Luke as Investigative Journalist

[RedFan]

The Prologue to Luke's gospel provides:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

The careful investigation of facts that Luke says he undertook before adding his own written account to "many" others suggests interviews of eye witnesses and perhaps study of other written accounts (Mark? Q?) -- but there is no suggestion here of any divine inspiration as the source of his facts, nor would there be much need for him to "carefully investigate" anything if God directed him what to write.

While I doubt that many on this site would ever let this affect their view of the accuracy of his gospel, I have to ask: what is the rationale for deeming Luke's gospel "inspired" in the same manner as other NT writings?

 

[Lambano]

How does this "inspiration" thingie work?

I wouldn't limit "inspiration" to just taking dictation. How did Luke decide what material to include and what ends up on the cutting room floor? How did Luke get connected with Mary to get the birth narrative? What made him decide to use that one instead of Matthew's? What led Luke to the sources that provided Lukan distinctives like the parable of the Prodigal Son?

Think that's got the Holy Ghost's fingerprints all over it?

 

[MatthewG]

Hey @RedFan, could be considered in the regards of.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them.”

Luke as a Gentile, did a great job in his reporting, in my opinion seeking information confirmed by two or three more people who had been there, seen, heard, done, etc.

 

[O'Darby]

I think "inspired" always refers to the Holy Spirit having guided the entire process, from research to writing.

I suppose with something like Genesis, which describes events long before the book was written, one would have to suppose that specific "facts" were given if one wants to take the Genesis accounts literally, but in general I always think of inspiration as the Holy Spirit guiding the process in a more general way.

 

[Deborah_]

I have to ask: what is the rationale for deeming Luke's gospel "inspired" in the same manner as other NT writings?

Luke's gospel is inspired in exactly the same manner as other NT writings.

None of them were "dictated" (and very little of the Old Testament was dictated either - only those passages beginning "thus says the LORD" or something similar). They are suffused with God's Breath (the Holy Spirit), and He speaks through the words that came from human minds under His influence.

How did Luke decide what material to include and what ends up on the cutting room floor? How did Luke get connected with Mary to get the birth narrative? What made him decide to use that one instead of Matthew's? What led Luke to the sources that provided Lukan distinctives like the parable of the Prodigal Son?

All very good examples. I would add, Who gave Luke the idea in the first place?

 

[RedFan]

Luke's gospel is inspired in exactly the same manner as other NT writings.

None of them were "dictated" (and very little of the Old Testament was dictated either - only those passages beginning "thus says the LORD" or something similar). They are suffused with God's Breath (the Holy Spirit), and He speaks through the words that came from human minds under His influence.

And how is it we know this?

 

[Lambano]

All very good examples. I would add, Who gave Luke the idea in the first place?

Theophilus.

Assuming, of course, Theophilus was a real person. Since Theophilus means "Loves God (like a friend)", it may be a generic personalization slash pseudonym for anyone who considers themselves a "like-er" of God. Like maybe @Deborah_ and @Lambano 2000 years later. This letter was written to US.

Since Dr. Luke was a companion of Paul's (noting the "we" passages in Acts), I suspect Paul gave Luke the assignment to research the details of Jesus early ministry. That's another theory I won't be able prove this side of the World to Come. But that just begs the questions, Who brought Luke and Paul together? Who gave Paul the idea to give the assignment to Luke?

Which is a long way around the barn to say that a) @Deborah_ is, of course, right, and b) I think "inspiration" may be a lot more extensive in subtle ways than we realize.

 

[RedFan]

I think "inspiration" may be a lot more extensive in subtle ways than we realize.

And a lot less extensive in some way than many of us assume.

 

[Lambano]

And how is it we know this?

We don't. We proclaim, "All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness" and make belief in the inspiration of scripture another litmus test for what a "true Christian" is, and we assume we know what that means how the process works and we assume that the historical process used to decide what is "scripture" was itself inspired and we assume that the scripture we have today has preserved the inspired words of the author, and we assume...

Oh well. Just another matter of faith.

 

[Lambano]

And a lot less extensive in some way than many of us assume.

True also. We don't really KNOW, but any belief-system starts with a few key, assumed axioms and moves on from there.

 

[RedFan]

I think "inspired" always refers to the Holy Spirit having guided the entire process, from research to writing.

I suppose with something like Genesis, which describes events long before the book was written, one would have to suppose that specific "facts" were given if one wants to take the Genesis accounts literally, but in general I always think of inspiration as the Holy Spirit guiding the process in a more general way.

Whatever "general" way that is, it’s hard for me to view Luke as a careful historian given his Gamaliel gaff in Acts 5:36-37. We know from Josephus’ Antiquities that the Theudas incident occurred in 45 C.E., yet Luke quotes Gamaliel – speaking around ten years earlier – as placing the Theudas uprising before that of Judas the Galilean circa 6 C.E. (i.e., at the time of the census).

I’ve heard the theory that there were two pseudo-Messiahs named Theudas who stirred up their controversies 40+ years apart, and Jospehus and Gamaliel were talking about two different incidents (contrary to what we are told by Eusebius, who later wrote that they were one and the same). But that seems farfetched. It’s far more likely that Luke’s source for the Gamaliel speech botched Gamaliel’s actual words. A good historian would have checked his source’s accuracy against at least one other source before putting pen to parchment – and if no other source was available, would have kept his pen in the ink well.

Does God's "general" guidance allow for this? I guess so.

 

[Lambano]

Does God's "general" guidance allow for this? I guess so.

Is "General guidance that allows for mistakes" a problem?

Life is about making decisions with uncertain and insufficient data.

 

[RedFan]

We don't. We proclaim, "All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness" and make belief in the inspiration of scripture another litmus test for what a "true Christian" is, and we assume we know what that means how the process works and we assume that the historical process used to decide what is "scripture" was itself inspired and we assume that the scripture we have today has preserved the inspired words of the author, and we assume...

Oh well. Just another matter of faith.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

In attempting a harmonization of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10, Vern S. Poythress states “We have the accounts in Mathew and Luke, which are inspired by God. They are what God says and are therefore trustworthy. That is the conviction we have and the basis on which we work.” Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization (Crossway 2012) at 21.

This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Shouldn't the accuracy of "what God says" in the gospels (however we are to understand that phrase) be a conclusion from the evidence, rather than an axiom by which to assess the evidence?

 

[O'Darby]

Whatever "general" way that is, it’s hard for me to view Luke as a careful historian given his Gamaliel gaff in Acts 5:36-37. We know from Josephus’ Antiquities that the Theudas incident occurred in 45 C.E., yet Luke quotes Gamaliel – speaking around ten years earlier – as placing the Theudas uprising before that of Judas the Galilean circa 6 C.E. (i.e., at the time of the census).

I’ve heard the theory that there were two pseudo-Messiahs named Theudas who stirred up their controversies 40+ years apart, and Jospehus and Gamaliel were talking about two different incidents (contrary to what we are told by Eusebius, who later wrote that they were one and the same). But that seems farfetched. It’s far more likely that Luke’s source for the Gamaliel speech botched Gamaliel’s actual words. A good historian would have checked his source’s accuracy against at least one other source before putting pen to parchment – and if no other source was available, would have kept his pen in the ink well.

Does God's "general" guidance allow for this? I guess so.

I wasn't aware of the Gamaliel issue - but, sure, my view of inspiration wouldn't be affected at all. I don't see inspiration as any magical quality that guarantees freedom from errors. I see it exactly like the creative inspiration that the Greeks called the Muses and that I've experienced myself in my own (entirely secular) writing, but with a divine origin. Basically, I would see it as inspiring Luke to undertake the task of writing Gospel and Acts in the first place, guiding his efforts, and perhaps even inspiring specific ideas, but by no means guaranteeing factual accuracy or freedom from misstatements or turning Luke into a world-class historian. It is somewhat circular reasoning, but I would see the "proof" of inspiration in what the Gospel and Acts have accomplished.

 

[O'Darby]

Old age is officially here. This thread made me think, "I should write a blog entry about that." Then I realized I HAD, less than a week ago.

Intuition, Inspiration, Revelation

(Central Park) In my extensive reading over six decades, I've been struck by how often intuition is mentioned. The Transcendentalist movement of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau emphasized intuition above all else. Hindu sages like...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Prologue to Luke's gospel provides:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

The careful investigation of facts that Luke says he undertook before adding his own written account to "many" others suggests interviews of eye witnesses and perhaps study of other written accounts (Mark? Q?) -- but there is no suggestion here of any divine inspiration as the source of his facts, nor would there be much need for him to "carefully investigate" anything if God directed him what to write.

While I doubt that many on this site would ever let this affect their view of the accuracy of his gospel, I have to ask: what is the rationale for deeming Luke's gospel "inspired" in the same manner as other NT writings?

Quite simple. God was behind the motivations and writings of Luke. It was God who inspired Luke thus making his gospel inspired to the level of scrip[tural inspiration.

 

[RedFan]

Quite simple. God was behind the motivations and writings of Luke. It was God who inspired Luke thus making his gospel inspired to the level of scrip[tural inspiration.

Right. And it is that "level" which I am exploring here.

 

[O'Darby]

A minor Theudas detour: Purely by coincidence this morning, I learned that the Valentinians, a highly influential Gnostic sect, claimed direct apostolic succession from Paul to a Pauline disciple named Theudas to Valentinus. This doesn't explain the reference in Acts, but apparently Theudas means "God-given" and thus might have been a popular pseudonym for troublemakers. In fact, I'm now sorry I didn't call myself Theudas instead of O'Darby.

A level below the question being asked here might be: Did Luke even THINK he was writing anything inspired? If you had told him, "Ya know, in 2,000 years people are going to be reading your work as the inspired words of God," would he have nodded solemnly, laughed his head off, or just said "OK, whatever, dude"?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Right. And it is that "level" which I am exploring here.

Well it is not so much to explore as to learn, receive by faith and rejoice.