Luke And The Acts Of The Apostles

[Abiyoyo]

Also these credit Luke to the writing of the Gospel of Luke. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.1.1) Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem 4.2.2), Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82)

[Looking4Answers]

And they give this credit based on tradition. But no one really knows who this Luke person is. Some say he was a Gentile Christian. Some say he was a Jew (thought this is a minority opinion) that converted to Christianity ... or a Hellenized Jew, since he had a Greek name.

 

The point is, there is only tradition to lean on. And this tradition is disputed by some or, as the the WikiPedia article puts it, by about half. But none of this really matters. The facts are that we suppose Luke wrote it (and Luke is the better option, it would seem), that we suppose he was trying to relay history and we suppose that he actually knew what he was talking about. But we really don't know much because it is impossible to validate the important stuff talked about in Luke or Acts.

[Abiyoyo]

And they give this credit based on tradition. But no one really knows who this Luke person is. Some say he was a Gentile Christian. Some say he was a Jew (thought this is a minority opinion) that converted to Christianity ... or a Hellenized Jew, since he had a Greek name.

 

The point is, there is only tradition to lean on. And this tradition is disputed by some or, as the the WikiPedia article puts it, by about half. But none of this really matters. The facts are that we suppose Luke wrote it (and Luke is the better option, it would seem), that we suppose he was trying to relay history and we suppose that he actually knew what he was talking about. But we really don't know much because it is impossible to validate the important stuff talked about in Luke or Acts.

 

Okay L4A. I use Wikipedia all the time, but, I always check my source. The source for the 'half' quote is from a book, wrote by a Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.

 

Does this author have a source for citing the statistical amount of people that claim 'it's evenly divided'? Because if not, L4A, that's called an opinion.

[hereticzero]

Also these credit Luke to the writing of the Gospel of Luke. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.1.1) Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem 4.2.2), Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82)

These are people after the fact. They did not live with Luke and would not have known him.

[mwc]

Alright MWC. The only thing that implies that Luke was the author is the opening title in Acts connecting to His Gospel writing. As far as the why of why do I say that Luke wrote Acts, well,.. Are you serious?

 

MWC, you seem learned with Christianity. Do I have to do your own research? I can list some sources that explain the connection of Luke and Acts, the connections since Christianity began. Have to give me a little time as I don't have them on hand.

Look, you say this:

The reason I bring this up is because I have been thinking much about the Gospels, Acts, Peter, John's Epistles, Revelations, and keep thinking about how these people where just common people, not theologians. Many ''consider'' John a theologian, yet before Christ, be was a fisherman??

"Common people." "Fisherman." So these "common people," this "fisherman," suddenly learned some very good Greek (in G.John's case) and jotted down a very long book about the goings on of this little group of his but fails to mention who he even is within all its pages? As do all the rest?

 

And it falls to "tradition" to clue us in? So what of tradition? I believe it states that "John" also wrote the Revelation. But we've given up on that "tradition" since the writing style is so far off. So much for John of Patmos and St. John being the same person. Likewise so many of Paul's forged letters (including Hebrews). So "Luke" gets the attribution but who is this "Luke?" Multiple Mary's, James's, and Judas's (among others) were known to exist. But I suppose that only one "Luke" could have existed at the time, and that was the common "Luke" here, though it seems doubtful.

 

Did this "Luke" write both the gospel and the Acts? Possibly. But since G.Luke seems to "borrow" heavily from G.Mark I don't know if "write" is the best word. Rewrite? Rework? Rethink? It's hard to say and a bit of a tangent since we're onto the Acts. If the author was willing to "borrow" other works for the gospel then it may be possible the same thing was the case for the Acts. I don't know but it seems reasonable given the situation. But I'm willing to concede the same, unknown, person sat down and took some source materials and formed the two texts that we now know as Luke and Acts (their short names).

 

mwc

[NonXNonExX]

There are so many problems with Luke/Acts it's hard to know where to start. First of all, if he interviewed so many eyewitnesses why did he have to rely so closely on Mark? Why did Luke see Paul so differently from the arrogant bullying personality so evident from the so-called "authentic" epistles of Paul? In other words, was he really an agreeable compromiser or are his writings the truer reflection of his personality? Even more importantly for the whole NT, if Peter and Paul were actually companions of the great carpenter, how did Paul, who only saw JC in visions, have the gall to go against them? Wouldn't he want to learn as much as possible from them about the great mean instead of arrogantly declaring that he didn't learn anything from the "super apostles."

[Looking4Answers]

First of all, if he interviewed so many eyewitnesses why did he have to rely so closely on Mark?

 

We don't know for absolutely certain that Mark was the first Gospel (of the four) that everyone so heavily relied upon. It makes sense, but it is not certain. Because of that, I wouldn't state it emphatically that the writer of Luke relied on Mark. Perhaps he did. Perhaps he didn't.

 

In any case, there would be no problem for a competent researcher to rely on previous works to gather information from. It seems apparent from the opening statements of both Luke and Acts that the writer claimed he was researching his material. So a reliance upon Mark's Gospel would be the least of my concerns with Luke/Acts.

 

Even more importantly for the whole NT, if Peter and Paul were actually companions of the great carpenter, how did Paul, who only saw JC in visions, have the gall to go against them? Wouldn't he want to learn as much as possible from them about the great mean instead of arrogantly declaring that he didn't learn anything from the "super apostles."

 

I am a bit confused by your statement here. Why would Paul go against Peter and Paul? I suppose you meant someone other than Paul to go along with Peter. Perhaps I am just reading this wrong.

 

In any case, Paul claims to have been taught directly by the risen Jesus. If this were the case, then he would have a significant claim over the likes of Peter. From reading the Gospels we see that Peter (as well as the other disciples) were often lacking in faith, misunderstanding Jesus and making all sorts of mistakes. Even in the early chapters of Acts we see that Peter is pig headed and reluctant to do that which supposedly god is calling him to do. But Paul is not shown in such a light. He starts out, after his conversion, as some super soldier for Christ! And, to top it off, he claims that he was directly trained by the risen savior! We don't see Paul sticking his foot in his mouth like Peter or doubting like Thomas, etc.

 

The Bible is fiction ... the myths of a belief system told to propagate that same system. Whoever this Paul was, the writers did a great job of trying to make a super-star out of him. In order to sell Paul's version of this system, which is quite different than the system of Jesus in the Gospels, they had to make a superior character out of Paul. He had to be better than Peter or who would follow Paul's teachings? He had to be superior than the other Apostles or who would bother with anything he had to say?

[mwc]

We don't know for absolutely certain that Mark was the first Gospel (of the four) that everyone so heavily relied upon. It makes sense, but it is not certain. Because of that, I wouldn't state it emphatically that the writer of Luke relied on Mark. Perhaps he did. Perhaps he didn't.

True. It's in the neighborhood of 75% though (someone can check that for me) which is rather high.

 

In any case, there would be no problem for a competent researcher to rely on previous works to gather information from. It seems apparent from the opening statements of both Luke and Acts that the writer claimed he was researching his material. So a reliance upon Mark's Gospel would be the least of my concerns with Luke/Acts.

Research? At 3/4 of the text that's approaching a copyist. I personally think it was just a theological rewrite. As I recall (I'd have to check) but Marcion didn't use the Acts. And for someone accused of forging things it would be a simple matter to edit his man Paul into even more of hero in that text. For some reason the "research" smells fishy.

 

I am a bit confused by your statement here. Why would Paul go against Peter and Paul? I suppose you meant someone other than Paul to go along with Peter. Perhaps I am just reading this wrong.

I'm going to guess Peter and James (and John). The "pillars."

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

Research? At 3/4 of the text that's approaching a copyist. I personally think it was just a theological rewrite. As I recall (I'd have to check) but Marcion didn't use the Acts. And for someone accused of forging things it would be a simple matter to edit his man Paul into even more of hero in that text. For some reason the "research" smells fishy.

 

Heh. I agree. It's just that there may be another "Gospel" that all of them used instead of Mark ... that which possibly even Mark referred to. So who copied whom? But none of that really matters (to me). I suppose I was trying to say that there are a lot more important problems with Luke/Acts than whether he copied the work or whether he gave a false impression about Paul, etc.

[mwc]

Heh. I agree. It's just that there may be another "Gospel" that all of them used instead of Mark ... that which possibly even Mark referred to. So who copied whom? But none of that really matters (to me). I suppose I was trying to say that there are a lot more important problems with Luke/Acts than whether he copied the work or whether he gave a false impression about Paul, etc.

True. Could be the "Hebrew gospel" that was spoken about. But, again, if that's the case then (and, again I'd have to check), I think he (and the author of G.Mathew) wind up using the same words as G.Mark (give or take some changes in word form). So it just seems a little "off" when you think about it. It seems that G.Mark (or something extremely similar...which would actually mean nearly identical) is a primary source.

 

But we're supposed to be speaking on the Acts. I'm just wondering if his "research" was so poor on the gospel then where did the info for the Acts originate? That's why I'd like to know about the author of Acts and not just assume it was this "insider" (who doesn't seem so inside but a but of a plagiarist). I guess I'll just have to "accept it for the sake of argument" as I seem to do everything else.

 

mwc

[NonXNonExX]

Thanks, Jedi. I did mean to say Peter and James, the "supposed pillars." I didn't mean to state categorically that Luke (and Matthew) copied Luke, though it sure looks that way, especially in the case of Matthew, who copied almost every line of Mark. Along the way, both Matthew and Luke corrected a lot of the bad grammar, inaccuracies and embarrassing moments in Mark. If Mark hadn't come out first, i don't think it would have survived. Not only is the Paul portrayed in Acts entirely different in personality from the epistles under that name, but the journeys described in the two different sources cannot be reconciled. Furthermore, the descriptions of Paul's sea journey in Acts is particularly unrealistic, as Ken Hitchens so ably demonstrated on his site.

[mwc]

So I guess now that we're simply to assume that the author "tradition" makes them out to be we can move on?

 

Do you think the temple account in Acts where the people received the Holy Spirit is really happened? Or do you see it as embellished?

Since magic is impossible the story is obviously make believe. Let's use your word instead: "embellished."

 

Pentecost is the second travel festival for the Jews (the three are Passover, Pentecost and the New Year...not their technical, or Jewish, names). The city would have been packed. Like the death of "jesus" 50 days prior this event would not have simply flown under the radar...and yet it does. Two extraordinary events back to back and nobody says a word (well, someone does and gets copied).

 

We're told that 3,000 people convert on that very day. Not only do they convert but they get baptized. So there are now 3,000 xians in Jerusalem alone. This only 50 days after we're to understand that anyone close to "jesus" was pretty much promised a death sentence. They're openly baptizing people. All this goes unnoticed and unreported? Apparently so.

 

In reality we have a speech. That's all. In the text. Not in the real world. That's what this is all about. Setting up that speech. Just like the stoning of Stephen will soon give us. The opportunity for Stephen to give one of the longest speeches (if not the longest) in the whole NT.

 

The whole of the chapter is fairly simple. The apostles get the HS. They're looked upon skeptically. But a speech is given as a retort (a polemic). The people suddenly convert based on this powerful speech. They then immediately practice the churches doctrines no questions asked. They sell their goods and indulges in the communal lifestyle and eat the "broken bread."

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

Pentecost is the second travel festival for the Jews (the three are Passover, Pentecost and the New Year...not their technical, or Jewish, names).

 

Actually, the three travel feasts are Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Trumpets (Rosh HaShannah) is considered the Jewish New Year.

[mwc]

Actually, the three travel feasts are Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Trumpets (Rosh HaShannah) is considered the Jewish New Year.

And you are quite correct. Since they come with a couple weeks of one another I confused them. My mistake.

 

mwc

[Badger]

What can I say but religious fiction and historical fiction are still, well, fiction! Anyone can write a story and add a few historical elements to give their story credibility, such as George Washington chopping down a cherry tree.

We may conclude you have no idea of historical veracity of Acts.

 

There is no proof beyond the bible concerning super powers far beyond those of mortal man for the apostles. Where is the independent proof of such miracles pertaining to the apostles from that time period? NONE! Fiction is still fiction.

There probably is no any proof outside the Bible for miracles performed by the apostles, but you fail to recognize that the Bible is not a single book written by a single author. While admitting there has been much exaggeration, W. L. Knox has argued that "Paul could not appeal to the miracles wrought by the Spirit of God among the Galatians (Gal. 3:5) as a desperate argument to prevent his readers from going over to Judaism, if he knew that the answer would be that his readers had never heard of any such miracles. Similarly he could hardly have spoken so 'boastfully' of what Christ had done through him in way of sings and wonders, if in fact there had bee none (Rom 15:18)."

[hereticzero]

We may conclude you have no idea of historical veracity of Acts.

There probably is no any proof outside the Bible for miracles performed by the apostles, but you fail to recognize that the Bible is not a single book written by a single author. While admitting there has been much exaggeration, W. L. Knox has argued that "Paul could not appeal to the miracles wrought by the Spirit of God among the Galatians (Gal. 3:5) as a desperate argument to prevent his readers from going over to Judaism, if he knew that the answer would be that his readers had never heard of any such miracles. Similarly he could hardly have spoken so 'boastfully' of what Christ had done through him in way of sings and wonders, if in fact there had bee none (Rom 15:18)."

What historical veracity? There are no history stories of miracles. History does not even prove the resurrection.

I don't recognize the bible beyond stories of fiction.

Paul never performed any signs and wonders. He was full of bullshit.

[Badger]

What historical veracity?

"Veracity is the quality of being true or the habit of telling the truth," says Collins Dictionary. When it comes to Luke, and lets say this cautiously now, we can conclude he was competent historian who stands alongside the other ancient historians.

[Antlerman]

What historical veracity?

"Veracity is the quality of being true or the habit of telling the truth," says Collins Dictionary. When it comes to Luke, and lets say this cautiously now, we can conclude he was competent historian who stands alongside the other ancient historians.

Really? That's funny. Really.

[mwc]

"Veracity is the quality of being true or the habit of telling the truth," says Collins Dictionary. When it comes to Luke, and lets say this cautiously now, we can conclude he was competent historian who stands alongside the other ancient historians.

Who had no clue how to take a proper census in 6 CE. Poor "Luke" gets it wrong right from the start and this has been discussed in depth in the time lines thread so no need to rehash it here.

 

That "Luke" happened to know some locations and the names of a few people that were in charge is little comfort when he cannot get the key points about them right.

 

I'm not going to spend a lot of time or effort on this since it has all been discussed at length before and you should be aware of these things. However, for those who may not have been in on those discussions there are things like Luke 3:1-2:

 

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being ruler of Judaea, and Herod being king of Galilee, his brother Philip king of the country of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias king of Abilene, 2 When Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the waste land.

Year 15 of Tiberius is widely accepted to be ~29 CE (Augustus dying in August of 14 CE). Pilate is prefect (not procurator) until late 36/early 37 (Tiberius dies in March 37 while he is in transit). Herod [Antipas] is exiled shortly afterward. Philip dies ~34 CE (the 20th year of Tiberius). Lysanias is an unknown. And Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests but two high priests never served together (none did). The accepted end date for Caiaphas is 36 CE.

 

So it seems that everything is okay. We just need to agree that this is simply ~29 CE. But there is still the problem with Lysanias. I'm not going to make the argument but anyone who is interested at read about him at Wikipedia. They don't present an argument but if you read the information there (and if you read Josephus for yourself) you can see that only one Lysanius is mentioned (the earlier is attested to by coins as well). He died in ~36 BCE. His territory then just became known by his name. There was no second ruler Lysanius. The territory does ultimately go from Roman hands to Agrippa I after the death of Tiberius but there is no mention of the fate of a Lysanius (II) that allows for this to happen (by any known author). If a second Lysanius were to exist he would have had to had died by 42 CE.

 

"Luke" tries to date using a long dead king and co-ruling high priests which did not happen. Had he not attempted this his only error would have been the related to Pilate's title and that, to me, is not a deal breaker (though something he should have known).

 

An historian with any "veracity" should be able to get these types of details right. But maybe I am nit-picking? Maybe there was something else you had in mind when you said that "Luke" was "competent" and we should be discussing those items instead?

 

mwc

[Badger]

One should not assess Luke by modern standards and expect he measure up. While there indeed are a number of problems and difficulties in his work (Luke-Acts), Luke, when compared with other ancient historians, acquits himself very creditably. (Marshall, Luke: Historian & Theologian, 69) Similar opinion is presented by classicists or historians of antiquity, such as A. N. Sherwin-White, C. J. Hemer, F. F. Bruce, and W. M. Ramsay. Ramsay began his research with a very different opinion but was convinced as a result of long investigation that "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." (Gasque, a History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, 138) It should be noted, however, that Luke is not merely a historian and his basic interest was not so much in recording history for its own sake. He may not be a great historian or biographer by modern standards, but he still stands among the ancient. "How reliable is Luke as a historian?" asks Luke Johnson; his aswers is, "Taking into account his fidelity to the one source we can check, his general accuracy in matters we know about from archaeological or documentary sources, and the overall agreement between his description of Paul's movements and the descriptions in the Pauline letters, we conclude that Luke is accurate in what he tells us." (Writings of the New Testament, 217)

[Badger]

For those who are interested, I recommend to read Chris Price's online publication Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts and W. Gasque's The Historical Value of Acts.

[hereticzero]

What historical veracity?

"Veracity is the quality of being true or the habit of telling the truth," says Collins Dictionary. When it comes to Luke, and lets say this cautiously now, we can conclude he was competent historian who stands alongside the other ancient historians.

That's a good one. No, seriously, what historical veracity?

[hereticzero]

For those who are interested, I recommend to read Chris Price's online publication Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts and W. Gasque's The Historical Value of Acts.

Bible studies. What else you got?

[Badger]

Bible studies. What else you got?

That's hardly surprise, since "biblical studies is the academic study of the Judeo-Christian Bible and related texts. " (Wikipedia, Biblical studies) In fact, all studies concerning those texts belongs under biblical studies. So what's your point?

[hereticzero]

Bible studies. What else you got?

That's hardly surprise, since "biblical studies is the academic study of the Judeo-Christian Bible and related texts. " (Wikipedia, Biblical studies) In fact, all studies concerning those texts belongs under biblical studies. So what's your point?

Atta boy! Defend that faith!