Interrogation of an Apostle

We must remember that Luke is NOT an eye-witness account and Matthew is very unlikely to be. And you've hit on one of the ares where there are reasons to doubt John.We can tell that there are two rival traditions. In one the post-resurrection appearances took place in Galilee, while the other places them in Jerusalem. Matthew follows one line, Luke follows another and John appears to be trying to have it both ways.It is implausible that the author Matthew would forget about the miracles of Pentecost or that the story would be lost to him. Likewise it is implausible that the author of Luke would be so against appearances in Galilee if he believed in those stories.And if Christians were disputing over two incompatible stories at the time when Matthew and Luke were written how can we trust either story ?

quote:

---

Whether they were direct eyewitnesses or not, they pass off their accounts as at least originating with eyewitnesses (they are told from an eyewitness perspective), and since they are as close to eyewitnesses as we've access to, I don't think too much more can be made of that fact in line with the topic at hand.

---

I don't believe that the unknown author of Matthew mentions his sources at all. So that claim is false right there.

quote:

---

Okay, so are you saying that given the multiple accounts which do not agree, it is likely that the supposed event underlying these accounts is a fabrication?

---

No. All I claimed is that there were two rival traditions with the author of Matthew endorsing one and the author of Luke endorsing another (and the Gospel of John trying to have it both ways). I said nothing about the origin of those traditions, although if there was an underlying event we cannot rely on it being much like either one (clearly it cannot closely resemble both !)

quote:

---

When different witnesses testify to the same event, but fail to agree on even the most conspicuous details, should their accounts be regarded as untrustworthy?

---

Clearly at least one of them is untrustworthy. The presence of important and obvious differences alone cannot tell us more. In this case we can reasonably say that if either tradition was true there would be no good reason to invent the other.

quote:

---

But he presents his story from an eyewitness perspective;

---

Does he ? In what way ?

quote:

---

the matter in question is whether we can determine if his account (or any of the gospel accounts) represents a fabrication (either on his part or on the part of one of his sources) or whether it may be trustworthy (either because he saw it himself or copied it from a source that saw it).

---

I think that we have very good evidence that the story grew in the telling - and in two different directions. Which indicates that it is not trustworthy, but neither is it a simple fabrication.

quote:

---

I think it could resemble both; nothing prevents the resurrected Jesus from revealing himself to his disciples in several instances in several different places.

---

But you aren't dealing with the points I raised. If there was something so important as Pentecost, why would the author of Matthew omit it ? If there were appearances in Galilee why is the author of Luke so determined to deny them ? If there was something really important and impressive then why did the stories not stop with that ?The obvious answer is that the stories were unimpressive and confused and grew greatly over time.

quote:

---

Look at Mark.

---

There aren't any post-resurrection appearances in Mark, but there is an indication that there will be some - in Galilee. So ? At most all we have is an earlier version of the Galilee tradition.

quote:

---

Yes; he is a narrator who relates the story. There are no 'and my sources tell me...' anywhere. Which means he is either copying it from a source that got it from a source, etc. that witnessed the events/fabricated the story; or, he himself has witnessed/fabricated the account.

---

So all we have is a guy telling a story. Hardly a claim to be an eyewitness.

We know of considerable copying in the Synoptic Gospels (usually held to be material copied from Mark in Matthew and Luke, and material from another, lost, source copied into both Matthew and Luke, although other scenarios are possible).Any consideration of the differences between the Gospels needs to take this into account. The superficial approach if labelling the differences "minor" and simply asserting that they are evidence of accuracy is hopelessly inadequate, and ignores the reality of the texts.