January 24: Reflections On the Scripture Readings for This Sunday's Mass

[Fidelis]

In the first part of the Gospel Reading (Luke 1:1-4), there are a couple of words that have interesting word origins:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word **have handed them down **to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

The Greek word used for “handed them down” is a form of the word paradosis. It is same word elsewhere in the New Testament for the word “tradition,” both written and oral as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

The word translated as “teachings” in Luke 1:4 is the Greek word katecheo, from which we get our words “catechism” and “catechesis.”

 

[cheeto1]

In the first part of the Gospel Reading (Luke 1:1-4), there are a couple of words that have interesting word origins:

The Greek word used for “handed them down” is a form of the word paradosis. It is same word elsewhere in the New Testament for the word “tradition,” both written and oral as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

The word translated as “teachings” in Luke 1:4 is the Greek word katecheo, from which we get our words “catechism” and “catechesis.”

do you think we would have a better understanding of the bible if we learned the whole
thing translated into greek? Was that the language it was first written in or was it
hebrew?

 

[Fidelis]

do you think we would have a better understanding of the bible if we learned the whole thing translated into greek?

Just about anything is better understood if it is read in the original languages. Ideally, of course, it would be nice if we all read enough Greek to read the OT. That’s not the reality for that vast majority of us, however, so we have to find scholars and learning aides we can trust.

Language isn’t the only impediment when reading the Scriptures. One must also know something of the cultural and historical context and assumptions underlying the text.

Was that the language it was first written in or was it hebrew?

The Old Testament was mostly originally written in Hebrew, with some Aramaic, as well as Greek (i.e. most of the Dueterocanonical books).

The New Testament was originally written all in Greek. The exception may be the Gospel of Matthew. Some of the Early Church Fathers believed that Matthew had originally been written in Hebrew (or Aramaic):

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
“Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.”

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.”

Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
“Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.”

Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5).

Most modern scholars doubt this, but I have never heard any reasons why. Interestingly, I read someplace that Aramaic scholar Jaroslav Pelikan recently “back-translated” Matthew from Greek into Aramaic (the language of Jesus) and found that many sections–most notably the Sermon on the Mount-- took on the form of poetry of the type that would have made it easy for the first listeners to memorize.

 

[Fidelis]

Theophilus was something of a common name in Roman times. It is hypothesized that this particular Theophilus may have been a well-to-do new Christian who sponsored St. Luke as he undertook the expensive task of composing his Gospel. This would have enabled Luke to obtain the expensive writing materials, have food and shelter, and distribute the Gosel to other believers.

Another theory is that Theophilus may have been a Roman official involved in the trial of St. Paul. The Gospel of Luke, therefore may have been meant as a written defense (or apologia) to show Christians (including St. Paul) were not a subversive threat to the Roman Empire.

Finally, since Theophilus means “lover of God” some have surmised that, rather than this Gospel being addressed to an individual of this name; rather, it is addressed to ALL who consider themselve "lovers of God.’ That includes, hopefully, you and I.

Speaking of Theophilus, I wonder if this is a good book? I know I’ve enjoyed other Michael O’Brien books (like Father Elijah).

 

[cheeto1]

Speaking of Theophilus, I wonder if this is a good book? I know I’ve enjoyed other Michael O’Brien books (like Father Elijah).

It does sound interesting, due to the culture being examined, but why does he
think Theophilus could be Luke’s father? Perhaps when he says adopted father,
he just means a good friend. Generally, I don’t like fictional books about the
Bible. Like the Jewish midrash’s, I am always disappointed, because I almost
always prefer my own imagination about the untold facts of the bible…

Thank you for the info on the original languages of the bible.

 

[Fidelis]

It does sound interesting, due to the culture being examined, but why does he think Theophilus could be Luke’s father? Perhaps when he says adopted father, he just means a good friend. Generally, I don’t like fictional books about the Bible. Like the Jewish midrash’s, I am always disappointed, because I almost always prefer my own imagination about the untold facts of the bible…

I actually do too, so I’m pretty picky about the “biblical fiction” that I pick up. I haven’t yet read this particular book, but if I started to and the writer’s interpretation of events was just too unbelievable or distracting or too revisionist or preachy, it would pretty much ruin it for me and I would toss it (which explains why I don’t buy much new fiction).

The value of good biblical fiction for me is,not so much the story, but the cultural, historical and sociological research that goes into the background of the story, If the author is also a good, trustworthy researcher, one could learn a lot about the Bible from a book like that. So I might give this one a try.

As far as Theophilus being Luke’s father in O’Brien’s version of this, I don’t know where he’s coming from. I suppose anything is possible, but I just don’t see it either in the text of the Scriptures themselves, or from tradition. I’m thinking it’s just a literary device that shouldn’t have too much bearing on the message of the story (as found in Scripture) itself.