The connection to Theophilus and Johanna is also interesting because from the choosing of the disciples and the inclusion of such persons as Mary Magdalene and etc we sometimes get the idea that Christianity was a sect of lower to middle class persons. But here we have johanna's father and grandfather and Johanna herself being in the midst of leadership in the religion and the province. And we recall how Jesus was always interacting with the Pharisees and even pilate feared him..
Was Jesus wrong or mistaken, or are we?
- Thread starter HillsboroMom
- Start date
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
Two quick points.
I would understand the many to be people such as Mark and Matthew and even John and possibly Thomas and Peter and James. There may have been others of the disciples or of the 500 original followers who were in the process of writing down their recollections.
Luke uses these persons literary activity as justification for his entrance into the literary documentation of the events which he has heard first hand and witnessed as 'news of the day" himself. He is equating himself as equally competent to write a first-handed report. That wouldn't be said from someone in the post 70 AD or late first century. Period .
When saying accomplished among us, Luke is including himself in the time frame of the accomplishments of Jesus, though not equating himself as an eyewitness.
Two quick points.
I would understand the many to be people such as Mark and Matthew and even John and possibly Thomas and Peter and James. There may have been others of the disciples or of the 500 original followers who were in the process of writing down their recollections.
Luke uses these persons literary activity as justification for his entrance into the literary documentation of the events which he has heard first hand and witnessed as 'news of the day" himself. He is equating himself as equally competent to write a first-handed report. That wouldn't be said from someone in the post 70 AD or late first century. Period .
When saying accomplished among us, Luke is including himself in the time frame of the accomplishments of Jesus, though not equating himself as an eyewitness.
Last edited:
En Hakkore
Well-known member
I would've preferred a straight answer to my question... instead you continue to dance around Luke's use of earlier documents and refrain from committing yourself to a firm yes --- the reason is obvious, of course, since your initial objection would then be rendered invalid and the last few rounds of posts a complete waste of time. In any case, your perspective is, generally speaking, a traditional/conservative one and, despite your claims to have exclusive ownership of the terms 'biblical' and 'Christian', other perspectives do exist that fit these descriptions.
As it regards the comment I have bold underlined above, the accounts are sometimes verbatim at the sentence level... if you and I were to each turn in an essay in which the kind of similarities that exist between the gospels were present, we would both get failing grades and be accused of plagiarism because such is evidence of direct literary dependence. The ancients did not view copying in this light and I have no idea why you are so strongly bucking against this fact as it has nothing to do with divine inspiration one way or the other... why would or should Luke reinvent the wheel when he had Mark and Matthew as sources he could draw from?
The word I've bold and underlined above allows Luke's dependence on the documents that Mark and Matthew had written as secondary sources... again it is a subtle way of avoiding a commitment to literary dependence given your earlier objections to it.
With some undocumented ellipses, the above comes from pages 92-93 of Ehrman's book How Jesus Became God. This is one of his "popular" books, meaning it was not peer reviewed and, in fact, I find much to critique about his "popular" books... they tend to be sloppy at times and the above appears to be no exception to that evaluation. The above implies that Mark wrote an account based wholly on oral traditions, but this is not the general consensus of scholars, who do think there may have been earlier written sources... indeed, while Ehrman focuses on oral tradition in his peer-reviewed text book published by Oxford University Press, he does acknowledge this possibility: "In addition to stories that he heard, Mark may also have used some written sources for portions of his narrative" (88). Perhaps he admits this somewhere in his "popular" book, too, but I have neither the time nor inclination to search it out since I typically don't waste my time with Ehrman's "popular" material or with non-academic books generally.
In any case, your objection would appear to be less Mark's ostensible reliance on oral tradition alone and more the source of that tradition itself... that is, the implication that it did not come directly from an eyewitness, but had passed through various tradents 'telephone' style. While you may find the idea of earlier written sources objectionable, I would suggest it should be less so than with oral tradition since I have no problem acknowledging the possibility that such sources --- collections of 'proof texts' from Israel's sacred writings, miracle stories, sayings, Passion narratives, etc. --- may be quite early, at least compared to the first gospel which I date to the years soon after the fall of Jerusalem. The problem remains, however, of the nature of changes made to these texts as they were copied and eventually taken up by the various gospel writers, each successive one having access to the gospel(s) written earlier.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Works cited:
Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne, 2014)
________. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Fifth Edition; Oxford University Press, 2012)
Some of the peer reviews are openly listed in the Wikipedia.org
rticle on Independence criticism.
To me Luke 1:1-4 disaffirms any sort of reliance on a previius text, . If one wants to support a third generation authorship of Luke or it's being sourced from other text, they have to disregard Luke 1:1-4.
rticle on Independence criticism.
To me Luke 1:1-4 disaffirms any sort of reliance on a previius text, . If one wants to support a third generation authorship of Luke or it's being sourced from other text, they have to disregard Luke 1:1-4.
En Hakkore
Well-known member
Your opinion is duly noted... of course, I've so far affirmed only two things about Luke's preface: (1) Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness and (2) he views the 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word' as apostles. You also seem to affirm both these points. As for everything else I've said, it's been hypothetical in highlighting problems that I see with your own exegeses. In any case, I'm more than happy to roll up my sleeves, so to speak, and get deep down into the preface with you...
The clause I've bold and underlined above is a misinterpretation of the text. The "many" (πολλοι) are here said to have "undertaken to compile an account" (επεχειρησαν αναταξασθαι διηγησιν) --- the first word επιχειρεω, when followed by an infinitive (as it is here), means to "endeavor" or "try" to do something (BDAG 386); used in reference to a third party (as it is here), there is a subtle implied criticism (Alexander 110). The second word ανατασσομαι, means "to organize in a series ... with emphasis on orderly sequence" (BDAG 73). The third and most important word is διηγησις, which refers to "an orderly description of facts, events, actions, or words"; in other words a "narrative" (BDAG 245) --- it occurs here in the singular, referring to the individualized attempt of each among the "many". Whoever these "many" are, they have each attempted to organize a narrative, specifically of "the things accomplished among us" --- this section of the preface corresponds to the criticism against predecessors that is found in other historical prefaces of antiquity (Yamada 162-63). The idea you've expressed that this group is simply gathering together a number of gospel narratives and epistles is not supported by a sound exegesis of the passage... the "many" are, rather, the authors of narratives similar to that which Luke here purposes to write.
I have already shown how the first clause of your interpretation above is incorrect... as for the second part that I have bold and underlined, this is also incorrect. Whatever is handed down (more on that in a moment), it is entrusted not to the "many" as you here claim, but explicitly to "us" (ημιν), the implied readers of Luke's composition. The verb translated "handed down" above is παραδιδωμι, here as an aorist active indicative (παρεδοσαν) matching its third person plural subject that follows, namely "the eyewitnesses and servants of the word" --- since it lacks a direct object, the translation you are relying on infers it to be the collective "accounts" from the previous verse and thereby renders the verb as a passive to maintain a smooth flow from one verse to the other. The problem is that this may not be what Luke intends --- here is Yamada's translation:
Inasmuch as many people took in hand to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been confirmed among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the beginning transmitted to us... (155)
What the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word transmit (hand down) is their testimony and they do so orally, therefore Luke has received both written and oral accounts (Yamada 163)... concerning the latter there is no implied criticism as there is with respect to the written accounts.
Luke does not simply wish to provide Theophilus and the wider community of believers with another witness (the portion I have bold and underlined in your comments above that I challenge), but a more reliable one. Luke describes his own qualifications -- another element of contemporaneous historical prefaces (Yamada 162) -- as παρηκολουθηκοτι, translated above as "having investigated", but BDAG defines literally as "follow a thing, follow a course of events, take note of" and reports that "Luke does not specify the means whereby he was able to assert his thorough familiarity [a rendering such as 'research' or 'investigate' depends on interpretation of the context and not on the semantic context of παρακολουθεω]" (767). The word following is ακριβως, which "pertains to strict conformity to a standard or norm, with focus on careful attention" (BDAG 39). Finally, Luke describes his own contribution as a καθεξης, which "pertains to being in sequence in time, space, or logic" (BDAG 491). Taken together with the opening clause, Luke intends to write a sequentially ordered narrative (unlike his predecessors whose differing orders are implicitly critiqued)... this because of his stated credentials (Moessner 84-123).
I would advise you to spend less time trying to divine the intentions of so-called 'liberal scholarship' and more time trying to come to a proper understanding of its arguments and rebut them if you are not convinced. The 'late' dating of the gospels has nothing to do with what you claim and everything to do with the internal and external evidence that they date later than you or your traditions suggest...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Works Cited:
Alexander, Loveday. The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 78; Cambridge University Press, 1993)
Danker, Frederick William (ed.). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Third Edition [BDAG]; University of Chicago Press, 2000)
Moessner, David P. "The Appeal and Power of Poetics (Luke 1:1-4): Luke's Superior Credentials (παρακολουθηκότι), Narrative Sequence (καθεξῆς), and Firmness of Understanding (ἡ ἀσφάλεια) for the Reader" in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy, ed. Moessner (Luke the Interpreter of Israel 1; Trinity Press International, 1999)
Yamada, Kota. "The Preface to the Lukan Writings and Rhetorical Historiography" in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 180; Sheffield Academic Press, 1999)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(1) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand.—On the general bearing of this passage on the questions connected with the authorship and plan of the Gospel, see the Introduction. Here we note (1), what is visible in the English, but is yet more conspicuous in the Greek, the finished structure of the sentences as compared with the simpler openings of the other Gospels; (2) the evidence which the verse supplies of the existence of many written documents professing to give an account of the Gospel history at the time when St. Luke wrote—i.e., probably before St. Paul’s death in A.D. 65. The “many” may have included St. Matthew and St. Mark, but we cannot say. There is no tone of disparagement in the way in which the writer speaks of his predecessors. He simply feels that they have not exhausted the subject, and that his inquiries have enabled him to add something.
From myers NT commentary;
ἐπεχείρησαν] have undertaken, said under a sense of the loftiness and difficulty of the task, Acts 19:13. In the N. T. only used in Luke; frequently in the classical writers. Comp. also Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer): ἐπειδήπερ περὶ τούτου πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀπολογήσασθαι. Neither in the word in itself, nor by comparing it with what Luke, Luke 1:3, says of his own work, is there to be found, with Köstlin, Ebrard, Lekebusch, and older writers, any indication of insufficiency in those endeavours in general, which Origen,[15] Ambrosius, Theophylact, Calovius, and various others even referred to their contrast with the inspired Gospels. But for his special purpose he judged none of those preliminary works as sufficient.
(1) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand.—On the general bearing of this passage on the questions connected with the authorship and plan of the Gospel, see the Introduction. Here we note (1), what is visible in the English, but is yet more conspicuous in the Greek, the finished structure of the sentences as compared with the simpler openings of the other Gospels; (2) the evidence which the verse supplies of the existence of many written documents professing to give an account of the Gospel history at the time when St. Luke wrote—i.e., probably before St. Paul’s death in A.D. 65. The “many” may have included St. Matthew and St. Mark, but we cannot say. There is no tone of disparagement in the way in which the writer speaks of his predecessors. He simply feels that they have not exhausted the subject, and that his inquiries have enabled him to add something.
From myers NT commentary;
ἐπεχείρησαν] have undertaken, said under a sense of the loftiness and difficulty of the task, Acts 19:13. In the N. T. only used in Luke; frequently in the classical writers. Comp. also Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer): ἐπειδήπερ περὶ τούτου πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀπολογήσασθαι. Neither in the word in itself, nor by comparing it with what Luke, Luke 1:3, says of his own work, is there to be found, with Köstlin, Ebrard, Lekebusch, and older writers, any indication of insufficiency in those endeavours in general, which Origen,[15] Ambrosius, Theophylact, Calovius, and various others even referred to their contrast with the inspired Gospels. But for his special purpose he judged none of those preliminary works as sufficient.
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
Luke is credited with being meticulous for detail, so much so, that it has been the basis of criticism that some of what he documents
cannot be verified in historical records
So, with Luke saying he investigated everything thoroughly and wrote in consecutive order, so that the exact truth could be known
Luke would have documented Paul's death had it happened prior to the writing of the Book of Acts
Look at the order of progression, Luke is with Paul in Acts 28 sailing to Rome. At the end of Acts, Luke documents Paul was there two
years
In 2 Timothy, Paul states that Luke is still with him, 2 Timothy is the last letter we have written by Paul and is dated 66-67 A.D.
Paul is believed to have died in 67 A.D.
Any scholar who dates Luke/Acts after 67 A.D. has no credible justification for doing so
As for Theophilus, you have the high priest documented in the historical records for that time period and Luke's address to him both in Luke
and Acts, and other than that, no one can know
Agrippa gave him the boot in 41 A.D., why?
Was Theophilus a religious leader like Nicodemus who recognized Jesus' ministry as fulfilling the requirements of Messiah and became a
Believer, and Luke was documenting everything for him, or was he just sympathetic to the followers of Jesus, possibly because his
granddaughter was involved, and Luke was writing to witness to him about the truth of Jesus Christ and the Apostles who were preaching
salvation in the Name of Jesus Christ?
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
Assume what you want about my education, you would be wrong
I am in no position to critique BDAG as a foundational basis for the usage of Greek words and their meaning as used in the Bible?
How about the use of ἀγάπη and ἀγαπάω?
The secular and social Greek world knew relatively little of this kind of love and even what it looked like. If you want to know about
the meaning of this kind of love, you study how it is used in the Bible
In Biblical exegesis and word study, I was trained to first determine the range of usage and range of meaning as found in the Biblical text
Secondly, determine if there was a variance of usage between Biblical authors and if there were any variances based on context
If there are discrepancies, then I will look at BDAG to see how it was used in the secular and social Greek world to try and find clarification
Also, I obviously look in BDAG when a word is Hapax Legomena
However, when a word is only used by one Biblical author and the usage is consistent without variance, that Biblical author has defined
how he intends that word to be interpreted, I do not need to go to BDAG to find other usages of that word
Case in point is Luke's usage of κράτιστος in relation to Theophilus
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
I have not avoided anything, I have very clearly shown you that the traditional/conservative view has nothing in common with the views
that you wanted me to answer yes or no to.
And to further prove the point of the traditional/conservative view, do the law courts prefer depositions from first hand witnesses or from a
witness four times removed from the time of the actual event?
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
Your statement here and the questions raised are good ones and are at the crux of the whole debate of the Synoptic Gospels
What if you and I were in a class and had to turn in an essay on a lecture we attended by a renown scholar at a museum of early Christianity?
Would the essays be similar yet different? Of course, but they would be original and personally inspired by the experience and what was
witnessed first hand
However, if we were asked to do a book report, the essays could also be similar yet different, but they would be a summarized redaction
of the written material
It has everything to do with divine inspiration
Matthew's focus is, Jesus is the Messiah and the Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy
Mark's focus is, Jesus is a Servant King like David and is Compassionate towards the Sin and Suffering of His people
Luke's focus is, Jesus is the Son of Man, and He came to Seek and Save all of humanity lost in the Bondage of Sin
The Person of Jesus, the Life of Jesus, the Words of Jesus, the Miracles of Jesus, the Death of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus are
complex issues
You do not get a whole new subject and new themes about Jesus in another Gospel, by redaction from a previous Gospel souce
This brings me full circle back to first hand witnesses writing about what they witnessed of Jesus and His words and works
RCM
RCM
Active member
RCM said:
The primary sources that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were dependent upon were real people, first hand eyewitnesses, not documents
En Hakkore,
It allows for it, but it doesn't necessitate it
If about 60% of Luke is unique to Luke, where did he get it?
Most of the people alive at the time of Jesus, were still alive at the time of the writing of the Gospels
If Luke got 60% of his unique information from living first hand sources, it stands to reason that he got the other information similar to
Matthew and Mark from those first hand sources as well
Things haven't changed clear down to our day, if you were to write history on the Holocaust, do you want to use books as your sources, or
would you rather talk to a living witness who was there?
RCM
The primary sources that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were dependent upon were real people, first hand eyewitnesses, not documents
En Hakkore,
It allows for it, but it doesn't necessitate it
If about 60% of Luke is unique to Luke, where did he get it?
Most of the people alive at the time of Jesus, were still alive at the time of the writing of the Gospels
If Luke got 60% of his unique information from living first hand sources, it stands to reason that he got the other information similar to
Matthew and Mark from those first hand sources as well
Things haven't changed clear down to our day, if you were to write history on the Holocaust, do you want to use books as your sources, or
would you rather talk to a living witness who was there?
RCM
Iconoclast
Well-known member
Rev.19-22 still to happen.
The Kingdom has started with Christ reigning in the Midst of His Enemies .
Psalm110
1 cor15
Then cometh the end on the last day.jn6
37-44....raise them up on the last day.
Mt24etc...speaking of the last days of the ot.theocracy
The end,heb8:13
En Hakkore
Well-known member
This argument is weak and could be used, for example, to claim that Matthew must have written his gospel prior to Jesus' ostensible ascension since he stops short of narrating it. To argue so would be flawed, however, because an historian can end his/her narrative at whatever point s/he wishes... in the case of Acts, Luke chose to end with Paul preaching and teaching boldly and unhindered.
Of course they do (see above) and the majority do date it later than this.
That you present the existence of a high priest named Theophilus (which no one seriously disputes) alongside the theory that Luke is addressing his two-volume work to this individual (which is a fringe idea not circulating in the academic world) sadly underscores your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between probability and (remote) possibility in historical reconstructions.
Theophilus' brother Jonathan was removed before him by Vitellius --- should we assume he, too, became a believer in Jesus? Of course not. Read through a history of high priests in the Roman period and see how many of them were deposed, sometimes in very quick succession... this reflects the general political instability of the region and shifting alliances among the ruling elites.
If you withhold this information, I can only assume... and thus far you've given me no reason whatsoever to think you hold an advanced degree in any field pertinent to our discussion, at least not from a reputable institution. Your approach is clearly not rooted in a critical methodology (see below as it relates to BDAG), but in pure confirmation bias... something I would expect out of DTS or some similar such place.
Perhaps you should write the editors of BDAG to stop wasting their time printing such information for words used multiple times but only by one author (as if there would even be agreement on such a thing given disputes over authorship of several New Testament documents), see if they take you up on that suggestion.
I asked only for you to affirm or deny a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke... an affirmative response would not commit you to any specific theory of what that relationship is. That you here implicitly dismiss Augustine, who posited just such a relationship, as neither "traditional" nor "conservative" simply underscores the bankruptcy of the position you're defending... I can't imagine many Christians supporting such an evaluation of Augustine.
You've said a lot and ironically nothing at all that relates to the reason I offered this analogy, which has to do with verbatim similarities between our respected projects, whatever the topic may have been --- this would be evidence that one of us copied the other or perhaps that both of us copied from a third source. Are you going to address this or continue to evade the issue and the implications this has on the literary relationship between the gospels?
That one or more of the gospel writers used their predecessors' documents as sources does not impact the idea of divine inspiration... how they may have done so could very well impact it, but we can't even get to that point in the discussion because you refuse to acknowledge the first point, one I maintain is the nearly unanimous position of New Testament scholarship, including its large Christian contingent.
Ehrman characterizes the Jesus of Matthew as "the Jewish Messiah" (114), that of Mark as "the Suffering Son of God" (88) and that of Luke as "the Savior of the World" (134) --- there is some point of contact with each of your emphases as indicated through bold and underline added to your descriptions. For sake of completion he views the Jesus of John as "the Man sent from Heaven" (176). We can all agree that each gospel has its own unique take on Jesus... the question is whether they are mutually compatible as you imply or whether there's some significant tensions between them.
Even by allowing for it, your initial objection is invalidated and it would not impact your own position one iota by conceding that the vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm some sort of literary relationship among Matthew, Mark and Luke... which they do for very good reason, whether you ever admit this or not.
I have no idea where you are getting that percentage as it is far too high, but a combination of oral and written sources is the conclusion of most scholars as to where he obtained the material unique to his gospel.
Actually, a combination of the two would be ideal because a single Holocaust survivor could only provide their experience of these tragic events... as invaluable as this is, it can be enhanced by inserting it in the wider scope of the atrocity and supplementing it with the existing documentation of other survivors and victims.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Work cited:
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Fifth Edition; Oxford University Press, 2012)
Last edited:
Ssometimes haughtiness, arrogance and dependence on one's academic level of attainments creates blindness and tunnel vision within his circles of so-called peers and indoctrination.
But as rcms pointed out Luke pretty clearly explains that his sources are the eyewitnesses themselves and not the documents of the eyewitnesses or second generation documents.
And as I had pointed ou, explained and defended from the Old testament several pages ago, how the disciples and Matthew 24, were asking about the end of the age that had been prophesied in Deuteronomy, and I also explained the allegory content of parts of jesus's message, and first century fulfillment of all of jesus's message.
I'll post a link to an article which discusses the Old testament meaning of sightings in the clouds or Comings in the clouds to help confirm the Jewish mindset of the disciples and what they would have understood Jesus and the angels (Acts 1) words to mean
We might not have much further to discuss or debate in this thread. .
But as rcms pointed out Luke pretty clearly explains that his sources are the eyewitnesses themselves and not the documents of the eyewitnesses or second generation documents.
And as I had pointed ou, explained and defended from the Old testament several pages ago, how the disciples and Matthew 24, were asking about the end of the age that had been prophesied in Deuteronomy, and I also explained the allegory content of parts of jesus's message, and first century fulfillment of all of jesus's message.
I'll post a link to an article which discusses the Old testament meaning of sightings in the clouds or Comings in the clouds to help confirm the Jewish mindset of the disciples and what they would have understood Jesus and the angels (Acts 1) words to mean
We might not have much further to discuss or debate in this thread. .
Coming in clouds.
www.facebook.com
Preterist Theological Society | Facebook
To promote dialogue concerning the preterist interpretation of the Scriptures, including Orthodox Preterism, Historic Preterism, Partial Preterism, Full Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Realized...
www.facebook.com
RCM
Active member
RCM said:
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
(2) The 'Many' are gathering together the written accounts by the Apostles, which was handed down to them by the Apostles
En Hakkore,
My interpretation is not incorrect, and you have no basis to insinuate that the Apostles handed down their testimony only in the oral tradition
Luke 1:2 just-as(1) the (ones who) from (the) beginning(2) were eyewitnesses and (then) became servants(3) of-the word delivered(4) to-us,
LEXICON -
QUESTION—Are the eyewitnesses and the servants of the word the same group of people?
They delivered the traditions [BECNT, NAC, NIGTC; REB], the accounts [NET], the reports [NLT], or the message of what they knew [WBC]. Although grammatically the object is πραγμάτων ‘events’ (1:1), it was the information about the events that they delivered [TH, WBC].
En Hakkore, in regards to Luke 1:1 and the 'Many,' your view and my view may both be correct. It wouldn't surprise me at all if several
of the early Christians did write and document the events, but those documents did not survive because they were not copied in mass
like the inspired Gospel accounts.
RCM
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
(2) The 'Many' are gathering together the written accounts by the Apostles, which was handed down to them by the Apostles
En Hakkore,
My interpretation is not incorrect, and you have no basis to insinuate that the Apostles handed down their testimony only in the oral tradition
Luke 1:2 just-as(1) the (ones who) from (the) beginning(2) were eyewitnesses and (then) became servants(3) of-the word delivered(4) to-us,
LEXICON -
- καθώς (LN 64.14) (BAGD 1. p. 391): ‘just as’ [AB, Arn, BAGD, LN, NTC, WBC; HCSB, NASB, NIV, NRSV], ‘according as’ [NIGTC], ‘even as’ [BECNT; KJV], ‘like’ [NET], not explicit [CEV, GW, NCV, NLT, REB, TEV].
- ἀρχή (LN 67.65) (BAGD 1.b. p. 112): ‘beginning’ [Arn, BAGD, BECNT, LN, NIGTC, NTC, WBC; CEV, GW, KJV, NASB, NCV, NET, NRSV, TEV], ‘the first’ [NIV]. This noun is also translated as an adjective modifying the eyewitnesses: ‘the original (eyewitnesses)’ [AB; HCSB, REB], ‘the early (disciples)’ [NLT]. It is the beginning of a duration of time [LN]. This refers to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry [Lns, NAC, NIC, NIGTC, TH, TNTC, WBC; NET], of the Christian movement [TG]. In regard to the eyewitnesses and servants of the word, the beginning refers to the time when John baptized Jesus [Arn, NAC]. However, this does not imply that the events in the first two chapters do not come from eyewitnesses also [NAC]. This stresses the reliability of the witnesses since they knew the whole story of Jesus [Lns].
- ὑπηρέτης (LN 35.20) (BAGD p. 842): ‘servant’ [Arn, BAGD, BECNT, LN, NIGTC, WBC; GW, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB], ‘helper, assistant’ [BAGD], ‘minister’ [AB, NTC; KJV], ‘disciple’ [NLT], ‘those who proclaim (the message)’ [TEV], not explicit [CEV]. The phrase ‘servants of the word’ is translated ‘who...served God by telling people his message’ [NCV].
- aorist act. indic. of παραδίδωμι (LN 33.237) (BAGD 3. p. 615): ‘to deliver’ [BECNT; KJV], ‘to instruct, to teach’ [BAGD, LN], ‘to pass on’ [AB, BAGD; GW], ‘to hand down’ [Arn, NTC; HCSB]. This verb is also translated with ‘the account about the events’ of 1:1 as its subject: ‘to be handed down’ [NIGTC; NASB, NIV, REB], ‘to be handed on’ [WBC; NRSV], ‘to be passed on’ [NET], ‘to circulate’ [NLT]. The reciprocal verb is also used with ‘we’ as subject: ‘to learn’ [NCV], ‘to be told’ [CEV]. This includes both oral and written transmission [Arn, NICNT, NTC, Su]. It means to pass on information in order to save it from oblivion [NICNT].
QUESTION—Are the eyewitnesses and the servants of the word the same group of people?
- They are the same group of people [AB, BECNT, EGT, MGC, NAC, NIC, NICNT, NIGTC, NTC, Su, TH, TNTC, WBC; NET]. They were eyewitnesses who became servants of the message [WBC]. This refers to the original disciples who were at first eyewitnesses and then became servants of the word [AB, Arn, Su, TH]. This refers primarily to the apostles [EGT, MGC, NIC, NIGTC, Su], but not exclusively to them [NAC, NIGTC, WBC]. It could include the seventy disciples (10:1-12) [NAC], and Mary, the brothers of Jesus, other women, and others [NTC].
- They are two groups of people [Lns]. The one article that combines the eyewitnesses and the servants of the word makes them one class of authorities, but this does not mean that all of the servants of the word were eyewitnesses from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry [Lns].
They delivered the traditions [BECNT, NAC, NIGTC; REB], the accounts [NET], the reports [NLT], or the message of what they knew [WBC]. Although grammatically the object is πραγμάτων ‘events’ (1:1), it was the information about the events that they delivered [TH, WBC].
En Hakkore, in regards to Luke 1:1 and the 'Many,' your view and my view may both be correct. It wouldn't surprise me at all if several
of the early Christians did write and document the events, but those documents did not survive because they were not copied in mass
like the inspired Gospel accounts.
RCM
RCM
Active member
RCM said:
it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
(3) Luke is under conviction to document the events surrounding Jesus, in order to provide another witness for Theophilus in understanding
the truth about Jesus Christ
En Hakkore,
Surely, you don't mean more reliable than Matthew?
Their main subjects and main purposes for writing are completely different, and only a few of the themes are same
RCM
it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
(3) Luke is under conviction to document the events surrounding Jesus, in order to provide another witness for Theophilus in understanding
the truth about Jesus Christ
En Hakkore,
Surely, you don't mean more reliable than Matthew?
Their main subjects and main purposes for writing are completely different, and only a few of the themes are same
RCM
RCM
Active member
En Hakkore,
You are in error here again on simple exegesis of simple grammar,
Luke 1:1-2 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
LEXICON
QUESTION—Who were the ‘many’ who had complied accounts?
It refers to the writers Luke researched in 1:3 [TH]. The Gospel of Mark was written previously and probably was one of the sources Luke used [Arn, MGC, NIBC, NIGTC, NTC, Su], and also Matthew [Arn]. The reference to many writers brings out the importance of what Luke will write about [NAC, NICNT, WBC]. The number is unknown, but it was probably quite a few even though their accounts have not been preserved [Arn, Lns], and it was not an exaggeration [EGT]. ‘Many’ is used in a formal manner of beginning a document and it does not have to be taken to literally mean a large number [AB, NAC, NICNT, NIGTC], so that it could be translated ‘others’ [NAC].
LEXICON
QUESTION—Who are ‘us’ in the phrase ‘among us’?
- Since ‘us’ includes both the eyewitnesses and those who received their accounts, it refers to the Christian church regarded as a corporate body [BECNT, BNTC, Gdt, ICC, NAC, NICNT, NIGTC, NTC, Su, TH; TEV]. They are the people living at the time of fulfillment [Su]. These things happened in the midst of the church and the church also retained the saving effects of them [NIGTC].
- It refers to the Christians to whom the accounts were delivered by the eyewitnesses, so that this is the same as the people referred to by ‘us’ in 1:2 [Lns].
- It refers to Luke and his fellow Christians, most of whom had not been eyewitnesses to those events that had occurred, but all were firmly convinced that the events were historical [Arn].
RCM
I think it's the idea that you understand that many are gathering together the written accounts, which is in question.
I think earlier you had said that many are gathering together to discuss the written accounts which Luke would be among them. I may be wrong but that's the idea that I got from what you had previously written concerning many.
Luk 1:1-4 KJV 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand (at task) to set forth in order (a chronological report or a series of belief statements; or both?) a declaration of those things which are most surely believed (doctrinal statements? or the narrative of the chronology and belief in the incarnation of God?; Yes, this latter) among us,
Rcm, Do you read and understand the words in hand to mean physically gathering the written statements?
2 Even as they (apostles) (which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word) delivered them unto us,.
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke is a contemporary of the others, many, who are taking upon themselves the task of putting in order a declaration or affidavit of the things that have occurred among them, (us)
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Apparently Luke trusts himself and knows that Theophilus is trusting of him to compile a accurate and trustworthy and truthful even thorough collection of the chronology of the events leading up to and including the incarnation of god.
RCM
Active member
RCM said:
Luke would have documented Paul's death had it happened prior to the writing of the Book of Acts
En Hakkore,
No, it is not weak, it is the most plausible argument that fits with the first generation of eyewitnesses and the historical record and Luke's
opening statement
Luke is believed to have died in the early 80's A.D.
With the later dating you have to start pounding square pegs into round holes to make everything fit and you can't
With a later date, Luke is no longer your author, and the inspiration and credibility of the Gospel is reduced to nothing more than that of
the heretical Gnostic Gospels
This is nothing but an absurd argument
All of the Four inspired Gospel's main focus are primarily on Jesus' three years of ministry, His death, and His resurrection,
All the Gospels end with the resurrected Christ
The early date of Luke satisfies all the hard questions
The late date that you prefer has to avoid all the hard questions and explain away through nonsensical arguments the historical record
RCM
Luke would have documented Paul's death had it happened prior to the writing of the Book of Acts
En Hakkore,
No, it is not weak, it is the most plausible argument that fits with the first generation of eyewitnesses and the historical record and Luke's
opening statement
Luke is believed to have died in the early 80's A.D.
With the later dating you have to start pounding square pegs into round holes to make everything fit and you can't
With a later date, Luke is no longer your author, and the inspiration and credibility of the Gospel is reduced to nothing more than that of
the heretical Gnostic Gospels
This is nothing but an absurd argument
All of the Four inspired Gospel's main focus are primarily on Jesus' three years of ministry, His death, and His resurrection,
All the Gospels end with the resurrected Christ
The early date of Luke satisfies all the hard questions
The late date that you prefer has to avoid all the hard questions and explain away through nonsensical arguments the historical record
RCM