The Identity of Theophilus

76

Right after Luke finished his gospel account. As mentioned above, Luke probably did a lot of the research for his gospel and the first twelve chapters of Acts during the two years Paul was in prison in Caesarea. However, there are a lot of stylistic considerations and historical allusions (in Acts especially) which clearly point to its being written for a Gentile audience in Nero’s court at Rome (in AD 61-62). Since the date and location of writing for both Luke and Acts directly relates to the identity of Theophilus, we need to take another look at that here. We had mentioned another theory on the identity of Theophilus above under the subheading: “Who Was Most Excellent Theophilus” at the dates AD 58-60. Below is the rest of the story about him.

The Identity of Theophilus:

An obvious question arises as to what kind of government official would need, request, or expect a full briefing on all the “facts in consecutive order” regarding Christianity and Paul’s involvement with it. We suggested previously that this could have been the former High Priest Theophilus who might have used the unjust treatment of Apostle Paul by the rival High Priest Ananias as a means to get Ananias deposed.

However, it seems unlikely that Paul or any of the apostles would get involved in party politics like that, especially to the point of writing two whole books for their use. If Theophilus was a former High Priest of the Ananus family, he would have already known most of the facts about the gospel and the history of the church in Jerusalem after Pentecost. He would not have needed these two books written for his instruction. Nor would these two books have been written with a clearly Gentile audience in mind. If they were written to a former Jewish High Priest, it would be written in a Jewish style. A Jewish High Priest would only have wanted material which clarified Paul’s relationship to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the facts about his unlawful arrest in the temple and his unlawful treatment in the trial before Ananias. Furthermore, Luke apparently wrote both books for a Gentile audience, not a Jewish one. It therefore seems unlikely that Theophilus was a Jewish ruler, and much more likely that he was a Roman court official or defense attorney for Paul.

While at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting (Nov. 2012), I had the chance to talk to Dr. Dennis Swanson, one of the professors at The Master’s Seminary in the Los Angeles area. He has done quite a bit of study on the date of Luke and Acts. He is convinced that both Luke and Acts were written in Rome while Paul was awaiting his trial there (AD 61-62). He agrees with many conservative scholars that Theophilus was probably a Roman government official, acting on behalf of the Roman court, to discover whether there was any substantial case against Paul, and to inform Nero of the results of his investigation before the case went to trial. It is also possible that Theophilus was the defense attorney for Paul, even though Paul had always served as his own attorney up to this time.

If Theophilus was a defense attorney in Rome, he would have needed all this information from Luke in order to adequately defend Paul in Rome, or to adequately inform the court about the facts in the case. However, such an appointment of a defense attorney could not have happened until after Paul reached Rome in AD 61. This means that the two-volume work of Luke could not have been written (or at least not finished or put in final form) until after Paul arrived in Rome. However, Luke could have done all his research for it while he was in Judea during those two years Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea (AD 58- 60). He would have had easy and abundant access to the other apostles in Jerusalem at that time, so his research for Luke-Acts was probably done then, even though the actual writing did not take place until they reached Rome. He could have made a lot of notes then, which he used later in the actual writing of the two books. As we noted earlier, there are some Synoptic Problem scholars who have suggested this very thing, that Luke may have been drawing from an earlier version (“proto-Luke”) of his notes and research materials to compose his two books. How those were preserved through the shipwreck, however, would need some explanation. Perhaps they were copied or left in Jerusalem to be sent by land courier later. Those notes would have been crucial for writing the gospel especially, as well as the first twelve

chapters of the book of Acts.

We can be sure that Theophilus was acting in his own self-interests and not just for the benefit of Paul. Luke definitely appears to be writing apologetically (in defense of Christianity) and not just as a reporter of case history and legal facts. It is apparent that Theophilus had requested a full briefing on Christianity and the Church and Paul’s activities (the clear undisputable documented facts). That sounds like something a court official or defense attorney would require. The apologetic tone of Acts, along with all the precedent- setting court cases that are mentioned there, suggests that it was written for the purpose of helping Paul in his defense before Caesar. The details of the voyage through the storm and the shipwreck, when Paul’s prayers saved the lives of the Roman centurion and all the people onboard, must have been encouraging stuff for the Roman court officials to hear. The centurion who was in charge of bringing Paul to Rome would have been a powerful witness on behalf of Paul. That alone would have had a beneficial influence upon the outcome of Paul’s trial. Luke says that he consulted at least two other gospel accounts that were already in existence (Matthew and Mark), and that he verified all this as accurate and reliable by talking to those who knew the facts. This is legal terminology, suggesting that it is structured as a defense of Christianity in general, and an apologetic for Paul particularly.

Paul did not have a defense attorney in Judea, since Acts shows that he defended himself in every hearing and trial during the two years he was held in custody in Caesarea. Nor is there any mention in the latter chapters of Acts of a defense attorney in Rome (unless, of course, Theophilus is that attorney). However, we know from Roman court records that it was common for Roman citizens who appealed to Caesar to have a defense attorney (advocate) working with them, and Theophilus could fit that scenario.

When we read back through both Luke and Acts, it will help us see which theory it supports. I reread Acts four times, looking for clues regarding to whom it may have been written. My own analysis supports the idea that the gospel of Luke was researched (and his notes gathered) during Paul’s two-year stay in Caesarea, but not written (or put into final form) until after Luke and Paul reached Rome.

After Paul was arrested, and realized he would be stuck in prison there in Caesarea for a while, he probably remembered what Jesus said to him when he was in prison in Jerusalem, i.e., that he would bear testimony in Rome (Acts 23:11). He had used his Roman citizenship to get out of sticky situations before, so he probably did it again, this time to get him to Rome to appear before Nero Caesar. He did not want to go back to Jerusalem, nor did he want to stay in prison in Caesarea. Sooner or later the Jews would persuade Festus or Agrippa to bring him to Jerusalem to be tried (and killed). So sometime after Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea he began to consider his options. It would not have taken long for him to realize that he would have to appeal to Caesar to get safely out of Judea.

He also knew he would need a good defense to get him acquitted before Nero, so he would have needed Luke to write the Acts account in preparation for helping him defend his case in Rome. How early in the Caesarean imprisonment Luke began doing his research and preparation for writing the Gospel and the Acts is difficult to guess, but it was probably hastened along once Paul realized he would have to appeal to Caesar. The plot by 40 men to ambush and kill him would have been enough to make him start thinking about getting out of Judea, and his Roman citizenship would have come readily to mind, especially after Jesus appeared to him in jail there in Jerusalem in AD 58 and told him that he must testify for the gospel in Rome also (Acts 23:11). That would have given him the idea that he would have to testify in Roman court somehow. It would not have taken much imagination for him to see what Jesus was alluding to. All he had to do was wait for the appropriate moment to make the appeal to Caesar. That opportunity came in his hearing before Festus and Agrippa in AD 60.

Theophilus evidently requested a full account of the origin of Christianity and the history of Paul’s activities leading up to his arrest. This points to two probabilities: (1) He must not have been