AGNT
Can you explain to me why did you do this? Quodvultdeus (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Your edit used an evangelical, non-scholarly text. This violates NPOV and RS. AGNT (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello AGNT, you asked me to talk to you and see if we could reach an agreement about date/authorship of Gospel of Luke.
I think we should present the range of opinion. Some scholars want to say it was written by Luke (and have evidence to offer), others want to say it was not written by Luke (and have evidence to offer).
At present, everything on Wikipedia related to authorship of NT documents tends to put a spotlight/favor opinion that is relatively non-traditional in nature. Often using statements such as "scholarly consensus now holds ______", when, as I think we can admit, there is no raging debate in scholarly circles on these issues.
Agreed?
I personally have degrees and certificates in these fields (all from accredited institutions), as well as 25 semesters of study in these fields. I'm sure you have degrees or studies in them too. We are respectable men.
I think the best way is to just be honest and share the divergence of opinion, without giving a favored position to only one, or using phrases like "scholarly consensus" which are just plain not transparent with the reading community.
I tried to offer the perspectives of two of the most famous scholars on the book of Luke (I.H. Marshall & F.F. Bruce). How about we just note that there is difference of opinion, and then state the scholars that hold various views, their credentials, and what their views are. Let's let the reader then evaluate.
Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwiley22 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)