Toto

There is internal evidence that Luke had read the other two synoptics, or at least common material. If he didn't mention them, it is undoubtedly because they had not been given their current names at that point in history.

Julio

OK, fair enough, but if one of those living eyewitnesses was, say, Peter, he would mention his name for sure. As for the synoptic format, there was other "primitive" material circulating in the churches, comprising those "many" he referred.

aa5874

This can hardly be true. From the 16th chapter of Acts to the last chapter, the 28th, the name Peter cannot be found, and the author of Acts and Saul/Paul travelled and preached together.

Acts 16.9 The author of Acts claimed that the Lord had called Saul/Paul along with the author of Acts to preach the gospel.

It was Peter that was downstaged in Acts.

Even earliier in Acts 14.1-12, the author of Acts claimed Paul was regarded as a god.


Acts 14.11-12
There is no indication at all that Paul was downstaged in Acts.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

You should pay better attention. I gave the reference for the paper (Theophilus a Proposal - Richard H. Anderson , Evangelical Quarterly 1997) on this on one thread, or at least a mention. And it has had some fine discussion on scholarly forums, especially Synoptic-L. I am not sure of the history of the simple identification of Theophilus, that would be interesting to find out.

A little checking shows that Johann David Michaelis in 1800 recognized this identification (great probability) and one Theodore Hase, whose name I do not recognize, looks like the source built upon by Michaelis. With the silly late dating crazes of the 20th century, scholarship had taken a nose dive away from common sense for awhile.

The arguments against the simple and clear 40 AD authorship above look a bit strained, although I grant you have to try to come up with something dismissive, from your perspective.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spamandham

Evangelical Quarterly is a theological journal, not a scholarly historical journal. Theologians are no more expert at history than they are at brain surgery.

Toto

There is`a description of the Theophilus the High Priest thesis here. Stephen Carlson has a comment here. It ignores a lot of other information which indicates that gLuke could not have been written in 40 AD.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Carlson makes two major points. One, that this does not fit Markan priority (the lynchpin of modern confusions) and two that both Luke and Acts could have been at about the same time to Theophilus, around 60 AD (while that seems strained, it actually answers his first point).

Just to be clear, that is your offhand comment, an assertion sans evidence, I saw nothing like that in Carlson.

As for spams genetic fallacy .. little additional waste of time is necessary. I will say that often historians and secular scholars simply do not know the Bible well and imbue their own bias into their analysis, even to the point of not discerning later historical and Bible distinctions. Richard E Rubenstein a recent example, Edward Gibbon an earlier example. Surely spam only reads and considers the arguments of skeptics and mythicists about Bible history who have a particular level of historical laurels .

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Perhaps because the arguments are so well known and so obvious.

bacht

Obviously ca 40 ce would be an earliest possible date for most of the canonical NT texts, allowing time for the conversion of Paul and the general spread of the gospel as per Acts.

wiki acknowledges this pov:

Some scholars have posited earlier dates for Luke's composition. Arguments for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel note that Luke is addressed to "Most Excellent Theophilus," possibly a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. This reference would date the original copy of Luke to within 4 to 8 years after the death of Jesus.

Some think that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him. Paul mentions Luke, in passing, several times as traveling with Paul. However Guthrie notes that much of the evidence for dating the Gospel at any point is based upon conjecture.

Carson, Moo and Morris opt for a date prior to AD 70 based upon 6 factors. Most prominent in their view is that no event beyond AD 62 is mentioned in the book including the death of church leaders such as Paul or James. They note that there is no mention of the Neronian persecution in the early 60's or of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

and the alternate reading:

Like Mark (but unlike Matthew), the intended audience is Gentile, and it assures readers that Christianity is an international religion, not an exclusively Jewish sect. Luke portrays his subject in a positive light regarding Roman authorities. For example, the Jews are said to be responsible for Jesus' crucifixion, with Pontius Pilate finding no wrong in him.

The consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek or Syrian for gentile or non-Jewish Christians. The Gospel is addressed to the author's patron, Theophilus, which in Greek simply means friend of God or (be)loved by God or loving God, and may not be a name but a generic term for a Christian. The Gospel is clearly directed at Christians, or at those who already knew about Early Christianity, rather than a general audience, since the ascription goes on to state that the Gospel was written "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3–4).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date

Clearly the compilers of the NT strove for internal consistency as much as possible, though even the four gospels contradict each other in places, which argues against eyewitness testimony recorded soon after the events in question (why was the Last Supper dated differently?) Acts ends before all the "bad stuff" in the 60s, impying authorship before the 1st Jewish revolt.

Late 1st C material like 1 Clement and Barnabbas doesn't deal with these texts afaik. Clement mentions Paul but I don't remember there being a lot of detail about his career or teachings.

spamandham

If this were a legitimate line of reasoning, then we would conclude that Mark was written the day of the crucifixion, since the original ending ends at that point, and we would conclude Luke was written a few days later, since it ends at that point. Theophilus was not the Jewish high priest at the time of the crucifixion.

Aside from this obvious point, the idea that Luke is instructing the Jewish high priest circa 40 CE about Jesus is so absurd, it isn't worthy of any consideration whatsoever. Luke's Theophilus is a fellow Christian, as is shown by the context.

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

This is apologetics gone wild.