Talk:Luke the Evangelist

message: Rather than split discussion of Luke's writings between this page and Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, I suggest we rename that page to 'Historical reliability of Luke / Acts', link to it from here and remove the entire 'Accurate Historian' section from this article, incorporating the information into the other article.  I would welcome comments from others before doing this though.  Giford (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Section Removal 

message: ** Who was Theophilus ? Many Greek Orthodox sites mention that Theophilus was a SON of St. Luke, and that he was governor of Achaia. This bombshell could lead to multiple paths for the Lukian student : who was Luke's wife, were there other siblings? We might be assisted in more accurately dating Luke's Writings.Through my extensive research on Luke, I have come to the conclusion that he was the first writer to realize and develop the Codex type document as a valuable form for preserving important documentation- as opposed to contemporary use by students of the codex merely as a notebook.Much more to come. 72.208.86.28 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's an Orthodox tradition at least; I'm surprised to hear that about the Catholics. Our local Roman Catholic bookstore keeps a few icons in stock, as well as statues, crosses, crucifixes, medallions, etc. I believe it's run or co-managed by a devout Irish Catholic. Wesley 04:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tradition

message: Anybody know why St. Luke (who was apparently a Syrian?) was named Loukas, which according to Cath. Encyc. and other sources is derived in this way: Greek Loukas<Latin Lucas<Latin Lucanus<Lucania<Lucani, the name of an ancient people of Italy who spoke an Oscan language. Alexander 007 07:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Loukas is perhaps a loan word from latin, like titlos, another (new testament) greek word. St. Luke probably have nothing to do with Lucani. St Mathew wrote the gospel (is this the english word for ευαγγέλιο?), first in Hebrew (around 40 AD) and then in Greek, St Mark and St John wrote theirs in Greek, but I don't remember about St Loukas. +MATIA  ☎ 13:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was wondering, when did this Lucas name (which if the etymology is correct, originally meant "a person from Lucania") come to lose its specific meaning and just become a generic name, which lost ties to its original meaning? I just find it interesting. Obviously, a Syrian would not be "from Lucania". If the etymology is correct, by St. Luke's time the name had lost all its meaning. Alexander 007 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's interesting but I don't know the answer. Certainly bC but when exactly? Perhaps you could search for Λουκάς in ancient greek texts ;) +MATIA  ☎ 13:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Luke

message: This sentence from the beginning of the article appears to be wrong:
Luke the Evangelist (Greek Λουκᾶς Loukas) is said by tradition and by the opening statement of the Acts of the Apostles to be the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, the third and fifth books of the New Testament. In Catholicism, he is patron saint of painters, physicians and healers, and his feast day is October 18.
I looked at the KJV and the ASV versions of Luke and could not find the name, Luke, in the opening statement of either of them.  Is there a version of Acts that does claim to be written by Luke?
quotes from the wikipedia article on the gospel of Luke:
"Although the author of Luke is generally considered to be anonymous, there is some suggestion that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts."
"Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul."
Davefoc 23:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name, Luke, doesn't appear in the opening of Luke or Acts 

message: I thought that Luke was a Greek born physcian, most probably a slave. At least, I think thats what a book on Saints I read said. However this article says he was a Syrian. Neither, however, give a date, or even rough time frame, of birth. Clarification, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.66.205 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality and birth date 

message: Saebhiar just added this sentence:
Luke died, aged 84, of natural causes. His tomb is said to be in Ephesus, modern Turkey.
Perhaps Saebhiar could provide a source?  It is doubtful to me that there is any aspect of Luke's life or death that history is particularly reliable on, but the notion that the age of Luke at death is known with any degree of certainty seem particularly doubtful.  If he lived to 84 why didn't he finish Acts?
Davefoc (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there is a tradition of his living to be 84. I've added a ref. None of my sources mention his tomb, so i cn-tagged that. I think we'd be safe deleting it soon if nothing is provided. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and deleted it, finally. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The article say "Luke died at age 84 in Boeotia, according to a "fairly early and widespread tradition".[ref to Butler 1991. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death

message: The article says that Luke was from Antioch in Greece, but there does not seem to be a city in Greece by that name--the city whose article the link points to, at any rate, is in Turkey.  The link at least should be fixed and probably the text. Nareek (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Antioch is, to all accounts considering the respective time, in Syria, in what is now the Turkish Province of Hathay (which was some time non-Turkish even in the 20th century). --  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.48.76 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: It says "the Greek city of Antioch in Ancient Syria" - there was a big difference between a city in Greece and a Greek city. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antioch 

message: In the basic text it is mentioned that the relics was brought to Padua, Italy some after 1199 which is totally wrong. Relics were in the Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) until 1453 when Serbian ruler Despot Djuradj Brankovic bought them from the turkish pashas for 30.000 gold coins and brought them to Smederevo, last capital of medieval Serbian empire. After the fall of Smederevo, relics of Saint Luke were token away. It is assumed that they were token to Italy but there is no any written proof for that!
109.245.92.213 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relics of Saint Luke 

message: Wikipedia is a place for exposing the knowledge as it is currently held not to debate and take conclusions. We may argue about what is currently accepted.\
Officially, Luke is considered one of the 4 evangelists, and this is something publicly and widely (and almost universally acknowledged within secular and religious circles alike) thus this is what it has to placed in the article.
The comment of Luke "The Evangelist" being solely a "character" makes to fall the article into the following mistakes: 
- bad prose: you cannot commence the article saying he is "The evangelist" just to later say he's a minor character in an epistle, that makes the reading self denying.
- the point that is trying to be made by adding that "Luke is a character" in a Pauline epistle is that the Authorship is debated then again the article wouldn't be being written adequately as you're trying to imply something implicitly and not expressing it explicitly as it is expected.
- There is a full article on the Luke literary works thus the debate on the authorship is covered in another article. In the lead of the article what it should go is what is acknowledged right now, which is that Luke is in fact the Author of those works. If the debate on the authorship is being debated it has to go referenced (properly) as currently being debated; If its  authorship was debated in the past (as nearly all New Testament work was) then there's no need to mention it.
190.251.89.103 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke The Evangelist 

message: Potential changes to MOS:SAINTS at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Saint Luke" etc.

message: There is no violation of WP:NPOV in citing the WP:RS/AC view of a top scholar. Also there is nothing WP:WEASEL about the words deleted at . On the contrary, the words express very clearly the point made by scholars. According to WP:CENSOR, Wikipedia should not omit verifiable information form reliable sources because some religions find such information inconvenient. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Luke the Evangelist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621102923/http://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1230 to http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1230
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607075349/http://www.traces-cl.com/archive/2000/novembre/luca.htm to http://www.traces-cl.com/archive/2000/novembre/luca.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the assertion that Luke could've been a woman. The claim is textbook WP:FRINGE, and not repeated in the main "authorship" article. I am not sure the citation is a WP:RS. Please discuss. Elizium23 (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - the idea that the gospel of Luke could have been written by a woman was in the Gospel of Luke article, but was removed as WP:Fringe. The idea was promoted by Randel McCraw Helms in his 1997 book, Who Wrote the Gospels? But as Helms is not a biblical scholar (he is a professor of English literature who has written on the Bible) and as the evidence is circumstantial, the theory has not gained mainstream acceptance. A Google search on the topic of Luke as a woman shows that it is a popular theory, so it may become more accepted as a possibility in the future. -  Epinoia (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion is not that Luke was a woman, but rather, that the third gospel and Acts were written by a woman and later attributed to Luke. There is actually a very widespread view among biblical scholars that the traditional identification of the four evangelists is highly dubious, and if somebody else wrote the gospel, there's no reason why it couldn't have been a woman - but no evidence that it was either. There's nothing wrong with thought experiments, but this belongs in Wikipedia's article on Helms. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: All this speculation has no place in the article. Stick with sources. Avoid fringe . Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke - a woman! 

message: Hi, I took issue with a new image in the infobox so I reverted it back. I know it's a secondary infobox, but the etiquette most places is to discuss before making such a visible change. I reverted because the "cluttered" rationale did not ring true. An icon is a written message, and much of that message is conveyed in the imagery surrounding the saint. The buildings, the tools, every line and stroke tells part of the story. So it is definitely wrong to remove a "cluttered" image because you are, by definition, removing useful information. Elizium23 (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elizium, I agree with your reason for reverting my change. Great points. I'll keep them in mind for the future. Bagabondo (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconography in infobox 

message: According to the newspaper, . Well, that means he wrote the gospel when he was about 19-24 years old. Quite precocious, don't you think? And he was already a physician at that young age? That means before he got 25, he was an accomplished historian and a reputed physician. WP:REDFLAG.
And who said he was Syrian? Bible scholars, by and large, claim that he was either a Greek or a Hellenistic Jew. The DNA test says he was Syrian. Well, that's a mismatch, I would say. 
And even if they got the right Luke the Syrian, there is still no shred of evidence that the Gospel of Luke was written by someone called Luke. Maurice Casey stated that the Gospel of Luke was originally written by Matthew the Evangelist, aka Matthew the Tax Collector. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Times 

message: How could he have been born the same year that Paul died?  Is this an error? 2600:1004:B091:1E4B:39DE:AD8D:2632:7267 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth