Why 'Luke' ? Because of Colossians 4:14

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why 'Luke' ? Because of Colossians 4:14

Post by Giuseppe »

Colossians 4:14
Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Why 'Luke' ? Because of Colossians 4:14

Post by Stuart »

You have the cart before the horse.

Colossians 4:10-14 are very likely written after κατὰ Μᾶρκον and κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Ditto for Philemon 24. These greetings (Greek "salutes") from are probably all post Marcion( e.g., Romans chapter 16), as it seems the Marcionites (or the authors of the texts) had issue with saluting (ἀσπάζομαι; see Luke 10:4, 11:43, 20:46) as it seemed to signify rank and privilege, especially that of their rivals (Pharisees and scribes as stand-ins for proto-Orthodox clergy).

The pseudo autobiographical material in Paul is among the least reliable and almost certainly part of the later and last layers as legend became fused with writings that held his name in title. Further these act as advertisement for what I think were the last gospels to the collection, Luke and Mark, as well as the last letters in Paul, those to Timothy. These characters were new and their legends unknown to Christians when the names were affixed to the books.

There is some evidence of this resistance to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and their lateness -as in being unknown to those who knew the earlier Gospels, some the Marcionite other from the Apostles John and Matthew (as they were known to early Christians - ignore our notions developed much later). So names had to be chosen to affix to the Gospels. And make no mistake, when you look at the manuscripts even to the 6th century, these look like tacked on bits, not aligning with the text, just placed in the margins either before or after the book.

In Dialogue Adamantius 1.6 we see this concern over the legitimacy of Luke and Mark stylized as a debate between the Catholic Adamantius and the Marcionite champion Megethius. We also see it in Tertullians's argument of authority. Do not get hung up on the Marcionite "single" Gospel argument, but rather the focus on the authority of Luke and Mark as argued by the early fathers. (Note this is separate from the authority of John debate)

Tertullian's argument from AM 4.2.1-2
We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic [2] men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.

[1] Apostolicos, companions of the apostles associated in the authorship

This argument makes two interesting statements. First that John and Matthew were apostles, and the Luke and Mark were associates or companions of Apostles. And the legends passed down associate Mark with Peter and Luke with Paul. But secondly this argument basically admits that Luke and Mark are later Gospels ("accounts") than those of Matthew and John. This is also the so called Western order: Matthew and John first, then Luke and Mark. This was a widespread belief concerning origins and importantly order of the Gospels (IMO well founded for the order).

Dialogue Adamantius argument is below, ignoring the Marcionite single Gospel argument and instead notice the focus on the authority specifically of Luke and Mark. As I feel the editor/author of the Dialogue changed the order of the arguments because he did not know the Marcionite text but instead worked from some prior works, I adjusted the placement of Megethius' arguments to logically fit their claims:

Adamantius: The disciples of Christ wrote them: John and Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Megethius: Christ did not have Mark and Luke as disciples, so you and your party are convicted of producing spurious writings, Why is it that the disciples whose names are recorded in the Gospel did not write, while the men who were not did? Who is Luke? Who is Mark? ...
Adamantius: These men are disciples of Christ
Megethius: Let the Gospel be read, you will find that their names are not recorded
Adamantius: The names of the twelve apostles were read, but not those of the seventy-two. ... He first sent twelve to preach the Gospel; then, after this, seventy-two. So Mark and Like, who were among the seventy-two preached the Gospel along with the apostle Paul.
Megethius: It is impossible these men ever saw Paul.



The next few lines were added by the author of Dialogue Adamantius. His request for Megethius to produce his Pauline letters (Apostolikon) indicates that DA does not have it. Adamantius is quoting the Catholic text.

Adamatius: I read from the end of Paul's letter to the Colossians: Aristarchus sends you greetings; also Mark cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions that he may come to you; receive him. And Jesus who is called Justus. These men are from the circumcision, they alone are my co-workers in the Kingdom of God.[/i] And following this, Luke sends you greetings; Demas also. I offer you proof from the letter. You see even the Apostle himself recognizes him.

It is my view that, Megethius response ("I do not accept your spurious Apostolikon") only makes sense after Adamantius would have quoted from it. Placing it before requires us to believe he would have been ignorant of the content of his own scriptures. So I conclude that in the source document that statement came after, and this part ended in a stalemate, necessitating a different proof, which the dialogue continues with.

Finally to show how the argument developed in a later period, we see that Irenaeus AH 3.1 argues for the Catholic order. [a] Again he finds it necessary to defend the authority of Luke and Mark as being disciples of Apostles, reflecting the earlier challenges to their authority.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Tertullian and Adamantius show that the Church felt it necessary to explain the authority of Luke and Mark, indicating controversy here. And importantly they felt the need to explain their relative lateness. It is my view the church chose two Apostolicos to title those Gospels because they appeared later --which could not be defended-- and so needed explanation as to why they were unknown to those who knew the Gospels from the "Apostles." It is essentially a sequel back story requirement.

Hence Colossians 4:14 (Philemon 24) was written to give Luke an association with Paul, and thus credible authority to be the author. Irenaeus says as much quoting the post-Marcionite 2 Timothy 4.10-11 along with Colossisns in AH 3.14.1 to make his case for Luke's authority.

hat he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: "Demas hath forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me." ]2 Timothy 4:10-11] From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you." [Colossians iv.14] But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, ....

The back story for Luke was only necessary because κατὰ Λουκᾶν was already attached to the Gospel. Colossians 4:14 (and Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:10-11) were thus almost certainly written afterwards to support what was already common knowledge. Mark appears to have had a legend tied with Barnabas, perhaps before the Peter legend, but Luke's legend needed to be created from whole cloth.

Long winded way of saying, you have the cart before the horse.

Notes:
[a] I'm ignoring Eusubius's comments about order, which he claims as hearsay from Clement, with the Gospel with genealogies, Matthew and Luke, coming before those without, Mark and John, with John written last. This is essentially the Catholic order as argued by Irenaeus, but attempting to elevate Luke. (This suggests a rather late origin for this passage's origins; also the myth of Hebrew Matthew also is late.)
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Post Reply