The intent of the authors was theological, and not logistical or historical details. But, of course, this does not mean that the facts are in dispute or erroneous, but rather that they are either simply omitted or act of secondary importance.
There is one source of inspiration, and that is the Holy Spirit, and we understand that the Biblical authors were inspired in some form or another, by the Holy Spirit. I say 'in some form or another' because I do not believe that the words of Scripture were dictated, or manipulated in any fashion by the HS. The authors gained their understanding either through revelation or impartation, and their memories recalled distant and obscure events. But, they wrote by their own volition, comprehension and literary capabilities, and independently chose which events and sayings of Jesus to include. Outside of all that, they concertedly chose not to be precise with every single detail that occurred in the life of Christ, nor with 100% accuracy of the timing or numbers involved within the story plot. Their main intent was related to theological issues.
I'm getting the impression that those who have responded to me, including yourself, regard my views as skepticism? They weren't, they were rhetorical - simply pointing out areas of discrepancy, but justifying them by the ancient authors thematic or theological literary approach, not one of emphasizing the logistics of the events, or every detail of the characters and plot. I thought that I made my position clear in my initial posts, that the majority of perceived conflicts can be reconciled with further research and comprehension of the respective author's approach and intent, of each Gospel.
Yes, sorry, there are explicit statements of authorship in some cases, even in the Old Testament as far as the Psalms are concerned. But, even these are not without dispute: some of the epistles of Paul, by some scholars esteem, are considered pseudepigraphical. So, there is still that controversy or uncertainty.
To be honest, though, I personally don't care - if God endowed certain men with wisdom and understanding, to the point that their instructions and assertions were uncontested truth and authoritative, I care very little if they were either prominent Biblical characters, or had the word of God dictated to them letter by letter. The wisdom speaks for itself that, in one form or another, they are writing under the auspices of God, whether we know their names or not.
Yes, some statements made in the Bible cannot be known without divine intervention, but not all, and I believe that God allowed somewhat of a motley crew to be part of the establishment and transmission (In various forms and mediums) of His divine will.
But, that's clearly not true as far as Luke's writings are concerned. He explicitly stated that he took the research upon himself to discover what occurred during the lifetime of Jesus and the early Church, and that it required investigation by speaking to other witnesses. That is, the facts were not imparted to him by God, as you are attempting to declare.
Well, you may be correct about the nature of man that Luke was, ...which, of course, can be said about all the the converts at that time, both Jew and Gentile. And, even your initial comment about God inspiring Luke to feel compelled to spread the news about Jesus is plausible. But, I believe, due to Luke's own admission, that his understanding of what transpired during the days of his Messiah came by oral transmission and dedicated investigation, and not by verbal plenary theory.
Only in part. I believe that Luke is a prime example of a Biblical author that, by his own volition, dedicated himself to offer an account of his Messiah's testimony. Now, we can argue endlessly as to whether or not his desire was instilled by the Holy Spirit, as we can about all men's desires to promote God in one fashion or another. Either way, Luke makes it clear that he was not endowed with knowledge from God enabling him to give an accurate account of the Gospel of Christ.
We can say that about about any man's efforts to do what pleases God. I don't believe that you have Scripture that explicitly states that any New Testament author wrote being moved by the Holy Spirit outside of in the generic sense. Peter states that Paul was given wisdom from God of which he put such sublime sentiments to pen. But, again, this can be said about many of the Christians in that period, or any era - Christians are endowed with wisdom in general. But, I will not assert that everything that they write or say, is under the auspices or guidance of God.
My only point is, when speaking of the Bible as a whole, that I would not give the same amount of inspiration to all the books. I believe that all the Books are sincere , accurate, and penned by wise and devout men, but not necessarily guided by divine intervention - there's no need, for the author's inspirations or revelations may have come well before they decided to write anything down.
If so, the Mishnah is full of traditions that were alleged to be handed down from the time of Moses, I believe. Meaning, traditions are not reliable as far as 100% truth is concerned.
I cannot assert that Samuel wrote either Ruth or Judges. It appears plausible for whatever reason, but I refuse to be dogmatic about it and therefore will not state is as fact, despite me believing in the Books historical veracity.
Hello DNB7;
I read and intentionally clipped parts of your posts that pertain to the verb of this topic. What I strongly feel is you don't believe the authors were all fully led by God's instruction of divine inspiration that pervades Scripture. You support what you don't believe using example wordings such as volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level.
You are entitled to stand by your convictions and I respect you for that. I also have my convictions about the authors in the Bible.
Deuteronomy is a good example of Moses' authorship in the Old Testament with Joshua writing the end after Moses' death. Unfortunately, there has always been endless debate on the author credibility, which overlooks and misleads the whole point of this book which was the law code that invoked curses for disobedience and blessings for obedience.
Mark was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit from his missions with Paul and Barnabas, and taking his instruction from God he would write Mark around 55-65 A.D. Mark's material was 7% written to the Romans emphasizing Christ was viewed as a servant. The Gospel structure was in 2 parts - the first was the form of healing, controversies, parables and Jesus' healings. The second part was more on the chronological areas of Jesus' teachings, death and resurrection.
Matthew was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit, taking his instruction from God to write Matthew around 60-65 A.D. Matthew was called by Jesus. Matthew's unique material reached 42% of the Jews while proclaiming Jesus as King. Matthew encouraged his Jewish followers of Christ to reach more Gentiles converts.
Luke was indeed inspired and prompted by the Holy Spirit and filled him in his medical practice and companionship with Paul. Luke was a Gentile author of the Gospel, his unique material of 59% was written to the Greeks around 60 A.D. When he took his instruction from God, the prompting of the Holy Spirit was written in Luke more than in Matthew or Mark.
John was spirit filled to take God's instruction and write the book of John. His unique material was 92% written to the church later in 85-90 A.D. The language in John did differ from the synoptics in Mark, Matthew and Luke because he spent more time with Jesus during His mission, the example of the first miracle recorded in John 2:11. John's leading of the Holy Spirit goes beyond the Gospel and into 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation.
Point is, there is so much more in the Gospels, New and Old Testaments that was complex, so these authors could not just be spirit filled to offer their own account, but needed God's instruction to guide them in writing. I believe God anointed all His servants to write each of the 66 books. All that is written in the Bible is God-breathed. With the wisdom and spirit that God gave His servants to author, to fail at His instruction would have a devastating impact on the readers.
When I read volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level which is how I read your posts, mixed with "I personally don't care or I care very little" regarding the credibility of all authors, then this just doesn't sink in and I find this hard to reconcile the full indwelt of the Holy Spirit.
In 1 Kings 8:11, 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. - ESV
My wife and I studied this passage during our new daily devotional and we discussed how we long for a more welcoming experience with God's Holy Spirit and this included all God's authors who were spirit led to write them. There is a peace within us.
God bless you, DNB7, and your family.