None of this supports the translations you have been giving.
Luke 1:3 - Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com
Theophilus Wrote Luke and Acts
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Again, these types of comments are not at all helpful for the discussion and have no place in any forum, least of all in Apologetics. You need to be specific and not just throw out links with a ton of information and expect others to do the work you should be doing.
So, again, do you actually know if your two (re)translations of Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1 grammatically make sense in the Greek? Is there a single scholar or theologian you can cite that says the same? Is there a Bible translation out there that has those wordings? You've made the claims, so you need to provide the evidence.
Right, nobody is disagreeing with that. That hardly makes him an "eyewitness" of the Lord Jesus and His 3-year earthly ministry however, so the way that he (Luke) began the Gospel of Luke makes perfect sense.......
Luke 1
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
.......because (in the case of the Lord Jesus/His ministry) he would have needed to "compile an account" of the things that they (the Lord/His apostles) accomplished at that time, since he (Luke) didn't witness any of it, personally.
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - unlike Luke, there are no references concerning Theophilus in the Bible (except the two that Luke made, of course). Assuming that what you believe is true (for the moment), I find it more than odd that the Lord would pick such a man as the human author of part of the NT (the largest part, actually), and further, that such a man would ever choose to address his letter (to Luke) as coming from, "YOUR MOST EXCELLENT, Theophilus!"
So, again, since you believe something that nobody else seems to believe (that the human author of Luke/Acts is Theophilus, not Luke), please tell us the things that led you to that conclusion. Thanks
Last edited:
Luke accompanied Paul on his journey to Jerusalem, and there they met with the Apostles. Theophilus did not know the Apostles, and so he had to investigate.Right, nobody is disagreeing with that. That hardly makes him an "eyewitness" of the Lord Jesus and His 3-year earthly ministry however, so the way that he (Luke) began the Gospel of Luke makes perfect sense.......
Luke 11 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
.......because (in the case of the Lord Jesus/His ministry) he would have needed to "compile an account" of the things that they (the Lord/His apostles) accomplished at that time, since he (Luke) didn't witness any of it, personally.
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - unlike Luke, there are no references concerning Theophilus in the Bible (except the two that Luke made, of course). Assuming that what you believe is true (for the moment), I find it more than odd that the Lord would pick such a man as the human author of part of the NT (the largest part, actually), and further, that such a man would ever choose to address his letter (to Luke) as coming from, "YOUR MOST EXCELLENT, Theophilus!"
So, again, since you believe something that nobody else seems to believe (that the human author of Luke/Acts is Theophilus, not Luke), please tell us the things that led you to that conclusion. Thanks
(Excellent / very good) (Theophilus / friend of God)
The writer referring to himself said he was a (very good friend of God.)
Last edited:
How does Luke accompanying Paul preclude Luke from having to investigate? Paul didn't start preaching until about 3 years after his conversion, and even that was probably a few years after the death of Christ. We don't know when Luke joined Paul, although some say it was likely around the events of Acts 16, which puts Luke back another 15 years or so. That means it is possible and even likely, that Luke is 21-22 years out from the death of Jesus, and 25 or so from the start of his ministry.
https://biblehub.com/timeline/acts/1.htm
You still need to provide evidence that that is a legitimate interpretation of that verse.
I looked at your dates and they are off a little bit. Yahshua preached for three years after starting his ministry at thirty years of age. Any time setting for Luke would be best guess.
Unlike the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of Luke is about the Lord Jesus Christ. Luke (who was the only Gentile author of a NT Gospel or Epistle) was not an eyewitness/did not know the Lord Jesus personally, so he had to investigate before writing His Gospel.
The word "κράτιστος" is always/only used in connection with a political official of some sort, or to honor someone of a higher social standing (many/most believe that Theophilus, who was also a Gentile, and who may or may not have been a believer, was probably Luke's literary patron).
κράτιστος has the same, narrow meaning in all of my lexicons (Bauer, Thayer, Kittel, Strongs) and in my word studies and Greek commentaries. It's used as a means of addressing someone in honor of their rank, not of the quality of their personality/character.
Therefore, "κράτιστος", is ~never~ translated as "very good*", Biblically or extra-Biblically!
Finally, while there have been a few over the millennia who have questioned whether Luke is truly the author of Luke/Acts or not, no one has ever questioned who Luke/Acts was addressed to and (originally) written for, Theophilus.
--David
p.s. - not even a secular writer would refer to himself in the arrogant manner that you have suggested, but a human author of one of the NT Gospels? (not a chance). It's one thing to honor a person of political or social stature by declaring them to be "κράτιστος"(“most excellent” or “most noble”, "mightiest, strongest, noblest, most illustrious, best"), but quite another to declare such things about oneself
.
Last edited:
It's vocative in both passages, which means Theophilus is the one being addressed, not the one writing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey All,
I love this stuff. Let's get into it. First we read the texts:
Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Pay attention to the pronouns in Luke 1:3:
Me (first person)
Thee--you in modern translations (second person)
The "You" then, must refer to the second (or another) person in the correspondence. Theophilus is the second person. Luke is writing to Theophilus.
Now let's look at Acts 1:1:
Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
"The former treatise I have made" "I" refers to the first person and taking credit for the book (former treatise" of Luke.
"O Theophilus" (Theophilus is the second person, and not the writer of Luke, rather the recipient of Acts.)
Conclusion: Luke wrote both books. Theophilus was the original recipient of both books.
Some cool side notes about Luke:
Luke was not one of the original twelve disciples. (The Bible teaches us that the original apostles of Jesus were Peter; James; John; Andrew; Philip; Judas Iscariot; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alpheus; Bartholomew; Judas Thaddeus; and Simon Zelotes.)
In fact, Luke is the only gentile Biblical writer.
Also, because he wrote both Luke and The B Testament. (And now you know.) I hope this helps. Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
I love this stuff. Let's get into it. First we read the texts:
Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Pay attention to the pronouns in Luke 1:3:
Me (first person)
Thee--you in modern translations (second person)
The "You" then, must refer to the second (or another) person in the correspondence. Theophilus is the second person. Luke is writing to Theophilus.
Now let's look at Acts 1:1:
Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
"The former treatise I have made" "I" refers to the first person and taking credit for the book (former treatise" of Luke.
"O Theophilus" (Theophilus is the second person, and not the writer of Luke, rather the recipient of Acts.)
Conclusion: Luke wrote both books. Theophilus was the original recipient of both books.
Some cool side notes about Luke:
Luke was not one of the original twelve disciples. (The Bible teaches us that the original apostles of Jesus were Peter; James; John; Andrew; Philip; Judas Iscariot; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alpheus; Bartholomew; Judas Thaddeus; and Simon Zelotes.)
In fact, Luke is the only gentile Biblical writer.
Also, because he wrote both Luke and The B Testament. (And now you know.) I hope this helps. Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
I did it again. Forgive the mistake. The sentence above should read, "Also, because he wrote both Luke and The Book of Acts, Luke is the second most prolific writer in the New Testament." Keep walking everybody. May God bless, Taz
Not so fast. The way it is worded can also be Theophilus identifying himself. O = finally, Theophilus. Or !
Acts 1:1 - Bible Gateway
This is not at all helpful. Please copy and paste exactly what you think proves your point, because from what I can see, not a single one supports your translation. That strongly suggests, or rather proves, that it is your translation alone, and likely has no basis. Also, provide proof from the Greek that it can be worded as you say, such as a legitimate expert who supports such a reading; your saying so does not mean it can be so. Then, explain why no other version, each written and edited by numerous experts, doesn't have that translation or give it as an alternative reading.Not so fast. The way it is worded can also be Theophilus identifying himself. O = finally, Theophilus. Or !
Acts 1:1 - Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com
Hello Josef, actually, I believe that Luke is the most prolific writer in the NT, based upon (Greek) word count anyway.
The Gospel of Luke + the Acts of the Apostles has 500+ more words in them than all of the Apostle Paul's Books/Epistles combined, and that's including the Book of Hebrews in the mix (as an additional Book authored by Paul, that is, as many/most? conservative scholars believe that he/Paul is the human author of Hebrews).
Granted, the Apostle Paul wrote more individual Books/Epistles than any other NT author did, so in that sense he is the most prolific NT author, followed, then, by the Apostle John.
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - here's a chart.
| Author | Words | Percent |
| Luke | 37,932 | 27.48% |
| Paul | 32,408 | 23.48% |
| John | 28,091 | 20.35% |
| Matthew | 18,346 | 13.29% |
| Mark | 11,304 | 8.19% |
| (Hebrews) | 4,953 | 3.59% |
| Peter | 2,783 | 2.02% |
| James | 1,742 | 1.26% |
| Jude | 461 | 0.33% |
| NT Total | 138,020 |
Hey All,
St_worm2 I stand corrected. Thank you. By word Luke is the most prolific writer. I was measuring by written chapters.
1. Paul --95 chapters
2. Luke --52 chapters
3. John --50 chapters
(By the way, I also believe Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. You can see his style throughout the book. But that's a whole nother discussion.)
Now, on to the main discussion, I have never heard of the "bible gateway" translation. Why do we have to use it to understand your position CherubRam? Let's stick to a common translation with which we're all familiar.
I quoted KJV. Almost everybody can look up the passages because they have that version. I typed them out in my previous post. Make your stand using them. The pronouns clearly do not support your position.
Keep walking everybody. May God bless,
Taz
St_worm2 I stand corrected. Thank you. By word Luke is the most prolific writer. I was measuring by written chapters.
1. Paul --95 chapters
2. Luke --52 chapters
3. John --50 chapters
(By the way, I also believe Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. You can see his style throughout the book. But that's a whole nother discussion.)
Now, on to the main discussion, I have never heard of the "bible gateway" translation. Why do we have to use it to understand your position CherubRam? Let's stick to a common translation with which we're all familiar.
I quoted KJV. Almost everybody can look up the passages because they have that version. I typed them out in my previous post. Make your stand using them. The pronouns clearly do not support your position.
Keep walking everybody. May God bless,
Taz
Bible Gateway provides numerous translations. If you click on his link you'll see, and you'll also see that it does nothing for understanding or supporting his position.
When it was decided that we were to sail to Italy, they handed over Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Imperial Regiment” (Acts 27:1).
Yes, Luke was at least a companion of Paul. Its unlikely He was a eyewitness of Christ Jesus, the Son of God.
Do you find any ancient sources that support any other authorship of acts and the book of Luke let alone Theophilus?
There are several ancient sources that name Luke as that author. Hence the Gospel according to Luke. It wasn't pulled out of a hat.
So in the 21st century you think you found something new?
Scholars are divided on the issue. It is likely that Luke traveled with Paul to Jerusalem were he met with the Apostles. Whereas Theophilus needed to inquire about what took place. Do you see what I mean?
Perhaps you missed the "we" as the author of acts was traveling with Paul. Acts 27:1
What scholars? Please provide evidence.
Theophilus inquired, so Luke wrote the accounts for him.