The introduction of Luke

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

The introduction of Luke

Post by rgprice »

I know a lot has been written about the introduction of Luke over the years. What are the latest views on this passage?
Luke 1: (NIV)
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke 24 (NIV)
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
Firstly, is this an actual dedication to a real person named Theophilus? Under the assumption that it is, it is often proposed that this dedication is evidence that "Luke" was a patron of some wealthy individual who had commissioned him to write these works. To me this seems unlikely. I have a very hard time believing that Theophilus happened to be the name of a real person, given that Theophilus translates quite plainly to "God lover". So, is this really an open dedication to the "God lovers" of the world?

Secondly, many Christians have for a long time argued that Luke was written within the lifetime of Paul or shortly after Paul's death, based mostly on its association with Acts, which ends without a death of Paul. Yet, the dedication itself seems to contradict this. The dedication implies that this person is writing this account a good bit after the "apostolic era". The dedication says that the writer is making an account from material that has been, "handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants." This of course indicates that the writer was not an eyewitness or apostle and was making no claim to having been one. So the very introduction itself seems to belie and early dating.

Thirdly, this introduction states that "Many" have previously written accounts of Jesus. This also seems to contradict the two source model, given that "two" is not "many". This would seem to directly support models that propose the writer of Luke had used many Gospels and other works as the basis for his account. Thus, the introduction itself would seem to give us an expectation that the writer of Luke may have used four or five or even ten Gospels and other works as the basis for his writing. It almost tells us from the outset that the writer is creating a harmonization. Given that the introduction itself sets this expectation, how is it that so many people go about defending this "two source" hypothesis?

Fourthly, some scholars deny that the term "fulfilled" in the introduction means "to fulfill scriptural prophecy" and instead interpret it to mean "things that have come to pass". Yet "fulfill prophecy" seems an obvious reading given that the ending of Luke talks about fulfilling prophecy. Also, note that I see the ending of Luke, with the mention of opening the minds of the disciples, as a sort of explanation for the ineptitude of the discipled throughout the main story. Luke here has the disciples finally getting it after the resurrection.

Anyway, back to the introduction. The birth story and ending of Luke seem to be tailor-made anti-Marcionism. Yet the Gospel itself is practically a copy of Marcion's Gospel. At the same time, the introduction doesn't explicitly lay out an anti-Marcionite purpose, other than talking about the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy. The writer says that he is drawing up an account based on careful investigation, yet the main body of Luke would seem to have received hardly any changes from Marcion's Gospel. The full Gospel of Luke seems quite clearly anti-Marcionite, but why would the final editor write this introduction that states he is producing a well researched Gospel based on what has been handed down from eyewitnesses and put into order, and then basically just hand us a copy of the Gospel that he appears to be intent on refuting? Of course appropriation is key here, but it still seems a bit strange. Luke appears to be an attempt at appropriating Marcion's Gospel, which was quite successful BTW, but there still seems to b a bit of a disconnect between the introduction and such a heavy reliance on the Gospel that the writer appears to be intent on refuting. Thoughts?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:30 amFirstly, is this an actual dedication to a real person named Theophilus? Under the assumption that it is, it is often proposed that this dedication is evidence that "Luke" was a patron of some wealthy individual who had commissioned him to write these works. To me this seems unlikely. I have a very hard time believing that Theophilus happened to be the name of a real person, given that Theophilus translates quite plainly to "God lover".
Virtually all ancient names translate to something, and many of them translate to something which would be appropriate for the dedication of a Christian text. I myself suspect that the prefaces to Luke and Acts are wholesale fabrications, but the name Theophilus is, at best, a tertiary supporting "could well be" sort of argument. On its own it is nothing.
Thirdly, this introduction states that "Many" have previously written accounts of Jesus. This also seems to contradict the two source model, given that "two" is not "many".
"Many" = the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and of the Hebrews, at least.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by hakeem »

rgprice wrote:
Firstly, is this an actual dedication to a real person named Theophilus? Under the assumption that it is, it is often proposed that this dedication is evidence that "Luke" was a patron of some wealthy individual who had commissioned him to write these works. To me this seems unlikely. I have a very hard time believing that Theophilus happened to be the name of a real person, given that Theophilus translates quite plainly to "God lover". So, is this really an open dedication to the "God lovers" of the world?
The first fundamental problem that is being overlooked all the time is that gLuke was falsely attributed to a character called Luke. Next, the events about Jesus in gLuke could not have been witnessed by anyone.

Who witnessed the Angel Gabriel talking to Mary?

The author of gLuke concealed his real name and refused to reveal his sources under the guise he was writing about events which were actually witnessed when they were not.

The Gospel according to Luke did not require the teachings of Marcion since it is seen that the Memoirs of the Apostles contained similar stories.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by Bernard Muller »

I don't think "fulfilled" is a good translation: the Thayer Greek Lexicon has for "ἀνατάξασθαι": put together in order, arrange, compose, as in the RSV: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us," (of course, this statement, with "many", is BS)

About Theophilus: I think "Luke" involved that "Theophilus" as "most excellent" in order to indicate: since I address a VIP, then I cannot tell lies; If I do, and found to lie, I will incurred great punishment.

That Theophilus could not have existed when the gospel was composed, because it looks more like religious propagada with historical errors than a strict historian's work.

The question would be: who "Luke" wanted his audience to believe that Theophilus (as a code name) is:
my guess is Gallio, who was exposed to Christian beliefs during an aborted trial involving Paul (in 52), and later would be intrigued about the alleged founder of these beliefs: Jesus.
Gallio died (conveniently) around 65 (according to Wikipedia) which implies the gospel would be written before.

gLuke could not be thought then as written in the 2nd century, because "Luke" had Jesus prophecies (in the future) about the fall of Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:44 am I don't think "fulfilled" is a good translation: the Thayer Greek Lexicon has for "ἀνατάξασθαι": put together in order, arrange, compose, as in the RSV: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us," (of course, this statement, with "many", is BS)
That (ἀνατάξασθαι) is not the word normally translated as "fulfilled" in Luke 1.1. The word πεπληροφορημένων is what is being referred to. Your translation above has "accomplished" for πεπληροφορημένων.
rgprice
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by rgprice »

A simple way to address this is simply to see what Greek word is used for fulfilled in Luke 24:44. Is it πεπληροφορημένων?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:18 am A simple way to address this is simply to see what Greek word is used for fulfilled in Luke 24:44. Is it πεπληροφορημένων?
No, but the two words share a morpheme. The word in Luke 1.1 is πληροφορέω; the word in Luke 24.44 is πληρόω. These share the morpheme πληρ-, which means "full."
rgprice
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by rgprice »

I don't know enough about Greek, but obviously the usage is a little different between the two. One is past tense and the other is future tense.

"have been fulfilled" vs "must be fulfilled"

I don't know if that accounts for the differences or not.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by Bernard Muller »

Deleted

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The introduction of Luke

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:37 am I don't know enough about Greek, but obviously the usage is a little different between the two. One is past tense and the other is future tense.

"have been fulfilled" vs "must be fulfilled"

I don't know if that accounts for the differences or not.
Neither is in the future tense; πληρωθῆναι is an aorist infinitive, whereas πεπληροφορημένων is a perfect passive participle. They are two different words, not just the same word in two different tenses:


But, again, they share that "fullness" morpheme.
Post Reply