Who is Luke?

[John2]

The first question is why did Marcion not use 1 and 2 Timothy (and Titus)? Does this indicate that they were written too late, as some suggest? And are they responding to Marcion (and/or Gnosticism)? That's what I have thought, but as I re-read 1 Timothy I see something right off the bat that I suppose would not have appealed to Marcion, 1 Tim. 1:8-10:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching ...

Perhaps it is possible to have our cake and eat it too if there is anything to the idea that Timothy died c. 100 CE (which I need to look into). What if Marcion and the historical Timothy represent competing streams of where Christianity should go after Paul, with Timothy offering letters that were supposedly sent to him by Paul that advance Timothy's version of post-Pauline Christianity (church structure and doctrine) and oppose Marcion's (or that of nascent Gnosticism). In that scenario, 1 and 2 Timothy would indeed be more "orthodox" (i.e., closer to Paul) than Marcion's version of Christianity, given that Timothy had actually known Paul and had co-written some of his letters.

If Timothy had fooled even Marcion with Colossians, perhaps he tried to pass off 1 and 2 Timothy to counter him or Gnosticism at a later time. "Yeah man, Paul sent me some letters that deal with all that stuff" (and hence their acceptance as early as possibly Polycarp).

[hakeem]

Timothy is becoming interesting to me. There is at least more about him in Paul's letters than Luke.

Perhaps you don't know that the Epistles to Timothy are regarded as forgeries by Scholars.

[John2]

Timothy is becoming interesting to me. There is at least more about him in Paul's letters than Luke.

Perhaps you don't know that the Epistles to Timothy are regarded as forgeries by Scholars.

I am aware of that, hence what I said above, "The first question is why did Marcion not use 1 and 2 Timothy (and Titus)? Does this indicate that they were written too late, as some suggest? And are they responding to Marcion (and/or Gnosticism)? That's what I have thought ...."

But even if Timothy wrote 1 and 2 Timothy they would still be forgeries. It's just a matter of identifying the forger.

[hakeem]

I am aware of that, hence what I said above, "The first question is why did Marcion not use 1 and 2 Timothy (and Titus)? Does this indicate that they were written too late, as some suggest? And are they responding to Marcion (and/or Gnosticism)? That's what I have thought ...."

But even if Timothy wrote 1 and 2 Timothy they would still be forgeries. It's just a matter of identifying the forger.

If Timothy wrote the two Epistles to Timothy instead of Paul then Timothy would be the forger.

[John2]

I am aware of that, hence what I said above, "The first question is why did Marcion not use 1 and 2 Timothy (and Titus)? Does this indicate that they were written too late, as some suggest? And are they responding to Marcion (and/or Gnosticism)? That's what I have thought ...."

But even if Timothy wrote 1 and 2 Timothy they would still be forgeries. It's just a matter of identifying the forger.

If Timothy wrote the two Epistles to Timothy instead of Paul then Timothy would be the forger.

That's what I'm saying, yes.

[Steven Avery]

Harnack notes on page 12 of Luke the Physician.

For contrast:

Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel (2008)
Rick Strelan
https://books.google.com/books?id=vrq_RbhsxggC

In which case the physician is a different Luke, his profession given for the distinction of identification.

[John2]

Harnack notes on page 12 of Luke the Physician.

For contrast:

Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel (2008)
Rick Strelan
https://books.google.com/books?id=vrq_RbhsxggC

In which case the physician is a different Luke, his profession given for the distinction of identification.

I'll take a look at what I can see of that, but I'm doubting I'll be persuaded that the author of Luke (and Acts) was a Jewish priest. At this point I would guess that if the historical Luke (of Philemon and possibly Colossians) didn't write or contribute to Luke or Acts then someone from his circle did.

[hakeem]

I'll take a look at what I can see of that, but I'm doubting I'll be persuaded that the author of Luke (and Acts) was a Jewish priest. At this point I would guess that if the historical Luke (of Philemon and possibly Colossians) didn't write or contribute to Luke or Acts then someone from his circle did.
[/quote]

When was there a "circle" around Luke, the invented physician? The first time we hear the story of Luke the physician is probably in the 4th century.

And the first time we hear he was a Jewish Priest is in the 21st century.

[John2]

When was there a "circle" around Luke, the invented physician? The first time we hear the story of Luke the physician is probably in the 4th century.

The people mentioned along with him in Philemon 1:23-24.

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

[hakeem]

When was there a "circle" around Luke, the invented physician? The first time we hear the story of Luke the physician is probably in the 4th century.

The people mentioned along with him in Philemon 1:23-24.

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

I asked you "When was there a "circle" around Luke ?

You failed to answer.

By the way there is no claim in Philemon that Luke wrote anything or was a physician.