Posted: Sep 05, 2011 12:19 am
by Byron
Like Shrunk, I ask, what's this even supposed to prove? That the Holy Spirit guided the gospel authors' hands? If that's the desired endzone, other possibilities have to be kicked into touch.

The gospels incorporated various strands of oral tradition, maybe some proto-gospels composed of a few sayings -- in the G. Thomas format --, and theological fiction invented by the authors. Check. Some details turn up in some that don't turn up in others. Check. Gospels copied other gospels. Check: Matthew and Luke copied Mark, and had other source/s in common. John was off doing his Christology thing, but dipped into the same well of Jesus traditions.

If these coincidences are just that, they're explicable by different gospel authors getting different versions of similar traditions. Or by different gospel authors giving different focus to the same tradition ("John" doesn't care why Jesus picked Philip for shopping tips, being more concerned with making his Christological point: "Luke" mentions the hometown for some reason). Or the gospel authors are making conscious reference to other gospels, but as usual, don't feel the need to acknowledge their sources.

Some of these "coincidences" are seeking to solve mucho contrived "problems", anyhow. "Why in the evening?" How is this even a problem? And since "Matthew" was copying Mark, he couldn't have been unaware of its content! So the whole thing falls down anyway.

I've seen some lame apologetics, but this one's barely coherent.