How did Luke know about Jesus?

Answer 1

In the prologue to the Gospel of Luke, the author (Luke) indicates that he got the information from those who were themselves eyewitnesses. So, for example, he probably would have gotten the additional details, which other Gospels do not record. about Jesus' infancy from Mary.

Luke also refers to the fact that he is intending to write more of a chronological account, and also to build on the work of others. This probably explains why he includes a significant amount of material, including several songs which are not recorded elsewhere, and also parables like the Prodigal son. This material would have been collected by anybody, either the disciples themselves, or any other followers listening to Jesus' teachings as a Rabbi or observing his work. Many people at this time had 'scribal skills' and so had the ability to take notes as they listened to the various religious teachers of the day. Luke then drew on this material, probably cross-checking with others as to its details and validity.

This refers of course to the human process, while many also believe in divine inspiration. This does not exclude the human process of data collection, nor does such a process impinge in any way upon divine inspiration. Since the data sources were readily available there was no immediate need for 'direct revelation' although this can never be excluded.

Luke 1:1-4 (King James Version)1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Answer 2

A:As an associate and companion of the Apostle Paul, Luke would have been taught about Jesus by Paul. However, this Luke was not the author of the gospel that now bears his name. As with all the New Testament gospels, it was anonymous until later in the second century, when the Church Fathers agreed to attribute it to Luke, no doubt because the author should have also known Paul in order to be able to write Acts of the Apostles.

However, scholars have established that Luke's Gospel is actually based substantially on Mark's Gospel, with further sayings material attributed to Jesus copied from the hypothetical 'Q' document. Not only does the text of Luke frequently match the text of Mark when read in the original Greek language, but the 'Missing Block' is the smoking gun that confirms Mark as the source.

Furthermore, Luke 1:1-2 says that the gospel contains what is surely believed in Luke's community, being what was delivered to them by various others, the earliest of whom 'Luke' believed to have been eyewitnesses. These are not the words of a man who knew and learnt from Paul and the other apostles.

'Luke', the gospel author knew about Jesus because he could read a copy of Mark's Gospel.

Answer 3

No. It is universally accepted that the author of Luke's Gospel was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. Some accept the traditional view that this gospel really was written by Luke; but Luke was only a companion of the apostle Paul, not a disciple of Jesus. Some accept that the second-century Church Fathers were mistaken in attributing this gospel to Luke, and that, because it was written many decades after the events it attempts to describe, it could not have been written by a contemporary of Jesus.

Answer 4

No. Luke is thought to have written the Gospel from the eyewitness accounts of others.