Does the author of Luke disagree with Matthew?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was listening to a podcast this morning that raised an interesting point:

The introduction to the Gospel of Luke sure makes it sound like the author is dissatisfied with the accounts of Jesus' life that were available at the time:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things*[a]accomplished among us,*2*just as they were handed down to us by those who*from the beginning*were*eyewitnesses and[c]servants of*the*[d]word,*3*it seemed fitting for me as well,*having[e]investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write*it*out for you*in consecutive order,*most excellent*Theophilus;*4*so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been*[f]taught.

The rest of the text seems to imply that the author of Luke used Matthew as a source, so here's the question: if the author of Luke was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, does this imply that he considered Matthew to be one of the accounts that he didn't believe was the "exact truth"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another point: the author of Luke says that he has "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" and that he intends to describe this "everything" in chronological order. Does this imply that if a detail in another Gospel isn't included in Luke (Mary & Joseph's flight to Egypt, for instance), the author of Luke didn't think that it actually happened?

 

[outhouse]

The introduction to the Gospel of Luke sure makes it sound like the author is dissatisfied with the accounts of Jesus' life that were available at the time:

At that time there were many different versions floating around.

The rest of the text seems to imply that the author of Luke used Matthew as a source, so here's the question: if the author of Luke was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, does this imply that he considered Matthew to be one of the accounts that he didn't believe was the "exact truth

Its doubtful that one was using the other, or even knew about it.


We only have a fraction of the text that once existed. In the beginning th emovements were wide and varied with many different types of scripture floating around with all kinds of different opinions that often could never jive with one another.


The reason the gospels luke and matthew were canonized was due to extreme popularity over time.

 

[outhouse]

Another point: the author of Luke says that he has "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" and that he intends to describe this "everything" in chronological order. Does this imply that if a detail in another Gospel isn't included in Luke (Mary & Joseph's flight to Egypt, for instance), the author of Luke didn't think that it actually happened?

Wasnt aware of that particular mythology.

The gospels are all compilations. Its not like someone sat down and just wrote it start to finish.

Also the idea that one person did the compiling is very unlikely. More then likely a community or ekklesia did the writing

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its doubtful that one was using the other, or even knew about it.

They're word-for-word the same in several spots. If the one didn't use the other, then they at least had a common source.

 

[roger1440]

I was listening to a podcast this morning that raised an interesting point:

The introduction to the Gospel of Luke sure makes it sound like the author is dissatisfied with the accounts of Jesus' life that were available at the time:



The rest of the text seems to imply that the author of Luke used Matthew as a source, so here's the question: if the author of Luke was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, does this imply that he considered Matthew to be one of the accounts that he didn't believe was the "exact truth"?

The Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke are known as the “synoptic gospels”. The prefix “syn” means alike. From the prefix “syn” we also have the words synthetic and synthesizer. The word “optic” means seeing. These three gospels have the same view point. They are seeing alike. It is often said there is a harmony between them. No one knows with absolute certainty why these gospels are alike. Many theories have been proposed over the last 150 years as an attempt to explain why the harmony between them exists. This is known as the “synoptic problem”. The publishers of “The New International Version” Bible can explain the various explanations of the synoptic problem better than I can.

NIV Bible | The Synoptic Gospels | Biblica

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke are known as the “synoptic gospels”. The prefix “syn” means alike. From the prefix “syn” we also have the words synthetic and synthesizer. The word “optic” means seeing. These three gospels have the same view point. They are seeing alike. It is often said there is a harmony between them. No one knows with absolute certainty why these gospels are alike. Many theories have been proposed over the last 150 years as an attempt to explain why the harmony between them exists. This is known as the “synoptic problem”. The publishers of “The New International Version” Bible can explain the various explanations of the synoptic problem better than I can.

My point isn't about their "harmony"; it's about their lack of harmony.

They match quite a bit, yes, but they also differ: for instance, Matthew has the Magi and the flight to Egypt; Luke doesn't. Matthew has one genealogy of Jesus; Luke has a different (corrected?) genealogy. In Mark, Jesus is constantly telling people not to say anything about his miracles or the fact that he's the Messiah; in Luke, everyone seems to know that Jesus is the Messiah just by looking at him.

There are two possibilities:

- Luke wasn't as complete as he claimed.
- Where the other Gospels disagree with Luke, they're wrong.

Either way, the Bible doesn't seem to be as reliable as it purports to be... no?

 

[roger1440]

My point isn't about their "harmony"; it's about their lack of harmony.

They match quite a bit, yes, but they also differ: for instance, Matthew has the Magi and the flight to Egypt; Luke doesn't. Matthew has one genealogy of Jesus; Luke has a different (corrected?) genealogy. In Mark, Jesus is constantly telling people not to say anything about his miracles or the fact that he's the Messiah; in Luke, everyone seems to know that Jesus is the Messiah just by looking at him.

There are two possibilities:

- Luke wasn't as complete as he claimed.
- Where the other Gospels disagree with Luke, they're wrong.

Either way, the Bible doesn't seem to be as reliable as it purports to be... no?

The birth narratives in Mathew and Luke do differ, you are correct. Each is taking a different route to the same destination. They are approaching Jesus from two slightly different angles. If these stories were to be interpreted literately they would be in conflict with one another on truthfulness. If they were to be interpreted as allegory or metaphors, they would be in perfect harmony with one another.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The birth narratives in Mathew and Luke do differ, you are correct. Each is taking a different route to the same destination. They are approaching Jesus from two slightly different angles.

They're both male-line lineages through Joseph.

If these stories were to be interpreted literately they would be in conflict with one another on truthfulness. If they were to be interpreted as allegory or metaphors, they would be in perfect harmony with one another.

Do you consider the flight from Bethlehem to Egypt by Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus to be "allegory or metaphors"? Matthew certainly seems to present it as a literal event.

Is it only the points where the Gospels disagree that are "allegory or metaphors"? How about the points where the Gospels agree?

 

[outhouse]

They're word-for-word the same in several spots. If the one didn't use the other, then they at least had a common source.

Yes

Mark who also used Q found in all 3

 

[roger1440]

They're both male-line lineages through Joseph.



Do you consider the flight from Bethlehem to Egypt by Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus to be "allegory or metaphors"? Matthew certainly seems to present it as a literal event.

Is it only the points where the Gospels disagree that are "allegory or metaphors"? How about the points where the Gospels agree?

I think nearly everything in the Gospels are allegory and/or metaphors.

 

[outhouse]

I think nearly everything in the Gospels are allegory and/or metaphors.

Could be, but if that were the case it would give mythicist a good case for complete fiction.

I do not see it that way.


I see it as certain people believed these things to be true, but at the same time they were combatting many heretical ideas floating around so it was more important to have a story laid out, then dealing with accuracy.


In reality, the authors of the gospels were writing so late and from so far away from the actual events, they did the best the could but really only had cross cultural oral traditions and mythology and previous scriptures to go by, now lost.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think nearly everything in the Gospels are allegory and/or metaphors.

So what makes you a Christian, then?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see it as certain people believed these things to be true, but at the same time they were combatting many heretical ideas floating around so it was more important to have a story laid out, then dealing with accuracy.

Except that the author (or authors, as you pointed out) of Luke explicitly stated that they were concerned with being as accurate as possible.

 

[roger1440]

They're both male-line lineages through Joseph.



Do you consider the flight from Bethlehem to Egypt by Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus to be "allegory or metaphors"? Matthew certainly seems to present it as a literal event.

Is it only the points where the Gospels disagree that are "allegory or metaphors"? How about the points where the Gospels agree?

According to Jewish thought, God is above and man is below. The means to embrace God is through the Torah. Look closely at the Star of David. There is one triangle pointing up and another pointing down. The two triangles one on top of the other represents Judaism. The virgin birth of Jesus found in the Gospels of Mathew and Luke has the same message, just said in a different way. This union of flesh and divinity is found in Jesus and the Torah. Jesus is the nation of Israel according to the synoptic Gospels. This Jesus never went astray unlike the nation of Israel. Israel is God’s son. Jesus is God’s son. Matthew’s Gospel places Jesus in Egypt to make that point. “Out of Egypt I called my Son”. The Gospel of Matthew gets this verse from the book of Hosea who gets it from the book of Exodus.

13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” 14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:13-15)

​

““When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”. (Hosea 11:1)
​

“Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,” (Exodus 4:22)​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Matthew’s Gospel places Jesus in Egypt to make that point. “Out of Egypt I called my Son”. The Gospel of Matthew gets this verse from the book of Hosea who gets it from the book of Exodus.

Yes, I know this. I pointed this out already. Luke doesn't include this detail.

 

[outhouse]

Except that the author (or authors, as you pointed out) of Luke explicitly stated that they were concerned with being as accurate as possible.

Of course they would state this while creating something very important to a ekklesia.

Doesn't mean they had any connection to matthew, it actually shows they had no connection at all.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, I know this. I pointed this out already. Luke doesn't include this detail.

There are large differences between what the two books state.

Scholars state two different traditions written close to the same time influenced by mark.

The stories layered on top of mark do not give them any credibility other then what the oral tradition may have been in different parts of the Diaspora during this exact time period of "compilation"

 

[roger1440]

Yes, I know this. I pointed this out already. Luke doesn't include this detail.

Luke’s Gospel takes a different approach. Luke’s Gospel starts with the birth of John the Baptist. John’s mother and Jesus’s mother are closely related. At best, John is a cousin of Jesus. John is born six months before Jesus. The mentioning of John’s birth isn’t there for filler. It’s there for Luke to make a point about Jesus. The births of John the Baptist and Jesus are a direct reference to:

The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger." (Genesis 25:23)
​

The Apostle Paul also makes a reference to the same verse in Genesis.

“10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” (Romans 9:10-13)
​

 

[gnostic]

I think nearly everything in the Gospels are allegory and/or metaphors.

If "nearly everything" were allegories, then how would one determine which to be taken literally?

Does that mean Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection didn't happen? Does it mean there are no heaven, afterlife or the Holy Spirit don't exist?