Thesis on the preface by edgar j. goodspeed

In all its forms it has greatly served religion, and in its modern forms its meaning comes out more clearly and more tellingly than ever.

Thesis on the preface by edgar j. goodspeed

Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings Information on the Gospel of Luke The first question that confronts one when examining Luke and Acts is whether they were written by the same person, as indicated in the prefaces.

Barbara Aho Bids Goodspeed to King James

With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author" The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p.

This implies the implausibility of the hypothesis of such as John Knox that Marcion knew only Luke, not Acts, and that Acts was an anti-Marcionite production of the mid second century.

The next higher critical question is, if Luke and Acts were written by the same person, who was that person? This attestation probably does not stem from reading Irenaeus Adv.

Thesis on the preface by edgar j. goodspeed

Indeed, considering that the immediate recipient of Luke is mentioned in the preface, and given that the author of the third Gospel is aware that many other accounts have been drawn up before him, it is entirely probable that the author had indicated his name on the autograph.

The "most excellent Theophilus" mentioned in the preface of Luke is most likely his patron, as seen in the similar references to "most excellent X" in the prefaces to the De libris propriis liber of Galenus, the De antiquis oratoribus of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, the Scriptor De Divinatione of Melampus, the Peri ton kata antipatheian kai sumpatheian of Nepualius, and both Josephi vita and Contra Apionem of Josephus.

This Luke has traditionally been identified as the one named in Philemon 24 as a co-worker of Paul. Does the internal evidence support the idea that the author of Luke-Acts had known Saul of Tarsus?

Chief among the features of Luke-Acts that have always been thought to support the idea that the author knew Paul are the "we passages" found in For example, Acts We spent some time in that city. As we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl with an oracular spirit, who used to bring a large profit to her owners through her fortune-telling.

It is for this reason that we offer Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed ’ s “ Thesis on the Translators ’ Preface ” – not as an endorsement of modern scholarship, but to inform our readers of the ramifications of the disastrous and, we believe, deliberate suppression of the Preface to the King James Version. It is for this reason that we offer Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed’s “Thesis on the Translators' Preface” – not as an endorsement of modern scholarship – but to inform our readers of the ramifications of the disastrous and, we believe, deliberate suppression of the Preface to the King James Version. Edgar J. Goodspeed died in and was interred in the Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery in Glendale, California. External links [ edit ] Goodspeed, "The translators to the Reader": Goodspeed's thesis on the Preface to the King James Version, Nationality: United States.

She began to follow Paul and us, shouting, 'These people are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation. Paul was saved as an answer to his prayer, and he proceeded to travel through Thessalonica, Beroea, and Athens.

The Facts say NO!

Paul set sail for Syria by way of Ephesus, landed in Caesarea, and went to Antioch. After an upset with the silversmiths in Ephesus, the first person narration picks up again as follows: As he travelled throughout those regions, he provided many words of encouragement for them.

Then he arrived in Greece, where he stayed for three months. But when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return by way of Macedonia. Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, from Beroea, accompanied him, as did Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia who went on ahead and waited for us at Troas.

We sailed from Philippi after the feast of Unleavened Bread, and rejoined them five days later in Troas, where we spent a week. On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight.

We went ahead to the ship and set sail for Assos where we were to take Paul on board, as he had arranged, since he was going overland. When he met us in Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene. We sailed away from there on the next day and reached a point of Chios, and a day later we reached Samos, and on the following day we arrived at Miletus.

Thesis by EJ Goodspeed Regarding the Preface to the KJV

Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order not to lose time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if at all possible, for the day of Pentecost. Notice also that the "we" narration drops off at Philippi and then picks up in the second passage with "We sailed from Philippi.

The distinction between Paul and "us" discredits the idea that the first person perspective in these passages is some kind of literary device, which would take the perspective of Paul for example increasing the drama of Paul's adventure or increasing the connection of Paul to the groupand for which there is no precedent in ancient literature.

The alternative is that the author of Acts was making a false affectation to being a companion of Paul. This prompts the question of why the author made this claim in such a subtle way, instead of ensuring that the reader could not miss it by emphasizing the point, as apocryphal writers often did.

It also leaves us wondering as to why the false claim to participation is restricted to a few passages, leaving Paul alone for most of the narrative--though this is understandable if the author's participation was in fact sporadic.

The most probable conclusion is that Luke had travelled with Paul at times, a fact of which Luke's patron Theophilus was already aware. Other arguments are made concerning the authorship of Acts, but none of them are conclusive.

The thesis that the vocabulary of Luke-Acts is special to a physician was deflated by H. Cadbury in his dissertation The Style and Literary Method of Luke the saying goes that Cadbury earned his doctorate by depriving Luke of his!

The argument that the final voyage to Rome is an especially accurate depiction of sea travel can be met with the reply that the author not Luke had sailed that way at a later time or appropriated a sailor's account of the same.

The cleavage between the theology of Luke and Paul is simply a consequence of the student going off in his own direction, a venerable tradition. The disagreements noted between the narrative of Acts and the letters mainly Galatians may frequently be reconciled, but in any case are explained if the author of Luke-Acts didn't own any copies of Paul's letters to which he could refer.

It is, after all, improbable that Paul would dispatch a letter both to a church and then to all his sometime companions. The ignorance of the letters of Paul on the part of the author of Luke-Acts actually speaks for a date before ca. So we come upon the third question of higher criticism, the date of Luke-Acts.

It is sometimes put forward that the Gospel of Luke may be as early as 62 CE because Acts does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul. The ending of Acts is an old problem that has prompted many theories.Edgar J. Goodspeed used "The Translators to the Reader Preface to the King James Version " as a platform to advance his modernist viewpoints.

Below are my observations regarding the modernist bible version paradigm shift that Goodspeed's thesis accomplished in his time and that is continuing to be accomplished in our time. Information on the Gospel of Luke.

Thesis on the preface by edgar j. goodspeed

The first question that confronts one when examining Luke and Acts is whether they were written by the same person, as indicated in the prefaces. Preface, part 1] THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version Thesis by EDGAR J. GOODSPEED THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS But if anyone had any doubt remaining as to the justice of ThomasHardy's judgment, it must unquestionably evaporate in the presenceof the Preface.

World War I (often abbreviated as WWI or WW1), also known as the First World War or the Great War, was a global war originating in Europe that lasted from 28 July to 11 November Contemporaneously described as the "war to end all wars", it led to the mobilisation of more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, making it one of the largest wars in history.

It is for this reason that we offer Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed’s “Thesis on the Translators' Preface” – not as an endorsement of modern scholarship – but to inform our readers of the ramifications of the disastrous and, we believe, deliberate suppression of the Preface to the King James Version.

Questions for "KJV only" advocates: Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!