Who Is Theophilus?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[smoodock]

Smoo:

Yes, smoo, and there's a couple that you left out. It wasn't worth listing all of them as you did because they are not specific and only get tied to the High priest Theophilus after you have come to the conclusion that Theophilus spoken to was a High Priest.

Really? I just checked, and I thought I had a little more similarity than was listed there.

Using that same technique, one can show that Theophilus was possibly several other people. Wikipedia gives the examples you did of why he might be the High Priest.

Like whom?

As I tried to make clear above, I am open to other options that would show Theophilus would be better understood as... well, whomever you like. Just state your case as to why your option fits Theophilus' identity better than what I have put forward.

[smoodock]

Hey Steve, have you been treating everyone well since I've been away? :-)

Concerning faith, it is based upon evidence. Just like you had faith that your response to me would be seen by more people than yourself. In other words it was not just a phenomena that appeared only on your computer screen. You had evidence that when you leave a response on these boards lots of people are able to read what you write. So, your "faith" in the internet is based upon that evidence.

My faith is based upon evidence too. The problem is everyone doesn't believe that evidence. It is like watching a guy walk a tight rope across Niagara Falls. He made it once and came back. Would you believe he would make it a third time?























If so, does your faith extend to allowing you to climb upon his shoulders and let him take you across?

That would be expressing faith based upon evidence.

[SteveC]

Hey Steve, have you been treating everyone well since I've been away? :-)

Concerning faith, it is based upon evidence. Just like you had faith that your response to me would be seen by more people than yourself. In other words it was not just a phenomena that appeared only on your computer screen. You had evidence that when you leave a response on these boards lots of people are able to read what you write. So, your "faith" in the internet is based upon that evidence.

My faith is based upon evidence too. The problem is everyone doesn't believe that evidence. It is like watching a guy walk a tight rope across Niagara Falls. He made it once and came back. Would you believe he would make it a third time?























If so, does your faith extend to allowing you to climb upon his shoulders and let him take you across?

That would be expressing faith based upon evidence.

Why the big hole in your post? Were you expecting god to do something? Where you supplying all the evidence you have concerning god?

[smoodock]

Hey Steve, have you been treating everyone well since I've been away? :-)

Concerning faith, it is based upon evidence. Just like you had faith that your response to me would be seen by more people than yourself. In other words it was not just a phenomena that appeared only on your computer screen. You had evidence that when you leave a response on these boards lots of people are able to read what you write. So, your "faith" in the internet is based upon that evidence.

My faith is based upon evidence too. The problem is everyone doesn't believe that evidence. It is like watching a guy walk a tight rope across Niagara Falls. He made it once and came back. Would you believe he would make it a third time?























If so, does your faith extend to allowing you to climb upon his shoulders and let him take you across?

That would be expressing faith based upon evidence.

Why the big hole in your post? Were you expecting god to do something? Where you supplying all the evidence you have concerning god?

Just giving you space to think about whether or not you would climb up on his shoulders. :-)

[Howiedds]

Smoo:

Like whom?

A converted Roman official, a relative of Vespasian, Paul's lawyer at his Roman trial, the man who paid for Luke's education, a pseudonym for someone who wanted to remain anonymous, no one in particular but addressed to all who loved God. Guesses all.

As I tried to make clear above, I am open to other options that would show Theophilus would be better understood as... well, whomever you like. Just state your case as to why your option fits Theophilus' identity better than what I have put forward.

I have no "case" or candidate because there is no information that narrows the field. Your guess is no better than the others.

[SteveC]

Hey Steve, have you been treating everyone well since I've been away? :-)

Concerning faith, it is based upon evidence. Just like you had faith that your response to me would be seen by more people than yourself. In other words it was not just a phenomena that appeared only on your computer screen. You had evidence that when you leave a response on these boards lots of people are able to read what you write. So, your "faith" in the internet is based upon that evidence.

My faith is based upon evidence too. The problem is everyone doesn't believe that evidence. It is like watching a guy walk a tight rope across Niagara Falls. He made it once and came back. Would you believe he would make it a third time?























If so, does your faith extend to allowing you to climb upon his shoulders and let him take you across?

That would be expressing faith based upon evidence.

Why the big hole in your post? Were you expecting god to do something? Where you supplying all the evidence you have concerning god?

Just giving you space to think about whether or not you would climb up on his shoulders. :-)

How much faith do you have in your god to get you accross the tight rope?

[CCC460]

How much faith do you have in your god to get you accross the tight rope?

Matt 4:5-7 (NAB)Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you and 'with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
Jesus answered him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'"

[SteveC]

How much faith do you have in your god to get you accross the tight rope?

Matt 4:5-7 (NAB)Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you and 'with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
Jesus answered him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'"

First of all, you would have thought that the devil would have known if Jesus was the son of god.

Jesus' response is typical of someone who was a fake or someone who had no faith. We've all seen that sort of response from people who have been told to put up or shut up, and who ended up foolishly walhing away from the challenge.

Lastly, the true moral of the story is for Christians not to question the brainwashing nonsense the Gospels had to offer -IOW, don't put the Gospels ro the test.

[smoodock]

Howie:

A converted Roman official, a relative of Vespasian, Paul's lawyer at his Roman trial, the man who paid for Luke's education, a pseudonym for someone who wanted to remain anonymous, no one in particular but addressed to all who loved God. Guesses all.

A converted Roman official—but why call him “most excellent” in Luke but merely by name in Acts? If a convert, why assume he has knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures when speaking of things like shepherds (Luke 15), which most Romans considered lazy and without virtue? If writing to a Gentile, much of the symbolism would be unappreciated without explanation, even misunderstood.

A relative of Vespasian—unlikely for the same reasons as above, but especially since he is not addressed as “most excellent” in Acts.

Paul’s lawyer—unlikely for the same reasons as above. However, if Paul’s lawyer, this would put both Luke and Acts before 70 CE, something which you have argued against in the past. Do you really offer this as a viable possibility for the identity of Luke’s Theophilus?

One who paid for Luke’s education—probably the most reasonable alternative, but it presumes Luke didn’t have the funds [yet, Luke seems to be independently financially sufficient enough to travel with Paul, especially caring for him while he is a Roman prisoner], and since his education seems to have been in Jewish culture it would also presume his benefactor was a Jew—if so, then we are back to the argument of which Jew named Theophilus is “most excellent” at one time, but less so later! Is it the High Priest?

A pseudonym for someone who wanted to remain anonymous—a possibility, but if so, why even mention him at all? If his anonymity was important due to his position with Rome, it would raise suspicion from those who could hurt him, merely because the work was dedicated or addressed to “someone” whose mysterious identity now needed to be solved. And again, if this ‘someone’ was Roman, as implied by the desire for anonymity, it is improbable due to the lack of explanations within the document concerning Jewish culture.

No one in particular—then why the address at all (other Gospels are not addressed so), more specifically, why the “most excellent” in one work but absent in the other? Moreover, where is the example in either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures that anything like this were done? The Song of Solomon may come closest (if memory serves) but although the identity of Theophilus is presumed in Luke’s works and seems implied in some of his content, his identity is not part of the focus, as is the identity of the ‘beloved’ in the Song of Solomon.

I have no “case” or candidate because there is no information that narrows the field. Your guess is no better than the others.

I must disagree. Why would Luke veil the identity of the Annas family who had been responsible for much of the tragedies experienced by the new Jewish believers? If Luke’s addressee is the High Priest and Luke is presenting his works to him as a kind of “peace” offering in an effort to show the new faith is harmless, then the ‘veil’ is understood. Theophilus would know of whom Luke spoke, but the names of his family would not be displayed in copies of the document throughout the world.

There are also the stories of John’s and Jesus’ birth told around Temple ceremonies which the priesthood would fully understand, but a Gentile addressee would need to be informed about Jewish culture. The abundance of stories involving angels also would direct a Sadducee to his own theology in an effort to cause him to reconsider his understanding of God and how he directs his servants. Mark and John have only a handful of stories of angelic accounts. Why would Luke have so many?

These and other implications (some in Jesus’ parables) offer a reasonable background for the identity of Theophilus, but this “background” would be meaningless for a premise for his identity in any of the other “possibilities” offered above.

[smoodock]

How much faith do you have in your god to get you across the tight rope?

I like to think I would do whatever he asks, but it is his responsibility to build my faith up to the point where I would trust him in the most perilous tests.

[Howiedds]

Smoo:

A converted Roman official—but why call him “most excellent” in Luke but merely by name in Acts?

The oft mentioned official was Titus Flavius Sabinus, brother of Emperor Vespasian who was supposed to have ties to a Roman noble family that included the Lord Mayor of Rome at the time of Paul's supposed incarceration there. The theory goes that this noble family had Christian converts and helped protect Paul in Rome. Since Luke is assumed to have accompanied Paul to Rome, the theory goes on to assume that Luke was honoring him by calling him a friend of God.

Personally, I think too much is made over the "most excellent" indicating a Roman official. I mentioned it because others did who were grasping at non-specific phrases on which to hang their theories. I include your assertions for Theophilus to being the High Priest of the 30's along with theirs. The assumptions are way out there, supported by the flimsiest of connections.

 

If a convert, why assume he has knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures

Wasn't it part of the background of the early Christians?

when speaking of things like shepherds (Luke 15), which most Romans considered lazy and without virtue? If writing to a Gentile, much of the symbolism would be unappreciated without explanation, even misunderstood.

You dismiss the idea because Romans thought shepherds lazy? That's it?

Paul’s lawyer—unlikely for the same reasons as above. However, if Paul’s lawyer, this would put both Luke and Acts before 70 CE, something which you have argued against in the past. Do you really offer this as a viable possibility for the identity of Luke’s Theophilus?

I don't think any of these are viable including yours based on how little we know; one is as good or incredible as the next.  I was just answering your query as to who else others have suggested.

Just because he might be Paul's lawyer doesn't mean he cannot be addressed 20 years after his supposed trial.

One who paid for Luke’s education—probably the most reasonable alternative, but it presumes Luke...

It presumes more than it knows, just as you do. Why is it the most reasonable assumption? Luke calls someone "most excellent" and people make the leap to his benefactor. Crazy.

it would also presume his benefactor was a Jew—if so, then we are back to the argument of which Jew named Theophilus is “most excellent” at one time, but less so later! Is it the High Priest?

The Egyptian Christians thought he was an Egyptian Jew. Their guess is as good as yours.

A pseudonym for someone who wanted to remain anonymous—a possibility, but if so, why even mention him at all?

Maybe he was writing to him but couldn't open with, "Hi Harry." Who knows why he even wrote it as a letter to someone.

Why would Luke veil the identity of the Annas family who had been responsible for much of the tragedies experienced by the new Jewish believers? If Luke’s addressee is the High Priest and Luke is presenting his works to him as a kind of “peace” offering in an effort to show the new faith is harmless, then the ‘veil’ is understood. Theophilus would know of whom Luke spoke, but the names of his family would not be displayed in copies of the document throughout the world.

Where do you get this stuff? You assume its one person, then go back and make the connections. No one knows who he is.

There are also the stories of John’s and Jesus’ birth told around Temple ceremonies which the priesthood would fully understand, but a Gentile addressee would need to be informed about Jewish culture. The abundance of stories involving angels also would direct a Sadducee to his own theology in an effort to cause him to reconsider his understanding of God and how he directs his servants. Mark and John have only a handful of stories of angelic accounts. Why would Luke have so many?

Does any of this say to you that Theophilus is the High Priest who happens to have a very common name and title?

[smoodock]

The oft mentioned official was Titus Flavius Sabinus, brother of Emperor Vespasian who was supposed to have ties to a Roman noble family that included the Lord Mayor of Rome at the time of Paul's supposed incarceration there. The theory goes that this noble family had Christian converts and helped protect Paul in Rome. Since Luke is assumed to have accompanied Paul to Rome, the theory goes on to assume that Luke was honoring him by calling him a friend of God.

I know who the official is supposed to have been, my question was why he would be “most excellent” in Luke but just a name in Acts?

Personally, I think too much is made over the "most excellent" indicating a Roman official. I mentioned it because others did who were grasping at non-specific phrases on which to hang their theories. I include your assertions for Theophilus to being the High Priest of the 30's along with theirs. The assumptions are way out there, supported by the flimsiest of connections.

I agree that this tradition isn’t based upon much, if anything other than supposition. There is certainly nothing within the text, itself, (that I know of) to imply Luke was writing to a Roman official of any kind.



Smoo:

If a convert, why assume he has knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures

Howie:

Wasn't it part of the background of the early Christians?

“…knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures”? Perhaps some had knowledge; the God-fearers Paul met in the synagogues he preached in probably had some knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, but, how much they were familiar with, I don’t think is known. The Hebrew Scriptures, especially as translated in the Septuagint, would have been known by the Messianic Jews in the Diaspora—that was part of their history/tradition. It seems Paul was more interested in educating Gentiles about the Lord, Jesus. On a personal note, there was a great deal in the NT that I had never appreciated, until I began studying things from a Jewish perspective—as much as could conceivably be done by someone like me.


Smoo:

when speaking of things like shepherds (Luke 15), which most Romans considered lazy and without virtue? If writing to a Gentile, much of the symbolism would be unappreciated without explanation, even misunderstood.

Howie:

You dismiss the idea because Romans thought shepherds lazy? That's it?

The operative phrase would be “…when speaking of things like…”

I don't think any of these are viable including yours based on how little we know; one is as good or incredible as the next.  I was just answering your query as to who else others have suggested.

Two things: First, I would expect you to say: “I don’t think any of these things are viable including yours…” What I asked for was what one might have to dispute what I have put up for discussion. A few months ago I wouldn’t have assumed the possibility of Theophilus being the High Priest. However, I am wondering what anyone has in the way of good logical evidence to dispute the idea. I know there is nothing stated anywhere that would clearly show Theophilus is the High Priest. I don’t believe there is anything that would clearly show he is not the High Priest either. However, what arguments are there on either side that would logically point to: “yes, he is!” or “no, he is not!”?

Second, I never asked who else others have suggested. In another post above, you claimed:

“Using that same technique, one can show that Theophilus was possibly several other people…”

And I asked you: “Like whom?”

I would be very interested to know, if anything within the text alludes to anyone other than Theophilus, the High Priest.



Smoo:

One who paid for Luke’s education—probably the most reasonable alternative, but it presumes Luke...

Howie:

It presumes more than it knows, just as you do. Why is it the most reasonable assumption? Luke calls someone "most excellent" and people make the leap to his benefactor. Crazy.

Best sellers have been written about the Bible by someone “presuming more than” is known—to the accolades of many who speak against the text I might add. But, concerning my saying the above is the most reasonable, I believe a Jewish addressee—whoever that might be—is much more preferable than a Gentile addressee, because then Luke’s narrative is much more reasonable, in that, he never defines anything Jewish. He assumes the addressee understands.

As far as “benefactor” is concerned, I am not inclined to believe Luke was paid for his work. I don’t think he has a benefactor, but, as far as I am concerned, this idea is preferable to any of the others (lawyer, Gentile convert, “anyone” who is a lover of God etc.)

The Egyptian Christians thought he was an Egyptian Jew. Their guess is as good as yours.

Yes, I believe from Alexandria, but what evidence is there for such an opinion? Who in Alexandria was known to be “most excellent” and was named Theophilus?



Smoo:

A pseudonym for someone who wanted to remain anonymous—a possibility, but if so, why even mention him at all?

Howie:

Maybe he was writing to him but couldn't open with, "Hi Harry." Who knows why he even wrote it as a letter to someone.

The presumption is that he wishes to remain anonymous. My question was why even address it to anyone at all. That would be like daring his enemies to find him out.



Smoo:

Why would Luke veil the identity of the Annas family who had been responsible for much of the tragedies experienced by the new Jewish believers? If Luke’s addressee is the High Priest and Luke is presenting his works to him as a kind of “peace” offering in an effort to show the new faith is harmless, then the ‘veil’ is understood. Theophilus would know of whom Luke spoke, but the names of his family would not be displayed in copies of the document throughout the world.

Howie:

Where do you get this stuff? You assume its one person, then go back and make the connections. No one knows who he is.

Isn’t this the way all “scholars” do it? Isn’t “Q” the product of “presuming” Markan priority? How have you arrived at the things you are willing to acknowledge as true concerning the NT? Isn’t it first by presuming certain things would be true “if” this or that were true?


Smoo:

There are also the stories of John’s and Jesus’ birth told around Temple ceremonies which the priesthood would fully understand, but a Gentile addressee would need to be informed about Jewish culture. The abundance of stories involving angels also would direct a Sadducee to his own theology in an effort to cause him to reconsider his understanding of God and how he directs his servants. Mark and John have only a handful of stories of angelic accounts. Why would Luke have so many?

Howie:

Does any of this say to you that Theophilus is the High Priest who happens to have a very common name and title?

Have I claimed these things say: “This is that Theophilus, the High Priest!”?

From my first post, I believe I claimed there are certain allusions within the text that would lead one (at least me) to believe this is a possibility. I put it forward to see, if there are any logical arguments that could show this is or is not true; or to find a preferred argument for someone else. So far, no one has put forward another, more preferable possibility. Most offerings are guesses based on assumption with no allusions to the text itself. I have at least pointed to subject matter within the text that implies the addressee could very well be a priest—“a”—priest. I have also included other implications, which, if true, would point to the Annas family of priests. If this is so, the “obvious” assumption to the Theophilus question is: he is Annas’ son, the High Priest, whose tenure was from 37-41 CE.

What I have gotten from you is: “Where do you get this stuff?”

To which I can only reply—what have I done that you haven’t?

[kwd111]

Smoo.... not that anyone needs my affirmation - but you put an interesting theory for consideration.

I believe your point about Theophilus, at the least, would a Hebrew person knowing the Hebrew scripture seems to have some weight to it.

[smoodock]

Smoo.... not that anyone needs my affirmation - but you put an interesting theory for consideration.

I believe your point about Theophilus, at the least, would a Hebrew person knowing the Hebrew scripture seems to have some weight to it.

Thanks Ken,

I wish I could claim the idea as my own, but I recently stumbled upon it on someone's blog. I don't agree with everything presented, but he and I corresponded through email for awhile, and I am warming up to the idea more and more. I am looking into the allusions to the High Priesthood in parables such as the unjust steward and the rabbinic story of the rich man and Lazarus. He also sees an allusion to Samuel's boyhood and the 12 year old Jesus story in the Temple. I find the whole idea fascinating, but I would like to see more support within the texts of Luke's works for Theophilus' identity.

What the idea itself brings out is the possibility of the early church going to the leadership of their people, just like the prophets of the OT had done, presenting them with the sins they had committed in hope for repentance. The watchman story of Ezekiel comes to mind in this regard. Such things are logical, and once I allow myself to think of the early church not just evangelizing but also acting for God like the prophets had done -- like John the Baptist had done -- then I wonder why I had never thought that they should have done it. The fact is, if the church hadn't done something like this, we should wonder why.

But, thank you for your encouragement.

[Howiedds]

Smoo:

what have I done that you haven’t?

But as I was presenting other choices, I presented them as some others' choices, not my own. I was as dismissive as them as you I am of yours. All the choices, including yours, were based on the flimsiest of pertinent phrases.

I don't know about whom Luke was speaking. I don't think anyone does or a has any way of finding out with what we have now. That is the difference between what you are doing and what I am doing.

[Today]

• Science Corrects Itself by Ed.W [Today at 07:07:23 PM]
• Religion gets ugly by charliejohn [Today at 02:48:42 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [Today at 12:09:55 PM]
• God No Longer Male by CCC460 [Today at 10:34:45 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 09:23:57 AM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• Jewish Understanding by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:57:12 AM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]
• Adult Stem Cell Research ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 07:37:57 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87094
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 74
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 4
Guests: 17
Total: 21

SteveC
Ed.W
CCC460
kwd111