Discussing the Genre of Luke's Gospel!

Рет қаралды 448

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 9

@evedel 5 ай бұрын

I like the approach Ivan Panim had on determining the most authentic manuscripts. However, his research was so vast I'd never find the time to actually go and track down his findings on all the respective manuscripts.

@jeromeofmiddleton 5 ай бұрын

I have really enjoyed listening to several of your recent interviews and podcasts, Dr. Licona. You do an awesome job walking the line between quality scholarship and commitment to traditional values of the authority of scripture. You indirectly mentioned the synoptic problem in this discussion. I would be curious to hear your thoughts about Matthean priority versus Markan priority. Markan priority seems almost automatic in scholarship these days. Is this reasonable? I have read that all of the church fathers as well as the majority of scholarship into the 19th century held to Matthean priority. Has recent scholarship brought to light something previously unknown? I would love to hear your insights. Thanks, Dr. Licona.

@MikeLiconaOfficial 5 ай бұрын

Thanks for viewing the video and for your kind remark. I discuss Matthean priority versus Markan priority in my new book "Jesus, Contradicted." As a brief answer, I think Markan priority is correct. There were 7 early church fathers who discussed the order of composition of the Gospels. 4 of them are clear that Matthew was written first. 7 early church fathers tell us that Matthew was written in Hebrew. But scholars, even evangelical scholars, who are especially skilled in reading koine Greek agree that the Matthew in our NT is not translation Greek. In other words, it was not translated from Hebrew to Greek. We have no ancient manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew. So, if a Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, it has been lost and is not what we have in our NT. Much more of this discussed in my book.

@jeromeofmiddleton 5 ай бұрын

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I love this topic. I'm buying your book now! 🙏🏼

@philochristos 5 ай бұрын

@@MikeLiconaOfficial Do you discuss the Farrer hypothesis in your book? Mark Goodacre wrote a book that convinced me that Luke used Matthew as a source. The main argument that persuaded me was the fact that in many cases of triple tradition, Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark. That was a long time ago, and I'm not as sure about the Farrer hypothesis now as I was back then, but I still lean in that direction.

@philochristos 5 ай бұрын

What is the genre of Acts? The author of Acts writes as if he is just continuing the story told in the gospel of Luke. Acts is kind of a Part 2 of the same story. So doesn't it stand to reason that Luke and Acts are part of the same genre? If not, why not?

@MikeLiconaOfficial 5 ай бұрын

Fair question! All agree that Acts is a history. Although it's the sequel to Luke's Gospel, I regard Luke as biography because it still possesses most of the qualities of bioi; most important, is that is focuses on a single main character.

@philochristos 5 ай бұрын

@@MikeLiconaOfficial Thank you, sir!