hallq

Two interesting issues related to this:
1) Fundamentalists like to claim that this says Luke talked to eyewitnesses. This translation makes it seem more like he used oral tradition, but some translations say things like "we had been told," which could be taken that way. Anyone know a good resource that would give a definitive answer?

2) Some mythicists have claimed the author wasn't even trying to write history. What's up with this passage, then?

S.C.Carlson

Issue 1: Luke 1:2 identifies two sets of people involved in handing down the traditions of the "events fulfilled among us": eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. People in the latter set would not be eyewitnesses but part of the chain of tradition. Some people press Luke 1:3's "carefully investigated" to include his interviewing living eyewitnesses, but the term, though consistent with that understanding is too broad to require it. It is also compatible with, e.g., interviewing only the non-eyewitness ministers of the word in person or even reading their writings (e.g. the Gospel of Mark).

Issue 2: Luke's prologue is similar to other historiographical prologues (especially that of Josephus) and the mention of eyewitnesses, etc. corroborates at least the author's intention to write something like history. I'm no mythicist, but I think their response is to point out that all this mean is that the historicist view Jesus had come into the being by the time Luke was written. This moves the issue to figuring out when exactly Luke was written.

Stephen

Amaleq13

How do you know it isn't one set of people who were both:

Eyewitnesses of the word

and

Ministers of the word?

If "the word" means "the gospel of the risen Christ", then the author of Luke is referring to apostles like Paul.

JP2

I've read that the first chapter of Luke may have been a later interpolation, much like Mark 16:9-20. Is there any credible evidence to suggest that this is the case?

EDIT: I mean to say the first four verses presented here, not the entire chapter.

Chris Weimer

Not likely, since it's markedly Josephan like much of Luke. However, it is very possible that it's the work of the final redactor. I wouldn't be the right person to ask, though, as I'm only fairly confident with Matthew.

S.C.Carlson

I think it is possible that the sets of people overlapped (i.e., that some could be both), but I don't see Luke 1:2's language to be sufficiently precise to require that the two sets are coterminous. The whole prologue is a case-study in imprecision.

pharoah

It's always been my contention that that prologue, along with Acts 1:1, is an unwary snag for fundamentalists. If Luke carried out the investigation that he claimed and then wrote everything down, then most of the sayings attributed to Jesus in GJohn are pure fiction. There's no way that ALL of Luke's sources would have failed to inform him of these profound sayings. Furthermore, Luke's prologue contradicts the outrageous claim of John 21:25, which is admittedly probably an interpolation.

PhilosopherJay

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

In prologues, writers generally explain how their writings are in some way better than prior writer's works. We should example this prologue by asking how Luke is claiming that his work is better than other writers.


Lines 1 and 2 really have to be read as a single proposition:


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.

Who is the subject here? Many. Many people have undertaken to do what? To draw up an account. Many people have drawn up an account how? They have drawn up an account just as they were handed down to us by eyewitnesses and slaves of the word. All that Luke is claiming here is that many people have used first person (eyewitness) and third person (servant) narratives.

In the second sentence the word "beginning" is key. Since the gospel of Luke begins at the birth of Christ, while other gospels begin at the Baptism, it is most logical that Luke is refering to the beginning of the Christ story. Since he has done a careful investigation from the beginning of the story, he feels it is good for him to write as well.

Luke's claim here is very modest. Many others have invested the fulfillment of the Jewish prophesies. Since he has done a thorough investigation starting from the beginning of the fulfilled prophesies, he will write one too. Basically he is saying because it is a popular thing to do (many have done it), he is going to do it too. If there is anything to distinguish his work from others, it is that he starts from the beginning of the story and he himself has done the research, and been careful.

The author is making no claims to special knowledge whatsoever, rather quite the reverse, he is saying that he is as good as anyone and since everybody else is writing one of these, he will too.

The author, if he had been in a unique position to contribute to our understanding of the prophesy stories and their fulfillment, would certainly have told us. Instead, he just claims to be in the same position as everybody else. It is at most that he is going a bit further back and investigating things from their beginning that he is unique.

We may assume that he is writing before the beginning of Matthew was added to the Matthew text.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

hallq

I believe the case for 1:1-4 being an interlopation rests on a 2nd century controversy. The view that became orthodox was that the Gnostics had deleted some stuff from Luke, but the Gnostics of course claimed these things were later additions.

I'm still waiting for a citation of a Greek/NT scholar - something to throw at people who claim Luke interviewed eyewitnesses.

Steven Avery

This sounds like the situation with the ebionites and the virgin birth account in Matthew. Of course if they were using the rest of the NT they would likely want to (sniperoo) the beginning of Luke as well.

Shalom,
Steven