Talk:Gospel of Luke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

For those of you following along at home, this is what EBO says about who wrote Luke:
The author has been identified with Luke, “the beloved physician,” Paul’s companion on his journeys, presumably a Gentile (Col. 4:14 and 11; cf. II Tim. 4:11, Philem. 24). There is no Papias fragment concerning Luke, and only late-2nd-century traditions claim (somewhat ambiguously) that Paul was the guarantor of Luke’s Gospel traditions. The Muratorian Canon refers to Luke, the physician, Paul’s companion; Irenaeus depicts Luke as a follower of Paul’s gospel. Eusebius has Luke as an Antiochene physician who was with Paul in order to give the Gospel apostolic authority. References are often made to Luke’s medical language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which any educated Greek might have been exposed. Of more import is the fact that in the writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are significantly missing; while Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke speaks rather of the suffering, and there are other differing and discrepant ideas on Law and eschatology. In short, the author of this gospel remains unknown.
Roman would like this paragraph to mean that "Ultimately, of course, we can't really be certain who wrote the book." Considered as a whole, the paragraph actually says something more like, "The evidence weighs against the traditional view." Since WP policy is to identify the viewpoint found in commonly accepted references as the "viewpoint of the majority," we call this viewpoint the majority viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There's not much to say here: it's entirely clear. We cannot pretend that the traditional view is mainstream. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

How many of them are from academic publishers, and not from apologistic presses?-Civilizededucationtalk 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
They are all from academic publishers, and I am more than willing to push this point if Leadwind refuses to compromise. But besides this point, why is it one can quote EBO out of context?RomanHistorian (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not they are academic, you were doing OR, so I deleted it. And, you have yet to establish that Donald Guthrie is an RS.-Civilizededucationtalk 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Then I can restore the individual views of each of those authors, so it isn't OR. Donald Guthrie is a respected scholar. Check this link. I will quote a bit: "Guthrie's weighty contributions to NT scholarship are widely known, and like the man himself, greatly respected". I will let you read the rest. I have now established that he is an RS, and will restore the quote, and the views of all those other scholars, if other editors here continue to push their POV.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you seriously think you get to establish it unilaterally, without waiting for a response from other eds?-Civilizededucationtalk 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead and present to me your evidence that Guthrie is dubious and unreliable, despite being "greatly respected" much like his "weighty contributions".RomanHistorian (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The last lines of the of the link YOU provided [1] is enough to discount Guthrie. It is a source which shows that he is NOT an RS. This has been told to you before too, by Dylan. It is a waste of time if you can only come up with a reasoning which has already been rejected. Stop wasting other eds time. And it is up to you to establish that Donald Guthrie is an RS.-Civilizededucationtalk 10:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

It's been over a month, yet the near exact phrasing is still being edit warred over by a single editor.... Sure it's a different article than before, but still... I'm sorry if this brief encounter has killed a little bit of hope inside of me. It's disheartening to see this. P.S. is it notable that these sources seem to be centered around the 1950s?? -Andrew c [talk] 21:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, don't give up hope. Roman represents the same phenomenon we've dealt with successfully before. Leadwind (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Ellis in ISBE.

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

Ian Howard Marshall, in NBD.

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

Black, in CPNIVC.

  • "Given strong external and internal evidence for Lukan authorship, one may wonder why much of contemporary scholarship rejects the notion entirely.6 The answer is based on internal evidence which is said to disallow Lukan authorship. Quite simply, the book of Acts presents a view of Paul the Christian who appears to be quite different from the Paul who wrote the letters, especially Galatians. The book of Acts does not cite or even mention Paul’s letters. More significantly, it is argued that the theological portrait of Paul in Acts could not have been painted by a companion of Paul. Luke’s portrait is especially problematic with regard to Paul’s stance on keeping the Law.7 We must admit that it is somewhat surprising when Paul, who wrote that, “All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse,” (Gal 3:10), consistently upholds the Law in Acts. Most notably, James in Acts 21:24 encourages Paul to help the four men under a vow in order to show that “you yourself are living in obedience to the Law.”8", Black, M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.
  • Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician.10 However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving that Luke showed no more “medical” language than other educated writers of his day.11 Of course, the healing stories and “medical” vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.", Black, M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.

Green, in NICNT.

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

Bock, in BECNT.

  • "Fitzmyer (1981: 40) divides the external evidence handily into two categories: what can be deduced from the NT and what cannot be deduced from it. That Luke was a physician, was tied to Paul, was not an eyewitness, and wrote his Gospel with concern for Gentiles are facts the NT makes clear. That Luke was from Syria, proclaimed Paul’s gospel, was unmarried, was childless, and died at an old age are ideas that are not in the NT. Though the differences about Luke’s age at death tell us that not everything in these traditions is indisputably true, their unity about authorship makes almost certain the identification of Luke as the Gospel’s author. The tradition’s testimony also makes Luke’s connection to Paul very likely.", Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (5–6). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
  • "Most commentators identify Luke as a Gentile without any further detail. They (1) point to Col. 4:10–11, 14, (2) note Acts 1:19, which mentions a field with a Semitic name and then speaks of “their” language, and (3) point out the attention to Hellenistic locales and the concern for Gentiles. This last argument is not strong, since a Jew like Paul could fit into such geographical locales and concerns. In sum, it seems very likely that Luke was a Gentile, though it is unclear whether his cultural background was Semitic. In any case, he probably had religious contact with Judaism before coming to Christ.", Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (6–7). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
  • "Colossians 4:14 refers to Luke as a doctor. In 1882, Hobart tried to bolster this connection by indicating all the technical verbal evidence for Luke’s vocation. Despite the wealth of references Hobart gathered, the case was rendered ambiguous by the work of Cadbury (1926), who showed that almost all of the alleged technical medical vocabulary appeared in everyday Greek documents such as the LXX, Josephus, Lucian, and Plutarch. This meant that the language could have come from a literate person within any vocation. Cadbury’s work does not, however, deny that Luke could have been a doctor, but only that the vocabulary of these books does not guarantee that he was one.", Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (7). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Ian Howard Marshall, in NIGTC.

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

Nolland, in WBC.

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

Ian Howard Marshall, in NBC.

  • "From the second half of the second century AD onwards there is a clear and consistent belief that the writer of this gospel (and Acts) was Luke, the doctor and companion of Paul (Col. 4:14). It has sometimes been argued that this belief is nothing more than an intelligent deduction from the NT evidence that Luke-Acts was written by the companion of Paul who was present during the episodes described in Acts in the first person plural form (Acts 16:10–17, etc). Among Paul’s possible companions Luke is a plausible choice. It can then be argued that the belief has no independent value as a testimony to the earliest tradition, but is simply one of several possible ‘guesses’. However, we may note that the tradition is quite unequivocal in naming Luke and not any other companion of Paul. Moreover this tradition is fairly early (possibly c. AD 120), and there is not the faintest hint of any alternative view in the early church. Marcion, an early Christian heretic, who held faithfully to Paul alone as his apostolic authority, selected Luke’s gospel as his one gospel; presumably he accepted the tradition that it was written by Paul’s companion. Against the tradition it has been argued: 1. The picture of Paul in Acts is so distorted that it can hardly have been written by a companion and contemporary of Paul. 2. The gospel has the atmosphere of a time, after the apostles, when the church had given up hope of the imminent return of Jesus and had settled down into the form of rather conventional, institutional life sometimes known as ‘early catholicism’. Neither of these arguments is strong enough to overcome the tradition.", Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
These are good and should be included. The problem is that I am outnumbered, and on Wikipedia you can push whatever POV you want if you have more editors than the other guy on your side. Feel free to make whatever edits you want; it would be helpful as one person can't do this alone.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to add these sources. They all make the point that the traditional view has been criticized severely, and they all make the point that the traditional view is no longer the majority view. I believe they're fairly well balanced. A couple of them are slightly conservative, but they're generally critical of a completely naive approach to authorship.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a word of warning, the publishers are all what Leadwind calls "sectarian" so you might find your edits reverted sadly.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
They're what we both call non-scholarly. From a quick sampling of the quotes, they aren't just "conservative", they're downright archaic, to the point that they do not represent the mainstream. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So without having actually read them, you think they must be "conservative" and "archaic' just because RH thinks they're good. Here's a quick review for those who don't like reading.
  • Johnson: Says Luke is the reputed author of Luke/Acts, says critical scholarship has challenged the traditional attribution, says that it is not impossible for Luke to have been written by "a companion of Paul", but does not say more than this
  • Ellis: Says the traditional attribution of Luke/Acts to Luke is still the most probable and can be accepted with reasonable certainty, notes 20th century criticism of the traditional view
  • Marshall (NBD): Says the composition of Luke/Acts by Luke is still most probable, but says the gospel of Luke contains little concrete evidence for or against the traditional ascription of authorship
  • Black: States explicitly that much of contemporary scholarship rejects the traditional attribution, lists criticisms of the traditional attribution, and points out that attempts to prove the author of the gospel of Luke was a physician have failed
  • Green: Says that the traditional attribution is most likely, but acknowledges the attribution was made decades after the gospel was written
  • Bock: Cites Fitzmyer's assessment of the external evidence, says Luke as the author of the gospel is "almost certain", and points out that attempts to prove the author of the gospel of Luke was a physician have failed
  • Marshall (NIGTC): Says the Gospel itself is anonymous and contains no information which would enable us to identify its author, says the traditional view of authorship faces two main difficulties and explains those difficulties, directing the reader to arguments against them
  • Nolland: Says the argument is not decisive, and further considerations have been offered both in favor of and against Lukan authorship
  • Marshall (NBC): Presents two arguments against the tradition and says they aren't strong enough to contradict it
In all seriousness, it is ludicrous to describe these views as conservative and archaic. It's conservative to say that the argument for Lukan authorship isn't decisive? It's archaic to say that attempts to prove the author of the gospel was a physician have failed? It's conservative and archaic to say that the traditional view is rejected by much contemporary scholarship?
Meanwhile, looking at the references in the article which were considered sufficiently scholarly and which are used to criticize traditional views of Luke, I find:
  • A work by the devoutly religious conservative FF Bruce, from 1952
  • Works by the equally religious Bruce Metzger
  • Lutheran David Aune
  • Catholic priest John Meier
  • The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (not exactly up to date, hardly scholarly)
  • Strong's concordance (over 100 years old and considered utterly worthless by current scholarship)
You cannot possibly tell me that you're going to object to the likes of Marshall, Ellis, and Bock, if you have no objection to these sources being used. I have no objection whatever to the scholarly consensus being represented in this article and given due weight. I'm entirely of the opinion that the article should identify the traditional view as unsupported by the majority of current scholarship. But what I don't want to see is partisanship and POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Metzger, Aune, Meier have an unassailable academic standing. One could not object to them even if one wanted to. At least not seriously. Their references are more than welcome, regardless of their being religious or not.-Civilizededucationtalk 10:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok so those questions aren't going to be answered. Leaving that aside, could you explain again why Johnson, Ellis, Marshall, Black, Green, Bock, and Nolland are not WP:RS?--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
They can be RS when published by academic presses. They can be RS, even otherwise, if you can show that most of their works have been published by academic presses. This is my view of an RS.-Civilizededucationtalk 12:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually interested in the Wikipedia definition of WP:RS, not my definition or your definition or anyone else's definition. Could you demonstrate to me why you believe that these sources don't meet the Wikipedia definition of WP:RS?--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I looked through the publishers of sources quoted in the article. Looking just at the sources which hold to the critical view, I find (a) HarperSanFrancisco, (b) HarperCollins, (c) McGraw-Hill, (d) MacMillian and Co., Ltd, (e) T&T Clark, (f) Doubleday, (g) Yale University Press, and (h) Oxford University Press (there are others, but this is almost all of them). I see only two academic presses there. So it's ok to quote sources published by non-academic presses, apparently. Of course, Marshall is published in an academic press (Yale).--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
HarperCollins is a mainstream publisher with no religious agenda. InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, College, Baker Academic, Thomas Nelson, et al, are explicitly Christian presses that present Christian-oriented scholarship that would not fly at a mainstream publisher. We should reject works from anti-Christian presses and from pro-Christian presses because we have plenty of RSs from mainstream presses. Leadwind (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That did not answer my question. All it proved is that Wiki policy is not being followed in this article, and ad hoc justifications are being made as to why. Not only have you provided no evidence that the scholarship I quoted 'would not fly at a mainstream publisher', not only have you ignored Yale University Press, but you have also ignored the fact that most of the quotations I provided are saying nothing more than what is found in mainstream secular commentary. Wikipedia has no policy with regard to what you call 'pro-Christian presses'. You are not following WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Taiwan you see the problem is that if they let certain publishers on the article, it would disrupt the POV they want to push. Thus they created a rule to protect it. You are wasting your time if you think you can convince them. If you want to do something about it, bring other editors here. That is the only way to undo their POV.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually came here to help them, ironically. Now I see that this is just another article being squabbled over by two POV parties.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yale, Eerdmans, Paulist Press, Fortress — those are OK. It's only the Christian sources that are outside the mainstream that need to be labeled as representing minority opinions. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Look at the sources I quoted; leaving out Baker books and IVP, you'll see Yale, Eerdmans, Doubleday, Eerdmans again. First I was told they were all "conservative" and "archaic". That wouldn't fly (Bruce, quoted favourably, is borderline fundamentalist, and over 50 years old), so then I was told they weren't published by academic presses. I debunked that as well, and so along came a new argument, 'no pro-Christian presses'. This ad hoc invention of "rules" on the fly (which are abandoned and replaced as quickly as they are debunked), and blatant disregard for Wiki policy, is symptomatic of POV agitprop.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:QS states that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". Applying this rule means that any source to be identified as WP:QS must first be proved to have a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. So if you want to exclude certain publishers as WP:QS you must first prove that they have a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Simply saying "I think Christian presses are WP:RS because I don't trust Christians to be objective" is not an application of Wiki policy; it's a personal POV. I agree that individual authors need to be assessed, not just publishers. IH Marshall for example is a particularly well known and commonly cited Lukan scholar. I also agree that looking at publishers is a good way to determine reliability. I never said this was "archaic".--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
....Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which..... WP:QS I am all for keeping the discussions focused. I had only concentrated on this point because my impression was that Taiwan Boi wanted some clarifications in this regard. I am happy to drop this if it helps focus on specific issues.-Civilizededucationtalk 08:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That would mean we avoid publishers and works which are explicitly focused on Christian apologetics. It does not mean we avoid all Christian publishers. Not all Christian publishers are "widely acknowledged as extremist or promotional"; IVP for example publishes a range of works by Christian authors, not simply those which adhere to a particular theological viewpoint or a specific apologetic agenda. When a work published by Eerdmans, IVP, or even College Press is reviewed positively, cited, or otherwise treated professionally in WP:RS, we should treat it appropriately.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
They are pro christian presses. There is no doubt about it. It is not very difficult to see this. Please do some more investigation. There is no hurry to reply quickly. I would like it if you may take some time before you reply. However, it is up to you if you want to post a fast reply.-Civilizededucationtalk 11:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The point at issue is not whether or not they are 'pro christian presses'. Please read what Leadwind says, he has expressed the point well. As for promotional sources, there's hardly a source less promotional than the Jesus Seminar, quoted favourably in the article. Likewise, Erhman is included in the article despite the fact that one of his work cited ("Misquoting Jesus"), was published by HarperCollins (not by an academic press), and the fact that Erhman is unashamedly promoting a personal point of view, including claims for textual criticism which are not supported by the text critical scholarly consensus. So clearly "non-promotional" is a rule being applied somewhat "flexibly" to sources in this article, and that's putting it politely.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with CE that we should avoid promotional sources. Especially when we are trying to strike a balance, it's key that we refer to "disinterested" sources to measure the relative weight of different viewpoints. Promotional sources are not disinterested so they are the wrong place to look when trying to achieve balance (see WP:WEIGHT). I also agree with Tb that "When a work published by Eerdmans, IVP, or even College Press is reviewed positively, cited, or otherwise treated professionally in WP:RS, we should treat it appropriately." Eerdmans I've never objected to (nor Fortress, Paulist, etc.). If there really is an IVP or College Press book that disinterested, nonpromotional RSs treat as scholarly and respectable, we should do that same. Also, when these books or any other books express a minority view (e.g., Luke wrote Luke) then we should label it the minority viewpoint. J.A.T. Robinson seems to be the most prominent recent scholar who advocated for an apostolic connection for each gospel. He seems most prominent because he gets mentioned in tertiary sources. We should cite him regardless of his publisher because he's made it into the circle of scholars that we are instructed to pay attention to. Leadwind (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with CE that we should avoid using promotional sources. What I don't agree with is his use of this as a cover for removing sources he simply doesn't like.
@TaiwanBoi. Academic standing is the only thing which matters on Wikipedia. Your and mine idiosyncratic ideas don't count. The JS has an unparalleled academic significance. And Ehrman's academic standing is as unassailable as that of Brown, Metzger, Aune, Meier. Meier is a priest. He also has some pretty singular ideas on the miracles. But these things don't matter. They get overruled by their academic standing. Most of Ehrman's works are published by OUP. This is enough to conclude that he has an unassailable academic standing. RomanHistorian too has some pretty weird ideas. Vermes is anti christian. Ehrman, Pagels are attacking christianity. Harris is fringe for him. And the JS too is unusable for him. You guys probably don't know about Ludemann and Crossan. You would balk when you find out what they think. But it dosen't matter. Academic standing does. And conformity to traditional thinking/ likeability among christians doesn't. Most of your problems seem to be because you don't seem to understand this point and because you seem to be unfamiliar with the current mainstream academic thinking. On the whole, you wanted to know why some sources are preferable, while others are unpreferred. You have the answers now. If you still can't see it, it's your problem. Deal with it yourself. Please.-Civilizededucationtalk 11:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
[1] If you had read my previous agreement with Leadwind, you would find that I am not RomanHistorian nor do I share his view. I agree that academic standing matters. But academic standing does not mean that authors are always free from promotional POV. FF Bruce and Metzger both have high academic standing, as do Meier and Aune. Yet they all have views which are not mainstream, and all of them promote one non-mainstream view of another as you're well aware (your reference to Meier's miracles is a case in point). This does not stop you using them in the article, and nor should it. Ehrman is a scholar whose views are relevant, and can be cited here, but should be identified as minority views when they are actually minority views, and he should be identified as a promotional source when he's being blatantly promotional. Regardless of the fact that two of his works have been published by the OUP, he is explicitly promotional and a number of his claims are rejected by the entire scholarly consensus on text criticism. He makes claims of inauthenticity for certain texts which have a B rating in NA 27/UBS 4; how can you possibly expect me to take him seriously over the likes of Aland, Martini, Metzger, and Big Allen? He makes claims of conspiratorial textual editing for theological and ideological reasons which have received no support from the broader scholarly consensus. He does this specifically because he is writing to promote a personal POV; he's an ex-evangelical who's trying to convince religious people they shouldn't believe in the Bible. I am not saying he should not be included as a source. I haven't said the Jesus Seminar shouldn't be used a a source either. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that you want to exclude certain sources on the basis that they're "promotional" is simply not true. If you really believed that then the Jesus Seminar wouldn't be included in this article, and nor would Ehrman. You would at least identify Ehrman's conspiratorial text critical claims as a minority viewpoint, but you don't want to do that either.
[2] Moving on, there's nothing you can tell me about the relevant literature that I don't know. I have a personal library worth over US$50,000 which rivals some seminaries. I own around 30 professional peer reviewed journals including JSOT, JSNT, ET, BibSac, Semeia, Lectio Difficilior, TBCT, CBR, CRBR, and JSP, and I own 112 of the JSOT/JSNT monographs published by Sheffield Academic Press. I have plenty of Crossan's works (yes that's right, he wrote more than one, there's a surprise for you), and I'm amused by your comment about Gerd Lüdemann since he was one of the key sources I used in my recent work on Gnosticism and the Early Church. If you can just get over your own ideas about which sources should and shouldn't be included in this article, and start keeping to Wiki policy, I'll be able to stop wasting my time posting in the Talk page and I'll be able to start reading my library for contributions to the article itself.
[3] I came to this article making it totally clear that I want it to represent mainstream scholarly consensus, and that I was going to defend the representation of that consensus in this article. I also made it totally clear that I want the minority Christian view (as typically represented in Eerdmans, IVP, and College Press), to be included in the article only as a minority viewpoint, and identified as such. Ever since I did so I've met resistance from the very people I'm trying to help, who fail to read just about anything I write and who keep accusing me of being a virtual clone of RomanHistorian, even when I've opposed his edits and sided against him with Leadwind. Leadwind is the only one who has actually made an attempt to read what I've written (and thank you for that).
[4] What I want is for you to stop fooling around, and (a) start telling the truth, (b) start adhering to Wiki policy. I haven't been asking you why sources are preferable while others are unpreferred. I know what Wiki policy says on that point, and I'm here to push for Wiki policy. I also know your personal view because you've made no attempt to conceal your personal view and the fact that you want your personal view to take priority over Wiki policy. But that's not what we're here for. What I want from you is a commitment to Wiki policy. Can I get that, or are you going to continue to be difficult?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
CE, even if you don't agree with Tb on every point, please recognize him (presumably "him") for the valuable ally that he is. In these contentious discussions, an editor who personally disagrees with you but who respects WP policy is incredibly valuable. If Tb can help us establish what the majority viewpoint is on these topics, that takes our articles two or three giant steps forward. Let's build on what we agree on first and handle the details second. Other editors want to prevent us from identifying a majority view and Tb wants to help us. Let's spend our time working together where we can. When we get down to brass tacks, such as the treatment of Luke as the author of Luke, we can agree. Let's not let hypotheticals and definitions sidetrack us. As Andrew said, let's focus the discussion on what we want to accomplish. Leadwind (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you LW. I think where CE went wrong was assuming that when I posted that list of sources I was saying I wanted them all included in the article (I didn't, and I didn't say that). Not only that, but I think he also misunderstood the context in which I posted them. I was posting a list of sources for the minority position, since previously we had little more than Guthrie. To be told that none of them were valid sources for the minority position, was just ridiculous. I believe that the article would benefit from some of those sources being included in a description of the minority position on authorship, and probably most if not all of them could be used in the article on the authorship of Luke/Acts in order to demonstrate that even mainstream Christian commentators agree, at least in part, with certain arguments raised by the majority position. In particular, the article on the authorship of Luke/Acts says "Some claim that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training, but this claim has been widely disputed", and has a "who?" tag next to it. I have provided three or four sources which can be used to address that "who" tag.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Two of Ehrman's works are published by OUP? That dosen't sound like terribly well informed. Previously we had RH who was dissatisfied with a conservative evangelical priest like Brown, and wanted to add an extreme view from Guthrie. I think a conservative view (like the one from Brown) needs balancing with a liberal view. Anyway, it looks like you are different from RH and you and LW seem to be hopeful that you can work together nicely. As such, I would try to take a break for two weeks from this article, and hope for the best.-Civilizededucationtalk 08:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The context was works by Erhman which are currently cited in the article. Two of the Ehrman works currently cited in the article are published by OUP, "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" and "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet". The other two, "Misquoting Jesus", and "Jesus, Interrupted", are not. They are published by HarperCollins.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Thank you, Andrew. I would like the article to say that in the majority viewpoint the evidence against the author being a companion of Paul's is compelling enough that the evangelist is considered to be unknown. And I would like the article to also describe the opinion in support of Lukan authorship, giving it due weight as a significant minority viewpoint. Until we can agree which view is in the majority, we can't agree on how to treat each view with proper weight. I call the unknown-author theory the majority view because because it's what I see in my commonly accepted reference text (EBO), and because support for the Luke view is so faint. Roman can cite InterVarsity Press all he likes in the minority view section, which should be smaller than the majority view section. If someone can cite me a commonly accepted reference text of comparable value that contradicts EBO, I'll of course be willing to shift positions. Leadwind (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tb. I balanced the majority and minority views. To do so, I had to cut back on some of the minority-view material because the minority view enjoyed the preponderance of coverage. Leadwind (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at your changes, I have to agree that they improved compliance with policies on undue weight. Thanks for putting in the effort. Dylan Flaherty 19:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources on authorship: Rick Strelan[edit]

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

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

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

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

These look like really good notes. The trick is to keep a balance between majority and minority views, so one can't just add extensive material to one side or the other. But these notes are way better than Vermes's off-handed comment about "many" scholars, which is a tangent in his work. So replace the second-rate information already there with this good stuff, and we're ahead. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, glad this will prove useful. I spent some time going through my sources today, and you'll see some of my work in the Luke-Acts authorship article. I didn't want to touch the Luke article without checking first. As an aside, I was impressed to see a prof from UQ with such a high scholarly standing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of Luke-Acts[edit]

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

content portal suggestion[edit]

Extended content
Detailed content of Matthew
1. Birth Stories
Genealogy (1:1–17)
Nativity (1:18–25)
Biblical Magi (2:1–12)
Flight into Egypt (2:13–20)
Jesus in Nazareth (2:21-23)
2. Baptism and early ministry
John the Baptist (3:1–12)
Baptism of Jesus (3:13–17)
Temptation of Jesus (4:1–11)
Capernaum (4:12–17)
First disciples of Jesus (4:18–22)
Galilee preaching tour (4:23–25)
3. Sermon on the Mount (5–7)
4. Healing and miracles
Healing many (8:1–17)
Foxes have holes (8:18–20)
Let the dead bury the dead (8:21–22)
Calming the storm (8:23–27)
Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–34)
Healing a paralytic (9:1–8)
Calling of Matthew (9:9–13)
On fasting (9:14–15)
New Wine into Old Wineskins (9:16-17)
Daughter of Jairus (9:18–26)
Two blind men (9:27–31)
Exorcising a mute (9:32-34)
Good crop but few harvesters (9:35–38)
5. Little Commission (10:1–11:1)
6. Responses to Jesus
Messengers from John the Baptist (11:2-19)
Cursing Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (11:20–24)
Praising the Father (11:25–30)
Lord of the Sabbath (12:1-8)
Man with withered hand (12:9-14)
Chosen servant (12:15–21)
Blind-mute man (12:22–28)
Strong man (12:29)
Those not with me are against me (12:30)
Unforgivable sin (12:31–32)
The Tree and its Fruits (12:33–37)
Request for a sign (12:38–42)
Return of the unclean spirit (12:43–45)
Jesus' true relatives (12:46-50)
Parabolic Discourse (13:1–52)
7. Conflicts, rejections, and conferences with disciples
Hometown rejection (13:53–58)
Death of John the Baptist (14:1-12)
Feeding the 5000 (14:13–21)
Walking on water (14:22–33)
Fringe of his cloak heals (14:34–36)
Discourse on Defilement (15:1–20)
Canaanite woman's daughter (15:21–28)
Healing on a mountain (15:29-31)
Feeding the 4000 (15:32–39)
Sign of Jonah (16:1-4)
Beware of yeast (16:5–12)
Peter's confession (16:13–20)
Jesus predicts his death (16:21-28,17:22-23,20:17-19)
Transfiguration (17:1–13)
Possessed boy (17:14–21)
Coin in the fish's mouth (17:24-27)
8. Life in the Christian community
The Little Children (18:1–7)
If thy hand offend thee (18:8–9)
The Lost Sheep (18:10–14)
Binding and loosing (18:15–22)
Unmerciful Servant (18:23–35)
9. Journey to Jerusalem
Entering Judea (19:1–2)
Divorce (19:3–9)
Celibacy (19:10-12)
Little Children Blessed (19:13-15)
Jesus and the rich young man (19:16–30)
Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (20:1–16)
Son of man came to serve (20:20–28)
Blind near Jericho (20:29-34)
10. Jerusalem, cleansing of the temple, debates
Triumphal entry into Jerusalem (21:1–11)
Temple incident (21:12–17)
Cursing the fig tree (21:18–22)
Authority questioned (21:23-27)
The Two Sons, The Wicked Husbandman, Parable of the Wedding Feast (21:28–22:14)
Render unto Caesar... (22:15–22)
Resurrection of the Dead (22:23–33)
Great Commandment (22:34–40)
Is the Messiah the son of David? (22:41–46)
11. Woes of the Pharisees (23:1–39)
12. Judgment day
Little Apocalypse (24)
Parables of the Ten Virgins, Talents (25:1–30)
Judgment of the Nations (25:31–46)
13. Trial, crucifixion, resurrection
Plot to kill Jesus (26:1–5)
Anointing of Jesus (26:6–13)
Bargain of Judas (26:14-16)
Last Supper (26:17–30)
Denial of Peter (26:31–35,69–75)
Agony in the Garden (26:36-46)
Kiss of Judas (26:47-49)
Arrest (26:50–56)
Before the High Priest (26:57–68)
Pilate's court (27:1–2,11–26)
Death of Judas (27:3-10)
Soldiers mock Jesus (27:27-31)
Simon of Cyrene (27:32)
Crucifixion (27:33–56)
Entombment (27:57–61)
Guarding the tomb (27:62–66,28:11-15)
Empty tomb (28:1–6)
Appearance to the women (28:7-10)
Great Commission (28:16–20)

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

varriation between the wiki pages for each gospel[edit]

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

Donald Guthrie " Christian scholar"?[edit]

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

Chapter Articles[edit]

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

Stab in the dark, but it seems pretty obvious that someone started a project and then stopped - I don't see any problem with this. Ckruschke (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Should we delete the redirects, such as to make it clear these are articles that need to be written? LukeSurl t c 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Book of Luke being anonymous.[edit]

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

  • I have tried to explain every way I can that the statement in question needs a reference, citation, or source to meet Wikipedeia standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Georgian (talkcontribs) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The Gospel of Luke is either anonymous or not anonymous. If it is not anonymous, then A Georgian should be able to provide a verse proving that this is the case. It is very revealing that despite having been challenged to do so multiple times, he refuses even to attempt to do so. Why does he not do so? If he can produce such a verse, then he wins instantly.
I suggest that the reason he does not is that he knows as well as I do that the text is anonymous. Unable to proceed down this route, he therefore tries to suppress this piece of factual information by way of a technicality, with this ludicrious argument about it being 'unsourced'. Of course, he never attempts to explain how such a claim could be sourced in the first place. Does he seriously expect there to be a Bible verse saying, "I, the writer, am not revealing my identity"?
Previous contributers to this article appear to understand this basic concept. Later on in the article, in the specific section on authorship, we find the claim that the text is anonymous. This claim is unsourced, for how could it be otherwise!
In summary, I claim that nowhere in the book of Luke does the author identify himself. This claim is impossible to prove directly, other than by reading the whole text for yourself. If A Georgian disagrees with this claim, then let him provide a verse contradicting that claim. If he can provide no such verse, then I do not understand what his problem is. (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You both have violated the 3 Revert Rule several times. If you do again you will be blocked from contributing. I see that you have been blocked before, so you should know the rules by now. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Raymond who?[edit]

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

punctuation, etc.[edit]

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

right: pp. 205–213
wrong: pp. 205-213

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

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

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

"Luke was Jewish"[edit]

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

The point, as I said, before on the other talk, etc, is that it actually IS a notable opinion, held by a number of scholars, regardless or not if it's the "majority view". The point is why delete or hide that sourced information? No valid reason to do that. The edit is accurate and sourced. Stop edit-warring and disrespecting valid edits and additions, that are referenced and are apropos to the context and paragraph. Just because you (or maybe some others) DON'T LIKE. That's against WP policy. And suppressing information and points from potential readers is not the wise or proper course.
I restored is a notable opinion, validly sourced, and is mentioned in other articles, long established, whether it's "majority view" or not.
The edit never said "Luke was Jewish", but that some scholars believe so. Not most, but quite a number. And it's sourced and notable, by scholars with credentials. No need to hide, for "I don't like or agree" reasons. It's not your job to agree or disagree, but to respect edits that are reliably-sourced, good-faith, and accurate..."majority" view or not. So there your whole rationale is not even correct. WP policy is not to disallow minority scholar views, simply because they're minority, if at least their notable in name or credential or reference. Which they are. Also was is apropos to the phrase "not the only possibility" that was already there.
As for your wrong statement that "Paul says Luke was uncircumcised". Paul never EXPLICITLY said that. It's not worded that way. Read it again, in Colossians. This idea that Paul clearly said that Luke was "uncircumcised" is an old sloppy TRADITIONAL talking point. But doesn't hold up, under more careful, more critical, and closer analysis.
The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.
Thus, there are reasons other than background why Luke would not be included in the list of “the circumcision.” It is risky to build a concept on evidence which is so weak, and this is the strongest evidence in the Bible that those who believe Luke was a Gentile use to prove their point.
Also, to be honest, NONE of that really matters anyway. As it doesn't matter what YOU (or I) think Paul meant or said, and even what the "majority view" of drone-ish "scholars" think or write. The mere fact that you have even a few theologians, writers, and ministers, scholars, and sources, saying that they believe Luke was either definitely Jewish or probably Jewish (a Hellenic Jew, etc), is enough to warrant at least making mention that some scholars think that.
Like, as one of many examples, this one right here. So what??
The point of the statement is that some other theologians and scholars believe Luke to be Jewish. Thomas McCall happens to fit that.
And so does RICK of Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel. See carefully pages 102–105.
Just because you personally think Luke was a Gentile is irrelevant. A number of notable scholars and writers (past and present) don't buy that, and say clearly that he was a Hellenic Jew. It's fairly copiously sourced. And that fact should be and also is mentioned, on Wikipedia. And is contextual to what the paragraph was saying in the first place. No need to edit-war over something like this. Because it's not worth it. The info is valid and sourced, and should stay. The scholars and sources (even if "minority view") are definitely there. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO, I'm fine with the current sentence "The author is considered to probably be a Gentile Christian, although some believe him to be a Hellenized Jew." I think he was a Gentile, but I have no problem with this referenced statement that other scholars differ and the sentence is substantially similar to others where scholars disagree about historical points where we don't have concrete proof. However, that's just my opinion. Ckruschke (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

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

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

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

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

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

I have no idea where this diagram comes from - really, diagrams, like anything on Wiki, need to cite reliable sources. Given that small rant, the way I read it is: each circle shows one of the three gospels, Mark on top, Luke bottom-left, Matthew bottom-right. Mark is composed, naturally, 100% 0f Markan material, so what do the pie-slices mean? I take it they mean that 76% of Mark is shared with Luke and Matthew, 18% is in Mark and Matthew but not in Luke, 3% is in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew, and 3% is in Mark alone. For Luke, 41% of that gospel is shared with Mark, 23% is shared with Mattthew but not Mark (this is the Q source), and 35% is unique to Luke (the L source). A further 1% is shared with Mark but not Matthew. So in terms of sources within Luke:
  • 42% from Mark (the 41% shared with Matthew plus the 1% not shared)
  • 23% from Q (the material shared with Matthew but not Mark)
  • 35% from L.
In terms of how Luke used Mark:
  • Luke has 79% of Mark and ignores (or lacks) 21%
  • Matthew has 94% of Mark and ignores 6%
  • There's 3% of Mark that both of them ignore - not necessarily the same material.
I hope this clarifies it - the diagram is quite useful, but takes some reading. PiCo (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem seems to be with the word 'smaller'; as it is not clear in context which quantity the proportions referred to are 'smaller' than. I have rephrased the para to remove the term. TomHennell (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


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

What is taught as fact in all major US universities are Ehrman's viewpoints or viewpoints very similar to his viewpoints. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and WP:CHOPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should state which of the top 100 US universities does not teach that the authors of the NT gospels are anonymous and provide a source for verifying it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Requirement: they would have to be teaching NT courses or Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't give equal validity to the academic mainstream and fringe views. If all major US universities teaching Bible scholarship state it as fact that the authors of the NT gospels were anonymous, it would be weird that Wikipedia wouldn't state it as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Why on earth would you mention "U.S. universities"? The article mentions that Lukan authorship is held by I. Howard Marshall, who is at the University of Aberdeen. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Because I have this source on Ehrman and major universities, source which seems to have an US focus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I have seen that sourced mentioned here before - it must have been by you. You realise, don't you, that it's a blog post? StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a blog post which reflects the view of its author, see WP:SELFPUB. He is an academic, so he can be regarded as having an educated opinion upon what is taught in major universities. As an Wikipedian, he is active as User:XKV8R. To be sure, it is citing Ehrman which satisfied WP:RS/AC, not the blog post. The blog post only gives us insight over the acceptance of viewpoints such as Ehrman's (its importance is rather pedagogical than verifying info). From the other side of the barricade, James White (theologian) speaks about Ehrman at [2] and recognizes that in universities students will be "confronted" by viewpoints similar to Ehrman's. A conservative source admitting WP:RS/AC for anonymous gospel authors is Ben Witherington (2004:44) The Gospel code: novel claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci InterVarsity Press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, maybe we're talking past each other here. Nobody says the gospels are not formally anonymous; the issue is one of Lukan authorship, etc. And the Witherington quote says nothing about consensus - he says most scholars reject Matthean authorship of Matthew, but that's not quite the same thing. And even if there was a consensus among "just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title", that wouldn't equate to the sort of consensus referred to at WP:RS/AC. You can't exclude such as major section of the scholarly community like that. StAnselm (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
My point was: in most major universities is taught that the NT gospels are falsely attributed. This also has to do with Lukan authorship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we can say that Lukan authorship "is still often advanced by conservative scholars" when we don't have a source saying so - we just don't know how often this view gets advanced. Nor should we mention individual scholars such as Marshall - if he's the only one with this view then it's fringe and shouldn't be mentioned at all. We need a scholarly source saying there's a significant point of view. PiCo (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's "most conservative scholars". StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't see much difference between "often advanced by conservative scholars" and "advanced by most conservative scholars", but if you feel happier I'd accept it. Still, it's in a footnote - isn't there something in the main text of a book anywhere? PiCo (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

"the majority of scholars" and Ehrman page 235[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Ehrman, op. cit. p. 172

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

— Ehrman, op. cit., p. 235
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Fishlandia (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Josephus Reference[edit]

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

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

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