My challenge to you is to show evidence to support that tradition. I challenge the validity of the tradition. While there might have been a Luke who supposedly traveled with Paul, and the early church fathers (mid to late second century), associated luke/acts with that person, I want see evidence it is correct.
The author of Luke/Acts does not self identify themselves. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke says 'I am writing things down from other people' , rather than say 'I am writing down what Paul told me'. To me, that indicates a relationship further in time rather than someone who was there at the beginging with Paul.
Show me some evidence that is external to Luke , that Luke actually was written in the first century, and was not just an assumption of church father from the mid to late 2nd century that it was. Give me evidence that the Gospel of Luke was not redacted from Marcion, with chapters added on to distance itself from the Gnostic movement.
I am looking for reference to the Gospel of Luke from before 100 C.E. Not one of your sources was from before 100 C.E., and the earliest reference that was attributiing the Gospel of Luke to Luke himself (the tradition Luke wrote it), was before 170 C.e. (and that dating of that is questionable at best)
Question for debate: Why do non-theists demand much more conclusive evidence for events surrounding Christianity than they do for other historical events? (like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Genghis Kahn, etc.)You keep on pointing to 'internal data'. That was not part of my challenge. My challenge was specifically to find an external reference to the Gospel of Luke that
would place the writing before 100 c.e
Are their demands for specific kinds of evidence from exact time periods valid? Does lack of their evidence warrant disregarding other evidence outright?
I was discussion with McC about how history is analyzed by most historians.
achilles12604 wrote:
However, we do have evidence of a man named Jesus. We do have evidence of his ministry. We even have evidence of his miracles and resurrection. In fact we have non-biblical evidence of all three of these points.
McCulloch wrote:
I must have been sleeping. Where is the non-biblical evidence of Jesus' ministry, miracles and resurrection?
Achilles 12604 wrote:Ok notice here the method used by historians is largely dependent on written records. There are also additional sources of information; what is said, and what is preserved.Quote:
Traditionally, historians have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents, although historical research is not limited merely to these sources. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. Historians frequently emphasize the importance of written records, which universally date to the development of writing. This emphasis has led to the term prehistory, referring to a time before written sources are available. Since writing emerged at different times throughout the world, the distinction between prehistory and history often depends on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
With regard to Jesus and his ministry, we should not expect much to have been physically preserved. Jesus actions and teachings would have never left any real archeological evidence to validate the accuracy of written accounts. The only place archeology has in this particular study is in confirming specific details such as town's existences and physical structures. It can tell us if a certain well had five pillars for example as mentioned in John. But it can neither confirm nor denounce any specific event which occurred at said well.
What is said is basically useless when examining ancient times as well do not have any ability to record or preserve the words of those men.
So we are left with what is written. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned non-biblical sources.
So given that historians primarily use written documentation as their tool for unravaling history, what is wrong with historical analysis of indirect evidence? Historians do this all the time.
But it seems to me that if a Christians does it, their argument isn't worth anything. Does this have more to do with the facts of the argument, or the preconceptions of those examining the argument?
