What prophecy is Jesus referencing?

[Elijah John]

Luke 24:46New International Version (NIV)

46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

------------

Question for debate, WHERE is this written? What OT/Hebrew Bible (Jesus' Bible) prophecy? What is Jesus supposedly referencing?

Or did Luke just make this up for his own theological agenda, or did he perhaps reference some apocryphal source?

[bluethread]

The point I am trying to make, and challenging anyone to refute, is that there IS no such prophecy in the OT/Hebrew Bible that the Messiah would die and rise again on the third day. Luke, whatever his sources, tries to make it seem like there is such a prophecy, by putting that reference on Jesus' lips, and saying "it is written".

Well, you have answered your own question. He does not indicate that it is from the Tanach. Dr. Israel Knohl, the Yehezkel Kaufmann Chair of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, appears to believe that there was a common rabbinic teaching to that effect that predated Yeshua. As in the passages where Yeshua says, "You have heard it said" does not refer to HaTorah, but rabbinics, so the phrase "This is what is written" here also appears to refer to rabbinics and not the Tanach.

[Unhand Me Sir]

The Gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke the Apostle.

It was written by some anonymous author decades after the event, based on multiple generations of oral accounts of the story.

See post #8. In addition to those reasons, it's worth noting that the various figures of the early church Luke was a relative nobody. Even Mark was at least Peter's interpretor, but Luke is known only for an association with Paul - and a rather loose one at that!

If there were anyone in the early church casting around for a name to pin to the gospel, they surely would have picked one of the disciples. Even Barnabas or Timothy or Silas would've been higher up on the list than Luke. The main positive evidence that Luke is probably the author are outlined above, but this is a pretty compelling negative reason - a reason why the false attribution scenario simply doesn't make any sense. Of all the gospels, Luke's authorship is perhaps the most assured.

So to summarise:

A manuscript that could well be a century older than the text labels it as the gospel of Luke, a not particularly unusual name in the ancient world, without explaining why it does so.

One of Paul's epistles mentions in passing a "co-worker" with the same not particularly unusual name.

Another work thought to have the same authorship sometimes talks about a group of people including Paul as "we." This work has the structure of a Greek novel and internal evidence in both texts (knowledge of Mark and Josephus respectively) suggests they were written at least 20-30 years after Paul's life.

And that's about it...

There's no way that the early church could have claimed that Luke was written by one of the disciples as the text itself makes it clear that it isn't an eyewitness account.

And as for the criterion of embarrassment - it must be true because it would be unimpressive if you made it up - there's no way that would carry any weight in any field other biblical studies.

[Mithrae]

There's no way that the early church could have claimed that Luke was written by one of the disciples as the text itself makes it clear that it isn't an eyewitness account.

A slightly hollow objection, considering that's precisely what they did with Matthew In fact in the case of Matthew there was an obviously different work - a Hebrew collection of Jesus' sayings - which was said by Papias to be the apostle's work, and somehow canonical Matthew still managed to usurp the name. If it was done for one gospel in spite of that difficulty, it obviously could have been done for another. Even if not a direct disciple of Jesus, there's still more prominent names (eg. Barnabas, Timothy, Silas) which could have been used, as I said. Instead, it's attributed to a fellow who would otherwise be even more obscure than Apollos or Aquila and Priscilla!

A manuscript that could well be a century older than the text labels it as the gospel of Luke, a not particularly unusual name in the ancient world, without explaining why it does so.

A century gap between autograph and extant manuscript is remarkably short in comparison to most ancient texts. Generally, later manuscripts were intended to be copies of earlier manuscripts; and if they say that it's "Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus" or "the gospel according to Luke," I imagine that the scribes generally did not feel obliged to add "and I just wrote that because the earlier Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus had it written at its start." You may correct me if I'm wrong, of course

As noted by earlychristianwritings.com, the same attribution is likewise made by at least three other sources in the 170-210 period (Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian).

And as for the criterion of embarrassment - it must be true because it would be unimpressive if you made it up - there's no way that would carry any weight in any field other biblical studies.

I didn't say it must be true because it'd be unimpressive. I said that the alternative possibility is unlikely because it runs contrary to expectations. That is precisely the kind of reasoning we use in all fields, weighing the relative merits or shortcomings of different theories. If there were some positive evidence suggesting that the gospel wasn't written by Luke that would obviously boost that theory's credibility. But as far as I'm aware there is none.



But as far as things which wouldn't occur in any other field go, I'm betting that nowhere except the bible would we still find the matter controversial if several sources from within 130 years of composition all gave the same attribution, consistent with the internal evidence, with no contrary evidence whatsoever and in fact some reason to consider alternative hypotheses unlikely!

So terribly controversial, it seems, that a single off-hand comment about a non-witness gospel author whose liking for Paul is easily demonstrated from the text itself has nevertheless given rise to no fewer than three people raising off-topic objections

[Student]

[Replying to Mithrae]

Your information is incorrect.

Although Bodmer Papyrus XIV [P75] is reckoned to be the oldest extant manuscript witness to gLuke [3rd Century CE], it is not the oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel. I can categorically confirm this as P75 does not include the start of the gospel.

P75 contains Luke 3:18 to 24:53; the beginning of the gospel is lost.

Therefore any discussion with regard to what the preface to the gospel may or may not have originally contained i.e. the dedication to Theophius, cannot be based upon P75.

Nb. In P75, the attribution to Luke is found at the end of the gospel.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to Mithrae]

Your information is incorrect.

Although Bodmer Papyrus XIV [P75] is reckoned to be the oldest extant manuscript witness to gLuke [3rd Century CE], it is not the oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel. I can categorically confirm this as P75 does not include the start of the gospel.

P75 contains Luke 3:18 to 24:53; the beginning of the gospel is lost.

Therefore any discussion with regard to what the preface to the gospel may or may not have originally contained i.e. the dedication to Theophius, cannot be based upon P75.

Nb. In P75, the attribution to Luke is found at the end of the gospel.

Thanks for the heads up. So the end of Luke just reads something like:

• And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen.
  This is the gospel according to Luke.

?

(For others' usage, a couple of handy sources I found for manuscripts are here and here. I haven't been able to find one with translations of the fragments however.)

[Unhand Me Sir]

A slightly hollow objection, considering that's precisely what they did with Matthew In fact in the case of Matthew there was an obviously different work - a Hebrew collection of Jesus' sayings - which was said by Papias to be the apostle's work, and somehow canonical Matthew still managed to usurp the name. If it was done for one gospel in spite of that difficulty, it obviously could have been done for another.

Unlike Matthew, Luke opens with a clear statement that it isn't an eyewitness account.

Sadly you still see people trying to claim canonical Matthew is what Papias was talking about, these days mainly by looking for signs that it's a translation of an earlier Aramaic text.

Even if not a direct disciple of Jesus, there's still more prominent names (eg. Barnabas, Timothy, Silas) which could have been used, as I said. Instead, it's attributed to a fellow who would otherwise be even more obscure than Apollos or Aquila and Priscilla!

I suspect that if it wasn't for that attribution we wouldn't construct "Luke" at all - see below.

Generally, later manuscripts were intended to be copies of earlier manuscripts; and if they say that it's "Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus" or "the gospel according to Luke," I imagine that the scribes generally did not feel obliged to add "and I just wrote that because the earlier Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus had it written at its start." You may correct me if I'm wrong, of course

Yes, but you were just saying that there were some pretty dodgy attributions going on at the time. This one might be because the manuscript was a faithful (if partial) copy of a copy of ... of a copy of an original that wasn't anonymous or it might be as spurious at the attribution of Matthew. We don't know because the sources don't tell us.

As noted by earlychristianwritings.com, the same attribution is likewise made by at least three other sources in the 170-210 period (Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian).

Which do you want to argue? Are early attributions reliable as you argue here or unreliable as you argue above?

I didn't say it must be true because it'd be unimpressive. I said that the alternative possibility is unlikely because it runs contrary to expectations. That is precisely the kind of reasoning we use in all fields, weighing the relative merits or shortcomings of different theories. If there were some positive evidence suggesting that the gospel wasn't written by Luke that would obviously boost that theory's credibility. But as far as I'm aware there is none.

Who was Luke? The name, which was by no means uncommon, crops up in 3 epistles traditionally attributed to Paul but which are likely to have 3 different authors. For reasons not clear to us, late 2nd and 3rd century writers attributed Luke/Acts to a person claimed to correspond to all 3 of these references. The "we" passages of Acts then supply more biography for that person, but they could just as well be a literary device or pseudographica.

We only construct "Luke" because of a choice to impose later Christian tradition on the texts. Taking the texts at face value you could have no more than 3 different writers referring to 3 different people. It starts to look a bit like taking the stars in a constellations and telling yourself it really is a picture of an animal.

It's enormously difficult to isolate individuals in the ancient world. I'm not sure what would constitute "positive evidence" that the gospel wasn't written by "Luke".

[Student]

[Replying to post 15 by Mithrae]

I appreciate that this is wandering off-topic but the following is a link to the actual folio in question:

http://csntm.org/manuscript/zoomify/GA_ ... jpg&page=0

The form of the text is majuscule scripto-continua [capitals with no spaces between the words]. It includes the last word of Lk24:52 and all of Lk24:53. I have transcribed it as follows:

ΜΕΓΑΛΗΣΚΑΙΗΣΑ�ΔΙΑΠΑ�ΤΟΣΕ�ΤΩ
ΙΕΡΩΕΥΛΟΓΟΥ�ΤΕΣ ΤΟ� Θ�.

ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟ�
ΚΑΤΑ
ΛΟΥΚΑ�

Nb. the final word on line 2 is the nomen sacrum Θ� = ΘΕΟ� = god.

A literal translation:

GREAT. AND THEY WERE CONTINUALLY IN THE
TEMPLE BLESSING THE GOD
GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO
LUKE

Nb. There is no "praising" or "amen".

[ttruscott]

Luke 24:46New International Version (NIV)

46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

------------

Question for debate, WHERE is this written? What OT/Hebrew Bible (Jesus' Bible) prophecy? What is Jesus supposedly referencing?

...

Since no Rabbi nor Hebrew scholar found this interpretation of the Messiah in their holy works it is obvious that if they were there, they were hidden in meaning by context or by alluding to a type rather than the anti-type (that is, already deemed to have been fulfilled, pre-Christ). In the verse you quoted, Christ has already opened the minds of His disciples to the scriptures as per Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

Therefore we cannot look for an exact quote but for an essential meaning or, as Gills says in his Exposition of the Entire Bible:

And he said unto them, thus it is written,.... In the above cited books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; not what after follows, in so many words, but the matter and substance thereof:

and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; it was necessary, both because of the decree and appointment of God, and because of the prophecies and predictions of the Old Testament;

Peace, Ted

[Stonez]

Luke 24:46New International Version (NIV)

46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

------------

Question for debate, WHERE is this written? What OT/Hebrew Bible (Jesus' Bible) prophecy? What is Jesus supposedly referencing?

Or did Luke just make this up for his own theological agenda, or did he perhaps reference some apocryphal source?

There is no direct prophecy claiming this in the OT but it seems there was a lot more around than just the Torah, developing Jewish apocalyptic beliefs. Books like Enoch seemed to be widely used by apocalyptic Jew's and there is Archaeological evidence that Jew's expected the Messiah to raise after three days around the time of Jesus birth, according to the Jeselsohn Stone.

Jesus (in luke) is also suggesting that it took him to open their understanding to the scriptures. He used Jonah as an example of the common 3 days theme of salvation that runs through the OT.
I can think of one scripture that mentions being raised after 3 days but refering to Israel.

Hosea 6
6 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

It seems that Jesus wasn't the first to come up with this Idea that the Messiah would raised after 3 days. The Jeselsohn Stone tablet dated to around the time of Herod's death and has on it prophecies and also a story about Simon, a slave of Herod's that became king and believed himself the Messiah. He burns down Herod's palace and gets himself killed. They then wait for him to raise from the dead after 3 days...This Simon lived around the time of Jesus birth.

The stone is called Jeselsohn Stone or Gabriel's Revelation ;

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gabriel's Revelation, also called Hazon Gabriel (the Vision of Gabriel)[1] or the Jeselsohn Stone, is a three-foot-tall (one metre) stone tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew text written in ink, containing a collection of short prophecies written in the first person and dated to the late 1st century BCE. One of the stories allegedly tells of a man who was killed by the Romans and resurrected in three days. It is a tablet described as a "Dead Sea scroll in stone".

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simon of Peraea or Simon son of Joseph was a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans in 4 BC.[1] He has been identified as the messiah of Gabriel's Revelation. He is mentioned by Flavius Josephus.

So, it seems it was already something familiar in Jesus time to believe that a Messiah would raise form the dead after 3 days....