Most are biased.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:40 pm ... New Testament scholars are for the most part a bunch of nitwits with little imagination ...
Perhaps the Marcionites are channelling the Samaritans ?? ...Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:40 pm ... Of course the Church Fathers never explicitly tell us the big secret. It renders their own lie about 'apostles' - a concept non-existent in Israelite religion (the Samaritans always refer to Moses as THE apostle like the Marcionite[s] did their apostle - impotent.
>> "There is an old tradition, according to which Luke is said to have been little other than the amanuensis of Paul in the composition of it; and it is sometimes alleged that when Paul refers to his Gospel, as he does in more than one of his epistles, the reference is to this Gospel, as drawn up by Luke, under his superintendence, if not dictation." <<Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:40 pm ... Here is about as close as any scholar comes to realizing the situation:3. As yet another characteristic of this Gospel, it may be mentioned that the influence of Paul over the mind of Luke is remarkably conspicuous in the spirit of it, in the very form of its expressions, and not infrequently, we may also venture to say in the selection of the materials of which it is composed. There is an old tradition, according to which Luke is said to have been little other than the amanuensis of Paul in the composition of it;* and it is sometimes alleged that when Paul refers to his Gospel, as he does in more than one of his epistles, the reference is to this Gospel, as drawn up by Luke, under his superintendence, if not dictation. It would appear that the old heretical sect of the Marcionites, who owned no apostolical authority but that of Paul, received this Gospel as his, and rejected all the others; and, on this account also, it has been held and described to be the Pauline Gospel. But the preface of the Gospel expressly contradicts the idea of its Pauline authorship.
Edward Anderson Thomson The Four Evangelists; with the Distinctive Characteristics of Their Gospels, T & T Clark, 1868.
- Vide Smith's Dissertation on the gospels p. lii., and on the Writings of St Luke p. 45 for the reference of the fathers to this tradition.
- [underlining MrMacSon's]
< => G.Luke is Paul's gospel. That "the preface of the Gospel expressly contradicts the idea of its Pauline authorship" might reflect a preface designed to mislead; say, to give the impression that there were a number of 'apostles' [of/for the NT].
And, indeed, the commentary by Thomson immediately after the passage you cite, Secret Alias, is -
It [the preface of G.Luke] asserts that it was drawn up by the evangelist himself from the testimony of those which "from the beginning were eyewitness and ministers of the word" and we know that Paul was not of those authorities. It is, as it has been always designated, "The gospel according to Luke" not "The gospel according to Paul". At the same time, the connection of Luke with Paul does come out in various portions and references of the gospel, indicating the similarity of thought and feeling which obtained between them, and perhaps also some direction and information on the part of Paul.
eta: Luke 1:1-3