Peter Kirby wrote:There indeed may be a "demonstrable substrate within Luke," to use your phrasing, but that doesn't amount to a consensus view.
No, and as such it amounts to very little at all...
As a refuse collector by trade, this is what disappoints me most about the current state of synoptic research - it's all tentacles and no octopus. Independent researchers pursuing their own unprovable hypotheses, "trimming the eyebrows here and trimming the eyebrows there". With no collective focus or agreed methodology, it's all a bit pointless. Or maybe more than a bit.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Peter Kirby wrote:There indeed may be a "demonstrable substrate within Luke," to use your phrasing, but that doesn't amount to a consensus view.
No, and as such it amounts to very little at all...
"As such" it is not a consensus view. Your conclusion above is a non sequitur.
gmx wrote:With no collective focus or agreed methodology, it's all a bit pointless.
Most "Bible scholars" are basically ideologues with little real interest in developing sound methodology and even less ability to do the same. Don't hold your breath.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:
Most "Bible scholars" are basically ideologues with little real interest in developing sound methodology and even less ability to do the same. .
I think it Is safer to say "most" possess a certain degree of such. Your statement vilifies Bible scholars unjustly.
I have two online scholars/professors friends of whom both are more on the apologetic side of the fence. Each holds truth more closely then their apologetic nature.
I agree its not a perfect playing field. Yes some apologist scholars are guilty as you state. "Most" is a bit harsh
I can tell you all of my professors, do not fit that mold.
Peter Kirby wrote:There indeed may be a "demonstrable substrate within Luke," to use your phrasing, but that doesn't amount to a consensus view.
No, and as such it amounts to very little at all...
"As such" it is not a consensus view. Your conclusion above is a non sequitur.
My point is that the lack of consensus "amounts to very little". Where is the non sequitur?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
You reversed the burden of proof unfairly on Peter.
YOU claim that a Proto-Luke or sources is not Consensus (and you're wrong).
Peter challenges you to present evidence that the Consensus agrees with you.
