Net2004

if he carefully investigated everything from the BEGINNING and the 500 witnesses claim was in an "early creed" why didn't he include it in his account ? luke could have dropped his cut and copy from mark, save space, and do investigation on atleast 50 witnesses and include what exactly they had seen . but "historian" luke had to leave it to christians like sotto voc to read things into what he had said.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Net2004,

Good point.

In general, if someone puts work into an effort and trys to explain the effort, she/he tells what effort they put in. It legitimizes the work.

For example if I am writing a book about Charlie Chaplin and I went to Europe to interview his daughter, Geraldine (still alive, age 68, today) and went to England to see the places where he grew up, I would certainly include it to add more authenticity to the work.

For example, Josephus says in the first paragraph of his "War of the Jews," says that he is "Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards,"

For example, Herodotus says in Book I of his History:
In Book II, he is even more specific about his sources:

Luke does not give his sources because he is not doing history. He has already told us where he is getting his information. His source is his own imagination (autoptai ) and the writings of others who have seen the word (hypēretai) and written it down exactly as they imagined it, just as he is doing. This, he notes is how "the Word" was spread from the beginning.

Luke is telling us that he is writing what we would categorize as "fiction." Only by mistranslating the term "Autoptai" do people come to another conclusion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aChristian

No need to. You could go read it in Paul's letter. He had to select what to include out of all the information and he didn't think it was important. You may think it should have been included, but you are not the author. Never seen any evidence of this 'early creed' you are referring to, but that is irrelevant anyway.

aa5874

gLuke is an Anti-Marcionite Text from the 2nd century or later. The first mention of a gospel according to Luke is AFTER Marcion was dead in "Against Heresies" however based on writings attributed to Justin Martyr and "Against Celsus" by Origen it is most likely that a gospel according to Luke was NOT known up to c 170-180 CE.

No gospel called according to Luke has been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

In effect, the gospel according to Luke is NOT likely to be an eyewitness account but 2nd century or later "bullshit reenactments" using your own words.

Diogenes the Cynic

It implies no such thing. He says others have set down accounts "handed down" from eyewitness, and that he has "followed" (i.e. "studied") them all and is ready to set down his own sort of omnibus account. In the Greek, there is no ambiguity.
Yes. He copied them word for word. He probably also used Josephus as a sort of wikipedia source.
What is your real evidence for any of this?

What you're reiterating here is spurious, 2nd century folklore. Luke is manifestly late - 90's at best - and does not himself even claim to have interviewed any witnesses or even known Paul. If he had access to witnesses, he would not have had to copy from Mark and Q. If he had access to witnesses, he would not have needed to contrive a such a patently fabricated Nativity or rely on Mark for his Passion.

Luke doesn't even agree with Paul on a few things, like the appearance chronology, for instance, or how many time Paul went to Jerusalem.

Luke never even claims to be named Luke. have you ever really drilled into the supporting evidence for these traditional authorship attributions? If you ever do, you will see how specious the traditional arguments really are, and understand why virtually all modern New Testament scholarship now, with the exception of a few of the Pauline Epistles, rejects all of its authorship traditions as spurious. That includes not only the Gospels and Acts, but all the Apostolic Epistles as well.

We do not have any extant eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

aa5874

Well, now what is your evidence of "Q"??

Please, it is useless to introduce hypothethical sources and demand others provide evidence.

There is NO evidence at all that the author of gLuke copied an assumed document called "Q".

Now, gLuke in the Canon is the only Synoptic gospel to claim Jesus ATE FOOD after he resurrected.

The Eating of food by the resurrected Jesus inplies that Jesus was BODILY raised from the dead.

The Short gMark, the Long gMark, gMatthew, writings atrributed to Justin, and Celsus in "Against Celsus" by Origen suggest that gLuke was NOT known up to 170-180 CE.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever from antiquity that gLuke was composed in the 1st century or that it is credible.

Diogenes the Cynic

Either Matthew and Luke shared a common written source or they were both inspired by magic. Take your pick.

Net2004

paul does not identify his witnesses.you would think lukes investigations would help paul out, but i guess luke was relying on you 21 century christians to make speculations about lukes investigations.

GenesisNemesis

If you're a Christian it shouldn't matter whether or not they were "eyewitnesses", all that would matter is if they're "divinely inspired" or not.

Adam

deleted by Adam