Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WishboneDawn · 11-03-2006, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Perhaps instead of "correcting" the other writers (as you say), the authors were writting to different audiences for slightly different purposes, thus yielding the different emphases in the gospel accounts?

That's what I think is probably closer to what happened. Each writer had his own audience and agenda and tweaked their inerpretation to fit better. I've never heard the idea that they were correcting mistakes.

Amaleq13 · 11-03-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

I've never heard the idea that they were correcting mistakes.

It is a commonly held view by modern scholarship.

The mistakes tend to be theological in nature rather than corrections of factual errors. The author of Mark unapologetically and without any indication of embarrassment depicts Jesus going to John to repent his sins. Subsequent authors appear to have been embarrassed by this notion and changed the story.

Magdlyn · 11-03-2006, 08:41 AM

Mark said Jesus "could not" do miracles, b/c of the disbelief of a certain group. Matt and Luke corrected this by saying "did not."

Mark has no virgin birth story! Hello?

Mark has Jesus' family declare "he is beside himself". Ie: crazy.

Mark's Jesus was altogether less divine than Matt's and Luke's.

rhutchin · 11-03-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, there is a difference here between what are explicitly declared corrections, and what we can infer are corrections. In theory, every contradiction between the gospels is a form of correction by the later gospel.

Another interesting question to ask him, however, is this:

Are all of the gospels written by eyewitnesses?

If he says yes to this, then you know he never read the gospels, because the gospel of Luke explicitly states in the introduction that it is not an eyewitness account, but the compilation of research by the author.

Quote:

Luke 1

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Some people think that Luke personally witnessed many things that Jesus did. When Luke says, "...I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,..." investigated might mean that Luke had heard about Jesus and he then investigated those things that he had heard by actually traveling to see Jesus, hear Him preach, and observe the miracles Jesus performed. During that time, he talked to many people and kept notes. He became a follower of Jesus and eventually accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys.

Chili · 11-03-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Some people think that Luke personally witnessed many things that Jesus did. When Luke says, "...I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,..." investigated might mean that Luke had heard about Jesus and he then investigated those things that he had heard by actually traveling to see Jesus, hear Him preach, and observe the miracles Jesus performed. During that time, he talked to many people and kept notes. He became a follower of Jesus and eventually accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys.

Luke gives us the perspective as seen from heaven (subconscious mind) while Matthew does this from the conscious mind and Mark as a third party observer. This would be how nobody is correcting anyone but each is given a true account of how it is from their perspective.

douglas · 11-03-2006, 09:59 AM

I don't buy the idea that the gospel's differ because of an attempt to target specific audiences. They certainly do this, but it wouldn't justify the conscious manipulation of "facts."

For example, there can be several reasons why Luke's and Mark's accounts of Jesus' last words differ:

a. God has his reasons and just because we don't know why doesn't mean there isn't one. (This is the argument my baptist neighbor would make).
b. Jesus said both things. Mark and Luke were just choosing different things to put in their Gospel (even though the two phrases appear to contradict each other) which would make it an error of omission on both their parts.
c. Luke felt that Mark was in error and was doing his best to correct the error based on his own logic, or other eyewitness accounts.
d. Luke deliberately changed what he knew to be the facts to "target" his audience, which would make Luke somewhat of a propogandist.
e. Luke had never read Mark and was basing his account on some other tradition or eyewitness account.

You can choose which one to believe, but I'm suggesting c) is the most likely option.

douglas · 11-03-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Luke gives us the perspective as seen from heaven (subconscious mind) while Matthew does this from the conscious mind and Mark as a third party observer. This would be how nobody is correcting anyone but each is given a true account of how it is from their perspective.

Interesting! At the risk of getting in over my head, What is this opinion based on? Is it based purely on a literary analysis of the text, or are their references in the Gospels that lead a person to believe that the synoptic writers consciously took this perspective?

If you could point me to books or internet sites that talk more about this that would work too.

WishboneDawn · 11-03-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is a commonly held view by modern scholarship.

The mistakes tend to be theological in nature rather than corrections of factual errors. The author of Mark unapologetically and without any indication of embarrassment depicts Jesus going to John to repent his sins. Subsequent authors appear to have been embarrassed by this notion and changed the story.

Okay. I see want you mean but I'd squabble over semantics. I don't think 'correcting mistakes' is a good description. More revising to fit the authors intent.

WishboneDawn · 11-03-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

I don't buy the idea that the gospel's differ because of an attempt to target specific audiences. They certainly do this, but it wouldn't justify the conscious manipulation of "facts."

For example, there can be several reasons why Luke's and Mark's accounts of Jesus' last words differ:

a. God has his reasons and just because we don't know why doesn't mean there isn't one. (This is the argument my baptist neighbor would make).
b. Jesus said both things. Mark and Luke were just choosing different things to put in their Gospel (even though the two phrases appear to contradict each other) which would make it an error of omission on both their parts.
c. Luke felt that Mark was in error and was doing his best to correct the error based on his own logic, or other eyewitness accounts.
d. Luke deliberately changed what he knew to be the facts to "target" his audience, which would make Luke somewhat of a propogandist.
e. Luke had never read Mark and was basing his account on some other tradition or eyewitness account.

You can choose which one to believe, but I'm suggesting c) is the most likely option.

There's also f) Luke changed what was said to better communicate his ideas (a subtle difference from the audience on).

Probably the truth is that it wasn't one reason and there were different reasons for different changes. On one Luke had heard a different account that he gave more weight too, on another it didn't fit with his message.

Malachi151 · 11-03-2006, 11:10 AM

Luke seem sot take out the blatant cases of copying directly from the OT. He paraphrases more, and changes things up a bit, instead of just straight copying, which seems to be one thing. For example, he changed where Mark/Mat had Jesus say "My God, My God, etc..." to something that wasn't a direct quote from a damned Psalm.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2006, 08:41 AM	#13
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Mark said Jesus "could not" do miracles, b/c of the disbelief of a certain group. Matt and Luke corrected this by saying "did not." Mark has no virgin birth story! Hello? Mark has Jesus' family declare "he is beside himself". Ie: crazy. Mark's Jesus was altogether less divine than Matt's and Luke's.

11-03-2006, 09:59 AM	#16
douglas Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 701	I don't buy the idea that the gospel's differ because of an attempt to target specific audiences. They certainly do this, but it wouldn't justify the conscious manipulation of "facts." For example, there can be several reasons why Luke's and Mark's accounts of Jesus' last words differ: a. God has his reasons and just because we don't know why doesn't mean there isn't one. (This is the argument my baptist neighbor would make). b. Jesus said both things. Mark and Luke were just choosing different things to put in their Gospel (even though the two phrases appear to contradict each other) which would make it an error of omission on both their parts. c. Luke felt that Mark was in error and was doing his best to correct the error based on his own logic, or other eyewitness accounts. d. Luke deliberately changed what he knew to be the facts to "target" his audience, which would make Luke somewhat of a propogandist. e. Luke had never read Mark and was basing his account on some other tradition or eyewitness account. You can choose which one to believe, but I'm suggesting c) is the most likely option.

11-03-2006, 11:10 AM	#20
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Luke seem sot take out the blatant cases of copying directly from the OT. He paraphrases more, and changes things up a bit, instead of just straight copying, which seems to be one thing. For example, he changed where Mark/Mat had Jesus say "My God, My God, etc..." to something that wasn't a direct quote from a damned Psalm.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.