MortalWombat

Most translations say that he led them out "as far as Bethany." Bethany is on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives, while Jerusalem is west of the Mount of Olives. One has to wonder why if Acts and Luke (or at least these parts of Acts and Luke) were written by the same author, why he would describe them going from Jerusalem to Bethany (and either around or over Mt. of Olives), but only returning from the Mt. of Olives without mentioning Bethany.

Hawkingfan

So the latter manuscripts for Mark are scribal errors?

As far as not obliged to include every detail: Paul said himself that without the Ascension, Christianity means nothing; yet, Matthew doesn't even mention this "detail" at all.

Benjamin Franklin

Yap, the latter manuscripts for Mark are scribal errors.

As for Matthew not mentioning the ascension. The Gospels writers were writing to people who are already familiar with resurrection stories, there is no need to mention every detail.


BF

Kosh

Then why write them at all?

Bill

Peter Kirby posted this link in another thread: The Formation of the New Testament Canon, by Richard Carrier. Reading at least the first five sections of Richard's essay will give you some clues as to the nature and extent of the cannonical redactions (which couldn't really take place until the gospels were converted from oral history into actually written gospels).

== Bill

AnaniasNin

Any change to crucifixion from 'hung upon a tree' may have been an attempt at broadening the base of recruits, as having a central figure killed by his own group might not have played well. Certainly the Romans (being the government most places) would be a likely target for malcontents. Also, (I'm fuzzy on the references about it) around this time James, brother of Jesus, was being marginalized for holding to a tighter form of Judaism, while Paul favored a religion not requiring all the Jewish trappings. He was the one out on the road trying to build the faith, after all. I'd look at these as business decisions.

Hawkingfan

posted by Benjamin Franklin--"As for Matthew not mentioning the ascension. The Gospels writers were writing to people who are already familiar with resurrection stories, there is no need to mention every detail."
Exactly. Also, what about future generations? Shouldn't the "god-inspired" writer have known that there WAS a need to mention every detail to future generations who were NOT familiar with resurrection stories?

Merle

I see an even bigger problem between Luke and Acts, and that is that they don't even teach the same way of salvation. Luke followed the synoptic gospels with a salvation based on actions (see http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Templ...tobesaved.html) But Acts follows Paul and teaches salvation by believing.

I understand that Christians in Rome and Asia Minor followed Paul, and did not even have the gospels at first. When these became available and began to be accepted, "Luke" wrote Acts to make the connection between an earthly Jesus in Jerusalem and the Christians in Rome. The author is believed to have done the final edit of Luke as well as write Acts in, but somehow didn't notice that the two volumes that he put together had two different plans of salvation.

But then most Christians today don't even realize that the bible disagrees on such a basic doctrine.

Regards,
Merle

Benjamin Franklin

I would need to ask Polycarp, the Christian I used to debate with regarding this issue. She was the one who supplied this explanation.


BF

Kosh

Of course.