Keith, thanks for your comments. You have moved the discussion a bit to the next step I think: was Paul a main source for Luke. I was seeking to ground Paul in the Jesus tradition.

It is inconceivable that Paul (hailed as one of the 7 wisest men of the first century) the apostle to the gentile, one commissioned to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the gentiles and to witness before leaders, that he would not size the opportunity to guide the writings of his traveling companion and doctor to make the greatest impact to the gentile world.

Somehow we have lost how massive Luke´s two volume undertaking really was. We rarely tally the economic cost of ink, paper, and the cost of hire of a scribe and historian of Luke’s caliber and the potential cost to his life.

Luke’s work is the equivalent of two biographies one of Jesus Christ and one of the Church. In an age where there was a general alert to seek out and deal with all false-witnesses where does Luke get the support and authorization for his huge undertaking? Was it written to one man - Theophilos, or was it written to potential proselytes - ‘god lovers,’ - those persons hanging on the fringes of the jewish and synagogue communities (and Paul’s first choice audience).

I think that if we continue to deny the obvious linkages between gospel writers and in particular Luke and Paul, we are inadvertently sending the message of a very fragmented 1st century church. One in which Luke an unsanctioned gentile, non-apostle, sizes authority and write two authoritative volumes that provides justification for new Christian practice.

Regards

Keith

Textual critical scholars are wont to tell of how Luke’s Gospel was entirely compiled.

They further suggest that there must have been a selection process, which points to an academic inquiry (by Luke). Both the text and Christian tradition holds that Luke traveled with Paul, was a gentile, perhaps Grecian, a doctor(academic).

Paul is hailed as the apostle to the gentiles, Luke’s gospel is hailed as ‘the’ gospel most biased towards gentiles. Yet in midst of all of these unions, no one dares suggests that Paul made use of, or contributed to Luke’s volumes, above and apart from being part of the subject matter in the acts of the apostles. why, why, why…

What is more surprising is almost every piece of content, content category, and the order of the content in Luke’s Gospel most often follows the order of the Pauline epistles. Its almost as if they were assembled to provide justification or precedent for the content of Pauline Pauline epistles.

One could very well contend that in an era when Grecian literature and communication were grappling to retain and propagate a formal style; the writings of Paul and Luke are unconsciously registering these historic facts, hence any likeness that may appear is coincidental, and evidence of styling rather than editorial purpose. If that were the case, it still does not account for the agreement of key-term content and content ordering.

Funnily enough, the same phenomenon is observed in the Petrine epistles, Jude and the Gospel of Mark, all Johanine literature, and James and Matthew. And there goes the theory that mark was hastily thrown together or assembled with the finesse and resemblance of a patch-work quilt.

Did Paul use Lukan data, did he assist in its compilation, how much, if any did he influence the gospel to the gentiles?

Just my two bits.

Kind Regards

Keith

where is the Dunn note from?

Thanks,
Gordon.