Jeffrey Gibson

Which raises the question of just what it is on Luke and his sources that you have read amd whether or not what's above is just an example of the fallacy known as the appeal to personal incredulity.

So would you do us the kindness of letting us know what the nature and extent of your familiarity with Lukan and Synopic Gospels source criticism scholarship actually is?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I am very curious to know, Joseph, what something actually looks like when it has "the look" you speak of. Could you be a bit more specific about what the formal and stylistic and/or linguistic characteristics something that has this "look" has to/should possess to have this "look"? And could you also tells us how you determined that whatever these characteristics are, they are indeed the ones that something has to have to have the "look" you speak of?

Thanks in advance,

Jeffrey

Roland

Better yet, enlighten me. Please point me to any reputable Biblical scholar who cites any source for Luke other than the ones I mentioned. I'm all ears.

lpetrich

Alternatively, Luke may simply have been claiming that he had done a lot of research when he wrote his Gospels. If one counts copying off of Mark and Q as research, he certainly did a lot of it.

Clivedurdle

In Britain, most journalists used to work in a place called Fleet Street and carry out most of their research in the local pubs and restaurants. This still happens with political reporters around Westminster - not sure where religious hacks hang out. Maybe author of Luke was a member of the equivalent "professions"...

Jeffrey Gibson

Ah, the "you tell me" response --a sure sign that a poster is trying to avoid showing that the degree of his familiarity with the literature on the topic he makes authoritative pronouncements on is embarrassingly small, and certainly far less than even the minimum requisite to justify his claims that he knows much of anything about what scholars have said on the matter at hand.

I thought as much. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

Jeffrey

squiz

Well I for one haven't made any such pronouncements, so I have no trouble admitting that I have no idea.

I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from. You seem frustrated that people are making definitive pronouncements based on snippets of information, ignoring a wealth of information and analysis that is available.

Bringing rigour to these discussions is of course welcome, but it would be great for amateurs like myself, if you would do more than just point out the flaws in other's arguments, but also provide us with some concrete examples instead of just sarcastic-seeming questions.

I understand though, that to do this carefully takes a lot of extra time. Nevertheless, for myself and the numerous other lurkers out there, it would be a great help in coming to a better understanding of the issues, and would be greatly appreciated.

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm .. and what did I do in response to your request for information on Greco-Roman bioi?

Jeffrey

squiz

Whoops. It is rather late here. I apparently posted too soon. I'll search for your answer. Thanks in advance.

Roland

Of course, YOU should be the one offering the evidence, since nothing I said falls outside of mainstream thinking on this subject. You are the one saying I am wrong but providing zero support to show how I am wrong.

I have read enough on this topic to know that there are essentially three theories around which virtually all serious Bible scholars rally: the two-source hypothesis (by far the most widely accepted), the Farrer hypothesis (also two sources) and the Griesbach Hypothesis (just one pre-Lucan source here). Like I said, show me any other hypothesis - particularly one in which Luke used "many" sources - that enjoys even a modicum of support from biblical scholars. I've done what you asked me. Now the ball is in your court.