Was Jesus wrong or mistaken, or are we?
- Thread starter HillsboroMom
- Start date
Supposing there's a wildfire in Colorado. A local author writes about it says;. 100 houses were burnt but no lives were lost, 10,000 acres of forest burnt, resident of the town burning trash on a windy day may have been the cause, the fire company was prompt but had to come from 15 miles away. Because of the wind the fire got off to a voracious start. If not for the rain that came on the evening of the fourth day, the loss would have been greater.
Another man living in the next town who is also a journalist but is a way on business for a day and can't get there until early the second morning. He notes everything that the first writer does but since he is from the town where the fire company was summoned from, he emphasizes the strong winds that fan the flames of The inferno making it impossible to get an early control of the raging blaze.
In the second person's case, part of his purpose would have been to reduce the possibility of any accusations of tardiness against his home fire company.
Both writers had the primary purpose of reporting the event to the communities and recording the event for posterity. Neither had subjective purposes based solely on the needs of their audience or to satisfy accusations, or had a later date of journalism than the other. Both investigated and interviewed eyewitnesses to the story and residents of the community in which the fire occurred, but one emphasized a certain aspect as part of their perspective and reporting.
Does this mean that the second reporter relied on the first reporter, or that he altered or changed the first reporters record and testimony?
The facts would be no, the second reporter did not plagiarize or rely on the first reporter story though he may have read it as part of his research into the topic.
To say that Matthew and Luke are addendums or changes to Mark's gospel just because they share much of the content of Mark gospel with additional comments and may emphasize different aspects of messiah's coming is, as rcm says, a weak argument.
I don't think that is what RCM or in hacking are only saying. The idea that there is relationship, but with different themes, especially with the synoptic Gospels is relatively obvious to all of the novice reader. And Bible student.
Especially redactive criticism seems to be founded on the hypothesis theory that the gospels may not have been penned by who we have traditionally thought to have been them. It begins with that possibility and then develops it to see if there is support for the hypothesis.
One can consider the small differences between the synoptic Gospels and even larger addendums to Luke and Matthew to support such theory. But that doesn't mean that the theory is proven. False data and assumptions or theories they have entered into the evaluation to present a false conclusion.
I think the wording of source criticism has RCM introduced it is the higher grouping of several types of criticism which redactive criticism is within.
I had mentioned textual criticism or higher criticism. The meaning that I have of those words is a continuous analysis of fragmentaries oh scriptures and Epistles and their comparison with each other to either defend or bring a case against texts traditionally used in Bible translations.
It's all pretty heady stuff. Has a youngster I deduce that if there was a god of love and that he had created us with the ability to communicate both in spoken and written word as well as other means, that he himself may have entered into both the spoken and the written word to tell us about life and about him. I also later deduce that if there was a guy to love that he himself might enter into the creation too show to us his love. I suppose that I've either been taught or had a mindset of faith that this God of love would give us a generally accurate written record of any visitation or verbal Transcendence into life and humanity.
It seems like a logical and reasonable possibility for a god of love.
That doesn't mean there isn't room for scrutiny, analysis and investigation. But most if not all of those activities have supported and defended the gospels and the old testament as impactful and trustworthy.
Last edited:
RCM
Active member
HillsboroMom,
There is a position in Source Criticism called the 'Independence View'
Matthew as a Tax Collector would have been very proficient in literary skills
Luke as a doctor would have been very proficient in literary skills. The Book of Acts has some of the most complicated Greek in the NT and
that did not come from literary redaction
The Gospels have numerous 'Exclusive Private Events and Semi-Private Events' that could only be documented by witnesses of the first order
The Independence View was the position of the Early Church and the view of the Historic Church for over 1600 years until Liberalism
To support a Literary Redaction view over the Independence View for the Synoptic Gospels is like me saying, "You are incapable of
writing your immediate family history, so lets find an English teacher who knew your immediate family and let them gather the available
information and redact it into a readable form.
There are many Conservative Biblical Scholars that hold the Independence View
RCM
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Funny, I don't recall making such a claim. Here's what I actually said: "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." Insofar as source criticism aims to identify the sources of a particular literary document or corpus, it factors into the issue at hand... on invoking this terminology correctly you would appear to have an advantage over my previous interlocutor, but on the downside you have conflated two different types of source criticism, one in which the sources are extant and the other in which the sources are not extant. The latter, by its very nature, involves conjecture and therefore results in varying degrees of consensus rather than near unanimity. Since we are here dealing with three extant documents (Matthew, Mark, Luke) that display high levels of verbatim agreement, that there is a direct literary relationship among them -- which is all I affirmed -- is the near unanimous position of New Testament scholars, even if they do not all agree on the precise direction of that dependence. There will always be dissenters, typically for tendentious reasons, but in terms of this issue they are few, indeed --- if one's reading is confined to this clique, it may give the impression there is more dissent than actually exists.
Slapping a "liberal" label on something and dismissing it as "weak" is not a solid counter-argument. The bottom line is that all four New Testament gospels are anonymous writings and second century authorial attributions, offered in the context of implicit or explicit apologetic debates within a "church" that was hardly so unified as your epithet conveys, are rightly open to criticism.
What argument you're trying to make based on the names Luke (a later attribution) and Theophilus for a pre-70 CE dating for Luke and/or Acts is unclear. In any case, since you have invoked the Lukan preface, I would like to draw your attention to the first sentence about the author's knowledge of other written accounts of Jesus' life... this stands in tension with an independence theory of composition.
Are you seriously unaware of the Augustinian Hypothesis, its derivation from earlier arguments for the chronological order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and its influence from the fifth century onward? Augustine posited Matthean priority, Mark's use of Matthew and Luke's use of both Matthew and Mark. Your claim that an independence theory was the view of Christians -- there was no more a singular historic church than an early church, Christianity has always been a diverse religious phenomenon -- is incompatible with the evidence.
It is nothing like this at all since redaction critics do not and have little reason to think that any of these gospels were written by eyewitnesses. It is more like saying someone today born in the 80s writing a history of Martin Luther King Jr. and another writer saying that's a great outline but missing the content of some important letters and speeches... she then proceeds to utilize the earlier work (properly citing it since that is conventional now in a way it was not two thousand years ago) and inserts excerpts from these documents and speech recordings.
And do these scholars publish in peer-reviewed venues alongside those who hold alternative views? If so, please cite a small handful of these "many" who do so... I trust you know the difference between an academic and non-academic publisher.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
What you have stated here indicates a dependence upon a literary source, which affirms my initial objection
I believe the controversial point of view is the one that all of a sudden surfaces after 1600 years
The dismissing of historical and contextual evidence in defense of an ideology can provide a false sense of prevalence
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
What you have just stated here is the definition of 'Liberal,' The discrediting and discarding of Historical views of those closest to the events, and
not being strictly literal or exact in interpretation of the text and or its message.
So, from your statement it is easy to identify your views on God, the authority and inerrancy of Biblical Scripture, and the Person of Jesus Christ
Your view which you have stated plainly here is a liberal viewpoint and a very weak viewpoint when considered against the Historical Record, the Historical Evidence, and the Biblical Scriptures
RCM
RCM
Active member
This is liberalism at work, taking an Early Church Father's reference to the author of the Third Gospel and then falsely labeling it to be a later attribution
It is unclear because obviously you are unaware that the Jewish High Priest from 37-41 A.D. was Theophilus ben Ananus
Look at how Luke addresses this man, the type of respect that was only reserved for a King or High Priest
Not to mention the other numerous contextual evidence that has to be liberally overlooked and or dismissed to support such a late date for Luke as you prefer
Agreed, Luke was writing much of the Third Gospel from a Historian's point of view, Christians have always acknowledge this from the time of the Early Church
However, I would like to draw your attention to Luke's first sentence and point out what you overlooked,
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,
The 'Many' that Luke references here destroys the liberals arguments that this society was largely ignorant and unskilled in regards to literary abilities
The early Jewish Believers and Gentile Christians realized the words and works of Jesus and the Apostles were authoritative and wanted them
documented or to have a copy of what the Apostles had written
The 'Many' were just continuing to do what the Apostles, the eyewitnesses, had already done and handed down, meaning Matthew and Peter's account documented by Mark were already in existence
The last part of the sentence with the emphasis on 'Servants of the Word' documents the fact the Apostles were the first to record the life of Christ (Gospels) in written form.
RCM
Last edited:
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
I am aware of Augustine's viewpoint
Do not conflate this with your viewpoint or as supporting your viewpoint
Augustine does not argue for the existence of any source prior to Matthew
Matthew is believed to have lived to at least 74 A.D.
So, the idea that the Apostles consulted one another regarding the subject and purpose of the individual Gospels in accordance with the Holy Spirit's guidance would be an easy assumption
The Independence View is focused on the Gospels originating from the Apostles as the original source on the Historical Jesus
The Christian Church as the Body of Christ has always been centered around the Authority of the Biblical Scriptures
RCM
Last edited:
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
I have already addressed this, see prior posts
Your opinion is completely refuted by Luke's opening statement
RCM
Last edited:
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
You want to resort to a name dropping contest as to who is considered academic or non-academic?
Did you not previously make an off hand comment that, if one's reading is confined to this clique, then they are unaware of the other viewpoints?
So, I am sure you have read those scholars who oppose your viewpoint and know who they are
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
In keeping with the original focus of this thread that HillsboroMom started and the questions that were asked?
That generation has most certainly passed away. (Yes and No, double fulfillment of prophecy)
So, was Jesus wrong? (No, Jesus is never in error in what He has said, "Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away).
Or are we? (Yes, Liberal Scholars get it wrong all the time)
Did Jesus make a mistake? A miscalculation error? (No, Repeat, Jesus is never in error in what He has said, "Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away)
Or did Mark just get the quote wrong? (No, Mark's documentation of Peter's account is accurate)
RCM
In keeping with the original focus of this thread that HillsboroMom started and the questions that were asked?
That generation has most certainly passed away. (Yes and No, double fulfillment of prophecy)
So, was Jesus wrong? (No, Jesus is never in error in what He has said, "Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away).
Or are we? (Yes, Liberal Scholars get it wrong all the time)
Did Jesus make a mistake? A miscalculation error? (No, Repeat, Jesus is never in error in what He has said, "Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away)
Or did Mark just get the quote wrong? (No, Mark's documentation of Peter's account is accurate)
RCM
En Hakkore
Well-known member
You objected to this statement that I made: "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." That assertion was and remains an accurate one... and of course direct literary relationship means some sort of literary dependence of one or more of the aforementioned gospels on one or more of the others. The precise configuration is a matter of debate, not that there is one.
The ideas that the earth is a globe and orbits the sun were controversial when they were first proposed... well-meaning but misguided Christians opposed them, too. As I've already pointed out, however, the idea that there was a direct literary relationship between these gospels predates the critical period by a thousand years.
This is an odd statement since I've been defending the historical-critical method, which seeks to understand biblical texts within their original historical and cultural contexts. It's one thing to disagree with my conclusions, quite another to imply (erroneously) that I'm dismissing evidence... note that claims made about the gospels in the second century and beyond are open to critical scrutiny just like any assertion in an historical source --- no good historian simply takes such things at face value, they evaluate them.
No, I wasn't attempting any definition of 'liberal' --- the part of my post that you bolded was "The bottom line is that all four New Testament gospels are anonymous writings and second century authorial attributions..." The inclusion of the underlined bit results in a fragmented thought, which is completed by "are rightly open to criticism." I stand by that and with respect to the first clause it is an irrefutable fact... none of the four New Testament gospel authors identify themselves by name within the text. However one might evaluate their authenticity, the authorial ascriptions 'According to...' came later to distinguish them from each other in canonical processes. Slapping a label on my posts does nothing to actually rebut their content.
My views on these topics are no secret... they are also irrelevant since scholars from a variety of theological backgrounds use the methods I propose and draw the same conclusions.
I would suggest that if you want to continue your anti-liberalism rant that you take it over to the Society/Ethics/Politics forum where I'm sure there are many posters who would love to engage it. Perhaps if you focused on what I'm actually writing instead of trying to sweep it away with labels you wouldn't make such sloppy assertions such as the one immediately above. Whoever wrote the gospel we now call Luke did not title it 'According to Luke' --- my claim that this and other authorial ascriptions come later is valid, not false, and who do you think I am attributing them to if not the 'Early Church Fathers' you concede are the ones making these references to authorship?
I am well aware of this, but your statement ironically reveals your own ignorance of a wide range of theories as to the identity of Theophilus in Luke's preface... all you did was drop the names Luke and Theophilus --- how could I possibly know which of the many theories you embrace on that alone? One of my interlocutors earlier in the thread conjectured he was Paul's lawyer in Rome!
Rubbish. The Greek κρατιστος is an "honorary form of address ... used in address of persons of varied social status." Consult the full entry for the word in BDAG, which concludes "the social status of Luke's addressee remains undetermined."
You would do well to focus on claims I am actually making in the thread rather than going off on your anti-liberal tangents. However interesting the subject of literacy in the Roman Empire in the first century is, that has nothing to do with what we've been discussing or anything I wrote.
Well thank you for conceding that the gospels of Matthew and Mark -- who wrote them is irrelevant at this point -- predate Luke's gospel. This is precisely why I drew your attention to the first sentence of the preface, to demonstrate that Luke knows of prior written accounts... you went one step further and identified two of them. Great... I wholeheartedly agree that Luke knows these two particular gospels. It is difficult to understand why you would then object to acknowledging that he used them as sources, particularly since you attribute them directly or indirectly to the eyewitness testimony of Jesus' followers.
I invoked the Augustinian Hypothesis because it is an example of a well-regarded Christian writer of antiquity who -- like me and the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars -- posited a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke. Your claim that the advent of this idea was a few hundred years ago is patently false as I've demonstrated.
I never suggested he did... and the existence (or not) of such a source has nothing to do with the claim I was making about the near unanimity of New Testament scholars about a direct literary relationship existing between Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Then why call it the 'Independence View' at all? Why not the 'Apostolic View'? No... you introduced this view to challenge my claim that there is a direct literary relationship between the gospels, implying there is none. When confronted with evidence of such a relationship both from Luke's preface and the work of Augustine, your goalpost then suddenly shifted to what you write above --- you have all but formally conceded the argument. It would be preposterous to suggest now that these writers who knew of these documents and consulted verbally with their authors then didn't read and/or use them as source material.
Luke certainly doesn't claim to be an eyewitness, therefore the only argument you can make from his preface is to assume the "many" who wrote are the "eyewitnesses" --- that equation isn't clear and one of the two "many" you posit (Mark) wasn't an eyewitness anyway, leaving you with only one (Matthew), which makes no sense of Luke's plurals. Perhaps you'd like to throw John in there (against the claims of your 'Early Church Fathers' that he wrote last) in order to force a fit.
You made a claim, I asked you to back it up with scholarly references and you refuse... I am not surprised in the least as my previous interlocutor also evaded doing so. In any case, it doesn't really matter since your critique of direct literary dependence between Matthew, Mark and Luke imploded within two rounds of posts...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Last edited:
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
This is your quote from post #134, "Incidentally, I do date Luke-Acts to the early second century and this is perfectly compatible with both the internal and external evidence."
Preferring a late date for Luke/Acts is dismissing the evidence that there is no mention of Peter or Paul's death
Acts focuses the Apostle's Ministry, primarily on Peter's ministry to the Jews and Paul's ministry to the Gentiles
Luke documents the Apostle Jame's death in Acts 12
The fact that Luke mentions nothing about either Peter or Paul's death is a critical factor in dating Luke/Acts prior to 70 A.D.
To prefer a late date for Luke/Acts it to dismiss critical evidence and indicates a liberal bias
RCM
Last edited:
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
If you have studied Luke in regards to Theophilus, then you are aware that the story Jesus told that Luke documents in Luke 16 about the
rich man (high priest) is most likely a pointed reference to some of Theophilus' family.
Tehophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41. In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple. Adherents claim that Luke's Gospel was targeted at Sadducee readers. This might explain a few features of Luke. He begins the story with an account of Zacharias the righteous priest who had a Temple vision of an angel (1:5-25). Luke quickly moves to account Mary's purification (niddah) and Jesus' Temple redemption (pidyon ha-ben) rituals (2:21-39), and then to Jesus' pilgrimage to the Temple when he was twelve (2:46), possibly implying his bar mitzvah. He makes no mention of Caiaphas' role in Jesus' crucifixion and emphasizes Jesus' literal resurrection (24:39), including an ascension into heaven as a realm of spiritual existence (24:52; Acts 1:1). Luke also seems to stress Jesus' arguments with the Sadducees on points like legal grounds for divorce, the existence of angels, spirits, and an afterlife, (16:19-31), (Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead). If this was the case then Luke is trying to use Jesus' rebuttals and teachings to break down Theophilus' Sadducean philosophy.
Theophilus was the High Priest in the Second Temple in Jerusalem from AD 37 to 41 according to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. He was a member of one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Iudaea Province during the 1st century. According to some Christian traditions, he was the person to whom the Gospel of Luke is addressed.
Theophilus was the son of Annas and the brother of Eleazar, Johathan, Mattias, and Ananus, all of whom served as High Priests. He was also the brother-in-law of Joseph Caiaphas, the High Priest before whom Jesus appeared. In addition, his son Matthias served as the next to the last High Priest before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.
Archeological evidence confirming the existence of Theophilus, as an ossuary has been discovered bearing the inscription, "Johanna granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest". The details of this ossuary have been published in the Israel Exploration Journal. Therefore Theophilus had at least one other son named Jonathan, father to Johanna.
You say, 'Rubbish,' tell me how many times The Greek word κρατιστος is used in the New Testament and which authors use it, and the social status that is associated with it?
RCM
Last edited:
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
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.
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
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)
My objection to your position on Luke was date and author, and since you can't defend that, you twist the discussion toward an argument that
never existed, but one that you can defend.
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
The 'Independence View' is in reference to the Apostle's writing underneath the guidance of the Holy Spirit, John 14:26; 2 Timothy 3:16, and
2 Peter 1:21, which created spirit inspired the first written documents from the first hand eye witnesses
No, you are creating a false argument, I am saying Matthew was a first hand eye witness account written as inspired by the Holy Spirit
Mark is Peter's first hand eye witness account written as inspired by the Holy Spirit
And with Luke I challenged your liberal date as being grossly in error
Nobody has moved any goalposts.
You go find one of my posts and quote it and the post # and then show where I have changed my position
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
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
It is clear from your statement here that your exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 is clearly in error,
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
Mark is considered by many to have been an eyewitness, though he was not an Apostle (Mark 14:51)
Those things unique to Luke show that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well as Matthew and Mark
Having been inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Gospels reflect the Trinity and Nature of God, Unity and Individual Diversity
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
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 cannot support your position of dating Luke and your gross neglect of the internal evidence in Luke
Your exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 is completely void of correct exegetical skills as I demonstrated to you
During this discussion, you had to leave your liberal position and identify with Augustine in order to salvage your argument
RCM