Shane Rosental - History, Archaeology & Luke's Most Excellent Theophilus

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Moacyr Alves
@pastormoacyr
https://www.youtube.com/@pastormoacyr

I don't know. With great respect, let me express my questions and uncertainties about your arguments. Personally, I believe that the kratistos argument is very, very weak. The papyri evidence doesn't point to a Jewish High-Priest. It is mostly used in a secular or pagan sense, particularly when it refers to an "aristocracy". It is better to simply take it as a general adjective of respect. Besides, the ossuary of Joanna has the name of her father and grandfather inscribed on it, what points toward a single woman. Otherwise, the ossuary would have the name of the husband inscribed on it. This is the same argument of Dan Barag and David Flusser in the 1986 article.

The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus on JSTOR (1986)
Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1/2 (1986), pp. 39-44 -
Barag, Dan - Flusser, David - (1917-2000)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926007

Also, the other video and the preview of your book seem to rely too much on the Hizmeh provenance of the ossuary. I contacted

Robert Deutsch,
independent.academia.edu

Robert Deutsch - Profile on Academia.edu

PhD Tel Aviv University. Excavations: Tell Megiddo, 1992 - 2004. Lecturer: Haifa University: 1997 - 2004 (Epigraphy). President: Israel Numismatic Society 2015…
independent.academia.edu independent.academia.edu

Robert Deutsch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

and he doesn't believe that it is reliable. The same position is taken by the authors of the Corpus Inscriptionum Judeae/Paliestinae, vol. 1, Part 1.

For me, the strongest case for Theophilus the High-Priest as the Theophilus of Luke-Acts is made through the linguistics of Luke. Luke-Acts is not as gentile as it seems. There are a lot of Hebraisms in Luke, what argues in favor of a Jewish background for both Luke and Theophilus. If the Hebraisms are true, Theophilus the High-Priest makes A LOT OF SENSE. However, I don't believe the ossuary is as strong of an evidence.

Give a look into the work of R. Steven Notley. "Non-Septuagintal Hebraisms in the Third Gospel" in Randal Buth e R. Steven Notley, eds. The Language Environment of First Century Judea. (Leiden e Boston: Brill, 2014) This particular article is available on his Academia.edu page.

The Language Environment of First Century Judaea. Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels—Volume Two, written by Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley
https://www.academia.edu/82998135/T...o_written_by_Randall_Buth_and_R_Steven_Notley

I do like your videos! You made me research a lot! Thank you for that. I made a sort of video response (not exactly, though) in my other channel, but it is in brazilian portuguese. Please, don't take anything I wrote here as an offense or rudeness, for it is not my intent. (English is my second language... miscommunication by my part has caused me some problems before). I write with the uttermost respect for your work and your ministry. I am a confessional Lutheran pastor, so it is my duty to engage with any theory or hypothesis that deals with the Holy Scriptures with seriousness. I pray for you, your family, and your ministry to be blessed. Blessed Lent!
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thank you Pastor Moacyr. Yes, Luke is very Temple-centric. e.g. look at Simeon and Anna, either Luke was there, or received a first-hand account. (Luke 2) The knowledge of the Courses of Abia and the events with John the Baptist require someone in the know. Similarly look at the great company of priests. (Acts 6:7) This reads as if Luke is telling Theophilus ... "this is why we left the Temple priesthood"

Sometimes the most obvious elements are bypassed :). Already we have Luke as a Hebraic Temple-centric document, fitting neatly with Theophilus the high priest.

And Shane is involved in interesting studies on the Prologue of Luke, which even in our Authorized Version can be read a bit ambiguously in identifying the eyewitnesses. (Was Luke himself an eyewitness?)

As for your critiques of details on the Ossuary and the support for "most excellent" (Maimonides has been used there) I'll pass. Other than to say that Shane did a fine job in augmenting the scholarship. It is simply good extra evidence of the usage, not meant to be proof.

As for your concerns the question of the Ossuary and Chuza is one that is very interesting.

I appreciate that you gave those critiques while still acknowledging the overall strength of Theophilus being the high priest.

There is also the question of Luke writing WHILE Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest, which, if that is the case, makes it written by AD 41. This makes sense to me as the date of Luke's Gospel. This does not mean that there might not have been a Matthew, or an earlier Hebrew Matthew edition, around the same time. (The issue of primary, or first-ness.)

Shane did a nice job quoting the learned Johann David Michaelis. Let's add for the readers that Michaelis gave credit to Theodore Hase for his coming to accept the Theophilus proposal. Similarly, we have Richard Anderson c. 1995 who was a major contributor into the reopening of these amazing studies.

Yes, it is hard to get all the info into a short video! :)

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Researcher
Dutchess County, NY USA
linktr.ee

stevenavery Official: Instagram, Facebook, Twitter | Linktree

Linktree. Make your link do more.
linktr.ee linktr.ee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top