Contents

CHAPTER 1................................................................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.......................................................................................................2
PURPOSE OF STUDY...........................................................................................................................2
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.........................................................................................................2
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................2
DELIMITATION....................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER 2................................................................................................................................................2
LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER 3................................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................4
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE...................................................................................................................4
HISTORICAL SETTING........................................................................................................................5
ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER 4................................................................................................................................................7
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATION..........................................................................................................7
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................8

1
CHAPTER 1
Text: Acts 1:1 – In the first book, O  Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and
teach.1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Scholars have argued to who exactly Theophilus is and so the question still stands who is
Theophilus.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
To determine the true identity of Theophilus to whom the book of acts is addressed to.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study serves as an academic help to how to interpret the book of Acts.

METHODOLOGY
The New English Standard Version Bible will be used, reference from scholars and the use of the
Historical Grammatical Method.

DELIMITATION
This study will focus on acts 1:1 and a few verses that are related to the topic.

INTRODUCTION
Understanding who a particular document is addressed to is very essential because you get to
understand in which context the particular document is written and why certain statements are
addressed in that way. The book of acts opens up with an addressee who is Theophilus and it
brings queries to who this Theophilus really is, hence this study will serve the purpose of
determining who the recipient of the book of Acts really is.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many scholars have different types of theories when it comes to the name or term Theophilus
and it brings therefore a debate on who truly this man is or rather the true identity, some of which
are:

Coptic tradition asserts that Theophilus was a person and not an honorary title. The Coptic
Church claims that the person was a Jew of Alexandria. Similarly, John Wesley in his Notes on
the New Testament recorded that Theophilus was "a person of eminent quality at Alexandria"2 –

1
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2007. BibleWorks, v.9.
2
John Wesley, Notes on The Gospel According to St Luke, 1:3

2
this brings out the aspect of him being a church leader in Alexandria and might be the reason
why Luke is directing the book to him.

Others say that Theophilus was probably a Roman official of some sort, because Luke referred
to him as "κρατιστε", optime in the Latin Vulgate translation, meaning "most excellent" (Luke
1:3), although in the parallel introduction to Acts he is simply referred to as 'O Theophilus'.3 —
not that he had lost his excellency, nor that it was diminished and become less illustrious; but
perhaps he had now quitted his place, whatever it was, for the sake of which that title was given
him,--or he was now grown into years, and despised such titles of respect more than he had
done,--or Luke was grown more intimate with him, and therefore could address him with the
more freedom. It was usual with the ancients, both Christian and heathen writers, thus to inscribe
their writings to some particular persons. But on the other hand it was considered ‘an honorary
title (academia) and tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person. The word in Greek
means "Friend of God" and thus both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that
description. In this tradition the author's targeted audience, as with all other canonical Gospels,
were the learned (academic) but unnamed men and women of the era’.4 This theory brings about
the thought of Luke using a pseudonym when addressing his audience

Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer during his trial period in Rome. To
support this claim people appeal to the formal legalese present in the prologue to the Gospel such
as "eye witnesses", "account", "carefully investigated", "know the certainty of things which you
have been instructed". The conclusion of The Book of Acts ends with Paul still alive and under
arrest awaiting trial, suggesting it was the intention of the author to update Theophilus on Paul's
history to provide for an explanation of his travels and preaching and serve as evidence in
support of his innocence under Roman law. Some also point to the parallel between the accounts
of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate narrated in Luke's Gospel with the account of Paul's trials
before Roman judges in the Book of Acts. In total, Jesus was declared innocent 3 times by
Pontius Pilate as was Paul before various judges.5 In the writers argument it begets the notion
that if he was the lawyer why is he getting the second hand information from Luke and not there
to bear witness as he fights for Paul’s freedom, quickly disqualifying this belief.

3
Paul On Trial The Book Of Acts As A Defense Of Christianity – March 23, John W Mauck,( 2001)
4
Ibid
5
Ibid

3
CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION
Acts is unique among the NT writings, in that its main purpose is to record a selective history of
the early church following the resurrection of Christ. It is the second part of a two-volume work,
with the Gospel of Luke being the first volume. Both books are dedicated to a person named
Theophilus, and Acts 1:1 explicitly refers back to Luke's Gospel.

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

Both the Gospel of Luke and Acts are anonymous, but the earliest discussions attribute them to
Luke. The name "Luke" appears only three times in the NT: Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11;
Philemon 24. All three references are in epistles written by Paul from prison, and all three
mention Luke's presence with Paul. The earliest discussion of the authorship of Luke and Acts is
from Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in Gaul, writing in the late second century. He attributes the
books to Luke, the coworker of Paul, and notes that the occurrence of the first-person narrative
("we") throughout the later chapters of Acts (starting at 16:10) indicates that the author of Acts
was a companion of Paul and present with him on these occasions. These "we" passages in Acts
are the key to the authorship of both Acts and the Gospel of Luke. Colossians 4:14 indicates that
Luke was a physician, and attempts have been made to bolster Lukan authorship by arguing that
Luke and Acts use technical medical language. This does not seem to be the case, as Luke seems
to have avoided technical language in order to communicate plainly to his readers, but his
detailed description of illnesses perhaps reflects his interests as a physician (cf. Acts 28:8). In
addition, all the external evidence refers to Luke as the author. Other than the three NT
references, nothing certain is known of Luke. Early traditions link him with Antioch, but that is
probably based on the reference in Acts 13:1 to "Lucius," which is a Latin name. "Luke" is a
Greek name, and both books are written in excellent Greek. His thorough acquaintance with the
OT may reflect that Luke was a converted God-fearer (a Gentile who attended the Jewish
synagogue) or Jewish proselyte (convert), though he could have gained his biblical knowledge
after becoming a Christian. Some scholars date Acts c. A.D. 70. This assumes that Acts was
written after the Gospel of Luke (Acts 1:1) and that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of his
sources (Luke 1:1-2). (Early tradition has Mark's Gospel written after Peter's death, which most
likely occurred in the mid-60s.) Others date Acts in the 70s or 80s. They hold that the primary
purpose of Acts was to give an account of how and where the gospel spread, rather than to be a

4
defense of Paul's ministry (thus accounting for the omission of the events at the end of his life).
Thus the gospel spread to "the end of the earth" (1:9)--that is, to Rome, which represented the
end of the earth as the center of world power. But a number of scholars date Acts as early as
A.D. 62, basing their view primarily on the abrupt ending of the book. Since Acts ends with Paul
in Rome under house arrest, awaiting his trial before Caesar (28:30-31), it would seem strange if
Luke knew about Paul's release (a proof of his innocence), possibly about his defense before
Caesar (fulfilling 27:24), and about his preaching the gospel as far as Spain (cf. note on 28:30-
31), but then did not mention these events at the end of Acts. It seems most likely, then, that the
abrupt ending is an indication that Luke wrote Acts c. A.D. 62, before these events occurred.6

HISTORICAL SETTING
Understanding that the book of acts was penned around early 60s or early 70s it brings to one’s
mind what was happening at that particular time and its quite interesting to discover that it was
time when persecution of the Christians was at its peak

Claudius Nero was named emperor at age 16 and reigned from A.D. 54-68. He had about five
good years under the guidance of such men as Seneca, the Roman poet and philosopher. But that
all changed when he had his mother killed in A.D. 59. She was too powerful. Her “insanity and
her fury at seeing her son slip out of her control” led Nero to believe she was a threat to his
power. In A.D. 62, he had his wife killed so he could marry another woman. He later killed a
brother and his teacher, Seneca. Christians became the object of his ire following the Great Fire
of Rome in A.D. 64. Some people suspected that Nero started the fire himself, so he pointed the
accusing finger at Christians. The fact that he felt confident in doing this indicates the low regard
in which people held Christians already. Historian Philip Schaff says that, “Their Jewish origin,
their indifference to politics and public affairs, and their abhorrence of heathen customs, were
interpreted into an ‘odium generis humani’ (hatred of the human race), and this made an attempt
on their part to destroy the city sufficiently plausible to justify a verdict of guilty.” Schaff says
that “There began a carnival of blood such as even heathen Rome never saw before or since....A
‘vast multitude’ of Christians was put to death in the most shocking manner.” Some were
crucified, some sewn up in animal skins and thrown to the dogs, some were covered in pitch,
nailed to wooden posts, and burned as torches. It was in the fallout of this that Peter and Paul
6
The NET Bible, New English Translation Bible (NET). n.p.: Biblical Studies Press, LLC, 1996.
BibleWorks, v.9.

5
gave their lives for their Savior, probably within a year of each other. Nero apparently took his
own life in A.D. 68, when the Senate and the patricians turned against him.7 This brings out the
picture of what Christianity was in the early 60s and can seemly support the theory that
Theophilus was not a person but rather a pseudonym to cover up an protect the Christians
because at that particular time there was persecution that was extreme, and Luke knew that any
evidence of Christianity would bring about the torment of persecution.

For one to conclude that it was a pseudonym and leave it there will be intellectually immature
because what if the book wasn’t in the actual sense written in the early 60s but rather early 70s
well interestingly—‘In the year 66 AD the Jews of Judea rebelled against their Roman masters.
In response, the Emperor Nero dispatched an army under the generalship of Vespasian to restore
order. By the year 68, resistance in the northern part of the province had been eradicated and the
Romans turned their full attention to the subjugation of Jerusalem. That same year, the Emperor
Nero died by his own hand, creating a power vacuum in Rome. In the resultant chaos, Vespasian
was declared Emperor and returned to the Imperial City. It fell to his son, Titus, to lead the
remaining army in the assault on Jerusalem. His Roman legions surrounded the city and began to
slowly squeeze the life out of the Jewish stronghold. By the year 70, the attackers had breached
Jerusalem’s outer walls and began a systematic ransacking of the city. The assault culminated in
the burning and destruction of the Temple that served as the center of Judaism. In victory, the
Romans slaughtered thousands. Of those sparred from death: thousands more were enslaved and
sent to toil in the mines of Egypt, others were dispersed to arenas throughout the Empire to be
butchered for the amusement of the public. The Temple's sacred relics were taken to Rome
where they were displayed in celebration of the victory. The rebellion sputtered on for another
three years and was finally extinguished in 73 AD with the fall of the various pockets of
resistance including the stronghold at Masada.8

ARGUMENT
Finally it then brings us to a conclusion that whether the book was written in A.D 62 or A.D 70
the fact still remains that there was persecution and this could lead to the hiding of the Christians
and hence working under the name of Theophilus. After looking at it in this way a question

7
Persecution In The Early Church • Rick Wade, cru.comm-crusade community
8
"The Romans Destroy the Temple at Jerusalem, 70 AD," EyeWitness to History,
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2005).

6
would arise then what about the being called Theophilus is it that he didn’t exist? Well the
answer is he did exist, was he a roman official, a church father/leader or honorary title we don’t
know all we know is he was a person who was religiously affiliated but with political influence
in the roman government for all we know he could be all of them, who then is Luke directing the
book to is the hidden Christian community or it was the person who is believed to be his patron,
to whom he dedicates this book (I should rather say his pupil, for he designs, in dedicating it to
him, to instruct and direct him). Looking at it with an overview eye will bring to light that Luke
was writing to the community of Christrians who were in hiding through the man who had the
political influence and honor, what is meant here? At this particular time of the authorship of the
book of acts the scriptures were being burnt and destroyed but if a document is directed to a man
of highest designation and authority it wouldn’t be touched and so Theophilus can be both be
said to be the person and the pseudonym. Directed to a known person so the document may be
protected and yet the book is going to the Christians(lovers of God) who are hiding away from
being persecuted.

CONCLUSION
Coming to an understanding it all, one would argue that the pseudonym theory doesn’t count
because of the grammar used in Luke 1:3 “most excellent” which refers to high officials but that
isn’t argument enough, because yes he was a high official or of high social class but still had a
relationship with Luke and Luke used that to his advantage to write to the Theophilus in hiding.

CHAPTER 4
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATION
God’s people throughout the ages have been always been persecuted and put to the corner but He
has always found ways of preserving his doctrine to them, hence we see the authorship of the
book of Acts and many others. The effect of understanding the right audience of the book of acts
helps to personalize each and every word that Dr Luke wrote to the people who were in
persecution and bring it into application to the contemporary world.

7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2007.
BibleWorks, v.9.

2. Who is Theophilus? Discovering the original reader of Luke-Acts.Creamer, Jennifer & B.

Spencer, Aida & Viljoen, Francois. (2014).

3. The NET Bible, New English Translation Bible (NET). n.p.: Biblical Studies Press, LLC, 1996.
BibleWorks, v.9.

4. Persecution In The Early Church • Rick Wade, cru.comm-crusade community

5. "The Romans Destroy the Temple at Jerusalem, 70 AD," EyeWitness to History,

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2005).

6. John Wesley, Notes on The Gospel According to St Luke, 1:3

7. Paul On Trial The Book Of Acts As A Defense Of Christianity – March 23, John W Mauck,
(2001)