-Jay-

I like the way Amaleq13 paints the picture. The disconnects in the way Paul and his teachings are portrayed between the letters attributed to him and in Acts is suggestive that the writer of GLuke/Acts didn't know Paul well. It's not definitive either way, but I think on balance the case is stronger for them not knowing each other.

I tend to think the author of Luke collected accounts of people who at least claimed to be eyewitnesses rather than making things up out of thin air (in addition to cribbing a lot of GMark), but that still leaves you with someone reporting hearsay decades after the relevant events. You couldn't convict anyone based on the strength of the testimony in GLuke and Acts.

regards,

NinJay

chrisengland

Hello
Ameleq13are you saying that Luke obtained accounts written by companions of Paul and copied them thats why it says "we" that he ddisn't actually meet Paul or any of his companions?
Also are you sugesting that Acts and Paul letters seem to contridict on certain points and events so that why you don't think they met?

Toto

The wikipedia article quotes two Christians who say that opinion is divided. In addition, if you look at the sources for that wiki article, you will note a lot of conservative Christian sources and hardly any liberal Christians or non-Christians.

If you read more recent scholarship, it appears that the canonical gospel of Luke can be dated to the second century, certainly after Josephus wrote since Luke used Josephus as a source, and probably after Marcion preached, since there appear to be sections added to counter Marcion's theology. This would make it virtually impossible for the final author of canonical Luke to have been a companion of Paul, unless this person accompanied Paul as a teen ager and wrote the gospel as a very old man, after forgetting a lot of what Paul preached.

Vernon Robbins wrote an early article suggesting that the use of "we" was meant to add excitement and interest to Acts, and not as an indication that the author was present. He makes an interesting case that it was a literary convention; not everyone agrees. But even if it was not an established literary convention, there is no clear indication that the author of the piece was present. There is no one who identifies himself in the first person - no 'I' who claims the authority of personal observation, as you might expect if this were testimony.

It is possible of course that the final author of Luke incorporated some passages written by a companion of Paul, (or some passages written about a sea voyage of some sort, even if it had nothing to do with Paul). But it seems unlikely that this would have been done without identifying the companion of Paul who reported this, just for the sake of adding to the authority of the work.

The use of "we" relates to sea voyages and related travel. No one thinks that it is just an orthographic mistake - the "we" passages differ from the rest of Acts in tone and style, and center around sea voyages even if they are not always at sea.

I think the rest of your questions have been answered above.

Amaleq13

I'm saying that would be consistent with both the notion that the author didn't know Paul and the opening sentences of the Gospel. I'm also saying I know of no evidence that might lift this theory beyond merely consistent.

I'm saying that the known discrepancies call into question whether they knew each other. That they never were companions isn't the only viable explanation. Perhaps the author of Luke never fully agree with his companion despite hanging around with him. Perhaps Paul's letters have been so worked over by editors that Acts is actually the more accurate depiction. Perhaps the thinking of the author of Luke changed over time and he convinced himself that Paul would have agreed.

I don't think we have enough information to do more than guess.

Ben C Smith

I wonder whether the differences between Luke and Paul are any greater than the differences between, say, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Ben.

Tigers!

Just because it is heresay does not automaticallty mean that it is wrong. If that is true (i.e. assuming hearsay means unreliable or wrong) then a lot of our history just vapourises into nothing.

Amaleq13

I don't think we have any writings by Socrates but Plato claims to be recreating his teachings. It is my understanding that what is genuinely Socrates and what is Plato is not entirely clear.

It is also my understanding that Aristotle is known to have disagreed with Plato on several points (parallel to one of the possibilities I suggested earlier) but I'm not aware of the former depicting Plato in a way that is inconsistent with anything Plato says about himself.

Minimalist

Correct. Unless there are corroborating accounts or artifacts which can be compared/tested. As Napoleon said, "history is a lie, agreed upon."

Steven Carr

The author of Luke and of Acts certainly seems to have been familiar with Paul's letters.

For all I know, the author may have met Paul, but how old was he when that happened?

There is no way of knowing. He may have been just a child.

I do find it remarkable that the 'we' passage of the sea-journey in Acts uses so many poetic terms, also found in Homer.

A bit like coming across a description of a sea-voyage that appears to use vocabuary from 'The Rime of the Anicent Mariner'

Neil Godfrey has a good article http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/04/...ccount-part-2/

An example :-

3. Acts 27:41 “they ran the ship aground” = EPEKEILAN THN NAUN

This is a distinctively poetic (Homeric) phrase.

This is the only time in the New Testament “NAUS” is used for a “ship”. Everywhere else the author of Luke-Acts uses PLOIA (Lk.5.3, 7, 11; 8.22, 37; Acts20.13, 38; 21.2, 3, 6).

Another word used nowhere else in the NT (nor even in the LXX) is EPIKELLEIN = “to ground”. “In fact, EPIKELLEIN and [its uncompounded form] KELLEIN are poetic forms; prose prefers EPOKELLEIN or OKELLEIN.”

youngalexander

I have a great appreciation for your work Boro, but I think that this was not appropriate for a newbie.:frown:

If this was RnR I'd have to give you a big -ve.