Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-30-2012, 03:44 PM

I don't know what Luke truly thought of his sources, but his entire corpus, to me, looks basically like a mercenary, or at least commissioned enterprise. He was telling his patron what he wanted to hear, and wasn't above changing or tailoring things to fit what his customer wanted. So he would say his written sources were from eyewitnesses whether he really believed it or not. He was at least confident that it couldn't be falsified. He may or may not have been cynical in that regard, but he unquestionably wanted his PATRON to think he could trace his sources back to eyewitnesses.

Toto · 08-30-2012, 08:01 PM

Hi Jay - I stumbled on this, although I have not completely digested it. It is a review of Bauckham.

Re-thinking ‘eyewitnesses’ in the light of ‘servants of the word’ (Lk 1:2)

Are the autoptai ‘eyewitnesses’?

An immediate reaction to a text that requires us to envisage ‘eyewitnesses ... of the word’ is to present us with the question of what is meant here. Even Origen asked himself that question in the third century. How can one see a sound, he pondered.23 (This brain-teaser arises, incidentally, from the fact that Origen has recognised something he cannot ignore: the idiomatic and semantic connection in the Greek between ‘eyewitnesses’ and ‘word’ that we have just argued.) His response comes from his own database of biblical text.

If the expression has biblical precedent, it must carry theological weight. He recalls Exodus 20:18 reporting that the people saw the sound of thunder and trumpet. This fact invited his theological reflection: what the Israelites were caught up in was the voice of God delivering the written Law, whereas something greater than the Law was here in Luke: the Word of God made flesh. In his further comment Origen admits to the ambivalence of ‘word /logos’ at this point of the preface, allowing that it designated either Jesus the Word or the logos as the message taught.

The latter option fits with the phrase ‘servants / hypēretai of the word’ because Luke himself applies hypēretēs along with martys to Paul as a title bestowed upon Paul by the heavenly Christ (Acts 26:1624). It is also a title Paul assumes for himself and fellow evangelists (1 Cor. 4:1). hypēretēs is, in fact, a term with a well established place in bureaucratic usage for minor officials.25 On the other hand, to comprehend how ‘autoptai of the word’ might work we need to look further afield.

Bauckham himself observes that ‘[t]he English word”eyewitnesses”, with its suggestion of a metaphor from the law courts, is a little misleading.’26 The Greek term has no forensic reference. Bauckham draws on Alexander’s work for a fuller understanding of the Greek term in ancient historiography27 but, although noticing Galen’s use of the term in reference to medical autopsy, appears not to want to go beyond considering the term as ‘firsthand observers of the events’. The same sources that provide this use, however, also provide instances of people seeing for themselves after the event, as in visiting foreign locations where events had happened in the past.

. . .

PhilosopherJay · 08-30-2012, 08:53 PM

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Please. That would be quite interesting to me.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Please cite one other time in the history of the world when the word αὐτόπται is meant to mean "eyewitness."

Well, my Liddell and Scott offers up attestations from Demosthenes, Dinarchus, Euripides, Plato and Herodotus. Do you want to see the specific instances for each (there are dozens of them listed in L&D)

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-30-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Please. That would be quite interesting to me.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Well, my Liddell and Scott offers up attestations from Demosthenes, Dinarchus, Euripides, Plato and Herodotus. Do you want to see the specific instances for each (there are dozens of them listed in L&D)

Aw, Christ, you're really going to do this to me? How many do you want? I have to do all that damn work on checking the abbreviation key. The whole entry is alphabet soup.

Adam · 08-31-2012, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He was saying that he used sources written by witnesses. You're working too hard. Autoptes means to "see for one's self." Optonomai means "look" or "see," and only secondarily means to be seen.

Yes, Diogenes is correct. Jay, if you are responding to my thesis in
Gospel Eyewitnesses
the first sentence reads, "My thesis is that there are seven written records about Jesus in the gospels."
This is unaffected by whether or not Luke actually met any eyewitnesses. I believe he did meet some of the seven writers, and in addition he met other eyewitnesses whose testimony he did include, but that's above and beyond my thesis, though routinely accepted by Christian believers.

PhilosopherJay · 08-31-2012, 06:29 PM

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

LOL

Liddell and Scott are terrific. I'll try to post their stuff tomorrow and comment on it. Thanks for bringing them up.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Please. That would be quite interesting to me.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Aw, Christ, you're really going to do this to me? How many do you want? I have to do all that damn work on checking the abbreviation key. The whole entry is alphabet soup.

PhilosopherJay · 08-31-2012, 07:16 PM

Hi Toto,

Thanks, so much. This is great stuff.
Collins gets just about the same things that I understood about the text. The word "autoptai" isn't about seeing any historical event, but it is connected and contrasted with the term " hypēretai" which is a bureaucratic repetition of "the Word." In contrast to just parroting or repeating the "Word," it is a seeing of "the Word," but a creative self seeing. It is closer to creative thinking or envisioning "the Word." It is not seeing an actual event outside yourself, but imagining an event in your mind. Luke is just saying that this envisioning and bureacratic repetition is how Christians have come up with and spread their stories of Jesus.

Luke is saying that he's writing "Mystery," not "History." Luke is supporting the case for a mythological Jesus. (We just have to remember that the people of his time believed mythology to be true on an allegorical level.)

Collins notes the literary quality of Luke this way:

Quote:

In Bauckham’s case, of course, this picture contributes to his construction of ‘eyewitness testimony’. However, it takes little more than a glance at the preface of Luke to realise that Luke’s focus is upon a literary tradition. Virtually the only element in the preface distracting us from that is the presence in our translations of ‘eyewitnesses’ and, to a lesser and uncertain degree, ‘servants of the word’. Weighing against any emphasis upon orality in the making of the tradition are the first words Luke writes. These are about the ‘many’ who had already turned their hands to writing a narrative. Such literary compositions have prompted Luke to plan and compose another one, which now lies before Theophilus.

The subject matter of the earlier writings constitutes the tradition that is central to the identity of the community out of which Luke is writing. He projects a keen awareness of the communal dimension of the activity, ‘us’ occurring twice, and all the activity being in-house. Two stages are apparent, which implies a considerable number of years: the writing of the narratives about affairs of the community (1:1) and the reception of the narratives within the community through the agency of the ‘autoptai and hypēretai of the logos’ (1:2). The reception of the narratives is an extension of the literary activity which produced them, and was itself literary: the narratives had to be read aloud to the community.

Collins is correct that Luke is emphasizing the creative writing tradition against the oral tradition. The Jesus stories were spread by creative writing.

The great thing about this understanding is that we can welcome the writer of the Gospel of Luke into the mythological camp.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Jay - I stumbled on this, although I have not completely digested it. It is a review of Bauckham.

Re-thinking ‘eyewitnesses’ in the light of ‘servants of the word’ (Lk 1:2)

Are the autoptai ‘eyewitnesses’?

An immediate reaction to a text that requires us to envisage ‘eyewitnesses ... of the word’ is to present us with the question of what is meant here. Even Origen asked himself that question in the third century. How can one see a sound, he pondered.23 (This brain-teaser arises, incidentally, from the fact that Origen has recognised something he cannot ignore: the idiomatic and semantic connection in the Greek between ‘eyewitnesses’ and ‘word’ that we have just argued.) His response comes from his own database of biblical text.

If the expression has biblical precedent, it must carry theological weight. He recalls Exodus 20:18 reporting that the people saw the sound of thunder and trumpet. This fact invited his theological reflection: what the Israelites were caught up in was the voice of God delivering the written Law, whereas something greater than the Law was here in Luke: the Word of God made flesh. In his further comment Origen admits to the ambivalence of ‘word /logos’ at this point of the preface, allowing that it designated either Jesus the Word or the logos as the message taught.

The latter option fits with the phrase ‘servants / hypēretai of the word’ because Luke himself applies hypēretēs along with martys to Paul as a title bestowed upon Paul by the heavenly Christ (Acts 26:1624). It is also a title Paul assumes for himself and fellow evangelists (1 Cor. 4:1). hypēretēs is, in fact, a term with a well established place in bureaucratic usage for minor officials.25 On the other hand, to comprehend how ‘autoptai of the word’ might work we need to look further afield.

Bauckham himself observes that ‘[t]he English word”eyewitnesses”, with its suggestion of a metaphor from the law courts, is a little misleading.’26 The Greek term has no forensic reference. Bauckham draws on Alexander’s work for a fuller understanding of the Greek term in ancient historiography27 but, although noticing Galen’s use of the term in reference to medical autopsy, appears not to want to go beyond considering the term as ‘firsthand observers of the events’. The same sources that provide this use, however, also provide instances of people seeing for themselves after the event, as in visiting foreign locations where events had happened in the past.

. . .

aChristian · 08-31-2012, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Luke does not say that he is getting the story from eyewitnesses as the many translators of the text suggest. Rather the opposite, he is suggesting that he himself is actively involved in figuring out the true story and not just passively relaying it.

Nonsense. He deliberately emphasised that his account is the same as the one passed down by the apostles, the same account that existed in the beginning. The difference with Luke is that he is writing less as, say, Mark or Matthew, with a particular biographical or theological emphasis, but more as a historian (though his medical interest pops up rather a lot).

Going on with with Luke's explanatory words:

'Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write a formal account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.; Lk 1:3-4

There is implication here that Luke has 'done his homework' and visited both Judaea and Galilee to interview such as Jesus' brothers and other eyewitnesses.

I agree.

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-31-2012, 11:38 PM

There is no implication whatever that Luke interviewed witnesses, nor would it have been physically possible since they were all dead by the time Luke wrote. Moreover, we KNOW what Luke's sources were, we don't have to guess. They were Mark and Q (or if you prefer Farrer, Mark and Matthew). Nothing in Luke comes from an eyewitness, nor does Luke remotely intimate that he spoke to any.

aChristian · 08-31-2012, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is no implication whatever that Luke interviewed witnesses, nor would it have been physically possible since they were all dead by the time Luke wrote. Moreover, we KNOW what Luke's sources were, we don't have to guess. They were Mark and Q (or if you prefer Farrer, Mark and Matthew). Nothing in Luke comes from an eyewitness, nor does Luke remotely intimate that he spoke to any.

His statement in the opening of his gospel implies it as does the recorded history. You 'know' Luke's sources? Were you there? Luke traveled with Paul and wrote his gospel before Acts which was probably written before 67 ad, 50-60 ad is a good guess. He was alive to interview and no doubt met the eyewitnesses to Jesus' death and resurrection. No evidence for Q in my opinion.

08-30-2012, 08:01 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Jay - I stumbled on this, although I have not completely digested it. It is a review of Bauckham. Re-thinking ‘eyewitnesses’ in the light of ‘servants of the word’ (Lk 1:2) Are the autoptai ‘eyewitnesses’? An immediate reaction to a text that requires us to envisage ‘eyewitnesses ... of the word’ is to present us with the question of what is meant here. Even Origen asked himself that question in the third century. How can one see a sound, he pondered.23 (This brain-teaser arises, incidentally, from the fact that Origen has recognised something he cannot ignore: the idiomatic and semantic connection in the Greek between ‘eyewitnesses’ and ‘word’ that we have just argued.) His response comes from his own database of biblical text. If the expression has biblical precedent, it must carry theological weight. He recalls Exodus 20:18 reporting that the people saw the sound of thunder and trumpet. This fact invited his theological reflection: what the Israelites were caught up in was the voice of God delivering the written Law, whereas something greater than the Law was here in Luke: the Word of God made flesh. In his further comment Origen admits to the ambivalence of ‘word /logos’ at this point of the preface, allowing that it designated either Jesus the Word or the logos as the message taught. The latter option fits with the phrase ‘servants / hypēretai of the word’ because Luke himself applies hypēretēs along with martys to Paul as a title bestowed upon Paul by the heavenly Christ (Acts 26:1624). It is also a title Paul assumes for himself and fellow evangelists (1 Cor. 4:1). hypēretēs is, in fact, a term with a well established place in bureaucratic usage for minor officials.25 On the other hand, to comprehend how ‘autoptai of the word’ might work we need to look further afield. Bauckham himself observes that ‘[t]he English word”eyewitnesses”, with its suggestion of a metaphor from the law courts, is a little misleading.’26 The Greek term has no forensic reference. Bauckham draws on Alexander’s work for a fuller understanding of the Greek term in ancient historiography27 but, although noticing Galen’s use of the term in reference to medical autopsy, appears not to want to go beyond considering the term as ‘firsthand observers of the events’. The same sources that provide this use, however, also provide instances of people seeing for themselves after the event, as in visiting foreign locations where events had happened in the past. . . .

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

08-30-2012, 03:44 PM	#11
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I don't know what Luke truly thought of his sources, but his entire corpus, to me, looks basically like a mercenary, or at least commissioned enterprise. He was telling his patron what he wanted to hear, and wasn't above changing or tailoring things to fit what his customer wanted. So he would say his written sources were from eyewitnesses whether he really believed it or not. He was at least confident that it couldn't be falsified. He may or may not have been cynical in that regard, but he unquestionably wanted his PATRON to think he could trace his sources back to eyewitnesses.

08-31-2012, 11:38 PM	#19
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	There is no implication whatever that Luke interviewed witnesses, nor would it have been physically possible since they were all dead by the time Luke wrote. Moreover, we KNOW what Luke's sources were, we don't have to guess. They were Mark and Q (or if you prefer Farrer, Mark and Matthew). Nothing in Luke comes from an eyewitness, nor does Luke remotely intimate that he spoke to any.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.