Who buried Jesus?

[Teallaura]

And even at that, it would be necessary to disprove Luke's claim to have received his information from the founding disciples:
1 Given that many undertook to compose an orderly account of the (indicates that not much, if anything was in writing when Luke started his composition)
2 deeds fulfilled among us, just as the first eye-witnesses and ministers (indicates that Luke personally witnessed first generation action - no surprise there, he was a companion of Paul)
3 of the word conveyed them to us it seemed to me fitting to that I (that "to us" further indicates Luke is second generation)
also write an accurately ordered account (indicates that others were formulating accounts, and that prompted Luke to write to Theophilus)

All up - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the founding disciples seem not to have committed anything much to writing, but the second generation did. That would mean the gospels were written, at least in part, before Paul's death.

Counter to that, we have extant copies - no autographs - dating to a later time period. The idea that in the absence of autographs, the gospels can only have been written after the temple was destroyed doesn't have a lot to recommend it. Luke's claim to being a second generation disciple has not been shown false.

The first part of Luke did indeed come to mind as I was writing.

[The Pixie]

And even at that, it would be necessary to disprove Luke's claim to have received his information from the founding disciples:
1 Given that many undertook to compose an orderly account of the (indicates that not much, if anything was in writing when Luke started his composition)
2 deeds fulfilled among us, just as the first eye-witnesses and ministers (indicates that Luke personally witnessed first generation action - no surprise there, he was a companion of Paul)
3 of the word conveyed them to us it seemed to me fitting to that I (that "to us" further indicates Luke is second generation)
also write an accurately ordered account (indicates that others were formulating accounts, and that prompted Luke to write to Theophilus)

All up - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the founding disciples seem not to have committed anything much to writing, but the second generation did. That would mean the gospels were written, at least in part, before Paul's death.

Counter to that, we have extant copies - no autographs - dating to a later time period. The idea that in the absence of autographs, the gospels can only have been written after the temple was destroyed doesn't have a lot to recommend it. Luke's claim to being a second generation disciple has not been shown false.

And yet the scholarly position is that Mark was written around AD 70, Matthew and Luke about twenty years later, and John later still.

The current dating of the four Gospels, accepted by the biblical establishment, which includes scholars of every persuasion, is: Mark 65-70; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; John in the 90s.

http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/14452.htm

See also:
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossr...hegospels.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Some Christian web sites seem to knock about 10 years off those figures, but are not so very different:
https://bible.org/article/historical...bility-gospels
http://evidenceforchristianity.org/w...ow-do-we-know/

Luke very clearly drew heavily on Mark, who was not a disciple, and pretty conclusively proves much of Luke was not second hand, but thord hand at best. As for the rest, it providence is unknown. My reading of the start of Luke is that he is claiming it is based on material that came from the original disciples, but he is not claiming to have received it directly from them. The most likely scenario is that Luke compiled his gospel from several documents, including Mark, and including some that the author of Matthew also had access too (some of which could have been written before Paul's death), and which Luke believed had come ultimately from the original disciples (possibly via an oral tradition).

[psstein]

Outside of Koester and Crossan, nobody believes that the Gospel of Peter is independent from (at least) the Synoptic tradition. Crossan's "Cross Gospel" is demonstrably from the Matthean and Markan accounts.

Yes, Crossan and Koester believe there's a source called "the Cross Gospel" behind both the Gospel of Peter and the Passion Narrative in Mark. The issue is that the Cross Gospel has been shown to be a composite of the Synoptic and Johannine Passion traditions. See John Meier's discussion in his A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1.

[Doug Shaver]

And even at that, it would be necessary to disprove Luke's claim to have received his information from the founding disciples:

He does not say that that is where he got his information.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] 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

This is a claim that the stories he is about to present -- and which others before him have already written down (otherwise "I too" makes no sense) -- originated among eyewitnesses. The author makes no assertion to the effect that he himself had any conversations with those eyewitnesses.

The idea that in the absence of autographs, the gospels can only have been written after the temple was destroyed doesn't have a lot to recommend it.

The autographs could possibly have been written anytime before the oldest extant manuscripts or the earliest unambiguous reference to the documents, which would be Irenaeus ca. 180 CE. Possibility, though, does not entail any particular probability.

Luke's claim to being a second generation disciple has not been shown false.

He doesn't make that claim. Orthodox Christian dogma makes that claim for him.

[tabibito]

He does not say that that is where he got his information.

"the first eye-witnesses and ministers of the word (in time past) conveyed" - that could be said to show a reasonable probability that Luke didn't have direct information.
"the first eye-witnesses and ministers of the word conveyed" - that could not be said with any confidence to show that Luke received information directly.
but that is not what Luke says:
"the first eye-witnesses and ministers of the word conveyed them to us" shows a personal interaction on the part of the founding disciples, with a group of which Luke was part.

This is a claim that the stories he is about to present -- and which others before him have already written down (otherwise "I too" makes no sense) -- originated among eyewitnesses.

agreed.

The author makes no assertion to the effect that he himself had any conversations with those eyewitnesses.

"an orderly account of the deeds fulfilled among us" again indicates that Luke was present when at least some of those deeds were performed. It is also shown that Luke began his writing contemporaneously with the others that were doing the same. It is reasonable to assume that Luke engaged in a certain amount of comparing notes.

The autographs could possibly have been written anytime before the oldest extant manuscripts or the earliest unambiguous reference to the documents, which would be Irenaeus ca. 180 CE. Possibility, though, does not entail any particular probability.

If the claims that a couple of fragments date to the first half of the second century could be ignored (they probably can), and if Paul's statements to the effect that written evidence existed could be ignored, 180 AD would of course be reasonable. While some do claim that Paul's reference to "scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3,4) shows that he is calling on the Old Testament record, the arguments supporting that claim would not be compelling even if those references existed in isolation - they don't. Galatians 3:1, translated in the King James as "It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified." reads - in the Koine Greek as - "before the eyes of whom ("whom" being the Galatians), Jesus Christ - was-previously- (presented)-in-writing among you (προεγραφη) - (as) crucified."

He doesn't make that claim. Orthodox Christian dogma makes that claim for him.

He claims to have been a companion traveller with Paul, and in Luke 1:1 that "deeds were fulfilled among us." Orthodox dogma would seem to have at least some support from the scriptural record.

[Doug Shaver]

"the first eye-witnesses and ministers of the word conveyed them to us" shows a personal interaction on the part of the founding disciples, with a group of which Luke was part.

"an orderly account of the deeds fulfilled among us" again indicates that Luke was present when at least some of those deeds were performed.

If the claims that a couple of fragments date to the first half of the second century could be ignored (they probably can), and if Paul's statements to the effect that written evidence existed could be ignored, 180 AD would of course be reasonable.

terminus ad quem

some do claim that Paul's reference to "scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3,4) shows that he is calling on the Old Testament record

Luke's claim to being a second generation disciple has not been shown false.

He doesn't make that claim. Orthodox Christian dogma makes that claim for him.

He claims to have been a companion traveller with Paul

Orthodox dogma would seem to have at least some support from the scriptural record.

[37818]

. . . However, "men" doesn't appear anywhere in the Greek. καθελοντες (as I have already posted) is a participle, playing the part of a noun. It is nominative - the "taking down (ones)"

καθελοντες is not only plural but also it is in the masculine, hence rendered as "men." Also, either the plural is being translated as third person plural "they" or the plural is not translated.

Again, the reader reading into the Koine Greek narrative what it is not saying does not make it so.

[tabibito]

The possibility available to English would not necessarily transfer to other languages. Nonetheless, it is a point that I'll have to take into consideration.

terminus ad quem

Agreed.

Yup. I don't find their arguments compelling.


No consensus. hmmm. Well now - why would there be any doubt? Paul claims that Luke was with him.

Orthodox dogma also presupposes inerrancy.

There are irrefutable errors here and there ... orthodox dogma presupposes inerrancy?
Seems sensible to me: but then, I don't necessarily believe arguments from authority ("most scholars say," for example). If their claims pan out, well enough. If the same scholars repeatedly make demonstrable errors, I'm content to ignore their comments - and translations.

[tabibito]

καθελοντες is not only plural but also it is in the masculine, hence rendered as "men." Also, either the plural is being translated as third person plural "they" or the plural is not translated.

Again, the reader reading into the Koine Greek narrative what it is not saying does not make it so.

http://www.motorera.com/greek/lessons/lesson23.html
　　The relevant sections are "Lexical Study" - the first paragraph after the table at the top.
　　Section C/2 which is after the table for the present participle of eimi

[The Pixie]

tabibito and 37818

I have been trying to follow your discussion, but I have to admit I do not know what position either of you are claiming. My reading of the text in Acts is that it was the Jewish authorities that took down the body and buried it. For all your discussion, I have not seen anything from either side to make me thing otherwise.

Or even to make me think one of you believes otherwise.

[37818]

tabibito and 37818

I have been trying to follow your discussion, but I have to admit I do not know what position either of you are claiming. My reading of the text in Acts is that it was the Jewish authorities that took down the body and buried it. For all your discussion, I have not seen anything from either side to make me thing otherwise.

Or even to make me think one of you believes otherwise.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...n-acts-1328-29

[Aractus]

tabibito and 37818

I have been trying to follow your discussion, but I have to admit I do not know what position either of you are claiming. My reading of the text in Acts is that it was the Jewish authorities that took down the body and buried it. For all your discussion, I have not seen anything from either side to make me thing otherwise.

Or even to make me think one of you believes otherwise.

Yeah, when every English translation reads exactly the same way, no matter how Evangelical/Conservative the translators are (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc), and you want to say that the "they" might mean someone else then you better have a pretty good piece of academic evidence behind your reasoning. Because if it could be read that way, Evangelical translators would have written it that way.

[psstein]

Yeah, when every English translation reads exactly the same way, no matter how Evangelical/Conservative the translators are (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc), and you want to say that the "they" might mean someone else then you better have a pretty good piece of academic evidence behind your reasoning. Because if it could be read that way, Evangelical translators would have written it that way.

I have no strong feelings about this kind of thing one way or another. That being said, I have a very tough time seeing how the "they" can suddenly change to refer to a heretofore unmentioned third party.

There's been a few comments on the "we" passages in Acts as well. Commentators are more or less split as to what "we" is really designed to do. Conzelmann and quite a few others have argued its a literary construction. Others have argued that it's a source within Acts itself. Others, like Keener (in his usual detailed way) have argued that "we" should be taken with the most natural meaning, an eyewitness to the events. Maybe scholarly opinion tilts very slightly towards an eyewitness account, though I'm probably imputing my own bias here.

I think it likely to be an eyewitness account (see Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History), though I'm absolutely not wed to that idea. If Acts is dependent upon Josephus (c.f. Pervo and Tyson), then it's probably a literary construct.

[Aractus]

There's been a few comments on the "we" passages in Acts as well. Commentators are more or less split as to what "we" is really designed to do. Conzelmann and quite a few others have argued its a literary construction. Others have argued that it's a source within Acts itself. Others, like Keener (in his usual detailed way) have argued that "we" should be taken with the most natural meaning, an eyewitness to the events. Maybe scholarly opinion tilts very slightly towards an eyewitness account, though I'm probably imputing my own bias here.

I think it likely to be an eyewitness account (see Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History), though I'm absolutely not wed to that idea. If Acts is dependent upon Josephus (c.f. Pervo and Tyson), then it's probably a literary construct.

I think we should mention though that Luke-Acts shows little comprehension of Pauline theology (based on Paul's letters), so if it is an eyewitness account from Acts 12 or 13 on, it doesn't appear to be by someone who knew Paul as well as "Luke the physician" would have. However, it's certainly possible that it was someone that knew Paul but by the time it was written down they were more influenced by contemporary theology over Pauline theology. Given Acts could be written what, 95AD or so at the latest, it can't be "ruled out" that the author never met Paul.

I have no strong feelings about this kind of thing one way or another. That being said, I have a very tough time seeing how the "they" can suddenly change to refer to a heretofore unmentioned third party.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly, well said.

[tabibito]

theyὡς δὲ ἐτέλεσαν πάντα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα, καθελόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου ἔθηκαν εἰς μνημεῖον. (This is from the UBS 5 manuscript group, and it matches with the TR and BM groups)

ως - (citing Mickelson Strongs for the sake of simplicity) G5613 ὡς hos (hōs) adv. which how, i.e. in that manner
Marked in red καθελόντες (lowering) - It's a participle: nominative masculine plural, the subject (because the participle forms of verbs get used like that in Koine Greek) of the following verb (placed.)

so:
ὡς δὲ ἐτέλεσαν πάντα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα ... and in that way they fulfilled all that is written about him.
What has happened to this point mightcan be missed through over-familiarity by anyone except a translator. This last group, small as it is, is the biggest worry.

ETA summary:
The translators have taken a nominative participle and translated it as an ordinary verb (They took). No conjunction connects the two clauses - καθελόντες should be translated as a new noun, and a new subject.