Rakocy, Waldemar2023-09-262023-09-262004Roczniki Teologiczne, 2004, T. 51, z. 1, s. 115-125.1233-1457http://theo-logos.pl/xmlui/handle/123456789/10988Tłumaczenie streszczenia /Translated by Tadeusz Karłowicz.The author verifies Ramsay and Souter’s suggestion – put forward more than a hundred years ago – that Luke and Titus, Paul’s collaborators, were brothers. They came to this conclusion because there is no mention of Titus in the Acts. To verify the proposition the author conducts a study of Titus’ historical position in Paul’s mission and then of his significance as compared to that of the apostle’s other associates in the Acts. The conclusion may be reached that making no mention of Titus in the Acts is not accidental. The only reason for this that can be justified is the same one that made Luke, the author of the Acts, pass in silence over his own person. On this basis we find that the reason of not mentioning Titus is in the same relation to the work as to its author, that is in the close relation between Paul’s two collaborators. Ramsay and Souter’s specific suggestion that Titus was Luke’s brother does not find confirmation, but it points to the direction in which to look for a solution to the problem, that is to a certain relationship between them.plAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Polandhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/TytusŁukasz Ewangelistapokrewieństwowspółpracownicy Pawła apostołapokrewieństwo między Tytusem i Łukaszem EwangelistąPaweł apostołDzieje ApostolskieNowy TestamentBibliaPismo ŚwięteTitusLuke the EvangelistPaul the Apostle's collaboratorsrelationship between Titus and Luke the EvangelistPaul the ApostleActs of the ApostlesNew TestamentBiblerelationshipconsaguinityArticle