Identifying Theophilus

[gilgal]

http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/2006/11/identifying-theophilus.html

[gilgal]

Check this out:

Identifying Theophilus
December 10, 2006
Luke 1.1-4

Luke addresses his two-part story to a man named Theophilus. This name was relatively common among both Greeks and Jews in the first century. Because the title preceeding his name resembles those of other Roman officials' named in Luke's writings (Acts 23.26; 24.3; 26.25), "most excellent Theophilus" is generally assumed to have been a Roman official.

Consider this: Luke's Theophilus was the high priest of 37-41 A.D.. Some clues supporting this notion follow.

Josephus, a Jewish historian from the first century, catalogued the high priests of the second temple period (Wm. Whiston's editorial note in his translation of Josephus, War, n.635). Among them are Annas (8-15 A.D.); his five sons: Eleazar, Mattatthias, Annanas, Jonathan, and Theophilus (37-41 A.D.); his son-in-law (brother-in-law to Theophilus) Caiaphas (the high priest during Jesus' life); and his grandson (son of Theophilus) Matthias (65 A.D., the second-from-the-last high priest before the fall of the temple). An archaeological fact, this same Theophilus had a granddaughter named Yohannana, or Johanna (engraved on an ossuary, a bone box). Several of those named above are mentioned, whether overtly or by implication, in Luke-Acts. Among NT writers, only Luke mentions or alludes to Theophilus, Johanna, and Matthias. Annas is only elsewhere mentioned by John (18.13,24).

Johanna is mentioned in Luke 8.3 and 24.10. In fact, she holds a position shared by no other in Luke's writings: the key eyewitness in the climactic resurrection story. Luke makes certain his reader(s) recognizes Johanna's important eyewitness testimony by using a rhetorical device called a chiasmus. (A chiasmus is a rhetorical tool commonly used by ancient writers, and Hebrews especially. Sometimes there is a center-point for emphasis; other times it is used as a memory device, and there is no center point: for example, Matthew 6.24; 7.16-20.) Johanna is at the center (designated by the letter F) of Luke's chiasmus, a position normally reserved for key data:

A They remembered his words (rhematon).

B Having returned from the tomb, they reported all these things (tauta panta)

C to the Eleven

D and to all the rest/others (loipois).

E Now there were Mary Magdalene

F and Johanna

E' and Mary the mother of James

D' and the others (loipai) with them.

C' They were telling the Apostles

B' these things (tauta).

A' But these words (rhemata tauta) seemed nonsense to them, and they did not believe them.

This construction is no accident. Because of her place at this crucial point in his story, Luke must have assumed that Johanna was an important eyewitness to his intial reader, Theophilus. Archaeologically verifiable, she was Theophilus' granddaughter.

For these reasons, and others which shall surface in time, it is safe to conclude that Luke's Theophilus was the high priest of 37-41 A.D., the son of Annas the high preist, the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, the grandfather of Johanna, and the father of one of the last high priests, Matthias.

Luke writes to Theophilus: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me...to write an orderly account...that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed" (Luke 1.1-4). Theophilus was "informed" by his granddaughter Johanna, an "eyewitness...from the beginning". Apparently he was skeptical of her testimony. Luke therefore sought to confirm it, that Theophilus might come to believe it. This is why Luke wrote his Gospel.

Read Luke's prologue as a declaration of certitude and confidence pitched to a skeptic. Imagine how you might articulate the story of Jesus to those informed yet unbelieving. Consider why, or if, it is significant that Theophilus is identified, or identifiable. Would such an identification change your present understanding of Luke’s Gospel?
It would make sense why Luke is focusing on the priestly subjects such as the healing of the lepers, the good Samaritan:


Luke 10
31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

[gilgal]

Zechariah the Priest (http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/2006/11/zechariah-priest.html)
December 17, 2006
Luke 1.5-25, 57-80

Luke, writing to Theophilus, the Jewish high priest of 37-41 A.D., is careful from the very beginning not to overtly condemn the temple establishment, per se. His concern is with those who have distorted or manipulated the temple system, not with the system itself. And this is most evident in his telling of Zechariah's tale, the very beginning of this story concerning Jesus.

Consider Zechariah's status: a priest of the division of Abijah (1.5, 8; Abijah being the eighth division in rotation according to 1 Chron 24.10, 19); husband to Elizabeth, a daughter of Aaron (1.5); righteous and blameless before God, as regards his commandments and statutes (1.6). These are remarkable traits, highly esteemed among first-century Jews, and expected of the temple establishment.

Consider the details of the story: Zechariah was chosen by lot to enter the temple and offer incense before God (1.8, 9). While before the Lord, he had a vision, a visitation from an angel of the Lord, Gabriel (1.11ff.). At Gabriel's appearance, Zechariah became afraid (1.12). After performing his service and receiving the vision, he exited the Holy Place to find the multitudes worried (1.21-23).

Consider one detail pertinent but lacking in this story: When the priest would offer incense in the Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, he would say a brief prayer before exiting. If the priest was to die inside, the other priests on duty would hve to retrieve his body without entering the Holy Place. Therefore, the prayer of the priest needed to be brief, lest the people grow concerned about his predicament. Two Jewish texts illustrate this:

Mishnah, Yoma 5.1: "He did not make the prayer long so as to frighten Israel."

Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma 42c (regarding an incident that happened to a high priest, Shim'on the Righteous who served as high priest around 200 B.C.): "Once a certain high priest made a long prayer and [his fellow priests] decided to go in after him - they say this high priest was Shim'on the Righteous. They said to him: 'Why did you pray so long?' He said to them: 'I was praying that the temple of your God would not be destroyed.' They said to him: 'Even so, you should not have prayed so long.'"

So, when Zechariah exited the Holy Place in late fashion, the people waiting outside would have naturally been worried. When the angel of God appeared before Zechariah while he was offering the incense, he 'was troubled when [Zechariah] saw [Gabriel], and fear fell upon [Zechariah]' (1.12). This was a natural reaction from Zechariah, as any activity out of the ordinary in the Holy Place may have spelled death for the priest. But the angel assured him to not be afraid, that his [customary] prayer had been answered (1.13). Luke does not say that Zechariah prayed. It is assumed by Luke that his reader, Theophilus, would have understood the procedure.

This story is told by Luke to demonstrate a faithful priest's actions, to show that this priest had God's favor, against whom Luke will later contrast the corrupt high priests.

Furthermore, Luke has shown that Jesus' forerunner, John, is of good priestly stock. Though John did not follow in his father's footsteps occupationally, his teachings were rooted in the temple establishment (for example, baptism as cleansing of sin). We will see why this is so important later. For now, let it be noted that at the very beginning of Luke's story about Jesus we find a faithful Jewish priest.

Read Luke 1.5-25, 57-80 and consider how Luke has set up his story about Jesus. Recall or reread the stories of John, and what he taught. Recall the instances in which Jesus behaves in seeming opposition to the temple establishment (such as his cleansing of the temple). Consider what Theophilus, the high priest of 37-41 A.D., might have been thinking after having read this far in Luke's story. Perhaps use elements of Zechariah's prayer as a prayer for yourself and/or your children.

[gilgal]

Although King James writes differently so you can't apply chiastic structures to this unless you group things together.

8And they remembered his words,

9And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

A They remembered his words (rhematon).

B Having returned from the tomb, they reported all these things (tauta panta)

C to the Eleven

D and to all the rest/others (loipois).

E Now there were Mary Magdalene

F and Johanna

E' and Mary the mother of James

D' and the others (loipai) with them.

C' They were telling the Apostles

B' these things (tauta).

A' But these words (rhemata tauta) seeemed nonsense to them, and they did not believe them.

[gilgal]

The 3rd beast from Daniel 7 mentioned the (spotted) 4-headed leopard (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1506). Being the 3rd of 4 beasts, my theory is that the spots refer to a corrupt priesthood. And in Luke it shows in the good Samaritan that the priest and the Levite were careless and the letter of Luke is written to Theophilus a priest as mentioned above.

[gilgal]

http://www.jjraymond.com/religion/josephusancestry.html

[Victor]

This is a great topic gilgal!

It is very intringuing that "Joanna" figures in the center of this neat and nice chiasm.

Likewise, the Gospel of Luke is more close to the theme of priesthood than the other Gospels.

So it is interesting that "Theophilus" may have been a high priest, grandfather of "Joanna". But we don't for sure. Nice job!

[Victor]

From Wikipedia's entry on Theophilus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28Biblical%29#Jewish_priest):

Jewish priest

A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_ben_Ananus), High Priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen_Gadol) of the Temple in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem) from 37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37)-41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41) In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen) and a Sadducee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducee). That would make him the son of Annas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annas) and brother-in-law of Caiaphas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas), raised in the Jewish Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple). Adherents claim that Luke's Gospel was targeted at Sadducee readers. This might explain a few features of Luke. He begins the story with an account of Zacharias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_%28priest%29) the righteous priest who had a Temple vision of an angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel) (1:5-25). Luke quickly moves to account Mary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28mother_of_Jesus%29)'s purification (niddah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niddah)), Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus)' Temple redemption (pidyon ha-ben (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidyon_HaBen)) rituals (2:21-39), and then to Jesus' pilgrimage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrimage) to the Temple when he was twelve (2:46), possibly implying his bar mitzvah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_mitzvah). He makes no mention of Caiaphas' role in Jesus' crucifixion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion) and emphasizes Jesus' literal resurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection) (24:39), including an ascension into heaven as a realm of spiritual existence (24:52; Acts 1:1). Luke also seems to stress Jesus' arguments with the Sadducees on points like legal grounds for divorce, the existence of angels, spirits, and an afterlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife) (Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead). If this was the case then Luke is trying to use Jesus' rebuttals and teachings to break down Theophilus' Sadducean philosophy, maybe with the hope that Theophilus would use his influence to get the Sadducees to cease their persecution of the Christians. One could also look at Luke's Gospel as an allegorical (רֶמֶז remez) reference to Jesus as "the man called the Branch" prophesied in Zechariah 3:8; 6:12-13, who is the ultimate high priest foreshadowed by the Levitical priesthood.

A minority view identifies Theophilus as a later high priest: Mattathias ben Theophilus who served from 65-66. Note that Luke refers to high priest Joseph ben Caiaphas simply as "Caiaphas". Thus, the reasoning goes, Luke used this pattern when addressing Theophilus.

[Victor]

The following is a summary (http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/theophilus-the-high-priest/) of the thesis:

Archeological evidence confirms the existence of Theophilus the High Priest as an ossuary has been discovered bearing the inscription, Johanna granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest. The details of this ossuary have been published in the Israel Exploration Journal.

The combination of Theophilus and Johanna appear together in only one document: the Gospel of Luke. Neither name appear anywhere else in the New Testament. There is one additional piece of evidence to consider. Johanna appears in the vertex of a chiasmus in the 24th chapter of Luke that is part one of a two part chiastic structure, the second of which is the ?On the Road to Emmaus? pericope. Since it is rare to see the name of a person in a position of prominence in a chiasmus, one can conclude that the author of the Gospel of Luke is directing the attention of most excellent Theophilus to the name of Johanna and to the fact that Johanna is a witness to the resurrection. Johanna must be a person known to Theophilus. Thus it is fair to ask whether or not these facts establish that Theophilus the High Priest is the same person as the "most excellent Theophilus" to whom the author of the Gospel of Luke has addressed his gospel.

[Victor]

The Epistle to the Hebrews is very priesthood-directed. And some (Clement of Alexandria, Jerome and Thomas Aquinas) have claimed that this book was composed in the Hebrew language by Paul and translated to Greek by Luke.

[Victor]

Here's a blog on Luke-Acts that works with the thesis that these two books were written to Theophilus the High Priest:

mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com)

[gilgal]

Here's a blog on Luke-Acts that works with the thesis that these two books were written to Theophilus the High Priest:

mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com)


mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com (http://www.mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com)
Lee Thomas Dahn is the author of both blogs

[LTDahn]

mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com (http://www.mostexcellenttheophilus.wordpress.com)
Lee Thomas Dahn is the author of both blogs

Gilgal,

Thanks for the mention. There is much more that could be said, but I'll refrain at this time.

LTD

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Gilgal,

Thanks for the mention. There is much more that could be said, but I'll refrain at this time.

LTD
Hi LTD,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your site looks excellent, with lot's of good info. I hope to find time soon to explore it. Have you written anything about the Josephus/Luke connection?

Richard

[LTDahn]

Hi LTD,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your site looks excellent, with lot's of good info. I hope to find time soon to explore it. Have you written anything about the Josephus/Luke connection?

Richard

I do not know to which connection you are referring, but I do not espouse Lucan dependence on Josephus. If anything, I see Josephus having knowledge of Luke - especially since I believe Luke wrote in the early 40s, and there is no way Josephus had been writing at that time.

LTD

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I do not know to which connection you are referring, but I do not espouse Lucan dependence on Josephus. If anything, I see Josephus having knowledge of Luke - especially since I believe Luke wrote in the early 40s, and there is no way Josephus had been writing at that time.

LTD
That was the connection I was asking about. Some atheists have tried to use a supposed dependence of Luke on Josephus as proof of a very late date. I agree with you that Luke was probably written in the early 40s. There is an interesting quote in Paul that appears to be from Luke, which is referenced as Scripture:
1 Tim 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
What Scripture says that? We find the highlighted phrase in Luke:
Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
The Greek of those two phrases is letter for letter identical. I think this is a pretty good argument for the early date of Luke, and it's early acceptance as Scripture.

Richard

[LTDahn]

That was the connection I was asking about. Some atheists have tried to use a supposed dependence of Luke on Josephus as proof of a very late date. I agree with you that Luke was probably written in the early 40s. There is an interesting quote in Paul that appears to be from Luke, which is referenced as Scripture:
1 Tim 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
What Scripture says that? We find the highlighted phrase in Luke:
Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
The Greek of those two phrases is letter for letter identical. I think this is a pretty good argument for the early date of Luke, and it's early acceptance as Scripture.

Richard

I also believe Luke was the "brother famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel" of 2Cor8.18.

I really have not spent much time with apologetics, defending the veracity of the NT. I try to adhere to the historical data we are given, what we can and do know, and make conclusions from there. I try to refrain from arguments that presuppose my conclusion to be true. The reasoning ends up circular and my integrity immediately comes into question, as a proponent of a given view.

LTD

[Victor]

Hey there LTDahn! :welcome:

Here's a little insight: as you know, Theophilus means "friend of God". I find interesting that the meaning of the name of the recipient of the Third Gospel is an antecipation of one of Luke's most distinctive themes! Friendship is a Lukan motif that uniquely distinguishes it from the other Gospels. The number of references to "friend" in Luke are much greater than the other three Evangels.

Thus the name of the receiver of the Gospel is like an overture of what comes next in that book! I find that to be very interesting.

Victor

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I also believe Luke was the "brother famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel" of 2Cor8.18.

Very interesting. I had not thought of that before, but now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense:

2 Corinthians 8:18 And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; 19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:
Luke indeed was a fellow traveler with Paul. But the narrative in Acts is odd because he was always talking about him and his fellow travelers in the third person until Acts 16:10 when he suddenly switched to the first person:

Acts 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
Have you written anything about this?



I really have not spent much time with apologetics, defending the veracity of the NT. I try to adhere to the historical data we are given, what we can and do know, and make conclusions from there. I try to refrain from arguments that presuppose my conclusion to be true. The reasoning ends up circular and my integrity immediately comes into question, as a proponent of a given view.

LTD
An excellent method indeed! Integrity is perhaps the highest value, since everything else flows from it. A lack of integrity dulls our ears to the Voice of God. I just recently talked about that in a recent blog post called How to hear the Voice of God: Your Conscience (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/06/how-to-hear-the-voice-of-god-your-conscience/) and a followup called Signs of Integrity Lost ... and Integrity Found (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/11/signs-of-integrity-lost-and-integrity-found/).

Great to be chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there LTDahn! :welcome:

Here's a little insight: as you know, Theophilus means "friend of God". I find interesting that the meaning of the name of the recipient of the Third Gospel is an antecipation of one of Luke's most distinctive themes! Friendship is a Lukan motif that uniquely distinguishes it from the other Gospels. The number of references to "friend" in Luke are much greater than the other three Evangels.

Thus the name of the receiver of the Gospel is like an overture of what comes next in that book! I find that to be very interesting.

Victor
Right on Victor! I talk about that in my article Theophilus - The Friend of God (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/resh_friend.asp). Here's the graph of the distribution of the word "philos" (friend) in the Five NT Historical Books:

http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Philos.gif

Richard

[LTDahn]

Very interesting. I had not thought of that before, but now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense:

2 Corinthians 8:18 And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; 19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:
Luke indeed was a fellow traveler with Paul. But the narrative in Acts is odd because he was always talking about him and his fellow travelers in the third person until Acts 16:10 when he suddenly switched to the first person:

Acts 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
Have you written anything about this?

...

Great to be chatting,

Richard

Several have made various arguments regarding Luke's use of pronouns in Acts. I am of the opinion that Luke is the Lucius of Cyrene in Acts 13.1. I believe Luke is very careful in naming those involved with the Jesus movement, and often employs aliases or alternate names to protect them. I also believe Luke employs protective anonymity at several points. Thus, it would seem natural for him to list himself among the key players in the story, especially while with Paul, yet not name himself so overtly as to jeopardize his safety. Thus, Lucius of Cyrene in Acts 13.1 seems like good fit to me. Luke seems to be quite familiar with those in Antioch, as though he had spent some time there.

LTD