Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Question .. do any of these writers above address the identity of Theophilus

Luke 1:3
It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus,
of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

being the high-priest around 40 AD, which would conclusively date Luke and Acts to around 40 and 60 AD, solving the puzzle.

The paper on this is by Richard Anderson and we had some discussion here at:

Dating the Gospels Pre-70 CE
http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=202537

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Julio

That "internal evidence" centered on this enigmatic Theophilus is very weak. It was a popular name. What is quite relevant is this "Luke" in his Gospel Introduction referring to MANY gospel productions circulating in the churches at that time. Surely, MANY and many churches was NOT around years 60 [following Scofield's chronology].

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

My first question wasn't your evaluation of the evidence, it was really simply whether the writers above address the basic issue. That question is my main one on this thread.

As to your evaluation, clearly there were not many notable men named Theophilus in Israel in the decade or two after the life of Jesus, I know of only one. Perhaps you can find some in Greece or Rome or other lands, share away. Often there is a common presumption that Luke was Gentile, often using as primary evidence the fact that Theophilus is a Greek name ! (This theory can be given by folks who do not realize that the Jewish high priest was named Theophilus .) Oh, if Theophilus was simply the Jewish high priest, as discussed in more depth in the Richard H. Anderson paper, your word 'enigmatic' can be replaced with the phrase 'clear and understandable and identifiable'.

I have no idea why Scofield's chronology would be relevant, nor what it says. You are welcome to share his chronology and tell us if you feel he provides compelling evidence (if we find that your representation above is accurate as to Scofield's work being pertinent to addressing the dating of Luke).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Julio

Another thing.
Hegesippus is a good reference for “external evidence” against early Acts. He was a staunch Ebionite, detesting Paul. When he debates 1 Corinthians 2:9, against Paul’s words, he apparently makes reference to the gospel of the Hebrews, where Jesus blesses those who have eyes to see and ears to hear”, not to any canonical gospels or Acts. This Hegesippus was well traveled and knew many churches and what was going on inside. He was a church chronologist - his major work disappeared, probably burnt sometime to hide important evidence that what we now know as "church" was not known in his days.
[Source: page 448 (and others) in “History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred (or via: amazon.co.uk)” by Charles B. Waite.]

Julio

Also, one important reference against early gospels, is Clement of Rome writing his Epistle to the Corinthians [40 long chapters] without ever making any mention of any gospel or Acts passage or verse. Meanwhile, in his extensive and tedious missive he quotes the OT ad nauseam. This apostolic father is very important witness to the late gospels and Acts [he was the fourth "pope" in Rome, around year 90].

show_no_mercy

Who is the first Christian witness to that greeting to Theophilus in Luke and Acts? How do we know that this greeting wasn't simply inserted into Marcion's Luke, which didn't have this salutation?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This is a good reference for dating Acts ?
I wonder what qualifies as a weak reference ?

Anyway:

Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...egesippus.html

"we can hardly call him a historian." "we find him confirming the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, and sustaining the traditions of Antioch by those of Jerusalem" "We must lament the loss of other portions of the Memoirs which were known to exist in the seventeenth century."

And he (James) answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

"many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David,"

"There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. "

"Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life."

"With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father."

Julio, I certainly hope you were not trying to say that Hegesippus was making no reference:

"to any canonical gospels or Acts".

I do like the depth of additional information about James to correlate with the account given by Josephus. Adds excellent backdrop, from a writer not too long after.

Clearly you should have been aware of the Hegesippus references as they were given on this thread:

The character Hegesippus intrigues me
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....=1#post6062106

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written,
Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man,
the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Not sure yet where is the Hegesippus reference.

Ok, from Adolph Von Harnack, something close.

The "Sic et Non" of Stephanus Gobarus. Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923) pp.205-234.
http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefat...phen_gobar.htm

-- Hegesippus, ... says in the fifth book of his Hypomnemata .., that this is an idle saying, and that those who say it speak falsely, since the Scriptures and the Lord say, "Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear," etc.

Maybe there is a thread that gives the full backdrop, or Roger can tie the loose ends together, or Julio can give the full texts and understandings.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This I have not checked, it would be interesting to survey the history of commentary on the verse.

Under the redaction theories you do not "know" anything and you can speculate anything.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

Hi Steven,

This is an interesting question, but we must keep in mind that all proposed answers concerning the identity of Theophilus are speculative to some degree. You have mentioned a few arguments to date Theophilus early. Please allow me to suggest an alternative that dates Theophilus late.

The author of the "Letter to Autolycus" (written in the second half of the second century) is one Theophilus. He is a Christian by profession, but one who has apparently not been instructed in the alleged historical details of the gospels. Theophilus' Christians are so called because they annoint themselves with oil (chapter 12), likely in some kind of ceremony. But not because of Jesus Christ. No Jesus and no Christ (Messiah) are mentioned anywhere in the letter.

The Holy Spirit is mentioned, but "speaks through Moses and the rest of the prophets, so that the writings which belong to us godly people are more ancient, yea, and are shown to be more truthful, than all writers and poets." This means Theophilus traces his religion to Moses and other Hebrew prophets, but not Jesus. He also explicitly claims that his scriptures are more ancient than all the pagan writers and poets. By this Theophilus means the Hebrew Scriptures. But it also equally rules out any Christian scriptures, gospels or epistles.

According to Theophilus, in chapter 11 "Of Repentance" he teaches that salvation is by following the law. It has nothing to do with faith in Jesus, his blood, or the crucifixion.

Most importantly, in chapter 13, on the resurrection, Theophilus uses Hercules and Aesculapius as proof of the resurrection of the dead, but not Jesus! I can't think of a reasonable explanation of this except he had never heard of it.

In many ways, Theophilus is a counterpart to Apollos, who in Acts 18:24-28 is an authority on the Hebrew scriptures, and taught accurately many things, but needed extra instruction concerning Jesus Christ from Priscilla and Aquila.

I think this would make Theophilus of the second century a prime candidate to receive a couple of letters of instruction from "Luke."

Luke 1
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in
order a declaration of those things which are most
surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the
word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to
write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those
things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 1
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of
all that Jesus began both to do and teach

Have we found our Theophilus?

Jake Jones IV

spamandham

It doesn't sound to me like these 'conservative scholars' are interested in a scientific approach. It's proper then to label them 'well educated cranks', rather than 'conservative scholars'.