Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
It seems like Luke was also into what Mark enjoyed doing--taking something and changing its meaning. What was the intention behind it? Who knows, but all I know is that the evidence is there in black and white for all to see.
Let's have a look at the demon 'Legion' that Jesus cast out of a man:
Luke 8:26-39
Then they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. As he stepped out on land, a man of the city who had demons met him. For a long time he had worn no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he fell down before him and shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me”-- for Jesus had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. (For many times it had seized him; he was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the wilds.) Jesus then asked him, “What is your name?” He said, “Legion”; for many demons had entered him. They begged him not to order them to go back into the abyss. Now there on the hillside a large herd of swine was feeding; and the demons begged Jesus to let them enter these. So he gave them permission. Then the demons came out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned. When the swineherds saw what had happened, they ran off and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came out to see what had happened, and when they came to Jesus, they found the man from whom the demons had gone sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. Those who had seen it told them how the one who had been possessed by demons had been healed. Then all the people of the surrounding country of the Gerasenes asked Jesus to leave them; for they were seized with great fear. So he got into the boat and returned.
I still remember at Bible study about a year ago being told what the theological implications of this passage were. When casting out demons, you can't tell them to go to hell because apparently there will be a time and place for that. Instead you need to use the authority God has given you and cast them out into something material around you. Apart from this teaching, I personally find this event rather strange. Well, now I understand fully why it's not actual history and therefore not in the slightest bit a theological teaching.
First thing's first though, let's clear up a geographical mistake Luke made. This will also allow us to correctly compare Luke to two other texts that will aid us later on. Luke says they arrived at 'the country of the Gerasenes' or Gerasa, which is allegedly opposite Galilee i.e. across the Sea of Galilee from the land known as Galilee.
Well that isn't true. If anything, one could remotely say it's opposite the Jordan River from Samaria. I'm sure Luke knew this, just as he knew that the actual place this massacre took place was in Capernaum. Not only that but he must have known that no 'Jesus' guy was involved either. To understand better what event he ripped off we need to have a look at Josephus' Jewish War and Barnabas' Gospel. Here are the bits:
Jewish War 3:10:8
The country also that lies over against this lake hath the same name of Gennesareth; its nature is wonderful as well as its beauty; its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it, and the inhabitants accordingly plant all sorts of trees there; for the temper of the air is so well mixed, that it agrees very well with those several sorts, particularly walnuts, which require the coldest air, flourish there in vast plenty; there are palm trees also, which grow best in hot air; fig trees also and olives grow near them, which yet require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together; it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if every one of them laid claim to this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men's expectation, but preserves them a great while; it supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs continually, during ten months of the year 1 and the rest of the fruits as they become ripe together through the whole year; for besides the good temperature of the air, it is also watered from a most fertile fountain. The people of the country call it Capharnaum. Some have thought it to be a vein of the Nile, because it produces the Coracin fish as well as that lake does which is near to Alexandria. The length of this country extends itself along the banks of this lake that bears the same name for thirty furlongs, and is in breadth twenty, And this is the nature of that place.
This is a description of Capernaum. In the next section he goes on to discuss what happened at Capernaum:
Jewish War 3:10:9
But now, when the vessels were gotten ready, Vespasian put upon ship-board as many of his forces as he thought sufficient to be too hard for those that were upon the lake, and set sail after them. Now these which were driven into the lake could neither fly to the land, where all was in their enemies' hand, and in war against them; nor could they fight upon the level by sea, for their ships were small and fitted only for piracy; they were too weak to fight with Vespasian's vessels, and the mariners that were in them were so few, that they were afraid to come near the Romans, who attacked them in great numbers. However, as they sailed round about the vessels, and sometimes as they came near them, they threw stones at the Romans when they were a good way off, or came closer and fought them; yet did they receive the greatest harm themselves in both cases. As for the stones they threw at the Romans, they only made a sound one after another, for they threw them against such as were in their armor, while the Roman darts could reach the Jews themselves; and when they ventured to come near the Romans, they became sufferers themselves before they could do any harm to the ether, and were drowned, they and their ships together. As for those that endeavored to come to an actual fight, the Romans ran many of them through with their long poles. Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; and indeed they were destroyed after various manners every where, till the rest being put to flight, were forced to get upon the land, while the vessels encompassed them about [on the sea]: but as many of these were repulsed when they were getting ashore, they were killed by the darts upon the lake; and the Romans leaped out of their vessels, and destroyed a great many more upon the land: one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped. And a terrible stink, and a very sad sight there was on the following days over that country; for as for the shores, they were full of shipwrecks, and of dead bodies all swelled; and as the dead bodies were inflamed by the sun, and putrefied, they corrupted the air, insomuch that the misery was not only the object of commiseration to the Jews, but to those that hated them, and had been the authors of that misery. This was the upshot of the sea-fight. The number of the slain, including those that were killed in the city before, was six thousand and five hundred.
From this we can see quite clearly that ~6 500 Jews were slain or drowned. Now to properly connect the dots let's have a look at Barnabas' 'account' of this:
Barnabas 21:1-3
Jesus went up to Capernaum, and as he drew near to the city behold there came out of the tombs one that was possessed of a devil, and in such wise that no chain could hold him, and he did great harm to the man. The demons cried out through his mouth, saying: “O holy one of God, why are you come before the time to trouble us?” And they prayed him that he would not cast them forth. Jesus asked them how many they were. They answered: “Six thousand six hundred and sixty-six.” When the disciples heard this they were affrighted, and prayed Jesus that he would depart. Then Jesus said: “Where is your faith? It is necessary that the demon should depart, and not I.” The demons therefore cried: “We will come out, but permit us to enter into those swine.” There were feeding there, near to the sea, about ten thousand swine belonging to the Canaanites. Thereupon Jesus said: “Depart, and enter into the swine.” With a roar the demons entered into the swine, and cast them headlong into the sea. Then fled into the city they that fed the swine, and recounted all that had been brought to pass by Jesus. Accordingly the men of the city came forth and found Jesus and the man that was healed. The men were filled with fear and prayed Jesus that he would depart out of their borders. Jesus accordingly departed from them and went up into the parts of Tyre and Sidon.
So what are the facts that we can draw from Josephus and Barnabas? Here they are:
Josephus
The Roman legions massacred about 6 500 Jews at the lake.
This took place at Capernaum.
Barnabas
Jesus allegedly went to Capernaum.
The man had 6 666 demons in him.
The demons entered into 10 000 swines which then drowned at the lake.
Seeing all the parallels between the three I think we can comfortably say Luke changed the location on purpose.
the demon Legion
Josephus: Roman legions killed about 6 500 Jews.
Barnabas: 6 666 demons came out of the man and entered 10 000 swine and drowned.
Luke: 'Legion' came out, entered the swine and drowned.
It's of no surprise that a Roman legion consisted of 10 000 men. Therefore I think it can be said that when the demons a.k.a. Jews 'entered and drowned' as swines (10 000 of them) they could only be referring to the legion(s) that killed the 6 000+ Jews.
Well, there you go. There's no theology behind this one. More importantly though, Jesus never comes into it. We're simply talking a massacre which has no connection to the Jesus story whatsoever. That makes me wonder though: what was the intention of this allegory? From Luke's 'perspective' Jesus is responsible for essentially killing these 'demons'. Was Luke spreading propaganda and making the Jews look bad? I mean, calling them swines and getting the LORD to drown them isn't exactly a nice representation of Jews.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
(July 23, 2012 at 1:23 am)Drich Wrote: Where did you cut and paste this from? Or are you claiming this work as your own?
I have researched and written everything in my own words. I've given you the texts where I got the passages from.
Does any of this change what's already in the books?
I'm glad to see this was your own work, for it would have been difficult for you to answer my next set of questions if you had copied someone elses.
As I have been so often reminded when ever I make an unsolicited statement on this web site, 'the burden of proof is on me.' Or in this case rather it is on you to prove the legitmacy of your quotes, your references and provide your source material, that brought you to your final conclusion.
So please if you would, provide your source material.
July 23, 2012 at 10:35 am (This post was last modified: July 23, 2012 at 10:36 am by FallentoReason.)
(July 23, 2012 at 9:01 am)Drich Wrote:
(July 23, 2012 at 1:39 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I have researched and written everything in my own words. I've given you the texts where I got the passages from.
Does any of this change what's already in the books?
I'm glad to see this was your own work, for it would have been difficult for you to answer my next set of questions if you had copied someone elses.
As I have been so often reminded when ever I make an unsolicited statement on this web site, 'the burden of proof is on me.' Or in this case rather it is on you to prove the legitmacy of your quotes, your references and provide your source material, that brought you to your final conclusion.
So please if you would, provide your source material.
I know what you're trying to say, but you said it wrong. Yes, the burden of proof is on me. I say 'allegory', naturally you would say 'show me' and then I produce the OP. The deed is done. Anyways here's the source:
July 23, 2012 at 7:12 pm (This post was last modified: July 23, 2012 at 7:13 pm by Drich.)
(July 23, 2012 at 1:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: It seems like Luke was also into what Mark enjoyed doing--taking something and changing its meaning. What was the intention behind it? Who knows, but all I know is that the evidence is there in black and white for all to see.
Let's have a look at the demon 'Legion' that Jesus cast out of a man:
Luke 8:
I still remember at Bible study about a year ago being told what the theological implications of this passage were. When casting out demons, you can't tell them to go to hell because apparently there will be a time and place for that. Instead you need to use the authority God has given you and cast them out into something material around you.
Did they give you book chapter and verse that supported this 'added teaching?'
Quote:First thing's first, let's clear up a geographical mistake Luke made. This will also allow us to correctly compare Luke to two other texts that will aid us later on. Luke says they arrived at 'the country of the Gerasenes' or Gerasa, which is allegedly opposite Galilee i.e. across the Sea of Galilee from the land known as Galilee.
Well that isn't true. If anything, one could remotely say it's opposite the Jordan River from Samaria.
If you clicked on the link you can almost draw a stright line between the two regions. (Directly across the sea of Galilee ) and if you look at the map topicagraphically you will note the easiest way from Galilee to 'Gerasa" is straight across the sea. so to say "Gerasa is a cross the sea of Galilee." is not inaccurate, because it is literally across the sea (as the bird flies, and the easiest way to get there.)
Quote: I'm sure Luke knew this, just as he knew that the actual place this massacre took place was in Capernaum.
You knew what a man was thinking 2000 years before you were born?
Quote:Not only that but he must have known that no 'Jesus' guy was involved either.
Empty conjecture.
Quote: To understand better what event he ripped off we need to have a look at Josephus' Jewish War and Barnabas' Gospel. Here are the bits:
Jewish War 3:10:8
The country also that lies over against this lake hath the same name of Gennesareth; its nature is wonderful as well as its beauty; its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it, and the inhabitants accordingly plant all sorts of trees there; for the temper of the air is so well mixed, that it agrees very well with those several sorts, particularly walnuts, which require the coldest air, flourish there in vast plenty; there are palm trees also, which grow best in hot air; fig trees also and olives grow near them, which yet require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together; it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if every one of them laid claim to this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men's expectation, but preserves them a great while; it supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs continually, during ten months of the year 1 and the rest of the fruits as they become ripe together through the whole year; for besides the good temperature of the air, it is also watered from a most fertile fountain. The people of the country call it Capharnaum. Some have thought it to be a vein of the Nile, because it produces the Coracin fish as well as that lake does which is near to Alexandria. The length of this country extends itself along the banks of this lake that bears the same name for thirty furlongs, and is in breadth twenty, And this is the nature of that place.
Maybe you can provide a link to your version of Josephus' work. i am sure there is an honest mistake here somewhere.
Quote:This is a description of Capernaum. In the next section he goes on to discuss what happened at Capernaum:
Jewish War 3:10:9
But now, when the vessels were gotten ready, Vespasian put upon ship-board as many of his forces as he thought sufficient to be too hard for those that were upon the lake, and set sail after them. Now these which were driven into the lake could neither fly to the land, where all was in their enemies' hand, and in war against them; nor could they fight upon the level by sea, for their ships were small and fitted only for piracy; they were too weak to fight with Vespasian's vessels, and the mariners that were in them were so few, that they were afraid to come near the Romans, who attacked them in great numbers. However, as they sailed round about the vessels, and sometimes as they came near them, they threw stones at the Romans when they were a good way off, or came closer and fought them; yet did they receive the greatest harm themselves in both cases. As for the stones they threw at the Romans, they only made a sound one after another, for they threw them against such as were in their armor, while the Roman darts could reach the Jews themselves; and when they ventured to come near the Romans, they became sufferers themselves before they could do any harm to the ether, and were drowned, they and their ships together. As for those that endeavored to come to an actual fight, the Romans ran many of them through with their long poles. Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; and indeed they were destroyed after various manners every where, till the rest being put to flight, were forced to get upon the land, while the vessels encompassed them about [on the sea]: but as many of these were repulsed when they were getting ashore, they were killed by the darts upon the lake; and the Romans leaped out of their vessels, and destroyed a great many more upon the land: one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped. And a terrible stink, and a very sad sight there was on the following days over that country; for as for the shores, they were full of shipwrecks, and of dead bodies all swelled; and as the dead bodies were inflamed by the sun, and putrefied, they corrupted the air, insomuch that the misery was not only the object of commiseration to the Jews, but to those that hated them, and had been the authors of that misery. This was the upshot of the sea-fight. The number of the slain, including those that were killed in the city before, was six thousand and five hundred.
Which kinda put the kibosh on this quote as well, until we can sort out this descrepency.
Quote:From this we can see quite clearly that ~6 500 Jews were slain or drowned. Now to properly connect the dots let's have a look at Barnabas' 'account' of this: Barnabas 21:1-3
You are quoting the gospel of Barnabas?!?!? (You are) Not only is this not a canocial text it is wasn't written till the mid 16th century and is considered to support the Islamic view of Christ.
Quote:So what are the facts that we can draw from Josephus and Barnabas? Here they are:
The only thing we can reference from either of two sources you listed are: best case you had to find/create two noncanocial texts and then cherry pick two seperate writers talking about two very seperate things and then smash them together, all to say the book of luke in it's complete and contextual form is a copy of two seperate works. that by all rights were written after the accepted date of the Gospel of Luke.
That was best case.
what you actually have is either a mis reference on one critical source or a complete faberication (that maybe the work of another), and a reference from a text written 1400 years after said events, shunned by the Christian community and adopted by the Islamic community. to try and build a case against the gospel of luke. All inspired by some guy who wants to sell books like this to people like you. (Books like this meaning something that sounds legitmate and may even stand up to some limited scrutiny, but in the end fold because they are of little substance.)
Quote:Well, there you go. There's no theology behind this one. More importantly though, Jesus never comes into it. We're simply talking a massacre which has no connection to the Jesus story whatsoever. That makes me wonder though: what was the intention of this allegory? From Luke's 'perspective' Jesus is responsible for essentially killing these 'demons'. Was Luke spreading propaganda and making the Jews look bad? I mean, calling them swines and getting the LORD to drown them isn't exactly a nice representation of Jews.
Here is where i would do my victory dance but I see an honest effort so, i will wait till your counter arguement...
If you clicked on the link you can almost draw a stright line between the two regions. (Directly across the sea of Galilee ) and if you look at the map topicagraphically you will note the easiest way from Galilee to 'Gerasa" is straight across the sea. so to say "Gerasa is a cross the sea of Galilee." is not inaccurate, because it is literally across the sea (as the bird flies, and the easiest way to get there.)
It's not any more 'real' than mine was. This one is simply slanted so that you can draw a horizontal line between Galilee and Gerasa. This doesn't make it opposite Galilee because Gerasa isn't based on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, as Luke makes it out to be:
Then they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. As he stepped out on land, a man of the city who had demons met him.
Nothing about walking x miles to Gerasa. They simply got out of the boat at 'Gerasa' and they found the man. This is all perfectly possible if it was Capernaum because Capernaum is on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.
Quote:You knew what a man was thinking 2000 years before you were born?
Maybe you can provide a link to your version of Josephus' work. i am sure there is an honest mistake here somewhere.
Quote:Which kinda put the kibosh on this quote as well, until we can sort out this descrepency.
When the reference has 3 numbers (x:y:z) I'm pretty sure it means book x, chapter y, paragraph/verse z. Sorry, I should have clarified.
Quote:You are quoting the gospel of Barnabas?!?!? (You are) Not only is this not a canocial text it is wasn't written till the mid 16th century and is considered to support the Islamic view of Christ.
Wow, you're absolutely right. I've let my guard down on this one.. I honestly thought this Gospel was somewhat equivalent to the Gospel of Thomas in that it was written around those times, but clearly Wikipedia shows me this Gospel is an outlier. Thanks, you've reminded me to always do the extra research and never take stuff at face value.
This doesn't mean there's nothing to be looked at here. Luke still talks about this 'Legion' thing. Maybe he should have named it something else OR.... perhaps that was his intention? To link his 'event' to the massacre fresh in people's minds.
Quote:The only thing we can reference from either of two sources you listed are: best case you had to find/create two noncanocial texts and then cherry pick two seperate writers talking about two very seperate things and then smash them together, all to say the book of luke in it's complete and contextual form is a copy of two seperate works. that by all rights were written after the accepted date of the Gospel of Luke.
There's no need to 'smash' things together. Put them all side by side and the parallels are obvious; pigs/Jews drowning, 'Legion' i.e. Romans being the cause...
Yes, the Gospel of Barnabas was written after for sure, but Josephus' War came before. From wikipedia:
Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[73] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[74] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary.[75][76] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[77] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[78]
Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[33] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[33] with John the Baptist.
The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[79] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[80] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[81] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[82] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[83]
The only thing saying that it must have been before 70 A.D. is that none of the Gospels say the prophecy of the temple was fulfilled. This cuts both ways for us and therefore doesn't become very useful. Your view in a nutshell: Jesus was divine, this prophecy came to be. My view in a nutshell: allegories that are alluding to recent events that happened i.e. the destruction of the temple.
Quote:what you actually have is either a mis reference on one critical source or a complete faberication (that maybe the work of another), and a reference from a text written 1400 years after said events, shunned by the Christian community and adopted by the Islamic community. to try and build a case against the gospel of luke. All inspired by some guy who wants to sell books like this to people like you. (Books like this meaning something that sounds legitmate and may even stand up to some limited scrutiny, but in the end fold because they are of little substance.)
![[Image: image-tencit.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.thisgoodriddle.com%2Fimages%2Fimage-tencit.jpg)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
