interconnected foundation - Theophilus, early dating, Lukan historicity, internal refs as scripture, eyewitnesses and more

[Steven Avery]

PureBibleForum
40s AD dating for first Gospel accounts
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/863192653772625/

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

the foundation of NT accuracy and perfection.

prologue and the early eyewitnesses (within decade of events, correcting the Richard Bauckham late dating weakness)​

​

writings that Luke considered negatively were not Mark, Matthew or John - Luke was likely first, at least in Greek​

​

written to Theophilus the high priest ​

​

Theophilus proposal allows many New Testament historical figures to be connected and placed, e.g. Joanna​

​

these placements also are consistent with and supported by archaeological finds ​

​

superb historicity accuracy of Luke (as noted by William Ramsay, Adrian Sherwin-White and Colin J. Hemer) ​

​

Luke is a Hebrew (and likely is priest, and even part of the Acts 6:7 great company who came to faith)​

​

internal referencing (e.g. Paul refers to Luke as scripture)​

​

early dating of the Gospels - c. 40-50 AD, (whole New Testament before 70 AD, allowing for Revelation discussion)​

​

Luke was written to Theophilus when he was still high priest (41 AD.) ​

​

Mark's first edition, early 40s, was Latin, or a Graeco-Latin dialect, the Greek edition has a translation component​

​

Nazareth is located in the northwest of the Galilee area, Har Nitai, or Arbel​

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

Next, there are areas, not definite as above, that may also corroborate.

 

[Steven Avery]

areas that require study

Areas where the evidence should be weighed carefully.

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

Luke with Cleopas on the road to Emmaus (Theophylact)​

​

Luke as priest (Acts 6:7) ​

​

Lucius of Cyrene wrote Gospel of Luke (likely different than the physician)​

​

Luke is himself included among the eyewitnesses (albeit not from the very first)​

​

'my gospel' is the Gospel of Luke​

​

'the brother' is Luke ​

2 Corinthians 8:18 ​

And we have sent with him the brother, ​

whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;​

​

Jospeh of Arimathea == Joseph Caiaphas​

​

the High Priest Theophilus as the author of Hebrews​

​

Theophilus was deposed because of his Christian sympathies​

​

Polycrates claim of John as (high) priest ​

​

Paul knew Luke from about 35 to 37 AD.​

​

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

​

Next, we look at the contributors.

 

[Steven Avery]

early church writers and historians

Josephus - makes identifications used in Theophilus proposal

Polycrates of Ephesus - (130-196)

Origen
references Lucius of Cyrene

Eusebius
Polycrates letter to Victor 196-198

Epiphanius
has road to Emmaus as Nathanael

Theophylact - Luke on the road to Emmaus

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

Origen, Jerome, interpolation of Ignatius support 'the brother' being Luke, per MacKnight, per Michaelis

 

[Steven Avery]

pre-1900 writers

Nicephorus Callisti (c. 1320)
road to Emmaus was Luke

Theodore Beza (1560-1643) -
(see Grotius on Road to Emmaus)

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
Road to Emmaus per Lardner

... They were not of the twelve, but yet they were of their company, such as had been with Jesus: as is allowed by (e) Grotius, and (f) Beza. Nevertheless they say that (g) Luke is not the other. He is excluded, as they say, by the tenour of his introductions both to his gospel, and the Acts. Their reasonings will be considered presently. ...

Grotius ... taking notice of the above mentioned observation of Origen, says, that 1 Lucius in Rom. xvi. is the same as Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. 1.

Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont (1637-1698)

Lardner:

Says Mr. Tiliemont, 'Many (h) believe that St. Luke is he whom St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans calls Lucius, making his name a little more Latin. And it is the more likely, inasmuch as the Acts assure us, that St. Luke was then with St. Paul. If that be so, he was related to this apostle.'

Samuel Basnage (1638-1721) - noted by Lardner
road to Emmaus was Luke
"Lucius is our evangelist"
Luke is included as an eyewitness

Daniel Whitby (1638-1726)

Johann Albert Fabricius - (1668-1736)

Lardner:
Fabricius (k) esteemed it somewhat probable that Lucius is the evangelist.
Luke is included as an eyewitness

John Lightfoot (1602-1675)
The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot: Master of Catharine Hall, Cambridge (1823)
By John Lightfoot

The Whole Works

books.google.com

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jlc/luke-1.html

(1658):
From Shane Rosenthal
“[0]ne guesses this most excellent Theophilus to have been an Antiochian, another thinks he may be a Roman; but it is very uncertain either who or whence he was. There was one Theophilus amongst the Jews, at that very time, probably, when St. Luke wrote his Gospel... Josephus mentions him; ‘King Agrippa, removing Jesus the son of Gamaliel
from the high priesthood, gave it to Mathias the son of Theophilus: in whose time the Jewish war began.”’ Though Lightfoot appears to have been the first to mention the possibility that Luke’s Theophilus may have been the high priest of the same name, he didn’t end up promoting this view, but specifically stated, “I do not think this was he.”178
178 John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament From The Talmud And Hebraica. Vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859 edition, orig. 1658), cf. Lk 1:3.
PBF

Richard H. Anderson - Who are Johanna and Theophilus?: The Irony of the Intended Audience of the Gospel of Luke

Johannes Weis (1863-1914) 1892 ref ========================== In addition to the appearance of the name in the writings of Josephus, we have one other example of the occurrence of the name that conclusively establishes the historical existence of Theophilus the High Priest. Barag and Flusser...

purebibleforum.com

1684 edition
The Harmony of the Four Evangelists
http://books.google.com/books?id=-SlWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA392

Humble Skepti


Theodor Hase (1682-1731)
Bibliotheca Bremensis - Vol 4 (1719)
Theodorei Haseai -, ad praecedentem de Theophilo, dissertationem Sicilimentum
https://books.google.com/books?id=NJsemdKHUcwC&pg=PA494
http://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/content/pageview/1701947

Shane Rosenthal

Jacob Hase (1691-1723), brother of Theodor
Theophilus was a Jewish convert in Alexandria, uses Bar Barlul, Syrian lexicographer of 10th century, and hints at Philo
(Michaelis relates this, and solidly refutes)

Christoph August Heumann (1681-1764)
Luke is included as an eyewitness
his paper on Theophilus takes a more traditional approach and is refuted by Hase
https://books.google.com/books?id=gD4VAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA483
http://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/content/pageview/1701945

Dr. Heumann supposes (l) this Lucius to be St. Luke, and the same as Lucius of Cyrene, whom (m) he computes to be one of the seventy disciples, as before seen.

Nathaniel Lardner (1684-1768) - agrees with Heumann on Lucius of Cyrene
Gives us an incredibly informative section which references Beza, Grotius, Fabricius and much more.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EmxGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA196
This is his solid section on the road to Emmaus:

St. Luke ch. xxiv. IS—31, relates how two disciples met Jesus after his resurrection, as they were going to Emmaus. And he says, that the name of one of them was Cleopas. Theophylact in his comment upon this place, as (e) formerly shown, observes: ' Some (f) say, that one of these two was Luke himself: but that the evangelist concealed his own name. Nicephorus Callisti (a) in one place, makes no doubt, that Luke was the other disciple not named. It it likely, that he had met with it in more ancient writers. Sam. Basnage (b) readily declares himself of the same opinion. Indeed, I think, it has a great appearance of probability. It is much more likely, than the tradition, or interpretation in Epiphanius that (c) it was Nathanael. The same Basnage says, that if Nathanael had been the other, St. Luke would have named him. p. 195-196

And here he writes about Lucius and on Luke as an eyewitness:

Lucius is our evangelist ... Indeed this opinion cannot be well said to be destitute of probability: since there is a good deal of reason to think that Luke was in the apostle’s company when he wrote the epistle to the Romans. And if Lucius be not he, no mention is made of him; which is very unlikely.

If this be our evangelist, we hence learn that he was a Jew, and related to the apostle. And if this be Lucius of Cyrene, we know his character, and, in part, his history, from Acts xi. 19—21. and xiii. 1—4. He was an early Jewish believer, after Christ’s ascension, and together with others was very serviceable in early preaching the gospel to Jews and Gentiles out of Judea. And, once more, if the other, who accompanied Clcopas in the way to Emmaus, he Luke the evangelist, he was a disciple and eye-witness of Jesus Christ: but I do not say one of the seventy.

Now we come to consider the objection of Beza, Grotius, and divers others: who have supposed, that St. Luke, in the introduction to his gospel excludes himself from the number of eyewitnesses. But though this has been a difficulty with many, there have been of late divers learned men, remarkable for inquisitiveness and good judgment, who are not much moved by it. One of them is Dr. Whitby in his preface to St. Luke’s gospel, already taken notice of by us. Another is (a) Fabricius, a third (b) Basnage, the fourth Heumann: who in his forecited Dissertation observes, that (c) St. Luke’s introduction imports no more, than that he was not an eye-witness from the beginning, nor an apostle. But he may have been for some while a follower of Christ, very consistently with what he there writes: and, probably, he was so. But he very fitly put the credit and authority of his history upon the testimony of the apostles. - p. 196-197

Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791)
Herbert Marsh (1757-1839) - Michaelis translator
Michaelis accepts Theodor Hase Theophilus theory, offers counterpoint on Lucius of Cyrene
He does date Luke more like 50 AD, allowing "most excellent" to remain as the Theophilus title
From Shane Rosenthal

William Paley (1743-1805)
Associate
James Tate (1771-1843)
181 James Tate, The Continuous History of St. Paul: With William Paley’s Horae Paulinae Subjoined (London: Longman, Orme, Brown & Co., 1840), 163-164. Some have wrongly attributed this statement to Paley himself.

The Horae Paulinae of William Paley, Carried Out and Illustrated in a Continuous History of the Apostolic Labours and Writings of St. Paul: On the Basis of the Acts, with Intercalary Matter of Sacred Narrative Supplied from the Epistles, and Elucidated in Occasional Dissertations
https://books.google.com/books?id=pmAsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA163

But it may naturally be asked, Allowing the Gospel to have been written at Cesarea in the time of St. Paul’s imprisonment there, who was Theophilus, to whom the Gospel is dedicated ? Here again we enjoy the decisive advantage of referring to a real person, the only one known to us by that name at that period ; a person belonging to Judea, as having been high priest, who from the time about which he held that office, and from the early age at which it could then be held, was likely enough to be alive at the very date required, and who, as having held the high priesthood, was entitled to the address of rank, (Grk), “ most excellent.”

We are indebted to the acute perspicacity of Theodore Hase (Michaelis, u. s. pp. 238...240.) for this most ingenious and highly probable supposition, in all its principal points. And I am disposed to go farther than Michaclis as to the satisfaction with which we may contemplate it. He, after examining all the other notions which have been advanced upon the subject, declares (p. 2G6.) of this, that though not confirmed by (direct) historical evidence, it is supported by its own internal probability, and is on the whole more eligible than any of the merely traditionary reports.

For my part, I see no difficulty whatever in Theodore Hase’s hypothesis, except it be from a point of chronology which shall be noticed at the close of this section. And I am strongly inclined to recommend its adoption to the readers of these pages, not only as harmonising well with all the phenomena of the case, but as favoured by positive considerations already stated, and therefore as greatly superior to the other hypotheses which have nothing but obscure tradition to rest upon.

As to a high priest’s having become a Christian convert, what should hinder it? At an early period, and in Jerusalem, we read, A. vi. that “ a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” In Corinth, several years after, we find one ruler of the synagogue at least, Crispus, A. xviii. 8., to have been so converted. And why should we doubt but that some even of the highest dignity might be converted in Jerusalem ? p. 163-165

Shane Rosenthal

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

from Shane Rosenthal

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

from Shane Rosenthal

Henry Joel Cadbury (1883-1974)

country...”185 In a 1922 essay, Cadbury says further that the word kratistos [most excellent] “is
used also of the religious officials, archiereus [high priest] and archiprophetes [chief prophet], of
the members of the council collectively and of the council itself. It is natural therefore to
conclude that here also Luke is addressing an official of high position. ..The name [Theophilus] is
of Greek origin but is used as early as iii./B.C. of Jews. ..One of the high priests in i./A.D. was so
named (Josephus Ant. 18.5.3; 123)”186

185 Henry Cadbury, “The Purpose Expressed in Luke’s Preface,” The Expositor, Eighth Series, No. 121 (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1921), 432; 437.

186 Henry J. Cadbury, “Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of The Apostles (London:
Macmillan & Co, 1922), 506-507.

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

James Ironside Still (1854-1927)
(1923):
“It is natural to ask who [Theophilus] was. ..Was he the Theophilus who in Paul’s time got the length of being High Priest, and may have had an open mind to the Christian Faith?...Who knows?”187

187 J. Ironside Still, St. Paul on Trial (London: Student Christian Movement, 1923), 84-85.

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

Robert Eisler (1882-1949)
(1938): Luke dedicated his two volumes to “the former high-priest, [the] high and mighty Theophilus.”188

Robert Eisler, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel (London: Methhuen & Co, 1938) 139, 208; cf. 45.

 

[Steven Avery]

scholars, writers, contributions - 1985 to today

Cutting-edge writers

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

David Lewis Allen
https://www.facebook.com/david.l.allen1
https://web.archive.org/web/20210725025544/https://swbts.edu/staff/david-l-allen/

Lukan authorship of Hebrews - Theophilus

193 David Allen, “The Authorship of Hebrews: The Lukan Proposal,” in Faith & Mission Journal 18:2 (Spring 2001), p. 34

194 David Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010), 23-25; 328.

Richard H. Anderson

Who are Johanna and Theophilus?: The Irony of the Intended Audience of the Gospel of Luke Kindle Edition
https://www.amazon.com/Who-are-Johanna-Theophilus-Intended-ebook/dp/B0056IXW6U

“Theophilus: a Proposal [as to his identity in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1],”
http://web.archive.org/web/20050212...ities.com:80/gospelofluke/theosub/THEOSUB.htm

discussion of Rick Strelan book
http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com/search?q=Luke+the+Priest

from Shane Rosenthal

Lee Thomas Dahn
Most Excellent Theophilus
http://ltdahn-theophilus.blogspot.com/
Acts 9.31 = 37CE?
https://mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/acts-9-31-37ce/

from Shane Rosenthal

201 Luke-Acts, A Commentary' by Lee Thomas Dahn
( https://commentarylukeacts.wordpress.eom/category/Qc-audience-and-purpose/L
This online commentary is dated Aug 13, 2009, and was accessed on Jun 7, 2025. In his preface, Dahn indicates that he is “indebted” to the work of Richard H. Anderson, whom he worked with “as a research assistant of sorts.”

John Nicholas Lupia III
https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-n-lupia-iii-02881938/
John was active on the Theophilus discussions on Xtalk from 2001-2009

Rick Strelan
Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel (2008)
http://books.google.com/books?id=AeTdi13weAoC&pg=PA3
Academia.edu
https://uq.academia.edu/RickStrelan

From Shane Rosenthal

198 Rick Strelan, Luke The Priest (London: Routledge, 2008), 107-111.

James David Audlin
paper with the Caiaphus proposal
https://www.academia.edu/36043214/That_Joseph_of_Arimathaea_was_also_Joseph_Caiaphas
Audlin Books
http://audlinbooks.com/joseph-arimathaea-also-joseph-caiaphas/

Claude Tresmontant (1925-1997)
Bloomer summary of Tresmontant
https://www.academia.edu/4913523/Christology_Above_or_Below
Protestant Professor Arthur A Just discusses the priestly, sacramental and Eucharistic dimensions of the Christology of the Letter to the Hebrews in his article “Entering Holiness: Christology and Eucharist in Hebrews”18. The opening verses, of the Letter to the Hebrews, reveals its Christology ‘from above’. Some scholars have referred to the letter to the Hebrews as Johanine which is also a Gospel who’s Christology could be described as ‘from above’. According to French Catholic scholar Claude Tresmontant the John who was called the beloved Disciple was a priest from the high priestly family and not the same as the apostle John. Thus John of Ephesus may have been a son or nephew of the High Priest Theophilus who had retired to the High Priestly estates in Ephesus.19
18 Arthur J Just jnr, "Entering Holiness: Christology and Eucharist in Hebrews" Concordia Theological Quarterly
Vol.69:1; (January 2005), 75f
19 See Claude Tresmontant, The Hebrew Christ: Language in the Age of the Gospels USA:Franciscan Herald
Press, 1989.


Gilbert (Athol) Bloomer
Christology: Above or Below?
By Brother Gilbert (Athol) Bloomer
https://www.academia.edu/4913523/Christology_Above_or_Below
accepts Theophilus proposal and proposes Theophilus as author of Hebrews
Thus John of Ephesus may have been a son or nephew of the High Priest Theophilus who had retired to the High Priestly estates in Ephesus.19
I think that the Eucharistic dimension of Christology has been much neglected and this is the reason I have chosen the Christology of the Letter to the Hebrews as one of my New Testament Christologies which represents Christology ‘from above’. Like all the Christologies in the New Testament each one has to a certain extent attributes of both ‘from above and ‘from below’. I have came to the conclusion many years ago that this letter was written by the former Jewish High-priest Theophilus to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and Acts under the guidance and encouragement of St Paul. This is a Christology focused on Tabernacle or Temple theology which can also be found in Paul (see Ephesians 2)17. It would seem to be addressed to those many Jewish priests mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles who
have become believers (Acts 6:7).
See also
https://www.hebrewcatholic.net/forums/topic/markan-and-lukan-communities-a-fabricated-affair/

Edward L. Bromfield is listed below on smoodock blog
https://smoodock45.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/is-luke’s-‘theophilus’-really-matthias/
https://smoodock45.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/who-is-luke’s-theophilus/
https://smoodock45.com/2016/04/03/who-is-theophilus-of-luke-and-acts/
and
https://thingspaulandluke.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/who-is-luke’s-theophilus/
https://thingspaulandluke.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/who-is-luke’s-theophilus/
and
https://thingspaulandluke.wordpress.com/2018/10/12/lucius-of-cyrene/

Richard Fellows
http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/

Jenny Read-Heimerdinger
Josep Rius-Camps

195 Josep Ruis-Camps & Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, Vol. 1 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 40.

196 Josep Ruis-Camps & Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, Luke’s Demonstration to Theophilus (London: Bloomsbury | T&T Clark, 2013), vii.

206 Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, “The Parable of the Vineyard in Luke’s Gospel (20.9-19)...”, en Relectures de l’Escriptura a la Hum del Concili Vatica II (1). La vinya (ScrBib 14, Barcelona: ABCat - FTC - PAM 2014), 174; 178-179.

Rodolf Puigdollers (b. 1948)
Els grans sacerdois jesus des de l'epoca d'Herodes el Gran fins a la guerra jueva (2005)
Rodolf Puigdoller
http://www.raco.cat/index.php/RevistaTeologia/article/download/71479/103960
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...RevistaTeologia/article/download/71479/103960
Summary
In this article, the author reviews all the documentation which Flavius Josephus offers in his works on the twenty-eight Jewish high priests since the time of Herod the Great to the destruction of the Temple, and complements it with the Rabbinical tradition. The aim is to identify the tendencies of each high priest from the time of his appointment to the end of his time of service, and to situate them within the tendencies of each one of the four high priestly families. The aggressive tendency of the family of Annas as is emerges in the Gospel, is interrupted by the high priest Theophilus, son of Annas, and by his son Matthias, son of Theophilus, by virtue of their conciliatory tendencies. The study can help to understand the events experienced by the first Christian communities.

53. D. Barad - D. Flusser, «The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaugther of the High Priest Theophilus», 1EJ36 (1986) 39-44.

54. Cf. R.H. Anderson, «Theophilus: A Proposal», EvO 69 (1997) 195-215; «A la recherche de Theophile», Dossiers d’Archeologie, n. 278, dec. 2002 - janv. 2003, Saint Luc. Evangeliste ethistorien, pp. 64-70:
Rius-Camps - Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts, 59-60.

Richard Bauckham

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

Cameron Joyner - Friends of Israel
(Shane has this one)

 

[Steven Avery]

New From Shane Rosenthal

Rebecca Denova
http://www.religiousstudies.pitt.edu/people/rebecca-denova
http://pitt.academia.edu/RDenova

190 Rebecca Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 39-40.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Things_Accomplished_Among_Us/-AqaCgAAQBAJ?hl=en
https://www.google.com/books/editio...rCjVAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/editio...+evidence+in+the&pg=PA224&printsec=frontcover

197 Willis C. Newman, Luke John, and Acts: Background, Outline and Commentary (Tacoma, WA: Newman International, 2006), 35.

199 Margaret Barker, Christmas, The Original Story (London: SPCK, 2008), 42.

200 Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 357

202 John Churcher, Setting Jesus Free: Lessons From Luke (Christian Alternative, 2009), 23.
http://books.google.com/books?id=i0FVo4MH8k0C&pg=PA23

203 Merrilyn Mansfield, ‘Joanna and Theophilus: A Proposal,” (SBL lecture, 2012),

NO LONGER ACCESSIBLE
https://www.academia.edu/43708969/JoannaandTheophilusAProposal (accessed August 21, 2021), 1.
SBL ANNOUNCEMENT

https://pittsarchives.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/rg057/web/programbooks/2012_ProgramBookAM.pdf

204 Stephen E. Jones, 2013 blog article: “Luke’s Letter to Theophilus.’’
https://godskingdom.org/blog/2013/09/lukes-letter-to-theophilus/

205 J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013), 177.

 

[Steven Avery]

More Research in Support of Shane Rosenthal list of supporters of Theophilus proposal
(I am less concerned here with non-supporters)

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

207 James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke; Pillar NT Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 28, n. 20.

208 Michael Cannon Loehrer, Hebrews: A Readers Companion (WestBow Press, 2016). This statement can be found toward the end of Section Two.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hebrews_a_Reader_s_Companion/RkQ2DQAAQBAJ

209 Peter G. Bolt, “What Actually Happened on Resurrection Morning?” Journal of Gospels & Acts Research, Vol. 2, Sept. 2018), 94-96. Sec
also his introductory comments in Luke, A Commentary, Nov 21, 2022, (The Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary available online:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/commentary/luke/

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

Smoodock's blog

210 Edward L. Bromfield, 2016 blog article, “Who is Theophilus of Luke and Acts?”
https://smoodock45.com/2016/04/03/who-is-theophilus-of-luke-and-acts/
Iast accessed June 7, 2025.

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

211 David H. Price, James, Joseph, and the Past and Future Temple (self-published, 2019, originally 2016), 670, n. 515.

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

212 Jeremy C. Springfield, 2016 blog post, "A High Priest in Hell"
https://www.randomgroovybiblefacts.com/a_high_priest_in_hell.html

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

https://thebiblehistoryguy.com/blog/f/who-was-theophilus

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

214 Antony Michael Hylton, Haggai: Prophet of Yehovah's Pleasure (self-published, 2019), 37
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Haggai_Prophet_of_Yehovah_s_Pleasure/_RLBDwAAQBAJ
215 Antony Michael Hylton, Haggai: Prophet of Yehovah's Pleasure (self-published, 2019), 37
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Haggai_Prophet_of_Yehovah_s_Pleasure/_RLBDwAAQBAJ

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Shane Rosenthal continued

216 David Mitchell, Jesus: The Incarnation of the Word (Brussels: Campbell Publications, 2021), 109.
https://brightmorningstar.org/campbell-publishers/

217 Luuk van de Weghe, “Luke’s Reliance on Eyewitness Sources,” (PhD dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 2022), 65.

218 Luuk van de Weghe, Living Footnoes in the Gospel of Luke (Eugene, OR, Pickwick Publications, 2023), 92. ibid., 77.

219 Ibid., 77.

220 Cameron Joyner, Friends of Israel, “Was Luke Really a Gentile?” Sept. 16, 2022,
https://www.foi.org/2022/09/16/was-luke-really-a-gentile/

221 https://christkirk.com/sermon/acts-of-the-apostles-1/

222 Joshua Paul Smaith, Luke Was Not a Christian: Reading the Third Gospel and Acts Within Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2024), 32, n. 43.

 

[Steven Avery]

Polycrates - John as high priest

Polycrates Section

Polycrates of Ephesus.
A Christian bishop.
http://www.textexcavation.com/polycrates.html

Add - Garvie, maybe Bousset and Burkitt, Burney too, and he has a section in Aramaic authorship

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

These first two are interesting and should be read carefully:

A true narration of all the passages of the proceedings in the Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland holden at Perth, the 25 of August (1621)
David Lindsay (d. 1641)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rQ9lAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA2-PA53
David Lyndesay, Bishop of Brechin

"flowers and colours of rhetorick"
References that the counterfeit argument of his correspondent utilizes Scaliger. And he gives an analogy from Tertullian.

Two Treatises, One of the Christian Priesthood the Other of the Dignity of the Episcopal Order: Formerly Written, and Now Published to Obviate the Erroneous Opinions ... in a Late Book, Entituled, The Rights of the Christian Church [by M. Tindal] With a Large Prefatory Discourse, Wherein is Contained an Answer to the Said Book (1707)

George Hickes (1642-1715)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9pNEDSGaG4cC&pg=PA143

Nathaniel Lardner
https://books.google.com/books?id=skgrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA42

Eusebius and Jerome
"Valesius supposes that St. John actually wore such a plate"
"confuted and ridiculed ... by E. S. Cyprian in his notes upon that chapter of Jerom's catalog ... speaks figuratively"
Witsius
Le Clerc
F. A. Lampe - "a mere fable"
Heumann

Valesius published in Paris around 1660-1675
Henri Valois (1603-1676)

Frederick Charles Cook (1881)
https://books.google.com/books?id=V8IjAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA413

Cook supplies an excellent review of the late 1800s, Alford, Hengstenberg, Keim, Scholten, Hilgenfeld, Neander, Godet, Bleeck and Ewald and mentions Vallarsius referencing Jerome and brings in how Epiphanius and Hegesippius describe James, also Valesius describing Mark. It is quite impressive.

The Revelation of St John: Expounded for Those who Search the Scriptures, Volume 2
Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869) p. 495-499
https://books.google.com/books?id=w5EXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA495

The Magazine of Christian Literature, Volumes 5-6
Present Position of the Johannean Question
William Sanday (1843-1920)
https://books.google.com/books?id=JNjbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414
The Expositor
https://books.google.com/books?id=HQO1yS5W-McC&pg=PA329

Delff refers to "the high priest John"

It was certainly an ingenious idea of Delff’s to claim for the author of the Gospel this connexion with the high-priestly family, because it would at once explain not only the allusion to high placed personages like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, but also the accounts of secret sittings of the Sanhedrin, like that at which it was decided to compass our Lord’s death, and the statement that many of the chief rulers believed on Him, though they were afraid to confess it.

What Sanday calls an "ingenious idea" is more simply a stengthening of the Bible apologetic and history truths.

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

Richard Bauckham, focusing on sympathetic views on Polycrates, has his modern scholarship start later:

Heinrich Karl Hugo Delff (1840-1898)

Bauckham uses him as a starting point

His pubs are given by
William Sanday
https://books.google.com/books?id=jCdWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA17

And a good summary is given by John Behr, who works many of the paths of Richard Bauckham:

John the Theologian and his Paschal Gospel: A Prologue to Theology (2019)
John Behr
https://books.google.com/books?id=6u-MDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95

In the late nineteenth century, Hugo Delff pointed out that there are a number of details in the Gospel of John that indicate that
the author had priestly connections.153 For instance, only he is ‘known to the high priest’ and it is by his intervention that Peter gains admission to the court of the high priest (John 18:15-16) and he is the only evangelist to mention the name of the high priest’s servant, Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off (John 18:10). He alone mentions Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, a member of the Sandhedrin (John 3:1; 7:50; 19:38), and had knowledge of what was happening in the meetings of the Sanhedrin (7:15-52; 11:47-53; 12:10). Delff also takes the step of identifying John the Evangelist with the John mentioned in Acts 4:5-6:

On the morrow their rulers and elders (npf ofivrcpovs] and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem [to judge Peter], with Annas the high priest [Grk] and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family​

[Grk].​

​

Delff then draws a picture, not unlike that given by Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, of a disciple of Christ called John who was a member of the aristocratic and learned high-priestly family in Jerusalem distinct from the illiterate and unlearned fisherman from Galilee, and suggested that perhaps he officiated in the Temple on occasion.15-1 However, as Bauckham points out, this interpretation again falls short of Polycrates’ dramatic claim: John was not simply a member of the high-priestly family who perhaps stepped in on
occasion; he was the high priest.155

(continues.. compare with Bauckham and summarize)

Was John the Son of Zebedee a Priest? (1909)
A. E. Johnston
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30066959?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Robert Eisler (1852-1949)
The enigma of the Fourth gospel, its author and its writer
Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus on the Ephesian John
https://archive.org/stream/MN41506ucmf_0#page/n77/mode/2up
discussed by Richard Bauckham

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2008)
by Richard Bauckham
https://books.google.com/books?id=zcVVp_YD4w4C&pg=PA449
The boldest historical speculation is that of Robert Eisler.41 Hollowing Delff,42 he identifies John, the author of the Gospel, with the John who appears as a member of the high priestly family in Acts 4:6. Going further than Delff,43 he claims that this John actually was the high priest, by identifying him with Theophilus the son of Annas (Josephus, Ant. 18.123), who was high priest from 37 to 41 ce.44 He suggests that Theophilus was used as the Greek name roughly equivalent in meaning to Hebrew Yohanan or Yehohanan (John). This is quite possible, but the identification of the John of whom Polycrates speaks with the high priest Theophilus is achieved only by a series of unverifiable guesses and requires us to believe that only Polycrates has preserved any reference to the fact that the high priest Theophilus was a disciple of Jesus.

More recently, Rigato, apparently without knowledge of Eislers work, has taken Polycrates’ statement fully seriously, identified John the author of the Gospel with the John of Acts 4:6,45 and supposed that this John must at some time have officiated as high priest.46 Since Josephus (our main source for knowledge of the high priests of the late Second Temple period) does not refer to a high priest named John, Rigato allows three possibilities:47
(1) that Josephus’s record of the high priests is incomplete and does not happen to refer to John (perhaps the name of John, as a Christian, was subject to a kind of damnatio memoriae, expunged from the record),
(2) that John was another name of one of those mentioned by Josephus, or
(3) that on one Day of Atonement John substituted for the high priest, according to the practice of substituting another member of the family if the high priest was ill or ritually impure.48

Certainly these are possibilities, but it still remains surprising that only Polycrates should have preserved any reference to the remarkable fact that a disciple of Jesus, author of the Gospel of John, was or substituted for the high priest. It is worth noting that we know of one occasion when the reigning high priest was unable to officiate on the Day of Atonement owing to ritual impurity. This was the high priest Matthias (5-4 bce), and the incident, along with the name of the relative who substituted for him (Joseph son of Elim), was not only recorded by Josephus (Ant. 17.165-67) but well remembered, as a precedent, in rabbinic tradition (Tosephta Yoma 1:4; b. Yoma 12b;y. Yoma 1:1,38d). James VanderKam comments: “It is understandable that an event so public as the temporary replacement of a high priest on the Day of Atonement would be remembered in the tradition.”49

... continues

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

See also Alfred Edersheim. He does not mention Polycrates, but has John as a priest.

The Temple, Its Ministry and Services (1874) (1908)
https://books.google.com/books?id=XFc-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113

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

Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1993)
Richard Bauckham
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/44/1/24/1656239
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23967081.pdf

Maria Luisa Rigato (1934-2017)

Kerr (and many others) have the major weakness of actually seeing Gospel texts as post-70AD. Nonetheless, I agree with his critique of the Bauckham hand-wave below.

The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (2002)
Alan Kerr
https://books.google.com/books?id=iWOvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17

Bauckham argues convincingly that these words refer to John exercising the high priest’s office in the Temple.59 He insists that they are to be taken literally. Bauckham’s conclusion is that according to Polycrates the John who was the Beloved Disciple, who wrote the Gospel, also exercised the office of the high priest in the Temple.60 Bauckham suggests that because there is no corroborative evidence that the author of the Fourth Gospel was a high priest, then it is very unlikely that he was actually a high priest. How then did Polycrates decide that the John who leant on Jesus’ breast was a high priest? Bauckham suggests:

​

The simplest explanation...is that Polycrates (or the Ephesian Church tradition which he followed) identified John the Beloved Disciple, who had died in Ephesus, with the John of Acts 4.6. not because he had any historical information to this effect, but as a piece of scriptural exegesis. The tradition that John the Beloved Disciple was a high priest is neither metaphorical nor historical, but exegeiical. 61​

But is this likely? I think not. The John of Acts 4.6 is one of a high priestly party who sit in judgment on the two apostles, Peter and John. Is it likely that the author of the Fourth Gospel, one whom Polycrates describes as (Gr) a disciple of Jesus, would sit in judgment on fellow disciples, indeed apostles? The incongruity of the situation would surely have struck Polycrates so sharply as to make the possibility of identifying his ‘John’ with the John of the high priestly opposition very remote indeed.

We therefore have to look elsewhere to justify Polycrates’ description ofJohn as one (Grk). Bauckham says that Delff supposed that John was not actually the high priest but stood in for the high priest on one occasion. However, this, according to Bauckham. is contradicted by all the evidence.62 Ordinary' Jewish priests in New Testament times did not hold the office of the high priest, even
temporarily.

1.3.3 Conclusion
Was the author of the Fourth Gospel a high priest? The evidence seems inconclusive. What Polycrates’ statement tends to do is to corroborate the internal evidence of the Gospel that the author, the Beloved Disciple, had priestly connections. This evidence is well summarized by Burney:

​

He [the author] (on the assumption that he is the unnamed disciple) was known to the high priest and gained ready admission to his house, which was denied to Peter until he intervened (18.15, 16). He alone of the Evangelists mentions the name of the high priest’s servant, Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off (18.10), and also the fact that one of those who questioned Peter was a kinsman of Malchus (18.26). He has special knowledge of people like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea. who were both members of the Sanhedrin (3.Iff.; 7.50: 19.38ff.), and seems to have gained inside information as to what went on at meetings of the Sanhedrin (7.15-52; 11.47-53; 12.10), which may have come to him through Nicodemus.63 The fact tfiat, when our LORD commended His Mother to his care, he took her (Grk) ‘from that hour’ suggests that he had a house at or near Jerusalem (19.27).64​

Further, given Polycrates strong external indication of the author’s priestly connections, it strengthens the case for finding ‘priestly’ concerns in the Gospel—namely, the complex of Temple life—the Temple itself, as the place of the presence of God, and its associated festivals, priestly rituals and sacrifices.

61. Bauckham. ‘Papias’. p. 42. Bauckham supports this mistaken (in his view) identification of the John of Acts 4.6 with the author of the Gospel by highlighting Polycrates’ confusion of Philip the apostle with Philip the evangelist (p. 42; cf. p. 30). He gives other examples of how different people of the same name were mistakenly perceived as one and the same person. The significant conclusion Bauckham draws from the hypothesis that Polycrates' ‘John’ is identified with the John of Acts 4.6 is that it is therefore impossible for identification to be made with John the son of Zebedee, for it is this John who appears in the narrative, along with Peter, as one of the two disciples who are there interrogated before Annas, Caiaphas, John and Alexander. Another possibility explored in detail by M. Hengel {The Johannine Question (trans. John Bowden; London; SCM Press, 1989]) is that the John referred to by Irenaeus is John the Elder.

The Johannine Question (1989)
Martin Hengel (1926-2009)
https://books.google.com/books?id=5KYNAQAAMAAJ

Charles Fox Bumey, (1868-1925)
The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922)
https://archive.org/details/aramaicoriginoff00burnrich/page/n6
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001411141
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Aramaic_Origin_of_the_Fourth_Gospel.html?id=2WhAAAAAIAAJ

Burney seems to open up the question of John having an original Aramaic edition, (or possibly Hebrew), very similar to what we share about Mark in Latin. This is planned for its own post or thread.

Mark S. Kinzer writes from a Messianic perspective:

Temple Christology In the Gospel of John (1998)
Mark Kinzer
https://www.academia.edu/737649/Temple_Christology_In_the_Gospel_of_John
the Johannine witness "was himself a priest" - p. 461

Next is Ken Brown.

Temple Christology in the Gospel of John: Replacement Theology and Jesus as the Self-Revelation of God (MA Thesis) (2010)
Kenneth Steven Brown
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Jesus_as_the_Self-Revelation_of_God_MA_Thesis

Good refs to Kerr and Bauckham, once again weakened by the silly post-70 AD modern scholarship junque.

56 It is noteworthy that the “author” of John has been associated with the Jerusalem priesthood, perhaps in 18:15-16, but certainly in the early church. For instance, Polycrate's claimed that John was a high priest himself (noted by Kerr, Temple of Jesus' Body, 17; following Richard Bauckham, “Papias and on the Origin of the Fourth GospeL” JTS 44 [1993]: 24-68, esp. 33-44). Even if this is highly’ improbable, it still lends "weight to the priestly and Temple allusions in this Gospel and should further undermine any hasty conclusion that the Temple theme is primarily a reaction to 70 CE. If the author or community behind John had priestly connections, they may well have been thinking about Jesus’ significance in light of the Temple’s language and symbolism long before Jerusalem felL

Discussion with James David Audlin, very sharp on these issues, however hampered by considering Luke as 90 AD:

Yes, I write extensively about the Polycrates remark, and in fact there are other patristic comments that dovetail with it. My conclusion from sifting all of these is that John was the "sagan", which is in a nutshell the #2 position in the Temple, answerable only to the High Priest (in this case, of course, J. Caiaphas), largely in charge of the daily deployment of priests to necessary functions. While we do not have a complete list of HPs in that period, and although Josephus is not always utterly reliable, I feel confident that in the period at question Caiaphas was HP. So Polycrates et al. or no, John had to have been the sagan, who of course would often "fill in" for the HP when the latter was not available, which would include wearing the petalon, just as Polycrates says.

James VanderKam

 

[Steven Avery]

BCHF
John for readers of Luke
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=195236&hilit=theophilus#p195236

Mypost

John for readers of Luke - Page 2 - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Luke as an eyewitness based on the Prologue? - John Wenham vs. Ken Olsen, Mark Goodacre, Peter Kirby
by Ken Olson » Sat Sep 06, 2025 7:03 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat Sep 06, 2025 6:17 pm Thank you for sharing this, Ken!

Luke 1:1-4 is often interpreted as meaning that the author was not himself a witness (1:2) but rather was among those to whom these things were handed down by 'witnesses and servants of the word.'

John seems to imply that 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' was a direct witness of Jesus. Do you propose that the author of John read, even with Luke 1:1-4, that the author of Luke was himself a direct 'witness' and disciple of Jesus?

That's my main question.

Mark Goodacre pointed that out to me the last time we talked about it (earlier this year). He thought the introduction made it clear the author of Luke was not an eyewitness.

I said: 'I know that and you know that, but John Wenham does not know that.'

John Wenham - The Identification of Luke - Evangelical Quarterly 63.1 (1991) 3-44
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1991-1_003.pdf

Wenham, and Evangelical scholar, thinks Luke was an eyewitness.
So I think it's possible John did too.

A couple others if you will. Did the author of John read Luke as if the author were present at what he narrates, even when the author of Luke doesn't mention anyone else? (e.g. Peter going to the tomb, becoming Peter and the beloved disciple)

Maybe. One could read Luke 24.24 ('some of those with us') to indicate more than one disciple visited the tomb.

Does the following not suggest that the two on the road were different than 'the Eleven' and 'Simon' (presumably in some way related to the idea of an appearance to 'Cephas' of 1 Cor 15 and 'Peter' of Mark 16)?

33 They [the two on the road] got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

Yes, the two on the road appear to be distinct from the Eleven. Is there a problem there that I'm not seeing?

There are different ways that the case in the OP may be construed. A strong form of the argument would be that John literally thought the Gospel of Luke was written by an eyewitness. A weaker form of the argument would be that John developed the concept of an ideal witness to the gospel from Luke.

Two things not directly related to the Beloved Disciple but that may be related to John's use of Luke

One is related to the two giving the reader a reason for having written a gospel:

Luke 1.3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

John 20.30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
The other concerns Jesus' followers not having understood his actions and the scriptures until after the resurrection:

Luke 24.25 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 29 but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” 33

John 2.21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

 

[Steven Avery]

J. Andrew Cowan tries to give a bibliography focused on the traditional view

THE WRITINGS OF LUKE AND THE JEWISH ROOTS OF THE CHRISTIAN WAY
An Examination of the Aims of the First Christian Historian in the Light of Ancient Politics, Ethnography, and Historiography

https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780567684042_A37091513/preview-9780567684042_A37091513.pdf

 

[Steven Avery]

An alternative to Joseph Caiaphas being Joseph of Arimethea - the James David Audlin theory above

Paul's Cephas is Caiphas - Author of 1Peter and Hebrews
Adrie Vd Hoeven
https://www.academia.edu/1536558/Pauls_Cephas_is_Caiphas_-_Author_of_1Peter_and_Hebrews

 

[Steven Avery]

John in Aramaic or Hebrew - Burney refs and more

The Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t0rr1rp33;view=1up;seq=14

Salmasius 1645
Bolten 1797
Pfannkuche in Eichorn 1797
Bertholdt in 1805 1813
Grotius 1641
Ewald 1861
Luthardt 1876
Hebrew - Schlatter 1902 ***

 

[Steven Avery]

Facebook - Nerdy Theology Majors

Daniel Whitlock (check earlier post too)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Ner...29894277062&reply_comment_id=3325122594247792

Daniel Whitlock
Sean du Toit sure thing! I would be happy to!

My first evidence post was off the top of my head. My point about scholarly practice is that looking at internal criteria is what you see in virtually every academic commentaries when they discuss date. Now for references...

I am primarily pulling from Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarles' "The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown." I also have a Carson and Moo's "Introduction to the NT," and some other commentaries and reference works. As for other internal criteria... Carson and Moo (299-300) mention,

1) the ending of Acts,
2) Luke's portrayal of Judaism as a legal religion. This would have changed after the AD 66 rebellion,
3) no reference to persecution by Nero,
4) the detail concerning the shipwreck narrative, which could imply it being recent experience.

"Cradle, Cross, Crown" adds a couple more. Concerning Mk 14, both the term Son of Man and the phraseology as a whole refers to Daniel 7, which depicts the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days for vindication and receiving authority. This happens at Jesus' ascension. Philippians 2:5-11 gives a bigger picture of the idea. As for "Galilee," you are right. I was thinking Bethany.

As for 1 Timothy... I would argue the opposite concerning "kai." Paul could have put the wages reference before verse 18 to avoid confusion. But he did not. It is more likely that "kai" is intended to join the two under the same category. But what is the category. You do mention the possibility of a general "writings" reference. But, I think "graphe" being in the singular makes the word much more likely to refer to Scripture proper, since the idea behind the singular would be an entire entity. Paul regularly refers to God's word with the term "graphe." And the Deuteronomy reference strengthens the idea that this is Scripture. "graphe" also removes the idea of oral tradition or saying. You might could say that it is a pre-Gospel writing, but we have no evidence to actually say that. But we do have evidence for it coming from a Gospel. You mention Matthew 10. And yes, this is the same instance as Luke. However, Luke is a more exact parallel. In fact, if we remove "for" (which is in both accounts) Luke and 1 Timothy are exact matches. Since we have no additional evidence to show otherwise, and the closest evidence points towards Paul quoting Luke, we should affirm that to be the case. Incidentally, this would parallel nicely with the idea that Acts ended shortly after Paul's imprisonment.

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

Earlier
Also, fun fact: it is very likely that 1 timothy quotes Luke (10:7) as Scripture in 5:18.
Of course, that having to do with the date of Luke depends on what you think of Timothy

The author of Luke, who I believe was Luke, wrote both Luke and Acts. Regardless of authorship, Acts ends with Paul in Rome, so we can conclude that Acts was likely written before Paul's death. Also, Acts does not mention the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (which was incredibly significant for both Jews and Christians), so we have more evidence to conclude that Acts was likely written before the fall.

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

Later note to review

Daniel Whitlock
Sean du Toit they assume that the persecution would have influenced his writing if it had occurred. But they only mention the point. It is true that Nero is not mentioned. I'm assuming that you posit special pleading in the sense that I am saying that no mention of Nero would determine a date. I'm not saying that, and I don't think Carson and Moo are either. Moreso that if we know the significance of Nero persecution and Acts does not mention it, then it is reasonable to say that it had not yet occurred. That's all.

But, do you have any evidence to the contrary which would not be conjecture or special pleading?

Timothy: just to clarify, I'm not using timothy to support a particular date for Luke. I'm assuming the fact that Luke wrote prior.

But as for the reference in Timothy, I would ask you for evidence to the contrary. We could say that there might be other sources all day. But we have no access to them to support the idea. Would that not be conjecture and assumption just the same? But we do have Luke, an exact parallel.

And as for the singular or dual reference. Again, can you give evidence that Paul means something different or draws from two sources? If, as we have evidence for, Luke is what is quoted here, there is little reason to think that Paul would not consider it Scripture. And, at the very least, Paul has not indicated anything to the contrary. The lack of clearer distinction between the two supports my argument.

The son of man reference takes into account OT background, which the NT often assumes of its readers. And even if it is talking about "coming," that still necessitates a return to the heavenly realm.

 

[Steven Avery]

There is a 1980 article speculating that Theophilus was a pseudonym for Agrippa II. While that seems a stretch to me, it was a good article in outlining a theory of the potential sensibilities and background of the intended reader. (Werner G. Marx, "A New Theophilus," Evangelical Quarterly 52 (1980): 18.)

http://biblicalstudies.gospelstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1980-1_017.pdf

Marx, Werner. 1980a. “Luke, the Physician, Re-examined.” Expository Times 91, no. 6 (March): 168–72.

 

[Steven Avery]

Pro

Theophilus and Philo (2018)
Damien F. Mackey

Theophilus and Philo

by Damien F. Mackey “To this list, I believe the name of King Agrippa II should be added. Why he has not been suggested before is a mystery”. Dr. Werner G. Marx That the Herodian era of early…

parallellivesbcad.wordpress.com

With this background in mind, for whom was Luke the Evangelist writing?
Who was Luke 1:3’s “Most Excellent Theophilus?
Some have suggested, most plausibly, that “Theophilus” was a high priest of that very name, a son of Annas. I especially like this version of that particular identification:
http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/2006/11/identifying-theophilus.html

Identifying Theophilus
December 10, 2006
Luke 1.1-4

Luke addresses his two-part story to a man named Theophilus. This name was relatively common among both Greeks and Jews in the first century. Because the title preceeding his name resembles those of other Roman officials' named in Luke's writings (Acts 23.26; 24.3; 26.25), "most excellent Theophilus" is generally assumed to have been a Roman official. ….

 

[Steven Avery]

Who joins
John Wenham and
Shane Rosenthal on Lukan prologue grammar

Kirsopp Lake and friends ... per Wenham

John Wenham
The Identification of Luke (1991)
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1991-1_003.pdf

Prologue

The Beginnings of Christianity,
Vol 1 of 5, Part 2 - Authorship
https://archive.org/details/beginningschrist01unknuoft
Vol 2 - Appendix - Commentary on the Preface of Luke
https://archive.org/details/actsofapostles02unknuoft/page/n8/mode/1up

‘The Knowledge Claimed in Luke’s Preface’ (Expositor, Dec. 1922).
Expositor 8 ( 1922 ) 401–20

This article was used by Shane and many.

dedication of his famous commentary to him. He was a major contributor to the great work edited by Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, In volume 2, published in 1922, he wrote an appendix: ‘Commentary on the Preface of Luke’, which was characterised by a careful fresh enquiiy into the lexicography of the words. Particular interest
18 The Evangelical Quarterly
centres on his treatment of παρακολουθέω, which he also dealt with more fully in an article published later in the same year:
‘The Knowledge Claimed in Luke’s Preface’ (Expositor, Dec.
1922). This article gives his definitive treatment of παρακολουθέω, but his Commentaiy has a number of interesting observations. In the commentaiy he makes three general points about the
prologue. (1) In comparing the preface with other contemporary prefaces he detects a flavour of conventionality in what Luke wrote and considers that it should not be taken too seriously as a guide to an understanding of the work as a whole. (2) He argues that Luke-Acts was one work with a general and a secondary preface; and suggests that the former was possibly written after the second volume was completed and when its contents were particularly in mind. (3) Though it seems at first sight as though the author is excluding himself from the category of eyewitness, παρηκολουθηκότι may mean precisely that he was one.

Kirk DiVietro response

11
Henry Cadbury, “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles edited by F.J. Foakes Jackson & Kirsopp Lake (London: Macmillan & Co., 1922), 497-502. This essay appears in Appendix C.
12
Henry J. Cadbury, “The Knowledge Claimed in Luke’s Preface,” The Expositor XXIV, Eighth Series, No. #144, December 1922 (London: Hodder & Stoughton), 401-420.