Jeffrey Gibson

Please point me to the place in this exchange where I said you were wrong.

No, you haven't. I asked you to tell me exactly just what it is on Luke and his sources that you've read Telling me that you have read "widely enough" to know what's what on this matter is not only not an answer to my question, it's a fine example of petitio principii.

Jeffrey

Roland

Are you for real?????????????? :banghead:

But in case you need a quick summary of the synoptic issue, check out "Studying the Synopitc Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Robert H. Stein. I know that won't be enough for you since I imagine I would have to cite a hundred separate sources to satisy your demand for proof. But, for future reference, please remember this is an on-line discussion forum and not a dissertation. People are allowed to make reasonable statements (such as the world is round) without having to supply 12 pages of annotation to back them up.

Now, I'm still waiting for all the evidence you have regarding a multi-source hypothesis for Luke.

Jeffrey Gibson

I ask again: Please point me to the place in this exchange where I said you were wrong.

Have you read the discussion of the issue of Luke and his sources and/or looked at (let alone read anything that appears in) the multi page bibliography on scholarship on the sources in Fitzmyer's commentary on Luke? How about E. Schweizer's "Zur Frage durch Quellenbenutzung Lukas" or one of the most recent discussions of Lukan sources by Barbara Shellard entitled New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (or via: amazon.co.uk) that advocates Luke's use of John and the possibility (not infrequently mooted by scholars apparently unknown to you) that Luke used Josephus?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

So far as I can see, I didn't not ask you for a summary of the "synoptic issue". I asked you to tell me exactly just what it is on Luke and his sources that you've read.

I haven't asked for, let alone demanded, that you prove the claim you were making. I'm asking you to tell me what it is on Luke and his sources that you have read and whether or not we have reason to believe that your claim that "most modern scholars believe he [Luke] pretty much used Mark and Q and his own imagination" is not an example of the fallacy known as the appeal to personal incredulity.

Did I say it was a dissertation?

Leaving aside the question of whether the statement you made that "most modern scholars believe [Luke] pretty much used Mark and Q and his own imagination" is reasonable, could you please point me to where in this exchange I asked you to provide 12 pages of annotation?

Jeffrey

Roland

Thanks for the info. Perhaps, you could have just pointed me to them in the first place, rather than being so snide about it. And, yes, I have read critics who argue for Luke using Josephus as a source, but that hardly shines any light on the prologue where he mentions earlier writers who have specifically recorded the events of Jesus' life.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of whether I'm the one whose been snide in this exchange, perhaps you could have answered my original question when I asked it rather than doing the "I'll go on the offensive to hid my lack of familiarity with the scholarship I'm making claims about" dance that you did.

Great. But that's not what I asked you about. I asked you whether you have read the discussion of the issue of Luke and his sources, or any of the works listed in the multi page bibliography on the question of Luke's sources that appears in Fitzmyer's commentary on Luke, E. Schweizer's "Zur Frage durch Quellenbenutzung Lukas" and Barbara Shellard's New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Are you going to answer this question or not?

But these others do -- even if now you are changing the terms of the topic that you brought up.

And I ask again: Please point me to the place in this exchange where I said you were wrong and where I asked you to provide 12 pages of annotation.

Jeffrey