The name, then, is to be taken as denoting some contemporary of Luke (or of whoever wrote the Third Gospel and Acts). Otherwise he is unknown to history. Later tradition naturally busied itself with fanciful conjectures upon his personality, turning him eventually into the bishop of Antioch or of Csesarea (cf. Zahn's Einleittmg, § 58. 5). But this is the region of guesswork, though modern critics have often been tempted to stray back into it. As, for example. Beck, who, in his Prolog des Lk.-Evangeliums (1900), deduces from iv tj/j-Iv (P) the fact that the author was one of the two Em- maus disciples, while Theophilus must have been a wealthy Antiochene tax-collector, an acquaintance of Chuza and Herod, who accompanied Herod and Bernice to Caesarea, where he fell in with St. Paul and St. Luke. Godet oi^ines that Luke was a freedman of Theophilus. The latter, at any rate, may have been the patronus libri, expected to be responsible for the publication and circulation of the Gospel and its sequel. Whether he was of Greek extraction or a Roman, possibly of eques- trian rank, it is impossible to say ; but one may cheerfully set aside the theories which identify him with Philo or Seneca.
We are thus reduced to an examination of the internal evidence for any knowledge of the posi- tion and character of the man. (1) Plainly, to
THEOPHILUS
THIRST
727
begin with, he was a Christian when the Thii'd Gospel was composed. He had been ' instructed ' in the faith by some Christian teachers as a cate- chumen. But either he or his friend, the author, felt that some fuller acquaintance with the historic basis of the Christian religion (not of the Pauline gospel, as Hilgenfeld argues in Ztschr. fur Wiss. Thcoloqie, 1901, pp. 1-11) was advisable, and it was with this end in view that the Third Gospel and its sequel were addressed to him, in order to remove uncertainties caused by diver.sity, inexact- ness, lack of thoroughness, and absence of order, in the current accounts of Christ's life on earth. Some critics still hold that Theophilus Avas simply a pagan interested in Christianity. But the term Ka.T-nx¥v^ (Lk 1^ cf. Ac 18-5 2121), especially in the light of its context, seems to iireclude this hypo- thesis. St. Luke's preface implies that he was more than merely an interested inquirer. It suggests, as Wright says (Composition of the Four Gospels, p. 55), that ' busy men like Theophilus had been cate- chized in their youth, but later occupations had driven out many of the lessons, and unless a man could secure the same catechist whom he had attended as a boy, the frequent discrejiancies in the ever-changing tradition would jar on the preci- sion of youthful memory, and produce a general sense of disappointment and uncertainty.' Oral tradition had its merits. It was vital and free from any danger of codifying the Christian spirit. But among its defects were liability to discrepancies (cf. Jos. c. Apion. i. 2) and absence of uniformity. Furthermore, if there is no other instance of one Christian hailing another by a secular title in the NT, on the other hand there is no case of a Chris- tian writing for the benefit of any save fellow- Christians. Besides, such a title need not have been incongruous with Christianity. If Theophilus was of high rank, the faith which bade Christians honour all men would not preclude a Christian author from employing such a title once in a semi- formal iirologue to his work. (2) That Theophilus was a man of rank is suggested by the term Kpariare — ' most excellent ' or ' your excellency ' (Ac 23-8 243 26^5), which may be almost semi- technical, and in any case implies respect for exalted position and nigh authority, though the idea of intimacy and affection need not be excluded (cf. Jos. Ant. vi. 8, etc.). He may have been on the proconsular staff, or an official of some kind in the Imperial service. And this would tally with the special emphasis laid by St. Luke upon the relation of the Church to the Empire, and the repeated connexions which he suggests between the political affairs of the age and the progress of Christianity (cf. e.g. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? ch. iii. ), especially in Acts. His social position is further suggested by the internal evi- dence of the Third Gospel, which, as has been often nointed out (cf. e.g. Encyc. Bibl. 1792), is specially concerned with the hindrances throAvn up by inoney and rank in the path of a consistent Christian character. ' Lk. seems to see, as the main obstacles to the Faith, not hypocrisies, nor Jewish backsliding, but the temptations of wealth and social position acting upon half-hearted converts ; and his sayings about building the tower, putting the hand to the plough, renouncing all one's posses- sions, a,nd hating father and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have been going on in the divided household of many a young Theophilus.' In the case of Theophilus, however, wealth and dignity did not form an obstacle to faith. It says something for this well-to-do Christian that he was willing to be instructed, and evidently keen to learn the historic principles of his faith. To his open-mindedness we oAve, in one sense, two of the most important historical documents in early Chris-