Gospel of Luke. Says who? (Comedy Anime)

the different gospel accounts contradict each other, or do they harmonize with one another? Why are there differences? The differences we can read weren’t put there… deliberately,… were they?

Read on:
———————————————
website and blog: http://www.nonstampcollector.com
twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nonstampNSC
BUY ME A COFFEE: http://www.buymeacoff.ee/nonstampNSC
PATREON: http://www.patreon.com/nonstampcollector
——————————————---

Music produced by me on iPad app Launchpad.
Art created by me on iPad app SketchClub.

Most of my research for this came from four main sources. They are:
Ehrman, Bart. (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. (Harper One)
Ehrman, Bart. (2005) Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford University Press)
Martin, Dale. (2012) New Testament History and Literature. (Yale University Press)
Tabor, James. (2012) Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity (Simon and Schuster)

It’s been several years in the writing, but with months and months going past between edits. I gave it a push last summer and again over Christmas. I discovered that I could go on forever adding and polishing, but I bit the bullet and ran with what you see here. I wish I was smart enough to insert, coherently, more of the incredible scholarly information that inspired this idea.
The characters here are a conglomerate representative of the authors of mainly Mark and Luke, but also to some extent Matthew. In the early stages of writing I was veering much more towards including more Matthew’s additions and edits, but only a few are still in there. I didn’t really look at John’s gospel for this.

This is a video made for Youtube in my non-abundant free time, not a doctoral dissertation. It is a work of informed satire, based on extensive reading, but nit-pickers will find nits throughout it to pick, so I want to address one of them from the outset. I am confident that the actual salient points and questions that the video raises are rock solid. One must distinguish between what is included for the sake of fashioning a coherent plot/script, including hyperbole, and the scholarly historical information the satire is founded upon. If you dispute the scholarship, take it up with the scholars, and if you can convince them, please do then bring it to me.
For example - to pre-empt the what I predict is the most obvious surface-level objection: I know who the author of Luke is purported to be, generally, and the purpose for his writing his gospel given at its beginning (and in the beginning of Acts). I’m not attempting to assert a fact claim along the lines of that the author of Luke was simply a random rogue copyist of Mark. That’s just a plot device, like satirists often use. I don’t for a second think that the gospel of Luke arose out of a copyist’s desire to simply alter bits and pieces of the text of Mark. What I’m attempting to portray, satirically, is the dissonance between what historians can tell us about the way the gospels were authored, copied, miscopied, and deliberately changed by individuals that we of course can’t know or identify, and the view held by many modern Christians: that each and every verse of each and every gospel is actual historical truth. Far from it: we can identify the agenda and motivations behind obviously deliberate changes that have for thousands of years been passed off as unquestionably true.

Footnotes and quotes are available at http://www.nonstampcollector.com/blog/footnotes-for-the-gospel-of-luke-the-alternative-facts-gospel