Adam

Semitic author of Luke:
(Primarily drawing upon James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2009)
Though the prologue of Luke 1:1-4 is in such classic Greek that the author is assumed to be a gentile and why not as Luke who seems present in Acts 16-28, there is really little other indication than these verses and chapters to assume so. Semitisms throughout Luke show that the final editor employed lots of Semitisms. The Infancy narratives have long been thought highly Hebraic (even if only stilted Septuagintualisms, p. 141), but Edwards has shown this actually applies to all Special Luke (L) in his superlative Appendix II, 294-332. At first glance this comes from Edwards’ thesis that L is actually a Hebraic source known in antiquity as the Gospel According to the Hebrews. However, he overplays his hand by discovering that such Semitisms are spread throughout Luke in very many places as editorial introductions to pericopes from Markan sources as well. (In my own system the main sources are Ur-Marcus and Q-Twelve-Source, but not helping my case by being split between these two.) So the main Editor of Luke contributed his own L (or translation thereof) and mixed in his own Semitisms when he incorporated the already non-Semitic Greek versions of Mark and Q. It would thus seem that the name Luke attributed to the gospel may have been just a reputable associate who ghost-wrote elaborate Greek for the Prologue for the also-unnamed true editor. Yet I hate to suggest my preferred L Aramaic author Simon as this true editor, both because I can’t expect he would know Greek well and because he would have been too well known to be so easily forgotten.

That what Edwards calls “hyper-Semitic verses” are spread throughout Luke is shown in the following list from P. 145 with text from the New Jerusalem Bible:
“Appendix II shows 19 bold [L] verses, some with as many as a half-dozen Semitisms or more. Note 78:”

1:5
In the days of King Herod of Judaea there lived a priest called Zechariah who belonged to the Abijah section of the priesthood, and he had a wife, Eiizabeth by name, who was a descendant of Aaron.
2:25
Now in Jerusalem there was a man named Simeon. He was an upright and devout man; he looked forward to the restoration of Israel and the Holy Spirit rested on him.
4:16 Proto-Luke (characterizations of source per my system, just to show that all strata are represented except for Q that lacks pericopes—or already incorporated in the Triple Tradition, thus Twelve-Source by my system)
He came to Nazara, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day as he usually did.
5:1 Proto-Luke
Now it happened that he was standing one day by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the crowd pressing round him listening to the sword of God
5:12a Twelve-Source
Now it happened that Jesus was in one of the towns when suddenly a man appeared, covered with a skin-disease
5:17 Twelve (insertion)
Now it happened that he was teaching one day, and Pharisees and teachers of the Law, who had come from every village in Galilee, from Judaea and from Jerusalem, were sitting there
8:1 Proto-Luke
Now it happened that after this he made his way through towns and villages preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom
8:22 Twelve-Source
It happened that one day he got into a boat with his disciples and said to them, “Let us cross over to the other side of the lake.
9:18 Petrine
Now it happened that he was praying alone, and his disciples came to him and he put this question to them,
9:28 Petrine
Now about eight days after this had been said, he took with him Peter, John and James and went up the mountain to pray. And it happened that, as he was praying
9:51 Proto-Luke
Now it happened that as the time drew near for him to be taken up, he resolutely turned his face towards Jerusalem and sent messengers ahead of him
11:27 Twelve-Source
It happened that as he was speaking, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said,
13:10 Proto-Luke
One Sabbath day he was teaching in one of the synagogues,
14:1 Proto-Luke
Now it happened that on a Sabbath day he had gone to share a meal in the home of one of the leading Pharisees, and they watched him closely.
17:11 Proto-Luke
Now it happened that on the way to Jerusalem he was travelling in the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee.
21:34 Twelve-Source
Watch yourselves, or your hearts will be coarsened by debauchery and drunkenness and the cares of life
23:27 Proto-Luke
Large numbers of people followed him, and women too, who mourned and lamented for him.
24:13 Proto-Luke
Now that very same day, two of them were on their way to a village called Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem

So the question is, whether so many Semitisms in key editing in Luke would have been done by a Greek speaker, when such Semitisms are not present elsewhere in text shared with Mark and Matthew. The main author of Luke must have been Jewish.

Chili

It baffles me beyond words that anybody would ever think that Luke was written by somebody other than a Jew, who, obviously had experienced the same thing himself, and so was a Christ when he wrote it. In fact, all four gospels were written by such a Jew, including Mark to have this same insight behind it, and therefore John's 'camelhair' coat means 'heads-up', there is a tragedy coming your way.'

James The Least

Yes. Luke read the Septuagint and Josephus and copied them. That is why there are Semitisms in Luke. The author was not ethnically Jewish.

James The Least

These clowns pull the same type of "analysis" of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. "Gosh, look at all the Semitisms, even though it's written in Greek it must be a Jewish author from before the common era." When you look at it closely, you discover that all of the "Semitisms" come from the Septuagint.

It's like saying that since a lot of Buddhist words appear in the works of Jack Kerouac, he must have been an Asian writer.

TedM

The verses given in the OP do not seem to have come from either the Septuagint or Josephus though. How do you explain that?

Chili

But if the author was ethnically Greek and was emergent from Greek tradition itself whould he not drag Peter and Mary to Athens instead of Rome? Surely, the story is not about a Greek messiah was it?

arnoldo

Or, the main author of Luke may've drawn upon the same source which found it's way into the gJohn. Paul Anderson calls this possibility a " Bi-Optic Hypothesis" in the following essay.

Adam

Most excellent points from Paul Anderson, Arnoldo.
The last point in #12 of your Post #7 defies chronological sequence and assumes (against my interpretation) that the Simon of Luke 24:34 is Peter, not some other Simon (namely the Bishop of Jerusalem after 62 CE).
In #5 Luke 24:12 is missing in the Western text (and even it has Semitisms), indicating that it was a late addition by the author who by this point had seen the Gospel of John and included even details from a late edition (per Teeple) of John.

The multi-verse passages cited in Luke tend to be not just unique among the Synoptics, but high is Semitisms. This indicates the same main final editor as my OP. Thus the many accounts cited in the Prologue seem to include John at some stage as well, but unlike the others never copied at length (except possibly the Feeding of the 5000). This fits F. Lamar Cribbs' thesis that Luke used John, that John was very early.

As an exception, many of the small agreements are in the Passion Narrative, which should be recognized as a source largely copied by all four gospels. Some details remained in the final Luke and John that got omitted in Mark (and hence Matthew), yet are clearly referenced (Luke 23:2, John 19:12 compare Mark 15;2-3). In this case the multiple re-workings (translation from Aramaic to Greek, etc.) removed all Semitisms from Luke.

I'm not fighting Anderson here. I'm just saying I don't see evidence here of a Greek-speaker adding details or substance.

outhouse

There were written and oral traditions from varied sources early. These works are known compilations.

None of which can or would back a Semetic author of Luke

Chili

You mean "Bi-Optic" instead of "synoptic", wherein Luke and John are a pair opposite to which Matthew and Mark are the other pair.

The most obvious here is that Matthew and Mark's Jesus died while they were abandonned by God: cf, "my God, my God, why did you do this to me" in both Matthew and Mark as compared with "Father, let's do it together from now on" and therefore "It is finished" in [material] John.

Then of course the tragedy is presented where in Matthew and Mark Jesus goes back to Galilee again to show that Galilee is actually where the Great Commssion takes place without end (and will obviously die there nonetheless).

Opposite this in Luke and John a 'post resurrection' appearance is real with Ascension to follow and the Great Commission is not ordered for sure.

Then if you take this "Bi-Optic" point of view the apparent contradictions between these bi-optics are converted to compliments instead, and that for example would explain why 'camelhair coat John chasing wild hoppers in the dessert as spiritual food, is not quite the same as Beth-le-hem being the source of wisdom inside the [inner] city of God that they called Nazareth, where, obviously mother theotokos was from.

Most comical here is that in Mark (after Jesus became famous in Galilee) the first thing he did was heal Simon's mother-law so that 'doubt' is restored [in opposite to faith] who after that immediately began to wait on him/them from that moment on. The 'him/them' distinction here points at his own insights as disciples/ousia's in force. In essence this this is where he already 'undid' the favor granted to him in Mark 1:11.

Notice also that Mark's Jesus went to the syngogue in his home-town to teach (Capernaum is native to him), and spoke with authority there, "and not like the scribes," to say that he was empowered for sure. He then validates faith and after that restores doubt in that mother-in-law thing.

Opposite this in Luke Jesus did arrive in Capernaum one day to point only at faith and not religion per se, and that image is demonstrated later in John by the temple ruckuss that took place from the precinct only, please note, to never set foot in there again.