Luke 1:4 and oral tradition

[tablecorner]

Does Luke 1:4 show that the scriptures confirms and comes after oral tradition?

"That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou has been instructed. "

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure how it would do so considering the fact that Luke was written some 50 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection and the gospel itself was received and preached well before his writing. Luke was simply giving his account and the Church considered it important and inspired such that they included it in the canon.

 

[stpurl]

Um, NIV has this: That you may know the certainty of these things you have been taught.

Interesting, no?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I’m not sure how it would do so considering the fact that Luke was written some 50 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection and the gospel itself

Thirty years is most likely. Maybe earlier.

 

[JerryZ]

That is a wonderful example of taking the sentence out of context. Let’s read the whole passage:

Luke 1:1 Since, indeed, many have attempted to set in order a narrative of the things that have been completed among us,
1:2 just as they have been handed on to those of us who from the beginning saw the same and were ministers of the word,
1:3 so it seemed good to me also, having diligently followed everything from the beginning, to write to you, in an orderly manner, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 so that you might know the truthfulness of those words by which you have been instructed.

What do you think?

Peace!

 

[goout]

Does Luke 1:4 show that the scriptures confirms and comes before oral tradition?

"That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou has been instructed. "

How could the scriptures come before oral tradition?
That’s not possible.
God also uses what is known as “common sense reason” to reveal himself.

3 step process for the Gospels:
1 The person of Jesus
2 The hearing and seeing by those he lived with, and the passing on of that word
3 The writing down

Putting number 3 at number 1 makes scripture an idol.

 

[JGD]

Does Luke 1:4 show that the scriptures confirms and comes before oral tradition?..

If anything it shows oral tradition came before the written NT.
Luke’s gospel contains information not contained in any of the other written NT gospels - which indicates he received it by word of mouth (oral tradition/teaching).
Eg. John the Baptist’s conception & birth; Annunciation (angel Gabriel); finding in the temple; Prodigal Son parable; …

 

[tablecorner]

I typed wrongly and meant that scripture came after oral tradition. thanks for bringing it up

 

[tablecorner]

fascinating point, i will dig a lil deeper and compared which is in Luke that is not in the others.

 

[Gorgias]

fhansen:

I’m not sure how it would do so considering the fact that Luke was written some 50 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection and the gospel itself

Thirty years is most likely. Maybe earlier.

Yep.

Dr Brant Pitre points out (in his “The Case for Jesus”) that those who claim that the Gospel of Luke was written in 80A.D. or later, do so on the theory that Jesus couldn’t possibly have predicted the razing of Jerusalem, and therefore, Luke couldn’t have written about it as if it were a ‘prophecy’ until after it already happened.

 

[Dan_Defender]

fhansen:

I’m not sure how it would do so considering the fact that Luke was written some 50 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection and the gospel itself

Thirty years is most likely. Maybe earlier.

I agree, given that St Luke also wrote Acts of the Apostles and his narrative stops before the first trial of St Paul in Rome, which occurs around early 60s AD.

 

[fhansen]

Thirty years is most likely. Maybe earlier.

Yep.

Dr Brant Pitre points out (in his “The Case for Jesus”) that those who claim that the Gospel of Luke was written in 80A.D. or later, do so on the theory that Jesus couldn’t possibly have predicted the razing of Jerusalem, and therefore, Luke couldn’t have written about it as if it were a ‘prophecy’ until after it already happened.

I agree, given that St Luke also wrote Acts of the Apostles and his narrative stops before the first trial of St Paul in Rome, which occurs around early 60s AD.

Oops! Well, no bible scholar here and I had no idea that some anti-supernaturalism may’ve been at play there in the later dating and on top of that I see now that I misunderstood the OP to boot!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Tradition is a dirty word to them.

 

[Maximian]

By definition there was an oral tradition before it was written down. Even if it were only a five minute oral tradition, it would still precede the written version.

As far as dating is concerned, Luke travelled with St Paul and finished the Book of Acts before Paul’s death circa 65AD.

He almost certainly wrote his Gospel before he began Acts. He also clearly had a copy of Mark at his disposal, probably also another document which Matthew made use of too (scholars give this hypothetical document the name Q)

So, allowing time for Mark to be written and circulated, we have an earliest date of about 45AD and a latest date of about 60 AD for his Gospel.

Furthermore it seems that Luke first met Paul at Troas in about 51 AD, and would have begun work on his gospel some years later. That narrows it down to 55-60 AD for completion of Luke’s gospel