Theophilus
THEOPHILUS
Friend of God, an honorable person to whom the evangelist Luke addressed his gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, Luk 1:3 ; Mal 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.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Theophilus
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, e.g. the Epistle to Diognetus. There is, however, no proof that the fiction of an imaginary address was a common literary artifice.
Origen (Hom, in Luke 1), without rejecting the existence of a historical Theophilus, applied the name to all who are loved of God. Jerome (Anecdota Maredsolana, Maredsous, 1895, iii. 3. 20) equates Theophilus with amicus vel amator Dei, and Salvianus (Ep. ix. 18) says that Luke addressed the two books ad amorem Dei.
It is also possible that there is a reference to this interpretation in Tatian, Orat. adv. Graecos, xii. 3: (suggested by E, A. Abbott, Encyclopaedia Biblica ii. 1790), but the point cannot be pressed.
Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, London, 1893, p. 197) seems to favour the view that Theophilus is a nom de guerre. 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 Act 1:1, , , and Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 445, , , .
Assuming that Theophilus was a real person, the use of the title excellent () in Luk 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. de Orat. Antiq. [ ] and the Epistle to Diognetus). 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 [St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 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 Lukes writings.
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 , used in Luk 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.
There is no credible tradition as to Theophilus in early literature.
The Clementine Recognitions (x. 71) say that a rich citizen of Antioch named Theophilus founded a great basilica which was established as the See (cathedra) of Peter. Pseudo-Hippolytus identified this Theophilus with the one to whom Luke wrote, and in Apost. Const. 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 Recognitions 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 Manuscripts of the Gospels sometimes say that Theophilus was a disciple of Luke (H. von Soden, Die Schriften des NT, Berlin, 1902, i. 319), sometimes that he was a man of senatorial rank ( ) because he is addressed as (p. 324), but these statements are important only as showing the absence of any tradition or legend.
Among modern guesses, ingenious but devoid of any foundation, may be mentioned A. Becks, 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 (Prolog des Lk.-Evangeliums, Amberg, 1900).
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.
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. Matthews 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 Septuagint implied 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 in which Theophilus had been instructed concerned the claim or Christians that they and not the Jews were the true people of God.
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 Lukes apologetic aim that the Christians Church, not the Jewish Synagogue, could claim this toleration.
Literature.-J. Moffatt, DOG, article Theophilus; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das NT3, Leipzig, 1906, 58, n. [Note: . note.] 5.
K. Lake.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Theophilus
Bishop of Antioch. Eusebius in his “Chronicle” places the name of Theophilus against that of Pope Soter (169-77), and that of Maximinus, Theophilus’s successor, against the name of Eleutherus (177-93). This does not mean that Maximinus succeeded Theophilus in 177, but only that Theophilus and Maximinus flourished respectively in the times of Soter and Eleutherus. Lightfoot and Hort showed that Eusebius, having no such precise chronological data for the bishops of Antioch as he had for those of Rome and Alexandria, placed the names of the Antiochene bishops against those of contemporary Roman bishops (Lightfoot, “St. Ignatius”, etc., II, 468 sq., and St. Clement”, etc., I, 224 sqq.). When therefore we find in the third book of Theophilus, “Ad Autolychum”, that the writer was alive after the death (180) of Marcus Aurelius, it does not follow, as even writers like Harnack and Bardenhewer suppose, that Eusebius made a chronological blunder.
The “Ad Autolychum”, the only extant writing of Theophilus, is an apology for Christianity. It consists of three books, really separate works written at different times, and corresponds exactly to the description given of it by Eusebius as “three elementary works” (Hist. eccl., IV, xxiv). The author speaks of himself as a convert from heathenism. He treats of such subjects as the Christian idea of God, the Scripture accounts of the origin of man and the world as compared with pagan myths. On several occasions he refers (in connection with the early chapters of Genesis) to an historical work composed by himself. Eusebius (op. cit.) speaks of refutations of Marcion and Hermogenes, and “catechetical books”. To these St. Jerome (De vir. illust., xxv) adds commentaries on Proverbs and the Gospels. He speaks of the latter in the prologue to his own commentary on the Gospels, and also in his epistle “Ad Algasiam”, where we learn that Theophilus commented upon a Diatessaron or Gospel Harmony composed by himself (“Theophilus . . . quattuor Evangelistarum in unum opus compingens”). A long quotation in the same epistle is all that survives of this commentary, for Zahn’s attempt to identify it with a Latin commentary ascribed in some manuscripts to Theophilus has found no supporters.
———————————–
BATIFFOL, Anciennes litteratures chretiennes: Lit. grecque. 101-2; ZAHN, Forschung. zur Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, II; HARNACK, Altchrist. Lit., 496 sq.; IDEM, Chronologie, I, 319 sq.; BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology (St. Louis, 1908), 65-7. For Theophilus’s teaching concerning the Eternal Word see NEWMAN, Causes of Rise and Success of Arianism in Tracts Theol. and Eccles. (London, 1908), 255- 57. The Ad Autolychum was first published by FRISIUS (Zurich, 1546); the latest ed. by OTTO, Corp. apologet., VIII (Jena, 1961). English tr. by FLOWER (London, 1860), and in CLARKE, Ante-Nicene Library. The supposed Commentary on the Gospels was first printed by DE LA BIGNE, Bibl. SS. Patrum, V (Paris, 1575), then by OTTO (loc. cit.), then by ZAHN (loc. cit., 29-85). For references to literature in this commentary see BARDENHEWER; MORIN in Revue Benedictine, XXII, 12 sq.; and QUENTIN in Revue Benedictine, XXIV, 107 sq. QUENTIN gives reasons for regarding John of Jerusalem as possibly the author. For monographs on Theophilus’s doctrine see BARDENHEWER.
F.J. BACCHUS Transcribed by Herman F. Holbrook Christophero Carolo van Leer: pignus aestimationis.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Theophilus (1)
Patriarch of Alexandria (385-412). Concerning the extraction and early life of Theophilus we have but scanty information. He had a sister of similar temperament and St. Cyril, his successor, was his nephew. Hydatius (“Chron.”, II; P.L., LI, 874) calls him a “most learned man”, and dedicates to him an Easter table for 100 years. St. Jerome informs us that he did not come forward as a public teacher before 385 (“Contra Rufin.”, III, 18, in P.L., XXIII, 492). After his election to the Patriarchate of Alexandria (385) he showed himself a man of great intellectual gifts and capacity, but also extremely violent and unscrupulous in the choice of his means. His name is connected with three important historical events: the decay of paganism in Egypt, the Origenistic controversy, and the deposition and banishment of St. John Chrysostom. About 390 Theophilus deprived the pagans of Alexandria of a temple, probably with the consent of the Emperor Theodosius I, and apparently destroyed several other temples (Socrates, V, 16; Ammian., XXII, xi, 7). A riot ensued, and a number of Christians were slain. With Theophilus at their head, the Christians retaliated by destroying the celebrated temple of Serapis, on the ruins of which the patriarch erected a church. He also erected a magnificent church at Canope. In 391 or 392 Theophilus was requested by the Synod of Capua to exert his influence to end the schism at Antioch. However, he failed to establish peace, and it was only in 398 that St. John Chrysostom, with the assistance of Theophilus, succeeded in re-establishing ecclesiastical communion between Flavian and Rome.
Until 399 Theophilus was regarded as a friend of Origen and the Origenists. Many of the so-called Origenist monks were among his best friends; some of them he appointed to ecclesiastical offices and dignities: for example, he named Isidore archpresbyter and patriarchal oeconomos, and raised others to the episcopate. In the quarrel between Johannes-Rufinus and Epiphanius-Jerome he took the side of the first (Socrates, VI, 10), informed Jerome through Isidore in 396 that he should show more respect for the authority of his bishop, John of Jerusalem (Epp. lxiii and lxxxii; “Contra Rufin.”, III, 17; “Contra Johannem Hieros.”, 37), and accused St. Epiphanius of anthropomorphism. He also banished the Egyptian bishop Paulus, an opponent of the Origenists, and reproached St. Jerome for the hospitality he showed him (Jerome, “Contra Rufinum”, III, 17 and 78). Between 399 and 400 Theophilus suddenly altered his attitude; the chief motive for the change seems to have been a personal quarrel with the archpresbyter Isidore, well known as a friend of the Origenists. Isidore had taken charge of a sum of money and, in accordance with the express request of the donor, did not inform Theophilus, who suffered from a “mania for building” and avarice (St. Isidore Pelus., Ep. i, 152). The patriarch heard of the matter, however, and did not shrink from the vilest slanders against Isidore and even acts of violence (Pall., VI; Sozomen, VIII, 12). Isidore found protection with his friends, the monks of Nitria, whereupon Theophilus turned against them also. At first he set the anthropomorphic-minded monks, the enemies of the Origenists, against them, although he had condemned their views in his Easter letter of 399 (Sozomen, VIII, 11; Cassian, “Coll.”, X, 2), then directed against them his Easter letter of 401 (P.L., XXI, 773), and finally condemned Origenism at the Synod of Alexandria in 401.
Then placing himself at the head of soldiers and armed servants he marched against the monks, burned their dwellings, and ill-treated those whom he captured (Pall., vii; Socrates, VI, 7; for Jerome’s congratulations to Theophilus see Jerome, Ep. lxxxvi). The monks, about 300 in number, proceeded first to Palestine, where the majority of them settled near Scythopolis; the four Tall Brethren meanwhile proceeded to Constantinople to ask protection and justice from St. John Chrysostom and the emperor. Theophilus was summoned to Constantinople to answer their charges, and thus begins his connection with the tragedy of Chrysostom, which soon took the first place in his and the public interest (see ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM). At the Synod of the Oak in 403 Theophilus concluded an equitable peace with the persecuted monks, and on his return to Alexandria is said to have again received the books of Origen (Socrates, VI, 17). That Theophilus may have been really very “broad-minded”, is shown by the fact that he consecrated the philosopher Synesius bishop about 410, although the latter had not yet been baptized, and had stipulated that, as bishop, he might retain his wife and adhere to his Platonic views (pre-existence of soul, allegorical explanation of the Resurrection, etc.). As a writer Theophilus did not attain much prominence. In addition to his Easter letters, of which three are extant in a Latin translation by Jerome (P.L., XXII, and P.G., LXV, 53 sqq.), he wrote “one large volume against Origen” (Gennadius, 33), of which some fragments are preserved (collected in Gallandi, “Bibl. vet. patr.”, VII, 801-52; P.G., LXV, 33-68; Zahn, “Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons”, II, Erlangen, 1883, p. 234 sqq.). The Canons ascribed to Theophilus are in Pitra, “Juris eccles. Graecor. hist. et monum.”, I (Rome, 1864), 546-649. Inauthentic and doubtful writings were also in circulation under Theophilus’s name (Gennadius, 33: “Legi et tres libros suo nomine titulatos, sed lingua inconsonans est. Non valde credidi”).
———————————–
In addition to the sources already mentioned, consult: THEODORET, Hist. eccl., V, xxii; SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Dial., I, 6-7, in P.L., XX, 187-8; TILLEMONT, Memoires, XI (Paris, 1698-1712), 441-99, 633-8; CEILLIER, Hist. generale, VII (Paris, 1729-63), 438-47; PRAT, Origene (Paris, 1907), xlviii sq.; VINCENZI, Historia critica; quaestiones inter Theophilum Epiphanium, Hieronymum, adversarios Origenis et inter Origenis patronos Joh. Chrysostomum, Rufinum et monachos Nitricenses (Rome, 1865); CAVALLERA, Le schisme d’Antioche (Paris, 1905), 283-4; KOCH, Synesius von Cyrene bei seiner Wahl u. Weihe zum Bischof in Histor. Jahrb., XXIII (1902), 751-74.
CHRYS. BAUR Transcribed by Herman F. Holbrook Pro reparatione Cordi sacratissimo Christi
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Theophilus
(, 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..
1. The person to whom Luke inscribes his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (Luk 1:3; Act 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.
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: , . 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: , , (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.
2. From the honorable epithet applied to Theophilus in Luk 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 (Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 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 . (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 in Acts 1, 1 proves that Luke was on more familiar terms with Theophilus than when he composed his gospel.
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 (, i.e. ). It hardly seems necessary to refute this theory, as Michaelis has refuted it, by chronological arguments.
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.).
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 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 of Luk 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.
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 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 (Act 13:12). In the art. SEE LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, 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.
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 (Tb. 1659), Stoltze (Viteb. 1693), and Schelvig (Ged. 1711).
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.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Theophilus
lover of God, a Christian, probably a Roman, to whom Luke dedicated both his Gospel (Luke 1:3) and the Acts of the Apostles (1:1). Nothing beyond this is known of him. From the fact that Luke applies to him the title “most excellent”, the same title Paul uses in addressing Felix (Acts 23:26; 24:3) and Festus (26:25), it has been concluded that Theophilus was a person of rank, perhaps a Roman officer.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Theophilus
Called “most excellent” or “noble” (kratiste), a magisterial designation (Luk 1:3; Acts 1; compare Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 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.
The “epithet” kratiste implies his rank, as also does the more elegant style of Luke’s dedication (Luk 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.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Theophilus
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 (Luk 1:3, Act 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, Gods 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. Zahns 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 (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. fr Wiss. Theologie, 1901, pp. 111) 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 Christs life on earth. Some critics still hold that Theophilus was simply a pagan interested in Christianity. But the term (Luk 1:4, cf. Act 18:25; Act 21:21), especially in the light of its context, seems to preclude this hypothesis. St. Lukes 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 = most excellent or your excellency (Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 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 ones 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 mans need stirred his friend to write. Behind Theophilus he probably saw many a likeminded inquirer. This catechumens 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 writers 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 pens products than perhaps he contemplated when he began.
The omission of the semi-formal adjective in Act 1:1 is not unnatural. It is needless to see anything subtle or significant in the change from Luk 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 Act 1:1 denotes the conversion of Theophilus to Christianity since Luk 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 Luk 1:1-4, see the monographs on that passage already referred to, and add Blass, Philology of Gospels, pp. 720, with Zahns Einleitung in das NT, 60.
J. Moffatt.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Theophilus
THEOPHILUS (lit. beloved of God).The person to whom St. Lukes two works are addressed (Luk 1:3, Act 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, St. Paul p. 388). It is used also of Felix (Act 23:26; Act 24:3) and of Festus (Act 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.
A. J. Maclean.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Theophilus
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.” (Luk 1:1-80; Act 1:1-26)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Theophilus
the-ofi-lus (, Theophilos, loved of God): The one to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (compare Luk 1:3; Act 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, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 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, The Contendings of the Apostles, 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 The Expositor Greek Testament, II, 49-51).
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Theophilus
Theophilus (lover of God), a person of distinction, to whom St. Luke inscribed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (Luk 1:3; Act 1:1). The title given him, translated ‘most excellent,’ is the same which is given to governors of provinces, as Felix and Festus (Act 23:26; Act 26:25); whence he is conceived by some to have been a civil magistrate in some high office.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Theophilus
[Theo’philus]
One, doubtless a Christian, to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. The word translated ‘most excellent’ is , the same that is applied to governors of provinces, as to Felix and Festus as ‘most noble.’ Nothing further is known of Theophilus. Luk 1:3; Act 1:1; cf. Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 26:25.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Theophilus
A Christian to whom Luke addressed the books of Luke and Acts.
Luk 1:3; Act 1:1
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Theophilus
Theophilus (the-ph’i-ls), lover of God. A noted person to whom Luke addressed his gospel and his history of the Acts of the Apostles. Luk 1:3. The title “most excellent” probably denotes official dignity. Act 23:26; Act 24:3; and Act 26:25.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Theophilus
Theoph’ilus. (friend of God). The person to whom St. Luke inscribes his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Luk 1:3; Act 1:1. From the honorable epithet applied to him in Luk 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.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Theophilus
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” [ARISTO PELLAEUS], which introduces the subject of Christ’s passion, where Theophilus urges that Psalms 22 describes all the circumstances of our Lord’s sufferings. Harnack (l.c.) has a learned monograph on this, and discusses the Jewish controversy as it was maintained by the Fathers. He devotes 50 pages to stating the relation between the Altercatio and Tertullian’s Tract. adv. Jud., Cyprian’s Testimonia, Lactantius’s Institutiones, and Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, and skilfully uses the Altercatio to determine the nature and contents of the similar 2nd-cent. work, Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, which he considers the groundwork of the 5th-cent. document.
[G.T.S.]
Fuente: Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature
Theophilus
one to whom St. Luke addresses the books of his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, Act 1:1; Luk 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.