Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[oldbadger]

Luke:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased. He had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had heard about Him and was hoping to see Him perform a miracle. 9 Herod questioned Jesus at great length, but He gave no answer.

Do you know what areas Herod had control of? Any ideas?
Do you know why Jesus would not have wanted to talk to Herod? Any ideas?

I don't expect you to be able to answer the above, but let's see.

I don't suspect that you really care one way or the other...

So you don't know!
I didn't think that you did.
If you study about who Hero's was, why Jesus would have disliked him so much, where he had power/control ......and more, then that verse would mean so much more to you.
But I can tell you if you wish.

[TRANSPONDER]

What's the topic? That'll do.

Because increasingly (a big bit of the puzzle was the Gabriel Stone...no that is not a Christian Rock band) which even more pointed up the background of rebellion as the point of the messianic mission, and Crucifixion the punishment prescribed for rebellion and in the case of the gospels, the reason for the execution.

"The king of the Jews". (and the messiah they wanted to make a King by force )

Thus the point about Herod, in Jesus' time, Herod's son Antipas. Herod having died in 4 BC and Archelaus ruler of Judea deposed in 6 AD and Rome taking over Judea as a province.

So Antipas ruled Galilee and Peraea, and he could well have been at Macheras in Galilee as Nabatea was on the border, and Aretas might pull a special military operation as soon as his back was turned (as he did in 36/7 AD). Of course, Antipas would have been in Jerusalem for the festival (whether Passover or Sukkhot) and one might ignore what Luke actually says and suppose that Antipas wanted to probe whether Jesus' mission was actually subversive (he'd already know that as well as Pilate from the fracas in the Temple) but Luke tells a silly tale about Antipas wanted to see a miracle. In any case Jesus gets sent back with nothing but Jews beating Jesus up instead of Pilate's solders, which is odd since Pilate was minded to Welease the pwisoner fwee of any weccord of weprehensible wongdoing. And which I guess in the only weaso...reason that Luke invented a story that (of course) nobody else has.

Over to our posting pal to fill in any bits I left out

cue: "Never mind that, the Bible is true and Jesus is our Lord and Savior".

[oldbadger]

What's the topic? That'll do.

Because increasingly (a big bit of the puzzle was the Gabriel Stone...no that is not a Christian Rock band) which even more pointed up the background of rebellion as the point of the messianic mission, and Crucifixion the punishment prescribed for rebellion and in the case of the gospels, the reason for the execution.

"The king of the Jews". (and the messiah they wanted to make a King by force )

Thus the point about Herod, in Jesus' time, Herod's son Antipas. Herod having died in 4 BC and Archelaus ruler of Judea deposed in 6 AD and Rome taking over Judea as a province.

So Antipas ruled Galilee and Peraea, and he could well have been at Macheras in Galilee as Nabatea was on the border, and Aretas might pull a special military operation as soon as his back was turned (as he did in 36/7 AD). Of course, Antipas would have been in Jerusalem for the festival (whether Passover or Sukkhot) and one might ignore what Luke actually says and suppose that Antipas wanted to probe whether Jesus' mission was actually subversive (he'd already know that as well as Pilate from the fracas in the Temple) but Luke tells a silly tale about Antipas wanted to see a miracle. In any case Jesus gets sent back with nothing but Jews beating Jesus up instead of Pilate's solders, which is odd since Pilate was minded to Welease the pwisoner fwee of any weccord of weprehensible wongdoing. And which I guess in the only weaso...reason that Luke invented a story that (of course) nobody else has.

Over to our posting pal to fill in any bits I left out

cue: "Never mind that, the Bible is true and Jesus is our Lord and Savior".

Why did Jesus dislike Hero's Antipas so much?
It was Antipas who was required to break up the Baptist's (and others') baptising missions along the Jordan, causing all to scatter and run. As you know, Jesus fled out in to the wastes where he survived for well over a month.
But the Baptist was taken and imprisoned, and later executed over a dancing girl's whim.
What a sad end to a brilliant man!

Antipas ruled the Galilee, so he had heard many stories about Jesus and his abilities, so he was most interested to actually meet this man, but Jesus wouldn't have had a word to say to such a person who would kill just to save face during a dinner party.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Fair enough. If you broadly believe the gospels. I don't. Mainly (and even aside from Luke's record of amendment and invention) that he was the only one to know that Jesus was shot over to Antipas to have a look at is doubtful, but what scuppers that story is that Luke hi - jacked the beating up of Jesus by the Romans (he doesn't have it) and ascribes it to Herod's guards. That is the only reason (I suggest) for Luke having this episode at all.

Luke 23.11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Matthew 27.26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him (2), and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

The connection is the dressing in a robe. Luke waters down the knocking about and the red (military) robe becomes a kingly robe, I suppose, but the arraying in a robe as a king is the same idea and shows how Luke adapted the tale. Adapted, not reported as a matter of eyewitness.

Luke 23.25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.
26 As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him

There's my case. Luke has totally eliminated the beating up mocking and robe by the Romans. That is the only reason for Luke introducing Antipas. Even though it is easy to come up with explanations for the behavior given to both persons in the passage and even the priests having scuttled over to where Antipas was staying. The Biblequotes blithely call this 'at the court of King Herod', but that was the old palace right across the city. It is hard enough to suppose that a Roman guard marched Jesus across the city with nobody by Luke hearing about it, even without the priests traipsing along to make sure Antipas didn't let him off. But one can argue (where is my theist hat...) that Antipas lodged in the old Hasmonean palace on the old wall across the city and quite near the Temple (1) where the Sanhedrin trial chamber was and the place where Pilate and the solders stayed on visits (Antonia fortress) since he'd stay there when his brother was still occupying the Herodian palace, and he'd had the place wallpapered as he preferred.

Yes, easy to propose explanations like that. But I think there is a case as to why it was totally invented. Like the Tomb guard. And the penitent thief. And the leg -breaking. And the declaration in Nazareth, John's sermons... the ascension pp Luke 24. 50 -53 and Acts 1 2-5 inclusive...
...and Most of the Rest of the Book.

(1) and arguably accessible from the Temple along the wall so nobody even saw the procession. Except whoever told Luke. But there we are in 'later converted soldiers or slaves told these events' apologetics. .But only one writer heard about them. This is the problem with the 'campfire tales' apologetic; either they all got to hear about the common stories or one person only knew certain events. You cannot have it both ways.

(2) interestingly, there is an episode of a strange fellow in Philo, insisted in holding public rallies, but had trouble speaking coherently, keeping track of his argument, having problems reading his teleprompter or making much sense at all. And the local urchins mocked him uncannily like they mock Jesus.

There was a certain madman named Carabbas … this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a scepter they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Carrabas even sounds a bit like Barabbas, but probably just coincidence. In fact I recall this was in Egypt, and rather than mocking the pretensions of this fellow, they used him to mock the visiting King Agrippa II as part of the ongoing riots between Alexandrine Jews and Greeks. So really I don't think much can be made of this. But this was 40 AD and if the original Christian adaptation of the Jesus story post -dated the Jewish war (because it 'prophecies' it) they could have borrowed the event for the Jesus story.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #284]

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Atlantis was referred to in historical writings by Plato. Probably linked to the "sea kingdom" of the later surviving Hittites. As for "alchemy", the father of science, Newton, clearly was an alchemist in the eyes of the modern woke, as he sought the philosopher's stone, and has been recently discovered, he felt he found it. As for "geology", it is finding that the pyramids, or more explicitly, the Sphinx, was created closer to 12000 years ago, closer to the time of Atlantis, than any Egyptian kingdom. As for the biology of DNA, or recent archeology discoveries, they are overturning all of your "history". As for "science", the Webb telescope is overturning all of your ideas around established astronomy, plus questioning the scientific theories around gravity and time. Your scientific theories are all falling apart. As for your woke "schools", they are filled with uppity idiots, with some having more DEI hires than students or professors. As for "discussion", the topic of the Supreme Court now, is the topic of discussions being squashed by the administration and their woke followers, including schools and the media.

Yes. Well that merely shows that Newton while being a foundational physicist, was studying alchemy, Astrology and the book of Daniel, showing that research, not Authority, is what counts.

And, yes, it is quite likely that the Atlantis myth refers to the volcano on the Island of Thera. That does not validate alternative history, like Chariots of the gods, Atlantean sea kingdoms or the Exodus, which I am increasingly betting is a fake history loosely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos.

So far as I know, DNA is only confirming science not undermining but perhaps you'd like to give examples. I doubt the sphinx is as old as you claim. The head is clearly of a pharaoh and 12,000 years ago Egyptian civilisation didn't even exist. I'd guess it could be based on a natural rock basis that may be that old, though. Maybe you'd like to reference your claim?

And yes the Webb telescope has raised questions about the age of the universe, but that means no more than Kepler replacing Copernicus' circular orbits with elliptical ones. Having to revise the date will not bring us back to a 6 day creation.

Science thrives on finding errors and correcting them. It is not like religious dogma that denies ever being wrong and then sneakily catches up and claims that is what it said all along.

Apart from various science denial of course. I'll leave be your immoderate attacks on schools colleges courts and anyone who does not fit your preferences.
But I appreciate your post as (not for the first time) the Bible believers and science denialists may ask "Is that what I sound like?"

p.s I had a quick look and the 12,000 year old sphinx story sounds convincing - if one only listens to the rather sensationalist presentations that are exciting to hear.

The mundane science is that the head is tough limestone but the body is poor - you can crumble it in your fingers. That is why it is far more eroded than the head. But if it was 12,000 years old in the mid - Miocene (wet Africa)period, the Nile would have inundated the sphinx, not only making it impossible to carve out but would have heavily eroded the body so we'd just have the head lying on the sand today, and maybe the base.

DNA puts the American Indians of the northwest US coming from Portugal & France, and not Siberia. Archeology of South America put some of the early settlers from middle Asiam some from Micronesia. The stonework of the pre era South Americans is far superior to the later stone works. The hard stone carvings found in southern Egypt way surpasses the carvings of the later periods, for which modern technology cannot match. The ruins of Tepe are dated to around 9600 BCE, which is around 12000 years ago, prior to the end of an ice age, and subsequent calamities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe As for the head of the Spinx, it has likely been recut. https://www.dailygrail.com/2014/06/did- ... rent-head/ As for flooding the Spinx, it has been raining in my neighborhood for a week, and there has been no flooding. Now as for California, a lawless country of its own, they would have been having large erosion and flooding problems, but not enough to cover the Spinx.

[LittleNipper]

Luke:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased. He had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had heard about Him and was hoping to see Him perform a miracle. 9 Herod questioned Jesus at great length, but He gave no answer.

Do you know what areas Herod had control of? Any ideas?
Do you know why Jesus would not have wanted to talk to Herod? Any ideas?

I don't expect you to be able to answer the above, but let's see.

Herod ruled Judea which was under Roman control at that time (conquered by Pompey in 63 BC). Herod owed allegiance to Cesar. However, Herod held significant power and autonomy in his kingdom, that included Judea, Samaria, and parts of Galilee.

Herod was not a sincere individual, and JESUS knew it, and besides JESUS was moving along with HIS sacrifice.

[LittleNipper]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

There were two temple cleanings One at the start of JESUS' ministry and one before CHRIST's sacrifice at the end. Not so hard to understand...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #284]

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Atlantis was referred to in historical writings by Plato. Probably linked to the "sea kingdom" of the later surviving Hittites. As for "alchemy", the father of science, Newton, clearly was an alchemist in the eyes of the modern woke, as he sought the philosopher's stone, and has been recently discovered, he felt he found it. As for "geology", it is finding that the pyramids, or more explicitly, the Sphinx, was created closer to 12000 years ago, closer to the time of Atlantis, than any Egyptian kingdom. As for the biology of DNA, or recent archeology discoveries, they are overturning all of your "history". As for "science", the Webb telescope is overturning all of your ideas around established astronomy, plus questioning the scientific theories around gravity and time. Your scientific theories are all falling apart. As for your woke "schools", they are filled with uppity idiots, with some having more DEI hires than students or professors. As for "discussion", the topic of the Supreme Court now, is the topic of discussions being squashed by the administration and their woke followers, including schools and the media.

Yes. Well that merely shows that Newton while being a foundational physicist, was studying alchemy, Astrology and the book of Daniel, showing that research, not Authority, is what counts.

And, yes, it is quite likely that the Atlantis myth refers to the volcano on the Island of Thera. That does not validate alternative history, like Chariots of the gods, Atlantean sea kingdoms or the Exodus, which I am increasingly betting is a fake history loosely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos.

So far as I know, DNA is only confirming science not undermining but perhaps you'd like to give examples. I doubt the sphinx is as old as you claim. The head is clearly of a pharaoh and 12,000 years ago Egyptian civilisation didn't even exist. I'd guess it could be based on a natural rock basis that may be that old, though. Maybe you'd like to reference your claim?

And yes the Webb telescope has raised questions about the age of the universe, but that means no more than Kepler replacing Copernicus' circular orbits with elliptical ones. Having to revise the date will not bring us back to a 6 day creation.

Science thrives on finding errors and correcting them. It is not like religious dogma that denies ever being wrong and then sneakily catches up and claims that is what it said all along.

Apart from various science denial of course. I'll leave be your immoderate attacks on schools colleges courts and anyone who does not fit your preferences.
But I appreciate your post as (not for the first time) the Bible believers and science denialists may ask "Is that what I sound like?"

p.s I had a quick look and the 12,000 year old sphinx story sounds convincing - if one only listens to the rather sensationalist presentations that are exciting to hear.

The mundane science is that the head is tough limestone but the body is poor - you can crumble it in your fingers. That is why it is far more eroded than the head. But if it was 12,000 years old in the mid - Miocene (wet Africa)period, the Nile would have inundated the sphinx, not only making it impossible to carve out but would have heavily eroded the body so we'd just have the head lying on the sand today, and maybe the base.

DNA puts the American Indians of the northwest US coming from Portugal & France, and not Siberia. Archeology of South America put some of the early settlers from middle Asiam some from Micronesia. The stonework of the pre era South Americans is far superior to the later stone works. The hard stone carvings found in southern Egypt way surpasses the carvings of the later periods, for which modern technology cannot match. The ruins of Tepe are dated to around 9600 BCE, which is around 12000 years ago, prior to the end of an ice age, and subsequent calamities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe As for the head of the Spinx, it has likely been recut. https://www.dailygrail.com/2014/06/did- ... rent-head/ As for flooding the Spinx, it has been raining in my neighborhood for a week, and there has been no flooding. Now as for California, a lawless country of its own, they would have been having large erosion and flooding problems, but not enough to cover the Spinx.

These claims are open to question. We might look into the DNA. But I dispute that the latest American stonework (Cusco and Sacsayhuaman) was any less goo than the earliest The same with Egyptian stonework. The later Egyptians were working diorite to a mirror finish. That's as good as anything the old kingfdom did. Don't recall the ruins of Tepe' I'll check.

I don't buy it that the head of the sphinx was recut. If it had eroded (and the fact is the limestone is harder, so that is why it did not erode) then the original head must have been disproportionately large as it is if anything larger than the body, unless the body eroded and the head din't.

I prefer to geological findings of 'Wet Africa' saying that the Nile was bigger than in Old Kingdom times and would have flooded the sphinx are so it could hardly have been sculpted in prehistoric time. Your week of rainfall explanation is wide of any relevant point.

I've even forgotten what this 'prehistoric technology point is intended to prove. Remind me.

Yes. Gobekli Tepe, with Catal Huyuk and other sites in Turkey. Carved from limestone. Hardly requiting machine tools. This (and prehistoric Jericho) were examples of the first farming communities turning into towns 10-8,000 BC. Nothing to upset history, but it might upset Bible apologetics as it is Pre - creation and no sign of a flood.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #284]

Because controversy in any science subject - biology, history, cosmology or geology - is a matter for science discussion, not schools. They should teach what is validated, not religious speculations. We teach chemistry, not alchemy, astronomy, not astrology, history, not atlantis and ancient sea kingdoms. And we teach biology and geology, not Genesis -based creationism. That had its' care to validate itself as science at Kitzmiller vs Dover and it failed. It does not belong in schools.

Atlantis was referred to in historical writings by Plato. Probably linked to the "sea kingdom" of the later surviving Hittites. As for "alchemy", the father of science, Newton, clearly was an alchemist in the eyes of the modern woke, as he sought the philosopher's stone, and has been recently discovered, he felt he found it. As for "geology", it is finding that the pyramids, or more explicitly, the Sphinx, was created closer to 12000 years ago, closer to the time of Atlantis, than any Egyptian kingdom. As for the biology of DNA, or recent archeology discoveries, they are overturning all of your "history". As for "science", the Webb telescope is overturning all of your ideas around established astronomy, plus questioning the scientific theories around gravity and time. Your scientific theories are all falling apart. As for your woke "schools", they are filled with uppity idiots, with some having more DEI hires than students or professors. As for "discussion", the topic of the Supreme Court now, is the topic of discussions being squashed by the administration and their woke followers, including schools and the media.

Yes. Well that merely shows that Newton while being a foundational physicist, was studying alchemy, Astrology and the book of Daniel, showing that research, not Authority, is what counts.

And, yes, it is quite likely that the Atlantis myth refers to the volcano on the Island of Thera. That does not validate alternative history, like Chariots of the gods, Atlantean sea kingdoms or the Exodus, which I am increasingly betting is a fake history loosely based on the expulsion of the Hyksos.

So far as I know, DNA is only confirming science not undermining but perhaps you'd like to give examples. I doubt the sphinx is as old as you claim. The head is clearly of a pharaoh and 12,000 years ago Egyptian civilisation didn't even exist. I'd guess it could be based on a natural rock basis that may be that old, though. Maybe you'd like to reference your claim?

And yes the Webb telescope has raised questions about the age of the universe, but that means no more than Kepler replacing Copernicus' circular orbits with elliptical ones. Having to revise the date will not bring us back to a 6 day creation.

Science thrives on finding errors and correcting them. It is not like religious dogma that denies ever being wrong and then sneakily catches up and claims that is what it said all along.

Apart from various science denial of course. I'll leave be your immoderate attacks on schools colleges courts and anyone who does not fit your preferences.
But I appreciate your post as (not for the first time) the Bible believers and science denialists may ask "Is that what I sound like?"

p.s I had a quick look and the 12,000 year old sphinx story sounds convincing - if one only listens to the rather sensationalist presentations that are exciting to hear.

The mundane science is that the head is tough limestone but the body is poor - you can crumble it in your fingers. That is why it is far more eroded than the head. But if it was 12,000 years old in the mid - Miocene (wet Africa)period, the Nile would have inundated the sphinx, not only making it impossible to carve out but would have heavily eroded the body so we'd just have the head lying on the sand today, and maybe the base.

DNA puts the American Indians of the northwest US coming from Portugal & France, and not Siberia. Archeology of South America put some of the early settlers from middle Asiam some from Micronesia. The stonework of the pre era South Americans is far superior to the later stone works. The hard stone carvings found in southern Egypt way surpasses the carvings of the later periods, for which modern technology cannot match. The ruins of Tepe are dated to around 9600 BCE, which is around 12000 years ago, prior to the end of an ice age, and subsequent calamities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe As for the head of the Spinx, it has likely been recut. https://www.dailygrail.com/2014/06/did- ... rent-head/ As for flooding the Spinx, it has been raining in my neighborhood for a week, and there has been no flooding. Now as for California, a lawless country of its own, they would have been having large erosion and flooding problems, but not enough to cover the Spinx.

These claims are open to question. We might look into the DNA. But I dispute that the latest American stonework (Cusco and Sacsayhuaman) was any less goo than the earliest The same with Egyptian stonework. The later Egyptians were working diorite to a mirror finish. That's as good as anything the old kingfdom did. Don't recall the ruins of Tepe' I'll check.

I don't buy it that the head of the sphinx was recut. If it had eroded (and the fact is the limestone is harder, so that is why it did not erode) then the original head must have been disproportionately large as it is if anything larger than the body, unless the body eroded and the head din't.

I prefer to geological findings of 'Wet Africa' saying that the Nile was bigger than in Old Kingdom times and would have flooded the sphinx are so it could hardly have been sculpted in prehistoric time. Your week of rainfall explanation is wide of any relevant point.

I've even forgotten what this 'prehistoric technology point is intended to prove. Remind me.

Yes. Gobekli Tepe, with Catal Huyuk and other sites in Turkey. Carved from limestone. Hardly requiting machine tools. This (and prehistoric Jericho) were examples of the first farming communities turning into towns 10-8,000 BC. Nothing to upset history, but it might upset Bible apologetics as it is Pre - creation and no sign of a flood.

The head of the Spinx is proportionally smaller than the body. Why does the Spinx and other statues have their noses broken off? The good quality stonework mostly had no original hieroglyphics, but later rough grude hieroglyphics were added. There were no original writings in the pyramids. The early Egyptian precision surpassed that of the later era. https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/a ... s-analyzed

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. I'll admit I was wrong. After looking at a few other views it is clear that the head is smaller than the body. Why this is so is disputed. Some say the original head was recarved to show the head of a pharaoh. Other sphinxes have the heads of gods, and that may have been the case here.

The nose was deliberately removed with chisels. It seems Napoleon's drawings show the nose there so it vanished afterwards.

So just what is this argument about again? Trying to prove advanced technology before (accepted) civilisation? What's the point relevant to gospel reliability? I already pointed out that later and even Ptolemaic stone working was as good or better than the early work, given that periods of political and economic weakness affected the quality of public work that could be commissioned.