Toto

If you can't see why it is convenient, I can't help you.

I was not speaking of Luke's lack of an ID for Theophilus, but the lack of a historical ID. As I said, it's not a proof, and not worth more in the way of discussion.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be realistic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's no need to be insulting.

Since when "Let's be realistic" is an insult?

Peter wrote:
Bernard wrote: "Speculative blablablah. Where is the beef?"

That may be the worst refutation I have ever seen on IIDB. Are you actually interested in discussion?

You should know Peter there has been refutations a lot worst than that on IIDB. What you are saying is just free musing with no evidence to back it up.
Talking about discussion, are you going to answer the rest of my posts? The ball is in your court now.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

What I mean is why would Luke choose to invent such a name? His sponsor is not a part of the work at all. He attributes no great characteristics to him (apart from his title). He makes no call to action to the recipient. No "alter call." "Friend of God" is not any particularly strong theme of Luke's throughout his writings. If Luke was looking for something symoblic, "friend of God" doesn't strike me as something particularly apt. I thought you might have some explanation as to why Luke would choose Theophilus. You do not.

This sounds suspiciously like question-begging. I thought we were trying to determine whether Luke had an "historical ID" or not.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
If Luke was looking for something symbolic, "friend of God" doesn't strike me as something particularly apt. I thought you might have some explanation as to why Luke would choose Theophilus. You do not.

I think now, more so after my research with Perseus, that the chance of a Roman upper class "excellency" to be called truly Theophilus is quasi null.
So "Luke" was expecting Theophilus to be understood as a code name, or secret name, and "lover of God" fits the bill exactly.
The readers of the gospel & Acts would understand that and wonder who that "excellency" was.
But then, if Luke would have addressed his books directly to this "excellency" then why use a code/secret name?
More, could an "excellency" be deemed to accept:
a) Jesus appears briefly to his disciples at the end of the gospel, mainly to prove he is not a ghost!
b) Jesus appears for 40 days to his disciples at the beginning of Acts.
It is obvious to me that Luke, when writing Acts, was addressing some Christians who wanted more reassurance Jesus did resurrect and proved it:
Ac1:3 "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days ..." (NIV)
Luke could not have been a "historian" working for a Roman official.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Why would your "research" lead you to that conclusion? Mine suggests that "[t]he name Theophilus occurs frequently from the third century B.C. on for both Jews and Greeks." John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, at 10. So it's not only a Jewish name. Heck, the very fact that it's a Greek name is enough to suggest that.

First, I do not think you've established why the name Theophilus would have been understand as a code name?

Second, why does "lover of God" (or "friend of God") fit the bill? As I said above, it does not appear to be related to any of Luke's themes. And Luke makes no other use of the literalistic meaning of the name. Why not? Why create a name to lead without connecting it more solidly to your work?

Actually, the use of a specific honorific makes it unlikely that "Theophilus" is symoblic. "Some have suggested that the name is 'symbolic Christians,' since the name means 'beloved of God.' However, the address to him with the vocative 'most excellent' seems to indicate a specific person of high social standing." Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9.50, at 63

Umm, while I don't doubt that any of the gospel authors wanted to emphasize Jesus' resurrection, it seems odd to me that you suggest that Luke was particularly interested in this topic and then cite from the beginning of a work that goes on to cover decades of Church history!

But, more importantly, what does this have to do with "Theophilus" being a fake name? I don't see any connection between a name meaning "friend of God" and Luke's purpose in emphasizing the resurrection.

First, why? How do you know that Luke could not gained a Roman patron by the latter half of the first century?

Second, so what? Nothing about the term "excellency" requires a Roman official. According to F. Blass, A. Debrunner, adn R.W. Funk's A Greek Grammar of the new Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the phrase 'most excellent' is a polite form of address. It need not mean any official position. Section 60.2 A German scholar, afters studying the use of the term, concludes that the term need not suggest that Theophilus was a person "of high rank." As cited by Bock, at 63 (F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 1:Lk,1, 1-9,50. Evangelish-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/1. 1989).

It does not appear that the case for reading Theophilus as a fake name is well supported. And the argument that "excellent" requires that Theophilus was a Roman official has even less to comend it.

Layman

What about Tacitus, Ann. 2.55? He mentions a Theophilus, obviouly a gentile, who got into trouble for forgery.

Peter Kirby

It was not meant as evidence. It was meant to indicate that I am not attempting to claim "independent attestation" because, if I am right, the name Luke was on the document already, so all later comments would have been dependent on that single witness to the author's name. My arguments for regarding the title as original, rather than the alternative that the title was a later addition (an either-or proposition with a preponderance of evidence on my side), are based primarily on internal evidence and have not been addressed with anything more than "Speculative blablablah." Of course, it doesn't hurt that there are no alternate traditions or manuscript variants with regard to the title and author name.

The Muratorian Canon and the first paragraph of the Prologue to Luke may have been written before Irenaeus wrote Adv. Haer. 3.1.1 (during the bishopric of Eleutherus ca. 174 - ca. 189). According to Koester, the one paragraph Prologue to Luke should be dated to the second half of the second century; it is the rest of the so-called "Anti-Marcionite" prologues that could be from the fourth century. Although some see it as a forgery, the Muratorian Canon claims to be written shortly after the bishopric of Pius in Rome, d. 155 CE, so a date before the Against Heresies is certainly permissible. One could no more declare that the Prologue and the Muratorian Canon depended on Irenaeus of Lyons than one could say with any certainty that Irenaeus had read the canon or the prologue. The documents could have been written either before or after Irenaeus wrote.

As for Clement of Alexandria, however, it would be absurd to propose that Clement had read Irenaeus but gave no indication of this in his thousands upon thousands of words about theology. So far as I can ascertain, there is no such indication either explicit or implicit. So the statements of Clement of Alexandria show that the idea of the third Gospel and Acts as having been written by a man named "Luke" has an origin before the writing of Irenaeus.

I am not aware of any evidence or even of any scholar which would favor the idea that Justin was making up the person of Marcus Pompeius, or referring to him as a recipient of the document falsely. So this is a poor example. (By the way, we might know more about this Marcus if the beginning of the Dialogue were intact, as Quasten's Patrology indicates that some has been lost.)

I should make it clear that all I have said is that Theophilus is the name of Luke's patron, as indicated by the formula in the Greek preface paralleled in the works of other client writers. I have not attempted to claim that Theophilus was an official in the Roman bureaucracy. If I ever brought it up, it was because I thought it was your opinion that she was pretending to write to a Roman official, to quote:

Also, was Theophilus already a brother of the Way? It is possible that Theophilus was just a Gentile (or a God-fearer) with an interest in the Christian sect, but I consider it to be at least as probable that Theophilus had already joined the faith and wanted more detail and reassurance, having concerns about particular points.

And now, for a simple demonstration that it is completely wrong-headed to think that "Theophilus" was not a common Greek name.

Plutarchus Biogr., Phil., Antonius
?Plutarchi vitae parallelae, vol. 3.1, 2nd edn.?, Ed. Ziegler, K.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1971.
Chapter 67, section 9, line 4
A)RNOUME/-
NOUS DE\ KAI\ KLAI/ONTAS EU)MENW=S PA/NU KAI\ FILOFRO/NWS
PARAMUQHSA/MENOS KAI\ DEHQEI\S A)PE/STELLE, GRA/YAS PRO\S
*QEO/FILON TO\N E)N *KORI/NQW| DIOIKHTH/N, O(/PWS A)SFA/LEIAN
E)KPORI/SH| KAI\ A)POKRU/YH| TOU\S A)/NDRAS, A)/XRI A)\N I(LA/SASQAI
*KAI/SARA DUNHQW=SIN.

Plutarchus Biogr., Phil., Antonius
Chapter 67, section 10, line 1
OU(=TOS H)=N *QEO/FILOS *(IPPA/RXOU PATH\R
TOU= PLEI=STON PAR' *)ANTWNI/W| DUNHQE/NTOS, PRW/TOU DE\ PRO\S
*KAI/SARA TW=N A)PELEUQE/RWN METABALOME/NOU KAI\ KATOIKH/-
SANTOS U(/STERON E)N *KORI/NQW|.

Plutarchus Biogr., Phil., Parallela minora [Sp.] (305a-316b)
?Plutarchi moralia, vol. 2.2?, Ed. Nachsta+dt, W.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1935, Repr. 1971.
Stephanus page 309, section A, line 5
H( DE\ *KLOUSI/A A)PO\ TW=N PU/RGWN ? E)/RRIYEN E(AUTH/N:
PRONOI/A| D' *)AFRODI/THS KOLPWQEI/SHS TH=S E)SQH=TOS DIESW/QH
E)PI\ TH\N GH=N: H(\N O( STRATHGO\S E)/FQEIRE, KAI\ TOU/TWN PA/NTWN
E(/NEKA E)CWRI/SQH KOINW=| DO/GMATI U(PO\ *(RWMAI/WN EI)S *KO/RSI-
KAN NH=SON PRO\ TH=S *)ITALI/AS: W(S *QEO/FILOS E)N TRI/TW|
*)ITALIKW=N (FHGr.

Plutarchus Biogr., Phil., Parallela minora [Sp.] (305a-316b)
Stephanus page 313, section C, line 9
KAI\ OU(/TWS H)PATH/QH O( O)/XLOS: W(S *QEO/FILOS E)N
DEUTE/RW| *PELOPONNHSIAKW=N (FHGr.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
?Athenaei Naucratitae deipnosophistarum libri xv, 3 vols.?, Ed. Kaibel, G.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1-2:1887; 3:1890, Repr. 1-2:1965; 3:1966.
Book 1, Kaibel paragraph 10, line 1
KAI\ O( NUM-
FI/OS ?*FILO/CENE, EI)=PE, KAI\ AU)/RION W(=DE DEIPNH/SEIS:?
KAI\ O( *FILO/CENOS ?A)\N O)/YON, E)/FH, MH\ PWLH=| TIS.?
*QEO/FILOS DE/ FHSIN (FHG IV 516): ?OU)X W(/SPER
*FILO/CENON TO\N *)ERU/CIDOS: E)KEI=NOS GA/R, W(S E)/OIKEN, E)PI-
MEMFO/MENOS TH\N FU/SIN EI)S TH\N A)PO/LAUSIN HU)/CATO/
POTE GERA/NOU TH\N FA/RUGGA SXEI=N: A)LLA\ POLU\ MA=LLON
I(/PPON O(/LWS H)\ BOU=N H)\ KA/MHLON H)\ E)LE/FANTA DEI= SPOU-
DA/ZEIN GENE/SQAI.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 3, Kaibel paragraph 48, line 4

PODW=N DE\ KAI\ W)TI/WN, E)/TI DE\ R(U/GXOUS *)/ALECIS
E)N *KRATEI/A| H)\ *FARMAKOPW/LH|: TO\ DE\ MARTU/RION O)LI/GON
U(/STERON E)KQH/SOMAI (p. 107b), POLLA\ E)/XON TW=N ZHTOUME/-
NWN O)NOMA/TWN. *QEO/FILOS *PAGKRATIASTH=| (II 475 K):
E(FQW=N ME\N SXEDO\N
TREI=S MNA=S, {*B.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 8, Kaibel paragraph 24, line 39
*EU)/BOULOS D' E)N *)ANASW|ZOME/NOIS (II 167 K):
E(/TAIROI DE\ QEOI=SI SUMPEPLEGME/NOI
META\ *KARA/BOU SU/NEISIN, O(\S MO/NOS BROTW=N
DU/NATAI KATAPIEI=N E)K ZEO/NTWN LOPADI/WN
A(/QROUS TEMAXI/TAS, W(/ST' E)NEI=NAI MHDE\ E(/N.
*QEO/FILOS D' E)N *)IATRW=| A(/MA SKW/PTWN AU)TOU= KAI\ TO\
E)N LO/GOIS YUXRO/N (II 474 K):
PA=S DE\ FILOTI/MWS PRO\S AU)TO\N TW=N NEANI/SKWN .

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 10, Kaibel paragraph 10, line 46
E)N TOU/TOIS E)DH/LWSEN O( KWMIKO\S DIO/TI KAI\ TO\ DRA=MA
*KERAUNO\N A)P' AU)TOU= E)PIGE/GRAFE. *QEO/FILOS D' E)N
*)EPIDAU/RW| (II 474 K):
*)ATRESTI/DAS TIS *MANTINEU\S LOXAGO\S H)=N,
A)NDRW=N A(PA/NTWN PLEI=STA DUNA/MENOS FAGEI=N.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 11, Kaibel paragraph 44, line 13
EI)=T' E)LEUQE/RAN A)FH=KE BAPTI/SAS E)RRWME/NWS.
*QEO/FILOS D' E)N *BOIWTI/A| (II 473 K):
TETRAKO/TULON DE\ KU/LIKA KERAME/AN TINA\
TW=N QHRIKLEI/WN, PW=S DOKEI=S, KERANNU/EI
KALW=S, A)FRW=| ZE/OUSAN.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 11, Kaibel paragraph 48, line 15
A)ME/LEI KUKNOKA/NQAROS:
[E)C A)MFOTE/RWN TOU/TWN KEKERAMEUME/NOS]
*ME/NANDROS DE\ *NAUKLH/RW| (fr. 348 K):
H(/KEI LIPW\N *AI)GAI=ON A(LMURO\N BA/QOS (Eur. Tro. 1)
*QEO/FILOS H(MI=N, W)= *STRA/TWN.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 13, Kaibel paragraph 9, line 9
KAI\ *QEO/FILOS DE\ E)N *NEOPTOLE/MW| E)/FH (II 475 K):
OU) SU/MFORON NE/A 'STI\ PRESBU/TH| GUNH/.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 13, Kaibel paragraph 14, line 18
O( D' AU)TO\S OU(=TOS POIHTH\S KAI\ PERI\ TW=N E)RW/NTWN E)N
TW=| E)PIGRAFOME/NW| *TRAUMATI/A| FHSI\N OU(/TWS (II 382 K):
TI/S OU)XI/ FHSI TOU\S E)RW=NTAS ZH=N MO/NOUS,
<OU(\S> DEI= GE PRW=TON ME\N STRATEUTIKWTA/TOUS
EI)=NAI PONEI=N TE DUNAME/NOUS TOI=S SW/MASIN
MA/LISTA PROSEDREU/EIN T' A)RI/STOUS TW=| PO/QW|,
POIHTIKOU/S, I)TAMOU/S, PROQU/MOUS, EU)PO/ROUS
E)N TOI=S A)PO/ROIS, BLE/PONTAS A)QLIWTA/TOUS.
*QEO/FILOS D' E)N TW=| *FILAU/LW| (ib. 477):
TI/S FHSI\ TOU\S E)RW=NTAS OU)XI\ NOU=N E)/XEIN;

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 13, Kaibel paragraph 52, line 24
*KOSSU/FAS DE\ KAI\ *GALH/NAS KAI\ *KORW/NAS OU) LE/GW:
PERI\ DE\ *NAI/DOS SIWPW=: GOMFI/OUS GA\R OU)K E)/XEI.
*QEO/FILOS *FILAU/LW| (II 476 K):
TOU= MH/ POT' AU)TO\N E)MPESEI=N EI)S *LAI/DA
FERO/MENON H)\ *MHKWNI/D' H)\ *SISU/MBRION
H)\ *BA/RAQRON H)\ *QA/LLOUSAN H)\ TOU/TWN TINA/,
W(=N E)MPLE/KOUSI TOI=S LI/NOIS AI( MASTROPOI/,
H)\ *NAU/SION H)\ *MALQA/KHN.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae
Book 14, Kaibel paragraph 36, line 15
DIO\ KAI\ TA\S *LUDA\S
YALTRI/AS FHSI\N EI)=NAI O( *)/IWN E)N TH=| *)OMFA/LH| DIA\ TOU/-
TWN (fr. 22 N):
A)LL' EI)=A, *LUDAI\ YA/LTRIAI PALAIQE/TWN
U(/MNWN A)OIDOI/, TO\N CE/NON KOIMH/SATE.
*QEO/FILOS D' O( KWMIKO\S E)N *NEOPTOLE/MW| KAI\ TO\ TH=|
MAGA/DIDI YA/LLEIN MAGADI/ZEIN LE/GEI E)N TOU/TOIS (II 475 K):
PONHRO\N UI(O\N KAI\ PATE/RA KAI\ MHTE/RA
E)STI\N MAGADI/ZEIN E)PI\ TROXOU= KAQHME/NOUS:
OU)DEI\S GA\R H(MW=N TAU)TO\N A)/|SETAI ME/LOS.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae (epitome)
?Athenaei dipnosophistarum epitome, vols. 2.1-2.2?, Ed. Peppink, S.P.
Leiden: Brill, 2.1:1937; 2.2:1939.
Volume 2,2, page 26, line 30
EI)KO/TWS: A)BA/TOUS POIEI=N GA\R TA\S
TRAPE/ZAS OI)/OMAI AU)TO\N KATASKH/PTONT' AU)TAI=S TH=| GNA/QW|. *QEO/FILOS
DE/ FHSIN: *)ATRESTI/DAS TIS *MANTINEU\S LOXAGO\S H)=N, A)NDRW=N A(PA/NTWN PLEI=STON
DUNA/MENOS FAGEI=N.

Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae (epitome)
Volume 2,2, page 104, line 18
FHSI\ D' AU)TO\N KAI\ DI/DUMA TO/CA E)NTU/NESQAI, TO\ ME\N E)P' EU)AI/WNI TU/XA|, TO\
D' E)PI\ SUGXU/SEI BIOTA=S.
*QEO/FILOS DE/ FHSI: TI/S FHSI TOU\S E)RW=NTAS OU)XI\ NOU=N E)/XEIN;

Hyperides Orat., Pro Lycophrone
?Hyperidis orationes sex?, Ed. Jensen, C.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1917, Repr. 1963.
Fragment Ar, column 16, line 23
A)NA/-
BHQI/ MOI *QEO/FILE
KAI\ SU/NEIPE O(/ TI E)/XEIS:
KELEU/OUSIN OI( DIKA-
STAI/.

Plato Phil., Cratylus
?Platonis opera, vol. 1?, Ed. Burnet, J.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900, Repr. 1967.
Stephanus page 394, section e, line 4
*OU) *QEO/FILON, W(S E)/OIKEN, OU)DE\ *MNHSI/QEON
OU)DE\ TW=N TOIOU/TWN OU)DE/N: A)LL' O(/TI TA)NANTI/A TOU/TOIS SHMAI/NEI,
E)A/NPER TH=S O)RQO/THTOS TUGXA/NH| TA\ O)NO/MATA.

Plato Phil., Cratylus
Stephanus page 397, section b, line 6
TA\ ME\N OU)=N TW=N H(RW/WN KAI\ A)NQRW/PWN LEGO/-
MENA O)NO/MATA I)/SWS A)\N H(MA=S E)CAPATH/SEIEN: POLLA\ ME\N GA\R
AU)TW=N KEI=TAI KATA\ PROGO/NWN E)PWNUMI/AS, OU)DE\N PROSH=KON
E)NI/OIS, W(/SPER KAT' A)RXA\S E)LE/GOMEN, POLLA\ DE\ W(/SPER EU)XO/-
MENOI TI/QENTAI, OI(=ON ?*EU)TUXI/DHN? KAI\ ?*SWSI/AN? KAI\
*QEO/FILON KAI\ A)/LLA POLLA/.

Diodorus Siculus Hist., Bibliotheca historica (lib. 1-20)
?Diodori bibliotheca historica, 5 vols., 3rd edn.?, Ed. Vogel, F., Fischer, K.T. (post I. Bekker & L. Dindorf)
Leipzig: Teubner, 1:1888; 2:1890; 3:1893; 4-5:1906, Repr. 1964.
Book 16, chapter 53, section 1, line 2
*TOU= D' E)/TOUS TOU/TOU DIELQO/NTOS *)AQH/NHSI ME\N
H)=RXE *QEO/FILOS, E)N *(RW/MH| DE\ KATESTA/QHSAN U(/PATOI
*GA/IOS *SOULPI/KIOS KAI\ *GA/IOS *KOI/+NTIOS, O)LUMPIA\S D'
H)/XQH O)GDO/H PRO\S TAI=S E(KATO/N, KAQ' H(\N E)NI/KA STA/DION
*POLUKLH=S *KURHNAI=OS.

Dionysius Halicarnassensis Hist., Rhet., Ad Ammaeum
?Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant, vol. 5?, Ed. Usener, H., Radermacher, L.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1899, Repr. 1965.
Section 10, line 16
META\ GA\R A)/RXONTA *KALLI/MAXON, E)F' OU(= TA\S
EI)S *)/OLUNQON BOHQEI/AS A)PE/STEILAN *)AQHNAI=OI PEISQE/NTES
U(PO\ *DHMOSQE/NOUS, *QEO/FILOS E)/STIN A)/RXWN, KAQ' O(\N
E)KRA/THSE TH=S *)OLUNQI/WN PO/LEWS *FI/LIPPOS.

Dionysius Halicarnassensis Hist., Rhet., De Dinarcho
?Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant, vol. 5?, Ed. Usener, H., Radermacher, L.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1899, Repr. 1965.
Section 9, line 14
EI)SI\ DE\ OI(/DE: *NIKO/FHMOS, *KALLIMH/DHS, *EU)XA/RISTOS,
*KHFISO/DOTOS, *)AGAQOKLH=S, *)ELPI/NHS, *KALLI/STRATOS,
*DIO/TIMOS, *QOU/DHMOS, *)ARISTO/DHMOS, *QE/ELLOS, *)APOLLO/-
DWROS, *KALLI/MAXOS, *QEO/FILOS, *QEMISTOKLH=S, *)ARXI/AS,
*EU)/BOULOS, *LUKI/SKOS, *PUQO/DOTOS, *SWSIGE/NHS, *NIKO/-
MAXOS, *QEO/FRASTOS, *LUSIMAXI/DHS, *XAIRWNI/DAS, *FRU/-
NIXOS, *PUQO/DHMOS: E)PI\ TOU/TOU PRW=TON AU)TO\N EI)S DI-
KASTH/RION LO/GOUS SUGGRA/FEIN U(PEQE/MEQA.

Aeschylus Trag., Fragmenta
?Die Fragmente der Trago+dien des Aischylos?, Ed. Mette, H.J.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959.
Tetralogy 3, play A, fragment 28, line 1
postea cum de Terra erupissent duo pueri,
?Palici? dicti sunt quasi ?iterum venientes?: nam ?PA/LIN I(/KEIN? est
?iterum venire?.
Steph. v. Byz. p. 496, 7 Mein.: ?*PALIKH/?: PO/LIS *SIKELI/AS. *QEO/FILOS
D' E)N {IW} *PERIHGH/SEI *SIKELI/AS (573, 1 Jac.) *PALIKI/NHN KRH/NHN FHSI\N
EI)=NAI.

Pseudo-Plutarchus, De fluviis
?Geographi Graeci minores, vol. 2?, Ed. Mu+ller, K.
Paris: Didot, 1861, Repr. 1965.
Chapter 24, section 1, line 12
*DIO/NUSOS KATA\ PRO/NOIAN *(/HRAS E)MMANH\S
GENO/MENOS, PERIH/RXETO GH=N TE KAI\ QA/LATTAN, A)PAL-
LAGH=NAI TOU= PA/QOUS QE/LWN: GENO/MENOS DE\ E)N TOI=S KAT'
*)ARMENI/AN TO/POIS KAI\ TO\N PROEIRHME/NON POTAMO\N DIEL-
QEI=N MH\ DUNA/MENOS, E)PEKALE/SATO TO\N *DI/A: GENO/MENOS DE\
E)PH/KOOS O( QEO\S, E)/PEMYEN AU)TW=| TI/GRIN, E)F' H(=S A)KINDU/NWS
* PROSENEXQEI\S, EI)S TIMH\N TW=N SUMBEBHKO/TWN TO\N PO-
TAMO\N *TI/GRIN METWNO/MASEN, KAQW\S I(STOREI= *QEO/FILOS
E)N A# PERI\ *LI/QWN.

Strabo Geogr., Geographica
?Strabonis geographica, 3 vols.?, Ed. Meineke, A.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1877, Repr. 1969.
Book 12, chapter 3, section 33, line 16
O)YE\ DE\ *MOAFE/RNHS O( QEI=OS TH=S MHTRO\S H(MW=N
EI)S E)PIFA/NEIAN H)=LQEN H)/DH PRO\S KATALU/SEI TH=S BASI-
LEI/AS, KAI\ PA/LIN TW=| BASILEI= SUNHTU/XHSAN KAI\ AU)TO\S
KAI\ OI( E)KEI/NOU FI/LOI, PLH\N EI)/ TINES E)/FQHSAN PROAPO-
STA/NTES AU)TOU=, KAQA/PER O( PA/PPOS H(MW=N O( PRO\S AU)-
TH=S, O(\S I)DW\N TA\ TOU= BASILE/WS KAKW=S FERO/MENA E)N TW=|
PRO\S *LEU/KOLLON POLE/MW|, KAI\ A(/MA H)LLOTRIWME/NOS AU)-
TOU= DI' O)RGH/N, O(/TI A)NEYIO\N AU)TOU= *TI/BION KAI\ UI(O\N E)KEI/-
NOU *QEO/FILON E)TU/GXANEN A)PEKTONW\S NEWSTI/, W(/RMHSE
TIMWREI=N E)KEI/NOIS TE KAI\ E(AUTW=|, KAI\ LABW\N PARA\ TOU=
*LEUKO/LLOU PI/STEIS A)FI/STHSIN AU)TW=| PENTEKAI/DEKA FROU/-
RIA: KAI\ E)PAGGELI/AI ME\N E)GE/NONTO A)NTI\ TOU/TWN MEGA/-
LAI, E)PELQW\N DE\ *POMPH/IOS O( DIADECA/MENOS TO\N PO/LE-
MON PA/NTAS TOU\S E)KEI/NW| TI XARISAME/NOUS E)XQROU\S U(PE/-
LABE DIA\ TH\N GENOME/NHN AU)TW=| PRO\S E)KEI=NON A)PE/XQEIAN,
DIAPOLEMH/SAS DE\ KAI\ E)PANELQW\N OI)/KADE E)CENI/KHSEN
W(/STE TA\S TIMA/S, A(\S U(PE/SXETO O( *LEU/KOLLOS TW=N *PONTI-
KW=N TISI, MH\ KURW=SAI TH\N SU/GKLHTON: A)/DIKON GA\R
EI)=NAI KATORQW/SANTOS E(TE/ROU TO\N PO/LEMON TA\ BRA-
BEI=A E)P' A)/LLW| GENE/SQAI KAI\ TH\N TW=N A)RISTEI/WN DIA-
NOMH/N.

Aelius Aristides Rhet., *(IEROI\ LO/GOI D#
?Aristides, vol. 1?, Ed. Dindorf, W.
Leipzig: Reimer, 1829, Repr. 1964.
Jebb page 324, line 17
KATALELEI/MMEQA DE\ E)N TW=| I(ERW=| TW=N GNWRIMWTE/RWN
QERAPEUTW=N DU/O, E)GW/ TE KAI\ *NIKAEU\S, A)NH\R TW=N E)STRATH-
GHKO/TWN *(RWMAI/OIS, *SHDA=TOS O)/NOMA, TO\ D' A)RXAI=ON *QEO/-
FILOS.

Claudius Ptolemaeus Math., Geographia (lib. 1-3)
?Claudii Ptolemaei geographia, vol. 1.1?, Ed. Mu+ller, K.
Paris: Didot, 1883.
Book 1, chapter 9, section 1, line 9
*)/EPEITA KAI\ KATA\ TO\N METACU\ TW=N *)ARWMA/-
TWN KAI\ TW=N *(RA/PTWN PLOU=N, «*DIOGE/NH ME/N
TINA/ FHSI TW=N EI)S TH\N *)INDIKH\N PLEO/NTWN U(PO-
STRE/FONTA TO\ DEU/TERON, O(/TE E)GE/NETO KATA\ TA\
*)ARW/MATA, A)PWSQH=NAI A)PARKTI/A|, KAI\ E)N DECIA=|
E)/XONTA TH\N *TRWGLODUTIKH\N E)PI\ H(ME/RAS EI)/KOSI
PE/NTE PARAGENE/SQAI EI)S TA\S LI/MNAS, O(/QEN O( *NEI=-
LOS R(EI=, W(=N E)STI TO\ TW=N *(RA/PTWN A)KRWTH/RION
O)LI/GW| NOTIW/TERON: *QEO/FILON DE/ TINA TW=N EI)S TH\N
*)AZANI/AN PLEO/NTWN A)PO\ TW=N *(RA/PTWN A)NAXQH=-
NAI NO/TW|, KAI\ EI)KOSTH=| H(ME/RA| E)LHLUQE/NAI EI)S
TA\ *)ARW/MATA.

Claudius Ptolemaeus Math., Geographia (lib. 1-3)
Book 1, chapter 9, section 2, line 3
*TOU/TWN DE\ E(KA/TEROS OU)/TE
TO\N PLOU=N H(MERW=N O(/SWN EI)=PEN, A)LL' O( ME\N *QEO/-
FILOS EI)KOSTH=| H(ME/RA| KATH=XQAI, O( DE\ *DIOGE/NHS
E)PI\ H(ME/RAS EI)/KOSI PE/NTE PARAPLEU=SAI TH\N *TRW-
GLODUTIKH\N, O(/SAS E)/PLEUSAN I(STORH/SANTES MO/NON,
OU)XI\ DE\ O(/SWN E)STI\N H(MERW=N O( PLOU=S E)PILOGISA/-
MENOI DIA\ TH\N TW=N PNEUMA/TWN E)PI\ TOSOU=TON
XRO/NON A)NWMALI/AN KAI\ PARALLAGH\N, OU)/Q' O(/TI
PRO\S A)/RKTOUS H)\ PRO\S MESHMBRI/AN O(/LOS AU)TOI=S
GE/GONEN O( PLOU=S, A)LL' O( ME\N *DIOGE/NHS E)CW-
SQH=NAI MO/NON A)PARKTI/A|, O( DE\ *QEO/FILOS A)NAXQH=-
NAI MO/NON NO/TW|, TO\N DE\ LOIPO\N PLOU=N, O(/TI TH\N
AU)TH\N E)TH/REI PRO/SNEUSIN, OU)DE/TEROS EI)/RHKEN: OU)DE\
GA\R PIQANO/N E)STIN E)PI\ TOSAU/TAS H(ME/RAS TH\N AU)TH\N
FULAXQH=NAI PNEU/MATOS FORA/N.

Claudius Ptolemaeus Math., Geographia (lib. 1-3)
Book 1, chapter 9, section 3, line 5
*KAI\ DIA\
TOU=TO DH\, TOU= *DIOGE/NOUS TH\N A)PO\ TW=N *)ARWMA/-
TWN E)PI\ TA\S LI/MNAS, W(=N E)STI TO\ TW=N *(RA/PTWN
A)KRWTH/RION NOTIW/TERON, DIA/STASIN H(ME/RAIS EI)/-
KOSI PE/NTE DIANU/SANTOS, O( *QEO/FILOS TH\N A)PO\
TW=N *(RA/PTWN E)PI\ TA\ *)ARW/MATA, MEI/ZONA OU)=-
SAN, EI)KOSTAI=OS DIE/PLEUSE: KAI\ TOU= *QEOFI/LOU
TO\N TOU= NUXQHME/ROU FORO\N PLOU=N XILI/WN U(POTI-
QEME/NOU STADI/WN, OI(=S KAI\ AU)TO\S H)KOLOU/QHSEN,
O(/MWS FHSI\N U(PO\ *DIOSKO/ROU TO\N A)PO\ TW=N *(RA/-
PTWN E)PI\ TO\ *PRA/SON PLOU=N, POLLW=N H(MERW=N
O)/NTA, PENTAKISXILI/WN MO/NWN U(POTI/QESQAI STA-
DI/WN, EU)METABO/LWN W(S EI)KO\S O)/NTWN TW=N U(PO\
TO\N I)SHMERINO\N PNEUMA/TWN DIA\ TO\ KAI\ TA\S KAT'
AU)TO\N E)PI\ TA\ PLA/GIA TOU= H(LI/OU PARO/DOUS O)CU-
TE/RAS SUNI/STASQAI.

Claudius Ptolemaeus Math., Geographia (lib. 1-3)
Book 1, chapter 14, section 3, line 10
*)ALL' I(/NA MH\ DO/CWMEN KAI\ AU)TOI\
PRO\S KEI/MENO/N TI PLH=QOS E)FARMO/ZEIN TA\S TW=N
A)POXW=N EI)KASI/AS, PARABA/LWMEN TO\N A)PO\ TH=S
*XRUSH=S *XERSONH/SOU ME/XRI *KATTIGA/RWN PLOU=N,
SUGKEI/MENON E)/K TE EI)/KOSIN H(MERW=N TW=N E)PI\ *ZA/-
BAS KAI\ E)C A)/LLWN TINW=N TW=N E)PI\ TA\ *KATTI/GARA,
TW=| PLW=| TW=| A)PO\ TW=N *)ARWMA/TWN E)PI\ TO\ *PRA/SON
A)KRWTH/RION, SUGKEIME/NW| KAI\ AU)TW=| E)/K TE TW=N
I)/SWN H(MERW=N EI)/KOSI TW=N E)PI\ TA\ *(RA/PTA KATA\
*QEO/FILON KAI\ E)C A)/LLWN POLLW=N TW=N E)PI\ TO\
*PRA/SON KATA\ *DIO/SKORON, I(/NA KAI\ KATA\ TO\N *MA-
RI=NON E)N I)/SW| QW=MEN TA\S TINA\S H(ME/RAS TAI=S POL-
LAI=S.

Cassius Dio Hist., Historiae Romanae
?Cassii Dionis Cocceiani historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, 3 vols.?, Ed. Boissevain, U.P.
Berlin: Weidmann, 1:1895; 2:1898; 3:1901, Repr. 1955.
Book 30-35, chapter 101, section 1, line 3
V. 99 (p. 641).
O(/TI PA/NTES TOU\S *(RWMAI/OUS E)FO/NEUON KELEU/SANTOS *MIQRIDA/TOU
OI( *)ASIANOI/, PLH\N KAQ' O(/SON *TRALLIANOI\ OU)DE/NA A)PE/KTEINAN, *QEO/-
FILON DE/ TINA *PAFLAGO/NA E)MISQW/SANTO, W(/SPER POU H(=TTO/N SFWN
A)PO/LLUSQAI MELLO/NTWN, H)\ KAI\ DIAFE/RON AU)TOI=S U(F' O(/TOU SFAGH/-
SOINTO.

Achilles Tatius Scr. Erot., Leucippe et Clitophon
?Achilles Tatius. Leucippe and Clitophon?, Ed. Vilborg, E.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955.
Book 5, chapter 10, section 1, line 3
*DU/O DE\ PLEU/SANTES H(ME/RAS E)PI\ TH\N PO/LIN H(/KOMEN, KAI\ DE/OMAI/
TE TW=N E)N TW=| PLOI/W| *SIDWNI/WN (*CENODA/MAS DE\ O( E)/MPOROS H)=N KAI\ *QEO/-
FILOS O( TOU/TOU PENQERO/S), MHDENI\ *TURI/WN, EI) PERITU/XOIEN, KATEIPEI=N
W(S E)K NAUAGI/AS PERIGENOI/MHN, W(S A)\N MH\ MA/QOIEN SUNAPODEDHMHKO/TA.

Lysias Orat., Contra Simonem
?Lisia. I discorsi?, Ed. Albini, U.
Florence: Sansoni, 1955.
Section 12, line 6
KAI\ OI( ME/N TINES AU)TW=| TW=N PARAGENOME/NWN OU)K H)QE/-
LHSAN SUNECAMARTEI=N, *SI/MWN DE\ OU(TOSI\ KAI\ *QEO/FILOS KAI\
*PRW/TARXOS KAI\ *AU)TOKLH=S EI(=LKON TO\ MEIRA/KION.

Menander Comic., Fragmenta longiora apud alios auctores servata
?Menandri reliquiae selectae?, Ed. Sandbach, F.H.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Fragment 286, line 2
*N*A*U*K*L*H*R*O*S
{<*A>} H(/KEI LIPW\N *AI)GAI=ON A(LMURO\N BA/QOS
*QEO/FILOS H(MI=N.

Menander Comic., Fragmenta
?Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, vol. 3?, Ed. Kock, T.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1888.
Fragment 348, line 2
SPAQA=N
*N*A*U*K*L*H*R*O*S
H(/KEI LIPW\N *AI)GAI=ON A(LMURO\N BA/QOS
*QEO/FILOS H(MI=N, W)= *STRA/TWN.

Menander Comic., Fragmenta
?Fragmenta comicorum Graecorum, vol. 4?, Ed. Meineke, A.
Berlin: Reimer, 1841, Repr. 1970.
Play Nau, fragment 1, line 2
*(/HKEI LIPW\N *AI)GAI=ON A(LMURO\N BA/QOS
*QEO/FILOS H(MI=N, W)= *STRA/TWN.

Menander Comic., Fragmenta
?Menandri quae supersunt, vol. 2, 2nd edn.?, Ed. Ko+rte, A., Thierfelder, A.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1959.
Fragment 286, line 2
H(/KEI LIPW\N *AI)GAI=ON A(LMURO\N BA/QOS
*QEO/FILOS H(MI=N, W)= *STRA/TWN, W(S EI)S KALO\N
TO\N UI(O\N EU)TUXOU=NTA KAI\ SESWSME/NON
PRW=TOS LE/GW SOI TO/N TE XRUSOU=N KA/NQARON.

Julius Pollux Gramm., Onomasticon
?Pollucis onomasticon, 2 vols.?, Ed. Bethe, E.
Leipzig: Teubner, 9.1:1900; 9.2:1931, Repr. 1967; Lexicographi Graeci 9.1-9.2.
Book 9, section 15, line 3
PAI/ZONTI DE\ TO\ STRATO/PEDON E)/CESTI KATA\ TH\N TW=N
POLLW=N XRH=SIN KAI\ PAREMBOLH\N O)NOMA/SAI, PAREXO/MENO/N TINA TW=N
NEWTE/RWN *QEO/FILON E)N *PAGKRATIASTH=| EI)RHKO/TA (II p 476. 9 Ko)
EI)=T' E)N XA/RAKI ME\N TAU=TA KAI\ PAREMBOLH=|:
KAI\ *KRI/TWN' E)N *AI)TWLOI=S (III p 354. 1 Ko)
E)KEI= GA\R H(MI=N E)STI\N H( PAREMBOLH/.

Appianus Hist., Mithridatica
?Appiani historia Romana, vol. 1?, Ed. Viereck, P., Roos, A.G., Gabba, E.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1939, Repr. 1962 (1st edn. corr.).
Section 90, line 2
*TRALLIANOI\ D', AU)QE/NTAI
TOU= KAKOU= FULACA/MENOI GENE/SQAI, *PAFLAGO/NA *QEO/FILON,
A)/GRION A)/NDRA, E)S TO\ E)/RGON E)MISQW/SANTO, KAI\ O( *QEO/FILOS
AU)TOU\S SUNAGAGW\N E)PI\ TO\N TH=S *(OMONOI/AS NEW\N H(/PTETO TOU=
FO/NOU KAI\ TINW=N TOI=S A)GA/LMASI SUMPLEKOME/NWN TA\S
XEI=RAS A)PE/KOPTE.

Philochorus Hist., Fragmenta
?FGrH 328?.
Volume-Jacoby#-F 3b,328,F, fragment 156*, line 3
HAL. Ad Amm. 10 (I 269, 8 U ? R): META\ GA\R A)/RXONTA *KALLI/-
MAXON, E)F' OU(= TA\S EI)S *)/OLUNQON BOHQEI/AS A)PE/STEILAN *)AQHNAI=OI PEISQE/NTES U(PO\ *DHMOSQE/NOUS,
*QEO/FILO/S E)STIN A)/RXWN, KAQ' O(\N E)KRA/THSE TH=S *)OLUNQI/WN PO/LEWS *FI/LIPPOS.

Dio Chrysostomus Soph., Orationes
?Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia, vols. 1-2, 2nd edn.?, Ed. von Arnim, J.
Berlin: Weidmann, 1:1893; 2:1896, Repr. 1962.
Oration 32, section 97, line 1
OU)KOU=N A)\N A)KOU/SWSIN O(/TI FRO/NIMOS, A)LL' OU)X OI(=A TA\ NU=N
LEGO/MENA, W(S E)PTOHME/NOS, W(S EU)XERH/S, TA\ MIKRA\ QAUMA/ZWN, H(/TTWN
TOU= TUXO/NTOS [PRAGMA/TWN], E)RASTH\S H(NIO/XWN KAI\ KIQARW|DW=N, OU)K
A)/DHLON O(/PWS E(/COUSIN. *QEO/FILO/N FASI PAR' U(MI=N GENO/MENON
A)/NDRA SOFO\N SIWPA=N PRO\S U(MA=S KAI\ MHDE\N E)QE/LEIN DIALE/GESQAI.

Dio Chrysostomus Soph., Orationes
Oration 32, section 98, line 1
KAI\ *QEO/FILOS TOI/NUN
POLLA\ E)/XWN KAI\ MEGA/LA E)/NDON W)/NIA PAR' AU(TW=| TAU=TA, SUNEIDW\S
U(MI=N TH\N E)SXA/THN A)PORI/AN, OU) XRHMA/TWN, A)LLA\ NOU= KAI\ SUNE/SEWS.

Cornelius Alexander Polyhist., Fragmenta
?FHG 3?, Ed. Mu+ller, K.
Paris: Didot, 1841-1870.
Fragment 19, line 1
*QEO/FILOS DE/ FHSI TO\N PERISSEU/SANTA XRUSO\N TO\N
*SALOMW=NA TW=| *TURI/WN BASILEI= PE/MYAI: TO\N DE\ EI)KO/NA
TH=S QUGATRO\S ZW=|ON O(LOSW/MATON KATASKEUA/SAI, KAI\
E)/LUTRON TW=| A)NDRIA/NTI TO\N XRUSOU=N KI/ONA PERIQEI=NAI.

Stephanus Med., In Magni sophistae librum de urinis
??In Magni sophistae librum de urinis??, Ed. Bussemaker, U.C., 1845; Revue de Philologie 1.
Section 16, line 5
*KAI\ TAU=TA I(KANA\ PERI\ TH=S SUMPLOKH=S TH=S PAXEI/AS
SUSTA/SEWS, MEQ' OI(/WN XRWMA/TWN DU/NATAI SUSTH=NAI, KAI\ TI/ TOU/TWN E(/KA-
STON SHMAI/NEI, KAI\ PW=S AI( TOU/TWN AI)TI/AI GI/NONTAI: LOIPO\N XRH\ KAI\ E)PI\
DIAGRA/MMATOS E)KQE/SQAI TAU=TA: PAXU\ LEUKO\N, PAXU\ GALAKTW=DES, PAXU\ E)RU-
QRO\N, PAXU\ U(PE/RUQRON, PAXU\ PELIDNO\N, PAXU\ OI)NWPO\N, PAXU\ KUANOU=N,
PAXU\ XLWRO\N, PAXU\ ME/LAN: KAI\ TAU=TA TA\ XRW/MATA DE/KA META\ PAXEI/AS
SUSTA/SEWS TOU= XU/MATOS SUNISTA/MENA: LOIPO\N LEI/PEI EI)PEI=N KAI\ PERI\ TH=S
SUMME/TROU SUSTA/SEWS: PERI\ GA\R TH=S PAXEI/AS KAI\ LEPTH=S SUSTA/SEWS TOU=
XU/MATOS, KAI\ MEQ' OI(/WN XRWMA/TWN SUNI/STATAI, A)RTI/WS EI)RH/KAMEN:
*KAI\ DIA\ TOU=TO LE/GWMEN A)RTI/WS PERI\ TH=S SUMME/TROU SUSTA/SEWS
TOU= XU/MATOS, MEQ' OI(/WN XRWMA/TWN KAI\ AU(/TH DU/NATAI SUNELQEI=N: FHSI\ GA\R
O( *GALHNO\S E)N TH=| PERI\ KRI/SEWN AU)TOU= PRAGMATEI/A|, O(/TI TO\ U(PO/CANQON XRW=MA
KAI\ TO\ PUR)R(O\N SUNI/STATAI META\ SUMME/TROU SUSTA/SEWS: O( DE/ GE *MA/GNOS
FHSI\N OU)XI\ TO\ CANQO\N, A)LLA\ TO\ PUR)R(O/N: O( DE/ GE *QEO/FILOS TO\N *GA-
LHNO\N PROKRI/NEI LE/GEIN KALW=S DIA\ MH\ MO/NON TO\N LO/GON AU)TO\N EI)=NAI
I)ATRO\N, A)LLA\ KAI\ TH=| PEI/RA| KAI\ KAT' A)MFO/TERA EI)=NAI A)/RISTON: KAI\ TAU=TA KAI\
TA\ U(PO\ TOU/TWN LEGO/MENA, MEQ' O(\ DE/ON E)STI\N E)KQE/SQAI TO\ DIA/GRAMMA TW=N
XRWMA/TWN TW=N DUNAME/NWN SUSTH=NAI META\ TH=S SUMME/TROU SUSTA/SEWS: SU/STA-
SIS SU/MMETROS, XRW=MA U(PO/PUR)R(ON, KAI\ U(PO/CANQON: PLH\N A)RTI/WS DE/ON EI)PEI=N
KAI\ PERI\ SUSTA/SEWS E)/N TE U(GIEINOI=S SW/MASI KAI\ NOSOU=SI, KAI\ O(/SAI PROGNW/SEIS
E)C AU)TW=N DU/NANTAI A)POTELESQH=NAI EI)/T' E)PIKI/NDUNOI, EI)/Q' U(GIEINOI\, EI)/TE ME/SOI:
DEI= DE\ SUNQEI=NAI TO\ PARUFISTA/MENON KAI\ TH\N SU/STASIN KAI\ TA\ XRW/MATA, I(/NA
TELEI/A H( PERI\ OU)/RWN PRAGMATEI/A GE/NHTAI.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Hi Toto,

Thank you for these thoughtful comments.

I am coming to form a general opinion on this title business that is quite distinct from the proposition of Martin Hengel.

First, I notice that the gospels of "Matthew" and "Mark" appear actually to have two titles each in the extant manuscripts.

Here is the Gospel of Matthew: "The Gospel according to Matthew. A book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." The Greek word "genesis" used here is often translated "genealogy" or "generation" but also has a wider meaning of "coming into being" or "source, beginning" and is an allusion to the first book of the Pentateuch. The phrase "A book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" would be a suitable name for the Gospel of Matthew. If it were the original title, then "The Gospel according to Matthew" is secondary.

Here is the Gospel of Mark: "The Gospel according to Mark. The beginning of the good news from Jesus Christ [the Son of God]." Although I have sometimes read this as "the Gospel about Jesus Christ," overall I would side with Helmut Koester in Ancient Christian Gospels against such a reading. The use of "Gospel" as meaning a book is secondary, as is the title "The Gospel according to Mark." Rather, the description of the story of Gospel of Mark as "the beginning" fits well the Marcan theme that those named who knew Jesus in life were bumbleheads and that the good news must be preached by the true disciples now.

Here is the Gospel of Luke: "The Gospel according to Luke. Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." A strong reason for regarding the title as being original is that the author of this Gospel refers to "many" who have also attempted to compile a narrative of the things that have taken place, as the author is now undertaking in an orderly sequence. The author would have needed a title to distinguish his account from all these others. Ancillary reasons that add to the case for regarding the title as original are that there is no alternative tradition or manuscript witness to the title, that (unlike Matthew and Mark) there is not a second title, that a document naming a recipient usually indicates an author's name, and that the author labored over the lengthy work and would likely want prerogative over what it is called when published. There is simply no reason to deny that the title is part of the original document; to me, the interesting question is whether the author of Luke was working with an existing "the gospel according to X" formula, already attached e.g. to Mark, or whether the author of Luke coined the phrase. I would welcome any thoughts on that question.

Here is the fourth gospel: "The Gospel according to John. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine." By all accounts the Gospel of John was not written in all its verses at one pass. However, there is one feature that is true of the whole of the fourth gospel: the "beloved disciple" is conspicuously left without a name. This is intentional, and this clearly shows that the heading "The Gospel according to John" is secondary. Rather, the fourth gospel is the only one to have been without a title when it was mostly written. My explanation for this is that the fourth gospel was originally the document of a community that added to it as time went on but never "published" it for the world at large. It was published only after the last chapter and other finishing touches such as 6:51b-59 were added. The title was plausibly added at the time that it achieved canonical form and was disseminated to different churches.

So I may be in a minority of one in my total theory: the first was originally "A Book of the Origin of Jesus Christ," the second was originally "The Beginning of the Good News from Jesus Christ," the third was originally "The Gospel according to Luke," and the fourth was originally a developing text within a particular community without a need for a title. I would be keen to know of any additional considerations that would make this theory more or less probable.

I would not like to use Marcion's choice of Luke as a knock-down argument that Luke was associated with Paul. It is a good hypothesis, but not an absolutely necessary one, that Marcion chose Luke because it was attributed to one who knew Paul, the author of the Apostolikon. But, on Hengel's theory, the title of the gospel meant "the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the version of Luke," but the explicit words "of Jesus Christ" would make the title unweildy. There are several references in early Christian writings to the Gospel of the Lord or of Christ. Marcion was of the school of thought that there should be only one Gospel, so he dropped the individuating name and called the one in his canon (the one and only) The Gospel of the Lord. Richard Carrier shows that one could take the evidence in another way (though I would say less probable, all considered). We certainly couldn't draw a firm conclusion if the only thing we knew about was Marcion's canon.

I would agree that the strongest alternative hypothesis to authorship by a person named Luke is authorship by a person who wants the reader to think he is Luke, the companion of Paul, when he was not. I would like to see the pseudonymous authorship option worked out in some more detail by somebody. Everybody seems to be enamored of the anonymous hypothesis--as was I once, but obviously not anymore. No doubt the hesitance to attribute any dishonesty to early Christian writers is a barrier for some to consider the idea. I myself am willing to consider the idea if someone could expound upon it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Peter wrote:
"The Gospel according to Luke. Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received."

Hi Peter,
First, I am far to be convinced about "the Gospel according to Luke" appearing on some early copies of the same gospel.
That would have been known well before the times of Irenaeus.
Second, I am accepting that Theophilus was a common name among Greek-speaking (due to the evidence).
Third, Theophilus, if existing, could have been no more than an upper-class Greek-speaking Christian-leaning addressee of the gospel, then 'Acts" ("Christian", because of the last sentence in the quote -- Lk1:4).

Now, you date GLuke 80-130, also 'Acts'. For me, I am much more restricted, more like 80-95, with 'Acts' coming a few years at most after the gospel. Let's for argument sake, say (around) 85-90, or 90, which is acceptable for both of us.
But you would agree also that GLuke & 'Acts' were meant to be understood to be written before:
According to the ending of 'Acts', before 64. And "Luke" added on prophecies from Jesus about the events of 70, with some graphic details about the siege and fall of Jerusalem. That could not have been done if the gospel was presented as written after the events.
Now we have a dilemma:
If truly existing in 90 as the addressee, Theophilus, seemingly already educated into Christianity, would know he was getting a gospel written not long before (the intro of GLuke, as quoted, indicate the gospel has just been written), well after 70.
I think we have a problem here and I am interested to know your escape route on this one.
I know the solution of that problem (you figured that out!). What is yours?
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Second, why does "lover of God" (or "friend of God") fit the bill? As I said above, it does not appear to be related to any of Luke's themes. And Luke makes no other use of the literalistic meaning of the name. Why not? Why create a name to lead without connecting it more solidly to your work?

You must know by now I accept, due to the evidence presented on this board, and more so from Peter, that Theophilus was a common name among Greek-speaking. However, that does not change anything about Theophilus being fictional, or real but dead when the gospel was written.
Actually a common name for a fictional character has its advantages, making people wonder who he is among the "Theophilus". And "lover of god" would also suggest a code name, or nickname, making the guessing even more challenging.
I do not see, why 'Theophilus', if understood as "lover of God", would compel "Luke" to mesh that into his/her work. After having established the work was addressed to an upper crust gentleman, there was no reason to fiddle with that. Your reasonning escape me totally.

Best regards, Bernard