|
The BibleTexts.com Bible Commentary Copyright 1996-2004 Robert Nguyen Cramer LUKE Chapters |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| Other resources |
"Kai <and> eiselthon <having gone in> pros <to> auten <her> eipen <he said>, chaire <Greetings, or Be full of joy>, kecharitomene <one having been favored>, ho <the> kurios <Lord> meta <with> sou <you>."
The NRSV correctly reads:
"And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
It is only the King James Version and other less accurate (and generally older) versions that have the errors in Luk 1:28. They are based upon the so-called Textus Receptus. (For a history of the Textus Receptus, browse: http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm.) Sometime during the transmission of Luk 1:28, copyists added two different phrases that appear translated in the KJV: "the angel" and "blessed art thou among women."
| Other resources |
In accordance with the original Greek text, this change reflects a correction of the errant 16th century Greek text from which the KJV was translated. Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 111) comments:
The difference between the AV [KJV], "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men," and the RSV, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!" is not merely a matter of exegesis of the meaning of the Greek, but is first of all one of text criticism. Does the Angelic Hymn close with eudokia [nominative] or eudokias [genitive]?
The genitive case, which is the more difficult reading, is supported by the oldest representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses. The rise of the nominative reading can be explained either as an amelioration of the sense or as a palaeographical oversight...
The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God's peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure...
Luk 2:14 correctly reads:
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!
Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 111-112) comments:
In order to safeguard the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, ho pater [the father] was replace by Ioseph [Joseph] in a variety of witnesses...
Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 112) comments:
In the interest of safeguarding the doctrine of the virgin birth a few copyists and translators replaced hoi goneis autou [his parents] with the proper names ho te Ioseph kai he Mariam [Joseph and Mary].
Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 112) comments:
As in verses 33 and 41, in order to safeguard the doctrine of the virgin birth copyists replaced hoi goneis [his parents] with Ioseph kai he meter [Joseph and his mother].
The Interpreter's Bible, Volume 8 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1952, page 68) comments:
About my Father's business cannot be dismissed as an impossible translation, but the RSV alternative in my Father's house is more appropriate after an implied interrogative of place. The early church believed that Jesus stood in a unique relationship to God, and that occasionally he made use of an address to the deity in which this was implied. In an unobtrusive way the christological reflection has left its impress on Luke's story. In his first recorded utterance Jesus spoke of God as "my Father" in a sense that distinguished this relationship from one that was open to all, and his parents did not understand the saying.
Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke: A Commentary on the Third Gospel (by Frederick W. Danker, St. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1972, page 40) comments:
Jesus asks his parents: How is it that you sought me? The words echo the language about the search at vs. 44. There is good reason for addressing this and the next question to both parents. They must learn to live with the fact that he, their son, is a stranger and a guest in their house, for he is under orders from Another. I must be in my Father's house. The Greek syntax is ambiguous, and Luke may have intended a double entente: 'In my Father's house' or 'with my Father.' The RSV, however renders correctly a common Greek idiom, and there is no doubt where the emphasis lies.
The Expositor's Greek Testament, Volumes I, (edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, reprinted 1979, page 479) comments:
en pois tou patros mou, in the things of my Father ("about my Father's business," A.V.); therefore in the place or house of my Father (R.V.); the former [in the things of my Father] may be the verbal translation, but the latter [in the place or house of my Father] is the real meaning Jesus wished to suggest. In this latter rendering patristic and modern interpreters in the main concur.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
Following apestalken me [he has sent me], a number of witnesses continue with the words iasasthai tous suntetrimmenous ten kardian [to heal the brokenhearted]. This is an obvious scribal supplement introduced in order to bring the quotation more completely in accord with the Septuagint text of Isa 61:1.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
THE SERMON ON THE PLAIN (Luk 6:20-49)
GB Caird (Saint Luke, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963, page 103-105) comments on Luk 6:27-38 as follows:
The Greek language has three words for love, which enable us to distinguish Christian love (agape) from passionate devotion (eros) and warm affection (philia). Jesus did not tell his disciples to fall in love with their enemies or to feel for them as they felt for their families and friends. Agape is a gracious, determined, and active interest in the true welfare of others, which is not deterred even by hatred, cursing, and abuse, not limited by calculation of deserts or results, based solely on the nature of God. Love does not retaliate (vv. 27-31), seeks no reward (vv. 32-36), is not censorious (vv. 37-38).
The men who were bidden to love their enemies were living in enemy-occupied territory, where resentment was natural and provocation frequent. They were not just to submit to aggression, but to rob it of its sting by voluntarily going beyond its demands. To those who believe in standing up for their individual or national rights this teaching has always seemed idealistic, if not actually immoral. But those who are concerned with the victory of the kingdom of God over the kingdom of Satan can see that it is the only realism. He who retaliates thinks that he is manfully resisting aggression; in fact, he is making an unconditional surrender to evil. Where before there was one under the control of evil, now there are two. Evil propagates by contagion. It can be contained and defeated only when hatred, insult, and injury are absorbed and neutralized by Love...
| Other resources |
Contrary to subsequent Christian interpretation, reflected in popular belief and recent films, there is no evidence from the Gospels that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or for that later identification of Mary Magdalene with the women who anoint Jesus' feet (luke 7:36-50; Matt. 26:6-13 par.) or with Mary of Bethany (Luke 10.38; John 11.1-2). In Luke 8.2 it is said that Mary Magdalene was healed of seven evil spirits by Jesus. But this is in the context of a list of women who were followers of Jesus, who had also been healed, and who supplied the material support for his mission.
Though most commentators simply note that the woman's sin is not specified, S. MacLean Gilmour (The Interpreter's Bible, Volume 8, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1952, page 142) remarks in his commentary on Luke:
A sinner probably means "a prostitute."
| Other resources |
Newman and Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988, page 282:
...spirits that make people unfit for worshiping God
Newman and Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, NY: United Bible Societies, 1972, page 122:
In biblical terminology "evil spirits" and "unclean spirits" are essentially synonymous. There are, however, serious difficulties encountered in employing an adjective such as "unclean," for this can turn out to be simply "dirty." Quite naturally the emphasis in the Bible is on the fact that these spirits caused people to become unclean in a religious sense, that is, they defiled them, so that they could not worship God."
| Other resources |
The Romans crucified two thousand Jews during the rebellion that followed King Herod the Great's death in 4 B.C.E., so Jesus' followers were well acquainted with crucifixion even before his death. It was common practice in these executions to have the condemned person carry his own cross to the place of crucifixion.
| Other resources |
Bruce Metzger, in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, pages 126-127), writes:
Was it seventy or seventy-two whom Jesus appointed and sent on ahead of him? The external evidence is almost evenly divided... The factors that bear on the evaluation of internal evidence are singularly elusive... In order to represent the balace of external evidence and the indecisiveness of internal consideration, a majority of the Committee decided to include the word duo in the text, but to enclose it within square brackets to indicate a certain doubt that it has a right to stand there.
Fellow Greek New Testament Editorial Committee member and textual authority Kurt Aland is granted a dissenting opinion in the Metzger's Textual Commentary from the indecisiveness of the rest of the Editorial Committee. Unequivocally endorsing "seventy-two" as representing the original text of Luke, Aland writes:
The concept of "70" is an established entity in the Septuagint and in Christian tradition... Consequently it is astonishing that the reading hebdomeykonta duo [seventy-two] occurs at all in 10.1 and 17, and that it has such strong support.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
The Pharisees who came to warn Jesus of Herod's intentions posed as friends, but they might have guessed that he would be suspicious of the unwonted solicitude for his safety and would recognize that they were actually in collusion with Herod. Herod earned himself the title of fox because, not daring to take direct action against Jesus at the height of his Galilean popularity, he tried to drive him from his tetrarchy by this devious intimidation, subtly disguised as friendship. Jesus' retort is that he will not be deflected by threats from the course he has set himself. When the time comes for him to leave Herod's territory -- and the day cannot be long delayed -- he will move on towards Jerusalem, driven not by threats but by the inner compulsion of his mission. In the meantime he is in no danger: Herod has no right to usurp the position, which Jerusalem occupies by long usage, as killer of the messengers of God.
| Other resources |
The Romans crucified two thousand Jews during the rebellion that followed King Herod the Great's death in 4 B.C.E., so Jesus' followers were well acquainted with crucifixion even before his death. It was common practice in these executions to have the condemned person carry his own cross to the place of crucifixion.
| Other resources |
Luk 15:11-32 - the parable of the prodigal son
The father showed a lot of the heart that cultural myths usually associate with mothers! That may be yet another of Jesus' thought-provoking devices for using this parable to turn the world upside down to help his hearers view the real Kingdom of God.
See Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (by Bernard Brandon Scott), pages 99-125:
The hearer of the parable would have identified with the younger son... The parable's scandal derives from its subversion of the mytheme's power to resolve between the chosen and the rejected... In the parable the elder son's fate is not like Esau's: he is not hated, nor does the younger receive Jacob's portion. Actually, the elder is the heir: "All that is mine is yours." Nor is he banished: "I am always with you."... This parable subverts a mytheme by which the kingdom decides between the chosen and rejected. Here the father rejects no one; both are chosen... The father is interested neither in morality nor in inheritance. He is concerned with the unity of his sons... The kingdom is not something that decides between but something that unifies. The father does not reject... The kingdom is universal, not particularist. The universalism, however, is not based on the rejection of some. All people are called, regardless of the script the mytheme requires of them. (pages 124-125)
For additional commentary and cross-references related to this parable, see http://www.bibletexts.com/texts/parables.htm#prodigal-son
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
Luk 18:29 - not part of Jesus' original teaching nor part of original Luke: or <2228> wife <1135>
Note: OR WIFE did not appear in the original Greek texts of similar passages in Mar 10:29 or Mat 19:29. Mark was written 10 to 25 years before Matthew's or Luke's gospel, and Mark's account of these verses was the basis for both Matthew's and Luke's account. The writer of Luke clearly added "or wife" to the source material he had. The Greek words translated "or wife" were in the KJV translators' Greek text (Textus Receptus) of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; however, these words ("or wife") were were not in the original Greek text of Mark or Matthew. A later copyist of the Greek text added those words to the text of Mar 10:29 and Mat 19:29.
That the teaching to 'leave wife' is a misrepresentation of Jesus' genuine teachings is consistently attested in the gospels, in Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Co 7:10-16), and in similar passages in the Gospel According to Thomas (Tho 55). "Or wife" in Mar 10:29 and Mat 19:29 has so little manuscript support that it is not even mentioned in the extensive footnotes of the United Bible Society's definitive Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (1994) or in Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (1993).
According to Mat 19:27, Mar 10:28, and Luk 18:28, Peter "left all" to follow Christ Jesus. By implication, "all" would include those houses and people listed in Mat 19:29, Mar 10:29, and Luk 18:29. According to the synoptic gospels (Mat 8:14; Mar 1:30; Luk 4:38) and according Paul (1Co 9:5), Peter continued to be married and to take his wife with him when he traveled, so "wife" clearly was not included in the "all" that Christians were expected to leave behind in their spiritual (or human) journey.
Though the following verses refer to someone who divorces a spouse and later remarries, they do show the emphasis that Jesus places on the permanence of the marriage commitment.
A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his wife. In the same way, a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man commits adultery. (Mar 10:11,12, TEV)
If a man divorces his wife, for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, then he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also. (Mat 5:32, TEV)
Any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman." (Mat 19:9, TEV)
Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery; and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Luk 16:18, TEV)
(See also 1Co 7:10-16.)
Ante-Nicene Fathers attest to original Luke not including "or wife" - Around 180 A.D., Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) (Against Heresies) quoted what appears to be an earlier version of Luk 18:29,30:
Whosoever shall have left lands, or houses, or parents, or brethren, or children because of me, he shall receive in this world an hundredfold, and in that to come he shall inherit eternal life. (ANF 1:562)
"Or wife" was not included in Irenaeus' quote of Jesus. Around 195 A.D. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) (The Stromata, or Miscellanies) quoted Jesus from Mat 19:29:
The Lord says in the Gospel, "Whosoever shall leave father, or mother, or brethren," and so forth, "for the sake of the Gospel and my name," he is blessed... (ANF 2:412)
Both Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria did not include "or wife."
I have checked the entire Ante-Nicene Fathers and all New Testament apocrypha, including the Nag Hammadi writings. The only other similar quotes are all from Cyprian (?-258 A.D.), where around 250 A.D. he quoted from Luk 18:29,30:
There is no man that hath left house, or land, or parents, or brethren, or sisters, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive seven-fold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." (The Epistles of Cyprian, ANF Vol 5:348; The Treatises of Cyprian, ANF 5:440, 506, 538)
The fact is that the wording of Irenaeus and Cyprian are both most similar to Luk 18:29,30, except that Irenaeus did not include "or wife" - nor did Clement of Alexandria in his quote from Mat 19:29. This leads to the conclusion that the original version of Luk 18:29 also did not include "or wife" but that "or wife" was added to a text of Luke 18:29 sometime during the 70 years between the time of Irenaeus and Cyprian (between 180-250 A.D.) Then sometime between the time of Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian (between 195-250 A.D.), "or wife" began to be added to some texts of Mark and Matthew, assimilating the wording that had begun to be added to Luke sometime between 180-250 A.D.
- See also "Did the original text of Mat 19:29 justify leaving one's 'wife' for Christ's sake?" at http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa135.htm, which presents additional evidence that "or wife" was not in the original texts of Mat 19:29, Mar 10:29, or Luk 18:29.
- To further explore "Divorce as understood by Jesus and the earliest Christians," browse http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/divorce.htm.
To further explore many topics regarding "marriage," browse http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/marriage.htm.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
ARC Leaney (The Gospel According to Luke, Black's New Testament Commentaries, London: A&C Black, 1966) comments:
I am he. I.e. 'The Messiah is present'. Daube (p. 325) claims that the origin of the saying with this sense is the Passover Haggadah. Cf. Mark xiii. 6, and the references in the Fourth Gospel where there is often a reminiscence of the treatment of the formula in the OT as equivalent to the divine name (e.g. Is. xliii. 10; xlviii. 12). See John iv. 25 f.; viii. 24,28,58; xiii. 19; xviii. 5, 6, 8, and Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 93 ff.
Frederick Danker (Jesus and the New Age: According to St. Luke, St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1972) comments:
8. The many who come in his name (vs. 8) are not people who claim to be Jesus making his return, but false claimants to the messianic office. They come making claims that belong properly only to Jesus, for he alone is entitled to be called Messiah. Some of them will say, I am he! This expression is applied to God in the Old Testament: Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 43:10-11; 48:12; 52:6. It is applied frequently to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5 ,6, 8. In Luke 22:70 the phrase appears in a crucial context dealing with the question of Jesus' identity. Mark uses the phrase three times (6:50; 13:6; 14:62). The first of these is in a story omitted by Luke [Mark 6:45-51]... The phrase clearly connotes claims that transcend normal human experience and is therefore appropriate in an apocalyptic context. Other false messiahs will say, The time is at hand! This phrase is not equivalent to 'The Messiah is here!' It means that some will under the guise of messianic authority assert that the wind-up of history, as described in popular apocalyptic , is about to take place. In other words, the identity of the Messiah is to be dependent on spectacular cosmic events. Luke inserts the sayings into Markan material in order to emphasize the falseness of such a view, for through his gospel he has demonstrated that Jesus' credentials are independent of the end-time fireworks.
For a detailed webpage article on the "Jesus' 'I am' sayings in the Fourth Gospel," browse http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/i-am.htm.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
Luk 23:34 - text missing in many important early manuscripts: then Jesus said, Father, forgive them; they know not what they do
Though this text was in the 16th century Greek text from which the KJV was translated, this text is missing in many important early manuscripts. Some scholars believe that the text was in the original text; even those who believe that it was not in the original text still believe that the text represents an original tradition about Jesus at his crucifixion. The textual commentaries below are representative of a variety of highly qualified scholarly conclusions on the subject. They appear in the reverse chronological order of the date of publication of the resource.
The Revised English Bible (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996, [book review]) includes the following footnote:
Some witnesses omit Jesus said, 'Father...doing.'
Bruce Metzger, in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, pages 154, [book review]), writes:
The absence of these words from... early and diverse... witnesses is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision by copyists who, considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews, could not allow it to appear that the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered. At the same time, the logion, though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained, within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel.
The New American Bible (World Catholic Press, 1987, page [book review]) includes the following footnote:
This portion of v 34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Lk and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution.
Jesus and the New Age according to St. Luke: A Commentary on the Third Gospel, by Frederick W. Danker (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1972, page 237) comments:
The prayer in vs. 34 is in such harmony with the spirit of Luke's gospel and his picture of Jesus that it is difficult to question its authenticity. Yet is even more difficult to account for its omission in a number of manuscripts. It has indeed been argued that the prayer was omitted because of a conviction that the destruction of Jerusalem was God's judgment for the crucifixion, but a similar omission does not appear at Acts 2:38-39, where forgiveness is proclaimed to Israel. It is more probable that the prayer uttered by Stephen (Acts 7:60) suggested a parallel utterance for the passion account. Also, in its present position it interrupts Luke's sketch of the mockery and destroys the dramatic impact of the word addressed to the repentant outlaw (vs. 43). In vs. 43. If the words were originally included by Luke, they inform the reader that Jesus did not threaten his executioners, as the condemned were accustomed to do, but rather accepted his death as a faithful witness should. Thus in the Martyrdom of Isaiah (5:14) the prophet is praised for neither crying aloud nor weeping when he was sawn apart. By contrast, the psalmist cries for vengeance (Psalm 69:22-28; see on Luke 23:46).
Black's New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. Luke, by A.R.C. Leaney (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1966, page 284) comments:
Father, forgive them. The words have the support of S* A C Old Latin vg syr. cur and pesh, Mcion Iren Or Aug, and their omission in other MSS. may be due to the conviction, common in Gentile Christian circles, that God did not forgive the Jews for the crucifixion, but punished them for it by the destruction of Jerusalem. Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, vii. 42. Luke is in the main following Mark closely here, and the words ascribed by him to the Lord may well be due to his own pen, the motive being to show that the prisoner himself did not condemn the Romans for their part in his execution. (Cf. Acts iii. 17; xiii. 27; 1 Cor. ii. 8.)
Westminster Pelican Commentaries: Saint Luke, by G.B. Caird (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963, page 251) comments:
The prayer of Jesus is omitted by Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae, and other important manuscripts, but it is well attested in other manuscripts, and most modern textual critics accept it as a genuine part of the text. It could be taken to refer either to the Roman soldiers or to all those responsible for the crucifixion. In the light of Acts 3:17, 19; 7:59f. it is probable that the sentence stood in the original text of Luke and that Luke himself took it to refer to the Jews. It has been suggested that the prayer may have been excised from an early copy of the Gospel by a second-century scribe who thought it incredible that God should pardon the Jews and, in view of the double destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and 135, certain that he had not in fact done so.
| Other resources |
Although a minority of the Committee preferred the shorter reading, regarding the others as interpolations (see the Note following 24.53), the majority considered it more probable that the words proskunesantes auton [worshipped <4352> him <846>] had been omitted (the eye of the copyist passing from agtoi ... to agton) or, perhaps deliberately (so as to accord better with the shorter reading in ver. 51; see the concluding comments on the previous variant reading).
| Abbreviations |
Copyright
1996-2004 Robert Nguyen Cramer
|
Bibliography |
|
|
editor@bibletexts.com |