We are talking first and foremost about literacy in the first century Jewish culture and Luke's reference to it, and it has everything to do with
the subject that is being discussed.
Reiterating your earlier assertion makes it no more relevant to the discussion at hand... I made no claims whatsoever concerning literacy in the ancient world so there was no reason to introduce it as a point of critique.
You must be confused, where did I ever infer that Matthew and Mark were not prior to Luke?
Where did I ever infer that Luke as a Historian could not have used Matthew and Mark as sources?
You are creating arguments that never existed, so you can appear to provide evidence to the contrary.
What I have clearly objected to has been stated in a previous posts, "The idea that the Biblical Gospels were not written by who they are attributed to by the Early Church, is a very weak liberal argument." (From post #143)
Let me refresh your memory as to what you
also posted
here: "No, Biblical scholars are not pretty much in unanimous agreement on 'Source Criticism'" Both the poster who started this thread and I, assuming you knew what source criticism is, challenged your implied criticism of what I had written
here, namely that "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." You corrected neither of us and, in fact, when on to contrast this under the label "literary redaction view" with your "independence view"
here and outright stated
here that your initial objection
did concern my claims about "dependence upon a literary source" --- contextually some sort of literary relationship involving the three aforementioned gospels. You ask where you inferred that Luke
could not have used Matthew and Mark as sources --- well, I've showed you though technically you inferred only that he
did not, but that is either splitting hairs or perhaps you are still equivocating between author and book, implying only that Luke consulted Matthew and Mark themselves rather than their gospels. Instead of continuing to obfuscate, answer plainly yes or no: Do you think Luke, reasonably having access to the earlier gospels of Matthew and Mark, used these documents as sources?
My objection to your position on Luke was date and author, and since you can't defend that...
I have been engaging with your criticisms of my position on this matter from the very beginning of your interjection, most recently
here.
The 'Independence View' is in reference to the Apostle's writing underneath the guidance of the Holy Spirit...
Independence implies precisely that, independence... so if you think Luke was dependent on Matthew and Mark, either as authors or books, then he is not writing independently, whatever one might conclude about the proposition of divine guidance.
I have not conceded anything,
If anything you are starting to acknowledge the Apostles as the authors and that Luke consulted with them as source material
I elsewhere referred to Luke as a second- or third-generation Christian writing in the early second century and I have nowhere backed down from that position. As for Matthew and Mark, I reverse your proposed order and date them both after the 70 CE fall of Jerusalem to the Romans... the first (Mark) came from a Pauline (not Petrine) circle of believers and the second (Matthew) revised and supplemented this in favor of a law-abiding Petrine version of Christianity.
It is clear from your statement here that your exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 is clearly in error...
The only exegetical statement I made about Luke's preface was "Luke certainly doesn't claim to be an eyewitness" and there is nothing erroneous about that. The rest of my comments were hypotheticals trying to make sense of your position... which remains problematic (see below).
Luke 1:1-4 "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
First, the 'Many' are not the Apostles
The 'Eyewitnesses and servants of the word' are the Apostles
Then you encounter another problem because the group you deem to be apostles (and I agree with your interpretation of this verse incidentally) handed down the accounts of the many, they are not the authors of these accounts, which contradicts your so-called independence theory that the gospels themselves originated with divinely-inspired apostles.
Mark is considered by many to have been an eyewitness, though he was not an Apostle (Mark 14:51)
Your speculation here that the naked young man who flees Gethsemane is Mark himself, presumably so that he can be included in the group Luke refers to in 1:2, has been offered a bit too hastily... the Papian fragment found in Eusebius is clear that Mark was
not a follower of Jesus --- you criticize me for dismissing claims of the 'Early Church Fathers' I don't think have any basis in reality and yet here you are contradicting them yourself.
Those things unique to Luke show that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well as Matthew and Mark
Whatever divine inspiration this author may or may not have had, he states plainly in Luke 1:3 that he has done his own investigation and
this is the ostensible basis for his unique material.
You wanted to debate scholarly references because you are incapable of dealing with the Biblical text and Early Church history as they oppose
your position
You claimed
here that "many Conservative Biblical Scholars ... hold the Independence View" and I asked you
here to "cite a small handful of these" from properly peer-reviewed venues --- your continued evasion to supply even a single example is duly noted and your attempt to project incapability onto me is laughable.
You cannot support your position of dating Luke and your gross neglect of the internal evidence in Luke
Whatever so-called evidence you have supplied has been countered or was dealt with in dialogue with earlier interlocutors in the thread... if you need me to link to specific posts where your points are addressed, I'd be more than happy to do so.
Your exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 is completely void of correct exegetical skills as I demonstrated to you
You've demonstrated no such thing.
During this discussion, you had to leave your liberal position and identify with Augustine in order to salvage your argument
I did not "identify with Augustine", I invoked him as an example from a respected Christian author from antiquity who argued for a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke --- this was to specifically counter the erroneous idea that this is a recent 'liberal' theory.
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not require any literary dependence because they were first hand eyewitnesses and participants
Luke states his account is dependent upon other's accounts
What is blatantly obvious, is that many liberal scholars cannot deal with the supernatural workings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the
inspired origin of the Gospels, so they have to fabricate a theory (with no evidence) that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all dependent upon
some unknown literary document or documents in order to discredit the Inspired Authority of the Biblical Gospels.
Again,
you interjected to challenge the idea that there is some sort of literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke (this alone infers nothing about a hypothetical earlier document) --- you have since all but stated explicitly that Luke used the documents we know as Matthew and Mark in composing his gospel (see above my request for you to answer yes or no to this). If you answer yes, your objection is rendered invalid because all it takes is for one of them (Luke) to use the other two (Matthew and Mark) for there to be some sort of literary relationship between them, which was all I affirmed when I stated: "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." There is nothing whatsoever objectionable about this statement.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
