Was Luke a Woman?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Was the Gospel according to Luke actually written by a woman?
The four canonical gospels of the New Testament, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are all anonymous works whose authors are unknown. Although the 3rd gospel is traditionally ascribed to "Luke," a physician companion of the apostle Paul, many modern scholars have pointed to a number of clues within the text that imply that the actual author had a different perspective. We'll look at the evidence behind the thesis that the author of Luke was actually an early Christian woman.
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
'The Life of Brian ' makes more sense every time I watch it. Thought I'd share that.
A very interesting lecture and perspective. Whether the author was a woman or an early “enlightened” man the point is that women are important and have an important role in the church, life and society.
Luke wasn't a hebrew person, so other cultures had their own standards of sexuality and acceptance
Thank you. I recently finished that book (Who Wrote the Gospels) and as usual, your presentation brought it to life for me. But even without that, the lecture stands alone. I love how you present the information and are not trying to convince the listener of a particular point of view. 🌟
Can never thank you enough John. These lectures have not only allowed me to reconcile my faith and upbringing, but you have returned me to the church of my youth and ancestors - with a new outlook on life and spirituality.
There also fun to listen to!
Religion is fake
Brilliant channel. Depth of scholarship along with skilled, clear and enthusiastic teaching. Keeps to an academic objectivity and never strays into bias.
Great lecture, John. Very informative and convincing! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and wisdom.
Your mission statement rocks
Luke was merely biased towards the marginalized, such as the poor and women.
Could Q have been written during Jesus' life contemporaneously and circulated later?
Another great presentation. Thank you!
Love the channel
You are great to listen to. Thank you for your wisdom.
This was such an enjoyable lecture, John.
I found this very meaningful. Thank you John!!!!!
Wait, we don't have Q.
So perhaps Luke is simply incorporating a more accurate version of Q?
Perhaps Q was "lost" because it bothered too many with a patriarchal bent .
This would line up with Luke correcting details from other gospels.
Excellent lecture thank you!
Very interesting. Thank you.
You produce the finest lectures I've heard since, what am I saying?
I don't have any lecture to offer that is better than yours.
I did have one professor who was your equal. Bas.
How many female writers were there at that time? Wasn't it mainly a male avocation?
That's what people think, but it's really not true. And most people back then told stories and exchanged info by word of mouth. That's how family traditions and cultures work.
Maybe there’s a simpler explanation. Luke takes great interest in the plight of the marginalized. Women were certainly included in that group.
Yep, women always need a strong noble man to rescue them and look after them. Thats the whole point of Christian teaching - women need good strong men😊
@clareryan3843 at certain times it was assumed that women led a Jane austen or pride and prejudice life.
In hebrew culture, women are not supposed to treated subservient.
There is a tantalising mystery mentioned by the novelist Taylor Caldwell in the intro to her great novel on St Luke. Caldwell claims to have met an old nun who compiled a big book on traditions and legends on the life of Luke not found in the Bible or anywhere else. I have always wondered about the book. Did Caldwell make it up?
“St Luke” pfft! The author of the gospel
Is unknown!
@@HistoryandReviewsfriend, you are projecting your own self onto your comment. I didn't argue who the author was
Bold of you to just assume someones gender
Funny
Yeah, I know bruh...everybody knows there are 116 genders, duh?
It's just a you tube video. His reasoning seems a bit weak to me too.
Women authors often used masculine names to be respected.
Thank you so much. I do not believe in God but I do think that faith and religion are fundamental to being human. I think that understanding and recognizing how our beliefs have developed helps us know who we are and leaves us free and equal to follow our hearts. You are a great man.
Maybe you don't believe in the God of religion. But instead a Divine source of everything. -Ex-Christian
Dorothy,
Like you… I don’t believe in gods either. And no, no divine beings of any kind. The Natural world is so much more beautiful without them. I like these lectures cus they seem unbiased and no “preachy”… great tools for hitting the Reset button!
Thanks!
As for Mark he was Barnibus's nephew....Barnibus being a companion of Paul's until Paul's lies got to much for Barnibus. But Paul did recruit Mark to help write scripture, same as Paul recruited Luke....
I get the impression Paul recruited Luke first around 46AD and latter Mark...
I have heard of claims that Mark may have been a servant at the last supper but I have little to no interest chasing that one down the rabbit hole!
4:12 Most scholars would disagree that Luke was the first gospel.
Current Documentary Hypothesis scholars use the word "tradition" rather than "source", because it is now held that there was no single source for J, E, D, or P -- but many. And, it is now put forth that there are as many sources of each, and of every piece of early Christian literature, as there are translators -- for a translator must make certain decisions, and is always, therefore, actually an editor, some more than others.
Was it possible for women to be physician back then?
There were rare educated women back then.
Rare educated woman is a lie and misnomer. If you read your Bible you'd know that
Your chart at timestamp 3:12 has the amusing misspelling “Pontius Pilot” (for “Pontius Pilate”). Will you please correct it?
Here is another hypothesis. There was no Q. All non-Markan material in Matthew is unique to Matthew, and Luke borrowed 23% from Matthew (rather than from Q). Why is this possibility not considered?
@22:30 Author's dedication seems to be describing multiple sources and proto-Mark is but one of them. The goal of the author is to construct a concise narrative. Perhaps I am reading too much into the word "investigating", but it seems to me that the author is suggesting that they are doing more than summarizing and are in contact others.
The Luke author seems to take the role of historian in contrast to Paul who is more a judge who relies on personal inspiration, i.e. sent not from men but directly from Jesus, to interpret how the religion should be practiced.
15:30 I don't know how osteoporosis is a woman's issue, when it can occur in both genders.
While osteoporosis can afflict both men and women, it is a far more prevalent disease in menopausal women than it is in men in general. It is actually known as a female favoriting plight.
@@clairebeane3455 I don't think we should gender diseases like I know that kidney stones are more prominent in men But I don't think we should refer it as only a male disease same with prostate cancer.
@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 I am not gendering the disease, but as kidney stones tend to favor men, osteoporosis tends to favor women. It’s pretty simple. While it does affect both genders, the ones primarily afflicted with said diseases are the ones most prominently associated with the disease.
@clairebeane3455 Yeah, but if you isolate a disease as just merely a gender thinking, it helps to diminish people who actually suffirst the disease in question. Like a man suffering breast cancer may be fee a feminized. Or a woman suffering prostate cancer maybe feel like she's a masculine.
@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 Again, no one is gendering illnesses. Literally no one. The only diseases I can think of off the top of my head that one gender suffers from exclusively and not another gender are testicular and ovarian cancer. But there is quite literally nothing wrong with stating the facts that one gender by rule tends to suffer more predominantly from particular diseases than do the opposite gender. I believe you are overthinking this and reading too much into it. No one is denying one gender something over another gender based on an illnesses that tends to target one gender more predominantly than it does another. I have to go now. Have a lovely day.
How does Mark relate to the claimed Coptic patriarch Mark?
What if it was a woman? Does it matter?
Not necessarily but it's just part of the effort to try and find out who wrote the gospels
Also, if it were shown conclusively that Luke had female authorship the patriarchal climate changes for many faith communities .
Luke is just a physician and a writer...not a messiah or a prophet. Goodness
Maybe Luke was writing to impress a special lady in his life. Like Dickens.
When you say "historical jesus" do you mean anything after the time he supposedly died? So like, if you're cat dies and you get another one... then the second cat wouldn't have ever met the historical one?
Really interesting, at first I thought no way this can be true but the importance the Luke Acts author put on women is interesting.
The show about Paul being gay was persuasive also
@@nosuchthing8 Yes, I agree as well.
Women are barely mentioned
@@HistoryandReviews This is the only gospel that gives Mary a backstory.
@@stevenv6463 the first two chapters of Luke are utter forgeries except for the intro about “other accounts being written “. That Mary speech was 100% a Catholic insertion seeing as how Mary utterly disappeared from
The story afterward. John and Jesus being relatives is utter BS as well
TL/DR: Almost certainly no. And, I have a graduated divinity degree, know the languages, etc., and have read a book and essays making this claim. (And, I'm a secularist now, so I have no fundagelical investment in the "almost certainly no" statement.)
If John mentioned this in the lecture, I apologize for missing it -- but I recall that Paul wrote about he traveled with young men, unlike the other apostles, who traveled with women.
Also, if there was a Luke who was a doctor (Thereputae), was he part of the group from Mt. Carmel? Regardless of whether he wrote this gospel? Or, could Luke have been from Alexandria, where sexism was a bit less than in the Levant?
"Luke" being ascribed as the author is a later tradition
The time line in this video has the gospels written in the following order: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and
Luke has a smaller subset of "Q" than Matthew. Why then is "Q" even necessary?
Why insist on a lost source when it is more likely that Luke could be borrowing from Matthew?
Borrowing? No! They ALL stole from Mark who stole from Homer!
@@HistoryandReviews Dennis MacDonald makes a compelling case for just that in _Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew_ AND _The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark_
@@joecaner I like Dennis but he still thinks it’s historical and believes in “Q” which is a joke
@@HistoryandReviews He does. Everybody believes something. W.C. Fields believes that he'll have another drink...which is decidedly more grounded in observable reality than some speculative document based entirely on inductive reasoning that no one has ever seen or even alluded to in some critical bit of apologetics.
So yeah. I appreciate Dennis based upon his scholarship and not his prejudices. No one is perfect, and if one is in the habit of throwing away babies because their bathwater is dirty, there would be precious few babies to raise.
I am of the opinion that the Book of Thomas is the Q document. It is consistent in its quotations but they have extra phrases. They’re also what looks like later statements of another time which are categorically in conflict with the earlier statements. So people kept adding to Thomas. The original document is held to have been in Aramaic but we only have Greek copies. The lengthier more consistent statements sound like Jesus made them. A different political climate altered them. In the usual Christian fashion that dominated after the Fourth Century AD/CE, and actually before the Fourth Century ended, the Book of Thomas was not only banned but actively destroyed. We can thank people who decided not to destroy but just store elsewhere for the existing Greek copies of the Gospel of Thomas. It is mostly an enlightening work.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is definitely not by the Apostle, it’s very Greek and of a different writing style. It has a certain popularity among atheists & Christian extremists and is very, very available on RUclips as is the collected sayings of Jesus known as the Gospel of Thomas. If Infancy Gospel is in the title, you are looking at the wrong book.
I do not think Christians are even capable of the thought that the Gospel of Thomas is the famous Q document. The fact that it is Gnostic will eventually have them reaching for matches. Expecting no intellectual debate on the subject ever.
Thanks!
Thanks for supporting the channel!
Very interesting indeed. And well researched and argued. As an alternative, it's a possibility that Luke was gay. No, gay men aren't women, ofcourse; yet gay men often have more empathy and connection with women and their issues. And Luke’s closeness to Paul, who could well have been gay, brings the permutations more towards likelihood.
Yep, far more plausible that the document was written by a gay man than a member of 50% of the population
Homosexuality is against the torah
@@whidoineedthis So much is! Abominations and death sentences figure widely in the Law. But then Iron Age is Iron Age. And Christ is Christ.
I have just finished listening to your suggestion that Paul was a repressed self hating homosexual. His contempraries remarked that he travelled with young men and had young men as assistants. So i dont think this one is going to fly
I don't think if the Gospel of Luke was made by a woman that a woman would include the fact that Mary Magdalene had seven demons in her.
Cat fight
@whidoineedthis So you think Luke met? Mary, and decided to drop that petty info as a Diss.
this makes so much sense
I think Luke is named after a female water Goddess Leucothea; especially with that analogy of the "Lukewarm" church. Apollo supposed to have the title of Luke. Apollo is the sun thats Hot, Cold and warm
Maybe. Because Luke was the only writer in any ancient hebrrw manuscript, that was a gentile (non hebrew)
Thanks
Thank you for supporting the channel!
If so, Heaven help us. If St Paul had taken a woman with him on the voyage to Rome, he would have raised a few eyebrows. But this is a good enough excuse NOT to preach the Christian message, a better one than claiming that Genesis is the whole Bible. Doesn't the New Testament Greek have feminine inflections, like French today?
Not if she dressed as a man
The Greeks are extremely feminine culture.
The table at 31:15 is very misleading! For example: the word "woman" occurs in the Gospel of John many times in several forms.
the author of Acts gives account of Paul's road to Damascus experience in three different contradictory stories, possibility to exposed Paul in his self-proclaimed apostleship
on Paul writing Timothy about women not speaking in church or allowed to do this or that, search was in Greek society they treated women as God's goddesses, they were rulers or leaders, Paul was changing a culture to Christian where men and women are equal
Except Women weren’t equal according to Paul, the 12, and Jesus
Seriously? You do know Paul wrote that the “Promise” was given just to men in Romans. Also the H in Catholic altar cloth is Homo not Humani making Jesus the Savior of Men not Women & Men. I can list other cute remarks by Paul exposing his misogyny, homophobia, & racism if you need help. I’ll give the citations.
Christ is not the Savior of Women in Christian ✝️ belief. For centuries, Christ has been the exclusive savior of men. Women are still waiting for a Savior.
The author of Acts, is Luke
"And so we can pretty dismiss this tradition..." Surely Ireneaus is in a better position than us with his guess-work - he would have known people who knew some of the authors of these writings (e.g. Polycarp). I don't think that we can totally dismiss this out of hand, particularly as there is other evidence that supports Luke as the author including Papias and the internal evidence. This seems poor reasoning overall.
The reason why people dismiss Irenaeus is precisely BECAUSE he should have known very early Christians and could have used their first-hand accounts, but he didn't. If you read what Irenaeus himself wrote he actually didn't know for sure. The attributions were already traditions in his time and that's how he described them. If he knew for sure he would have written something like, "So, I asked Polycarp and he told me, oh, yeah, this one's written by my old pal Luke the physician."
@@andrewsuryali8540 I think to a certain extent you are right, but this doesn't open change the overall thrust of what I was saying - there are multiple lines of evidence. If not Luke, then.... well it could be absolutely anyone, but does it change the text or the intent of the author? If we have good reason to suppose that the traditional author is wrong, then what is it. Surely it can't just be that the gospel doesn't say who it is from?
@@wayneburchell6346 there is NO evidence that a Luke wrote anything because the gospel itself never names its author!!
@@HistoryandReviews That is not strictly true. Though s/he does not name themselves, there is plenty of evidence. E.g. Nobody else ever was attributed to the work; The similarity with Acts which includes the They/We passages; The choice of Luke instead of a disciple, etc. Whether there is enough evidence is the issue, not that there is no evidence.
@@wayneburchell6346 your evidence “nobody else was attributed to the work” “the we passages in Acts”
That’s not evidence! SHOW ME “I, LUKE, am writing these works!” Show me a name mentioned period!!
True. Women issues such as the Sex in the City of Nazareth, Galilee . The ANGEL - “the Man Gabriel” (Dan. 9:21 b) - Lord Octavian (god) SENT Angel Abgarus - (hostage in Rome, AD 4) to BV Mary. He did her - HE “came in unto her” (Lk. 1:26-28), and she conceived.. And brought forth her firstborn son (Lk. 2;7). Josephus’ Grandma Salome of Cleophas aka Alphaeus, the daughter of Bv Mary (Mk.6:3), the Daughter-wife of Alphaeus aka Cleophas, the father of Mathias - the father of Paul/Saul/Joseph of Arimatthia - Matthias, the “son of Alphaeus”. So, St. Paul is the Grandnephew of Jesus, the sister of Salome (Mk.6:3) - Grandmother of Saul/Paul.
The widow with osteoporosis?🙄 Diagnosed by New US science?
She was suffering by unceasing bleeding, AS written originally.
You mean you have the Original source..????!! WoW!
@@botmfedr1m291 American boasters are reinventing everything having been invented Long ago .sry😉. Even the bible🙈
Jesus healed the woman with the 12 years nonstop period blood flow.
It's hard to comprehend that a widow could be wealthy. Didn't inheritance flow through the males?
You know Luke never witnessed any biblical events.... so these nice women stories in Luke about Mary your suggesting came from a handfull of Q sayings..... I say they came from Paul who was trying to convince the Jews to convert to his new religion by makeing the Jews think the new faith is where their silly old prophesies were being fore filled.
Q wasn't compiled while jesus was living 😢
Silly jews, Paul is for kids
I believe so
What's the hair about? To look like Jesus ?
That's funny, cus in the description in revelation, it says, he had hair like wool, and skin like burnt brass.... so idk what's going on here
Luke cannot be a women as there is a bible passage stating women cannot teach 1 Timothy 2:12 written by Paul who had the authority to stop people writing bible scriptures... for example Galatians 1:8-9 & 1:13
That means for Paul to suggest beloved Luke, we cannot rule out a a homosexual relationship between them!
I think the clearest point I took from this lecture was how exclusively patriarchal most of New Testament writing is: the evidence for Luke being a woman is that the 'Luke's' writing refers to women and the rest don't. 😐🙄😖 might be written by a female, might be a bloke who really loves and respects his old Mum. Theres a lot of years of sexism in Western Civilsation that has found justification in Biblical teaching😐 hasnt been a lot of support for the natural environment tbh either😳 not sure world peace has benefited🤔 In the end its just history isnt it? The mystics and theologians and prophets occur in every age and culture and the civilisation of the Age rolls on over them. Sorry for the downer🤦 heat domes over most continents atm, 4degrees temp rise for seas around my coast in 100 years
What you are sharing is False and blasphemous. May you turn from this sin and May God have mercy on your soul!!!
If you don’t believe they are eyewitness accounts then why do you believe in Jesus then or do you just do this to get people to donate to you and aren’t actually religious?
The lecture explains the scholarly consensus on ancient history and the alternative theories. The bible is not considered a primary source because it was writen after the events described. That is taken for certain. There's a method to determine the likelihood of a charecter or story to be regarded as fictional or historical. It involves literary criticism, archeological findings, comparative mithology, etc. Not everything is known by scholars, though. There are many gaps.
Abraão Ferraz the people who say those things though probably don’t see Jesus as god and more as a prophet or preacher with good views what would make him any different than today’s preachers or Jewish rabbi’s if he never rose from the dead or performed the miracles he did? I say either you believe in the Jesus from the bible or you don’t really
@@Dreammaster695 NightmareEntity there's no such dichotomy. Otherwise you would have to believe EVERYTHING that has been written about Jesus in non cannonical gospels. Don't be so naive. What you call new testament is a 3rd century compilation of heavily edited texts that fit the predominant orthodox agenda of early Christianity. Academic scrutiny combining archeology, linguistics and literary criticism is essential in reconstructing the past. Even primary ancient text must be read critically because they could say something false or misleading, or fantastic (magical/supernatural), let alone a secondary source like the bible.
@@Dreammaster695Shut up you illiterate fool.
Joe Exotic says the guy who think Luke is a woman lol