Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Overlay
It is generally agreed that John's gospel was the last to be written, so it is not unreasonable to infer that he was aware of the inclusion of the incident in each of the three synoptic gospels, and did not mention it in his narrative on that basis. (Or at least it is more reasonable than concluding that, since John did not mention it, the writers of the three synoptic gospels who each did mention it all made up their accounts out of thin air.)
|
IMO...what you say here makes no sense whatsoever. Luke says that there was a repentant thief, while both Mark and Matthew report that BOTH thieves were ridiculing Jesus. If John was aware of the conflicting inclusions of this incident in the other gospels...then he, being an "eye-witness", should have felt the obligation to present his OWN report on the matter, to set the record straight.
How can an eye-witness to an event remain silent when conflicting reports of this event are circulating about?
