Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 09-01-2012, 07:22 PM

Hi Adam,

I'm not sure how it affects your hypothesis, but I would imagine that Luke, if he thought that he was writing history, would love to name anybody that he got his information from who was associated with Jesus. Hell, he doesn't even name a single source. Probably, the sources were anonymous or he knew them and didn't like them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Adam · 09-01-2012, 10:51 PM

"Everybody" knew that his Luke was a rewrite of Proto-Luke with another 40% of Mark added in, so they all knew that these two sources came from Simeon the Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter the Bishop of Rome (if the Roman Catholics are right). The underlying sources of those were relatively small, q1 from Matthew and the Passion Narrative from John Mark, but maybe everyone knew that as well. All the above were eyewitnesses who left written records of Jesus, each writing only about what he knew personally (as opposed to Paul,l who wrote next to nothing because he never knew Jesus). He also got oral information from women eyewitnesses. q2 was his other source, not a direct eyewitness of the data he provided.

I do love to read your stuff, because you have if anything an even more intellectually creatively mind than I do. You just need to blend in more facts and less imagination.

Vorkosigan · 09-02-2012, 12:16 AM

Quote:

I do love to read your stuff, because you have if anything an even more intellectually creatively mind than I do. You just need to blend in more facts and less imagination.

I have to admit, you are the absolute master of irony.

Steven Carr · 09-02-2012, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Adam,

I'm not sure how it affects your hypothesis, but I would imagine that Luke, if he thought that he was writing history, would love to name anybody that he got his information from who was associated with Jesus. Hell, he doesn't even name a single source. Probably, the sources were anonymous or he knew them and didn't like them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

'Luke' was also unable to put a date on a single event in the life of Jesus, although he was able to put a date on events in the life of John the Baptist.

How come every single one of his sources lacked historical context to the extent that not one detail in the life of Jesus can be dated?

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-02-2012, 07:46 AM

Luke dates Jesus' birth and baptism.

Solo · 09-02-2012, 08:27 AM

FWIW, I believe Luke more or less gave out the interpretation of the first verses in a story of Jesus preaching at Nazareth:

4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read;
4:17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
4:19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
4:20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant (hypēretēs), and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him (πάντων οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες αὐτῷ).4:21 And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
4:22 And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?"

In Luke's idiom the "eyewitnessing" relates to visionary, inner sight, or the mind's eye which possess the ability to receive the oracular "truths" revealed by the holy spirit. Luke camouflages this by relating the inner psychic events as stories where the spirit is personified as Jesus of Nazareth. You may recall that the two (proto-Pauline) disciples who encounter risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus before the news reaches the disciples, first do not "recognize" Jesus because their eyesight was manipulated (24:16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him). Also important in reading Luke's intents an the coding of "eyewitnessing" is Acts 1:9-11:

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

What Luke is describing here is a classic posture known as Oculogyric Crisis, in which the subjects eyes are rolled and fixed into a upward gaze. This would not be an external event but physical effects of visionary states.

Best,
Jiri

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.

. . .

Steven Carr · 09-02-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Luke dates Jesus' birth and baptism.

Only in the sense that he doesn't. There is no reference given to when Jesus was born. 'In those days...' is not the sort of time reference historians give when they want to establish the year something happened.

And Luke gives a specific reference to when John the Baptist began his ministry - a career which did not commence with the baptism of Jesus. Luke , of course,does not date that.

How could he?

aa5874 · 09-02-2012, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Luke dates Jesus' birth and baptism.

Based on Ehrman, "there is no way this can be historically correct". There was no worldwide (or even empire-wide) census in the days of Augustus......--See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 184.

There is NO way that gLuke can be considered a Credible source.

It is most laughable that the author of gLuke attempted to date a non-historical event--the conception of Jesus by the "overshadowing" of a Ghost and a Virgin. See Luke 1

Steven Carr · 09-02-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Luke dates Jesus' birth and baptism.

Based on Ehrman, "there is no way this can be historically correct". There was no worldwide (or even empire-wide) census in the days of Augustus......--See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 184.

There is NO way that gLuke can be considered a Credible source.

It is most laughable that the author of gLuke attempted to date a non-historical event--the conception of Jesus by the "overshadowing" of a Ghost and a Virgin.[b] See Luke 1[b]

But Luke didn't attempt to date the birth of Jesus except in the vaguest way.

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-02-2012, 09:19 AM

Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinus, which has a known date of 6-7 CE. Luke also clearly intimates that Jesus was baptized in the year he dates the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry, i.e the 15th year of the reign of Tiberias, which would be either 27 or 29 CE, depending on whether Luke is counting from when Tiberias became a coregent with Augustus, or sole regent after Augustus died.

You say that doesn't explicitly say that Jesus was baptized that same year, which I think is a specious protestation. At the very least, Luke gives a terminus a quo for beginning of Jesus' ministry. Furthermore Luke, like the rest of the Gospels, Tacitus and Josephus places the crucifixion during the Prefecture of Pilate, which ended in 36 CE. So Luke gives a total window of 27-36 CE for the ministry/crucifixion Jesus.

Luke does say Jesus was "about 30 years old" when he started his ministry, which would push that date out to 36 CE, the last year of Pilate and, interestingly, the year that Josephus implies John the Baptist was killed. Luke appears to be following Josephus for both the dates of the census and for JBap. That does seem to push the ministry/crucifixion further out than the conventional estimate. Luke may be writing fiction, but he's using real dates.

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

09-01-2012, 10:51 PM	#32
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	"Everybody" knew that his Luke was a rewrite of Proto-Luke with another 40% of Mark added in, so they all knew that these two sources came from Simeon the Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter the Bishop of Rome (if the Roman Catholics are right). The underlying sources of those were relatively small, q1 from Matthew and the Passion Narrative from John Mark, but maybe everyone knew that as well. All the above were eyewitnesses who left written records of Jesus, each writing only about what he knew personally (as opposed to Paul,l who wrote next to nothing because he never knew Jesus). He also got oral information from women eyewitnesses. q2 was his other source, not a direct eyewitness of the data he provided. I do love to read your stuff, because you have if anything an even more intellectually creatively mind than I do. You just need to blend in more facts and less imagination.

09-02-2012, 07:46 AM	#35
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Luke dates Jesus' birth and baptism.

09-02-2012, 09:19 AM	#40
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinus, which has a known date of 6-7 CE. Luke also clearly intimates that Jesus was baptized in the year he dates the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry, i.e the 15th year of the reign of Tiberias, which would be either 27 or 29 CE, depending on whether Luke is counting from when Tiberias became a coregent with Augustus, or sole regent after Augustus died. You say that doesn't explicitly say that Jesus was baptized that same year, which I think is a specious protestation. At the very least, Luke gives a terminus a quo for beginning of Jesus' ministry. Furthermore Luke, like the rest of the Gospels, Tacitus and Josephus places the crucifixion during the Prefecture of Pilate, which ended in 36 CE. So Luke gives a total window of 27-36 CE for the ministry/crucifixion Jesus. Luke does say Jesus was "about 30 years old" when he started his ministry, which would push that date out to 36 CE, the last year of Pilate and, interestingly, the year that Josephus implies John the Baptist was killed. Luke appears to be following Josephus for both the dates of the census and for JBap. That does seem to push the ministry/crucifixion further out than the conventional estimate. Luke may be writing fiction, but he's using real dates.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.