Daily Archives: February 1, 2010

Who is Theophilus?

Recently, I became acquainted with the blogs of Lee T. Dahn (found HERE) and Richard Anderson (found HERE). Although they do address other subjects, their blogs seem to be dedicated to the works of Luke with the identification of Theophilus, Luke’s addressee, as a key concern.

What if I were to write: “Mr. President, pertaining to the affairs of which you have been informed, I have decided that it would be in your interest to know how these things developed from the beginning…” Wouldn’t the contents of my narrative be weighted by the identity of the person to whom I am writing? Wouldn’t analogies therein also take on a meaning according to the identity of my addressee? For example, what if I was a college student writing to the president of my class or the president of a speakers club? What if I was an executive of a large commercial industry writing to the president of another large industry, wouldn’t otherwise indistinct analogies that I might place within my narrative take on a meaning different from what one would ordinarily read into my words, if I were simply writing to another college student who happens to be the president of my class or college group? What if I were writing to the President of the United States about a particular group of which I was a member? Wouldn’t’ my narrative take on even a different meaning than these others, especially when I might be speaking of analogies or indistinct parallels? So, the identity of Luke’s addressee, considering these circumstances, could be very important, and the meaning of Jesus’ different parables would take on new meaning, if Theophilus could be shown to be the High Priest who governed Judea from 37-41 CE—and the son of Annas who was so influential in the crucifixion of Jesus! Wouldn’t this be so? Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on February 1, 2010 in Religion, Textual Criticism


Tags: , , , , , ,