Most Excellent Theophilus (of Antioch?)

[@Jd-808]

Love it! I never would have imagined plausible reconstructions of shadows like Apollos and Theophilus are available to us. As someone content with historical uncertainty, these are some of my favorite aspects of your work - wonderful syntheses of skill, knowledge, and imagination, the essential elements of the historian. In my eyes your work is as much about answers as an invitation to wonder - modernity having made us obsessed with the former at the expense of the latter.

[@m.davidlitwa]

That's a very kind comment, John. thank you!

[@SobekLOTFC]

Keep up the excellent work, Dr Litwa 👏

[@Peejayk]

Super interesting!

[@RomanPhilosopher]

another great video Dr Litwa!

[@m.davidlitwa]

Thank you kindly!

[@theyoshine]

Spectacular information!

[@simonodowd2119]

Dr. Litwa, I was wondering whether the person of Theophilus in can. Luke is connected to Theophilus of Antioch just last week. You must be reading my mind again. Thanks for all you do!

[@m.davidlitwa]

thanks. spread the word!

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Thanks David.

[@alexdevisscher6784]

Interesting theory! If true, what would this mean for the relationship between the Gospel of Luke and Marcion's gospel?

[@wright661]

Thank you

[@mariod1547]

I've long heard of this interesting possiblity. Not sure if its from Robert M Price or another scholar i heard it from first, but its been something in the back of my mind whenever i see Theophilus brought up concerning Luke-Acts. I guess what could nudge this possibility into a high probability is if Theophilus's surviving work, to Autoclyus, extensively uses Luke-Acts are shows some preference for them over other New Testament texts. Any studies on that specifically?

[@JosephNobles]

Wikipedia's article on ToA doesn't reveal many citations of Luke/Acts in his extant work. It is, of course, Wikipedia, though. And there is only a clear citation of the gospel of John mentioned there.

[@mariod1547]

@@JosephNobles Thank you

[@m.davidlitwa]

It's ripe for a dissertation!

[@EdwardM-t8p]

Intriguing hypothesis! If this is true, what does that mean for the other canonical gospel's date of origin? I suspect they would all have to be dated to post 135 CE

[@m.davidlitwa]

well, sort of . . . you'll have to get my Re-Dating the Gospels course

[@EdwardM-t8p]

​@@m.davidlitwa When I can, financially. I'm poor right now, thanks.

[@kamilgregor]

It might be the case that Theophilus funded an account of early Christian history specifically for his historiographical work, kind of like what happened with Augustine and Orosius. The prologue would then be the author of Luke-Acts reporting back to him with the final product.

[@seanhogan6893]

How does this account for the supposed similarity between Luke's and Marcion's gospels?

[@kamilgregor]

@@seanhogan6893 the author rewrote the Gospel of the Lord for the first part of his project

[@seanhogan6893]

​@@kamilgregordo you think Theophilus would have already been familiar with Marcion's gospel?

[@kamilgregor]

@@seanhogan6893 He wrote a work against Marcion so he presumably became familiar with it at some point. Maybe producing an ideologically acceptable rewrite of the Marcionite gospel was a part of his work assignment.

[@seanhogan6893]

@@kamilgregor I find it difficult to believe anyone would undermine Marcion by amending his gospel rather than Matthew. But the early church does seem a bit of a theological and literary Wild West so who knows.

[@Sjsg68]

Justin martyr, tatian, irenaeus, Papyrus 75 be like : 💀🍻

[@m.davidlitwa]

you lost me

[@kamilgregor]

You should grab a Greek prosopography, look at how popular the name Theophilus was and then ballpark some odds of two Christians of the same name given an estimated Christian population at the time.

[@m.davidlitwa]

well, that's right Kamil. This is only a thought experiment.

[@dougrobinson6683]

If Theophilus of Antioch was a convert (therefore not born into Christianity), did he re-name himself upon conversion, or was he already called Theophilus? If he re-named himself upon conversion, that's a good argument for a previous Christian Theophilus (which would be Luke's). If Theophilus was a pagan name he kept, then he's gotta be the leader in the clubhouse for Luke's Theophilus.

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

The main objection that I have to any post- 70 AD dating of the writing of the four canonical gospels (and Acts) is the lack of "vindication" that would have come to the Christian community that came from the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem. For Luke, (ch 21 v 20, etc) the destruction of Jerusalem is still somewhat vague and the ideas of Jesus or the church becoming the new temple (dwelling place) of God are not yet fully developed. After 70 AD, the young Christian community could say, "See! The curses of the covenant (Lev 26 & Deut 28) have all come to pass on apostate Judaism, just as Jesus predicted! God has rejected the entire sacrificial system of Moses that could only occur in the temple! God has vindicated us and we are now the true people of God!" Instead, the Gospels and Acts are still full of that confusing period when Jewish converts (including Paul) would continue to go to the temple, make vows, keep the Jewish food laws and customs, go to synagogue and keep the Jewish Sabbath as well as reject the Jewish food laws and meet on the first day of the week for worship and instruction and reject circumcision. Any gospel or Acts written in the second century would have retroactively sorted out this confusion. However, if the gospels and Acts were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, when there was much more uncertainty and when the Apostles were still working all of this out, this confusion is just being honestly admitted because they were living in the "overlap of the ages" (ie., the old covenant age and new covenant age). Also, don't forget, by AD 136, the Bar Kokhba revolt had been completely defeated by the Romans and Judaism was at its lowest point in all history. Why start composing Luke/Acts with so many ambiguities about Judaism, when Judaism had been so thoroughly defeated? Why the absence of triumphalism and vindication about all this in the gospels and Acts?

[@m.davidlitwa]

finally. thank you for providing actual reasons. "defeated" Judaism is not an accurate description of what was going on the Diaspora.

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

@@m.davidlitwa I didn't mention the Kitos War (115-117 AD), which was prior to the Bar Kokhba rebellion. During this, (the second Roman-Jewish war) the Diaspora Jews that rose up against the Roman Empire in Cyrene (Libya), Cyprus, Mesopotamia and Egypt. These rebellions were put down with characteristic Roman brutality. The combined effect of the three Jewish-Roman wars (Judea 68-70 AD, Kitos, 115-117 AD and Bar Kokhba 132-136 AD) was as devastating on the Jewish population as the horrors that were inflicted on European Jews during WW2. A minority of Jews responded to the defeat of first Jewish-Roman war with the Council of Jamnia (probably late 1st century). This refocused Jewish faith and practise away from the (by then destroyed) temple in Jerusalem and onto a faith more focused on the synagogue, torah/talmud study and private pietism. However, ever since the Maccabean period, when the Jewish faith embraced violent liberation as a proof of covenant zeal (eg. Num 25 vs 7-11) and saw the Jews defeat the Seleucid Empire (167 to 160 BC), the Messianic expectations of Judaism were focused on a "son of David" who would act as King David did and use military violence to crush the enemies of God. By the 1st century, this enemy was Rome and this ideology was the driving force behind all three of the Jewish wars against Rome. To put it bluntly, the Romans genocided this ideology out of existence. As an ideology, this form of violent Judaism was as as completely defeated and the only Jewish communities to survive it were those that were represented by the Council of Jamnia. Re-read the gospels in the light of this and they fit perfectly into the issues of first century, second temple Judaism prior to 70 AD. Jesus's emphasis on loving your enemies (the Romans) and turning the other cheek (put up with their abuse) make a lot more sense. The references to the Zealots, the temple, the Sadducees, etc also make more sense. The admittedly slightly obscure references to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the Olivet Discourse read more like a warning to and a preparation for Jewish Christians living between AD 30 and AD 70 if read in this context. Then re-read the gospels with the assumption that they were written after the three Jewish-Roman wars and that the only form of Judaism surviving is the Council of Jamnia pietistic form of Judaism. Why introduce so many obscure historical details about ideologies that had already been completely defeated? What relevance did all this have to your imagined second century original audience? If your more fictionalised account of the life of Jesus is still taking place prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, why not also project back "prophecies" of the total defeat of violent Judaism throughout the Roman Empire that was now in your past (as your writing after 136 AD)? Why not make the Olivet Discourse a lot clearer and if you're trying to pass it off as predictive prophecy? Surely the more detailed you could make it, the more convincing it would appear to be? In summary: I disagree. "Defeated Judaism" is a VERY accurate description of what was going on in the Diaspora and the gospels make much more sense if they are read as written in their pre-70 AD historical context, before any of these horrors had occurred.

[@smillstill]

Theophilus seems to be another possible source linking the Holy Spirit to Lady Wisdom, along with the Book of Wisdom, Iraneus and some Gnostic documents. Although, Wisdom is associated with Jesus in 1Cor 1:30, but it seems Logos in Theophilus would be most closely associated with Jesus, due to familiarity with the Gospel of John, leaving the third member of the Trinity to be Wisdom. I think early first century attestation to the primacy of Father, Son and Holy Spirit together in sources such as Matthew and the Didache leave it as only a matter of time to resolve the divinity of three separate entities with the OT concept of one God with the Trinity concept.

[@m.davidlitwa]

astute comments. thanks for sharing

[@tsemayekekema2918]

Why do you ignore the fact that Matthew specifically states that the Three share the same Tetragrammaton-NAME, and not three seperate names? I believe it is a logical fallacy to say that trinity is a fundamentally different idea from the existence of Shekinah, Word, Wisdom & Name in non-christian Judaism. I do think that Philo would have agreed that The Word is an owner of the Tetragrammaton Name. Remember how Litwa' s videos consistently mention Israel's God being depicted as having the head of a DONKEY by gentiles?? We have a 2nd century painting by the slave of a christian of a crucified man who has the head of an ass/donkey! The attached inscription states that the master worships a crucified deity with the head of an ass/donkey! How much much clearer can it be that identifying Jesus with Israel's God in a binitarian sense was mainstream in "proto-Orthodox" Christianity throughout the second century (Simon Gathercole's book on synoptic christology permanently lays to rest any dispute that Pre-existence christology is in all synoptics-and that has implications for scholars who take the "I have come" sayings as authentic to the historical Jesus!)

[@theHentySkeptic]

Always assumed it was a pseudonym to hide his real identity. Anyone from later than 70AD is not a realistic candidate for Luke's patron.

[@m.davidlitwa]

you are one of many to state this. still looking for a reason . . .

[@oddsavage]

The timing is hard in this theory. It would make much better sense if this Theopolis were a later editor of an earlier work (or works) rather than the original author.

[@m.davidlitwa]

who is arguing that Theophilus is the original author?

[@oddsavage]

@@m.davidlitwa good call.

[@henryschmit3340]

You must have the wrong Theophilus because Luke wrote his account long before 170.

[@alananimus9145]

Evidence please?

[@m.davidlitwa]

right. he revised the prototype around 150.

[@henryschmit3340]

@@m.davidlitwa The Gospels have nothing in them about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. That is good evidence that Luke wrote his account before AD 70 -- long before your Theophilus. Then there are other points to consider... "...when we see Acts end with the imprisonment of Paul in Rome with no comment about the outcome of the imprisonment, we can assume that Acts was completed after Paul was arrested but before he was martyred ( AD 64), and extrapolate back to an even earlier date for the Gospel of Luke (who wrote Acts as a sequel). To strengthen this point, Acts also mentions neither the fall of Jerusalem, the horrific Neronian persecutions (mid 60s) although other persecutions are mentioned, nor the martyrdoms of James (61) and Peter (65), so was probably written before those events."

[@Sauveguy]

Luke and Acts were written in the late 1st century, not in the mid to late 2nd century! Nice try Dr. Litws.😊

[@m.davidlitwa]

well. I guess that solves it. I love the spelling

[@VeganSchool]

The view I have been advocating for is that this is the correct Theophilus. I have Luke-Acts composed in 170, likely in Rome or Gaul, and it was intended to persuade the leader of antioch to adopt a newly emerging proto-orthodox view. To that point the church of antioch accepted the gospels of John, Matthew, and James, but not Mark or Luke. So this version of Luke added a birth narrative from James, as well as material from Matthew, Josephus, Acts of Pilate, and other sources. I don't think Theophilus commissioned it. I think the western proto-orthodox pioneers composed it for the purpose of trying to get the antioch church on board with their proto-orthodox takeover of Christianity that culminated a decade later with Irenaeus and his proposed four-gospel canon.

[@seanhogan6893]

Interesting. What is the gospel of James? How does this account for the apparent similarity between Luke's and Marcion's gospels?

[@VeganSchool]

@@seanhogan6893 it is also called the Infancy Gospel or Protoevangelium of James. It is the source Justin Martyr gets his birth narrative info from, and the primary source Canonical Luke and Canonical Matthew get theirs from. Marcion's gospel is an older form of Canonical Luke, and is the primary source for the majority of the material contained in Canonical Luke. I believe Marcion inherited it and likely did not modify it at all, contrary to what Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius claim. Canonical Luke is the later, modified one.

[@seanhogan6893]

Thanks for clarifying.

[@dougrobinson6683]

I'd like to hear more. I don't know enough about the scholarship to put together a timeline like this that I could support with evidence, but nothing I've learned so far makes this impossible, and it is very much in line with my (much less detailed) speculation.

[@VeganSchool]

@@dougrobinson6683 I have some videos in the live tab on my channel about early Christianity that help put together a timeline, and I plan to make a few more on the subject over the next few months. Dr Litwa also has a lot of useful info for this in his Found Christianities book and on his patreon.

[@VeganSchool]

Antioch is only mentioned 18 times in the Bible. Paul mentions it twice, likely in reference to the same 1 episode. The other 16 times are in the book of Acts. If Theophilus isn't the 170 archbishop of Antioch, then why is Antioch so heavily focused on and exalted in Acts and scarcely mentioned anywhere else in the Bible? Sounds like he is trying to be recruited to join the late second century proto-orthodox takeover of Christianity.