One of the great mysteries of the New Testament is the identity of the recipient of Luke's combined Gospel-Acts. The texts themselves give us only hints, and so speculation on the subject has been given free rein. Let us take the few facts we do have to see what information can be derived from them, keeping in mind that these different factors are to some extent all interrelated.
Name
The name Theophilus itself means, in Greek, “dear to God,” “friend of God”, “lover of God” or “one whom God loves.” Because of the underlying meaning of the name, several possibilities have been suggested.
1. It may be the literal name of a person Luke was addressing. Ellis notes that “Theophilus was a proper name used by Gentiles and Jews.” And J.B. Green adds that it “is a common name through the Roman period.”
2. It may have been a pseudonym for a person, possibly of high rank in the Roman government, who preferred not to be identified by name. Thus, one popular church tradition is that it referred to Titus Flavius Clemens, Emperor Domitian's relative who was said to have been interested in Jewish and Christian teachings and was ultimately executed as “an atheist,” a term sometimes used for Christians for rejecting the pagan deities. This possibility is attractive but remains only a speculation.
3. As F.F. Bruce points out, “Some have thought that the name indicates generally 'the Christian reader'.” J.B. Green similarly says that “others have imagined that Theophilus is not a real person but a symbol for Luke's audience. Neither of these views is likely, however.” One reason for eliminating this possibility is voiced by Green: “The use of the title 'most excellent' [see below] for a symbolic audience would have been nonsensical. Further, we have no evidence of the use of symbolic dedications in Luke's world...”
4. R.E. Brown, who feels Theophilus is a real person, combines some of these ideas when he says, “In part Luke may have chosen Theophilus as the addressee because his name could apply also to other desired readers.”
Socioeconomic Status
This title “most excellent” given to Theophilus by Luke is also the object of some scholarly discussion. One view, not widely adhered to, is that it is merely a polite courtesy on Luke's part to address him in that way. Much more common is the belief that it indicates some degree of rank for Theophilus. Thus, we get the following comments:
“The title 'most excellent' given to him in Lk. i.3 may denote a member of the equestrian order (possibly in some official position)...One could regard him as a representative of the intelligent middle-class public of Rome, to whom Luke wished to present a reliable account of the rise and progress of Christianity.” (Bruce)
“As he calls him 'most excellent', it is probable that Theophilus was a real person and indeed one of high official rank. Most probably he was a procurator or governor in some province or other of the Roman Empire.” (Geldenhuys)
Theophilus was “a man of distinction and probably also of wealth. This may be deduced from this dedication” (Greydanus)
John Stott and others note that the title “most excellent” was used for procurators such as Felix (Acts 23:26;24:3) and Festus (Acts 26:25).
“It at least implies that Theophilus was socially respected and probably well off (L. Alexander calls him the head of a house-church).” (Fitzmyer)
Craddock's summary of the situation is worth quoting: “In any case, one does not get the impression that either writer or reader fits the popular image of early Christians as being devoid of education or culture.”
Spiritual Status
The issue here is whether or not Theophilus was a Christian or just a “god-fearer” or seeker after the truth at the time Luke wrote to him. Again, there is a range of opinions on the subject:
Marshall: “Whether Theophilus was already a Christian depends partly on the meaning of katecheo [in Acts 1:4]; it may mean 'to report, inform' or 'to instruct' (cf. Acts 18:25; 21:21,24; Rom. 2:18; I Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6). It is possible that Theophilus had learned about Jesus by hearsay, but more probable that he had received formal Christian instruction.” But in the final analysis, Marshall concludes that “this remains uncertain.”
“The use of katecheo as a technical term also occurs in Acts 18:25, if 'the way of the Lord' refers to God's redemptive work in Christ and in history. There is dispute as to the meaning of the phrase in Lk. 1:4...With many others, the present writer inclines to the view that the logoi [things] of this verse are to be identified with the pragmata (events) of v. 1, by which Lk. means the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as recorded in pre-Lucan literature.” (Wegenast)
R.E. Brown feels that “the odds favor a real and influential person (of whom we know nothing else) who believed in Jesus or was attracted to what was preached about him.”
“Theophilus has a general knowledge of the faith but Lk. wants him also to have an orderly account, a systematic knowledge, and a written account now that the day of eye-witnesses is passing.” (Porter)
Geldenhuys explains the position of Zahn and other scholars who note the subtle difference between the way Theophilus is addressed somewhat remotely and politely in Luke's Gospel as “most excellent” and with the more familiar usage of just his name at the beginning of Acts. They feel that this indicates Theophilus was a distinguished seeker of the truth when Luke wrote his Gospel who had become a Christian (no doubt partly through reading Luke's Gospel) by the time Acts was written. Thus, in the second occasion, Luke would have been more comfortable addressing him on an equal basis as a brother in Christ. It is an attractive suggestion, but it may be reading too much into the absence of a single word in the Greek of Acts 1:1.
Role and Purpose
What exact role did Theophilus' play in relation to Luke-Acts? This question is closely related to Luke's overall purpose in writing his account. In other words, who was his intended audience? Again, no clear consensus has arisen on these issues, as you can see below:
1. For those accustomed to the many letters Paul and other apostles wrote to various audiences, it is logical to see the name of the recipient given prominently at the start of the writing, as in Luke's Gospel and Acts. Therefore, some take the same approach with Luke's combined narrative and believe that the primary reason for Luke preparing this literary composition was to better inform Theophilus as to the facts surrounding Jesus' ministry and the subsequent ministry of the church as well as to combat any possible heretical ideas to which he may have been exposed.
2. Ellis explains that “a time-honoured thesis holds that the Lukan writings were intended to be a defense brief for the trial of Paul. This is difficult to accept, especially since in content and plan Luke-Acts is largely irrelevant for Paul's trial.”
Geldenhuys agrees: We cannot accept the view of Streeter and others that Luke's books are apologetic writings to make the Roman authorities favourably disposed towards the Christians. If Luke did have apologetic objects in view, these were of quite subsidiary importance.”
“He may have been a representative of that class of Roman society which Luke wished to influence in favour of the gospel, but scarcely the advocate briefed for Paul's defense before Nero (so J.I. Still).” (Bruce)
Neil similarly rejects this possibility and says that the “only real advantage of this theory would seem to be that it solves the problem of why the book of Acts ends where it does...” (See my post on “Strange Endings in the Bible” for more on this subject.)
3. Bruce states, “There is much to be said for the view of Martin Dibelius that, unlike the other New Testament Books, Luke and Acts were written for the book market.” Most scholars appear, however, to reject that theory.
“Whatever secondary effects the Evangelist's work had on the 'book market', it was primarily written for the Church, on issues important for the Church...Most probably he [Theophilus] was Luke's patron who defrayed the cost of composing and publishing Luke-Acts.” (Ellis)
“Although the book is addressed to one reader, Theophilus, he is evidently Luke's literary patron, and although it must remain doubtful whether the Gospel was in fact meant 'for the book market' (Dibelius), it was meant to circulate widely.” (Marshall)
4. Note that the above sources clearly define Theophilus' role in the process not as an audience of one, but as the “patron” behind the whole production of Luke-Acts. And if so, we owe him a huge vote of thanks. As someone has said, without the book of Acts the New Testament would be like two wings (the Gospel story and the letters of the apostles) without a body to span the distance between them.
“Following standard procedures in antiquity, Luke names Theophilus as his patron, and 'patron' should not be confused with 'audience'...The business of patrons...was to introduce books to their network of friends so that the book might gain a wider circulation.” (Green)
“It is better to suppose that this was a real individual who was the first recipient of Luke's Gospel and who then gave it wide circulation in the early church.” (J.A. Martin)
“Moreover, it might be concluded that Theophilus would see to the publication and would bear the expense of it.” (Greydanus)
But if Theophilus himself was not the intended audience, then who was? Again, we have somewhat different answers to this question:
Geldenhuys: “It is a historic fact that when Luke wrote his Gospel there existed among many educated persons of the time a strong desire for firmly established truth in the field of religion...To such a seeker after well-established truth Luke addresses himself...”
Trenchard: “Behind Theophilus we may imagine a group of interested readers of some culture and position who are beginning to take an interest in the strange happenings which took place in Palestine and the Near East from A.D. 27 onward.”
Neil: “The Gospel, says Dibelius, was written for the Church, but Acts was written for the world – it was meant for the book-market, for private reading by educated pagans...Surely he is writing both for the Church and for the world, and above all for the Church in the world.” This sentiment is probably as good as any a note on which to leave this subject.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments