Toto

Scientists think body might be St. Luke

This article might be of interest to the readers of this forum, as it relates the use of science to aid history.

It is also of interest to compare the title and the first paragraph:

wiht the actual conclusion, which is that the body cannot be ruled out to be the body of St Luke or some other resident of "Antioch, on the eastern Mediterranean, where Luke is said to have been born. . . who died between 72 A.D. and 416 A.D." (Wow, that really narrows it down.)

Bill

Another interesting paragraph is this one: This means that "Luke" was alleged to have been born in about 66 CE, and thus could not have been an actual companion of St. Paul, unless Paul lived to at least 80 CE himself (when "Luke" would have been about 14). Anyway, I see this as a virtual admission that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts date from after 80 CE.

== Bill

Bede

Bill, that 150AD date is worthless as you well know. It certainly doesn't overturn the clear statements in Acts that the writer travelled with Paul. If you can pick on unsubstantiated early church traditions that reinforce your prejudices, can I to?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Of course. The writer said he traveled with Paul, so it must be true.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Toto:
wiht the actual conclusion, which is that the body cannot be ruled out to be the body of St Luke or some other resident of "Antioch, on the eastern Mediterranean, where Luke is said to have been born. . . who died between 72 A.D. and 416 A.D." (Wow, that really narrows it down.)

ROTFLMAO. Do we have a DNA sample from Saint Luke to compare it with?

What if Luke was a woman.....

Michael