Gospel of Luke Synopitic Gospels and Authorship Bible Study

Gospel of Luke
Synopitic Gospels and Authorship Bible Study

Contents
1 Gospel of Luke 1
1.1 Composition and setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Textual history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Luke-Acts: unity, authorship and date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.3 Genre, models and sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.4 Audience and authorial intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Structure and content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Structure of Luke’s Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.2 Parallel structure of Luke-Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1 Luke’s “salvation history” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.2 Christology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.3 The Holy Spirit, the Christian community, and the kingdom of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.4 Christians vs. Rome and the Jews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Comparison with other writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.8 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Authorship of Luke–Acts 9
2.1 Common authorship of Luke and Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Views on authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Traditional view - Luke the physician as author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Critical view - Authentic letters of Paul do not refer to Luke as a physician . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3 Critical view - the “we” passages as fragments of earlier source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Interpretation of the “we” passages in authorship discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1 Historical eyewitness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.2 Redactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.3 Stylistic convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4 Forgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 A male author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
i

ii CONTENTS
2.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 List of Bible verses not included in modern translations 16
3.1 New International Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.1 Matthew 17:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.2 Matthew 18:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.3 Matthew 23:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.4 Mark 7:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.5 Mark 9:44/Mark 9:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.6 Mark 11:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.7 Mark 15:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.8 Mark 16:9–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.9 Luke 17:36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.10 Luke 23:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.11 John 5:3–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.12 John 7:53-8:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.13 Acts 8:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.14 Acts 15:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.15 Acts 24:6p–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.16 Acts 28:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.17 Romans 16:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 Other English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Versiﬁcation diﬀerences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.1 2 Corinthians 13:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Order of St. Luke 21
4.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 OSL Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5 Synoptic Gospels 23
5.1 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.1 Common features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.2 The triple tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.3 Relation to Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.4 The double tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.5 Special Matthew and Special Luke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

CONTENTS iii
5.2 The synoptic problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.1 Controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.3 Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.4 Notes and references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6 Marcion of Sinope 29
6.1 Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2 Teachings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3 Marcion and Gnosticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4 Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.8 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.8.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.8.2 Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.8.3 Content license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chapter 1
Gospel of Luke
The Gospel According to Luke (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Λου-
κᾶν εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Loukan euangelion), commonly
shortened to the Gospel of Luke or simply Luke, is the
third and longest of the four canonical Gospels. It tells
of the origins, birth, ministry, death, resurrection and
ascension of Jesus Christ.[1]
Luke and Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume
work from the same pen, called Luke–Acts.[2]
The cor-
nerstone of Luke-Acts’ theology is “salvation history”, the
author’s understanding that God’s purpose is seen in the
way he has acted, and will continue to act, in history.[3]
It
divides the history of first century Christianity into three
stages: first the arrival among men of Jesus the Messiah,
from his birth to the beginning of his earthly mission in
the meeting with John the Baptist; second the earthly ca-
reer of Jesus, ending in his Passion, death and resurrec-
tion (concluding the gospel story per se); and finally the
times of James, Peter and Paul, from Jerusalem to Rome
(the story told in Acts).[4]
Luke-Acts does not name an author.[5]
According to
Church tradition this was the Luke the Evangelist, the
companion of Paul,[6]
but the majority of scholars reject
this identification due to the many contradictions between
Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[7]
The most prob-
able date for its composition is around 80-100 CE, and
there is evidence that it was still being substantially re-
vised well into the 2nd century,[8]
the author taking for his
sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called
the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for
Luke) source.[9]
1.1 Composition and setting
1.1.1 Textual history
See also: Acts of the Apostles § Manuscripts
Autographs (original copies) of Luke and the other
Gospels have not been preserved; the texts available to
us today are copies of copies of copies, with no two
identical.[10]
The earliest witnesses (the technical term
for written manuscripts) for Luke’s gospel fall into two
“families” with considerable differences between them,
A 3rd-century AD Greek papyrus of the Gospel of Luke
the Western and the Alexandrian, and the dominant view
is that the Western text represents a process of delib-
erate revision, as the variations seem to form specific
patterns.[11]
The oldest witness is a fragment dating from
the late 2nd century, while the oldest complete texts are
the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both
from the Alexandrian family; Codex Bezae,a 5th- or 6th-
century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke
in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages, appears to
have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript
tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many
points.[12][Notes 1]
1.1.2 Luke-Acts: unity, authorship and
date
See also: Authorship of Luke–Acts
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make
up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[13]
Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament,
the largest contribution by a single author, providing the
framework for both the Church’s liturgical calendar and
the historical outline into which later generations have fit-
ted their idea of the story of Jesus.[14]
The author is not named in either volume.[5]
According
to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was
the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the
letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still often
advanced by conservative scholars, but “a critical con-
sensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between
1

2 CHAPTER 1. GOSPEL OF LUKE
the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.”[6]
(An example can be seen by comparing Acts’ accounts
of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-
23) with Paul’s own statement that he remained unknown
to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-
24).)[15]
He admired Paul, but his theology was signif-
icantly different from Paul’s on key points and he does
not (in Acts) represent Paul’s views accurately.[16]
He was
educated, a man of means, probably urban, and some-
one who respected manual work, although not a worker
himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writ-
ers of the time looked down on the artisans and small
business-people who made up the early church of Paul
and were presumably Luke’s audience.[17]
Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to
around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[18]
The
eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the compan-
ion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel
is now rarely put forward.[6]
There is evidence, both
textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian
manuscript families) and from the Marcionite contro-
versy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced
his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke’s
gospel and Paul’s epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being
substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[8]
1.1.3 Genre, models and sources
Almost all of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and most of
Mark is also found in Luke. Matthew and Luke share a large
amount of additional material that is not found in Mark, and
each also has a proportion of unique material.
Luke-Acts is a religio-political history of the Founder of
the church and his successors, in both deeds and words.
The author describes his book as a “narrative” (diegesis),
rather than as a gospel, and implicitly criticises his prede-
cessors for not giving their readers the speeches of Jesus
and the Apostles, as such speeches were the mark of a
“full” report, the vehicle through which ancient histori-
ans conveyed the meaning of their narratives. He seems
to have taken as his model the works of two respected
Classical authors, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote
a history of Rome, and the Jewish historian Josephus,
author of a history of the Jews. All three authors an-
chor the histories of their respective peoples by dating
the births of the founders (Romulus, Moses and Jesus)
and narrate the stories of the founders’ births from God,
so that they are sons of God. Each founder taught author-
itatively, appeared to witnesses after death, and ascended
to heaven. Crucial aspects of the teaching of all three
concerned the relationship between rich and poor and the
question of whether “foreigners” were to be received into
the people.[19]
The author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the
sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of
material called the L (for Luke) source.[9]
Mark, writ-
ten around 70 CE, provided the narrative outline, but
Mark contains comparatively little of Jesus’ teachings.[20]
For these Luke turned to Q, which consisted mostly, al-
though not exclusively, of “sayings”.[21]
(Most scholars
are reasonably sure that Q existed and that it can be
reconstructed).[22]
Mark and Q account for about 64%
of Luke. The remaining material, known as the L source,
is of unknown origin and date.[23]
Most Q and L-source
material is grouped in two clusters, Luke 6:17-8:3 and
9:51-18:14, and L-source material forms the first two sec-
tion of the gospel (the preface and infancy and childhood
narratives).[24]
1.1.4 Audience and authorial intent
Luke was written to be read aloud to a group of
Jesus-followers gathered in a house to share the Lord’s
supper.[19]
The author assumes an educated Greek-
speaking audience, but directs his attention to specifically
Christian concerns rather than to the Greco-Roman world
at large.[25]
He begins his gospel with a preface addressed
to “Theophilus": the name means “Lover of God,” and
could be an individual or simply any Christian.[26]
Here
he informs Theophilus of his intention, which is to lead
his reader to certainty through an orderly account “of the
events that have been fulfilled among us.”[17]
He did not,
however, intend to provide Theophilus with a historical
justification of the Christian faith – “did it happen?" –
but to encourage faith – “what happened, and what does
it all mean?"[27]

1.3. THEOLOGY 3
1.2 Structure and content
Annunciation(Murillo)
1.2.1 Structure of Luke’s Gospel
Following the author’s preface addressed to his patron and
the two birth narratives (John the Baptist and Jesus), the
gospel opens in Galilee and moves gradually to its climax
in Jerusalem:[28]
1. A brief preface addressed to Theophilus stating the
author’s aims;
2. Birth and infancy narratives for both Jesus and John
the Baptist, interpreted as the dawn of the promised
era of Israel’s salvation;
3. Preparation for Jesus’ messianic mission: John’s
prophetic mission, his baptism of Jesus, and the test-
ing of Jesus’ vocation;
4. The beginning of Jesus’ mission in Galilee, and the
hostile reception there;
5. The central section: the journey to Jerusalem, where
Jesus knows he must meet his destiny as God’s
prophet and messiah;
6. His mission in Jerusalem, culminating in confronta-
tion with the leaders of the Jewish Temple;
7. His last supper with his most intimate followers, fol-
lowed by his arrest, interrogation, and crucifixion;
8. God’s validation of Jesus as Christ: events from the
first Easter to the Ascension, showing Jesus’ death to
be divinely ordained, in keeping with both scriptural
promise and the nature of messiahship, and antici-
pating the story of Acts.[Notes 2]
1.2.2 Parallel structure of Luke-Acts
The structure of Acts parallels the structure of the gospel,
demonstrating the universality of the divine plan and the
shift of authority from Jerusalem to Rome:[29]
The gospel - the acts of Jesus:
• The presentation of the child Jesus at the Temple in
Jerusalem
• Jesus’ forty days in the desert
• Jesus in Samaria/Judea
• Jesus in the Decapolis
• Jesus receives the Holy Spirit
• Jesus preaches with power (the power of the spirit)
• Jesus heals the sick
• Death of Jesus
• The apostles are sent to preach to all nations
The acts of the apostles
• Jerusalem
• Forty days before the Ascension
• Samaria
• Asia Minor
• Pentecost: Christ’s followers receive the spirit
• The apostles preach with the power of the spirit
• The apostles heal the sick
• Death of Stephen, the first martyr for Christ
• Paul preaches in Rome
1.3 Theology
1.3.1 Luke’s “salvation history”
Luke’s theology is expressed primarily through his over-
arching plot, the way scenes, themes and characters com-
bine to construct his specific worldview.[3]
His “salvation
history” stretches from the Creation to the present time

Parable of the Sower (Biserica Ortodoxă din Deal, Cluj-Napoca),
Romania)
of his readers, in three ages: first, the time of “the Law
and the Prophets”, the period beginning with Genesis and
ending with the appearance of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-
3:1); second, the epoch of Jesus, in which the Kingdom
of God was preached (Luke 3:2-24:51); and finally the
period of the Church, which began when the risen Christ
was taken into Heaven, and would end with his second
coming.[30]
1.3.2 Christology
Luke’s understanding of Jesus - his Christology - is cen-
tral to his theology. One approach to this is through the
titles Luke gives to Jesus: these include, but are not lim-
ited to, Christ (Messiah), Lord, Son of God, and Son of
Man.[31]
Another is by reading Luke in the context of sim-
ilar Greco-Roman divine saviour figures (Roman emper-
ors are an example), references which would have made
clear to Luke’s readers that Jesus was the greatest of all
saviours.[32]
A third is to approach Luke through his use
of the Old Testament, those passages from Jewish scrip-
ture which he cites to establish that Jesus is the promised
Messiah.[33]
While much of this is familiar, much also
is missing: for example, Luke makes no clear reference
to Christ’s pre-existence or to the Christian’s union with
Christ, and makes relatively little reference to the concept
of atonement: perhaps he felt no need to mention these
ideas, or disagreed with them, or possibly he was simply
unaware of them.[34]
Even what Luke does say about Christ is ambiguous or
even contradictory.[34]
For example, according to Luke
2:11 Jesus was the Christ at his birth, but in Acts 10:37-38
he becomes Christ at the resurrection, while in Acts 3:20
it seems his messiahship is active only at the parousia, the
"second coming"; similarly, in Luke 2:11 he is the Saviour
from birth, but in Acts 5:31 he is made Saviour at the res-
urrection; and he is born the Son of God in Luke 1:32-
35, but becomes the Son of God at the resurrection ac-
cording to Acts 13:33.[35]
Many of these differences may
be due to scribal error, but others were deliberate alter-
ations to doctrinally unacceptable passages, or the intro-
duction by scribes of “proofs” for their favourite theolog-
ical tenets.[36]
An important example of such deliberate
alterations is found in Luke’s account of the baptism of
Jesus, where virtually all the earliest witnesses have God
saying, “This day I have begotten you.” (Luke has taken
the words of God from Psalm 2, an ancient royal adop-
tion formula in which the king of Israel was recognised as
God’s elect). This reading is theologically difficult, as it
implies that God is now conferring status on Jesus that he
did not previously hold. It is unlikely, therefore, that the
more common reading of Luke3:22 (God says to Jesus,
“You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”) is
original.[37]
1.3.3 The Holy Spirit, the Christian com-
munity, and the kingdom of God
The Holy Spirit plays a more important role in Luke-Acts
than in the other gospels, but it is unclear just what this
means. Some scholars have argued that the Spirit’s in-
volvement in the career of Jesus is paradigmatic of the
universal Christian experience, others that Luke’s inten-
tion was to stress Jesus’ uniqueness as the Prophet of the
final age (in which case he cannot be seen as a model
for later Christians), while many are happy to allow the
ambiguity.[38]
It is clear, however, that Luke understands
the enabling power of the Spirit, expressed through non-
discriminatory fellowship (“All who believed were to-
gether and had all things in common”), to be the basis
of the Christian community.[39]
This community can also
be understood as the Kingdom of God, although the king-
dom’s final consummation will not be seen till the Son of
Man comes “on a cloud” at the end-time.[40]
1.3.4 Christians vs. Rome and the Jews
See also: History of the Jews in the Roman Empire
Luke needed to define the position of Christians in rela-
tion to two political and social entities, the Roman Em-
pire and Judaism. Regarding the Empire Luke makes
clear that, while Christians are not a threat to the estab-
lished order, the rulers of this world hold their power from
Satan, and the essential loyalty of Christ’s followers is to
God and this world will be the kingdom of God, ruled
by Christ the King.[41]
Regarding the Jews, Luke em-
phasises the fact that Jesus and all his earliest followers
were Jews, although by his time the majority of Christ-
followers were gentiles; nevertheless, the Jews had re-
jected and killed the Messiah, and the Christian mission
now lay with the gentiles.[42]

1.6. NOTES 5
1.4 Comparison with other writ-
ings
Supper at Emmaus (Caravaggio).
The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke share so much
in common that they are called the Synoptics, mean-
ing that they frequently cover the same events in similar
and sometimes identical language. The majority opin-
ion among scholars is that Mark was the earliest of the
three (about 70 CE) and that Matthew and Luke both
used this work and the “sayings gospel” known as Q as
their basic sources. Luke has both expanded Mark and
corrected him (corrected his grammar and syntax, that is
- Mark wrote poor Greek). Some passages from Mark he
has eliminated entirely, notably most of chapters 6 and
7, which he apparently felt reflected poorly on the dis-
ciples and painted Jesus too much like a magician. De-
spite this, he follows Mark’s plot more faithfully than does
Matthew.[43]
Despite being grouped with Matthew and Mark, Luke’s
gospel has a number of parallels with the Gospel of John.
For example, Luke uses the terms “Jews” and “Israelites”
in a way unlike Mark, but like John; the figures of Mary
of Bethany and Martha as well as a person named Lazarus
(although Lazarus of Bethany and the Lazarus of the
parable are generally not considered the same person) are
found only in Luke and John; and at Jesus’ arrest, only
Luke and John state that the servant’s right ear was cut
off (there are several such small details found only in Luke
and John).[44]
1.5 See also
• Luke 1 Luke 2 Luke 3 Luke 4 Luke 5 Luke 6 Luke
7 Luke 8 Luke 9 Luke 10 Luke 11 Luke 12 Luke 13
Luke 14 Luke 15 Luke 16 Luke 17 Luke 18 Luke
19 Luke 20 Luke 21 Luke 22 Luke 23 Luke 24
• Authorship of Luke–Acts
• List of Gospels
• List of omitted Bible verses
• Marcion
• Order of St. Luke
• Synoptic Gospels
• Synoptic problem
• Textual variants in the Gospel of Luke
1.6 Notes
[1] Verses 22:19–20 are omitted in Codex Bezae and a hand-
ful of Old Latin manuscripts. Nearly all other manuscripts
including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and
Church Fathers contain the “longer” reading of Luke
22:19 and 20. Verse 22:20, which is very similar to 1 Cor
11:25, provides the only gospel support for the doctrine of
the New Covenant. Verses 22:43–44 are found in West-
ern text-type, are omitted by a diverse number of ancient
witnesses, and are generally marked as such in modern
translations. See Bruce M. Metzger's Textual Commen-
tary on the Greek New Testament for details. P 4
is prob-
ably the earliest witness, dating from the late 2nd century.
It contains Lk 1:58–59, 62–2:1,6–7; 3:8–4:2, 29–32, 34–
35; 5:3–8; 5:30–6:16. P 75
dates from the late 2nd cen-
tury/early 3rd century and contains Lk 3:18–4:2+; 4:34–
5:10; 5:37–18:18+; 22:4–24:53 and John 1:1–11:45, 48–
57; 12:3–13:10; 14:8–15:10. Finally, P 45
(mid-3rd cen-
tury) contains extensive portions of all four Gospels. In
addition to these major early papyri there are 6 other pa-
pyri ( P 3
, P 7
, P 42
, P 69
, P 82
and P 97
) dating from
between the 3rd–8th century which also have small por-
tions of Luke’s Gospel. (See List of New Testament pa-
pyri).
[2] For studies of the literary structure of this Gospel, see re-
cent contributions of Bailey, Goulder and Talbert, in par-
ticular for their readings of Luke’s Central Section. (Al-
most all scholars believe the section begins at 9.51; strong
case, however, can be put for 9.43b.) Then the introduc-
tory pieces to the opening and closing parts that frame
the teaching of the Central Section would exhibit a sig-
nificant dualism: compare 9.43b–45 and 18.31–35. The
Central Section would then be defined as 9.43b–19.48,
'Jesus Journey to Jerusalem and its Temple'. Between the
opening part ('His Setting out', 9.43b–10.24) and the clos-
ing part ('His Arriving', 18.31–19.48) lies a chiasm of
parts 1–5,C,5'–1', 'His Teachings on the Way': 1, 10.25–
42 Inheriting eternal life: law and love; 2, 11.1–13 Prayer:
right praying, persistence, Holy Spirit is given; 3, 11.14–
12.12 The Kingdom of God: what is internal is impor-
tant; 4, 12.13–48 Earthly and Heavenly riches; the com-
ing of the Son of Man; 5, 12.49–13.9 Divisions, warn-
ing and prudence, repentance; C, 13.10–14.24 a Sabbath
healing, kingdom and entry (13.10–30), Jesus is to die in
Jerusalem, his lament for it (13.31–35), a Sabbath healing,
banqueting in the kingdom (14.1–24); 5', 14.25–15.32
Divisions, warning and prudence, repentance; 4', 16.1–31
Earthly and Heavenly riches: the coming judgement; 3',
17.1–37 The kingdom of God is 'within', not coming with

signs; 2', 18.1–17 Prayer: persistence, right praying, re-
ceiving the kingdom; 1', 18.18–30 Inheriting eternal life:
law and love. (All the parts 1–5 and 5'–1' are constructed
of three parts in the style of ABB'.)
1.7 References
[1] Allen 2009, p. 325.
[2] Thompson 2010, p. 319.
[3] Allen 2009, p. 326.
[4] Tremmel 2011, p. 59-60.
[5] Burkett 2002, p. 196.
[6] Theissen & Merz 1996 [tr. 1998], p. 32.
[7] Ehrman 2005, p. 235.
[8] Perkins 2009, p. 250-253.
[9] Johnson 2010, p. 44.
[10] Ehrman 1996, p. 27.
[11] Boring 2012, p. 596.
[12] Ellis 2003, p. 19.
[13] Burkett 2002, p. 195.
[14] Boring 2012, p. 556.
[15] Perkins 1998, p. 253.
[16] Boring 2012, p. 590.
[17] Green 1997, p. 35.
[18] Charlesworth 2008, p. no page number.
[19] Balch 2003, p. 1104.
[20] Hurtado 2005, p. 284.
[21] Ehrman 1999, p. 82.
[22] Ehrman 1999, p. 80.
[23] Powell 1998, p. 39-40.
[24] Burkett 2002, p. 204.
[25] Green 1995, p. 16-17.
[26] Tremmel 2011, p. 58.
[27] Green 1997, p. 36.
[28] Carroll 2012, p. 15-16.
[29] Tremmel 2011, p. 59.
[30] Evans 2011, p. no page numbers.
[31] Powell 1989, p. 60.
[32] Powell 1989, p. 63-65.
[33] Powell 1989, p. 66.
[34] Buckwalter 1996, p. 4.
[35] Ehrman 1996, p. 65.
[36] Miller 2011, p. 63.
[37] Ehrman 1996, p. 66.
[38] Powell 1989, p. 108-111.
[39] Powell 1989, p. 111.
[40] Holladay 2011, p. no page number.
[41] Boring 2012, p. 562.
[42] Boring 2012, p. 563.
[43] Johnson 2010, p. 48.
[44] Boring 2012, p. 576.
1.8 Bibliography
• Allen, O. Wesley, Jr. (2009). “Luke”. In Petersen,
David L.; O'Day, Gail R. Theological Bible Com-
mentary. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Aune, David E. (1988). The New Testament in its
literary environment. Westminster John Knox Press.
ISBN 978-0-664-25018-8.
• Balch, David L. (2003). “Luke”. In Dunn, James D.
G.; Rogerson, John William. Eerdmans Commen-
tary on the Bible. Eerdmans.
• Boring, M. Eugene (2012). An Introduction to
the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology.
Westminster John Knox Press.
• Buckwalter, Douglas (1996). The Character and
Purpose of Luke’s Christology. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
• Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New
Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cam-
bridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7.
• Carroll, John T. (2012). Luke: A Commentary.
Westminster John Knox Press.
• Charlesworth, James H. (2008). The Historical Je-
sus: An Essential Guide. Abingdon Press.
• Collins, Adela Yarbro (2000). Cosmology and Es-
chatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism.
BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11927-7.
• Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Jesus Remembered.
Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2.

1.9. EXTERNAL LINKS 7
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1996). The Orthodox Corruption
of Scripture : The Eﬀect of Early Christological Con-
troversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510279-6.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet
of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Lost Christianities: The
Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew.
Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, E. Earl (2003). The Gospel of Luke. Wipf and
Stock Publishers.
• Evans, Craig A. (2011). Luke. Baker Books.
• Gamble, Harry Y. (1995). Books and Readers in the
Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts.
Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-06918-1.
• Green, Joel (1995). The Theology of the Gospel of
Luke. Cambridge University Press.
• Green, Joel (1997). The Gospel of Luke. Eerdmans.
• Holladay, Carl R. (2011). A Critical Introduction
to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and
Meaning of Jesus Christ. Abingdon Press.
• Hurtado, Larry W. (2005). Lord Jesus Christ: De-
votion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Eerdmans.
ISBN 978-0-8028-3167-5.
• Johnson, Luke Timothy (2010). The New Testa-
ment: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University
Press.
• Lössl, Josef (2010). The Early Church: History and
Memory. Continuum. ISBN 978-0-567-16561-9.
• Miller, Philip M. (2011). “The Least Orthodox
Reading is to be Preferred”. In Wallace, Daniel
B. Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament.
Kregel Academic.
• Morris, Leon (1990). New Testament Theology.
Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-45571-4.
• Perkins, Pheme (1998). “The Synoptic Gospels
and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian
Story”. In Barton, John. The Cambridge companion
to biblical interpretation. Westminster John Knox
Press. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7.
• Perkins, Pheme (2009). Introduction to the Synoptic
Gospels. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-6553-3.
• Powell, Mark Allan (1998). Jesus as a Figure in His-
tory: How Modern Historians View the Man from
Galilee. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-664-25703-3.
• Powell, Mark Allan (1989). What Are They Saying
About Luke?. Paulist Press.
• Strelan, Rick (2013). Luke the Priest - the Authority
of the Author of the Third Gospel. Ashgate Publish-
ing.
• Talbert, Charles H. (2002). Reading Luke: A Lit-
erary and Theological Commentary. Smyth & Hel-
wys.
• Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The histori-
cal Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Eerdmans.
• Thompson, Richard P. (2010). “Luke-Acts: The
Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles”. In
Aune, David E. The Blackwell Companion to The
New Testament. Wiley–Blackwell. p. 319.
• Tremmel, Robert (2011). The Four Gospels. Xlib-
ris.
• Strecker, Georg (2000). Theology of the New Testa-
ment. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-0-664-22336-
6.
• Twelftree, Graham H. (1999). Jesus the miracle
worker: a historical & theological study. InterVar-
sity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-1596-8.
• VanderKam, James C.; Flint, Peter W. (2005). The
meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls: Their signiﬁcance
for understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and
Christianity. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 0-567-
08468-X.
1.9 External links
Online translations of the Gospel of Luke:
• Bible Gateway 35 languages/50 versions at Gospel-
Com.net
• Unbound Bible 100+ languages/versions at Biola
University
• Online Bible at gospelhall.org
• Early Christian Writings; Gospel of Luke: introduc-
tions and e-texts
• French; English translation
Secondary literature:
• Gospel of Luke Reading Room: on-line virtual li-
brary (Tyndale Seminary)
Related articles:
• A Brief Introduction to Luke-Acts is available on-
line.

• B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A study of origins
1924.
• Willker,W (2007), A textual commentary on the
Gospel of Luke, Pub. on-line A very detailed text-
critical discussion of the 300 most important vari-
ants of the Greek text (PDF, 467 pages)

Chapter 2
Authorship of Luke–Acts
The authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of
the Apostles is an important issue for biblical exegetes
who are attempting to produce critical scholarship on the
origins of the New Testament. Tradition holds that the
text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named
in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this
view.
2.1 Common authorship of Luke
and Acts
See also: Luke-Acts
There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author
Ministry of the Apostles. Russian icon by Fyodor Zubov, 1660.
of The Gospel of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts.
These hypothetical connections are dependent upon re-
peating themes that both of these books share. The most
direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book.
Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author’s
patron—and perhaps a label for a Christian community
as a whole as the name means “Lover of God”. Further-
more, the preface of Acts explicitly references “my for-
mer book” about the life of Jesus—almost certainly the
work we know as The Gospel of Luke.
Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological sim-
ilarities between the Luke and Acts. As one scholar
writes,"the extensive linguistic and theological agree-
ments and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke
and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the
same author”.[1]
Because of their common authorship, the
Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles are often jointly
referred to simply as Luke-Acts. Similarly, the author of
Luke-Acts is often known as “Luke”—even among schol-
ars who doubt that the author was actually named Luke.
2.2 Views on authorship
Views concerning the author of Luke-Acts typically take
the following forms:
• Traditional view - Luke the physician as author:
the traditional view that both works were written by
Luke, physician and companion of Paul
• Critical views - Anonymous non-eyewitness: the
view that both works were written by an anony-
mous writer who was not an eyewitness of any of
the events he described, and who had no eyewitness
sources. Or Redaction authorship: the view that
Acts in particular was written (either by an anony-
mous writer or the traditional Luke), using existing
written sources such as a travelogue by an eyewit-
ness.
2.2.1 Traditional view - Luke the physician
as author
The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts
were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul.
Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian,
though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[2][3]
9

10 CHAPTER 2. AUTHORSHIP OF LUKE–ACTS
This Luke is mentioned in Paul’s Epistle to Philemon
(v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally
ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).
The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician
Luke was nearly unanimous in the early Christian church.
The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known
manuscript containing the ending of the gospel (dating to
around 200 AD), uses the subscription “The Gospel Ac-
cording to Luke”. Nearly all ancient sources also shared
this theory of authorship—Irenaeus,[4]
Tertullian,[5]
Clement of Alexandria,[6]
Origen, and the Muratorian
Canon all regarded Luke as the author of the Luke-Acts.
Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer
mentions another tradition about authorship.[7]
In addition to the authorship evidence provided by the
ancient sources, some feel the text of Luke-Acts supports
the conclusion that its author was a companion of Paul.
First among such internal evidence are portions of the
book which have come to be called the “we” passages
(Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28; 28:1-16).
Although the bulk of Acts is written in the third per-
son, several brief sections of the book are written from a
first-person perspective.[8]
These “we” sections are writ-
ten from the point of view of a traveling companion of
Paul: e.g. “After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready
at once to leave for Macedonia”, “We put out to sea and
sailed straight for Samothrace”[9]
Such passages would
appear to have been written by someone who traveled
with Paul during some portions of his ministry. Accord-
ingly, some have used this evidence to support the con-
clusion that these passages, and therefore the entire text
of the Luke-Acts, were written by a traveling companion
of Paul’s. The physician Luke would be one such person.
It has also been argued that level of detail used in the
narrative describing Paul’s travels suggests an eyewitness
source. In 1882 Hobart claimed that the vocabulary used
in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical
training, but this assertion was challenged by an influen-
tial study by Cadbury in 1926 that argued Luke’s medical
terminology was no different than terminology used by
other non physician authors such as Plutarch.[10][11][12]
The traditional view recognizes that Luke was not an eye-
witness of the events in the Gospel, nor of the events prior
to Paul’s arrival in Troas in Acts 16:8, and the first “we”
passage in Acts 16:10.[13]
In the preface to Luke, the au-
thor refers to having eyewitness testimony of events in the
Gospel “handed down to us” and to having undertaken a
“careful investigation”, but the author does not mention
his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to
any of the events, except for the we passages.
2.2.2 Critical view - Authentic letters of
Paul do not refer to Luke as a physi-
cian
The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as
an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name
“Luke” among other “co-workers” of Paul who are send-
ing greetings to the letter’s recipients (Philemon, verse
24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from
Colossians 4:14, but Colossians is widely believed by New
Testament scholars to be not an authentic writing of Paul,
but “pseudonymous”, i.e., written under a false name.[14]
2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a “Luke” and refers to him
being “with me” but most modern scholars do not accept
2 Timothy as an authentic letter of Paul either.[15]
2.2.3 Critical view - the “we” passages as
fragments of earlier source
See also: Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
In the “we” passages, the narrative is written in the first
person plural but the author never refers to himself as “I”
or “me”. Some regard the “we” passages as fragments of
a second document, part of some earlier account, which
was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of
Luke-Acts. Many modern scholars have expressed doubt
that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and
critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly
evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.[16]
In-
stead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anony-
mous Christian author who may not have been an eyewit-
ness to any of the events recorded within the text.
Alternatively Vernon Robbins (1978) regards the “we”
passages a Greek rhetorical device used for sea
voyages.[17]
However, more recent scholars have since
written on the incoherence of Robbins’ sea voyages lit-
erary device theory by arguing that contemporary first-
person accounts were the exception rather than the rule,
that Robbins’ cited literature is too broad in both linguis-
tic range (Egyptian, Greek, and Latin) and its temporal
extent (1800 BC to third century AD), many of the liter-
ary sea voyages cited represented the author’s actual pres-
ence and were not literary devices at all, many of his ex-
amples use the third-person throughout and not just dur-
ing sea voyages, etc.[18]
2.3 Interpretation of the “we” pas-
sages in authorship discussions
The “we” passages--a number of verses in Acts are writ-
ten in the first person plural (“we”) apparently indicat-
ing that the writer is participating in the events he is
describing--were first interpreted by Irenaeus as evidence

2.4. A MALE AUTHOR 11
that the writer was a personal eyewitness of these events,
and a companion of Paul on his travels; the traditional
Luke.[19]
This interpretation had come under sustained
criticism by the middle of the twentieth century.[20]
Although there currently exists no scholarly consensus on
the “we” passages,[21]
three interpretations in particular
have become dominant: a) the writer was a genuine his-
torical eyewitness, b), the writer was redacting existing
written material or oral sources, whether by genuine eye-
witnesses or not, c) use of the first person plural is a de-
liberate stylistic device which was common to the genre
of the work, but which was not intended to indicate a
historical eyewitness.[22][23]
New Testament scholar Bart
Ehrman goes beyond the theory of stylistic insertions to
propose that the “we” passages are deliberate deceptions,
designed to convince readers that the author was a travel-
ling companion of Paul, even though he was not.[24]
2.3.1 Historical eyewitness
The interpretation of the “we” passages as indicative that
the writer was a historical eyewitness (whether Luke the
evangelist or not), remains the most influential in current
biblical studies.[25]
Objections to this viewpoint mainly
take the form of the following two interpretations, but
also include the claim that Luke-Acts contains differences
in theology and historical narrative which are irreconcil-
able with the authentic letters of Paul the apostle.[26]
2.3.2 Redactor
The interpretation of the “we” passages as an earlier writ-
ten source incorporated into Acts by a later redactor
(whether Luke the evangelist or not), acknowledges the
apparent historicity of these texts whilst viewing them as
distinct from the main work.[27][28][29][30][31]
This view
has been criticized for failing to provide sufficient evi-
dence of a distinction between the source text and the
document into which it was incorporated.[32]
2.3.3 Stylistic convention
Noting the use of the “we” passages in the context of
travel by ship, some scholars have view the “we” pas-
sages as a literary convention typical to shipboard voy-
ages in travel romance literature of this period.[33][34][35]
This view has been criticized for failing to find appropri-
ate parallels,[36][37][38][39][40][41]
and for failing to establish
the existence of such a stylistic convention.[42]
Distinc-
tive differences between Acts and the works of a fictional
genre have also been noted, indicating that Acts does not
belong to this genre.[43][44][45]
2.3.4 Forgery
According to Bart D. Ehrman, the “we” passages are writ-
ten by someone falsely claiming to have been a travelling
companion of Paul, in order to present the untrue idea
that the author had firsthand knowledge of Paul’s views
and activities. Ehrman holds that The Acts of the Apos-
tles is thereby shown to be a forgery.[46]
2.4 A male author
The masculine Greek first person past participle “I having
understood” (παρηκολουθηκότι, masculine) in Luke 1:3
1:3 indicates a male author.[47][48]
2.5 References
[1] (Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Tes-
tament Writings, p. 259).
[2] Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto:
Mayfield. 1985. “The Gospels” pp. 266–268
[3] Strelan, Rick - Luke the Priest - the Authority of the Au-
thor of the Third Gospel - Was Luke a Jew or Gentile?
Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., May 1, 2013, pages 102-110.
[4] (Haer. 3.1.1, 3.14.1)
[5] (Marc. 4.2.2)
[6] (Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82)
[7] It should however be noted that the same church fathers
unanimously insisted that the Gospel of Matthew was the
source for the Gospel of Mark. Today, there is scholarly
consensus of just the opposite.
[8] Acts 16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, and 27:1–28:16
[9] Acts 16:10
[10] “Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that
its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Ho-
bart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and
the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician.10
However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving
that Luke showed no more “medical” language than other
educated writers of his day.11 Of course, the healing sto-
ries and “medical” vocabulary are consistent with author-
ship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.”, Black,
M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary.
Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.
[11] “Colossians 4:14 refers to Luke as a doctor. In 1882, Ho-
bart tried to bolster this connection by indicating all the
technical verbal evidence for Luke’s vocation. Despite the
wealth of references Hobart gathered, the case was ren-
dered ambiguous by the work of Cadbury (1926), who
showed that almost all of the alleged technical medical
vocabulary appeared in everyday Greek documents such
as the LXX, Josephus, Lucian, and Plutarch. This meant

that the language could have come from a literate person
within any vocation. Cadbury’s work does not, however,
deny that Luke could have been a doctor, but only that
the vocabulary of these books does not guarantee that he
was one.”, Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50.
Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (7).
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books
[12] Attempts have been made to strengthen the argument for
authorship by a physician by finding examples of medical
phraseology in Luke-Acts; these are too few to be made
the basis of an argument, but there is perhaps just suffi-
cient evidence to corroborate a view more firmly based on
other considerations.”, Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel
of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. The New in-
ternational Greek testament commentary (33–34). Exeter
[Eng.: Paternoster Press.]
[13] The First Christian Historian: Writing the “Acts of the
Apostles” - Page 24 Daniel Marguerat - 2002 It is neces-
sary to investigate more fully Luke’s orchestration of the
convergence of Greek culture and ancient Jewish tradi-
tion, Rome and Jerusalem.76 The 'we-passages’ The 'we-
passages’ (16. 10–17; 20. 5–15; 21. 1–18; 27. 1– 28.
[14] “The cumulative weight of the many differences from the
undisputed Pauline epistles has persuaded most modern
[also some XVI century] scholars that Paul did not write
Colossians ... Those who defend the authenticity of the
letter include Martin, Caird, Houlden, Cannon and Moule.
Some... describe the letter as Pauline but say that it was
heavily interpolated or edited. Schweizer suggests that
Col was jointly written by Paul and Timothy. The posi-
tion taken here is that Col is Deutero-Pauline; it was com-
posed after Paul’s lifetime, between AD 70 (Gnilka) and
AD 80 (Lohse) by someone who knew the Pauline tradi-
tion. Lohse regards Col as the product of a Pauline school
tradition, probably located in Ephesus.” [TNJBC 1990 p.
877]
[15] Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Com-
mentary. Westminster John Knox Press. 2004. p. 4 ISBN
0-664-22247-1
“By the end of the twentieth century New Testament
scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that the
Pastoral Epistles were written some time after Paul’s
death. "
[16] Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Tes-
tament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN
0-385-24767-2.
[17] Robbins, Vernon. “Perspectives on Luke-Acts”, http://
www.christianorigins.com/bylandbysea.html. Originally
appeared in: Perspectives on Luke-Acts. C. H. Talbert,
ed. Perspectives in Religious Studies, Special Studies Se-
ries, No. 5. Macon, Ga: Mercer Univ. Press and Edin-
burgh: T.& T. Clark, 1978: 215-242.
[18] Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles.
Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1997: 483-484.
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_
wepassages.html.
[19] “Irenaeus’s understanding of the “we” passages was for
many centuries the accepted interpretation of them. In-
deed, there was no serious challenge to the author-as-
eyewitness solution until the beginning of the modern pe-
riod a millennium and a half later.”, Campbell, “The “we”
passages in the Acts of the Apostles: the narrator as nar-
rative”, p.3 (2007). Society of Biblical Literature.
[20] “By the second decade of the twentieth century, most Acts
scholars were in agreement that the author had fashioned
the narrative out of a variety of written sources. A number
of them, however, did not accept the source-as-eyewitness
solution to the “we” question.”, Campbell, “The “we” pas-
sages in the Acts of the Apostles: the narrator as narra-
tive”, p. 6 (2007). Society of Biblical Literature.
[21] “Present scholarship still struggles to make sense of the so-
called “we-passages” in Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18;
27:1-28:16.”, Rothschild, “Luke-Acts and the rhetoric of
history”, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
testament 2. Reihe 175, p. 264 (2004). Mohr Siebeck,
Tübingen, Germany.
[22] “Three interpretations dominate: 1) the author offers a
perspective from his own life experience; 2) the author is
in possession of an itinerarium source; and 3) first per-
son plural pronouns represent stylistic insertions.”, Roth-
schild, “Luke-Acts and the rhetoric of history”, Wis-
senschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen testament 2.
Reihe 175, p. 265 (2004). Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Ger-
many.
[23] “Representing the first view are Johannes Munck, The
Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; Garden City: Doubleday
& Co., 1967) xxix-xxxv; Robert Jewett, A chronology of
Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 12-17; Martin
Hengel, Acts and the History of Early Christianity, trans.
John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); German:
Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung (Stuttgart: Cal-
wer, 1979); Clause-Jurgen Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeu-
gen als Historiker der Paulureisen. (WUNT 56; Tubin-
gen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991) 192ff. Representing the sec-
ond are F.D.E Scheleirmacher, W.M.L. de Wette, and W.
Bindemann (“Verkundigter Verkungdiger. Das Paulus-
bild der Wir-Stucke in der Apostelgeschichte: seine Auf-
nahme und Bearbeitung durch Lukas,” ThLZ 114 [1989]
705-20). Dibelius accepted the hypothesis of an itinerary
source: “It must certainly be assumed that Luke had avail-
able as a source for Paul’s Journeys an itinerary of the sta-
tions on the journey” (“The Acts of the Apostles as an
Historical Source,” p. 104); however, Dibelius was never
clear about the relationship between the we-passages and
this source: “I shall not deal with the questions as to
whether the itinerary was the work of the same author
and whether the 'we' was already in the text of this source
or added when the Acts was written, since the answers
to these questions do not affect my examination” (“Paul
on the Areopagus,” p. 73, n. 27).”, Rothschild, “Luke-
Acts and the rhetoric of history”, Wissenschaftliche Un-
tersuchungen zum Neuen testament 2. Reihe 175, p. 265
(2004). Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany.
[24] Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. New York: HarperOne
HarperCollins. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-06-201261-6.

2.5. REFERENCES 13
[25] “A glance at recent extended treatments of the “we” pas-
sages and commentaries demonstrates that, within bibli-
cal scholarship, solutions in the historical eyewitness tra-
ditions continue to be the most influential explanations
for the first-person plural style in Acts. Of the two lat-
est full-length studies on the “we” passages, for example,
one argues that the first-person accounts came from Silas,
a companion of Paul but not the author, and the other pro-
poses that first-person narration was Luke’s (Paul’s com-
panion and the author of Acts) method of communicat-
ing his participation in the events narrated.17 17. Jur-
gen Wehnert, Die Wir-Passegen der Apostelgeschitchte:
Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus judischer Tradition (GTA
40; Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); Claus-
Jurgen Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als His-
toriker der Paulus reisen (WUNT 56; Tugingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1991). See also, Barrett, Acts of the Apostles,
and Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles.”, Campbell, “The
“we” passages in the Acts of the Apostles: the narrator
as narrative”, p. 8 (2007). Society of Biblical Literature.
[26] “The principle essay in this regard is P. Vielhauer, 'On the
“Paulinism” of Acts’, in L.E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.),
Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975),
33-50, who suggests that Luke’s presentation of Paul was,
on several fronts, a contradiction of Paul’s own letters (e.g.
attitudes on natural theology, Jewish law, christology, es-
chatology). This has become the standard position in Ger-
man scholarship, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts; J. Roloff, Die
Apostelgeschichte (NTD; Berlin: Evangelische, 1981) 2-
5; Schille, Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, 48-52. This po-
sition has been challenged most recently by Porter, “The
Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Some Common
Misconceptions’, in his Paul of Acts, 187-206. See also
I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (TNTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans; Leister: InterVarsity Press, 1980) 42-
44; E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 2nd
edn, 1974) 45-47.”, Pearson, “Corresponding sense: Paul,
dialectic, and Gadamer”, Biblical Interpretation Series, p.
101 (2001). Brill.
[27] “The “we” passages appear so unobtrusively that the most
natural way to read them is still the quiet presence of the
author or a source.”, Sterling, “Historiography and self-
definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Histori-
ography”, p. 326 (1992). Brill.
[28] “Dibelius accepted the hypothesis of an intinerary source:
“It must certainly be assumed that Luke had available as a
source for Paul’s Journeys an intinerary of the stations on
the journey” (“The Acts of the Apostles as an Historical
Source,” p. 104); however, Dibelius was never clear about
the relationship between the we-passages and this source:
“I shall not deal with the questions as to whether the in-
tinerary was the work of the same author and whether the
'we' was already in the text of this source or added when
the Acts was written, since the answers to these questions
do not affect my examination” (“Paul on the Areopagus,”
p. 73, n. 27).”, Rothschild, “Luke-Acts and the rhetoric of
history”, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
testament 2. Reihe 175, p. 265 (2004). Mohr Siebeck,
Tübingen, Germany.
[29] “We are on terra firma to recognize that Paul had a com-
panion named Luke. We also know that this Luke came
to be associated with the authorship of Luke-Acts on the
basis of the “we” passages from Acts. It is possible that
Luke, Paul’s companion, is the source for the “we” pas-
sages in Acts and perhaps for more of the material in Acts
13-28. This Luke would be a second generation Chris-
tian. (Paul must be considered a first generation Chris-
tian.) towards the end of the first century (see below)
a third generation Christian - who had not accompanied
Paul - using Luke as his authority for the latter hallf of
Acts composed Luke-Acts. It is impossible to say whether
the author knew Luke personally or had a written source,
although the unanimity of the tradition suggests a strong
(and therefore personal) connection between the author
and Paul’s traveling companion.”, Sterling, “Historiogra-
phy and self-definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apolo-
getic Historiography”, p. 326 (1992). Brill.
[30] “Porter argues that the “we” sections were a source doc-
ument that the author of Acts used, preserving its first-
person form. S. Porter, “The 'We' Passages,” in The Book
of Acts in its Greco-Roman Setting, ed. D.W.J. Gill
and C.H. Gemph (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 545-
574.”, Allen, “Lukan Authorship of Hebrews”, p. 125
(2010). B&H Publishing Group.
[31] “I conclude that the “we” passages were a previously writ-
ten source used by the author of Acts, probably not orig-
inating with him.”, Porter, “The Paul of Acts: essays in
literary criticism, rhetoric, and theology”, p. 11 (1999).
Mohr Siebeck.
[32] “Although Porter’s argument is certainly possible, it is
not sufficient in my view to overturn the traditional view
that the author of the “we” passages was Luke himself.
Schmidt concluded from his study of the style of the “we”
sections that no basis exists for isolating this material from
the rest of Acts. He found insufficient evidence to suggest
that the “we” sections were either added to a source or
retained from a source, even a source from the same au-
thor. D. Schmidt, “Syntactical Style in the 'We'-Sections
of Acts: How Lukan is it?" SBLSP, ed. D. Lull (At-
lanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 300-8. Edmundson’s point
is well-taken: “There are few passages in ancient histori-
cal literature more clearly the work not merely of a con-
temporary writer but of an observant eyewitness in than
is the narrative contained in the last seven chapters of
Acts” (The Church in Rome in the First Century [Lon-
don: Longmans, 1913], 87).”, Allen, “Lukan Authorship
of Hebrews”, p. 125 (2010). B&H Publishing Group.
[33] Plumacher, Eckhard, “Lukas als hellenistischer Schrift-
steller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte”, SUNT 9; Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.1972.
[34] Pervo, Richard I, “Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre
of the Acts of the Apostles”. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
1987
[35] Robbins, VK “By Land and by Sea: The We-Passages and
Ancient Sea Voyages.” Perspectives in Luke-Acts. Ed.
CH Talbert. Danville, Va. : Association of Baptist Pro-
fessors of Religion, 1978, 215-242.

[36] “The conventional eyewitness proposals advocating a sea-
voyage genre (Robbins) or the customary practices of his-
toriography (Plumacher) have been shown to lack suffi-
cient clear parallels in ancient literature on which the ar-
guments for them rely, a weakness that Plumacher him-
self acknowledges.”, Campbell, “The “we” passages in the
Acts of the Apostles: the narrator as narrative”, p. 11
(2007). Society of Biblical Literature.
[37] “Likewise, the theory that Luke is simply employing a
common literary convention characteristic of sea-voyage
narratives has proven an inadequate explanation for the
full range of “we” passages in Acts.”, Bonz, “The past
as legacy: Luke-Acts and ancient epic”, p. 10(2000).
Fortress Press.
[38] “Some have cited passages from Achilles Tatius (2.31.6;
3.1.1; 4.9.6) and Heliodorus (5.17) as illustrating the use
of the first person sea-voyage convention in the ancient
novelists. Pervo is probably wise in not suggesting these as
parallels, however, since they are not the kind of sustained
usage of the 'we' convention in narrative that the hypoth-
esis requires or that is found in the book of Acts. Fur-
thermore, the sea-voyage convention is not established by
usage in the Odyssey, including the passage cited by Pervo
above, as well as Vergil’s Aeneid (3.5) or any number of
other writers sometimes mentioned (see section III below
for further discussion).”, Porter, “The 'We' Passages”, in
Gill & Gempf (eds.), “The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-
Roman Setting”, p. 553 (1994). Eerdmans.
[39] “The literary genres are not similar enough to constitute
parallels, the instances of first person usage are often in-
comparable because they are too brief or are first-hand
accounts by the actual authors or clearly reflect a flash-
back technique, and there is not the kind of straightfor-
ward equation with the sea voyage that would be necessary
to establish this as an ancient literary type.”, Porter, “The
'We' Passages”, in Gill & Gempf (eds.), “The Book of
Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting”, p. 558 (1994). Eerd-
mans.
[40] “In her study, Praeder, after comparison of ancient sea
voyage accounts, concludes that these accounts are quite
varied in style and approach, with none of them a true
parallel with the accounts in Acts 27-28. She concludes:
“Thus the fact that Acts 27:1-8 and 28:11-16 are trav-
elogues is no guarantee of their literary genre, reliabil-
ity or unreliability, or purpose in Acts 27:1-28:16."25 25
S.M. Praeder, 'Acts 27:1-1:28:16: Sea Voyages in An-
cient Literature and the Theology of Luke-Acts,” CBQ 46
(1984) 688.”, Porter, “The Paul of Acts: essays in literary
criticism, rhetoric, and theology”, p. 18 (1999). Mohr
Siebeck.
[41] “Whatever the function of the first person in the 'we-
passage', it is not used in the Herodotean fashion to pro-
vide comment on the narrated from the perspective of a
detached observer. On the contrary, this author projects
himself as a participant in the action who explicitly shares
the religious perspective of his characters: cf. 16.10,
where the narrator identifies himself with the group which
shares both in the theological interpretation of Paul’s vi-
sion and in the commission which it implies.”, Alexander,
“Acts in its ancient literary context: a classicist looks at
the Acts of the Apostles”, Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplement, p. 158 (2007). Continuum
Publishing Group.
[42] “For example, not only does Pervo overstate the impor-
tance and significance of the shipwreck motif, present in
part in the “we” passages, but he gives a distorted view of
its relationship to Acts in the ancient novels. He claims to
show that the major features of the convention of the ship-
wreck appear in Acts. In the parallels that he cites from
the ancient novelists, however, not one of the sources he
cites has all of the features that Acts does. His model of
the shipwreck is apparently his own reconstruction of this
type, and not one found in ancient literature in the kind of
detail that he claims, or that is necessary to establish the
validity of the parallel.”, Porter, “The Paul of Acts: essays
in literary criticism, rhetoric, and theology”, p. 18 (1999).
Mohr Siebeck.
[43] “All of this suggests that, from the perspective of at least
one group of ancient readers (readers, that is, attuned to
this Greek literary debate), Acts might well be classed at
first sight as fiction. Nevertheless, there are disturbing
features about the construction of Luke’s narrative which
make it difficult to sustain this classification. The ex-
otic setting does not quite live up to the expectations of
the novel-reader. Syria-Palestine turns out to be neither
bandit-infested wilderness nor pastoral countryside, but a
network of cities and streets which exhibit much the same
humdrum features as the rest of the Mediterranean world.
Travel takes place not in the archaic fantasy landscape of
Greek romance but in the real, contemporary world of
the Roman empire, and it is described in intensely (even
boringly) realistic terms; unlike the novelists, this narra-
tor takes the trouble to find out about winds and harbours,
cargoes and ports of call. The shipwreck (and there is only
one, as against Paul’s three: 2 Cor. 11.25) is described in
dramatic but realistic terms - and there is no divine in-
tervention, only a private vision to reassure the hero that
the ship’s passengers, will survive. The miracles which
punctuate the narrative also have unusual features for the
Greek reader. Unlike the 'marvels’ of the Greek novels,
they are presented as real events of supernatural origin,
not coincidences or dramatic fakes.”, Alexander, “Acts in
its ancient literary context: a classicist looks at the Acts of
the Apostles”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement, pp. 158-159 (2007). Continuum Publishing
Group.
[44] “Unlike the novels, however, Acts provides no final resolu-
tion for its characters’ pathe. It has an open-ended charac-
ter which dissipates any feel of romantic fantasy: suffering
and conflict are part of the agenda for the foreseeable fu-
ture (Acts 20.29-30, 14.22), and Paul’s trial narrative has
no happy ending.”, Alexander, “Acts in its ancient liter-
ary context: a classicist looks at the Acts of the Apostles”,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement,
p. 159 (2007). Continuum Publishing Group.
[45] Witherington B., The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary. Carlisle: Paternoster Press
1998, 22-23, 53-54, 480ff
[46] Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. New York: HarperOne
HarperCollins. pp. 206–208. ISBN 978-0-06-201261-6.

2.5. REFERENCES 15
[47] The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to
the New Testamenmt Page 258 Andreas J. Köstenberger, L.
Scott Kellum, Charles Quarles - 2009 " The Greek participle
parēkolouthēkoti (“having carefully investigated”) in 1:3 is
masculine.”
[48] New Testament masculinities - Page 285 Stephen D.
Moore, Janice Capel Anderson - 2004 Although some in-
terpreters have suggested that this author was a woman,
the masculine participle in 1:3 (parekolouthekoti, Luke
1:3) establishes a masculine persona for the narrator
(D'Angelo 1990a: 443).

Chapter 3
List of Bible verses not included in modern
translations
This is a list of Bible verses in the New Testament that
are present in the King James Version (KJV) but absent
from some Bible translations completed after the publi-
cation of The New Testament in the Original Greek in
1881 and the later Novum Testamentum Graece (ﬁrst
published in 1898 and revised many times since that
date). These editions of the Greek text took into ac-
count early manuscripts of the New Testament which had
not been available to translators before the 19th century,
notably those of the Alexandrian text-type.[1]
The verses
are present in the New King James Version, published
in 1979, as well as the New American Standard Bible,
though for most verses these translations include foot-
notes indicating doubts about their authenticity.
Most modern textual scholars consider these verses
interpolations, or additions by later authors, but excep-
tions include advocates of the Byzantine or Majority Text
and of the Received Text. When a verse is omitted, later
ones in the same chapter retain their traditional number-
ing. Apart from omitted entire verses, there are other
omitted words and phrases in some modern translations
such as the famous Comma Johanneum.
Bart D. Ehrman believes that some of the most known
of these verses were not part of the original text of the
New Testament. “These scribal additions are often found
in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but
not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries,” he adds.
“And because the King James Bible is based on later
manuscripts, such verses became part of the Bible tra-
dition in English-speaking lands.”[2]
This same sentiment
is expressed by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John
Anthony Hort.
3.1 New International Version
The designation omitted Bible verses is used here in a tech-
nical sense to indicate text for which a verse number has
been reserved but which is not present. In particular these
speciﬁc verses are not in the New International Version
(NIV) main text. For some of the verses, there is a pos-
sible reasoning for “omission”.
Note: In the New International Version, the following
verses are absent from the main text, but have been trans-
lated for inclusion in the footnotes(fn). An NIV trans-
lation has been provided on the page to have a modern
translation available. NIV is generally in agreement with
the Nestle-Aland editions of the Greek New Testament
which relegate such verses to the margin.
Update: The NIV2011 no longer has some of the verses
that were included in footnotes in the 1984 and previous
versions of the NIV.
3.1.1 Matthew 17:21
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting.
NIVfn: But this kind does not go out except by prayer and
fasting.
NIV2011fn: Some manuscripts include here words simi-
lar to Mark 9:29.[3]
Reason: It is possible that this verse is a duplicate of Mark
9:29.[4]
3.1.2 Matthew 18:11
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was
lost.
NIVfn: The Son of Man came to save what was lost.
NIV2011fn: Some manuscripts include here the words of
Luke 19:10. [5]
Reason: According to Bruce Metzger, this verse was
“manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10.”[6]
3.1.3 Matthew 23:14
KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make
long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damna-
tion.
16

3.1. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION 17
NIVfn: Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites! You devour widows’ houses and for a
show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be pun-
ished more severely.
lar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.[7]
3.1.4 Mark 7:16
KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
NIVfn: If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.
4:23.[8]
3.1.5 Mark 9:44/Mark 9:46
KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched.
NIVfn: where “their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched.”
verse 48.[9]
Reason: These two verses are identical to Mark 9:48.
Update: The NIV©2011 has changed their singular
worm to plural:
NIV2011: 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not
die, and the fire is not quenched.’[c]
[c] Mark 9:48 Isaiah 66:24
3.1.6 Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father
which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIVfn: But if you do not forgive, neither will your Fa-
ther who is in heaven forgive your sins.
lar to Matt. 6:15.[10]
3.1.7 Mark 15:28
KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, “And
he was numbered with the transgressors.”
NIVfn: and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “He
was counted with the lawless ones.”
lar to Luke 22:37.[11]
3.1.8 Mark 16:9–20
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the
week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom
he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him,
as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and
had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of
them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither
believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at
meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hard-
ness of heart, because they believed not them which had
seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands
on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was
received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the
Lord working with them, and confirming the word with
signs following. Amen.[12]
3.1.9 Luke 17:36
KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken,
and the other left.
NIVfn: Two men will be in the field; one will be taken
and the other left.
lar to Matt. 24:40.[13]
Reason: It is possible that this verse is a duplicate of
Matthew 24:40. Verse is included by very few Greek
manuscripts of the Western text-type and by Old-Latin
and Vulgate manuscripts.[14]
3.1.10 Luke 23:17
KJV: For of necessity he must release one unto them at
the feast.
NIVfn: Now he was obliged to release one man to them
at the Feast.
NIV2011fn Some manuscripts include here words similar
to Matt. 27:15 and Mark 15:6.[15]

18 CHAPTER 3. LIST OF BIBLE VERSES NOT INCLUDED IN MODERN TRANSLATIONS
3.1.11 John 5:3–4
KJV: 3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk,
of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the wa-
ter. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the
pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after
the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of
whatsoever disease he had.
NIVfn: From time to time an angel of the Lord would
come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the
pool after each such disturbance would be cured of what-
ever disease he had.[16]
(Note above that not only is verse 4 omitted, but the tail
end of verse 3.)
3.1.12 John 7:53-8:11
7:53 Then they all went home, 8:1 but Jesus went to the
Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where
all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to
teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees
brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her
stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this
woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law
Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what
do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in
order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground
with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him,
he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you
who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8
Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a
time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with
the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up
and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one
condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go
now and leave your life of sin.”
NIVfn: The earliest manuscripts and many other an-
cient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few
manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after
John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.[17]
Although this verse has been proven not to have been
placed after John 7:52 in the earliest manuscripts, some
biblical scholars [18]
believe that it was an original oral
source from the earliest followers of Jesus that was later
included by scribes.
3.1.13 Acts 8:37
KJV: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
NIVfn: “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The
eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God.”[19]
Reason: The earliest Greek manuscript (Ea
/E2) of the
New Testament to include this verse dates from the
late sixth or early seventh century[20]
and it is only
found in Western witnesses to the text with many minor
variations.[21]
The majority of Greek manuscripts copied
after 600 AD and the majority of translations made af-
ter 600 AD do not include the verse.[22][23][24][25]
The
tradition of the confession was current in the time of
Irenaeus[26]
as it is cited by him (c. 180)[27]
and Cyprian
(c. 250)[28]
“For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is
described as at once baptized by Philip, because “he be-
lieved with his whole heart,” this is not a fair parallel. For
he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord
he was reading the prophet Isaiah,” (Cyprian) and is found
in the Old Latin (2nd/3rd century) and the Vulgate (380–
400). In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading
from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it into the Tex-
tus Receptus.[29]
J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested that
this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes,
“as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which
had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of
the 3rd century.”[30]
3.1.14 Acts 15:34
KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
NIVfn: but Silas decided to remain there[31]
Reason: Majority of manuscripts do not contain this
verse (only Codex Bezae, some Old-Latin and Vulgate
manuscripts).[32]
3.1.15 Acts 24:6p–7
KJV: 6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple:
whom we took, and would have judged according to our
law. 7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and
with great violence took him away out of our hands, 8
Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by exam-
ining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these
things, whereof we accuse him.
NIVfn: him and wanted to judge him according to our
law. 7 But the commander, Lysias, came and with the use
of much force snatched him from our hands 8 and ordered
his accusers to come before you. By[33]
(Note above that not only is verse 7 omitted, but also the
end of verse 6 and beginning of verse 8.)

3.5. REFERENCES 19
3.1.16 Acts 28:29
KJV: And when he had said these words, the Jews de-
parted, and had great reasoning among themselves.
NIVfn: After he said this, the Jews left, arguing vigorously
among themselves. [34]
3.1.17 Romans 16:24
KJV: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
Amen.
NIVfn: May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
all of you. Amen. [35]
3.2 Other English translations
O = omitted in main text.
B = bracketed in the main text – The translation team and
most biblical scholars today believe were not part of the
original text. However, these texts have been retained in
brackets in the NASB and the Holman CSB.[36]
F = omission noted in the footnote.
B+F = bracketed in the main text and omission noted in
the footnote.
3.3 Versification differences
Some English translations have minor versification dif-
ferences compared with the KJV. One example follows:
3.3.1 2 Corinthians 13:14
The KJV has:
12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
13 All the saints salute you.
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.
In some translations, verse 13 is combined with verse 12,
leaving verse 14 renumbered as verse 13.[37]
3.4 See also
• Authority (textual criticism)
• Bible version debate
• Biblical manuscript
• Categories of New Testament manuscripts
• An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions
of Scripture
• King James Only movement
• List of major textual variants in the New Testament
• Modern English Bible translations
• Textual criticism
• Textual variants in the New Testament
• Textus Receptus
• Western non-interpolations
Disputed passages
• Comma Johanneum
• John 21
• Mark 16
• Pericope Adulteræ
3.5 References
[1] Metzger, Bruce M. The text of the New Testament OUP
(1964) pp.129ff.
[2] Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind
Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005,
p. 265. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4
[3] Matthew 17:21
[4] Translation errors and forgeries in the Bible religioustol-
erance.org
[5] Matthew 18:11
[6] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament (Stuttgart: UBS, 1975), 45.
[7] Matthew 23:14
[8] Mark 7:16
[9] Mark 9:43–48
[10] Mark 11:26
[11] Mark 15:28
[12]
[13] Luke 17:36
[14] NA27, p. 218; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary
on the Greek New Testament, pp. 142–143.
[15] Luke 23:17
[16] John 5:4
[17]

20 CHAPTER 3. LIST OF BIBLE VERSES NOT INCLUDED IN MODERN TRANSLATIONS
[18] Bauckham
[19] Acts 8:37
[20] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament Oxford
(1964) p.52
[21] Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament UBS (1971) p. 359
[22] Becker, Siegbert W., Verbal Inspiration and the Vari-
ant Readings, stating: "The fact is that all truly ancient
manuscripts omit it entirely, and that almost all very late
manuscripts omit it in whole or in part."
[23] “Acts 8:37 - Why Omitted in NIV?". WELS Topical Q&A.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from
the original on 2 Dec 2013. Retrieved 29 Jan 2015.
[24] “Acts 8:37 - Decision Theology?". WELS Topical Q&A.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from
the original on 27 Sep 2009. Retrieved 29 Jan 2015.
The NIV places Acts 8:37 in a footnote because the pre-
ponderance of manuscript evidence indicates that these
words are not part of the original text of Acts. None
of the Greek manuscripts of the NT include these words
before 600 A.D. None of the early translations of the
NT include these words before 600 A.D. Only a couple
Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D. and only a cou-
ple translations made after 600 A.D. include these words.
The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D.
and the majority of translations made after 600 A.D. do
not include these words. It is most unlikely, therefore, that
these words are really part of the Bible.
[25] “Acts 8:37 - Faith Before Baptism Omitted In NIV”.
WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran
Synod. Archived from the original on 27 Sep 2009. Re-
trieved 29 Jan 2015. Acts 8:37 is omitted because the
early witnesses to the New Testament text indicate that
this was added to the text by someone for some reason
between 500 and 700 A.D. The many witnesses we have
to the NT text before that time do not include these words.
[26] Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament UBS (1971) p. 360
[27] Citation on this verse by Irenaeus (c. AD 180): "[Philip
declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was
fulﬁlled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself:
and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I be-
lieve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” This man was also
sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had
himself believed, that there was one God preached by the
prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made
[His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem)"
(Irenaeus (AD 140–200). Against Heresies. Book III).
[28] Citation by Cyprian: “For although in the Acts of the
Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by
Philip, because “he believed with his whole heart,” this is
not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from
the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah,”
(Cyprian (200–258). The Life and Passion of Cyprian,
Bishop and Martyr. paragraph 3)
[29] Edward F. Hills (1912–1981), “The King James Ver-
sion Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament
Manuscripts” (1956). Chapter 8, The Christian Research
Press; 4th edition (August 1997) ISBN 0915923009
ISBN 978-0915923007
[30] The Acts Of The Apostles, by J. A. Alexander, New York:
Scribner, 1967, vol. 1, pp. 349–350.
[31] Acts 15:34
[32] NA26, p. 478.
[33] Acts 24:7
[34] Acts 28:29
[35] Romans 16:24
[36] See Introduction to the Holman Christian Standard Bible
2005 – Removed from 2009 edition – They were re-
tained because of their 'undeniable antiquity and their
value for tradition and the history of NT interpretation in
the church.'
[37] Wycliﬀe, Geneva, Webster and NRSV, NAB, CEV, CEB,
GW, GNT, HCSB

Chapter 4
Order of St. Luke
For the unrelated inter-denominational religious order,
see International Order of St. Luke the Physician.
The Order of Saint Luke (OSL) is an religious order in
Order of St. Luke logo
The United Methodist Church, dedicated to sacramental
and liturgical scholarship, education, and practice.[1]
As a Christian religious order, it is a dispersed com-
munity of women and men, lay and clergy, from many
different denominations, seeking to live the sacramental
life. “Membership in The Order is open to persons of all
Christian denominations who seek to live the sacramen-
tal life in accordance with our Rule of Life and Service,
in community with and acceptance of their brothers and
sisters in the Order.”
The Order gathers annually in mid-October for several
days of worship, fellowship, and administration.
The Order proclaims itself as Wesleyan and Lukan in its
spirituality, Methodist in its origins, sacramental in its
practice, and ecumenical in its outlook.
4.1 History
The Order of St Luke was founded in 1946 in the for-
mer Methodist Church and holds the status of Affiliate
Organization with the Section on Worship of the General
Board of Discipleship of the United Methodist Church.
The Order was formed under the leadership of the Rev.
R. P. Marshall, a former editor of the Christian Advocate.
It was dedicated to the cause of liturgical renewal, and
led the way in a serious liturgical awakening across the
Methodist Church and much of post-war Protestantism.
It was inspired partly by the existence of the Methodist
Sacramental Fellowship, which serves a similar purpose
in relation to the Methodist Church of Great Britain.
A maturing comprehension of liturgical re-
newal in an ecumenical era has become the
guiding vision of members within the Order,
just as it has become a dawning concern in the
minds of many persons in the Church presently
outside the Order. Recent evidence of this
emerging vision may be seen in the design of
the official worship books of many denomina-
tions.
The additional emphasis of directed spiri-
tual formation, adopted in 1980, sets the direc-
tion in which the Order believes itself called.
While it will shun doctrinaire positions, the
Order is dedicated to the task of breaking down
the barriers of historical ignorance, theologi-
cal sectarianism and liturgical illiteracy in the
Church. The Order has no special revelation
about the future of the emerging ecumenical
consensus, but will do what it can to encourage
the people called Christian to look outward and
work toward the greater Church which God is
surely gathering for Christ' s sake from a bro-
ken Christendom.
4.2 OSL Publications
A major ministry of the Order of Saint Luke is OSL Pub-
lications. This ministry specializes in providing printed
21

22 CHAPTER 4. ORDER OF ST. LUKE
resources for those who lead worship and scholarly re-
sources for those interested in liturgical matters.
Publications include resources on liturgy, church archi-
tecture, prayer, theology, worship, spirituality, sacra-
ments, and music.
OSL publishes three periodicals:
• Doxology - This is the annual journal with contri-
butions from writers in the areas of liturgical and
sacramental scholarship. It is a “juried” or “refer-
eed” journal which offers a service to the academic
world as well as those who are involved in the ac-
tive practice of ministry in its many contexts. It is
published in late Summer/early Fall.
• Sacramental Life - This journal is published four
times a year. It is designed to provide theologi-
cally sound reports of developments from across the
church-at-large. Rather than have a theoretical or
scholarly approach, the articles and liturgical aids
have been practically proven and have grown out of
the experiences of people “in the trenches.”
• The Font - A once every two months in-house paper
helping members to keep current on what is happen-
ing with their brothers and sisters around the world.
4.3 Leadership
General Officers
• Current Abbot- Brother Daniel Benedict (Invested
on Oct 15, 2008)
• (most recent) Former abbot - Brother Mark W.
Stamm
• Prior-General - Sister E. Sue Moore
• Chancellor-General - Brother Scott Alford
• Provincial-General - Brother George Crisp
Appointed Officers
• Chaplain-General: Sr. Anne Ferguson
• Webscribe: Br. Roger Baker
• Pastoral Care Officer: Br. David Eichelberger
• Companion for Inquirers and New Members: Br.
Matthias Tanner
• Immediate Past Chancellor-General: Br. W. Brent
Sturm
4.4 References
[1] “The Order of Saint Luke”. 2014. Retrieved 17 May
2014. The following description of The Order comes
from our mission statement: A religious order in the
United Methodist Church dedicated to sacramental and
liturgical scholarship, education, and practice.
4.5 See also
• Saint Brigid of Kildare Methodist-Benedictine
Monastery
• Order of Watchers, a French Protestant association
of hermits.
• Bose Monastic Community
• Dusty Miller, Methodist martyr of World War II.
4.6 External links
• Official site
• Rule of Life & Service
• Publications
• United Methodist Church Affiliated Organizations

Chapter 5
Synoptic Gospels
The calming of the storm is similarly recounted in each of the
three synoptic gospels, but not in John.
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to
as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of
the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar
wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is
comparatively distinct. The term synoptic (Latin: synop-
ticus; Ancient Greek: συνοπτικός synoptikos) comes via
Latin from the Greek σύνοψις synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing
all together, synopsis";[n 1]
the sense of the word in En-
glish, the one specifically applied to these three Gospels,
of “giving an account of the events from the same point
of view or under the same general aspect” is a modern
one.[1]
This strong parallelism among the three gospels in con-
tent, arrangement, and specific language is widely at-
tributed to literary interdependence.[2]
The question of
the precise nature of their literary relationship—the “syn-
optic problem”—has been a topic of lively debate for cen-
turies and has been described as “the most fascinating
literary enigma of all time”.[3]
The longstanding major-
ity view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew
and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as
a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also
drew from an additional hypothetical document, called
Q.[4]
Relationships between the
Synoptic Gospels
Unique to
Mark
Mark and
Matthew
Mark and
Luke
Unique to
Luke
Double
Tradition
Unique to
Matthew
Triple
Tradition
35% 23%
41%1% 45%
25% 20%
10%
76%
18%
3%
MARK
MATT.LUKE
3%
Almost all of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and much of
Mark is similarly found in Luke. Additionally, Matthew and Luke
have a large amount of material in common that is not found in
Mark.
5.1 Structure
5.1.1 Common features
Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to
John: all are composed in Koine Greek, have a similar
length, and were completed within a century of Jesus’
death. And they differ from non-canonical sources, such
as the Gospel of Thomas, in that they belong to the an-
cient genre of biography,[5][6]
collecting not only Jesus’
teachings, but recounting in an orderly way his origins,
his ministry and miracles, and his passion and resurrec-
tion.
In content and in wording, though, the synoptics di-
verge widely from John but have a great deal in com-
23

24 CHAPTER 5. SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
mon with each other. Though each gospel includes some
unique material, the majority of Mark and roughly half of
Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same
sequence, often nearly verbatim. This common material
is termed the triple tradition.
5.1.2 The triple tradition
The triple tradition, the material included by all three syn-
optic gospels, includes many stories and teachings:
• John the Baptist
• Baptism and temptation of Jesus
• First disciples of Jesus
• Hometown rejection of Jesus
• Healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, demoniacs, a
leper, and a paralytic
• Call of the tax collector
• New Wine into Old Wineskins
• Man with withered Hand
• Commissioning the twelve Apostles
• The Beelzebul controversy
• Teachings on the parable of the strong man, eternal
sin, His true relatives, the parable of the sower, the
lamp under a bushel, and the parable of the mustard
seed
• Calming the storm
• The Gerasene demoniac
• The daughter of Jairus and the bleeding woman
• Feeding the 5000
• Confession of Peter
• Transfiguration
• The demoniac boy
• The little children
• The rich young man
• Jesus predicts his death
• Blind near Jericho
• Palm Sunday
• Casting out the money changers
• Render unto Caesar
• Woes of the Pharisees
• Second Coming Prophecy
• The Last Supper, passion, crucifixion, and
entombment
• The empty tomb and resurrected Jesus
• Great Commission
Furthermore, the triple tradition’s pericopae (passages)
tend to be arranged in much the same order in all three
gospels. This stands in contrast to the material found in
only two of the gospels, which is much more variable in
order.[7][8]
The classification of text as belonging to the triple tradi-
tion (or for that matter, double tradition) is not always
definitive, depending rather on the degree of similar-
ity demanded. For example, Matthew and Mark report
the cursing of the fig tree[Mt 21:18–22][Mk 11:12–24]
, clearly
a single incident, despite some substantial differences of
wording and content. Searching Luke, however, we find
only the parable of the barren fig tree[Lk 13:6–9]
, in a dif-
ferent point of the narrative. Some would say that Luke
has extensively adapted an element of the triple tradition,
while others would regard it as a distinct pericope.
Example
Christ cleansing a leper by Jean-Marie Melchior Doze, 1864.
An illustrative example of the three texts in parallel is the
healing of the leper:[9]

Gospel of Luke Synopitic Gospels and Authorship Bible Study

Gospel of Luke Synopitic Gospels and Authorship Bible Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Sister Lara

More from Sister Lara (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Gospel of Luke Synopitic Gospels and Authorship Bible Study