56 and their oppression of the common people, intensified at this very time (AD 58-66) [Antiq. 20.180181 (20.8.8)]. And it is not without significance that Ananias’ term as High Priest ended not many months after his unfair trial and mistreatment of Apostle Paul. When the new High Priest (Ishmael b. Phiabi) came to power, the rivalry really heated up. Evidently the Ananias party was bitter about being disenfranchised, and reacted violently against their successors. According to Josephus, there was open hostility in the streets of Jerusalem, with youngsters of both parties throwing rocks at each other. So, it is no stretch of credulity to suggest that Theophilus might have been using Paul’s case as a tool to unseat Ananias and his associates, nor is it any surprise to see two more of the Ananus family become High Priests soon after this (Ananus b. Ananus and Matthias b. Theophilus). It appears that the Ananus dynasty was somewhat successful in reducing the power of Ananias and strengthening the power of their own family, perhaps by using the unfair treatment of Apostle Paul by the High Priest Ananias. So this idea about Theophilus being the former high priest does have some historical plausibility. It is not totally far-fetched. A good exercise to test this theory would be to read back through the two-volume work of LukeActs to see if the narrative actually fits this scenario. Did Luke write in such a way as to help the cause of Theophilus against his rival High Priest? And, did the Holy Spirit (writing through Luke and Paul) use this rivalry as an opportunity to get the gospel into the hands of all the Jewish leaders? It seems clear that God was always providentially using this rivalry to accomplish his own predetermined plan to spread the gospel throughout every level of society in the Roman and Jewish worlds of that day, and get the written gospel of Luke into the hands and eyesight of those who would probably never have read the New Testament documents otherwise? Was the Ananus family so desperate to maintain their power, that they would even help a lowly Christian if it would somehow feather their own nest? Did God use their greed and lust for power against them? Those are interesting questions to ponder. Regardless, I tend to reject this Jewish High Priest theory for the identity of Theophilus, and instead opt for a court official in Nero’s court at Rome who was charged with gathering the facts on Paul’s case. If the Theophilus for whom Luke wrote was the former high priest, it would imply an earlier date for Luke’s gospel and the first ten chapters of Acts while Paul was in prison in Caesarea (AD 58-60). Unfortunately, that early date fails to account for the information in Acts 2728 which could not have been written until after Paul reached Rome in AD 61. Since those chapters could not have been written before AD 61, it would seem likely that the rest of the book of Acts was written in Rome also, especially in view of Acts 11:24 which eulogizes Barnabas after his death, implying that Acts was not written (rewritten or finished) until after his death in AD 60. Nevertheless, this story about the former high priest Theophilus provides some helpful historical insight into the religio-politico-cultural situation in Judea at the time Paul was arrested. That kind of background information is always helpful to know, regardless of whether it applies in this particular situation or not. We will develop the other theory about Theophilus being a Roman court official below under the subtitle of “Luke-Acts Written in Rome” at the date of AD 61-62. See that discussion for more information on the date of Luke-Acts and the identity of Theophilus. AD 60 – Earthquake in Laodicea and the Lycus valley,
Which affected all seven cities mentioned in Revelation. It is mentioned in Tacitus Annals 14:27 (5:151), from which most scholars derive the date of AD 60. However, both Eusebius (Chronicle 64) and Orosius say that it happened after the Great Fire in Rome (i.e., after AD 64). But since Tacitus is the first century historian here, he most likely has the correct date (AD 60). Laodicea was so wealthy that they rebuilt their city immediately without any help from the Roman government. But the other cities (such as nearby Colossae, etc.) would have gladly taken the relief funds from Nero to rebuild. The Laodiceans were very proud of their wealth, the very thing for which the book of Revelation rebukes them (Rev. 3:17). The earthquake occurred in AD 60. Revelation’s mention of them was written in late AD 62 or very early 63 (after they had evidently recovered from that earthquake).
