Vince (Login MoxiFox) Von Klumpen Posted Aug 10, 2010 5:06 PM
You brought up, "not much there." That in itself is a "clue." WHY is there not much there? This is a question so MANY have wondered about: who was Theophilus? Why was that information "lost?"
I believe that often information which seems lost is only missing because everyone is on the same line of thinking and when someone steps out of the box and allows for different possibilities, the answer suddenly comes out pretty plain and simple.
If you think of someone 2000 years up the road, studying the Iraq invasion of 2003, trying to find the REASON for the invasion ... imagine their frustration at trying to pin it down the exactly! Today we know what was behind it, even though there WASN'T any good reason.
The missing information is often its own clue for a whole line of investigation.
You suggest that Luke may have been written for the Sadducees. That's an interesting line of thought. We DO find the Gospel Jesus never saying anything bad about Sadducees ... which seems rather odd in view of the fact that it was the Sadducee high priest who ultimately condemned him to death.
Then what about the book of Acts? That would have had to be written for the same Sadducee Theophilus if GLuke was written for him. Is Acts favorable to the Sadducees as well?
[ Acts 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation ]
Here, the early apostles were set upon and put in prison by the Sadducee high priest.
[Acts 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest?
5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
24:10 Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, ...
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust...
21 Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.
25:2 Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him,
3 And desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.
8 8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? ]
So the Sadducees were the trouble makers in this story. It was all about Paul preaching resurrection from the dead. The Pharisees were reasonable; the Sadducees are painted as the unreasonable hot-heads.
Does it sound to you as though Acts was written for a Sadduceen member of this family? Can you build a case for it?