chrisengland

Hello

This thread is regarding a previous thread I did called was Luke reporting eye witness accounts.
In that post I was trying to find out whether Luke knew Paul.
This thread is not for that because I,m doing my own research into that.
This thread is to ask whether it really matters anyway.
Now first of all I need to get one thing straight' out of the scholars who think Luke did know Paul' am I right that there are some who think Luke was the physician Luke and some who thought it was somebody else 'an occational companion of Luke but not the physician Luke?

Now the reason I thought it was important whether Luke knew Paul or not is because if Luke knew Paul then I thought that Luke would not have write The acts of the Apostles if he thought Paul beleived in a different version of events because why would he write what happened to the apostles if he didn't think they were reporting what actually happened?
Now we don't know exactly what Paul thought the diciples expearience was but The Gospel of Luke deffinately says it was a in the flesh appearience' not a spiritual one' that they touch him and he eats something but if Luke knew Paul who apparently met eye witnesses then it would make sence that if Paul thought the diciples expeariences were like his' a flash of ligh a voice ect which can be explained naturally much easier 'then Luke wouldn't have write that it was a in the flesh expeirience like in The Gospel of Luke.

So does it matter whether he knew him or not or even if he did know him might he still have written it was a in the flesh expearience even if he knew Paul who apparently met eye witnesses didn't say it was?

Thankyou
Chris

Toto

Hi Chris

I don't know of any who pick the latter option, although I do recall that someone examined Luke-Acts and decided that a physician would not have written it. Most scholars reject the idea that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul; if they accept the idea that a companion of Paul wrote Luke-Acts, Luke is as good a choice as any.

Egad, man, please look at that sentence. You need to edit your stuff, or get someone else to.

Why would the author of Luke-Acts write something that he didn't think happened? Many reasons. He might have been writing inspirational literature, meant to uplift and instruct, rather than straight history.

See above, as to both points.

Generally, the scholars who claim that the author of Luke was Paul's companion are trying to establish some historical value to the Book of Acts and the history of the early church.. Everyone except fundamentalists and evangelicals treats the descriptions in Luke as either legendary or literary, since neither Paul nor Luke were there.

So, in that sense, it doesn't matter.

chrisengland

Hello
Toto I'm asuming you edited the title so thank you for that it does look better.
Anyway before I start Would like to let you know that I have not been to university(or colledge in America)' I have my school education and an apprenticeship.
I do not have the aducation alot of you have on here so I do apologise if what I right is not as good as what else is on here and that it contains spelling mistakes and gramatical errors' but I am doing the best I can and it is difficult to do research when you are not use ot it.

Anyway' I read that some schoalrs had doughts that Luke was a physician because his medicle knowledge didn't seem that good' so I thought that some thought he knew Luke but wasn't a physician.

From an article I read on wikipedia' schoalrs are about evenly divided on whether Luke knew Paul or not. Now I havn't go through all the sources so it may be biased' but people on here are biased so if they say that most scholars don't think Luke knew Paul if they could show me some evidence of that I would be very grateful just so I know.


Again from what I,ve read from wikipedia most schoalars think that Acts was written as history not as a novel or something else' how much of it they think is accurate I don't know?


You said Luke or or Paul wasn't there but doesn't Acts and Pauls letters say he met eye witnesses and so Luke would have had a accurate description of what happened.
If he did I assume your suggesting he added bits on to it to tell the story better or something' do you have much schoalry support for that?
Chris

Toto

wikipedia has a large contingent of Christian apologists who try to get their point accross. Anything in wikipedia that is at all contentious has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Liberal scholarship is at odds with conservative scholarship on the issue of whether Acts is history or a novel. You can see a sampling of opinions on the pbs site: Frontline: Luke-Acts

chrisengland

Ok thankyou
I'll have a look and get back to you

chrisengland

Right I had a quick look at that.
I,ll go more into details tomarrow because its late where I am.
One thing though I wondered is do you have any evidence that most liberal scholars think that Luke didn't know Paul?
Also do most liberal Christian scholars think the resurrection happened or do they think its metaphoric or something?

yalla

And you may wish to check out these old threads.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...luke+acts+paul

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...luke+acts+paul

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ul#post1183914

chrisengland

Hello
I see what people are suggesting' that Acta was a novel
I thought though that that was not beleived by most scholars' and I didn't get that from wikipedia somebody on here said that I thought.