looking at Luke.August 9 2010 at 12:51 AM
Kate (Login kateothelamp)
Response to You're asking a hard thing
V: Let's start with Luke. Luke ch. 1. starts off with the "author" writing a small intro to his boss, Theophilus, who will undoubtedly be reading this work of Luke's to his own congregation way up in Antioch Syria.
No one knows who Theophilos was, although there several theories. According to most scholars, both Luke and Acts were written in Koine Greek, and "Theophilos"
means "friend of God", or "loved by God". It was both a common name and an honorary title used by learned Romans and Jews. The Academia tradition is that Theophilus was not a person -- that the book was addressed to any learned, unnamed person (an academic) who was reading the account.
The Coptic view is that Theophilus was a Alexandrian Jew, probably a Roman official since he is referred to by the Roman title "most excellent". Or he could have been Theophilus ben Ananus, son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas -- he was a Sadducee, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41, and Luke's intended audience may have been the Sadducees. Or he might have been Mattathias ben Theophilus who who was High Priest from 65-66. He could have been Titus Flavius Sabinus II, a converted Roman official. Or he could have been Paul's lawyer when Paul was on trial in Rome. Luke was most likely a Syrian physician who spoke Greek, lived in Antioch, and was a companion of Paul. I can't find a source that says Theophilus was his employer.
V: Thus, Luke proceeds to comb through the available archives to put the most accuracy into his own rendering. (He was a journalist, researching this story for his church back home in Antioch. Who knows, maybe he was in the hot library of Alexandria Egypt under a hot August sun, searching through all the records he could find, and wishing he could be back home skinny dipping in some fond pool of his childhood?~)
Wow Vince, vivid story! =) But...Luke wasn't a journalist, he was a doctor. (Colossians 4:14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.
) Luke definitely excludes himself as an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, but he uses "we" several times in Acts, indicating he was there with Paul. It is most likely that Luke drew upon Mark's Gospel, and the Q document, if it existed, as his sources.
V: Vs. 41 starts off as a new section, 12 years later when the young kid Jesus gets lost and they find him having intercourse with the "doctors" in the temple. (That word "doctor" and "doctors" appears only in Luke's writing and it might help with confirmation of dating his work).
I think only the KJV translates the word as "doctors" -- NIV, NAS, ASV...all translate didiskalon
as "teachers", as does the Greek Interlinear. So the word "doctors" only helps us to date the KJV. This interlinear is a great online tool, if you haven't seen it -- I used to have a hard cover book version, but the online is much easier to use:
V: Then in vs. 49 the 12 yo Jesus -speaking exactly like a 30 yo Jesus- says to his mother, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business?"
Yes, I think that's kind of the point. What he was saying and the way he was saying it wasn't exactly typical of a 12 year old kid. vs 46-47: After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.
V: His parents -guess what?- didn't have a CLUE what he was talking about!~
"And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them."
Now there's some kind of "problem" here because any journalist, with a bent for accuracy is NOT going to create a schism in his own writing. We were ALREADY told of the amazing miracles and angel confirmations of this child up to ch. 2 vs. 48. His parents should IMMEDIATELY have clued in to what "his father's business" was!
More than 13 years before that day, an angel visited Mary and told her she was going to have a child. Matthew gives us more of the story -- he writes that Joseph was a righteous man -- i.e. he hadn't been sleeping with her. Joseph didn't want her publicly disgraced (or stoned to death), so he was going to divorce her quietly (in those days the betrothal was as binding as a marriage contract, so he would have had to divorce her). But Joseph had a dream -- not a miraculous visitation like Mary did -- that changed his mind. So, despite what the town gossips must have thought, Joseph married her anyway, and Matthew says they didn't actually consummate the marriage until after she gave birth to Jesus. There is nothing to indicate over the next 12 years that there were any miraculous events (unless you believe the pseudepigraphical Infancy gospels). If anything, they might have thought their son was a little odd. When he said that he was about his Father's business, well...Joseph is his father, the man who was raising him. What was he talking about? But remember...Mary is the one who had the angelic visitation -- Joseph just had a dream. Did Joseph truly understand who his step-son was? Mary treasured these things in her heart because most of her friends and neighbors would have thought she was crazy if she started telling everyone -- "Oh yes, that's right...Jesus is the Messiah! He's the Son of God, didn't I tell you? I was pregnant when I married Joseph, but Jesus isn't really his son. Don't worry, I was a virgin at the time..." Yeah, right...sure
he's the Messiah... LOL
'k...it's late. Genealogy tomorrow. =)
|This message has been edited by kateothelamp on Aug 9, 2010 12:54 AM|