How do you reconcile the narrative of Jesus´s death portrayed by the writers of the Gospel of Mark and Luke right after Jesus has expired?
In Mark 15:39 says that the army officer who was standing there in front of the cross saw how Jesus had died and said: “This man was really the Son of God!”
However in Luke 23:47, the writer reports that the army officer instead of Mark, said: “Certainly he was a good man!”
Well, certainly one or the other must have happened, but not both of it. Are they contradicting one another? If so, one of the accounts must not be historical reliable.
I appreciate in advance the comments of everyone.
Coimbra1982 said
How do you reconcile the narrative of Jesus´s death portrayed by the writers of the Gospel of Mark and Luke right after Jesus has expired?In Mark 15:39 says that the army officer who was standing there in front of the cross saw how Jesus had died and said: “This man was really the Son of God!”
However in Luke 23:47, the writer reports that the army officer instead of Mark, said: “Certainly he was a good man!”
Well, certainly one or the other must have happened, but not both of it. Are they contradicting one another? If so, one of the accounts must not be historical reliable.
I appreciate in advance the comments of everyone.
On one hand people are saying these accounts are written decades later. And on the other we query why two sentences don’t agree in a technical sense. YOU try and remember something JFK or Nixon said, without referencing any historic material, and get others of the same vintage to do the same.
I suggest that if these accounts were written decades later and agree word for word then our ‘scholars’ would be telling you this is proof of later redactions – therefor they can’t be eye witness accounts.
Robert said
Welcome, Coimbra. I wouldn’t assume that Mark’s earlier version is necessarily historical in all its details. Luke felt himself free to make this change and many other changes. Poetic license was part of classical training. Students would learn to write by rewriting stories from Homer or other classical authors and, eventually adding their own enhancements for their own composition. Emulation was not merely imitation but also a striving for improvement.
Thanks Robert.
I don´t necessarily consider one of the reports (either Mark or Luke) to be historical unreliable. I agree with professor Ehrman about trying to reconcile everything in the Gospel, But still, most of it can be plausible reconciled and coherent justified. Take for istance one point suggested by J. Warner Wallace. He says that when he interview witnesses, each gives him a PIECE of the total account and he says that´s always the case. Even if the crime only occurred an hour ago. So in here, it seems reasonable that both statements ocurred, one in response to the other. Based on the accounts, more than one soldier was at the scene. If one said,”Certainly he was a good man!” the other may have reasonably responded with, “This man was really the Son of God!” As if to say, “You´re wrong, he was more than just a good man!”.
Poohbear wrote
YOU try and remember something JFK or Nixon said, without referencing any historic material, and get others of the same vintage to do the same.
Precisely. I’m glad you see the problem with the gospels as eyewitness accounts.
…if these accounts were written decades later and agree word for word…
But they do. Hence the Synoptic Problem.
Coimbra1982 wrote
Take for instance one point suggested by J. Warner Wallace. He says that when he interview witnesses, each gives him a PIECE of the total account and he says that´s always the case. Even if the crime only occurred an hour ago.
I’m not sure who J Warner Wallace is but eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It is useful to remember that a huge proportion of the death row inmates cleared by DNA evidence were originally convicted by eyewitness testimony. See Prof Ehrman’s book Jesus Before the Gospels for a discussion of just this issue.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)