Jump to content

Talk:Gospel of Luke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrew c (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 23 June 2006 (→‎links: unsigned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Suggested headings To bring readability and order to the entries for the Gospels, I would like to structure each of the entries under some headings. The following headings occur to me. Please add additional headings that are needed:

Contents and character of Luke
Luke 's audience and purpose
Sources and comparisons
Surviving manuscripts

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

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

Non-mainstream POV from anonymous IP

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

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

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

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

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

OK, the following has also been removed:

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

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

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


One link that speculates on Theophilus: [1]

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

Hardback reference to the ossuary of Johanna:

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

Papyrus Bodmer XIV

I disambiguated the oblique reference to "Papyrus Bodmer XIV" to a more reader-friendly form, thus: "Traditionalists point to the fact that the oldest manuscript that has retained its opening page, a papyrus in the Martin Bodmer Library, Cologny, assigned a date c. AD 200 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the "Gospel according to Luke," and the subsequent tradition is unbroken." However, before saving, when I subsequently read that Papyrus Bodmer XIV "starts with much of Luke 3--18; then Luke 22:4--24:53 continues immediately with John 1:1--11:45" [2], I am put in doubt of the whole claim and have moved it here. The Bibliothèque Bodmer published the Papyrus in 1961. What about Papyrus Bodmer XIV actually does connect the text to "Luke" besides its being a version of the familiar text ascribed to "Luke"? There's no "opening page:" it starts with Luke 3. Is there anything to this "traditionalists" text at all, or is this mumbo-jumbo? --Wetman 22:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Title: suggest "according to"

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

Portress 03:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Excise Testimonials and appreciations?

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

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


Luke as a Female?

From the main text of the article:

This prominence of women through the Luke gospel has led Biblical Scholar Randel McCraw Helms to suggest that the author of Luke may have been female.

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


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

Clean-up?

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

Some other stuff

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

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref

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

Edit warring.

I am coming to talk to explain why I feel some of the recent edits are problematic.

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

Thanks--Andrew c 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bbagot 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot[reply]

Ok, thanks for your replies, if you use the # sign by itself, it will automatically create an numbered list for you in the code:

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

--Andrew c 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

links

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Luke&oldid=60190961"