Luke's sources

[Peter Kirby]

For an advanced discussion, ask me how I isolated most of Luke's sources and named a few of them.

Okay. How did you isolate most of Luke's sources?

[Andrew]

Mental, please note that I was saying that Luke was not an eyewitness, not that he was not reliable. He says he used eyewitnesses and did research, meaning that he was not himself an eyewitness, but that he based his gospel off of the eyewitness accounts. It isn't the same thing.

But let's hear how you isolated Luke's sources.

[Stephan Huller]

And the fact that Luke says that they are eyewitnesses does not make them eyewitnesses. There was a wide range of opinion in antiquity about 'John' - whether there was one or two or whether he was an eyewitness etc. With all this disagreement someone has to be wrong.

[MrMacSon]

[neilgodfrey]

And when all the dust has settled I would like to see the winner address the argument that the word translated as "eyewitnesses" in Luke's prologue really means something closer to the officials who had responsibility for the writings or library of the community, or the guarantors of the traditions in this form: http://vridar.org/2012/12/09/what-did-l ... esses-see/

In another context another scholar noted that the same word translated "eyewitness" (of Jesus) is used to describe Paul. Luke says Paul is an eyewitness of Jesus: http://vridar.org/2013/04/04/what-lukes ... g-to-luke/

If "autopai" can mean caretakers of writings carrying the community traditions or those who claim to have had visions . . . . . .

[Mental flatliner]

For an advanced discussion, ask me how I isolated most of Luke's sources and named a few of them.

Okay. How did you isolate most of Luke's sources?

By reading it, obviously. (It's not like it was any kind of challenge.)

One of the most fundamental skills needed for anyone studying ancient history is to allow original texts to tell their own story in their own way and in their own context. This skill doesn't exist in this forum.

There is an unspoken premise that the Bible is automatically wrong and must be proven correct in every detail in order to be considered an historic source. This alone disqualifies you from historic analysis. The moment you begin reading any text, Biblical or not, with a biased predisposition, you're doing nothing more than creating your own fiction and projecting your own modern thoughts into the text.

If you can't get past this weakness, you will never understand my approach (or that of any legitimate scholar for that matter).

From our remote positions here in the 21st century, we're completely blind and cut off from all past events. We're at the mercy of our sources, and the moment we alter them, we render them useless.

*****************
Here's an example of how reading assumptions into the text leads to poor conclusions (taken from this web site):

There are several discrepancies in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.
•Matthew implies that when Jesus was born his parents lived in Bethlehem and they left when King Herod began a search to find and kill Jesus. In Luke Jesus' parents traveled from their home in Nazereth to Bethlehem for a Roman census.

Whoever posted this comment ignored Matthew's account and wrote their own assumption into the gospel:
--If Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, why were they trying to get into an inn in Bethlehem?
--When kicked out of the inn, why did they settle for the barn?
--If they lived in Bethlehem, why didn't they just go home?

When someone makes a street-level error like this, I have to question them as a source and whether they really studied the text. Anyone reading this claim and not noticing it's obvious error is equally ignorant of the gospel.

Matthew's gospel obviously implies that Joseph and Mary did not live in Bethlehem, in agreement with Luke. Matthew doesn't tell us where they came from, nor was he ever obligated to do so.

[TedM]

Here's an example of how reading assumptions into the text leads to poor conclusions (taken from this web site):

There are several discrepancies in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.
•Matthew implies that when Jesus was born his parents lived in Bethlehem and they left when King Herod began a search to find and kill Jesus. In Luke Jesus' parents traveled from their home in Nazereth to Bethlehem for a Roman census.

Whoever posted this comment ignored Matthew's account and wrote their own assumption into the gospel:

Thank you for finally responding to some specifics that I wrote. I'll address your objections now:

--If Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, why were they trying to get into an inn in Bethlehem?

They weren't. You missed the fact that I pointed out that in Matthew they simply were at 'the house'. In Luke they were staying at an 'inn'. Why would Matthew say 'the house' if it wasn't their own, without saying so? He likely wouldn't. This is further evidence that Matthew thought/decided that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth.

--When kicked out of the inn, why did they settle for the barn?

See above. There is no account in Matthew of them being kicked out of any place.

--If they lived in Bethlehem, why didn't they just go home?

See above.

When someone makes a street-level error like this, I have to question them as a source and whether they really studied the text. Anyone reading this claim and not noticing it's obvious error is equally ignorant of the gospel.

This applies to you not me, Mentalflatliner.

Matthew's gospel obviously implies that Joseph and Mary did [bold]not[/bold] live in Bethlehem, in agreement with Luke. Matthew doesn't tell us where they came from, nor was he ever obligated to do so.

You're summary is not reasonable. It is based on your own hopes for compatibility. Matthew clearly implies that they did NOT come to Bethlehem from Nazareth or any other place. You haven't studied the texts very well. Sorry, but it is becoming clear that you are sloppy when it comes to details--very very important details. Go re-read my post and you'll see that the evidence that one or both accounts was fabricated is very very high, as it goes well beyond the 'house' vs 'inn' issue. Matthew and Luke are highly incompatible for both the birth and resurrection accounts -- the very pieces that GMark didn't address. What does common sense tell you about that? It tells me that fabrication occurred to fill in the missing information. What alternative really is even slightly reasonable?

[Mental flatliner]

They weren't. You missed the fact that I pointed out that in Matthew they simply were at 'the house'.

You just fell off the left side of the pier. You should have read my post.

You're reading "house" into the text, and you're giving it your own meaning (at the cost of other verses Matthew himself gave).

You don't have the authority to add to the text.
You don't have the authority to subtract from the text.

You did both, therefore your conclusion is a fiction of your own creation.

[TedM]

Mentalflatliner, did you read Matthew? Do I have to spoonfeed you?

Matthew2:

9 After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother;

What part of 'the house' sounds like 'the inn' to you? You are not taking time to research or think. You added 'the inn' to Matthew. You also added his getting kicked out of the inn to Matthew. And, you claim I am the one adding things.. No wonder you get the smart folks here stirred up...it's careless and it's arrogant.

They weren't. You missed the fact that I pointed out that in Matthew they simply were at 'the house'.

You just fell off the left side of the pier. You should have read my post.

You're reading "house" into the text, and you're giving it your own meaning (at the cost of other verses Matthew himself gave).

You don't have the authority to add to the text.
You don't have the authority to subtract from the text.

You did both, therefore your conclusion is a fiction of your own creation.

[Mental flatliner]

And when all the dust has settled I would like to see the winner address the argument that the word translated as "eyewitnesses" in Luke's prologue really means something closer to the officials who had responsibility for the writings or library of the community, or the guarantors of the traditions in this form: http://vridar.org/2012/12/09/what-did-l ... esses-see/

In another context another scholar noted that the same word translated "eyewitness" (of Jesus) is used to describe Paul. Luke says Paul is an eyewitness of Jesus: http://vridar.org/2013/04/04/what-lukes ... g-to-luke/

If "autopai" can mean caretakers of writings carrying the community traditions or those who claim to have had visions . . . . . .

I'll address this.

When Luke said "eye-witness", he meant people who personally witnessed the events they wrote about.

(You failed to identify Luke as an official who had a responsibility for the writings or library of a community.)