Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 08-26-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Because I don't want to wade through apologetics, and I'm trying to see if you can provide your own answers to straightforward questions derived from the NT canon (no luck so far). If the book of Acts plainly contradicts the position that Luke wrote before 70 why bother sifting through other dead-end arguments?

And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him.
After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews; and when they had gathered, he said to them, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against the people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case.
But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar -- though I had no charge to bring against my nation.
For this reason therefore I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain."

Acts 28.16-20

Sounds like things were no better in the early 60s. Maybe Theophilus was dead by then.

jakejonesiv · 08-26-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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

I don't see any evidence adduced by Richard H. Anderson that Luke and Acts actually were written to the High Priest Theophilus. It is all special pleading that the idea is not preposterous.

Quote:

A communication addressed to the High Priest is not preposterous.

Steven, you know very well that Luke/Acts contains material that would have have been offensive to any High Priest. "Luke" whitewashes the Romans at the expense of the Jews.

spamandham · 08-26-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Marcion...

I'm not sure what that reason would be. Even if Luke is attempting to appeal to Sadducees (as the high priest argument typically goes), it isn't obvious why there is an editorial reason to address it to Theophilus of Ananus.

Historical tradition (for what that's worth) has been that Theophilus ("Friend of God" in Greek, so I'm told) is a title addressed to the reader rather than to some historical person. However, if it does refer to a historical person, I suggest that Theophilus of Antioch is a much more reasonable candidate.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.