Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If Luke is even remotely proximal to the time and place of the events he describes, would he describe the life of Jesus as "the word"?

gmx wrote:If Luke is even remotely proximal to the time and place of the events he describes, would he describe the life of Jesus as "the word"?

I think word in Luke 1:2 is more likely to mean Gospel than Christ

Andrew Criddle

I think that's more or less what the OP was saying.

And that therefore Jesus was a myth.

"Word" appears to be referenced in the next verse as "these things" thus encouraging an interpretation of "word" as "books, treatises".... This is the argument of John N. Collins -- see the various posts archived here.

In summary, the argument is as follows:

1. The grammatical construction in verse 2 combines the “eyewitnesses” and “ministers/servants” as one and the same from the outset. That is, they eyewitnesses did not eventually go on to become servants of the word; whoever is spoken of here were both eyewitnesses and servants of the word” from the outset.

2(a). The “word” in verse 2 can be (and often is) translated as “books” or “writings” or “treatises”;

2(b) The “things” in verse 4 is a variant of ‘logos’ and can be understood in a way that embraces those books/writings or “treatises”.

3. The word for “eyewitnesses” can be (and often is) translated not as a witness to events but as an observer of static things such as a fruit, a culture — (thus opening up the possibility of being an “eyewitness” even of “writings”.)

4. The word for “servants” in “servants of the word” was the same word used for minor officials in bureaucracies.

5. The word for “delivered” in verse 2 implies some form of teaching and learning by some form of guarantors of traditions.

6. “Eyewitnesses and servants of the writings” were those through whom the tradition was taught and passed on. They were the officials held responsible for guarding the “books” and ensuring the correct writings were being collected and passed on through reading and teaching.

7. Luke chooses to add one more book to the collection of these “eyewitnesses and servants of the writings”.

I'd be interested in arguments challenging this interpretation.

ericbwonder wrote:I think that's more or less what the OP was saying.

I may be entirely mistaken but I understood the OP as implying something like this.

1/ Luke here refers to Jesus as the word.
2/ Jesus only began to be referred to as the word rather late (end of 1st century CE)
3/ Therefore Luke cannot be earlier than the end of the 1st century CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote:

ericbwonder wrote:I think that's more or less what the OP was saying.

I may be entirely mistaken but I understood the OP as implying something like this.

1/ Luke here refers to Jesus as the word.
2/ Jesus only began to be referred to as the word rather late (end of 1st century CE)
3/ Therefore Luke cannot be earlier than the end of the 1st century CE.

Andrew Criddle

That's pretty good. I'll go with that.

gmx wrote:

andrewcriddle wrote:

ericbwonder wrote:I think that's more or less what the OP was saying.

I may be entirely mistaken but I understood the OP as implying something like this.

1/ Luke here refers to Jesus as the word.
2/ Jesus only began to be referred to as the word rather late (end of 1st century CE)
3/ Therefore Luke cannot be earlier than the end of the 1st century CE.

Andrew Criddle

That's pretty good. I'll go with that.

It only works if claim 1/ is true.

If when Luke says ''the word'' he means the Gospel or the official Christian tradition then the argument fails.

Andrew Criddle

I'm not so sure, although admittedly, I'm far from an expert on first century (Jewish) Christianity. My view is that regardless of whether Luke implies "Jesus" or "the Gospel" when he writes "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word", he is employing symbolism or abstraction of some kind, thus distancing himself from actual events. "The gospel" is (assumedly) the story of Jesus Christ, so whether he is referring to the narrative or the personage of Jesus, is perhaps somewhat immaterial to the argument.

Or whether he is referring simply to "books, writings" ... another valid translation of "logos" . . .