yalla

Andrew: "a/ IMHO errors in using ones notes are much more likely when the original is not available for checking points where ones notes are ambiguous."

In my opinion the author of "Luke" was not particularly fussy about getting the details he borrowed from others correct. Slap dash sort of attitude.
For example when copying from "Mark" he changes, for no reason apparent to me, "Mark" 9.2 "6 days'' to "about 8 days'' at "Luke" 9.28.
Or the 3 slightly different versions of Paul's alleged vision in Acts. He doesn't seem to worry about being consistent even within his own stories.
Or the different order of the temptations as compared to "Matthew"...someone varied from someone else for some idiosyncratic reason.

Consistency, compared to other sources, is not a strong point, of the gospels, they feel free to change events and the [sacred] words of JC for their own reasons.

Only a feeling of course but it would explain his variations from source Josephus without having to speculate that he heard, rather than read or even had a copy of, Josephus.

Which would impact on the speculated date of writing.

aa5874

What method or information did you use to make the determination that the story was a folklore?

It is a matter of concern to me when persons refute events that authors write about themselves but the authors still maintain credibilty.

Peter Kirby

Please mind the dates on threads, and start new ones if months and years have passed. (I for one am certain that I don't know what I was talking about back then, off hand. For what it's worth, "defending" it doesn't interest me now.)

--
Peter Kirby

aa5874

But regardless of the age of the so-called Jesus, he was never schooled, or should I say, Jesus was supposed to be illiterate, unless his learning was miraculous.

The story appears to be fictitious and his age of 12 may be linked to the zodiac.

John 7:15, And the Jews marvelled saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?