Loading...As I indicated in a post last week, on October 12-14, 2004 I gave the three Shaffer lectures at Yale University, on “Christ in the Early Christian Tradition: Texts Disputed and Apocryphal.” This is the second of those lectures, dealing with Christ as a Divine man. (Again, the quality is not as high as we have come to expect over the past couple of years, because it was recorded originally on VHS. But it’s been worked over to make it still pretty decent. Enjoy!)
Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition.
“Luke uses Mark’s account…” @ around 19.20. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
It’s not a debated point among scholars. There are lots of books written about the Synoptic Problem. So far as I know, virtually every critical scholar on the planet agrees with this view.
Yet, how does anyone make that statement with certainty? Upon what, exactly, is this conclusion based?
I have a chapter in my book The New TEstament, A Historical Introduction… that explains in brief form the evidence that almost all scholars for the past 150 years have found convincing. Included is further bibliography if you want to read the hard-core arguments.
What strikes me is that although you’re discussing mainly Luke that the complexity surrounding Luke can’t logically apply only to Luke but also to all of the gospels if not all of the entire books of the Bible? If so, then not only is Luke unstable but also the four Gospels etc. If this understanding is correct, it is mind boggling frankly.
Yes, one could do something similar with all the Gospels. I chose Luke because I wanted to be able to focus in on something.