Everyone says that the Gospel of Luke was written by … Luke! Do we know if that’s true? Whether Luke or not, do we know when he wrote it? And why did he want/need to do so? Now that I’ve summarized the major themes and emphases of the Gospel we can delve into these equally interesting and important historical questions.
For as long as anyone has named an author of this Gospel, it has been Luke, a gentile traveling companion of Paul thought to be a medical doctor. I’ll continue calling him “Luke” for the sake of convenience, even though I don’t think we can know who he was.
Years ago on the blog (in January 2020) I devoted a series of posts to the question: Was Luke Luke (so to say)? There are a lot of issues to consider, including seemingly unrelated things, such as whether Paul actually wrote Colossians (!). The series ended with my wrap-up overview posted on January 19: So: Was Luke Luke?, in case you’re interested in digging deeper. I obviously can’t cover the entire waterfront here in this one post, but I can hit the key points.
Professor Ehrman, when you say “His Greek is among the best in the New Testament.” What exactly does that mean?
It means that Charles Dickens could write English a heckuva lot better than my average undergraduate student. In the NT, some authors are more stylistically proficient than others. The author of Revelatoin is pretty dreadful — he makes actual grammatical *mistakes*. The authors of Luke / Acts and Hebrews are two of the best stylists.disabledupes{ca3043828dd7d8851460497677dcdedc}disabledupes
Is there anything to the idea that Revelation was originally a Hebrew apocalypse that was taken and turned into a Christian one, and poorly translated into Greek?
Nope, I don’t think so. Linguists have analyzed it and have generally concluded that there’s no evidence to suggest that it was a Hebrew composition orgiinally. The guy just couldn’t write in Greek. And whoever wrote it is definitely a Christian — though a hundred years ago some authors claimed otherwise (D. H. Lawrence bought into that view!)
BDEhrman writes: “It means that Charles Dickens could write English a heckuva lot better than my average undergraduate student.”
I share your admiration for Dickens, but I have to point out that he had little education. He apparently had several years of what we would call Grade School, but, before there were child labor laws, at the age of 12 he was working 10 hours a day gluing labels on bottles. He later had a few years of what might be our Middle School, but, beyond that, he seems to have been basically self-taught.
This brings up another question: Dickens didn’t just start writing novels, rather he started as a clerk, then a reporter, then a journalist, then a short story writer, and finally a novelist. It seems unlikely that the four Gospels were the first, last, and only literary works of their respective authors. Has any effort been made to identify other works by any of these authors? And not necessarily religious works?
BDEhrman writes: “In the NT, some authors are more stylistically proficient than others.”
But eloquence does not necessarily imply education. Not really a point, but have you read the Egyptian story of The Eloquent Peasant?
Oh, yes, I know. Since I was about 15 Dickens has been my favorite author, and I’ve read a bunch o bibliogrpahies. Amazing fellow. BUT, he was living in a literate age, unlike the time of the Roman world….
Regreattably the only Christian writings from the time period of the Gospel writers are in the New Testament, and none of the other books (except the book of Acts written by Luke) was written by the other Gospel writers.
And oral eloquence does not necessarily indicate an ability to write eloquently, as weird as that seems. But alas, it’s seen ALL the time.disabledupes{5d612c01e406c2162da3e4e941169f5a}disabledupes
wbhiggins writes: “Professor Ehrman, when you say “His Greek is among the best in the New Testament.” What exactly does that mean?”
I have wondered about this, also. Bart occasionally mentions an author as writing educated Greek, but what formal education was available? And what is educated Greek, and who decides? An Athenian Attic Greek speaker might have said that Ionic and Doric were uneducated Greek, but a Spartan would probably have disagreed with him. And they might both have agreed that Alexandrians spoke uneducated Greek.
Perhaps Bart means an educated speaker would have a large vocabulary, and would use things like compound sentences and the subjunctive mood? Or perhaps he is thinking of an Aramaic speaker who has learned Greek as a second language, and is capable of writing grammatically correct (and probably Alexandrian) Greek? Perhaps Bart could expand on the idea of an educated speaker for us?
Yes, judgments about “good Greek” usually involve the sophistication of the writing, especially the grammar. It’s not an odd concept really. I can tell you, some of my undergraduate students are FAR better at writing English than others. The only Aramaic speaker who left us Greek compositions from the first century, I believe, was Josephus, so there isn’t much competition there.
How can you support your comment that “For Luke’s Jesus, the end is not imminent” in light of Luke 21:32 and Luke 22:69. The former makes it clear that the end was to come before those then living in that generation Jesus called an evil and adulterous one had all died. The latter makes it clear that Jesus had said to those in the Sanhedrin that hereafter they would see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God. (Mark 14:62 clarifies this by adding “and coming on the clouds of heaven”.) To me this speaks of the eschaton (Parousia) being near, at hand, coming soon and imminent as all of Jesus’ disciples believed was the case. Peter, John and James (the Lord’s brother) all made it clear in writings attributed to them that they believed the eschaton was imminent. Paul even believed he would be alive to meet the Lord in the air.
Yes, I agree that Luke is inconsistent in 21:32. On the other side of the equation, he’s inconsistent about a lot of things that he seems to be deeply interested in, such as when Jesus becomes the son of God. (His birth? His baptism? His resurrection? Depends which passage you read) 22:69 is not inconsistent though — it makes my point. He no longer indicates that the high priest will see the cosmic judge appearing from heaven but that from now on the son of man will be enthroned in heaven, a non-apocalyptic claim.
It sounds like you’re not buying Steve Mason’s argument that the author of Luke/Acts knew Josephus. Do you think the commonalities are explained by them both drawing from common material that’s now lost?
Yes, I think the commonalities are too loose to require one to be the source of another. Mason’s arguments (and Pervo’s after him) are smart, interesting, and perceptive, but I don’t find them convincing. But it’s one of the recent bandwagons and maybe it *will* take over the field. Woldn’t affect my views of things much — I certainly don’t have much at stake if we date Luke to the 120s instead of hte 80s…
You write that Didache appears to quote Luke. Did you mean Ignatius? I thought Didache maybe quotes Matthew.
A lot of the quoatatoins early in the Didache can be found in both Matthew and Luke, but sometimes they are worded as found in one but not the other. Did. 1.5 is almost exactly like Luke 6:30 but different (in Greek) from the saying of Matthew 5:32. So I suspect he knows it in the Lukan form.
Does Mark’s suggestion that the High Priest will see the Son of Man’s return imply Mark was written during the High Priest’s lifetime, unlike Luke which assumes his demise?
OT prophetic literature warns Jerusalem’s upcoming destruction will be directly attributed to Israel’s neglect of the needy and oppressed. Might Luke be cautioning the temple leaders about their impending loss of divine favor, as God’s redemptive focus shifts from Jerusalem to the broader Gentile world? This narrative thread is reminiscent of the OT prophetic tradition, where God’s favor often shifted from Israel to the nations. Luke’s emphasis on this development suggests he sees it as a deliberate fulfillment of God’s longstanding “plan.”
You suggest Luke’s account is at odds with Paul’s letters, but it’s notable that Luke aligns with Paul on the key locations and regions where he ministered. Aren’t Minor discrepancies expected from independent sources, which typically exhibit substantial agreement on major points alongside some variation in details?
Considering Luke is dedicated to Theophilus, a prominent patron, wouldn’t it be implausible and potentially perilous for Luke to falsely present himself as a companion of Paul? As patron, wouldn’t Theophilus be familiar with Luke’s background/credentials?
I doubt it. If he really was a person, then he apparently was a Roman administrator who knew very little about Christianity, so that Luke wants to enlgithen him (possibly making his accont apologetic).
I recall you making the argument that Luke-Acts must have been written for a Christian audience, given its considerable length and detailed content, which would likely only appeal to someone within the Christian community who is deeply interested in the life of Jesus and the early church’s history.
Furthermore, Theophilus cannot be entirely disconnected from the early Christian community, as Luke’s preface suggests he was already familiar with earlier accounts.
The fact that Luke wrote two volumes for Theophilus implies an ongoing relationship, making it unlikely that Theophilus was unaware of Luke’s identity.
Additionally, if Luke-Acts was addressed to a high-ranking official eager to learn about Jesus and the church, isnt it reasonable to assume that Theophilus would also be interested in verifying the credibility of his source?
We don’t have much evidence of ancient readers verifying credibility of sources. Almost no evidence, as it turns out. Not like fact-checking today (which regrettably appears to be disappearing). In any event, as you probably know “Theophilus” literally means “beloved of God” or “lover of God.” I think Luke is writing to Xns, the beloved of God, not to a person.
Don’t you think that the preface’s dedication to Theophilus aligns with the conventional practice in ancient manuscripts, where authors would dedicate their works to a specific individual? Given the commonality of the name Theophilus, it’s plausible that Luke is addressing an actual person rather than using the term as a metaphor for Christian believers in general. Is there any evidence to suggest that “Theophilus” was a colloquialism for Christians or “lovers of God” during that time period?
Wouldn’t the honorific title “most excellent” preceding Theophilus’ name imply that Luke is addressing a distinguished individual holding a high-ranking position, rather than a generic reference to Christian believers?
Considering Luke’s meticulous attention to literary style and grammatical precision, it’s reasonable to assume that he intended to dedicate his work to a high-ranking official.
Do you disagree with Joshua Schachterle who considers other theories but concludes on your website
“ The most historically credible reason for why the author of Luke-Acts addresses his two-volume work to Theophilus is that he was the author’s patron”?
Yes, I do think that it is conventional practice. No I don’t think the honorific title requires a historical person. And no, I don’t agree with Joshua on this point. I think I’ve said all this before. 🙂 As you probably know, Luke scholars line up on both sides of this because ultimately it is indeterminable. Two compelling points for me are that in that period, there is no flippin’ way, in my view, that a Christian author could expect a high level Roman official to read to comparatively massive books about Christianity out of interest. We have zero record of any pagan officials showing an interest in learning more about Christianty till… when? The earliest administrators we know of (Nero, Pliny, Tragan, Marcus Aurelius, up to Decius) who know about Xty had no interest at all in learning the truth about it. In the 80’s there would have been, what, 7000-9000 Christians in an empire of 60 million. What would have sparked an interest in learning more? What evidence is there of any interest in learning more? I just don’t see it.
You wrote, “(first time: Acts 16:11). The natural assumption would be that the author at this point joined Paul and the others.”
But the ancients did NOT make that assumption. They seem to have assumed (correctly, I think) that the author was anonymously part of the “they” who travelled to Troas from Antioch. Similarly, they thought that Matthew hid himself within the “they” in his gospel. I doubt that the author of Acts would have said that he interpreted the divine guidance if he had not been part of the group that received it. Also, Acts says that they did not preach in Asia, so it does not seem to be suggesting that the author had become a convert in Troas.
You wrote “it was then assumed that the author … was therefore a gentile.”
Which ancient writer assumed that the author of Acts was a gentile?
The ones who said it was Luke.
Luke 21:32 seems to encompass several event predictions, I think:
• The Kingdom of Heaven could be a polite epithet for the arrival of the high-altitude Nabataeans in the thing with Antipas.
•Then, the Abomination might refer to Caligula’s plan to install a statue of himself in a Zeus style to be worshipped in the temple in 39–40 CE. How would Jesus know of this earlier? Agrippa grew up with the dude, so maybe Jesus has princely info.
• Then, there’s Jesus’ prediction of the fate of the temple. Something that Aretas III first initiated, per Josephus. (The Onias lineage needed to anchor the rights might have left for refuge in Egypt.) It’s Rome that directs this with the contributions of vassals, and at the forefront there is King Malichus.
I don’t think that the author of Luke-Acts necessarily knew Josephus btw, why wouldn’t they both be drawing from Nicolaus of Damascus? He was reputed to write 144 books.
An off topic question, please Dr Ehrman. It’s a rather unusual one, I’m afraid. Can we actually know when the formal ordination of priests and deacons was introduced in the early church and if women were ever ordained as deacons? The reason I ask is that the debate about female ordination in the Catholic Church is a hot topic at the moment and ‘scholars’ on both sides of the argument seem convinced that they know the answers to these questions. Many thanks.
Yes, “we” do but “I” don’t remember! But already Phoebe is mentioned as a woman deacon in Romans 16:1. At that point ordination did not happen for any of the deacons, but htere were clearly women already functioning that way. I can’t recall offhand where discussions of women’s “offices” can be found in the various “Church Orders” beginning with the Apostolic Traditions attributed to Hippolytus (these are books that describe how the church practices, rituals, offices, etc. are to be carried out). Maybe someone else on the blog can remind me and help us! If not, there are roughly 8 million scholars would could. (Paul Bradshaw, Andrew Jacobs, Jennifer Knust, and NEARLY 8 million more)
Question re: Luke’s audience. In your linked post you described Paul’s mission as explicitly for the Gentiles. My understanding is that Paul explains that accepting Christ is, at some level, becoming a Jew as part of the new covenant with God. So how did Luke’s audience – 20-40 years after Paul – think of themselves as related to Jews (Torah-Judeans?)? And did they adopt the culture of the Jews in any manner along with the religion?
Paul insisted that these Gentile converts who were now among the peole of God NOT keep specifically Jewish rituals and customs (most emphatically circumcision). I think Luke’s audience was mainly comprised of folk like that: gentiles who worsihpd the God of Israel and adhered to the laws of relevance to gentiles, but not keeping Kosher, Sabbath, Festivals, or circumcising, etc.
Would the majority of Evangelical Christian theologians claim to have any rational or intellectual justification or basis for asserting the existence of hell if its existence was not (allegedly) asserted in the Bible?
If so, would you briefly characterize it?
I’d say all of them would argue it’s completely rational and that there are good arguments for it based on their theological understandings of God. God is not only loving but also just and requires justice for transgression; and since he is eternal and his creation is eternal, his justice needs to be eternal, and so punishment as well as blessings is eternal.
Thanks. That does answer my question.
But I still wonder, except for such theologians’ understanding of the Bible, would they sill see a need to make rational arguments for the existence of hell?
What if, for example, they came to accept your claim that the historical Jesus taught annihilation rather than hell? But I suppose if they accepted annihilation rather than hell, they’d no longer be “Evangelical” Christian theologians.
I guess my point is that, even if such theologians in fact think that the scriptural argument (on the one hand) and the theological/philosophical argument (on the other hand) are valid independent of one another, would they be interested in making to make the latter argument if they didn’t think the former argument was sound?
My sense is that a number of evangelical theologians and apologists are indeed getting away from the idea of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment, some of them believing in annihilation. You might check out the book Four Views of Hell, where four evangelical theologians discuss their views, and only one believes in eternal conscious torment.
I’d say all of them would argue it’s completely rational and that there are good arguments for it based on their theological understandings of God. God is not only loving but also just and requires justice for transgression; and since he is eternal and his creation is eternal, his justice needs to be eternal, and so punishment as well as blessings is eternal.
So, Dr. Ehrman, do these same theologians have rational grounds for believing that their just and loving God would send a person to hell for not “believing” certain things when the evidence (the four gospels) supposedly telling his poor souls what must believed is so inconsistent, incongruous, disparate, contradictory and irreconcilably different it not only stands stands impeached (discredited) it also reveals it cannot be the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of some Omnipotent, Supreme Being we call God? Thanks for considering this question and answering it.
I guess the problem with defining an argument as “rational” is that it depends on what kind of rationality we are thinking of. Given a certain set of assumptions, fundamentalist theology is entirely internally coherent and argued out on a set of premises that are accepted as foundational. The idea that God is just to send to eternal hell for believing the wrong things seems like nonsense to lots and lots of people; but it’s coherent within the set of fundamentalist premises that theologians in thos circles hold.
Bart, could you clarify how any of the gospel descriptions of Jesus’ life can be considered historical in any way? Considering authorship characteristics, languages used, historical and geographic errors, affiliation with Paul, and comparisons between the gospels, I don’t understand how any of the descriptions can be legitimate daily life activities.
Feel free to punt if this is just too controversial or wide-open a topic.
It’s what my first book for general audiences is all about (called “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium”). I’ve talked about it on the blog a lot. For now, here what I think is probalby the first time (from 13 years ago!): https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-historical-criteria-for-members/
I appreciate the reference and you are correct that you have presented these criteria often. However, so much of independent sources and multiple attestation seems to be based on only two sources that are then used by multiple others: Gospel according to Mark and Paul’s legitimate writings.
Consequently, I am at a loss to cite any stories w/in subsequent documents in the NT that can be interpreted as truly historical. If non-canonical sources are added, then the ‘probability’ of actual historical stories decreases further.
In addition, you have multiple times correctly stated that not having an historical recording of Jesus’ crucifixion is probably due to it being a fairly ordinary event to a non-important person, for most of those contemporaneous people.
All the best.
Rarely does Paul get invoked when it comes to multipole attestation. If you take a look at my book you’ll see how it works. It depends on a previous decisoin involving the sources of hte Gospels.
Rarely does Paul get invoked when it comes to multipole attestation. If you take a look at my book you’ll see how it works. It depends on a previous decisoin involving the sources of hte Gospels.
Eric smith
Dr. Ehrman – Given the high number of references to women and women’s’ concerns in Luke, especially in contrast to the other evangelists, is there any credibility to some scholarly claims that Luke could have been a woman?
Of course it’s technically possible. But I don’t think a concern for women necessarily suggests the author was a woman; Paul, for example, has a large concern for gentiles, but he was not one. When it comes to the identity of an author, when no real information exists, one has to consider probabilities. We don’t have any known women authors for the first 200 years of Christianity. Principally that’s because very few women in the Roman world were trained in literacy, let alone in the higher levels of Greek composition; those who were were almost always women of the very highest echelons of society. Very, very few Christian men or women in the late first century were at that level. So it seems extremely doubtful that the author was a woman.
Hundreds of false gospels and epistles were written by devout followers of Jesus in the early centuries CE. Even the most conservative of modern Christians will agree that these early Christian authors invented their stories out of whole cloth. What was their motivation? Evangelism? Fame? Profit? Whatever it was, it was NOT to record accurate history. So why assume the Evangelists were any different? The first Gospel “sold” a lot of copies. Three other authors saw its success and jumped on the bandwagon. “John” had access to all three Synoptics. “Luke” had access to Matthew and Mark. “Matthew” had access to Mark. And “Mark” invented a Jesus character from Paul’s bare bones Jesus the Christ Story; a real historical person whose true deeds Paul for the most part failed to record. Isn’t that plausible, Dr. E?
I don’t think so. I explain why in my book Did Jesus Exist. (Moreover, I don’t know of scholars who think that any of the apocryphal gospels were invented out of whole cloth; their authors were invariably producing — at least in part — accounts of Jesus based on what they had heard)
Dr Ehrman, there seems to be a debate whether Peter made it to Rome or even started church in Rome. Is there any evidence to either of those questions? What is the opinion of most scholars?
Thanks, RD
I discuss this in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. Check it out! Short story: he certainly did not start the church there. Our earliest evidence of the church is Paul’s letter to it, and there’s no reference to Peter there or indication he had een there (in contrast to Antioch and Corinth), and he certainly wasn’t there when Paul wrote since he greets a couple of dozen people that he knows there and doesn’t mention Peter. Did Peter ever make it to Rome? Possibly, but there’s not good evidence one way or the other. The first connection of Peter with Rome comes in the pseudonymous book of 1 Peter (claiming to be written by Peter but almost certainly by someone claiming to be Peter), who indicates, while claiming to be Peter, to be writing from “Babylon” which became a code-word for Rome among Christians because like the Babylonians in the 6th c. BCE the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. That would suggest that by the end of the first century (when the letter was written) that Peter was thought to habe been in Rome, but that would be decades after his death. The first reference to Peter’s martyrsom comes at the end of the first century in the letter of 1 Clement, around 95 CE and this letter was indeed written from Rome, but the author does not say that that is where he was martyred. We don’t get actual reports of Peter going to Rome until legednary accounts in the second century. So who konws?
Between circa 30 CE and circa 65 CE (35 years) the only written stories about Jesus were found in the epistles of Paul. What did Paul say about the historical Jesus? Almost nothing! Christians ASSUME that oral stories about Jesus’ life and death were circulating at this time in all the churches of the empire. What evidence do they have for this assumption? What if the only stories circulating about Jesus (an insignificant messiah-pretender executed by the Romans) during these decades were those found in Paul’s epistles??? Then the author of Mark writes a “biographical” book about Paul’s Jesus. BAM! It’s a best-seller! Christians finally hear STORIES about their savior! Paul had told them (alleged) facts but only one brief story (the Last Supper).
Now, every author in the empire saw a means to make money! Find a wealthy Christian patron, eager to hear stories about his Lord and Savior. And over the next 100 or so years, HUNDREDS of “gospels” and “epistles” about Jesus the Christ appear out of thin air. Question: Is it plausible that the authors of the canonical gospels had the same primary motivation?
You may want to read my book Jesus Before the Gospels where I deal with what we can say about the stories floating around about Jesus before the Gospels.
Dr. Ehrman: If Luke was using (relying on) Mark’s Gospel when composing his account cannot it rightly be said that he was both a plagiarizer and one who tampered with Mark’s Gospel? First, I believe you will agree Luke did repeat some of Mark’s Gospel verbatim but he did not give him credit. All he wrote was that others had written before him and that he was writing as one who had a “perfect understanding” of all things from the very first. (However, I suppose if Mark did not identify himself as the author of his gospel, it would have been difficult for Luke to have given him more specific credit.) The second issue is this: Luke goes about radically changing Mark’s account of the two un-repentant thieves crucified on either side of Jesus. More specifically, Luke went back to the future and put new words into the mouth of one of these “thieves” in order to transform him into a repentant thief whom Jesus sent to heaven even though Mark had previously made it clear he had died reviling Jesus and I guess was sent to hell. I call this tampering with Mark’s evidence.
I deal with this very issue in my book Forgery and Counterforgery. Plagiarism was indeed a topic of conversation and reproach in the ancient world. If an author took the work of another and claimed it as his own, it was condemned as “theft” (that’s the word used) (well, the Greek or Latin equivalent). The problem with the Gospels is that they are anonymous. Whoever wrote Luke isn’t claiming personal credit for what he gets from Mark because he doesn’t name his person so he, whoever he is, is not getting any credit. Would an anonymous author who takes the wording of another anonymous author be considered “stealing” in the ancient context? Maybe, but I don’t know of any discussions about it.
What was the primary motivation for most people writing books in Antiquity? I will bet the primary motivation was MONEY! That’s how authors made their living! So what was the primary motivation of hundreds of authors writing hundreds of anonymous “gospels” and “epistles” over the first two centuries CE? And why didn’t they use their real names? Answer: Because some of them were liars, plagiarizers, and con artists and the rest were just trying to sell a book…to make a living.
Are we really to believe your claim that all these fraudulent books were written by honest people who sincerely believed they were retelling truths about their savior??
I don’t think so.
Ah, nice guess but, nope. Authors did not make money from their books as a rule in antiquity. That didn’t start happening until the printing press and the development of modern ecoonmies. If you want to see what we know about book writing and forgeries in antiquity, I’d suggest starting with my book Forged and then moving on to Forgery and Counterforgery, where I cite a ton of the ancient evidence and consider allthe possible motivations.
Are we to believe these anonymous authors did their own writing on parchment or papyrus (or else dictated to recording scribes and payed them by the letter for their work) yet this all took place without the hope these authors would make money off of their labors? The paper was not cheap I am sure not to mention the time and labor involved. Could it be they were hoping to start a new religion which involved having these written books we call gospels as the foundation or seed. New books, new religion, new churches and new preachers all add up to money in the plate and what would grow into being this new money-making business called religion, one invented by errant men. Islam had its holy book as did the Mormons and The Christian scientists. The way I see it Christianity was a religion invented by men and these gospels were the key to its creation. But these gospels are so replete with inconsistencies, incongruities, disparities, contradictions and irreconcilable differences they not only stand severely impeached they also reveal they are in no way the handiwork of an Omnipotent, Supreme Being we call God.
Yes, you are definitely to believe that. It’s demonstrably true for the ancient world, not even a matter of debate among experts.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253) identified Lucius of Cyrene as the author of Luke, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_of_Cyrene
I know zero about Origen. I’m just discovering the extent of Alexandria’s involvement in the Jesus movement so I’ll check him out.
Romans 16:21
“Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen
I just came across a Panarion sect that believed Acts was a compromised text or something, maybe like you have discussed interpolation in Acts. This is why I’m dropping the Luke-Acts hyphen (for now). It could account for Lucius and Luke the Physician being conflated in the ‘We’ passages.
Cayce said it was Lucius’ sister Nimmuo of Cyrene that influenced the female empowerment and social equity messages. Have you ever had any interest in debunking Cayce, Dr. Ehrman?
No, not really. Cayce seems to be makin’ stuff up. I believe Origen accepted the traditional attribution of Luke to the gentile-physician who was one of Paul’s companions.
mark has jesus rebuke his disciples for lack of faith or no faith….its followed by miracle, why would mark leave out ressurection APPEARANCES assuming he knew them? None of the other gospel writers including 2nd century christian writers were happy with what the unknown man in the tomb said, they made sure an appearance took place.
One common explanation is because he wants to show that the disciples never did get it.
mark follows his rebuke with miracles.
they never did get it, but they still got some miracle. in the end, mark never has them discovering an empty tomb and seeing a flesh and blood jesus.
peter who is supposed to be marks informant told mark
1. he was identified as satan by jesus because he grew up with the belief that the messiah was never to be killed
2. he lied and denied jesus when his life was in danger
3. the women said nothing to anyone for they were afraid
does it make sense that if 1-3 is information from peter to mark, that peter would leave out the very FOUNDATION which holds marks gospel?
unless mark did not think that the ressurection was the foundation of his gospel?
>One common explanation is because he wants to show that the disciples never did get it.
do you mean that mark was written for non-jewish deciples who were told not to be like the weak faith jewish contemporary followers of jesus ?
there goes the apologist claim that “they were PERSECUTED for their beliefs and even willing to die for them”
I wouldn’t put it quite that way, but yes, I think Mark’s audience was largely gentile Christian and he wants them to understand the truth better than the disciples did during their time with Jesus.
I take it you don’t find the evidence that Titus Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla were Christians very compelling?
Nope.
Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus, Athenian aristocrat Dionysius the Areopagite, Ethiopian eunuch/overseer of Queen’s treasury, are examples of high-ranking Christians.
Jesus’ interactions during Passion Week reveal encounters with wealthy tax collectors, prominent Pharisees, Roman generals, and members of Sanhedrin.
Early church included individuals like Priscilla/Aquila, owners of spacious house in Rome. Priscilla possibly authored Hebrews, indicating elite education.
Paul’s letters greet Herodians and Caesar’s household, suggesting connections with influential figures.
Early Christian traditions hint at presence of elite members: ie Saint Pudens, son of a Roman senator. Jerome mentions correspondence between Paul/Seneca, although this is uncertain. While Jesus’ letter to King Abgar V is apocryphal, it’s possible royal members of Edessa converted to Christianity.
Lack of explicit records about elite Christians might be due to their execution by Roman authorities like Nero/Domitian.
Early church fathers like John Chrysostom/Basil of Caesarea used a similar term when addressing the church, but in the plural “philatheoi” (Augustine uses the Latin plural “amatores Dei”). Luke’s use of singular “Theophilus” suggests he was writing to an individual.
Given these factors, don’t you think it’s unreasonable to conclude that Luke’s Gospel couldn’t have been addressed to a patron simply because no elite members of early church are explicitly mentioned?
I would never say that Luke COULD NOT have been addressed to a patron. I’d say it’s unlikely.
0-10, how convincing do you personally find this&why 😏
Dionysius of Corinth, writing within a century of 1Clement, attests to an Epistle to Corinth from Clement. 1Clement mentions two individuals, *Claudius* Ephebus/*Valerius* Vito. J.B. Lightfoot argued they were freed slaves of Claudius/Valeria Messalina.
Paul’s Philippians greets Clemens and the “household of Caesar.” Another key figure in Philippians is Epaphroditus. Cassius Dio refers to Epaphroditus, Nero’s secretary, in connection with the death of Flavius Clemens. Flavius Clemens was accused of “atheism” and adopting “Jewish ways,” labels often applied to early Christians. His wife Domitia was exiled for the same. Eusibius equated Clement of Rome/Clemens of Philippians/1Clement and mentions him with the death/exile of “well-born/notable men at Rome” under Domitian.
1Clement mentions Fortunatus, whose reputation must have preceded him with the Corinthians- not only for the significance of his task, but because Fortunatus was a common name. Unlike Claudius Ephebus/Valerius Vito, Fortunatus’ name is not accompanied by distinguishing identifiers. 1 Corinthians 16 mentions Fortunatus, one of Paul’s earliest converts. Paul pairs Fortunatus with Stephanus, who’s linked to Flavius Clemens through his wife’s steward.
Two contextual-factors of 1Clement are persecution/disunity. Luke-Acts emphasizes Christianity is not a threat Rome/early apostles were in harmony. Theophilus=Clement! 🫣
Are you saying that authors often addressed patrons? Yes, of course they did. Does that mean they always did? No, of course not. Does it mean they had to. No. Does it mean everytime someone is mentioned as an importnat figure in a preface as the reason for writing a book that they person was necessarily a patron? Absolutely not. Take a look at Jopephus’s introductoin to the Antiquities. Epaphroditus is imporportant but there’s nothing to suggest (in the book or in history) that he was a literal “Patron”.
Also, Epaphroditus=author of The Gospel of Luke=secretary of Nero=companion of Paul >50% secretary of Josephus.
J. doesn’t call him his secretary does he? In any event, he cannot have been the same Ep. mentioned in the Antiquities, becaues that one was long dead by then. It was a common name.