Theophilus Wrote Luke and Acts

[Randy]

Paul made one or more trips to Israel to see the Disciples, and Luke was his traveling companion.

Paul himself witnessed Jesus as one abnormally born. The text is not ambiguous as Luke wrote the accounting for Theophilus and it became much more for future generations.

..and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born

 

[CherubRam]

Paul himself witnessed Jesus as one abnormally born. The text is not ambiguous as Luke wrote the accounting for Theophilus and it became much more for future generations.

..and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born

Englishman's Concordance
Strong's Greek: 1626. ἔκτρωμα (ektróma) — 1 Occurrence
1 Corinthians 15:8 N-DNS
GRK: ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί
NAS: of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared
KJV: as of one born out of due time.
INT: as the untimely birth he appeared also to me


Romans 15:25
Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there.

Romans 15:26
For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.

Romans 15:31
Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the Lord’s people there,

1 Corinthians 16:3
Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

Galatians 1:18
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:1

Paul Accepted by the Apostles​

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.

 

[st_worm2]

There is no evidence, it is just scholarly speculation.

Please point us/link us to the scholars who teach that what you believe is true, even if it is only on the basis of speculation alone, as I cannot find any evidence for your belief from anybody else, as I just said recently. Quite frankly, even when "scholars" are forced to make their points by conjecture/speculation, they give detailed reasons for why they believe that their speculations may possibly be true.

In this case, the "evidence" that exists seems to point away from your speculative beliefs, rather than towards them.

One tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person.

That's true. It's not the principal belief, but it is certainly one of the more popular thoughts about who Theophilus actually was.

The word in Greek means "Friend of God" and thus both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that description.

That, of course, is pure conjecture, but always a possibility, I suppose (though it seems to me that, as a "Gospel", Luke must also be intended as a help and warning to those who are still God's "enemies", those who still need to come to saving faith and be reconciled to Him).

In this tradition the author's targeted audience, as with all other canonical Gospels, were the learned but unnamed men and women of the era.

That seems an odd tradition, all things considered (the Lord hardly witnessed to the high and mighty of His day, exclusively).

Granted, many couldn't read back then, but they (the unlearned/illiterate) could and did learn by listening.

Another point of interest is this, the first four verses of Luke's Gospel, the verses that he wrote to Theophilus, were different from what he wrote in the rest of his Gospel. As one commentator said,

The first four verses of Luke’s gospel are one sentence in the original Greek. They are written in refined, academic, classical style. But then, for the rest of the gospel, Luke didn’t use the language of scholars but of the common man, the language of the village and the street. Through this, Luke said to us, “This account has all the proper academic and scholarly credentials. But it is written for the man on the street.” Luke wrote so that people would understand Jesus, not so they would admire his brain and literary skill.​

So, it seems that, even if the man on the street could not read Luke's words, he probably wrote most of his Gospel with them in mind (the common man or woman, that is).

Which "tradition" teaches that the Bible was written to a special class of people/to the learned alone?

Thanks!

--David

 

[CherubRam]

Please point us/link us to the scholars who teach that what you believe is true, even if it is only on the basis of speculation alone, as I cannot find any evidence for your belief from anybody else, as I just said recently. Quite frankly, even when "scholars" are forced to make their points by conjecture/speculation, they give detailed reasons for why they believe that their speculations may possibly be true.

In this case, the "evidence" that exists seems to point away from your speculative beliefs, rather than towards them.


That's true. It's not the principal belief, but it is certainly one of the more popular thoughts about who Theophilus actually was.


That, of course, is pure conjecture, but always a possibility, I suppose (though it seems to me that, as a "Gospel", Luke must also be intended as a help and warning to those who are still God's "enemies", those who still need to come to saving faith and be reconciled to Him).


That seems an odd tradition, all things considered (the Lord hardly witnessed to the high and mighty of His day, exclusively).

Granted, many couldn't read back then, but they (the unlearned/illiterate) could and did learn by listening.

Another point of interest is this, the first four verses of Luke's Gospel, the verses that he wrote to Theophilus, were different from what he wrote in the rest of his Gospel. As one commentator said,

The first four verses of Luke’s gospel are one sentence in the original Greek. They are written in refined, academic, classical style. But then, for the rest of the gospel, Luke didn’t use the language of scholars but of the common man, the language of the village and the street. Through this, Luke said to us, “This account has all the proper academic and scholarly credentials. But it is written for the man on the street.” Luke wrote so that people would understand Jesus, not so they would admire his brain and literary skill.​

So, it seems that, even if the man on the street could not read Luke's words, he probably wrote most of his Gospel with them in mind (the common man or woman, that is).

Which "tradition" teaches that the Bible was written to a special class of people/to the learned alone?

Thanks!

--David

Theophilus (biblical) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[st_worm2]

Thanks for the link to Wikipedia (though the articles there, by unknown authors, can hardly be considered the work of "scholars").

Also, unless I'm missing something, the article that you linked us to ~disagrees~ with your beliefs/position and instead, agrees with the position that is held by every commentary and article that I've read (that Theophilus, whoever he may have been, is the named ~recipient~, NOT the author, of Luke/Acts).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theophilus /θiˈɒfɪləs/ is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are ~addressed~ (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1).

So, why did you post it? What am I missing?? Are there any commentaries or articles out there that support your position, or are there not? If the latter is true, please tell us and let's move on.

Thanks!

--David

 

[CherubRam]

Thanks for the link to Wikipedia (though the articles there, by unknown authors, can hardly be considered the work of "scholars").

Also, unless I'm missing something, the article that you linked us to ~disagrees~ with your beliefs/position and instead, agrees with the position that is held by every commentary and article that I've read (that Theophilus, whoever he may have been, is the named ~recipient~, NOT the author, of Luke/Acts).


So, why did you post it? What am I missing?? Are there any commentaries or articles out there that support your position, or are there not? If the latter is true, please tell us and let's move on.

Thanks!

--David

Unless you have both stories, you don't have the full picture.

 

[st_worm2]

Unless you have both stories, you don't have the full picture.

That's the thing, CherubRam, there aren't "two stories" here, there's just the one, the one that seemingly everyone (every "scholar", that is) from every corner of Christendom (and beyond) believes together about Theophilus (that he is the ~named recipient~ of Luke and Acts). There's no evidence that anyone else (except for you) has ever believed that he (Theophilus) is the ~author~ of the Books instead, none that I've been able to discover anyway, and curiously, none that you've made us aware of either (though we have asked you to). Why is that?

Finally, what ~you~ choose to believe personally doesn't count as a second/opposing "story" in this case, because what you believe about Theophilus is just your personal opinion, made by simple conjecture alone. You've offered us no proof or reason to consider that what you believe is true, nor have you linked us to any scholars who share the same beliefs that you do (so that we can take a look at why they do). Rather, you've linked us to sites that stand in ~direct opposition~ to what you believe.

Why?

--David
p.s. - BTW, you are, of course, free to "believe" whatever you'd like to believe, and that's basically okay, even if it's totally wacko crazy, because it's what you honestly believe. What's not okay is attempting to mislead us into believing that there are others out there who hold to the same beliefs that you do (when you know that there are not, or even if you're not sure). That's lying, or at best, it's deception, and that's NEVER okay!!

 

[CherubRam]

That's the thing, CherubRam, there aren't "two stories" here, there's just the one, the one that seemingly everyone (every "scholar", that is) from every corner of Christendom (and beyond) believes together about Theophilus (that he is the ~named recipient~ of Luke and Acts). There's no evidence that anyone else (except for you) has ever believed that he (Theophilus) is the ~author~ of the Books instead, none that I've been able to discover anyway, and curiously, none that you've made us aware of either (though we have asked you to). Why is that?

Finally, what ~you~ choose to believe personally doesn't count as a second/opposing "story" in this case, because what you believe about Theophilus is just your personal opinion, made by simple conjecture alone. You've offered us no proof or reason to consider that what you believe is true, nor have you linked us to any scholars who share the same beliefs that you do (so that we can take a look at why they do). Rather, you've linked us to sites that stand in ~direct opposition~ to what you believe.

Why?

--David
p.s. - BTW, you are, of course, free to "believe" whatever you'd like to believe, and that's basically okay, even if it's totally wacko crazy, because it's what you honestly believe. What's not okay is attempting to mislead us into believing that there are others out there who hold to the same beliefs that you do (when you know that there are not, or even if you're not sure). That's lying, or at best, it's deception, and that's NEVER okay!!

Here is something interesting:
Theophilus (Greek: Θεόφιλος ὁ Ἀντιοχεύς) was Patriarch of Antioch[1] from 169 until 182. He succeeded Eros c. 169, and was succeeded by Maximus I c. 183, according to Henry Fynes Clinton,[2] but these dates are only approximations. His death probably occurred between 183 and 185.[3]
This could mean that this (Theophilus) lived after the death of John who wrote Revelation.


His writings (the only remaining being his apology to Autolycus) indicate that he was born a pagan, not far from the Tigris and Euphrates, and was led to embrace Christianity by studying the Holy Scriptures, especially the prophetical books.[4] He makes no reference to his office in his existing writings, nor is any other fact in his life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of the zeal which he and the other chief shepherds displayed in driving away the heretics who were attacking Christ's flock, with special mention of his work against Marcion.[5] He made contributions to the departments of Christian literature, polemics, exegetics, and apologetics. William Sanday[6] describes him as "one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from Irenaeus to Cyprian, not only break the obscurity which rests on the earliest history of the Church, but alike in the East and in the West carry it to the front in literary eminence, and distance all their heathen contemporaries".

 

[CherubRam]

Some think that the name Theophilus is a address of his work to those that love God, or any “friend of God.” There were many people who were called friends of God in the Bible. Yahshua said “You are my friends if you do what I command.

Luke 1:3
With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Paul replied
Acts 24:3
Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude.

Acts 26:25
“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable.

 

[CherubRam]

That's the thing, CherubRam, there aren't "two stories" here, there's just the one, the one that seemingly everyone (every "scholar", that is) from every corner of Christendom (and beyond) believes together about Theophilus (that he is the ~named recipient~ of Luke and Acts). There's no evidence that anyone else (except for you) has ever believed that he (Theophilus) is the ~author~ of the Books instead, none that I've been able to discover anyway, and curiously, none that you've made us aware of either (though we have asked you to). Why is that?

Finally, what ~you~ choose to believe personally doesn't count as a second/opposing "story" in this case, because what you believe about Theophilus is just your personal opinion, made by simple conjecture alone. You've offered us no proof or reason to consider that what you believe is true, nor have you linked us to any scholars who share the same beliefs that you do (so that we can take a look at why they do). Rather, you've linked us to sites that stand in ~direct opposition~ to what you believe.

Why?

--David
p.s. - BTW, you are, of course, free to "believe" whatever you'd like to believe, and that's basically okay, even if it's totally wacko crazy, because it's what you honestly believe. What's not okay is attempting to mislead us into believing that there are others out there who hold to the same beliefs that you do (when you know that there are not, or even if you're not sure). That's lying, or at best, it's deception, and that's NEVER okay!!

I'm going to agree with you. I just wanted to explore the possibilities and I need a sounding board. Thank for your help.

 

[st_worm2]

Hello again CherubRam, there's never a problem with that, just be sure to tell the rest of us what you're up to

Personally, I enjoy considering alternate perspectives/possibilities because, even if they don't end up being true, they usually cause us to look at the passage in question from a different POV (and thereby learn more about it). They can also help us find new ways of confirming what we hold to be true about the passage.

--David