does accepting Theophilus as the "most excellent" high priest point to an AD 41 Gospel of Luke terminus ante quem or AD 67 ?

[Steven Avery]

After AD 41 the title would be less appropriate.

Richard Anderson I believe was AD 41.
And I tend to agree.

Shane Rosenthal avoids the question in his recent video.

Review here.

Lots of info can show Matthew and Mark by the AD 40s.

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

PureBibleForum

does accepting Theophilus as the "most excellent" high priest point to an AD 41 Gospel of Luke terminus ante quem or AD 67 ?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...pel-of-luke-terminus-ante-quem-or-ad-67.5840/

interconnected foundation - Theophilus, early dating, Lukan historicity, internal refs as scripture, eyewitnesses and more
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...refs-as-scripture-eyewitnesses-and-more.1073/

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

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

Shane takes a late date
That St. Luke addressed his Gospel to one of the heads of the Jewish church agrees likewise extremely well with the opinion that he wrote it in Palestine during the time that St. Paul was prisoner at Caesarea. He had then the very best opportunity of tracing up the history of Christ to the fountain head, agreeably to what he himself says in his Preface: and, as the propagation of the new religion engaged at that time the particular attention of the leading men among the Jews (Acts 25:13-26:32), there could not be a fitter opportunity for presenting to a person, who had once executed the important office of High Priest, an authentic narrative of the miracles and resurrection of Christ, in vindication of those, who had embraced his doctrines. Nor is it improbable that St. Luke’s narrative should have produced such an effect on the mind of this person, as to induce him to request from the same author a further account of the Christians, especially of St. Paul, who was then prisoner in Caesarea, which occasioned the composition of
St. Luke’s second work, the Acts of the Apostles. All these circumstances put together render the opinion highly probable that St. Luke’s Theophilus is no other than Theophilus the son of Annas, who is mentioned by Josephus. And if the opinion be true, as I really believe, it adds greatly to the credibility of St. Luke’s Gospel; for the Evangelist would hardly have ventured to dedicate to
the son of that very Annas, who was High Priest when Christ was crucified, a narrative of facts performed in Palestine, unless he had been able to warrant their truth.”180

180 John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol 3, part 1, translated by Herbert Marsh (Cambridge: John Burges, Printer to the University, 1801), 236-240. The first German edition of Michaelis’ work appeared in 1750, but Michaelis didn’t adopt this view of Theophilus until he released his fourth edition in 1777.

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

Michaelis
is complex, and he ends up with a c. AD 41 Hebrew Matthew and a much later Greek Matthew, AD 61 or later
(ugh) - that allows a later Luke, except that Luke clearly did know Hebrew
https://books.google.com/books?id=sLAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA111
Theophilus section (after 1777 better understanding)
https://books.google.com/books?id=sLAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA238
Michaelis points out the reference to Herod in Nativity points to an early Matthew because he would have to say which Herod if later
p. 241-243
goes more into Luke Gospel date, and before Paul being prisoner in Caesarea to Rome
certain that St. John's Gospel was written last
Macknight - Luke before Matthew - 2 Corinthians 8:18 is Luke
Pearce - Luke 1:5 - (same Herod point, no need to differentiate from Acts 12:1 )
many mediocre Gospels were not the Synoptics Evangels
Acts 5:12 - Luke did not give the city Capernaum, which he could have picked up from Matthew
p. 247 gives many such
conclusion - Matthew and Mark unknown to Luke
The Matthew Hebrew Gospel could be unknown to Luke (nahhh)
then he goes into where Luke wrote the Gospel

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

The Bible

books.google.com

wikipedians

 

[Steven Avery]

The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ?
PART TWO: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE NAZARETH INSCRIPTION
by Clyde E. Billington
https://creation.com/en/articles/nazareth-inscription-2

Conclusion

The Nazareth Inscription is almost certainly authentic and is a rump version of an imperial rescript. It was also almost certainly issued by the Emperor Claudius in 41 AD. The text of the Nazareth Inscription fits both the style and structure of other known rescripts of Claudius.

....

The best date for the posting of the Nazareth Inscription is 41 AD. In 41 AD Claudius became emperor and immediately had to deal with a developing revolt among the Jews, both those living in Israel and also those living in the city of Alexandria. As was related above, just before his assassination, Caligula had driven the Jews to the brink of revolt by ordering Roman troops to set up his image in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Greeks in Alexandria had used Jewish resistance to worshipping Caligula as an excuse to attack the Jews as anti-Roman and unpatriotic. To deal with this explosive situation in 41 AD, Claudius almost certainly turned to his friend Agrippa I for advice and information. Since Agrippa I is known to have disliked Christians and since he also knew, as the Book of Acts records, that Christians were causing an uproar in Jerusalem at the very time when he became king of Judea in 41 AD, it is very likely that it was at this same time that Agrippa I wrote his letter of inquiry to Claudius, and Claudius wrote his rescript letter forbidding the removal of bodies from tombs. With Agrippa I’s intimate knowledge of Christ and Christianity, it was almost certainly he who selected Nazareth as the site for the posting of the Nazareth Inscription.

 

[Steven Avery]

wip

 

[Steven Avery]

Luke on the road to Emmaus

Nathaniel Lardner
https://books.google.com/books?id=EmxGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA195

That this evangelist was a Jew, is the opinion of many learned and judicious moderns; particularly Mr. S. Basnage, whom I have cited at note 4 p. 193, and J. A. Fabricius, who likewise is clearly of the same opinion. Indeed I think it ought not to be questioned.
6. Luke the evangelist was probably an early Jewish believer, soon after Christ's ascension, if not a hearer of Christ, and one of the seventy disciples.
Our most ancient writers, as we have seen, speak of Luke as a disciple of the apostles. Some have reckoned him one of the seventy, others have thought him to be Lucius, mentioned by St. Paul in the epistle to the Romans, and others have supposed that he was one of the two disciples that met Jesus in the way to Emmaus.
The large accounts which Luke has given in the book of the Acts of several below the rank of apostles, has made me think, that he was one of the same rank, and possibly one of them. There are three instances of this kind. The first is Stephen, one of the seven deacons, who, as we learn, " was full of faith and power, and did great wonders and miracles among the people:" against whom there arose a strong opposition, so that he was the very first martyr for Christ and his doctrine, and of whom St. Luke has recorded a long discourse before the Jewish council, ch. vii. The second is Philip, another of the seven, of whom St. Luke writes, that he first preached Christ to the Samaritans, ch. viii. 5-8; " so that the people with one accord gave heed to those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did;" and what follows. The same Philip afterwards, having first explained the scriptures to him, and brought him to sincere faith in Jesus as the Christ, baptized the chamberlain and treasurer of the queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish proselyte, and a man of great distinction, ver. 26-40. The third instance of this kind is that of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, "who travelled as far as Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to Jews only." Who soon after their coming to "Antioch, spake unto the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord," ch. xi. 19-21. These were the men who first preached to Gentiles out of Judea: as Peter was the first who preached to Gentiles at the house of Cornelius in Cæsarea, ch. x. and not long before them. We have, as it seems, the names of three of those men. Ch. xiii. 1, " Simeon, called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen." The second person here named may be our evangelist.
A like argument may be formed in favour of St. Luke's having been one of Christ's seventy disciples, in that he, and he only of all the evangelists, has inserted in his gospel an account of the commission which Christ gave unto them, ch. x. 1-20. And indeed some learned men of later times, as well as formerly, have been of opinion that Luke was one of the seventy. Among these is our Dr. Whitby, who reckoned both Mark and Luke to have been of that number. J. A. Fabricius was inclined to be of the same opinion. And in favour of it refers to the passages of Adamantius and Epiphanius, before taken notice of by us. This likewise was the sentiment of Mr. Basnage.

• Lucas, sive Lucius,... incertum, num idem cum Luca medico, Col. iv. 14, quin Judæus fuerit, at antequam Christo nomen daret, ne dubito quidem, præcipue si verum est quod legas in Origenis sive Adamantii cujusdam dialogis, adversus Marcionitas, et Epiphanii LI. II. eum fuisse e numero LXX. discipulorum. Bib. Gr. 1. 4. c. v. T. III. p. 132.

C

See his Preface to St. Luke's gospel.
... præcipue, si verum est, quod legas in Origenis seu

Adamantii cujusdam Dialogis adversus Marcionitas, et Epiphanii H. LI. n. xi. Neque adeo repugnat et Lucam et Marcum ex illis fuisse, licet veteres miro consensu, ut Marcum Petri, ita Lucam tradunt Pauli fuisse interpretem et sectatorem. Haud dubie enim Apostolorum etiam præ LXX. illis magna prærogativa erat, &c. Bib. Gr. l. iv. cap. v. Т. III. p. 133.

d. Ann. 60. num. xxviii.

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

ommission any men, who were born, and usually resided abroad, in other countries, out of the land of Israel.


Hitherto, then, we have not any full proof, that our evangelist was one of the seventy. Let us proceed.


St. Luke ch. xxiv. 13-34, 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 formerly shown, observes: Some say, that one of these two was Luke himself: but that the evangelist concealed his own name.' Nicephorus Callisti in one place, makes no doubt, that Luke was the other disciple not named. It is likely, that he had met with it in more ancient writers. Sam. Basnage 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 it was Nathanael. The same Basnage says, that if Nathanael had been the other, St. Luke would have named him.
St. Mark, ch. xvi. 12, 13, has a like account, but briefer, of two, to whom Christ appeared as "they were walking into the country." He does not name either of them. Grotius allows that Mark's and Luke's histories are of the same persons. Both the evangelists speak of these as two of them. They were not of the twelve, but yet they were of their company, such as had been with Jesus: as is allowed by Grotius, and Beza. Nevertheless they say that & 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.