路加在古代史学背景下的来源主张

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Pub Date : 2020-01-31 DOI:10.1163/17455197-2019004
J. Peters
{"title":"路加在古代史学背景下的来源主张","authors":"J. Peters","doi":"10.1163/17455197-2019004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on Luke-Acts and the Gospels has largely overlooked the major distinction within ancient historiography between accounts written about events contemporary with the author (e.g., by Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius) and accounts written about non-contemporary events (e.g., by Diodorus, Dionysius, Plutarch, Arrian). As ancient authors writing about contemporary events represented their sources primarily in terms of autopsy and eyewitness testimony, so Luke’s preface corresponds with this practice. I argue that a proper understanding of ancient historical method, epistemology, and the use of ἐπιχειρέω (Luke 1.1; Acts 9.29; 19.13) confirm that Luke represented as the sources for his account not the ‘many’ prior accounts but rather the ‘eyewitnesses’ and ‘servants of the word’.","PeriodicalId":51987,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus","volume":"18 1","pages":"35-60"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/17455197-2019004","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Luke’s Source Claims in the Context of Ancient Historiography\",\"authors\":\"J. Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/17455197-2019004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research on Luke-Acts and the Gospels has largely overlooked the major distinction within ancient historiography between accounts written about events contemporary with the author (e.g., by Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius) and accounts written about non-contemporary events (e.g., by Diodorus, Dionysius, Plutarch, Arrian). As ancient authors writing about contemporary events represented their sources primarily in terms of autopsy and eyewitness testimony, so Luke’s preface corresponds with this practice. I argue that a proper understanding of ancient historical method, epistemology, and the use of ἐπιχειρέω (Luke 1.1; Acts 9.29; 19.13) confirm that Luke represented as the sources for his account not the ‘many’ prior accounts but rather the ‘eyewitnesses’ and ‘servants of the word’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"35-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/17455197-2019004\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-2019004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-2019004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对路加福音-使徒行传和福音书的研究在很大程度上忽略了古代史学中关于作者同时代事件的记载(例如希罗多德、修昔底德、色诺芬、波利比乌斯)和关于非当代事件的记载(例如迪奥多罗斯、迪奥尼修斯、普鲁塔克、阿里安)之间的主要区别。因为古代作者写当代事件时,主要是用尸体解剖和目击证人的证词来表达他们的资料来源,所以路加的序言与这种做法是一致的。我认为,正确理解古代历史方法、认识论,以及使用ν πιχειρ ω(路加福音1.1;徒9.29;(19.13)证实路加所代表的来源并不是“许多”先前的记载,而是“目击者”和“神的仆人”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Luke’s Source Claims in the Context of Ancient Historiography
Research on Luke-Acts and the Gospels has largely overlooked the major distinction within ancient historiography between accounts written about events contemporary with the author (e.g., by Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius) and accounts written about non-contemporary events (e.g., by Diodorus, Dionysius, Plutarch, Arrian). As ancient authors writing about contemporary events represented their sources primarily in terms of autopsy and eyewitness testimony, so Luke’s preface corresponds with this practice. I argue that a proper understanding of ancient historical method, epistemology, and the use of ἐπιχειρέω (Luke 1.1; Acts 9.29; 19.13) confirm that Luke represented as the sources for his account not the ‘many’ prior accounts but rather the ‘eyewitnesses’ and ‘servants of the word’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus provides an international forum for the academic discussion of Jesus within the context of first-century Palestine. The journal is accessible to all who are interested in how this complex topic has been addressed in the past and how it is approached today. The journal investigates the social, cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived, discusses methodological issues surrounding the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, examines the history of research on Jesus and explores how the life of Jesus has been portrayed in the arts and other media.
期刊最新文献
Why Name Popularity is a Good Test of Historicity: A Goodness-of-Fit Test Analysis on Names in the Gospels and Acts Teaching the Historical Jesus over Three Decades, from Waikato to London Thoughts on Teaching Critical History Using the Historical Jesus He’s No Spartacus: Jesus, Slavery, and the Utopian Imagination Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1