Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The Theophilus proposal does not posit him as a Christian. This was specifically nicely pointed out in one reference I gave above, Johann Michaelis in post #73.

For a lot of the other questions, I recommend reading.

EARLY MATERIAL

a) Johann Michaelis & Theodore Hase through Michaelis
(dunno yet if the Hase paper is available)

b) William Paley

RECENT MATERIAL

c) Richard H. Anderson's "Theophilus a Proposal"
(this is online, at least in archive.org)

d) Richard H. Anderson's blog articles and those of Lee Dahn. And the synoptic-l discussions, noting John Lupia as well as Richard Anderson on Luke issues. Also the discussions of "Luke the Priest". And other related materials since there have been a number of interesting web discussions. Also there is discussion of Luke as the author of Hebrews, as well, an interesting possibility. If I remember, Eusebius mentions him as one possible person working with Paul on Hebrews, discussing Paul speaking in Hebrew and the epistle being translated to Greek as part of the composition process. (Offhand memory.)

I have put some of this on the thread, mostly just enough to see the historical and general base. Note that this is by no means a 100% endorsement of any aspect of the scholarship of Anderson, Dahn or Lupia, simply a recognition that they have done some excellent conceptual and pioneering work.

A lot of the questions raised here are given good expositions in the sources above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

bacht

So why would Luke bother, just to have a copy of his gospel in the temple archives? Or do I have to follow all your links to get someone else to answer for you?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

If you only want to read one url, try the Richard H. Anderson paper.

Theophilus: A Proposal - Richard H. Anderson 1996: Evangelical Quarterly, 69:3, (1997), 195-215.
I. Howard Marshall, Editor
http://web.archive.org/web/200512311...ub/THEOSUB.htm

Apparently Richard H. Anderson was not aware of the material by Johann David Michaelis, Theodore Hase and Wiliam Paley at that time.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

bacht

Steven I have another question about Theophilus

Consider these passages from the early chapters of Acts:

Acts.4

And as [Peter and John] were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sad'ducees came upon them, annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
And they arrested them and put them in custody until the morrow, for it was already evening….
On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Ca'iaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.
And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, "By what power or by what name did you do this?"…
But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred with one another, saying, "What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is manifest to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.
But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any one in this name."
So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

Ch 5

But the high priest rose up and all who were with him, that is, the party of the Sad'ducees, and filled with jealousy they arrested the apostles and put them in the common prison…

And some one came and told them, "The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people."
Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but without violence, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us."…

So [the council] took [Gamaliel’s] advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go…

But [the Jews] cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon [Stephen].
Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Acts.8
And Saul was consenting to his death.

And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama'ria, except the apostles.

Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him.
But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Acts.9
But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem

Ch 9

But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him,
but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket.

Ch 11

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni'cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews.

If this describes the situation in the years before 40 ce it's hard to imagine Theophilus reversing the previous policy of hostility towards followers of The Way.

spamandham

Exactly. It makes no sense that Luke's audience is the Jewish high priest. It seems rather obvious that this particular Theophilus was chosen for the express purpose of assigning an absurdly early date to the works of Luke, and for no legitimate reason.

dog-on

But there was a very legitimate reason for the editor to do so.

Marcion...

jakejonesiv

Whoever Theophilus was, and whenever he may have lived, he was a Christian whom the redactor of the third gospel thought needed additional instruction. That a considerable period had past is assured from the fact that "the word have they handed down to us" from "the beginning" was deemed inadeqaute, and needed to be restated after allegedly intensive investigation .

Luke 1
3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

It is absolutley ludicrous to suggest that "Mark" had written his gospel in Greek, and "Luke" had redacted it in Greek for the Jewish High priest (another absurdity) by the 40's CE.

Why are we wasting time on fantasy?

bacht

Ask Steven Avery

dog-on

Why not? Biblical scholars have been doing it for years.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht If this describes the situation in the years before 40 ce it's hard to imagine Theophilus reversing the previous policy of hostility towards followers of The Way.

hi bacht, Have you read the Richard Anderson paper ? It is only a moderate length. The Theophilus proposal has Acts written about 60 AD.

However since you have already decided a priori this identification is "fantasy", it is hard to know why you asking specific questions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery