Talk:Gospel of Luke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christology (Luke 3:22)[edit]

"where virtually all the earliest witnesses have God saying, "This day I have begotten you."[41]Ehrman 1996, p. 66." What earliest sources are these?

  • P4, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Washingtonianus have "well pleased".
  • P75, P45, Borgianus do not contain the passage.

The only relatively early text I found with "begotten" is Bezae.

McGrew[edit]

McGrew is a biblical inerrantist, so she does not publish in mainstream historical journals, nor in mainstream Bible scholarship journals. She publishes in a WP:FRINGE walled garden.

In case you did not know biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE. I mean fringe historically, not theologically.

As a rule of thumb, inerrantists publish research only in a walled garden. The exception is Daniel B. Wallace. Why? See https://ehrmanblog.org/why-textual-criticism-is-safe-for-conservative-christians/ tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are quoting a Biblical inerrantist now? Great, what is the difference with any other charlatan and lunatic? Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McGrew is a respectable philosopher, but he is completely WP:FRINGE at the history of Christianity. He is a Christian apologist who boasts "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". There are Christian theologians who have respect for mainstream science, mainstream history, and objective facts; he isn't one of them. He is a sophisticated philosopher in some respects, and an intellectual slave of 16th century Protestant dogmas in others. “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” ― John Maynard Keynes ― I'm not saying that McGrew has political power. But Calvin did. And he burned Servetus at stake. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There are Christian theologians" I don't really trust or respect theologians. I had 6 years of mandatory theology classes during my school years. The theologians I met were were some of the most naive and least educated persons I have ever met. Including one who told me that reading books would lead me astray of faith. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: And what do you think about this or this source? Potatín5 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Potatín5: Those two sources stand for the conservative evangelical POV and no more than that. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both are reliable sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals. StAnselm (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour." [1]. I'm not saying this is a reason to be dismissed out of hand, but biblical infalliblity is an extreme position in respect to historical criticism, even an outright anti-historical commitment. I don't think that biblical infallibility is a big problem for studying WW2, but it is a big problem when studying the history of the Bible, because it makes Bible scholars reject out of hand everything that even resembles a theologically unorthodox position. The sad reality is that they will be sacked if they advocate such positions. It happened to Peter Enns and it will happen again. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Enns was suspended from WTS over the issue of inerrancy, which that statement doesn't mention. (Perhaps because it's British?) StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second page of that article by David Seccombe has a rather neat summary of positions on the date of Acts (but not of Luke) - I wouldn't object to using it in our article. Achar Sva (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case I wasn't clear: there are two McGrews, a he and a she, but they are both inerrantists. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claro. But why are we discussing in 2023 an edit that took place a year ago? Achar Sva (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the prejudice against inerrancy is extremely problematic in light of WP:NPOV. StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are we discussiong here? McGrew's status as a reliable source? If it's the female McGrew, then no, she's not, because she has no academic qualifications in the field and holds no academic position in it and, so far as I know, has never published in peer-reviewed journals. Is this what we're talking about? Are we even talking about the Gospel of Luke? Achar Sva (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inerrancy is a huge source of bias. While the agreement of mainstream historians is that each and every source should be treated critically, inerrantists knee-jerk reject critically treating the Bible. Since they invariably reach the conclusion that it is 100% trustworthy and accurate in every respect. But, again, that isn't a conclusion, it is an assumption which they begin with. And often they take formal oaths that they will uphold such assumption no matter what. In Bible scholarship there are two camps: inerrantists + infallibilists vs. everybody else.
And it's not just the belief in inerrancy, but upholding the theological orthodoxy of their own church. Since people who believe in biblical inerrancy could have wildly different theologies, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Trinitarian Pentecostals, or Sunday Baptists vs. Seventh-day Adventists. There are "historians" who act as hired guns for their church, while mainstream historians by and large agree that the historical truth trumps theological correctness (even when they happen not to like it in particular cases). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

30 AD?[edit]

30 AD means approximately 3 to 0 years before the death of Jesus. Need I say more? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Repent or Perish has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Repent or Perish until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Luke, Gospel of Saint has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Luke, Gospel of Saint until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Luke, Gospel according to has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Luke, Gospel according to until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Ehrman[edit]

Ehrman's argument about Luke 3:22 is fringe. It is only attested in one manuscript although also used by some Church Fathers.

Joseph Fitzmyer argues the passage was changed to the "today I have begotten thee" because of its parallel to Psalm 2:7. Divus303 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it actually means. Does it mean "what Luke originally wrote" or does it mean "what was originally spoken"? StAnselm (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrman argues that later scribes, in accordance with dogmatic theology, changed the reading of Luke 3:22 to "with you I am pleased," and that it originally had a more Adoptionist reading. Divus303 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's just flat wrong about "virtually all the earliest witnesses". Yes, delete all the text relying on that reference (i.e. from "An important example". It's not an important example.) StAnselm (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as WP:FRINGE as you think, see e.g. this. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe[edit]

I have reverted some WP:FRINGE edits. Here is why:

r/Academic8iblical @ Search Reddit

psstein • 16 days ago

Moderator MA I History of Science

I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.

Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist.

See the evidence quoted at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. The mainstream academic view is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous.

I don't say that conservative evangelicals should not get WP:CITED, but they do not speak for the mainstream academia. Conservative evangelical scholars generally do not write mainstream history about the Bible and Christianity. So, while their views are theology, such views do not amount to history. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually read tgeorgescu's list of sources instead of dismissing his comment outright. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]