Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-11-2006, 07:59 PM | #11 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: mINNESOTA
Posts: 253
|
Quote:
|
|
02-11-2006, 08:23 PM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Quote:
|
|
02-11-2006, 09:11 PM | #13 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
|
As If
The "therefore" in the second sentence indicates that the author has pointed out a defect in the first sentence. For example, I might say, "Many people have mispelled words in their gospels, therefore I am writing a correctly spelled gospel
Once we understand that he has told us that the many gospel writers before him have been defective, we must understand how he has just told us that the previous gospels were defective. The solution is easy if we just translate the phrase "just as" as "just as if". The sentence more properly should read: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as if they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. The author is saying that the many previous gospel writers have gone wrong in that they have written their gospels "as if they were handed down to us by...eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (servants of Jesus). He is saying that he is not going to write a gospel with the bullshit of pretending to be an eyewitness or disciple (servant of the word). He is just going to write an orderly narrative starting from the beginning of the story. The writer is specifically criticizing gospels like Matthew, John, Mark, and Peter wherein the writer pretends to be an eyewitness or servant of Jesus. It is quite ironic that certain people assert that the writer has done precisely what he is claiming not to be doing. Within the Gospel itself, the writer never asserts that he has witnessed anything he is writing about or that he is getting the story from anyone who was there. Thus he has carried out his plan to write an objective and orderly account of the prophesies "fulfilled," without pretending any of it is coming from people who lived at that time. Since Tertullian tells us that Marcion's gospel did not have a name, it appears that this prologue was probably the prologue to Marcion's gospel. The fact that it so forthrightly attacks all previous gospels also points towards Marcion or the Marcionite community as the author. Also the fact that the author uses the phrase "the things fulfilled among us" rather than the "Hebrew prophecies" fulfilled among us is another indication it is coming from Marcion who seems to have been the first to make an absolute break with the concept of a Jewish Messiah. It is interesting that Theophilus who lived after the time of Marcus Aureliius (180')s wrote a work against Marcion. Since there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the prologue, we may best place the writing of the gospel or at least the original Marcion version of Luke's Gospel in the 170's-180's. Warmly, PhilosopherJay Quote:
|
|
02-12-2006, 05:04 AM | #14 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
|
Quote:
Quote:
Julian |
||
02-12-2006, 06:52 AM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do.
Quote:
JW: "to include his interviewing" "the author's intention to write something like history" "This moves the issue to figuring out when exactly Luke was written." Oy! This is all Misleading and representative of the problem with modern Christian Bible scholarship. What is "Luke"?: 1) "Luke" is PriMarily a product of Subsequent Christianity. 2) "Luke" is Secondarily a product of an Original Author. We have the following reasons to Doubt that "Luke's" Prologue is Original: 1) The Impossible is Impossible so there would have been no witnesses of the Impossible available to the Author. 2) "Luke" not only uses "Mark" as a PriMary source for most of the Narrative but Copies and phrases very Similiarly. Not something a Historian normally does without Attribution. 3) "Luke" goes the Opposite Direction with the supposed chain of witnesses, The Disciples. A priMary point of "Mark" is that The Disciples Failed the Jesus Movement (see): Mark's View Of The Disciples and it was The Author and The Reader that continued it. "Luke" resurrects "Mark's" The Disciples and makes them the Missing Link. I Am pretty sure the original "Luke" realized that she did not have access to Historical Witness when she wrote a Gospel not based on access to Historical Witness. Of course she could have Lied when she said she did but I think it more Likely that it was Subsequent Christianity that Asserted that "Luke" was based on Historical Witness since Subsequent Christianity would not have first hand witness that the Original Author did not (have first hand witness). Therefore, it's Likely that the Prologue is another in a long Tradition of Christian Forgery. Joseph "It ain't no Mysteries, Whether it's Politics, Religion or Histries. The thing you gotta know iz, Everything is Show Biz." - Poster outside the Coliseum for The Hit Play The Soul Producers http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page |
|
02-12-2006, 10:35 AM | #16 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
|
Metaphorical Usage of καθως in Luke's Gospel
Hi Julian,
Perhaps I chose the term "if" poorly. Liddle-Smith also translates the word as "even as" or "how" The translation of Kathos as "even as" (King James, American Standard, Noah Webster, and World English) captures the sense that I believe the author intends a lot better, i.e., (King James) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; Josephus seems to use the word Kathos more than any other ancient author, so we may perhaps conjecture that our author of Luke picked up the term from him. It is mainly used in Josephus as to mean "how." This would support the idea that the author is telling us how (by what style of writing) the many gospel writers before himself declared things "surely believed among us" (Christians). In other words, the author is telling us, they wrote in a subjective first person style, and I will write objectively, like an historian, in a third person style. As for the dating, I am following a logical chain here. Tertullian describes Marcion's Gospel exactly as the author of the prologue does, one with no name and without apostolic claims of authorship. These are the features that Tertullian (certainly no friend of Marcion) says distinguishes Marcion's gospel from all others. The author of the prologue is basically making the same claim about his work. We thus tie Marcion to the prologue. But the only Christian Theophilus we know about from Marcion's time is the writer of the Apologia ad Autolycus. We are told that of three works he wrote, one was against Marcion. Thus we have at least a rumor of a tie-in with Marcion. In examining the Autolycus we find that Theophilus knows nothing of the story of Jesus Christ. Theophilus is writing post 180 CE (based on internal evidenct in Autolycus). The only gospel that Theophilus seems to know is a book of sayings of King Solomon. It makes perfect sense that Marcion would write a new gospel especially for this Jewish-Christian who knows nothing about Jesus Christ. We also know from Tertullian that Marcion rejected the previous existing gospels. Again the details fit amazingly well. Theophilus is a Christian who has not been exposed to any of the Jesus gospels yet. Marcion wants to convert him to his position, but he cannot use a prior gospel. Thus Marcion must write his own gospel especially for Theophilus "that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed." There is a great deal more evidence for the late dating of this gospel to the third quarter of the 2nd century, some of which I have posted in the past month on the yahoo group JesusMysteries. I hope to gather all of it together in one place in the near future and publish it. Warmly, PhilosopherJay Quote:
|
|
02-12-2006, 06:57 PM | #17 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
|
Quote:
(ie to the extent that any real arguments can be vortexed). |
|
02-12-2006, 08:13 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
|
Quote:
|
|
02-13-2006, 08:24 AM | #19 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Amaleq13, BC&H moderator |
|
02-13-2006, 08:56 AM | #20 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
|
Quote:
In most cases there is no way to even get an overall handle on what he is trying to say, so there is no point in 'asking for clarification'. Apparently he simply builds one construct upon another, and I missed the first ten dozen classes. Perhaps there are others here who sort of follow him and ignore the circularities and unsupported assertions, and I do not begrudge them trying to dialog. More power to them. Shalom, Steven Avery |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|