| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Luke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christology (Luke 3:22)
edit"where virtually all the earliest witnesses have God saying, "This day I have begotten you."[41]Ehrman 1996, p. 66." What earliest sources are these?
- P4, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Washingtonianus have "well pleased".
- P75, P45, Borgianus do not contain the passage.
The only relatively early text I found with "begotten" is Bezae.
"Luke, Gospel according to" listed at Redirects for discussion
editThe redirect Luke, Gospel according to has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Luke, Gospel according to until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Citing Ehrman
editEhrman's argument about Luke 3:22 is fringe. It is only attested in one manuscript although also used by some Church Fathers.
Joseph Fitzmyer argues the passage was changed to the "today I have begotten thee" because of its parallel to Psalm 2:7. Divus303 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what it actually means. Does it mean "what Luke originally wrote" or does it mean "what was originally spoken"? StAnselm (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ehrman argues that later scribes, in accordance with dogmatic theology, changed the reading of Luke 3:22 to "with you I am pleased," and that it originally had a more Adoptionist reading. Divus303 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, he's just flat wrong about "virtually all the earliest witnesses". Yes, delete all the text relying on that reference (i.e. from "An important example". It's not an important example.) StAnselm (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not as WP:FRINGE as you think, see e.g. this. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, he's just flat wrong about "virtually all the earliest witnesses". Yes, delete all the text relying on that reference (i.e. from "An important example". It's not an important example.) StAnselm (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ehrman argues that later scribes, in accordance with dogmatic theology, changed the reading of Luke 3:22 to "with you I am pleased," and that it originally had a more Adoptionist reading. Divus303 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Fringe
editI have reverted some WP:FRINGE edits. Here is why:
r/Academic8iblical @ Search Reddit
psstein • 16 days ago
Moderator MA I History of Science
I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.
Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist.
See the evidence quoted at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. The mainstream academic view is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous.
I don't say that conservative evangelicals should not get WP:CITED, but they do not speak for the mainstream academia. Conservative evangelical scholars generally do not write mainstream history about the Bible and Christianity. So, while their views are theology, such views do not amount to history. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reddit is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Actually read tgeorgescu's list of sources instead of dismissing his comment outright. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)