jackal5096

I visit this forum only sporatically, so, while I did a search and didn't find anything on this topic, I apologize if it has been discussed and would appreciate a link to such thread.

Assuming for this question that Jesus was not historical, and that Paul's concept of Jesus was only mystical, on some "sub-lunar" plane, or whatever, my question concerns Luke.

The author of Acts and the author of the Gospel according to Luke are both attributed to the same author, whom I will call, surprisingly, Luke.

From Acts, Luke was apparently a close companion of Paul and accompanied him on most of his missions and travels. From that, I would assume Luke was rather familiar with Paul's theology and beliefs.

If Paul's Jesus was only mystical, why then would Luke write his Gospel, if he would have known it wasn't true, that Jesus didn't walk around Galilee and Jerusalem, speaking parables, performing miracles, nor was crucified by Pilate.

But, on the other hand, if Jesus in the gospels was remotely accurate, why did Luke have to rely on what he read from GMark, Q, and possibly GMatt for his account of Jesus, and acknowledge narratives by others from the word handed down. Why not use what Paul learned directly from the other apostles?

Any thoughts are appreciated

Toto

IIRC it was Iranaeus who identified the author of the 3rd gospel and Acts as Luke, by finding the name of a person in Paul's letters who appeared to have been with him when Acts adopts the 1st person plural and starts talking about "we."

Otherwise there is no evidence that gLuke-Acts were written by a companion of Paul, much less "Luke." Acts was written to solidify the idea that there was a real human Jesus who passed on his authority to identifiable persons, and that these disciples and Paul were united in one happy church family, with no disputes over doctrine. Obvious fiction.

John Kesler

Why do you think that using Mark as a source is incongruous with using Paul as a source, since the NT claims that Mark was an associate of Luke and Paul?

Positing that the Mark spoken of is the author of the second gospel makes no more assumptions than those inherent in your question regarding the identity of Luke.

Doug Shaver

You're assuming that Acts is a work of history. I believe it is fiction.

BALDUCCI

It would have been perfectly possible for the author of Gospel Luke to draw on oral tradition, circulating stories, and other texts, even if he was Paul's companion (which as other posters have said, is unlikely). It is equally unlikely that Paul knew very much about the historical Jesus at all, and doesnt show much intimacy with the facts of his life. Paul was clearly, to me, manufacturing a gentile faith using aspects of the Jesus tradition as well as numerous other sources, selected to ensure that aspects of his story would be familiar and acceptable to those he aimed to convert. In other words, I see Paul as a first century Madison Avenue opportunist, not a serious theologian. Damn clever, very successful, but really not authentic

jackal5096

Well, it is clearly a narrative of Paul's journeys, including visits to places where other sources confirm Paul established new communities. Is there any evidence, internal or external, that it is fiction?

jackal5096

I would think that the frequent use of the first-person plural was in itself sufficient to show that the narrator was positing himself as a companion. Is there any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that the narrative is either fiction or non-fiction?


How is it obvious? While I agree that Acts tends to white-wash the disputes between Paul and the Jerusalem church, as compared to Paul's letters, Paul doesn't seem uncomfortable in his apostolic authority, even on the basis of a revealed, spiritual Jesus. Paul doesn't appear to need a corporeal Jesus crucified under Pilate. Why then would Luke? (And by "Luke" I simply mean the author of GLuke - Acts.) If Luke were a companion during Paul's journeys, and knew of Paul's theology, was there some grand conspiracy after Paul's death to portray Jesus as a real living person that people like Luke would know was false?

jackal5096

I agree with all that you say about Paul, as well as the possibility of Luke relying on circulating stories (which GLuke references at the start). The nexus of the issue appears then to be whether Luke was a companion of Paul. Assuming that the authors of GLuke and Acts are the same, if Luke were not a companion, then Acts is fiction. Is there any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence of that, or is that just an assumption to maintain the MJ theory? On the other hand, if Luke were a companion and the narratives of Paul's journeys are historical, then Luke knowingly wrote GLuke as fiction, and apparently lied in his opening statement to Theophilus.

jackal5096

[QUOTE=John Kesler;4675119]
I was not assuming the author of Acts and GLuke (hereinafter, "Luke") nor the author of GMark (hereinafter, "Mark") were necessarily the same Mark or Luke mentioned in Acts or Paul's letters, respectively. The intrinsic evidence in Mark suggests that its author wasn't familiar with Palestine (which I know has been covered in other discussions), thus eliminating John Mark I stated that Luke was a companion of Paul based on the narrator's use of the first-person plural in Acts. Such a companion would have been familiar with Paul's theology and knowledge of a historical Jesus. Assuming arguendo that Paul knew of a historical Jesus, why would Luke have to rely so closely on Mark and Q, and not use what he would have from Paul's teaching of Jesus. The GMatt in fact shows a tighter correspondence than Luke's between Paul's teachings in his letters and Jesus's dialogues in that gospel.


As I said, the only assumptions I made of Luke's identity was from the intrinsic evidence that he was the author of both GLuke and Acts, and, because of the use of the first-person plural in Acts, that the author/narrator of Acts was a companion of Paul. I did not assume that companionship from any extrinsic evidence from Paul's letters. From the GMark, there is no intrinsic evidence that the author was John Mark or otherwise a companion of either Paul, the author of GLuke/Acts, or of Dr. Luke mentioned in Paul's letter.

John Kesler

Luke's gospel is pretty comprehensive--from the days before Jesus' birth until the ascension--so I'm curious what you think Paul would have added (assuming that he didn't) that Luke didn't get from other sources. Also, even if Luke was a companion of Paul, this doesn't mean that Luke was obligated to agree with Paul. As Luke says in his prologue, he "investigat[ed] everything carefully," and in so doing may have preferred other sources to Paul.