The Identity of Theophilus

I recently encountered a very interesting question about the identity of the Theophilus mentioned in Luke and Acts. The question sprang from the discovery that Josephus mentions a Jewish high priest named Theophilus who served from 37 to 41 AD. Could these two be the same person? Could the high priest Theophilus have been one of the many priests mentioned in Acts 6:7 as being “obedient to the faith”? A proper answer to this question is not straightforward and would take more space that I can give to it here. Even so, it is clear that most Christian discussions of the Theophilus mentioned in Luke and Acts do not equate him with the Jewish high priest. In what follows we will examine some of the arguments about the identity of Luke’s addressee and consider whether he could be the high priest of the same name.

Most discussions of the identity of Theophilus mention a couple of different possibilities. As the term “most excellent” used of Theophilus in Luke 1:3 is elsewhere used for Roman officials (Acts 24:3 of Felix and 26:25 of Festus), it is often concluded that Luke wrote to a Roman governor or to someone else of the equestrian class. The church Father Theophylact believed this and apparently most modern scholars agree. At times certain people have been identified with Theophilus. (1) Theophilus could have been a magistrate from Syrian Antioch who was known to Luke since he was also from there. (2) Theophilus could have been the magistrate who heard Paul's case in Rome (thus Luke-Acts was written to help him prepare for the case). (3) Theophilus could have been a pseudonym for Titus Flavius Clemens, the cousin of the emperor Domitian (who is known to have been sympathetic toward Christianity but may not have wanted his name to be associated with a religion that was at the time considered to be subversive). Without going into detail, we can say that there is no real evidence that leads to these conclusions. And although most scholars today would agree that the term “most excellent” indicates a Roman citizen of an upper class, it is possible that the term could have been used for others. It could probably be argued that a Jewish high priest would qualify for being addressed as “most excellent”.

From the time of the church Fathers (e.g., Origen and Epiphanius) it has been said that since Theophilus means “friend of God” or “lover of God” that the book was written, not to a particular individual, but to anyone who might read the book and apply its message to themselves. This interpretation probably arose, not to deny that the book originally had a single addressee, but to commend its reading to others. However, since the book is addressed to someone with the title “most excellent”, this interpretation is highly unlikely. Most scholars today consider it to be of historical interest only.

The possibility the Luke and Josephus speak of the same Theophilus has received support in the past. The strongest support probably comes from Theodore Hase, who is followed by Michaelis. According to their interpretation, Theophilus was neither a member of the Christian community nor well acquainted with the faith. The book was written to him while Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea as an apology for the Christian faith. If the high priest Theophilus was addressed in Luke-Acts (conservatively dated to ca. 60 AD, otherwise estimated as after 70 AD) he would have had to have been fairly old since he was deposed at least twenty years earlier. Whereas this view is not impossible, major arguments against it point to Luke-Acts being written to a non Jewish audience that was not personally acquainted with the geography of Palestine. Luke has long been considered the “Gospel to the Gentiles”, written by the New Testament author whose Greek style surpassed all his peers. Much of its content is deemed unnecessary if written for a Jewish priest.

The internet reveals a few web sites that attempt to connect the Theophilus of Josephus and Luke. The first one I will point out is http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/2006/11/identifying-theophilus.html. The arguments given here are far from convincing. Its writer (who I discovered has been influenced by the author of the next site to be considered) begins by admitting that Theophilus was a common name for both Jews and Greeks in the first century. He then concludes that the high priest and Luke’s addressee were the same person. The writer attempts to support his case in a couple of ways. He begins by saying that many of the priests mentioned by Josephus as serving in the first century are mentioned in the Bible. This would be expected, as Josephus and the biblical authors deal with religious personae living in Palestine during the first century AD. Even so, no real evidence is given that leads to the conclusion that a priest on Josephus’ list should be to connected to Luke’s Theophilus merely because they share the same name. There is no more reason to connect them than there is to connect the Matthias (who served as high priest after 65) on the historian’s list to the Matthias mentioned in Acts 1:23-26 as being chosen by lot to be an apostle. Sharing the same name does not make two people one.

This takes us to the second piece of evidence given in the blog. Luke’s Gospel mentions a woman named Joanna and it is known from ossuary evidence that the high priest Theophilus had a granddaughter named Joanna. (Although the blog spells the name Johanna, I am following the spelling used by most modern English versions.) The blog article attempts to show that these were one and the same woman in order to prove that Luke wrote to the high priest. In order to do this the author attempts to use a rhetorical device — chiasm — along with archeological evidence to convince his readers that his view has merit. Nevertheless his evidence falls flat.

According to the article, Luke’s Gospel was written to let the high priest know that the account about Jesus should be accepted. The idea is that by placing Joanna’s name at the middle point of a chiasm in Luke 24:9-11 her importance in the resurrection story is emphasized so that her grandfather would take notice. This attempt to put Joanna at the pivot point of a chiasm fails for a number of reasons. First, the verses do not read like a chiasmus. As this literary device usually appears within sections, one would expect it — if it guided the author’s ordering of his thought at all — to demarcate sections. Why would an author begin a chiastic arrangement with v 9 instead of v 1? Why end it at v 11 instead of v 12? To locate a chiasmus at vv 9-11 comes across as the attempt of someone who desires to prove a point to force the text to read back on itself. The blog writer weakens his conclusion by admitting the widely accepted fact that the pivot point of a chiasm does not necessarily indicate emphasis. Thus, even if a real chiasm were evidenced here, Joanna’s name positioned in its middle would not necessarily mean that the text was emphasizing her presence. It appears that the only reason to claim that Joanna (as opposed to all three women) is to be stressed by the chiasm is that one is looking to identify the original reader as the high priest Theophilus. Without this a priori intention, it would be difficult to reach that conclusion. The relationship between Luke’s Joanna and the high priest needs to be demonstrated by evidence, rather than taken for granted. One might ask if Joanna was indeed so important that a grammatical device was required to highlight her place in the resurrection account, why is she never mentioned again? Even more, one wonders why a man would need a chiastic arrangement in a text to notice his granddaughter’s name there.

The second level of support given in the blog is supposed to be grounded upon archeological evidence. The author is correct to state that an ossuary inscription indicates that the high priest Theophilus had a granddaughter named Joanna. Even so, he provides neither archeological nor any other evidence to indicate that there is any relationship between the Theophilus and Joanna mentioned on the ossuary and the ones named by Luke. Nothing in the Gospel indicates that its addressee and the witness to the resurrection were at all related. Like Theophilus, Joanna was a common first century name. Proof must be given that indicates that they are the same.

One more issue with regard to Joanna should be raised. This has to do with the fact that she is referred to twice in the New Testament (Lk 8:1-3 and 24:1-10). That her name is listed along with Mary Magdalene in both passages is strong evidence that both references are to the same woman. In Luke 8 she is listed among the women who supported Jesus and his disciples, and said to be the wife of Cuza, a man who served under Herod Antipas. That these women could support them “out of their own means” (Lk 8:3) indicates that they had personal wealth and standing and therefore would probably not have been very young. The Joanna mentioned in Luke’s Gospel is therefore unlikely to be the high priest Theophilus’ granddaughter for several reasons. First, if Joanna was an independent woman of means while Jesus was alive, it is difficult to think of her as the granddaughter of a high priest who served after Jesus’ resurrection. The time scale does not seem to fit. Luke’s Joanna comes across as too old to be two generations younger than one of Jesus’ contemporaries. Second, it seems highly unlikely that one of Herod’s servants or officials (depending upon whether the Greek term used to describe Cuza should be interpreted as a household steward or as a political officer such as chancellor) would marry the granddaughter of someone who served as high priest during his reign.

A more sophisticated argument supporting a common Theophilus can be found in, Richard H. Anderson, “Theophilus: A Proposal,” Evangelical Quarterly 69 (1997): 195-215. This can also be found online at

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/2454/theosub/THEOSUB.htm. Although I have located his blog at http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com/, I have not had time to go through it. Without going into detail, let me say that although the scholarship in the EQ article looks better than the previous one (which is based on Anderson’s work), a lot of speculation is still evident with many relationships left unproven. Anderson’s argument that Luke wrote to Theophilus while he was serving as high priest requires Luke’s Gospel to be written before AD 39 (the year Herod Antipas was deposed by the emperor). His view also dates Acts to AD 62, leaving a gap of more than twenty years between the Gospel and its sequel that most scholars would see as impossibly long. Anderson’s proposal is probably most severely hampered because his viewpoint requires that Luke’s Gospel was the first to be written, an idea which few scholars have seen any reason to support.

Speculation. That is an important word when it comes to identifying Luke’s Theophilus. The fact is, unless more early texts are found that make a clearer link between the Theophili of Luke and Josephus we can only speculate on whether they are the same or different. And as a professor once wrote on a paper I turned in to him, “Speculation is worthless!” Although I think he overstated his case to make a point, his point is well worth taking here. It would be interesting to know that Luke and Josephus wrote about the same Theophilus. It would be exciting to learn that the recipient of Luke’s magnum opus was one of the priests mentioned as having believed in Jesus. (Not forgetting that one of the strongest arguments for a unified Theophilus identified him as a nonChristian.) But, as others have tried to argue, it would be interesting to know that Luke’s Theophilus was the magistrate who heard Paul’s case in Rome or a relative of the Roman emperor who was considering becoming a Christian. The problem is that there is simply not enough evidence to support any of the possibilities conclusively. And while one may be left feeling somewhat uncomfortable not knowing for sure which is correct, it is probably better to remain agnostic (using the word in its broad sense) about the issue than choosing one possibility simply because it is personally appealing. Only weak scholarship comes to a conclusion based on a good story. Weaker scholarship determines something to be so simply because it is “the way I want it to be.” The wisest scholar at times is aware that the final answer lies beyond his (or perhaps anyone’s) ability to discover it. At such times the best answer may be, “I really don’t know.”

Could Luke's Theophilus have been a Jewish high priest? Yes, but it is not likely. The conclusion reached by most scholars — that he was a Roman of high position who had been converted by Luke or Paul (or was just about at the point of conversion) — makes a lot more sense in light of the evidence we possess.