Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament, Vol III (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1977. There are three volumes. This may be one of the finest New Testament
Introductions. It is a must-read.
Chapter
9 (Continued from Vol. 2): Luke’s Gospel
§ 58. Tradition
Regarding Luke and his Work.
·
The early church unanimously attributed
Luke-Acts to Luke. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus (century before Eusebius),
Eusebius, Jerome and others, including the Muratorian Canon, held to Lucan
authorship. Opponents of Marcion all
accepted Lucan authorship. Canon
Muratorian, line 34: acta autem omnium apostolarum
sub uno libro scripta sunt.
·
Muratorian Canon, c 175 A.D. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/muratorian-wace.html
Here’s Dean Wace’s introductory comments on the Muratorian Canon which includes
Luke. It’s a bit long, but worth the read. Also, take note of Montanism too
[think Costals] and Marcions [think liberals]. “Muratorian Fragment, a
very ancient list of the books of N.T. first pub. in 1740 by Muratori (Ant.
Ital. Med. Aev. iii. 851) and found in a 7th or 8th cent. MS. in the
Ambrosian Library at Milan. The MS. had come from the Irish monastery of
Bobbio, and the fragment seems to have been a copy of a loose
leaf or two of a lost volume. It is defective in the beginning, and breaks
off in the middle of a sentence, and the mutilation must have taken place in
the archetype of our present copy. This copy was made by an illiterate and
careless scribe, and is full of blunders; but is of the greatest value as the
earliest-known list of N.T. books recognized by the church. A reference to the episcopate
of Pius at Rome ("nuperrime temporibus nostris") is usually taken to
prove that the document cannot be later than c. 180, some 20 years after
Pius's death (see infra). This precludes Muratori's own conjecture as to
authorship, viz. that it was by Caius the presbyter, c. 196; and
Bunsen's conjecture that Hegesippus wrote it has nothing to recommend it. It is
generally agreed that it was written in Rome. Though in Latin, it bears marks
of translation from the Greek, though Hesse (Das. Mur. Frag., Giessen,
1873) and others maintain the originality of the Latin. The first line of the
fragment evidently concludes its notice of St. Mark's Gospel; for it proceeds
to speak of St. Luke's as in the 3rd place, St. John's in the 4th. A notice of
St. Matthew's and St. Mark's must have come before, but we have no means of
knowing whether the O.T. books preceded that notice. The document appears to
have dealt with the choice of topics in the Gospels and the point where each
began (cf. Iren. iii. 11). It is stated that St. Luke (and apparently St. Mark
also) had not seen our Lord in the flesh. For its story as to the composition
of St. John's Gospel see LEUCIUS. The
document goes on to say that by one and the same sovereign Spirit the same
fundamental doctrines are fully taught in all concerning our Lord's birth,
life, passion, resurrection, and future coming. At the date of this document,
therefore, belief was fully established in the pre-eminence of the four
Gospels, and in their divine inspiration. Next comes the Acts, St. Luke being
credited with purposing to record only what fell under his own notice, thus
omitting the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul's journey to Spain. Thirteen
epistles of St. Paul are then mentioned. (a) epistles to churches, in
the order: I. and II. Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., I. and II. Thess., Rom. It
is observed that St. Paul addressed (like St. John) only seven churches by
name, 1
shewing that he addressed the universal church. (b) Epistles to
individuals: Philemon, Titus, and two to Timothy, written from personal
affection, but hallowed by the Catholic church for the ordering of
ecclesiastical discipline. Next follow words which we quote from Westcott's
trans.: "Moreover there is in circulation an epistle to the Laodiceans,
and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, bearing on [al.
'favouring'] the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be
received into the Catholic church, for gall ought not to be mingled with honey.
The epistle of Jude, however, and two epistles bearing the name of John, are
received in the Catholic [church] (or, are reckoned among the Catholic
[epistles]). And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his
honour [is acknowledged]. We receive, moreover, the Apocalypses of St. John and
St. Peter only, which latter some of our body will not have read in the
church." Marcion entitled his version of Eph. "to the
Laodiceans," and there is a well-known pseudo-Pauline epistle with the
same title. It has been generally conjectured that by the epistle "to the
Alexandrians," Hebrews is meant; but it is nowhere else so
described, has no Marcionite tendency, and is not "under the name of
Paul." The fragment may refer to some current writing which has not
survived, or the Ep. of Barnabas might possibly be intended. Though only two
Epp. of John are mentioned, the opening sentence of I. John had been quoted in
the paragraph treating of the Gospel, and our writer may have read that epistle
as a kind of appendix to the Gospel, and be here speaking of the other two. The
mention of Wisdom in a list of N.T. books is perplexing. Perhaps we should read
"ut" for "et"; and the Proverbs of Solomon and not the
apocryphal book of Wisdom may be intended. There may be an inaccurate reference
to Prov. xxv. 1 (LXX). The fragment next says that the Shepherd was
written "very lately, in our own time" in the city of Rome, his
brother-bishop Pius then occupying the chair of the Roman church; that,
therefore, it ought to be read, but not in the public reading of the church.
The text of the last sentence of the document is very corrupt, but evidently
names writings which are rejected altogether, including those of Arsinous,
Valentinus, and Militiades, mention being also made of the Cataphrygians of
Asia.
"Westcott has shewn that no argument can be
built upon the omissions (Ep. of James, both Epp. of Peter, and Hebrews) of our
fragment, since it shews so many blunders of transcription, and some breaks in
the sense. Certainly I. Peter held, at the earliest date claimed for the
fragment, such a position in the Roman church that entire silence in respect to
it seems incredible. Of disquisitions on our fragment we may name Credner, N.
T. Kanon, Volkmar's ed. 141 seq. 341 seq.; Routh, Rell. Sac. i. 394;
Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus; Hesse, op. cit.; Westcott, N.
T. Canon, 208 seq. 514 seq.; and esp. Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons,
ii. 1 (1890), pp. 1-143; also Lietzman's Das Mur Frag. (Bonn, 1908),
besides countless arts. in journals, e.g. Harnack, in Text und Unters.
(1900); Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1880); Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift
(1881), p. 129. Hilgenfeld (Kanon, p. 44), and Bötticher (De Lagarde) in
Bunsen's Hippolytus i. 2nd ed. Christianity and Mankind,
attempted its re-translation into Greek; an ed., with notes and facsimile by S.
P. Tregelles, is pub, by the Clar. Press. The present writer expressed in 1874
(Hermathena i.) an opinion which he now holds with more confidence that
the fragment was written in the episcopate of Zephyrinus. The words
"temporibus nostris" must not be too severely pressed. We have no
evidence that the writer was as careful and accurate as Eusebius, who yet
speaks (iii. 28, cf. v. 27) of a period 50 or 60 years before he was writing as
his own time. There are also indications from the history of the varying
position held by the Shepherd that the publication of our fragment may
have been between Tertullian's two tracts de Oratione and de
Pudicitia (see D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. s.v.); and if it be true
that MONTANISM only became active in the Roman
church in the episcopate of Zephyrinus, the date of the Muratorian document is
settled, for it is clearly anti-Montanist. If we regard it as written in the episcopate
of Zephyrinus, Muratori's conjecture that Caius wrote it becomes possible; and
we know from Eusebius that the disputation of Caius with Proclus, written at
that period, contained, in opposition to Montanist revelations, a list of the
books reverenced by the Catholic church.”
·
Mr. Zahn believes he “must have been a member
of the Antiochian Church at the latest by the year 40” (2). Further, that Paul did not arrive in Antioch
until 43 A.D. According to Julius
Africanus and Eusebius, Luke was a native of Antioch and Theophilus, the
recipient (Lk. 1.3; Acts 1.1) was a rich Antiocian. However, Mr. Zahn notes
that tradition does not record a time or place for the Lk-Acts documents
(hereafter called LA).
·
Luke is mentioned by Paul during the 1st
and 2nd Roman imprisonments
·
A “beloved physician” (Col.4.10-14)—
·
Perhaps he rendered medical assistance or input
regarding Paul’s unhealed malady, the “thorn in the flesh”—2 Cor. 12.
·
One of the helpers (Phil 24)—
·
Connected with the work in Rome. Perhaps, as a physician, he worked in homes
as well as speaking of his Gospel-work
·
Demas fled Paul in Rome for “sordid motives”
while Luke remained faithful (2 Tim. 4.10ff.)
·
Luke was a Gentile and, inferably, was
uncircumcised, a comment of significance made by Paul in Col.4.10-14.
§ 59. Two-fold
Rescension of the Text of Acts—lengthy and important discussion that will be
entertained elsewhere
§ 60. Preface, Plan
and Purpose of Luke’s Historical Work
(Luke 1.1-4; Acts 1.1ff.) Κρατιστε Θεοφιλε—most
Excellent Theolophilus
·
A high position of a Gentile interested in
Christianity
·
According to Mr. Zahn, not a member of the
Christian church. We would add that this
is somewhat gratuitous on its face.
·
Theophilus had more than a “mere curiosity”
There were “many” who were eye-witnesses and ministers
of the Word who had undertaken similar endeavors.
·
In short, there were others who had notes and
records, unsurprisingly. There were
ministers απ’ άρχης—from the beginning and after the resurrection (Acts 1.22;
13.37; Jn.15.27)
·
“Ministers of the Word”—διακονία του λογου—Acts
6.4; 13.5; 20.24; 26.16; 1 Cor. 3.5; 4.1; Col.1.7, 25; 1 Tim.1.12; 5.7; 2
Tim.2.15; 4.2, 5.
·
The Apostles were “Ministers of the Word,” as
were Philip (Acts 8.4), the brothers of Jesus, as well as αρχαιοι μαθηταί (Acts
21.16)
Παρέδοσαν `ημιν—“they gave to us”—may refer to
one or more Gospels
·
According to Mr. Zahn, Luke did not know of a
written Gospel by one of the Apostles or disciples (49). This appears, prima facie, to be gratuitous, although we hesitate to differ with
the great German
·
He does believe that he knew of Mark
·
If one accepts that Matthew’s Gospel was
originally in Aramaic, did Luke have access to a Greek version? Or, as a native Antiochean, would he have
known Aramaic himself?
·
It has long been noted that Luke 1-2 has an
Aramaic/Hebrew subtext tightly translated (and reflecting the Aramaic) compared
to the more classical Greek of Luke 3-24 and Acts. If so, where did he get such? What were his researches while at Caesarea
with Paul?
Historic notices and proper names
1.
Historic notices
·
Augustus Tiberius (Lk.2.1)
·
Claudius (Acts 11.28; 18.2)
·
Tiberius (Lk.3.1)
·
Quirinius, Governor of Syria (Lk.2.2)
·
Gallio, Governor of Achaia (Acts 18.12)
·
Sergius Paulus (Acts 13.7)
·
Publius, a leading citizen of Malta (Acts 27)
2.
A penchant for proper names, showing attention
to detail and research. We would add
quickly a reference to Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) I. Howard Marshall’s Luke the Historian and Theologian in
which he ably develops these matters (we would also throw in a freebee that Mr.
Marshall, a Welseyan, freely claims that Luke was predestinarian in theology).
·
Zacharias and Elizabeth (Lk 1.5ff.)
·
Simeon and Anna (Lk.2.25, 26)
·
Tiberius and Lysanius (Lk.3.1)
·
Annas (Lk.3.2; Acts 4.6)
·
Simon the Pharisee (Lk.7.40)
·
Joanna and Chuza (Lk.8.3)
·
Susanna (Lk. 8.3?)
·
Mary and Martha (Lk.10.39)
·
Zaccaeus (Lk.19)
·
Cleopas (Lk. 24)
Some themes:
·
The universal significance of Jesus: “salvation
is for all flesh” (Lk. 3.4-6)
·
Divine providence
·
Angels
·
Divine inspiration, e.g. Simeon
·
Fulfilled prophecy, e.g. Isaiah’s passage re:
John the Baptist (Lk.3.4-6), inter alia
·
The descent of the Son of David and the Son of
God back to Abraham and Adam
·
Focus also on Gentiles, e.g. a Gentile whose
“faith was great” (Lk.7.2ff), grateful Samaritans (Lk.10.33; 17.16), and the
Gospel to all peoples (Lk.24.47; Acts 1.8, inter
alia)
·
Jesus the Friend and Savior to sinners “sunk in
sin” who come by “penitent humility” (Lk.5.8, 29-32; 7.29, 34, 37-50; 15.1-33).
·
Poverty and wealth: (1) the rich young man, (2)
the widow with her mites, and (3) several saying about wealth and benevolence
·
Non-hostility to the state with obligations to
pay taxes
