spamandham

Why would we expect the author of Luke/Acts to be writing these documents to the Jewish high priest?

A better candidate is Theophilus of Antioch.

jakejonesiv

That's right! Nobody had ever heard of any gospel attributed Luke before Ireneaus ca 180 CE. This corresponds with the period of Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch, given by Eusiebius EH 4.20. The timeline is a fit.

Julio

To me, one notorious indirect “internal evidence” piece that Acts is a late script is Matthew 16:17-19 [I will give you the keys to bind & loose], a passage inserted much later sometime in the second century, NOT present in the other two synoptic gospels. Correlating that foreign passage with Peter’s elevated status in Acts [decades after he had gone] will tell us that Acts is an essay to promote peace between Paul and Peter’s factions, very indisposed with each other for many decades after Pentecost. It’s Irenaeus who declared that the [Catholic] Church had been founded by those two major actors in Acts, Peter & Paul. Not only Peter!!… The church went then from mess to mess and never recovered the original blueprint.

Vinnie

PERVO looks like a really good source (been using the look inside), I just wish the book wasn't $40 or I'd have ordered it already....$20 and I would have been sold....

Vinnie

bacht

Good stuff Jake, keep it coming

aa5874

What does Eusebius know about Theophilus of Antioch?

Eusebius appeared not to know when gLuke was written, he claimed that Paul who died under Nero was aware of gLuke.

Church History 3.4.8 Eusebius wrote propaganga for the Roman Church or the Roman Church used writings under the name of Eusebius to produce propaganda.

Church History 4.20.1 It should be noted that in the writings of Theophilus, he did not mention he was a bishop of anywhere or that he believed in Jesus Christ.

Church History is propaganda.

It is likely that there was no bishop of Antioch named Theophilus at around 180 CE.

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

Pervo is a good source.

A quick example from Dating Acts. One of Pervo's arguments is that the author of Acts 5:36-37 utilized Antiquities 20.5.1. This is determined by three points.

1. Josephus is the only known source to name Theudas.
2. Additionally, he is named as an insurrectionist.
3. The author of Acts makes a chronological mistake, “After him (Theudas) Judas the Galilean rose up.” But this mistake is based on the fact that Josephus mentions these two out of chronological order! The author of Acts is following the order of mention (Theudas then Judas) in Josephus Antiquities 10.5.1-2 without a careful reading of the context.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This meshes perfectly with Paul referencing the verse in Luke as scripture. Richard H Anderson (who also wrote the paper about Theophilus published recently) has written on this scripture understanding.

Eccl. Hist. III, iv: - The history of the church from Christ to Constantine By Eusebius
http://books.google.com/books?id=fWBlwD5Vs4QC&pg=PA67
Ancient Historians on Luke - http://home.freeuk.com/thelukesite/qu.htm

“Luke, by birth an Antiochene and by profession a physician, was for long periods a companion of Paul and was closely associate with the other apostles as well... It is actually suggested that Paul was in the habit of referring to Luke's gospel whenever he said, as if writing of some Gospel of his own: ‘According to my gospel'.” [Note: Rom. 2:16, 16:25 ; and 2 Tim. 2:8]

Richard Anderson.
http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot....my-gospel.html
According to my gospel - May 15, 2007

After I learned about these simple and neat connections, quite recently, I put together a few of the scripture references with a little commentary. This helps to mesh the NT understandings that much more beautifully.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Well it should mesh perfectly. There was probably a common author or editor of Luke/Acts and the Pastorals, including that reference to Luke as scripture. It has been opined that the Pastorals were intended to be the third part of the Luke-Acts composition, based on common language and ideas.

It is difficult to find any theological or historical relationship between the theology of the non-Pastoral (so called "authentic") letters of Paul and anything connected with Luke.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

I appreciate that you can acknowledge that harmony, at least on a potential understanding level.

Yes, he was named Luke. His close friend and compatriot Paul. Common in the sense of close collaboration.

Right a perfect fit. Do you think this was a team of cooperating forgers ?

And that fits well, in an overall sense, although the "text-type" is quite different.

So the "non-authentic" is more closely connected to the ultra-historically accurate (Acts). What a strange puzzle ... unless ..

Shalom,
Steven Avery