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

Steven Avery

40s AD dating for first Gospel accounts


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)

references Lucius of Cyrene

Polycrates letter to Victor 196-198

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)
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)
Fabricius (k) esteemed it somewhat probable that Lucius is the evangelist.
Luke is included as an eyewitness
Theodor Hase (1682-1731)
Bibliotheca Bremensis - Vol 4 (1719)
Theodorei Haseai -, ad praecedentem de Theophilo, dissertationem Sicilimentum

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
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.
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

William Paley (1743-1805)

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

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

Steven Avery

scholars, writers, contributions - 1985 to today

Cutting-edge writers

David Lewis Allen
Lukan authorship of Hebrews - Theophilus

Richard H. Anderson

Who are Johanna and Theophilus?: The Irony of the Intended Audience of the Gospel of Luke Kindle Edition

“Theophilus: a Proposal [as to his identity in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1],”

discussion of Rick Strelan book
Lee Thomas Dahn
Most Excellent Theophilus
Acts 9.31 = 37CE?

John Nicholas Lupia III
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)

James David Audlin
paper with the Caiaphus proposal
Audlin Books

Claude Tresmontant (1925-1997)

Gilbert (Athol) Bloomer
accepts Theophilus proposal and proposes Theophilus as author of Hebrews

Richard Fellows

Jenny Read-Heimerdinger
Josep Rius-Camps

Rodolf Puigdollers

Richard Bauckham

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Polycrates - John as high priest

Polycrates Section

Polycrates of Ephesus.
A Christian bishop.

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)
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)

Nathaniel Lardner

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"
Le Clerc
F. A. Lampe - "a mere fable"
Valesius published in Paris around 1660-1675
Henri Valois (1603-1676)

Frederick Charles Cook (1881)

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

The Magazine of Christian Literature, Volumes 5-6
Present Position of the Johannean Question
William Sanday (1843-1920)
The Expositor

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

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

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
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
Robert Eisler (1852-1949)
The enigma of the Fourth gospel, its author and its writer
Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus on the Ephesian John
discussed by Richard Bauckham

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2008)
by Richard Bauckham
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)


Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1993)
Richard Bauckham

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

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 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

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)

Charles Fox Bumey, (1868-1925)
The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922)

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
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

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 fel
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
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Nerdy Theology Majors
Daniel Whitlock (check earlier post too)

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.

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.
Last edited: