bacht

I agree, but Steven wants to take the low road. These sorts of arguments are based on the slimmest margins of probability.

spamandham

Yes, but he's an apologist. He's going to take that road no matter what, because he chose that road before ever examining the evidence.

That doesn't stop the rest of us from analyzing what he brings up to see if there is any merit in it.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Luke 1:3-4
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, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

As Richard H. Anderson shares:

Rewriting Tabitha
http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot....g-tabitha.html
there is no evidence that Theophilus is a Christian apart from the translation of the Greek word, κατηχήθης as instructed. In Acts, this same Greek word is translated as informed in Acts 21:21 and 24.

Acts 21:21
And they are informed of thee,
that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses,
saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,
neither to walk after the customs.

Acts 21:24
Them take, and purify thyself with them,
and be at charges with them,
that they may shave their heads:
and all may know that those things,
whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing;
but that thou thyself also walkest orderly,
and keepest the law.

With the close connection shown (under this theory) between Theophilus and Joanna and others in the account, clearly this was much more than a "to whom it may concern in the Priestly establishment" salutation, it was written to a man who personally was quite aware of many of the recent events, from the populace, from his household, from compatriots and friends. And see below, for an even closer connection.

And Johann David Michaelis addressed this point :

That Theophilus was not a Christian, but either a Jew or an Heathen, when St. Luke addressed his Gospel to him, I think not improbable, because St. Luke in his preface uses the word κατηχήθης from which it appears that Theophilus had then a very imperfect knowledge of the history of Christ*: and the expression used by St. Luke ver. 1. 'among us,' that is, ' among us Christians,' seems to imply that Theophilus. Was at that time not of the number.
Introduction to the New Testament p. 237 (1823)

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,

Walter McConnell offered some critiques of the Theophilus proposal at :

The Identity of Theophilus - Oct 3, 2008
http://drwaltmcc.blogspot.com/2008/1...heophilus.html
With short responses by Richard Anderson and Lee Dahn at bottom.

Fascinating is how the complementary understanding that Luke was a Priest was developed and studied independently by Richard Strelan :

Luke the priest: the authority of the author of the Third Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Rick Strelan (2008)
http://books.google.com/books?id=vrq_RbhsxggC

This effectively eliminates any concern of Theophilus having been ivory tower isolated.

Incidentally, in response to the Stephen Carlson mention that Luke could be later even if addressed to Theophilus, one concerned fly in that ointment is the "most excellent" in Luke, a strong sign that Theophilus was at that time high priest, rather than many years previously (the two alternatives in this context), especially as the honorific is not used in Acts. While Richard H. Anderson does say that "the former High Priest could be addressed as 'Most Excellent.' " in his paper, that may be one of those concepts that while possible is yet very unlikely, and mentioned by Richard Anderson to help along the late NT dating crowd.

Another point of interest, many of the concerns referenced here about Paul's knowledge of Jesus are addressed in the Richard Anderson paper very succinctly :

The commentators sometime say that Paul knows nothing of the life of Christ and that his focus is on the cross; and that Luke knows nothing of Paul's theology and shows no awareness of his letters. The explanation usually given is that Paul did not meet the earthly Jesus but experienced the presence of the Risen Lord on the road to Damascus. It is further explained that Luke was not a companion of Paul and that the letters of Paul did not circulate in a collection until late in the first century or earlier in the second century and thus were not known to the author of the Gospel. Paul was in fact familiar with the Gospel of Luke. In Second Corinthians 8:18 we read these words: 'With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel.' Wenham has argued persuasively that this passage can only refer to Luke and the fame that followed the publication of his gospel.(61) Paul does not describe the life of Jesus because Luke has already done so.

(61) John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke (or via: amazon.co.uk), (Downers Grove, Ill. 1992), 230-7

This is not the only mention, e.g. there is also the special usage of "my gospel".

Here is the 2 Corinthians verse in fuller context.

2 Cor 8:16-20 (KJB)
But thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you. And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:

And here is an earlier view of the same identification.

Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 3, Part 1 By Johann David Michaelis
http://books.google.com/books?id=pDA-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham Quote: Originally Posted by bacht I agree, but Steven wants to take the low road. These sorts of arguments are based on the slimmest margins of probability. Yes, but he's an apologist. He's going to take that road no matter what, because he chose that road before ever examining the evidence. That doesn't stop the rest of us from analyzing what he brings up to see if there is any merit in it.

Just to be clear, if the proposal of Luke writing to Theophilus is shown wrong, I would happily discard the identification. For many years I had read the NT, and listened to theories about Luke as the Gentile physician, without being even aware that Theophilus was the name of the Jewish high priest around 40 AD. (A few years ago I saw that some were pointing out the likelihood of Luke being a Hebrew, like Paul.) All I say now is that this proposal, going back at least to Johann Michaelis and Theodore Hase, more recently brought to the fore by Richard H. Anderson and now discussed vibrantly by many, looks like the most sensible identification and timing that I have seen.

================================================== ====

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery And Johann David Michaelis - Introduction to the New Testament p. 237 (1823)

More accurately :

1823 is the Herbert Marsh 4th edition, Johann David Michaelis lived 1717-1791, this is the edition where Michaelis actually endorsed the Theodore Hase view as "render the opinion highly probable". (p.240), earlier editions did not give such as straight endorsement.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The Theodore Hase article had been published in:
Bibliotheca Bremensis Class IV Fascic III Dissert 3 (Michaelis p. 238)

William Paley, D.D (1743–1805) viewed the Theodore Hase - Michaelis identification as of "acute perspicacity" in the Horæ Paulinæ ..

And discussed the chronology, answering one objection, and added two very significant references from Luke:

Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased;
and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly;
and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith

Acts 18:8
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue,
believed on the Lord with all his house;
and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and

Shalom,
Steven Avery

DCHindley

I think that it might help to assess the likelihood of such a claim to list the 28 individuals who held the high priesthood since the time of Herod's kingdom:

Appointed by Herod the Great (37 BC - 4 BC)
1a. Ananel (37 BC - 36 BC)
2. Aristobolus the last Hasmonean (35 BC)
1b. Ananel for 2nd time (34 BC - ?)
3. Jesus son of Phiabi (no date)
4. Simon son of Boethus (possibly Boethus himself, no date)
5. Matthias son of Theophilus (5 BC - 4 BC)
6. Joseph son of Ellem (maybe for a day to perform a function for an unclean Matthias)
7a. Joazar son of Boethus (4 BC)

Appointed by Archelaus (4 BC – AD 6)
8. Eleazar son of Boethus (4BC - ?)
9. Jesus son of See (no date)
7b. Joazar for a 2nd time (no date)

Appointed by Quirinius (AD 6)
10. Ananus (or Annas) son of Sethi (AD 6 – AD 15)

Appointed by Valerius Gratus (AD 15 – AD 26)
11. Ismael son of Phiabi (ca. AD 15 – AD 16)
12. Eleazar son of Ananus (ca. AD 16 – AD 17)
13. Simon son of Camithus (ca. AD 17 – AD 18)
14. Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, son in law of Annas/Ananus (ca. AD 18 – AD 36)

Appointed by Vitellius (AD 35 – AD 39)
15. Jonathan son of Ananus (AD 36 – AD 37) also played a role in affairs of 50-52 before being assassinated at instigation of procurator Felix
16. Theophilus son of Ananus (AD 37 - ?) Antiquities of the Jews 18:123 123 and when he [Vitellius] had been there [in Jerusalem], and been honourably entertained by the multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus. This is, it seems, all we really know about this man, except that he might be the father of HP Matthias (#27).

Appointed by Agrippa I (AD 41 – AD 44)
17. Simon Cantheras son of Boethus (AD 41 - ?)
18. Matthias son of Ananus (no date)
19. Elionaeus son of Cantheras (no date)

Appointed by Herod of Chalcis (AD 44 - AD 48)
20. Joseph son of Camei (or Camydus) (no date)
21. Ananias son of Nedebaeus (ca. AD 47 – AD 59)

Appointed by Agrippa II (AD 50 – AD 92/93?)
22. Ismael son of Phiabi (ca. AD 59 – AD 61)
23. Joseph Cabi son of HP Simon (AD 61 – AD 62)
24. Ananus son of Ananus (AD 62 for 3 months)
25. Jesus son of Damnaeus (ca. AD 62 – AD 63)
26. Jesus son of Gamaliel (ca. AD 63 – AD 64)
27. Matthias son of Theophilus (AD 65 - ?)

Appointed by the people during the War (AD 67/68)
28. Phannias/Phanni/Phanasos son of Samuel

DCH

Vinnie

Well, we know 7 of the letters were actually written by Paul and they they were collected and widely disseminated. Therefore, Luke's failure to mention them does not parallel his failure to mention other letters. Additionally, he spends considerable time narrating the adventures of Paul and shares many points of historical contact with what we find in Paul's own letters.

It is at least possible Luke-Acts predates some of those works as well.

Vinnie

aa5874

It is not really known who wrote any of the epistles. The Church writers appear not to even know what Paul wrote and when he wrote.

It appears that the Church writers were either just guessing or deliberately mis-leading their readers.

There are no credible sources of antiquity with respect to the so-called Pauline Epistles and the WRITERS called Paul.

Both Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles are all fiction-based and filled with implausible events.

It is highly unlikely that a Jew, as Paul claimed he was, living within a few years of Jesus, if he was only human, to be considered sane or truthful, if he wrote that Jesus died for the sins of Jews, was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven after he was executed for blasphemy.

Once Jesus was only human, Paul must have known since he was supposed to be a contemporary of Jesus. Paul must have known it was false that over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state since all the people who knew Jesus, including his mother and father, would have laughed at and ridiculed Paul.

The Pauline letters were written when everybody who knew Jesus was dead in Judaea , once he was only human, or else Paul would have been a confirmed liar.

The Pauline letters are fundamentally back-dated fables and the only words missing are "Once upon a time".

The Pauline Epistles appear to have been written pricesly for the compilation of Church History sometime after the writings of Justin Martyr.

spamandham

More importantly, it is not shown to be right, but you present it as if it were an established fact.

Vinnie

Maybe not to you but there is no need to project your ignorance onto the rest of the world.

Vinnie