The Gospel of Luke

Overview

The Gospel of Luke in the UPDV addresses several places where the text appears to have been modified after the original was composed. These range from the exclusion of the birth narrative in chapters 1–2, to the correction of individual verses where an Aramaic original was likely misread, to a systematic pattern of Holy Spirit additions that affects Luke more than any other Gospel.

Luke 1–2 — The Birth Narrative

There is evidence that the early life of Christ was probably not in the original gospel account from which Luke is derived. The Book of Matthew was likewise found to include similar material of doubtful origin. Accordingly, the UPDV does not include these two chapters in the text of Luke.

Joseph Tyson's analysis of the relationship between Marcion's text and canonical Luke is relevant here. Marcion's Gospel — whether it was an edited Luke or an earlier form of the same tradition — did not contain the birth narrative. While most scholars have traditionally assumed Marcion removed it, Tyson argues the evidence is more consistent with chapters 1–2 being a later addition to an already circulating text.¹

The exclusion of these chapters is closely related to the reconstruction of Luke's ending (see below). Both decisions reflect the same underlying observation: material at the beginning and end of Luke bears marks of secondary composition.

Luke 3:23 — Restoration of "Known As"

The UPDV restores this verse to read that Jesus was "known as" the son of Joseph, rather than the Greek text's "as was supposed."

The phrase "he was known as" is used in a similar sense in Matthew 2:2 (per a quote from Epiphanius). The underlying issue is an Aramaic word with two meanings. In Greek, the text was rendered as "as was supposed" (ὡς ἐνομίζετο), which carries the nuance of "it was said to be, but wasn't really true." However, that is not the meaning here. The Aramaic more literally means to be called or known as something — a neutral statement of public identity, not a qualification casting doubt on it. A similar Aramaic root appears at John 19:17.

The word "began" in the Greek (ἀρχόμενος) also appears to be a mistranslation. The Aramaic word for "to be" was likely read as "to begin," producing the awkward Critical Text reading: "And Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty years of age."²

Luke 11:13 — "Good Things" Restored

The UPDV reads "good things" in place of "Holy Spirit" at Luke 11:13, based on the parallel account in Matthew (7:11 in old numbering), where "good things" is the undisputed reading.

The mechanism of corruption is identifiable. The Greek word for "good" (ἀγαθόν) could have been misread as "holy" (ἅγιον) due to visual similarity. Once "holy" stood in the text, "spirit" would naturally have been added to complete the phrase "Holy Spirit." Some Greek manuscripts preserve an intermediate variant — "good gifts" — which may represent a correction by a scribe who recognized something was wrong but relied on the immediate context rather than the parallel in Matthew. The simplest reading, a single word "good" matching Matthew exactly, best explains the origin of the other variants.

The Pattern of Holy Spirit Additions in Luke

The case at Luke 11:13 is not isolated. It is the most clearly traceable instance of a broader pattern: early editors adding phrases about the Holy Spirit to Luke's Gospel. These additions are not attested by the other Gospel writers and are not suggested by their respective contexts.

The UPDV identifies the following verses as containing probable Holy Spirit additions. In each case, the added material has been moved from the main text to footnotes:

• Luke 1:15 — John will be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb"
• Luke 1:41 — Elizabeth "was filled with the Holy Spirit"
• Luke 1:67 — Zechariah "was filled with the Holy Spirit"
• Luke 2:25 — The Holy Spirit "was upon" Simeon
• Luke 2:26 — "It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit"
• Luke 2:27 — Simeon came "in the Spirit" into the temple
• Luke 4:1 — Jesus "full of the Holy Spirit ... was led by the Spirit"
• Luke 4:14 — Jesus returned "in the power of the Spirit"
• Luke 10:21 — Jesus "rejoiced in the Holy Spirit"
• Luke 11:13 — "Holy Spirit" replacing "good things"

Note that several of these occur within Luke 1–2, which the UPDV excludes entirely (see above). But the pattern extends well beyond the birth narrative and into the body of the Gospel. A similar case appears in John's Gospel at John 14:26, where the appositive "the Holy Spirit" may likewise be a later addition.³

Luke 11:42 — Aramaic Misread

The UPDV corrects a likely misreading of the original Aramaic at Luke 11:42. The word שברא ("dill") was apparently confused with שבתא ("rue") during transmission. This correction aligns Luke with the parallel in Matthew (15:23 in UPDV numbering) and resolves a historical difficulty: rue was not subject to tithing according to the Mishnah, making it an unlikely candidate for Jesus's argument about tithing herbs while neglecting justice.⁴

Luke 23:39–24:53 — The Ending Reconstruction

The endings of the Gospels show a persistent pattern of expansion by later hands. Matthew's ending was modified; Mark's longer ending (16:9–20) is absent from the earliest manuscripts; John's text was extended past its natural conclusion at 19:35. Luke is no exception.

Based on the style, content, other witnesses, and the significant textual variants at the end of Luke, the UPDV concludes that some of the material in Luke 23:39–24:53 is not original. Rather than exclude the ending entirely, the UPDV includes only material that is either directly or indirectly attested by some other source — the other Gospel accounts, the rest of the New Testament, and the earlier portions of Luke itself. The ending has been reconstructed accordingly.

This approach is consistent with the exclusion of Luke 1–2. Both the beginning and end of Luke bear the marks of secondary composition — material added to an already complete text. Tyson's work on Marcion and Luke-Acts provides further background for understanding how the canonical form of Luke may have developed through stages of expansion.¹

---

Notes

---