In the Jewish Annotated New Testament (Levine and Bretler, 2017), the editors suggest that the writer of Luke didn’t “[agree] with many different accounts before him.” In glossing the phrase “orderly account,” they write, “[P]erhaps suggesting Luke’s dissatisfaction with other versions of the gospel story” (109).
The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Coogan, 2018) notes, “This prologue resembles the openings of many Greek histories. Accordingly, Luke acknowledges sources and explains the purpose of his own work” (1867).
Since Mike Licona argues that the gospels are basically in the genre of Greco-Roman literature, then if Luke is like the Greek histories, it proves that he was dissatisfied with all the previous gospel accounts.
I remember Jonathan Sheffield speaking about how somehow being “uncontrolled” added more validity to the gospels, while idk what he means by controlled exactly I had two contentions to this
1) How does he explain the synoptic problem? (which is more than enough to discredit the whole claim)
2) If things were so uncontrolled how on earth did we end up with a canon
3) how can he argue about “Apostolic Polity” and speak about things being “uncontrolled” at the same time
QUOTE:
One of the issues is that early Christians apparently didn’t have very good information about where the four canonical Gospels came from.
The Gospel of John first enters the historical record in 2nd century and shortly afterwards, as many as four different authors were proposed:
The Alogi rejected it as written by Cerinthus.
Only later, Irenaeus was the first who claimed it was written by John (it’s unclear which John he has in mind, possibly John son of Zebedee) against Cerinthus.
Around the same time, Polycrates of Ephesus claims that the Beloved Disciple was someone named John who wore the sacerdotal plate (meaning he was a Temple priest) and who had died in Ephesus. Clarly, this is neither John son of Zebedee nor Cerinthus.
The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels (difficult to date but could be as early as 2nd century) claim that the Gospel was dictated to Papias of Hierapolis by someone named John and that person was alive in 140s to excommunicate Marcion of Sinope. So clearly that could not have been a disciple of Jesus.
Can you show me any other text from antiquity which was attributed to four different authors within a century or two after its composition but scholars still think we know who actually wrote it?
quote:
Polycrates says John wore the sacerdotal plate, meaning he was a priest. A temple priest and a Galilean fisherman decidedly could not have been regarded as the same person. Polycrates clearly has in his view someone other than John son of Zebedee.
Ancient Christian sources are routinely confused about who was who in early Christianity, confusing biographical elements of people with the same name, conflating two people into one or vice versa. Seems to me they didn’t really have very reliable information about what was going on in the first generations. Which is not surprising. So when they say stuff like Matthew wrote first and in Hebrew, why think they got that wrong but not the author’s name?
The Quran and Bible Blog 
salaam brothers
can you share your opinion of what i am about to say?
crosstians say that their textual transmission was “uncontrolled,” but here is my problem with this :
1. luke says,
” Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us”
” I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start”
not only is luke aware of other accounts, he wants to write a “well ordered account,” so how is luke not “controlling” his narrative ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the Jewish Annotated New Testament (Levine and Bretler, 2017), the editors suggest that the writer of Luke didn’t “[agree] with many different accounts before him.” In glossing the phrase “orderly account,” they write, “[P]erhaps suggesting Luke’s dissatisfaction with other versions of the gospel story” (109).
The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Coogan, 2018) notes, “This prologue resembles the openings of many Greek histories. Accordingly, Luke acknowledges sources and explains the purpose of his own work” (1867).
?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Salam bro, can you please elaborate on what they mean by “controlled” exactly?
LikeLike
Since Mike Licona argues that the gospels are basically in the genre of Greco-Roman literature, then if Luke is like the Greek histories, it proves that he was dissatisfied with all the previous gospel accounts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember Jonathan Sheffield speaking about how somehow being “uncontrolled” added more validity to the gospels, while idk what he means by controlled exactly I had two contentions to this
1) How does he explain the synoptic problem? (which is more than enough to discredit the whole claim)
2) If things were so uncontrolled how on earth did we end up with a canon
3) how can he argue about “Apostolic Polity” and speak about things being “uncontrolled” at the same time
4) What’s wrong with being controlled?
LikeLike
Well i had two now i have four top kek
LikeLike
QUOTE:
One of the issues is that early Christians apparently didn’t have very good information about where the four canonical Gospels came from.
The Gospel of John first enters the historical record in 2nd century and shortly afterwards, as many as four different authors were proposed:
The Alogi rejected it as written by Cerinthus.
Only later, Irenaeus was the first who claimed it was written by John (it’s unclear which John he has in mind, possibly John son of Zebedee) against Cerinthus.
Around the same time, Polycrates of Ephesus claims that the Beloved Disciple was someone named John who wore the sacerdotal plate (meaning he was a Temple priest) and who had died in Ephesus. Clarly, this is neither John son of Zebedee nor Cerinthus.
The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels (difficult to date but could be as early as 2nd century) claim that the Gospel was dictated to Papias of Hierapolis by someone named John and that person was alive in 140s to excommunicate Marcion of Sinope. So clearly that could not have been a disciple of Jesus.
Can you show me any other text from antiquity which was attributed to four different authors within a century or two after its composition but scholars still think we know who actually wrote it?
quote:
Polycrates says John wore the sacerdotal plate, meaning he was a priest. A temple priest and a Galilean fisherman decidedly could not have been regarded as the same person. Polycrates clearly has in his view someone other than John son of Zebedee.
Ancient Christian sources are routinely confused about who was who in early Christianity, confusing biographical elements of people with the same name, conflating two people into one or vice versa. Seems to me they didn’t really have very reliable information about what was going on in the first generations. Which is not surprising. So when they say stuff like Matthew wrote first and in Hebrew, why think they got that wrong but not the author’s name?
.
i learn new information everyday.
LikeLike
Yes the early daddies were mostly confused about John….
LikeLike