Luke's Gospel

[Nihilist Virus]

The position most commonly held among Christians is that Matthew and John wrote their own gospels (or dictated them to an interpreter), that Peter dictated his gospel to Mark (or that Mark compiled the gospel on his own with Peter as his primary source), and that Luke got the information for his gospel from Paul. Matthew, John, and Peter are eyewitnesses and primary sources, but Paul is not. Paul saw Jesus for the first time on the road to Damascus, but Jesus was clearly not a flesh-and-blood person at the time because Jesus had already resurrected and ascended to heaven, not to mention the fact that Paul's companions did not have the same experience.

So I'd like to know what the standard Christian answer is for this, if there is one. Please don't say that Luke's source was Paul, because, as I said, Paul was not an eyewitness of anything. Please don't say that Luke used Mark and "Q" because I'm only interested in explanations that make Luke either an eyewitness or a person with direct access to one. Thanks.

 

[rockytopva]

Missionary teams...

Peter and Mark
Paul and Luke

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: - Titus 1:5

I would say that Luke would depart from Paul for seasons at a time to gather the research required for the writing of the Gospel According to Luke. I would say that Mark leaned quite heavily on the wisdom of Peter, Luke would have to depart from Paul to gather his research on writing his material.

 

[bcbsr]

The position most commonly held among Christians is that Matthew and John wrote their own gospels (or dictated them to an interpreter), that Peter dictated his gospel to Mark (or that Mark compiled the gospel on his own with Peter as his primary source), and that Luke got the information for his gospel from Paul. Matthew, John, and Peter are eyewitnesses and primary sources, but Paul is not. Paul saw Jesus for the first time on the road to Damascus, but Jesus was clearly not a flesh-and-blood person at the time because Jesus had already resurrected and ascended to heaven, not to mention the fact that Paul's companions did not have the same experience.

So I'd like to know what the standard Christian answer is for this, if there is one. Please don't say that Luke's source was Paul, because, as I said, Paul was not an eyewitness of anything. Please don't say that Luke used Mark and "Q" because I'm only interested in explanations that make Luke either an eyewitness or a person with direct access to one. Thanks.

You might want to read the first few verses of Luke:

Lk 1:1-3
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

 

[PloverWing]

For the record, the position most commonly held among Christian scholars (including conservative Evangelical scholars) is that Luke used Mark and Q. I won't elaborate, since you've said you're not interested in this view.

One alternative theory, held by some scholars, is that Luke relied on Matthew for those passages that are shared by the two gospels. This theory has the difficulty that the author of Luke discarded some material from Matthew in forming his own gospel -- why do that? -- but it has the advantage that one doesn't have to posit the existence of a Q document (or document collection). In this theory, Matthew can serve as one of your eyewitnesses.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You might want to read the first few verses of Luke:

Lk 1:1-3
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

I'm aware of that passage. It doesn't answer my question. You might want to read the OP... unless you honestly believe that my question, "What is the source for Luke?" is answered by, "Luke says he had sources." If that's the case, we need not have further dealings.

 

[bcbsr]

I'm aware of that passage. It doesn't answer my question. You might want to read the OP... unless you honestly believe that my question, "What is the source for Luke?" is answered by, "Luke says he had sources." If that's the case, we need not have further dealings.

As he says, his source were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word. So read his accounts and think to yourself, "Who are the eyewitnesses to these accounts, and who are also from the first servants of the Word?" There you go.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

For the record, the position most commonly held among Christian scholars (including conservative Evangelical scholars) is that Luke used Mark and Q. I won't elaborate, since you've said you're not interested in this view.

One alternative theory, held by some scholars, is that Luke relied on Matthew for those passages that are shared by the two gospels. This theory has the difficulty that the author of Luke discarded some material from Matthew in forming his own gospel -- why do that? -- but it has the advantage that one doesn't have to posit the existence of a Q document (or document collection). In this theory, Matthew can serve as one of your eyewitnesses.

Thanks, but I'm already granting here that Matthew is an eyewitness. I just want to know how it is that Luke can be said to be one. If he's not, and if he has no legitimate source material, shouldn't his gospel be ejected from the canon?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Missionary teams...

Peter and Mark
Paul and Luke

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: - Titus 1:5

I would say that Luke would depart from Paul for seasons at a time to gather the research required for the writing of the Gospel According to Luke. I would say that Mark leaned quite heavily on the wisdom of Peter, Luke would have to depart from Paul to gather his research on writing his material.

OK, thanks. How does this make Luke an eyewitness?

 

[Doug Melven]

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Verse 2 is not saying Luke used those sources to write his Gospel, but he is saying he was a witness from the beginning.
Verse 3 says he had perfect understanding from the beginning. Unless you think Luke is lying, he was a perfect candidate to write a Gospel.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Verse 2 is not saying Luke used those sources to write his Gospel, but he is saying he was a witness from the beginning.

I don't know which is supposed to be the antecedent in verse 2. I can be read one of two ways:



1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;


The term "which" could be referring to either "they" or to "us." Furthermore, "us" is a vague term in that it may or may not refer to the second person, and also its first-person usage can be nebulous.

Verse 3 says he had perfect understanding from the beginning. Unless you think Luke is lying, he was a perfect candidate to write a Gospel.

That doesn't identify his source.

 

[Dirk1540]

The position most commonly held among Christians is that Matthew and John wrote their own gospels (or dictated them to an interpreter), that Peter dictated his gospel to Mark (or that Mark compiled the gospel on his own with Peter as his primary source), and that Luke got the information for his gospel from Paul. Matthew, John, and Peter are eyewitnesses and primary sources, but Paul is not. Paul saw Jesus for the first time on the road to Damascus, but Jesus was clearly not a flesh-and-blood person at the time because Jesus had already resurrected and ascended to heaven, not to mention the fact that Paul's companions did not have the same experience.

So I'd like to know what the standard Christian answer is for this, if there is one. Please don't say that Luke's source was Paul, because, as I said, Paul was not an eyewitness of anything. Please don't say that Luke used Mark and "Q" because I'm only interested in explanations that make Luke either an eyewitness or a person with direct access to one. Thanks.

Paul’s companions had a distorted experience of ‘Something’ so the account was not claiming a subjective non-physical encounter. However, it’s being pessimistic to hone in so much on Paul not being a pre-Damascus road eyewitness. Paul was wicked smart, he obviously knew Judaism like the back of his hand, and being an active protester to The Way (Christianity) it takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that he would have a firm grasp on all of their messianic fulfillment claims through Jesus. Paul later argued constantly how Jesus is in fact what scripture was pointing to, Paul didn’t need new knowledge, he needed everything he already knew to ‘Click’

Paul at the very least was a very well traveled debater who believed in knowing the subject matter of those he debated against, like Stoics and Epicureans, etc. After his encounter on the Damascus road, it would kind of be like a non-Christian in this forum who is extremely educated and knows all the arguments, and even knows the Bible better than most Christians...if that person all the sudden accepted Jesus...they could start making brilliant pro-Christian arguments the very same day. Think of Paul as a guy like Bart Ehrman. Neither Bart nor Paul would need technical training in order to proficiently teach Christianity if they had an over night conversion (or in Bart’s case a reconversion). Matter of fact, perhaps Jesus chose Paul because of how articulate & brilliant he was.

 

[Doug Melven]

That doesn't identify his source.

Verse 3 says he had perfect understanding from the very beginning.

If someone relates an account of something to you and they tell you that they had perfect understanding of the situation from the very beginning, they do not need a source, they are a source.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm aware of that passage. It doesn't answer my question. You might want to read the OP... unless you honestly believe that my question, "What is the source for Luke?" is answered by, "Luke says he had sources." If that's the case, we need not have further dealings.

Post #3 directly answers your main question, unless you just simply assume Luke lied. But that would be assuming your conclusion.

 

[Chinchilla]

The position most commonly held among Christians is that Matthew and John wrote their own gospels (or dictated them to an interpreter), that Peter dictated his gospel to Mark (or that Mark compiled the gospel on his own with Peter as his primary source), and that Luke got the information for his gospel from Paul. Matthew, John, and Peter are eyewitnesses and primary sources, but Paul is not. Paul saw Jesus for the first time on the road to Damascus, but Jesus was clearly not a flesh-and-blood person at the time because Jesus had already resurrected and ascended to heaven, not to mention the fact that Paul's companions did not have the same experience.

So I'd like to know what the standard Christian answer is for this, if there is one. Please don't say that Luke's source was Paul, because, as I said, Paul was not an eyewitness of anything. Please don't say that Luke used Mark and "Q" because I'm only interested in explanations that make Luke either an eyewitness or a person with direct access to one. Thanks.

Matthew , Mark , Luke and John wrote thier own gospels guided by HS , each has different ending like a seal of HS .

Time : 10:45 for the point .

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Paul’s companions had a distorted experience of ‘Something’ so the account was not claiming a subjective non-physical encounter. However, it’s being pessimistic to hone in so much on Paul not being a pre-Damascus road eyewitness. Paul was wicked smart, he obviously knew Judaism like the back of his hand, and being an active protester to The Way (Christianity) it takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that he would have a firm grasp on all of their messianic fulfillment claims through Jesus. Paul later argued constantly how Jesus is in fact what scripture was pointing to, Paul didn’t need new knowledge, he needed everything he already knew to ‘Click’

Paul at the very least was a very well traveled debater who believed in knowing the subject matter of those he debated against, like Stoics and Epicureans, etc. After his encounter on the Damascus road, it would kind of be like a non-Christian in this forum who is extremely educated and knows all the arguments, and even knows the Bible better than most Christians...if that person all the sudden accepted Jesus...they could start making brilliant pro-Christian arguments the very same day. Think of Paul as a guy like Bart Ehrman. Neither Bart nor Paul would need technical training in order to proficiently teach Christianity if they had an over night conversion (or in Bart’s case a reconversion). Matter of fact, perhaps Jesus chose Paul because of how articulate & brilliant he was.

Thanks, but none of this is relevant to the issue. Paul's academic knowledge, as great as it might have been, doesn't mean he witnessed anything relevant to the gospels.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Verse 3 says he had perfect understanding from the very beginning.

If someone relates an account of something to you and they tell you that they had perfect understanding of the situation from the very beginning, they do not need a source, they are a source.

So you are contending that Luke was an eyewitness to everything that he wrote down?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Post #3 directly answers your main question, unless you just simply assume Luke lied. But that would be assuming your conclusion.

No. My main question is, "Who was Luke's source?" That post does not contribute in the slightest to the thread.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Matthew , Mark , Luke and John wrote thier own gospels guided by HS , each has different ending like a seal of HS .

Time : 10:45 for the point .

I'm talking about eyewitness testimony, not the notion of one being compelled to write something they didn't even see.

 

[Doug Melven]

So you are contending that Luke was an eyewitness to everything that he wrote down?

Luke said he was, I won't call him a liar.

 

[PloverWing]

Thanks, but I'm already granting here that Matthew is an eyewitness. I just want to know how it is that Luke can be said to be one. If he's not, and if he has no legitimate source material, shouldn't his gospel be ejected from the canon?

The author of Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. He claims to have assembled an orderly account based on reliable sources. His gospel seems to be just that, a collection of stories and sermons from good sources, assembled into an organized narrative. He doesn't name his specific sources, but they appear to be some of the same sources that the author of Matthew judged to be reliable.

Why do you assert that Luke has no legitimate source material?