• English

Da li su pisci Jevanđelja poznavali Isusa?

Ne. Zapravo, ništa u Novom zavjetu nije napisano od strane ljudi koji su ikada čak i sreli Isusa. Čak ni Pavlove poslanice. Možda sada mislite na Pavlovo iskustvo na putu za Damask, ali to nije nešto o čemu je Pavle sam govorio. To je izmišljotina autora Djela apostolskih. Ništa u Novom zavjetu nije napisao neko ko je ikada upoznao Isusa.
— dr Kaleb Lajns

Lutajući neki dan besciljno kroz raznorazne članke na sajtu Progresivno hrišćanstvo, zapade mi za oko naslov koji je ujedno bio i pitanje jednog čitaoca: „Jesu li pisci Novog zavjeta poznavali Isusa?”

Naviknut na drugačija teološka mišljenja i otvoren za nova biblijska saznanja, a sklon stalnom preispitivanju svojih uvjerenja, ipak se, čitajući odgovor dr Lajnsa, nađoh u čudu. Iako znajući da je istina o tome u meni nedodirljiva i osjećajući da je njegovo potpuno drugačije mišljenje o ovome u meni izazvalo buru negodovanja, odlučih da se i sam malo pozabavim tim, i provjerim ponešto. A najviše zbog njegovog javno izrečenog mišljenja, i to bez trunke zadrške ili mogućnosti da bi moglo biti i drugačije, nađoh za vrijedno da i ja dam svoj osvrt i da svoj odgovor učinim javnim.

Pa jesu li pisci Novog zavjeta znali Isusa?
Ne, ako je vjerovati Kalebu Lajnsu. Niko od pisaca novozavjetnih spisa, tvrdi teolog i sveštenik Lajns, nije nikada sreo ili poznavao onoga o kome su pisali. Čak ni apostol Pavle, o kome tvrdi da nije ni imao susret sa vaskrslim Isusom na putu za Damask, o čemu piše Luka u Djelima apostolskim. Štaviše, kaže da je to Lukina izmišljotina i da se taj susret nikada nije desio.

Tačno je da Luka nije lično poznavao Isusa, niti gdje tvrdi suprotno. U svom prvom pismu Teofilu upravo kaže da je sve lično istražio kod onih koji su ga poznavali:

Mnogi su preduzeli da opišu događaje koji su se odigrali među nama onako kako su nam ih prenijeli oni koji su od početka bili očevici i sluge Riječi, pa sam i ja, uvaženi Teofile — pošto sam od početka sve pažljivo ispitao — naumio da ti napišem sve po redu, da uvidiš vjerodostojnost onoga o čemu si poučen (Luka 1,1–4).

Međutim, ako Luka nije lično poznavao Isusa, jesu Matej (Levi), Jovan, Petar, Jakov i Juda (Isusova braća), svaki dajući svoj doprinos nastanku Novog zavjeta sa ukupno deset knjiga.

Možda velečasni Lajns „ne poznaje” pisca jednog od jevanđelja i Djela apostolskih (što sumnjam), ili je po prirodi nepovjerljiv (što je ponekad dobro), ali čitajući dvije Lukine knjige ne može se oteti utisku da je pisac — uz svoje reference ljekara i istoričara — i čovjek od integriteta i istine. Zato je tvrdnja da je nešto izmišljao, po mom mišljenju, vrlo neozbiljna i neutemeljena.

Luka još više uliva povjerenje time što je lično poznavao Pavla, pa je mogao iz prve ruke da sazna o Pavlovom duhovnom iskustvu i službi. Osim toga, mnogo toga su zajedno i prošli, jer su bili bliski saradnici i saputnici, što se vidi u Kološanima 4,14; Filemonu 24; 2. Timotiju 4,11; Djelima 20,6…

Dakle, Luka je mogao imati saznanje o pomenutom događaju iz prve ruke — od samog Pavla. Može biti da je Pavle obmanuo svog prijatelja i da na putu za Damask nije ništa doživio. Dr Kaleb, međutim, nema povjerenja u Luku i na njega svaljuje svu krivicu za pisanje o nepostojećem događaju, dok za Pavla tvrdi da nigdje i ne pominje nešto što mu se nije ni desilo.

Bilo na putu za Damask ili negdje drugdje, ali nešto se Pavlu ipak desilo, što će ga — od progonitelja vjernih — takoreći preko noći, pretvoriti u vodeću figuru nove vjere.

Tačno je da sam Pavle nigdje u svojim spisima ne opisuje svoje iskustvo sa putovanja u Damask u detalje kao što to čini Luka u njegovo ime u Djelima apostolskim. Ali to ne znači da ga nije imao ili da ga nije ispričao svom prijatelju i saborcu.

Pitam se samo: da je Pavle htio da taj događaj ispriča sam u svojim pismima, umjesto što je to prepustio nekom drugom, — šta bi onda rekao dr Kaleb i šta bi mislio o Pavlu? Da li je tu problem ličnost, ili sam natprirodni događaj, ko god da je o njemu pisao?

Uzgredna opaska: A šta ako je Pavle u svom pisanom obraćanju crkvama i pojedincima imao preča posla, važniji zadatak od svoje samo-promocije, pa je taj — nesumnjivo određujući — događaj svog života prepustio da o njemu piše neko drugi (možda jedan hroničar tog vremena i novog pokreta)?

A ako taj događaj nije ni pominjao, kako kaže Kaleb Lajns, na šta se onda odnosi ovo što piše u Galatima 1,15–16:

Ali, kada se svidjelo Onome koji me je još od rođenja odvojio i pozvao svojom milošću, da mi otkrije svoga Sina, da ga propovijedam među neznabošcima…

Ili ovdje:

Zar ja nisam slobodan? Zar nisam apostol? Zar nisam vidio Isusa, našeg Gospoda?
(1. Korinćanima 9,1)

Pa u 1. Korinćanima 15,7–10:

Zatim se pokazao Jakovu, pa svim apostolima. A poslije svih, pokazao se i meni, kao nedonoščetu. Ja sam, naime, najmanji od apostola, nedostojan da se zovem apostol, zato što sam progonio Božiju crkvu. Ali, Božijom milošću sam ono što jesam i njegova milost prema meni nije bila uzaludna.

Zar se sve ovo ne odnosi upravo na viđenje koje je imao na putu za Damask, i o kojem govori (u osporenom tekstu od strane g. Kaleba, u Djelima 26) u svoju odbranu pred kraljem Agripom?

Kad radi toga [progona] pođoh u Damask, s ovlašćenjem i dopuštenjem glavara svešteničkih, vidjeh na putu o podne, o kralju, kako s neba svjetlost od sunca sjajnija obasja mene i one koji su išli sa mnom. Kad svi mi na zemlju popadosmo, začuh glas što mi hebrejskim jezikom govori: ‘Savle, Savle, zašto me progoniš? Teško ti je bosti se s rogatim.’ A ja rekoh: ‘Ko si, Gospode?’ A Gospod reče: ‘Ja sam Isus koga ti progoniš.  Nego ustani i stani na noge svoje, jer ti se ukazah stoga da te odredim za slugu i svjedoka — i onog kako si me vidio i onog što ću ti pokazati.’ Zato, care Agripa, nisam bio nepokoran nebeskom viđenju, nego sam, prvo onima u Damasku, onda onima u Jerusalimu i po cijeloj judejskoj zemlji, pa neznabošcima, propovijedao da se pokaju i okrenu Bogu i da čine djela dostojna pokajanja.

Ako je Luka, iz nekog razloga, izmislio cijeli događaj — da li bi onda i Pavle mogao biti saučesnik u toj prevari? Ako mu se ništa slično nije desilo, može li biti da nije imao pojma o čemu ovaj piše i sa kim ima posla? Ili pak Luka, kao Pavlov biograf, opisuje stvarni događaj u njegovom životu?

Da li je Pavle znao šta Luka piše?

Istina, na osnovu Novog zavjeta ne možemo sa sigurnošću znati da je Pavle čitao ili znao sadržaj Lukinih Djela, ali bi se to na osnovu nekih pokazatelja moglo pretpostaviti.

A ti pokazatelji su sljedeći:

• Luka je bio blizak sa Pavlom. U Kološanima 4,14, Pavle ga naziva „ljekar ljubljeni”.
• Luka je takođe bio Pavlov pratilac na nekoliko putovanja (pogledati mi mjesta u Djelima 16,10–17; 20,5–15; 27,1–28,16).
• Djela se završavaju Pavlovim kućnim pritvorom u Rimu, gdje je proveo cijele dvije godine i „gdje je primao sve koji bi mu došli” (Djela 28,30). Tu je mogao biti i Luka.
• Mnogi teolozi vjeruju da je Luka pisao Djela za vrijeme ili kratko nakon tog perioda Pavlovog zatočeništva.

Razumno je pretpostaviti da je Luka sakupio dosta materijala za pisanje dok je bio sa Pavlom i da je slušao Pavlove priče i iskustva iz prve ruke.

Dakle, velika je vjerovatnoća da je Pavle imao uvida u Lukino pisanje. S obzirom na to da je Luka bio sa Pavlom za vrijeme njegovog pritvora u Rimu, Luka je mogao, ako ništa drugo, sa njim podijeliti svoje namjere i svoj dotadašnji rad na knjizi.

U drugom pismu Timotiju, napisanom za vrijeme svog drugog i poslednjeg zatočeništva u Rimu, i nešto prije smrti (između 64. i 67. godine), Pavle mu piše kako je jedino Luka ostao sa njim. Luka je, dakle, bio uz Pavla u njegovim poslednjim danima, a svoja Djela je dovršio između 62. i 64. godine.

Na kraju, zamislite da vam blizak prijatelj piše vašu biografiju dok ste još uvijek živi i dok još istim poslom putujete zajedno. Vjerovatno biste znali o čemu piše, iako možda ne biste bili u prilici da vidite završenu knjigu.

Pavle, iako možda nije vidio konačni proizvod — svršenu knjigu — sigurno je svojim životom, prisustvom i svjedočanstvom bio ne samo njena inspiracija, već i vrlo zaslužan za njeno nastajanje.

Kako onda naše znanje o njihovom prijateljstvu i saputništvu utiče na to kako čitamo Djela apostolska? Da li nam ovo pomaže da imamo više povjerenja u istorijsku tačnost i vjerodostojnost te knjige?

Mislim da nas sve ovo samo može ohrabriti da čitamo Djela apostolska „novim očima” (ako smo sumnjali) i s povjerenjem, obraćajući pažnju na one detalje koje Luka, kao živi svjedok i Pavlov pratilac, navodi.

Pavle je, dakle, vjerovatno imao upoznavanje sa Isusom, i iako natprirodno po svom karakteru, za njega ipak vrlo stvarno. On u svojim spisima očigledno pominje upravo taj susret. Jasno mu je da je toga dana, na tom putu, pozvan u službu i odlučuje da prihvati poziv i da mu ostane poslušan. A Luka o tome piše u detalje i dok je ovaj još živ i uz njega.

O onim mjestima gdje Pavle sam pominje svoje iskustvo, dr Lajns zasigurno vjeruje da su opisi „običnog” obraćenja. Međutim, da je to slučaj, vjerovatno bi Pavle upotrijebio drugačiji rječnik od: „da mi otkrije svoga Sina”, „zar nisam vidio Isusa”, „a poslije svih, pokazao se i meni”.

Na stranu rječnik, kontekst ovog trećeg primjera (1. Korinćanima 15,7–10) jasno govori o susretima sa Isusom nakon vaskrsenja — dakle, natprirodnim događanjima koja su mijenjala, kako Pavlov život tako i živote svih pomenutih — i koja su ih od uplašenih i razočaranih ljudi preoblikovala u neustrašive borce za istinu i pravdu, i one koji će svojim životima platiti svoja „viđenja” i uvjerenja.

A gospodinu Kalebu preporučujem da pažljivije razmotri brojke, jer ako na pomenutih 10 knjiga, koje su pisali petorica Isusovih poznavalaca i sljedbenika, dodamo Pavlovih 13 (ako njegovo „poznanstvo” sa Isusom računamo kao vjerodostojno), onda imamo 23 knjige — dakle, većinu Novog zavjeta.

Vjerodostojnosti novozavjetnih spisa doprinose i očevici tih zbivanja koje je intervjuisao Luka i ta svjedočanstva zapisao na, pojedinačno, najviše stranica Novog zavjeta.

Zaključak:

Jesu li pisci novozavjetnih spisa poznavali Isusa? — Jesu, većina.
Je li išta od Novog zavjeta napisano od strane ljudi koji su sreli Isusa? — Jeste, većina.
Je li Pavle sreo Isusa? — Vjerovatno jeste.
Je li Pavle pominjao događaj sa puta u Damask? — Vjerujem da na onih par mjesta piše i misli upravo na taj događaj.
Je li Luka izmislio cijelu priču i stavio u usta Pavlu što nikad nije rekao ili doživio? — Vjerujem da nije.

Dakle, sve što je ovdje ustvrdio uvaženi gospodin Lajns je vrlo problematično i upitno. Priznajem da i sam ponekad pročitam ili poslušam nešto od njega, ali sada s dozom rezerve i ne bez opreza — što preporučujem i drugima.

Dr Kaleb je očigledno odlučio da ignoriše neke činjenice i da, u ovom slučaju, ne vjeruje svjedočanstvu pisaca Novog zavjeta.

A vama prepuštam da donesete svoj sud o ovome.

M.V.

Video verzija Kalebovog odgovora:
Caleb J. Lines — You Tube

---

English

A Closer Look at a Response

Did the Gospel Writers Know Jesus?

No. In fact, nothing in the New Testament was written by people who ever even met Jesus. Not even Paul’s letters. You might now be thinking of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, but that’s not something Paul himself talked about. That was made up by the author of Acts. Nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who ever knew Jesus.
— Dr. Caleb Lines

While aimlessly browsing through various articles on the Progressive Christianity website the other day, a headline caught my eye—a reader’s question: “Did the writers of the New Testament know Jesus?”

Accustomed to different theological views and open to new biblical insights, always questioning my own beliefs, I still found myself surprised by Dr. Lines’s response. Even though I know the truth of this matter is untouchable within me, and although his drastically different opinion stirred a wave of disagreement in me, I decided to explore the issue myself and verify a few things. Primarily because of his publicly stated opinion, expressed with complete certainty and without room for doubt, I thought it worthwhile to write my own response—and make it public.

So, did the writers of the New Testament know Jesus? According to Caleb Lines—no. None of the authors of the New Testament writings ever met or knew the man they were writing about, he claims. Not even the Apostle Paul, who, he argues, never had a real encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, as described by Luke in the Book of Acts. In fact, he claims that Luke fabricated the entire story and that no such event ever occurred.

It’s true that Luke didn’t personally know Jesus—and never claims he did. In his first letter to Theophilus, he clearly says that he carefully investigated everything from the beginning from those who were eyewitnesses:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1–4).

But even if Luke didn’t know Jesus personally, Matthew (Levi), John, Peter, James, and Jude (Jesus’ brothers) did—each contributing to the New Testament with a total of ten books.

Perhaps Rev. Lines doesn’t “know” the author of one of the gospels and Acts well enough (though I doubt it), or he is simply distrustful by nature (which can sometimes be a good thing), but reading Luke’s two books, one cannot escape the impression that the author—in addition to being a doctor and a historian—was a man of integrity and truth. So, to claim he fabricated anything seems to me both careless and unfounded.

Luke inspires even more trust because he personally knew Paul, from whom he could hear firsthand about his spiritual experience and ministry. Besides, they went through much together, as close companions and fellow travelers—evident from Colossians 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11; Acts 20:6…

So Luke had the opportunity to learn about the event directly from Paul himself.
Could it be that Paul deceived his friend and that nothing happened on the road to Damascus? Dr. Caleb, however, places all the blame on Luke, claiming he made the whole thing up, while asserting that Paul never even mentioned such an event.

But something clearly did happen to Paul—whether on the road to Damascus or elsewhere—something that transformed him overnight from a persecutor of believers into the leading figure of a new faith.

It’s true that Paul never describes his Damascus road experience in detail in his letters as Luke does in Acts. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that he never told Luke about it.

I wonder—if Paul had decided to describe the event in his own letters instead of leaving it to someone else—what would Dr. Caleb say then? Would the issue then be Paul’s personality, or would the problem still be the supernatural nature of the encounter, regardless of who wrote about it?

Sidenote: What if Paul, in his letters to churches and individuals, had more pressing matters to address than recounting his own story—choosing instead to leave the telling of that life-defining moment to a chronicler of the early Church?

And if Paul didn’t mention it, as Caleb claims, what then does this mean in Galatians 1:15–16?

But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles…

Or here:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1)

Or 1 Corinthians 15:7–10:

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am…

Doesn’t all this refer precisely to the encounter Paul had on the road to Damascus—the one he describes in his defense before King Agrippa (the passage in Acts 26 that Mr. Lines disputes):

On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me…’
So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven…

If Luke somehow fabricated the whole story, does that make Paul complicit in the fraud? If nothing of the sort happened to Paul, might he have been completely unaware of what Luke was writing—or who he was dealing with? Or perhaps Luke, as Paul’s biographer, was simply describing a real event in his life?

Did Paul know what Luke was writing?

True, we cannot say with absolute certainty from the New Testament that Paul saw the contents of Acts, but certain indicators suggest it’s quite plausible.

And those indicators are:

• Luke was close to Paul. In Colossians 4:14, Paul calls him “Luke, the beloved physician”.
• Luke was Paul’s companion on several missionary journeys (see the we sections in Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 27:1–28:16).
• Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome for two years, “welcoming all who came to see him” (Acts 28:30). Luke could very well have been one of them.
• Many theologians believe Luke wrote Acts during or shortly after that time in Rome.

It’s reasonable to believe Luke collected much of his material while traveling with Paul and hearing his accounts firsthand.

So there’s a strong possibility Paul had some awareness of what Luke was writing.
Since Luke was with Paul during his house arrest in Rome, he could have at least shared his intentions or early drafts with him.

In 2 Timothy—Paul’s final letter, written during his second and last imprisonment in Rome shortly before his death (between AD 64–67)—he writes to Timothy: “Only Luke is with me.” Luke was by Paul’s side in his final days, and Acts was completed between AD 62–64.

In the end, imagine a close friend writing your biography while you’re still alive and journeying together. You’d probably know what he was writing about—even if you never saw the finished book.

Paul, although he may not have read the final manuscript, was surely—through his presence in Luke’s life and his testimony—not only its inspiration but also a pivotal figure in its creation.

How does this knowledge of their friendship and partnership affect how we read Acts? Does it help us trust its historical accuracy more?

I believe it should encourage us to read Acts “with fresh eyes” (if we had doubts), trusting its content and paying close attention to the details Luke—as an eyewitness and Paul’s companion—recorded.

Paul likely did have an encounter with Jesus—even if supernatural in nature, it was deeply real to him. He clearly references it in his writings, acknowledging it as the day of his calling—and he chooses to be obedient to it. And Luke writes about it in detail and while Paul is still alive, and with him.

Regarding those places where Paul alludes to this experience, Dr. Lines presumably believes they refer to an “ordinary” conversion. But if that were the case, Paul likely would have used different language than: “to reveal His Son in me”, “have I not seen Jesus”, or “He appeared to me also.”

Even aside from the language, the context of the third example (1 Corinthians 15:7–10) clearly refers to post-resurrection appearances of Jesus—i.e., supernatural events that transformed Paul’s life and the lives of others mentioned, who went from frightened, disillusioned people to fearless fighters for truth and justice, most of whom paid for their “visions” and convictions with their lives.

And to Mr. Caleb, I’d recommend a recount—because if we add those 10 books written by five people who personally knew Jesus to Paul’s 13 letters (assuming his knowledge of Jesus is accepted as valid), we get 23 books, which means the majority of the New Testament.

The credibility of the New Testament is also supported by the eyewitness accounts that Luke recorded—forming the longest single contribution to the New Testament by one author.

To wrap up:

Did the New Testament writers know Jesus? – Yes, most of them.
Was anything in the New Testament written by people who met Jesus? – Yes, most of it.
Did Paul meet Jesus? – Most likely, yes.
Did Paul mention the road to Damascus event? – I believe the few instances where he refers to it point precisely to that moment.
Did Luke make up the whole story and put words in Paul’s mouth? – I don’t believe so.

So, everything Dr. Lines has asserted here is highly questionable and problematic.
I admit I sometimes read or listen to his work, but now with a grain of salt—which I also recommend to others.

Dr. Caleb Lines has clearly chosen to ignore some facts and, in this case, to distrust the testimony of New Testament writers.

I’ll trust you to draw your own conclusions.

M.V.

Video version of Caleb’s response:
Caleb J. Lines on You Tube