Biblical Archaeology

[RedFan]

ILuke is a Bard; an Editor. He is relating stories that don't originate with himself, collecting them into one place. It's clear that what he put together is taken from the accounts of other people, borrowing heavily from Mark/Matthew. He is as good as his source material, and he doesn't add much to his sources.

It is worth noting that Luke doesn't always agree with Mark/Matthew. Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon in Matt. 1:6, but through Nathan in Luke 3:31. The transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” according to Mark 9:1-2, but eight days later according to Luke 9:28.

I wonder how @Matthias squares this.

 

[Wick Stick]

Luke is an eye-witness of some of the events (his second book, Acts). For those which he isn’t (his first book, the Gospel) he reliably reports what those who are told him.

I thought his source for the events of most of Acts came from Paul, but perhaps I'm just forgetting.

 

[Matthias]

There are some verses in his gospel that no witness could have related to Luke.

I don’t know what makes you think that.

Like what the angel said to Zechariah (Luke 1:12 et seq.), who was surely deceased before Luke ever got the notion to write his gospel.

And so was everyone else who heard what Zechariah said?

Like what the angels said to the shepherds at Christ's birth (Luke 2:10-12).

How do you know that all of them were dead? Jesus was born c. 4 B.C.

Luke’s second book (Acts) can be dated to approximately 62 A.D. -> Luke wrote his first book sometime before 62 A.D. but how long before is debatable.

For the sake of discussion, let’s put his Gospel at 62 A.D. -> 4 B.C. + 62 A.D. = 66 years.

How old were the shepherd’s in the field? The job was often performed by teenagers. Let’s say that there was a 13 year old shepherd among them. 66 + 13 = 79 years old. Let’s round it up to 80. Are you certain that there were no 80 year old men living at the time whom Luke could have interviewed before he wrote his Gospel?

Like what the Devil said to Jesus in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-12).

When did the (alleged?) conversation between Jesus and the devil take place? Let’s place it at approximately 30 A.D. -> approximately 32 years before Luke wrote his Gospel.

Are you certain that Jesus didn’t tell anyone at all what the devil said to him in the wilderness?

Let’s say that Jesus told someone his own age about the conversation. A 34 year old would have been 62 years old when Luke later investigated and wrote his Gospel around 62 A.D. Are you certain that there was no 68 year old person living who could tell Luke what Jesus had told him?

Tradition tells us that Luke interviewed Mary. Mary would have been around 13 years old when she gave birth to Jesus. If we date the death of Jesus to approximately 33 A.D -> Mary would have been approximately 46 years old at the time of his death. Did Jesus tell Mary what was said in his conversation with the devil? Are you certain that he didn’t?

How old would Mary have been in 62 A.D.? —> 46 + 29 = 75 years old. Are you certain that it isn’t possible that Luke could have spoken with the 75 year old mother of Jesus?

Luke fabricated the stories? There are no witnesses who could have related these examples hou offered flr our consideration to him?

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

(Luke 1:1-4, NIV)

Luke says that there were, and Luke didn’t write in a vacuum. No biblical writer says about Luke what you’ve said about him.

 

[Matthias]

I thought his source for the events of most of Acts came from Paul, but perhaps I'm just forgetting.

We know that Luke accompanied Paul on some of his trips. Don’t we? (Maybe he made that up, too?) He spoke with Paul and others on those trips and Paul may have been the primary source for the information about things which happened in that time period when Luke wasn’t present with him. Luke may have gotten information from some of the others - either firsthand or secondhand - as well. A point about Acts is that, so far, no one has alleged that he fabricated any of the stories he recorded in the book.

But why hasn’t anyone made the allegation yet? Maybe it just hasn’t come up yet and will. Once we’ve fallen for Luke fabricated at least some of what he wrote in his Gospel there is nothing holding them back from alleging that he dreamed up some of what happened in Acts too.

“Don’t listen to Paul” (the WOC campaign slogan) is easily transferred to “Don’t listen to Luke”, but for a different reason.

 

[Matthias]

It is worth noting that Luke doesn't always agree with Mark/Matthew.

Bye bye synoptic Gospels?

Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon in Matt. 1:6, but through Nathan in Luke 3:31. The transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” according to Mark 9:1-2, but eight days later according to Luke 9:28.

I wonder how @Matthias squares this.

Please see my posts where I have, if you really are wondering and want to find out.

 

[Matthias]

No one and nothing is ever going to disprove the Bible.

Why would anyone who self-identifies as a Christian suggest that someone or something will?

 

[RedFan]

Bye bye synoptic Gospels?



Please see my posts where I have, if you really are wondering and want to find out.

Can you point me to them?

 

[RedFan]

I don’t know what makes you think that.



And so was everyone else who heard what Zechariah said?



How do you know that all of them were dead? Jesus was born c. 4 B.C.

Luke’s second book (Acts) can be dated to approximately 62 A.D. -> Luke wrote his first book sometime before 62 A.D. but how long before is debatable.

For the sake of discussion, let’s put his Gospel at 62 A.D. -> 4 B.C. + 62 A.D. = 66 years.

How old were the shepherd’s in the field? The job was often performed by teenagers. Let’s say that there was a 13 year old shepherd among them. 66 + 13 = 79 years old. Let’s round it up to 80. Are you certain that there were no 80 year old men living at the time whom Luke could have interviewed before he wrote his Gospel?



When did the (alleged?) conversation between Jesus and the devil take place? Let’s place it at approximately 30 A.D. -> approximately 32 years before Luke wrote his Gospel.

Are you certain that Jesus didn’t tell anyone at all what the devil said to him in the wilderness?

Let’s say that Jesus told someone his own age about the conversation. A 34 year old would have been 62 years old when Luke later investigated and wrote his Gospel around 62 A.D. Are you certain that there was no 68 year old person living who could tell Luke what Jesus had told him?

Tradition tells us that Luke interviewed Mary. Mary would have been around 13 years old when she gave birth to Jesus. If we date the death of Jesus to approximately 33 A.D -> Mary would have been approximately 46 years old at the time of his death. Did Jesus tell Mary what was said in his conversation with the devil? Are you certain that he didn’t?

How old would Mary have been in 62 A.D.? —> 46 + 29 = 75 years old. Are you certain that it isn’t possible that Luke could have spoken with the 75 year old mother of Jesus?

Luke fabricated the stories? There are no witnesses who could have related these examples hou offered flr our consideration to him?

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

(Luke 1:1-4, NIV)

Luke says that there were, and Luke didn’t write in a vacuum. No biblical writer says about Luke what you’ve said about him.

You are now suggesting second-hand hearsay accounts as Luke's source. That's different from what you said, and what I was responding to:

Luke is an eye-witness of some of the events (his second book, Acts). For those which he isn’t (his first book, the Gospel) he reliably reports WHAT THOSE WHO ARE told him.

Luke didn't interview Zechariah. Nor the shepherds (at least it's highly unlikely, whether they were alive or not). Nor Jesus, for that matter. Luke 22:41-44 quotes Jesus's prayers while the apostles were a stone's throw away and asleep; who do you suppose told Luke what He said?

 

[Matthias]

Can you point me to them?

The synoptic Gospels or my posts? The former, yes; the latter, yes.

 

[Matthias]

You are now suggesting second-hand hearsay accounts as Luke's source. That's different from what you said, and what I was responding to:

Luke didn't interview Zechariah. Nor the shepherds (at least it's highly unlikely, whether they were alive or not). Nor Jesus, for that matter. Luke 22:41-44 quotes Jesus's prayers while the apostles were a stone's throw away and asleep; who do you suppose told Luke what He said?

I’ve always been talking in this conversation about the reliability of Luke and the Bible. In the first four verses of his Gospel, Luke tells us how he obtained the information.

 

[RedFan]

The synoptic Gospels or my posts? The former, yes; the latter, yes.

If you've posted anything here -- whether quoting from the synoptics or not -- which harmonizes the discrepancies I've mentioned, please point me to the post(s).

 

[RedFan]

I’ve always been talking in this conversation about the reliability of Luke and the Bible. In the first four verses of his Gospel, Luke tells us how he obtained the information.

And that's my point. He refers in Luke 1:3 to his “investigating everything carefully from the very first” (NRSV). The oral and written accounts of decades-old events that he gathered before putting pen to parchment are thus declared to be his source material; he makes no claim that his gospel is based in any way on the Holy Spirit telling him what had happened. Taking him at his word, this type of research-based recounting makes his account only as accurate as the sources he consulted, some of them second-hand (the visitation of Gabriel to Zechariah, for example). Such hearsay evidence is generally a recipe for human error. How can we be confident that Luke got everything right, down to the last detail?

If your answer was "because God inspired his writing," then he didn't need to investigate a thing.

 

[Matthias]

If you've posted anything here -- whether quoting from the synoptics or not -- which harmonizes the discrepancies I've mentioned, please point me to the post(s).

A simple search should show you where the posts that I’ve made concerning anything related to the synoptic Gospels are located. I think you’re sincere and I appreciate your interest in what I’ve said about them, but why are you interested in them?

 

[Matthias]

And that's my point. He refers in Luke 1:3 to his “investigating everything carefully from the very first” (NRSV). The oral and written accounts of decades-old events that he gathered before putting pen to parchment are thus declared to be his source material; he makes no claim that his gospel is based in any way on the Holy Spirit telling him what had happened. Taking him at his word, this type of research-based recounting makes his account only as accurate as the sources he consulted, some of them second-hand (the visitation of Gabriel to Zechariah, for example). Such hearsay evidence is generally a recipe for human error. How can we be confident that Luke got everything right, down to the last detail?

I don’t doubt the accuracy of his sources, nor do I doubt his accuracy in reporting them.

If your answer was "because God inspired his writing," then he didn't need to investigate a thing.

I don’t see his writing as an “either or” proposition. I suspect that he was provided with a lot more information that he didn’t use and that God inspired him to know which pieces of information were accurate and which pieces of information should be preserved.

 

[RedFan]

A simple search should show you where the posts that I’ve made concerning anything related to the synoptic Gospels are located. I think you’re sincere and I appreciate your interest in what I’ve said about them, but why are you interested in them?

To see how a contradiction between synoptic accounts gets harmonized.

 

[RedFan]

I don’t see his writing as an “either or” proposition. I suspect that he was provided with a lot more information that he didn’t use and God inspired him to know which pieces of information were accurate and which pieces of information should be preserved.

Maybe. But uniquely among the gospel writers, Luke says he investigated the facts in order to create his account. If divine inspiration disclosed facts to him as well -- like the tile roof that got us started on this path -- he doesn't say so. From what he has told us, it's all on him. And when I see him say things that the other synoptics disagree with (see Post #40), I have to take this into account.

 

[Matthias]

To see how a contradiction between synoptic accounts gets harmonized.

What makes what I think about how apparent contradictions are best harmonized of greater or equal value to you than what someone else thinks about how apparent contradictions are best harmonized? If / when you see what I think about harmonizing them you will find that I haven’t blazed a new trail.

 

[Matthias]

Maybe. But uniquely among the gospel writers, Luke says he investigated the facts in order to create his account.

That’s good enough for me. I believe him. I have no reason not to.

What about the others? If they had begun their Gospels the way that Luke began his, would you have the same trouble believing them that you have with believing him?

If divine inspiration disclosed facts to him as well -- like the tile roof that got us started on this path -- he doesn't say so.

I don’t think divine inspiration disclosed to him that tiles were used. What I think is that someone whom he interviewed that was an eye-witness to the event told him about the tiles. The inspiration was to write it down and preserve it for his readers.

From what he has told us, it's all on him.

I don’t think that’s what he’s telling us. He actually interviewed eye-witnesses and collated what he was told. There’s no good reason for him to have made up details. I don’t believe God would have allowed a fabricated account of the life of Jesus to be preserved in the canon of scripture. If he would, we’re hopelessly lost. That’s not in keeping with God’s character.

And when I see him say things that the other synoptics disagree with (see Post #40), I have to take this into account.

What we should do is harmonize the accounts. Added detail doesn’t mean that there is a true contradiction, or that someone just made something up out of thin air. If one writer says something that another writer doesn’t say anything about, it doesn’t mean that the writer who said it was fabricating or embellishing.

 

[RedFan]

What about the others? If they had begun their Gospels the way that Luke began his, would you have the same trouble believing them that you have with believing him?

I might. Any first-century historian who investigates events of decades earlier -- no library of books, no newspaper collection, no internet to consult on the topic -- is largely an interviewer, and thus subject to potential error from the mistakes made by his sources. I hope we can agree on that much. But I don't think writing investigative histories are what Mark or Matthew or John did in writing their gospels. Any factual errors in their gospels have a different origin. (And there are some.)

I don’t think divine inspiration disclosed to him that tiles were used. What I think is that someone whom he interviewed that was an eye-witness to the event told him about the tiles. The inspiration was to write it down and preserve it for his readers.

Perhaps (in which case, Kudos to Luke for hunting such a witness down). And archeology discloses that this particular interviewee's testimony was mistaken.

I don’t believe God would have allowed a fabricated account of the life of Jesus to be preserved in the canon of scripture. If he would, we’re hopelessly lost.

I agree with your first sentence, but I disagree with the second. Luke's "account of the life of Jesus," broadly construed, is not fabricated. But God wouldn't care what the Capernaum roof was made of. God would care about Luke's message being correct. And the roof materials are irrelevant to the message.

What we should do is harmonize the accounts. Added detail doesn’t mean that there is a true contradiction, or that someone just made something up out of thin air. If one writer says something that another writer doesn’t say anything about, it doesn’t mean that the writer who said it was fabricating or embellishing.

I agree with you. And I know you'll agree with me that it doesn't mean that the writer ISN'T fabricating or embellishing. To figure out which is the case, we would need to look elsewhere. To archeology, for instance.

 

[RedFan]

What makes what I think about how apparent contradictions are best harmonized of greater or equal value to you than what someone else thinks about how apparent contradictions are best harmonized? If / when you see what I think about harmonizing them you will find that I haven’t blazed a new trail.

I like to gather perspectives on such matters from serious thinking people. I find it helpful.