Luke's Gospel

[rockytopva]

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.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12

Paul taught what was revealed to him by the Lord Jesus Christ and we have little of the life of Christ in his works. So, I believe, that Luke had to go outside of Paul to get the material to write the book of Luke. I would say that Paul enjoyed the works of Luke and benefited from them. Interesting thing though, that Paul does not quote from Luke, nor Luke from Paul.

 

[Dirk1540]

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.

Ok. I had to read the OP again. Yes I would agree that post #3 was a good answer

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

Why does tradition hold that his source was Paul?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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?

Luke is not an eyewitness and his sources are anonymous.

 

[Doug Melven]

Why does tradition hold that his source was Paul?

If you read Acts you will see Luke and Paul were together a lot. Luke wrote Acts, note how many times Luke shows he was one of Paul's companions.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12

Paul taught what was revealed to him by the Lord Jesus Christ and we have little of the life of Christ in his works. So, I believe, that Luke had to go outside of Paul to get the material to write the book of Luke. I would say that Paul enjoyed the works of Luke and benefited from them. Interesting thing though, that Paul does not quote from Luke, nor Luke from Paul.

OK... so what was Luke's eyewitness source?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. I had to read the OP again. Yes I would agree that post #3 was a good answer

So you're agreeing with yourself? OK. I must have missed the pertinent information contained in the post you're referring to. Can you tell me who the eyewitness was that Luke used as a source? I didn't see any names, which is what I'm asking for.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you read Acts you will see Luke and Paul were together a lot. Luke wrote Acts, note how many times Luke shows he was one of Paul's companions.

OK. What's that got to do with the gospels? It's already well known that Paul came late onto the scene and was not an eyewitness to any gospel event.

Another person on this thread disagrees that Luke is identifying himself as an eyewitness in verse 3.

Also there is no account that places Luke anywhere in the events of the gospels.

In summary, your argument is lacking in evidence and also contradicts Christian tradition. So I don't find your argument to be compelling.

 

[hedrick]

Why does tradition hold that his source was Paul?

Does it? Irenaeus and Tertullian apparently thought so, but I haven't run into anyone currently claiming that. I looked at Calvin's commentary, and he doesn't claim it. The early 20th Cent Catholic Encyclopedia gives us a view of pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. It says that Luke was a companion of Paul and his style of writing was influenced by long association with Paul. But it doesn't claim that Paul was a source for the Gospel. Bible.org is a pretty good representation of conservative scholarship. It says that "Luke's Gospel was affected by Paul's preaching," but that doesn't seem quite as strong as the claim you're making.

 

[PloverWing]

Luke is not an eyewitness and his sources are anonymous.

We may be trying to assess two different things.

1) Should Luke's gospel be in the canon? Yes, if the assessment of the early church was that Luke's document was consistent with the saying of Jesus and the stories about Jesus that were circulating orally among the early Christians. Being in the canon means that this gospel was judged to be a reliable documentation of the early Christians' memory of Jesus and understanding of his teachings.

2) Should Luke's gospel be enough to persuade you, a 21st century atheist, that it correctly records the life of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. If you're just considering it as a document in isolation, then, yes, it's got the troubles that you have pointed out. The gospel doesn't have the kinds of footnotes and bibliography that we would expect in a modern historical document. It doesn't even name its own author. If I found the gospel in the desert under a rock, with no one to vouch for it, I might still find its teachings compelling (I do, in fact), but I'd have trouble figuring out how historically accurate it was.

Luke's gospel does not, of course, come to us as an isolated document found under a rock in the desert. It comes to us with the endorsement of the early church, who said that this document represented their beliefs. That endorsement matters to me. I understand if it matters less to you.

 

[cvanwey]

Maybe it's more logical to conclude 'Luke' did not write, or even provide the actual information, pertaining to the entitled gospel of 'Luke'? Hence, maybe the underlying reason you will not receive a validating response as to your question of eyewitness attestation But it will be entertaining to read the following responses moving forward...

It's been argued the gospel 'titles' were added later, (much later).

Maybe it's possible to conclude the gospels were written by already bias believers, whom also partially copied circulating texts of the time, and then also added some of their own stuff; as all such works were not yet canonized into one official collective works, (via the Constantine era). Meaning, prior to this time, such authors were attempting to write THE gospel, and not just a corroborating gospel.

 

[Dirk1540]

So you're agreeing with yourself?

No. I posted about Paul because I thought that’s where you were going, but I agree with post #3 about Luke.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Does it? Irenaeus and Tertullian apparently thought so, but I haven't run into anyone currently claiming that. I looked at Calvin's commentary, and he doesn't claim it. The early 20th Cent Catholic Encyclopedia gives us a view of pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. It says that Luke was a companion of Paul and his style of writing was influenced by long association with Paul. But it doesn't claim that Paul was a source for the Gospel. Bible.org is a pretty good representation of conservative scholarship. It says that "Luke's Gospel was affected by Paul's preaching," but that doesn't seem quite as strong as the claim you're making.

I thought that was the tradition. Either way, what was Luke's source?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We may be trying to assess two different things.

Possibly. It's easy to talk past one another sometimes.

1) Should Luke's gospel be in the canon? Yes, if the assessment of the early church was that Luke's document was consistent with the saying of Jesus and the stories about Jesus that were circulating orally among the early Christians. Being in the canon means that this gospel was judged to be a reliable documentation of the early Christians' memory of Jesus and understanding of his teachings.

I probably shouldn't have brought up the question about canonization as it's a bit off topic.

2) Should Luke's gospel be enough to persuade you, a 21st century atheist, that it correctly records the life of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. If you're just considering it as a document in isolation, then, yes, it's got the troubles that you have pointed out. The gospel doesn't have the kinds of footnotes and bibliography that we would expect in a modern historical document. It doesn't even name its own author. If I found the gospel in the desert under a rock, with no one to vouch for it, I might still find its teachings compelling (I do, in fact), but I'd have trouble figuring out how historically accurate it was.

Luke's gospel does not, of course, come to us as an isolated document found under a rock in the desert. It comes to us with the endorsement of the early church, who said that this document represented their beliefs. That endorsement matters to me. I understand if it matters less to you.

For the purposes of this thread I'm already accepting Christianity as fully correct. From there, I'm asking how it is that Luke compiled his gospel. If it's reasonable to trust the gospel, then there should be a reasonable answer to my question.

 

[hedrick]

I thought that was the tradition. Either way, what was Luke's source?

You already prohibited the usual answer. His prolog implies a collection of sources. The usual critical theory seems consistent with what he said.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No. I posted about Paul because I thought that’s where you were going, but I agree with post #3 about Luke.

Great. But why'd you redact important parts of my post here?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You already prohibited the usual answer. His prolog implies a collection of sources. The usual critical theory seems consistent with what he said.

But do we know what those sources are?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Maybe it's more logical to conclude 'Luke' did not write, or even provide the actual information, pertaining to the entitled gospel of 'Luke'? Hence, maybe the underlying reason you will not receive a validating response as to your question of eyewitness attestation But it will be entertaining to read the following responses moving forward...

It's been argued the gospel 'titles' were added later, (much later).

Maybe it's possible to conclude the gospels were written by already bias believers, whom also partially copied circulating texts of the time, and then also added some of their own stuff; as all such works were not yet canonized into one official collective works, (via the Constantine era). Meaning, prior to this time, such authors were attempting to write THE gospel, and not just a corroborating gospel.

For the purposes of this thread I'm granting not only the Bible but also Christian tradition to be 100% factual. Given that much, I'm still not even getting a straight answer. I just want to know who was the source for Luke. The main "answer" was where people were telling me to look at Luke 1:1-3 where Luke says he had sources. The Christians here literally think they're answering my question (What was Luke's source?) by saying that Luke had sources. Another person said that Luke personally witnessed gospel events, which is I think absurd even to Christians.

 

[Doug Melven]

OK. What's that got to do with the gospels? It's already well known that Paul came late onto the scene and was not an eyewitness to any gospel event.

You asked the question about the association of Luke and Paul and I answered it by showing they really did have a long association.

In post 39 you said somebody talked about Luke being an eyewitness, that was me.
I don't see how else Luke could have had perfect understanding from the beginning.

 

[hedrick]

But do we know what those sources are?

No, but there are some reasonable guesses, as you’re obviously aware. The main sources, Mark and Q, aren’t witnesses. It’s conceivable he had access to some actual witnesses, but if so they contributed a ininor part. But you know all of this. I’m not seeing anyone claiming Paul as a source for the Gospel, though Luke’s specific interpretation of the common story shares with a Paul an interest in the gentile mission.