Talk:Gospel of Luke/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Page locked

Now that the page has been locked, lets come to some kind of consensus on the matter. Leadwind's edits, personified here, were crudely deleting sources he decided were "sectarian" and thus apparently unreliable. Let me reiterate what I said above: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity: "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so."

Leadwind has manufactured a definition of "objectivity" that conforms to his view of what the "mainstream" is. Actually Leadwind is pushing what he thinks the "true" version is, as he has cavalierly dismissed the views of scholars who happen to be Christian, and defined the "true" version as what atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members think is "true". I don't have a problem with including their views, but as the Wikipedia policy above shows, this article should present the scholarly debate, not decide what the "true" view is. The fact that Leadwind has to dismiss the views of scholars who happen to be Christians (even if not all, he has dismissed the views of a great number) shows that a great number of scholars disagree with his view as to what the "mainstream" or "true" view is.

If Leadwind wants to include the views of atheist scholars/Jesus Seminar members then fine. But he shouldn't be deleting the views of well-cited scholars who happen to disagree with his view, or relegating them to "minority sectarian" status. Actually the scholars he relegates to "minority sectarian" status constitute most New Testament scholars.

Also, take a look at the changes Leadwind has made. This link compares the current version to the version when Leadwind began his edits. He made close to 100 edits (mostly deletions of material) within about two days. RomanHistorian (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am reading a book, "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" by Géza Vermès. The book is a kindle book so I don't have a page number (it begins on line 5330), but in chapter 8 he says "Of the three Gospel reports on the Lord's Supper the one nearest to Paul's is that of Luke (Luke 22:15-20). This would hardly be suprising if Luke was, as many scholars think, one of Paul's disciples". He also notes that "Luke is here postively under the influence of Paul". Here you have a non-Christian scholar in a non-Christian publication saying that "many scholars" think Luke was a companion of Paul, was under his influence, and wrote this gospel. And as you can see here this author is so positively thought of by Leadwind that yesterday he altered the article on the author to glorify him.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with RH here. the idea that Luke may have been a disciple of Paul's or at least is directly influenced by Paul is a fairly widely held mainstream view. I see no reason to omit it. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. That view is as mainstream as it gets.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Vermes. He's a better expert on what in Luke is historical than on who wrote Luke, but he's a mainstream source and I'd like to see him cited more often, not less. If he says that "many" scholars (not most) think the evangelist was a companion of Paul, let's cite him. I don't think that RH wants to see more of Vermes on this page, though, because Vermes concludes that the tender-hearted concern for non-Jews that one sees in Luke's Jesus is inauthentic. Are we going to cite that, too? Or only those elements of Vermes that RH likes? Remember, this is the scholar who says that John is so antisemitic that the author might not even have been Jewish. I had to remove that citation from the John page because other editors (RH, perhaps?) objected. Anyway, the fight has been over whether we should include sectarian (often outdated) sources and present them as representing mainstream scholarship. I never objected to including information about Luke actually being the author (provided that we use a mainstream source). And I never objected to including Christian sources provided that the information is presented as such. Leadwind (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can find evidence that the view that "John is so antisemitic that the author might not even have been Jewish" is mainstream, then sure put it in, referenced correctly. If you are looking to use Vermes as a reference for the view because you're finding it difficult to locate any other support for the view, then please read WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. If it's a mainstream view you'll find it in relevant scholarly literature other than Vermes. If it isn't, then it's not worth mentioning. There are plenty of mainstream scholars who see at least some of John's content as aggressive towards the Jews, if not actually anti-semitic, but the view that John is so anti-semitic that he may not even have been a Jew sounds particularly extreme. Still, if it's mainstream scholarship you should be able to prove it using sources additional to Vermes.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, if the idea that Luke's author was Luke is mainstream, just find a mainstream source that says so. That's all I ask. Leadwind (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RH, thank you for reading Vermes. That should help a lot. I've read the same book, so maybe now we'll be able to work together better. Now that you've found a contemporary, nonsectarian source for "many" scholars favoring Luke, let's use it. I have also found a few other sources that say some scholars accept Luke as the author. At this point, my request is that we put these new source in and take Guthrie out. Guthrie is a conservative voice from 1962 whose work is published by sectarian presses. If he's the only one you can find to say what you want to say on this page, then we shouldn't bother saying it at all. I don't much care what we say about Luke as the author as long as we don't use out of date or sectarian sources (and Guthrie is both). BTW, I'm not sure what the protocol is for citing a "line number" on a Kindle book. Leadwind (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That Guthrie was a conservative Christian is obvious. That that means he is not a WP:RS is POV, not supported by the facts. He was a greatly-respected scholar. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I find the use of the passive tense here a bit odd: "was [...] greatly-respected". Who, precisely, gave him this great respect? Other mainstream scholars? Theologians and apologists? Laypeople? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I used the word "was" because...well...he's dead now. And who said that he was greatly respected? How does this grab ya? And the author of that review is hardly what any reasonable person would call biased in Guthrie's favor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant to say passive voice, not tense. I'm having trouble getting the link to load, so I'm going to try another browser. I'll comment once I've seen it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, back. Sorry about that, but I should know better than to bother with IE.

I read the entire page, and now I'm confused. It starts off heaping praise upon him. Yes, it says he and his work are both greatly respected. Then, as we near the bottom of the page, things get weird.

The first twinge comes when it says Guthrie "believes that the teaching of the NT is `an abiding revelation from God` (p. 29) which needs to be received and interpreted `unashamedly from the standpoint of faith` (p. 33)."

At this point, I'm wondering how this "greatly respected" scholar can possibly get objective results if he works this way.

Then comes the last paragraph, which is unfortunately cut off: "All this is refreshingly honest; and within the parameters he marks out the author's studies are exemplary. However, Guthrie's self-imposed limits invariably lead to determined conclusions, and give rise to the uneasy feeling that in reaching those conclusions the author has drawn back from facing..."

And that's where it stops.

I'd love to read the rest, but my take on this so far is that Guthrie is capable of great scholarship, but no matter how illuminating and educational his excursions are, they are fundamentally biased by his forgone conclusions. In short, this is entirely consistent with my worst fears about him. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You asked who said he was "greatly respected" and I provided a reliable source. Your "worst fears" are meaningless, but I find them revealing in that your fear of Christians is affecting your judgment. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

if it helps, the page reference for the print edition of Vermes is 305. There is a very good article on the Gospel of Luke in the 'Oxford Companion to the Bible" (1993, ed. Bruce Metzger). The article is by Joseph Fitzmeyer (who is of course a long-time buddy of Vermes), who is the author of one of the two good critical commentaries on Luke - the other is by IH Marshall. Fitzmeyer rejects much of the accreted tradition regarding Luke and Paul (that they were inseperable collaborators); but accepts that the 'we' passages indicate that the author of Acts was with Paul on some (but not many) of his travels. In addition, he points out that Luke is such an obscure personage that there is no obvious reason why the books of Acts and Luke should have been attributed to bim if that were not the case. This is also the view expressed in the article on Luke in the "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; - though that is unsigned. TomHennell (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

TH, this sounds like good information from mainstream sources. Up to date and everything. Can we get started working on a new version of the authorship section? Leadwind (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What you said above on my Vermes quote is fine, but that means this article takes only that position: the traditional view is accepted by "many scholars". That doesn't mean "a minority of sectarian scholars" or "conservative scholars" or some other skewing. Keep it neutral. Use the quote, verbatim if necessary. The point on contradictions in the intro should also be moved into the body, as it addresses an issue too specific for the intro and is addressed in any case by the Vermes quote. Actually the last two sentences of that intro paragraph should be replaced with the neutral quote from Vermes. The sentence under "composition" that says "Among critical scholars, the consensus is that the author could not have been a companion of Paul, though the traditional account is still sometimes put forward" should be deleted as it is a claim refuted directly by Vermes. The last paragraph in the authorship sections should also be changed, to make it less biased. The first sentence of that paragraph should be deleted as we already addressed the issue with the Vermes quote (both on Lukan authorship and the author being an associate of Paul). The second sentence should be weakened or deleted, as the issue is addressed with the Vermes quote. A claim that some scholars see contradiction is fine, but not a positive claim that there are certainly contradictions, as though it is a question that has been answered (or is answerable). The last sentence I don't have a problem with, although I don't think it is relevant (and again the issue is addressed with the Vermes quote). I actually think most of your changes have been productive and have gotten rid of unnecessary information.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides what I said above, what else does anyone (Leadwind or anyone else) want to change from the current version? It would be better to discuss it now than when the article becomes unlocked.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am an latecomer to this discussion, so I am not at all clear as to which are the particular points at issue. However, if it is suggested that the discussion on authorship would be improved by quotations from a higher profile scholare than Donald Guthrie, then I would agree. In my view, Joseph Fitzmyer as the author of the Anchor Bible volumes on Luke, would fit the bill admirably, and I would easily be able to find refernces in his 1993 article that say much the same as the disputed words of Guthrie. I would be happy to make the edits when the article is unblocked. Where Fitzmyer and Guthrie differ, I suspect, is in their understanding of who 'Luke' might be in relation to Paul. Fitzmyer, like the overwhelming majority of critical scholars, regards the Pastorals as a postmortem compilation of Pauline teachings, and questions 'Colossians'. Consequently the 'Luke' references as 'beloved physician' and as close companion in Rome, Fitzmyer tends to regard as inauthentic, whereas the reference in Philemon is accepted as genuine. Moreover, Luke was the second most common name in the Roman Empire (the most common being Mark); it cannot be assumed that all persons named Luke are one and the same. If companion Luke in Philemon is understood as being (at the time he knew Paul) both younger and less distinguished than he was plumped up to be in later tradition, then most of the difficulties in ascribing authorship of Luke/Acts to him disappear. This would also be consistent with a date of composition in the 80s or early 90s. Any earlier, and it is difficult to explain how Luke came to use Mark; much later, and it is difficult to explain how Luke could have been accepted as a definitive Gospel prior to the career of Marcion. In addition, the historical inconsistencies between Acts and Paul's lettters - especially in Galatians - argue for an earlier rather than a later date. Its fair to say that nobody who questions Luke's authorship has been able to propose a credible alternative explanation for how his name got attached to the Gospel. Whoever the author was, they were highly educated, well travelled,, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time they composed the Gospel, they must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment. Generally Luke is self-effacing, being much less inclined than Matthew to rework his sources, but when he writes in his own person his Greek prose is of outstanding quality (as in the description of the earthquake at Phillipi, or the shipwreck at Malta). Graham Stanton evaluates the opening of the Gospel of Luke as the most finely composed sentence in the whole of post-Classical Greek literature.

Like Leadwind, I find Vermes evaluation of the synoptic teachings of Jesus very convincing and they command considerable sholarly support (which is also why I question references to the Jesus Seminar in the article, if Vermes is to be preferred then the Jesus Seminar cannot be), but Vermes proposal of Luke as disciple of Paul is an aside within his argument that the Church tradition of the institution of the Eucharist is a Pauline development; a view that has some support, but is far from mainstream. I think it better simply to cite Vermes as another scholar supporting companion Luke as the author of the Gospel. TomHennell (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have relevant commentaries by historical-critical scholars such as Marshall, Bock, Ellis, Green, Nolland, and others if they would be considered helpful.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fitzmyer sounds good. He's published through reliable, mainstream presses, which is what we're looking for. It sounds as though he deals with Luke's authorship directly, whereas Vermes is addressing it as a side issue. Someone want to take a crack at the authorship section now? Leadwind (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I will propose a modification to the article to address the issues we have been having. If we can agree to it (or whatever modifications other editors think should be made), the editor who locked the page will insert it because it has consensus.

According to Tom, Fitzmyer says the same thing as Guthrie. Since I don't have that source, I will offer up the following two modifications of the two Guthrie authorship lines and let Tom modify it as necessary based off of Fitzmyer's actual quote: "The view of Lukan authorship is, according to Joseph Fitzmyer, widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data." and "According to Joseph Fitzmyer, of the known companions of Paul, Luke is as good as any, and since this is the traditional ascription there seems no reason to conjecture any other.”" I would also recommend maybe a line or two about Fitzymer's reasoning. From Tom's post above, I propose some additional material besides these direct quotes on authorship: "Its fair to say that nobody who questions Luke's authorship has been able to propose a credible alternative explanation for how his name got attached to the Gospel. Whoever the author was, they were highly educated, well travelled,, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time they composed the Gospel, they must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment. Generally Luke is self-effacing, being much less inclined than Matthew to rework his sources, but when he writes in his own person his Greek prose is of outstanding quality. Graham Stanton evaluates the opening of the Gospel of Luke as the most finely composed sentence in the whole of post-Classical Greek literature." Besides the question of authorship, I think these Fitzmyer/Stanton quotes add valuable information on the character and quality of the author, and would improve the article as a whole. If Tom has any other lines on Luke/author of Luke or Luke's quality, those could be worth adding also.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Extracting some counterpart quotes; ".. since Luke is not prominent in the apostolic age, if the gospel and Acts were not originally written by him, there is no obvious reason why they should have been associated with him. In other words, the ancent tradition which holds that Luke is the author of the third Gospel and Acts may in the long run prove to be substantially correct." Fitzmyer starts with the observation "Most modern commentators on the Lukan gospel are skeptical about the validity of the traditional attribution". and "The difference between the Lukan Paul and the Pauline Paul is not minor; even though it is largely an issue of Acts and the Pualine letters, it bears on the authorship of the Lukan gospel. The result is that many modern commentators are uncertain about the authorship of Luke-Acts". But Fitzmyer notes "A minority of commentators retain the traditional attribuiton as substantially correct". He distinguishes what we may safely infer about Luke from the text of the New Testament - that Luke was an author who wrote for Gentile converts, who was no himself an eyewitness of Jesus, but had been sometime a companion of Paul, and who wrote after the gospels of Mark and (possibly) Matthew; and contrasts this with the claims of the patristic tradition (much of it from Irenaeus), that Luke was an inseperable companion of Paul, who lived unmarried and childless, and who died in Boetia at the age of 84. Fitzmyer notes that if the 'we' passages indicate the times, and all the times, when Luke was with Paul, then "Reading the evidence we see that the author was not with Paul during the main part of his evangelizing endeavors, when he faced the major crisis of his missionary activity in the eastern Mediterranean area (the issue of whether gentile converts must accept Jewish legal practices), or when he wrote his greatest letters." Fitzmyer suggests of Luke "His brief asociation with Paul led him to idealize Paul and make him the hero of the second part of Acts. He has painted his own picture of Paul, which may not agree in all details with the Paul of the uncontested letters". TomHennell (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. So now would someone like to take a crack at a new "authorship" section? I'd be happy to, but it might go smoother if another editor tried. Roman? Leadwind (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Brown heavily cites Fitzmyer in his textbook. Brown is the one, who in 1997, judged scholarship as evenly divided on the issue of scholarship concerning support for the traditional view. His conclusion is that "not impossible" is all that should be claimed regarding attributing the works to Luke, the minor, onetime companion of Paul.

"it is not impossible that a minor figure who had traveled with Paul for small parts of his ministry wrote Acts decades after the apostle was dead, if one makes the allowance that there were details about Paul's early life he did not know, that he simplified and reordered information (even as he did in the Gospel what he took over material from mark), and that as a true theologian he rethought some of Paul's emphases that were no longer apropos. We have no way of being certain that he was Luke, as affirmed by 2d-century tradition: but there is no serious reason to propose a different candidate. Luke is mentioned only once in the nondisputed letters of Paul (Phlm 24) and twice in the deuteroPaulines (Col 4:14; II Tim 4:11), and so he was scarcely the most obvious Pauline character upon whom to fasten as a fictional author. There is nothing to contradict's[sic] Luke's having been with Paul in the places and times indicated by the "we" passages, and he fits the profile of a minor figure. This proposal for authorship has more to recommend it than other theories, but "not impossible" is all that should be claimed."

On the other hand, Theissen/Merz discuss "a critical consensus" which "emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters" and that "the unknown author of Luke-Acts was certainly not a companion of Paul" and state the church tradition is only "occasionally still put forward today". Ehrman has a subsection discussing authorship in his textbook as well, sort of weighing the pros and cons. He finds the references to Luke in Paul unconvincing, finds contradictions between Paul and Acts, and considered the "we" passages more likely other source material than personal recollections of the author. I'm worried that if we take RH's suggestions, and keep the phrasing from Guthrie, we are telling the reader "while there is no consensus on this topic, and the views are about even split, this one view is actually most convincing". It's not being neutral, but instead giving favoritism to one view. We need to be careful how we word it, and I think if we agree with Brown that scholars are split even, we need to present both sides equally (which is often rare on Wikipedia), and avoid nudging the reader in one direction because Fitzmyer and Brown personally favor that view (and avoid pushing the reader in the other direction because others favor another view).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things. Why is it critical to prove that Luke who wrote this is the Luke who accompanied Paul? The gospel, as an article, and as, well, the gospel, stands alone. It would be interesting, but not essential IMO.

I think it was Paul who uses the phrase "Simon the Tanner" to distinguish him from other Simons. Why would Paul not use "Luke the Physician" or "Luke the historian" or whatever to distinguish different Lukes? Like maybe there aren't different Lukes in his life? Kind of like the dog who didn't bark in the night. And, yes, I realize that we have to use "reliable sources." But there are a lot of professors out there trying to come up with a new twist who are considered "modern" but have no insight beyond questioning something that most everyone takes for granted. Like Dan Brown, but without the cover of "fiction."

For example, why, when he has possession of baby books, bronzed booties, etc. and stories that only Mary would know, all complimentary as only a mother would tell, not be suspected of having "talked to Mary?" It would be surprising if he hadn't. Student7 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to another editor's objection to "greatly respected." I think the fewer adjectives associated with a book or author, the better. I truly hate to see adjectives bandied around in an encyclopedia. An author is either WP:RS or not. We (as editors) will handle the reliability aspect, we don't need to thrown in adjectives IMO. Even if from a quote. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like WP:PEACOCK to me.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar

If the Jesus Seminar must be mentioned, I would think it would be with the qualification "liberal", at the very least. (My choice would be less polite, but there it is). People selected themselves as (essentially) disbelievers and told everyone they were a "seminar." Some of them (read the article) have no credentials in theology or history at all. Less than what we have for pity's sake! Worse, they are attributed four times, and being still in copyright, there is nothing on line we can double check. If they were a little more mainstream, I wouldn't mind, but they are pretty far out.

You've spent a bit of time discussing Guthrie. At first glance, I don't see that Guthrie is further out conservatively as these guys are liberally. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and other scholars who are more liberal in their scholarship (Vermes, Ehrman, Bultmann, ect) should be mentioned as such, at least if we are, as Leadwind wants to do, going to refer to scholars like Guthrie as "conservative" or "sectarian". What bothers me about Leadwind's edits is not the edits themselves so much as his dismissive attitude towards a massive corpus of work he considers 'sectarian'. And then he acts as though it is out of generosity that he will allow us to keep any material by scholars like Guthire at all, at least if we imply they are hopelessly biased by calling them "sectarian scholars" or "conservative scholars". Outside of Wikipedia, few scholars denigrate or minimize the works of "sectarian" scholars like Guthrie or F. F. Bruce. Actually these scholars are held in extremely high regard, even by scholars who are not religious. As Wikipedia functions more as a democracy, these articles reflect the views of the editors, not the views of scholarship. Thus, the article as it currently is is more liberal than an article accurately reflecting scholarship would be. This is of course the case, given the campaign of Leadwind and past editors to minimize the works of "sectarian" scholars. Given that most people realize that Wikipedia is dubious because of its democratic nature, I guess maybe none of this should matter. In any case, I think we should do this: either refer to all scholars on this page as liberal or conservative, or don't use the designation at all.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to your suggestion Student, N.T. Wright regards the Jesus Seminar as anti-liberal: the participants are he says seeking to trim down the bulk of the gospel accounts to an ideal core that they can claim as undoubted Jesus sayings, so that this collection can then be treated as an authoritative ethical text. This is simply a recreation of the old conservative search for assurance and certainty in scripture; and is exactly counterpart to those conservative evangelical exegetes who find convoluted ways of glossing the sacred text so as to continue to be able to claim it as without error or contradiction. Vermes approach is entirely opposite; he is not seeking to establish an ideal Jesus at all; only to determine which elements of the gospel accounts correspond with sound historical understanding of the context of the age; and which do not. Not surpisingly, his conclusions are in most instances the polar opposite of those that the Jesus Seminar arrives at; he accepts as authentic the vast majority of the Synoptic texts and events that the Jesus Seminar rejects. Moreover, even where he agrees with the Jesus seminar in believing a passage to be authentic, he generally does so for the opposite reason that they give for their Judgement, "Jesus expressed with great power and simplicity ideas which were in the air and voiced in a less striking manner by other Jewish writers of his age." (the Authentic Gospesl of Jesus, p 198) TomHennell (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

for what it is worth, I think tomHennell's suggestion that labels be dropped altogether is a good one; when the Jesus Seminar can be dfined as conservative, the term "conservative" loses all contextual meaning.A Georgian (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I look rather to a source's publisher than to its author. WP:RS likewise talks about reliable publishers rather than reliable authors. JS gets published by Harper Collins, which has no discernible anti-religious agenda. Leadwind (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

being still in copyright, there is nothing on line we can double check.? I'm a little confused by this comment. What part of Wikipedia policy says we should favor works that are out of copyright? By doing this, we'd reply on heavily dated material. I just wanted to add that I don't see that as a negative by any means. Most of the work of the JS is available for preview on google books or amazon, or if not, available at local bookstores or libraries. IMO, they meet WP:RS, and for the most part, their conclusions are often mainstream, and they cite other prominent scholars who are in agreement with those views throughout their texts. I'd rather not hear generalized attacks on the JS, but instead, specifics sources that contradict or dispute the specific material we are currently citing. Is there anything actually problematic content-wise that is linked to the JS in the article now? Or is this an attack on the JS for the sake of attacking them, because some people don't like them for whatever reasons (and I'd say similar things in regards to Guthrie or Bruce or whoever else. We shouldn't attack them because they are generally conservative, but we should consider how we present their content when compared to other, more middle of the road sources). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that JS was not reliable, its "research" such as it was conducted in a media presentable manner (one that would appeal to media) rather than one in which several notable scholars sat down and actually analyzed anything in a joint manner. The "research" it presented would not have passed muster in any other school but one of journalism. It is not serious analysis. "Voters" were not vetted by credentials. When one side presents JS as WP:RELY, I think the other can just as reasonably present something printed by Billy Joe's Bible Institute as equally credible. Student7 (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind now disrupting other articles

Leadwind is now introducing his POV into Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew, using the same destructive edit warring method he used here. Yet again, he deletes a lot of sources from scholars who are personally religious. Not only that, but he adds liberal scholars and then suggests they represent the mainstream. One of his changes modified a sentence that stated liberal scholar Bart Ehrman's opinion and restated it as though it represented consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to this article what another editor is doing in other articles unless he has been blocked for vandalism or something similarly significant. We are discussing Luke only, please. Student7 (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fun to accuse me of all sorts of things, but I've never rejected authors based on their religious beliefs. I've never deleted anything from Eerdmans, Paulist Press, Fortress, etc. Nothing of Brown's or Wright's. WP:RS instructs us to pay attention to publishers, not authors. Leadwind (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS certainly tells us to pay attention to publishers, but it doesn't tell us to pay attention to publishers and not authors. I've seen this trick pulled before, someone cites a 100 year old book published by Oxford University Press or another reputable publisher which is completely outdated and represents what is now a fringe view, from an author with an explicit religious POV, and claims it's valid because it was published by OUP and we 'should only pay attention to publishers, not authors'. I don't really think that's where you actually want to go, and I think there's a better way to defend your point. It would help observers like myself if you listed the sources you removed and gave a one line explanation of why you found them wanting. I think that will help RH understand what you're trying to achieve as well, and perhaps that woudl move this article closer to consensus.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many WP:RS's have you deleted from all of these articles? 30 or so by my last count. Count me unimpressed by your generosity in leaving some and ascribing them to "sectarian scholars".RomanHistorian (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many WP:RS's have you deleted from all of these articles? 30 or so by my last count. But none by my count. You seem to think that apologists are RS and mainstream academic sources (which are actually RS) are mostly anti christian.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

By my last count you label all scholars whose views you don't like "apologists". Yet somehow you are unable to refute their work or show how they are wrong. All you can do is attack motives.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Which scholar, do you think is being unfairly seen as an apologist? Since you want to include apologists, it is up to you to establish that they are mainstream academic sources, which you don't seem to be able to do.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

His book "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" is not a classic in apologetics because it vouches for the reliability of the New Testament (many books do that) but because it does with such a high quality of scholarship. It is a classic (i.e. one of the most notable works) in apologetics, not just another work. It is a piece of apologetics because it argues that the NT is reliable, although it does this because this is where the evidence lays, as Bruce points out nicely. It is a scholarly work, written by one of the most important NT scholars of the 20th century, that just so happens to conclude with an apologetic conclusion (the NT is historically reliable). The simple fact is that the reliability claims can easily be defended historically. The way in which you defend your view is by 'disappearing' these sources as though the arguments don't exist. F. F. Bruce was:

Head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947.... In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. In his career he wrote over forty books and served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly....Bruce was a distinguished scholar on the life and ministry of Paul the Apostle, and wrote several studies the best known of which is Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (published in the USA as Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free). He also wrote commentaries on several biblical books including Romans, Acts of the Apostles, 1 & 2 Corinthians, The Gospel and Epistles of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.....Most of his works were scholarly, but he also penned several popular works on the Bible. He viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hingeing on their being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, or that this lack of precision could not lead to considerable confusion. He believed, however, that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.....He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, and served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study. He is one of a handful of scholars thus recognised by his peers in both fields.

If you think some claim of his is wrong, feel free to add another source that refutes it. The fact of the matter is that you have criticized none of Bruce's claims as being wrong. Doing so might show evidence that you are right and Bruce isn't a RS. Instead you have attacked his motives. What about the list of his qualifications do you not think is scholarly?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RH has posted an identical copy of the above response at the Historicity of Jesus talk page. I think I will reply to it there.-Civilizededucation^talk 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Structure

It seems to me that in the article itself, we start discussing the material prematurely. Material that hasn't yet been presented. I would think that "content summary and content" should be further up, maybe at the top, I admit that the outline doesn't look that great (even dull!), but the gospel should be presented first IMO. Afterwards, we can present caveats as needed. authorship, etc. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the "content" sections of the gospel pages are hard to read and piecemeal. Other encyclopedias don't treat the information that way. I'd rather move the scene-by-scene content outline (basically a list of wikilinks) to an appendix. But I'm swimming upstream here and don't have a WP policy to back me up. Reluctantly I agree that the beginning is better than the middle (even if I think that sticking an unreadable outline first is going to be an obstacle to the reader). Leadwind (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The structure of all 4 gospel articles are similar, and don't present the contents first. For consistency, such a discussion, I'd prefer, be held at a larger venue to make sure all 4 articles are on board. I don't want a situation where one article is formatted one way, and the other 3 in another. We should work for consistency between all 4 (something that I will admit isn't even perfect now). I would not want to see the detailed contents list (the list of links) at towards the top of the article. I think it would turn readers off. I personally prefer giving the background, and discussing higher criticism first. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind has a point. It would be boring at the outset. The "outline", such as it is, would be better off at the end. How about the "content summary" at the beginning? And yes, the three gospels, at least, should be similarly structured for the reader. Student7 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman is saying that we can't tell whether any two NT authors agree with each other or contradict each other because we can't tell what any individual NT author is actually saying. That works as a failsafe against any allegation of contradiction, but it's remarkably skeptical to say we can't discern the message of any NT author. In any event, if there's an RS out there that makes this claim, I'll be happy to cite it. Leadwind (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

authorship section

Are we ready to compose a new authorship section? That seems to be the heart of the debate. Leadwind (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. Most of what is in the current one is not being disputed and is value-adding. Mostly we just need to make the modifications discussed above, including the addition of the material Tom mentioned. Do you see it differently?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's replace Guthrie with Fitzmyer. Leadwind (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. How do you want to phrase it?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd love you or another editor to give it a try, since it's my editing that you object to. Leadwind (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I propose:

According to Joseph Fitzmyer, "since Luke is not prominent in the apostolic age, if the gospel and Acts were not originally written by him, there is no obvious reason why they should have been associated with him. In other words, the ancient tradition which holds that Luke is the author of the third Gospel and Acts may in the long run prove to be substantially correct." Fitzmyer notes that many scholars are agnostic on the issue of authorship, while others have retained the traditional attribution as substantially correct. Scholars who question Luke's authorship have been unable to propose a credible alternative explanation for how his name got attached to the Gospel. Whoever the author was, they were highly educated, well travelled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time they composed the Gospel, they must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment. Graham Stanton evaluates the opening of the Gospel of Luke as "the most finely composed sentence in the whole of post-Classical Greek literature."

Those last points go beyond the authorship question and add valuable material on the quality of the composition.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And I take it that you propose that this paragraph replace these two from the current article?

Given this, the internal evidence of the Acts of the Apostles concerning its author pertains to the authorship of the Gospel. This evidence, especially passages in the narrative where the first person plural is used, points to the author being a companion of Paul.[48] As D. Guthrie put it, of the known companions of Paul, Luke is “as good as any... [and] since this is the traditional ascription there seems no reason to conjecture any other.”[49] There is further evidence from the Pauline Epistles.[50] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, and some scholars have seen evidence of medical terminology used in both the Gospel and Acts,[51] but this language reflects merely a common Greek education.[52]

Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14) and this traditional view of Lukan authorship is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.” [53] However, it must be stated that there is no consensus, and according to Raymond E. Brown, the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship is ‘about evenly divided’.[15]

Leadwind (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the last paragraph in the authorship section needs to be deleted or altered. I think the issues it addresses are addressed in the Fitzmyer quote. Do you think it needs to be retained in some form?RomanHistorian (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Naw, the last paragraph is OK and has information that you've left out from Fitzmyer so it's worth keeping. Leadwind (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

One point - and I am not sure whether it needs to be in this article or elsewhere - is that Fitzmyer takes the predominant current critical view that the 'we' passages are intended to indicate that the author was present at the time. This is contrary to the old speculation of Sherwin-White, that the 'we' form was a common literary convention in descriptions of shipborne travel and romance. I recall reading a good examination of this issue, but cannot atthe moment recall where; perhaps somebody else does. Contrary to Sherwin-White it is noted; a. that not all the 'we' passages in Acts are confined to shipborne trave; and not all the shipborne descriptions employ 'we'; b. that the literary parallels are not exact, in that although they demonstrate the use of 'we', none demonstrates an alternation from 'they' ato 'we' and back again. Maybe the article on the Authorship of Luke-Acts should be adjusted, and cross-reference made. Sorry to be picky. TomHennell (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never run across the Sherwin-White analysis, and if it never gets brought up we hardly have to argue against it. Leadwind (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

apologies to you, and indeed to Sherwin-White. Although he mentioned the sea-voyage theory as an observation in passing, he does not argue for its validity. The theory is argued most specifically by Vernon Robbins, but tends to be picked up by unthinking skeptical commentators. It has been definitively refuted by Ftzmyer amongst others, and is not I think, supported by any critical scholar. It is not at all unusual in literature to shift from 'I' to 'we' on boarding a ship; "I embarked on the boat, and we sailed for Troas the following day". What is not found in the parallels is a shift from he to we. "he embarked on the boat, and we sailed for Troas the following day". TomHennell (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman's paragraph combines neutral information (e.g., the author was well-traveled) with information that supports Luke as the author. Here's how I'd structure the authorship section. First, the stuff we can agree on: he was a gentile Christian, well-traveled, author of Acts, etc. Then the traditional attribution ("beloved physician"). Then a statement that contemporary scholars are split. Then support for traditional view. Then support for the untraditional view. Leadwind (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The first two sentences in the last paragraph on the authorship sections should be modified. I propose the following: "Scholars who doubt the traditional attribution do so in part because they believe that the author could not have been a companion of Paul. They aruge that the Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council." The last sentence in that paragraph is fine as it is. How about that?

Also, how did you want to word the section on support for the untraditional view? What should we add to the modified last paragraph of the authorship section?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, "They aruge that the Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council." It's a plains fact that Acts contradicts Paul. Anyone can read it for themselves. For plain facts, it's weird to say "they argue that..." Even Fitzmyer agrees that there are significant differences between Paul and Acts. If we can't agree on plain facts, it's going to be hard to reach consensus. I'd say something like, "Scholars who doubt the traditional attribution believe that the author could not have been a companion of Paul. They emphasize that the Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council." Leadwind (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The way you just worded it will work. By the way, it isn't established fact that there are contradictions between the two. They were written for an audience 2000 years ago in another language in another culture. The fact that there might appear, in English translations, to be contradictions to us in the 21st century doesn't mean there are actually contradictions. These documents were not written to us, so we can't treat them like some newspaper article published yesterday.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The above .... seems to be having an unreasonable, illogical, inerrantist POV.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman is saying that we can't tell whether any two NT authors agree with each other or contradict each other because we can't tell what any individual NT author is actually saying. That works as a failsafe against any allegation of contradiction, but it's remarkably skeptical to say we can't discern the message of any NT author. In any event, if there's an RS out there that makes this claim, I'll be happy to cite it. Leadwind (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is an RS which says something like that. Let's see if I can find it. Anyway, the most remarkable thing is that RomanHistorian is skeptical when someone finds a contradiction in the NT. But he is quite enthusiastic about the it when apologists interpret it. Are we to assume that only apologists can interpret the NT, and academically acclaimed scholars can't? You seem to have missed it, but RH was quite scandalized that you think Geza Vermes is an ideal source (he said this on the HoJ talk page). He thinks Vermes is anti-christian. Reading the article on Vermes, my impression is that Vermes is considered the best by the NT scholarship. If even Vermes is not accaptable, which academic could be? What are we to do? Are we to go by RH's preference, or to give value to academic standing?-Civilizededucation^talk 12:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Certainly not! There is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance." David Jenkins, former bishop of durham.[1]. This is relevent to this article too.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is that no one interpretation represents the "mainstream". Even on the issue of discerning the message of an author, there may be broad points that many agree on, but beyond that limited 'consensus' on various points. I can think of several things in the bible that I would argue are contradictions, but I guarantee you a lot of scholars would argue with me and say they aren't contradictions. Even on the issue of contradictions, it goes beyond what an individual author says, to what the different authors thought and were aware of. If the author of one NT work was consulting another to write his work, and wrote something that appears to us to be a contradiction but was not considered by that author to be a contradiction though he was well aware of the difference, then it isn't a contradiction. Something about the different language, culture, time, ect that is either lost to us or difficult to decipher is what makes the supposed contradiction an obvious agreement. To know what a contradiction is, we have to get inside the head of many authors who have been dead for thousands of years. Since we can't do that, the best we can do is speculate about what might or might not be a contradiction, and there is little or no 'consensus' on any one candidate for a plausible contradiction. You could cite sources for one possible candidate, and many more against that candidate.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't just say you can find RSs that agree with you. Actually find RSs that agree with you. Find an RS that says Paul's and Acts' contradictory accounts aren't contradictory. For example, when did Paul first go to Jerusalem? Who were Paul's primary enemies, pagans or Jews? Did Paul think that pagans worshiped idols out of ignorance and God would forgive them or that did they do so deliberately and God would punish them? Was Peter Paul's ally in getting out from under the Jewish Law or was he an obstacle to Paul's campaign? Was Paul's mission confirmed by the other apostles at the start or did Paul get his authority directly from Christ? If you think you can find RSs that say these contradictions aren't contradictions, just do so. Leadwind (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can do the same thing you can: find scholars who hold a view for or against possible candidates for contradictions. Of course, since you have unilaterally limited the universe I can choose from, my options are less but still doable. My point is that no view on possible contradictions represents the 'mainstream'. Yes some scholars think there are contradictions between Luke and Paul, but this is their own opinion and not the opinion of the 'consensus' or 'mainstream' and certainly not "truth". Even Vermes, in the introduction of the third book in his trilogy, says explicitly that what he writes about does not represent the "mainstream" or "consensus" (he uses those words exactly) but his views alone. Most scholars I have read, such as Sanders, say this. Often in their works they note that most scholars disagree with them on various points (I can think of several instances in the works of both Vermes and Sanders which say this exactly) This is why I don't have a problem with noting that some scholars (even many) see a contradiction on an issue like Luke/Paul's theology. My problem is when this claim is represented as "mainstream" or "consensus" and with an inference this view represents "truth".RomanHistorian (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But Paul and Acts. How does this affect (or contradict) the Gospel of Luke? Everything here should either support (or contradict) Luke. How Luke supports or contradicts Acts or the Epistles is germane there, not here. Right? Student7 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a really odd statement. Are you suggesting that Paul, the physician and one time traveling companion wrote the Gospel of Luke, but not Acts? There is almost unanimous consensus that the two works were written by the same author. So when discussing authorship, it is nonsense to me to try to separate the two books completely. We should avoid duplicating too much information which could be summarized here and explained in fuller at the Acts article, I'll give you that for sure. But to claim any discussion of the authorship of acts is not germane in this article is missing the point (that the authors are one in the same, no?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. The Church used Acts to determine who wrote Luke. So do modern scholars. Leadwind (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(added after comment below, out of chronological sequence). Then, maybe a forked article, "authorship of Luke and Acts" would be appropriate rather than duplicating material? Student7 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else want to comment on the content of Roman's proposed contribution to the authorship section? Here it is again.

According to Joseph Fitzmyer, "since Luke is not prominent in the apostolic age, if the gospel and Acts were not originally written by him, there is no obvious reason why they should have been associated with him. In other words, the ancient tradition which holds that Luke is the author of the third Gospel and Acts may in the long run prove to be substantially correct." Fitzmyer notes that many scholars are agnostic on the issue of authorship, while others have retained the traditional attribution as substantially correct. Scholars who question Luke's authorship have been unable to propose a credible alternative explanation for how his name got attached to the Gospel. Whoever the author was, they were highly educated, well travelled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time they composed the Gospel, they must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment. Graham Stanton evaluates the opening of the Gospel of Luke as "the most finely composed sentence in the whole of post-Classical Greek literature."

If no one else wants to comment, I'll give it a go. Leadwind (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with agreement in number. "the author", "they" A Georgian (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has been unlocked and I have made the changes.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have accidentally also deleted the paragraph on the other side of the debate. But don't worry, I put it back for you. Leadwind (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't delete it, I moved it. Since you duplicated the same paragraph, I removed the one I moved.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not acting in bad faith, so I had no reason to delete the paragraph.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Greek!

A section addresses Luke's fluency in Greek but compares it to Paul, for whom Greek was a second or maybe third (to Aramaic and Latin?) language. Got to squeeze Paul in there somewhere I guess. Why not compare it to the other four gospels for whom Greek was almost unknown (Mark and Matthew?) or John? Wouldn't that make more sense? Gospels against gospels?

The Epistles could be compared against other Epistles, right?

I don't know how fluent Paul's Greek was but the translations into English are mesmerizing for most believers. He holds his own in translation, I think. Student7 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I might well have put that in there. It's what our RS says, so it's what I put in the article. If you have an RS that compares Luke's Greek to someone else, cite that, too. It's not up to us editors to figure out what to compare Luke's Greek to. Leadwind (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's a real WP:RS you'll find the same thing said by other WP:RS. It's a good idea to check if a claim is actually mainstream before including it. Exactly why the comparison to Paul is relevant to this article, I'm not sure. Was there a reason you had in mind?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The ODCC thinks the comparison is relevant, and who am I to question it? Harris (in a university level textbook) says Luke is the most precise, literate, and artistic of the gospels. ODCC says Luke's writing is the best of the NT, beating out Paul's (second place). I'm still not sure why anyone has a problem with the current text. If other editors feels strongly about it, we could remove reference to Paul and just say that Luke's writing is the most literary of the NT. Compared to other issues with this and other articles, this one line hardly deserves this amount of attention. Leadwind (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't just grab a source and quote chunks of it saying 'Who am I to question it?'. No one is asking you to question the source, what you're being asked to do is apply some discernment to what you quote. Pay attention to WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT. Is a comparison of Luke's Greek to Paul's Greek particularly notable? Is it directly relevant to the article? Is it represented significantly in a range of WP:RS? Should it be given WP:WEIGHT, and what kind of WP:WEIGHT should it be given? General discussion of the quality of Luke's Greek certainly is, and should be included, but random grabs from Googlebooks should not be justified with 'Who am I to question... whatever this stuff is that I copied from... wherever it was, for... whatever reason?' Half the reason why this article has issues is this kind of indiscriminate 'grab bag' approach to editing. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a dumping ground of webscrapes.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'random grabs from Googlebooks'? I'm not sure you're addressing here. I'd be happy to delete all grabs from Googlebooks. Leadwind (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm addressing the common Wikipedia editor practice of typing the name of an article into Googlebooks, grabbing a random quote from here and there, writing it into the article and thinking they've improved it. There's no evidence of coherent planning or thought, let alone fact checking or attention to WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT. Some of your edits look like this--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Leadwind (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think if "someone else (reliable) says it" then I can quote it? I think it needs to be on WP:TOPIC first, which is not putting down Paul's style in a literary work attributed to Luke. Luke is the topic, not Paul. I mean, is there anyone besides me who finds Luke 3:23–38 less interesting than, say, Tom Clancy? I'm not sure if I could find a mention of it, it would deserve a place here. Student7 (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We might as well compare Luke's Greek to Tolstoy's Russian.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This has got to be the weirdest criticism I've ever come in for. All this discussion over one innocuous line? Like, if the sentence said that Luke was the most literary writer of the NT, that would be OK, but to mention that Paul is second place is suddenly worth all this criticism? I'd never have guessed. Leadwind (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has said that if the sentence said Luke was the most literary writer of the New Testament, that would be ok, nor is anyone objecting to the reference to Paul as "second place" simply because it puts him in second place. It's a matter of Wiki policy, pure and simple. Questions to be asked are:

Is a comparison of Luke's Greek to Paul's Greek particularly WP:NOTE worthy?

Is it directly relevant to the article? Is it represented significantly in a range of WP:RS?

Should it be given WP:WEIGHT, and if so what kind of WP:WEIGHT should it be given?

I couldn't care less if Luke's Greek is the best or worst in the New Testament, or the worst in the entire extant Greek corpus for that matter. That's not the issue under discussion.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, Yes, an assessment of Luke's Greek is noteworthy. Yes, an assessment of Luke's Greek is represented in a significant range of RSs. Yes, it's given appropriate weight. Thanks for explaining why the sentence is OK as it is, according to WP policy. Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I agree that an assessment of Luke's Greek is noteworthy, represented in WP:RS and should be given due WP:WEIGHT. Your sentence instead wants to introduce Paul's Greek. You are talking about one subject in your reply here, when the sentence in question addresses a different subject. You have not answered any of my actual questions. The statement in the article does not need to make any reference to Paul's Greek.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

majority view, per WP:WEIGHT

I've been making a mistake in saying that Encyclopedia Britannica represents the mainstream view. According to WP:WEIGHT, it represents the "majority" view.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Encyclopedia Britannica says that Luke's author is unknown and relates the reasons that scholars dispute that Luke authored it. According to Wales (who originated the distinction above), we are supposed to call this the majority view. Then we can also describe the minority view, as it is significant. Leadwind (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since WP policy is to describe the viewpoint that we find in commonly accepted reference texts as "the majority" viewpoint, I added that information to the authorship section. The prominent dissenters to the majority opinion demonstrate that the minority opinion is significant and not fringe. It would be against WP policy to treat the majority opinion as anything other than the majority opinion. Leadwind (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, why is twice as much text spent on the minority view as the majority view? What WP policy supports that sort of balance? Leadwind (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the Wiki policy which says "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia anyone can edit!". I've faced the same problem on many other articles. The fact is that individual articles can easily be held hostage by a single editor because there is no system in place to ensure WP editing policies are maintained. I agree with what you say about what we should do with this article. However, when a single editor can simply revert any changes I make, and my counter-reversions count as "edit warring", what's to do?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, you're deleting reference to the "majority viewpoint" without addressing WP policy, which tells us that we should treat what EBO says as the "majority viewpoint." Please address this policy issue here on the talk page. Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fitzmyer on authorship

A week ago Tom Hennel kindly found the following information for us. Roman only liked half of it, so I'm repeating it here. After Tom went to all this trouble of finding us a good source, it would be too bad only to use the half of it that Roman likes.

Extracting some counterpart quotes; ".. since Luke is not prominent in the apostolic age, if the gospel and Acts were not originally written by him, there is no obvious reason why they should have been associated with him. In other words, the ancent tradition which holds that Luke is the author of the third Gospel and Acts may in the long run prove to be substantially correct." Fitzmyer starts with the observation "Most modern commentators on the Lukan gospel are skeptical about the validity of the traditional attribution". and "The difference between the Lukan Paul and the Pauline Paul is not minor; even though it is largely an issue of Acts and the Pualine letters, it bears on the authorship of the Lukan gospel. The result is that many modern commentators are uncertain about the authorship of Luke-Acts". But Fitzmyer notes "A minority of commentators retain the traditional attribuiton as substantially correct". He distinguishes what we may safely infer about Luke from the text of the New Testament - that Luke was an author who wrote for Gentile converts, who was no himself an eyewitness of Jesus, but had been sometime a companion of Paul, and who wrote after the gospels of Mark and (possibly) Matthew; and contrasts this with the claims of the patristic tradition (much of it from Irenaeus), that Luke was an inseperable companion of Paul, who lived unmarried and childless, and who died in Boetia at the age of 84. Fitzmyer notes that if the 'we' passages indicate the times, and all the times, when Luke was with Paul, then "Reading the evidence we see that the author was not with Paul during the main part of his evangelizing endeavors, when he faced the major crisis of his missionary activity in the eastern Mediterranean area (the issue of whether gentile converts must accept Jewish legal practices), or when he wrote his greatest letters." Fitzmyer suggests of Luke "His brief asociation with Paul led him to idealize Paul and make him the hero of the second part of Acts. He has painted his own picture of Paul, which may not agree in all details with the Paul of the uncontested letters".

Here's my take on what we should say about the minority view.

A minority of scholars hold to the traditional view of Lukan authorship.<ref>"Most modern commentators on the Lukan gospel are skeptical about the validity of the traditional attribution" Fitzmyer.</ref> Since Luke was not prominent there is no obvious reason that this gospel and Acts would have been attributed to him if he didn't write them.<ref>".. since Luke is not prominent in the apostolic age, if the gospel and Acts were not originally written by him, there is no obvious reason why they should have been associated with him." Fitzmyer.</ref> If Luke was only a sometime companion of Paul who idealized him long after his death, that could explain the differences between Acts and Paul's letter.<ref>"His brief asociation with Paul led him to idealize Paul and make him the hero of the second part of Acts. He has painted his own picture of Paul, which may not agree in all details with the Paul of the uncontested letters". Fitzmyer.</ref> Though what scholars can discern about the evangelist from the New Testament doesn't match the patristic description of Luke, in the long run the traditional view may turn out to be substantially correct.<ref>Fitzmyer</ref>

In the majority-view section, we can also cite Fitzmyer, that most scholars doubt the attribution because of the differences between Acts and Paul.

Roman's attempt to turn Fitzmyer into a proponent of Lukan authorship, well, there's not much that needs to be said about it, is there? Leadwind (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

He says scholars are "skeptical" not "doubtful". I also agree that few scholars are 'certain' as to who the author is (or is not). In any case, rather than argue over semantics, we can go ahead and insert the Vermes quote that "many scholars" agree with Lukan authorship if you want to keep raising issues. Or we can go right back to fighting over the Guthrie quote, which your opposition to is entirely illegitimate but which I agreed to remove since you seemed willing to compromise. If you are going to remain rigid, we can go ahead and reinsert his view that "most scholars" agree with Lukan authorship on some level (which doesn't actually contradict a claim that scholars are uncertain or skeptical), and it looks like I have editors here to back me up. Rather than fight, we should leave what we agreed, and what we added is a summary of what you listed above. If you want to add info about Luke being unmarried, go right ahead.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot that Andrew also helped us by finding a quote from a greatly respected NT scholar, Raymond Brown. It went like this.

"it is not impossible that a minor figure who had traveled with Paul for small parts of his ministry wrote Acts decades after the apostle was dead, if one makes the allowance that there were details about Paul's early life he did not know, that he simplified and reordered information (even as he did in the Gospel what he took over material from mark), and that as a true theologian he rethought some of Paul's emphases that were no longer apropos. We have no way of being certain that he was Luke, as affirmed by 2d-century tradition: but there is no serious reason to propose a different candidate. Luke is mentioned only once in the nondisputed letters of Paul (Phlm 24) and twice in the deuteroPaulines (Col 4:14; II Tim 4:11), and so he was scarcely the most obvious Pauline character upon whom to fasten as a fictional author. There is nothing to contradict's[sic] Luke's having been with Paul in the places and times indicated by the "we" passages, and he fits the profile of a minor figure. This proposal for authorship has more to recommend it than other theories, but "not impossible" is all that should be claimed."

We shouldn't forget that Brown, who found scholarship evenly divided, said that it the best one could claim was that it was not impossible for Luke to have been the author, provided one explains why Luke would have gotten a lot of Paul's details wrong. Leadwind (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you question my selection from the Fitzmyer quote. When I made the edit, I simply copied and pasted the paragraph you listed above as the "consensus" paragraph. Interesting that you had no problem with the quotation then. Fitzmyer is not the only usable source, and I was OK to limiting ourselves to him so long as the scholarly view was fairly represented. Your changes skewed that quote beyond what we agreed and what other scholars think.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone making a positive comment on your version of what Fitzmyer says. And if you really think that your one-sided version was a better representation of what Fitzmyer says, I'd sure like to see you try to say so with a straight face. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From the thread right above this one:

Anyone else want to comment on the content of Roman's proposed contribution to the authorship section? Here it is again.

According to Joseph Fitzmyer, "since Luke is not prominent in the apostolic age, if the gospel and Acts were not originally written by him, there is no obvious reason why they should have been associated with him. In other words, the ancient tradition which holds that Luke is the author of the third Gospel and Acts may in the long run prove to be substantially correct." Fitzmyer notes that many scholars are agnostic on the issue of authorship, while others have retained the traditional attribution as substantially correct. Scholars who question Luke's authorship have been unable to propose a credible alternative explanation for how his name got attached to the Gospel. Whoever the author was, they were highly educated, well travelled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time they composed the Gospel, they must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment. Graham Stanton evaluates the opening of the Gospel of Luke as "the most finely composed sentence in the whole of post-Classical Greek literature."

If no one else wants to comment, I'll give it a go. Leadwind (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Guthrie and other scholars should be excluded, and I didn't agree to Fitzymer because I thought he represented the "consensus". I am disappointed that, after posting that consensus paragraph, you went in and changed everything around in spite of (what looked like) our consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just say, "My version of the paragraph was a better summary of Fitzmyer's views." I'm heartened to see that you don't have the temerity to do so. Leadwind (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman's editing

Roman got this page locked. Roman cites Fitzmyer one-sidedly. Roman won't accept Wales's statement about the majority view on WP:WEIGHT. Anyone see a pattern here? Leadwind (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do see a pattern: you are disrespectful to other editors and unilaterally take it upon yourself to define what sources are acceptable and which you can unilaterally delete. Guthrie says outright that "most scholars" accept Lukan authorship at some level, and you delete that and replace it with a misquoted claim from EBO that takes no position other than the obvious. You keep changing the goalposts, and define what is acceptable and what isn't, then claim people who disagree with your skewed view are pushing a POV though you are unable to see how blatantly you are pushing one.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, since you are going to play games with the Fitzmyer quote, despite the consensus that I thought we had come to, more sources have been added, and not just Vermes and Guthrie. I will add even more if you start mass-deleting again. Let’s not keep going back-and-forth.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be no objection to the addition of Brown. He is the strongest source, along with Vermes, that we have till now. Addition of Brown should be welcome because it adds great value to the article. He was one of the top scholars of his times. You may also note that Brown was a conservative evangelical, and a priest, AFAIK. There is no possible reason to see his view as skeptical.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, Brown's view should need balancing by a liberal view, which I have half a mind to do.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The current verison is good. Any attempt to "balance" it further will force me to counter-balance it.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, let's vet proposed scholars here on the talk page like we did Fitzmyer and Brown. Leadwind (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that we don’t agree completely on what scholars should be included, and that it is unlikely we will, so I suggest that we leave it alone as it is. Further modifications will force me to continue modifying it as well.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. You cannot have a status quo on Wiki articles. There is always room for improvement. I will certainly try to improve it if I see some way of doing so.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Introducing Joseph Fitzmyer

Yes, that's Joseph Fitzmyer. Joseph Fitzmyer. He is wrongly referred to throughout the article's footnotes as 'Fizmyer'.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

balance, from wp:weight

'Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.'

Tertiary sources are good for finding the right balance among conflicting viewpoints. EBO is a tertiary source that describes our topics from a disinterested viewpoint. Books from InterVarsity Press are not "disinterested." Encyclopedia Britannica is. EBO > IVP. Leadwind (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that we use a current edition of Britannica, instead of one which was written 100 years ago?--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Current sources are better. I always cite the current one, which also easily reviewed online. Leadwind (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 69/70 still cites the 1911 edition.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Solved. Leadwind (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I have added new sources. They are about 10 in total, and from noted and well-cited scholars. They were actually part of the article for a while, before Leadwind deleted them. Leadwind deleted them despite the fact that he keeps taking a citation from EBO out of context. Ironically enough, despite his insistence on quoting EBO out of context, one of these sources says outright that the majority of scholars accept Lukan authorship. Deleting this explicit scholarly source, and replacing it with an out-of-context quote from an online encyclopedia is blatant POV pushing. Sources should not be deleted, let alone so many at once. If Leadwind will compromise on this issue, I am more than willing. But he cannot continue to use the EBO quote out of context.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How many of them are from academic publishers, and not from apologistic presses?-Civilizededucation^talk 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

They are all from academic publishers, and I am more than willing to push this point if Leadwind refuses to compromise. But besides this point, why is it one can quote EBO out of context?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not they are academic, you were doing OR, so I deleted it. And, you have yet to establish that Donald Guthrie is an RS.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I can restore the individual views of each of those authors, so it isn't OR. Donald Guthrie is a respected scholar. Check this link. I will quote a bit: "Guthrie's weighty contributions to NT scholarship are widely known, and like the man himself, greatly respected". I will let you read the rest. I have now established that he is an RS, and will restore the quote, and the views of all those other scholars, if other editors here continue to push their POV.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously think you get to establish it unilaterally, without waiting for a response from other eds?-Civilizededucation^talk 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and present to me your evidence that Guthrie is dubious and unreliable, despite being "greatly respected" much like his "weighty contributions".RomanHistorian (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The last lines of the of the link YOU provided [2] is enough to discount Guthrie. It is a source which shows that he is NOT an RS. This has been told to you before too, by Dylan. It is a waste of time if you can only come up with a reasoning which has already been rejected. Stop wasting other eds time. And it is up to you to establish that Donald Guthrie is an RS.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...

I strongly object to The list of modern scholars maintaining the historical and contextual validity of the gospel accounts is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. This is a summary or synthesis of data that is full of weaselly innuendo, but really isn't saying much. From a quick read, it seems to be saying "There are a lot (perhaps a majority? who knows) of modern scholars, whether liberal, conservative, moderate, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic who think the gospels are accurate and valid historical accounts". This idea is unsourced (or rather, it can be sourced to the opinion of one Wikipedia editor based on a synthesis of sources).

It's been over a month, yet the near exact phrasing is still being edit warred over by a single editor.... Sure it's a different article than before, but still... I'm sorry if this brief encounter has killed a little bit of hope inside of me. It's disheartening to see this. P.S. is it notable that these sources seem to be centered around the 1950s?? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, don't give up hope. Roman represents the same phenomenon we've dealt with successfully before. Leadwind (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources people might consider using. Johnson in ABDY.

• "Luke apparently accompanied Paul on his journey to Rome, and is the reputed author of the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. See LUKE-ACTS, BOOK OF. This entry consists of two articles assessing Luke’s accomplishments as an historian and as a theologian.", Luke Timothy Johnson, 'Luke-Acts, Books of', in Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 4: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (397). New York: Doubleday.
• "Any discussion of the circumstances accompanying the production of Luke-Acts is inevitably circular. There are few external guideposts, so conclusions must be based on internal evidence, which can—notoriously—be construed in quite different ways. The issues of dating and authorship, for example, mutually impinge; and to a remarkable degree, each depends on a reader’s overall conception of the writing.", Luke Timothy Johnson, 'Luke-Acts, Books of', in Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 4: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (404). New York: Doubleday.
• "The ancient manuscripts attribute the gospel to a certain Luke, whom patristic writers unanimously identify as the companion of Paul (Philemon 24; Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11), a supposition apparently supported by the so-called “we passages” of Acts (cf. 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:8–18; 27:1–28:16) in which the narrator suddenly shifts from third-person to first-person narration, suggesting the presence of an eyewitness (Fitzmyer Luke I–IX AB, 36). Critical scholarship has challenged the traditional attribution, arguing that the tone, perspective, and purposes of Luke-Acts better fit a later, “second-generation” composition (Loning 1981). A very late dating would obviously disqualify any companion of Paul as author. “Second-generation,” however, is scarcely a precise designation. To place Luke-Acts as late as the 2d century (O’Neill 1961) is excessive. In fact, nothing in the writing prohibits composition by a companion of Paul and an eyewitness to some events.", Luke Timothy Johnson, 'Luke-Acts, Books of', in Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 4: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (404). New York: Doubleday.

Ellis in ISBE.

• "While most scholars continued to affirm Lukan authorship, some German writers in the mid-20th cent again raised objections (cf. Kümmel, intro, pp. 147–150; Ellis, Gospel of Luke, pp. 42–52). They pointed to theological emphases and historical descriptions in Luke-Acts that differ fundamentally from those in Paul’s letters. Their objections rested in part on exegetical judgements, e.g., a philosophical interpretation of the Areopagus speech, the general attitude toward the law in Acts, and the traditional identification of Gal. 2 with the conference in Acts 15. They also presupposed the second century tradition that Luke was a disciple of Paul and would therefore have reflected his theology. In each instance the conclusions are questionable, if not doubtful; in some they are only a return to the views of F. C. Baur.", EE Ellis, in Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). Vol. 3: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (185). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
• "While the scholars mentioned above offered many valuable insights, their general reconstruction and concomitant conclusion about the authorship of Luke-Acts were untenable. Recent work (e.g., of Fitzmyer, Hengel, and Marshall) has tended to confirm the tradition of Lukan authorship, which is, on the whole, consistent with the literary and historical character of the documents and can be accepted with reasonable certainty.", EE Ellis, in Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). Vol. 3: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (185). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Ian Howard Marshall, in NBD.

• "The question of the authorship of Lk. is closely bound up with that of Acts. The two books are parts of one work, and attempts to deny their common authorship have not been successful. The traditional ascription of both books to *LUKE still remains the most probable view. The evidence is basically derived from *ACTS. So far as the Gospel is concerned, it contains little concrete evidence for or against the traditional ascription of authorship. The claim that it breathes the atmosphere of the sub-apostolic period (i.e. the time after Luke’s death) is too subjective to carry any conviction.", IH Marshall, in Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (704). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
• "In one sense, identification of the author of the Gospel sheds little light on it, since we know scarcely anything about the author additional to what can be gleaned from Lk. and Acts. In another sense, however, the knowledge of the author’s identity is valuable because it confirms that he was a person well qualified (in accordance with his own explicit claim) to learn the contents of the Gospel tradition and to reformulate them. The historical credentials of the Gospel are greater than if it was the work of some unknown figure from a later date.", IH Marshall, in Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (704). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
• "Although there is a tradition of uncertain date connecting the composition of the Gospel with Achaia, there is nothing in the writing itself to substantiate this view. It is more likely that we should connect the Gospel with Rome (where Mk. was available and where Luke was present with Paul) or with Antioch in Syria (with which Luke is also connected by what is probably a more reliable tradition, and where the ‘Q’ source which he shared with Matthew was probably compiled). Behind the Gospel, however, there ultimately lie traditions current in Palestine. Luke’s connection with the early church in Palestine and Syria is ultimately of more significance than where he adventitiously happened to produce his Gospel.", IH Marshall, Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (704). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Black, in CPNIVC.

• "Given strong external and internal evidence for Lukan authorship, one may wonder why much of contemporary scholarship rejects the notion entirely.6 The answer is based on internal evidence which is said to disallow Lukan authorship. Quite simply, the book of Acts presents a view of Paul the Christian who appears to be quite different from the Paul who wrote the letters, especially Galatians. The book of Acts does not cite or even mention Paul’s letters. More significantly, it is argued that the theological portrait of Paul in Acts could not have been painted by a companion of Paul. Luke’s portrait is especially problematic with regard to Paul’s stance on keeping the Law.7 We must admit that it is somewhat surprising when Paul, who wrote that, “All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse,” (Gal 3:10), consistently upholds the Law in Acts. Most notably, James in Acts 21:24 encourages Paul to help the four men under a vow in order to show that “you yourself are living in obedience to the Law.”8", Black, M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.

• Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart 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 stories and “medical” vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.", Black, M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.

Green, in NICNT.

• "Although the most likely candidate for the authorship of Luke-Acts is Luke the physician and sometime companion of Paul,67 the author himself has not included his name within the Gospel itself and the title, “according to Luke,” was added by others only decades later.", Green, J. B. (1997). The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (21). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Bock, in BECNT.

• "Fitzmyer (1981: 40) divides the external evidence handily into two categories: what can be deduced from the NT and what cannot be deduced from it. That Luke was a physician, was tied to Paul, was not an eyewitness, and wrote his Gospel with concern for Gentiles are facts the NT makes clear. That Luke was from Syria, proclaimed Paul’s gospel, was unmarried, was childless, and died at an old age are ideas that are not in the NT. Though the differences about Luke’s age at death tell us that not everything in these traditions is indisputably true, their unity about authorship makes almost certain the identification of Luke as the Gospel’s author. The tradition’s testimony also makes Luke’s connection to Paul very likely.", Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (5–6). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

• "Most commentators identify Luke as a Gentile without any further detail. They (1) point to Col. 4:10–11, 14, (2) note Acts 1:19, which mentions a field with a Semitic name and then speaks of “their” language, and (3) point out the attention to Hellenistic locales and the concern for Gentiles. This last argument is not strong, since a Jew like Paul could fit into such geographical locales and concerns. In sum, it seems very likely that Luke was a Gentile, though it is unclear whether his cultural background was Semitic. In any case, he probably had religious contact with Judaism before coming to Christ.", Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (6–7). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

• "Colossians 4:14 refers to Luke as a doctor. In 1882, Hobart 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 rendered 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.

Ian Howard Marshall, in NIGTC.

• "The Gospel itself is anonymous and contains no information which would enable us to identify its author, although one may draw some conclusions regarding his milieu and situation. That he wrote for an urban church community in the Hellenistic world is fairly certain. From the latter half of the second century onwards the clear and consistent verdict of early church writers is that he was Luke, the ‘beloved physician’ and the companion of Paul. It is sometimes claimed that this tradition is simply an intelligent deduction from the NT evidence that Acts was written by a companion of Paul, who is most likely to have been Luke; consequently, it is argued, the tradition has no independent value. But the argument is stronger than this. The tradition in question may date back to the first half of the second century (Bruce, 4–8), and it is unequivocal in singling out Luke from among several possible candidates among Paul’s companions during the period covered by the ‘we’ sections in Acts. There is never any suggestion of a rival candidate for the honour of writing the Gospel. 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 sufficient evidence to corroborate a view more firmly based on other considerations. The traditional view of authorship faces two main difficulties. One is based on the evidence of Acts, where, it is claimed, the picture of Paul is too far removed from historical reality to be the work of a companion of the apostle. This point lies beyond the scope of a commentary on the Gospel, but reference may be made to Luke: Historian and Theologian where reasons are given for disputing the point (see further Ellis, 42–52). The other point is that Luke is said to give the impression of writing at a time when the early church had settled down into its ‘early catholic’ period; consequently he belonged to the post-Pauline period. But again the argument fails to convince.", Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. The New international Greek testament commentary (33–34). Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press.

Nolland, in WBC.

• "How do we evaluate this traditional ascription? The role attributed to Luke in the NT is quite modest. In Philem 24 he occurs in a list of Paul’s fellow workers. In Col 4:14 Luke the beloved physician sends greetings (and is normally thought to be of non-Jewish origin on the basis of v 11, though this can be read in other ways). In 2 Tim 4:11 he is said to be Paul’s sole companion. That is all, unless we identify this Luke with the Lucius (Λούκιος) who is said to be kinsman of Paul in Rom 16:21. The tradition has certainly exploited these texts to maximize the link with Paul; but this is clearly in the context of the sub-apostolic standing of Luke, which itself constituted a problem for the recognition of this text as Scripture and canon. One could argue that the Gospel preface (1:1–4) necessitated attribution to a non-apostolic figure, and that given this constraint, Luke offered a figure with attested apostolic links. Cadbury (“The Tradition,” 2:260–61) and Haenchen (Acts, 14) go further and argue that Lukan authorship was probably inferred from a comparison of the information of the “we” passages in Acts with the information to be gleaned about Paul’s companions from the letters and from Acts. This would not be impossible but does seem more like the kind of exegetical activity which came only later. I remain impressed by the degree to which the Lukan authorship comes through in the tradition as a problem to be met, rather than as a piece of good fortune (which would, for that reason, be suspected of being only the product of wishful thinking). Though the Gospel preface clearly plays a role in the tradition, it would seem that the tradition begins from the attribution to Luke and expounds on that, partly in the light of the material of the preface, rather than the material of the preface serving as the beginning point for the growth of the tradition. In the end the argument is not decisive, and further considerations have been offered both in favor of and against Lukan authorship.", Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 1:1-9:20. Word Biblical Commentary (xxxv–xxxvi). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Ian Howard Marshall, in NBC.

• "From the second half of the second century AD onwards there is a clear and consistent belief that the writer of this gospel (and Acts) was Luke, the doctor and companion of Paul (Col. 4:14). It has sometimes been argued that this belief is nothing more than an intelligent deduction from the NT evidence that Luke-Acts was written by the companion of Paul who was present during the episodes described in Acts in the first person plural form (Acts 16:10–17, etc). Among Paul’s possible companions Luke is a plausible choice. It can then be argued that the belief has no independent value as a testimony to the earliest tradition, but is simply one of several possible ‘guesses’. However, we may note that the tradition is quite unequivocal in naming Luke and not any other companion of Paul. Moreover this tradition is fairly early (possibly c. AD 120), and there is not the faintest hint of any alternative view in the early church. Marcion, an early Christian heretic, who held faithfully to Paul alone as his apostolic authority, selected Luke’s gospel as his one gospel; presumably he accepted the tradition that it was written by Paul’s companion. Against the tradition it has been argued: 1. The picture of Paul in Acts is so distorted that it can hardly have been written by a companion and contemporary of Paul. 2. The gospel has the atmosphere of a time, after the apostles, when the church had given up hope of the imminent return of Jesus and had settled down into the form of rather conventional, institutional life sometimes known as ‘early catholicism’. Neither of these arguments is strong enough to overcome the tradition.", Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

These are good and should be included. The problem is that I am outnumbered, and on Wikipedia you can push whatever POV you want if you have more editors than the other guy on your side. Feel free to make whatever edits you want; it would be helpful as one person can't do this alone.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to add these sources. They all make the point that the traditional view has been criticized severely, and they all make the point that the traditional view is no longer the majority view. I believe they're fairly well balanced. A couple of them are slightly conservative, but they're generally critical of a completely naive approach to authorship.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a word of warning, the publishers are all what Leadwind calls "sectarian" so you might find your edits reverted sadly.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They're what we both call non-scholarly. From a quick sampling of the quotes, they aren't just "conservative", they're downright archaic, to the point that they do not represent the mainstream. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So without having actually read them, you think they must be "conservative" and "archaic' just because RH thinks they're good. Here's a quick review for those who don't like reading.

• Johnson: Says Luke is the reputed author of Luke/Acts, says critical scholarship has challenged the traditional attribution, says that it is not impossible for Luke to have been written by "a companion of Paul", but does not say more than this
• Ellis: Says the traditional attribution of Luke/Acts to Luke is still the most probable and can be accepted with reasonable certainty, notes 20th century criticism of the traditional view
• Marshall (NBD): Says the composition of Luke/Acts by Luke is still most probable, but says the gospel of Luke contains little concrete evidence for or against the traditional ascription of authorship
• Black: States explicitly that much of contemporary scholarship rejects the traditional attribution, lists criticisms of the traditional attribution, and points out that attempts to prove the author of the gospel of Luke was a physician have failed
• Green: Says that the traditional attribution is most likely, but acknowledges the attribution was made decades after the gospel was written
• Bock: Cites Fitzmyer's assessment of the external evidence, says Luke as the author of the gospel is "almost certain", and points out that attempts to prove the author of the gospel of Luke was a physician have failed
• Marshall (NIGTC): Says the Gospel itself is anonymous and contains no information which would enable us to identify its author, says the traditional view of authorship faces two main difficulties and explains those difficulties, directing the reader to arguments against them
• Nolland: Says the argument is not decisive, and further considerations have been offered both in favor of and against Lukan authorship
• Marshall (NBC): Presents two arguments against the tradition and says they aren't strong enough to contradict it

In all seriousness, it is ludicrous to describe these views as conservative and archaic. It's conservative to say that the argument for Lukan authorship isn't decisive? It's archaic to say that attempts to prove the author of the gospel was a physician have failed? It's conservative and archaic to say that the traditional view is rejected by much contemporary scholarship?

Meanwhile, looking at the references in the article which were considered sufficiently scholarly and which are used to criticize traditional views of Luke, I find:

• A work by the devoutly religious conservative FF Bruce, from 1952
• Works by the equally religious Bruce Metzger
• Lutheran David Aune
• Catholic priest John Meier
• The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (not exactly up to date, hardly scholarly)
• Strong's concordance (over 100 years old and considered utterly worthless by current scholarship)

You cannot possibly tell me that you're going to object to the likes of Marshall, Ellis, and Bock, if you have no objection to these sources being used. I have no objection whatever to the scholarly consensus being represented in this article and given due weight. I'm entirely of the opinion that the article should identify the traditional view as unsupported by the majority of current scholarship. But what I don't want to see is partisanship and POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Metzger, Aune, Meier have an unassailable academic standing. One could not object to them even if one wanted to. At least not seriously. Their references are more than welcome, regardless of their being religious or not.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so those questions aren't going to be answered. Leaving that aside, could you explain again why Johnson, Ellis, Marshall, Black, Green, Bock, and Nolland are not WP:RS?--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They can be RS when published by academic presses. They can be RS, even otherwise, if you can show that most of their works have been published by academic presses. This is my view of an RS.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually interested in the Wikipedia definition of WP:RS, not my definition or your definition or anyone else's definition. Could you demonstrate to me why you believe that these sources don't meet the Wikipedia definition of WP:RS?--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the publishers of sources quoted in the article. Looking just at the sources which hold to the critical view, I find (a) HarperSanFrancisco, (b) HarperCollins, (c) McGraw-Hill, (d) MacMillian and Co., Ltd, (e) T&T Clark, (f) Doubleday, (g) Yale University Press, and (h) Oxford University Press (there are others, but this is almost all of them). I see only two academic presses there. So it's ok to quote sources published by non-academic presses, apparently. Of course, Marshall is published in an academic press (Yale).--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

HarperCollins is a mainstream publisher with no religious agenda. InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, College, Baker Academic, Thomas Nelson, et al, are explicitly Christian presses that present Christian-oriented scholarship that would not fly at a mainstream publisher. We should reject works from anti-Christian presses and from pro-Christian presses because we have plenty of RSs from mainstream presses. Leadwind (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That did not answer my question. All it proved is that Wiki policy is not being followed in this article, and ad hoc justifications are being made as to why. Not only have you provided no evidence that the scholarship I quoted 'would not fly at a mainstream publisher', not only have you ignored Yale University Press, but you have also ignored the fact that most of the quotations I provided are saying nothing more than what is found in mainstream secular commentary. Wikipedia has no policy with regard to what you call 'pro-Christian presses'. You are not following WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan you see the problem is that if they let certain publishers on the article, it would disrupt the POV they want to push. Thus they created a rule to protect it. You are wasting your time if you think you can convince them. If you want to do something about it, bring other editors here. That is the only way to undo their POV.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually came here to help them, ironically. Now I see that this is just another article being squabbled over by two POV parties.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yale, Eerdmans, Paulist Press, Fortress — those are OK. It's only the Christian sources that are outside the mainstream that need to be labeled as representing minority opinions. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at the sources I quoted; leaving out Baker books and IVP, you'll see Yale, Eerdmans, Doubleday, Eerdmans again. First I was told they were all "conservative" and "archaic". That wouldn't fly (Bruce, quoted favourably, is borderline fundamentalist, and over 50 years old), so then I was told they weren't published by academic presses. I debunked that as well, and so along came a new argument, 'no pro-Christian presses'. This ad hoc invention of "rules" on the fly (which are abandoned and replaced as quickly as they are debunked), and blatant disregard for Wiki policy, is symptomatic of POV agitprop.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the pro christian presses should be largely avoided because they would be WP:QS. Similarly, we would also avoid any pro atheistic or pro x$ presses. Secondly, Eardmans should be used with some care. My impression is that it produces both types of stuff. Promotional, as well as academic. So, we may have to look at the particular author to see what other works of his has been published, and by what type of presses. Publishing by Eardmans should not be taken as an indication one way or the other. And, in my view, looking at publishers as a way of determining reliability is in keeping with WP policy. There is nothing archaic about it.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:QS states that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". Applying this rule means that any source to be identified as WP:QS must first be proved to have a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. So if you want to exclude certain publishers as WP:QS you must first prove that they have a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Simply saying "I think Christian presses are WP:RS because I don't trust Christians to be objective" is not an application of Wiki policy; it's a personal POV. I agree that individual authors need to be assessed, not just publishers. IH Marshall for example is a particularly well known and commonly cited Lukan scholar. I also agree that looking at publishers is a good way to determine reliability. I never said this was "archaic".--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

....Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which..... WP:QS I am all for keeping the discussions focused. I had only concentrated on this point because my impression was that Taiwan Boi wanted some clarifications in this regard. I am happy to drop this if it helps focus on specific issues.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That would mean we avoid publishers and works which are explicitly focused on Christian apologetics. It does not mean we avoid all Christian publishers. Not all Christian publishers are "widely acknowledged as extremist or promotional"; IVP for example publishes a range of works by Christian authors, not simply those which adhere to a particular theological viewpoint or a specific apologetic agenda. When a work published by Eerdmans, IVP, or even College Press is reviewed positively, cited, or otherwise treated professionally in WP:RS, we should treat it appropriately.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They are pro christian presses. There is no doubt about it. It is not very difficult to see this. Please do some more investigation. There is no hurry to reply quickly. I would like it if you may take some time before you reply. However, it is up to you if you want to post a fast reply.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The point at issue is not whether or not they are 'pro christian presses'. Please read what Leadwind says, he has expressed the point well. As for promotional sources, there's hardly a source less promotional than the Jesus Seminar, quoted favourably in the article. Likewise, Erhman is included in the article despite the fact that one of his work cited ("Misquoting Jesus"), was published by HarperCollins (not by an academic press), and the fact that Erhman is unashamedly promoting a personal point of view, including claims for textual criticism which are not supported by the text critical scholarly consensus. So clearly "non-promotional" is a rule being applied somewhat "flexibly" to sources in this article, and that's putting it politely.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CE that we should avoid promotional sources. Especially when we are trying to strike a balance, it's key that we refer to "disinterested" sources to measure the relative weight of different viewpoints. Promotional sources are not disinterested so they are the wrong place to look when trying to achieve balance (see WP:WEIGHT). I also agree with Tb that "When a work published by Eerdmans, IVP, or even College Press is reviewed positively, cited, or otherwise treated professionally in WP:RS, we should treat it appropriately." Eerdmans I've never objected to (nor Fortress, Paulist, etc.). If there really is an IVP or College Press book that disinterested, nonpromotional RSs treat as scholarly and respectable, we should do that same. Also, when these books or any other books express a minority view (e.g., Luke wrote Luke) then we should label it the minority viewpoint. J.A.T. Robinson seems to be the most prominent recent scholar who advocated for an apostolic connection for each gospel. He seems most prominent because he gets mentioned in tertiary sources. We should cite him regardless of his publisher because he's made it into the circle of scholars that we are instructed to pay attention to. Leadwind (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with CE that we should avoid using promotional sources. What I don't agree with is his use of this as a cover for removing sources he simply doesn't like.

@TaiwanBoi. Academic standing is the only thing which matters on Wikipedia. Your and mine idiosyncratic ideas don't count. The JS has an unparalleled academic significance. And Ehrman's academic standing is as unassailable as that of Brown, Metzger, Aune, Meier. Meier is a priest. He also has some pretty singular ideas on the miracles. But these things don't matter. They get overruled by their academic standing. Most of Ehrman's works are published by OUP. This is enough to conclude that he has an unassailable academic standing. RomanHistorian too has some pretty weird ideas. Vermes is anti christian. Ehrman, Pagels are attacking christianity. Harris is fringe for him. And the JS too is unusable for him. You guys probably don't know about Ludemann and Crossan. You would balk when you find out what they think. But it dosen't matter. Academic standing does. And conformity to traditional thinking/ likeability among christians doesn't. Most of your problems seem to be because you don't seem to understand this point and because you seem to be unfamiliar with the current mainstream academic thinking. On the whole, you wanted to know why some sources are preferable, while others are unpreferred. You have the answers now. If you still can't see it, it's your problem. Deal with it yourself. Please.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

[1] If you had read my previous agreement with Leadwind, you would find that I am not RomanHistorian nor do I share his view. I agree that academic standing matters. But academic standing does not mean that authors are always free from promotional POV. FF Bruce and Metzger both have high academic standing, as do Meier and Aune. Yet they all have views which are not mainstream, and all of them promote one non-mainstream view of another as you're well aware (your reference to Meier's miracles is a case in point). This does not stop you using them in the article, and nor should it. Ehrman is a scholar whose views are relevant, and can be cited here, but should be identified as minority views when they are actually minority views, and he should be identified as a promotional source when he's being blatantly promotional. Regardless of the fact that two of his works have been published by the OUP, he is explicitly promotional and a number of his claims are rejected by the entire scholarly consensus on text criticism. He makes claims of inauthenticity for certain texts which have a B rating in NA 27/UBS 4; how can you possibly expect me to take him seriously over the likes of Aland, Martini, Metzger, and Big Allen? He makes claims of conspiratorial textual editing for theological and ideological reasons which have received no support from the broader scholarly consensus. He does this specifically because he is writing to promote a personal POV; he's an ex-evangelical who's trying to convince religious people they shouldn't believe in the Bible. I am not saying he should not be included as a source. I haven't said the Jesus Seminar shouldn't be used a a source either. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that you want to exclude certain sources on the basis that they're "promotional" is simply not true. If you really believed that then the Jesus Seminar wouldn't be included in this article, and nor would Ehrman. You would at least identify Ehrman's conspiratorial text critical claims as a minority viewpoint, but you don't want to do that either.

[2] Moving on, there's nothing you can tell me about the relevant literature that I don't know. I have a personal library worth over US$50,000 which rivals some seminaries. I own around 30 professional peer reviewed journals including JSOT, JSNT, ET, BibSac, Semeia, Lectio Difficilior, TBCT, CBR, CRBR, and JSP, and I own 112 of the JSOT/JSNT monographs published by Sheffield Academic Press. I have plenty of Crossan's works (yes that's right, he wrote more than one, there's a surprise for you), and I'm amused by your comment about Gerd Lüdemann since he was one of the key sources I used in my recent work on Gnosticism and the Early Church. If you can just get over your own ideas about which sources should and shouldn't be included in this article, and start keeping to Wiki policy, I'll be able to stop wasting my time posting in the Talk page and I'll be able to start reading my library for contributions to the article itself.

[3] I came to this article making it totally clear that I want it to represent mainstream scholarly consensus, and that I was going to defend the representation of that consensus in this article. I also made it totally clear that I want the minority Christian view (as typically represented in Eerdmans, IVP, and College Press), to be included in the article only as a minority viewpoint, and identified as such. Ever since I did so I've met resistance from the very people I'm trying to help, who fail to read just about anything I write and who keep accusing me of being a virtual clone of RomanHistorian, even when I've opposed his edits and sided against him with Leadwind. Leadwind is the only one who has actually made an attempt to read what I've written (and thank you for that).

[4] What I want is for you to stop fooling around, and (a) start telling the truth, (b) start adhering to Wiki policy. I haven't been asking you why sources are preferable while others are unpreferred. I know what Wiki policy says on that point, and I'm here to push for Wiki policy. I also know your personal view because you've made no attempt to conceal your personal view and the fact that you want your personal view to take priority over Wiki policy. But that's not what we're here for. What I want from you is a commitment to Wiki policy. Can I get that, or are you going to continue to be difficult?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

CE, even if you don't agree with Tb on every point, please recognize him (presumably "him") for the valuable ally that he is. In these contentious discussions, an editor who personally disagrees with you but who respects WP policy is incredibly valuable. If Tb can help us establish what the majority viewpoint is on these topics, that takes our articles two or three giant steps forward. Let's build on what we agree on first and handle the details second. Other editors want to prevent us from identifying a majority view and Tb wants to help us. Let's spend our time working together where we can. When we get down to brass tacks, such as the treatment of Luke as the author of Luke, we can agree. Let's not let hypotheticals and definitions sidetrack us. As Andrew said, let's focus the discussion on what we want to accomplish. Leadwind (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you LW. I think where CE went wrong was assuming that when I posted that list of sources I was saying I wanted them all included in the article (I didn't, and I didn't say that). Not only that, but I think he also misunderstood the context in which I posted them. I was posting a list of sources for the minority position, since previously we had little more than Guthrie. To be told that none of them were valid sources for the minority position, was just ridiculous. I believe that the article would benefit from some of those sources being included in a description of the minority position on authorship, and probably most if not all of them could be used in the article on the authorship of Luke/Acts in order to demonstrate that even mainstream Christian commentators agree, at least in part, with certain arguments raised by the majority position. In particular, the article on the authorship of Luke/Acts says "Some claim that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training, but this claim has been widely disputed", and has a "who?" tag next to it. I have provided three or four sources which can be used to address that "who" tag.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Two of Ehrman's works are published by OUP? That dosen't sound like terribly well informed. Previously we had RH who was dissatisfied with a conservative evangelical priest like Brown, and wanted to add an extreme view from Guthrie. I think a conservative view (like the one from Brown) needs balancing with a liberal view. Anyway, it looks like you are different from RH and you and LW seem to be hopeful that you can work together nicely. As such, I would try to take a break for two weeks from this article, and hope for the best.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The context was works by Erhman which are currently cited in the article. Two of the Ehrman works currently cited in the article are published by OUP, "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" and "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet". The other two, "Misquoting Jesus", and "Jesus, Interrupted", are not. They are published by HarperCollins.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we focus the discussion. What are editors trying to accomplish? What changes do editors feel the article needs? Are we still trying to find out where the scholarly consensus is on the matter of Lukan authorship? What is your goal, Taiwan boi, in terms of what you want the article to say which it currently doesn't? Same question to Leadwind. What is being disputed? I don't think anyone is going to ignore that conservative Christians think the traditional view of authorship is The Truth. Where do we go from there (our point of agreement)?-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. I would like the article to say that in the majority viewpoint the evidence against the author being a companion of Paul's is compelling enough that the evangelist is considered to be unknown. And I would like the article to also describe the opinion in support of Lukan authorship, giving it due weight as a significant minority viewpoint. Until we can agree which view is in the majority, we can't agree on how to treat each view with proper weight. I call the unknown-author theory the majority view because because it's what I see in my commonly accepted reference text (EBO), and because support for the Luke view is so faint. Roman can cite InterVarsity Press all he likes in the minority view section, which should be smaller than the majority view section. If someone can cite me a commonly accepted reference text of comparable value that contradicts EBO, I'll of course be willing to shift positions. Leadwind (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tb. I balanced the majority and minority views. To do so, I had to cut back on some of the minority-view material because the minority view enjoyed the preponderance of coverage. Leadwind (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your changes, I have to agree that they improved compliance with policies on undue weight. Thanks for putting in the effort. Dylan Flaherty 19:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of Luke-Acts

I have made a number of contributions to the article on the authorship of Luke-Acts, so I hope I haven't trodden on any toes here. It seemed that no one had contributed significantly to it for some time, so I decided to be bold. I intend to rework the article further.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources on authorship: Rick Strelan

Rick Strelan, who has been published in academic journals such as JSNT, JTS (Oxford), and BTB, as well as by academic publishers such as Ashgate Publishing and Walter de Gruyter, had "Luke the priest: the authority of the author of the Third Gospel" published in 2008 by Ashgate Publishing. The following is an excerpt from his review of commentary supporting the traditional view of authorship (pp. 99-100). Bold emphasis mine.

"Others, however, are quite convinced that Luke, the fellow-worker and companion of Paul, was in fact the author, and that the tradition therefore is reliable and credible. Significant and reputable Luke-Acts scholars such as Hengel, Fitzmyer, and Marshall would belong to that group. Hengel argues that the titles of the Gospels were uniform in the second century, and he believes that the superscriptions 'have been completely neglected in recent scholarship' (2000:48). He is very critical of those who refuse to accept that the tiles were very old and not late-second century additions (2000:55). Fitzmyer concludes that most of the modern arguments "do not militate against the traditional identification of the author of the Third Gospel and Acts with Luke, the Syrian from Antioch, who had been a sometime collaborate of the Apostle Paul' (1981:51; compare also 53). And there are many others.

Thornton (1991) thinks there are only two viable possibilities: Either Luke, the fellow-worker and traveling companion of Paul, is the author, or someone wrote under his name. Nolland believes there are no good counter-arguments, so it is best to read the tradition as the preservation of reliable memory (1989: 1. xxxvii). Riley joins in, saying there is 'overwhelming evidence to support the traditional ascription of authorship' (1993: vii). Eckey is another recent scholar who is convinced that there is enough evidence to support the traditional theory that Luke, the doctor and companion of Paul, was the author (2004: 49). For Riley and Eckey, as for many others, much hinges on three factors: The tradition that almost unanimously ascribes the Gospel and Acts to 'Luke'; the 'we' passages in Acts suggest the author is an eyewitness and a companion of Paul; and the medical language and interest found in both writings fit the language and interest of a physician, and Luke held that profession, as Col 4:14 states. But each of these arguments can be, and has been, questioned."

Strelan's work is already found cited in the relevant scholarly literature, so he would appear to be both WP:NOTE and WP:RS. The question is, do people agree or disagree that these comments of his are relevant to the authorship section of the article? Personally I believe it's well balanced by his final sentence, and that the sources he notes are worthy of mention if only because he feels the need to mention them in a review of the relevant literature (I was not surprised to see IH Marshall in his list; Marshall is recognized as one of the standard Lukan scholars). I have a number of other academic sources to offer on the same question, taking different views, but I'd like to deal with one source at a time for now.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

These look like really good notes. The trick is to keep a balance between majority and minority views, so one can't just add extensive material to one side or the other. But these notes are way better than Vermes's off-handed comment about "many" scholars, which is a tangent in his work. So replace the second-rate information already there with this good stuff, and we're ahead. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, glad this will prove useful. I spent some time going through my sources today, and you'll see some of my work in the Luke-Acts authorship article. I didn't want to touch the Luke article without checking first. As an aside, I was impressed to see a prof from UQ with such a high scholarly standing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

content portal suggestion

Extended content
{{Content of Matthew}}

The article on the gospel of Matthew has this portal for the content. It would save a lot of space if it could be adapted for Luke. PiCo (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

varriation between the wiki pages for each gospel

It strikes me that the pages for each gospel are quite different, for example the gospel of matter has themes as a heading, whereas none of the others do (though each of them, so far as I can see contain material that could go under such a heading). I think that this problem could be fixed relatively simply and without any major additions and would be a substantial addition to all four as it would make them much easier to navigate, compare and understand. Just an idea. 124.254.80.71 (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Donald Guthrie " Christian scholar"?

I can't understand why Donald Guthrie is referred as "Christian scholar" while for other scholars (i.e. Streeter, Brown, Koester) there is no reference to their religion...--95.247.63.150 (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Chapter Articles

Not sure whether this is the right place for this inquiry, but here goes: Luke 1, Luke 2, Luke 3 and Luke 4 all have their own articles, but then Luke 5, Luke 6 etc. all redirect back to this article. Any reason why they stop at 4? It looks like a project was started but not finished. Either we should have no chapter articles, or all the chapters - but not this halfway-house. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Stab in the dark, but it seems pretty obvious that someone started a project and then stopped - I don't see any problem with this. Ckruschke (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Should we delete the redirects, such as to make it clear these are articles that need to be written? LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Book of Luke being anonymous.

User 82.3.94.209 and A Georgian, here is a place for you two to discuss the differences, get some other editors input, and then it can be decided about without edit warring. Vyselink (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have tried to explain every way I can that the statement in question needs a reference, citation, or source to meet Wikipedeia standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Georgian (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Gospel of Luke is either anonymous or not anonymous. If it is not anonymous, then A Georgian should be able to provide a verse proving that this is the case. It is very revealing that despite having been challenged to do so multiple times, he refuses even to attempt to do so. Why does he not do so? If he can produce such a verse, then he wins instantly.

I suggest that the reason he does not is that he knows as well as I do that the text is anonymous. Unable to proceed down this route, he therefore tries to suppress this piece of factual information by way of a technicality, with this ludicrious argument about it being 'unsourced'. Of course, he never attempts to explain how such a claim could be sourced in the first place. Does he seriously expect there to be a Bible verse saying, "I, the writer, am not revealing my identity"?

Previous contributers to this article appear to understand this basic concept. Later on in the article, in the specific section on authorship, we find the claim that the text is anonymous. This claim is unsourced, for how could it be otherwise!

In summary, I claim that nowhere in the book of Luke does the author identify himself. This claim is impossible to prove directly, other than by reading the whole text for yourself. If A Georgian disagrees with this claim, then let him provide a verse contradicting that claim. If he can provide no such verse, then I do not understand what his problem is. 82.3.94.209 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You both have violated the 3 Revert Rule several times. If you do again you will be blocked from contributing. I see that you have been blocked before, so you should know the rules by now. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to contribute to the issue, or are you restricting yourself to threats and intimidation? 82.3.94.209 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempting to encourage disruptive editors to stop unhelpful practices (such as edit warring) is indeed constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you don't even attempt to address my argument either, James. Probably because like Musdan and Georgian, you realise that it is irrefutable.

But no matter. I have removed certain unsourced material from the article. Since everything I removed was unsourced, I am sure that no-one here has a problem with it.82.3.94.209 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't remove the article lead; see the manual of style. Most of the content you are trying to remove are trivial facts about the book. Indeed, the gospel is anonymous; however, that doesn't mean that you are supposed to remove statements that the book is known as "Gospel according to Luke" or "Gospel of Luke" - indeed, without it the second paragraph lacks its context. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Raymond who?

Well, The article covers one of the most influential writings in Christianity.
Somehow the name of a non relevant post-modern time theologian made it to the lead section. This should be avoided. Such remarks could be used for reference but not as explicit as to even mention the name of the theologian in the body of the article leave alone in the lead section. 190.251.186.35 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

punctuation, etc.

Ranges of pages, ranges of years, ranges of verses, etc., require an en-dash, not a hyphen. Thus:

right: pp. 205–213

wrong: pp. 205-213

We had this discussion in 2005, and some people STILL don't get it.

Now recall from elementary school that "p." means "page" and "pp." means "pages". I fixed a bunch of these in this article a few minutes ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There are obviously many new editors on this page since 2005, including myself, and not all of us graduated from elementary school let alone editting school to know the difference between an en-dash and a hyphen. Ckruschke (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke