|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament <ref name="term_57647" /> ==
| | |
| <p> [[Theophilus]] is the name of the person to whom the author of the [[ Lucan]] [[Gospel]] and the Acts addressed his treatises. It is not certain whether Theophilus was a real person or a literary figment. The same doubt applies to other books in early [[Christian]] literature which seem to have been intended for a general public but are addressed to an individual, <i> e.g. the [[ Epistle]] to [[Diognetus]] </i> . There is, however, no proof that the fiction of an imaginary address was a common literary artifice. </p> <p> [[ Origen]] ( <i> Hom, in Luke 1 </i> ) , without rejecting the existence of a historical Theophilus, applied the name to all who are loved of God. [[Jerome]] ( <i> [[Anecdota]] Maredsolana, Maredsous </i> , 1895, iii. 3. 20) equates Theophilus with ‘amicus vel amator Dei, ’ and [[Salvianus]] ( <i> Ep </i> . ix. 18) says that Luke addressed the two books ‘ad amorem Dei.’ </p> <p> It is also possible that there is a reference to this interpretation in Tatian, <i> Orat. adv. Graecos </i> , xii. 3: τὰς θειοτάτας ἑρμηνείας αΐ κατὰ χρόνον διὰ γραφῆς ἐξεληλεγμέναι πάνυ θεοφιλεῖς τοὺς προσέχοντας αὐταῖς πεποιήκασιν (suggested by [[ E,]] [[A .]] Abbott, <i> Encyclopaedia Biblica </i> ii. 1790), but the point cannot be pressed. </p> <p> Lightfoot ( <i> Biblical Essays </i> , London, 1893, p. 197) seems to favour the view that Theophilus is a <i> nom de guerre </i> . If this be so, the following remarks as to the interests of Theophilus would need to be interpreted as referring to the class of which this imaginary person was typical. In this case it is interesting to note the parallel between Acts 1:1, τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ πάντων, ὦ Θεόφιλε, and Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 445, ὁ μὲν πρότερος λόγος ἦν ἡμῖν, ὦ θεόδοτε, περὶ τοῦ κτλ. < /p> < p> Assuming that Theophilus was a real person, the use of the title ‘excellent’ (κράτιστος) in Luke 1:3 has been used as a proof that he was a man of high official rank. It appears, however, that this title was often given to persons of good position as a matter of courtesy, and proves nothing. It is used by other writers in their dedicatory addresses (cf. Dion. Hal. <i> de Orat. Antiq </i> . [ὦ κράτιστε Ἀμμαῖε] and the <i> Epistle to Diognetus </i> ). [[ W.]] [[ M.]] Ramsay thinks that the title ought to be interpreted in the strictest official manner, though he admits that ‘some [[ Greeks]] were not so accurate as Luke’ [ <i> St. Paul the [[Traveller]] and the Roman [[Citizen]] </i> , London, 1895, p. 388 n.[Note: . note.]); he endeavours to meet the obvious (and , in most writers’ judgment, fatal) objection that Theophilus cannot be the name of a Roman of equestrian rank, as it is Greek and not Latin, by the suggestion that Theophilus is the baptismal name of an official who would have been compromised if his legal name had been used. Attractive as this theory is, it is faced by the difficulty, stated, but apparently not appreciated, by Ramsay himself, that there is no evidence of the use of baptismal names at any period which can be suggested for Luke’s writings. </ p> <p> The question has often been disputed whether the Lucan writings assume that Theophilus was a Christian, or only an interested heathen inquirer. There seems to be nothing decisive either way, but, although the word κατηχήθης, used in Luke 1: 3, need not be used of Christian catechetical instruction, it is perhaps more likely that it ought to be taken in this sense. The most probable guess is that Theophilus may have been a ‘God-fearer, ’ but there is no evidence either for or against this view. < /p> <p> There is no credible tradition as to Theophilus in early literature. </ p> <p > The <i> Clementine Recognitions </i> (x. 71) say that a rich citizen of [[Antioch]] named Theophilus founded a great basilica which was established as the See ( <i> cathedra </i> ) of Peter. Pseudo-Hippolytus identified this Theophilus with the one to whom Luke wrote, and in <i> Apost. Const </i> . vii. 46 Theophilus appears as the third bishop of Caesarea, [[ Zacchaeus]] and [[ Cornelius]] being his predecessors. This tradition is almost certainly a confusion of the Theophilus of the <i> Recognitions </i> with the Theophilus who was living about 190. It is also to be noted that Seneca addressed his seventh letter to a Theophilus. The notes occasionally appended to Manuscriptsof the [[Gospels]] sometimes say that Theophilus was a disciple of Luke [[(H. ]] von Soden, <i> Die Schriften des [[Nt]] </i> , Berlin, 1902, i. 319), sometimes that he was a man of senatorial rank (συγκλητικὸν ὄντα καὶ ἄρχοντα ἴσως) because he is addressed as κράτιστος (p. 324), but these statements are important only as showing the absence of any tradition or legend. </p> <p> Among modern guesses, ingenious but devoid of any foundation, may be mentioned [[ A.]] Beck’s, who identifies Luke with the unnamed companion of [[Cleopas]] on the way to [[Emmaus]] and Theophilus with an Antiochene tax-collector, the friend of [[Chuza]] and Herod, who had gone to [[Caesarea]] with Herod and [[Berenice]] ( <i> Prolog des Lk.- Evangeliums </i> , Amberg, 1900). </p> <p> As ‘tradition’ is thus ignorant of any facts concerning Theophilus, the only source of information which we possess is contained in the implications of the Lucan writings. [[Using]] this clue, the interest of Theophilus in [[Christianity]] may fairly be regarded as identical with the purpose of Luke in writing. [[Fully]] or certainly to discover what this was is doubtless impossible, but a general consideration of the Lucan books, both by themselves and as compared with the other Gospels, gives some important clues. </ p> < p> The most remarkable feature of the Lucan writings is that, unlike Mark and Matthew, they contain a continuation of the history of Jesus. This clearly points to a circle in which Church life, as something distinct from the Synagogue, had become self-conscious. It must be remembered that, so far as Mark goes, there is nothing to show this self-consciousness. The Second Gospel seems to have been written to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, not to support the view that the [[ Christians]] were the chosen people of God. Similarly in Matthew, though there is a great development beyond the position of Mark, the question is that of the Law, not of the Church, or congregation of God. Matthew’s object is to show Christianity as the New Law, and therefore he added to Mark large sections expounding the teaching of Jesus in this light. He could not be satisfied with Mark, but was not obliged to consider the meaning of the Christian community. Luke, however, and Theophilus by implication, were concerned to give a reasonable account of the community, and to propound the view that the Christians, not the Jews, are the true Ecclesia-using the word which from its associations in the Septuagintimplied that those to whom it was applied were the [[ Ancient]] People of God. Acts especially seems intended to prove this proposition, and it justifies the conclusion that one of the λόγοι in which Theophilus had been instructed concerned the claim or Christians that they and not the [[Jews]] were the true people of God. < /p> < p> It is also possible that this contention had a further apologetic importance. It has often been noticed that Luke is anxious to prove that there was no lawful reason for persecution by the Romans. The right of the religion of [[ Israel]] to toleration was unquestioned, and it was possibly part of Luke’s apologetic aim that the Christians’ Church, not the [[Jewish]] Synagogue, could claim this toleration. </p> <p> Literature.- J. Moffatt, <i> [[Dog]] </i> , article‘Theophilus’; [[T. ]] Zahn, <i> Einleitung in das [[Nt]] </i> 3, Leipzig, 1906, § 58, n. [Note: . note.]5. </p> <p> [[K.]] Lake. </p> | | Theophilus <ref name="term_57658" /> |
|
| | <p > <b> [[Theophilus .]] </b> —The name of an early [[Christian]] to whom a couple of [[ Nt]] documents, the Third (canonical) [[Gospel]] and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles, are addressed ( Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). This does not , of course, imply that the writer had no wider audience in view. The two books in question are far too carefully composed to be mere private communications. In modern parlance they are ‘dedicated’ rather than addressed to Theophilus; that is, if we suppose the name to be a genuine proper name. On this point, however, there has been some difference of opinion. Conceivably <i> [[ Theophilus]] </i> (= [[ Ot]] <i> [[Jedidiah]] </i> , ‘God’s friend’) might be no more than a conventional title for the average Christian reader, an imaginary <i> nom de guerre </i> for the typical catechumen. This symbolic sense of the word was conjectured by Origen. At the same time, instances of <i> Theophilus </i> as a proper name are not uncommon, and it seems simpler, on the whole, to regard it as such in the [[ Nt.]] [[A]] modification of the above theory has also been proposed ( <i> e.g. </i> by Ramsay and Bartlet), which would make Theophilus a baptismal name given to a Roman official, and employed here for the sake of safety. This is possible, but rather unlikely. </p> <p> The name, then, is to be taken as denoting some contemporary of Luke (or of whoever wrote the Third Gospel and Acts). [[Otherwise]] he is unknown to history. Later tradition naturally busied itself with fanciful conjectures upon his personality, turning him eventually into the bishop of [[Antioch]] or of [[Caesarea]] (cf. Zahn’s < i> Einleitung < /i> , § 58. 5). But this is the region of guesswork, though modern critics have often been tempted to stray back into it. As, for example, Beck, who, in his <i> Prolog des Lk. -Evangeliums </i> (1900), deduces from ἐν ἡμῖν (1:3) the fact that the author was one of the two [[ Emmaus]] disciples, while Theophilus must have been a wealthy Antiochene tax-collector, an acquaintance of [[ Chuza]] and Herod, who accompanied Herod and [[ Bernice]] to Caesarea, where he fell in with St. Paul and St. Luke. Godet opines that Luke was a freedman of Theophilus. The latter, at any rate, may have been the <i> patronus libri </i> , expected to be responsible for the publication and circulation of the Gospel and its sequel. Whether he was of Greek extraction or a Roman , possibly of equestrian rank, it is impossible to say; but one may cheerfully set aside the theories which identify him with [[Philo]] or Seneca. </p> <p> We are thus reduced to an examination of the internal evidence for any knowledge of the position and character of the man. (1) Plainly, to begin with, he was a Christian when the Third Gospel was composed. He had been ‘instructed’ in the faith by some Christian teachers as a catechumen. But either he or his friend, the author, felt that some fuller acquaintance with the historic basis of the Christian religion (not of the [[Pauline]] gospel, as Hilgenfeld argues in <i> Ztschr. für Wiss. Theologie </ i> , 1901, pp. 1–11) was advisable, and it was with this end in view that the Third Gospel and its sequel were addressed to him, in order to remove uncertainties caused by diversity, inexactness, lack of thoroughness, and absence of order, in the current accounts of Christ’s life on earth. Some critics still hold that Theophilus was simply a pagan interested in Christianity. But the term κατηχήθης ( Luke 1: 4, cf. Acts 18:25; Acts 21:21), especially in the light of its context, seems to preclude this hypothesis. St. Luke’s preface implies that he was more than merely an interested inquirer. It suggests, as Wright says ( < i> [[Composition]] of the Four [[Gospels]] </ i> , p. 55) , that ‘busy men like Theophilus had been catechized in their youth, but later occupations had driven out many of the lessons, and unless a man could secure the same catechist whom he had attended as a boy, the frequent discrepancies in the ever-changing tradition would jar on the precision of youthful memory, and produce a general sense of disappointment and uncertainty.’ [[ Oral]] tradition had its merits. It was vital and free from any danger of codifying the Christian spirit. But among its defects were liability to discrepancies (cf. [[ Josephus]] <i> c. </i> [Note: circa, about. ] <i> Apion. </i> i. 2) and absence of uniformity. Furthermore, if there is no other instance of one Christian hailing another by a secular title in the [[Nt ,]] on the other hand there is no case of a Christian writing for the benefit of any save fellow-Christians. Besides, such a title need not have been incongruous with Christianity. If Theophilus was of high rank, the faith which bade [[ Christians]] honour all men would not preclude a Christian author from employing such a title once in a semi-formal prologue to his work. (2) That Theophilus was a man of rank is suggested by the term κράτιστε = ‘most excellent’ or ‘your excellency’ ( Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25), which may be almost semi- technical, and in any case implies respect for exalted position and high authority, though the idea of intimacy and affection need not be excluded (cf. Josephus <i> Ant. </i> vi. 8, etc.). He may have been on the proconsular staff, or an official of some kind in the Imperial service. And this would tally with the special emphasis laid by St. Luke upon the relation of the Church to the Empire, and the repeated connexions which he suggests between the political affairs of the age and the progress of [[Christianity]] (cf. <i> e.g. </ i> Ramsay, <i> Was Christ born at Bethlehem? < /i> ch. iii.), especially in Acts. His social position is further suggested by the internal evidence of the Third Gospel, which, as has been often pointed out (cf. <i> e.g. Encyc. Bibl. </i> 1792), is specially concerned with the hindrances thrown up by money and rank in the path of a consistent Christian character. ‘Lk. seems to see, as the main obstacles to the Faith, not hypocrisies, nor [[ Jewish]] backsliding, but the temptations of wealth and social position acting upon half-hearted converts; and his sayings about building the tower, putting the hand to the plough, renouncing all one’s possessions, and hating father and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have been going on in the divided household of many a young Theophilus. ’ In the case of Theophilus, however, wealth and dignity did not form an obstacle to faith. It says something for this well-to-do Christian that he was willing to be instructed, and evidently keen to learn the historic principles of his faith. To his open-mindedness we owe, in one sense, two of the most important historical documents in early Christian literature. For it is plain that this man’s need stirred his friend to write. [[ Behind]] Theophilus he probably saw many a likeminded inquirer. This catechumen’s case was in some ways typical and characteristic, and thus St. Luke was led to write his Gospel narrative, an instance of the ‘first and noblest use’ of the human imagination, ‘that is to say, of the power of perceiving things which cannot be perceived by the senses,’ viz. ‘to call up the scenes and facts in which we are commanded to believe, and be present, as if in the body, at every recorded event of the history of the ‘Redeemer’ (Ruskin, < i> Frondes Agrestes < /i> , § 9). The writer’s aim was personal, as well as modest and religious. Early Christian literature sprang from no literary ambition. Even in its historic form it was practical and didactic. But in this case the writer, like Burke, who originally drew up his <i> Reflections on the French [[ Revolution]] </i> for the benefit of a puzzled young friend, has gained a wider reach and range for his pen’s products than perhaps he contemplated when he began. </p> <p> The omission of the semi- formal adjective κράτιστε in Acts 1:1 is not unnatural. It is needless to see anything subtle or significant in the change from Luke 1:3. No doubt the excessive use of the term was one feature of ancient servility (Theophrastus, <i> Char. </i> 5). But St. Luke might well have used it twice in two volumes without any fear of incurring the charge of obsequiousness, and we cannot suppose he dropped the adjective lest he should be guilty of bad taste. Still less probable is the conjecture that the absence of the title in Acts 1:1 denotes the conversion of Theophilus to Christianity since Luke 1:3 had been written. For this there is no evidence whatsoever, and we have already seen that there was no necessary incongruity in applying such a title of honour, pagan though it was, to a fellow-Christian. </p> <p> Literature. —In addition to the articles in Bible Dictionaries. <i> s. v. </i > , and to the critical editors on Luke 1:1-4, see the monographs on that passage already referred to, and add Blass, <i> Philology of Gospels </i> , pp. 7–20, with Zahn’s <i> Einleitung in das [[ Nt]] </i> , § 60. </p> <p> [[J.]] Moffatt. </p> |
| == A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography <ref name="term_15233" /> ==
| | |
| <p> Theophilus (13) a Christian who discussed Christianity with Simon a Jew in a treatise published by a Gallic writer named [[Evagrius]] in 5th cent. The title as given by [[Gennadius]] (de Vir. Ill. c. 51 is [[Altercatio]] Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani. This work lay hid till Zacagni the [[Vatican]] Librarian noticed it in 1698 in his Collect. Mon pp. 51 53 324. It was printed by Migne (Patr. Lat. t. xx. c. 1165) and by Gebhardt and Harnack (Texte u. Untersuch. zur Gesch. der Altchrist. Lit. Bd. i. Hft. 3; Leipz. 1883) with exhaustive notes and dissertations. It has an important bearing on the controversy during patristic times between the church and Judaism. The disputants discuss various arguments against the deity of Christ drawn from [[O.T.]] Theophilus making a very liberal use of the mystical method of exposition. The Jew begins by objecting that Christ cannot be God because in Deuteronomy it is said "There is no other God beside Me," and Isaiah says [["I]] am the first and the last and beside Me there is no God." Theophilus then defends his position from the conduct of [[Abraham]] towards the angel whom he worshipped at the oak of [[Mamre]] and from the Psalms. He quotes Is 7:14 "Behold a virgin shall conceive." Simon replies that the virgin was the daughter of [[Jerusalem]] whom Isaiah represents as despising [[Shalmanezer]] while the angel who smote the [[Assyrians]] is the fulfilment of the prophecy contained in the name [[Emmanuel]] since he was for them indeed "Nobiscum Deus." Theophilus retorts that the virgin daughter of Jerusalem had brought forth no son. The difficulties of the [[Incarnation]] are then discussed and Christ's descent from David maintained by Theophilus who argues that conception by a virgin was no more difficult to God than bringing water out of a rock. Simon then raises the favourite difficulty of the Jews from 2nd cent. downwards drawn from Deu_21:23 "He that is hanged is accursed of God" </p> <p> [[[G.T.S.]]] </p>
| | == References == |
|
| |
| == Fausset's Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_37758" /> ==
| |
| <p> Called "most excellent" or "noble" (kratiste ), a magisterial designation ( Luke 1:3; Acts 1; compare Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25). Luke addressed both his works, forming one whole in two parts, to him, in order to give a more orderly written narrative, from the very beginning clown to the journey of Paul to Rome, of those truths in which he had been "instructed" orally (katechethes ). Tradition connects Theophilus with Antioch. The special adaptation of Luke's Gospel to [[Gentiles]] implies Theophilus was a Gentile. </p> <p> The "epithet" ''kratiste'' implies his rank, as also does the more elegant style of Luke's dedication ( Luke 1:1-4) as compared with that of, the rest of the Gospel which is more derived from existing brief memoirs embodied by the evangelist. The idea of Theophilus being an imaginary person ''(the name meaning "friend of God")'' is at variance with the simplicity of the New [[Testament]] writers and especially the evangelists. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible <ref name="term_54496" /> ==
| |
| <p> <strong> [[Theophilus]] </strong> (lit. ‘beloved of God’). The person to whom St. Luke’s two works are addressed ( Luke 1:3 , Acts 1:1 ). That Theophilus stands for a real person and is not a general name for the Christian reader is made probable by the title ‘most excellent,’ which, when strictly used, implies equestrian rank (Ramsay, <em> St. Paul </em> p. 388). It is used also of [[Felix]] ( Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3 ) and of [[Festus]] ( Acts 26:25 ). But some take the title as a mere complimentary address, and therefore as telling us nothing of Theophilus himself. If it is used strictly, we may agree with Ramsay that Theophilus was a Roman official, and the favourable attitude of St. Luke to the institutions of the [[Empire]] is in keeping with this idea. If so, Theophilus would be the Christian, not the Roman, name of the person addressed. </p> <p> [[A.]] [[J.]] Maclean. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary <ref name="term_81546" /> ==
| |
| <p> one to whom St. Luke addresses the books of his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, Acts 1:1; Luke 1:3 . It is doubted whether the name Theophilus be here the proper name of a man, or an appellative or common name, which, according to its etymology, may stand for any good man, or a lover of God. Some think this name is generic, and that St. Luke's design here is to address his work to those that love God; but it is much more probable that this Theophilus was a Christian to whom the evangelist has dedicated those two works; and the epithet of "most excellent," which is given to him, shows him to have been a man of great quality. OEcumenius concludes from thence that he was governor or intendant of some province, because such a personage had generally the title of "most excellent" given to him. [[Grotius]] conjectures he might be a magistrate of Achaia, converted by St. Luke. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Smith's Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_75230" /> ==
| |
| <p> '''Theoph'ilus.''' ''(friend of God).'' The person to whom St. Luke inscribes his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1. From the honorable epithet applied to him in Luke 1:3, it has been argued, with much probability, that he was a person, in high official position. All that can be conjectured, with any degree of safety, concerning him comes to this, that he was a [[Gentile]] of rank and consideration, who came under the influence of St. Luke, or under that of St. Paul at Rome, and was converted to the Christian faith. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Morrish Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_69055" /> ==
| |
| <p> One, doubtless a Christian, to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. The word translated 'most excellent' is κράτιστος, the same that is applied to governors of provinces, as to Felix and Festus as 'most noble.' Nothing further is known of Theophilus. Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1; cf. Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25 . </p>
| |
|
| |
| == People's Dictionary of the Bible <ref name="term_70865" /> ==
| |
| <p> [[Theophilus]] (''the-ŏph'i-lŭs'' ), ''lover of God.'' [[A]] noted person to whom Luke addressed his gospel and his history of the Acts of the Apostles. Luke 1:3. The title "most excellent" probably denotes official dignity. Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; and Acts 26:25. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == American Tract Society Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_17418" /> ==
| |
| <p> Friend of God, an honorable person to whom the evangelist Luke addressed his gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1 . We can only say of him, in general, that most probably he was a man of some note, who lived out of Palestine, and had abjured paganism in order to embrace Christianity. </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary <ref name="term_48860" /> ==
| |
| <p> The person to whom the [[Evangelist]] Luke sent his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. His name is a compound of two Greek words, meaning together, "a lover of God." ( Luke 1:1-80; Acts 1:1-26) </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Easton's Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_33722" /> ==
| |
| Luke 1:3 Acts 23:26 24:3
| |
|
| |
| == Holman Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_44402" /> ==
| |
| Luke 1:3 Acts 1:1
| |
|
| |
| == Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature <ref name="term_63375" /> ==
| |
| <p> (θεόφιλος '', friend of God'' )'','' the name of two men associated with sacred history, one of them being mentioned in the New Test. and the other by Josephus.. </p> <p> '''1.''' The person to whom Luke inscribes his Gospel and the Acts of the [[Apostles]] ( Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). [[A.D.]] cir; 56. The important part played by Theophilus as having immediately occasioned the composition ''of'' these two books, together with the silence of [[Scripture]] concerning him, has at once stimulated conjecture, and left the field clear for it. Accordingly we meet with a considerable number and variety of theories concerning him. </p> <p> r. Several commentators, especially among the fathers have been disposed to doubt the personality of Theophilus, regarding the name either as that of a fictitious person or as applicable to every Christian reader. Thus Origen (Hom. 1 in Luc.) raises the question, but does not discuss it, his object being merely practical. He says that all who are beloved of God are Theophili, and may therefore appropriate to themselves the gospel which was addressed to Theophilus. [[Epiphanius]] (Haeres. 2, 429) speaks doubtfully: εἴτ᾿ ουν τινὶ θεοφίλῳ τότε γράφων ἔλεγεν, ἣ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ θεὸν αγαπῶντι ''.'' Salvianus (''Epist. 9 ad Salonium'' ) apparently assumes that Theophilus had no historical existence. He justifies the composition of a work addressed ''Ad Ecclesiam Catholicam,'' under the name of Timotheus, by the example of the evangelist Luke, who addressed his gospel nominally to a particular man, but really to "the love of God" "Nam. sicut Theophili. vocabulo amor, sic Timothei honor divinitatis exprimitur." Even Theophylact, who believes in the existence of Theophilus, takes the opportunity of moralizing upon his name: καὶ πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος θεοφιλής, καὶ κράτος κατὰ τῶν παθῶν ἀναδειξάμενος θεόφιλός ἐστι κράτιστος, ὃς καὶ ἄξιος τῷ ὄντι ἐστὶν ἀκούειν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου (''Argum. in Luc.'' )''.'' Among modern commentators, Hammond and Leclerc accept the allegorical view; Erasmlus is doubtful, but, on the whole, believes Theophilus to have had a real existence. </p> <p> '''2.''' From the honorable epithet κράτιστε applied to Theophilus in Luke 1:3, compared with the use of the same epithet as applied by [[Claudius]] [[Lysias]] and [[Tertullus]] severally to Felix, and by Paul to Festus ( Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25), it has been argued with much probability, but not quite conclusively, that he was a person in high official; position. Thus [[Theophylact]] (Argum. in Luc.) conjectures that he was a Roman governor, or a person of senatorial rank, grounding his conjecture expressly on the use of κράτιστε ''.'' (Ecumenius (''Ad Act. Apost.'' 1, 1) tells us that he was a governor, but gives no authority for the assertion. The traditional connection of Luke with Antioch has disposed some to look upon Antioch as the abode of Theophilus, and possibly as the seat of his government. Bengel believes him to have been an inhabitant of Antioch, "ut veteres testantur." The belief may partly have grown out of a story in the so-called ''Recognitions of St. Clement'' (lib. 10), which represents a certain nobleman of Antioch of that name to have been converted by the preaching of Peter, and to have dedicated his own house as a church, in which, as we are told, the apostle fixed his episcopal seat. Bengel thinks that the omission of κράτιστε in Acts 1, 1 proves that Luke ''was'' on more familiar terms with Theophilus than when he composed his gospel. </p> <p> '''3.''' In the [[Syriac]] lexicon, extracted from the ''Lexicons Heptaglot'' of Castell, and edited by Michaelis (p. 948), the following description of Theophilus is quoted from Bar-Bahlul, a [[Syrian]] lexicographer of the 10th century: "Theophilus, primus credentium et celeberrimus apud Alexandrienses, qui cum alis AEgyptis Lucam rogabat, ut eis evangelium scriberet." In the inscription of the Gospel according to Luke in the Syriac version, we are told that it was published at Alexandria. Hence it is inferred by Hase (''Bibl. Bremensis Class.'' ch. 4 fasc. 3, diss. 4, quoted by Michaelis, ''Introd. to the New Test.'' [ed. Marsh], vol. 3, ch. 6:§ 4) and by Bengel (''Ordo Temporum'' [2nd ed.], p. 196) that Theophilus was, as asserted by Bar-Bahlul, a convert of Alexandria. This writer ventures to advance the startling opinion that Theophilus, if an Alexandrian, was no other than the celebrated Philo, who is said to have borne the [[Hebrew]] name of [[Jedidiah]] (יְדַידְיָה, i.e. θεόφιλος ). It hardly seems necessary to refute this theory, as Michaelis has refuted it, by chronological arguments. </p> <p> '''4.''' [[Alexander]] Morus (''Ad Quaedam Loca Nov. Fced. Notae'' : ''ad Luc. i, 1'' ) makes the rather hazardous conjecture that the Theophilus of Luke is identical With the person who is recorded by Tacitus (''Annals.'' 2, 55) to have been condemned for fraud at [[Athens]] by the court of the Areopagus. Grotius also conjectures that he was a magistrate of [[Achaia]] baptized by Luke. The conjecture of Grotius must rest upon the assertion of Jerome (an assertion which, if it is received, renders that of Morrs possible, though certainly most improbable), namely, that Luke published his gospel in the parts of Achaia and Boeotia (Jerome, Comm. in Matthew Procem.). </p> <p> '''5.''' It is obvious to suppose that Theophilus was a Christian; but a different view has been entertained. In a series of dissertations in the ''Bibl. Bremensis,'' of which Michaelis gives a ''resume'' in the section already referred to, the notion that he was not a Christian is maintained by different writers and on different grounds. Heumann, one of the contributors, assuming that he was a Roman governor, argues that he could not be a Christian, because no Christian would be likely to have such a charge entrusted to him. Another writer (Theodore Hase) believes that the Theophilus of Luke was no other than the deposed high-priest Theophilus the son of [[Ananus]] (see below). Michaelis himself is inclined to adopt this theory. He thinks that the use of the word κατηχή θης in Luke 1, 4 proves that Theophilus had an imperfect acquaintance with the facts of the gospel (an argument of which bishop [[Marsh]] very properly disposes in his note upon the passage of Michaelis), and further contends, from the ἐν ἡμῖν of Luke 1:1, that he was not a member of the Christian community. He thinks it probable that the evangelist wrote his gospel during the imprisonment of Paul at Caesarea, and addressed it to Theophilus as one of the heads of the Jewish nation. According to this view, it would be regarded as a sort of historical apology for the Christian faith. </p> <p> In surveying this series of conjectures, and of traditions which are nothing more than conjectures, we find it easier to determine what is to be rejected than what we are to accept. In the first place, we may safely-reject the patristic notion that Theophilus was either a fictitious person or a mere personification of Christian love. Such a personification is alien from the spirit of the New-Test. writers, and the epithet κράτιστε is a sufficient evidence of the historical existence of Theophilus. It does not, indeed, prove that he was a governor, but it makes it most probable that he was a person of high rank. His supposed connection with Antioch, Alexandria, or Achaia rests on too slender evidence either to claim acceptance or to need refutation; and the view of Hase, although endorsed by Michaelis, appears to be incontestably negatived by the Gentile complexion of the third gospel. The grounds alleged by Heumann for his hypothesis that Theophilus was not a Christian are not at all trustworthy, as consisting of two very disputable premises; for, in the first place, it is not at all evident that Theophilus was a Roman governor, and, in the second place, even if we assume that at that time no Christian would be appointed to such an office (an assumption which we can scarcely venture to make), it does not at all follow that no person in that position would become a Christian. In fact, we have an example of such a conversion in the case of [[Sergius]] [[Paulus]] ( Acts 13:12). In the art. (See [[Gospel According To Luke]]), reasons are given for believing that Theophilus was not a native of Palestine… not a Macedonian, nor an Athenian, nor a Cretan. But that he was a native of Italy, and perhaps an inhabitant of Rome, is probable from similar data." All that can be conjectured with any degree of safety concerning him comes to this, that he was a Gentile of rank and consideration, who came under the influence of Luke, or (not improbably) under that of Paul, at Rome, and was converted to the Christian faith. </p> <p> It has been observed that the Greek of Luke, which elsewhere approaches more nearly to the classical type than that of the other evangelists, is purer and more elegant in the dedication to Theophiilus than in any other part of his gospel. From all these circumstances, and especially from the fact that both the gospel and the Acts were dedicated to Theophilus-both, therefore, being written, in all probability, about the same time, and that time being Paul's imprisonment at Rome, where the latter ends-we may reasonably infer that Theophilus was one of the apostle's converts in the imperial city during the two years sojourn of Paul there, for a part, if not the most, of which Luke was his companion, and hence likely to be acquainted with, and interested in, the noble convert. (See [[Luke]]); (See [[Paul]]). Monographs in Latin have been written on Theophilus by Heumann (in the ''Bibl. Bremensis,'' 4:483). [[Osiander]] (Tü b. 1659), Stoltze (Viteb. 1693), and Schelvig (Ged. 1711). </p> <p> '''2.''' [[A]] Jewish high-priest, the son of [[Annas]] or Ananus, brother-in-law to Caiaphas, (See [[Annas]]); (See [[Caiaphas]]), and brother and immediate successor of Jonathan. The Roman prefect [[Vitellius]] came to Jerusalem at the [[Passover]] [[(A.D.]] 37), and deposed Caiaphas, appointing [[Jonathan]] in his place. In the same year, at the feast of Pentecost, he came to Jerusalem, and deprived Jonathan of the high-priesthood, which he gave to Theophilus (Josephus, Ant. 18:4, 3; 5, 3). Theophilus was removed; from his post by Herod [[Agrippa]] [[I]] after the accession of that prince to the government of [[Judaea]] in [[A.D.]] 41, so that he must have continued in office about five years (ibid. 19:6, 2). Theophilus is not mentioned in the New Test., as no events occurred during his pontificate in which the apostles were specially involved. (See [[High-Priest]]). </p>
| |
|
| |
| == International Standard Bible Encyclopedia <ref name="term_8944" /> ==
| |
| <p> ''''' thḗ ''''' - ''''' of´i ''''' - ''''' lus ''''' ( Θεόφιλος , <i> ''''' Theóphilos ''''' </i> , "loved of God"): The one to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (compare Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1 ). It has been suggested that Theophilus is merely a generic term for all Christians, but the epithet "most excellent" implies it was applied by Luke to a definite person, probably a Roman official, whom he held in high respect. Theophilus may have been the presbyter who took part in sending the letter from the Corinthians to Paul, given in the "Acta Pauli" (compare Hennecke, <i> Neutestamentliche Apokryphen </i> , 378). There is also a magistrate Theophilus mentioned in the "Acts of James" as being converted by James on his way to India (compare Budge, <i> The Contendings of the Apostles </i> , [[Ii,]] 299), but these and other identifications, together with other attempts to trace out the further history of the original Theophilus, are without sufficient evidence for their establishment (compare also Knowling in <i> The Expositor </i> <i> Greek Testament </i> , [[Ii,]] 49-51). </p>
| |
|
| |
| == Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature <ref name="term_16861" /> ==
| |
| <p> Theoph´ilus (lover of God), a person of distinction, to whom St. Luke inscribed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles . The title given him, translated 'most excellent,' is the same which is given to governors of provinces, as Felix and Festus ; whence he is conceived by some to have been a civil magistrate in some high office. </p>
| |
|
| |
| ==References == | |
| <references> | | <references> |
| | | <ref name="term_57658"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/theophilus+(2) Theophilus from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref> |
| <ref name="term_57647"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/theophilus Theophilus from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref> | |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_15233"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/a-dictionary-of-early-christian-biography/theophilus Theophilus from A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_37758"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/fausset-s-bible-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from Fausset's Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_54496"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-bible/theophilus Theophilus from Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_81546"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/watson-s-biblical-theological-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_75230"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/smith-s-bible-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from Smith's Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_69055"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/morrish-bible-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from Morrish Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_70865"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/people-s-dictionary-of-the-bible/theophilus Theophilus from People's Dictionary of the Bible]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_17418"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/american-tract-society-bible-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from American Tract Society Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_48860"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hawker-s-poor-man-s-concordance-and-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_33722"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/easton-s-bible-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from Easton's Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_44402"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/holman-bible-dictionary/theophilus Theophilus from Holman Bible Dictionary]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_63375"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/theophilus Theophilus from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_8944"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/international-standard-bible-encyclopedia/theophilus Theophilus from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| <ref name="term_16861"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/kitto-s-popular-cyclopedia-of-biblial-literature/theophilus Theophilus from Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| </references> | | </references> |
Theophilus [1]
Theophilus. —The name of an early Christian to whom a couple of Nt documents, the Third (canonical) Gospel and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles, are addressed ( Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). This does not, of course, imply that the writer had no wider audience in view. The two books in question are far too carefully composed to be mere private communications. In modern parlance they are ‘dedicated’ rather than addressed to Theophilus; that is, if we suppose the name to be a genuine proper name. On this point, however, there has been some difference of opinion. Conceivably Theophilus (= Ot Jedidiah , ‘God’s friend’) might be no more than a conventional title for the average Christian reader, an imaginary nom de guerre for the typical catechumen. This symbolic sense of the word was conjectured by Origen. At the same time, instances of Theophilus as a proper name are not uncommon, and it seems simpler, on the whole, to regard it as such in the Nt. A modification of the above theory has also been proposed ( e.g. by Ramsay and Bartlet), which would make Theophilus a baptismal name given to a Roman official, and employed here for the sake of safety. This is possible, but rather unlikely.
The name, then, is to be taken as denoting some contemporary of Luke (or of whoever wrote the Third Gospel and Acts). Otherwise he is unknown to history. Later tradition naturally busied itself with fanciful conjectures upon his personality, turning him eventually into the bishop of Antioch or of Caesarea (cf. Zahn’s Einleitung , § 58. 5). But this is the region of guesswork, though modern critics have often been tempted to stray back into it. As, for example, Beck, who, in his Prolog des Lk.-Evangeliums (1900), deduces from ἐν ἡμῖν (1:3) the fact that the author was one of the two Emmaus disciples, while Theophilus must have been a wealthy Antiochene tax-collector, an acquaintance of Chuza and Herod, who accompanied Herod and Bernice to Caesarea, where he fell in with St. Paul and St. Luke. Godet opines that Luke was a freedman of Theophilus. The latter, at any rate, may have been the patronus libri , expected to be responsible for the publication and circulation of the Gospel and its sequel. Whether he was of Greek extraction or a Roman, possibly of equestrian rank, it is impossible to say; but one may cheerfully set aside the theories which identify him with Philo or Seneca.
We are thus reduced to an examination of the internal evidence for any knowledge of the position and character of the man. (1) Plainly, to begin with, he was a Christian when the Third Gospel was composed. He had been ‘instructed’ in the faith by some Christian teachers as a catechumen. But either he or his friend, the author, felt that some fuller acquaintance with the historic basis of the Christian religion (not of the Pauline gospel, as Hilgenfeld argues in Ztschr. für Wiss. Theologie , 1901, pp. 1–11) was advisable, and it was with this end in view that the Third Gospel and its sequel were addressed to him, in order to remove uncertainties caused by diversity, inexactness, lack of thoroughness, and absence of order, in the current accounts of Christ’s life on earth. Some critics still hold that Theophilus was simply a pagan interested in Christianity. But the term κατηχήθης ( Luke 1:4, cf. Acts 18:25; Acts 21:21), especially in the light of its context, seems to preclude this hypothesis. St. Luke’s preface implies that he was more than merely an interested inquirer. It suggests, as Wright says ( Composition of the Four Gospels , p. 55), that ‘busy men like Theophilus had been catechized in their youth, but later occupations had driven out many of the lessons, and unless a man could secure the same catechist whom he had attended as a boy, the frequent discrepancies in the ever-changing tradition would jar on the precision of youthful memory, and produce a general sense of disappointment and uncertainty.’ Oral tradition had its merits. It was vital and free from any danger of codifying the Christian spirit. But among its defects were liability to discrepancies (cf. Josephus c. [Note: circa, about.] Apion. i. 2) and absence of uniformity. Furthermore, if there is no other instance of one Christian hailing another by a secular title in the Nt, on the other hand there is no case of a Christian writing for the benefit of any save fellow-Christians. Besides, such a title need not have been incongruous with Christianity. If Theophilus was of high rank, the faith which bade Christians honour all men would not preclude a Christian author from employing such a title once in a semi-formal prologue to his work. (2) That Theophilus was a man of rank is suggested by the term κράτιστε = ‘most excellent’ or ‘your excellency’ ( Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25), which may be almost semi-technical, and in any case implies respect for exalted position and high authority, though the idea of intimacy and affection need not be excluded (cf. Josephus Ant. vi. 8, etc.). He may have been on the proconsular staff, or an official of some kind in the Imperial service. And this would tally with the special emphasis laid by St. Luke upon the relation of the Church to the Empire, and the repeated connexions which he suggests between the political affairs of the age and the progress of Christianity (cf. e.g. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? ch. iii.), especially in Acts. His social position is further suggested by the internal evidence of the Third Gospel, which, as has been often pointed out (cf. e.g. Encyc. Bibl. 1792), is specially concerned with the hindrances thrown up by money and rank in the path of a consistent Christian character. ‘Lk. seems to see, as the main obstacles to the Faith, not hypocrisies, nor Jewish backsliding, but the temptations of wealth and social position acting upon half-hearted converts; and his sayings about building the tower, putting the hand to the plough, renouncing all one’s possessions, and hating father and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have been going on in the divided household of many a young Theophilus.’ In the case of Theophilus, however, wealth and dignity did not form an obstacle to faith. It says something for this well-to-do Christian that he was willing to be instructed, and evidently keen to learn the historic principles of his faith. To his open-mindedness we owe, in one sense, two of the most important historical documents in early Christian literature. For it is plain that this man’s need stirred his friend to write. Behind Theophilus he probably saw many a likeminded inquirer. This catechumen’s case was in some ways typical and characteristic, and thus St. Luke was led to write his Gospel narrative, an instance of the ‘first and noblest use’ of the human imagination, ‘that is to say, of the power of perceiving things which cannot be perceived by the senses,’ viz. ‘to call up the scenes and facts in which we are commanded to believe, and be present, as if in the body, at every recorded event of the history of the ‘Redeemer’ (Ruskin, Frondes Agrestes , § 9). The writer’s aim was personal, as well as modest and religious. Early Christian literature sprang from no literary ambition. Even in its historic form it was practical and didactic. But in this case the writer, like Burke, who originally drew up his Reflections on the French Revolution for the benefit of a puzzled young friend, has gained a wider reach and range for his pen’s products than perhaps he contemplated when he began.
The omission of the semi-formal adjective κράτιστε in Acts 1:1 is not unnatural. It is needless to see anything subtle or significant in the change from Luke 1:3. No doubt the excessive use of the term was one feature of ancient servility (Theophrastus, Char. 5). But St. Luke might well have used it twice in two volumes without any fear of incurring the charge of obsequiousness, and we cannot suppose he dropped the adjective lest he should be guilty of bad taste. Still less probable is the conjecture that the absence of the title in Acts 1:1 denotes the conversion of Theophilus to Christianity since Luke 1:3 had been written. For this there is no evidence whatsoever, and we have already seen that there was no necessary incongruity in applying such a title of honour, pagan though it was, to a fellow-Christian.
Literature.—In addition to the articles in Bible Dictionaries. s.v. , and to the critical editors on Luke 1:1-4, see the monographs on that passage already referred to, and add Blass, Philology of Gospels , pp. 7–20, with Zahn’s Einleitung in das Nt , § 60.
J. Moffatt.
References
