Talk:Gospel of Luke/Archive 1

Old comments
Is it normal to refer to Christ as our Lord in an encyclopedic text? I am not a native speaker of English, so I do not know if such subtleties exist.--branko


 * Nope. It's our favorite vandal (and I'll use the term even if others don't want to).  62.98.136.xxx needs to be banned in my opinion. Rgamble

-

The three synoptic gospels should be formatted similarly. I think that there should be a common format for the three. Mark is probably the best of the three articles, so maybe this and matthew could be formatted similarly? hwestbrook

-

This article is taken from Easton Bible Dicionary of 1897, and probably the contributor forgot to edit out that reference to "our Lord".

Since much new research has been conducted in the field since 1897 one wonders if it makes any sense to copy an article from such an antiquated source (it does  refer to JC as our Lord!)

---

Suggested headings To bring readability and order to the entries for the Gospels, I would like to structure each of the entries under some headings. The following headings occur to me. Please add additional headings that are needed:
 * Contents and character of Luke
 * Luke 's audience and purpose
 * Sources and comparisons
 * Surviving manuscripts

--Wetman 13:44, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent idea! I edited Matthew and had a go at Luke. But I haven't looked at the others. There's also a lot of redundant stuff with two-source hypothesis, synoptic problem, gospel, Q document and others that needs to be put into the proper article. - David Gerard 14:24, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be added?
Luke 24:50, which refers to "Jesus Is Taken Up to Heaven", that some manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke, do not have verse 24:50, shouldn't that be added and expanded upon?

Non-mainstream POV from anonymous IP
I've noticed that this IP is adding some non-mainstream points of view concerning the authorship of Luke and the identity of Theophilus. I haven't removed his points of view, but have relegated them to minority points of view; the mainstream POV is that Luke was a Greek (Acts 16:10 has a self reference to Luke being in Greece; Luke removes a lot of details only of interest to Jews, such as references to Daniel in Matthew 24:15, compare Luke 21:20; etc.). I wonder what other people think of this person's points of view. Samboy 22:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * To back this up, from the introduction to Luke for the New American Bible " [Luke's] incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians." and from the notes for Luke 1 "Theophilus ("friend of God," literally)". Samboy 22:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the following the IP in question added:


 * A small minority feel that Luke-Acts was written by a Jew to persuade other Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah of Scripture and that the words of the prophets concerning ‘restoration’ have been ‘fulfilled’.

Next: Remove his other possible vandalism. Samboy 01:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, the following has also been removed:


 * A few argue that Theophilus is a High Priest who served from 37–41. This high priest had a granddaughter named Johanna (see ossuary, IEJ, 1986).  As it turns out, only the Gospel of Luke tells his readers that Johanna was one of the women who served Jesus (See Luke 8:3).

Again, does anyone think this is worth keeping? Samboy 01:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Removed sentence by 68.80.152.97: "It could have been addressed to Theophilus the High Priest."Alecmconroy 11:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

One link that speculates on Theophilus:

The "Ossuary" link the IP referred to is as follows: Dan Barag and David Flusser, "The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus," Israel Exploration Journal 36 (1986), 39—44. Samboy 01:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hardback reference to the ossuary of Johanna:
 * Judaism and the Origins of Christianity by David Flusser Magnus Press, Hebrew University, 1988 ISBN 965-233-6 p. 721 "The grandfather [of Johanna] Theophilus was appointed hight priest in the spring of 37 CE. He was the son of the high priest Annas who was involved in Jesus' 'trial' as was also Theophilus' brother-in-law, Caiaphas.  His brother, Annas the Younger, caused the execution of James the Elder, the Lord's brother, (see Josephus, Antiquities XX, 200-203). Jpittaway 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is sufficient evidence, more than can be laid out here, that Luke's Theophilus could well be the high priest of 37-41CE. As for Johanna, not only is she mentioned at the resurrection scene in Luke, but she holds the place of centerpoint, or crux, in a chiastic structure there. What other "Theophilus" would have esteemed a "Johanna" so highly for Luke to have given her such a prominent place in his most climactic moment?--LTDahn (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Papyrus Bodmer XIV
I disambiguated the oblique reference to "Papyrus Bodmer XIV" to a more reader-friendly form, thus: "Traditionalists point to the fact that the oldest manuscript that has retained its opening page, a papyrus in the Martin Bodmer Library, Cologny, assigned a date c. AD 200 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the "Gospel according to Luke," and the subsequent tradition is unbroken." However, before saving, when I subsequently read that Papyrus Bodmer XIV "starts with much of Luke 3--18; then Luke 22:4--24:53 continues immediately with John 1:1--11:45", I am put in doubt of the whole claim and have moved it here. The Bibliothèque Bodmer published the Papyrus in 1961. What about Papyrus Bodmer XIV actually does connect the text to "Luke" besides its being a version of the familiar text ascribed to "Luke"? There's no "opening page:" it starts with Luke 3. Is there anything to this "traditionalists" text at all, or is this mumbo-jumbo? --Wetman 22:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with this document. What I am familiar with is the fact there there is a theory that "Luke" started with a "proto-Luke" that didn't include the first two chapters of Luke; that the first two chapters of Luke were added later (by Luke himself, most people think). Samboy 06:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Proto-Luke you've heard tell of was part of the discussion of "Luke"'s sources, in B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels : A study of origins 1924. Like everything else it's on-line now: just click the highlighted link. No connection with the claims for the Bodmer Library papyrus. --Wetman 09:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Title: suggest "according to"
The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has kata, Latin secondo, both meaning according to. In other words [The] Good News according to .... There is a lively discussion as to the genre of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters of, even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.)

Portress 03:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As you suggest, the applied titles are simply a convention. The link "What links here" at the left will show you the links that would need to be fixed, before you moved on the the other gospels, in order to maintain consistency. Then you'd be renaming the Gospel according to Thomas too? And Gospel of Peter? The "according to" is a rather specific assertion, which doesn't always hold up to critical analysis. --Wetman 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Excise Testimonials and appreciations?
Is there any reason to keep the Testimonials and appreciations section and its contents? It mostly contains various platitudes about the gospel, lists of "also call The Gospel of ____", and proclaims "This Gospel is indeed 'rich and precious.'". My initial reaction was to cut the whole section as POV and non-encyclopedic. But deleting that much is scary without saying asking first, especially since the text has been in the article since at least 2001-- being originally copied from Easton Bible Dictionary of 1897. So-- anyone have any thoughts? What's the rational behind why so many people have kept this text in? Alecmconroy 11:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done that; Let's see what people think. We can always revert it. Tom Harrison (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Luke as a Female?
From the main text of the article:
 * This prominence of women through the Luke gospel has led Biblical Scholar Randel McCraw Helms to suggest that the author of Luke may have been female.

How does Helms account for the fact that the author refers to himself in Luke 1:3 using a masculine particle? Stephen C. Carlson 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Added by daveleau: The author ignores the fact that the Gentile population had a different view of women. They did not think of women as equal, but they had a higher view of women in society than did the Jewish. Since Luke wrote to the Gentiles, as a Gentile, it makes sense that he would write in such a way.

Clean-up?
The Content section needs to be edited for clean up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Content

Some other stuff
I've taken the liberty of removing the words "some other stuff" from the dContent section, and adding the word approximate. It seems as though it was an author's attempt at going about the chapter by chapter thing by listing other pages that described each chapter. I think that a fine soultion to the debate, but if you can't find an article describing, let's say "Jesus calms a storm" (between sermon on mound and calling of Levi), don't put in a place holder of (...some other stuff...). You can look back in the history to see what can be added, but the place holder is very unencyclopedic, expecally for one of the big four books of the bible. Same goes for Matthew. --Rayc 04:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref
Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring.
I am coming to talk to explain why I feel some of the recent edits are problematic. Thanks--Andrew c 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "but there are early writings that attest to this", I feel 'but' is unnecessary and introduces an argumentative tone. We do not have any 'writings' of Marcion, nor a single list of his cannon derived from him. I also do not care for the word "attest". Furthermore, just because something calls a book "Luke" does not necessarily mean that they think "Luke" was Paul's travelling companion. Can you cite Marcion claiming the author of his Gospel is the person mentioned in Phil/Col? I think it is sufficent enough to simply say the first time we see the name Luke attached to this document is with these 3 individuals. I also erased "mini-canon". It is diminutive and verbatim the phrase used by the source. I have never encountered the phrase "mini-canon" in regards to Marcion, and it only gets 8 google hits (some not even relevent). I would propose just saying "Marcion canon" unless there is a good reason why to describe it as the diminutive.
 * 2) "process of elimination" Elimination of what? What process? This phrase is unclear. If you want to say "Out of all the people who Paul mentions in his writtings, the person who fits the author of Luke the best under the assumed criteria of travel description and technical doctor terms, is Luke from Col 4:14" just say something like that. I do not see how "process of elimination" is helpful.
 * 3) "at a later date" you are claiming that every single scholar states the "we" passages were a later interpolation, as opposed to Luke incorporating another source. So if I find a source that claims otherwise, will you agree to take out "at a later date"? Check out the top of page 229 here. "an author... must have used a diary of a participant".
 * 4) "we passage rebuttal". This is not an argumentative essay. There is no need for a "we passage rebuttal". Should we add parenthesis around every claim to present a reply from the other side? Should we state the liberal scholars' explanation for the so-called abrupt ending in Acts? I do not feel it is helpful to add disclaimers and present rebuttals in parenthesis. Keep in mind WP:NOT.
 * 5) Please explain why you removed the sentence about "the sayings goes" and why you feel the vocabulary needs to be qualifed by "some". Have you read The Style and Literary Method of Luke and you know for a fact that Cadbury is only attacking some of the vocabulary?
 * 6) "as described below." is unencyclopedic, informal, and sort of obvious. I think it is clearly unnecessary
 * 7) "Traditionally, conservative Christian scholars" This makes no sense. How long has there been a conservative Christian scholarship? THe traditional CHRISTIAN view is discussed in this sentence. We can introduce that conservative scholars agree with the traditional CHRISTIAN view in the next sentence (as my edit did). However, I think it is ignoring a large piece of history, and a large part of the population by not acknowledging the traditional view held by Christians.
 * 8) "Sadducees" first of all, you are doing the rebuttal thing again. There is already a section for the traditional view. No need to respond to the liberal view. This is opening up a can of worms. Do you want the liberal view to add parenthetical commentary on why the conservative view is wrong in their section? Arumentative essays are different from wikipedia, and the way you are presenting arguments and rebuttals seems to go against wikipedia policy and NPOV. Next, this section needs to be sourced. I was bold and simply removed it. I scanned the info at earlychristianwritings.com and found no mention of the Sadducees argument, and I haven't encountered it in Ehrman. I admit, it was probably too bold to simply remove it without requesting a citation first, but it also doesn't flow with how the paragraph goes. Read the next couple sentences. The support for dating sentences don't come until later in the paragraph.
 * 9) You removed the wikilink to the 3rd century. I would have simply added "the first half of the 3rd century" instead of changing the dating completely. Also, I think it is time we start using cite.php. I will try to convert the referenes we already have, but you may want to familiarize youself with template:cite web and cite.php.
 * 10) You have blanked a lot of information on the Codex Bezae. Why?

Bbagot 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot
 * 1) I am open to discussion. Your choice of action in this case was to change my edit to something I felt was incorrect, namely, that these were the earliest references.  I didn't feel comfortable all of them were listed, and indeed, the reference to Marcion was entered later.
 * 2) Process of elimination was wording used by my source. I am cautious about how many words I alter.  It can be changed, but then what you mentioned above is not the edit you put into the article.
 * 3) The reference is in regard to the time of the events recorded. I wasn't the one who created the argument.  You edited the phrase away without explanation.
 * 4) It was a factual addition. If the early view makes a statement that is factually inaccurate I would expect that to be noted in some form, hopefully concisely, factually, and without opinion.
 * 5) As you are already aware, I'm not a big fan of witty sayings as much as a presentation of the man's conclusions. If you really wish to open it up to sayings that don't add anything, I'm sure I could provide quotes for the conservative side to balance the number.  Frankly, I would prefer to see them removed from both points of view and I would hope you would want the same.  People should read this for the content provided on the subject, not the general equivalent of "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
 * 6) If you have a difficulty with it, I will review it.
 * 7) How do you define scholar? It may not be the way that I do.  If you think scholars are only those that first arose in the 19th century, then we have some talking to do.
 * 8) I'm not the one who put the Sadducees argument in there. Again, I have no difficulty with factual presentations, and yes, that includes against writings in the conservative section as well.  I expect the article should give a presentation that makes the reader feel he's getting a good understanding of the different views available.
 * 9) No harm was meant by the change. I added accuracy, but if there is a way to keep the accuracy and create a link I'm certainly not going to complain. As you are aware, many of the alterations you have suggested have already been incorporated in writings I originally produced.
 * 10) I summarized the point.  I felt it meandered and got off track.  The Codex Bezae is still there; it just takes up fewer lines.

Ok, thanks for your replies, if you use the # sign by itself, it will automatically create an numbered list for you in the code: --Andrew c 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding Marcion is fine. Is there anyone else you'd like to add, or have we listed the earliest references now? I think my qualifying "earliest" with "surviving" implies that maybe there were earlier references that didn't survive. If there is still something factually inaccurate about my version, please explain, if not, perhaps we could impliment it (if you agree with my reasoning that "but", "attest", and "mini-" introduce an argumentative and POV tone).
 * 2) When using sources, you should a)cite them, and b) quote them if you are going to copy phrases and words. Saying "my source, that I didn't cite or quote used the phrase" does not explain to me the concerns I raised. What was this process. I feel this phrase has a obvious sort of tone saying "anyone who looks at this matter can use the process of elimination and reach this conclusion", when most scholars consider Luke to be anonymously written.
 * 3) The way it reads to me now is that "at a later date" implies a later interpolation by a redactionist. Perhaps this needs to be rephrased. I do not know exactly what you are trying to convey, so maybe you could suggest a change if you don't agree with me that the phrase is unnecessary.
 * 4) The manner in which you present this "factual" information is argumentative and unencyclopedic. Furthermore, it assume that Robbins doesn't address these "problems" in his work. He disregards a number of voyages on water by saying they occur on a lake, not a sea. And he discusses 4 passages, not 3. I just think there are better ways to present POVs than turning this into an argumentative paper.
 * 5) I personally think the saying is fine, but I can see your point and won't push for inclusion. Since you did not respond to why you inserted "some", I guess we can agree to remove it?
 * 6) Please. I think it reads fine without it.
 * 7) I guess we have some talking to do. Look through the notes Jesus and ref Jesus section of Jesus and also Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios to get an idea of what sort of scholars the community consider and cite in regards to that topic.
 * 8)  I'm not the one who put the Sadducees argument in there.  I know you are not. I removed it and you put it back in. Please defend why you want it to me in the article.  that includes against writings in the conservative section as well. You may want to review the WP:NPOV policy and try to understand what exactly wikipedia is. Presenting POVs is fine, arguing for a position, or presenting arguments and rebuttals isn't.
 * 9) Fine.
 * 10) I think you summarized a little too much. Perhaps there is too much information on that one mss, but maybe some of the info needs to be restored.

Thank you for the numbering shortcut. That will be most helpful.


 * 1) I can certainly re-examine the early sources/Marcion thing. Generally I use similar wording to what I read in the source, but it doesn't have to stay that way once the dust has settled.  I've been reluctant to use wording that says these are the earliest or surviving manscipts in any form that says we have them all listed.  I'm not an expert in this area, and we have added since that wording was first proposed.  One thing I do not want to do is add error (or possible error) into areas where I am uncertain.  At least one or both of us should do more research and only address this issue when we feel comfortable that we'll be making an accurate statement.  During the next rewrite I'll try to address concerns that hopefully can result in word choices that will be viewed in a more favorable light.  That doesn't mean it will be perfect, but I'll make a new effort to make a number of changes at once (not today).
 * 2) The process described prefaces with the words "the traditional view" and comes under a discussion of reasons why Luke is viewed as the author.  Similar to the followup where information is given as to why Luke is not considered the author, it will involve a POV.
 * 3) I will look at it to rephrase. We appear to have the same viewpoint as to what it should say, just as of this time we haven't gotten the form down.
 * 4) I disagree, as previously stated. In a sense the whole "we" section brought up in the late date section of the article is a rebuttal to the early view position that the word "we" should be taken at face value.  I don't want to get into a constant string of point/counter-point, but I also don't want to let sections go that would lead to a false assumption about what is in the text.  That extra line clears that up.  However we leave this section of Wikipedia, it should not have information that leads the reader to a false assumption.  I will look to see how it can be edited.
 * 5) I have a question with some based upon the wording standards you have wished me to adhere to. Has he really discussed each medical term?  It's a question of standard continuity.  I don't have a problem with it in general, but I will reference that if I feel you are getting too knit-picky in other areas.
 * 6) Good. I'd like to do the same for Matthew as well the next time that area is edited.
 * 7) Thank you for providing areas where I could see lists of scholars, but it still doesn't answer my concerns as to who is a scholar. I am concerned when we try to quantify viewpoint prevalence in areas where we may not be in agreement.  For instance I have had the privilege during my lifetime of attending 4 different churches run by pastors with PHDs.  They all held viewpoints that you have labeled as minority.  Are they put into the count when scholars are considered?  This is a small subset based upon my personal experiences, but I am aware of a much larger number nationwide that appear to be bypassed.
 * 8) I'm fine with removing the Sadducees section, although if it comes back expect similar text information to be provided. I don't believe it contained a POV.  There was no opinion there, only textual clarification.  To keep that section in without it, would be to mislead readers as to the content of the text itself.
 * 9) I always like to see the word fine.
 * 10) I'll review it, but really that codex was given prominence beyond it's worth. You just recently added the information on the 2 earliest codex, and did so without extra comment.  And really, in the history of Luke, they are much more important.

Bbagot 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot Andrew, thank you for removing the spaces so the numbering reads properly. I see I left out a reply to one of your questions which I have now inserted as well as clarifying another section. Bbagot 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

I have made many of the changes that we have discussed. I changed the early date from 40-60 to 50-60. That piece of information has been around for many years, but I had never heard of such an early date myself, there is no reference, it does seem early for Paul to have been in prison, and it seemed to be troubling many who continually changed the early date. I couldn't find a way to remove the comment on the "we" section since the followup to the original early date assertion is all rebuttal. Removing rebuttal would have required removing all of this, but I didn't feel that would do justice to the later view. I tried to find better wording. Bbagot 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

Ok, briefly on my recent edits of Bbagot's recent edits. I still feel my wording of the early sources on authorship is superior. either state that Luke is the author, or use his name is wordy and confusing, and but... seems to introduce a tone that I am not fond of. It's a fact that Luke/Acts does not put the name "Luke" as the author of either book. It's a fact that the name Luke is only first found in a couple of mid-2nd century early Christian writings (well, we don't have any of Marcion's writings). The two facts are related, but the way it was phrased seemed to favor the traditional view. I feel my wording is more objective (where Jayjg's wording seemed to slightly favor the skeptical view). Next, I reworded the "process of elimination" part. Next, I split off the "modern view" section from the "traditional view" paragraph. I also removed the brief rebuttal of Robbins. We do not summarize his position in enough detail to adequately respond to it (does Robbins cover the first person land passages? yes). I did a minor reworking of the source paragraph. As mentioned above, I included both the traditional Christian view, and the conservative scholarly view in the "Traditional views of the date" section. Finally, I did a minor rework of the reasons behind the liberal view of the date. Hopefully, none of these changes are controversial, but I'd appreciate imput from mroe editors, and hope any reverts are explained here on talk.--Andrew c 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"The earliest surviving witnesses..." Again, I have trouble with this as I'm not sure there aren't others, especially in regards to cross references from psuedo-canonical works. I know there are many; I just don't know if they touch on Luke. "false affectation" vs "not telling the truth". I believe more people would understand the second. "Scholars consider this to be an admission on the authors behalf of using other sources." And so would anyone else since that's what the text says. Scholars don't have to tell us they agree. I've reworked part of the first person narration section to provide that Robbins discussed more issues than the generic we in sea voyages. To just leave the statement as previously written would imply the first person narration issue was solved in a way that much of Acts would not match. Bbagot 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * Seriously, if you can name a source that uses the name "Luke", name it. Just because you have a feeling that there may be others does not mean we need to change the sentence. I believe the word "surviving" covers the possibility that others wrote of luke, only we do not have those works today. Go through this and this and this and what ever other sources you have. I also do not feel Marcion should be in that list, because we have no evidence that he called his Gospel "Luke" or claimed the author was Luke. All we know is that decades after the fact, Church Fathers said Marcion used and edited what they knew as Luke for his own Gospel. Next, the transition from the intro to Luke quote to the 2-source hypothesis is awkward. I have tried two different ways to bridge the two. I am not set on either, but I feel leaving something out hurts the readability of that paragraph. This isn't simple.wikipedia.org, and I do not feel "false affection" is too wordy or confusing, but I guess that is a matter of style/taste. Otherwise, good work. I think we've basically reached a happy medium. Still a couple small kinks, but nothing I feel we can't work out.--Andrew c 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

links
I'm just wondering why Martin Luther's commentary on the Magnificat is one of the two links for further reading for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 June 2006.

yeah, i was wondering the same thing. I think the links were "twisted". the same thing is wrong with the "birth of John the Baptist" link two lines above it. Caval valor 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Earliest manuscripts
I thought א and Β had completely copies of Luke. What is your (clinkophonist) source that they are incomplete and that D is the earliest complete copy of Luke? --Andrew c 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece 26 has a complete listing of sources. D (Codex Bezae), 5th century, has a complete copy of Western text-type Luke. א (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus), 4th century, have complete copies of Alexandrian text-type Luke. Earlier papyrii are all fragmentary.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.2.183 (talk)

I never wrote that א and Β were incomplete; I'm quite convinced that Codex Sinaiticus is complete, especially as most of it is quite easy for me to go an look at with my own eyes (its housed only less than an hour's drive away). Maybe you had me confused with someone else? Clinkophonist 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the diff. It states the א and Β only had "part of" luke and that D was the first "complete" copy. But I'm glad we not only all agree here, but that we have sources to back us up. Yay for verifiability! Sorry for making this bigger than it actually was.--Andrew c 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

what is the gospel of luke about?
what is the gospel of luke about?


 * Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (NRSV) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.15.156 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 November 2006.

Aramaic primacy does not belong in this article
There is no source provided for this paragraph: "The theory of ancient scholars and religious figures such as Papias, Irenaeus, and Erasmus is that these individuals were under the perception that the Gospel of Luke was originally written in Aramaic. This would be furthered backed up by the Lukan author's familiarity with Judaism with his detailed references to Palestinian locations and practices. This would be a believable theory, for the variations in style could simple be rationalized by being translated by various individuals into Greek. The only problem with this theory is that if Luke was in Aramaic, it would possibly mean that the gospel was directed toward a Jewish audience, which does not particularly seem to be the case."

No scholar, aside from George Lamsa, asserts that Luke was originally written in Aramaic. This paragraph, therefore, is useless.

"Greek" section needs improvement
There are a couple of problems with "Greek" (under "Luke's writing style"). How does the citation of 1:3-4 "substantiate" the idea about Luke's multiple styles? This should be either explained or removed. Second, I think the stylistic changes over the course of the text are overstated. There should really be a citation here, and pref. a rewrite so that the cited source's way of characterizing the changes is brought through more clearly. Wareh 00:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never taken part in a wikipedia discussion before, so I apologize if I do things wrong. This section of the article, as stated above, has obvious problems. The reference to Koine, seems to contradict the wikipedia article on Koine, which states that it was used between 300BCE and 300CE, while this part of the article states that it was 1st Century (1st Century what? CE or BCE?) Greek. Grailknighthero (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Length question
The opening sentence of the article identifies the Gospel of Luke as the "longest" of the canonical Gospels. I wonder about this, since Matthew is 28 chapters and Luke is 24 chapters in length. Did someone make an error, or is the author counting total verses or pages? 24.140.12.27 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC) L. Thomas W.
 * They were probably counting words. The division of the New Testament into chapters and verses is a relatively modern artifact:  no such divisions were found in the original Greek manuscsripts and therefore counting chapters and verses is irrelevant to such calculations. Grover cleveland 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Josephus a source for the author of Luke?
"Luke also appears to make use of the work of Josephus in writing Acts, which if true would place it after 93."

This statement is unsupported and unattributed, and its veracity is debatable. Spottacus 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that in the article Josephus on Jesus someone had actually given a link to the Goldberg article: . On reading this I discovered that Goldberg does NOT claim that Luke made use of Josephus but rather that 'The conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that Josephus and Luke derived their passages from a common Christian (or Jewish-Christian) source.' This rather refutes the contributors 'interpretation' and hence I deleted it. Mercury543210 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well since we have a sourced an accurate sentence, I don't think we should delete it. It's misplaced if it is there to suggest that Luke was written after Josephus. Perhaps we could move it to the authorship section or somewhere else? I think there is a place somewhere for Goldberg's conclusion.-Andrew c 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The full quote is on the Josephus on Jesus page but I'm not sure it helps in the dating of Luke. What was deleted was a inaccurate summary of Goldberg's conclusion, at least if it was based on that article. For that reason I would be reluctant to see it re-instated. What does everyone else think? Mercury543210 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Historians
The reference for the sentence "Historians generally regard the gospel as anonymous" is to the Jesus Seminar. I'm not Christian, and I don't know a lot about New Testament scholarship, but isn't this a rather biased source for what is claimed to be most historians? Pappubahry 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe the source is biased? Do you have another source that claims otherwise? If you like, we can change the reference (but before we do that, I want to understand the exact nature of your concern with the current source). Because, two of the most well known college level introductory texts on the NT (Raymond E. Brown's and Bart D. Ehrman's) both agree with our source, that the majority of scholars consider all of the gospels (not just Luke) to be anonymous.-Andrew c 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood how the reference worked. I thought that the Jesus Seminar was being cited as an example of "most historians", when rather the claim is in a book that they've published.  So you can ignore me.  I agree that most scholars consider the gospels to be anonymous. Pappubahry 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew c, I also dispute that that the Jesus Seminar is a 'reliable' source (see Criticism of the Jesus Seminar and Wikipedia entry on Robert W. Funk) for citing this viewpoint. Their approach is considered by many as more 'show than blow' eg NT Wright. Again the body of the article clearly states 'Modern scholarship does not unanimously agree on these points'. Again these seems to contradict the summary phrase. Certainly many great scholars eg I Howard Marshall would consider the case for the authorship by Luke as a reasonable. I would ask that we either remove the phrase 'Historians generally regard the gospel as anonymous' or modify it as I suggested. Mercury543210 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but none of the criticisms mention the authorship issue. However, to appease you, I will change the reference to Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament p 585 "The Gospels, for instance, are anonymous; they do not identify their authors (see, however, John 21:24); the attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that appear in titles stem from the (late?) 2d century and are not part of the original works". -Andrew c 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is the _reliability_ (WP:RS) of the source cited, thus the Jesus Seminar is, in my and most scholars opinion, representative of a minority viewpoint (hence ref's back to article etc.). This is the discussion that is, rightly carried out in the main body of the article. Hence my moving that citation there. I think it perfectly fair to say that some (an exact % is hard to determine) would say that the book is anon but many other historians eg I Howard Marshall, FF Bruce, NT Wright, JDG Dunn, DB Wallace etc would argue that ascribing the authorship to Luke as reasonable. Hence my amended edit. I hope we can agree on a form of words which we both agree accurately and fairly represents the balance of scholarly opinion. Please see my latest attempt!
 * BTW '(late?)' in your quote is rather odd since we have a very well attested reference to Luke's Gospel in 170 (Marcion, as I'm sure you know) which would mean that the latest the authorship was linked was in the early-2nd cent (as in the main article). Mercury543210 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edits are problematic. I believe you are reading the authorship section wrong. It states the traditional view, and lists 3 reasons that the century old Catholic encyclopedia believes the traditional view. That is contrasted with majority view of contemporary scholars. Scholars do not agree with the 3 points listed by the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. Instead, they say the gospel is anonymous. This isn't controversial at all. We had a source saying as much, but you don't care for the source, so I found another source, yet you deleted sources content. I also have Ehrman's introductory text, plus John P. Meier, plus EP Sanders, plus any number of big named biblical scholars that all agree with Brown's assessment. Yes, there is a small minority of conservative Christian scholars who argue that the gospels weren't anonymous, and that they were all written pre-70, and that they can prove that supernatural events were historical. But not saying that majority view (that Luke is anonymous) is giving undue weight to minority views. It's saying there is a bigger controversy than there actually is. In a clearly non-scholarly work (Luke for Everyone) Tom and NT Wright say "So why is Luke writing it all down now?... Who was he, anyway, and when was he writing? I wish we knew for sure who the author of this book was, but actually we don't. We call him "Luke" because that's who the church, from very early on, said had written this gospel and the Acts of the Apostles..." and goes on to say that they personally believe the Church tradition, but provide no scholarly analysis. -Andrew c 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this really is the majority view. Obviously, if we have sources that say as much, then one will have to find sources that say otherwise, and there is no point in talking if we don’t have this before us.  But the identification of the author as Luke is, in my understanding, less contested than other gospels, if for no other reason than that there would be little reason to forge a gospel in Luke’s name, since Luke was an obscure figure rather than a well known disciple (say, one of the twelve), and since he was more removed from events than a forger would like - the apocrypha pick names like Peter and James, not obscure figures or figures who could not be claimed to have been on the spot.  I will say that it is little surprise that Brown, Ehrman, Meier, and (to a lesser extent) Sanders agree, since they tend to think of one mind when it comes to this sort of thing.  I think it would be beneficial, while noting these scholars’ position in its proper significance, to investigate what scholars from different perspectives have to say.  And I wouldn’t say “historians...” but “biblical scholars”, just for precision’s sake. Lostcaesar 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't "The Gospel of Luke is anonymous" simply make the uncontroversial claim that it does not identify its author in the manner of most of the epistles? To take a random comparison, the Epistle of James begins by explicitly claiming to be written by "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1).  The text of Luke contains no such ascription.  The issue of anonymity does not entail any particular view about whether the gospel was actually written by Paul's companion Luke or indeed by someone else named Luke.  What's all the fuss about?  Grover cleveland 06:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The text has "according to Luke" written on the top in all the manuscripts. I suppose one could argue that this is not original to the text, and thus the text is anonymous, but it could just as well be thought that the person who wrote the text titled his own work (the autograph) as such.  Anyway, I gather the above discussion is whether the title is right, and its really "according to Luke", or whether its not. Lostcaesar 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] Ok here is a quote from Sanders/Davies: ''As we now have them [the gospels] are attributed to known authors: Matthew to one of Jesus' disciples, Mark to an early Christian in Jerusalem, Luke to a companion of Paul. These titles, however, were not originally attached to the gospels: the author of Mark did not write "The Gospel according to Mark", but simply "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". The gospel writers, it will turn out, did not follow the usual Greek (and Roman) practice of naming themselves, but rather the tradition of anonymous publication, a practice frequently followed in Jewish literature.'' Also, in examining external sources, the gospels "were quoted before they were named". p. 6-Andrew c 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am obviously curious how Sanders figures that he knows that. I wont change the article on my own opinion, though.  That’s a source, after all.  When I get back to the UK I’ll check some of my books and see if there is something worth adding to balance the perspective. Lostcaesar 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A really good and I hope productive discussion seems to be developing here. I wanted to explain why I was unhappy with the sources used: 1) the Jesus Seminar are not a reliable, unbiased source and are academically questionable. 2) Brown is (according to the Wikipedia article) a Johannine scholar (and seemed to make a basic error of fact in the quotation used). The scholars I cited are all either Luke and/or Paul specialists and hence seemed more appropriate. I am NOT arguing that this sentence should be removed as that would give the contrary and equally erroneous impression that Luke, the companion of Paul, was the uncontested author. However I do feel that the original sentence seemed to weigh too heavily AGAINST the possible authorship of this Luke. Hence my compromise suggestion, which I do feel has been rather 'confirmed' :) by the variety of opinions expressed in this section. I will leave the sentence as it stands for now, until we can agree a suitable form of words and find the appropriate set of references to back it up. Mercury543210 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

LC, 'And I wouldn’t say “historians...” but “biblical scholars”, just for precision’s sake.' That depends. Are we interested in the opinions of Bible scholars or in the opinions of historians? Both are worth knowing. I bet most Bible scholars say it was Luke and most scholars of the historical-critical method say it's not. Jonathan Tweet 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think the opposite, that biblical scholars would be, on the whole, more doubtful of the matter, while historians would in general be more confortable with the historical traditonal attribution. "Scholars of the historical-critical method" doesnt sound so much like historians as it does biblical scholars trying to sound self-important.  One can take for granted that historians use historical methods without haveing to pronounce it so. Lostcaesar 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] I've checked in Raymond E Brown's book cited earlier and he says 'about evenly divided' on the subject of authorship - p.267-8. Clearly I feel that is fair - but then I would as it suports my own conclusions based on the reading I have done! Clearly if anyone else has a 'better' source I would welcome seeing it. I cannot answer Lostceasar or Jonathan Tweet about whether these scholars are 'biblical', 'historians' or a mix. Brown does not specify in the section on 'Authorship'. On the basis of this I have inserted Brown's quote as reflecting the current 'balance' (pun intended!). Mercury543210 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Title and P75
I'd like to see another reference for this claim:

'The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke.' ref http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html /ref

I think it might be a mistake. My copy of Nestle-Aland 26 shows P75 P. Bodmer XIV.XV but dated to the third century and not including the beginning of Luke.

There is an image of a leaf here:

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html

I see euangelion kata Loukan at the end of Luke and just before John (euangelion kata Ioanen), also notes multiple hands, i.e. the work of a corrector.

This needs to be documented by a Reliable sources otherwise it's just Original Research, including the earlychristianwritings.com article. 75.14.215.242 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this link Bodmer XIV contains "most of Luke 3-24". Grover cleveland 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to NA27, not a single papyrus is listed to attest any of the variants of the inscriptio. Koester, who has this information regarding the other gospels, doesn't mention the first MS that mentions the title, but does discuss the church fathers and earliest partial MSS. The image shows that the title is on the MS, but it's placement is odd and perhaps by another hand. A scholarly discussion of this would be helpful, I'll e-mail Peter Kirby to see if we can't clear this up.-Andrew c 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for checking this reference. I'd found two separate references to this Papyrus and had felt it was 'secure'. There is also an earlier, inconclusive discussion on this 'page' entitled 'Papyrus Bodmer XIV'. I appreciate the work being done and look forward to seeing the conclusions of people's reasearch. Mercury543210 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Purport"
The first sentence says the the gospels "purport to tell the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection." The connotation of "purport" is that the gospels are making dubious claims. Anyone else agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.48.229 (talk • contribs).


 * I agree. I believe that is a recent addition. I'll change the article to try and reflect the format of the other gospel articles.-Andrew c 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

lead
I added more material to the lead on when, why, what, etc. of the gospel's composition. I predict flak from people who oppose historical analysis of the Bible. Jonathan Tweet 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Prediction realized. Constantinopolis is using a book beloved of evangelicals as a scholarly source, against Harris, author of the most widely used secular Bible textbook in the States. Jonathan Tweet 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Overhaul
I'm a little concerned with the major overhaul for two reasons. First, it removed a lot of the old information in the authorship and date section, without and discussion. Next, it seems to be pushing one POV, most notably that of Donald Guthrie. While Guthrie's opinion does have a place here, we cannot present his findings as facts. In my opinion, he is a bit on the conservative side of things and doesn't represent the mainstream view. The changes to the date section had major NPOV issues, because it seemed to be an attack on the later camp (the early camp view was presented fairly neutrally, but the late camp view was presented as having to answer specific concerns, along side a number of scholars who dispute the late view. The opposite could also be done, we could present the late view matter of factly, and then list all the issues with the early view and name scholars who dispute it). Similar things were done to the authorship section where the major overhaul read almost as an argument for the genuine authorship view.

I think a place to start would be with the text we already have. If there are specific things that are inaccurate with the current version, let's discuss them. It may be just an issue of conflicting sources. The answer to conflicting sources is not to choose one source over another if they both hold equal weight. I'm sure we can work together to make this article better, but let's talk it out. What are the underlying issues here? And what can be done. -Andrew c [talk] 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'm not exactly experienced here, but I hope the contribution can be included.
 * Here is what was removed (I don't think it is really that much). In the authorship section, I took out the material concerning the Q hypothesis, because its already in the sources section.  The summary of the material from the Catholic Encyclopedia was removed because it has more to do with acts, and I though a brief, better sourced explination was more fitting.  The passage about sea voyages seemd out in left field and didn't make a lot of sense to me.  In the date section, the only removal was the strange statement that a notion of universailty would "take time to develop".  I don't know what scholar's position this statement is supposed to reflect.  60 AD, however, a full generation after the crucifixion, is considerable time, and universailty is present in the Pauline Epistles, which are 50s in date.  So, I took it out because I think its an amateur opinion, but if a scholar can be found to back it then that's different.
 * As for balance, I used the sources I had avaliable to me. I won't say that I have anything like a mastery of all the literature, or some extensive library at my disposal, but I did have a number of sources and put them in the text.
 * As for source conflict, the only outright conflict which I could not reconcile is Brown's statement that scholarship is "evenly split" over authorship, contrasted with the legnthy bibliography I gave for pro-Luke views + the Guthrie quote - though I may just be missing something.
 * To be honest, I don't like the text as it reads now. I won't argue with the criticism of the new text, however.  But the new text includes a lot of good, sourced information.  I tried to help with the sources I have.  If there is some "neutrality" issue, its because more information was added concerning a given persuasion of scholarship (rather than a removal of information).  But I'd like to see this information included in good faith.  And I'm sorry if I don't have sources from every side. Constantinopolis 15:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong. I believe your edits were in good faith, and I'm pleasantly surprised at the amount of sourced material being added from a new user (and your grasp of simple things such as layout and wikicode). I believe some of the issue is selective sourcing, and some of the issue is the tone and manner in which the information is presented. Like I said, it seems like we are taking sides, when someone like Raymond Brown claims the scholars are split on the authorship issue, and, without qualification, states the date is 85 plus or minus 10 years (and Brown is quite middle of the road, we could cite liberal scholars who date Luke later and state unquestionably that the author is not Luke, the physician). In contrast, your edit state Guthrie's conclusion on authorship as Wikipedia's conclusion, and the early date camp is presented without question while the late camp is almost under attack by critics. I think too much emphasis is being put on Guthrie, which is leaning the article on the conservative side. I think there is a way to integrate much of this into the article. Let's wait a little while longer to see if anyone else comments (not everyone is online 24 hours a day), and then we can work on restoring much of this.-Andrew c [talk] 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no rush. Maybe you can help put the information in by better means.  As a note, I do think its right to point to 70 as the cardinal year on which debate rests.  If Brown says 85 plus, then he isn't being middle of the road on that point, he is taking one side rather than another - which, of course, he is perfectly able to do - scholars can pick what side they want, and no scholar is obliged to be middle (or left or right) on every issue, no matter his general persuasion.  Constantinopolis 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been a couple days now, so I'm about ready to start putting the information back, at least in bits. Constantinopolis 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul text
So we don't have to keep referring to the page history, here is the proposed text


 * A problem I have with the proposed text is a problem I have with lots of Bible articles: they emphasize the debate over the conclusion. An encyclopedia reader coming to "Gospel of Luke" probably wants to know who wrote it, when, why, for whom, where, etc. These are good basic facts to know about a written work. Modern scholarship has some more or less solid answers and some more or less debated answers. We should be up-front with what modern scholarship understands. The traditional attributions are interesting but of secondary importance to the general reader. The current scholarly debates are also interesting, but also secondary. It's the Bible, there's a debate, so what else is new? Too many Bible pages are written as if readers are more interested in the history of the debate than in what modern scholars pretty much know.


 * I'd make a super section called "Composition" and I'd start with a paragraph summarizing scholarly knowledge regarding author, date, etc. That way a lay reader can easily get the answers they're looking for (who, when, how, why, where, etc.). Then I'd follow that paragraph up with sections on the history and debate regarding author, date, location, etc. Folks who are suspicious of modern scholarship (either because it's not traditional enough or because it's too traditional) can see the debate in detail and reach their own conclusions.


 * The current text is better than the proposed text above because it starts with what we pretty much know, but (like I said) I want to see the basics covered together up-front. After all, the issues of date, author, location, agenda, etc. are all parts of the same topic, not individiual data. Jonathan Tweet 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But how is one to state, in the way you speak, what scholars "pretty much know" about who wrote the text, when, etc., when scholars don't agree on that? The only way to do that is to elect one group of scholars over another based on perjudice.  That's what the current text does, to its own fault.  Constantinopolis 19:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we find a widely-used, nonsectarian, college-level textbook that summarizes scholarship on this point and include what it says? If not, why not? If the debate is scholarly, then the textbook will describe the debate. If there's scholarly consensus and religious dissent, then let's name both: the scholarly consensus and the religious alternative. Jonathan Tweet 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did use sources to describe the debate(s). We will have to describe different sides regurlarly, because there is almost no issue where there is a scholarly consensus.  I'm not sure what you mean by "religious dissent". Constantinopolis 07:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of scholarly consensus if we mean peer-reviewed work by contemporary scholars. There's religious dissent on one side ("Jesus really did predict the fall of the Temple") and irreligious dissent on the other ("the whole Jesus affair is a hoax"). But there's plenty of consensus among scholars who use the historical-critical method and analyze Bible books with the same methods by which they analyze other holy texts. Even if we don't describe only one conclusion, we can still profitably lead with conclusions. If there's a significant difference of opinion, put both opinions up front. Leave the history, claims, and counter-claims second. Jonathan Tweet 14:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, peer reviewed work by modern scholars - that's all I used as sources. I don't know of much concensus there, certainly there is no concensus against the accuracy of the temple prophecy.  You may not be aware of the diversity of scholarly views, since your last edits take the hypothesis of Markan priority + Q as fact, when it is disputed.  Constantinopolis 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Attempt

 * Intro:I added the information to the intro, with no removals save this: I removed the unsourced statement, "Like the other canonical gospels, the gospel originally circulated anonymously." We don't know whether they circulated without the title or not - all the manuscripts have the titles, and I could give scholars who think that, at least for the later three, the titles were original.  I also took out the PoV statement that the book was "probably written about 85-90 w/Mark + Q as sources", this is obviously forwarding three different hypotheses (date, markan priority, and Q hypothesis) as fact.  Constantinopolis 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Authorship: I added the information back into the authorship section, with no removals save this: I removed the info from the Catholic Encyclopedia since it was superceded with new information. I took out the unsourced comments about sea voyages, which didn't make sense anyway.  The we passages appear in places other than sea voyages.  Another passage was referenced by a "dissertation" - I left the info but took out the source.  I took out the one sentence about Q hypothesis etc. because that is covered under "sources", and perhaps under "data", but it doesnt have much independant impact on authorship. Constantinopolis 11:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Date: I changed the titles, since the old ones implied that critical methods were employed only by those who hold a late date, as if those who conclude differently are availing themselves less to historical methods. I added sourced information to the section for a pre-70 date.  I did not alter, as yet, the post-70 section. Constantinopolis 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have been away from my computer and I am still getting adjusted to coming back, so forgive this brief comment (I'll comment further in the future). I believe your edits are overstating the lack of consensus. Saying the Luke was written around 85-90 with Mark and Q as sources is stating a foregone conclusion as fact, and I agree that we shouldn't say that. However, if we phrase it to say that this is what most scholars feel is probable, then we are also stating a fact about general scholarly opinion, but we are not necessarily saying that this is The Truth. The two source hypothesis is by far the most commonly agreed upon solution to the synoptic problem. According to NPOV, we must give each view due weight. So what is at issue here is "due weight". I am of the opinion that the majority of scholars accept the 2 source hypothesis, accept a 80-100 year date for Luke, and therefore feel we need to state as much in the lead. Removing the majority view from the lead is giving undue weight to the minority, by implying that the diversity of views are relatively equal in prevalence. Saying things like "Scholars are divided as to whether the text was written before or after the pivotal year of 70." is being too vague when we don't have to. I agree with JT about using contemporary, nonsectarian college level texts. I'm not sure if works from the 50s and 60s can be considered "modern" nor representative of the current scholarly consensus. I'll work on my specific criticisms of the edit over the next day or so.-Andrew c [talk] 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll wait for the futher comments. I will say that a date of 80-100, 2 source hypothesis, and non-Lucan authorship are three different points, not one, since one could take one or two and leave the remainder.  As for discussing scholarship, its difficult to generalize, but we could talk about a "plurality of scholars" without objection from me.  Constantinopolis 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

content summary
I'm not sure about the title, but the page benefits from a "Cliff's Notes" summary of the gospel, so I added one. I imagine that each section could become significantly larger. Jonathan Tweet 04:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of Luke
The matter of the dating of Luke (as with the other Gospels) is one of constant debate. There is however, strong evidence to place the authorship of Luke prior to the summer/fall of 56 AD.

The basis for this date is twofold. First is the latter citation of 1 Timothy 5:18, "The laborer deserves his wages" (Luke 10:7). The second is the dating of 1 Timothy itself. In order for Paul to have quoted Luke (if one assumes that it is indeed Luke that Paul is quoting, not a collection of sayings such as Q, but as such a collection has not been found, this assumption should stand as highly probably), the authorship of 1 Timothy must have been after Luke.

Bo Reicke dates 1 Timothy to the summer/fall of 56 AD (Re-examining Paul's Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence p. 51-59). Thus it would stand that Luke may be dated prior to summer/fall of 56 AD.

75.21.121.182 19:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Matt Lorfeld

This is really speculative. I know of no contemporary scholars who would date Luke so early. Why couldn't Luke have quoted Paul? Jelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly Beanie (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The author of 1 Timothy says "For the scripture says..." and then quotes two passages, including Luke 10:7. It's quite a stretch to reverse this to Luke quoting Paul. In any case, I did just add a reference to Luke being quoted as scripture in 1 Timothy. I tried to use decent NPOV language just illustrating how this is an argument that Luke was written before Timothy, etc. and I didn't put in dates except copying those from the Timothy article. --shift6 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit. This, unfortunately, is original research. You would need to cite a scholar who makes the claim, not make the claim yourself. Also, we have to keep in mind undue weight concerns. From my research and knowledge into the subject, the majority of mainstream scholars believe 1 Tim is pseudopigraphical and date it late, while your edit only focused on a very small point of view. Please consider how notable the view you wish to insert actually is, and consider citing actual scholars on the subject. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your reply is directed to the guy who started this sub-heading on the talk page, because it basically doesn't address my edit on the article at all. For example, my edit only stated that 1 Tim would be dated after Luke, it made no specific claim as to what the dates would be nor if Timothy was written by Paul (I had said "probably") nor whether it is legitimate scripture or anything else; it's a simple "this piece of literature refers to this piece of literature". My wording even made it clear that this is simply "strongly attested" for one being after the other, and that it "somewhat discredits" a later date. Undue weight is also a pretty silly claim as I wrote one single sentence with all the appropriate words ("strongly", "somewhat", etc) in the aptly titled "Date" section of a fairly long article. If I had put it in the Before 70AD subsection you might have had a point (although in that case, moving the content would have been more reasonable than deletion).
 * As for scholars, check the New International Version or the Today's New International Version  or the New American Standard  or the Amplified  or the New King James Version  or probably others and you'll see a footnote right there in 1 Tim 5:18. I think enough scholars were involved with those five translations to say that I didn't just come up with this last week or something. I'm curious what your research found since you went to the trouble to mention it; where did you look?
 * What is it with wiki lately? Does no one use the "cite needed" tag with a reasonable discussion anymore before simple reverts? I'm going to un-revert it all back by the way, but this time I'll include the citations above and I'll remove the 1 Tim date (despite it being in the 1 Tim article) just as a show of that one wiki thing... what is it again... Good faith! Excuse my sarcasm but it's getting extremely annoying around here. --shift6 06:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I knew I recognized your name. You and I went round a few times on Synoptic problem before you apparently agreed and stopped reverting. You made the same claims there also, specifically OR and word choice and source citations. Please just read my (and everyone's!) edits more carefully or add cite tags or something before summary reverts. --shift6 06:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this in the dating section? The 5 cited sources say nothing about dating. The added text Therefore it is strongly attested that Luke had been written and was known, at least among some, as an inspired writing by the date of 1 Timothy. This does not imply an actual date of writing or any relationship between the two; only of a probable reference in one to the other. sounds like your personal opinion. Is there a scholar we could cite that makes this claim? Can we please work this out on talk, and reach a consensus that all parties can agree upon, before re-adding controversial material into the article. I'm sure we can work this out, so there is no need to edit war.-Andrew c [talk] 19:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that one piece of literature which quotes and cites another may be dated before the other? If your favorite book alludes to some Shakespearean play, does it require a scholar to tell you that your book was very probably written after that play or is that only "your opinion"? Doubly so if the scholar listed the act and line number of the play?


 * And why does it have to be scholars anyway? A wiki article may legitimately say "some people believe XYZ" as long as it cites those people in books, etc. I don't see a wiki regulation requiring only scholars as sources.


 * I think you're being way over-zealous in this and I honestly don't see why. --shift6 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't make personal attacks. Discuss content, not users. If you have personal issues with me, you can air those on my talk page. Thanks. As for scholarly sources or not, is it exactly "fair" to present the views of Stephen L. Harris, Donald Guthrie, Bart D. Erhman, Raymond E. Brown, FF Bruce, Udo Schnelle, etc. next to just anyone with a blog and a view? Of course not. This boils down to two issues: undo weight (we can't present the views of major mainstream scholars as having equal footing as some random non-PhD with a website) and reliable sourcing (a college level text book is more reliable than a self-published website). Of course my examples are a bit extreme, and you haven't suggested citing a blog or anything like that. You are welcome to cite non-scholars if you want, just as long as you cite something (and it meets our policies WP:CITE and WP:RS).


 * As for the other part of your reply dealing with Are you suggesting that one piece of literature which quotes and cites another may be dated before the other, even if something seems blatant obvious to you, we cannot publish it here for the first time. This is the heart of wikipedia. We are writing encyclopedia articles which summarize the most notable existing views on a topic. If we do not have any sources that say the relationship between 1 Tim and Luke is an important issue when it comes to dating each, then we simply cannot state that here on wikipedia. This is part of the basic principles of wikipedia (WP:NOR, WP:ATT).


 * Furthermore, there is more than 2 options (either Luke used 1 Tim or 1 Tim used Luke). They could be using the same 3rd source (say, the Q document, or a common translation of Deut.) They could be paraphrasing the same part of Deut. and happened to get coincidently very similar wordings, they could be quoting a common 1st century saying, or they could be quoting the actual words of Jesus. There are a number of hypothetical situations that could explain the relationship that doesn't result in 1 Tim knowing Luke. And unless we can site notable views on this topic, it doesn't belong in the article. I would never suggest that we publish the idea that 1 Tim and Luke both are quoting the Q document based solely on my own personal conclusions. We'd need to site a notable source making the claim. Similarly, the same applies to the latest changes to the article. We cannot say that "Another piece of the puzzle" in dating Luke is the relationship with 1 Tim if we do not have any scholars considering this "Another piece of the puzzle" in their discussion of Luke's date. I'm sorry if you think I am being nit-picky, but I believe my concerns are in line with the basic principles and policies of wikipedia. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't attack you personally at all except in saying that I think you're being "over-zealous". In any case, if you think the wording ought to be changed or the location I included it in the article, great let's talk about that. I agree since the current paragaph is ugly as sin as I was partially making a point. I've thought about various ways to re-write it that address your legitimate concerns while also presenting the information.
 * For example, a sentence such as "many scholars involved with modern translations believe that 1 Tim references Luke 10, as can be seen in the footnotes of A, B, C, etc." would probably be a much better construction than what is there now, would address your concerns about citations, and would clearly illustrate that this isn't original research. I could then link simple ref's to other legitimate, scholar-type sources which talk about sourcing and dating, for example, and  and  and . It could also be fairly succinct (two sentences or so) which is hardly undue weight. Here's an example of the kind of short, well-cited, re-write I have in mind (pardon the lack of correct wiki-markup, I just want to illustrate how the content could look):


 * Many translators believe that Luke 10:7 is quoted in 1 Timothy 5:18, as is shown in the footnotes in the NIV[1], the NASB[2], Amplified[3], YLT[4], and the NKJV[5]. Some scholars[6][7][8][9] have taken this to be a strong indicator that Luke was written before 1 Timothy, which may influence future scholarship on dating Luke's Gospel.


 * Look, I think you made some good points about how I wrote the first version of the edit. But summary deletion of good faith edits just frustrates the heck out of me and is becoming a serious problem on wiki in my view. I believe it is appropriate in the cases of vandalism, plagiarism, slander, and other morally wrong things; I believe it's almost never acceptable in cases of word choice and citations and other "editorial" stuff. And I believe that the spirit of wiki agrees with this is reminding us to be bold in copy-editing and adding info, but I don't see a guideline to be bold in summary deletions. --shift6 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent]I think your proposed text is getting there. However, the final clause isn't necessary (which may influence future scholarship on dating Luke's Gospel.) Scholars have been well aware of these verses for centuries, and we cannot state what the future holds. For example, Edgar J. Goodspeed in 1937's An Introduction to the New Testament wrote that the idea of Luke being scripture didn't meet with the known historical context of 1st century Christianity, saying ''To quote the gospels (Luke 10:7) as Scripture side by side with Deut. 25:4 (I Tim. 5:18) is hardly possible much before A.D. 150. We have A. E. Harvey in 1982 Novum Testamentum'' "The Workman is Worthy of His Hire" saying that the author of 1 Tim mistakenly attributed a common proverb actually spoken by the historical Jesus as coming from the OT. He writes "it is hardly conceivable that the author of the Pastorals would have referred to any existing record of the sayings of Jesus as "Scripture" and Harvey footnotes a view of W. Michaelis that the addition of the NT phrase was a marginal gloss based on the unlikelihood of an authentic saying of Jesus being considered "scripture" during the NT period, while also noting the dissent of C. Spicq who conceives it as possible. Then there is the 1999 biblical commentary The First and Second Letters to Timothy by Jerome D. Quinn, William C. Wacker which presents a number of theories, summarized in "it is possible that both Luke and the author of the [Pastoral Epistles] PE took the quotation from the same lost source, that the the PE took it from the Third Gospel of vice versa" and goes on to present the author's unique position that the author of the 3rd gospel and the author of the pastorals was the same person. Quinn also suggests that it could be a case similar to James 4:5 quoting "scripture", simply whatever the author was quoting back then isn't considered scripture today (and could be lost). What I'm getting at is that we can't simply present one side of things if we are to present anything at all. The relationship between Luke 10:7 and 1 Tim 5:18 is simply not one of the major arguments used by mainstream scholars when dating Luke (Koester, Brown, Erhman don't mention a word of it in their presentation of the subject). I do not believe the text belongs in the intro paragraph, and based on the 4 links you cited, it seems to belong in the early dating section. How about adding "Some scholars, who also argue for an early date for First Timothy, point to 1 Tim 5:18's apparent quotation of Luke 10:7 as evidence that the writing of Luke predates Paul's death (c. 65)." Part of me feels like even this needs to be balanced in some way, such as citing one of the above mentioned sources that other scholars think it unlikely that someone from the apostolic period would consider a saysing of Jesus on the same level as scripture as Deut. Anyway... just my thought and research up to now. I'm still pondering this issue, though._Andrew c [talk] 23:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to note, I went to the library to check out Guthrie's book which we site heavily in this article, and he doesn't mention these verses either in his dating section (though, he wrote a commentary on the Pastoral Epistles where he has a small discussion on the matter, and briefly mentions dating). I also looked in 2 other NT introduction textbooks, and neither mentioned these verses in the dating section. I looked in 2 more commentaries on the Pastorals. Both mentioned the verse in relation to Luke. One said matter of factly that Paul was quoting Luke as scripture, the other had a more scholarly discussion with citations along the lines of what I've quoted above (that they could be citing a common 3rd source, or 1 Tim could be recalling Jesus' words or that the clause "Holy Scripture" is only modifying the first reference). I should have been more diligent and took notes and wrote down book names, but I was mainly going for my own knowledge. Anyway, if we are going to include something about these verses in the earlier dating section, I don't think we need to source pile, and would suggest either using Guthrie's commentary on the Pastorals, or the PDF of William R. Bragstad's paper you cited above.-Andrew c [talk] 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that strikes me in our discussion is that you continue to emphasize balancing out the point of view that 1 Tim quotes Luke, as naturally this is wiki's policy and goal, etc. But it's difficult for me to agree that the statement needs counter-balance, seeing as how the Before 70 sub-section is four lines on my screen (six after your recent edit) while the After 70 sub-section is thirteen lines. It seems to me that this brief, two-line addendum IS some of the balance that the article needs. I think that in the attempt to maintain a NPOV, many wikipedians are sometimes (perhaps unconsiously) only allowing a consensus POV. With difficult and changing topics like the study ancient manuscripts, this is detrimental to the goal of being an encyclopedia where any relevant, notable, sourceable statement ought to be included. We have plenty of qualifying adjectives to represent legitimate minority views in addition to consensuses.
 * All that said, I think that your most recent edit is good and fits well within the flow of the article and the sources given in the ref tag, so I'm more or less happy with how it looks now.
 * Also, I appreciate your comments on my talk page. I realize that many wiki editors are becoming jaded and such; in some sense, that's the nature of the beast. But if I may paraphrase from the movies, with more power comes more responsibility. In any case I appreciate the good faith in which we have resolved this. --shift6 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be worth summarizing in simple terms the arguments relating to the dates of Luke/Acts? These are: 1. they were written by the same person (as everyone agrees) 2. the gospel was written first ("the former treatise" in the prologue to Acts) 3. the most obvious explanation for Acts' ending rather suddenly, as it does, with Paul still alive, is that Acts was written while Paul was still alive, i.e. before c. 66 Escoville (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Luke
Why does the opening sentence of this article give the Greek for "according to Luke" and say "literally"? This gives the mistaken impression that the words "according to Luke" appear somewhere in the Gospel. Who cares what the Greek is for the traditional attribution of an anonymous work? E4mmacro 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The earliest manuscripts we have use titles, and the one that NA27 uses in it's critical text is Κατά Λουκαν. Perhaps there is a way to rephrase the lead to take into consideration that some scholars believe this (and the other gospels) were originally anonymous.-Andrew c [talk] 22:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no special knowledge - just trying to understand. Are you saying some people think the author of the Gospel wrote the words "according to Luke" as a sort of signature, and other people think someone else added the title later? E4mmacro 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that is a very good question, and I do not have the answer. I'd assume most scholars would recognize that "according to Luke" was not placed there by the author. But perhaps, the argument goes that since it is found on the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, it probably dates back early and therefore is genuine. However, all of this is speculation on my part, so I'll have to open some books to learn more.-Andrew c [talk] 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that, then I still have a problem with the first sentence. All that is known, it seems, is that the work has been refered to as "the Gospel according to Luke" since a very early time. It just looks like quoting the Greek is either showing off, or some sort of argument from authority. Isn't it simpler to say "though internally anonymous the work has been attributed to Luke, the companion of paul, from at least 1??AD" than to say the attribution to Luke is written in Greek, (and therefore you should conclude it is early, or scared or something.) E4mmacro 05:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional view of Lukan authorship
What does it mean to say that scholars are widely agreed on the traditional view of Lukan authorship in one sentence, and in the next say scholars are evenly divided about whether or not the author is the companion of Paul mentioned elsewhere? What is the "traditional view" that scholars are said to be agreed upon? E4mmacro 17:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a source conflict. A few months ago, the article said that most scholars thought that Luke was anonymous, and that the traditional view was wrong (that Paul's companion, Luke the physician was the author). An editor came and changed it to say the complete opposite, that most scholars found the traditional view to be true, and this editor cited (and quoted) the conservative scholar Donald Guthrie. Those edits have been tempered a bit by also citing Raymond E. Brown who says that scholars are about evenly split between authenticity and not. So what we have now is a quote from Guthrie saying that most scholars believe x, while we also cite Brown who says there isn't a majority view. So you are correct in that there is a conflict in the authorship section and this is due to conflicting sources. I've been meaning to try and clean the section up a bit, but haven't got around to it. If you have any new sources, or suggestions on how to improve the section, feel free to be bold and take a whack at it. Good luck, and thanks for your comments here on talk.-Andrew c [talk] 22:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd view of what the introduction means
I realize this might not the place to discuss the meaning of the preface addressed to Theophilus, but surely there must be some scholars who see its obvious stated meaning: the author's purpose was to not contradict anything Theophilus had been taught. Sounds like a fore-gone conclusion to me, with selective reporting of what others wrote or said. Why is one scholar quoted who seems to think this is reliable history? Are there no more skeptical scholars? E4mmacro 06:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Like this? From The Complete Gospels: "Luke opens his two-volume narrative with a statement of his motive and purpose (1:1-4). Luke tactfully expresses dissatisfaction with previous narratives about Jesus and implies that his gospel will set the record straight and assure readers (addressed through Theophilus) of the integrity of their tradition." 75.15.195.124 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Manuscripts
I reverted the changes to manuscripts. And here is why. It listed P97 and P42 as "early" when they are not (early generally means before the 5th century, or before the great codices). It also included P3, which is a lectionary, not a gospel. Including P7 and maybe even P82 might be good (though 82 is getting a bit late). I think the point of this section shouldn't be to overwhelm the reader with lots of funny numbers and redlinks, but to explain in brief the manuscript history of Luke. I believe the current version conveys more information in less words than the revision. Please don't get me wrong, I believe we can work relevant content from that edit into the article. I just think we need to be a bit more careful, and try not to overwhelm the reader with jargon. -Andrew c [talk] 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In many ways I agree with some of your comments. I think that listing all the 'early' papyri may be confusing. Is 8th century early? Something you didn't mention but on reflection I think is important is that some of these manuscripts contain only a few verses. OK, so why don't I agree with your general drift? Firstly the overview is given in in the introduction. This section should be more technical. Secondly some of the 'fact's' in this section are 'wrong' - 'three others', then listing FOUR papyri, 'brief' when both P4 and P75 actually contain quite extensive portions and refs given are not clearly 'relevant' or authoritative. I've re-edited this section to take into account your valid objections while correcting the errors. Hopefully we can agree on this basis. Mercury543210 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On a separate note your comment about P3 has confused me. No one (I've found) lists P3 as a 'lectionary'. All refs to it are as a fragment of Luke 7:36-45;10:38-42 (see eg NA27, http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv, http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/%7Ewie/texte/Papyri-list.html and http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/NTPapyri.htm). Lectionaries are listed by 'l' number. Where did you get this info from? (genuine q, not sarky comment!!). Mercury543210 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer your last question first, I got the Lectionary info from out List of New Testament papyri article. Either myself or Alastair Haines wrote that text, so I 'trust' it. The source is from NA27 p. 85. I'll double check the reference later tonight. Next, your changes are pretty good (I'm really glad you corrected or removed the errors). I am still not comfortable listing all the papyri or claiming they are early, just because there are many uncials that are earlier than the 8th century. Why should we mention P97 and P42 but not 0171 or R or Ξ or even A, C, W, N, or P, which are all earlier? While generally speaking, the earliest manuscripts are on papyri, the classification of papyri vs. uncials is basically arbitrary because it is based on the type of paper that was used for composition. But after having typed all that and re-read your changes, I could live with it (I'm not fond of the redlinks through). One other concern is that I don't like the long list of bible verses in the article text,but I think a simple solution would be to move them to footnotes. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up, and I hope you were too offended by being reverted. I think we clearly are building a stronger manuscript section (what is this "we" business, you are doing all the work). -Andrew c [talk] 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andrew c. Actually I agree with pretty much everything you've written. The simple reason (and not a very 'deep' one) why I've listed only the papyri is that this section of the article originally dealt solely with papyri, so I simply continued in the same vein. I was merely trying to correct and 'complete' the discussion on papyri, not cover all the ground. If you're willing (or anyone else for that matter) to write a suitable a paragraph ... Secondly I'm not really claiming 8th c. is early. I agree with your 'definition', I was merely being 'complete', but I see your point and have corrected the grammar to more fully reflect both our viewpoints. I also agree about the list of verses and, again, have edited accordingly. Personally I think 'redlinks' highlight areas that need addressing - and also save having to re-edit articles when they're added.
 * re P3: I'll trust you too! I don't see it makes P3 'less trustworthy' though but that may not be what you were trying to say. Mercury543210 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation
Sorry to have to use Wikipedia like this, but I've posted this question on other forums on the web to no avail. I am wondering how one would properly cite the introduction to the Gospel of Luke (or any book of the Bible) in the NIV version. I know how to cite the passages of scripture itself, but I am trying to reference the introduction/preface to Luke and cannot figure out how to cite the editors, page numbers, edition, publisher etc. I am using MLA format. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 76.182.116.210 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just cite it as if it were a normal book, and use the editor/compiler for the author. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

dating
According to a footnote, here are the folks that say that Luke was written shortly after Jesus' death: "A. Harnack, The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels (1911), p. 90; J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, pp. 86-92; I. H. Marshall, Luke, p. 35; A. J. Mattill Jr., ‘The Date and Purpose of Luke-Acts: Rackham reconsidered, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), pp. 335-350." Harnack is outdated by almost a century. No year is given for Robinson or Marshall. Mattill is 30 years old. The idea that Luke was written before the Temple was overthrown contradicts everything I've ever read in multiple sources. Do we have to give any serious credence to this idea?

Let's put the main scholarly conclusion (post 70) first, with the minority opinion second. Or, give short attention to the minority opinion in favor of the generally accepted one. Leadwind (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think putting the post-70 view first, and following it with the minority opinion, makes more sense than does the alternative. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Carl, that works for me. Even so, the minority material is troubled. Here's what it says, "Arguments for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[36] note that Luke is addressed to "Most Excellent Theophilus," almost certainly a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. This reference would date the original copy of Luke (now long since lost) to within 4 to 8 years after the death of Jesus." Robinson, however doesn't date Luke this early, as the text implies he does. I don't know about Harnack, Mattill, or Marshall (1974). Does anyone have actual quotes from these sources? Is this the case of someone citing Guthrie, who in turn cited the earlier sources? It's pretty fishy that the only facts I can verify fail to back up this paragraph's claims. Leadwind (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I don't have (access to) any of those sources. I'll leave it to your judgement about what to do with it. I wouldn't object if it were removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the editor who added all the Donald Guthrie material available? I hate messing with cited information, even when it looks wrong. Leadwind (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Up above, in the "Date of Luke" section, Andrew discussed Guthrie. I've just asked him to come help us on this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had access to the Guthrie book from my local university library (which may be closed for the holidays). I am not familiar with any of the other content. It seems plausible, but I'm not sure about how notable it is. I checked out Meier's Marginal Jew, and Meier only mentioned Robinson (and he usually is quite thorough in discussing dissent and differing positions), although the text is not primarily about the dating of the gospels. Brown's New Testament doesn't mention Theophilus ben Ananus, but he does mention those scholars (Harnack, Marshal, Mattill, Robinson) I believe in a bibliography, but not in the text itself. I would mind if the section was reduced, or even removed in lieu of a single sentence or two mentioning the existence of the minority position of such an early dating.-Andrew c [talk] 15:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrew: "I would mind if the section was reduced..." You mean, you would not mind? (Maybe this is the reason I was told never to use the word "not" in a contract, too easy to drop out and reverse the sentence's meaning.) If that's what you mean, I concur. Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "wouldn't". Sorry.-Andrew c [talk] 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have access to Guthrie and he doesn't even mention the connection with the High Priest. What exactly is the question that we need to know from Guthrie? He discuss an early date of around 60-61; a later first century date of 75-85 and a date of around 100. His conclusion is that there is little tangible evidence to fix the date. JodyBtalk 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the article as it stands states, "Scholars conjecture that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him", in the section on pre-70 dating. So somehow, that quote there, which is sourced by pp. 131 of Guthrie, is supposed to support a pre-70 date of composition. From your comment, I take it that Guthrie discusses 60-61 but dismisses it? Or does he seem to indicate that it is just as likely at 75-85 or c. 100? Concisely, what we need to know is if Guthrie can be cited to support a pre-70 date for Luke. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First,Guthrie at pp.131 (3rd, 1970) is discussing the synoptic question and the idea of a background source for Luke (similar to Q but called L by B.H. Streeter. L was supposedly the Caesarean tradition. Guthrie notes "...it is still widely regarded, at least among British scholars, as the most workable hypothesis of Gospel origins." (Archer, p. 131, 3rd, 1970). In his section on the Gospel of Luke specifically, Archer discounts a pre 70 date: "Once the data from Luke xxi.20 is dismissed, there is really little tangible data to enable the date of the Gospel to be specifically fixed." So, Guthrie quotes Streeter and notes that some do in fact agree with Streeter's analysis. I think the cite is good although I would qualify the sentence with "Some scholars..." Archer repeats the comment about Caeserean sources here as well but notes that it is all based upon conjecture. (Archer, pp. 115) JodyBtalk 15:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all that, Jody. I'll add the "some" qualifier soon as I post this. As for the rest of it, I would invite you to change the section as you see fit. It seems we kind of agreed to drastically cut the section earlier, but then no one did. For my part, I just really don't know what to maintain. If you can think of something to do, please do it. I think Lead, Andrew, and I are ready for some change to be made. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, I will. I found another very concise section from Carson, Moo and Morris regarding the pre-70 date which will fit nicely. I'll try to do it tomorrow when I am back at the office. JodyBtalk 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look and see if you think I made an improvement. Please edit as needed. JodyBtalk 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good as-is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

relation to other gospels
The Relationship_with_other_gospels section is terrible. It's mostly a bunch of numbers about overlaps, when it could be an intelligent summary of what's unique or special about Luke. Leadwind (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section. The only cited information in the section already appears properly elsewhere in the article. Leadwind (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The subsection "The Gospel of Matthew" under "Sources" is completely wrong. Hengel makes exactly the opposite conclusion, and a quick glance at the citation provided verifies this. Boismard's hypothesis dates Luke after Matthew and concludes that he used an early edition of Matthew. I don't have the original citation, but a second-hand one from E.P. Sanders' and Margaret Davies' Studying the Synoptic Gospels p. 105. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.19.143.2 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary as a source for Luke?
While reading through this Wikipedia entry today, I encountered the following item under "Content Summary: Birth Narratives and Genealogy":

"It is believed that Luke received information from Mary, Jesus' mother, while writing the Gospel"

Could someone cite a reference for this? Simple math seems to dictate that Mary would not have been alive when the author of Luke was writing his gospel.--Enniferjay (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eye! I've removed it as not being plausible and additionally being unsourced. For reasonable content, we usually just fact tag it with fact, to show that it needs citation. If someone can cite this, then feel free to restore it, but it would need work and rephrasing anyway. Feel free to jump right in, and be bold, and start fixing stuff yourself, if you want!-Andrew c [talk] 01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

James Edward as recent scholarship
I'm not comfortable saying the yet to be reviewed work of a single author is equal to "recent scholarship". I'm also concerned with presenting his views at all in this article, as he "won’t get feedback from scholarly reviews until 2011", and Wikipedia is not a breaking news service. I think we should be cautious and patient, and wait to see the impact and dominance of Edward's book. I'm sure there are dozens of books published over the years with various hypotheses in them concerning the origin of and relationship between the gospels. Just because this one is the newest doesn't mean we should give it special treatment. We should be able to look at this critically, and be able to self edit. I'm not convinced that at this point, Edward's book is notable enough to warrant mention in the article (but in 2011 or whatever, things may have changed, and we can always reconsider). I'd like to hear what others think about this? At the very least, we shouldn't be categorizing this lone work of a single author as "recent scholarship". A bit of a hyperbole, eh? -Andrew c [talk] 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you are right. The Hebrew Gospel, by Edward should be treated the same as any other published work. It should not be treated as breaking news. It is recent scholarship but only in a limited sense. I think the article is OK with the edits you have made. I will reserve further comment until I read the book! Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I deleted "Most Recent Scholarship" as the yet to be reviewed work of a single author is NOT equal to "recent scholarship". If anybody gets up set I am prepared to walk them through my reasoning, which is basically what you said above. I am about half way through Edward's Book, which although scholarly, is not an easy read particularly when you are checking his sources. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just finished Edward's book and it is powerful. As an old fellow set in my "scholarly" ways, I have to say it was unsettling, maybe disturbing. It is a must read for anybody interested in the synoptic gospels. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in miracles, parables, etc.
Help will be appreciated from those who are well versed in Gospel episodes. Please see:


 * Talk:Miracles_of_Jesus
 * Talk:Parables_of_Jesus
 * List_of_key_episodes_in_the_Canonical_Gospels

The 3rd item includes a list of key episodes in the 4 Canonical Gospels. Suggestions about possible errors or omissions will be appreciated. Please leave messages on one of those 3 talk pages, and not here, in order to focus the discussion. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Making changes
I am making the authorship sections more balanced. It seems that my cited changes are being removed because some people you just don't like themRomanHistorian (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a Christian, I like your editing, but many of your edits show a Christian POV. Remember at Wikipedia we must fairly reflect the scholarship in reliable sources. Keep up the good work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Luke as Author
I am trying to make some very minor changes on the issue of authorship, but keep having my changes reverted without discussion. Many (maybe or maybe not a minority though certainly not a fringe minority) scholars hold that Luke wrote his gospel, and I have sources supporting this. I am not trying to delete or minimize the point that many do not agree with this, but rather add this other widely-held view while mentioning that it is a minority view. Wikipedia policy states that non-fringe minority views should be given due weight and not ignored. I also believe blanket reverts without discussions are also against Wikipedia policy.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What you say above makes sense, but the edits you introduced are a bit more than just giving a more holistic picture of scholarship. Looking at this diff, your first edit presented the dating POVs as equals. Then there are some relatively minor edits which I don't find problematic. Then we get to the dating section, and I don't mind having an introductory sentence which mentions the early view along with the majority view, only I really don't like the "conservative/liberal" dichotomy you've created, and we already state and cite sources elsewhere saying the post 70 view is the majority view, so with an adjustment to the phrasing and weight of that sentence, it could work. Then you change something attributed to Koester, a direct quote mind you, to something which seems to be making a conclusion more reserved than what we quote. This is very problematic, in we should stay honest to our sources, even if we personally don't like their conclusions. Finally, you add an attack on the Jesus seminar, reference it to Carson, yet when I do a word search "inside" of the book on Amazon "seminar" I get zero results. This is problematic, but maybe the archives skipped some pages of text? For these reasons, I cannot support the version you keep reverting to, but I do think that with modification and compromise, most of the changes can be introduced. I'd be glad to help out, but lets wait a little longer to see if anyone else has comments. For example, I wish Dylan, the other edit warrior, would join us here on the talk page instead of reverting and running. Doing such repetitively will lead to a block, and I wouldn't want to work on reinstating a compromise text, if it is just going to be reverted for some reason that could easily be expressed here and now on the talk page.-Andrew c [talk] 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely understand what you are saying. Please realize that (as you can see above) almost no one bothered to comment on my changes so I could make them more akin to the 'consensus'. I went back and looked at the changes, and I don't think any of them are worth a fight over. I think there are a few that probably add value to the article, but I really don't think they are a big enough deal to fight over. I see more important issues with Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of John.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do not see anything wrong with your edits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and change what you want. I assume Dylan Flaherty isn't applying a uniform reverting strategy against you.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm here, and have been here from the start. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

restore mainstream scholarship to central role
As with the other gospel articles, solid contemporary scholarship has been stripped out in favor of sectarian, second-rate scholarship. We were patient for weeks, but now it's time to fix the article. Leadwind (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "countless contradictions" is hyperbole.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)