The Bible does not say much more about Theophilus, except that he is mentioned by name in the first verses of both the Gospel of Luke (1:3) and the Acts of the Apostles (1:1), where his name in Greek means “friend of God,” “beloved by God,” or “loving God. The titles he receives, the tone of the dedications, and what has been deduced from the structure and content of Luke-Acts as a whole.
Key Takeaways
- Two books that together form about 26% of the New Testament, the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4) and the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1), are both addressed to Theophilus.
- His name is derived from the Greek word Theophilos which means “friend of God,” “beloved by God,” or “loving God.
- In Luke 1:3, he is called “most excellent Theophilus,” a title reserved for high-ranking Roman officials in the NT.
- There are four broad theories regarding his identity: he was a Gentile Roman official, he was a wealthy patron of Luke and Paul, he was the Jewish High Priest Theophilus ben Ananus (son of Annas), or he was a fictional character who symbolically represented all readers who love God.
- Most scholars believe that Theophilus was a genuine, unique person of high social status, and was probably a Gentile, and that he had been taught some Christianity prior to the writing of Luke.
- The exact nature of his identity is not clear. What we don’t know from the Bible is who he was.
The Two Passages Where Theophilus Appears
Theophilus is only referred to twice in the Bible, both times by Luke, and both times at the beginning of one of his two major works.
Luke 1:1-4: “Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
Acts 1:1: “In the first book I told you, Theophilus, what Jesus did and taught from the very beginning.
There are two things that are obvious from these verses. Firstly, the tone of the two changes. At the start of his Gospel, Luke refers to Theophilus as “most excellent,” but in Acts he refers to him as “Theophilus,” which implies that by the time he wrote the latter book the relationship between the two men had improved. Secondly, Luke explicitly informs us that Theophilus had been taught some of the things that he writes about. The purpose of Luke is to give certainty and confirmation to what Theophilus has been taught, not to introduce Christianity at the outset.
What Does “Most Excellent” Mean?
This was a formal title of address in the first century Roman world and meant “most excellent” and signified someone who exercised imperial power. It is the same title Paul used for Felix, the Roman governor of Judea (Acts 24:3) and for Festus, the Roman governor after Felix (Acts 26:25).
The word kratistos, according to Louw and Nida’s Greek Lexicon, refers to “having noble status with the implication of power.The scholars John Wesley, Adam Clarke, and F.F. Bruce, on the basis of this title, have all agreed that Theophilus was a person of great social standing. Wesley referred to him as “eminent quality. Bruce viewed him as a spokesman for the educated, middle-class Roman public to which Luke was appealing.
Many commentators point out that the opening of Luke’s first letter, “most excellent Theophilus,” is dropped when Luke begins his second, “O Theophilus” (Acts 1:1), indicating that Luke and Theophilus had become more familiar with each other over time.
The Four Main Theories About Theophilus
The Bible is extremely sparse on information, and various speculations have been advanced concerning Theophilus. Both have some real supporting evidence, and both have weaknesses. No one has been definitely identified from the sources.
Theory 1: A High-Ranking Gentile Roman Official
The most popular view held by mainstream New Testament scholars is that Theophilus was a Roman officer or a high-ranking official in the Roman government, as the title “most excellent” is employed in the same manner in addressing Felix and Festus.
This reading would see Luke as a Gentile who has come into contact with Christianity, who is a member of the inner circle of the Roman administration, and who has been granted power and influence. On this reading, Luke is partly apologetic, showing that Christianity is historically viable and poses no danger to Rome, and also establishing Theophilus in the truth of what he has heard.
Luke’s words “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” suggest that Theophilus is likely a Gentile with whom Luke has been studying Christianity; Luke’s purpose is to assure Theophilus that what he has learned about Jesus is true.
This theory is a good match for the literary style of Luke-Acts. Luke uses polished Koine Greek, provides careful historical details about Roman governors and emperors, and organizes his story in a manner that would appeal to a well educated Greco-Roman reader.
Theory 2: A Wealthy Patron and Benefactor
An alternative but different theory suggests that Theophilus was a wealthy private patron who supported Luke’s research and writing. Dedication of literary texts was a common practice in the ancient world, and typically meant patronship or a particular relationship between the author and the recipient.
Theophilus is mentioned in the second century as an “a great lord” and leader of Antioch at the time of Luke. It is thought that Theophilus might have been a wealthy benefactor who assisted Paul and Luke on their missions, and thus Luke may have wanted to give an orderly and detailed account of what happened.
According to this theory, the dedication serves as a personal address and as a public statement as well; that is, like ancient historians such as Josephus, who dedicated his works to named patrons. Luke would be saying: “I have investigated this thoroughly and written it for you, as I promised.
Theory 3: Theophilus ben Ananus, Jewish High Priest
A third theory, not popular in the mainstream of scholarship but put forward by several scholars, equates Theophilus with the Jewish high priest Theophilus ben Ananus, who served from 37 to 41 AD.
Theophilus is mentioned as High Priest of Israel by multiple Jewish sources, such as Josephus. He was the son of Annas, the High Priest of the time of the NT writing, and brother-in-law of the other High Priest Caiaphas.
Theophilus ben Ananus was also the brother of four other first century high priests: Eleazar, Jonathan, Matthias, and Ananus, who questioned Jesus directly (John 18:13), and who gave Jesus over to Pilate, his brother-in-law (John 18:27).
Those who argue for this identification cite several features of Luke’s Gospel which make sense only if the recipient was a Jewish insider: The emphasis on the role of the Temple in the opening story of Zechariah in the Temple and the tearing of the Temple veil at the time of Jesus’ death would fit well into the emphasis of Luke’s Gospel.
This thesis is also the reason for the inclusion of the encounter between the twelve-year-old Jesus and the teachers of the law in the Temple precincts – an event that would have been a big deal in the Holy City and would have been noticed by the High Priest at the time, Annas, the father of Theophilus.
On this interpretation, Luke-Acts is a plea to “a man who was at the centre of the Jewish circles that were largely responsible for rejecting Jesus” to reconsider the evidence, in this case, Theophilus, the High Priest.
Theory 4: A Symbolic or Literary Figure
Some modern scholars believe that Theophilus was not an actual person but a literary construct. On this reading, Luke wrote his book to the “friend of God” (any reader who loves God) to make the text “universal” instead of “particular.
The name Theophilus has a significance: “friend of God” or “loved by God”: every reader of the Gospel can identify with this name in this reading.
In terms of its broad generality this interpretation is attractive, but less so in terms of the formal “most excellent” title and the specific assertion that Theophilus had already been taught the gospel that Luke is writing. A symbolic figure would not have to be directed in the words, “you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. That phrase suggests a personal connection and a history of previous communication.
None of these theories have merit but it is not his identity that is important, but what was written by him. The Bible does not clearly name him, and it is impossible to be dogmatic about who he was, since the Bible does not tell us.
What We Can Say with Confidence
Throughout the debate, a few points are made by the text and are agreed upon by the wide spectrum of scholarly opinion.Throughout the debate a few points are made by the text and agreed upon by the broad range of scholarly opinion.
Theophilus was a genuine person. The formal dedication, the nature of the title and the reference to the previous instruction all indicate a real person and not a literary fiction.
He was a member of the upper class. Kratistos, “most excellent,” was a formal honorific used by Luke only for the governors Felix and Festus. Theophilus’ actions were those of a man who held an office that was accorded formal respect.
He had some previous exposure to Christianity. Luke’s goal is to provide certainty to Theophilus on what he has already been taught. He’s not from scratch. He is not quite an outsider to the Christian movement, he is an informed one.
He was probably a Gentile. Given the evidence, it seems logical to conclude that Theophilus was probably a wealthy Roman aristocrat, likely a Christian or at least open to Christianity, since Luke’s preface says Theophilus was instructed about the themes of the Gospel. Luke’s polished Greek, his appeal to Roman historical figures, and the broadly Gentile orientation of his narrative all support this.
It is not possible to determine exactly who he was. There is not enough historical evidence to definitively answer the question, nor is it answered in the Bible.
Theophilus’ Significance beyond his name
Theophilus, whatever he may have been, played a significant role in the history of Christian literature, since a large part of the New Testament, roughly 26%, was written to him in the works of Luke (Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles).
The two books, Luke and Acts, were originally one work, written to one person, but later were divided into the four Gospels and Acts in succession. That person, whoever he was, was given what was to be the longest narrative description of Jesus’ life and the beginnings of the church in the entire New Testament.
Luke wrote in a refined and deliberate literary style. His preface to Luke (1:1-4) is in the style of Hellenistic historical writing, and his book is comparable to the most educated prose of his time. For important ancient writing, it was the norm to dedicate to a named, distinguished recipient, as Josephus, Pliny the Elder, and other historians of the time did when they dedicated their works.
Luke is also traditionally remembered as a physician and as a companion of the Apostle Paul, and is by many Christian traditions the patron saint of artists and painters. Because he was a good physician, good historian, good artist, he was a good observer and a good recorder; the narratives he created were therefore imbued with these qualities. There are many disciplines where careful observation is related to the transfer of cultural and spiritual value. As scholars seek to determine the authority and provenance of a historical document, the questions that are asked in the process of evaluating artwork value, analysis, and interpretation are exactly the same: Who made this? For whom? Under what circumstances? What is it worth?
Luke: The Author Who Wrote to Theophilus
Theophilus is inseparable from Luke, so it is necessary to have a little knowledge of Luke to understand Theophilus. Luke was an author of two books, the Gospel and Acts, both of which were written to Theophilus, the author’s friend, as careful, historically accurate books.
Luke was a physician and a friend of Paul, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke’s writings tell us that the good news about Jesus is trustworthy, because he is the only NT author who explicitly states his method: he has investigated everything thoroughly from the beginning, and he has written an orderly account, he tells us in his introduction. This is the language of a historian and not a story teller.
The reason the timing is important for the Theophilus debate is because it situates the writing of Acts specifically in Paul’s Roman imprisonment, a time when Paul’s legal situation provided the impetus and opportunity for Luke to write a careful account of the beginnings of Christianity for a high-ranking Roman reader.
Luke is not only a central figure in New Testament studies, but also in the history of art and religious culture. According to tradition, he painted the first icon of the Virgin Mary, and many Christian traditions venerate him as the patron saint because of his careful and faithful depiction of sacred subjects, which can be considered a form of witness. Shani Levni’s profile of who is the best traditional artist in the world raises the question of who creates works of art that last, and what makes their art last for centuries, a question that has a lot of resonance when paired with the literary artistry of Luke’s two-volume work.
Theophilus in Church History and Tradition
In addition to the text of the New Testament, there are a number of traditions concerning Theophilus from the early church, none of which have any historical basis.
The tradition of the ancients was recorded by John Wesley in his Notes on the New Testament as “the tradition of the Coptic Church has it that Theophilus was a Jew of Alexandria, of eminent quality at Alexandria.
Other early Christian writers read the word “most excellent” in the sense of Roman governmental rank, a sense that was shared by later scholars such as F.F. Bruce, who in 1954 called Theophilus “a representative member of the intelligent middle-class public at Rome whom Luke wished to win over.
The Josephus connection, which posited that Theophilus was the same person as the historical high priest mentioned in Jewish sources, was a topic of scholarly interest especially in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and was revisited in detail by scholars such as Peter Bolt, who published a commentary on Theophilus in 2022, which included new evidence for the connection.
None of these traditions provide a clear answer. What they demonstrate is that the interest in Theophilus has never ceased since that time, and that the question of his identity has been treated seriously by careful readers in all ages.
Conclusion
Theophilus is one of the lesser-known enigmas of the New Testament: a character so significant that he is dedicated to 26% of the entire canon, but known to us only through two short passages at the beginning of Luke and Acts. The information that the text gives us is unambiguous: he was a man of importance, he had been taught the Christian message before, and Luke is writing to provide him with more assurance and a comprehensive and organized history of the message that had been passed on to him.
It is not definitely known whether he was a Roman official, a rich patron, the Jewish High Priest Theophilus ben Ananus, or another. What can be said is that he was important to Luke, that he was the recipient of his most ambitious literary effort, and that his name has been read by more people across more centuries than the name of almost any other individual in history, in the two-volume Luke-Acts.
Who Theophilus was is not only an interesting question, but one that affects the ways in which the texts that he received are read. A Roman official reading Luke would have been faced with a different challenge than a Jewish high priest. The meaning of what is written to the reader is altered by the historical period. This is true for any document of lasting importance, and it is true for ancient documents.
To explore more of the history, culture, and questions of identity and legacy in the Bible, check out the full library at Shani Levni.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who did the Bible call Theophilus?
Theophilus was the recipient of Luke’s two works, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. He is named in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1. His name is Greek and translates to “friend of God” or “beloved by God. Other than these two dedications, the Bible does not reveal anything about him, and his exact identity is still a subject of debate.
What does the name Theophilus mean?
The name Theophilus is Greek and means friend of God (theos=God, philos=friend or beloved). It is a term for “friend of God,” “beloved by God,” or “loving God. The name was widely used in the Greek-speaking first century and is found among Jews, Romans, and Gentiles.
Why is Luke calling Theophilus “most excellent”?
Kratistos is a formal honorific used in the Roman world to address people of high official rank, and is translated as “most excellent”. Paul used the same word in the NT when he was talking to the Roman governors Felix and Festus. The use of it shows that Theophilus had a high social or political status.
Is Theophilus a historical or symbolic person?
The majority of commentators believe that Theophilus was a genuine, historical person. The title, the mention of previous teaching and the literary conventions of the ancient dedication all indicate a real person, not a literary creation. One minor opinion is that the name was taken symbolically because it was meant to appeal to anyone who “loves God.
What are the main theories about who Theophilus was?
The four main theories are that it was a high-ranking Gentile Roman official, a wealthy patron who paid for Luke’s writing, the Jewish High Priest Theophilus ben Ananus (son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas), or a symbolic figure representing all lovers of God. The most common view of the mainstream scholars is the Roman official theory. The high priest theory has been discussed at length by a number of biblical scholars, but is not a widespread view.
Which part of the NT was written to Theophilus?
Luke and Acts of the Apostles make up about 26% of the entire New Testament. They were both written to the named recipient Theophilus, who received more of the text of the NT than any other person.
Did Theophilus become a Christian?
The text doesn’t tell us. Theophilus had already been taught the things Luke is writing about (Luke 1:1-2), implying that he had some prior knowledge of Christianity. It is impossible to tell from the evidence whether he was already a believer, an inquirer, or a skeptical outsider to whom Luke wished to win.