>Fellow B-Greeks
>
>In Greek, how many is many, please?
>
>Does POLLOI in the opening sentence of Luke's gospel mean more than two?
>Or could it refer to two only - Mark and Matthew?
>
>Are there any instances in Greek of POLLOI meaning only two?
>
Todd Pedlar and Carl Conrad have replied, explaining that POLLOI would mean
"more than two".
But other terms in Luke 1:1-4 are also relevant in addition to POLLOI, and
it seems to me that putting them all together we can get an increased
understanding of just who these POLLOI might have been. Just what were
these POLLOI doing when they took in hand (EPECEIRHSAN) to draw up
(ANATAXASQAI) an account/narrative (DIHGHSIS) of the things that had been
fulfilled "amongst us", just as they were handed on/delivered (PAREDOSAN)
"to us" by the ones who from the first had been both eyewitnesses
(AUTOPTAI) and also servants (hUHRETAI) of the word (LOGOS)?
There is general agreement that before there were any written accounts of
the life and teachings of Jesus, stories of what he said and did were
passed on orally. How could it have been otherwise? Can we imagine that the
apostles did not do this when they were deliberately chosen by Jesus to be
with him during the events of those days, and were given practice then in
being sent out to minister (Mark 3:14); and when after the Resurrection
they were specifically commissioned to be witnesses for him (e.g., Luke
24:46-48; Acts 1:8)? Thus those whom Luke calls AUTOPTAI KAI hUPHRETAI
GENOMENOI TOU LOGOU would be initially the Eleven apostles.
Thus far is pretty common ground amongst NT scholars and exegetes. But what
else is Luke saying in these verses? Lots more, I reckon.
These things that the apostles taught about Jesus would have included
stories of what he did and the things he taught - what today we would call
"pericopes" of Gospel material. Not taught necessarily by the apostles in
any particular order, but ad hoc, to meet a given situation amongst the
hearers. Here then is my proposal of a scenario to fit Luke 1:1-4 (and fill
in what is meant by POLLOI, and also ANATAXASQAI, DIHGHSIS, and the other
crucial terms in this passage):
1. Matthew Levi had been a tax collector, totally at home in the realm of
producing written reports, and almost certainly fluent in one or other (or
both) of the systems of shorthand in use in his day. As would be almost
inevitable for a person of his background and skills, aware (as he
undoubtedly was) of the tremendous significance of the events in which he
himself was caught up, he made notes at the time.
2. During the post-resurrection period there were numbers of converted Jews
coming up to Jerusalem for the Feasts, or otherwise encountering the
apostles and hearing their pericopes of Jesus, who would want to have the
record in writing. Matthew was the logical member of the apostolic group,
the AUTOPTAI KAI hUPHRETAI GENOMENOI TOU LOGOU, to produce this for them.
He wrote out accounts of this or that unit of Jesus's teaching, a
description of this or that event from his ministry. The requests would
come from both those in the church who were Aramaic speakers and those who
were more at home in Greek. (These two groups in the church are referred to
in Acts 6:1.) Thus the written pericopes they took away with them would be
written in one or other of these two languages; and they would be of any
length, from a couple of lines to a couple of pages. These short pieces,
authored by Matthew, would be some of what were "handed on/handed down",
PARADOSAN, by the apostles. The verb used here, PARADIDWMI, covers
teachings and traditions delivered from one group or generation to another,
implying almost a measure of deliberateness and formality - cf. 1
Corinthians 11:2; 15:3. The term is used of a "handing on" in either (or
both) written and oral form.
3. We know quite a bit about the customs of the day in regard to letters
and other such written material. First of all, it was customary for the
author to produce and retain his own copy of what he wrote. Secondly, it
was common for material which had an intrinsic interest value to be copied
and recopied. (Thus, quite early on, the various churches began making
their own copies of Paul's letters and building their own collections of
them - the beginnings of this are perhaps implied in Colossians 4:16.)
4. There is no reason to think that Matthew would be the only person to put
into writing a record of what Jesus said and did. Various parts of his
ministry had witnesses ranging from quite small numbers up into the
thousands. I would hold that the onus of proof lies with anyone who would
assert that none of these multitudes of witnesses ever put pen to paper to
record any of this.
5. Thus in process of time numbers of individuals and (more particularly)
of churches came to possess collections of these pericopes authored by
Matthew and by others. An obvious next step would be for some collectors to
start assembling the items in their collection into some kind of order.
These are the POLLOI concerning whom Brian Wilson enquires: these anonymous
people are the ones of whom Luke writes in 1:1 - they have taken it in hand
to assemble (ANATAXASQAI, "draw up, set out in order") an account or
narrative (DIHGHSIS) of the things fulfilled "amongst us".
6. Final stage: Matthew himself assembles his own material, using a general
chronological framework but within that framework putting "like with like",
and adding an introduction and a conclusion, various other pericopes not
previously published, and a plethora of connecting links between pericopes
on the way along. Independently, Luke thought it a good idea to investigate
everything carefully from the beginning for himself (Luke 1:3) - he
interviews eyewitnesses and makes his own collection of all the available
accounts to which he has already referred. (He can hardly tell us
simultaneously of the existence of these other accounts, and of the fact
that he himself has investigated everything in detail from the beginning,
if he were then to choose to remain in ignorance of what those other
accounts contained.) Some of the material he collected was that originally
authored by Matthew, and some authored by others. He assembles all of this
into chronological order (KAQEXHS, Luke 1:3), to the extent to which he can
discover it. He and Matthew issue their respective Gospels more or less
simultaneously but independently, neither of them having seen the Gospel of
the other. A few years later Mark conflates from these two his own "special
purpose" KHRUGMA Gospel, consisting primarily of what Jesus did, intended
as a tool for use by evangelists in their preaching of Jesus.
This is the central thesis of my "Progressive Publication of Matthew's
Gospel", long since out of print by hopefullly to be reissued in a revised
edition one of these days.
There is much more to it, of course: such as the identification of the
LOGIA of Papias with the circulating collection of Matthew's pericopes
which he wrote in Aramaic, and the way this accounts for the contents and
order of the pericopes in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But let this suffice as
a presentation of a way of understanding the POLLOI and other key Greek
terms of Luke 1:1-4.
Regards,
Ward
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au
AUSTRALIA.