“To this list, I believe the name of King Agrippa II
should be added.
Why he has not been suggested before is a mystery”.
That the Herodian era of early AD history needs to
be radically revised against the context of the (supposedly entirely BC) Maccabean
era was the basic thrust of my article:
A
New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ
This revision, that threw out a large slice of what
I considered to be Roman Republican pseudo-history - as opposed to the true
Roman history given in the books of the Maccabees - must naturally effect also
the history of the Jewish priesthood, bringing, as it does, the early
Hasmonaeans right into contact with the early Herodians.
Luke’s early historical account of Jesus Christ in
his Gospel, his ‘Infancy Narrative’ phase, is now to be situated, as I have newly
proposed, in the Maccabean era of Judas and his brothers.
With this background in mind, for whom was Luke the
Evangelist writing?
Who was Luke 1:3’s “Most Excellent Theophilus?
Some have suggested, most plausibly, that
“Theophilus” was a high priest of that very name, a son of Annas. I especially
like this version of that particular identification:
Identifying Theophilus
December 10, 2006
Luke addresses his two-part story to a man named
Theophilus. This name was relatively common among both Greeks and Jews in the
first century. Because the title preceeding his name resembles those of other
Roman officials' named in Luke's writings (Acts 23.26; 24.3; 26.25), "most
excellent Theophilus" is generally assumed to have been a Roman official.
Consider this: Luke's Theophilus was the high priest of
37-41 A.D.. Some clues supporting this notion follow.
Josephus, a Jewish historian from the first century,
catalogued the high priests of the second temple period (Wm. Whiston's
editorial note in his translation of Josephus, War, n.635). Among them are Annas (8-15 A.D.); his five
sons: Eleazar, Mattatthias, Annanas, Jonathan, and Theophilus (37-41 A.D.); his
son-in-law (brother-in-law to Theophilus) Caiaphas (the high priest during
Jesus' life); and his grandson (son of Theophilus) Matthias (65 A.D., the
second-from-the-last high priest before the fall of the temple). An
archaeological fact, this same Theophilus had a granddaughter named Yohannana,
or Johanna (engraved on an ossuary, a bone box). Several of those named above
are mentioned, whether overtly or by implication, in Luke-Acts. Among NT
writers, only Luke mentions or alludes to Theophilus, Johanna, and Matthias.
Annas is only elsewhere mentioned by John (18.13,24).
Johanna is mentioned in Luke 8.3 and 24.10. In fact, she
holds a position shared by no other in Luke's writings: the key eyewitness in
the climactic resurrection story. Luke makes certain his reader(s) recognizes
Johanna's important eyewitness testimony by using a rhetorical device called a
chiasmus. (A chiasmus is a rhetorical tool commonly used by ancient writers,
and Hebrews especially. Sometimes there is a center-point for emphasis; other
times it is used as a memory device, and there is no center point: for example,
Matthew 6.24; 7.16-20.) Johanna is at the center (designated by the letter F)
of Luke's chiasmus, a position normally reserved for key data:
A They remembered his words
(rhematon).
B Having returned
from the tomb, they reported all
these things (tauta panta)
C to the Eleven
D and to all the rest/others (loipois).
E Now there were Mary Magdalene
F and Johanna
E' and Mary the mother of James
D' and the others (loipai) with them.
C' They were telling
the Apostles
B' these things (tauta).
A' But these words (rhemata tauta) seemed nonsense to them, and they did not
believe them.
This construction is no accident. Because of her place at
this crucial point in his story, Luke must have assumed that Johanna was an
important eyewitness to his intial reader, Theophilus. Archaeologically
verifiable, she was Theophilus' granddaughter.
For these reasons, and others which shall surface in
time, it is safe to conclude that Luke's Theophilus was the high priest of
37-41 A.D., the son of Annas the high preist, the brother-in-law of Caiaphas,
the grandfather of Johanna, and the father of one of the last high priests,
Matthias.
Luke writes to Theophilus: "Inasmuch as many have
undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished
among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me...to write an
orderly account...that you may know the truth concerning the things of which
you have been informed" (Luke 1.1-4). Theophilus was "informed"
by his granddaughter Johanna, an "eyewitness...from the beginning".
Apparently he was skeptical of her testimony. Luke therefore sought to confirm
it, that Theophilus might come to believe it. This is why Luke wrote his
Gospel.
Read Luke's prologue as a declaration of certitude and
confidence pitched to a skeptic. Imagine how you might articulate the story of
Jesus to those informed yet unbelieving. Consider why, or if, it is significant
that Theophilus is identified, or identifiable. Would such an identification
change your present understanding of Luke’s Gospel?
=====
Some relevant details involving Acts:
Theophilus' son Matthias was the high priest in 65 A.D..
Phinneas followed him as the last high priest before the fall of Jerusalem. The
priesthood was extremely corrupt in the first century. The Romans often
appointed whomever they desired in official positions, such as high priest.
Phinneas was chosen to be high priest by the casting of lots (Josephus, War 4.3.6 [147-8]; 4.3.7-8
[153-6]). While there is no evidence that Matthias was likewise chosen, it is
ironic that Luke in Acts 1.21-26 briefly mentions the Eleven's selection of a
man named Matthias via the casting of lots. This is not to say that Luke
considers the newly selected apostle to be Theophilus' son. Rather, Luke shows
that this new Jesus-movement is God-ordained, for in Acts they prayed to God
and asked for his intervention - a detail lacking in Rome's selection process.
Here, Luke is demonstrating the corruption of the priesthood and promoting the
Jesus-movement to the high priest, Theophilus.
In Acts 4.6, Luke writes, "[gathered were] Annas the
high priest and Caiaphas and John[athan] and Alexander, and all who were of the
high-priestly family." Alexander aside and otherwise unknown (even in
Josephus' list), everyone mentioned here is a member of Theophilus' family. The
priesthood was seeking to condemn Peter and John for their healing of the lame
man at the gate Beautiful (3.1-26), asking by what authority they performed
this miracle (4.7). Peter's answer silences the high priestly assembly
(4.13-17). Unable to find fault in the actions of Peter and John, the
authorities release them with a mild warning (4.18-21). Here is another example
of the priesthood's inferiority contrasted with to the work of God through the
apostles' ministry. The apostles are victorious, the priesthood defeated.
Theophilus would have taken notice here, no doubt recalling the story, received
either through family tradition or as himself an eyewitness present in the
events of Acts 4.
Luke makes much of Paul's persecution-mission as having
been [sanctioned] by the priesthood (Acts 9.1-2,14; 22.5; 26.12). Yet, Paul was
converted to the cause which he persecuted. Again, here Luke demonstrates the
corruption of the priesthood in contrast to God's victorious campaign through
the apostles. What better way to make an example of this than by telling of
Paul's conversion from the priesthood's cause to this new Jesus-movement, and
in great detail, taking up more than half of Luke's story in Acts.
[End of quote]
Dr.
Werner Marx, however, is convinced that Herod Agrippa II fits as Luke’s Theophilus:
A New Theophilus
Dr. Marx, formerly
Principal of the Moravian Bible Institute in Nicaragua,
presents an
exciting new suggestion about the identity of the "most excellent
Theophilus"
for whom Luke composed his twofold history.
An interviewer asked Saul Bellow,
the Nobel Prize winner, "How much are you conscious of the reader when you
write?"
"I have in mind", he
said, "another human being who will understand me ...."
When Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts
he also had one person in mind. He wrote for Theophilus. The question of who
Theophilus was has intrigued students of the Bible for nineteen hundred years.
Moreover, we now know that to understand any piece of literature we must know
the readership for whom it is intended. A paragraph taken from a technical
journal can be easily differentiated from that of a literary magazine. So too,
the kind of person for whom he wrote would influence Luke's choice of
words, his selection of subject matter and even the turn of his sentences.
The dedication to Theophilus in
Luke's two prefaces must not be confused with the dedication of a present-day
book. His was not a gesture of gratitude, the recognition of some family or
ideological kinship. Nor is it like the prefaces written by Horace, Vergil,
Cicero or Josephus who dedicated their works to a famous patron expecting him
to underwrite the cost of publication. A shadow hung over the author always
reminding him to avoid anything that might seem offensive to his patron.
Luke's preface, on the other hand,
does not betray even remotely such a mercenary intention. His was a far more
profound purpose. …. Howard Marshall, reviewing New Testament literature says,
"The central theme in the writings of Luke is that Jesus offers salvation
to men. …”.
As he writes, the image of
Theophilus is ever before him. To win this man to a real faith in Christ is his
primary objective …. Theophilus was a real person. The name was a very common
one. It means "Friend of God." Some writers interpret the Preface to
mean, "This book is written for every reader who is a friend of God."
…. However, this Theophilus is addressed as κράτιστε Θεόφιλε (Luke
1: 4) and fellow Christians in those days never addressed each other as
"Your Excellency" – κράτιστε. It was the
correct way to address Roman officials such as Felix and Festus (Acts 24: 3;
26: 25), but a Christian official would have been called "Brother."
….
Who might this
"Excellency" have been? A very important authority in the Roman
government had shown an interest in the Gospel. Persecutions were becoming more
frequent. Regular citizens called Christians "atheists" because they did
not reverence the images. They were "divisive" and
"anti-social." …. But if this man Theophilus (his real name probably
protected by this pseudonym) could be convinced of the rightness of the
Christian faith, his influence would help immensely in the furtherance of the
message of salvation, and in the alleviation of suffering due to persecution.
For his sake Luke says he has researched the life of Christ. He has personally
interviewed eye-witnesses and read all available manuscripts. All this so that
His Honour Theophilus may be convinced of the authenticity of what Jesus taught
and did.
Since earliest times until the
present seven names have been suggested in trying to identify Theophilus.
Without using a definite name others have thought that this person must have
been a Roman official, a resident of Rome, someone from Alexandria, or someone
from Syrian Antioch. The seven names are:
l. Theophilus, brother-in-law to
Caiaphas, was high priest A.D. 37-41. ….
2. Theophilus, an official in
Athens, convicted of perjury by the Areopagus. He had no known Christian
connections. …. However, because of a tradition which says Luke wrote his
history in Achaea and Boeotia, it is thought that this man may be Theophilus. ….
3. Theophilus of Antioch was a
wealthy and distinguished Christian who converted a large hall in his home into
a church. He is mentioned in the Clementine …. Recognitions (10.71), and is
favoured by many because the anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Third Gospel (c.
A.D. 170) states that Luke came from Antioch. ….
4. Again, Luke could have given
Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, the name Theophilus as a pseudonym (Acts
13: 7-12).
5. Lucius Junius Annaeus Gallio.
This brother of Seneca was perhaps the most eminent Roman that Paul met (Acts
18: 12-17).
6. B. H. Streeter nominates Titus
Flavius Clemens, heir-presumptive of the Emperor Domitian, even though he does
not appear in the pages of our New
Testament. He is roughly a
contemporary of Luke and the fact that he may have been executed because of his
interest in Christianity (his wife, Domitilla, was a baptized Christian) makes
Streeter's suggestion attractive. ….
7. Philo Judaeus. J. A. Bengel,
following Bar Bahlul's arguments that Theophilus was an Alexandrian, believes
that Philo was Theophilus. His Hebrew name was Yedidyāh, the
equivalent of Theophilus. ….
8. To this list, I believe the name
of King Agrippa II should be added. Why he has not been suggested before is a
mystery. Possibly it may be because so many have sterotyped him as a rascal or,
at best, an inconsequential princeling.
He deserves a much better
evaluation. Of all the Herods he was the best. …. But because of the "negative
press" that Agrippa Il has received, it is necessary to remind the reader
in some detail of the positive and excellent qualities this king had.
-
Agrippa Il qualifies as an official
in good standing with Rome. The Herods were always loyal to Rome and Agrippa
I's son, called Marcus Julius Agrippa, grew up a member of Caesar's family.
Neither Moses in the Pharaoh's household nor Daniel in Babylon had better
opportunities for a first-class education.
Nor was Agrippa ashamed of his
Jewish background. At the early age of seventeen, soon after his father's death
and still sharing the intimacy of Claudius's family, he was able to influence
the Emperor in favour of the people of Jerusalem in a delicate matter which had
to do with the priestly vestments. The Jews were pitted against the Governor of
Syria and the Procurator of Judea, but Claudius ruled in favor of Agrippa and
the Jews. ….
Agrippa was made King of Chalcis at
the age of twenty-three. …. Three years later he was given the territory of his
uncle Philip: Trachonitis, Batanaea, Gaulanitis … Abilene (the tetrarchy of
Lysanias) and the tetrarchy of Varus. Soon thereafter Nero became Emperor and
added four toparchies (townships) to Agrippa II's domains. One of these,
Julias, in Perea, consisted of the city and fourteen surrounding villages … undoubtedly
some of those visited by Jesus and his disciples.
In addition, ever since his twenty-first
year, this young prince was put in charge of the high-priestly vestments in
Jerusalem. He appointed the high priest and he was treasurer of the temple. …. No
position among the Jews of that time ranked higher.
Perhaps nothing shows more how successful
a ruler Agrippa Il was than to compare his rule with that of his neighbours to
the south who sought to administer Judea. Agrippa governed a scattered
territory made up of mixed races but he maintained unbroken control for
fifty-one years, while Judea was racked by strife. Procurators came and went
until the Jewish state ceased to exist in A.D. 70. By contrast Agrippa II's
holdings grew after that date.
A good measure of Agrippa's
imperial stature is to study his speech when he (temporarily at least)
dissuaded the Jews from rising up against the Romans. He was returning from a
visit to Alexandria when a delegation of chief priests, the Sanhedrin, and high
ranking citizens went as far as Jamnia to welcome him and to inform him that
great numbers in Jerusalem were at the point of open rebellion, because of the
atrocities committed by Procurator Gessius Florus. …. Agrippa hurried to
Jerusalem, called together the populace and delivered a speech which for
rhetoric and logic is one of the best antiquity has preserved for us …. Agrippa
II's breadth of knowledge of contemporary history and of the organization of
the far-flung Roman Empire shows that he was no petty courtesan but a true
ruler. That he was able to conjure up such a speech on so short notice shows
why this man was respected in Alexandria, in Antioch and in Rome as well as in
Jerusalem.
….
Much more could be cited from
Josephus and from the Talmudic literature ….
….
Thus Agrippa II qualified in a
historical sense as the "Most Excellent" in Luke's Prologue. We now
turn to the internal evidence in Luke's writings which also supports this
identification. ….
II. INTERNAL
SUPPORT
At the very beginning of Paul's
career, the Holy Spirit had promised that he would witness before kings (Acts
9: 15). Sixteen chapters later in A.D. 61 Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea. He
had appealed to Caesar to avoid being remanded to Jerusalem. Quite unexpectedly
King Agrippa came to town to welcome the new procurator, Festus, to Judea. And
equally unexpectedly Paul was given the opportunity of explaining his case
before the king (Acts 25: 23-27). This was Paul's greatest opportunity.
Agrippa's influence extended far beyond the boundaries of his own kingdom. He
was well known in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome.
All government authorities were
aware that he was an adviser of emperors-of Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus
and Domitian in turn. For Paul at this moment, and for Luke years later, to
persuade Agrippa of the truth of the gospel and of the benevolent nature of the
Christian movement, was of supreme tactical importance.
For the uninitiated, Luke's
repetition of Paul's conversion story in Acts 26 is hard to understand. After
recounting the event itself (Acts 9: 13·25), Paul again speaks of it on the
steps of the Temple (Acts 22: 1·21) and then one more time before Procurator
Felix (Acts 24: 11·21). Another recapitulation (Acts 26: 2·23), especially since
it has already been decided that Paul is to go to Rome, seems excessive.
A satisfactory answer to this problem
could be that Agrippa II is Theophilus. All of Luke's writing seems to be
leading up to this final, most dramatic and most eloquent moment in the lives
of both men. King Agrippa enters the Judgement Hall in Caesarea together with
his sister Bernice and Procurator Festus in the midst of a great display of
pageantry, followed by military commanders and lastly by the notables among the
civic population. …. Agrippa, in keeping with his eminence, takes charge of the
proceedings and Paul speaks as if he alone were in the presence of the King.
It is conceivable that years later,
as Agrippa read these words at the end of the second volume dedicated to him,
he was strongly reminded of that moment of truth when he had said, "A
little more, and your arguments would make a Christian of me!" (Acts 28:
28-Jerusalem Bible). …. A Jewish writer on the New Testament says:
The idea is, "thou persuadest
me a little (or in some degree) to become a Christian," i.e. I begin to
feel the force of your persuasive arguments, and if I hear you any longer, I do
not know what the effect may be. This is neither sportively nor bitterly
ironical, but complimentary and courtly, no doubt expressing a sincere
admiration of Paul's eloquence and logic. . . but not a genuine conviction of
the truth of Christianity, as may be gathered from the later history of this
man ….
1. The first piece of evidence that
King Agrippa II very likely is Theophilus rests, then, upon my explanation of
why Paul's conversion story is repeated in Acts 26.
The weightiness of this chapter has
puzzled many commentators. But if Agrippa II is Theophilus, then this Apologia pro Vila Sua
of Paul comes as the climax and capstone of Luke's literary work. …. All of
the Gospel and all of Acts were written to supply that "little more or
much more" that was necessary to make of the king a convert to
christianity. Chapter 26 is for Agrippa a grand refrain, reminding him and
bringing him back to this Moment of Decision. ….
Part Two: What
about Philo Judaeus of Alexandria?
“It appears that Philo and his brother
Alexander the Alabarch were not only high ranking Princes of the
Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty ... but Roman magistrates working as Alexandrian
customs agents and ambassadors to the Judeo/Claudian Imperial Family of Rome
... and intermarried with the family of King Herod Agrippa ...”.
Can the potential best candidates for
Luke’s “Theophilus” considered in Part One of this series (https://www.academia.edu/36855684/_Most_Excellent_Theophilus_)
perhaps be merged together through the agency of yet a third important character,
Philo Judaeus – he having possible Hasmonaean and Herodian family connections?
Dugan King, contributing to the Bible Hermeneutics site, has written the
following intriguing comment arguing for Philo Judaeus as the biblical “Theophilus”:
I have been doing research in theological history and philosophy
of the first century and stumbled across another strong theory as to whom Luke
may have been addressing as Theophilus. I believe it could have been the full
name of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria also known as Jedidiah HaCohen. Jedidiah
was Philo's Hebrew name ... meaning friend or beloved of God ... and this hints
at the possibility that Philo was a shortened version of Theophilus ... having
the same meaning. Combine this with the fact that Philo was the greatest
religious philosopher of the first century ... perhaps the Great Teacher
mentioned in the writings of the Essenes ... for it was clearly the eclectic
teaching and exegesis of Philo and his "Logos" that laid the
spiritual foundation upon which Christianity, Gnosticism, Rabbinical Judaism,
Islam, Theosophy and Hermeticism are outgrowths. Philo's teachings created the
various streams of religious philosophy that have rained down upon civilization
with such force as to replace pagan polytheism with Abraham's monotheism all
across the world. Jesus taught the Logos ... the Word of God ... and declared
it to be "The First Begotten Son of God" ... an idea originating with
Philo [sic] and stated with such eloquent force that the Roman Emperors had to
quit fighting it and embrace it in order to get their grip on it and change it
from within ... so as to make it more conducive to Roman Imperial designs.
I have also discovered hundreds of allegorical clues hidden in
the works of Philo that suggest he had a very close relationship with Jesus or
Yeshua of the Nazarenes ... who very likely grew up in Alexandria during his
flight from Herod. Because Philo was a Roman magistrate ... he was not able to
come forward with what he knew about the early life of the historical Jesus
without drawing Imperial attention to himself ... but the Life of Jesus is
mirrored and traced throughout Philo's writings ... especially in his theology
and focus on the Essenes. It appears to me very likely that … Philo [was] descended
from the last Hasmonean Princess of Judea ... King Herod's captive bride ...
Queen Mary or Mariamne I.
It appears that Philo and his brother Alexander the Alabarch
were not only high ranking Princes of the Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty ... but
Roman magistrates working as Alexandrian customs agents and ambassadors to the
Judeo/Claudian Imperial Family of Rome ... and intermarried with the family of
King Herod Agrippa ... also a descendent of Queen Mary/Mariamne I ... the
captive bride murdered by Herod.
We can see Philo's teachings in the Book of Hebrews ... in the
writings of Luke, in the first paragraph of John's Gospel and in Macabbees IV.
If Luke was addressing Philo Judaeus as Theophilus ... or
perhaps Jedidiah ... then it means that Luke was writing prior to the time of
Philo's death ... possibly around 50 A.D.
The works of Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus are important
supplements to the New Testament ....
Combine this knowledge with the archeological discoveries of the
past 300 years ... and artifacts such as the shroud of Turin ... it leaves no
doubt that Jesus ... Yeshua the Nazarene ... was and is a historical figure who
impacted the world in many ways ... a spiritual/intellectual/philosophical tour
de force with the One God of Abraham at the summit. Exactly what Philo
intended.
