(May 5, 2021 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote: remember luke was a secular historian till he was conscripted.
Even by the standards of his own day, the author of Luke was not a historian. For starters, he never identifies himself, nor does he identify his sources, such as his copying from the Gospel of Mark and the missing, but likely extant, document known as 'Q'.
From the perspective of critical, modern scholarship, Luke was likely written in the last quarter of the first century, perhaps even being composed in the early second century, and even then, the document appears to have undergone some more revisions. As I have pointed out to you before, the author of Luke got some of his facts wrong:
Wikipedia -- Census of Quirinius
Now, this, in and of itself, does not mean that the author of Luke was not an historian (not identifying himself or his sources are what make him not an historian), but it does cast doubt on his thoroughness in researching and compiling his sources. In addition, Luke, as virtually all modern scholars (both believing or not) acknowledge, changed the text of Mark. Good historians, including Josephus, were much more faithful to their sources, and in those instances where they disagreed with the individuals behind those sources, they would state the what and why that was behind their disagreements. Luke does none of that.
