Theophilus - Theodore Hase - Bibliotheca Bremensis - acknowledged by Michaelis

[Steven Avery]

The first person in modern times that we know who connected Theophilus with the high priest was Theodor Hase c. 1720. This was picked up by William Paley and Johann Michaelis did a fine section about it, agreeing with Hase from about his 3rd edition.

Questions from Theodore Hase include:

Did he definitely land on the high priest side?
What historical and exegetical evidences does he give, and scriptures?
Does he give hints of earlier writers knowing this connection?

So the question is finding and understanding the Latin section from Hase:

Bibliotheca historicophilologicatheologica
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_YTX3aSi0uNcC/page/n505/mode/2up
or
Bibliotheca Bremensis historico-philologico-theologica, Volume 4 (1720)
https://books.google.com/books?id=mv9SclcIL3AC&pg=PA506

p. 506-507 - Introduction

p. 507-508 - #1 - Fabricius and Heumann - Roman - many others

p. 508-509 - #2 - Athens 58 Olympic - Plutarch - Bar

p. 509-510 - #3 - Christian - Council of Nicea, martyr Diocletian - Theodosian Laws - Baronius

p. 510-511 - #4 - Michael Balbi - Photius - Basil Epistle ad Theodotum

p. 511-513 - #5 - Epiphanius - (Hippolytus-Fabricius) - Hodius - Wilhelm Schelguigius

p. 513-515 - #6 - 2 Samuel 12:25 - Josephus - Antiquities L.XVII Herod -- L.XX ch. 8 sect 17 - Matthaias father of Theophilus - Ananis with five sons, Caiaphas - Josephus L.VIII - c7 - 39 AD - Claudio Agrippa - Simone Boethi Josephus L.XIX ch. 6
Hebrew footnote - Simcha ben Gerson - Wolfius - Rabbi Jedidiae - name Theophilorum among Jews

p. 515-516 - #7 - key high priest starting point, where Luke mentions his being most excellent - Jerusalem (Hierosolymae)

p. 516 - #8 - Luke - Judaea - Jerusalem - Acts 24:7 Acts 21:15-18 Acts 27:1 Acts 28:1-16 - Jerusalame and Bethlehem

p. 516-518 - #9 - Francois Burman (1628-1679) - Acts 21:17-18 - Acts 6:7 - Josephus L.XX.c.8 - maybe different epoch ?

p. 518-519 - #10 -

p. 519-521 - #11 - Hesychius - Stephanus - Acts 21:21 - Acts 21:24 - Isidorus p. 520, Cyprian p. 521 - Heumann p. 521

p. 521-523 - #12 - high priest, Temple - discusses Caiaphas his father, Joanna is mentioned, (ossuary discovered later) Luke 3:3

p. 523 - #13 - Acts, Jerusalem, Theophilus,

p. 523-524 - #14 - Heumann - Jacob Hase

p. 524-525 - #15 - Claudius Candidus (d. 198) - Acts 23:26 - 24:3 - 26:27 - Luke 1:4 Acts 23:26

p. 525-526 - #16 - Roman

p. 526-528 - #17 - Heumann - Sergius Paulus - Acts 13:7-12 (earlier Michaelis) - Tertullian and persons

p. 528-529 - #18 - Pomponian - Tacitus - Nero - Tacitus and Suetonius

p. 529-530 - #19 - superstition Acts 17:19-20 - Eusebius life of Constantine

p. 530-531 - #20 - 2 Corinthians 7:10

p. 531 - #21 - Luke commentary - Tacitus - Theophilus Christian

END

And Theodore Hase discusses unimportant theories, like Christophe August Heumann, published the same year, also his brother Jacob Hase. They are mentioned in Michaelis.

Latin help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Michaelis - p. 236-239
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA236

 

[Steven Avery]

Review of Michaelis
https://books.google.com/books?id=3hk2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA362

Our author is very desirous to discover who Theophilus was, to , whom St. Luke åddressed his gospel, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, and seems decidedly of opinion that he was no believer. In this opinion we cannot agree with him, nor is it probable that he will have many followers, for the editor has shewn, what indeed will occur to every Greek scholar, that the argument, by which he attempts to establish it was absurd and ridiculous. He prefers, however, the opinion of Theodore Hase,

“Who contends that Theophilus was formerly; though not when St. Luke addressed his gospel to him, a Jewish High Priest. The arguments advanced in favour of this opinion are so strong, as to render it more. probable than any other. That a person of the name of Theophilus once executed the office of High Priest, appears from the Antiquities of Josephus*. . He was the son of Annas, who was High Priest in the year in which Christ was crucified, and was himself nominated High Priest by the Roman governor Vitellius, in the place of his brother Jonathan, whom Vitellius deposed. This office Theophilus held till Agrippa was appointed King of Judea, who deposed him and made Simon Cantheras, High Prieti. Agrippa soon after dispossessed Cantheras of the High Priesthood, and offered it again to Jonathan, but he refused it, and recommended his brother Matthias, who was accepted. After several changes in the Priesthood, which are of no importance in the present inquiry, another son of Annas, named Ananus, was appointed High Priest; so that Theophilus had not only himself presided over the Jewish church, but had three brothers who had likewise executed that office. Lastly, his own son Matthias was nominaled High Priest in the place of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, and it was. during the Priesthood of Matthias, that the Jewish war commenced. Theophilus, therefore, though no longer High Priest, when St. Luke wrote his.. gospel, yet, as he had formerly held thal office, and moreover had brethren and a son for his succesors, was certainly of sufficient rank to be entitled to the appellation of (Grk) ”

True, a man who had once been High Priest, was certainly entitled to that appellation, and, as we know that before the martyrdom of St. Stephen, “ a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith,” and, as our Saviour himself assures, that at the commencement of the Jewish war “ the father should be divided againft the son, and the son against the father” it is certainly possible, that Theophilus might have been a believer in Christ, even while his son was High Priest of the Jews, and, of course, an inveterate enemy to the Christian name. It seems, however, somewhat surprising, that no mention whatever is made in the Acts of the Apostles, of the conversion of a man who had once been High Priest, and, therefore, without being pufirive on the subject, which is now of no great importance, we are inclined to adopt the opinion of Cave, who thinks that Theophilus was some man of rank at Antioch, perhaps the Governor, to whom the appellation (Grk) would naturally be given, and that he had been converted, to the faith, by the preaching of the Evangelist.

* Antiq. lib. xviii. xix. xx. + This is one of those blunders, into which, from mere inattention, Michaelis frequently falls, and which, of course, render his book of much less value than it would otherwise be. Annas was, indeed, the father of Theophilus, and had been High Priest, but not when Christ was crucified, for we know. by testimony, which our author has proved to be more deserving of credit than that of Josephus, that not Annas, but “ Caiaphas was High Priest that same year."

 

[Steven Avery]

My Wikipedia Section

The earliest known person to suggest that most excellent Theophilus was none other than the High Priest was

Theodore Hase (1682-1731) who contributed an article in 1725 to the
Bibliotheca Historico-Philogico-Theologica,
https://books.google.com/books?id=uQoXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45
referenced as the Bibliotheca Bremensissome in the
Introduction to the New Testament by Johann David Michaelis tr. and augmented with notes by Herbert Marsh,

although Hase proposed that Luke was written to Theophilus after his years as High Priest. Christian apologist and philosopher

William Paley (1743-1805) accepted this identification in his Horae Paulinae.

In recent years contributions are in

David L. ( Lewis ) Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (2010);

Richard H. Anderson,
Who are Theophilus and Johanna? The Irony of the Intended Audience (2010);
"Theophilus: A Proposal,"
Evangelical Quarterly 69:3 (1997) 195-215;
"The Cross and Atonement from Luke to Hebrews,"
Evangelical Quarterly 71:2 (1999), 127-149;
"Luke and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants,"
The Journal of Biblical Studies, January–March 2001, Vol. 1, No. 1;

"A la recherche de Theophile," Dossiers d'Archeolgie, December 2002 – January 2003;

Josep Rius-Camps, Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The message of Acts in Codex Bezae: a comparison with the Alexandrian tradition, Volume 4, (2009) 3-4 and prior volumes

 

[Steven Avery]

Hermeneutics Stack Exchange has a few good Theophilus threads.

 

[Steven Avery]

Shane Rosenthal
https://x.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1883854344120094978

Yes. I believe there is compelling archaeological evidence in support of the idea that Luke's Theophilus was the Jewish high priest. I believe John Lightfoot (1658) was the first to mention this possibility, which was about a century before Michaelis.

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

However Lightfoot was negative, we cover that elsewhere as does Shane.

Joanna: Obscure Disciple or Luke's Key Witness?
https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/joanna-an-obscure-disciple-or-lukes

Though Lightfoot appears to have been the first to mention the possibility that Theophilus was a Jewish high priest, in that same passage he expressed doubt about this option: “I do not think this was he.” One who did become a strong advocate of this hypothesis was another German scholar named John David Michaelis. Here’s what he wrote in his Introduction to the New Testament (1750):

It would be tedious and even useless to relate the various opinions of ancient writers, relative to the character and residence of Theophilus: for they are in general more conjectures unsupported by historical evidence. Theodore Hase…contends that Theophilus was formerly, though not when St. Luke addressed his Gospel to him, a Jewish High Priest. The arguments advanced in favor of this opinion are so strong, as to render it more probable than any other. That a person of the name of Theophilus once executed the office of High Priest, appears from the Antiquities of Josephus…Theophilus therefore…was certainly of sufficient rank to be entitled to the appellation of kratistos [most excellent]. It is therefore not impossible that this person is the Theophilus, to whom St. Luke addressed his Gospel, which must then be considered as an historical apology for the Christian religion, addressed to one of the heads of the Jewish nation. Lastly, when we take into consideration that this Theophilus is the only person of that name, whose history is recorded in the annals of the first century; the possibility that he is the same with St. Luke’s Theophilus becomes a probability.55

55
John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol 3, part 1, translated by Herbert Marsh (Cambridge: John Burges, Printer to the University, 1801), 237-240. The first German edition of Michaelis’ work appeared in 1750.

And I was under the impression that the Michaelis position was not in his first edition, but that needs checking.

1780 English

[Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes. English]. Introductory lectures to the sacred books of the New Testament. By John-David Michaelis, ... 1780
https://archive.org/details/bim_eig...ann-david_1780/page/205/mode/1up?q=Theophilus

Page 205
It appears from the beginning of his goſpel, as weil as of the Acts of the Apottles, that St Luke wrote more immediately at the requeſt of a Chriſtian of diſtinction, whose name was Theophilus, He calls him =parire, which is in Acts XXiii. 20. X&iv. 3. xxvi. 5. the title of the Roman governor, and equivalent to the Latin Optimus or Optimas, which the Romans mace nie of to deſcribe the principal ſenators of the moſt ancient families. From this title I juſtly conclude, that Theophilus was an individual and illuftrious perſon, and not a name addreſſed to every reader. But we have no account in hiſtory who this perſon was. Perhaps he dwelt in the Upper Egypt, or in Tlichais, of the hiſtory of which country we know but little in general.

German editions

Dokumen

https://dokumen.pub/einleitung-in-das-neue-testament-9783825227982-9783161480119-3825227987.html

1750

Einleitung in die Göttlichen Schriften des neuen Bundes - GDZ - Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum

gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de

Wiki
1765

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Einleitung_in_die_g%C3%B6ttlichen_Schriften_des_Neuen_Bundes._Zweite_und_vermehrte_Ausgabe_(IA_EinleitungInDieGottlichenSchriften2te1).pdf

1766

Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des neuen Bundes

books.google.com

1777

https://ia801401.us.archive.org/cors_get.php?path=/7/items/EinleitungInDieGottlichenSchriften3te1/Einleitung_in_die_gottlichen_Schriften_3te_1.pdf

1788

Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes. Vierte sehr vermehrte und geänderte Ausgabe : Michaelis, Johann David, 1717-1791 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google and uploaded by ARLIMA (http://www.arlima.net)

archive.org

https://ia600107.us.archive.org/28/items/EinleitungInDieGottlichenSchriften4te2/Einleitung_in_die_gottlichen_Schriften_4te_2.pdf

 

[Steven Avery]

More review from Shane Rosenthal

In 1840, William Paley’s associate, James Tate became another advocate of this view, which he also attributed to Theodore Hase:

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, ‘kratiste,’ most excellent. We are indebted to the acute perspicacity of Theodore Hase for this most ingenious and highly probable supposition in all its principal points…and I am strongly inclined to recommend its adoption to the readers of these pages.56

Other advocates of this view included Robert Eisler (1938),57 Charles J. Ellicott (1957),58 and Richard Anderson, who in 1997 was the first to link this hypothesis to the ossuary of Joanna discovered in 1983.59 As I mentioned earlier, it was through Anderson’s 2011 book that I became aware of this interpretive option.60 In The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae (2004), Josep Ruis-Camps & Jenny Read-Heimerdinger also appear to have adopted this view:

“The Jewish Scripture, teachings and expectations are so much in focus in…Acts that it is difficult to see what sense it would have made to a Roman officer, such as the ‘most excellent Theophilus’…is often assumed to be.” They go on to say that “If Luke’s Theophilus were the only Jew known to have had this name, none other than the former high priest, son of Ananas I, who had served in office from 37-41 CE, then…[his] involvement, as well as that of his family, in many of the events narrated in Acts would make the story particularly meaningful to him.”61

In his 2008 book, Luke The Priest, Rick Strelan became another advocate of this perspective:

The majority of scholars think the name Theophilus refers to an individual…the name is Greek but that should not mislead us into thinking that he therefore must have been a Gentile. Evans notes that the name Theophilus ‘is attested from the third century BC onwards, particularly for Jews in the Diaspora.’ I am surprised, then, that some scholars still argue along language lines that Theophilus was a Gentile, despite the fact that they are aware that very many Jews took on Greek and Roman names and that they Graecized or Latinized traditional Hebrew names…Given that Luke’s writings are saturated with allusions to and citations from the Jewish Scriptures, one might assume that Theophilus too was very familiar with them, if not skilled in them…62

Strelan then goes on to discuss the work of Richard Anderson, saying that his view of Theophilus fits best with his own research. In his 2010 book on The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, David Allen similarly argued that “the recipient of Luke-Acts was Theophilus, a former Jewish high priest who served in Jerusalem from AD 37–41,”63 and James R. Edwards made an identical argument in his Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (2015).64 The same goes for Peter G. Bolt, who in his recent discussion of Luke for The Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary (2022), noted that if the Theophilus of Lk 1:3 “can be identified as Theophilus the high priest (AD 37–41), then Luke’s narrative presents Jesus to a man who was at the centre of the Jewish circles that were largely responsible for rejecting Jesus. It is an ‘apologia’ (defense) as well as a ‘kategoria’ (accusation/critique).”65 Other recent advocates of this view include Jim R. Sibley (2019),66 David C. Mitchell (2021),67 and Cameron Joyner (2022).68

Some of these advocates also suggested that because Luke-Acts is thoroughly Jewish, we need to re-evaluate all our assumptions related to the author himself, and his purportedly Gentile background. As it turns out, this is a big topic among New Testament scholars at the present moment. Though a handful of scholars such as Nathaniel Lardner (1760),69 C.I. Scofield (1917),70 and William F. Albright (1966),71 have argued that Luke had a Jewish background, until recently this was clearly a minority opinion. At present, however, a growing number of scholars appear to be adopting this position.

In his book, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (1996), James Jervell noted that, “For years scholars were nearly unanimous in viewing Acts as a Gentile-Chritian document, written by a Gentile Chrisitan for Gentile Christians. This is not tenable any longer…Luke’s stylistic home was the synagogue. He was a Jewish Christian.”72 In the following year, Rebecca Denova argued that in Luke-Acts “we appear to have a Jewish author presenting arguments that will persuade other Jews that the prophets have been ‘fulfilled.’”73 In fact, she went on to say that the “ethnic identification of the author as a Gentile is not supported by the arguments he presents in the text…In my view [they] strongly suggest that the ethnic background of the author of Luke-Acts is Jewish, and that he presented arguments that were of some importance to Jews.”74

According to David Allen (2010), “For centuries, the paradigm in New Testament studies that Luke was a Gentile has been axiomatic, as can be seen by any cursory reading of commentaries on Luke-Acts. However, within Lukan studies today, there is no such consensus regarding Luke’s background.”75 Allen sees Luke as a Jew who “wrote primarily for a Jewish audience.” This he says, “is based on evidence brought to light by recent research and on the number of textual features that indicate a Jewish background for both writer and audience.” For example:

[In] Acts, we find Luke referring to many priests who had become obedient to the faith (6:7). In 19:14, he mentions the seven sons of the Jewish high priest Sceva and their escapades. Why include such material if Luke is writing to Gentiles only? Of particular interest is that in Acts 23:3–5 Paul rebukes the high priest, then apologizes when he learns that it was indeed the high priest he had addressed. The book of Acts speaks of priests or high priests many times: 4:1,5,6, 3,36; 5:17; 6:7; 7:1; 9:1; 19:14; 22:5,30; 23:2,3,4,5,14; 24:1; 25:2,15.76

In Jim Sibley’s view, the shifting consensus related to Luke’s ethnic background is real. In an essay that was included in A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (2019), Sibley writes: “Scholars have traditionally assumed that Luke was a Gentile; however, a growing number of New Testament scholars believe he was Jewish…”77 And in the view of Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, “Luke was indeed a native Greek speaker, but of Jewish rather than Gentile origin. There is a growing trend among commentators of Luke-Acts to adopt this opinion, based on extensive and complex knowledge of Jewish practices and traditions.”78 Other scholars who appear to have moved on this issue include Thomas McCall (1996),79 Michael Fuller (2006),80 Rick Strelan (2008),81 David Andrew Smith (2021),82 and more recently, Michael F. Bird (2023).83

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

56
James Tate, The Continuous History of St. Paul: With William Paley’s Horae Paulinae Subjoined (London: Longman, Orme, Brown & Co., 1840), 163-164
57
Robert Eisler, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel (London: Methhuen & Co, 1938) 139, 208; cf. 45.
58
Charles Ellicott, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), xvi-xvii.
59
See his 1997 Evangelical Quarterly essay, “Theophilus: A Proposal.”
60
Richard H. Anderson, Who Are Johanna And Theophilus? (Media, PA: self-published / Amazon Kindle, 2011).
61
Josep Ruis-Camps & Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, Vol. 1 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 40. See also their 2013 book, Luke’s Demonstration to Theophilus (London: Bloomsbury | T&T Clark, 2013), vii, xiv, and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger’s 2014 essay, “The Parable of the Vineyard in Luke’s Gospel (20.9-19)…”, en Relectures de l’Escriptura a la llum del Concili Vaticà II (1). La vinya (ScrBib 14, Barcelona: ABCat – FTC – PAM 2014), 174-179.
62
Rick Strelan, Luke The Priest (London: Routledge, 2008), 107-109.
63
David Allen, The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010), 23-25.
64
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke; Pillar NT Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 28, n. 20.
65
Peter, G. Bolt, “Luke, A Commentary,” Nov 21, 2022, The Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary.
66
Jim R. Sibley, A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), 207.
67
David C. Mitchell, Jesus: The Incarnation of the Word (Brussels: Campbell Publications, 2021), 109.
68
Cameron Joyner, Friends of Israel, “Was Luke Really a Gentile?” Sept. 16, 2022
69
Nathaniel Lardner writes, “St. Luke was a Jew by birth, at least by religion. None of the writers out of whom we have made collections, call him a Gentile…That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at least by religion, may be argued from his being a constant companion of Paul in many places, particularly at Jerusalem. If Luke had been an uncircumcised Gentile, some exceptions would have been made to him…It is probable, that [Luke is the] Lucius, mentioned in Rom 16:21. If so, he was [a “kinsman” of] St. Paul…” History of the Apostles & Evangelists, Vol 1, 2nd edition (London: Buckland & Fenner, 1760), 235-236; 275-276
70
According to C.I. Scofield, “The writer of the third Gospel…was of Jewish ancestry, but his correct Greek marks him as a Jew of the dispersion. Tradition says that he was a Jew of Antioch, as Paul was of Tarsus.” Scofield Reference Notes (1917), cf. Lk 1:3.
71
William F. Albright writes, “In my opinion Luke himself was a converted Jew. Loukas, the form in which his name appears in the New Testament, is the Greek form of an Aramaic Luqa, which in turn is an abbreviation of a Roman freedman’s name…It is unlikely that a non-Jew would use an Aramaic form of a Jewish freedman’s Roman name” New Horizons in Biblical Research (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 49-50.
72
The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5.
73
Rebecca Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 39-40.
74
Ibid., 225.
75
David Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, 23-25.
76
Ibid., 388-392.
77
Jim R. Sibley, “The Jewish Disciples in the Book of Acts,” A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), 207.
78
Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, Luke’s Demonstration to Theophilus (London: Bloomsbury | T&T Clark, 2013), vii.
79
Thomas S. McCall, “Was Luke a Gentile?” Zola Levit Newsletter, March, 1996
80
“Luke may very well have been a Diaspora Jew,” Michael Fuller, The Restoration of Israel (2006). Cited in A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke & Acts by Michael F. Bird (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2023), 20.
81
“I propose that the author Luke was himself a priest…Luke cannot be written for pagans because far too much knowledge is assumed. Luke plunges his readers into the atmosphere of Judaism and the Old Testament at the very beginning of his Gospel and leaves them there until the end of Acts.” Rick Strelan, Luke The Priest (London: Routledge, 2008), 110-111.
82
David Andrew Smith, “The Jewishness of Luke-Acts: Acts: Locating Lukan Christianity Amidst the Parting of The Ways,” JTS Volume 72, Issue 2, 2021, 738-768.
83
In his 2023 book, A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke & Acts, Michael Bird writes that “Luke is normally regarded as having been a Gentile, but there is nothing in Luke-Acts or Paul’s letters that explicitly requires that he was a Gentile.” Bird then goes on to quote the views of scholars such as Jacob Jervell, Rick Streland, and Michael Fuller (cf. p. 20).

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

From Conclusion

84
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke; Pillar NT Commentary, 28, n. 20

85
Commenting on Lk 1:1-4, Bolt says that, “Theophilus…has been a close observer of these events…If he can be identified as Theophilus the high priest (ad 37–41), then Luke’s narrative presents Jesus to a man who was at the centre of the Jewish circles that were largely responsible for rejecting Jesus. It is an “apologia” (defence) as well as a “kategoria” (accusation/critique). https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/commentary/luke/

86
John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, 240.

87
This insight comes from John Dickson. He made this statement on episode 52 of The Humble Skeptic podcast.

88
Just after the fall of Gamala, which took place in 67 AD, Josephus described Theophilus’ younger brother Ananus ben Ananus as “the oldest living high priest” (War, 4:151, 238). Since Theophilus was older than Ananus, this comment is a clear implication that he was no longer living at that time. For a helpful timeline of the Jewish War, see: https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/roman-jewish-wars/roman-jewish-wars-5/

89
Here I’m thinking of the date as it relates exclusively to Theophilus. There are however other indicators of an earlier dating for Luke-Acts, such as the fact that Luke intentionally left Peter’s whereabouts out of his narrative in Act 12:17, and Paul’s comment in 1Tim 5:18 in which he refers to a passage from Luke’s Gospel as “Scripture,” which seems to imply that Luke was “written” well before 64 AD.

90
I recently wrote about another paradigm shift related to the dating of the Fourth Gospel. You can find that article here.

John 5:2 "There is in Jerusalem..."
Does the grammar of John 5:2 support an early date for John's Gospel? What have scholars thought about this passage across the centuries down to the present?

John 5:2 "There is in Jerusalem..."

Does the grammar of John 5:2 support an early date for John's Gospel? What have scholars thought about this passage across the centuries down to the present?

www.humbleskeptic.com

 

[Steven Avery]

Theodore Hase

Johann David Michaelis

1840, William Paley’s associate, James Tate

Robert Eisler (1938),57

Charles J. Ellicott (1957),58

Richard Anderson, who in 1997 was the first to link this hypothesis to the ossuary of Joanna discovered in 1983.59 As I mentioned earlier, it was through Anderson’s 2011 book that I became aware of this interpretive option.60

The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae (2004),
Josep Ruis-Camps & Jenny Read-Heimerdinger 61

Rick Strelan 62

David Lewis Allen 63

64
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke; Pillar NT Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 28, n. 20.

65
Peter, G. Bolt, “Luke, A Commentary,” Nov 21, 2022, The Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary.

66
Jim R. Sibley, A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), 207.

67
David C. Mitchell, Jesus: The Incarnation of the Word (Brussels: Campbell Publications, 2021), 109.

68
Cameron Joyner, Friends of Israel, “Was Luke Really a Gentile?” Sept. 16, 2022

 

[Steven Avery]

Luke had a Jewish background

Nathaniel Lardner (1760),69

C.I. Scofield (1917),70 and

William F. Albright (1966),71

72
The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5.
73
Rebecca Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 39-40.
74
Ibid., 225.

have argued that Luke had a Jewish background

75-76 david allen

In Jim Sibley’s view, the shifting consensus related to Luke’s ethnic background is real. In an essay that was included in A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (2019), Sibley writes: “Scholars have traditionally assumed that Luke was a Gentile; however, a growing number of New Testament scholars believe he was Jewish…”77 And in the view of Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, “Luke was indeed a native Greek speaker, but of Jewish rather than Gentile origin. There is a growing trend among commentators of Luke-Acts to adopt this opinion, based on extensive and complex knowledge of Jewish practices and traditions.”78 Other scholars who appear to have moved on this issue include Thomas McCall (1996),79 Michael Fuller (2006),80 Rick Strelan (2008),81 David Andrew Smith (2021),82 and more recently, Michael F. Bird (2023).83


77
Jim R. Sibley, “The Jewish Disciples in the Book of Acts,” A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), 207.

78
Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, Luke’s Demonstration to Theophilus (London: Bloomsbury | T&T Clark, 2013), vii.

79
Thomas S. McCall, “Was Luke a Gentile?” Zola Levit Newsletter, March, 1996

80
“Luke may very well have been a Diaspora Jew,” Michael Fuller, The Restoration of Israel (2006). Cited in A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke & Acts by Michael F. Bird (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2023), 20.

81
“I propose that the author Luke was himself a priest…Luke cannot be written for pagans because far too much knowledge is assumed. Luke plunges his readers into the atmosphere of Judaism and the Old Testament at the very beginning of his Gospel and leaves them there until the end of Acts.” Rick Strelan, Luke The Priest (London: Routledge, 2008), 110-111.

82
David Andrew Smith, “The Jewishness of Luke-Acts: Acts: Locating Lukan Christianity Amidst the Parting of The Ways,” JTSVolume 72, Issue 2, 2021, 738-768.

83
In his 2023 book, A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke & Acts, Michael Bird writes that “Luke is normally regarded as having been a Gentile, but there is nothing in Luke-Acts or Paul’s letters that explicitly requires that he was a Gentile.” Bird then goes on to quote the views of scholars such as Jacob Jervell, Rick Streland, and Michael Fuller (cf. p. 20).

 

[Steven Avery]

Das vierte Evangelium: ein authentischer Bericht über Jesus von Nazareth (1890)
Heinrich Karl Hugo Delff
https://books.google.com/books/about/Das_vierte_Evangelium.html?id=SBRFAAAAYAAJ
Die Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth -(1889)
https://books.google.com/books/about/Die_Geschichte_des_Rabbi_Jesus_von_Nazar.html?id=hAY7TMLiV44C

Lee Thomas Dahn
https://commentarylukeacts.wordpress.com
early supporter of Richard Anderson paper - added good blog material

John Lupia

1851 Journal of Sacred Literature
J C
https://books.google.com/books?id=wvkDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA346

God's Kingdom Ministries
Luke's Letter to Theophilus (2013)
Stephen E. Jones
https://godskingdom.org/blog/2013/09/lukes-letter-to-theophilus/
Jones has a very solid section - then goes into Woodard and Washingtonianus
Uses corruption versions

Smoodock
Edward L. Bromfield
https://smoodock45.com/2016/04/03/who-is-theophilus-of-luke-and-acts/

2009
John Churcher

Setting Jesus Free

There is a new global spiritual movement that supports people to think outside of the traditional boxes of faith and their inherited understandings of God. As part of this development this book is intended for those who are on the margins of the Christian Church.

books.google.com

Jeremy Chase Springfield
https://www.randomgroovybiblefacts.com/a_high_priest_in_hell.html

 

[Steven Avery]

Linkage with John 4:6

Acts 4:6 (KJV)
And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander,
and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest,
were gathered together at Jerusalem.

Luke, John, and Acts: Background, Outline and Commentary (2010)
Willis C. Newman
https://books.google.com/books?id=8SM58qQELdcC&pg=PA34

During this time, both Herod and Vitellius visited Jerusalem. 'Hie year was A.D. 37, just four years after the crucifixion of Christ. Josephus writes that while at Jerusalem, Vitellius “made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high-priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus.”6 This Jonathan is probably the “John” of Acts 4:6, who was also a member of high-priestlv descent, and was a son of
Annas. Hence, Jonathan succeeded Caiaphas in A.D. 37, but his reign was very' short lived.

p. 38