Lukan Literature, which comprises over one-fourth of the volume of the writings of the New Testament, consists of two anonymously written treatises, each addressed to an individual named Theophilus. Since he is addressed as "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:4), then the recipient of the Lukan writings was likely an official of sorts. In fact, the Lukan author evidently reserved such phraseology exclusively for persons of social rank (cf Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). Furthermore, Theophilus was evidently a Christian (Luke 1:4). The phrase "the things you have been taught" contains a form of the word 'catechism'. Hence, Theophilus had been indoctrinated into the Christian faith.
Yet, in spite of having been indoctrinated in the Christian faith, the Lukan author apparently felt that there was an element which was lacking in the understanding of the "most excellent Theophilus". So much so that in spite of the social status of his addressee, the Lukan author nonetheless felt compelled to more correctly instruct Theophilus so that he might "know the exact truth" about the things that he had been taught.
The identity of Theophilus then might actually be identified, if in the annals of Early Christian Literature, the record might be found of a Christian official so named, who would have lived during the time period that Lukan Literature was written, and whose understanding might have lacked a basic element of Orthodox Christian ideology. Such an individual would surely be a likely candidate as being the addressee of the New Testament Lukan literature.
And it so happens that there is in fact among the annals of Early Christian Literature the record of a person who meets all such qualifications. Theophilus; the Bishop of the Antioch Church from the late 160's to the early 180's, was not only a Church official, but likewise a capable Christian Apologist. His only remaining writings, an Apology to his pagan friend Autolycus (Ad Autolyc), reveal that Theophilus had extensive knowledge as to Greek and Hebrew mythology, and was furthermore a zealous and capable defender of the Christian faith. His knowledge and convictions notwithstanding, the writings of Theophilus reveal a deficiency in his knowledge which would seem unfathomable to a contemporary Christian, yet which is quite revealing as to the state of affairs of 2nd Century Christianity.
For the fact is that although Theophilus identified himself as a Christian, believed fervently in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, preached the need for repentance and confession, related water baptism to the remission of sins, warned of the eternal judgment of the just Creator God, and was the first person ever known to use the word "Trinity"; he nonetheless refers to all such topics while remaining seemingly unaware of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus.
For although Theophilus proudly identified himself as a Christian ("you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God"; Ad Autolycum 1:1); and although he maintained that the truth was exclusive to such ("we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:33); and although he even addressed the reason for the name 'Christian' ("we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God"; (Ad Autolycum 1:12); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any point, not even while discussing the name "Christian".
In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.
And as to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, although Theophilus cited several natural examples, including recurring seasons ("consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits"; Ad Autolycum 1:13) and the lunar cycle ("the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection"; Ad Autolycum 2:15) as sufficient evidence "that God is able to effect the general resurrection of all men." (Ad Autolycum 1:13, 2:); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus as an example of one raised from the dead.
In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.
And although Theophilus maintained that faith is the primal quality necessary for humankind ("why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith is the leading principle in all matters?"; Ad Autolycum 1:8); and although he preached the need for repentance and confession ("being long-suffering, He (God) gave him (Adam) an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26); and although he believed in water baptism for the remission of sins ("the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration"; Ad Autolycum 2:16); and although he warned of eternal fire and damnation for disbelievers ("But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men"; Ad Autolycum 1:14); and although he offered hope for those who would be obedient to the law and the commandments ("he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption"; Ad Autolycum 2:27); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any time, not even while discussing these topics which are so basic to the Christian faith.
In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.
And again, with reference to the nature of God, although Theophilus was the first to ever reference the Trinity, ("In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom" Ad Autolycum 2:15"); and although he maintained that God made all creation by the Word ("but His Word, through whom He made all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:22); and although he noted that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says,
Theophilus simply seems to have never heard the doctrine of an earthly Jesus Christ.
For evidently, in the early days of Christianity, faith was not the belief in the resurrected Jesus, but rather the trusting belief that God was able to raise one's own self from the dead in order to inherit incorruption ( “When you shall have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall you see God worthily. For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal… But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now.”; Ad Autolycum 1:7,8) Confession then was not to express one's belief in the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was the profession of the penitent sinner to amend their ways and to turn away from their sinful ways, so as to be restored to their original state ("countless are the sayings in the Holy Scriptures regarding repentance, God being always desirous that the race of men turn from all their sins."; Ad Autolycum 3:11; "those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:17; "And as to God's calling, and saying, Where are you, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26; "When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil those also shall be restored to their original gentleness; Ad Autolycum 2:17). Baptism then was not administered in the name of Jesus, but rather was an act to procure the remission of sins ("Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God."; Ad Autolycum 2:16"). Thus, the holy church in the early days of Christianity was by no means the church of Christ due to the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was so, as the assembly of the saved ("so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies — we mean holy churches — in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:14).
And so it is evident that the concept of an earthly Jesus was a later development within the Christian movement. It is furthermore clear that even as late as 180 CE, the distribution of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus was still somewhat limited. At least such was the case with reference to Antioch, which was alleged to have been a major church within the New Testament. And so it is the fact that Theophilus of Antioch seems to have been ignorant of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus which leads me to speculate that such may well be the very context of the writing of the New Testament Lukan literature. As the Lukan author explains to the one he calls "most excellent Theophilus"; he himself "having investigated everything from the beginning", took it upon himself to "write it out for you in consecutive order... so that you might know the exact about the things which you have been taught" (Luke 1:3,4). Evidently, the Lukan author felt that though Theophilus had been taught, that nonetheless there was something lacking in his knowledge. And what more basic doctrine of the Christian story should a Church Bishop know than that of the life and doings of the earthly Jesus? Such seems to supply a logical and verifiable context then for the Lukan writings, as introduced in the opening verses of the Gospel of Luke.
My ongoing studies of Lukan Literature then will allow for the viable theory that the anonymous writer of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles addressed both treatises to Theophilus; the Church Bishop of Antioch, in order to instruct him in the basics of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus, as a developmental process within the late 2nd CE Orthodox Church.
Yet, in spite of having been indoctrinated in the Christian faith, the Lukan author apparently felt that there was an element which was lacking in the understanding of the "most excellent Theophilus". So much so that in spite of the social status of his addressee, the Lukan author nonetheless felt compelled to more correctly instruct Theophilus so that he might "know the exact truth" about the things that he had been taught.
The identity of Theophilus then might actually be identified, if in the annals of Early Christian Literature, the record might be found of a Christian official so named, who would have lived during the time period that Lukan Literature was written, and whose understanding might have lacked a basic element of Orthodox Christian ideology. Such an individual would surely be a likely candidate as being the addressee of the New Testament Lukan literature.
And it so happens that there is in fact among the annals of Early Christian Literature the record of a person who meets all such qualifications. Theophilus; the Bishop of the Antioch Church from the late 160's to the early 180's, was not only a Church official, but likewise a capable Christian Apologist. His only remaining writings, an Apology to his pagan friend Autolycus (Ad Autolyc), reveal that Theophilus had extensive knowledge as to Greek and Hebrew mythology, and was furthermore a zealous and capable defender of the Christian faith. His knowledge and convictions notwithstanding, the writings of Theophilus reveal a deficiency in his knowledge which would seem unfathomable to a contemporary Christian, yet which is quite revealing as to the state of affairs of 2nd Century Christianity.
For the fact is that although Theophilus identified himself as a Christian, believed fervently in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, preached the need for repentance and confession, related water baptism to the remission of sins, warned of the eternal judgment of the just Creator God, and was the first person ever known to use the word "Trinity"; he nonetheless refers to all such topics while remaining seemingly unaware of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus.
For although Theophilus proudly identified himself as a Christian ("you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God"; Ad Autolycum 1:1); and although he maintained that the truth was exclusive to such ("we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:33); and although he even addressed the reason for the name 'Christian' ("we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God"; (Ad Autolycum 1:12); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any point, not even while discussing the name "Christian".
In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.
And as to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, although Theophilus cited several natural examples, including recurring seasons ("consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits"; Ad Autolycum 1:13) and the lunar cycle ("the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection"; Ad Autolycum 2:15) as sufficient evidence "that God is able to effect the general resurrection of all men." (Ad Autolycum 1:13, 2:); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus as an example of one raised from the dead.
In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.
And although Theophilus maintained that faith is the primal quality necessary for humankind ("why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith is the leading principle in all matters?"; Ad Autolycum 1:8); and although he preached the need for repentance and confession ("being long-suffering, He (God) gave him (Adam) an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26); and although he believed in water baptism for the remission of sins ("the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration"; Ad Autolycum 2:16); and although he warned of eternal fire and damnation for disbelievers ("But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men"; Ad Autolycum 1:14); and although he offered hope for those who would be obedient to the law and the commandments ("he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption"; Ad Autolycum 2:27); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any time, not even while discussing these topics which are so basic to the Christian faith.
In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.
And again, with reference to the nature of God, although Theophilus was the first to ever reference the Trinity, ("In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom" Ad Autolycum 2:15"); and although he maintained that God made all creation by the Word ("but His Word, through whom He made all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:22); and although he noted that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says,
The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence; and although he acknowledged that "the Word" of God was also "his son"; nonetheless he specifically distinguishes "the Word" from the concept of being the product of human birth ("the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God."), rather clarifying that "when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word uttered, the first-born of all creation". And even when Theophilus cites the example of the Word "assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all", noting that "whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place"; even then the example that he opts to utilize with reference to such an occurrence was when the Word "went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam"; rather than to cite Jesus as such an example, in any shape or form.
Theophilus simply seems to have never heard the doctrine of an earthly Jesus Christ.
The fact that Theophilus, the Church Bishop of a major city, who was familiar with the nature of God and with the basics of Orthodox Christian doctrines, and was himself a capable Apologist on behalf of the same, should be ignorant as to the doctrine of an earthly Jesus as late as the early 180’s, is actually quite revealing. For it is evident that; contrary to popular belief, the doctrine of an earthly Jesus was by no means the foundation of Christianity. Rather, the concept of an earthly Jesus appears to have been a late developing doctrine within the 2nd CE Christian movement itself. Foreign as such thinking might seem in this day and age, the fact is that the Christian doctrine is by no means dependent upon the concept of an earthly Jesus.
For evidently, in the early days of Christianity, faith was not the belief in the resurrected Jesus, but rather the trusting belief that God was able to raise one's own self from the dead in order to inherit incorruption ( “When you shall have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall you see God worthily. For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal… But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now.”; Ad Autolycum 1:7,8) Confession then was not to express one's belief in the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was the profession of the penitent sinner to amend their ways and to turn away from their sinful ways, so as to be restored to their original state ("countless are the sayings in the Holy Scriptures regarding repentance, God being always desirous that the race of men turn from all their sins."; Ad Autolycum 3:11; "those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:17; "And as to God's calling, and saying, Where are you, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26; "When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil those also shall be restored to their original gentleness; Ad Autolycum 2:17). Baptism then was not administered in the name of Jesus, but rather was an act to procure the remission of sins ("Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God."; Ad Autolycum 2:16"). Thus, the holy church in the early days of Christianity was by no means the church of Christ due to the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was so, as the assembly of the saved ("so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies — we mean holy churches — in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:14).
And so it is evident that the concept of an earthly Jesus was a later development within the Christian movement. It is furthermore clear that even as late as 180 CE, the distribution of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus was still somewhat limited. At least such was the case with reference to Antioch, which was alleged to have been a major church within the New Testament. And so it is the fact that Theophilus of Antioch seems to have been ignorant of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus which leads me to speculate that such may well be the very context of the writing of the New Testament Lukan literature. As the Lukan author explains to the one he calls "most excellent Theophilus"; he himself "having investigated everything from the beginning", took it upon himself to "write it out for you in consecutive order... so that you might know the exact about the things which you have been taught" (Luke 1:3,4). Evidently, the Lukan author felt that though Theophilus had been taught, that nonetheless there was something lacking in his knowledge. And what more basic doctrine of the Christian story should a Church Bishop know than that of the life and doings of the earthly Jesus? Such seems to supply a logical and verifiable context then for the Lukan writings, as introduced in the opening verses of the Gospel of Luke.
My ongoing studies of Lukan Literature then will allow for the viable theory that the anonymous writer of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles addressed both treatises to Theophilus; the Church Bishop of Antioch, in order to instruct him in the basics of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus, as a developmental process within the late 2nd CE Orthodox Church.
