New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[jeremyp]

Thus Luke's account agrees with Paul's claim that he didn't consult anyone about his gospel.

They both agree that his name was Paul too. That doesn't mean Luke knew Paul.

Even if he did, if Paul didn't consult with anybody about his gospel (I agree that Paul claimed his message was revealed rather than learned from Jesus' earlier followers), where does that leave Luke's source for the gospel?

[Spud]

They both agree that his name was Paul too. That doesn't mean Luke knew Paul.

The evidence points to it, unless there is good evidence to the contrary.

Even if he did, if Paul didn't consult with anybody about his gospel (I agree that Paul claimed his message was revealed rather than learned from Jesus' earlier followers), where does that leave Luke's source for the gospel?

As I understand it, Luke tells us his source for his gospel in his introduction: the eyewitnesses.

[jeremyp]

The evidence points to it, unless there is good evidence to the contrary.

The only evidence you have so far is that Luke sometimes wrote in the first person.

As I understand it, Luke tells us his source for his gospel in his introduction: the eyewitnesses.

We've already gone through that. There's no evidence he used eye witness sources. He doesn't say he does. In fact, we know his main source for the gospel is Mark.

[Spud]

It's right there:

Contrast Luke 21's prophecy with the epistle of Barnabas, which openly states that the temple had been destroyed:

"So it came to pass; for because they went to war [the temple] was pulled down by their enemies" (Barnabas 16:4).

Considering the above, why would Luke not mention that Jesus' prophecy had been fulfilled, if he was writing after the event?

It's plausible that Jesus talked about both the 'desolating sacrilege' and the armies surrounding the city.

Luke 21:20 and Luke 19:43 closely resembles Isaiah 29:3, which contains very similar language, but in the context of the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem.

So it's conceivable that Jesus referred to the siege of the city by both Antiochus (hence in Matthew 24 the sign is the desolating sacrilege from Daniel) and the Babylonians.

[jeremyp]

Contrast Luke 21's prophecy with the epistle of Barnabas, which openly states that the temple had been destroyed:

"So it came to pass; for because they went to war [the temple] was pulled down by their enemies" (Barnabas 16:4).

Considering the above, why would Luke not mention that Jesus' prophecy had been fulfilled, if he was writing after the event?

If I write "Spud prophesied that terrorists would fly planes into the World Trade Centre", you wouldn't expect me to have to put "and they did" on the end because everybody knows they did.

[Spud]

If I write "Spud prophesied that terrorists would fly planes into the World Trade Centre", you wouldn't expect me to have to put "and they did" on the end because everybody knows they did.

You had me for a while there. I couldn't think of a reply last night.

But I just thought, some of the disciples would have had something to say about Ad70 and the prophecy of it, which would find its way into Acts, Luke's gospel or one of the others, as it does with the epistle of Barnabas.

Especially given Ad70 is linked with the end of the world and second coming in Jesus' prophecy, I think we would expect to find some mention of it.

[Spud]

Also, Acts contains other predictions and their fulfillments.

[jeremyp]

But I just thought, some of the disciples would have had something to say about Ad70 and the prophecy of it, which would find its way into Acts,

Why would it? The events of Acts take place before AD70.

Luke's gospel or one of the others, as it does with the epistle of Barnabas.

It does make it into Luke's gospel in the form of a prophecy by Jesus - much like your prophecy of 9/11 made it onto this message board.

[Spud]

much like your prophecy of 9/11 made it onto this message board.

We would expect someone to comment about that in a way that would reveal that it had happened.

[Spud]

On the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, an interesting point is that all three synoptics have the word 'desolate' (eremosis), and this indicates it to be likely that Jesus did actually say that word:

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that her desolation is near - Luke
So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination of desolation' - Mat.
So when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be - Mark

The three have independent sources, with some copy and pasting mixed in, but the idea of desolation was in the mind of all three of them.

[Spud]

I meant to say that Luke's version of the Olivet discourse is quite different to Matthew and Mark, suggesting that he had not seen their versions. So for him to have the same idea of desolation shows that all three originate with Jesus.

[Spud]

More evidence that Luke, Acts, Matthew and Mark were all written before Ad70:

Acts 23:7 "As soon as he had said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8For the Sadducees say there is neither a resurrection [they were sad,you see], nor angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all."

The Saducees as a formal group didn't exist after Ad70, but are always referred to in the present tense as though they were in existence at the time of writing.

"And certain of the Sadducees, who are denying that there is a rising again, having come near, questioned him," Luke 20:27 YLT

[Gordon]

Have you considered, Spud, that anyone writing about events in the past might deliberately use the present tense to convey the times they are writing about: thus someone currently writing a novel set in, say, WW2 might in the narrative mention seeing Spitfires flying and Barrage Balloons aloft although neither are around today.

[jeremyp]

We would expect someone to comment about that in a way that would reveal that it had happened.

People did comment on it, so much so that, when I pointed out that you prophesied the destruction of the World Trade Centre, I did not have point out that it actually happened.

[jeremyp]

The three have independent sources, with some copy and pasting mixed in, but the idea of desolation was in the mind of all three of them.

Or Luke and Matthew copied Mark, which is what probably happened really.

[Spud]

People did comment on it, so much so that, when I pointed out that you prophesied the destruction of the World Trade Centre, I did not have point out that it actually happened.

fair enough.

[Spud]

Or Luke and Matthew copied Mark, which is what probably happened really.

If so, where did Luke get 21:24 and all the other parts of the speech that diverge from Mark?

[Spud]

Have you considered, Spud, that anyone writing about events in the past might deliberately use the present tense to convey the times they are writing about: thus someone currently writing a novel set in, say, WW2 might in the narrative mention seeing Spitfires flying and Barrage Balloons aloft although neither are around today.

I don't suppose you could find an actual case of this use of the present tense by a narrator, as it seems like an unnatural thing to do. For example, I could write a story about the blitz from the POV of someone in Surrey, and (edit: that character says:) "we are lucky here in Surrey - few bombers can get through, as they are  intercepted by spitfires from Biggin Hill, where there are now four squadron of them."
But if the narrator said, "few bombers can reach Surrey. There are four squadrons of  spitfires at Biggin Hill to intercept them" it would be an unnatural thing to write unless it was said by a character. That's from my limited reading of novels - maybe I'm wrong?

[Gordon]

I don't suppose you could find an actual case of this use of the present tense by a narrator, as it seems like an unnatural thing to do. For example, I could write a story about the blitz from the POV of someone in Surrey, and say, "we are lucky here in Surrey - few bombers can get through, as they are  intercepted by spitfires from Biggin Hill, where there are now four squadron of them."
But if the narrator said, "few bombers can reach Surrey. There are four squadrons of  spitfires at Biggin Hill to intercept them" it would be an unnatural thing to write unless it was said by a character. That's from my limited reading of novels - maybe I'm wrong?

I'm sure there is a point you're trying to make here, Spud, but I've no idea what it is.

I'll try again: someone writing a narrative post-hoc could decide to use the present tense to make it seem they were writing at the time being portrayed. For example, in the well-known 1955 film 'The Dam Busters' the characters speak and act as if it were still 1943.

As such, your point that "The Saducees as a formal group didn't exist after Ad70, but are always referred to in the present tense as though they were in existence at the time of writing" doesn't confirm that anything written that mentions the Saducees had to have been written before CE70. 
 

[Spud]

There's no narrator in the Dam Busters 

[jeremyp]

There's no narrator in the Dam Busters 

Do you understand the difference between a narrative and a narrator?

[Gordon]

There's no narrator in the Dam Busters 

Whoosh.

[Spud]

I'm sure there is a point you're trying to make here, Spud, but I've no idea what it is.

I'll try again: someone writing a narrative post-hoc could decide to use the present tense to make it seem they were writing at the time being portrayed. For example, in the well-known 1955 film 'The Dam Busters' the characters speak and act as if it were still 1943.

As such, your point that "The Saducees as a formal group didn't exist after Ad70, but are always referred to in the present tense as though they were in existence at the time of writing" doesn't confirm that anything written that mentions the Saducees had to have been written before CE70. 
 

Apologies - the narrator of "The World At War" part 4 uses present tense in the introduction - "British and French troops wait for rescue on the beach at Dunkirk" etc, then he uses past tense for the rest of the documentary.

The parallel verse to Luke 20:27 in Matthew also uses the present tense, then reverts back to past tense. Mark uses present, but is all over the place, tense-wise. I think it looks like they are speaking from a pre 70 perspective, personally.

[jeremyp]

Apologies - the narrator of "The World At War" part 4 uses present tense in the introduction - "British and French troops wait for rescue on the beach at Dunkirk" etc, then he uses past tense for the rest of the documentary.

The parallel verse to Luke 20:27 in Matthew also uses the present tense, then reverts back to past tense. Mark uses present, but is all over the place, tense-wise. I think it looks like they are speaking from a pre 70 perspective, personally.

And yet they refer to things that happened in 70. I think that is a better indicator than which tense they use.

Sorry: "used".

and "referred". My tenses are all over the place. That must mean I am writing contemporaneously to Mark.

[Spud]

Or Luke and Matthew copied Mark, which is what probably happened really.

For those verses in particular, Luke didn't copy Mark. The details are quite different, yet the same idea of desolation is there. Did they both come from the same source (J.C.)?