Some scholars think the Theophilus to which Luke and Acts are dedicated was an historical person; some do not. They think the name is symbolic, covering all those who “love God”; that is, in Luke’s context, all Christians.
I side with the first group on two grounds, firstly, because one of the very arguments the second group uses to promote their case actually works against them. They point out (rightly) that the name itself possesses meaning–lover of God (or loved by God?). They then (wrongly) infer that this name must be intended as merely symbolic–a strong argument, if we knew that names with value were rare in antiquity. What we know is in fact the exact opposite. Nearly all names “meant” something. (Perhaps all names in fact mean something, though in modern times the meaning has long since evaporated from common knowledge.) If we are to reduce Theophilus to the status of a symbol based on that alone, we shall be left with almost no historical persons in antiquity. Jesus, Paul, Timothy–all identifiers with symbolic meaning.
Theophilus of course may not have been the birth name used by the addressee–it may be a nickname, also a common practice in antiquity. Peter was not born Peter (for simplicity I am anachronistically sticking to English renderings). Perhaps even Matthew the tax collector of Matthew 9:9 was a nickname given by Jesus or acquired later in his Christian life–the author refers to him not as Matthew but “a man called Matthew”, an indicator used only of Simon when his nickname is added, Simon “who was called Peter”.
My second reason for settling down in the first camp and regarding Theophilus as an historical person is also linguistic–in both works Luke employs an honorific prefix. He is “most excellent” (kratiste) Theophilus in Luke; in ACts, it is O’ (w’) Theophilus. If Luke intended a merely symbolic name to cover all Christians, this is surely an odd addition. A creative interpreter might say that by employing the honorific prefixes the author has elevated all Christians to the realm of civic eminence–but surely such interpreter would be in or dangerously close to the methodological quagmire of ad hocs.
A case against my own could be made (perhaps victoriously) by comparing addresses where we know (I’d take a majority vote) the name to be merely symbolic, and where additions typically reserved for the eminent are added.
Until then, safe historical practices inclines me to take honorifics at face-value: both books are addressed to a real historical person occupying a higher sphere of civic status.
CLB
κράτιστε Θεόφιλε
Vocative case and singular tense, both the adjective and name. The author had been intending then and afterwards (perfect progressive aspect) within the literal grammar (interior composition of the sentence) that Theophilis be interpreted as a single person and not a group.
Burden of proof is not going to be found anywhere either for or against the symbolic or historical.
Flip a coin.
I suppose I’m enough under the spell of Robyn Faith Walsh to suspect this address is a literary maneuver. The question depends on how we imagine Luke’s implied audience. The traditional view is that Luke is writing for a specific faith community. But if the author is writing for a community of his peers, literate elites, as Walsh suggests, then such a flourish is not surprising.
Luke is writing to a sympathetic and powerful Roman authority (Theophilus) and the Roman Courts under Nero in hopes that Paul can be released from prison and not executed. The gospel:Luke-Acts is the background story of everything before that trial before Nero.
Who, what, where, when, why did all this happen? The gospel was in opposition to an insanity plea.
Robert said
Interesting, Connor. Do you have a short list of the most prominent Lukan scholars and their respective positions on this question?
I feel like yours is a response of intimidation–that is, if I can’t supply a full list of scholars who think Theophilus is a real person or a symbolic name, then my proposal fails.
It’s an odd game. There are obviously scholars who think the name is symbolic and that Luke is writing to “all who love God”. If there were not, why or how would I make that up?
So then, there are scholars who think the name is symbolic, and there are others who think it is a real person.
Let’s carry on.
Colin Milton said
κράτιστε Θεόφιλε
Vocative case and singular tense, both the adjective and name. The author had been intending then and afterwards (perfect progressive aspect) within the literal grammar (interior composition of the sentence) that Theophilis be interpreted as a single person and not a group.
Burden of proof is not going to be found anywhere either for or against the symbolic or historical.
Flip a coin.
flip a coin GRAMMATICALLY, yes
Flip a coin HISTORICALLY? no.
Historians have to utilize the historical imagination; they have to attempt to reconstruct the past as finely and comprehensively as possible–full, plausible, visual.\
The burden of proof is on the theory that forces me to reconstruct a scenario in which a person is writing what we have, this gospel, and deciding make a fabricated address. Historians debate whether Theophilus is real or not. The real question is, Why make up a person so as to explain why you are writing?
Do we have any examples in ancient literature where the addressee is clearly made up for the simple purpose of allowing the writer to explain why he is writing?
What would have been lost if the author of Luke just started with the narrative?
brown.connor4 said
Robert said
Interesting, Connor. Do you have a short list of the most prominent Lukan scholars and their respective positions on this question?
I feel like yours is a response of intimidation–that is, if I can’t supply a full list of scholars who think Theophilus is a real person or a symbolic name, then my proposal fails.
You can feel that way, but if we have to go on what a question says, the question only asks for a short list, it doesn’t ask for a comprehensive catalog.
I mean, if Robert had asked for a comprehensive list, I would think you had a fair point.
Bear in mind the forum is not restricted to experts in the field, but is open to interested non-experts (like myself) who are interested in hearing what experts have to say. A list of your top three or four Lukan scholars and where they land on the question would be great.
Porphyry said
I mean, OP was very explicitly claiming to adjudicate between competing scholars. Seems perfectly fair to ask which scholars he is talking about.
…
…
well, shoot. I have in my notes on Luke (which are very, very long) mention of the “symbolic” theory. And yet, agitated by the challenge given here, I search and search and…..I CAN FIND NOT A SINGLE DAMN SCHOLAR WHO ADVOCATES IT!
I humbly recant, unless someone can graciously provide.
(Still, I myself would never have come up with the theory the “theophilus” was intended as a symbolic name for “Christians in general”; it’s just not how I think, historically. So where the hell did I get it from???)
Anyhow, not any problem of yours. Thank you for the challenge.
And now, tail between legs….
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
Robert said
Interesting, Connor. Do you have a short list of the most prominent Lukan scholars and their respective positions on this question?
I feel like yours is a response of intimidation–that is, if I can’t supply a full list of scholars who think Theophilus is a real person or a symbolic name, then my proposal fails.
Nope, just a simple question. If we know the most important scholars on both sides of this question, we can look up their arguments.
It’s an odd game. There are obviously scholars who think the name is symbolic and that Luke is writing to “all who love God”. If there were not, why or how would I make that up?
Relax. I never said you made anything up. But when you critique a scholarly argument, it would seem appropriate that you at least identify the scholar(s) you are criticizing.
… one of the very arguments the second group uses to promote their case actually works against them. They point out (rightly) that the name itself possesses meaning–lover of God (or loved by God?). They then (wrongly) infer that this name must be intended as merely symbolic–a strong argument, if we knew that names with value were rare in antiquity. What we know is in fact the exact opposite. Nearly all names “meant” something. (Perhaps all names in fact mean something, though in modern times the meaning has long since evaporated from common knowledge.) If we are to reduce Theophilus to the status of a symbol based on that alone, we shall be left with almost no historical persons in antiquity. Jesus, Paul, Timothy–all identifiers with symbolic meaning.
Can you tell us the name of a scholar that makes this argument in such strong terms (“must”)? Is this scholar so stupid that they do not know the etymologies of common names?
a special apology here.
I am in a desperate situation: on the one hand, I would never have come up with the theory, only to refute it. Granted, I challenge every theory I have, but not with such crap as this one (which ignores that in antiquity names had meaning and people knew them). On the other hand, why was this theory in my head?
Anyhow, I withdraw.
brown.connor4 said
… well, shoot. I have in my notes on Luke (which are very, very long) mention of the “symbolic” theory. And yet, agitated by the challenge given here, I search and search and…..I CAN FIND NOT A SINGLE DAMN SCHOLAR WHO ADVOCATES IT!
I humbly recant, unless someone can graciously provide.
(Still, I myself would never have come up with the theory the “theophilus” was intended as a symbolic name for “Christians in general”; it’s just not how I think, historically. So where the hell did I get it from???)
Anyhow, not any problem of yours. Thank you for the challenge.
And now, tail between legs….
I don’t know the literature well enough to know whether there are any academics who presently argue this, and if so who they are, but browsing around suggests that Origen, Epiphanius and Salvianus all suggested that it could be a generic title rather than a specific person.
Given the meaning of the name, the search term “allegorical” may be more effective than the search term “symbolic”.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)