0
This was the gospel of Luke, the "beloved physician" as Paul calls him, who also wrote the book of Acts.
Firstly, the author makes it clear that he was not one of the disciples of Jesus, neither was he an eyewitness to events, but was commissioned to write accounts to present his researched and catalogued findings to his sponsor, Theophilus. He therefore gleans much of his information on the life of Jesus from Mark's gospel, which most believe was the first gospel to be written, and already extant by the time of the third gospel's writing. However, while the author of the third gospel, unlike, say, John, the author of the fourth, continually excludes himself from those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, he repeatedly uses the word "we" in describing the Paul's missions in Acts of the Apostles, indicating that he was personally there at those times and accompanied Paul. There is similar evidence that the author kived in Troas, the province which included the ruins of ancient Troy, because he writes in Acts in the third person about Paul and his travels until they get to Troas, where he switches to "we" again.. The "we" section of Acts continues until the group leaves Philippi, when his writing goes back to the third person again. This change happens again when the group returns to Philippi. There are three "we sections" in Acts, all following this rule, suggesting his accompaniment of Paul on these occasions. In English, this can easily be overlooked, but in the Greek original, this change in grammar and syntax is highly significant. The style of the writings, as well as the vocabulary used, indicate that the author of the gospel was well educated. The quote Paul's letter to the Colossians differentiating between his companion Luke and others "of the circumcision" suggests strongly that Luke (whether the author or not) was not a Jew, which is in accord with the style of both the gospel attributed to him and to Acts.
The content of the gospel attributed to Luke and the Book of Acts, also by the same author (it males it clear it's a sequel, and is in the same style), are held in high regard by theologians and earlier archaeologists for their historical accuracy and trustworthiness. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "[the author] is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Other citations abound in the archaeological and historical worlds: Dr. Norman L. Geisler observed, "In all, [the author] names and describes thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without a [factual or historical] error."
It is clear that in the gospel, much of Mark's account was used by the author with a portion of another account (now lost) by 'Q' also used. However, the author's additional material, so well researched and documented, and all of the second book of Acts, is clearly original and of significant historical importance.
Most scholars still attribute Luke as being author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, despite a few other theories otherwise. The argument that the author of the book must have been a companion of the Apostle Paul is virtually irrefutable because of the several passages in Acts written in the 'we' form. These verses, therefore, strongly indicate that the author was travelling with Paul during parts of his journeys, and was not only a companion of Paul, but a beloved friend.
Comparing therefore the gospel attributed to Luke with Paul's letters, it is very clear that, of the colleagues that Paul mentions in his epistles, by process of elimination leaves Luke as the only person who fits everything known about the author of Luke and Acts, and also fits in with Paul's attitude towards him ("that beloved physician, Luke"). In addition, the earliest extant manuscript of the Gospel dating from around AD 160-200, ascribes the work to Luke; as did Irenaeus, who wrote around AD 160-180. The Muratorian fragment, a list of books of the New Testament, that dates from AD 170, also attributes the books to Luke.
The content of the gospel that is not common with Mark nor Q, is concerned a great deal with healing and forgiveness. In those times sickness was linked with sin, and forgiveness was seen as a remedy, not only for sin, but also for sickness. Because of the emphasis on forgiveness (eg many of Jesus' forgiveness parables - including the Parable of the Prodigal Son - can only be found in Luke) and healing, many scholars have suggested that the author must have been someone with an interest in these areas - namely a physician.
Most Bible scholars also agree that there is no conceivable reason for the early Christians to attribute these works to such a minor figure as Luke if he did not in fact write them. Nor is there any tradition whatsoever attributing this work to anyone else. Therefore, one must conclude that, bearing in mind the educated style of the Greek, the evidence in Paul's letters, and the other historical evidence from the early Church, the only possible author would be Luke.
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoHowever, modern New Testament scholars say that none of the gospels could have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed, which means that John's Gospel was not really written by John. This means we do not know who wrote the Gospel of John.
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoWiki User
∙ 8y agoIt was once believed that the Gospel According to Luke was written by a physician and companian of Paul, named Luke. However, it was originally anonymous and was only attributed to Luke late in the second century.
Raymond E. Brown says that most scholars today believe that the author could not have been Luke, and that the author copied around two-thirds of the Gospel from Mark's Gospel and the 'Q' document. Evidence of the author's absolute reliance on Mark's Gospel for his knowledge of the life of Jesus is shown by the "Missing Block" - a section of important material in Mark, missing in its entirety from Luke. The verses that occur in Markimmediately before and after the Missing Block are strangely concatenated in Luke.
So, while Luke's Gospel was traditionally attributed to Luke the physician, scholars now know that Luke was not the real author.
Anonymous
Colossians 4:14
Anonymous
Luke
Anonymous
luke
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
The Arthur of the gospel was a physician?
The author of the Gospel of Luke was a Greek physician.
A synoptic gospel written by a physician?
The book of Luke.
In what language was John's Gospel written?
A:Like all the New Testament gospels, John's Gospel was written in Greek Koine.
What is the original language of Luke's gospel?
A:Luke's Gospel was written in Greek Koine, a dialect of Attic Greek. This can be proven by comparing this gospel with Mark's Gospel, from which much of the material in Luke was sourced. The wordings are frequently identical in the Greek language, thereby proving that the original language was Greek.
Which gospel is thought to be the earliest one written?
The Gospel of Mark is generally accepted as being the first Gospel written. There is also a possibility that Matthew wrote an Aramaic version of his Gospel prior to the Greek version.
In What language did Matthew write?
AnswerMatthew's Gospel was written in Greek koine.
Where was luke in the bible from?
We do not actually know who Luke the gospel write really was, since the gospel was originally anonymous, and was only attributed by the Church Fathers to Luke the physician companion of Paul, later in the second century. The gospel was written is Greek Koine, the lingua franca of the Near East, so we can say that he probably came from somewhere in this region. Beyond this, we can only speculate.
What is the profession of gospel writer Luke?
Gospel writer Luke was a physician.
Was Luke a Greek doctor who wrote a Gospel?
A:Paul apparently had a companion called Luke, who was a physician. Whether he was actually Greek or was from another part of the Greek-speaking world is hard to establish for certain. The second-century Church Fathers attributed Luke with writing the third New Testament gospel, which had until then been anonymous, but this attribution is unlikely to be correct. So: Luke was a doctor; he might have been a Greek doctor; but he did not write a gospel.
Which two books of the Bible were written by a physician?
According to Colossians 4:14 ("Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you."), Luke the companion of Paul was a physician. This information should be treated with caution, as a majority of critical scholars believe that Colossians was not really written by Paul, but was written pseudepigraphically in the 70s of the first century - probably by someone who had never met Luke.According to a tradition originating later in the second century, the gospel now known as Luke's Gospel was written by Luke, as was Acts of the Apostles, according to the same tradition. However, the books were originally anonymous and were probably not written by Luke.In summary: Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles were probably not really written by Luke, but even if they were, Luke may not have been a physician. However, these are the two books intended by the question.
Is the word gospel Greek?
The English word "Gospel" comes from the Greek word "εύαγγέλιον" (pronounced "evangelion"). It literally means good news.
What language was Mark's Gospel written in?
A:All four New Testament gospels were written in Greek Koine, a dialect of Attic Greek. This can be demonstrated by looking at the text of each gospel.The sources believed to have been used for Mark's Gospel were written in Greek. There are some minor references to Aramaic, but these only prove that the Gospel was certainly not written in Aramaic or Hebrew.When Matthew and Luke are laid side by side with Mark's Gospel and read synoptically ('with the same eye') in the Greek language, a literary dependency becomes obvious. Whenever Matthew and Luke agree with Mark, the words are often exactly the same in the Greek language. This results from much of Matthew and Luke being copied from Mark and, for the consistent coincidence of wordings, this can only have been in the Greek language. Similarly, whenever Matthew and Lukeagree on material not present in Mark, the words are once again often exactly the same in the Greek language. This results from sayings material in Matthew and Luke being copied from the hypothetical 'Q' document, which in turn was in the Greek language.Although John's Gospel is not synoptic, it has been established that it was loosely based on Luke, with some material taken direct from Mark. There is evidence that this copying was also undertaken in Greek. Some material in John makes use of pecularities in the Greek language, requiring it to have been written in Greek.AnswerScholars say there can be no dispute that all four gospels were written in Greek Koine. Greek Koine was a simplified Greek dialect developed in the Hellenistic Empire and was based on Attic Greek.AnswerThe predominant copies are in the Greek but some were written in the Hebrew (Matthew).AnswerAll the New Testament gospels were written originally in Greek Koine. It was formerly believed that Matthew's Gospel was the lone exception, but it is now recognised by New Testament scholars that this gospel must have been written in Greek. This is shown by the fact that the author quite faithfully followed the original wording, in Greek, of both St. Mark's Gospel and the 'Q' document. This is also confirmed by his use of the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, for his Old Testament references. An author writing in Hebrew or Aramaic would have used the Hebrew scriptures for references.
