Origen [Horn, in Luc. i.), without rejecting the existence of a historical Theophilus, applied the name to all who are loved of God. Jerome {Anr.c- data Maredsolnna, Maredsous, 1895, iii. 3. 20) equates Theophilus with ' amicus vel amator Dei,' and Salvianus (£|p. ix. 18) says tliat Luke ad- dressed the two books ' ad amorem Dei.'
It is also possible that there is a reference to this interpretation in Tatian, Oral. adv. Grceros, xil. 3 : Ttts deLOTCLTa^ ^p/j.Tji/elas at Kara xP^^°^ ^'■°- ypa.(pT}s ^^eXriXeyfi^vai irdw 6€0<pi\ets tous trpoa^x^^'^^^ avrais irtTroLTiKadi.i' (.suggested by E. A. Abbott, EBi ii. 1790), but the point cannot be pres.sed.
Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, London, 1893, p. 197) seems to favour the view that Theophilus is a nom de guerre. If this be so, tlie following remarks as to the interests of Theophilus would need to be in- terpreted as referring to the class of which this imaginary person was typical. In this case it is interesting to note the parallel between Ac P, rbv fiiv Trpu)Tov Xbyfiv ^TTOirjadfj.r}!' irepl irdvTiov, u) 0e6(/)i\e, and Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 445, 6 /x^k irpdrepot \6yos i]V Tjfuv, Ci QedSore, Trepl rod kt\.
Assuming that Theophilus was a real person, the use of the title 'excellent' ((tpdrio-Tos) in Lk F has been used as a proof that he was a man of high
official rank. It appears, however, that this title was often given to persons of good position as a matter of courtesy, and proves nothing. It is used by other writers in their dedicatory addresses (cf. Dion. Hal. de Oral. Antiq. [<i Kpinarf "A/i/ioie] and the Ejii.itli; to Diugnetus). W. M. Ramsay thinks that the title ought to be interpreted in the strictest ofiicial manner, though he admits tliat 'some Greeks were not so accurate as Luke' (.S7. Paul the Traveller and the lloman Citizen, London, 1895, p. 3S8 n.) ; he endeavours to meet the obvious (and, in most writers' judgment, fatal) objection that Theophilus cannot be the name of a Roman of ec|uestrian rank, as it is Greek and not Latin, by the suggestion that Theophilus is the baptismal name of an official who would have been com- promised if his legal name had been used. Attrac- tive as this theory is, it is faced by the difficulty, stated, but app.arently not appreciated, by Ramsay himself, that there is no evidence of the use of baptismal names at any period which can be sug- gested for Luke's writings.
The question has often been disputed whether the Lucan writings assume that Theophilus was a Christian, or only an interested heathen inquirer. Tliere seems to be nothing decisive either way, but, although the word KarrjxriOrjs, used in Lk 1*, need not be used of Christian catechetical instruc- tion, it is perhaps more likely that it ought to be taken in this sense. The most probable guess is that Theophilus may have been a 'God-fearer,' but there is no evidence either for or against this view.
There is no credible tradition as to Theophilus in early literature.
The Clementine Recognitions (x. 71) say that a rich citizen of Antioch named Tlieophilus founded a great basilica which was established as tlie See [cfithedra) of Peter. Pseudo-Hippolytus identified this Theophilus with the one to wliom Luke wrote, and in Ajiost. Const, vii. 46 Theopliilus appears as the third bishop of Csesarea, Zacchasus and Cor- nelius being his predecessors. This tradition is almost certainly a confusion of the Theoiihilus of the Recognitions with the Theophilus who was liv- ing about 190. It is also to be noted that Seneca addressed his seventh letter to a Theophilus. The notes occasionally appended to MSS of the Gospels sometimes say that Theophilus was a disciple of Luke (H. von Soden, Die Schriften des NT, Berlin, 1902, i. 319), sometimes that he was a man of sena- torial rank (avyK\r)TiKbv bfra xai ipxafra iffws) be- cause he is addressed as KpancrTos {p. 324), but these statements are important only as showing the absence of any tradition or legend.
Among modern guesses, ingenious but devoid of any foundation, may be mentioned A. Beck's, who identifies Luke witli the unnamed companion of Cleopas on the way to Eramaus and Theophilus with an Antiochene tax-collector, the friend of Chuza and Herod, who had gone to Ciesarea with Herod and Berenice {Prolog des Lk.-Evangeliuins, Amberg, 1900).
As ' tradition' is thus ignorant of any facts con- cerning Theophilus, the only source of information which we possess is contained in the implications of the Lucan writings. Using this clue, the interest of Theophilus in Christianity may fairly be re- garded as identical with the purpose of Luke in writing. Fully or certainly to discover what this was is doubtless impossible, but a general con- sideration of the Lucan books, both by themselves and as compared with the other Gospels, gives some important clues.
The most remarkable feature of the Lucan writings is that, unlike Mark and Matthew, they contain a continuation of the history of Jesus. This clearly points to a circle in which Church life.
THESSALONIANS, EPISTLES TO
THESSALONIANS, EPISTLES TO 569
as sometliing distinct from the Syniif^ojjue, liad be- come self conscious. It must be reineinl>ereil that, so fur as Mark j^oes, there is nolhin^ to show this self-consciousness. Tlie Second tiospel seems to have been written to prove that Jesus was the Mes.siali, not to supjmrt tlie view that the Chris- tians were the chosen people of God. Similarly in Matthew, tho<i^h there is a "reat development beyond the position of Mark, the question is that of the Law, not of the Church, or congrc^'ation of God. Matthew's object is to show Christianity as the New Law, and therefore he added to Mark large sections expounding the teaching of ,Jesus in this light. He could not be satisfied with Mark, but was not obliged to consider the meaning of the Christian community. Luke, however, and Theo- philus by implication, were concerned to give a reasonable account of the community, and to ]>ro- poxind the view that the Christians, not the Jews, are the true Ecclesia — using the word which from its associations in the LXX implied that those to whom it was applied were the Ancient People of God. Acts especially seems intemled to prove this proposition, and it justilies the conclusion that one of the \6yot in which Theopbilus had been instructed concerned the claim of Christians that they and not the Jews were the true people of God.