Luke's sources

[Mental flatliner]

I like the NASB, from what little research I did on the subject a while back. I have to admit I'm floored that you claim to do actual research but know so little about the gospels. I agree with the others, the straightforward reading of the first few verses of Luke does not support the idea that Luke personally witnessed (ie saw) the events he wrote about in the gospels. It is possible, of course, that he did witness some, but he does not say so.

I doubt you will never meet anyone who knows the gospels as I do.

(If you're reading this, in case you can't take a hint, that's an open challenge.)

[TedM]

You've already demonstrated many times that you do not know the difference between what Luke wrote and Matthew wrote. I called you on it with specifics and you simply ignored it. As you have done many times with others here. You seemed to think Matthew claimed to write the book of Matthew, you seemed to think Matthew spoke of Jesus being born in an 'inn' and then being thrown out. If you didn't think these things then you sure didn't try to clarify.

[Ulan]

If you're reading this, in case you can't take a hint, that's an open challenge.

As you already lost that challenge several times by now, we can consider it closed.

[Mental flatliner]

If you're reading this, in case you can't take a hint, that's an open challenge.

As you already lost that challenge several times by now, we can consider it closed.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? To close that door as quickly as possible rather than take advantage of an obvious opportunity?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Your rendering has been rejected by every translation I looked at.

Really? Did you miss the ASV?

Lets look at some lexicons, shall we?
Strong's:

parakoloutheo (pronounced par-ak-ol-oo-theh'-o)

from 3844 and 190; to follow near, i.e. (figuratively) attend (as a result), trace out, conform to:--attain, follow, fully know, have understanding.

Thayer's:

́

parakoloutheō

1) to follow after

1a) so to follow one as to be always at his side

1b) to follow close, accompany

2) metaphorically

2a) to be always present, to attend one wherever he goes

2b) to follow up a thing in mind so as to attain to the knowledge of it

2b1) to understand, (compare our follow a matter up, trace its course)

2b2) to examine thoroughly, investigate

2c) to follow faithfully i.e a standard or rule, to conform one' s self to

Part of Speech: verb

Here are some other translations:

RSV:

it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus

Young's Literal Translation:

it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus.

NET:

So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.

God's Word Tranlation:

I, too, have followed everything closely from the beginning. So I thought it would be a good idea to write an orderly account for Your Excellency, Theophilus.

[Mental flatliner]

I, too, have followed everything closely from the beginning. So I thought it would be a good idea to write an orderly account for Your Excellency, Theophilus.

I'm not getting your point.

You're quoting back to me the same versions I quoted to you, and these versions make my point that Luke followed Jesus' ministry as it happened, "closely" according to your quotes.

Except for the fact that Luke didn't travel with Jesus, that sounds like eye-witness to me.

[Stephan Huller]

It sounds like an 'eyewitness' to you because you want it to sound like an 'eye-witness.' Every child that starts playing football thinks they are going to grow and play in the NFL ... that is until they test those ideas and find out they aren't that good. If you want someone to prove your ideas are wrong at least try and listen to what they are saying. Otherwise this is a pointless exercise. You can bring a horse to water but can't make him drink. You're not even trying to have a proper conversation.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I, too, have followed everything closely from the beginning. So I thought it would be a good idea to write an orderly account for Your Excellency, Theophilus.

I'm not getting your point.

You're quoting back to me the same versions I quoted to you, and these versions make my point that Luke followed Jesus' ministry as it happened, "closely" according to your quotes.

Except for the fact that Luke didn't travel with Jesus, that sounds like eye-witness to me.

He clearly says that he studied what was "passed down to us" from OTHERS who were "eyewitnesses." That places at least two levels of transmission between Luke and the witnesses.

Moreover, we know what Luke's sources were. We don't have to guess and they weren't witnesses.

[Mental flatliner]

He clearly says that he studied what was "passed down to us" from OTHERS who were "eyewitnesses."

You can't use this phrase to eliminate the others of Luke 1:1-4, nor can you place emphasis on this phrase over the others or allow it to supercede Luke's own experience.

Luke 1:1 states clearly "these things that have been accomplished among us". It does not say "among them".

Luke 3:1 gives the general area where Luke lived (and presumably where Theophilus lived) by naming:
--Judea
--Galilee
--Iturea
--Trachonitis
--Abilene (west of Mt. Herman)

These were the territories of interest to Luke.

Territories not of interest were:
--Idumea
--Perea
--Decapolis
--Tyre and Sidon

Assuming Luke is central to the first list above, and that the others are too distant to matter, Luke's area of interest for a time reference that would be relevant to Theophilus are those lands west and north of the Sea of Galilee. This would place Luke somewhere between Damascas and Capernaum (or possibly west of that line). Since Abilene was mentioned last, you could make a case that this was his primary interest.

[neilgodfrey]

But when I read the English translations of Luke 1:3 I see the following:

• Luke 1:3 says in the King James translation that Luke "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first".
• The New International Version says Luke "carefully investigated everything from the beginning"
• The New American Standard Bible says Luke simply "investigated everything from the beginning"
• The Aramaic Bible in Plain English (You should like the Aramaic Bible, yes?) says Luke "approached all things carefully"
• The American Standard Version says Luke "traced the course of all things accurately from the first"
• The Douhay-Rheims Bible (can we trust the French?) say Luke "diligently attained to all things from the beginning"
• The Weymouth translation says Luke made "careful investigation of the facts from their commencement"

Which one of these English translations of the Greek word παρηκολουθηκότι should I believe is the correct one. Most of them seem to be saying that Luke was not an eyewitness himself but that he actually had to go around doing some research to find out what others said happened.

From the above choices, the ASV is actually the most accurate. The word means "to follow along," or "follow after" (from para ["with" or "by"] and akoloutheo ["to follow a road"]).

So Luke is saying "I followed up on everything from beginning to end."

Your rendering has been rejected by every translation I looked at.

I therefore reject it, too, based on your character. You're not honest in your responses, so I have reason to trust you would be in your translations.

You just claimed in another thread that pharisees didn't excommunicate until the 90s. You and I both know you don't have a source for prior years, and so we both know you made it up.

You can see the Young's Literal Translation and NET and other translations at http://biblehub.com/luke/1-3.htm -- they sure sound exactly like the one Diogenes the Cynic has presented.