LegionOnomaMoi

Chronological order, however, was neither a requirement nor necessarily typical of classical historiography: "Even in Plutarch one sometimes looks in vain for a chronological ordering of the material, and for Suetonius this is the rule. There too, sayings and anecdotes are strung together and occasionally unbelievable miracle stories are narrated." p. 72 from M. Hengel's paper "Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels" in Bockmeuhl & Hagner's (Eds.) The Written Gospel (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

And one need only analyze the Herodotus' extended indirect speech in the opening of his work to see that chronological order, when found, could be imposed, rather than accurately reported.


The word (diegesis in the nominative) refers to a specific type of narrative construction. Diodorus Siculus, for example, after reporting "concerning the events taking place in Europe (peri ton kata ten Europen prachthenton), shifts his historical account with the words, "we will move on to ten diegesin of the affairs of other peoples (heterogeneis). It's not simply an account, but an arranged narrative report.


Not "things fulfilled." peri ton peplerophoremenon...pragmaton doesn't mean "of the things fulfilled" in this context but "of the things having taken place" (see the BDAG for this translation of Luke 1:1 and references).


S/he hasn't distinguished three generations of writers, andparadidomi means here to pass on what the author of Luke believes is an account of the tradition which goes back to the eyewitnesses. There's no indication of reading other accounts (although we know Luke did) but a claim to something far more valuable in the realm of Greco-Roman historiography: oral report.

The author doesn't say followed. Merely ap' arches.

JonA

Unless he believed that the things he was writing were true. Or believed he was merely embellishing and correcting an otherwise historically accurate account.

Jon

sotto voce

Not so. They were those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers, i.e preachers, of the gospel. The preachers referred to must be primarily 'the Twelve', who acted as the reservoir of the lore of Jesus' ministry, though of course there were many thousands who had followed Jesus around, as well as his family, who could have confirmed or corrected any points of detail.

So what Luke was saying was that many had committed this common oral lore, found primarily in the spoken words of twelve men, to writing. There is only one species of document mentioned here. Luke does not explicitly claim that his account is better than any other, but there is implicit claim that other accounts may be either incomplete, or not presented in chronological order. That does not mean that other accounts were untrue, unreliable or carrying any serious defect. In effect, Luke was saying, those accounts were, in the perspective of Theophilus (though not of the Christian), amateur; and here was the professional man, the educated historian, to provide him with what he wanted. Theophilus was probably the sponsor of this gospel, and Luke would have naturally wished to assure Theophilus that he was not being fobbed off with a second-rate item. Theophilus quite possibly held some responsible position that required him to have a complete grasp of the Christian situation in a socio-political context. It is also possible that he had a personal interest in Christianity, so the reason for writing this account may have been personal; it may have been personal and official interest; it may have been just official interest.

It is more than possible that Luke consulted the apostles, in Jerusalem or elsewhere, and Jesus' own family. Paul, his companion, consulted the apostles, because he felt it essential to check facts. Luke, who here claimed before Theophilus to have understood the whole course of events from the beginning, could hardly have been satisfied with less.

aa5874

The author of gLuke did NOT need to consult anyone to claim Jesus was the "holy thing" of a Ghost born of a virgin.

It is clear that the author consulted the book of Daniel when he mentioned the angel called Gabriel and the book of Isaiah when he mentioned Jesus was born of a virgin.

Adam

I agree with JonA in #7 and #22, with Sotto Voce in #23, and most surprisingly, with Philosopher Jay in #19--except for his final sentence. I don't believe Luke ever saw the Gospel of Matthew nor the final version of Mark.

outhouse

I wouldnt put any weight on 12

thats more of a OT refference to the 12 tribes theme then anything else.


I seriously doubt that ever happened.

One luke didnt write anything, the author of Gluke compiled script and oral tradition




One needs to get away from the idea that the author was anyone of importance or a follower, in reality it was probably a group of people dealing with a scribe.

were talking about a compilation, nothing more.

LegionOnomaMoi

So what is your conclusion of the first person in Acts? And which model of oral tradition are you applying?

outhouse

Youve been making better post lately Randal.

you mean "lover of god" ? or when he talks about his previous script?


Possibly Q and L could be oral tradition.

You know as well as I do authorship is up for grabs and methods of compilation and redaction

LegionOnomaMoi

My name isn't Randal, so I don't know what you are talking about. My harvard email address gives my last name, so if you know this "randal's" last name the that should be sufficient to show you're somehow more than a little confused here.


When I say "first person" I mean that. How that has anything to do with "lover of god" (whatever that is) I have no idea.


And if that's the case, what model of oral tradition are you using?

Authorship, yes. "methods of compilation and redactions" no. Here we have a lot more evidence.

outhouse

searching your user name turned it up, last month.



im not using someone else model