Not just a contradiction, but a mistake.

[_GoodK]

and I think that real authors are more reliable than unknown authors. I don't think the gospels should count as evidence at all.

Do you think that the writer of Luke/Acts is an unknown author?

Yes I do.

What are the important things we don't not know about Luke?

I'll have to spend more time on this question, but before I do, who wrote Luke/Acts? Can we agree that the authorship is unknown?

The chief source for our knowledge of the primitive church is the anonymous treatise known as the Acts of the Apostles, which now stand s in the NTY as an appropriate link between the preceding four Gospels and the following 21 letters. Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author. According to early tradition this was Luke, a physician and companion of the apostle Paul (Col. 4:14, II Tim. 4:11; Philemon. 24). From the way in which Paul mentions Luke, seeming to differentiate him from those who are Jewish background (Col. 4:11 compared to verses 12-14), it appears that Luke is of Gentile birth. If so, he is the only known Gentile whose writings are included in the Bible. According to a tradition preserved in a second-century prologue to the third Gospel, Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, who became a Christian convert in mid-life after the church had been established at Antioch.

Bruce Metzger, The New Testament its background, growth and content,

170.

According to Church tradition seems to be the answer based on the quote above. Is that right?

[_richardMdBorn]

I'll have to spend more time on this question, but before I do, who wrote Luke/Acts? Can we agree that the authorship is unknown?

The chief source for our knowledge of the primitive church is the anonymous treatise known as the Acts of the Apostles, which now stand s in the NTY as an appropriate link between the preceding four Gospels and the following 21 letters. Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author. According to early tradition this was Luke, a physician and companion of the apostle Paul (Col. 4:14, II Tim. 4:11; Philemon. 24). From the way in which Paul mentions Luke, seeming to differentiate him from those who are Jewish background (Col. 4:11 compared to verses 12-14), it appears that Luke is of Gentile birth. If so, he is the only known Gentile whose writings are included in the Bible. According to a tradition preserved in a second-century prologue to the third Gospel, Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, who became a Christian convert in mid-life after the church had been established at Antioch.

Bruce Metzger, The New Testament its background, growth and content,

170.

According to Church tradition seems to be the answer based on the quote above. Is that right?

No, the church tradition applies only to the statement, "Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, who became a Christian convert in mid-life after the church had been established at Antioch." The rest is based on the New Testament.

[_GoodK]

I'll have to spend more time on this question, but before I do, who wrote Luke/Acts? Can we agree that the authorship is unknown?

The chief source for our knowledge of the primitive church is the anonymous treatise known as the Acts of the Apostles, which now stand s in the NTY as an appropriate link between the preceding four Gospels and the following 21 letters. Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author. According to early tradition this was Luke, a physician and companion of the apostle Paul (Col. 4:14, II Tim. 4:11; Philemon. 24). From the way in which Paul mentions Luke, seeming to differentiate him from those who are Jewish background (Col. 4:11 compared to verses 12-14), it appears that Luke is of Gentile birth. If so, he is the only known Gentile whose writings are included in the Bible. According to a tradition preserved in a second-century prologue to the third Gospel, Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, who became a Christian convert in mid-life after the church had been established at Antioch.

Bruce Metzger, The New Testament its background, growth and content,

170.

According to Church tradition seems to be the answer based on the quote above. Is that right?

No, the church tradition applies only to the statement, "Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, who became a Christian convert in mid-life after the church had been established at Antioch." The rest is based on the New Testament.

Ok so there is no external source that tells us who the author is? Then why would someone who doesn't trust the Bible believe Luke is the author of Luke and Acts?

[_richardMdBorn]

Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author.

The internal structure of the two books points strongly to the same author. The style and vocabulary are similar; they start the same way, and Acts 1:1 refers to his former book. I don't think any general belief in the Bible is needed in order to conclude that the two books were written by the same person.

[_GoodK]

Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author.

The internal structure of the two books points strongly to the same author. The style and vocabulary are similar; they start the same way, and Acts 1:1 refers to his former book. I don't think any general belief in the Bible is needed in order to conclude that the two books were written by the same person.

Fair enough. But who is to say it was Luke? The same person could be someone completely different, and unknown.

[_richardMdBorn]

Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author.

The internal structure of the two books points strongly to the same author. The style and vocabulary are similar; they start the same way, and Acts 1:1 refers to his former book. I don't think any general belief in the Bible is needed in order to conclude that the two books were written by the same person.

Fair enough. But who is to say it was Luke? The same person could be someone completely different, and unknown.

Acts changes from the third to the first person in Acts 16:10. The we passages include Paul's two year imprisonment at Rome (Acts 28). During this time Paul wrote Philemon and Colossians, and in both these books, he sends greetings from Luke. As I wrote earlier, it reminds me of the joke that Shakespeare didn't write the plays but another guy by the same name did.

[_GoodK]

Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author.

The internal structure of the two books points strongly to the same author. The style and vocabulary are similar; they start the same way, and Acts 1:1 refers to his former book. I don't think any general belief in the Bible is needed in order to conclude that the two books were written by the same person.

Fair enough. But who is to say it was Luke? The same person could be someone completely different, and unknown.

Acts changes from the third to the first person in Acts 16:10. The we passages include Paul's two year imprisonment at Rome (Acts 28). During this time Paul wrote Philemon and Colossians, and in both these books, he sends greetings from Luke. As I wrote earlier, it reminds me of the joke that Shakespeare didn't write the plays but another guy by the same name did.

The Bible is not just another piece of literature. It is a body of texts that make outlandish truth claims and attempts to dictate important aspects of human life. If Shakespeare had demanded 10% of my income, or told me gay sex was evil, I would certainly question his authority. For that reason, I remain much more skeptical in regards to the Bible than other pieces of ancient literature. And I continue to question the authority of the writers of the Gospels. But it is hard to do so if we don't even know who wrote them. It could have been some scribe, under orders from a pious authoritarian.

[_richardMdBorn]

Because it is dedicated to Theophilus, the same person to which the Gospel of Luke is addressed (Acts 1:1; Lk 1:1-4), and because the style and vocabulary of both books are strikingly similar, it is generally held that the two were written by the same author.

The internal structure of the two books points strongly to the same author. The style and vocabulary are similar; they start the same way, and Acts 1:1 refers to his former book. I don't think any general belief in the Bible is needed in order to conclude that the two books were written by the same person.

Fair enough. But who is to say it was Luke? The same person could be someone completely different, and unknown.

Acts changes from the third to the first person in Acts 16:10. The we passages include Paul's two year imprisonment at Rome (Acts 28). During this time Paul wrote Philemon and Colossians, and in both these books, he sends greetings from Luke. As I wrote earlier, it reminds me of the joke that Shakespeare didn't write the plays but another guy by the same name did.

The Bible is not just another piece of literature. It is a body of texts that make outlandish truth claims and attempts to dictate important aspects of human life. If Shakespeare had demanded 10% of my income, or told me gay sex was evil, I would certainly question his authority. For that reason, I remain much more skeptical in regards to the Bible than other pieces of ancient literature. And I continue to question the authority of the writers of the Gospels. But it is hard to do so if we don't even know who wrote them. It could have been some scribe, under orders from a pious authoritarian.

Your argument here does not seem valid. The question of who wrote Luke/Acts is a literary and historical one. The evidence seems overwhelming that Paul's companion Luke did it. The author knew a lot about the history of the time (see Ramsey). Even if one accepts Hume dictum that, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the claim that Luke wrote the book is not an extraordinary one. This reminds me of Bruce Metzger's comment to me that John Dominic Crossan was at the outer end of skepticism. As C.S. Lewis wrote in his paper, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism":

I do not wish to reduce the skeptical element in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and the Creeds. Try doubting something else.

C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, 164.

[_GoodK]

Your argument here does not seem valid.

Ok. Let me try to improve it.

The question of who wrote Luke/Acts is a literary and historical one. The evidence seems overwhelming that Paul's companion Luke did it.

I don't see overwhelmind evidence. I see assumptions, opinions, tradition, analysis -- but not overwhelming evidence.

The author knew a lot about the history of the time (see Ramsey).

Doesn't mean the author was Luke.

Even if one accepts Hume dictum that, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the claim that Luke wrote the book is not an extraordinary one

.

You are right. It is not. But the contents of the books Luke wrote do make extraordinary claims, but we do not have any evidence to support these claims. We don't even know for sure who wrote it.

This reminds me of Bruce Metzger's comment to me that John Dominic Crossan was at the outer end of skepticism. As C.S. Lewis wrote in his paper, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism":

I do not wish to reduce the skeptical element in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and the Creeds. Try doubting something else.

C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, 164.

My previous post was intended to convey my level of skepticism in regards to the Bible. I really do care if the Bible and Book of Mormon are true. I really do want to know if God had his hand in the creation of these texts. I don't care about Shakespeare enough to worry if he was the real author of his work. If I did, though, I'm sure I could find out. And if I couldn't, I wouldn't bet my life he did. See what I mean?