Did Luke meet Paul?

Luke and Paul. Friends or strangers?

by Ibn Anwar

Many Christians, especially the evangelicals believe that Luke who is supposed to be the author of both the Gospel According to Luke and Acts met Paul and travelled together with him as his companion. So for example, A.T. Robertson says that Luke was a “constant companion of Paul from Philippi on the return to Jerusalem on the 3rd tour till the 2 years in Rome at the close of the Acts”. One of the most common proof texts used in support of this idea is Colossians 4:14. It mentions a certaing “beloved physician”. Our first question would be who is this beloved physician mentioned? The passage itself does not divulge the identity of this mysterious individual. Secondly, was there only one physician in the entire geography? Their argument would carry some weight if Luke was the only physician in his time. But was he? Surely there must have been other physicians(that is if Luke was indeed a physician in the first place as per Church tradition) as well. As a matter of fact, the traditional notion that Luke was a physician is actually rejected today in Biblical scholarship as Emeritus Professor of Religion at Gettysburg College Edwin D. Freed notes, ” The traditional view that Luke was a physician and that his works contain a special medical vocabulary has been abandoned.” [1] Furthermore,  scholars today do not only question the attribution of Colossians to Paul, but ultimately conclude that he is not the author. The scholars who reject the epistle’s attribution to Paul postulate several strong points for their contention. One of the points contended is that in Colossians the author writes in long and extended complex Greek sentences(e.g.Colossians 1:3-8) which is in stark contrast to how Paul would normally write in his undisputed letters.[2] Nevertheless, the real origin of the epistle continues to be hotly debated in academic circles. Some scholars argue that it was written by Paul, but alongside other hands. Some say that it is the product of the Pauline school tradition(and not from Paul). Which is it? The reason for all these divergent views is because there is no solid evidence to substantiate its true origin. In other words it is highly doubtful. Like so many things in Christianity conjecture seems to reign supreme. Most scholars in critical scholarship however, are fairly certain that Paul did not write Colossians. What about the alleged association between Luke and Paul? Let us carefully consider the following from Edwin D. Freed on whether Luke was Paul’s companion,

“The tradition of Luke’s association with Paul became embellished so that Eusebius (3:4:6), for example writes that Luke was a native of Antioch, a physician, and a long-time companion of Paul’s, and that he spoke carefully with other apostles and left us two volumes of medicine for souls. But there is no clue in either the gospel or in Acts that a person named Luke is the author, so Luke, like the other gospels, was originally anonymous.

The traditional view that Luke was a physician and that his works contain a special medical vocabulary has been abandoned (see W.K. Hobart 1954; H.J. Cadbury 1920; and A. Harnack 1907), but the tradition that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul’s is still frequently discussed. Support for this tradition comes primarily from the “we passages” in Acts (which imply that the writer sometimes traveled with Paul), the statements in Phlm 24 and Col 4:14, and the similarities between the ideas attributed to Paul and in his speeches in Acts and those in his letters. On the other hand, scholars have argued that Luke was not familiar with any of Paul’s letters, that Paul as a prisoner would hardly refer to a fellow worker, and the Colossians may not be a genuine letter of Paul…” [3] (emphasis added)

Another text that is often cited is 2 Timothy 4:11. This verse explicitly mentions the name Luke, but,  how do we know that this Luke is the same as the Luke who supposedly wrote the 3rd gospel and Acts? Nowhere in 2 Timothy 4 does it mention Luke as being the author of a gospel or the Acts. Could it not have been another Luke? If only we knew his full name, lineage or background? Alas, like so many things in Christianity it’s all pure conjecture! In fact, even the attribution of Luke (or rather the anonymous person) as the sole author of both the gospel according to Luke and Acts is questioned and even rejected by some scholars. However, what we do know for sure  is that the third gospel is totally anonymous as we have seen from Freed. Refer to the Four Anonymous Gospels for more details.

Consider the following from Toward Understanding the New Testament,

“It has been claimed that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. However, the case against this claim is compelling.”

The following is an elaboration for the above quotation given as a footnote in the book:

“Irenaeus (ca. 140-202 CE), the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200 CE), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), Tertullian (150-220 CE), Origen (184-254 CE), and Jerome (347-420 CE) all assume that Luke was the companion and colleague of Paul and the author of both Luke and Acts. However, it is difficult to reconcile the inconsistencies between Paul’s letters and Luke’s account of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. It would appear that the author of Luke/Acts did not actually know Paul firsthand, but in Acts he placed him centrally in the development of early Christianity. Paul’s letters are not mentioned in Acts. This problem and others are discussed in Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia, 1980). For a detailed analysis of Luke’s theology, see Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. G. Buswell (New York, 1961).” [4]

In conclusion, there is hardly any reliable evidence at all to indicate that Luke was Paul’s companion. In fact, the question of Luke-Paul relationship is totally moot when there was not even a Luke to begin with as we discussed.


[1] Freed E. D. (1990). The New Testament, A Critical Introduction. Balmont, California: Wordsworth Publishing Company. p. 140

[2] Ehrman B. D. (2009). Jesus Interrupted. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. pp. 126-129

[3] Edwin D. Freed. Op. Cit.

[4] Tanner O. C., Rogers L. M. & McMurrin S. M. (1990). Toward Understanding the New Testament. Salt Lake City: Signature Books. pp. 44-45

Incoming search terms:

  • when did luke join paul
  • did luke know paul
  • luke and paul
  • did luke ever meet jesus
  • did Luke meet Jesus
  • when did luke meet paul
  • when did paul meet luke
  • how did paul and luke meet
  • did Paul and Luke travel together
  • luke and paul relationship
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

19 Responses to “Did Luke meet Paul?”

  1. ibnsaad says:

    I have a question, why is it a big deal if Luke didn’t meet Paul in terms of theology and doctrine?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      If Luke did not meet Paul then where did Luke get his information regarding Paul in Acts? If there was no one historically by the name Luke who is attributed to the third gospel and Acts then why didn’t the holy spirit guide the Christians for more than a thousand years away from thinking that they are from Luke and Paul did meet him? These questions are very important and if what the article presents is true then it certainly does undermine the credibility of the Churches.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        Christian apologists rely on the alleged companionship of Luke and Paul to substantiate the latter’s credibility. This article is a blow to that.

      • aly says:

        None of the gospels were written in Jesus time and yet they can write very detailed about him and his journey. Same goes for Paul and Luke, oral traditions (or in this case, people speaking amongst each other at that given time). Also just because the Gospel has the name “Luke” on it does not mean it was necessarily written by a man named look. You will find this problem with the gospels.

  2. merangue says:

    It is quite possible that Luke is Paul’s alter personality. Could it be that Paul having God syndrom (mad) had an influence called Luke. Luke being Satan. Maybe Paul wrote Luke and Acts in defense of himself so that he might be worshiped in place of God.

  3. danielle says:

    First, in the NIV translation, col 4:14 says the doctor, luke.. it does have his name mentioned, so unless you can show me the original greek text that doesn’t have his name there, I won’t give you any credibility.
    Second, at the time these letters were written, eyewitness’ and friends of Paul’s would have called him out for lying or making up a friend named luke. Surely the pharisees would have said something to stop the circulation of these letters too, if there was even a hint of falsehood.
    Lastly, if you want to be taken somewhat seriously, the least you could do is spell check before you updated this blog. Why should anyone even read the opinion of someone who can’t even spell?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I know that the Greek text of colossians 4:14 identifies the iatros or physician as Loukas, but my question in the article still stands i.e. how do we know that this is the Luke who wrote Acts?
      As for your second attempt at rebuttal…if you knew anything at all about the history behind the writings of the NT you would not have raised such a weak counter-argument. You should know that much of the history of the NT books are shrouded in conjecture. At least 7 of the epistles attributed to Paul are now widely rejected as pseudonymous including Colossians as I mentioned in the article. Why didn’t the friends of Paul write against them? Well, even if Paul’s friends were around and aware of those letters they were probably unaware just like the church fathers and today’s ordinary christian that they were not originalled penned by Paul. Who were Paul’s friends who knew him so intimately that if something were fabricated concerning him it would be easily detected? How do we know that such writings written in Paul’s defence did not exist? Gospel “Q” no longer exist as a separate piece of literature, but that does not mean it never truly existed. Today we know that many different gospels were in circulation and contemporaneous to Paul but have unfortunately lost in time. I have shown with proper citations that scholars reject the traditional view that Luke was Paul’s close companion. In fact, the authorship of the “Gospel according to Luke” is totally rejected as a later addition to a work that was originally anonymous. You question my spelling..i think we have greater concerns than my typos such as who really wrote the gospels? Why Mark 1:2 gives a wrong citation to a quotation from Exodus and Malachi? Why 1 Timothy 3:16 contains theos instead of hos? Why 1 John 5:7 still exists in the KJV when it is rejected as an interpolation? Why is the pericope adulterae in John 8 still in John when it is widely held as a later addition? etc. I believe we should look at those kind of questions rather than being concerned over who has less typos.

  4. aly says:

    named Luke*

  5. abucs says:

    There was a large movement by atheist scholars to reject everything from Christianity. They are simply not listened to today because of their innerrant bias. If you wish to quote them as the basis of your arguement, that’s your choice. But no-one is going to give it any credibility.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Your criticism is very weak. Firstly, a person’s personal belief system does not automatically discredit his views on religion. One ought to assess the merit of any given argument based on the contentions proposed rather than the personal beliefs of the individual. It is a fallacy to automatically discard a contention or argument based on the opponent’s beliefs. Secondly, none of the authors cited in the article are atheists. All of them belong/ed to a Christian sect except for Prof. Bart D. Ehrman. However, he is not an atheist. He is actually an agnostic as he makes it very clear in his lectures, interviews and writings.

      • abucs says:

        Ibn Anwar,

        you are completely correct to say the issue has to be addressed on its merits.
        However, i have been around this area enough to know there are many self described “Christian” Theological scholars who are really atheist.

        And i have listened to enough of their “issues” to know they are hopelessly biased.
        People in general, know this to be true.

        Lets take one example from above. The idea that the Gospels were completely anonymous. There is no proof for this at all in the slightest. What “atheist” scholars really mean is two things :

        Firstly 1) :
        that there is no internal direct claim of authorship in the 4 Gospels.

        However there is an indirect claim in John, and Luke and Acts being two letters addressed to a “Theophilus” would have been known to the recipient of the letters, so the writer of Luke/Acts was not anonymous. It is quite probable, given the expense needed to research and compile the two letters that Theophilus was the benefactor who paid for the works. Theophilus is quite possibly a pseudoname and as the following link claims, a high ranking Roman official.

        Secondly 2) :
        The Gospels are not referred to in contemporary literature (40 – 100 AD) by names such as “Matthews Gospel”. They also are not referred to as anonymous Gospels either.

        Neither of these 2 points prove in any way that the writings were anonymous in the sense they are meant to portray by the “atheist” acholars – that is that no one knew who wrote them – that is just silly.

        Atheist scholars would like to portay they were anonymous from 1) and 2) above but that is an extremely weak guess – that comes from bias.

        From the writing of the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, we know that Mark wrote his Gospel from Peters preaching in Rome and Matthew also wrote an account.

  6. Ibn Anwar says:

    Abucs..what is your proof that the scholars that I have cited are atheists? Do you know what atheists are? Atheists are those who reject the existence of a divine being. None of those that I have cited have ever rejected the existence of god. In fact, the view that the gospels are anonymous like many other books of the NT is shared by such erudite Christian scholars as Prof. Raymond E. Brown who was an ordained priest and highly respected scholar of the New Testament by both Catholics and Protestants. The staunch Christian evangelist Dr. William Lane Craig described Raymond Brown as one of the pre-eminent scholars of the New Testament. Your assertions are baseless and based on nothing more than conjecture. Among other notable Christian scholars of the Bible who share this almost universal view are Reverend Prof. Dennis Nineham of Bristol University and Albert Schweitzer who was an African missionary and Nobel prize winner.
    You said that the gospels are not really anonymous because there is an indirect claim of authorship in John, Luke and Acts found in the one addressed i.e. Theophilus. You’re mistaken on a number of levels. There is no Theophilus either directly or indirectly in the gospel according to John. Theophilus is found only in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1. Scholars are not sure whether Theophilus was an actual name or a title of prestige. Theophilus itself is anonymous! Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University Jaroslav Pelikan in Whose Bible is it? on pages 106-108 describe that Theophilus is unknown as so is the author of the gospel according to Luke. He is not an atheist either! In fact, he was honoured by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America with an honourary doctorate. His book received a very positive appraisal from numerous camps both believer and non-believer alike. Reverend PPeter J. Gomes, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, Harvard University and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church commented, “No book is more central to our discourse than the Bible, and no scholar better suited to instruct us in its wily ways than Jaroslav Pelikan. We are all in his debt for this stunning guide to the world’s bestseller.” You are correct on one thing though. The canonical gospels were not known by the name “anonymous gospels” in the first century. But what you failed to note is that they were actually NAMELESS. The first individual recorded to have named them was Iranaeus as G.A. Wells pointed out. R.T. France said, ““the headings ‘According to Matthew’ ; ‘According to Mark’ etc., are not part of the text of the Gospels… are generally believed to have been added early in the second century.” (R.T. France. The Evidence for Jesus(1986). London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 122). There is not a single piece of 1st century evidence from Papias where he designated the gospels with the given names that they are known by today. Fundamentalist scholars assume that Papias called them by those names because Iranaeus who was his student did so. That is a baseless extrapolation. Prof. Raymond E. Brown says in his work, “The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary critical scholarship.” (Raymond E. Brown. Response to 101 Questions on the Bible(1990). Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. p. 59-60)

  7. abucs says:

    First of all, i am a Catholic at a Catholic University where i get bombarded with literature from “Catholic” professors. I have read what you quote. I know for a fact that the professors here are atheists and pretend to be Catholic in order to keep their position. I also know they refer students to other atheist professors posing as all sorts of denominational Christians.

    The ideas you express are ultimately from atheist professors. Now there might be Christian professors and non Christians like yourself who also get swept away by bad arguements, but it is ultimately coming from atheist professors who, whether you like it are not are biased and are known to be so.

    Lets stick with the “Anonymous Charge”. As i said above this comes from two facts

    First of all, no Gospel directly claims authorship.
    Second, of the literature we have from the first century, which is extemely small, there are no quotes referring to say “Matthew’s Gospel”.

    Now the atheist position is to put these two together and say that therefore these Gospels were circulating anonymously and nobody knew who wrote them.

    That is simply terrible logic. It is not proved or even hinted at in the literature we have. It is a biased guess from professors who want the Gospels to not be reliable witnesses. It is biased and academically very poor. It needs no further attention until there is some written proof that these Gospels were circulating and somebody, anybody wrote down that they are anonymous. Until there is proof of that, the guess that they were anonymous is just that – a biased guess with no proof and faulty logic.

    Regarding Theophilus and John’s Gospel. I in no way said that John’s Gospel was addressed to Theophilos, but stated that Luke’s Gospel is. There was a Roman appointed Jewish high priest called Theophilus in the middle of the first century. It may or may not be addressed to him. The salutations used in the address to Theophilus are those used to address a Roman official. This indicates Theophilus is a high ranking Roman official. Now Theophilus may, as i stated, be a pseudonym for another Roman appointee. It would make sense with the sporadic persecution of the early Church that the work Luke wrote, if it is to a Roman official, may not mention the name directly.

    But it is a guess, i repeat a big fat no proof guess that Theophilus does not really exist and Luke used that name as a literary device to refer to all of his future readers. It is a guess and until there is some proof that Theophilus does not refer to a real person then it remains a guess. The atheist position which may be taken up by some Christians and non Christians is based on guesses which pre-suppose there is no God and the logic basically says – this is my guess – you prove me wrong. If atheist scholars are going to guess the Gospels are anonymous and Luke wrote to all readers addressing them as Theophilus then they have to have proof for their guesses.

    Otherwise the situation will remain that people just don’t take them seriously – neither should they be taken seriously.

    Regarding John’s Gospel. With that Gospel i mentioned there was an indirect claim of authorship within the Gospel. There is one disciple that is referred to throughout the entire Gospel as “The disciple Jesus loved”. Most, if not all of the other disciples have their names given. Looking at who that disciple is who has the title “the disciple who Jesus loved”, from the context of the Gospel it is quite certain the disciple referred to is John. Anybody reading John can perceive two endings for the Gospel, one at Chapter 20 and the other at Chapter 21. The last Chapter (21) speaks about the death of the “Disciple Jesus Loved” and directly claims that the Gospel of John came from the written testimony of that disciple.

    Now there is a fragment of John’s Gospel which was found in Egypt and dated to 125 A.D. That’s a copy of the Gospel circulating in Egypt only about 25 years after the disciple John’s death. So that is strong evidence that the original Gospel of John was written during the lifetime of John – the beloved disciple who is referred to in that Gospel and claimed in chapter 21 to be actually written by John.

    It is not Christianity that is built on conjecture but the atheist guesses of what they would like to have happened. You have to have proof for those guesses otherwise no one is interested.
    Quoting what some professor thinks is not proof. Quoting professors who are quoting other professors is not proof. Christians are well over that nonsense, we want real proof, not guesses from ultimately atheist sources.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I suppose I should give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your claim that you’re from a Catholic university. May I know the name of that university? I asked you for proof that the scholars that I have cited are atheists. Telling me that “i know for a fact that they are atheists” is not proof. That is an assertion without evidence. Where is the substantiation? To accuse someone of something because he does not agree with your presuppositions is a fallacy. It is downright erroneous and unethical. No one is getting swept by the claims and arguments from the professors that I have mentioned. There is no sweeping going on. Rather I have pointed out from reliable sources that the near universal view of Bible scholars today is quite clear and that is the gospels are anonymous literature. I have cited Prof. Raymond E. Brown who is no doubt a Catholic priest i.e. Father Brown and died as such. He is one of the top authorities in Catholocism in Bible studies. The reference that I gave where he makes mention that over 95% of modern scholars reject that the gospels are the works of the evangelists bears the NIHIL OBSTAT AND IMPRIMATUR seals of the RCC. Do you doubt this too? Do you know what they are? If you truly are from a Catholic school then you should know what they signify and thereafter should refrain from silly comments like accusing the eminent scholar of postulating atheistic ideas when he does not.

      You argued that it is academically poor to state that the gospels are anonymous when there are no first century documents stating so. If this contention bears true merit then you are in a conundrum since you have admitted that no first century document states that the gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yet you vehemently claim that they truly are apostolic in origin. You have shot yourself in the foot. The fallacy you have committed is remarkable. One does not need a written testimony from a contemporary stating that a particular document is anonymous to declare later in the future that it was anonymous. When a piece of document circulates/ed without a name then that document is anonymous! As I have mentioned before through critical historical research scholars have come to know that the first person to have named the gospels was Iranaeus. This is not a guess. It is based on solid evidence from his own writings.

      You said, “Regarding Theophilus and John’s Gospel. I in no way said that John’s Gospel was addressed to Theophilos, but stated that Luke’s Gospel is. There was a Roman appointed Jewish high priest called Theophilus in the middle of the first century.” Really? You never said that the Gospel of John was not addressed to Theophilus? This is what you stated in your previous comment, “However there is an indirect claim in John, and Luke and Acts being two letters addressed to a “Theophilus””. I would suggest you write clearly next time with good grammar so as to avoid confusion.

      Who was Theophilus? The contention that you have appealed to is that he was probably a “high ranking Roman official” because of the expression used in addressing the said individual. The expression that you mean is kratiste in Greek. There is no historical evidence that such an expression in the first century was exclusively reserved for high ranking Roman officials. If he indeed occupied a high ranking position in the Roman government his biography would be readily available. Yet, he is virtually unknown to us. There is not a single shred of evidence from either the first or second century tying him to anywhere or anyone. We don’t know where he lived, his lineage or even his alleged position in the Roman government. So even the recepient of the Gospel according to Luke and Acts is anonymous as I had stated. You seem to be labouring that what is meant by anonymous is that we don’t know who received them but we’re wrong because at least we know that the third gospel was received by a Theophilus therefore he must have known the author. This is very amusing. It is in fact a strawman. What you put forth is not exactly what the scholars mean when they declare that the gospels are anonymous. When they say that the gospels are anonymous what they mean is that we today do not know the identity of the authors who wrote the gospels. We may hazard that they were written for certain communities of people with certain reasons but that is the farthest that we can do. Beyond that we know nothing of the authors’ names let alone intimate background details. It is presumptuous on your part to say that Theophilus must have known the author since it was directed to him. What is your proof for this allegation? There is no internal or external historical proof indicating that they actually knew each other. What about the Gospel according to John? You’re claiming that there is internal evidence showing that its John’s handiwork. In claiming this you have cited the last chapter of John. Let’s see what it actually says, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. WE know that HIS testimony is true.”(John 21:24) Was this alleged author suffering from schizophrenia? He wrote that yet he referred to himself in the first person plural then immediately with the third person singular? LOL. This is in fact one of the internal evidences that scholars utilise to make a strong case against the anqitue claim of Johannine authorship. The proof that you have tried to appeal to stands at odds with your presupposition.

      You said, “Now there is a fragment of John’s Gospel which was found in Egypt and dated to 125 A.D. That’s a copy of the Gospel circulating in Egypt only about 25 years after the disciple John’s death. So that is strong evidence that the original Gospel of John was written during the lifetime of John”

      As a matter of fact, I have written an entire article on that fragment. It’s called p52. It is not dated exactly to 125. It is approximately 125 to 150 CE old through carbon dating. I have transcribed the Greek words for better legibility. You can read it here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....testament/. You have admitted that the fragment is dated to about 25 years after the death of the author who is supposedly John. Then you claimed that this is “strong” proof for Johannine authorship. LOL…anyone with even the tiniest bit of clue can see that this is horrendous logic! How can someone write a document that is dated to 25 years after he died?!?! Did he come back to life to write it? lol. You are very funny, my friend. How can you claim that it was written in the LIFETIME of John when he didn’t have LIFE by then??? This piece of fragment which is no larger than a credit card is a very poor proof for anything. Helmut Koester who is the John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Divinity School at Harvard University says, “The fragment of John in P52 is so small that is immaterial as a textual witness.” (Helmut Koester. The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century(1989). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. p. 19). Other scholars such as David P. Barret shares Koester’s position. You have made a very poor case for the authorship of the gospels. Try harder.

  8. Theman says:

    So, you show this small piece of paper to some guy, and the fellow says, “This note was written ca 1825. I know this because I’m an expert in palaeography.” Now, of course, you’ll immediately conclude that the guy is a loony… There’s _no way_ he can know that the note was written in 1825, based only on palaeography!

    Indeed, even _if_ this style of handwriting was current in 1825, who’s to say that it was not also current in 1775? And again, even if this style of writing was current in 1825, who’s to say that the writer of this note was not writing it in 1875 in the same writing style that s/he learned back in 1825? Keep in mind that we don’t know the age of the writer! The writer could well be an old man or woman writing in 1875 in the same “old fashioned” writing style that s/he learned when s/he was still a young kid…

  9. Theman says:

    2000 years ago a man is digging through the garbage and finds these word fragments in a pile of garbage:

    by surprise
    be coming
    the rumors
    a man accused

    2000 yrs later
    some have assumed these words belong to the gospel of john.
    why can it not be argued that the authour of these fragmentary words used these words in a way john never did?

  10. Theman says:

    we know that they always try to depend on chruch father quotations,but do the church father quoatations agree on what the gospels said? how early are these quotations?

    “Ignatius is supposed to be attesting here to his knowledge of Matthew. Hey, sure, right? Matthew talks about a nativity star. Bingo! Often scholars or reference books will simply assert this as a given. Yet clearly Ignatius knows a completely different story. Ignatius does not appear to know Matthew’s star story at all. He makes no reference to Magi, nor any moving star rising in the east and settling over the manger, no Herod, no Bethlehem. And in Matthew the star is but a sign, not the Savior Himself. Instead, Ignatius knows some completely
    different star story…”

  11. Theman says:

    Luke describes his OWN VERSION :
    “after investigating everything accurately anew,
    to write it down in an orderly sequence for you”

    NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY.

    what were the INACCURACIES? were they known like the bad gospels which saID thAT the jewish good news was that “jesus’s body was stolen and KNOWN TILL THIS DAY” ? i am wondering what luke found inaccurate.

Leave a Reply