Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-25-2012, 08:11 PM

For neither can they maintain Paul not to be an Apostle, since for this he was chosen, nor can they make out Luke to be a liar, who declares unto us the truth with all diligence. It may be, indeed, that it was with this view that God set forth many of the gospel (?) through Luke, which all should esteem it necessary to use, in order that all persons, following his subsequent testimony, which treats upon the acts and the doctrine of the apostles, and holding the unadulterated rule of truth, may be saved. His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and stedfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in secret, and another in public. [AH 3.15.1]

Neque enim contendere possunt Paulum non esse apostolum, quando in hoc sit electus; neque Lucam medacem esse possunt ostendere, veritatem nobis cum omni diligentia annuntiantem. Fortassis enim et propter hoc operates est Deus plurima evangelii ostendi per Lucam, quibus necesse haberent omnes uti: ut sequenti testificationi eius, quam habet de actibus ete doctrina apostolorum, omnes sequentes, et regulam veritatis inadulteratam habentes, salvari possint. Igitur testificatio eius vera et doctrina apostolorum manifesta et firma, et nihil subtrahens neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto docentium.

My Latin skills are hopeless but isn't this what the text is saying? Remember Clement also says 'Luke' wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Toto · 06-25-2012, 08:58 PM

This is from AH 3:15?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103315.htm

Quote:

Refutation of the Ebionites, who disparaged the authority of St. Paul, from the writings of St. Luke, which must be received as a whole. Exposure of the hypocrisy, deceit, and pride of the Gnostics. The apostles and their disciples knew and preached one God, the Creator of the world.

1. But again, we allege the same against those who do not recognise Paul as an apostle: that they should either reject the other words of the Gospel which we have come to know through Luke alone, and not make use of them; or else, if they do receive all these, they must necessarily admit also that testimony concerning Paul, when he (Luke) tells us that the Lord spoke at first to him from heaven: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? I am Jesus Christ, whom you persecute," Acts 22:8, Acts 26:15 and then to Ananias, saying regarding him: "Go your way; for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name among the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him, from this time, how great things he must suffer for My name's sake." Acts 9:15-16 Those, therefore, who do not accept of him [as a teacher], who was chosen by God for this purpose, that he might boldly bear His name, as being sent to the forementioned nations, do despise the election of God, and separate themselves from the company of the apostles. For neither can they contend that Paul was no apostle, when he was chosen for this purpose; nor can they prove Luke guilty of falsehood, when he proclaims the truth to us with all diligence. It may be, indeed, that it was with this view that God set forth very many Gospel truths, through Luke's instrumentality, which all should esteem it necessary to use, in order that all persons, following his subsequent testimony, which treats upon the acts and the doctrine of the apostles, and holding the unadulterated rule of truth, may be saved. His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and steadfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private, and another in public.

It does seem to imply that Luke was responsible for many Gospel truths?

stephan huller · 06-25-2012, 09:26 PM

And then there is the beginning of Luke too:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

It has always been a striking statement which can be taken many different ways

stephan huller · 06-25-2012, 11:30 PM

Quote:

And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” But they understood none of these things. and this was the matter that was hidden from them, and they did not grasp the things that were spoken. [καὶ ἦν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο κεκρυμμένον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκον τὰ λεγόμενα.] As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” And he cried out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40 And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him. And when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me recover my sight.” And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.

Yet this business about the disciples not understanding what Jesus said here is Luke's addition to the narrative. It is not present in the original narrative Luke stole from Mark:

Quote:

And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”

Nor was it added by Matthew:

Quote:

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

I am struck by the words καὶ ἦν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο κεκρυμμένον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν. Is Luke really meaning that the disciples didn't understand that Jesus was going to die in Jerusalem. This seems hard to believe. Irenaeus tells us repeated in Book Three of Against Heresies that accepting the Gospel of Luke is key to salvation. He doesn't say this about Mark, Matthew or John. The heretics (not just the Marcionites but many heretics) objected to things that were put into the text. I wonder if the 'matter' here was the addition to Secret Mark.

andrewcriddle · 06-26-2012, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” But they understood none of these things. and this was the matter that was hidden from them, and they did not grasp the things that were spoken. [καὶ ἦν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο κεκρυμμένον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκον τὰ λεγόμενα.] As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. 36 And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” And he cried out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40 And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him. And when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me recover my sight.” And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.

Yet this business about the disciples not understanding what Jesus said here is Luke's addition to the narrative. It is not present in the original narrative Luke stole from Mark:

Quote:

And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”

Nor was it added by Matthew:

Quote:

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

I am struck by the words καὶ ἦν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο κεκρυμμένον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν. Is Luke really meaning that the disciples didn't understand that Jesus was going to die in Jerusalem. This seems hard to believe. Irenaeus tells us repeated in Book Three of Against Heresies that accepting the Gospel of Luke is key to salvation. He doesn't say this about Mark, Matthew or John. The heretics (not just the Marcionites but many heretics) objected to things that were put into the text. I wonder if the 'matter' here was the addition to Secret Mark.

In Matthew and Mark (but not Luke) there follows the passage in which James and John ask for prominent positions in the coming kingdom.

This may have the same implication as the passage in Luke, i.e. the disciples don't know what is really going to happen.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 06-26-2012, 12:01 PM

Yes Andrew, this is also a possibility but it is important to note that Luke represents a clear 'taking away' of things from Mark in this crucial section. Certainly the question from John and James but quite possible also more than this. The important thing is the words in Luke 18:34. I don't think this has been noticed before.

sotto voce · 06-26-2012, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

In Matthew and Mark (but not Luke) there follows the passage in which James and John ask for prominent positions in the coming kingdom.

This may have the same implication as the passage in Luke, i.e. the disciples don't know what is really going to happen.

They were arguing about who was the greatest of them even on the eve of crucifixion. They didn't believe resurrection.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

DCHindley · 06-28-2012, 06:33 PM

Stephan,

Where did you find Irenaeus AH in Latin? I've been searching around and have not found a resource for the life of me!

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

[AH 3.15.1]Neque enim contendere possunt Paulum non esse apostolum, quando in hoc sit electus; neque Lucam medacem esse possunt ostendere, veritatem nobis cum omni diligentia annuntiantem. Fortassis enim et propter hoc operates est Deus plurima evangelii ostendi per Lucam, quibus necesse haberent omnes uti: ut sequenti testificationi eius, quam habet de actibus ete doctrina apostolorum, omnes sequentes, et regulam veritatis inadulteratam habentes, salvari possint. Igitur testificatio eius vera et doctrina apostolorum manifesta et firma, et nihil subtrahens neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto docentium.

stephan huller · 06-28-2012, 06:52 PM

archive.org two volumes. just out now but i will post the link later

tanya · 06-29-2012, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Where did you find Irenaeus AH in Latin?

I thought that was all that we had in our possession. It was the original Greek version, that was MIA, so far as I am aware....

This Latin text is associated with which "original" copy?
:huh:

06-25-2012, 08:11 PM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Was Irenaeus Saying that Luke Established the Fourfold Gospel? For neither can they maintain Paul not to be an Apostle, since for this he was chosen, nor can they make out Luke to be a liar, who declares unto us the truth with all diligence. It may be, indeed, that it was with this view that God set forth many of the gospel (?) through Luke, which all should esteem it necessary to use, in order that all persons, following his subsequent testimony, which treats upon the acts and the doctrine of the apostles, and holding the unadulterated rule of truth, may be saved. His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and stedfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in secret, and another in public. [AH 3.15.1] Neque enim contendere possunt Paulum non esse apostolum, quando in hoc sit electus; neque Lucam medacem esse possunt ostendere, veritatem nobis cum omni diligentia annuntiantem. Fortassis enim et propter hoc operates est Deus plurima evangelii ostendi per Lucam, quibus necesse haberent omnes uti: ut sequenti testificationi eius, quam habet de actibus ete doctrina apostolorum, omnes sequentes, et regulam veritatis inadulteratam habentes, salvari possint. Igitur testificatio eius vera et doctrina apostolorum manifesta et firma, et nihil subtrahens neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto docentium. My Latin skills are hopeless but isn't this what the text is saying? Remember Clement also says 'Luke' wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-25-2012, 09:26 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And then there is the beginning of Luke too: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. It has always been a striking statement which can be taken many different ways

06-26-2012, 12:01 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes Andrew, this is also a possibility but it is important to note that Luke represents a clear 'taking away' of things from Mark in this crucial section. Certainly the question from John and James but quite possible also more than this. The important thing is the words in Luke 18:34. I don't think this has been noticed before.

06-28-2012, 06:52 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	archive.org two volumes. just out now but i will post the link later

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.