Talk:Gospel of Luke

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Luke article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 365 days

Christianity: Jesus Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Christology (Luke 3:22)

"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.

"Luke, Gospel according to" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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"? St Anselm (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.) St Anselm (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

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. St Anselm (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]