Are Mark and Luke Compatible?

[POI]

By 'compatible', I mean (alternative facts) may be presented. Which would then mean these two publications are not 'compatible'. Was it merely a differing perspective, issued from differing witnesses and viewpoints, (or), were there instead irreconcilable changes -- which makes these two documents no longer logically compatible with one another?

For debate:

1) Is the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke compatible with one another?
2) If you state (yes), please address the video below, as I do not want to write up a "text wall" -- in which few might read. In a nutshell, the video demonstrates that these two Gospels are not logically compatible with one another.
3) If you state (no), then please do not even bother engaging this discussion, except to challenge any folks who answer (yes) to question 2)

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #70]

Textual variations. I need specifics.

None? Well...you've wasted enough of my time.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #70]

Textual variations. I need specifics.

None? Well...you've wasted enough of my time.

If you actually watched the video, you would already have been provided with a plethora of specifics. Take your pick. But, like I already have been stating, there is no one "smoking gun" contradiction. That is not the intent or purpose of this thread. It is instead a very cumulative deep dive. Does "Luke" represent as a legit source, or, is it instead maybe just 'fake news' to provide damage control against Mark and to prop up the Romans?

Some early variations of the Gospel of Luke alter the story, and the dominant view is that the Western text-type was deliberately revised. The earliest surviving copies of the Gospel of Luke are third-generation copies, and there are two main families of these copies: the Western and the Alexandrian. The variations between these two families are significant, and the Western text-type is thought to have been deliberately revised.

Now, third request. I already know the answer, and it's one you will not likely touch with a 10-foot pole, otherwise you would have certainly addressed it.

Here is the million-dollar question... Aside from Mark, who was the source(s) for "Luke"?

[1213]

Since you admit the newer version changes the meaning, how are you able to remove <the possibility> that this acknowledged changing of the meaning was not done so in an attempt to make Jesus look better, to gain new converts?

Best we can do is to look the most original version. After that, I think the context also shows what is the correct meaning. For example in this case, if Jesus would have been angry to the person and if he would not have been compassionate, he likely would not have healed the person. I think the compassionate is a logical word in this case and doesn't really make any meaningful difference.

You, again, present only wishful thinking. Further, which version is the original version? Further still, how do you know the original version meant both anger and compassion without assumption alone? Please recall your own philosophy 1213. If it does not directly say it, then it does not necessarily mean it. One version says one thing, and another version says another thing.

What are the options? I think we can all agree that any version done after year 1900 is not the original. I believe the original has "compassionate", because that is what all the translations I have, have.

The word itself doesn't have to have the meaning compassion, because it comes clear from the context. If Jesus would not have had compassion, he would not have healed the person.

[POI]

The word itself doesn't have to have the meaning compassion, because it comes clear from the context.

Hmm... I'll have to keep this response in mind the next time you reject an interpretation because a literal word is not expressed in the Bible. Meaning, you are now moving the goalposts 1213. It does not say both, it only says one of them. You must assume the other. We have a clear example of a change. You acknowledged this. Why did it change?

[Difflugia]

What are the options? I think we can all agree that any version done after year 1900 is not the original. I believe the original has "compassionate", because that is what all the translations I have, have.

You're misunderstanding what is meant by different "versions." It's not how a single Greek word is translated, but which Greek manuscripts have which word. The two variants are σπλαγχνισθεὶς (splanchnistheis), which means "is compassionate" or "has pity" and ὀργισθεὶς (orgistheis), which means "is angry."

"Compassionate" appears in more manuscripts, but "angry" appears in earlier manuscripts and multiple manuscript "families." A number of translations prepared after 1900 read "anger" or "angry," but that's because the earlier manuscripts were found later, if that makes sense. The manuscript used for the King James reads "compassionate."

By standard textual criticism rules, the original text probably read "angry." It is the most difficult reading, the earliest reading, and shows multiple attestation. I'm not sure if it's considered to be consensus, but most modern scholars think "angry" is correct. Their conclusion is that Mark read "angry," but Matthew and Luke both omitted the reference to Jesus' emotional state.

Many (and probably most) commercial translations have "compassionate" because it appears in the majority of manuscripts and because it's a theologically more comfortable translation for people buying Bibles.

[1213]

...
"Compassionate" appears in more manuscripts, but "angry" appears in earlier manuscripts and multiple manuscript "families." A number of translations prepared after 1900 read "anger" or "angry," but that's because the earlier manuscripts were found later, if that makes sense. The manuscript used for the King James reads "compassionate."

By standard textual criticism rules, the original text probably read "angry." It is the most difficult reading, the earliest reading, and shows multiple attestation. I'm not sure if it's considered to be consensus, but most modern scholars think "angry" is correct. Their conclusion is that Mark read "angry," but Matthew and Luke both omitted the reference to Jesus' emotional state.

Many (and probably most) commercial translations have "compassionate" because it appears in the majority of manuscripts and because it's a theologically more comfortable translation for people buying Bibles.

How do they know which is the earliest?

But, again, in this case I don't think it makes much difference. If the word would be angry, what would be the problem?

[1213]

The word itself doesn't have to have the meaning compassion, because it comes clear from the context.

Hmm... I'll have to keep this response in mind the next time you reject an interpretation because a literal word is not expressed in the Bible. Meaning, you are now moving the goalposts 1213. It does not say both, it only says one of them. You must assume the other. We have a clear example of a change. You acknowledged this. Why did it change?

Why do you think Jesus healed the person? Do you think the action doesn't show compassion?

[POI]

Why do you think Jesus healed the person? Do you think the action doesn't show compassion?

I don't think Jesus healed anyone in reality. However, you do. Thus, I'm asking you why some versions mention Jesus's demeanor in one way alone, while other versions mention his demeanor in another way alone? All you have provided, thus far, is wishful thinking. I have been exchanging with you for a while now, and you have no problem discarding a Bible verse or verses if they do not mention an exact word or phrase. But now, when one version mentions the term 'indignant' alone, and does not also mention 'compassion' too, you somehow want to also add more than is there. How convenient. It's quite possible the earliest version(s) expressed Jesus's true temper, and the later versions wanted to clean it up, in order to gain more converts for Jesus. Please remember, "the Gospels" were not a thing until ~330AD.

Your question is nonsensical in the sense that a basic definition of the term indignant means:

indignant - feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment.

Since_1985 tried to reconcile the two terms, with a Lion King video scene. At least he tried. But sorry, it ain't gonna cut it here.... This is not an appealing trait or quality to be presented by 'the one'. Later writers had to clean it up a bit. And they did so by completely removing and replacing the unflattering term

*******************************************

Thus, I'll grab the popcorn as I watch you continue to proverbially jump through many hoops in an attempt to defend this large collection of human error. In this context, I do not see how these two terms are compatible, without performing a vast amount of mental gymnastics.

As I told Bjs1, when you read Luke, it reads more-so as 'fake news'. Its intent is to make both the Romans and Jesus look better. The video explains. Mark does this too, but maybe not as much. As we get later and later Gospels, the stories grow and paint the Romans and Jesus in a better light. This is how legend and lore works. And in this case, we have a clear example of later scribes for Mark doing just this, in making deliberate changes. Attempting to hide Jesus's expressed annoyance(s) and/or anger is naughty naughty,

[Difflugia]

How do they know which is the earliest?

Usually paleography, but occasionally manuscripts are carbon dated. If you didn't mean that as a rhetorical question, Google should turn up a lot of information.

But, again, in this case I don't think it makes much difference. If the word would be angry, what would be the problem?

For you? It probably won't be. It was enough of a problem for someone to change it, though, and why they did so is an interesting question whether it impacts your personal theology or not.

A similar change that I've mentioned before is that in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, the Spirit descended into Jesus. When Matthew and Luke copied the story, they each changed the preposition to upon. Is that important? It was important enough to change it, so they apparently thought so. It was also important enough for later scribes to change Mark as well, presumably so that it matched Matthew and Luke.

[POI]

My friend, it has not been verified that Luke copied Mark.

Then where instead did 'Luke' get some of his word-for-word identical statements?

What is the evidence that the Church created the Gospel of Luke?

I'm with you here, and also against you. I do not contest that the earliest writings would not be from any 'church', as 'the church' was not for Christianity until later. My argument is that the canonized version(s) we have today, are after 'the church' got their hands upon it. When you read "Luke", you have to ask yourself why it props up the Romans and Jesus much more-so than 'Mark'? Well, logically speaking, it would be because whoever wrote 'Luke' wanted to do damage control against the declarations of "Mark" and to convince Romans, by making them look better in the story line. It also wanted to tie itself back to Paul's claims. However, we do not know who the author for 'Luke' was, nor 'Luke's' source(s).?.?.?.?.? This is kind of important to know, wouldn't you agree? I mean, we have Paul's claim. So, we know he wrote stuff. But Paul, for whatever reason(s), does not co-sign 'Luke's' work(s).?.?.?.?.? Further, "Luke" was not made an official thing until canonization, centuries later.

The video also explains and cites passages which deliberately downplay both the Romans and Jesus's actions, to make both look much better.

Further, the earliest surviving manuscript of the Gospel of Luke, Papyrus 75, is only a fragmentary papyrus that dates to around 175–225 CE. . It is now known as "Hanna Papyrus 1 (Mater Verbi)". So, stating you know more here than me is pure wishful thinking. I remain skeptical to such supernatural claims, and for GOOD reason(s).

What we do know for a fact is, Paul was out violently attempting to put a stop to Christianity only to convert, to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time. We know that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and we know that Paul would have known and spent time with the original apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making, and Paul mentions these folks reporting on the resurrection.

Yes, this is what Paul says, but we have no authentication back to Paul's claims. Have we verified the author of 'Luke'? No. Did Paul co-sign 'Luke's' writings, which would point back to Paul's claim(s). no. Besides 'Mark', do we know 'Luke's' source(s)? No. Which means it's all speculative and faith based alone. In a nutshell, you have a claim or claims from Paul, who converted. Nothing ties directly back to Paul. You have an anonymous claim from 'Luke', who states he got his information from a 'reliable source'. Hence, we have no corroboration. Based upon what we do have, which is very little 'facts and evidence', your lawyer friend would not take this case. He would pass upon it.

if Luke was made up, whoever made it up also authored the second letter to Theophilus. Do you even realize what all this would entail? This would have been a very painstaking effort in those days, and very risky to say the least. In other words, these folks would have spent months on the effort, with no guarantee in the least that the effort would pay off. It is like you are willing to believe anything at all, no matter what all would have to be entailed, as long as it does not involve what you would rather not believe.

As I've told others here, there exists no one 'smoking gun' piece of evidence. It is cumulative. We can only speculate because we cannot identify the author, or the source(s) to check.

It is quite obvious that 'Luke' doctored itself up quite a bit to both promote a better image of the Romans and Jesus. The video explains. In my eye's, this makes 'Luke' untrustworthy, and a non-starter.