Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Theodor Zahn's "Intro to the NT, Vol.3:" Luke-Acts


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

No comments: