PhilVaz

Diogenes the Cynic << I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eywitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus. >>

Then what does Luke mean or whoever you think wrote this Gospel:

Luke 1:1-2 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word... (NIV)

Luke 1:1-2 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the [a]word... (NASB)

Luke 1:1-2 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us... (NKJV)

Are you making a distinction between "spoken to eyewitnesses" directly vs. material handed down by eyewitnesses? Sounds like Luke is basically saying "Yes, I interviewed the eyewitnesses of these things myself."

F.F. Bruce: "Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental. A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy."

Sir William Ramsay: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statement of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

From the F.F. Bruce chapter on Luke's Gospel here

But keep shredding, I've never really read the "other side" I'll admit. :angel:

Phil P

Roland

12-Thomas=11???????????????????????

It's 11-Thomas=10

Judas was long gone by this time.

Luke and John are clearly describing the same event: Jesus' first appearance to his disciples on Easter evening.

Diogenes the Cynic

Phil,

I'm still working on the contradictions post. It's turning out to be longer than I expected so I'll respond in more detail to your posts later on. For now, just to answer your question about Luke. He was talking about collecting previously written sources, not literally talking to eyewitness.

Roland

Of course these are contraditory. In Matthew, Mary arrives at the tomb. An angel TELLS HER THAT JESUS HAS RISEN. That seems pretty clear to me.

In John, Mary arrives at the tomb, encounters no angel, then runs to the apostles to report that Jesus' body may have been stolen. Only on her second trip to the tomb does she learn about Jesus' resurrection - and not from an angel but from JESUS HIMSELF.

If that isn't a contradiction, then the word has no meaning.

PhilVaz

<< It's 11-Thomas=10 Judas was long gone by this time. >>

Oh yeah oops. I guess the question is whether it is the same event. If the same event, then yeah it would be a contradiction. I need to brush up on my resurrection story, Easter is coming up. :wave:

Phil P

PhilVaz

<< In John, Mary arrives at the tomb, encounters no angel, then runs to the apostles to report that Jesus' body may have been stolen. >>

There are angels mentioned in John 20:12, but I'll agree this stuff is not chronological. A little hard to piece together as historical events, that this happened, then this, then this, etc. Harmonizations have been attempted though, a book by John Wenham comes to mind.

The Easter Enigma not very highly recommended by Farrell Till

A short article that uses Wenham

Phil P

Toto

I think that "Luke" is trying to construct a chain of authority, by claiming that the stories that he tells go back ultimately to eyewitnesses. But there is no indication that Luke interviewed these eyewitnesses and no evidence of the witnesses themselves. (If you are going to use eyewitness testimony as authority, you need to start with the witnesses names, which are lacking.)

We know that one of his main sources was the gospel of Mark, and Mark does not claim eyewitness status, and seems to have constructed his narrative out of reworked Hebrew scriptures. Another of his sources was Josephus. Since Josephus is the major surviving history of the era, Luke's narrative checks out as accurate - but that just shows that Luke could copy details when needed.

andrewcriddle

The claim by Clement implies that the Gospel of Mark was written while Peter was still alive otherwise he could not have come to know about it. This is in disagreement with the other accounts.
Even if Clement and Irenaeus were dependent on Papias they were not dependent on Papias (via Eusebius)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Andrew Criddle,


Can you offer any information regarding the notion that logia does not necessarily exclude a narrative? It is my understanding that one cannot assume Papias is simply referring to a collection of sayings.

Vivisector

One thing I find interesting is that, by no means was GMatt the only text floating around that claimed the authority of Matthew (e.g., Gospel of the Hebrews).

Wouldn't it be ironic if Papias were referring to a non-canonical, lost gospel?