Post by Mark on Oct 8, 2009 4:43:32 GMT -8
I tend to be somewhat modest in my estimation of things. Yet, I can’t think of many circumstances that I would consider 3 (or at this point in time, two or possibly one) account(s) of the life and testimony establishing Yeshua as Messiah to be "many". This is the term that Luke chooses when declaring what has been "taken in hand". It can be interpreted as simply as "everybody’s talking about it"; but the serious tone of the vocabulary expresses something quite a bit more relevant: "There have been a large number of people who have taken it upon themselves to explain what really happened."
More than a little significant, then, is the absence of this antiquity in our records of the day in question. By this simple description, largely overlooked, we must assess that there was either a coordinated censorship of the specifics regarding Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazarette or the gospel of Luke (and by extension the Acts of the Apostles) is fiction.
It’s of course easier to conclude that the singular work (the writings of Luke) is erroneous as opposed to suggesting a conspiracy by both the Roman and Jewish authorities. It’s difficult to fathom that these governments would go through the effort of removing from history as many references to one man as possible… or is it?
If the other gospel records are considered to have any integrity, the circumstances leading up to the crucifixion of Yeshua demonstrate illegal proceedings on the parts of both the Jewish and Roman court systems. The local popularity of this man who, by this time, was more than rumored to have risen from the dead, was recipe to political explosiveness. Any and every effort to diminish the fall out would be perfectly reasonable. If the Books of Luke and Acts should be considered fictitious, the author certainly did his homework. Accounts and circumstances described line up perfectly with records of both Jewish and Romans historians (records that would have been unavailable to common folk not close to the governing councils).
Luke describes, specifically, a verbal recitation of the account by those first hand witnesses who had been believed by Theophilus and the others, to which Luke was attempting to record. It must be understood, then, that the Book of Luke is not designed to impart new information upon his audience: rather to confirm already held opinions, clear up any inconsistencies, and lay out in order his preservation of what was already understood.
During the First Century, the art of writing was not considered the only means of preserving historical accounts. The sages of old were storytellers. Their verbal transference of the records was by no means considered a less viable means of recording history. Luke’s ambition in this process was to provide a base-line account of the facts for his specific audience.
