Since Luke didn't write about the events of 70 AD it is entirely possible that he would not have mentioned it. The more so since Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD.
who changed lukes version and when?
And if its known to have been changed, they must also know what it was changed from which means they must have earlier writings to prove that...what manuscripts do they look at to show that its been changed?
Whoever originated that version - poossibly Luke, possibly his source. But let's be clear I'm not saying that Luke's Gospel has been edited in this case. I'm saying that the Olivet Discourse has been changed between the earliest account found in Mark (and Matthew) and the version found in Luke. And the changes indicate that the originator of the new version knew what had happened in 70 AD. (Or possibly it's referring to the outcome of the Bar Kochbar revolt, which would put it even later).
I'm saying that the Olivet Discourse has been changed between the earliest account found in Mark (and Matthew) and the version found in Luke. And the changes indicate that the originator of the new version knew what had happened in 70 AD.
What is the earliest account of Mark/Mathew that you are referring to, which manuscript is it based upon?
and which manuscipt of Luke are you comparing them to??
quote: What is the earliest account of Mark/Mathew that you are referring to, which manuscript is it based upon?
and which manuscipt of Luke are you comparing them to??
You still misunderstand. I'm not comparing particular manuscripts, I'm comparing the standard texts. Now if YOU wish to claim that Luke or Mark and Matthew have been redacted since they were written then YOU need to deal with the manuscript evidence. I'm assuming that these accounts have not been significantly changed in that way.
Yes, most of the population was illiterate. In fact, 97% of the population was illiterate.
quote: Source Conclusion - Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%.
Peg writes:
Are you really saying that because there were no newspapers or books or pamphlets most people were illiterate???
Actually, he was obviously referring to newspapers, printing presses, and pamphlets in the sense that wide dissemination was not possible in the First Century CE as it is today.
Peg writes:
ancient nations invented the written word without books, newspapers and pamphlets...give them some credit.
Indeed they did. You must realize though that these were the wealthy for the time period that created these languages and used them. The common farmer really had (and still has in 3rd world countries) no need, or means of becoming literate.
Peg writes:
The apostles and early disciples were able to read and write, Jesus was reading aloud in the synagogues from a young age...
Peg, you should really think about what you write/say more thoroughly before you write/say it.
Jesus was obviously speaking to Hebrew Scholars and Rabbi. Also, reading aloud to people does not necessarily mean the people listening know how to read. Have you ever read a young child a book? By your own logic, that child knows how to read, because you are reading to them.
Peg writes:
so I think you can safely conclude that most people could read and write in the first century.
No, you cannot safely conclude that most, or even remotely close to most of the population was literate at the time. For one to make such a statement is a serious mark against their perceived intelligence on such matters as ancient history.How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority. -unknown
Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD.
I ask you for evidence for such a claim that "Lukes version of the Olivet discourse appears to have been changed from that found in Mark" and you say thats not what you said
Its not up to me to provide you evidence that it has not been changed, its up to you to prove back up your statement with evidence for such a change
Btw, im sure you realise that standard texts are merely translations and all translations appear slightly different, so please dont tell me thats your evidence for saying that Luke has been changed.
quote: Paul please dont treat me like an imbocile.
I'm not. I'm simply correcting your mistakes. If you don't like that then please be more careful in your reading and make fewer mistakes.
quote: I ask you for evidence for such a claim that "Lukes version of the Olivet discourse appears to have been changed from that found in Mark"
No, you didn't If you had asked that I would have told you to read and compare Mark 13 with Luke 21:5-36.
quote: and you say thats not what you said
No, I claim that IS what I said. The version in Luke is different from that found in Mark and Matthew and the changes seem to have been made to make the discourse better fit the actual events.
quote: Its not up to me to provide you evidence that it has not been changed, its up to you to prove back up your statement with evidence for such a change
That's not true. If you had simply asked for evidence I would have given it - as I have just done. Instead you asked for the WRONG evidence, based on a misunderstanding of what I said.
quote: Btw, im sure you realise that standard texts are merely translations and all translations appear slightly different, so please dont tell me thats your evidence for saying that Luke has been changed.
I assure you that I am not relying on differences that can be put down to mere variations in the translations.
es, most of the population was illiterate. In fact, 97% of the population was illiterate.
quote: Source Conclusion - Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%.
Did you read the whole article or just the conclusion?
quote:the first problem that the social historian of Late Antiquity faces is the lack of contemporary data in this field.
Nonetheless, the modern figures might give us an idea concerning the literacy rate we are dealing with in pre-industrial ancient society: the Jews in the Land of Israel in Late Antiquity.
In this paper we shall examine relevant 20th century data that relate to the encounter between a traditional and a modern society, i.e. western civilization which is based on writing. This cultural confrontation might be taken as a paradigm of a more ancient parallel: the encounter of Jews in the Land of Israel with Hellenism. Judaism, a traditional society, confronted Hellenism, a more 'modern' one, where the literacy rate was apparently higher than that among Jews. (7 footnote: The main proof for that is comparing female literacy where it seems that the percentage in Hellenistic culture was higher than in Jewish culture.)
Reference 7. Susan Guettel Cole, 'Could Greek Woman Read and Write?', Helene P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity, New York - London - Paris 1981, pp. 219-245.
I dont know how much faith I would put on his figures LOL .
If you are basing this on females in ancient isreal, then sure, i dont doubt it. Most of them probably were illiterate because educating women was something men condemned...see Jewish oral traditions for more information on that.
But the men in Isreal were most definitely literate as many bible writers attest to this fact. Part of the mosaic law was that fathers should teach their children by reading repetitively the Mosaic law. There is also the scribes or Sopherim who were trained copyists of the law and they spent their lives in this profession making copies of the Mosaic law.
Jesus, a poor carpenter, could read. He did not attend a formal school so obviously his father Joseph was a tutor to him as was required by the law... as were his apostles who the priests recognized as being 'unlettered and ordinary' meaning they were not schooled in the formal system, yet they could write.
That's not true. If you had simply asked for evidence I would have given it - as I have just done. Instead you asked for the WRONG evidence, based on a misunderstanding of what I said.
you have not done so at all
You are backtracking because you made a claim that you cannot backup.
As I said, If the manuscript of Luke has been changed, then there must be other manuscripts that show this to be the case, otherwise how is it known that the Luke has been changed. You cannot name a manuscript that shows such a change so now you are doing a backflip and saying i made a mistake in what you had said
Yes, I have. I've told you hwere to find the two accounts, all you have to do is read them.
quote: You are backtracking because you made a claim that you cannot backup.
Wrong. I'm sticking exactly to my original claim.
quote: As I said, If the manuscript of Luke has been changed, then there must be other manuscripts that show this to be the case, otherwise how is it known that the Luke has been changed
That is not what I claimed. I have consistently corrected this misunderstanding on your part as is clear from the posts.
quote: You cannot name a manuscript that shows such a change so now you are doing a backflip and saying i made a mistake in what you had said
I am not doing a backflip and you did make a mistake. And you keep making the same mistake despite the fact that I have corrected it EVERY TIME.
Did you read the whole article or just the conclusion?
ROFL! LOL! Peg, you are hysterical!
You ask me if I read the entire article, and then cite what the author references in the VERY FIRST SECTION of his essay. He cites this obviously as a comparative of what available knowledge there is.
If YOU had actually read the entire article, you would see how the author acquires ample means of surmising what the literacy rate was at the time period in that region.
I would HIGHLY recommend you read the ENTIRE essay, instead of taking the author's statements out of context.
Peg writes:
I dont know how much faith I would put on his figures
I don't know how much faith I would put in your research abilities. Perhaps you should finish the remaining 80% of the essay, and then comment on the veracity of the author's findings.
Or better yet, perhaps your could click on the author's name, and find out he is well known Hebrew Researcher and Lecturer at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.
The lengths you will go to protect your ego amazes me.
a researcher who admits there is no data for the ancient culture he's writing about, and who is using modern day data to try to formulate a picture of an ancient culture
I dont care what you think about my ego, but there seems to be something very odd about using modern data to come up with figures of an ancient culture
Yes. Formal education was a luxury in the first century. Why do you think they needed scribes?
Are you really saying that because there were no newspapers or books or pamphlets most people were illiterate???
Not what I said but lack of print materials without a doubt does contribute to illiteracy. However my point was that lack of print venues made it difficult to distribute the gospels widely.
ancient nations invented the written word without books, newspapers and pamphlets...give them some credit.
It does not logically follow that the existence of the written word means most of the population is literate.
The apostles and early disciples were able to read and write, Jesus was reading aloud in the synagogues from a young age so I think you can safely conclude that most people could read and write in the first century.
How do you know that most of the apostles and disciples were able to read and write? Not at all clear that this is so. There is some evidence that Jesus may have been able to read and write, yes. But it does not follow that the general population could read and write just because Jesus could, or even the apostles/disciples.
Luke says that Jesus was 'about 30 years of age when he began his ministry'
please explain how this cannot mean 30 years of age... paulk says it could mean 28 or 33
"About 30" does not mean "exactly 30". If Luke had meant to be specific he would have said, "Jesus was 30 years of age when he began his ministry." It doesn't say that. You are pretending that it does. That isn't respecting the word, it is reading your bias into it. No respect is shown when you do that. The intellectual dishonesty is yours.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
