Is there evidence that St. Luke wrote before St. Paul's death?

[Jim_Baur]

Is there evidence that St. Luke (or the writer(s) of Luke’s Gospel) wrote before St. Paul’s death?

 

[dronald]

The fact that The acts ends so abruptly with no mention of Paul’s death or the fall of the Jewish temple in 70ad is evidence that the acts and Luke’s gospel pre date these events. Luke even records James’s death but no mention of what Paul did after Rome.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is my understanding that Paul and Luke made some missionary trips together.

Further, Paul quotes part of Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18 (The second parts that reads: the laborer is worthy of his wages), which suggests that Paul was aware and read at least some of Luke’s writings.

But I believe the real scholar posters will add more facts

 

[patrick457]

The fact that The acts ends so abruptly with no mention of Paul’s death or the fall of the Jewish temple in 70ad is evidence that the acts and Luke’s gospel pre date these events. Luke even records James’s death but no mention of what Paul did after Rome.

That is usually used as evidence, but on the other hand this interpretation is possible only if Acts is to be understood simply as a biography that focuses on St. Paul’s life. One could argue that Luke’s purpose in Acts is not so much to present a complete biography of Paul but rather to show how the gospel finally reached Rome. Luke had achieved his goal when he had brought Paul to Rome and left him preaching the gospel there in his narrative: for him, Christianity is now brought to the notice of the upper echelons of Roman society. The work of planting the seed is done, all that is left is to watch it to grow.

 

[Jim_Baur]

patrick457

THANKS!

I have read many times that “most scholars agree that Mark wrote after the fall of Jerusalem.” Is there a published percentage? Who took the poll?

THANKS!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Patrick, do you have any comment on the supposed quotation of Luke’s Gospel in 1 Timothy? Is this evidence that Paul was familiar with the Luke’s Gospel at the time of writing (or perhaps Matthew or some proto-Gospel)? Do other scholars supposing a late date of composition for the synoptic Gospels use this as evidence that 1 Timothy was written long after St. Paul’s death?

 

[patrick457]

Patrick, do you have any comment on the supposed quotation of Luke’s Gospel in 1 Timothy? Is this evidence that Paul was familiar with the Luke’s Gospel at the time of writing (or perhaps Matthew or some proto-Gospel)? Do other scholars supposing a late date of composition for the synoptic Gospels use this as evidence that 1 Timothy was written long after St. Paul’s death?

There is that idea, yes - in addition, some had even proposed that 1 Timothy was actually written in Paul’s name by Luke (the author of Luke-Acts) or that Luke acted as Paul’s scribe for this particular letter. It is also possible that (1) collections of Jesus’ sayings (perhaps written - a la Q!) have begun to circulate when Paul wrote this letter, or (2) that this was a ‘floating’ saying of Jesus (serving as an hermeneutic explanation on Deuteronomy 25:4) in the particular strand of the tradition Paul and Luke had access to. In the latter case, Paul’s mention of “the Scripture” more properly refers to the first quote from Deuteronomy. On the other hand, it could also be that the references to “Scripture” in the pastoral epistles may refer to Christian instruction and literature - i.e. Tradition - in addition to the Old Testament.

(P.S. The saying is also found in Matthew 10:10, where “food” stands in place of Luke’s “wages.”)

 

[Ron_Conte]

Is there evidence that St. Luke (or the writer(s) of Luke’s Gospel) wrote before St. Paul’s death?

Acts seems to have been written after the Gospel of Luke. In Luke, Theophilus is addressed as “most excellent Theophilus”, indicating that he had some role of authority in the Roman empire. But by the time of Acts, he is addressed as “O Theophilus”, indicating that he lost that role.

The last two verses of Acts describe Paul, in Rome for two years, preaching the Gospel, and awaiting trial. So Paul was still alive when Luke and Acts were written.

 

[NHInsider]

Acts seems to have been written after the Gospel of Luke. In Luke, Theophilus is addressed as “most excellent Theophilus”, indicating that he had some role of authority in the Roman empire. But by the time of Acts, he is addressed as “O Theophilus”, indicating that he lost that role.

The last two verses of Acts describe Paul, in Rome for two years, preaching the Gospel, and awaiting trial. So Paul was still alive when Luke and Acts were written.

What it says is that he remained there under arrest for two years, which indicates that after two years that changed. Either (as most of the ECF believed) he was released from prison - and probably went on to Spain, as had been his plan - or he was executed at the end of the two years, which is not consistent with the other evidence surrounding his death.

As to the quote from 1 Timothy, think about the situation. Luke and Paul spent YEARS traveling together, working together, studying together, discussing what they had heard and learned over the years from so many sources (keep in mind, most likely neither was an eyewitness). How many times must Luke have heard Paul give the same homilies, the same teachings, over and over. It’s not like he was making up new material in every city! They had a message to bring, and they brought it wherever they went So it’s not impossible that each of them would have repeated the expression independently. (Note too that the point of Paul’s statement to Timothy is one he also made in 1 Cor. 9:14, and the same one Jesus had made in his instructions to the 72 in Luke and the 12 in Matthew.)

There is no reason inherent in Scripture to insist that Luke wrote Luke or Acts during Paul’s lifetime. There are many people who believe fervently that he did, and that’s fine. Others do not, thinking that Luke, who lived another 10 years or more after Paul’s death, wrote his accounts later, after he “settled down.” Both traditions exist in ancient hagiography. Neither position should be seen as a rejection of the authenticity of the books or the authority of the Church.

Sally