According to the opinion of some that I have read, Luke may not have been addressing Theophilus, (Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1) the high priest, but his son Matthias, the high priest. This claim is supported by showing Luke calls Joseph, son of Caiaphas, by the name of Caiaphas, thereby allowing Luke’s intended addressee to be Matthias, son of Theophilus. I admit this is intriguing, but Paul implies in his second epistle to the Corinthians that Luke’s Gospel was written sometime before Paul’s 3rd missionary journey (54-58 CE), or possibly even before Paul’s second missionary journey (51-54 CE). This would have been about a decade before the tenure of Matthias, son of Theophilus, as high priest. If so, there would be no reason to address Matthias as “most excellent” etc. Paul’s implication is made in 2Corinthians which he wrote from Macedonia near the end of his 3rd missionary journey and on his way to Corinth to take the offering from the gentile churches to the poor at Jerusalem. Notice:
2 Corinthians 8:16-19 NET. (16) But thanks be to God who put in the heart of Titus the same devotion I have for you, (17) because he not only accepted our request, but since he was very eager, he is coming to you of his own accord. (18) And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his work in spreading the gospel. (19) In addition, this brother has also been chosen by the churches as our traveling companion as we administer this generous gift to the glory of the Lord himself and to show our readiness to help. [emphasis mine]
It seems odd that Paul would single out a person in this manner, if all he meant was that the brother preached the Gospel to the gentiles. Titus was doing that but Paul doesn’t mention him this way. Paul often writes of Timothy’s talent and sincerity, but neither does he describe him in this manner. Notice that this brother is “praised by all the churches for his work in spreading the Gospel.” We know that the author of Luke and Acts is with Paul as he leaves Corinth on his way to Jerusalem (Acts 20:5), so he could be the very unnamed brother mentioned in 2Corinthians 8:18. If the author of Luke and Acts is the brother referred to in 2Corinthians 8:18, it is perfectly understandable why “all the churches” would praise him for his work in spreading the Gospel. Having a copy of his work which he addressed to “Theophilus” would be a treasure for any church at that time, both for its own study and encouragement and for “spreading the Gospel!”
I am inclined to believe this reference to a well known brother does refer to Luke and his first thesis to Theophilus. The book of Acts has the internal early date limit, showing it could not have been completed before 62 or 63 CE (Acts 28:30-31). After two years in Rome, Paul was likely to have been heard by Nero and condemned. Luke, as was his manner throughout both his works, went out of his way not to say anything that is overtly condemning of the high priesthood in Jerusalem. Leaving Paul still waiting to be heard by Nero falls within Luke’s desire to present the truth to the priesthood at Jerusalem without seeking to embarrass them or publically blame them for wrongdoing, for his Gospel would be read in all the churches. He simply states the truth and permits them to draw their own conclusions, as they consider their deeds in light of what has occurred.
So, as an aside, who is Theophilus to whom Luke addressed his works? I am inclined to believe it is Theophilus the high priest of 37-41 CE, son of Annas and probably Josephus’ grandfather. I believe the Gospel of Luke was written during the tenure of Theophilus as ruler of his people. However, many scholars believe a two decade separation between Luke and Acts is unwarranted. My position is: such a separation is not only possible, but demanded by the context of both works. Luke was writing to Theophilus, the leader of his people, to repent and accept Jesus as the Messiah of his people, before it became too late. This theory would demand the book of Acts to have been completed and in the hands of Theophilus before the Jewish war and probably while Matthias, Theophilus’ son was the high priest governing Judea. Theophilus, as the probable head of the family by this time would have great influence over the high priesthood of his son. As long as the Temple stood, there was still time to repent, and Theophilus would have been considered the most influential leader available in which Luke could place this hope.
It does seem certain that Josephus knew of the Gospel of Luke, and he follows it in some points (an example of which can be found HERE), but most modern scholarship believes it to be the other way around, namely that Luke follows Josephus, but this point cannot be proved. Nevertheless, if Josephus is indeed the grandson of Theophilus, as I concluded in another post, Luke offers a reason for Josephus’ having in his possession a copy of his Gospel and Acts, but modern scholarship cannot show how the author of Luke and Acts could have a copy of Josephus’ works—just a thought!
Smoodock's Blog 
4 responses to “Is Luke’s ‘Theophilus’ Really Matthias?”
Luke addresses him as ‘most excellent Theophilus’ (Luke 1:3). This was used for someone of high ranking such as a Roman Officer. Theophilus may also have been a man of influence in the city of Antioch. There are second century references accorded to ‘a’ Theophilus who was a ‘great lord’ in Antioch. He may also have been the Jewish High Priest by the name of Theophilus ben Ananus, son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphus. He could also have been the high priest named Mattathias ben Theophilus who served in Jerusalem in A.D 65-66. And also could have been the Roman lawyer, who defended Paul during his trial in Rome.
While one cannot be certain who Theophilus was, it can be known Luke’s intentions for writing to Theophilus; Luke wrote about Jesus Christ and the spread of Christianity across the Roman Empire, and it was trustworthy.
Greetings Peggy and thank you again for reading and for your comment. I always enjoy discussing these things with folks who like talking about the Bible.
I take the position in my studies that Luke’s Theophilus is, in fact, the high priest by that name and the son of Annas, and executed that office cir. 36 to 40 AD. All other theories, in my opinion, fail, having no supporting evidence. The least likely would be the Roman lawyer pleading Paul’s case in Rome. Paul loved to speak in his own defense, because it gave him opportunity to preach the Gospel to the rulers of this world. A lawyer would just get in the way of Paul’s calling.
On the other hand there is supporting evidence for Theophilus, the son of Annas being Luke’s addressee. I hope to address this point in three different studies in the near future. Meanwhile, you might wish to read what I’ve already concluded about him in “Who is Luke’s Theophilus” when I studied the book of Acts.
Lord bless you in your own studies of the Scriptures.
Hi Eddie. yes you are most likely correct on Theophilus. I love the Gospel of Luke. Presently I am doing postgraduate studies in Theology, so love delving into the Bible and Gospels. Always plenty of research to do, the Bible is just so endless. God bless you. Thanks for an interesting site.
Greetings Peggy, and thanks for you comment. Understanding the Bible is, indeed, an endless but also such an enjoyable project. Take it from an old man, God will bless even hours of empty studies with later understanding. Lord bless you in your studies and what you have chosen to do in his honor.