Linquistic/Tonal similarities between Luke 1:1-4 and the Preface of Irenaeus's Against Heresies
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:42 am
I am not at all knowledgeable on ancient Greek language, or it's many nuances and subtleties. I am also not knowledgeable about the typical speech/writing techniques or patterns writers would use in composing their works. For example, I'm incapable of detecting the rhetorical patterns that experts are able to in order to verify whether a certain work was written by that ancient author by comparing it to another one of his works. I'm just a passing observer who is only capable of noting general, if mistaken, similarities between two things. This isn't so much as to prove one way or another that the author of Against Heresies also authored Luke-Acts. Just to ignite some, if any, discussion on this or comparable topics.
Anyway, I note the similarities between the opening of both works, Luke and Against Heresies:
We see here the following layout of the passage: 1) a general acknowledgement of past teachings/writings, 2) the reasoning behind the current work, 3) a greeting to the intended reader.
Now here is the preface to Against Heresies:
The structure of the passage is almost the same in regards to the three points elucidated in the former passage of Luke. The passage opens with an acknowledgement of past heresies (even beginning with the same word), an explanation as to the current work, as well as the greeting to those who read it. (And while I cannot verify this for myself, "Theophilus" and "my dear friend", may be relatable).
What's more, the general tone of both passages, at least to me, is errorly similar. Both are attempting to be objective and clinicle in their approach; both come across as authorities on the subject they write upon; both flatter the intended reader.
Again, I could be miles off on this, and if anyone has any comments, or corrections, then feel free to let me know.
Anyway, I note the similarities between the opening of both works, Luke and Against Heresies:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.
Ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.
We see here the following layout of the passage: 1) a general acknowledgement of past teachings/writings, 2) the reasoning behind the current work, 3) a greeting to the intended reader.
Now here is the preface to Against Heresies:
Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]
The structure of the passage is almost the same in regards to the three points elucidated in the former passage of Luke. The passage opens with an acknowledgement of past heresies (even beginning with the same word), an explanation as to the current work, as well as the greeting to those who read it. (And while I cannot verify this for myself, "Theophilus" and "my dear friend", may be relatable).
What's more, the general tone of both passages, at least to me, is errorly similar. Both are attempting to be objective and clinicle in their approach; both come across as authorities on the subject they write upon; both flatter the intended reader.
Again, I could be miles off on this, and if anyone has any comments, or corrections, then feel free to let me know.