Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 10:50 am
It is well to keep in mind that the third evangelist
explicitly announces to his readers that "those who, from the beginning, were witnesses and servants of the word" have passed their information along to himself (the evangelist). Different readings are possible, but on a plain reading he does seem to be laying claim to an oral tradition about Jesus (="the word" as something to be witnessed). It isn't implied that oral tradition is the
only basis for his account, but important enough to be worth mentioning.
Thus oral tradition is a theme internal to the Gospels themselves (cf. John 21:24-25).
Fairly put, but, just to spell it out, such are the ambiguities of the Lukan preface that there is another 'plain reading' which denies any place to oral tradition. If the "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" are not differentiated from those who have previously written, but, as is grammatically coherent, are the same people, then it is a claim that previous gospels were written by eyewitnesses who became evangelists. We reflexively interpret παραδοσις as 'oral tradition', forgetting that the παρεδοσαν ημιν/"delivered to us" of the preface can refer to the transmission of written documents; indeed, Josephus (Against Apion 10) describes his narrative of the war as a παραδοσις.
This is essentially a prototype of the Eusebian model of gospel composition. Eusebius did not entirely rule out the validity of oral tradition. In retailing the story of John and the robber, he quotes Clement of Alexandria verbatim : ου μυθον αλλα οντα λογον περι Ιωαννου του αποστολου παραδεδομενον και μνημη πεφυλαγμενον/"not a myth but a true story of John the apostle preserved in memory" (H.E.3.23). But the gospels are another matter. As is well known, several times he asserts that Mark, a follower of Peter, composed his gospel from Peter's words ( H.E. 2.15, 6.14.5ff; and 3.39.15, the Papias reference to Mark not recording matters in the right order). Of Luke : "..the accurate account of things of which he had himself firmly learnt the truth from his profitable intercourse and life with Paul and his conversation with the other apostles [!]" (H.E.3.24.15). The canonical gospels are written by apostles or their entourage. They are the written documents of credible eyewitnesses, there is no space for an oral tradition.
In this light, the accent of Luke's preface falls on the words αναταξασθαι and καθεξης, a claim to have put events in the correct order/ταξις/εξης in a definitive way.
That 'order' was considered a priority for understanding 'what really happened' can be illustrated from Dio Chrysostom's (rather wonderful) Oration 11. The argument is that, largely from internal evidence in Homer's work, in the true history of the Trojan war, Helen was never abducted, Troy was not sacked, and so on. It is a jeu d'esprit, but informed by considerable knowledge of Homeric criticism. 'Order' is a key part of his early attack :
"For when Homer undertook [επιχειρησας] to describe the war between the Achaeans and the Trojans, he did not start at the very beginning, but at haphazard [οθεν ετυχεν]; and this is the regular way with practically all who distort the truth; they entangle the story and make it involved and refuse to tell anything in sequence [εφεξης], thus escaping detection more readily. Otherwise they are convicted by the very subject matter. This is just what may be seen happening in courts of justice and in the case of others who lie skilfully; whereas those who wish to present each fact as it really occurred do so by reporting the first thing first, the second next, and so on in like order [εφεξης]. This is one reason why Homer did not begin his poem in the natural way. Another is that he planned especially to do away with its beginning and its end as far as possible and to create the very opposite impression concerning them. That is why he did not dare to tell either the beginning or the end in a straightforward way and did not bind himself to say anything about them, but if he does make mention of them anywhere, it is incidental and brief, and he is evidently trying to confuse. For he was ill at ease with respect to these parts and unable to speak freely. The following device, too, is usually employed by those who wish to deceive : they mention some parts of the story and dwell upon them, but what they are particularly anxious to conceal they do not bring out clearly or when their auditor is paying attention, nor do they put it in its proper place, but where it may best escape notice...." ( ch.25-26, LCL tr.)
At ch.37 ff, Dio confirms his alternative, accurate history by producing superior evidence from Egyptian temple archives : "Menelaus had come to visit them and described everything just as it had occurred." In other words, a written eyewitness account.
