PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

My schedule is finally a bit more relaxed, only four classes this semester. I hope to be blogging more, now

Here is my first blog in a while. It is about how I think the word “αὐτόπται” (autoptai) in the first line of Luke should not be translated as "eyewitness."

The first sentence in the gospel of Luke is this:

If we see this in conjunction with the gospel of John’s 1:14 (“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”), we get the interpretation that he is talking about people who have seen Jesus, He is talking about eyewitnesses to Jesus. This is a false impression.

One problem here is that Luke is not trying to sound like John’s Jesus and expressing some profound metaphysical doctrine, but he is simply giving an explanation of why he is writing his work. The work that it should be compared to is the beginning of Papias’ “exposition of the Oracles of the Lord”

Papias is basically distinguishing between information gathered from reading books and information from oral preaching. This distinction would be extremely important in a society where 95% of the people was illiterate. Papias may be being rhetorical here, claiming he got his information from actual people rather than just reading books. What is important is the distinction he is making between reading and listening.

Going back to Luke, we should understand that in this first statement, the term “Word” (Logou) would not refer to Jesus himself. If he wanted to say Jesus, he would have. Instead, in this context the better translation of Logou would be “the story” or “the ideology” or “the philosophy.” He is explaining why he is writing “our story,” “our ideology,” or “our philosophy” He is explaining why he is telling the Christian story, ideology- philosophy.

The word “αὐτόπται” (autoptai) is translated as “eyewitness,” but it actually means something like “self seeing” coming from the Greek words autos – self and optanomai – I am seen by. The translation of the word as “eyewitness” does not really capture the sense of the word here. The word is not a common word and its exact meaning can only be understood in conjunction with the word “ὑπηρέται” (hupéretés)

Here is the difinition from Strong’s concordance: 5257 hypērétēs (from 5259 /hypó, “under” and ēressō, “to row”) – properly, a rower (a crewman on a boat), an “under-rower” who mans the oars on a lower deck; (figuratively) a subordinate executing official orders, i.e. operating under direct (specific) orders.

We can get more of a sense from translating it as self see-ers and ministers of the word. The self see-ers see what needs to be done and the ministers just do it, carrying out the orders, so to speak

Luke is both self-seeing and ministering (carrying out/telling) our Christian story, just like the people who taught him our Christian story. Luke is really saying that he is getting the story by self-seeing and speaking it.

The distinction recalls the distinction that Papias made between readings of books and speakers. By self-seeing (“αὐτόπται”) Luke means reading and figuring out for himself the story. We can contrast this type of reading with a type of reading where one just reads and accepts everything that is written. Luke is reading critically, he is seeing and judging for himself the text. He is not just being a minister carrying out someone else’s orders, speaking words invented by others. He is self-seeing, determining the words for himself.

He is reading it. critically figuring out the story for himself and hearing the story from others. Luke is just doing what his Christian teachers did – reading carefully and listening to Christian Ministers.

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.

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.

Furthermore. Luke eliminates any possibility of ambiguity about his view of Jesus as physical in 24:39.

ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας μου ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι πνεῦμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα

"Look at my hands and feet that I am me myself. Handle me and see because a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me having."

That is an explicitly anti-docetic statement.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Diogenes the Cynic,

Yes, autoptes means something like "see for one's self." If I say I'm going to see for myself the word/philosophy, it means more or less I'm going to read the philosophy for myself and figure out what is true. In contrast "ministering" or "serving" the word/philosophy, just means repeating it with thinking. Luke suggests that both of these things were done since the beginning of the Christian movement. The contrast is close Papias' distinction between reading and listening to speakers. Only Papias disparages the reading and praises the speakers. Luke both reads for himself and listens to come up with his manuscript.

If Luke meant the disciples or apostles, he would have said disciples or apostles, if he meant eyewitnesses, he would have said eyewitnesses, if he meant Jesus, he would have said Jesus.

The contrast between the two terms “αὐτόπται” and ὑπηρέται is between someone thinking for himself and making up orders and someone carrying out or just repeating orders.

I'm not sure how the anti-docetic statements in Luke, assuming they are anti-docetic fits in here.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

We just translate in the normal, sensible way. "I saw it myself, with these very eyes, so I'm an eyewitness. Alright?" Now Luke's mention of eyewitnesses is reference to the Twelve; excluding Judas, but including Matthias, whose candidacy for election was his witness to the whole of Jesus' ministry. These witnesses also became 'ministers of the word', i.e. the gospel, just as Paul later became a witness and hyperetes.

Nobody here ever supposed that Luke meant logos in the very special sense that John famously used it, but in the less special sense that Jesus, Peter, James and Paul used it, many times.

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.

Diogenes the Cynic

He did say eyewitness. That is the ordinary meaning of the Greek word he chose. Can you cite an alteranative Greek word for "eyewitness" that you would have expected to see in its stead?

He wasn't talking about the Apostles, he was clearly talking about the authors of his written sources (i.e. Mark and Q) and characterizing those written sources as having come, vaguely, from "eyewitnesses," though Luke himself probably did not know the specific provenance of those sources, so couldn't assign a specific name.

Due respect, you're working this one too hard. Sometimes a sandal is just a sandal.

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."

Thank you.

Warmly,
Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi sotto voce,

I think you are trying to turn Luke into a fundamentalist who believes in the inerrancy of his work. That doesn't correspond with what he says. He is simply saying, "I'm writing this stuff the same way everybody else has always done it, I'm reading stuff and figuring it out for myself and listening to what others say.
This is in response to Papias who says I am writing this stuff based on what I heard, not based on what people wrote. Luke is being more honest than Papias. He's admitting that he's making stuff up as well as copying other people, while Papias wants people to believe he is just a passive scribe.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

Assigning motive is not very safe, is it. It can awaken doubts about one's own. I tell my students never to try that tack, because it's not only dangerous, it's almost an admission of failure.

And of course they know the difference between fundamentalism and inerrancy.

It corresponds perfectly with Luke's explanation that you unaccountably did not quote, that made your 'account' into fiction.

PhilosopherJay

Hi sotto voce,

Do you think that the writer of "The Dark Knight Rises" Christopher Nolan, believes that he is getting his information about Batman from eyewitnesses? Neither did Luke, when he wrote "The Messiah Rises." He knew very well the story he was creating was a composite story made up of other fictional stories told before him.

Jay Raskin

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)