The Sources - The Gospel of Luke (prophets, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit)

[TRANSPONDER]

I didn't respond originally as this is ongoing work and I don't claim to have it all sorted out.

The first point is that this is 'Q' material and it seems to be a collection of sayings which Matthew and Luke incorporated into their gospels. Note that Luke does not have the material in Matthew 6 - on related in Luke as the sermon on a 'level place' but that crops up later on in Luke, notably in the episodes connected with the extended material of the journey to Jerusalem (Luke 10 to around 18). Notably the 'Lord's prayer' which is during the sermon in Matthew - and he says that the disciples were there, but Luke has it taught in a rather clumsy 'after Jesus had finished praying his disciples asked him to teach them to pray', setting That is the clearest possible indication that Luke had simply used the latter section of the list of 'Q' teachings and set them in a series of situations. Luke was an able writer.

But then, why are the earlier parts of the sermons both given in the same place and in connection with a mountain, sorta? Doesn't that imply that some kind of sermon was given?

What I suggest might have transpired was this: The original 'Mark/Matthew' gospel was circulating. Mark had already adapted it and had no sermon on the mount. Not a hint of one. Neither had John of course.
The 'Q' collection of sayings - which I suspect were in written rather than oral memory form for a reason I'll mention later - were circulating in the time of Matthew and Luke, which is surely past AD 60, as that is the last Luke records of Paul (in Acts) and probably post Jewish war, too, but that's arguable.

Matthew and Luke both resolve that this important collection of Jesus sayings must be incorporated in their gospels as they effectively amount to a summary and testament of Jesus' teachings and exhortations. That being so, it makes sense to have them at the outset of the mission as a sort of Thesis or mission statement, rather than being placed later on when there were more active events going on.

The 'sermon' is headed by a not dissimilar preamble of Jesus seeing the crowds, going up the hill, taking his seat, gathering his disciples around him and giving a teaching starting with 'blessed are the poor' in Matthew and, in Luke, going up into the hills to pray (all night), calling his disciples (the listing of the twelve is fitted in here - Matthew places this later on just before the Sending Out of the twelve) and then he lifts up his eyes on his disciples and starts on 'blessed are the poor'.

Thus I take it that there was just a written preamble to the 'Q teachings' of going up a hill, calling his disciples and teaching them - just them, as the 'poor/meek' are the Ebionites, the elect or saints; that is the Jesus group in Jerusalem at the time Paul was collecting famine relief for them.

Luke adds in multitudes from all over all including Phoenicia being healed and having demons cast out and the hilltop is a bit cramped, so he had Jesus come down on a suitable level place where they could all assemble. But the original 'teaching' in a 'Q' document was just for the disciples.

What you think, AW? I think this is certainly 'source' relevant as it touches on where the material came from, how it was used, the writing methods, even the dating. Any comment anyone?

[ancient warrior]

[quote=AREQUIPA;26101248]I didn't respond originally as this is ongoing work and I don't claim to have it all sorted out.

>But then, why are the earlier parts of the sermons both given in the same place and in connection with a mountain, sorta? Doesn't that imply that some kind of sermon was given? <<

RESPONSE:

No. It implies a common source document giving the account that was used.

>>What I suggest might have transpired was this: The original 'Mark/Matthew' gospel was circulating. Mark had already adapted it and had no sermon on the mount. Not a hint of one. Neither had John of course.<<

RESPONSE:

Mark was written first, c. 70 AD. Matthew, c. 80 AD, then used about 95% of Mark, not infrequently verbatim. Hence Mark could not have copied from Matthew.

Moreover, Matthew corrected some of the grammar and geological errors Mark made.

Luke, also c 80 AD, used a lesser amount of Mark's Gospel. If we use the expression Mark/Mathew, we'd have to use the expression Mark/Luke too.

>>What you think, AW? I think this is certainly 'source' relevant as it touches on where the material came from, how it was used, the writing methods, even the dating. Any comment anyone? <<

RESPONSE:

Papias, not the brightest bulb among the earlt Church Fathers who first ascribed the Gsopel to Matthew, writing about 135 AD, tells us that:

“Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could”

It seems that Papias is confusing the "Q" "sayings" document with Matthew's Gospel. Apparently, it is largely this passage, quoted by Eusebius, which laid the foundation for the claim of a Gospel of Matthew first written in Hebrew.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks for your post. I put this response together. It is a suggested theory. I do think that it is the answer that fits the facts, but, I could be wrong. I could just be doing the trick of filing the puzzle pieces so they fit. The only way to see is to have informed persons pose serious questions.

Jesus' death and Pilate's reaction.

Mark 15. 7 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died,[c] he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”. 40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph,[d] and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there. 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

Matthew 27. 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. (Matthew adds on The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people). 54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the (earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed), “Surely he was the Son of God!” 55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Matthew. 27. 57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

Which side does Luke come down? The underlined material is what I call 'M' material - material copied by Matthew from Mark or (as i suggest) by Mark and Matthew from a common original but of course not the one Luke worked from as he had none of this 'M' material. It makes it unwieldy but even if one suggests Matthew copied Mark, Luke didn't so there must have been a synoptic original with out the 'M' material even if Matthew did copy from Mark

Luke 23.46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, (“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[e] When he had said this), he breathed his last. 47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. 50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. 55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.

We can see the basic text again with the same passages in the same order because two of the sources confirm it. The add -ons can be identified, not only becasie two of the other sources don't have a passage, and a passage that could hardly hav been left out by BOTH the other sources if it was true, but because there is often a contradictory passage
So the concordant pasages
Mark With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
Matthew And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he breathed his last - altered to 'gave up his spirit' - better than just expiring)
Luke Jesus called out with a loud voice,..breathed his last

Mark And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”.
Matthew When the centurion guarding Jesus saw all that had happened, they exclaimed), “Surely he was the Son of God!” Apart from adding a few other solders (rather as he supposes a few women and children at the Bethsaida feeding is a reasonable supposition), and skipping over the supernatural events which al the other somehow missed hearing about (just as they did the massacre at Bethlehem - Matthew's own invention, of course)

Luke The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man". This simple passage suggests that the original text had one centurion seeing something that convinced him to exonerate Jesus. It is true that Mark and Matthew both have him ascribing divinity to Jesus on the spot which sounds likely for a polemic document, but it might be 'M' material. In which case his declaring Jesus 'righteous' might be original, though it could possibly be Luke realizing the anachronism of the Centurion being converted to a religion that didn't yet exist. Either way, there is an original synoptic text that has been amended, but I am not sure which way. Possibly study of the non - canonical gospels might give a clue.

Mark 40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

Matthew Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Luke the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. Luke does mention the two Marys and Joanna after the resurrection, The suggests to me that the Galilean women were mentioned in the original version but no women from Jerusalem. Again Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James may be 'M' material based on the assumption that the two Marys (mentioned later) were surely amongst the women. Salome, Joseph, Joanna and the mother of the sons of Zebedee can be put down to 'research' by Mark and Matthew. if the many women including the Marys were all in the synoptic original, Luke could have just wanted to avoid repetition either explanation has its points. The point is that all three agree that some women stood at a distance, watching.

Mark So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.
Matthew. As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him.
Luke deals with evening with 'It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin' Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council,..of Arimathea ..and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body.

we can see that Joseph of Arimathea must have been waiting for the kingdom of God in the synoptic original but Matthew 'interpreted' that as meaning being a disciple of Jesus, which is not quite the same thing. It is agreed that he was a council member, that is, one of the Sanhedrin. Luke, knowing this, explains that he was in no way to blame for the Sanhedrin arresting Jesus and putting him on trial. The only point I want to make is that this is, accordingly, Luke's own addition to the common text. Obvious enough but if this is added, why is there any problem in seeing other singularities as the additions and amendments of the writers?
We can see Arimathea goes to Pilate (I guess that Mark added 'boldly') and asks for the body.

Now we get the passage in Mark which appears no-where else.
Mark 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so,

I am conscious that it is easy enough to fiddle a reconciled text by chucking out anything that doesn't fit, but bear in mind that this works throughout the gospels and works in Acts, too. Now, I have noted the Mark/Matthew passages that don't appear in Luke. A Synoptic that both Mark and Matthew were based on but not Luke.

So was Mark the original for Matthew? I would like to suggest that the differences between Mark and Matthew, particularly the business of Pilate asking whether Jesus was already dead shows that Mark was adding to an original just as Matthew was, but that original wasn't the Mark that we have now.

Mark (Arimathea) went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.....he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.

Matthew 58 , Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

Luke Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. 55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.

The text follows the same lines - so much that it isn't just eyewitness report of the same event but the same original text which would read:- Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, (possibly 'Pilate gave it to him')
Joseph took down the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and placed it in a (new?) tomb cut out of rock (the rock -door may be M material. Luke mentions the stone rolled away and so 'M' may have written that Arimathea rolled in place, even if Luke didn't. I see no reason for him to omit it if it was there.

So I suggest that the synoptic original went something like this:-
'With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The centurion, seeing what had happened, said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”. Some women who had followed him from Galilee, were watching from a distance. So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. Pilate gave the body to Joseph . Joseph took down the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and placed it in a (new?) tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and (the other) Mary saw where he was laid.'


And just see how 'original' that synoptic original looks when reconciled with John. 19.(KJV, as it doesn't matter to me. The general sense is ok. I don't go translation -shopping)

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. 38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. 42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Take out the extra bits which I see as John's own commentary and you get this.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus (gave an utterance) , and gave up the ghost. 31 .. 38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, ..., besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 39 ... 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. 42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Compared with my postulated Synoptic original
With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The centurion, seeing what had happened, said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”.Some women who had followed him from Galilee, were watching from a distance. So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. Pilate gave the body to Joseph . Joseph took down the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and placed it in a (new?) tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and (the other) Mary saw where he was laid.'

Apart from the Synoptic centurion and bussing in the Marys from 19.25, that looks to me very much to me like the original story on which the Synoptic original and John's gospel was based.

Re the Church fathers, I would like to have time to study them, but so far it is hard to reconcile what they say with the way it looks, but of course, I could be wrong. As you say Aramaic sayings sounds a lot like 'Q' as a gospel sounds like saying and deeds. I'm not even sure that the gospels were translated from Aramaic. I know there are some translated passages, but they sounds more like the odd phrases that were handed on, with their meaning in Greek and there are some passages - verbal puns -supposed to work only in greek.

So I still have a lot to learn about that aspect.

[ancient warrior]

[quote=AREQUIPA;26130980]

>>We can see the basic text again with the same passages in the same order because two of the sources confirm it. The add -ons can be identified, not only becasie two of the other sources don't have a passage, and a passage that could hardly hav been left out by BOTH the other sources if it was true, but because there is often a contradictory passage <<

RESPONSE:

If two passages are copied from the same source, or one from the other, they hardly confirm a event. It's really only one attestation.

That assuming one isn't reading an inaccurate or fictionilized account to begin with.

Have you considered writing shorter posts, or dividing you material between several divverent posts.

If a post fill more than one or two screens, readers may tend to lose interest.

[ancient warrior]

Luke tells us something about Jesus we don't find in the other gospels.

In Luke we find some evidence that Jesus did think of himself as a revolutionary.

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [ Luke 12:51]

He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [Luke 22:36 ]

Note that the Romans didn't crucify thieves; only seriously recalcitrant slaves and insurrectionists.

Jesus, if he claimed to be the messiah (who was expected to sit on the throne of Israel and drive out invaders) could expect to be crucified for that reason.

But later Paul evidently came up with the "atonement for sins", a more palatable explanation for Jesus' followers.

[TRANSPONDER]

[quote=ancient warrior;26133728]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

>>We can see the basic text again with the same passages in the same order because two of the sources confirm it. The add -ons can be identified, not only because two of the other sources don't have a passage, and a passage that could hardly have been left out by BOTH the other sources if it was true, but because there is often a contradictory passage <<

RESPONSE:

If two passages are copied from the same source, or one from the other, they hardly confirm a event. It's really only one attestation.

That assuming one isn't reading an inaccurate or fictionilized account to begin with.

Have you considered writing shorter posts, or dividing you material between several different posts.

If a post fill more than one or two screens, readers may tend to lose interest.

Quite true, but in fact the post was aimed at yourself as your criticism of my reasoning would be valuable. I doubt that too many others would be interested in the redaction criticism.

Just a short post repeating my views about the way the gospels were written would tell you nothing new.

I agree that copying from a source doesn't necessarily confirm it as fact. I'm first looking at establishing the relations between the various sources (though this is a Luke thread, you can't evaluate Luke without looking at the others) and - as I tend to put it, when you know what the gospels are, then you know what they are not. Understanding how they were written is the best way of learning what if anything they write could be true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Luke tells us something about Jesus we don't find in the other gospels.

In Luke we find some evidence that Jesus did think of himself as a revolutionary.

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [ Luke 12:51]

He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [Luke 22:36 ]

Note that the Romans didn't crucify thieves; only seriously recalcitrant slaves and insurrectionists.

Jesus, if he claimed to be the messiah (who was expected to sit on the throne of Israel and drive out invaders) could expect to be crucified for that reason.

But later Paul evidently came up with the "atonement for sins", a more palatable explanation for Jesus' followers.

I'm not sure whether you are thinking of a religious or political revolutionary. I do get the impression that the gospels are bending over backwards to gloss over the zealot aspect of Jesus which keeps popping up. That's another of those 'principle of embarrassment' items that make me think that there must be some historical element that didn't suit the writers so they are constantly trying to put words into Jesus' mouth to make him distance himself from the idea of any earthly kingdom - which would be of course a Judea liberated from Roman rule.

Yes. It is hardly difficult to see that the crucifixion described is that of a threat to Roman rule, despite the Gospels trying to present that as a Roman covering -up of a blasphemy charge, which was nonsensical. I am convinced that it was the other way around - The Roman Christians did their level best to expand and edit the probable involvement of the High priest in Jesus' arrest to make it look like a blasphemy matter (reflecting the difference between Pauline Christians and Jews - even those of the Jesus group) and to push the blame for the crucifixion onto Judaism.

[ancient warrior]

Luke’s Acts of the Apostles contains another chronological error.

In Acts 5:33-37 we are told:

"But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. 35Then he said to them, ‘Fellow-Israelites,* consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. 36For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. 37After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered" (NRSV)

Problems:

Thus in Acts the revolt under Theudas, a messiah-candidate, took place before that of Judas the Galilean. Judas the Galilean, another messiah-candidate, led his revolution against the census of the governor Quirinius (when Judea was placed under Syria’s control) in 6 A.D.

But Theudas led his revolt between 44-and 46 AD during the consulate of Cuspius Fadus. This is clearly after the revolt lead by Julian in 6 AD.

(However, this indicates that Acts was written sometime after 46 AD).

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I'm not sure whether you are thinking of a religious or political revolutionary. I do get the impression that the gospels are bending over backwards to gloss over the zealot aspect of Jesus which keeps popping up. That's another of those 'principle of embarrassment' items that make me think that there must be some historical element that didn't suit the writers so they are constantly trying to put words into Jesus' mouth to make him distance himself from the idea of any earthly kingdom - which would be of course a Judea liberated from Roman rule.

Yes. It is hardly difficult to see that the crucifixion described is that of a threat to Roman rule, despite the Gospels trying to present that as a Roman covering -up of a blasphemy charge, which was nonsensical. I am convinced that it was the other way around - The Roman Christians did their level best to expand and edit the probable involvement of the High priest in Jesus' arrest to make it look like a blasphemy matter (reflecting the difference between Pauline Christians and Jews - even those of the Jesus group) and to push the blame for the crucifixion onto Judaism.

RESPONSE:

Driving out the Romans would be a political revolution, not a religious revolution.

The Romans didn't care about Jewish religious matters. Hence the Roman crucifixion of Jesus was because of his insurrection in claiming to be the messiah and hence the king of the Jews.

This was similar to the executions of Thadeus and Judas mentioned in Acts 5.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Luke’s Acts of the Apostles contains another chronological error.

In Acts 5:33-37 we are told:

"But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. 35Then he said to them, ‘Fellow-Israelites,* consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. 36For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. 37After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered" (NRSV)

Problems:

Thus in Acts the revolt under Theudas, a messiah-candidate, took place before that of Judas the Galilean. Judas the Galilean, another messiah-candidate, led his revolution against the census of the governor Quirinius (when Judea was placed under Syria’s control) in 6 A.D.

But Theudas led his revolt between 44-and 46 AD during the consulate of Cuspius Fadus. This is clearly after the revolt lead by Julian in 6 AD.

(However, this indicates that Acts was written sometime after 46 AD).

Yes. Luke was an historian of sorts as we see from 3.1 where the relating of Jesus' ministry is first set in the historical context, which he surely looked up rather than casting his mind back and saying who was running the various territories when he started tagging around after Jesus.

We already know that he used a historical mechanism, rather than a miraculous one as did Matthew, to wangle the baby Jizzuz as J. Clarkson put it, intobethlehem, but his history was faulty there and it is fault as regards the revolts. He read about them but failed to realize that the Theudas revolt (put down by Felix) was after the revolt of Judas in the time of the census, not before.

I might also mention (again) that he makes a mistake (at least) in writing about Paul who says....

hang about..talk amongst yourselves.

Acts 9.22 (KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.
26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.


But Paul says that the Jews were nothing to do with it - he was escaping the army of Aretas the Nabatean who had taken advantage of the death of Tiberius to send his governor with an army to grab Damascus.

II Cor. 11 (NIV) 30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

If he wasn't lying, he must have been out of his tiny mind to suppose that Aretus had the slightest interest in him, But Paul does tend to talk a load of old gallus, at times.