Diogenes the Cynic

Nope. We can conclude that Luke researched previous written sources. We can also safely conclude that Luke's heavy reliance on secondary sources and fabricated bullshit (along with his late dating) means that he had no access to living witnesses.
Bingo. We are finally in agreeance. Luke is not an eyewitness account of anything.
No, they are given from Mark and Q and from Luke's own imagination. Even if Luke had claimed to have interviewed living witnesses (which he didn't), not only would that still not make the Gospel of Luke an eyewitness account, it wouldn't even prove it was a secondary account since there would be no way to verify whether Luke was telling the truth.
No, you have a secondary account which may or may not be an accurate record of what the witness said. In that case, you could at least verify that the police officer spoke to the witness, something you don't have with Luke and something which Luke himself never even alleges.

Patriot7

John123,

What do you mean by that? Is your question in regards to textual critiscm? (ref: the "copier and original" quote you posted)

Or are you asserting a standard of moral behavior that must be met by the historian recording the event?

post tenebras lux

No. Luke doesn't say that the 'accounts given are from eyewitnesses', but that 'they were handed down to us' from eyewitnesses.

He's certainly not explicitly claiming that he is recording firsthand eyewitness accounts (i.e. from the eyewitnesses themselves), and it's hard for me to see that he's even implying it.

Patriot7

What written sources are you referring to? How many manuscripts do we have of these earlier sources? Are they corraborated with other accounts? How about extra-biblical sources? And how about those :notworthy: "mainstream, modern scholars":notworthy: ?

TomboyMom

Patriot7:

The authors of the gospels did not themselves witness the events they describe. Agree or disagree?

The majority of modern biblical scholars believe that the authors of the gospels did not themselves witness the events they describe. Agree or disagree?

Thank you.

Patriot7

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. (Ref: Luke 1)

1. Who has undertaken what? And what have they undertaken? What does the highlighted "they" refer to if not the "accounts"?

2. Who are "those" if not the eyewitnesses?

Why is it necessary to break the common laws of grammar and english composition to prove a historical document false?:banghead:

Spanky

Some people are just to smart for their own intelligence!:huh:

post tenebras lux

Does your father 'hand you down' his brand new porsche, or does he 'hand you down' your great-grandfather's fob watch and chain?

Why say 'handed down to us by' if he actually meant 'as told to me personally by'? :huh:

wjs3

Patriot7:

There's no need to get nasty about it. Geez. All I did was post the results of a web search to see if you had made your point about the news services. I was being skeptical...checking the facts...thinking with an open mind "maybe he's right". You should thank me for at least approaching your post with an open mind. Silly me!

You set the standard--CNN, etc.--I didn't--so don't take it out on me

The point I'm trying to make is that setting your standard as "is it in the news"--which is where YOU started this whole thing--is a pretty shoddy standard. Most on the boards have much more scholarly, critical criteria. I think you prove the point by rolling your eyes at evidence that I linked to that met your criterion. Even you think it's BS.

It's a much bigger deal that there are books written about this topic than whether anyone in the media feels compelled to comment on it. But as far as I've been able to tell you have little interest in actually reading what's been written.

WJS3

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark and Q, at least, and possibly a third. He also knew Josephus.
For Mark, lots and lots. For Q, we have every manuscript of Matthew and Luke. Not really. very little in the synoptics is independantly corrorated. Thomas corrorates some of the sayings.
There are no extra-Biblical sources.
How about them? I have no idea what you're asking.