Luke and the other gospels before

EdenOne

This week's Bible reading started me thinking ... Luke 1:1-4

"Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph′i·lus, that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally."

Now, the gospel of Luke appears to have been written before Acts, sometime between 56-58 CE.

In the above introduction, Luke mentions that "MANY" (not just one or two) "HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO COMPILE A STATEMENT" ( " to compile a narrative" - English Standard Version; therefore, more than just the description of isolated events or isolated "wisdom sayings".) "OF THE FACTS THAT ARE GIVEN FULL CREDANCE AMONG US" (meaning, the other accounts are just as equally accurate, because they refer to facts that are accepted by christians as accurate), "THEY (who? those who wrote the other narratives) RECEIVED THEIR INFORMATION FROM THOSE WHO HAD BEEN EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF GOD'S WORD (Greek: "Logos" - the same term used in John 1:1 to refer to Jesus in his pre-human form, therefore literally servant's of Jesus CHrist, or Christians) FROM THE BEGINNING; AND THEY PASSED IT ON TO US" (God's Word Translation)

Now, the contemporary sinoptic Gospels lists only ONE gospel written before Luke. This one is the gospel of Matthew. Obviously, the "many" mentioned by Luke might have included Matthew, but surely other christians undertook the task of writing accounts, even credible accounts, of the life of Jesus, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Luke didn't dispute the authenticity of those accounts, that probably were in circulation among the early congregations, but wanted to give a "logical order" (chronological ?) to the accounts.

Where are those gospels written before Luke (besides Matthew) ? Are they entirely lost?

Also: If Luke wrote his gospel AFTER Matthew, and surely had access to it, and claims to have " traced all things from the start with accuracy" regarding Jesus' life, how come he leaves out a lot of material that is found in Matthew?

Eden

Bobcat

I posted some research that touches on this on this thread (my post # 628). It is not so much about Luke but seems to give Mark priority over Matthew.

slimboyfat

Maybe Q, Mark, Matthew, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews for a start.

Comatose

Read Misquoting Jesus. You will love it. Agree, that it appears Mark was written first. There were lots of other writings as you mention. Jude quotes from apocryphal books that are supposed to be uninspired.... So that doesn't make sense. It's all very interesting.

mP

Even the opening statement mentioned in the first post show the story is not from an eyewitness. Why would an apostle copy from someone else, if they were there.

EdenOne

Luke was not one of the apostles.

Eden

Phizzy

Luke was probably written much later than you say, most of Mark may have been written before 70C.E the other Gospels after 70C.E .

Luke contains a number of inaccuracies and contradictions to the other Gospels.

As SBF says there may well have been some source Q (from the German word for source) that the Gospel writers referred to, but in the absence of proof that cannot be stated catagorically.

The three later Gospels were written with an agenda, not to record what really happened or what was really said, but as they, and Mark, suited the R.C Church at the time, they were declared as the only Canonical Gospels in the late 4th Century.

Many other writings were rejected, and many possibly destroyed. We have nothing we can rely on as being accurate in what it says as to the life, works and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

Apognophos

It's a fascinating subject, to be sure. It's frustrating that we seem to be so far from the truth of what really happened, although that might be inevitable since the original story of Jesus may not have suited anyone's purpose as a doctrinal foundation. Read the Jefferson Bible and it ends with Jesus dying and being entombed, and everyone walking away. Not exactly an inspiring account to base a religion around. If only more people were literate back then, we might have more (some?) eyewitness accounts, but then again, as Phizzy pointed out, whatever else was written that was deemed too inconsistent was probably destroyed by the Early Church.

whathappened

This is why so many no longer regard the Bible as anything that should be taken seriously. The Catholic Church is the entity that decided which books went into the Bible cannon. That fact does not make me feel confident about the content of our Bible.

mP

Eden:

Luke was not one of the apostles.

MP:

Sorry i should have made myself more clear. I was referring to Matthew copying Mark.

Luke and the other gospels before

Share this