Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
But didn't Luke write to Theophilus?
The argument goes that Luke (whose name is of Latin origin) addressed his Gospel to someone named Theophilus (whose name is of Greek origin), and that therefore we should assume that this communication was written in the Greek language.

But there are many more questions raised here. For instance, Luke's name is Latin in origin. The same argument can be made for an original Latin version to his gospel - just because the author's name is Latin!

The fact of the matter is, the original language of any piece of literature is not as simple as the ultimate origin of the names of either the author/recepient or the language of the intended audience.

Here is an epistle (dated June 7, 2004) from a bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Meelis (Aramaicized form of "Miles", of Latin origin meaning "soldier") to another bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Gewargis (Aramaicized form of "Georgos", of Greek origin meaning "farmer").

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Here you have a guy with an Aramaicized Latin name writing to another person with an Aramaicized Greek name. Much the same as Luqa (Aramaicized form of a Latin name) writing to Tawpeela (Aramaicized form of a Greek name).

What language is above epistle written in? Is it not Aramaic, because these two people have Aramaicized Latin and Greek names?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]

Messages In This Thread
But didn't Luke write to Theophilus? - by Paul Younan - 06-28-2004, 05:39 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)