For earlier parts of this series on “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue,” use these links:
Part 1 with Thomas Randolph; Part 2 with Johann L. Hug; Part 3 with Daniel Whitby and George Gleig; Part 4 with John Jones and George Moberly; Part 5 with John Mill, Friedrich Bleek, B.F. Westcott and Henry Cadbury; Part 6, featuring a discussion of 1st and 2nd century sources, and Part 7 featuring G. Wetzel, George L, Hahn, and Johann Peter Lange. Click here to get a pre-release PDF of Shane’s book Luke’s Key Witness, and here to watch his webinar, “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue” (exclusively for paid subscribers).

Donate or Subscribe

In an earlier part of this series, I cited the words of a German scholar by the name of Johann L. Hug, who stated that Luke’s prologue “is presented in two parts, one general (1:1-2), and the other particular (1:3-4).” In the first section, Luke acknowledges that many of his predecessors had already crafted narratives about Jesus, and in the second section, he specifically indicates that this is the point of his own narrative to Theophilus.

This becomes increasingly clear when we consider the implications of the words we find at the beginning of verse 3: ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ (“it seemed good also to me…”). In other words, just as these others have done, Luke is endeavoring to do for the recipient of his Gospel. Here, it’s worth pointing out that in her widely acclaimed book, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (1993), Loveday Alexander argues that it was a relatively standard feature of ancient prologues to begin with a formal acknowledgement of the work done by others on this same topic:

It is normal in Greek prefaces of all kinds to introduce the subject-matter of the book…and thus inevitable that the author’s own subject will often first be described as that of his predecessors. Cadbury is thus quite correct to observe that Luke’s words [in verse 1] apply to his predecessors, but this does not mean that they may not be describing his own project as well: in fact they would almost certainly have been understood that way by contemporary readers.1

Several pages later, Alexander went on to say that ancient references to the work of one’s predecessors were effectively there “to reassure the reader that the subject is worth spending time on.”2 So it appears that Luke’s introduction followed this well-known pattern of referencing the contributions of others, which also had the effect of highlighting the significance of the subject that was being addressed for Theophilus in particular.

Joseph Fitzmyer is another commentator who recognized the parallel structure of Luke’s opening remarks:

In studying the prologue, the reader should not fail to note its balanced form, in which both the protasis (vv. 1-2) and the apodosis (vv. 3-4) contain three parallel phrases. This is best seen in the Greek text itself because it cannot be preserved easily in translation. There is also a formal contrast between the “many” and “I too,” between “compile an orderly account” and “put them systematically in writing,” and lastly between the…“just as,” “so that…”3

Gregory Sterling similarly observed that, “There is a striking balance in both content and sequence between vv. 1-2 and 3-4,” and listed several features that both sections appear to have in common.4 Once the parallel structure of the two halves of Luke’s prologue is recognized, I believe this insight can help us to interpret some of the specific words and phrases that Luke employs.5 The reason for this is relatively simple. If the two sections are parallel, then we should be able to compare what Luke says in the first half with a similar word or phrase in the second half.

Here is my own translation of Luke’s prologue presented in two sections: one general, and the other particular:

GENERAL (1:1-2)
Inasmuch as many have endeavored, each to set in order an account of
the things that have been completely fulfilled among us, just the eyewitnesses
and officers of the word delivered to us from the beginning…

PARTICULAR (1:3-4)
…it seemed good to me also, as one who had been a follower from the beginning,
to write everything accurately and in order for you, most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may know the certainty of the things you’ve been told.

I’ll explain some of my word choices in a future post, but for now, I’d like you to notice how many of the words and phrases in the first section are essentially parallel to the words and ideas in the second section:

Now, as you can see above, in most cases, Luke used an alternative word or phrase as he presented these parallels. But once the overall pattern is recognized, I believe this can help us greatly when it comes to correctly interpreting Luke’s intended meaning. Thus, just as he referred to many who were eyewitnesses from the beginning (Lk 1:2), in the same way, he tells Theophilus that he too was a follower from the beginning (Lk 1:3).

Some translate the word ἄνωθεν in verse 3 to mean “for a long time,” which weakens the parallel, but once we recognize the pattern, it makes more sense to translate ἄνωθεν as being synonymous with the parallel phrase ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς in verse 2. In short, Luke has used slightly different words to say essentially the same thing.6 Additionally, as we’ve seen throughout this series, the word παρηκολουθηκότι typically refers to physical presence (i.e., literal following) in contrast to inquiring by means of others. But if the word is interpreted in this latter sense, the parallel would be greatly reduced. All the other narratives about Jesus were crafted by first-hand witnesses, and yet here, Luke is freely admitting that his knowledge is second-hand? How exactly is this supposed to give Theophilus certainty?

If, however, the pattern I have outlined above is valid, then it makes better sense to see Luke as a parallel (rather than dependent) witness. As a member of the believing community, he did receive other narratives about Jesus by eyewitnesses. But he wasn’t exclusively dependent on their testimony, because he says that he too had been there from the beginning. Here it’s also important to point out that this interpretation fits well with many other NT passages (Mk 1:1, Lk 3:23, 23:5, Jn 1:41, 2:11, 16:4, Acts 1:21-22, 10:36-37, 13:24-33, 1Jn 1:1), including a really important passage from John’s Gospel in which Jesus specifically told his followers: “You will also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning” (Jn 15:27).

To be continued…

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 1, Thomas Randolph
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 2, Johann L. Hug
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 3, Daniel Whitby and George Gleig
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 4 with John Jones and George Moberly,
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 5 with Mill, Bleek, Westcott, and Cadbury
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 6, featuring 1st and 2nd century sources
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 7, with Wetzel, Hahn, and Lange
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

AUDIO
Who is Theophilus? Humble Skeptic #79 with Peter. Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, Humble Skeptic #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, Humble Skeptic #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Why The Gospel Holds Up as History, Faith Lab with Craig Keener
Lazarus, Humble Skeptic #84 with Richard Bauckham & T.C. Schmidt

VIDEO
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue: A Webinar by Shane Rosenthal for Paid Subscribers

For earlier parts of this series on “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue,” use these links:
Part 1 with Thomas Randolph; Part 2 with Johann L. Hug; Part 3 with Daniel Whitby and George Gleig; Part 4 with John Jones and George Moberly; Part 5 with John Mill, Friedrich Bleek, B.F. Westcott and Henry Cadbury; Part 6, featuring a discussion of 1st and 2nd century sources. Note: the selections provided throughout this series have been abridged and edited for contemporary readability.

Click here to get a pre-release PDF of Shane’s book Luke’s Key Witness, and here to watch his webinar, “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue” (exclusively for paid subscribers).

Donate or Subscribe

In my last post, I discussed the fact that verse 3 of Luke’s prologue can be interpreted to mean that Luke had been a follower “from the beginning” (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν), particularly given that references to the beginning in contexts such as this one invariably refer to the outset of Jesus’ public ministry. In fact, in Acts 1:1, the author reminds Theophilus that his first book “dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.”

I also pointed out that Luke opens his Gospel with a reference to the things Jesus “fulfilled among us” (ἐν ἡμῖν, Lk 1:1). By the use of the 1st person plural, the author appears to be including himself as one who had been present at least on some occasions when Jesus fulfilled the various prophecy related to the coming Messiah (cf. Lk 7:22). Thus, when the implications of verse 1 and verse 3 are seen together, this provides a compelling reason to take παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν literally. Below are three nineteenth-century German scholars who made similar observations.

G. Wetzel (1883): Author of Die synoptischen Evangelien (The Synoptic Gospels)
How are we to interpret Luke’s use of the words “among us” (ἐν ἡμῖν) in his opening verse? Some scholars see these words as referring specifically to the Jews, while others apply them to Christians, but the events recounted by Luke were accomplished not only among Christians only, but also among Jews and Gentiles. And where in the text is there the slightest indication that ἡμῖν should be restricted to Christians? Thus, nothing remains but to understand this phrase as applying to those who were alive at the time the events took place; and since Luke, by using ἡμῖν, identifies himself with the people of that era, the term can only be understood as referring to the people of his own time—that is, himself and his contemporaries—as distinct from earlier generations.

Understood in this light, every word of the prologue assumes its full significance and necessary place. The author refers to “the things fulfilled among us” to distinguish the divine acts he intends to describe from those of earlier eras—such as the deeds of Moses, Elijah, and others. Thus, to summarize the findings of this inquiry, either Luke was a liar, or we have in his book the work of a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles.1

George L. Hahn (1892), Professor of Theology at the University of Breslau
What is Luke’s meaning when he speaks of the “things fulfilled among us,” [Lk 1:1 ἐν ἡμῖν]? This cannot refer solely to Luke and Theophilus, nor does it refer to Christians in contrast to non-Christians, for the author could not rightly claim that the Gospel history took place within a specifically Christian sphere. Still less should we interpret his remarks as referring to the generation living after the eyewitness period. Rather, Luke undoubtedly has in mind the Jewish generation contemporary with the Gospel history. By using ἐν ἡμῖν, the author groups himself together with all those contemporaries of the Gospel events in whose midst that history unfolded and reached its conclusion, such that he thereby should be seen as a Jew living in Palestine at that time, who personally witnessed the events that were also recounted by the many (πολλοὶ) in their writings (Lk 1:1).2

Johann Peter Lange (1864): Professor of Divinity at the University of Bonn
According to Epiphanius and Theophylact, Luke was designated by some as one of the seventy disciples. The presumption that Luke was himself an eyewitness of what he narrates is a very probable one, and it is only on this supposition that the following expressions become perfectly clear:

Luke 1:1 concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us
περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων

Lk 1:2 who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word
(οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου )

Luke had then become an eyewitness and minister of the Gospel, but this did not suffice to make him a narrator of the whole Gospel. For such a purpose, he must also avail himself of the communications of those who had from the beginning (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) occupied such a position. Thus endowed and prepared, Luke was called upon to write his narrative. It is his view of the Gospel history. We find his whole self in his work. With respect to its form, however, it is evident that he was not personally present at all the events of Christ’s life, especially the earlier ones.3

Note: While it’s clear from the above that Lange supported the idea that Luke had witnessed some of the later parts of Jesus’ ministry, it’s curious that he failed to interact with the possible implications of Lk 1:3, in which the author states that he had been “a follower from the beginning” (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν). Though many scholars interpret ἄνωθεν as meaning “for a long time,” it seems clear from the parallel phrase in verse 2 (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) that Luke’s meaning here is the same. This appears to be confirmed by the way Luke alternates between ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς and ἄνωθεν in Acts 26:4-5 as he cites the words of Paul: “Indeed, all the Jews know my way of life from my youth up, which was from the beginning (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) among my own nation and at Jerusalem, having known me from the first (ἄνωθεν).”

Click here to read Part 8 of this series

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 1, Thomas Randolph
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 2, Johann L. Hug
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 3, Daniel Whitby and George Gleig
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 4 with John Jones and George Moberly,
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 5 with Mill, Bleek, Westcott, and Cadbury
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 6, featuring 1st and 2nd century sources
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

AUDIO
Who is Theophilus? Humble Skeptic #79 with Peter. Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, Humble Skeptic #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, Humble Skeptic #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Why The Gospel Holds Up as History, Faith Lab with Craig Keener
Lazarus, Humble Skeptic #84 with Richard Bauckham & T.C. Schmidt

VIDEO
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue: A Webinar by Shane Rosenthal for Paid Subscribers

For earlier parts of this series on “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue,” use these links:
Part 1 with Thomas Randolph, Part 2 with Johann L. Hug, Part 3 with Daniel Whitby and George Gleig, Part 4 with John Jones and George Moberly, Part 5 with John Mill, Friedrich Bleek, B.F. Westcott, and Henry Cadbury.

Click here to get a pre-release PDF of Shane’s book Luke’s Key Witness, and here to watch his webinar, “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue,” (exclusively for paid subscribers).

Donate or Subscribe

JESUS (c. 30 AD)
“Follow me!” (Mt 8:22, 9:9, 10:38, 16:24, 19:21, 28, Mk 2:14, 8:34, 10:21, Lk 5:27, 9:23, 59, 18:22, Jn 1:43, 8:12, 10:27, 12:27, 13:36, 21:19, 22). Throughtout all four Gospels, Jesus frequently called people to follow him, and the word used in all these passages is ἀκολουθέω. This same word appears over 80 times throughout the New Testament where it is often applied to those who became Jesus’ disciples. This not only included the twelve (Mt 4:20-22, 9:9, Mk 1:18, 2:14, Lk 5:11, 27, Jn 1:40), but many others as well (Mt 4:25, 20:29, 27:55, Mk 2:15, 3:7, 5:24, Lk 9:11, 10:1, 23:27, Jn 6:2). Here it’s worth pointing out that the word ἀκολουθέω is closely related to παρακολουθέω, which appears in verse 3 of Luke’s prologue:

Lk 1:3 ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν
“it seemed good also to me, having been a follower from the beginning…”

ακολουθέω: to follow, to become a disciple
παρακολουθέω: to follow alongside, to accompany1

What’s intriguing about Luke’s statement is that he specifically claims to have been a follower from the beginning” (ἄνωθεν). Here we should recall that throughout the Gospels, references to “the beginning” in contexts like this typically refer to the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry:

Mk 1:1 “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”2

Lk 1:2 “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…”3

Lk 3:23 “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age…”

Lk 23:5 “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place.”

Jn 15:27 “You will also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning” (cf. Jn 1:41, 2:11, 16:4)4

Acts 1:21-22 “Of the men therefore who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John…of these one must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Acts 10:36-37 “The word [about Jesus]…which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached…” (cf. Acts 13:24-33).

1John 1:1 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands…”

Thus, I believe Luke’s use of the words παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν should be interpreted in this same light. Luke was qualified to testify of Jesus (in narrative form), because he too had been a follower from the beginning. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that in his opening verse, he spoke of the things Jesus “fulfilled among us” (ἐν ἡμῖν). By his use of the 1st person plural, Luke included himself as one who had witnessed Jesus’ fulfillment of many OT promises.5 Notice the way this phrase is used in other parts of the New Testament:

Jn 1:1 “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory…”6

Lk 7:16 Speaking of Jesus, people say, “A great prophet has arisen among us!”7

Acts 1:17 Judas “was numbered among us, and received his portion...”8

Acts 2:22 “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.”9

Acts 2:29 Peter says that David’s tomb “is among us to this day.”10

Thus, when Luke’s use of the phrase ἐν ἡμῖν in his opening verse is read in light of his claim in verse 3 (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν), a very strong case can be made in favor of identifying the author as a first-hand witness of Jesus.

JOHN THE ELDER (c. 80 AD)
According to a second century writer named Papias, John the Elder used to say this: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him (παρηκολούθησεν) but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed” (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.15).

Though Papias recorded these words in the early second century, Richard Bauckham has frequently pointed out that his recollection dates back to the late first century—likely sometime around 80 AD. What’s important to highlight, however, is the fact that in this quotation, John the Elder specifically applied the word παρακολουθέω to Mark the Evangelist, insisting that he had not been a follower of Jesus, but that he had only been a follower of Peter sometime at a later period. But the meaning of παρακολουθέω in this context is clear. Mark was a follower of Peter and thus, a first-hand witness of his preaching.

But at this point we should stop to consider the fact that no one has ever translated the word παρακολουθέω in the above passage to the effect that Mark should be thought of as one who merely investigated or inquired about Peter’s teaching. Curiously, however, this is the way most NT scholars think of Luke’s approach, even the same word is never rendered in this same way in this passage about Mark.11 At the very least, therefore, this should help us to see that Luke’ words can be interpreted differently.12 It is a perfectly legitimage option to translate παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν as indicating that Luke had been a literal follower of Jesus from the beginning.

PAPIAS (c. 120 AD)
In the following passage recorded by Papias, we find another use of the verb παρακολουθέω, this time in the form of a participle (similar to Luke’s construction):

“And if by chance someone who had been a follower (παρηκολουθηκώς) of the elders should come my way, I inquired (ἀνέκρινον) about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice” (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.4).

In the above passage, Papias indicates that he gained his knowledge about the teachings of the elders by inquiring about their views. But the verb παρακολουθέω does not refer in this sentence to Papias’ process of inquiry; rather, it specifically refers to those individuals who were literal followers of the elders. Again, this should invite us to question the standard interpretation of Luke’s prologue. As I see it, the author isn’t claiming to have researched or investigated anything—he’s claiming to have been a follower of Jesus from the beginning.

Click here to read Part 7 of this series

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 1, Thomas Randolph
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 2, Johann L. Hug
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 3, Daniel Whitby and George Gleig
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 4 with John Jones and George Moberly,
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 5 with Mill, Bleek, Westcott and Cadbury
Luke’s Key Witness: A Positive Review, Clyde Billington
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

AUDIO
Who is Theophilus? Humble Skeptic #79 with Peter. Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, Humble Skeptic #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, Humble Skeptic #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Why The Gospel Holds Up as History, Faith Lab with Craig Keener
Lazarus, Humble Skeptic #84 with Richard Bauckham & T.C. Schmidt

VIDEO
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue: A Webinar by Shane Rosenthal for Paid Subscribers

The following selections have been abridged and edited for contemporary readability. Use these links to access Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, or Part 4 of this series. Click here to get a pre-release PDF of Shane’s book Luke’s Key Witness, and here to watch his webinar, “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue,” (exclusively for paid subscribers).

Donate or Subscribe

John Mill (1707), Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford University
It appears from the introduction to Luke’s Gospel that the many narrations referred to in the first verse consisted of “things fulfilled among us,” that is, of things done by Christ among the first professors of the faith, of which number Luke reckons himself.1

Friedrich Bleek (1859), Professor of Theology at the University of Bonn
The preface of Luke’s Gospel certainly speaks of other evangelic histories already in existence; but on the face of it, it conveys the impression that it was not composed at a very late date. A writer in the latter half of the second century could hardly have spoken of τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων [Lk 1:1, the things fulfilled among us]. It is utterly improbable that any evangelist who only appropriated the treatise of another which he had before him, adding to it only a few facts or discourses, could have spoken of his undertaking as the preface says, ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι…[Lk 1:3, it seemed good to me, having been a follower from the beginning, to write all things orderly for you…]2

B.F. Westcott (1860), Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge University
It is evident that Luke represents his Gospel as a faithful embodiment of the ‘Evangelic tradition.’ He finds no fault with the basis on which the earlier writers rested. His own determination is placed on an equal footing with theirs (ἔδοξε κάμοί); but he claims for himself a knowledge of the Apostolic preaching continuous from the first, complete, exact, and for his writing, a due order (Lk 1:3, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι). Each word in the sentence contributes an important element to the completeness of the whole idea.

Luke appears to speak of a gradual unfolding of the whole Gospel in the course of the Apostolic work which he had watched from the first step throughout every detail. The same term used in verse 3 (παρακολουθεῖν) describes the personal attendance on a teacher and the careful following of teaching.3 The long companionship seems to be the criterion of the complete knowledge. And this view of the notion implied in ‘following’ illustrates the meaning of the next words. Luke’s ‘continuous familiarity’ with the subject gave him a knowledge of the whole cycle of the ‘tradition,’ and not only of particular periods or of particular parts of it. His knowledge started from the first and extended to every point…4

Henry J. Cadbury (1922), Professor of Theology at Harvard Divinity School
There seems at first sight little doubt that the writer distinguishes his own group from the αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται [Lk 1:2 eyewitnesses and servants] and that both he and the earlier writers are definitely excluded from the category of eyewitnesses. However, if we accept the probable meaning of παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν [Lk 1:3 having been a follower from the beginning] it cannot possibly exclude eyewitnesses and so we cannot insist on such an exclusion here. Additionally, παρηκολουθηκότι may mean precisely that the writer was a witness or actor in the scenes described. More intimate contact with events is not excluded by the word, and in the following passages it seems almost to require the meaning of actual presence or participation in the events. For example, this word in Josephus, Contra Apion 1:53, refers directly to the author’s own presence and participation at the events recorded by him. We must therefore leave the possibility open that the author is claiming for himself actual presence and participation in the events described. There appears to be no warrant for assigning to the word the sense of deliberate investigation, although Luke’s apologists love thus to modernise it. The writer’s information had (notice the perfect tense) come to him as the events took place; it was not the result of special reading and study. His acquaintance with the subject, whatever its degree of intimacy, was something already in his possession.5

Luke’s use of the perfect tense implies that at that time the author found himself possessed of information which had come to him through continuous contact (hence the metaphor of following) with the events. The perfect participle is almost invariably used wherever the verb has this meaning. It has the true perfect sense of information as a result of earlier continuous association.

In the same way ἄνωθεν [from the beginning] must be understood, not of the early point in the history to which the author carried back his researches, but rather of that early time in his own life at which his touch with events began and from which it has continued. This interpretation is the chief obstacle to understanding παρηκολυθηκότι of actual presence or participation. It is interesting to watch the commentators “kick against the pricks.” I quote the most recent ones:

“Impossible is the interpretation which makes Luke an active witness of all the events which he is about to set forth, although this is linguistically possible…This would make Luke an eyewitness from the beginning, which he emphatically declares not to have been the case.” — Zahn

“This verb has naturally a literal meaning, to follow the events as a witness…But this sense is excluded by what Luke has said in verse 2. One must have recourse therefore to a metaphorical meaning: follow in thought, and here, make an inquiry.” — Lagrange

Evidently we have to choose either a strict construction of the earlier clauses of the preface, which would exclude Luke from the eyewitnesses, or the natural sense of παρηκολουθηκότι, which would include him. The former alternative has been the usual choice, but the latter may seem, after review of the evidence, really preferable.

Whether we are arguing for or against an early date and Lucan authorship, we will do well to eschew the conventional habits of settled exegetical conformity. Whether we believe Luke or not, the possibility must be left open that the author is claiming in the very beginning of his work to have been long in such close contact with the series of events which he unfolds as to be possessed of first-hand contemporary knowledge about them, and that perhaps he means to claim the knowledge of an actual eyewitness. At any rate he says nothing of research.6

Click here to read Part 6 of this series

The first selection below was adapted from an 1825 essay by John Jones titled “In Proof of St. Luke Being a Companion of our Lord,” published in The Monthly Repository.1 The second piece is by George Moberly and was adapted from his book, The Administration of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ, which was first delivered as a series of lectures at Oxford University in 1868.2 Both selections have been abridged and edited for contemporary readability.

Use these links to access Part 1, Part 2, or Part 3 of this series. Click here to get a pre-release PDF of Shane’s book Luke’s Key Witness, and here to watch the webinar, “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue,” which is exclusively for paid subscribers.

Donate or Subscribe

Selections from the writings of John Jones:

That Luke was not an eyewitness of the transactions which he has recorded, is an assertion first made by Irenaeus in the second century and received from him by modern critics, though directly contradicted by Luke himself. This is a matter of high importance, and cannot be too often brought forward to illustrate the folly of implicitly trusting learned men who adopt, without due examination, the opinions handed down to them by their forefathers.

In the opening verse of his Gospel, Luke says that the transactions of Jesus had been accomplished “among us,” meaning the people of Judea, in the midst of whom Jesus fulfilled his ministry, and of whom Luke makes himself one. The word αὐτόπται (eyewitnesses) refers to the apostles who gave faithful narratives of Jesus to their countrymen when preaching the gospel.

When Luke asserts that the things which he relates respecting Christ were accomplished among us, he intimates, and that not obscurely, that he himself was one of those who had witnessed them; and this he positively asserts in the following clause, for the verb παρακολουθέω (Lk 1:3) means to attend at the side, closely to follow, to inspect and examine what is carried on; and it implies that he was in the number of those who accompanied Jesus during his performance of the things related of him. It is worth noting that Luke does not use the present or future participle, as if the author meant that he was about to follow the train of events in his mind when proceeding to write. He instead uses the past participle, thus intimating that he had already accompanied the particulars which he was going to record; and his reason for this determination was the fact that he was present at the time of their accomplishment.

Thus Luke sets forth his competence as an historian with unexampled force and precision. He had from the very beginning attended the events and speeches he records, and had heard the same facts related to the Jewish people by other persons, who, like himself, had been eyewitnesses, and men who were officially chosen to attend the ministry of Jesus. This appeal to the testimony of the apostles and the whole body of Jewish believers ends up corroborating his own testimony, and if we make the appeal to his Gospel, we shall find in it many proofs that he wrote not what had been related to him by others, but what he had himself seen and heard from the lips of Christ.

Paul, in preaching the gospel, must have had frequent occasion to refer to the sayings and miracles of Jesus; and it was of high importance to be accompanied in his travels by one who had attended his ministry, and could furnish the necessary information on the best possible authority—his own personal knowledge. This seems to have been the reason which led him to select Luke as the companion of his labors.

Now, what we might thus expect or infer, is fully verified by the following passage of Paul: “With him we have sent the brother whose praise by means of his Gospel, is known throughout all the churches” (2 Cor. 8:18). This brother means Luke, whom, in the next verse, he calls his fellow-traveller, and if in all the churches he was praised on account of his Gospel, he must have left a copy of that Gospel (though yet probably not published to the world at large) with each congregation. This, in return, endeared him to the several Christian societies which he had helped in forming. They regarded the work given them as a treasure of high value, and they unanimously praised the author; thus indirectly bearing their testimony to his accuracy, fidelity, and truth as the historian of Jesus Christ. This is a most important fact, and it is surprising that it should have been overlooked by learned men.

We learn from this passage that the Gospel of Luke was extant and that it was deposited in all the churches within twenty years after the crucifixion of Jesus. These believers knew the author personally, and they had the utmost confidence in him for his integrity and love of truth. This testimony of the apostle Paul, which, from the incidental manner in which it is told, lies beyond all reasonable suspicion and dissipates into air the falsehood repeated by unbelievers that the gospels were unknown to the world until a century or two later when they were selected from a mass of other spurious gospels, and by the decrees of certain councils were imposed upon on the believing public as if they were genuine productions.

Selections from the writings of George Moberly:

It has been commonly assumed by many interpreters that in his preface, Luke attributes the authority of his narrative to ‘eyewitnesses and ministers of the word’ in such a manner as to disclaim, and exclude altogether, the idea of his having been an eyewitness himself of the events which he records. Though this interpretation is widespread, I am disposed, however, to doubt it, since it seems to me to rest upon a superficial view of Luke’s words.

Instead of excluding himself from the class of eyewitnesses, Luke rather puts himself (not directly, but by implication) among them. He seems to be saying, “Eyewitnesses have taught the Church, so I will teach you.” Thus, it seems to me that, according to the logic of the passage, Luke regards Theophilus as one of us (Lk 1:1; ἡμῖν), and that he puts himself into the category of those who can provide accurate and trustworthy information, that is, he too was an eyewitness.

Leaving then the logic of the passage, let us now look more closely into the words in which Luke assigns the ground of his own authority. What is the meaning of the key verb in Lk 1:3, παρηκολουθηκότι? According to Liddell & Scott’s Lexicon, it means to go beside or follow closely. Used metaphorically, it can also mean to follow with one’s thoughts. In Demosthenes De Corona, however, it seems to me to have more precisely the meaning of having personally accompanied the events than of having followed them in thought and understood them.3

The more important question is this: What is the meaning of the verb in the later period, closer to the time of the New Testament? In answer to this question, I’ll quote a passage from the fragments of Papias: “If by chance someone who had been a follower of the elders (παρηκολουθηκώς) should come my way, I inquired (ἀνέκρινον) about the words of the elders” (Eusebius, H.E., 3.39.4).

And there is a passage of Josephus which is equally clear and strong to my present purpose: “Everyone who undertakes to deliver the history of actions truly, ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either having been concerned in them himself, (παρηκολουθηκότα) or been informed (πυνθανόμενον) of them by such as knew them.” (Apion 1:53).

Here we have the two sources of knowledge expressly distinguished from one another, personal witness, and derived information; and any person who reads the whole passage will see how definitely Josephus means to declare his own personal witness of the events he relates.

When to all this we add the fact that there is an ancient tradition that Luke was one of the seventy, or, at least, a personal disciple of the Lord, I confess that it appears to me to be a somewhat hasty reading of the preface which leads interpreters to conclude, with almost one voice, that Luke expressly disclaims the authority of having seen with his own eyes any of the events which he records.

Click here to read Part 5 of this series

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 1, Thomas Randolph
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 2, Johann L. Hug
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 3, Daniel Whitby and George Gleig
Luke’s Key Witness: A Positive Review, Clyde Billington
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

AUDIO
Who is Theophilus? Humble Skeptic #79 with Peter. Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, Humble Skeptic #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, Humble Skeptic #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Why The Gospel Holds Up as History, Faith Lab with Craig Keener

VIDEO
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue: A Webinar by Shane Rosenthal for Paid Subscribers

Some years ago, Richard Bauckham told me that the world of New Testament scholarship is not necessarily a progressive science, since it sometimes happens that important mistakes are made which end up taking the field down the wrong path for the better part of a century, or even longer. When this occurs, I often say that the best way forward is actually to go back and to reflect on things written in earlier periods (i.e., before some of the key mistakes were made, etc.). Along those lines, here are two additional writers from previous centuries who advocated intriguing ideas about Luke that are worth reconsidering. The first selection from Daniel Whitby is taken from A Paraphrase And Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 1, first published in 1700,1 and the second is from George Gleig, adapted from his appendix to The History of the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, published in 1817.2 Both selections have been abridged and edited for contemporary readability.

Click here for Part 1, featuring selections from Thomas Randolph
Click here for Part 2, featuring selections from Johann L. Hug
Click here to get a pre-release PDF of Shane’s book, Luke’s Key Witness
Click here to watch Shane’s Webinar: “Rethinking Luke’s Prologue” (available exclusively for Paid subscribers).

Donate or Subscribe

Selections from the writings of Daniel Whitby:

Some writers suggest that Luke confesses he was not from the beginning an eyewitness and minister of the word (Lk 1:1-2), and therefore is thought to have his Gospel from the information of Paul and other Apostles. However, the words of the Evangelist are so far from giving any ground to this assertion, that they plead fairly for Luke’s personal knowledge of all the things written in the Gospel, even from first to last (cf. Lk 1:1-3). The words of the prologue do not give us the least hint that Luke recieved his information about Jesus from the “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Lk 1:2). Instead, it seems clear that Luke places himself in their rank. Hence I conclude that though Luke was not an apostle, he might be one of the seventy mentioned in Luke 10, as Origen and Epiphanius say he was.

It is certain that Jesus had not only twelve apostles, but seventy (or seventy-two) disciples who followed him. For after he sent the twelve to preach the kingdom of God (Lk 9:1-2), he later sent out seventy others to go in pairs before him, and to preach in every city he was about to visit (Lk 10:1-9). We should note that they were sent on the same mission, since they were both sent by Jesus to preach in his name, with the same power, to heal diseases, and to cast out demons (compare Lk 9:1-10 with Lk 10:1-17).

As he said to the apostles, “I send you out as sheep among wolves,” (Mt 10:16), so also he said to the seventy (Lk 10:3). As he said to the twelve, “He that recieves you receives me,” (Mt 10:40), so he said to the seventy, “He that hears you hears me,” (Lk 10:16). When the apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem until they recieved “power from on high” (Lk 24:49-50, Acts 1:4-8), so may we reasonably conclude that the seventy were also endued with this same power on the day of Pentecost since they were very likely among the one hundred and twenty disciples mentioned in Acts 1:15.

On the day of Pentecost, all those who had assembled together with the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. It is therefore highly reasonable to suggest that the seventy were included in this number, not merely from church tradition but by the nature of the thing itself. For Peter says that an apostle must be chosen out of those that had been with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them (Acts 1:21-22), and where might they have found such qualified men but from among the seventy?

In Acts 13:31, Paul speaks of men coming up with Jesus after his resurrection from Galilee who were witnesses to the people, and surely the seventy must be included in this number. Moreover, shouldn’t we expect the seventy to have travelled to Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection? Can we imagine men so full of hope that Jesus would now restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6) staying behind in Galilee? And if they had come to Jerusalem, shouldn’t we also expect them to continue in the company of the apostles? Can we think that one hundred and twenty others should stay with them, but that the seventy should be mysteriously absent, especially at the Feast of Pentecost when they had so much reason to expect the promise of the Father?

Additionally, it is certain from Luke that Christ made the seventy “laborers in his harvest” (Lk 10:1-2), and therefore ministers of his gospel who were called to declare that “he who heard them, heard him,” and “he that despised them, despised him” (Lk 10:16). He also commissioned them to work miracles and cast out demons in his name (Lk 10:9, 17). Now if the seventy disciples had a commission to preach to other nations once Jesus was seated at the right hand of his Father (cf. Acts 1:8), just as Epiphanius expressly says, that the seventy-two were sent to be “preachers throughout all the world,” then they too must have recieved the promise of the Father (Lk 24:49).

Thus, Eusebius reckons the twelve apostles, Paul, and the seventy disciples among those who were enabled to write a thousand mysteries, and Origen says well that it is more reasonable to think that Christ should commit the writing of his gospel to his disciples, rather than to those who never followed him.

Selections from the writings of George Gleig:

The opinion that Luke was not a disciple of Christ appears to have been drawn by inference from his own words in his address to Theophilus. “The apostles,” says Irenaeus, “delivered plainly to all the things which they had learned from the Lord. So likewise Luke has delivered to us what he learned from them, as he says: ‘Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.’”

It is evident from this passage, if the Latin translation can be depended on, that Irenaeus derived his opinion, not from Polycarp or Papias, or from any general tradition of the church, but from the words of Luke himself, which it is certainly possible that even he may have misunderstood. These words have indeed been taken in the same sense by many eminent scholars among the moderns; but however presumptuous I may be thought, I cannot help, in opposition even to such great authorities, agreeing with Dr. Whitby, that the words of the evangelist, far from affording ground for the inference which has been drawn from them, plead powerfully for Luke’s personal knowledge, or such knowledge as the apostles themselves possessed, of all the things which he has recorded in his Gospel.

The words of Lk 1:2, καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱαπἀρχῆςαὐτόπται (“just as has been delivered to us”), relate not to Luke’s knowledge, but to the source of the information of those who had set forth the orderly narratives he just mentioned; and he is so far from saying that he had derived his knowledge through the same channel with them, that, though he was undoubtedly a constant attendant on the apostles preaching, his whole address implies, what the word παρηκολουθηκότι must therefore mean, that he had been an eye and ear witness of all which he was about to relate; for if this is not his meaning, how could Theophilus derive more certain knowledge from Luke’s narrative than from those which were already in circulation, and on which no censure had been passed.

The verb παρακολουθέω, being derived from ἀκολουθος (an attendant, companion, or observer), can be properly employed only by someone who has constantly been present as a companion, or has observed some person or thing as an eye or ear witness; for it is employed to denote the observation or attendance of things, as well as of persons. Thus, the historian Josephus asserting his own credit says, “Everyone, who undertakes to deliver the history of actions truly, ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either having been present with them / concerned in them (παρηκολουθηκότα), when they happened, or were informed of them by those who knew them.

Paul used this same word when he wrote to Timothy, saying, “You have followed my doctrine, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, steadfastness,” etc., (2Tim 3:10), but how did Timothy come to know these things? Was it by the declaration of others, or by spending time with Paul himself throughout the course of his ministry? This question admits of but one answer. Timothy was the apostle’s constant companion. He heard his doctrine with his own ears, and witnessed his manner of life with his own eyes, and thus acquired his knowledge.

When it comes to the things recorded in his Gospel, Luke assures us that he had the same kind of knowledge that Timothy had of the life and teaching of Paul, and that Josephus had of the origin and progress of the Jewish war; but the knowledge of Timothy in the one case, and of Josephus in the other, was unquestionably personal—what each had seen and heard; and therefore, Luke’s knowledge of all that Jesus did and taught must also have been personal. He had seen Jesus with his own eyes, and heard him with his own ears. Luke therefore must have been a disciple of Christ himself, and an observer of all his words and actions. If this is the case, it is extremely probable that he was one of the seventy.

Luke is the only evangelist who gives an account of the appointment of the seventy (though Matthew evidently alludes to it), and he dwells longer on their appointment and commission than he does on the call of the twelve apostles and the commission given to them. This would be extremely natural if he was one of the seventy, but almost unaccountable if he was not. The apostles were, as ministers of the word, superior to the seventy; their commission was permanent, which the commission of the seventy seems not to have been; and they were admitted to a closer intimacy with their divine master. Had Luke derived all his knowledge of Jesus’ preaching and miracles from the report of others, he would surely have given a more detailed account of the success of the higher order of ministers than of the lower; but if he was one of the seventy himself, it would be extremely natural to expound most fully on events in which he played a significant role.

With regard to Luke’s background, there is in the New Testament very sufficient evidence that, wherever he may have been born, he was a Jew before he became a Christian. It is worthy of observation that in all his dates, Luke follows the Jewish computations of time, which we can hardly suppose that he would have done had he been himself a Gentile Christian, writing for the instruction of Gentile converts. But Luke was an early disciple of Christ; if he was one of the seventy, there is no room for doubt but that he was also one of the hundred and twenty disciples who gathered in one place when divided tongues as of fire appeared above each one of them, and they were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3-4). Therefore, though Luke was inferior to the apostles, with regard to inspiration, he was “not a whit behind the very chiefest of them.”

Click here to read Part 4 of this series

Donate or Subscribe

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 1, Thomas Randolph
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 2, Johann L. Hug
Luke’s Key Witness: A Postitive Review, Clyde Billington
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

AUDIO
Who is Theophilus? Humble Skeptic #79 with Peter. Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, Humble Skeptic #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, Humble Skeptic #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Why The Gospel Holds Up as History, Faith Lab with Craig Keener

VIDEO
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue: A Webinar by Shane Rosenthal for Paid Subscribers

I was recently interviewed by Gordon Govier about my theories related to Theophilus & Joanna for two episodes of The Book & The Spade. This is a weekly program that features discussions of the latest discoveries and developments in the world of biblical archaeology. Govier serves as the biblical archaeology correspondent for Christianity Today and is also the editor of Artifax, which is a joint publication of the Institute for Biblical Archaeology & the Near East Archaeological Society (click here for a review of my forthcoming book, Luke’s Key Witness, in the most recent issue.

Use the buttons below to listen to these two conversations:

Theophilus & Joanna, Part 1

Theophilus & Joanna, Part 2

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Luke’s Key Witness: A Postitive Review, Clyde Billington
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 1, Thomas Randolph
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 2, Johann L. Hug
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

VIDEO
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue: A Webinar by Shane Rosenthal for Paid Subscribers

The brief selection below was adapted from Hug’s Introduction to the New Testament (Andover: Gould and Newman, 1836), pages 387-395. Hug first published this work in German in 1808, and the English translation is from the third German edition. This selection has been mildly edited and abridged for contemporary readability. Click here to read part 1 of this series which features a selection from Thomas Randolph, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University.

The correct interpretation of Luke’s prologue would destroy or corroborate many hypotheses; but unfortunately, it is of such a nature that, though no doubt he to whom it was addressed understood it, we, on the contrary, to whom the circumstances of that period have become obscure, find great difficulty in extracting its meaning. This prologue is presented in two parts, one general (1:1-2), and the other particular (1:3-4).1

In my view, Luke’s chain of thought is this: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose historical books, such as the apostles have put into our hands, I considered myself, too, as capable,” etc. The second part of the prologue begins with the words, ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ (it seemed good to me), and presents an antithesis. As many have ventured to compose histories after the examples of eyewitnesses, I also thought myself authorised. The next few words, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, contain a further explanation and confirmation of the right he had to engage in his undertaking. I originally misunderstood these words, and first corrected my mistake on occasion of preparing my lectures upon Demosthenes’ oration Pro Corona.

The word παρακολουθεῖν includes the idea of presence. Used concerning events, it signifies to be present while they are passing, and, in its strictest sense, to be an eyewitness of what takes place. The expression παρακολουθεῖν τοῖς πράγμασι is common with the ancients, and signifies, to follow events with attention as they occur. But when used in speaking of events which are not confined to a single place, but occur in various places, and have whole countries for their theatre, it signifies that they are followed with attention from a certain point of view. Thus Demosthenes observed the events of his time with the eye of a statesman; Thucydides the occurrences of the Peloponnesian war as a soldier; and so did Josephus those of the Jewish war.

The acts of Jesus were of this latter kind; not confined to a single place, but scattered through Galilee and Judea (Acts 2:22, 10:37-39). Now when Luke asserts that he had been a follower from the beginning, he does not express himself as having been an eyewitness of all the events, but as having been in the region of their occurrence, where he could observe them as they took place.

According to this representation there had appeared works on the history of Jesus by the hand of eyewitnesses and ministers of the faith, and of these there were not merely one or two, but many. To say the least, it’s clear that Luke was acquainted with the works of his predecessors. The many who are referred to did not translate from any work already in existence, with the aid perhaps of versions of it which had been made at an earlier time; they composed their histories. This was their mode of procedure, and we must suppose it to have been that of eyewitnesses more especially, as they had less reason to rely on foreign aid.

It is very plain that Luke proceeded in the same way. He asserts his independence, appeals in support of it to his having been in the vicinity of the events while they were taking place, and pledges himself to present them in the order of their occurrence and to give an authentic account of what had happened. Luke’s special purpose was to supply Theophilus with a true exhibition of facts where previously he had only unauthenticated statements.2

As to his relation to the Christian sect at its rise, a tradition has been preserved that he was one of the seventy disciples. This account is confirmed by the fact that he alone of all the Evangelists has mentioned the seventy, and has carefully given the history of their mission and return and the instructions connected with them (Lk 10:1-25), as though he felt himself called upon to do so by particular personal concern in them. Moreover, he exhibits a minute acquaintance with these occurrences, such as could be expected only from an eyewitness.

Luke wrote his Gospel primarily for Theophilus, to whom he gives the title κράτιστος (most excellent) which in the ancient inscriptions is conferred upon high priests and priestesses,3 those who had the superintendence of sacred edifices and games, deputies of the emperor in the provinces, overseers of the emperor’s revenues, etc. Were we better informed in regard to this person to whom Luke has dedicated his writings, considerable light might be thrown on the history of this Gospel.

Click here to read Part 3 of this series

Donate or Subscribe

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Rethinking Luke’s Prologue, Part 1, Thomas Randolph
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
Luke’s Key Witness: A Postitive Review, Clyde Billington
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

VIDEO
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue: A Webinar by Shane Rosenthal for Paid Subscribers

This brief selection is taken from Thomas Randolph’s book, A View of Our Blessed Savior’s Ministry, Vol. 1 (Oxford: J & J Fletcher, 1784), pages 2-9. This version has been mildly edited and abridged for contemporary readability. In 1748, Randolph was elected president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and served as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University from 1756-1759.

Many today think it appears from the beginning of Luke’s Gospel that he was not an eyewitness of what he has recorded, and so indeed the words, as they stand in recent translations seem to convey. But this interpretation seems to be attended with great difficulties. If so many had set forth declarations of these things, even as they received them from eyewitnesses, why did Luke decide to set forth a new declaration? The reason just given, why it seemed good to him to write this Gospel, seems rather to prove the contrary, that he had no good reason to write it. Again, what further certainty could he impart to Theophilus, or other Christians, than those who had written before him?

Another question, which here naturally arises, is how such a person as Luke was induced, or employed, to write his Gospel. There were twelve Apostles, and several others, who had attended our Lord during his ministry who had been eyewitnesses to the greatest part of his transactions. Why then was Luke chosen to record those transactions, since he could only provide hearsay evidence. In fact, according to some, he wasn’t even converted to the Christian faith until some years after Jesus’ ascension. I am sensible indeed that God may employ what instruments he pleases, and that it little becomes us to prescribe to the divine wisdom. But we may be allowed, with humble submission, to say that on the grounds of common probability, it seems rather unlikely that, when there were so many eyewitenesses of the word (Lk 1:2), God should commission someone to record the story of Jesus who received his knowledge only from the reports of others. These reasons incline me strongly to doubt of the common interpretation of the prologue, and to inquire whether Luke’s words cannot be interpreted differently, in a way that is more free of difficulties.

Luke makes clear from the outset that his aim was to write a narrative that was accurate and authentic. Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants delivered to us, so too Luke writes that, “It seemed good also to me…to write an orderly narrative” since he had “attended all these things from the very beginning” (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν; Lk 1:3). I am sensible that the word παρηκολουθηκότι may, and often does bear an inferior significance—to trace out things by inquiry. But the sense here given is the primary, and most natural signification of the word. And it is observable that Josephus makes the same apology for the truth of his history, as Luke does here for his Gospel. In the following passage, he sets forth himself as worthy of credit in the following manner:

Everyone that undertakes to deliver the history of actions truly, ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either having been personally involved (παρηκολουθηκότα) in them himself, or been informed of them by such as knew them.
— Josephus, Against Apion, 1:53

The Greek word Josephus uses above related to personal involvement is the same one we find in Luke’s prologue, and it is opposed to knowledge acquired by inquiry of others. If the word in Luke 1:3 is interpreted in this way, it answers to the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word in the previous verse and makes the sense more clear. It gives us a reason why it seemed good to Luke to write his Gospel, and how Theophilus and other Christians could have certainty about the events he records. It also corresponds to the qualifcations required of an Apostle in the first chapter of the Acts. “Having attended all these things from the very beginning” (Lk 1:3), is the same as, “having been among the company of the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them” (Acts 1:21). This seems to be as necessary a qualification for an Evangelist, as for an Apostle.

None of the Evangelists were eyewitnesses of everything which they relate. The circumstances of Jesus’ birth, circumcision, baptism, etc., they learned, I presume, from the testimony of others. But they were witnesses of most of the facts which they relate, including many, or most of his miracles. I believe this is what Luke is claiming in his prologue. I will not indeed go so far as to say that this passage will not admit of any other interpretation, but I humbly apprehend that this is a sense the words will very well bear, and is free from those difficulties and objections which attend the common understanding of Luke’s role. And if this interpretation is admitted, it will appear that Luke was an eyewitness of the transactions which he records; probably one of the seventy disciples whom our Lord commissioned (Lk 10:1-24), and it is remarkable that he alone of all the Gospel writers has recorded this fact.

Click here to read Part 2 of this series.

The most recent edition of Artifax: The Biblical Archaeology News Magazine (Spring, 2026, Vol 42, No. 2) included a lengthy discussion of my proposal related to the Joanna ossuary. This 3-page article was written by Clyde Billington who formerly served president of the Near East Archaeological Society (the current president is Scott Stripling). Billington was also one of the founders of the Institute for Biblical Archaeology, and Artifax is a joint publication of both institutions. Below are some of the highlights, or you can scroll to the bottom to download a PDF of the entire article.

JOANNA AND THEOPHILUS INSCRIBED ON AN OSSUARY

The names Joanna and Theophilus, which both appear in the New Testament Gospel of Luke, are also inscribed on an ossuary (limestone burial box for human bones) which was offered for sale in 1983 on the antiquities market in Jerusalem. It was eventually acquired by the Israel’s Department of Antiquities and Museums in 1984 and is now on display at the University of Haifa’s Hecht Museum of Archaeology and Art…

In Luke 8:3, Joanna is called the wife of Chuza, the Prime Minister or steward (Greek: epitropos) of King Herod Antipas. In other words, Chuza was next in authority to the king and in charge of all of the day-to-day governmental affairs in Antipas’s kingdom…The High Priest Theophilus was the son of the Annas and the brother-in-law of the former High Priest Caiaphas, before whom Jesus was taken for an ad hoc trial at the time of His crucifixion.

Shane Rosenthal, a Jewish convert to Christianity, has been investigating this ossuary in his podcast, The Humble Skeptic. In his August 24, 2025, podcast, and also in his forthcoming book Luke’s Key Witness, Rosenthal argues that the Theophilus named on the ossuary was the High Priest Theophilus, and he also argues that it was to him that Luke wrote both his Gospel and the Book of Acts.

Rosenthal also argues that Joanna, named on this ossuary as the grand- daughter of Theophilus, is identical to the Joanna of Luke’s Gospel, who wit- nessed the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus [his YouTube report is accessibible here].

EDITOR’S NOTE: Theophilus, to whom Luke wrote his Gospel, was unquestionably a powerful Jewish official. In Luke 1:3, Luke addresses Theophilus in Greek as kratiste, which is the vocative of the adjective kratistos which is derived from the noun kratos. The Greek word kratos is found in the English word demo-kracy, and it translates as “strength, might, power, rule.” The adjective kratiste assumes that Theophilus was someone who held an office of great authority.

In other words, I agree with Rosenthal that Luke dedicated his Gospel to the High Priest Theophilus. I also agree with Rosenthal and others that Luke was a Jew and not a Gentile…It seems likely to me that Luke wrote his Gospel to Theophilus while he was the High Priest (37-41 AD), and thus Luke addressed him as kratiste…In the Book of Acts, written later, Luke does not address Theophilus as kratiste, which suggests that Theophilus was then no longer the High Priest (removed by Herod Agrippa I in 41 AD). It appears that the former, and then elderly, High Priest Theophilus, had asked Luke for a report on the spread of Christianity, and it was for him that Luke wrote the Book of Acts.

DOWNLOAD A PDF OF THE FULL ARTICLE HERE
— used by permission —

Artifaxspring2026

7.65MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you would like to receive a pre-release PDF of my forthcoming book, Luke’s Key Witness, we’ll send you a copy for a GIFT of any size, or when you upgrade to a PAID subscription. Thanks for your support!

In the prologue of his Gospel, Luke indicates that he wrote to Theophilus to give him “certainty” concerning things he had already been informed about (Lk 1:4). This, of course, implies that stories of Jesus had already been circulating at the time of Luke’s writing, just as the author himself admits in the first two verses when he says that many had already compiled narratives of “the things fulfilled among us.” Theophilus, however, appears to have had doubts of some kind, at least when it came to Luke’s version of the story. It was perhaps this “uncertainty” that motivated Luke to write his narrative about Jesus, which he anchored in eyewitness testimony (Lk 1:2).

Support This Work

While it’s common for Christians to talk about their own internal evidence (what they have personally felt or experienced as a result of trusting in Jesus), it’s worth pointing out that religious experience isn’t unique to the Christian religion. Mormons focus on the “burning in the bosom,” and people from a host of different faiths and traditions frequently anchor things in their own changed lives. But it’s worth paying attention to Luke’s approach. Rather than focusing inward, he instead points to external evidence, such as the corroborated testimony of Jesus’ closest disciples—those who not only memorized his teaching but who also saw him perform wonderful deeds (Lk 7:1-23, Acts 2:22-36, 10:34-43), and specific things which ended up fulfilling all the ancient promises about Israel’s coming Messiah (Lk 1:1).

This emphasis, however, on external evidence will inevitably lead to questions like, “How do we know that Luke’s narrative—or any of the Gospels for that matter—can be trusted as real history?” I’ve addressed questions like this in a variety of articles and on many episodes of my podcast (see below), but my friend—and now colleague—Nate Hanson, recently asked me to discuss some of these issues on an episode of Faith Lab with New Testament scholar Craig Keener. On this program, we discuss the historical case for the Gospels, why the popular skepticism about them gets the genre wrong, and why a Christianity built on evidence has more room for honest doubt than most Christians realize.

Read more about this episode here, or click the image below to watch via YouTube.

RELATED RESOURCES

Articles
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal
The Mormonization of American Christianity, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Know About Jesus? Shane Rosenthal
The Date of John’s Gospel, Revisited, Shane Rosenthal
George van Kooten on the Date & Authorship of John’s Gospel, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Authenticating The Fourth Gospel, Shane Rosenthal

Videos
An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on Luke
History, Archaeology & Luke’s Most Excellent Theophilus
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?

Episodes
Did Josephus Ever Mention Jesus? Humble Skeptic #77 with T.C. Schmidt
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? Humble Skeptic #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels History or Fiction? Humble Skeptic #52 with John Dickson
Who is Theophilus? Humble Skeptic #79 with Peter. Bolt
Faith Founded on Facts, Humble Skeptic #15
The Jesus of History, Humble Skeptic #12
Is John Late & Unreliable? Humble Skeptic #51 with Daniel Wallace
Which John Wrote John? Humble Skeptic #50
Questioning The Fourth Gospel, Humble Skeptic #49 with Richard Bauckham

Books
Christobiography, Craig Keener
Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Account, Craig Keener
Josephus & Jesus, T.C. Schmidt
Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson
Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke, John Wenham
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Jonathan Bernier
Jesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams
Is Jesus History? John Dickson
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew
Luke’s Key Witness, Shane Rosenthal

In an article that was published earlier this week in The Federalist, I told the story of Nate Hanson, the former pastor who lost his faith and created a popular deconstructionist podcast called Almost Heretical. Eight years later, however, he ended up losing faith in deconstructionism after he began his own detailed investigation of Christian origins. Though he had interacted with scholars like Bart Ehrman, once he began to seriously engage with scholars on the other side of the fence, such as Richard Bauckham, and many others like him, his faith was restored.

As a result, Nate then informed his followers that moving forward, his show would be called Faith Lab. Since its launch a few months ago, he has interviewed a variety of thinkers and scholars, such as Lydia McGrew, Tim Mackie, Rebecca McLaughlin, N.T. Wright, and even myself. “If things are still falling apart for you,” Nate told his listeners on his first episode, “you’re welcome here…And if you’ve been in church your whole life but realize you don’t actually know why you believe what you believe, this show is for you.”

Recently, Nate invited me to join him as a conversation partner for some of his upcoming interviews, and the first episode of this new collaboration is now available, and features a discussion with Nijay Gupta, professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary, and author of A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Studies, Strange Religion, and, more recently, Paul for the World.

If you listen to this episode, I think you’ll see that I don’t necessarily agree with Dr. Gupta on every point.1 However, I do think it’s important to have conversations with people from across a wide theological and denominational spectrum, particularly when we do agree on foundational issues such as Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Nate’s invitation to join him on Faith Lab allows me the opportunity to do just that.

One question I put to Dr. Gupta toward the end of our discussion relates to something he wrote in his book A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Studies (2020). In his chapter on the Fourth Gospel, he noted that “many scholars in the last two hundred years have discounted this text as a useful source for the study of the historical Jesus,” since in their opinion, it “was so heavily embellished with John’s theology that…it provided nothing useful beyond what was already found in the Synoptics…”2 However, he also points out that “we have seen a major surge of interest and investment in these issues in the last twenty years.”3

Dr. Gupta then went on to highlight the work of Richard Bauckham, who “has argued that according to ancient standards, any text claiming association with history was expected to be generated from eyewitness testimony. And if one pays careful attention to the Fourth Gospel, ‘testimony,’ ‘witness,’ and ‘truth’ are often repeated keywords. John seems to go to some length, then, to verify that truth is genuinely important to his project.”4 He also points out that N.T. Wright is another theologian who has “recognized that there has been a shift in the guild today,” related to the way John’s Gospel is now being read and appreciated for its historical value.

So, in light of these statements, I decided to ask Nijay what he thinks about the way these issues have continued to develop, and more specifically, what he thinks about George van Kooten’s recent claim that John’s Gospel should be redated to the time before the start of the Jewish War (which was the subject of this recent post).

CLICK HERE TO JUMP TO THIS PART OF OUR CONVERSATION

Donate or Subscribe

RELATED RESOURCES

Articles
How To ‘Deconstruct’ And Rebuild Your Faith, Shane Rosenthal (The Federalist)
George van Kooten on the Date & Authorship of John’s Gospel, Shane Rosenthal
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Date of John’s Gospel, Revisited, Shane Rosenthal
Authenticating The Fourth Gospel, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Know About Jesus? Shane Rosenthal
Water Into Wine?, Shane Rosenthal
The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, Shane Rosenthal

Episodes
Lazarus, #84 with Richard Bauckham & T.C. Schmidt
Is John Late & Unreliable? Humble Skeptic #51 with Daniel Wallace
Which John Wrote John? Humble Skeptic #50
Who is Theophilus? #79 with Peter. Bolt
Did Josephus Ever Mention Jesus? with T.C. Schmidt
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? Humble Skeptic #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels History or Fiction? Humble Skeptic #52 with John Dickson
Faith Founded on Facts, Humble Skeptic #15

Videos
An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on Luke
History, Archaeology & Luke’s Most Excellent Theophilus
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?

Books
A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Studies, Nijay Gupta
Reverberations of Good News, George van Kooten
Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Jonathan Bernier
Jesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams
Is Jesus History? John Dickson
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew
Luke’s Key Witness, Shane Rosenthal

In late 2024, I wrote about a paradigm shift that was taking place among NT scholars with respect to the date of the Fourth Gospel. Until the discovery of the John Rylands fragment in 1935, it was common to view John’s Gospel as a product of the early second century, and since that time, apart from a few outliers, most scholars—whether conservative or liberal—ended up dating this text to sometime in the late first century (typically around the 80s or 90s). However, in recent years, several prominent NT scholars have indicated that their views have changed, and that they are now open to a much earlier dating of John. This includes Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, James Charlesworth, Johnathan Bernier, Peter J. Williams, William Weinrich, John Dickson, Daniel Wallace, and Michael J. Gorman.

A few of the scholars cited above specifically credited the work of Cambridge NT scholar George van Kooten, who has been arguing in various places that the most important clue about the date of the Fourth Gospel is found in John 5:2.1 In his recent book, Reverberations of Good News (2026), Dr. van Kooten makes the following observations:

I have recently argued for a radical redating of the Gospel of John on the basis of its internal evidence, and consequently for a re-reading of the Gospel in its historical context. A clue to the date when this Gospel was written is found in its description of a huge, monumental pool complex at the beginning of John 5, in the narrative of a paralysed man who was healed in the Pool of Beth-zatha. In John 5:2, this pool is described as follows: ‘There is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha, which has five porticoes (stoai).’ I have demonstrated that the formula ‘There is in’, with the use of the present tense is followed by a localization in a particular place and a description of the building with some characterization that would help to identify it, is used in Greek literature — by geographers such as Herodotus (fifth century BCE), Strabo (first century BCE), and Pausanias (second century CE) — to refer to a building which is still standing, and which readers might find as described if they were to visit the place. Such texts also regularly reference a nearby gate, the ancient equivalent to the postal area-code system, where one could enter the city under consideration. Therefore at the moment when the author of John’s Gospel was writing, the colonnaded pool and the nearby Sheep Gate must still have existed…We know from Josephus, however, that at the very beginning of the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE), Roman troops destroyed the Bezetha area of Jerusalem, where the pool was located, and that after the Roman destruction of the entire city in 70 CE, the city’s gates and walls were demolished as well.2

I’ve not heard anyone make the argument that when ancient chroniclers referred to a specific gate, this was the “ancient equivalent to the postal area-code system.” If this stands up to scrutiny—I’ll investigate this claim carefully—this would be a strong argument in favor of using John 5:2 as evidence of an earlier date. Those who have not been persuaded by the use of this passage have typically argued that ruins of the pool may still have been present in John’s day; however, as van Kooten points out, John specifically indicates that the pool “IS in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate” (ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ). In other words, the city, the temple gate, and the pool all seem to be described as being present at the time of John’s writing.

Concerning the authorship question, van Kooten states that “John’s Gospel portrays Jesus coming to Jerusalem, and quite regularly too, on at least three occasions. This John is therefore unlikely to be John the Zebedee, one of the Galilean Disciples, and is more likely John the Elder, who was known to the high priest in Jerusalem, and of whom Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis (c 101-110 CE) gives an account.”3

According to van Kooten, Papias made a distinction between John the Elder and John the Apostle, and “implies that John the Elder wrote the Gospel of John.”4 Papias’ view, he argues, “is entirely consistent with the Gospel’s own statement that its author is known to the high priest (Jn 18:15-16): this would be impossible if John were the Galilean fisherman (John the Zebedee) who had just arrived with Jesus in Jerusalem for the Passover festival.” Taken together, the features of John’s Gospel therefore “suggest that the author is a Greek-speaking employee…in the high priestly administration of the Jerusalem temple.”5

I’ve advocated a similar view on various episodes of The Humble Skeptic, and in my lengthy essay, “The Identity of the Beloved Disciple” (which is a free download for paid subscribers—you’ll find a link in the resources section below). In my view, the author of the Fourth Gospel was likely a member of the high priestly family, and quite possibly John, the son of Theophilus, who we know from the inscription on the Joanna ossuary. Another candidate I propose in my essay is John Mark (cf. Acts 12:12, 15:37), since he was likely the owner of the gated home in Jerusalem with the “upper room,” which would explain his presence at the seat of honor next to Jesus at the Last Supper. According to Col 4:10, he was a cousin of Barnabas, which would indicate that he too was a Levite (Acts 4:36), thus making it plausible that he was known to the high priest.

In another post, I’ll discuss some of the things Dr. van Kooten says about the Synoptic Gospels.

DONATE or Upgrade to PAID

Shane is the founder and host of The Humble Skeptic and the author of Luke’s Key Witness (forthcoming). He was one of the creators of the White Horse Inn radio broadcast, which he produced for several decades and hosted from 2019 to 2021. Shane has written articles for The Federalist, TableTalk, Modern Reformation, Core Christianity, and many other publications. He lives with his family in the greater St. Louis area.

RELATED RESOURCES

Essays & Articles
The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, Shane Rosenthal
The Date of John’s Gospel, Revisited, Shane Rosenthal
John’s Gospel: Are We Witnessing a Paradigm Shift? Shane Rosenthal
John 5:2 “There is in Jerusalem…” Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for Revelation? Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Authenticating The Fourth Gospel, Shane Rosenthal
Outside the Gospels, What Can We Know About Jesus? Shane Rosenthal
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal
His Excellency, The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
Water Into Wine?, Shane Rosenthal

Videos
An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on Luke
History, Archaeology & Luke’s Most Excellent Theophilus
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?

Episodes
Is John Late & Unreliable? Humble Skeptic #51 with Daniel Wallace
Which John Wrote John? Humble Skeptic #50
In the Beginning Was the Word… Humble Skeptic #75 with John Ronning
Questioning The Fourth Gospel, Humble Skeptic #49 with Richard Bauckham\
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? Humble Skeptic #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels History or Fiction? Humble Skeptic #52 with John Dickson
Faith Founded on Facts, Humble Skeptic #15
The Jesus of History, Humble Skeptic #12
Lazarus, #84 with Richard Bauckham & T.C. Schmidt
Who is Theophilus? #79 with Peter. Bolt
Did Josephus Ever Mention Jesus? with T.C. Schmidt

Books
Reverberations of Good News, George van Kooten
Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson
Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke, John Wenham
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Jonathan Bernier
Jesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham
Josephus & Jesus, T.C. Schmidt
The Date of Acts & The Synoptic Gospels, Adolph von Harnack
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams
Is Jesus History? John Dickson
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew
Luke’s Key Witness, Shane Rosenthal

From the introduction:

For the past eight years, Nate Hanson served as the host of a podcast called Almost Heretical. The show generated millions of downloads and rose to become one of the most successful “deconstructionist” podcasts on the market. On Wikipedia, it’s listed among the top three podcasts of the “Exvangelical” movement.

According to a 2024 Barna survey, a surprising 37 percent of today’s Christians have to some extent “deconstructed the faith of their youth,” but this process of reassessment doesn’t always translate into a total break from the faith. In Hanson’s case, however, it did.

Before his involvement with the program, Hanson spent several years in ministry, working closely with Francis Chan to plant churches throughout the San Francisco Bay area. But somewhere along the way, something changed. Burned out, he began having doubts about many of the things he’d grown up believing. He wrestled with the “problem of evil,” how God is presented in the Old Testament, and, with the help of liberal scholars like Bart Ehrman, he eventually lost faith in Jesus’ resurrection.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

DONATE or SUBSCRIBE

This article currently appears on the front page of the Federalist website (as shown below). Here’s the URL if you’d like to share: https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/28/how-to-deconstruct-and-rebuild-your-christianity-without-losing-it/

RELATED ARTICLES
After Deconstruction, What?, Shane Rosenthal
Is Faith a Feeling?, Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & Doubt, Shane Rosenthal
What is Faith? (PDF), Shane Rosenthal
The Virtue of Doubt, Shane Rosenthal
Why Should We Believe The Bible? (PDF), Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal
How to Detect Deception, Shane Rosenthal
Does Hebrews 11:1 Teach Blind Faith?, Shane Rosenthal
The Mormonization of American Christianity, Shane Rosenthal

RELATED AUDIO
Deconstruction Led Me Back to Jesus, Nate Hanson
Faith Isn’t Blind, Nate & Shelby Hanson with Shane Rosenthal
Is Faith Irrational? Humble Skeptic #02
Is Faith Blind? Humble Skeptic #03
Is Faith a Feeling? Humble Skeptic #04 with Craig Parton
Faith Founded on Facts, #15 with Richard Bauckham, Peter J. Williams, and others
Are The Gospels History or Fiction? #52 with John Dickson
Who is Theophilus? Humble Skeptic #79 with Peter. Bolt
Did Josephus Ever Mention Jesus? #77 with T.C. Schmidt
The Bar That Inspired Piano Man, #83

RELATED VIDEO
Is This Luke’s Theophilus?
History, Archaeology & Luke’s Most Excellent Theophilus
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?
Who Is Luke’s Key Witness? Frank Turek podcast featuring Shane Rosenthal

In an attempt to make churches more attractive and relevant, over the decades, many pastors effectively stopped preaching and teaching the contents of the Bible, and this has resulted in a significant decrease in basic Bible literacy among Christians across all denominations. Thirty years ago today, a diverse group of pastors and theologians met in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to address this and other challenges, and they produced an important document called The Cambridge Declaration. This program features audio from the 1996 meeting featuring R.C. Sproul, James M. Boice, David Wells, Michael Horton, Gene Veith, W. Robert Godfrey, and others.

To read the full text of The Cambridge Declaration online, click here, and to order a book containing the document along with all the plenary addresses presented at the 1996 conference, click here. For a recent review of the new 2026 edition of this book, click here, and to read the Wikipedia entry about The Cambridge Declaration, click here.

SHOW NOTES

Books
Here We Stand, Jim Boice & Ben Sasse (updated 2026 edition)
The Vanishing American Adult, & Them, Ben Sasse
No Place for Truth, David Wells
God in the Wasteland, David Wells
Faith Alone, R.C. Sproul (the book inspired by the WHI polls)
Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, Marva Dawn
Peculiar Speech, Peculiar Speech, William Willimon
Christless Christianity, Michael Horton
The Christian Mind, Harry Blamires
Christianity & Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen
Creed or Chaos? Dorothy Sayers

Articles
Neither Reason, Nor Free Will, Ben Sasse
When Evangelicals Forget Their Theology, Andrew Spencer
The Megachurch Century, Shane Rosenthal
The Story of Us, Shane Rosenthal
The Tower of Babel, Shane Rosenthal
The Mormonization of American Christianity, Shane Rosenthal
Why Johnny Can’t Preach, T. David Gordon
Liberalism or Christianity?, J. Gresham Machen
The Importance of Christian Scholarship, by J. Gresham Machen
Creed or Chaos? Dorothy Sayers (essay)

Audio
The Living Church, WHI #317 with Ervin Duggan
Doctrine, Worship & Life, WHI #323 with Jim Boice
Catechesis, Preaching & Vocation, WHI #317 with Gene Veith
The Courage to Be Protestant, WHI #913 with David Wells
Grounded in the Gospel, WHI #986 with J.I. Packer
A Debate with Robert Schuller, WHI # 103
You Foolish Galatians! WHI #140 includes Shane’s 1993 street interviews
An Interview with R.C. Sproul, WHI #909
The Preached Word, WHI 972 with William Willimon
Jacob’s Ladder, Humble Skeptic #63
Christian Narcissism, Humble Skeptic #67 with J.I. Packer & others
The Effect of Media & Technology, Humble Skeptic #30
Youth Ministry in Crisis, WHI 1204 with Christian Smith & others
The Vanishing American Adult, WHI #1369 with Ben Sasse

Video
Ben Sasse on Uncommon Knowledge, with Peter Robinson
Ben Sasse on Interesting Times, with Ross Duthat
Ben Sasse on Life, Cancer & The Gospel, with Mike Horton

We Need Your Help!
Consider supporting The Humble Skeptic podcast by making a one-time gift or upgrading to a paid subscription via Substack ($5.95 per month, $59 per year). Use the button below for more information about giving options.

Donate or Subscribe

According to the ESV, in the opening verse of his Gospel, Luke refers to the “things that have been accomplished (πληροφορέω) among us.” However, after my own careful investigation of the Greek text of the prologue, I concluded that Luke didn’t merely refer to events that had transpired, but also to promises that were fulfilled. In fact, I suggest that a better way to translate πληροφορέω (plerophoreo) in the latter part of verse 1 is to say that Luke wrote to Theophilus about the “things that were completely fulfilled among us.”

According to one Greek lexicon,1 the two definitions of πληροφορέω are as follows:

1. to fill (completely), fulfill
2. to convince fully

Paul used the word in the first sense when he told Timothy to “fulfill” his ministry (2Tim 4:5), and in the second sense when he encouraged believers to be “fully convinced” (cf. Rom 4:21, 14:5, Col 4:13). This word was also was frequently used in the ancient world to indicate that a bill was “paid in full.”2 Thus, if a man owed someone a denarius, when the amount was eventually paid off, this this would mean his promise was “completely fulfilled.”

This example fits well with Luke’s usage, since the word he uses seems to fit with the promise/fulfillment motif that we find throughout the New Testament generally, and in various places in Luke/Acts more specifically. In fact, when we take a close look at the places in which Luke presents this motif, it appears that he typically has the events of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in view:3

Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment” (citing the concluding verse of the suffering servant prophecy from Isaiah 52 and 53).

Luke 24:44-46 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled…Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead…”

Acts 3:18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.

Acts 13:27 For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him.

Acts 13:32-33 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus…

Since Luke goes on to say that the things Jesus “completely fulfilled among us” had been seen by so many “eyewitnesses,” it’s worth pointing out how this ends up mirroring the structure of the earliest Christian creed cited by Paul in 1st Corinthians 15.4 In this creed that is dated by Bart Ehrman and other liberal New Testament scholars to the time before Paul’s conversion5 (i.e., in the early 30s), Paul declares that the gospel he “delivered” to the Corinthians, centered on Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, as seen by many “witnesses,” and which was “according in the Scriptures.”

One of the things I like to point out about the early creed cited by Paul is that he calls it both “the gospel” (1Cor 15:1) and “the thing of first importance” (1Cor 15:3). Though many believers in our day think of the gospel in terms of their own personal experience, Paul makes clear that the good news he reports is tied to historic events related to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (1Cor 15:4-5). But what I think even more people miss is the fact that Paul’s gospel was not a mere claim, since it was attested by so many living witnesses (1Cor 15:5-8) who confirmed that they saw the messianic promises fulfilled (1Cor 15:3-4). In other words, this attestation is a crucial part of the gospel itself, which is why it’s good news!

Since Luke’s other references to the promise/fulfillment motif relate specifically to the events of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, it seems likely that this is what he had in mind when he wrote to Theophilus about the “things completely fulfilled among us,” which makes his parallels to the early creed even more intriguing.

For Paul, these events are so well attested and so concrete that he could say with confidence that “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (15:15). But Luke ends up saying something very similar in the last verse of his prologue. In light of all the witnesses he references (along with his own accurate and orderly report), Theophilus is told that he can have certainty about these events (Lk 1:4; cf. Acts 2:22, 36).

Donate or Subscribe

Shane Rosenthal is the founder and host of The Humble Skeptic podcast. He was one of the creators of the White Horse Inn radio broadcast, which he also hosted from 2019 to 2021, and has written numerous articles for various sites and publications, including TableTalk, Core Christianity, Modern Reformation, and others. He lives with his family in the greater St. Louis area.

Related Articles
Considering Alternatives to the Resurrection, Shane Rosenthal
Bart Ehrman on Jesus & The Claim of Resurrection, Shane Rosenthal
The Parable of Lazarus, Shane Rosenthal
Passover & The Last Supper, Shane Rosenthal
Where Was Jesus Crucified?, Shane Rosenthal
Sprinkled Nations & Speechless Kings, Shane Rosenthal
Can We Trust Luke’s Early History of the Jesus’ Movement?, Shane Rosenthal
Finding Christ in All of Scripture (PDF), Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

Related Books
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams
Is Jesus History? John Dickson
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew
Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius of Caesarea
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (1), Philip Wesley Comfort
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (2), Philip Wesley Comfort

Related Episodes
Lazarus, #84 with Richard Bauckham & T.C. Schmidt
Reconciling the Resurrection Accounts, #73 with Lydia McGrew
Who is Theophilus? #79 with Peter. Bolt
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are The Gospels History or Fiction? #52 with John Dickson
Faith Founded on Facts, Episode #15
What Did the Earliest Christians Believe?, #25 with Dennis Johnson
The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, #48 with Richard Bauckham
Locating Golgotha, #17 with David Rohl
The Messiah’s Redemptive Mission Episode #72

Related Videos
History, Archaeology & Luke’s Most Excellent Theophilus
An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on the Gospel of Luke
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?
Evidence for the Resurrection, Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels Reliable?, Peter J. Williams & Bart Ehrman
The Tools & Rules of History, Gary Habermas & Shane Rosenthal & others

On this episode, Shane highlights some of the intriguing parallels that exist between the parable of Lazarus recorded in Luke 16 and the account of the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Since both texts involve a man named Lazarus as well as the subject of resurrection, it’s worth considering that these two stories may in fact be related. During this exploration, Shane talks with Richard Bauckham, author of Jesus & The Eyewitnesses, and T.C. Schmidt, author of Josephus & Jesus.

SPECIAL OFFER

For a gift of any size, you’ll receive a pre-release PDF download of Shane’s forthcoming book, Luke’s Key Witness, along with a 30-page PDF resource titled The Identity of the Beloved Disciple. If you’re already a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access both resources via the above links. To donate or subscribe, use the green button below.

Subscribe or Donate

SHOW NOTES

Related Episodes
Questioning The Fourth Gospel, #49 with Richard Bauckham
Did Josephus Ever Mention Jesus? #77 with T.C. Schmidt
Who is Theophilus? #79 with Peter. Bolt
Rethinking Jesus’ Parables, #43 with Scott Churnock
Simply Genius (a discussion of the Parables), #62 with Peter J. Williams
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are The Gospels History or Fiction? #52 with John Dickson
Faith Founded on Facts, Episode #15
What Did the Earliest Christians Believe?, #25 with Dennis Johnson
The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, #48 with Richard Bauckham
Which John Wrote John? Episode #50
Locating Golgotha, #17 with David Rohl
The Messiah’s Redemptive Mission Episode #72
Reconciling the Resurrection Accounts, #73 with Lydia McGrew

Related Articles
The Parable of Lazarus, Shane Rosenthal
The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, Shane Rosenthal
Considering Alternatives to the Resurrection, Shane Rosenthal
Bart Ehrman on Jesus & The Claim of Resurrection, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
The Date of John’s Gospel, Revisited, Shane Rosenthal
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
Authenticating The Fourth Gospel, Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal
Passover, The Last Supper & The Day of Crucifixion, Shane Rosenthal
Where Was Jesus Crucified?, Shane Rosenthal
Things Completely Fulfilled Among Us, Shane Rosenthal

Related Books
Josephus & Jesus, T.C. Schmidt — FREE
Jesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham
The Fate of the Dead, Richard Bauckham
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams
Is Jesus History? John Dickson
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew
Luke: A Commentary, Peter G. Bolt
The Surprising Genius of Jesus, Peter J. Williams
Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius of Caesarea

Related Video
History, Archaeology & Luke’s Most Excellent Theophilus
An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on the Gospel of Luke
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?
Can We Trust the Gospels? Peter J. Williams
New Evidence for the Gospels, Peter J. Williams
Evidence for the Resurrection, Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels Reliable?, Peter J. Williams & Bart Ehrman
The Tools & Rules of History, Gary Habermas & Shane Rosenthal & others

If you’re a fan of the podcast, you may have noticed that it’s been a while since I’ve released a new episode. In light of the new exposure I received from my last video on the Joanna ossuary (close to 200K views), I decided to create a follow-up video that presents additional evidence in favor of linking Luke’s Theophilus to Theophilus the high priest. In this video, I walk through Tal Ilan’s criteria for identifying the same individual from a variety of ancient sources and conclude that there is an “excellent” case to be made for linking Luke’s Theophilus with Theophilus the high priest. So, how does this view impact our understanding of Luke’s two volumes? Watch this video to find out!

Here are some of the comments I received in response to my last video, which encouraged me to create additional content in this format:

Most Excellent Humble Skeptic, I will never read Luke and Acts the same way again. Thank you! — Teacher Deb

I had never heard this before, and I am a Bible archaeology nerd. Wow! — Mark

Great channel—please make more archaeology content! — Jordan

This infers that Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts to Theophilus as an explanation for, and a defense of, Joanna’s faith. Remarkable! I admit to being dumbfounded by this. — Tim

This evidence of Joana, granddaughter of Theophilus, definitely strengthens my faith in the Gospel of Luke. Glory to God & His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ —DA 1898

This is so well done. I’d say: It is the most relevant archeological/text-critical discovery of the past two millennia. — Hans

It’s fascinating to think that Luke and other apostles…were just documenting what they knew. Not composing a fiction, not inventing a doctrine. Just describing the events that actually took place. Fascinating! — Delicious Crepes

Wow, mind officially blown...Thanks for bringing this to our attention! — NSnowman

This is my first hearing of any of this. I didn’t even know there was a Joanna ossuary! Thank you so much for digging this all out so thoroughly. Great work! — RockofAlethia

The implications of this are enormous. The dating of Luke's writings according to this ossuary discovery places it between AD 37 and AD 67. I mean, wow! Not far removed from the events of Jesus' life. Within the lifetime of both Theophilus and Joanna! — Echo-yr1cr

I need your help to continue this work! Please consider upgrading to a PAID subscription or making a one-time GIFT by using the link below.

DONATE or SUBSCRIBE

RELATED RESOURCES

Videos
History, Archaeology & Luke’s Most Excellent Theophilus
An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on Luke
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?

Articles
Simon of Cyrene: An Intriguing Archaeological Discovery, Shane Rosenthal
Julia Crispina…A Case Study in Historical Identification, Tal Ilan
Who is Theophilus? Notes to Ep. #79, Peter Bolt and others
The Implications of 70 AD, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
The Date of John’s Gospel, Revisited, Shane Rosenthal
Bart Ehrman on Jesus & The Claim of Resurrection, Shane Rosenthal
Who is Sergius Paulus? Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
On Faith & History, Shane Rosenthal

Episodes
Who is Theophilus? #79 with Peter Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Did Josephus Ever Mention Jesus? Episode #77 with T.C. Schmidt
Jesus in Josephus & Other Ancient Texts, Episode #78 with T.C. Schmidt
Faith Founded on Facts, Episode #15 with Lennox, Bauckham, and others
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? Episode. #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels History or Fiction? Episode #52 with John Dickson
The Messiah’s Redemptive Mission, Episode #72
Jacob’s Ladder, Episode # 63 with Richard Bauckham and Michael Horton
Did The Exodus Ever Happen? Episode #69 with David Rohl
Locating Golgotha, Episode #17 with David Rohl
The Jesus of History, Episode # 12
The Gospel Creed, Episode #9

Books
Luke’s Key Witness, Shane Rosenthal
Who Are Joanna & Theophilus? (e-book) Richard Anderson
The Historicity of Saint Luke, Wesley W.S. Lukas
Jesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams

One of the main objections to the idea of linking Luke’s Theophilus with the high priest mentioned on the Joanna Ossuary is that over the past few centuries, many scholars have argued that the word kratistos found in Lk 1:3 (typically translated, “most excellent”) identifies Theophilus as a high-ranking “Gentile” official. Here are some examples:

John Wesley (1765): “Most excellent Theophilus—This was the appellation usually given to Roman governors.”

Adam Clarke (1831) “Theophilus appears to have been some very reputable Greek or Roman, who was one of St. Luke’s disciples.”

J.W. McGarvey (1872): “Nothing is known of Theophilus, but he is supposed to have been a Greek of high official rank.”

F.F. Bruce (1954): “Theophilus was a representative member of the intelligent middle-class public at Rome whom Luke wished to win over…”

Donald Guthrie (1990): “Theophilus…is described as ‘most excellent’ [kratiste] an expression which looks like an indication of social rank…He was clearly a Gentile…”

However, a late second-century Egyptian papyrus, affectionately known as HVG: P.Tebt. II 292,1 along with a handful of similar passages cited at the end of this article, provide us with an alternative interpretive option. The Egyptian text records the words of a woman named Isidora, who wrote to an official requesting that her son and nephew be circumcized.2 Here’s the relevant section of her letter: “I request that, in accordance with custom, a letter should be written…to his highness (kratistos) the high-priest in order that…the boys may be able to be circumcised…[My] husband Kronion son of Pakebkis, who now happens to be in Alexandria, will bring them before his highness (kratistos) the high-priest.”

Another translation renders the key phrase: “his excellency the high priest.” What’s particularly intriguing about this papyrus is that it provides clear evidence that the Greek adjective kratistos was applied, not merely to Roman governors (cf. Acts 23:26, 24:2, 26:25), but also to those who filled the office of high priest as well.3 In Roman Egypt of this period, the high priest oversaw all religious matters and also performed various secular duties as well, since he was a political appointee of the emperor.4

This was actually quite close to the situation in first-century Judea. The high priest Theophilus was appointed by the Imperial Legate, Vitellius, while he was governing Syrian affairs,5 and according to Josephus, after the reign of Herod the Great, “the government became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with a dominion over the nation.”6 In other words, just as in Egypt, the Judean high priests had both secular and religious responsibilities.7

According to Louw & Nida’s Greek Lexicon, the word krastistos pertains to “having noble status, with the implication of power and authority, often employed as a title — ‘excellency, most excellent, your honor.’”8 This is precisely the way Luke uses this word in verse 3 of his prologue. In other words, his use of kratistos helps readers to identify Theophilus as a man of power, authority, and high office. And because of this Egyptian papyrus, and others like it, we know that the word could also refer to a high priest as well, whether he lived in Egypt, Rome, or even Judea. In fact, one of the inscriptions I cite at the end of this article reveals that even the archangel Gabriel was called “most excellent,” and no scholar (at least that I’m aware of) has ever made the case that Gabriel was merely a Roman official.

Tal Ilan is an Israeli historian and scholar who has collected thousands of names from ancient Palestinian texts and inscriptions into an impressive database, and in her book, Integrating Women Into Second Temple History, she argues that “Identification of the same individual from two different sources can be almost certain in the case where the persons identified bear not only the same name but also the same title.”9

Since the adjective kratistos functioned as a title of respect and was appropriate both for Luke’s Theophilus and Theophilus the high priest, I think an excellent case can be made for identifying these two men as the same individual. In fact, the strength of this case increases significantly when we recall that, according to Acts 9, Paul was specifically commissioned by the chief priests to arrest and persecute the followers of Jesus. In short, Paul knew Theophilus the high priest personally. And since Luke later became Paul’s associate, a very plausible connection can be made between the Evangelist and the high priest. Finally, when we also recall that both the ossuary and the text of Luke’s Gospel feature an aristocratic woman named Joanna, and notice the way Luke places her in a position of prominence in his climactic final chapter, the case becomes very compelling.

One early advocate of this hypothesis was a German scholar named Johann David Michaelis. In 1777, he observed that if Luke wrote to Theophilus the high priest, who “was certainly of sufficient rank to be entitled to the appellation of kratistos,” his Gospel “must then be considered as an historical apology for the Christian religion, addressed to one of the heads of the Jewish nation.” After weighing the evidence in favor of this view, Michaelis then concludes with the following statement:

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..10

A more recent advocate of this proposal is Australian NT scholar, Peter Bolt, who in his 2022 Luke Commentary published by The Gospel Coalition, argues that if Theophilus the high priest was the intended recipient, “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).”

In my “humble” opinion, this identification has huge ramifications on the way we read and interpret the words of Luke’s narrative. As I see it, Luke’s Gospel was written as a kind of open letter, or public affidavit, submitted to the high priest while also published broadly (which explains some of the explanatory comments he makes for Gentile readers). In the end, his purpose was to set the record straight about Jesus. Here’s what he said and did, according to his closest disciples and witnesses, and here’s why he really was, and is, the promised Messiah.

I’ll continue to explore this topic in future articles, episodes, and videos, and will respond to some of the major objections I’ve received in recent months, such as whether the chronology between Theophilus and his granddaughter actually lines up with the individuals mentioned by Luke. So stay tuned!

NOTE:
Here are several additional texts that help us to see how the word
“kratistos” was used in the ancient world.

BEREA, GREECE (100-130 AD)

The high priest of the people, Flavius Paramonus, a most excellent man
ἀρχιερέα τοῦ ἔθνους Φ̣λ̣α̣ύ̣ιον Παράμονον ἄνδρα κράτιστον11

ATTICA, GREECE (165 AD)

The mighty high priest
τοῦ κρατίστου ἀρχιερέως12

MEMPHIS, EGYPT (171 AD)

Ulpius Serenianus, the most excellent high-priest
Οὐλπίου Σερηνι̣αν̣οῦ τοῦ κρατίστου ἀρχιερέως13

DELPHI, GREECE (180-190 AD)

The most excellent (lady) and high priestess of the people
την κρατιστην και αρχιερειαν του κοινου14

HIERAPOLIS, PHRYGIA (180-220 AD)

The most excellent high priest
τοῦ kρατίστου ἀρχιερέων15

TALMIS, EGYPT/NUBIA (215 AD)

The most excellent Muranos, successor to the high priesthood
τοῦ κρατίστου Μύρωνος δια- δεχομένου τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην16

THESSALONICA, GREECE (261 AD)

Pontius Evangelius, the most powerful man and high priest
Ποντίου Εὐανγέλου τοῦ κρατίστου καὶ ἀρχιερέως17

ELAIOUSSA, CILICIA (1st - 3rd Century, AD)

A lion is referred to as “the mightiest of beasts”
θηρῶν κράτιστε καὶ θεῶν μύστα λέων τίνος φυλάσσεις χῶρον18

EGYPT / NUBIA (2nd - 3rd Century, AD)

A reference to angels: “Michael the highest, and Gabriel most excellent”
Μιχαὴλ ὕψιστε, Γαβριήλ κράτιστε19

Shane Rosenthal is the founder and host of The Humble Skeptic podcast. He was one of the original creators of the White Horse Inn radio broadcast, which he also hosted from 2019-2021, and has written numerous articles for various sites and publications, including TableTalk, Modern Reformation, Core Christianity, Heidelblog, and others.

Donate or Subscribe

Videos
An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on Luke
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?

Related Articles
Julia Crispina…A Case Study in Historical Identification, Tal Ilan
Who is Theophilus? Notes to Ep. #79, Peter Bolt and others
The Implications of 70 AD, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
The Date of John’s Gospel, Revisited, Shane Rosenthal

Episodes
Who is Theophilus? #79 with Peter Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Did Josephus Ever Mention Jesus? Episode #77 with T.C. Schmidt
Jesus in Josephus & Other Ancient Texts, Episode #78 with T.C. Schmidt
Faith Founded on Facts, Episode #15 with Lennox, Bauckham, and others
Stories of Jesus: Can They Be Trusted? Episode. #61 with Peter J. Williams
Are the Gospels History or Fiction? Episode #52 with John Dickson

Books
Luke’s Key Witness, Shane Rosenthal
Who Are Joanna & Theophilus? (e-book) Richard Anderson
The Historicity of Saint Luke, Wesley W.S. Lukas
Jesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew
Can We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. Williams

On this video, I take a trip to the Hecht Museum to investigate the ossuary of Joanna, granddaughter of Theophilus, the high priest. So, what does the curator of the museum think about this artifact? Could the Joanna and Theophilus named on this ossuary be the same individuals mentioned by Luke (cf. Lk 1:3, 8:3, 24:10)?

Steven Notley, the Director of the El-Araj Excavation Project, also makes an appearance in this video. Since Dr. Notley studied under David Flusser, who was one of the first scholars to publicize the discovery of the Joanna ossuary, I wondered if he was familiar with this artifact and its potential connection to the Gospel of Luke. I think you’ll be surprised by the responses I received from both of these scholars.

Please share this video with friends and family, and let me know what you think in the comments section! Also, when you get a chance, please subscribe to my YouTube channel, since this greatly increases our exposure.

Close to 200K Views!

I released this video on Tuesday, February 10th, and it is currently approaching 200K views. Here are some of the viewer comments:

Congratulations on an excellent and truly exciting video! I am an Israeli archaeologist working with the IAA for over 35 years in Jerusalem. Your proposal that the Joanna and Theophilus of the ossuary are the same as those in Luke is more than reasonable. If indeed it turns out that they are, then here is yet another amazing witness to the intimate connection that Jesus had to His Land and with His People. — Yehudah

WOW, mind officially blown! Thank you for bringing this to our attention! — NSnowman

I had never heard this before, and I am a Bible archaeology nerd. Wow! — Mark

Continue Reading

RELATED RESOURCES

Luke’s Key Witness (PDF download)
You can get a “pre-release” version of Shane’s forthcoming book when you upgrade to a PAID subscription, or make a GIFT of any size to help support the work of The Humble Skeptic podcast.

Related Videos
Have Archaeologists Discovered Biblical Bethsaida?
Who Is Luke’s Key Witness? Frank Turek podcast featuring Shane Rosenthal
The Key Eyewitness, Alisa Childers podcast featuring Shane Rosenthal
Rethinking Luke’s Prologue
Faith Isn’t Blind

Related Podcasts
Who is Theophilus? #79 with Peter. Bolt
Luke, Theophilus & Joanna, #80 with Jim Sibley
A Forensic Approach to the Gospels, #81 with J. Warner Wallace
Jesus in Josephus & Other Ancient Texts, #78 with T.C. Schmidt
Faith Founded on Facts, #15 with John Lennox, Richard Bauckham, and others
Is Faith Irrational? Episode #2 • Is Faith Blind? Episode #3
The Pilot Episode, Episode #1: An Exploration of the Bar that Inspired Piano Man

Related Articles
His Excellency The High Priest, Shane Rosenthal
The Implications of 70 AD on the Date of the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for the Gospels & Acts, Shane Rosenthal
The Date of John’s Gospel, Revisited, Shane Rosenthal
A Pre-70 Date for Revelation? Shane Rosenthal
New Evidence for a Historical Moses? Shane Rosenthal
Archaeological Discoveries Related to Nebuchadnezzar II, Shane Rosenthal
Simon of Cyrene: An Intriguing Archaeological Discovery, Shane Rosenthal
Who is Sergius Paulus? Shane Rosenthal
Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William Ramsay
The Ossuary of Yehohanah, Granddaughter of Theophilus, Barag & Flusser
Luke’s Key Witness? Shane Rosenthal