aa5874

I do not see any similarities between the writings of unknown author of Luke and Suetonius. As I pointed out the unknown author of Luke appears to be writing propaganda to mislead and distort reality using known figures of history, known geographical locations and actual events.

The unknown author of Luke wrote about the life of some Jesus, but it appears to be complete fiction, yet, this unknown author have witnesses for every fictitious event.

JoeWallack

JW:
We need Qualifications here. Marshall, who would be considered a top Bible scholar by Mainstream Christian Bible standards but biased by the higher standards of these holy Boards discusses the Prologue at Page 39 of NIGTC The Gospel of Luke. Marshall suffers from the same omission as the OP, no discussion of Originality or even Textual Variation. Even Metzger inventories a little TV and I have Faith that there is exponentially more waiting for Ehrman to inventory.

I've already indicated in:

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

that Marcion, who may very well have had original "Luke", appears to have lacked the Prologue and that the earlier Christian Tradition of "Luke" from Hippolytus/Epiphanius reports that "Luke" was an original Disciple which would be inconsistent with the Prologue.

Marshall does properly point out that the style of the Prologue is noticeably superior to the Narrative but fails to conclude that this would be reason to doubt originality all by itself.

"Luke"/orthodox editor of Marcion used Josephus as a primary source (evidence for late dating) and the Prologue looks like it was patterned after Josephus (surprise):

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...us/apion1.html

JW:
The Prologue issue also favors Marcion as original since without the Prologue Marcion's Gospel has the look of an original composition while with the orthodox Prologue there is a Confession of use and correcting of sources and for all we know it was Marcion's Gospel that was the primary source for "Luke" that needed "correcting".



Joseph

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Roland

I honestly don't know what to make of the intro to Luke. He seems to imply that "many" have undertaken to write this story, yet most modern scholars believe he pretty much used Mark and Q and his own imagination. I have yet to read of a single scholar who believes he used more than these sources (well, some might argue for Matthew, but then that's still hardly "many"). He doesn't say he actually "interviewed" eyewitnesses himself; in fact, he doesn't give us any clue at all as to his methodology for gathering information. And if he did interview eyewitnesses (assuming any existed), why does he copy so much verbatim from Mark and Q and come up with none of the details found in John?

Given all that, I'm forced to conclude that the author of Luke was up to something quite different from what he claims to be doing in the opening. Maybe he was just a first-class BS artist (or maybe that intro. was added by either him or others years later to make the work seem more convincing and authoritative).

aa5874

And, what has been grossly overlooked is that Justin Martyr, writing around the middle of the second century, did not mention any author named Luke, Matthew, Mark, or John as the writers of any Gospels.

The name Luke appears then, based on Justin Martyr's extant writings, to have post-dated the writings of Justin Martyr.

Amaleq13

Well, there is also the material considered "special" to Luke (ie unique) but, IIRC, it doesn't amount to much of the final product. But your point remains, all the same.

Toto

But please note that the prefaces to Luke and Acts are significantly different from the prefaces to explicitly historical works.

In any case, what conclusions can you draw from the preface itself? Do you know that the preface was part of the original work, or slapped on at a later time? Does the preface prove that Luke and Acts were intended as history, or that the reader is invited to enter into a fantasy world in which they are treated as history?

judge

There seems to be some similarity as well.

Maybe not many, but it does seem an obvious place to start, and an obvious place to get a good idea of the intention of the piece.


Well, one can say this sort of thing about any part of the NT, but in the absence of reasons to disqualify it I would assume the most practical approach is to work as though it were. Otherwise how can dialogue even begin?


Well, in the absence of any other comparable work of fantasy (at least as far as the intro is concerned) it seems difficult to mount a case that it should be, just on the intro alone.

Toto

The derail on Luke's sources has been split off here. Please stay on the topic of the Prologue and its evidence for fiction or the lack thereof in Luke's gospel.

Vorkosigan

Judge,

The intro contains the kind of standard invocations to certainty that are common in fiction and fraud:

• just as they were handed down
  I myself have carefully
  know the certainty
  who from the first

The author is quite aware that what s/he is writing is a freehand adaptation (at best!) of Mark, Matt, John, and other sources, some which have been rearranged, altered, deleted, and redacted to change viewpoints, characters, etc. Anyone familiar with the way the writer of Luke used Mark can think of several examples.

Given that the writer knows that he is engaging in alteration of that which he claims is "certain" (and more than once claims so), and that identifiable fictions are present, it seems reasonable to conclude that the intro is there to create, rather than reflect, verisimilitude.

Lucian parodied such introductions brilliantly in A True Story

• Well, on reading all these authors, I did not find much fault with them for their lying, as I saw that this was already a common practice even among men who profess philosophy. 2 I did wonder, though, that they thought that they could write untruths and not get caught at it. Therefore, as I myself, thanks to my vanity, was eager to hand something that I might not be the only one excluded from the privileges of poetic licence, and as I had nothing true to tell, not having had any adventures of significance, I took to lying. But my lying is far more honest than theirs, for though I tell the truth in nothing else, I shall at least be truthful in saying that I am a liar. I think I can escape the censure of the world by my own admission that I am not telling a word of truth. Be it understood, then, that I am writing about things which I have neither seen nor had to do with nor learned from others--which, in fact, do not exist at all and, in the nature of things, cannot exist. 1 Therefore my readers should on no account believe in them.

NOTE TO SELF: Do not use verisimilitude in future posts. It is too difficult to spell.

judge

So..if they were common can you give an example from ancient literature. That is what I have ben asking since the OP.



All I can do is repeat my question from the first post.

Is there a work of fiction , ideally from the ancient world, that addresses the reader in such a manner?

Is Lucian parodying works of fiction from the ancient world that resemble the intro to Luke?

If he is, then what are these work of fiction? How do the actual introductions read?

It seems, that maybe, there is no example from ancient literature, of a work of fiction that begins the way gospel of Luke does.