Did Theopholus commision/sponsor the Gospel of Luke?

Discussion in 'The Gospels & Acts' started by Eoghan, Oct 30, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eoghan

    Eoghan Puritan Board Senior

    It was a throwaway comment from Mark Dever, I had to rewind to double check. (driving at the time) Anyway he suggested that Theopholus was more than the passive recipient but more the commissioning publisher. (except there was no publishing)

    Anyone else stumbled across this one?

    (Starting on a study in Luke so I will be posting a lot more on the Gospels now that I have left the Psalms)
     
  2. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    I have heard it suggested that Theophilus may have been the patron of Luke/Acts. Certainly the general concept of patronage, and the presence of a sort of dedicatory preface, with the specific language used by Luke in them, might tend to support that. But I would want to see a broader comparison of the language used of and to patrons at the time before entertaining it as more than a possibility.
     
  3. Von

    Von Puritan Board Freshman

    We don't even know for certain who Theophilus was. I would think that any speculation as to his role in receiving/publishing would be subservient to speculation regarding his identity.
     
  4. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    We are not even certain that Theophilus was a real person. Since Theophilus simply means “lover of God” Luke may have been using a literary device as a means of addressing his letter to the church at large. At any rate, all of this seems to be speculation at best.
     
  5. Tom Hart

    Tom Hart Puritan Board Senior

    I have never thought this more than speculative.
     
  6. Tom Hart

    Tom Hart Puritan Board Senior

    The language would appear to indicate that Luke is writing to a person of some standing.
     
  7. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    No doubt, but no less speculative than assuming he was a real person. We simply have no record of any prominent person of this name from this time period. It is also possible that the person he is writing to wished to remain anonymous and so Luke employs a pseudonym. No matter how you slice it, we just don’t know.
     
  8. Tom Hart

    Tom Hart Puritan Board Senior

    I would hardly say that the most natural reading is equally speculative.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2019
  9. Eoghan

    Eoghan Puritan Board Senior

    It apparently was a common name which may be part of the problem. I doubt our records are complete from this time period anyway - for example one of the arguments that the Messiah has come, with Jews, is that genealogies are no longer available to verify He is a descendant of David.
     
  10. Eoghan

    Eoghan Puritan Board Senior

    Maybe I should explain that they WERE available in the time of Christ but are no longer available.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page