You've gone a full day now without posting anything else so I'm going to take this opportunity to respond to everything and ask that you post single linear responses moving forward. Your habit of posting a little bit here, a little bit there, then before I can respond a little bit more is a diffusion tactic I've observed and criticized of a particular LDS poster over on the Mormonism board. Please avail yourself of the built-in draft feature and post once rather than half a dozen or more times... thanks.
My interpretation is not incorrect...
You can make such a declaration, but it does not reflect the reality of what has transpired in this thread. You claimed
here that the "many" are "gathering together the written accounts by the Apostles, which was [sic] handed down to them by the Apostles." That claim is erroneous, as I've shown... the recipient of what is handed down is the believing community of which Luke is a part, the "us" of verse 2.
and you have no basis to insinuate that the Apostles handed down their testimony only in the oral tradition
I insinuated nothing, I flat out stated it and this is consistent with Luke's understanding of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry being illiterates (cf. Acts 4:13). Verse 1 of Luke's prologue deals with written sources, verse 2 with oral sources... the author clearly prefers the latter, a sentiment also found in the testimony of Papias cited by Eusebius.
En Hakkore, in regards to Luke 1:1 and the 'Many,' your view and my view may both be correct. It wouldn't surprise me at all if several
of the early Christians did write and document the events, but those documents did not survive because they were not copied in mass
like the inspired Gospel accounts.
So now you think the "many"
are authors themselves, not (just?) compilers of the apostles' works? Your claims about this group are inconsistent or at the very least confusing. In any case, the plausible reason for earlier sources not surviving is that their contents were incorporated into the now-canonical gospels.
Surely, you don't mean more reliable than Matthew?
Surely I do... of course, I don't think -- nor, more importantly, do I think Luke thought -- that the gospel we call Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus. Luke expresses concern about order in his preface and Matthew's gospel deviates significantly from the order of Mark in its first half... while Luke certainly makes a few adjustments, his preference is clearly for Mark's order and not that of Matthew. This is one of several perceived deficiencies in Matthew's gospel from Luke's perspective... the other major one being the former's position (contra Luke's hero Paul) about being law observant. Early Christians no more agreed on such matters than contemporary ones do... as the CARM forums amply attest to.
You are in error here again on simple exegesis of simple grammar...
You bold 'us' in a translation of Luke 1:1-2 and list several options of who this might be referring to (the third would appear to be the position I'm articulating so why you declare me in error while posting this as an option is anybody's guess) as if that somehow settles the matter. Strangely enough, the position you are articulating (the many = us) is not among them, for the obvious reason it is a complete misreading of the preface. What
is included in your cut and paste (please cite your source moving forward, presumably some Bible software program) and which I find quite humorous is this (bolded emphases mine):
It refers to the writers Luke researched in 1:3 [TH]. The Gospel of Mark was written previously and probably was one of the sources Luke used [Arn, MGC, NIBC, NIGTC, NTC, Su], and also Matthew [Arn]. The reference to many writers brings out the importance of what Luke will write about [NAC, NICNT, WBC]. The number is unknown, but it was probably quite a few even though their accounts have not been preserved [Arn, Lns], and it was not an exaggeration [EGT]. ‘Many’ is used in a formal manner of beginning a document and it does not have to be taken to literally mean a large number [AB, NAC, NICNT, NIGTC], so that it could be translated ‘others’ [NAC].
Did you actually read what you cut and pasted? That sounds a lot like the position I'm articulating and the one you're challenging...
With the later dating you have to start pounding square pegs into round holes to make everything fit and you can't
You've yet to demonstrate one thing incompatible with dating Luke and Acts to the early second century... that this dating has implications you consider undesirable within your current paradigm is entirely irrelevant.
This is nothing but an absurd argument
I agree... but that is
your own argument concerning the author of Acts and Paul; I did nothing more than apply it to the gospel of Matthew to show how ludicrous it is when applied
consistently as it regards information not supplied by an author.
All of the Four inspired Gospel's main focus are primarily on Jesus' three years of ministry, His death, and His resurrection...
The idea of a three-year ministry involving multiple trips between Galilee and Jerusalem for Passover derives
only from the gospel of John... the other three gospels present a linear movement from Galilee to Jerusalem whose time frame is undetermined.
All the Gospels end with the resurrected Christ
Jesus has been resurrected from the dead by the end of all four gospels, yes... not sure what that has to do my comments about the ascension. Luke and the disputed longer ending of Mark both end
after narrating Jesus' ascent into the sky (Luke 24:51; Mark 16:19)... there is also casual reference to a future ascension in John 20:17. As for Matthew's failure to mention it... if you concur that it is "absurd" to infer from this that it hadn't occurred yet when he wrote, then my point has been made and you have no basis to
insist that Luke narrate Paul's death.
The late date that you prefer has to avoid all the hard questions and explain away through nonsensical arguments the historical record
To what hard questions are you referring that I have allegedly avoided? Ask me a "hard question" concerning the dating of Luke-Acts and I'll answer it...
The direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit
Neither Jesus nor a divine spirit are literary documents... and for whatever reason you refuse to admit the obvious, namely that there is some sort of literary relationship between these documents to account for the verbatim wording at points. I can only reiterate that this fact alone is of no consequence to the alleged divine inspiration of these documents as the plethora of Christians (including Augustine) both in the past and in the present who embrace some model of literary dependence. Why you continue to dance around the possibility without committing to it is anybody's guess... unless you are trying at all costs to avoid the next question, namely how to account for the differences in those places it is obvious one writer is using another as a source.
This is the common assessment of literary documents from a secular human point of view
I'm quite certain that those people who do not identify as secular humanists are just as capable as those who do in identifying a case of copying when they see it... unless, apparently, one is engaging in special pleading concerning a text they hold to be sacred, in which case the blinders go on --- that is nothing to be proud of and there are, thankfully, many Christians who do not do this.
Kind regards,
Jonathan