Did Paul write Luke?

iamwhoiam

Luke 1:1-4 (NWT)

1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph´i·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

Act 1:1,2 (NWT)

1 The first account, O The·oph´i·lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach, 2 until the day that he was taken up, after he had given commandment through holy spirit to the apostles whom he chose.

Just curious. I'm a newbie to the forum btw.

iawia

leavingwt

Most modern critical scholarship concludes that Luke used the Gospel of Mark for his chronology and a hypothetical sayings source Q document [9] Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s, [10] [11] while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century. [12] [13] While the traditional view that Paul's companion Luke authored the gospel is still often put forward, a number of possible contradictions between Acts and Paul's letter lead some scholars to dispute this account. [14] [15] According to Raymond E. Brown, it is not impossible that Luke was the author. [16] [6] for many of Jesus' teachings. Luke may also have drawn from independent written records. According to the majority view, the author is unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

moshe

According to the majority view, the author is unknown.

Isn't that the same moa that the Bethel boys use for writing their WT articles?- author's identity unknown. It does seem rather odd that most of the Gospels are written by people who have no historic secular identity. Were they afraid that Caesar would put a bounty on their heads?

Band on the Run

One of the problems with NT scholarship is that names were frequently appropriated. Acts and Luke are never referred to as by Luke. I kept hearing Lukan. The Revelation of John could not have been written by the beloved disciple. They weren't being fraudulent. By using the name, you showed you were a disciple or that you believed in a certain theology.

When I was in the Witnesses, I wanted to find the apostle Paul and spit on him for all his dumb moralisms. Once I was free, I discovered that only certain books were written by Paul. The very ones I had the most objections to were not written by Paul. Now I can discern it with the writing style. The authentic books have a certain argument pattern. After a while, you know the author. What I was left completely shocked me. The most beautiful prose describing a God that truly loves his creation. His main themes are love and grace. God loves me without my doing works. The contrast with the Witness teachings made me cry with joy.

Dominic Crossan is a scholar. I read one of his Paul books dealing with Paul's struggles with the Roman Empire. Not only did Paul not say the Timothy writings, they stand in stark contrast to Paul. Crossan makes a plausible claim that Paul was a feminist. Class distinctions within Christ's community were anathema to him. I am not a professional scholar. My Gnostic Scripture prof once remarked when we were discussing how awful teachers get tenure that she could have us believing anything.

One reading makes sense that people would suffer martyrdom. Certain truths are timeless. It isn't that I find myself rooted in the mainstream of Christian scholarship. An Episcopal priest once explained that the church is not a community of answers but a group of people asking questions within a community. These answers speak to my soul. They bring deep peace and joy. I always pull out a Bible and see what I think. Within my lifetime so much has come to light to shed new light on the scriptures and the surrounding culture. Now I comfortably live with doubt. Contrary to Witness admonition, I received higher education. The Gnostic take on a bad, warped creation by a lesser God and the very fact that of all the trees, the tree of Knowledge caused the expulsion from the garden. It never explains why Gnosis is bad. Like the Witnesses, you are not expected to ask questions. Many believe the stories are all just stories.

Another thought that occurs to me is that there was never, ever a golden age of Christianity where all believed Christ to be the same. They argue when Jesus is alive, they argue when he dies. Gnosticism is suppressed. The Creeds are articulated in the Middle East. Rome establishes Christianity as the same religion. Throughout Europe, conflict exists. People are slaughtered over such matters as whether to kneel or stand at Communion. Women are leaders in the church. Women are suppressed. And only some nut from Pittsburgh gets the authentic call in all this history. No Popes are privileged, not Luther nor Calvin, not Cramner or Lambert, just Russell. Does anyone want to buy this cool bridge that goes to Brooklyn?

peacefulpete

The anonymous author of G.Luke was a well educated experienced writer that used an early from of Mark and then drew heavily from the popular literature of the day such as Homer's Odessy and Josephus as well as Euripides' "Bacchae" for much of the added exciting narrative and structure. What is interesting it the intro explaining that the narrative wasn't written chronological order but in an order he felt logical. He often diverges from his primary souce, Mark, in the order of story. It is also interesting that the opening reveals that these particular christains had until then only had oral forms of the gospel story. It is my conclusion that the Acts/Luke composition was early to mid 2nd century making the identity with a companion of Paul impossible.

The "heretic" Marcion was the first to compile the Pauline works (and may in fact authored some) and he adopted an early form of G.Luke as the gospel section of his Apostolicon. This might suggest a connection but then again might be the reason for the later tradition connecting the author of G.Luke with Paul.

beth_

I really enjoyed (and felt like I learned a lot from) these lectures by Dale Martin at Yale -- numbers 9 and 10 are on Luke and Acts. He says Luke and Acts were written by the same person, making Acts one of the books not written by Paul. He tells which books are for sure written by Paul and which are controversial among scholars.

http://academicearth.org/lectures/intro-new-testament

tec

I always thought that Acts and Luke were both written by Luke. At the very least, it would seem that both books are written by the same person, by the Theophilus reference.

Tammy

AGuest

No, dear iam (peace to you!). As the verses you quote attest, Luke wrote his accounts after being commissioned by Theophilus and interviewing eyewitnesses (versus being inpsired of God/the Holy Spirit and told by Him/them what occurred and what to write). Which is how one knows that his account... and thus, the Bible... wasn't inspired. Contrary to what many so-called "christians" believe... and teach.

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA

cameo-d

The disciples did not accept Paul and had nothing to do with him.

Paul is supposed to have written about half of the New Testament. He was also a member of King Herod's family. I think he interjected a lot of stuff in there that Jesus would never have approved--like continuing the animal sacrifices and other quirks.

Any bible edits or translations have to be approved by the Holy C so who knows really who wrote what or who changed the wording?

peacefulpete

After reading my choppy comment I realize that I wasn't clear. Paul did not write Luke and the identification of the author as a companion of Paul named Luke may have resulted from it's connections with Marcion's Apostolicon.

Did Paul write Luke?

Share this