4. Alexander IMorus ( A d Qiiadam Loca Nov. Feed. Xotce : ad Luc. i, 1 ) makes the rather hazardous con- jecture that the Theophilus of Luke is identical with the person who is recorded by Tacitus {Aimal. ii, 55) to have been condemned for fraud at Athens by the court of the Areopagus. Grotius also conjectures that he was a magistrate of Achaia baptized by Luke. The conjecture of (Jrotius must rest upon the assertion of Jerome (an assertion which, if it is received, renders that of Morus possible, though certainly most improb- able), namely, that Luke published his gospel in the parts of Achaia and Ba-otia (Jerome, Comm. in JIatt. Proai}).).
5. It is obvious to suppose that Theophilus was a Christian; but a different view has been entertained. In a series of dissertations in the BibL Bremensis, of which Michaelis gives a resume in the section already referred to, the notion that he was not a Christian is maintained by different writers and on different grounds. Ileumann, one of the contributors, assuming that he was a Koman governor, argues that he could not be a Chris- tian, because no Christian would be likely to have such a charge intrusted to him. Another writer (Theodore Hase) believes that the Theo]ihilus of Luke was no other than the deposed high-priest Theophilus the son of Ana- nus (see below). Michaelis himself is inclined to adopt this theory. He thinks that the use of the word KaTi]xij- Sf/jt" i'l Luke i, 4 proves that Theophilus had an imperfect acquaintance with the facts of the gospel (an argument of which bishop Marsh very properly disposes in his note npon the passage of Michaelis), and further con- tends, from the ti/ y'lfilv of Luke i, 1, that he was not a member of the Christian community. He thinks it probable that the evangelist wrote his gospel during the imprisonment of Paul at Cajsarea. and adilressed it to Theophilus as one of the heads of the Jewish nation. According to this view, it would I)e regarded as a sort of historical apology for the Christian faith.
In surveying this series of conjectures, and of tradi- tions which are nothing more than conjectures, we tind it easier to determine what is to be rejected than what we are to accept. In the first place, we may safely re- ject the patristic notion that Theophilus was either a fictitious person or a mere personilication of Christian love. Such a personilication is alien from the spirit of the New-Test, writers, and the epitiiet Kparicrre is a sufficient evidence of the historical existence of Theoph- ilus. It does not, indeed, prove that he was a govern- or, but it makes it most probable that he was a person
of high rank. His supposed connection with Antioch, Alexandria, or Achaia rests on too slender evidence either to claim acceptance or to need refutation; and the view of llase, although endorsed by Michaelis, ap- pears to be incontestably negatived by the Gentile com- plexion of the third gospel. The groinuis alleged by Ileumann for his hypothesis that Theophilus was not a Christian are not at all trustworthy, as consisting of two very disputable premises: for, in the first place, it is not at all evident that Theophilus was a Koman governor, and, in the second ]»lace, even if we assume that at that time no Christian would be appointed to such an oflice (an assum))tion which we can scarcely venture to make), it does not at all follow that no person in that position would become a Christian. In fact, we have an exam- ple of such a conversion in the case of Sergius I'aulus (Acts xiii, 12). In the art. Luke, Gospel accoiuung TO, reasons are given for believing that Theophilus was "not a native of Palestine . . . not a Macedonian, nor an Athenian, nor a Cretan. But that he was a native of Italy, and perhaps an inhabitant of Rome, is probable from similar data." All that can be conjectured with any degree of safety concerning him comes to this, that he was a Gentile of rank and consideration, who came under the influence of Luke, or (not improbably) under that of Paul, at Kome, and was converted to the Chris- tian faith. It has been observed that the Greek of Luke, which elsewhere approaches more nearly to the classical tyjie than that of the other evangelists, is purer and more elegant in the dedication to Theophilus than in any other part of his gospel. — Smith. From all these circumstances, and especially from the fact that both the gospel and the Acts were dedicated to Theophilus — botli, therefore, being written, in all probability, about the same time, and that time being Paul's imprison- ment at Kome, where the latter ends — we may reason- ably infer that Theophilus was one of the apostle's con- verts in the imperial city during the two years' sojourn of Paul there, for a part, if not the most, of wliich Luke was his companion, and hence likely to be acqnainted with, and interested in, the noble convert. See Luive; Paul. Monogra|)hs in Latin have been written on Theophilus by Heumann (in the BibL Bremensis, iv, 4!S3). Osiander (tub. 1659), Stoltze (\"iteb. 1693), and Schelvig (Ged. 1711).
2. A Jewish high-priest, the son of Annas or Ananus, brother-in-law to Caiaphas [see Annas; Calvpiias], and brother and immediate successor of Jonathan. The Koman prefect Vitellius came to Jerusalem at the Pass- over (A.D. 37), and deposed Caiaphas, appointing Jona- than in his place. In the same year, at the feast of Pentecost, he came to Jerusalem, and deprived Jonathan of the high -priesthood, which he gave to Theophilus (Josephus, ^»/. xviii, 4,3; 5,3). Theophilus was re- moved from his post by Herod Agrippa I after the ac- cession of that prince to the government of Juda?a in A.D. 41, so that he must have continued in office about five years (ibid, xix, 6, 2). — Smith. Theophilus is not mentioned in the New Test., as no events occurred dur- ing his pontificate in which the apostles were specially involved. See Hicjii-priest.