Printable version
">  Email to a friend

arrow_left_short all forums
topic list

Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion

the book of Luke-does it matter if it was "early" or "late?"
Love the DAB but the recent commentary on Luke leaves me a little bothered. What I wish was said was that liberal scholars(not just "many scholars,") especially ones with a low view of scripture, were the ones trying to push Luke's gospel beyond AD 70 due to the fact that that they are trying to remove the value of a fulfilled prophecy to veracity of the Bible. They basically try to imply that everything miraculous or pointing to the deity of Christ was added in later. And all the stuff about "Q" being so compelling and all, as if Jesus' sayings(which could be teachings that He repeated over and over) was all there was to it. I thought for a minute that I was listening to the Jesus Seminar. These people cannot be pleased. If there are too many similarities, they say the gospels were copied from each other. If there are differences, the same people say there are contradictions(and not variant accounts). Just wish more of that kind of perspective was brought out, that's all.
jms 03/14/2011 14:24

Replies: (page   1   2)
jms 03/14/2011 15:29
sorry I was little harsh about Q. of course even if it did exist I don't think it would invalidate inspiration. God could of course inspire a writer even if he used another document as a source. And I guess that would mean Q would have been written befor Matthew and Luke, making at least some of the content even earlier.
Lanny Carlson 03/14/2011 16:28
I'm glad you added you second post.
I think the Jesus Seminar is way off base,
but the "Q" (for "Quelle," which means "source,"
is a theory which has been around for many, many years
and has nothing to do with the Jesus Seminar.
Nor was it an effort to discredit the Gospels.
Yes, it's an hypothesis,
but it helps to explain the similarities between the Gospels,
and if anything testifies to an old common source upon which they were drawing.
It's also obvious that Matthew and Luke also had,
in addition to Mark and Q,
their own independent sources,
as there are stories in Matthew and Luke which are unique to each -
e.g., the shepherds in Luke, the magi in Matthew,parables unique to Luke, etc.
And, of course, the Gospel writers, like any human writer,
took some control over their sources and used them to make their own points
and to address their own particular audiences.
For example, Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience
and sees Jesus in the mold of Moses,
the Sermon on the Mount reminding his readers of Moses on the Mountain.
Luke, on the other hand, is writing to a Gentile audience,
has Jesus delivering a sermon on the plain,
and being the Gospel of social justice
has the Beatitudes less spiritualized than Matthew,
addressing not the "poor in spirit" but the poor.
Again, none of this takes anything away from the Gospels.
No one had a tape recorder and we have no way of knowing the precise words Jesus used.
But the Gospels provide us with inspired insight into the life and teachings of Jesus,
through the different perspectives of the individual writers.
And, yes, this is the view of "many scholars," if not most scholars.
John T 03/15/2011 15:20
It would make sense that the gospels would have similarities, just as two biographies about the same person would have similarities. They may tell different parts of their lives or leave certain events out, but together would present the whole picture of a life.
Bibleman 03/15/2011 22:27
Lanny, you said,
"
No one had a tape recorder and we have no way of knowing the precise words Jesus used."

but I consider it quite possible that perhaps the only words we know Jesus spoke are the only ones that were known for sure he had spoke.
Of course, thats just my opinion.

However, I don't know that it matters when Luke was written. I would probably say 60s AD because its following letter (Acts) does not mention Paul's death, which was in I believe 68 AD.
Craig from Illinois 03/16/2011 06:27

Interesting observation about the writing styles and audience. I haven't thought about that enough regarding the Gospels. I have considered it regarding the Apostle Paul. Thanks Lanny!
Ted C 03/16/2011 11:02
Yes, the Gospel of Luke COULD have been influenced by a mythical document "Q". And it's contents COULD have been coordinated by aliens from a UFO. Since we have the exact same amount of evidential proof that Luke was influenced by a document named "Q" and that it was coordinated by aliens from a UFO, I will give both theories an equal amount of credence.

Why are we taking suppositions from scholars who don't believe Scripture is inspired, suppositions which are entirely based on the human assumptions that there is no such thing as the supernatural and which have zero evidential proof (there are no fragments of "Q", and none of the extant manuscripts mentions a "Q"), above what the early extant manuscripts themselves say? Higher criticism is based in the assumptions that the Scriptures aren't inspired, can't be taken at face value and were written to manipulate people and situations in distant politics. Those assumptions originate purely from a secular, humanist philosophical bias.

Teaching like this - which has the illusion of being objective and logical but in reality is based on arbitrary, biased assumptions - is the reason why right now in the U.S.'s major denominations only half or less of the pastors believe in the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead. Believers need to start voting with their tithe money and their education dollars to boycott institutions which teach this philosophical, arbitrary and anti-Christ doctrine. I can't say it strongly enough.
Lanny Carlson 03/16/2011 13:07
Ted,

I hesitated to respond to your comments,
but I couldn't ignore your tone or your implications.

First of all, the "Q" hypothesis isn't anything new -
it originated at least as early as the 1800's,
and primarily seeks to explain and understand
some of the similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels.
To blame the decline of churches in the 20th and 21st centuries
on such Biblical scholarship is an enormous oversimplification -
and is totally unfair.

Second, you say,
"Higher criticism is based in the assumptions that the Scriptures aren't inspired, can't be taken at face value and were written to manipulate people and situations in distant politics. Those assumptions originate purely from a secular, humanist philosophical bias."
And you refer to "suppositions which are entirely based on the human assumptions that there is no such thing as the supernatural."
WOW! Talk about bias and suppositions and assumptions!
While some scholars - "conservative" as well as "liberal" -
no doubt have other agendas,
most scholars I know or have read have a very high regard for the Bible,
and are driven by a desire to more deeply understand the meaning of Scripture.
To impugn other people's motives with a blanket statement like yours reveals more about your assumptions and biases than those of others!

I am really surprised to read some vitriolic statements coming from you, Ted -
or maybe you were temporarily under the influence of Aliens!
Ted C 03/16/2011 14:49
Some of the fathers of higher criticism:

Johann Salomo Semler (December 18, 1725 – March 14, 1791)
"The importance of Semler, sometimes called "the father of German rationalism", in the history of theology and the human mind is that of a critic of biblical and ecclesiastical documents and of the history of dogmas....He was the first to reject with sufficient proof the equal value of the Old and New Testaments, the uniform authority of all parts of the Bible, the divine authority of the traditional canon of Scripture, the inspiration and supposed correctness of the text of the Old and New Testaments, and, generally, the identification of revelation with Scripture."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Salomo_Semler

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (October 16, 1753 – June 27, 1827)
"Eichhorn has been called "the founder of modern Old Testament criticism." He recognized its scope and problems, and began many of its most important discussions. 'My greatest trouble,' he says in the preface to the second edition of his Einleitung, 'I had to bestow on a hitherto unworked field--on the investigation of the inner nature of the Old Testament with the help of the Higher Criticism (not a new name to any humanist).' His investigations led him to the conclusion that 'most of the writings of the Hebrews have passed through several hands. He took for granted that all the supernatural events related in the Old and New Testaments were explicable on natural principles. He sought to judge them from the standpoint of the ancient world, and to account for them by the superstitious beliefs which were then generally in vogue. He did not perceive in the biblical books any religious ideas of much importance for modern times; they interested him merely historically and for the light they cast upon antiquity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Eichhorn

Ferdinand Christian Baur (June 21, 1792 – December 2, 1860)
"The Kirchengeschichte was published in five volumes during the years 1853-1863, partly by Baur himself, partly by his son, Ferdinand Baur, and his son-in-law, Eduard Zeller, from notes and lectures which the author left behind him. Pfleiderer describes this work, especially the first volume, as a classic for all time. 'Taken as a whole, it is the first thorough and satisfactory attempt to explain the rise of Christianity and the Church on strictly historical lines, i.e. as a natural development of the religious spirit of our race under the combined operation of various human causes.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur


Julius Wellhausen (May 17, 1844 – January 7, 1918)
He is perhaps best known for his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels of 1883 (first published 1878 as Geschichte Israels), in which he advanced a definitive formulation of the Documentary hypothesis, arguing that the Torah or Pentateuch had its origins in a redaction of four originally independent texts dating from several centuries after the time of Moses, their traditional author. Wellhausen's hypothesis remained the dominant model for Pentateuchal studies until the last quarter of the 20th century, when it began to be challenged by scholars who saw more and more hands at work in the Torah, ascribing them to periods even later than Wellhausen had proposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wellhausen

I think all of the above agrees with the statement, "Higher criticism is based in the assumptions that the Scriptures aren't inspired, can't be taken at face value and were written to manipulate people and situations in distant politics. Those assumptions originate purely from a secular, humanist philosophical bias."

That assessment is not vitriolic or misrepresenting anything; it's based on empirical observation.

Read those articles, and then read http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/133-only-half-of-protestant-pastors-have-a-biblical-worldview

I think if someone is a believer who agrees with most of the statements, "that absolute moral truth exists, that it is based upon the Bible, and [you have] a biblical view on six core beliefs (the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, salvation by grace alone, and the personal responsibility to evangelize)," that they then have a right to be alarmed and point out when a movement is fundamentally opposed the majority of those teachings.
(page   1   2)
arrow_up_short start of topic