In the Greek it says paradosan, “handed down.” We don’t have to guess at what this meant. he was talking about Mark and Q - both written sources, neither of them from witnesses.
Your interpretation is incorrect. We know this because we know what Luke’s sources were, and they were not eyewitness (nor does he say he spoke to eyewitness, that’s just wishful thinking).
Nope. The author of Luke didn’t have access to any disciples. For one thing, he wasn’t writing until 60-70 years after the alleged crucifixion, for another thing we know what his sources were, and they were not eyewitnesses.
You are really behind the times on the scholarship here. While some scholars do still think the author might have known Paul, none but religious traditionalists think he interviewed disciples. That’s not even a claim the author makes for himself. It has no evidence, either internal or external to support it, and the fact that Luke bases his Gospel heavily on non-eyewitness sources further makes the claim unsupportable.
Cite that the author of Luke had access to eyewitnesses? if this is true, then why did he base his Gospel on non-eyewitness sources, and why did he have to resort to rank fabrication with his nativity story?
This means absolutely nothing since we have absolutely no reason to identify this figure as the author of Luke-Acts. The author of Luke-Acts does not identify himself (and does not call himself Luke. All 4 of the Gospels were originally anonymous works. All the authorship traditions arose in the 2nd Century. All are now widely regarded as spurious by current scholarship).
It shows that the author may have incorporated another written source (possibly even an authentic one), but it doesn’t identify either the author of Luke or the author of that passage.
“St. Luke” is a fictional character constructed basically from nothing but a name mentioned in passing by Paul. The connection of that name to Luke-Acts lacks any actual basis other than 2nd century folklore.
In concurrence, I’ll note that the authorship of Colossians is hotly debated, and the authorship of 2 Timothy is no longer really debated; most scholars agree that it is not written by Paul. You’d do better to cite Philemon, which is usually agreed to be written by Paul. Still, there is no evidence that the Gospel of Luke is written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke, or even by someone named Luke at all. The author of Luke-Acts never identifies himself, and no source earlier than the mid-to-late second century identifies Luke as the author.
I’m talking about Acts 16, where Paul has Timothy circumcised. This is a pretty big departure from his discussion in Galatians 2, where Paul discusses how Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even in Jerusalem where the circumcision-for-converts faction was very strong. And in Galatians 3, Paul says "Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. " This is probably a little hyperbolic, in light of what Paul says elsewhere in his letters, but Paul is given to hyperbole to make his points. I find it difficult to imagine that someone who traveled so extensively with Paul would make such an obvious error.
What about Yuri Geller? What about Sylvia? What about Houdini? Do we have to detail their miracles or actions to work out whether they existed? Czarcasm’s questions are fine, even relevant, but they really aren’t absolutely necessary for asking whether Jesus of Nazarath existed or was a reconstructed amalgam of legends.
DtC: “All 4 of the Gospels were originally anonymous works.”
Please elaborate. What’s the evidence for this? They must have had a title, right? And I thought that we didn’t have any first century copies anyway.
DtC: Ok, so you’re saying Luke was based upon Mark and an alleged collection of Jesus sayings known as Q. What would distinguish that sort of text from one that also made use of interviews? Or are we talking about weighing evidence?
That they originally lacked those titles or attributions.
Nope, they had no titles. Those were added later.
We don’t, but we know who first gave them those authorial attributions (none of which hold up to analysis, fyi).
The language, for one thing, Q is Greek. the disciples spoke Aramaic. For another thing, it does not have any characteristic of an “interview,” nor is that even a genre that existed at the time. It’s just a collection of sayings. Minimal narrative framework, no claim to primary witness, no stories, no miracles, no resurrection, etc. just sayings and parables. What about it suggest “interview” to you? Do you actually have any familiarity with its contents? It’s possible that it is sourced from some kind of authentically preserved sayings tradition, but Luke himself got it from a written source, not an “interview.” We know this because Matthew uses the same Greek written source, word for word, in his own Gospel.
Acts 16: 1 - 3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timoththeus, the son of a certain woman which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported by the bretheren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him: and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
My reading of this is that Paul had Timoththeus circumcised in order to avoid conflicts with “the Jews,” and not for theological reasons.
I find much of this thread preposterous. There is a huge body of writings about Jesus. To question his existence because of some disagreements defies logic. I am unaware of any early questions of his existance. It seems to be a non issue. Did the question ever come up before the late twentieth century?
If the Bible is what it is believed to be, it would be much like it is. It was not dictated by an angel. Believers accept that it was written by different men over a long period of time under the inspiration of God. As such, some of the historical details will vary.
Is it possible the skeptics are less than objective?
There is a huge body of writing about the Hindu gods as well. Since when is that proof of anything? The historicity of Jesus is not questioned because of “disagreement,” but because of the dearth of actual evidence.
Yes. Ever heard of the Dutch radicals?
Not that this is is a meaningful defense of historical Jesus in the first place. Critical historical scholarship is relatively new, and for most of Christian history, people were not at liberty to ask those kinds of questions anyway. That is not evidence that HJ existed.
Much of the Bible is provably ahistorical, and its riddled with contradictions. How would it look different if it was not “inspired by God?” How do you know what’s true and what isn’t?
What you call skepticism actually IS objectivity. If you have objective evidence for the evidence of Jesus, cough it up.
Yes, of course he did. However, Paul adamantly opposed circumcising Greek converts in his letters, as in the bit I quoted from Galatians. It is quite contradictory for him to do so in Acts.
What is preposterous is the idea that God would inspire two people writing about the same subject to contradict each other, not to mention secular history, and even common sense. It would make more sense to say that we have what we would expect to see if Satan had inspired the Gospel writers, to make sure that no objective person would believe them.
There’s an awful lot of Star Trek literature out there too, especially if you count fan-fic. That proves that Starfleet is real (or at least will be real).
Not only that, but most of the stories do not contradict one another, and I can find actual schematics of most of the ships and clothing mentioned in the canon.
We will need to agree to disagree on this. I see it as a reluctant decision that was forced on him by circumstances. It certainly is not a contradiction between Acts and the epistles of St. Paul.