matthew 5:21-33). When Jesus finally convenes the Twelve Disciples, recognizing that his mission is far too great for one man, he gives them an order to Go nowhere among the Gentiles. but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6). Here, Jesus is explicitly telling the Apostles that their mission is to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Yet, there is even more evidence that Jesus mission is to the Jews in Matthew. More evidence stems from Jesus preaching at Nazareth. Jesus goes into the synagogue in Nazareth and begins to proclaim the parables (Matthew 13:54). Here, he is clearly preaching to the Jews, for a synagogue is a Jewish house of worship. The healing of a leper, immediately after the Sermon on the Mount shows that Jesus is preaching to the Jews. Immediately after the leper is healed, Jesus commands said leper to go to the priests (Tuckett, 265). However, Matthew includes a question about Elijahs return, a requirement for the Messiah in Judaism, whereas it does not in Luke. This is even more evidence that Matthew is trying to show Jesus as the Jewish messiah, hence Jesus preaching to Jews. Finally, after the Resurrection, the risen Jesus goes to the Apostles and tells them Go therefore and make disciples of the Gentiles, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Jesus, only after failing to convert the Jews, is sending his apostles to the Gentiles, to make them converts. The story, of course, plays out differently in Luke-Acts. In Luke-Acts, Jesus mission is explicitly to the Gentiles. The Jews are almost completely ignored, and when they do play a role, they often do so in opposition to Jesus. One of the more poignant examples of Jesus mission to the Gentiles comes from Luke 9:1-3, where Jesus sends the Apostles to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal. Compare this to Matthew, where Jesus deliberately instructs the Apostles to go only to the Israelites, and to avoid everyone else. This more inclusive mission is also shown by the Samaritan Village in Luke 9:51. Whereas in Matthew, Jesus tells the disciples that any town that refuses to receive them will have a punishment worse than Sodom and Gomorrahs (Matthew 10:15), in Luke, Jesus rebukes James and John when they want to destroy the Samaritan village. This episode lends credence to Jesus preaching to the Gentiles, for in Matthew, what reason would Jesus have for protecting the village? Why not destroy it? One of the most striking examples, however, comes from the parable of the Good Samaritan, in Luke 10:25-37. Jesus portrays the Jewish authorities as uncaring, but the Gentile takes the time to tend to the mans wounds. Contrast this to Matthew, where Jesus, while rejected by the Jews at Nazareth, does not tell the parable that portrays a priest and a Levite in a negative light. There are several other examples from Luke-Acts. Luke-Acts mission is clearly to the Gentiles, unlike Matthews mission to the Jews. Jesus tells[footnoteRef:1] his disciples that he will be rejected by elders, chief priests, and scribes (Luke 9:22). In comparison, Matthew 16:21 simply tells that he will suffer many things at their hands. Jesus tells that he will be killed in both of them, but in Matthew, there is no message of Jesus rejection. Luke wants to show that the mission is to the Gentiles, so the Jews are rejecting Jesus, despite Jesus ability to cast out demons, heal the sick, and feed the hungry. In Luke 13:14-17, where Jesus heals the cripple on the Sabbath, Jesus rebukes the ruler of the synagogue, and the crowd is on Jesus side. The same episode happens in Matthew, but in Matthew 12:14, when a similar episode occurs, the Pharisees plot to kill Jesus for violating the Sabbath. However, in Matthew, the same questions about healing on the Sabbath are raised (namely, that it is illegal) as are in Luke. Finally, in Luke 2:32, Jesus is described as a light for revelation to the Gentiles, which is fairly obvious terminology. This particular phrase, above all, is very solid evidence for Jesus mission to the Gentiles. Nothing of the sort appears in Matthew. Regardless, both the similarities and differences support the Q-source. [1: The historical method requires agnosticism as to whether or not Jesus could tell the future. I write as a scholar here. ]

The Q-source is strongly suggested by the differences in Matthews and Lukes ministry of Jesus. The first, and perhaps most obvious argument, stems from the fact that the order of Matthew and Luke is sometimes radically different. Whereas the Sermon on the Mount is fairly organized in Matthew 5, the same contents are not in the same order in Luke, and sometimes are far removed from the Sermon on the Plain (Tuckett, 268). Additionally, if Luke was using Matthew, as the Augustinian Hypothesis suggests, why would Luke and Matthew have two vastly varying messages? In Matthew, Jesus evangelizes the Jews. In Luke, he evangelizes the Gentiles. There is no reason why Matthew would end with a shift to the gentiles if Matthew was aware of Luke, or vice versa. Indeed, it does not make sense for Matthew and Luke to write such contradictory accounts unless they are unaware of each other. Another highly suggestive item for the Q-source comes from the Pharisees plot to kill Jesus. Why would Luke ignore such an important part of the story? Luke would certainly not hesitate to put the Jews in such a negative light, especially when Jesus mission is to the Gentiles. This omission is best accounted for by Lukes reliance on Mark, and his subsequent ignorance of Matthew. Finally, if Luke is depending on Matthew (or vice versa), why is Luke 2:22 removed? Luke 2:22 is about Jesus as the Messiah; he is described as the revelation to the Gentiles. Matthew would very likely have incorporated this, but the entire presentation in the Temple does not appear in Matthew. Therefore, it is likely that this portion stems from the L source, material exclusive to Luke. However, the possible criticisms of this line of thought have not yet been covered. One of the more striking criticisms is the similarity in certain sayings between Matthew and Luke. The reasoning therefore follows the line that Luke must have been aware of Matthew (or vice versa) because the sayings in Luke and Matthew are so similar. For example, Jesus denounces the scribes and the elders in similar language in both Luke and Matthew (Luke 20:45-47, Matthew 23:1-36). However, Matthews version is much longer, and since Luke did not need all of it, he shortened it to serve his purposes. This is a misguided objection. This saying could appear in the Q-source, and then, while Luke had no need to extend it, as it was long enough for his purposes, Matthew uses the M source, material exclusive to Matthew, in order to make his point. Therefore, the similarity in sayings is accounted for by the hypothetical Q-source. Overall, the similarities and differences between Matthew and Luke make a compelling case for the Q-source. It is by far the most parsimonious and logical way to deal with the variance in sayings, as well as the one that accounts for the most data. Luke-Acts message of Jesus evangelizing the Gentiles, and Matthews message of Jesus evangelizing the Jews fits perfectly well with the Q-source. Indeed, the messages undercut the idea that either one of the evangelists knew the others gospel, and suggest instead that they drew from both material exclusive to them, Mark, and the Q-source.