(The) historicity of the resurrection of Jesus . nt even to the casual reader that the various Eiblical accounts do not agreeeven in some rather broad considerations. Still, closerstudy will show that the records are full of apparent dis-crepancies, if not of events which are utterly scholars have thought to .onstruct a harmony of theSynoptic Gos els and John; such productions are helpful in:ur study but cannot be considered m the main successfulin the attempt which they proposed to accomplished. Pro-fessors Orr and Lake have carefully analy^ied these na ra-tive .ts an
(The) historicity of the resurrection of Jesus . nt even to the casual reader that the various Eiblical accounts do not agreeeven in some rather broad considerations. Still, closerstudy will show that the records are full of apparent dis-crepancies, if not of events which are utterly scholars have thought to .onstruct a harmony of theSynoptic Gos els and John; such productions are helpful in:ur study but cannot be considered m the main successfulin the attempt which they proposed to accomplished. Pro-fessors Orr and Lake have carefully analy^ied these na ra-tive .ts and made rather extensive comparisons of thevarious accounts. A peiusal of their study at this pointwill cast much lignt on the constructive section which willfollow. Allen and Hurkitt in dealing with this r,roblem- egard the one solid result of literary criticism, thatliatthew and Luke are based fundamentally on Mark, but thewidely divergent phraseology found in the narratives makesdirect borrowing seen: incredible. In the prologue to Luke, i i!. 16. the author himself tells us that he has traced the course ofall things accurately from the first in order that Theo-philus might fully know. The agreement of Matthew andLuke against ^rk gives rise to the belief In the Burkitt, or lo the belief in the earlier document calledQ . ViTiere Luke and disagree against ^-ark, and it is probable that they had before them, it becomesevident that our !.:ark was not dependent upon the Q . Iat-• thew and Luke somethimes agree in omittin/j., for no apparentreason, some detail recorded in Iark. So, likev/ise, the useof doublets in T:;.rk . in>. several sources. Professor Lake divides L-iarks narrative of theresurrection of Jesus into six sections: The first is theburial, of which katthew and Luke have onl\^ editorial changes,and the second is the visit at the tomb, of which Iatthew andLuke give de;endent usual. Here the account of Hark sug
Size: 1327px × 1884px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1920, bookidthehistorici, bookyear1922
