Talk:Gospel of Luke/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

EBO

Leadwind, what about 'the author is unknown' makes you think the proper context is 'the majority of scholars agree that the author is unknown'? EBO is making a non-controversial statement that we ultimately don't know who the author is. You are framing it in a way that suggests scholars mostly reject Lukan authorship. What about this don't you understand?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Gizmo.AT (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Agree with above- there are far to many examples, often contradictory, of "most scholars firmly agree", "it is well known that", or the like in here. In the article on sources on paragraph firmly contradicts the other. This is why religion is such a pain, people tend to see any debate on a point as an attach on their faith. When really the whole point is to understand this book more fully.

For those of you following along at home, this is what EBO says about who wrote Luke:

The author has been identified with Luke, “the beloved physician,” Paul’s companion on his journeys, presumably a Gentile (Col. 4:14 and 11; cf. II Tim. 4:11, Philem. 24). There is no Papias fragment concerning Luke, and only late-2nd-century traditions claim (somewhat ambiguously) that Paul was the guarantor of Luke’s Gospel traditions. The Muratorian Canon refers to Luke, the physician, Paul’s companion; Irenaeus depicts Luke as a follower of Paul’s gospel. Eusebius has Luke as an Antiochene physician who was with Paul in order to give the Gospel apostolic authority. References are often made to Luke’s medical language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which any educated Greek might have been exposed. Of more import is the fact that in the writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are significantly missing; while Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke speaks rather of the suffering, and there are other differing and discrepant ideas on Law and eschatology. In short, the author of this gospel remains unknown.

Roman would like this paragraph to mean that "Ultimately, of course, we can't really be certain who wrote the book." Considered as a whole, the paragraph actually says something more like, "The evidence weighs against the traditional view." Since WP policy is to identify the viewpoint found in commonly accepted references as the "viewpoint of the majority," we call this viewpoint the majority viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's not much to say here: it's entirely clear. We cannot pretend that the traditional view is mainstream. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Inane Of course the traditional view is mainstream. It is the view held by the vast majority of NT scholars - we are putting undue weight on the "historical Jesus" folk who make their living by being controversial.

The Gospel according to Luke has been known by this name since antiquity and there is no good reason to doubt Luke wrote it anymore than there is doubt about Shakespearean authorship of Hamlet.

This an "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin argument"Andrei nzv8 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that the author of this gospel was debated, I always assumed Luke wrote it. Fascinating to hear that its likely otherwise. But that makes the majority viewpoint being that Luke was the author even if this is no longer accepted by scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmo.AT (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Luke was Jewish"

Not sure how minority is minority in the case of this view. It'd be interesting to have the exact text from Rick Strelan, Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel, Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2008, see Talk:Luke the Evangelist. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The point, as I said, before on the other talk, etc, is that it actually IS a notable opinion, held by a number of scholars, regardless or not if it's the "majority view". The point is why delete or hide that sourced information? No valid reason to do that. The edit is accurate and sourced. Stop edit-warring and disrespecting valid edits and additions, that are referenced and are apropos to the context and paragraph. Just because you (or maybe some others) DON'T LIKE. That's against WP policy. And suppressing information and points from potential readers is not the wise or proper course.

I restored edits...it is a notable opinion, validly sourced, and is mentioned in other articles, long established, whether it's "majority view" or not.

The edit never said "Luke was Jewish", but that some scholars believe so. Not most, but quite a number. And it's sourced and notable, by scholars with credentials. No need to hide, for "I don't like or agree" reasons. It's not your job to agree or disagree, but to respect edits that are reliably-sourced, good-faith, and accurate..."majority" view or not. So there your whole rationale is not even correct. WP policy is not to disallow minority scholar views, simply because they're minority, if at least their notable in name or credential or reference. Which they are. Also was is apropos to the phrase "not the only possibility" that was already there.

As for your wrong statement that "Paul says Luke was uncircumcised". Paul never EXPLICITLY said that. It's not worded that way. Read it again, in Colossians. This idea that Paul clearly said that Luke was "uncircumcised" is an old sloppy TRADITIONAL talking point. But doesn't hold up, under more careful, more critical, and closer analysis.

The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.

Thus, there are reasons other than background why Luke would not be included in the list of “the circumcision.” It is risky to build a concept on evidence which is so weak, and this is the strongest evidence in the Bible that those who believe Luke was a Gentile use to prove their point.

Also, to be honest, NONE of that really matters anyway. As it doesn't matter what YOU (or I) think Paul meant or said, and even what the "majority view" of drone-ish "scholars" think or write. The mere fact that you have even a few theologians, writers, and ministers, scholars, and sources, saying that they believe Luke was either definitely Jewish or probably Jewish (a Hellenic Jew, etc), is enough to warrant at least making mention that some scholars think that.

Like, as one of many examples, this one right here. So what??

The point of the statement is that some other theologians and scholars believe Luke to be Jewish. Thomas McCall happens to fit that.

And so does RICK STRELAN...author of Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel. See carefully pages 102–105.

Just because you personally think Luke was a Gentile is irrelevant. A number of notable scholars and writers (past and present) don't buy that, and say clearly that he was a Hellenic Jew. It's fairly copiously sourced. And that fact should be and also is mentioned, on Wikipedia. And is contextual to what the paragraph was saying in the first place. No need to edit-war over something like this. Because it's not worth it. The info is valid and sourced, and should stay. The scholars and sources (even if "minority view") are definitely there. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO, I'm fine with the current sentence "The author is considered to probably be a Gentile Christian, although some believe him to be a Hellenized Jew." I think he was a Gentile, but I have no problem with this referenced statement that other scholars differ and the sentence is substantially similar to others where scholars disagree about historical points where we don't have concrete proof. However, that's just my opinion. Ckruschke (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The Diagram Titled 'Relationships Between The Synoptic Gospels' is misleading and appears to be incorrect

The text beneath the diagram is as follows: Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and much of Mark is found in Luke. Matthew and Luke share a large amount of additional material that is not found in Mark, and each has a smaller amount of unique material.

However, the diagrams themselves indicate the following: Luke: 35% Unique material. Matthew: 20% Unique material. Mark:3% Unique material.

Each (Matthew and Luke), therefore, cannot have a smaller amount of unique material as the actual diagram contradicts this statement! In the diagram they both have a larger degree of unique material.

The diagram makes little sense at all when applied to the text below it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.135.72 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where this diagram comes from - really, diagrams, like anything on Wiki, need to cite reliable sources. Given that small rant, the way I read it is: each circle shows one of the three gospels, Mark on top, Luke bottom-left, Matthew bottom-right. Mark is composed, naturally, 100% 0f Markan material, so what do the pie-slices mean? I take it they mean that 76% of Mark is shared with Luke and Matthew, 18% is in Mark and Matthew but not in Luke, 3% is in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew, and 3% is in Mark alone. For Luke, 41% of that gospel is shared with Mark, 23% is shared with Mattthew but not Mark (this is the Q source), and 35% is unique to Luke (the L source). A further 1% is shared with Mark but not Matthew. So in terms of sources within Luke:

• 42% from Mark (the 41% shared with Matthew plus the 1% not shared)
• 23% from Q (the material shared with Matthew but not Mark)
• 35% from L.

In terms of how Luke used Mark:

• Luke has 79% of Mark and ignores (or lacks) 21%
• Matthew has 94% of Mark and ignores 6%
• There's 3% of Mark that both of them ignore - not necessarily the same material.

I hope this clarifies it - the diagram is quite useful, but takes some reading. PiCo (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem seems to be with the word 'smaller'; as it is not clear in context which quantity the proportions referred to are 'smaller' than. I have rephrased the para to remove the term. TomHennell (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Josephus Reference

I noticed that in the "Genre, models and sources" section, when the article compares the writings of Luke, Dionysius of Halicarnasus, and Josephus; it states that "Each founder taught authoritatively, appeared to witnesses after death, and ascended to heaven." I am not as familiar with Dionysius' writings, but in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, vol. 4, ch. 8:48, when relating Moses' death, he describes a bodily assumption without Moses having died. He mentions the stories of Moses' death as having been created "out of fear, lest they should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God."

Unless the article is referring to another work by Josephus, it appears that Josephus was not talking about a resurrection. Rather, he seems to be talking about a bodily assumption in the tradition of Enoch and Elijah. I but a "citation needed" tag next to that particular section, in the hopes that someone will clarify (or correct) the sentence. It also appears that the citation referenced at the end of the relevant paragraph is actually talking about the Gospel of Mark (unless I missed something, which is entirely possible). I didn't change the sentence, as I don't want to start an edit war, but if Josephus isn't actually talking about a resurrected Moses, then I suggest the sentence be amended or removed.

Also worth noting, is that while it appears there was a long Jewish (and Roman) tradition for describing venerable leaders and teachers as "sons of God," the writer of Luke appears to be elevating this concept to a whole new level. I didn't change anything about the comparison, as I'm not sure this distinction should be discussed in this section or in the later theology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.famous.adventurer (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"the majority of scholars" and Ehrman page 235

"...but the majority of scholars reject this identification due to the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[7]"

1. Footnote 7 links to Ehrman's book, 1993 edition (Google Books), and cites page 235. Page 235 at that link does not discuss Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.

2. "the majority of scholars" - where is this, explicit or implicit, on cited page of the book?

Suggestion: Direct quotes added to the body or the footnote. Fishlandia (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications" is there, see Bart D. Ehrman (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 235. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. What isn't on that page is the Luke-Paul contradictions issue. But there is a page making this point, p. 172: Bart D. Ehrman (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a later work, not from the lifetime of Paul at all but written by someone who chose to reformulate the history of the early tensions within the church to show that ... Probably the easiest way to demonstrate the point is to compare what Acts has to say about its main protagonist, the apostle Paul, with what Paul has to say about himself in his own letters

— Ehrman, op. cit. p. 172

The proto-orthodox claimed all of these apostles as authorities — Peter, James, Paul, and many others. ... Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications," and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but ...

— Ehrman, op. cit., p. 235

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fishlandia (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit: further down there is this: "According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."

sfn|Theissen|Merz|1996 [tr. 1998]|p=32

Is this the intended citation? Fishlandia (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe so - I've made some edits to bring this out.PiCo (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the Ehrman quote uses the phrase "countless contradictions," but in this passage, Ehrman seems to be overstating his case. After all, though the contradictions may be numerous, to say they are "countless" is an exaggeration.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Luke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327165542/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Length of gospel

Luke is identified as the "second longest" of the canonical gospels near the top of this article. It is not the second longest, it is the longest. The only metric one would use to claim that it is the second longest is number of chapters (Luke has 24, Matthew has 28) but this is the wrong measure to use because chapters are not anywhere close to being uniform in length. A much better metric is word-count, and by this measure Luke is more than 1000 words longer (19482 to 18346).

67.6.43.157 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)David Landry, Ph.D.

Neutrality

Can we have a balanced discussion that doesn't gloss over conservative scholarship instead of the ravings of Ehrman fanboys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.131.171.152 (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What is taught as fact in all major US universities are Ehrman's viewpoints or viewpoints very similar to his viewpoints. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and WP:CHOPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should state which of the top 100 US universities does not teach that the authors of the NT gospels are anonymous and provide a source for verifying it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Requirement: they would have to be teaching NT courses or Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't give equal validity to the academic mainstream and fringe views. If all major US universities teaching Bible scholarship state it as fact that the authors of the NT gospels were anonymous, it would be weird that Wikipedia wouldn't state it as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would you mention "U.S. universities"? The article mentions that Lukan authorship is held by I. Howard Marshall, who is at the University of Aberdeen. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I have this source on Ehrman and major universities, source which seems to have an US focus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have seen that sourced mentioned here before - it must have been by you. You realise, don't you, that it's a blog post? StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a blog post which reflects the view of its author, see WP:SELFPUB. He is an academic, so he can be regarded as having an educated opinion upon what is taught in major universities. As an Wikipedian, he is active as User:XKV8R. To be sure, it is citing Ehrman which satisfied WP:RS/AC, not the blog post. The blog post only gives us insight over the acceptance of viewpoints such as Ehrman's (its importance is rather pedagogical than verifying info). From the other side of the barricade, James White (theologian) speaks about Ehrman at [1] and recognizes that in universities students will be "confronted" by viewpoints similar to Ehrman's. A conservative source admitting WP:RS/AC for anonymous gospel authors is Ben Witherington (2004:44) The Gospel code: novel claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci InterVarsity Press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, maybe we're talking past each other here. Nobody says the gospels are not formally anonymous; the issue is one of Lukan authorship, etc. And the Witherington quote says nothing about consensus - he says most scholars reject Matthean authorship of Matthew, but that's not quite the same thing. And even if there was a consensus among "just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title", that wouldn't equate to the sort of consensus referred to at WP:RS/AC. You can't exclude such as major section of the scholarly community like that. StAnselm (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My point was: in most major universities is taught that the NT gospels are falsely attributed. This also has to do with Lukan authorship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that Lukan authorship "is still often advanced by conservative scholars" when we don't have a source saying so - we just don't know how often this view gets advanced. Nor should we mention individual scholars such as Marshall - if he's the only one with this view then it's fringe and shouldn't be mentioned at all. We need a scholarly source saying there's a significant point of view. PiCo (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's "most conservative scholars". StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see much difference between "often advanced by conservative scholars" and "advanced by most conservative scholars", but if you feel happier I'd accept it. Still, it's in a footnote - isn't there something in the main text of a book anywhere? PiCo (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone fill me in on what the OP wants? He says in the post at the top of this thread, "Can we have a balanced discussion that doesn't gloss over conservative scholarship instead of the ravings of Ehrman fanboys?" So he's doubting Ehrman's credentials as a RS. All I can say is that Ehrman has excellent credentials. His first edit on the article was to remove a source for the statement that the majority of scholars don't accept the traditional identification of Luke the Evangelist as the author of the gospel (there were two sources, both by Ehrman, and he removed one - frankly I agree that two sources is more than is needed, but of course the OP doubts that even one will do if that one is Ehrman). His second edit was to alter a quote from another source saying that there's a critical consensus that Luke the Evangelist didn't write Acts (implying Luke-Acts). He just can't do that - quotes are sacrosanct, if you doubt that what they say is correct you can find alternative sources, but you can't alter them. His next edit was to change a sentence saying the conservative view is "sometimes" advanced to "often" advanced - the sentence is sourced and again we can't go altering sources. He also added the name of Howard Marshall, but this is unnecessary - Marshall's view is covered under "sometimes advanced". But that aside, perhaps the OP can clarify what it is that he wants done with the article? PiCo (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Marshall by name as a scholar who accepts Lukan authorship, as it bothers me - we're after the weight of scholarly conclusions, not individual opinions. The OP can tell us just what it is he wants to see done. PiCo (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The OP's original comment strikes me as rather vague. While not all of Ehrman's positions are universally held (and I do think some Wikipedia articles rely on him rather heavily), it does seem the scholarly consensus is that the writer of Luke-Acts was anonymous. Perhaps it would be useful to use other references besides those which rely on Ehrman? Also, I would argue that while most major universities teach that the writers of the synoptic gospels are unknown and most likely not written by the traditionally credited authors, there is more debate regarding John's gospel in respected scholarly circles than many people realize. Since this is a discussion on Luke, I don't want to go too off topic in that regard; I just think we need to be careful about relying on just one or a few scholars and using the term "scholarly consensus." As for dissident views, since tradition has ascribed authorship to Luke, I do think a more in-depth discussion is warranted. Though a minority of scholars advocate for Lucan authorship, I know Marshall isn't the only one and I'm not sure I agree that a minority viewpoint should be deleted outright from the article. Please keep in mind, I personally don't think Luke wrote Luke-Acts, I'm just very wary of the suppression of other scholarly viewpoints.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the notion of a "scholarly majority view" is a dangerous one, that quickly ends up trying to close relevant questions with a "head count" instead of the power of argumentation. E.g. Ehrmann dates the gospel of Mark to about year 70, hence Luke and acts comes some years after that point in time. Ehrmann denies a Lukan authorship of the valid reason that Acts misrepresents some of Paul's teachings. though at the same time Ehrmann claims that the NT authors, including Luke, are imprecise and at points unreliable, which is also a valid point - though the last point defeats the first, because Luke could then have made a misrepresentation of Paul and thus both have written the acts, including a misrepresentation of Paul, and have been a disciple/follower of Paul. And in applying ordinary "earthly logic" this could make sense, since the poor "physician" sat down 10 or 20 or 30 years years after the letters of Paul, and wrote down how he remembered, or had been told, things had transpired. He might have got some of it wrong or misunderstood Paul's teachings or used a later understanding of Paul's teachings or simply that he didn't intend to correct Paul, and didn't intend the meaning that the latter days read into those passages of the acts - We just can't know. In any case we got a 21th century guy making what appears to be an problematic argument against "hardcopy" historical sources dating from the mid or later part of the 2nd century, unanimously claiming Lukan authorship93.161.80.130 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"historical sources dating from the mid or later part of the 2nd century, unanimously claiming Lukan authorship"

These sources came about 70 to 80 years following the estimated date of authorship for Luke, so their reliability is at best questionable. "Unanimously" often translates to repeating the same lie. Dimadick (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

""Unanimously" often translates to repeating the same lie." I'm sorry Dimadick. but that is straight mudslinging. Suspicion of persons 'all repeating the same story' depends on a presumption that this indicates collusion; but why would early Christians collude in hiding the true author of a Gospel under the name of 'Luke'? And why, Luke; and not another more prestigious name; Timothy perhaps? Certainly it has been commonplace in critical biblical studies in the last 50 years to maintain that all four gospels are 'anonymous'; but the truth is that there is zero historical evidence supporting such a proposition. Absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence - what those proposing this propositions need to support their theories, is at least one ancient authority (or text) stating 'the author of the gospel attributed to Luke is unknown'. Until such a text is found (as it may very well be) the balance of evidence will tend to support the traditional as ascription to Luke. On the general proposition that early traditions in respect of the authorship of the synoptic gospels need to be regarded as having substantial evidential value - without counterpart evidence to the contrary - you may refer to Richard Bauckham. TomHennell (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"at least one ancient authority (or text)" Ancient writers are not "authorities", modern writers are authoritative. Whatever the ancient Christians claimed about themselves should at best be treated with suspicion.

Bauckham in this case is fringe. His article specifies that his theories on the gospels are against the current consensus in his field. Dimadick (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

nope Dimadick Wikipedia is not a democracy. Richard Bauckham was a Bishop Wardlaw Professor in New Testament Studies at St Andrews. That neccessarily confers 'notability' on his opinions - just as if he were Rylands Professor at Manchester, Regius Professor at Oxford, or Lady Margaret Professor at Cambridge. These - plus around half a dozen more - are the pre-eminent chairs in the field of New Testament studies in the English-speaking academia; and so the opinions of those holding these chairs are never other than authoritative in Wikipedia. Bauckham certainly does not claim his views as those of the consensus of scholars in the field; but the fact that he holds them - as did other scholars of equivalent standing - Joseph Fitzmyer comes to mind - establishes that they are indeed part of the mainstream, and not in any way 'fringe'. So they merit a place in Wikipedia.

And his basic point is a good one; where is the evidence to support the proposition that the statements of particular early Christian writers (Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment in the case of traditions in respect of the authorship of the four canonical gospels) are likely to be false or misleading? "Because one early writer can be shown to misrepresent the truth, all must be assumed to be liars"; this isn't scholarship, it is mudslinging (again). There are very few ancient texts that are known to have been circulated as 'anonymous', almost all published texts were credited to a named author. Very often this attribution is indeed false - a spurious text being attributed to a well-reputed and known author. But this appears unlikely in this case, as no prior author 'Luke' is otherwise known. So the principle of parsimony should lead us to conclude that there is no reason why the evangelist was not called 'Luke'. Whether this 'Luke' is to be identified with any other named 'Luke' in contemporary texts can only be a matter of probability - Luke was a very common name. But Irenaeus claimed to have been taught by Polycarp, and Polycarp was likely around 20 when the third gospel was written. So we really do need positive evidence to support the proposition that either Polycarp or Irenaeus specifically should be treated with suspicion. TomHennell (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Luke was a very common name"

It derives from Lucius, which was a very commpn praenomen in the Roman world. "Throughout Roman history, Lucius was the most common praenomen, used slightly more than Gaius and somewhat more than Marcus. Although a number of prominent families rarely or never used it, it was amongst the most frequently given names in countless others." Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Relationship to the Gospel of Marcion

I noticed that User:PiCo recently reversed my recent edit, where I added some information about the disputed relationship between Luke and Marcion's gospel. I have to say that I don't think my additions should have been removed in their entirety.

PiCo's reasoning was that it used an outdated source, and that it was "overweight on Marcion." I presume he was referring to John Knox's 1942 book on the subject. I can understand this concern, although I also cited the much more recent works from Joseph Tyson (2006) and Matthias Klinghardt (2008). Really the citation to Knox was mostly redundant, since the fact that Marcionites claimed that their gospel was earlier than canonical Luke can be found in Tyson's work as well (or simply read in primary sources, such as Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem). Can we agree to restore the additions, but perhaps take out the citation to Knox? I really think this is an important issue related to the Gospel of Luke, since it bears on the dating of the final edition of Luke, and perhaps even on the motivations of the final redactor himself (if indeed he was writing later than, and in response to, Marcion). Montgolfière (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The difficulty with that suggestion, as I see it, is that it is about the Gospel of Marcion not about the Gospel of Luke; and so not directly relevant to this article. In the Gospel of Marcion Wikipedia article, the arguments in favour of regarding Marcion as independent from Luke are rehearsed (and rightly so) ; but it is not disputed there, that much the more widespread opinion among notable academic authorities is that Marcion's gospel (as all the earliest sources maintain) was an edited Luke, not Luke an expanded Marcion. In the context of published scholarship on Luke, a theory of dependence on Marcion is WP:FRINGE. It is difficult to think of any current textual issue in the Gospel of Luke for which a supposition of a Marciontie gospel precursor offers a solution. I do not disagree that there should be a link into the discussion on the Gospel of Marcion article, but I see no grounds for importing Marcion speculations into this article. In simple terms, the theory of Marcionite priority was attractive to early proponents of Higher Criticism as it implied a later 2nd century date for Lukan passages they disliked, such as the Nativity stories. But more modern critical studies see such late datings for these passages as unsustainable - as equally for such Luke-only passages as the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Which is why Tyson has recently attempted to rescue Knox by redating Marcion's career as having begun rather earlier - in the first decade of the 2nd century. But none of Tyson's arguments there bear on the Gospel of Luke; so I do not see that they add to this article. TomHennell (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to briefly respond to some of the points you made:

"It is difficult to think of any current textual issue in the Gospel of Luke for which a supposition of a Marcionite gospel precursor offers a solution."

Just to throw out two of many examples, the assumption of Marcion's priority can help explain the chronological inconsistency in Luke 4, where Luke has moved the Synoptic story of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth to the beginning of his ministry. In that passage there's a reference to miracles Jesus had apparently already performed in Capernaum (4:23). But this is a problem, because in Luke, Jesus only goes to Capernaum after he's rejected at Nazareth. Strikingly, Marcion's gospel actually had these stories in the original, Markan order, where there is no chronological discrepancy. This makes more sense on the view that Marcion's gospel is a redaction of Mark, and Luke is a redaction of Marcion.

And viewing Luke-Acts as a redaction of, and response to, Marcion also helps explain why Luke goes to such great lengths to stress the continuity of Judaism and Christianity, with his parallel nativity stories of John the Baptist and Jesus, and his heavy insistence on Paul's Torah observance (in contradiction with Paul's own epistles). It's not very clear why Luke would want to do this unless he's responding to someone (Marcion) who thinks Christianity and Judaism have nothing in common and that Paul was thoroughly anti-Torah.

I don't think it's really fair to say that the thesis of the priority of Marcion's gospel is "fringe." Certainly most scholars who study Luke don't assume that Marcion was prior, but most scholars aren't even studying this particular issue. Among those who have done a serious study of the relationship of Marcion's gospel and canonical Luke, views are much more divided. In fact, Dr. David Trobisch recently went so far as to say that "recent publications all come down that Marcion is the older text." Montgolfière (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Montgolfière; and taking your suggestions in reverse order:

Marcion did not promote an alternative version of the Acts of the Apostles; so issues of inconsistency between Acts and Paul's own epistles cannot be resolved by assuming a Marcionite original. The Gospel of Luke, as we know it, does indeed insist that Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew, and that he was Messiah of Israel; and both assertions are also found in our set of Paul's epistles. Paul also states repeatedly that he himself lived as a Torah-observant Jew (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:6); a fact that finds circumstantial confirmation in his assertion that he had five times assented to receive the Torah punishment of 39 stripes (2 Corinthians 11:24). So the straightforward explanation of why Luke presents both Paul and Jesus as observant Jews, is that that is what they were; and that is also how contemporaries (including Pharisaic Jews) appear to have regarded them. Almost all current scholarship takes this now to be the case.

Luke states at the beginning of his Gospel, that his version is derived from previous written accounts which he has re-ordered. (Luke 1:3). So finding chronological inconsistencies doesn't signify that much, as Luke doesn't claim to be chronological. Moreover, the account in Luke 4:14 makes it clear that Jeus had taught in several synagogues in Galilee before he came to Nazareth; so there is no reason for Luke to have assumed that the account of healing a possessed man on the sabbath (at Luke 4:34) was the first time he had preached there.

It is fair to say that current critical scholarship does indeed pay regard to Marcion's presumed text (as reconstructed by Harnack) in elucidating difficulties in Luke's gospel text. But this is because Marcion often appears to agree with variants found in 'Western' witnesses (such as D), against the Alexandrian text; and a number of scholars (such as Bart Ehrman) have taken this as indicating that the Gospel of Luke may have circulated in two editions, the earlier of which is represented by the Western text (which amongst other things, may have omitted the 'Western non-interpolations'). So where Marcion agrees with D against the Alexandrian text this may be taken by some critical scholars to suggest that this is a primitive reading. But of course that depends on Marcion reading Luke, not the other way round; and that is what we find consistently in Ehrman's 'Orthodox corruption of scripture' amongst other works. TomHennell (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think our discussion is starting to become rather unproductive- we could go back and forth for days debating substantive textual and exegetical questions concerning Luke-Acts and the Pauline epistles, but at the end of the day we have to decide what ought to go into the article on the basis of scholarly sources, not whatever conclusion we may personally come to. I should note, though, that your citation of Philippians 3:6 and Romans 11:1 seem pretty clearly out of context. In Romans 11:1, Paul is simply saying that he's "an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin," referring to his ethnic heritage; but this says nothing about whether he, currently, after conversion, followed the Torah consistently. In Philippians 3:6 he must be talking about his previous status as a Torah-observant Pharisee prior to conversion:

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ.

— Philippians 3:4b-6

Obviously, Paul wasn't still persecuting the church when he wrote Philippians, which strongly suggests the rest of the list of adjectival phrases must also be referring to his pre-conversion status, too. And he immediately says that he now regards his (previous) Torah observance as "a loss because of Christ." Furthermore, there are other passages where it's quite clear Paul is saying he no longer consistently follows the Torah, such as in 1 Corinthians 9:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

— 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, NRSV

I'm not sure how much clearer Paul could make it that he no longer felt bound by the Torah after conversion. The point is not that Marcion had his own version of Acts- of course he did not- but that Luke's heavy insistence on Judaizing Paul, contrary to his own epistles, only makes sense if he's responding to someone who's using Paul to justify completely divorcing Christianity from its Jewish roots. And if the author of Luke-Acts is responding to Marcion, it means he's writing later than Marcion, which pretty much entails that Marcion's version of Luke is earlier than Luke-Acts. I think this view, which is espoused by scholars like Joseph Tyson, Matthias Klinghardt, and David Trobisch, is at least worth mentioning here. Montgolfière (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You have omitted from your discussion the issue of Paul's assent (five times) to receiving a scourging of 39 stripes. This was a touchstone of Torah observance, since the synagogue court could only impose this punishment on those it considered Torah-observant; and the sentence would only be accepted by the subject if they themselves intended in the future to be Torah-observant. If Paul had not been considered Torah-observant, he should have been expelled from the synagogue (which was the more serious penalty); equally had he refused to consent to being scourged, he would have effectively expelled himself. So we can be sure that Paul continued to observe the Jewish Law in his personal practice after his conversion, and taught Jewish followers of Jesus that they should do the same. The point at contention within the churches was whether former 'Godfearing' gentiles should also adopt the Jewish Law; Paul said 'no', but crucially taught that they should nevertheless withdraw from the pagan cult, both from participating in sacrifice and eating of sacrificed meat. Whereas the diaspora synagogues at this time encouraged 'Godfearers' to continue to engage in pagan religious observances.

In respect of the article, proposing a Marcionite predecessor to Luke is certainly fringe; none of the scholars you quote is regularly cited in current mainstream scholarship on Luke, even to be refuted. Firstly, this is because Marcion's accounts of Jesus and Paul are way outside current trends of scholarship in the Gospels; for Marcion, Jesus's Gospel was entirely non-material and anti-Jewish, where the consistent trend of scholarship in the past 50 years has been in the opposite direction. So if Luke is a fabrication, so too must be the (strongly materialist) Mark, and the (strongly Jewish) Matthew. Plus most of the Apostolic Fathers. Secondly, the dates are wrong. Marcion's expulsion from Rome is securely dated to 144; his arrival (apparently then still most welcome, as was his money) was around five years earlier. So, if Luke as we know it was an anti-Marcionite fabrication, it has to have been created around 150 - which is simply too late; especially if we see the Western and Alexandrian texts in Luke as already distinct by that date. Luke's fabrications would have had to have been smuggled into both texts. Tyson tries to rescue this by proposing Marcion as having been a lot older in 144, but the issue is not when Marcion may have developed his ideas, but when the 'orthodox' responded to them. Thirdly, current scholarship is strongly influenced (for and against) by Bart Ehrman's theories on the Orthodox corruption of scripture. A major proportion of the variants that Ehrman discusses are proposed by him as 'anti-Marcionite'; where readings that emphasised an 'orthodox' non-Marcionite theology are supposed to have been intruded into the mainstream text of Luke, the original surviving in a minority of witnesses. But the theory of Marcionite priority precludes this, as then the underlying 'Luke' text would already have been purged of dangerously 'Marcionite' readings. TomHennell (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll go in reverse order.

"But the theory of Marcionite priority precludes this, as then the underlying 'Luke' text would already have been purged of dangerously 'Marcionite' readings."

This isn't true, because we know that when the Lukan redactor edited Marcion's gospel (or a source similar to it), he did little in the way of removing things and mostly added new material. Our patristic sources (Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius) confirm this; they overwhelmingly attest to Marcion's "omissions" but only rarely to his inclusion of material that isn't in canonical Luke. This is in line with traditional assumptions of text criticism that redactors and scribes tend to add material more often than they excise material.

As Tyson, Knox, Joseph Hoffman, and others have pointed out, the evidence of Justin Martyr in his Apology (our earliest explicit reference to Marcion, and the only one written while Marcion was still alive) seems to pretty clearly indicate that Marcion was active and promoting his gospel earlier than 144. But even if Marcion only started preaching in 144, I don't see any particular reason why Luke-Acts couldn't have been published in the late 140s or early 150s. We don't have any manuscripts from that early, so we don't know that "the Western and Alexandrian texts in Luke [were] already distinct by that date."

"So if Luke is a fabrication, so too must be the (strongly materialist) Mark, and the (strongly Jewish) Matthew."

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here; critical scholars have long recognized that the gospels have to be in large part fabrications, if only because they contradict each other. There's also evidence that docetism was a common idea in even the earliest Christianity; for example the Christ poem of Philippians 2, which is widely held to be pre-Pauline, is careful to say that Jesus was made "in human likeness" (Phil. 2:7), not that he literally became a human. Besides, Tertullian even points out that Marcion's gospel had pretty clearly non-docetist elements in it; for example it included a post-resurrection account in which Jesus ate meat to show he wasn't a mere spirit (Adversus Marcionem V.43).

"This [scourging] was a touchstone of Torah observance, since the synagogue court could only impose this punishment on those it considered Torah-observant"

I'm not sure what your source is on this; it seems to be refuted by the fact that the Sanhedrin did execute Jews for blasphemy under Roman rule (pre-70 CE), and blasphemy laws would seem to be largely unenforceable if the accused could simply claim no longer to be bound by Torah observance and get off the hook. My understanding is that the Romans gave the Jewish authorities the power to punish any ethnic Jew in Judea under Jewish law, within some limits.

Once again, though, while I am enjoying this exchange to some extent, we should be mindful that this probably isn't the best place to debate substantive exegetical and historical issues. Can we call it a truce for now? I won't make any changes to the article for the time being, but if I get around to it I might open something on the dispute resolution noticeboard a bit later on. Montgolfière (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy to leave things as they are; though there may need to be a more explicit link into the Gospel of Marcion page in the body of the article. In respect of Paul's having assented to the Torah punishment of 39 lashes, you will find a full discussion in 'When Christians Were Jews: The first generation' by Paula Fredriksen. See Mishnah; Makkot 3:15, citing Deuteronomy 25:3. The particular issue concerned synagogue authorities within Greek/Roman cities outside Judea (which is where Paul was); these could only impose the punishment of 39 lashes on Jewish persons willing to accept them. Paul's consistent commitment to Torah observance for Jews and Jewish followers of the Gospel is also demonstrated in Tom Wright's recent biography. TomHennell (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the references! I'll be sure to take a look at them. When I get around to it I can add a link to the Gospel of Marcion, while not going into detail on the priority issue. Montgolfière (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a small section (linking to the Gospel of Marcion) on Marcion's gospel under the "Comparison with other writings" heading. As agreed, I didn't include anything on the issue of the relative priority of the gospels or their dating. I figured that the "Comparison with other writings" section was actually the best place to bring up the Gospel of Marcion, anyway, and not the "Unity, authorship and date" section. I also went ahead and removed the somewhat vague mention of the "Marcionite controversy" under the "Unity, authorship and date" section. When you go back to the original source referenced there (Perkins 2009), the book is talking about Marcion's alleged editing of the Gospel of Luke, which doesn't really bear on the date of canonical Luke, and is therefore not relevant for the section. Montgolfière (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Help with Gospel

The article at Gospel could do with more people to come and help it out please. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference in 2 Cor 8:18 is to St. Luke's Gospel?

2 Cor 8:18 reads: "[18] We have sent also with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches." This was commonly understood by the Church Fathers to be a reference to St. Luke's Gospel. Since the Epistle is dated to around 55 A.D. and is generally undisputed, isn't this internal evidence that this Gospel was written a lot earlier than the dates of 80 or even 110 AD proposed by some? Is this evidence inadmissible? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• To avoid OR you need a credible published source for this. A Georgian (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not original research. The Church Fathers have mentioned it. Fr. Cornelius Lapide mentioned it in the Great Commentary: "Hence the Fathers call S. Luke “the disciple of the Apostles,” and S. Paul mentions him by name, as his “fellow-labourer.” So S. Jerome, on the 65th chapter of Isaiah, and preface to S. Matthew; where he says, “The third” (evangelist) is Luke the physician, by nation a Syrian, of Antioch, whose praise is in the Gospel (2 Cor. 8:18 and 22), who himself was a disciple of S. Paul. He wrote his Gospel in the neighbourhood of Achaia and Bœotia, relating some things from the beginning, as he says himself, and describing rather what he heard than what he saw. St. Irenæus says the same, i. 20; Theodoret, on the Lives of the holy Fathers; Baronius, and others. Tertullian, also (Book iv. against Marcion, chap. 5), thinks this Gospel not so much S. Luke’s as S. Paul’s, because S. Luke wrote from the dictation of S. Paul, as S. Mark from that of S. Peter. For he says, “what S. Mark wrote may be ascribed to S. Peter, whose interpreter S. Mark was. And so the Gospel of S. Luke is generally given to S. Paul, for the productions of the disciples began to be ascribed to the masters ... as we must certainly admit, if we agree with S. Jerome (Lib. de Scrip. Eccl. in Luc.), Tertullian (Book iv. against Marcion, c. 5), Primasius, Anselm, and others, on 2 Cor. 8:18, that by “the brother whose praise is in the Gospel” S. Paul meant S. Luke—as S. Ignatius, his fellow-citizen and contemporary, plainly asserts in his letter to the Ephesians: “As Luke bears witness, whose praise is in the Gospel.” https://www.ecatholic2000.com/lapide/untitled-61.shtml#_Toc385609004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You need a modern work by a biblical scholar.Achar Sva (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Is John Wenham's 1992 work acceptable: https://www.amazon.com/Redating-Matthew-Mark-Luke-Synoptic/dp/0830817603 NishantXavier (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sample reviews: "Wenham challenges the Two-Document hypothesis, arguing for what is known as the Augustinian view - Matthew first, followed by Mark then finally Luke. In making this claim Wenham adopts a holistic approach that combines both internal (literary critical techniques) and external (historic tradition and testimony) evidence. Once his compositional argument is complete Wenham works backwards from Acts (early-mid 60s prior to death of Paul) to posit a radically revised synoptic chronology of Luke (55), Mark (45) and Matthew (40) ... Acts closes its history in AD 62, and there is no conceivable reason for this unless Luke was writing in AD 62. This means that Luke must predate 62. Wenham, following a strong tradition of the ancient church, identified the brother whose fame in the gospel is in all the churches of 2 Corinthians 8 as Luke, who is famous for his production of a Gospel. Given the date of 2 Corinthians, Luke is written in 55 at the latest" NishantXavier (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to get hold of Wenham's actual book (on google books would be fine). Even then, you'd need to see if Wenham draws this conclusion himself, and also consider that Wenham's support for Matthean priority is outside the majority view, which is Markan priority. Still, look it up by all means.Achar Sva (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts: I take it your aim is to establish the date and authorship of Luke's gospel; to do that, we need to look at fairly recent books and try to find out what the majority of current scholars think. So we look up fairly recent books and we look for phrases like "the consensus is..." or "most critical scholars think..." Do you know how to use google books? Achar Sva (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Content and source removals

@Achar Sva: I support your revert and I would support a wholesale revert of all the IPv6's edits, which removed large swaths of well-sourced material along with those self-same sources. There need to be discussions taking place about such large changes to the article, and I predict such discussions would fail to change consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

19th century source

@NishantXavier: Why did you cite a 19th century Catholic Bible commentary? Because 20th and 21st century mainstream Bible scholars who are Catholics no longer play by those rules! Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A late 20th century [1992] work called "Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic problem" proposes early dates for the Gospel accounts. https://www.amazon.com/Redating-Matthew-Mark-Luke-Synoptic/dp/0830817603 NishantXavier (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The author of that book was John Wenham, who has his own article. Not what we could call an unbiased source:

• "Wenham had the distinction of being a conservative theologian, a defender of biblical inerrancy"
• "In 1992 John Wenham published Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke which discusses the dating of these gospels and the relationship of the gospels to one another (prior to Wenham's work, John A.T. Robinson, a liberal theologian, had written a widely known book titled Redating the New Testament which advocated an early date of the gospels). Wenham accepted the church father evidence of authorship, and inferred a very early date for each of the synoptic gospels. Wenham's work is well regarded by those who supported the Augustinian hypothesis which is the traditional view of gospel authorship. Scholars consider the two strongest defenders of the Augustinian Hypothesis in the twentieth century to be John Wenham and B.C. Butler. Wenham's work which gained him recognition among Bible scholars and lay persons was his work Easter Enigma which offered Bible exegesis that argued for the harmony of the gospel accounts. As a result of these two works Wenham is frequently cited in regard to these issues in the discipline of Christian apologetics."
• "In his work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke Wenham wrote regarding the book of Matthew the following: "The [Church] fathers are almost unanimous in asserting that Matthew the tax-collector was the author, writing first, for Hebrews in the Hebrew language: Papias (c. 60–130), Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Pantaenus (died c. 190), Origen (c. 185–254), Eusebius (c. 260–340), Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86) and others write in this vein. The Medieval Hebrew gospel of Matthew in Even Bohan could be a corrupted version of the original. Though unrivaled, the tradition has been discounted on various grounds, particularly on the alleged unreliability of Papias, from whom some would derive the whole tradition." (John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (1991), p. 116). Wenham also argued for the Gospel of Mark being the second gospel written which he claims is consistent both with internal evidence and with the testimony of the church fathers."
  • Basically, a believer in Biblical inerrancy who advocated minority views. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, John Wenham was conservative, but can his scholarship be dismissed as "biased" just because of that? He offered reasoned arguments, based on both external and internal evidence, in favor of the Augustinian hypothesis, and correspondingly, for an early date for the Gospel accounts. I admit it is a minority view, but the historical evidence from the Church Fathers is fully in favor of it. John Wenham, Bp. Christopher Bulter, as mentioned above, and others have recently defended it. Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant to the historical question of when the Gospels were written and in what order. Someone who, hypothetically, believed the Gospel of Luke was written in 200 A.D. could still, theoretically, believe, by faith, in Biblical inerrancy. Dates are arrived at through comparison with known events. If Luke was written before 2 Corinthians, and we know 2 Corinthians was written by Paul, then Luke was written before Paul's death. Similarly, if Acts was written before Paul's death, and Luke was written before Acts, then the same conclusion follows.

Those are historical arguments that may be true or false but which don't depend or rely in any on the position of Biblical Inerrancy. Thanks. NishantXavier (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Internal Evidence for dating Luke-Acts before Paul's death in around A.D. 67 is summarized in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I post only a very brief excerpt.

"The internal evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:

[1] The author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke; and [2] the author of Acts was the author of the Gospel. The arguments are given at length by Plummer, "St. Luke" in "Int. Crit. Com." (4th ed., Edinburgh, 1901); Harnack, "Luke the Physician" (London, 1907); "The Acts of the Apostles" (London, 1909); etc.

(1) The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke

There is nothing more certain in Biblical criticism than this proposition." NishantXavier (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

For clarification, the CE was published around a century ago, as I'm sure most Wikipedia editors know. But it's fundamental arguments are still valid.

To continue the excerpt on prop. 2, that Luke-Acts has one common author, namely St. Luke, "(2) The Author of Acts was the Author of the Gospel

"This position", says Plummer, "is so generally admitted by critics of all schools that not much time need be spent in discussing it." Harnack may be said to be the latest prominent convert to this view, to which he gives elaborate support in the two books above mentioned." NishantXavier (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke" But we do not know that. See the article on the Acts of the Apostles:

• "According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, the author was the "Luke" named as a companion of the apostle Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." (An example can be seen by comparing Acts's accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).) The author "is an admirer of Paul, but does not share Paul's own view of himself as an apostle; his own theology is considerably different from Paul's on key points and does not represent Paul's own views accurately." He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience."
• "The earliest possible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD, the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century); if it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible."
• "Acts was read as a reliable history of the early church well into the post-Reformation era, but by the 17th century biblical scholars began to notice that it was incomplete and tendentious—its picture of a harmonious church is quite at odds with that given by Paul's letters, and it omits important events such as the deaths of both Peter and Paul. The mid-19th-century scholar Ferdinand Baur suggested that the author had re-written history to present a united Peter and Paul and advance a single orthodoxy against the Marcionites (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who wished to cut Christianity off entirely from the Jews); Baur continues to have enormous influence, but today there is less interest in determining the historical accuracy of Acts (although this has never died out) than in understanding the author's theological program."
• "Luke was written to be read aloud to a group of Jesus-followers gathered in a house to share the Lord's supper. The author assumes an educated Greek-speaking audience, but directs his attention to specifically Christian concerns rather than to the Greco-Roman world at large."
  • To summarize the sources on the Acts: 1) The identity of the author is uncertain, though the text indicates a relatively affluent background. 2) The author gives a largely positive (admiring view) of Paul the Apostle, but his depictions contradict the Pauline epistles in various ways. 3) The author seems to know about the events of the Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) and may have had access to Josephus' works, such as The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94)) 4) Acts' historicity is doubtful 5) The book is addressed towards Greek-speaking Christians, probably assuming an audience of artisans and businesspeople rather than elite figures. Dimadick (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at the article and the sources you reference. NishantXavier (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok Dimadick. Please recall first I gave two historical arguments in favor of an early date for Luke. I: (1) Luke was written before Acts (2) Acts was written before Paul's death. (3) Therefore, Luke was written before Paul's death. And II: (1) Luke was written before 2 Corinthians 8:18 (2) 2 Corinthians 8:18 was written by Paul, therefore before his death. From which the same conclusion follows (3) Therefore, Luke was written before Paul's death.

Let's look at I. There's a good discussion of the two views in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts

"The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul.   Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.  This Luke is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).

The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was virtually unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known manuscript containing the ending of the gospel (dating to around 200 AD), uses the subscription "The Gospel According to Luke". Nearly all ancient sources also shared this theory of authorship—Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the Muratorian Canon all regarded Luke as the author of the Luke-Acts. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions another tradition about authorship.

In addition to the authorship evidence provided by the ancient sources, some feel the text of Luke-Acts supports the conclusion that its author was a companion of Paul. First among such internal evidence are portions of the book which have come to be called the "we" passages (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–37; 28:1-16). Although the bulk of Acts is written in the third person, several brief sections of the book are written from a first-person perspective. These "we" sections are written from the point of view of a traveling companion of Paul: e.g. "After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia", "We put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace" Such passages would appear to have been written by someone who traveled with Paul during some portions of his ministry. Accordingly, some have used this evidence to support the conclusion that these passages, and therefore the entire text of the Luke-Acts, were written by a traveling companion of Paul's. The physician Luke would be one such person."

So the evidence, summarized from the sources, is: (1) The Pauline epistles present Luke as a well-known companion of Paul. (2) The we passages in Luke-Acts suggest its author was a travelling companion of Paul (3) Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that Luke, a travelling companion of Paul, wrote Luke-Acts. Do you disagree? NishantXavier (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Friend, what matters is Today, there is scholarly consensus of just the opposite. Yup, Wikipedia sticks 100% with the scholarly consensus, that's the WP:NPOV view, not half way between that and your Sunday school. And we, as Wikipedia editors, are not entitled to evaluate Ancient or Medieval evidence, we may only discuss modern WP:RS and the credibility of such scholarly sources.

We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Fringe view

The view that the gospel is orthonymous is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Internal contradiction on the date of composition of the Gospel of Luke

I have no opinion on early vs. later composition of this gospel, but there is a major internal contradiction in this article which is decidedly non-encyclopedic.

The lede says that "The most probable date for its composition is around AD 50–80 AD,[9]," but the relevant section of the article says that "The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[7] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[16] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[9]"

Most remarkably, the last point about Luke-Acts being "revised well into the 2nd century" and the lede's "most probably date... is around AD 50-80 AD" both cite the same source!! [9] = " Perkins 2009, pp. 250–53."

I realize that this is all contentious but this contradiction is pointless and embarrassing. I'm going to go ahead and correct "AD 50-80 AD" because I don't see how anyone could support that.Msalt (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Somebody changed the original text.Achar Sva (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

30 AD?

30 AD means approximately 3 to 0 years before the death of Jesus. Need I say more? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

McGrew

McGrew is a biblical inerrantist, so she does not publish in mainstream historical journals, nor in mainstream Bible scholarship journals. She publishes in a WP:FRINGE walled garden.

In case you did not know biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE. I mean fringe historically, not theologically.

As a rule of thumb, inerrantists publish research only in a walled garden. The exception is Daniel B. Wallace. Why? See https://ehrmanblog.org/why-textual-criticism-is-safe-for-conservative-christians/ tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

We are quoting a Biblical inerrantist now? Great, what is the difference with any other charlatan and lunatic? Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

McGrew is a respectable philosopher, but he is completely WP:FRINGE at the history of Christianity. He is a Christian apologist who boasts "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". There are Christian theologians who have respect for mainstream science, mainstream history, and objective facts; he isn't one of them. He is a sophisticated philosopher in some respects, and an intellectual slave of 16th century Protestant dogmas in others. “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” ― John Maynard Keynes ― I'm not saying that McGrew has political power. But Calvin did. And he burned Servetus at stake. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"There are Christian theologians" I don't really trust or respect theologians. I had 6 years of mandatory theology classes during my school years. The theologians I met were were some of the most naive and least educated persons I have ever met. Including one who told me that reading books would lead me astray of faith. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: And what do you think about this or this source? Potatín5 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Those two sources stand for the conservative evangelical POV and no more than that. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are reliable sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals. StAnselm (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour." [2]. I'm not saying this is a reason to be dismissed out of hand, but biblical infalliblity is an extreme position in respect to historical criticism, even an outright anti-historical commitment. I don't think that biblical infallibility is a big problem for studying WW2, but it is a big problem when studying the history of the Bible, because it makes Bible scholars reject out of hand everything that even resembles a theologically unorthodox position. The sad reality is that they will be sacked if they advocate such positions. It happened to Peter Enns and it will happen again. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, Enns was suspended from WTS over the issue of inerrancy, which that statement doesn't mention. (Perhaps because it's British?) StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The second page of that article by David Seccombe has a rather neat summary of positions on the date of Acts (but not of Luke) - I wouldn't object to using it in our article. Achar Sva (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear: there are two McGrews, a he and a she, but they are both inerrantists. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Claro. But why are we discussing in 2023 an edit that took place a year ago? Achar Sva (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Because the prejudice against inerrancy is extremely problematic in light of WP:NPOV. StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are we discussiong here? McGrew's status as a reliable source? If it's the female McGrew, then no, she's not, because she has no academic qualifications in the field and holds no academic position in it and, so far as I know, has never published in peer-reviewed journals. Is this what we're talking about? Are we even talking about the Gospel of Luke? Achar Sva (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Inerrancy is a huge source of bias. While the agreement of mainstream historians is that each and every source should be treated critically, inerrantists knee-jerk reject critically treating the Bible. Since they invariably reach the conclusion that it is 100% trustworthy and accurate in every respect. But, again, that isn't a conclusion, it is an assumption which they begin with. And often they take formal oaths that they will uphold such assumption no matter what. In Bible scholarship there are two camps: inerrantists + infallibilists vs. everybody else.

And it's not just the belief in inerrancy, but upholding the theological orthodoxy of their own church. Since people who believe in biblical inerrancy could have wildly different theologies, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Trinitarian Pentecostals, or Sunday Baptists vs. Seventh-day Adventists. There are "historians" who act as hired guns for their church, while mainstream historians by and large agree that the historical truth trumps theological correctness (even when they happen not to like it in particular cases). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)