FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-11-2006, 07:59 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: mINNESOTA
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
Luke was a physician and a scribe. He wrote down what eye-witnesses to Christ's life told him just like biographers write down what eye-witnesses tell them.
Joyfilled is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 08:23 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joyfilled
Luke was a physician and a scribe. He wrote down what eye-witnesses to Christ's life told him just like biographers write down what eye-witnesses tell them.
Prove it.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 09:11 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default 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:
Originally Posted by 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
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 05:04 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay
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.
There really is no way that καθως can be translated with the additional if that you put in there and that kinda kills the rest of you theory here. I do agree that there is no reason to believe that ALuke, himself, has talked to any eyewitnesses, especially in light of his dependence on Josephus which would put GLuke well out of range of surviving eyewitnesses. I would also Place GLuke in the 2nd century although not as late as you.
Quote:
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.
Theopilus could be a common name or simply a made up character judging by his name. Theophilus = Lover of god. If it is the same Theophilus as you indicate then we would certainly have to put it at a very late date, which I would be fine with, although I would need more evidence.

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 06:52 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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

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
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 10:35 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default 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:
Originally Posted by Julian
There really is no way that καθως can be translated with the additional if that you put in there and that kinda kills the rest of you theory here. I do agree that there is no reason to believe that ALuke, himself, has talked to any eyewitnesses, especially in light of his dependence on Josephus which would put GLuke well out of range of surviving eyewitnesses. I would also Place GLuke in the 2nd century although not as late as you.

Theopilus could be a common name or simply a made up character judging by his name. Theophilus = Lover of god. If it is the same Theophilus as you indicate then we would certainly have to put it at a very late date, which I would be fine with, although I would need more evidence.

Julian
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 06:57 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
:Therefore, it's Likely that the Prologue is another in a long Tradition of Christian Forgery.
Or it is much more likely that Joe is demonstrating his feigned mastery of a type of cute incomprehensible babble, spiraling up his circular arguments till they funnel wildly into another dimension.

(ie to the extent that any real arguments can be vortexed).
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 08:13 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Hallelujah! You are the only other person I know who has made this most telling point. I think it is actually one of the very strongest arguments to use against Christians who claim that every word in the Bible represents divinely inspired truth. But every time I've tried to use it with Christians, they seem incapable of grasping just how completely it destroys their case. If you can manage to do so, more power to you.
Roland is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 08:24 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus
Or it is much more likely that Joe is demonstrating his feigned mastery of a type of cute incomprehensible babble, spiraling up his circular arguments till they funnel wildly into another dimension.

(ie to the extent that any real arguments can be vortexed).
If you do not comprehend a post, either ask for clarification or ignore it. Casting insults against that which you apparently do not understand only makes you look bad.


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 08:56 AM   #20
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
If you do not comprehend a post, either ask for clarification or ignore it. Casting insults against that which you apparently do not understand only makes you look bad.
If not following or understanding Joe's pseudo-logic and convoluted confusions and circularity makes me look bad, I have no problem 'looking bad'.

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
Steven Avery is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:52 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.