The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

There is absolutely no question about the fact that the Luke who wrote Luke-Acts is the same person as the travelling companion of Paul. You may consider the case of the "we" passages in Acts, for example. The author is travelling with Paul - hence he says "we..." instead of merely "Paul...".

The traditional view recognizes that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in the Gospel, nor of the events prior to Paul's arrival in Troas in Acts 16:8, and the first "we" passage in Acts 16:10.[13] In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony of events in the Gospel "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages.

Earlier in this thread, I provided all of the scriptural references from Paul to Luke. They influenced each other. So, what?

Neither of them was present at the Last Supper. So, either Luke got his source materials for the words "Do this in remembrance of me" from his own interviews and research (and Paul copied it) or Paul got it from the apostles in Jerusalem during his visits there (and Luke copied Paul).

Either way, the dating material would be very early, and this is something that skeptics cannot allow.

No, the materials would not be dated very early either way.  That's the point.  If Paul was the source of the common passages referenced by Paul, then you cannot date the composition of Luke-Acts prior to Paul.  The textual evidence in Acts suggests that it was Luke who was influenced by Paul in his later account.  This deprives you of justification for the early dating.  Hearsay from someone who wasn't even there at the time, written years — even decades later — is hardly a testimony to historical reliability of the documents.  You need an early date because Paul is a relatively poor source for historical details about Jesus; without the early date, the historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life is put in doubt.

Here is how Luke opens his gospel:

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 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, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

1. Luke says he has investigated the matter. Does that sound like he only talked to Paul?
2. Luke tells us that MANY had drawn up accounts...surely, they were written and not merely oral accounts.
3. From 1 & 2, we may infer that Luke was familar with these accounts.
4. Luke claims to be writing an "orderly account". That's an odd phrase...does he mean his account was orderly whereas others were not orderly? Consider please:

he historian, Eusebius, notes the following:

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to MARK, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)

Isn't it interesting, Jormungandr, that Eusebius cites Papias who said that Mark recorded the sayings of Jesus which he heard from Peter accurately but "not indeed in order" and that Luke specifically states that he is writing an "orderly account".

Is that just a coincidence? Or was Luke aware of Papias' comments and Mark's un-ordered account and specifically stated that he was taking a different approach in the writing of his own reportage? 


That aside, 1 Corinthians 15 is almost certainly a proto-creed of the early church which Paul memorized while in Jerusalem.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Who did he receive this from? When? This is the language of the Pharisees and of rabbinic schools. Paul was a trained scholar under Gamaliel, and he conveys this creed from memory just as he had previously learned and memorized the tenets of Judaism. This dates the core message of the resurrection to a very early point.