|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-15-2012, 10:33 PM
|
#61 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
|
to Duvduv,
For the Corinthians letters, start at Chapter 3 of http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html , where I explained why we are dealing with edited epistles. Right before that I have a recapitulation of Paul's third journey. And before that, how I got to determine it. I can understand why some might be thinking at different authors. It is because of difference of situations towards the Corinthians, travel plans, prevailing moods, etc. in the same canonical letter. But I found out that each two canonical letters are actually made up of three different ones combined (pasted) together, where an emotional Paul had to face various situations (such as fully accepted, partially abandoned or almost completely) at different times. For example the 3 letters which make 1Cor were written within a two years span (53-55), same for the 3 of 2Cor (55-57). Anyway for ease, here are my webpages: http://historical-jesus.info/co1a.html http://historical-jesus.info/co1b.html http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html http://historical-jesus.info/co2a.html http://historical-jesus.info/co2b.html http://historical-jesus.info/co2c.html |
|
|
02-16-2012, 05:02 AM
|
#62 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Bernard, why would the original version of Luke, which followed Matthew anyway, not have incorporated the verses, and why did the interpolater seem to prefrr Corinthians to matthew? What's your view?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 07:36 AM
|
#63 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
|
to Duvduv,
I am certain that gLuke & gMatthew were written at about the same time, that is around 85-90. And "Luke" did not know about gMatthew (and a big chunk of gMark) (and "Matthew" did not know about gLuke). I explained that on my webpage on Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html ("Luke" not knowing gMatthew) and http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html (dating of gospels). |
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 07:42 AM
|
#64 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Do you mean then that all the similarities from Matthew to GLuke are just coincidences?
|
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 07:59 AM
|
#65 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
|
to Duvduv,
I already said why an interpolator would add up a cup offering to gLuke last supper. Why he chose to be close to Paul description of the same cup offering? Opinions differ, but if our interpolator copied gMatthew in that regards, the second cup offering would look almost word by word like the first one. Or, the interpolator was fond of Paul's rendition of it. Or, by using the same wording than Paul, that would make the second cup offering more believable as true. |
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 08:10 AM
|
#66 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
|
to Duvduv,
What similarities? There are huge differences in the godly conception and nativity stories. Also in the resurrection and empty tomb. And, by definition, the Lukan material is different of the Matthean one, and there is a lot of these two. The similarities are only when both stay close to gMark and Q. If you are thinking about the minor agreements between gMatthew and gLuke, as flagged out by Goodacre, I fully addressed them on my webpage on Q. |
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 08:54 AM
|
#67 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Well, in terms of the original GLuke writer relying on GMatthew, we have all these stories etc. in common, even if they are not presented exactly the same way.
See,the following chart: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/gospels/index.htm Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 09:48 AM
|
#68 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
|
to Duvduv,
I looked at your posted website, and almost all the similarities exposed there can be explained by "Luke" and "Matthew" knowing about gMark and Q. The only things common not in the two aforementioned documents (or Paul's epistles for Son of David) would be relative to the godly conception and nativity, such as "Joseph", virgin, Bethlehem, and the holy spirit involved in the conception, which might have come from a made up "tradition" (except for Joseph) heard by both authors, created for purposes I explained in my website. |
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 09:56 AM
|
#69 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
The first mention of the contradictory genealogies was by Origen supposedly in the 3rd century. And further, the Cave Birth story of Jesus is NOT found in gMatthew or gLuke but was found in the Memoirs of the Apostles and was mentioned by Apologetic sources since the mid-2nd century. gMatthew and gLuke were composed at least after the Memoirs of the Apostles. |
|
|
|
|
02-16-2012, 11:21 AM
|
#70 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Which means that either the citations that sound like they are from GMatt in Justin Martyr are additions from later periods OR such citations were floating around and eventually landed in GMatt, which was produced much later.
Quote:
|
||
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
