Análisis de la situación actual de los estacionamientos en la ciudad de Loja

75

76

understanding of these references is that they suggest that the author was a travelling companion of Paul, a view attested as early as Irenaeus (130-200)‖. (p.259).

From Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3, it can be deduced that the same author wrote both Luke and Acts, addressing both to Theophilus (the narrate). In his opening passage (Lk. 1: 1-4) the author simply states that he intends to "compile a narrative" based upon accounts, and possibly previous narratives, from eyewitnesses and "ministers of the word." It is clear, therefore that the author was not an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus and that he came to faith later. That he claims to have "followed all things closely'" in order to produce" an orderly account," suggests that he wished to be taken seriously as both an historian and a theologian. Corroborating this view, Fitzmyer (1981), asserts, ―from the Gospel itself, it emerges that the author is not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, but that he depends on those who were (1:2). He is rather a second or third- generation Christian‖ (p.35). The name Luke is only mentioned three times in the New Testament. From these three occurrences, it is evident that Luke was ―the beloved physician‖ (Col 4:14) and a companion of Paul at various times from his second missionary journey to his final imprisonment in Rome, and a loyal friend who remained with the apostle after others had deserted him (Acts 16:10-15, 20:6-21:26; 2 Tim 4:11;

Philemon 1:24). It is more than likely that Luke was a Gentile by birth, well educated in Greek culture. And this would make Luke the only Gentile to pen any books of Scripture.

77

3.1.1 Date and Place of Writing

There is no certainty about the date at which this Gospel could be written. The Gospel according to Luke was probably the last Synoptic Gospel to be written. According to Morris (2002), three dates for this Gospel has been suggested, namely: around AD 63, AD 75-85, and early in the second century. Marshall (1979) maintains, ―There are two serious possibilities, a date in the early sixties or a date in the later decades of the first century. The later is the view most commonly held, with AD 80 being suggested as a round figure. This date presupposes that Luke was not dependent on the writings of Josephus (c.AD 93) but that he did write after the fall of Jerusalem‖ (pp.34-35). Arguing further, Marshall (1979) reasons, ― on the other hand, the complete lack of interest in the fall of Jerusalem in Acts and the way in which that book ends its story before the death of Paul are strong indications of a date before AD 70‖ (p.35). Corroborating this view, Morris (2002), observed that Acts ends with Paul in prison, and as a matter of fact, if Luke knew of Paul‘s release or martyrdom he would probably have mentioned it‖ (p.24).

Fitzmyer (1981) contends that in the prologue to his Gospel Luke speaks of his dependence on eyewitnesses, and on many others who undertook to write accounts of the Christ event before him, and among the latter must be included Mark, whose Gospel was composed about AD 65-70, then the Gospel of Luke should be dated, therefore, later than the Gospel of Mark.

78

Slick (2016) elucidating further maintained that none of the canonical gospels made mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. This is very significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down" (Luke 21:6). This prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burnt down the temple. The non-inclusion of this significant event into the Gospel suggests that the gospels, at least, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were written before A.D. 70. Slick (2016) contends that the Acts of the Apostles which was written after the gospel of Luke and by Luke himself also fails to mention this significant event of A.D. 70, which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts, had it occurred before Acts was written. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D.

70. Having established this fact, it would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D.

63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke.

As for the place of composition or writing of the Gospel of Luke, Fitzmyer (1981), contends:

It is really anyone‘s guess. The only thing that seems certain is that it was not written in Palestine. Ancient tradition about the place of composition varies greatly: Achaia, Boeotia, and Rome. Modern attempts to localize the composition

79

elsewhere are mere guesses: Caesarea, Decapolis, and Asia Minor. In the long run, it is a matter of little concern, because the interpretation of the Lucan Gospel and Acts does not depend on it. (p.57).

3.1.2 Audience/ Recipient and Purpose

Both the purpose of the Gospel and its audience can be found in the prologue (1:1-14). Luke first mentions that many others before him have made an account of the things that have been fulfilled as they were handed down from the first generation. He also says that he cautiously examined everything from the beginning and this led him to write an organized account to Theophilus so that he might know the certainty of what he has been taught. It is obvious that the gospel of Luke is dedicated to Theophilus. The name means

"lover of God or friend of God-"- (cf. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). But a universally acceptable theory is that Theophilus was Luke‘s patron who helped him to publish Luke-Acts.

Luke's Gospel is targeted to Gentiles. Quarles et al (2009) and Barclay (1975) maintain that Luke wrote for a Gentile audience. Corroborating this point, Fitzmyer (1981) avers:

It is widely held today that Luke has written his Gospel for a Gentile Christian audience, or at least one that was predominantly Gentile Christian. This view is based on Luke‘s obvious concern to relate his account of the

Christ-80

event and its sequel to a Greco-Roman literary tradition (e.g.

in the prologue of the Gospel), his dedication of his two volumes to a person bearing a Greek name (though it could have been borne by a Jew), and his manifest desire to relate the salvation promised to Israel in the OT to Gentiles or non-Jews. (pp.57-58).

On Luke‘s purpose in writing the Gospel, while some scholars suggest that Luke set out to make a case for Christianity as not being a threat to the Roman Empire, others make the proposition that Luke-Acts was written to reassure those questioning Jesus' second coming because of its delay. For some scholars, like, Mattill, as cited in Mann (I 999), the two-volume Work, Luke-Acts, was specifically designed to aid Paul in his trial before Caesar. According to Quarles et al (2009), ―the purpose of the Gospel of Luke is for a defense of the Christian faith, useful for both evangelism and discipleship‖ (p.256).

3.1.3 Literary Style

Luke is one of the most extensive writers of the New Testament. The style of the Gospel is superior to any New Testament writing except the Letter to the Hebrews.

Supporting this view, Utley (2013) contends that Luke writes the most grammatically correct and polished Koine Greek of all the New Testament writers, with the possible exception of the author of Hebrews. Greek apparently was his mother tongue. This fact explains why Luke had outstanding command of the Greek language. According to

81

Morris (2002), linguistically, the Gospel of Luke is written in good classical style, has a strong Hebraic flavor, and it is written in a type of Hellenistic Greek strongly reminiscent of the Septuagint (the translation into Greek of the Hebrew Old Testament). According to scholars, Plummer, for instance, as quoted in Aherne (1910), the Gospel of Luke is the most literary of the Gospels. Luke can be as Hebraistic as the Septuagint, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. He is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society and Greek when describing Greek society.