Joanna: An Obscure Disciple, or Luke's Key Witness?
Who was Joanna, and why does she play such a central role in Luke's final chapter? Curiously, this in-depth investagation leads us to challenge our assumptions about Theophilus, and even Luke himself.
Back in 2007, I began reading a book by Ben Witherington in preparation for an interview I was planning to record. The first chapter was titled, “Joanna and Mary Magdalene: Female Disciples from the Seashore of Galilee,”1 but at the time, I recall being somewhat perplexed. Of course, I was familiar with Mary Magdalene, but I found myself asking, “Who is Joanna?” Though I was a seminary graduate and had worked in Christian media for close to two decades, I found myself looking up the two references in Luke’s Gospel where she is mentioned. Here’s the first one:
Soon afterward [Jesus] went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means (Lk 8:1-3).
In verse 3 of Luke 8, Joanna is described as the wife of Chuza, who served as Herod’s “household manager.” But later, as I began to study the Gospels more closely, I realized that this translation is rather interpretive. The Greek text simply describes Chuza as Herod’s epitropos, which is the same word Philo used when he described Joseph’s role as the vizier of Pharoah’s kingdom.2 Josephus used this word to describe Daniel’s role under King Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon,3 as well as the procuratorships of Pilate, Felix, and Festus under Caesar.4 In other words, a king’s epitropos shouldn’t be thought of as a household manager but instead should be seen as a prime minister who manages all the affairs of state. As F.W. Farrar observed, “The word epitropos, ‘administrator,’ conveys the impression of a higher rank than steward (oikonomos).”5
So if Chuza served as the epitropos of Herod Antipas, then we should see him as a man of high status and nobility—in fact, he likely would have been seen in his day as the most powerful man in the region of Galilee, apart from Herod himself.6 In his discussion of Lk 8:3, James Edwards says of Joanna that, “The Jesus movement has thus infiltrated the highest echelons of society.”7
What’s even more amazing, however, is the way Luke highlights Joanna’s role in his narration of the climactic events related to Jesus’ resurrection. As the women went to the tomb that morning, they found the stone rolled away and the body of Jesus missing. While they were standing there confused, two men in dazzling apparel stood next to them and said:
“Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them (Lk 24:4-11).
Luke is the only Evangelist who mentions Joanna, and toward the end of his Gospel we discover that she was not only a woman of incredibly high social status who ended up following Jesus, but also that she continued to follow him—all the way to Golgotha. After she observed his crucifixion (Lk 23:49), Luke specifically mentions her by name as one of the key witnesses who discovered the empty tomb (Lk 24:10). But there’s a curious feature of Luke 24 that isn’t easily noticed. Joanna’s name appears to be at the very center of a narrative structure known as a “chiasm.”
According to the Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies, a chiasm is “a rhetorical device whereby parallel lines of a text correspond in an X pattern, such as A-B-C-B-A.” The word is “Derived from the Greek letter chi, which is shaped like a letter X,” and by the use of this structural device, “an author can show both progression of thought and intensification of meaning.”8 Another dictionary says this structural device focuses our attention “on the central issue, the turning point.”9 And in their Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva write, “Far from being merely a superficial decorative ornament, chiasm is one of the major artistic conventions used for narratives in the Bible. As such, it can be a key for detecting the author’s aims for the main event or principle idea typically occurs in the apex—that is the middle of the story.”10 This device, they argue, can serve to alert the reader “to be on the lookout for any special nuances the author intended the text to convey.”11
Richard Bauckham highlights the chiastic structure of Luke 24:8-11 in his book Gospel Women and discusses the significance of Joanna’s role in this narrative in light of the fact that she happens to be at the very center.12 Commentator John Nolland similarly referred to this as a “playful little chiasm…centering on Joanna,”13 and Richard Anderson concludes that, “Joanna is in the center and the position of prominence of this previously misunderstood chiasmus.”14
This is odd. For some reason, Luke chose to create a chiastic structure in the final chapter of his Gospel related to the climactic events of Jesus’ resurrection. But why should we find Joanna’s name at the very heart and center of this particular chiasm? Why is she so special to Luke, and why does she feature so prominently in this part of the story? I’ll attempt to answer these questions, but first, there’s more to Joanna’s story that we need to unpack.
According to Luke, Joanna wasn’t merely a follower of Jesus, but was also one who supported him financially (Lk 8:3). Since she was the wife of Herod’s prime minister, some scholars have suggested that she may have been one of Luke’s sources of information for statements uttered by Herod. “In Matthew 14.1–2,” writes Lydia McGrew, “we learn what Herod Antipas thought about Jesus when he heard of his miracles. Matthew says, as does Mark 6.14, that Herod initially thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead. Both Gospels then launch into a flashback story about how Herod had John the Baptist beheaded.” But, she says, there’s “an interesting little factual addition in Matthew’s Gospel.” According to Mt 14:2, “when Herod speculated that Jesus might be John the Baptist come back to life, he said it to his servants. No other Gospel mentions this.”15
If Herod had expressed his views about Jesus out loud to his servants, then it’s certainly possible that this information could have made its way to the early Christian community, particularly if members of Herod’s court happened to be followers of Jesus. Therefore McGrew considers Luke’s report about Joanna to be highly significant:
If we look at Luke 8.1–3 we find a plausible way in which Matthew could have heard what Herod was saying to his servants. This passage in Luke, I want to stress, is not about the beheading of John the Baptist nor about Herod. Luke is talking about a completely different topic, namely, a group of women who followed Jesus in Galilee and gave money to his ministry. Among those in the list is Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward. Here we find Luke mentioning a high-ranking servant of Herod whose wife was involved in the new movement following Jesus. It seems like a reasonable assumption that Chuza himself was also sympathetic to Jesus, and Joanna’s discipleship provides an entirely natural way in which Jesus’ male disciples, such as Matthew, could have learned what Herod said to his servants.16
But if Joanna and Chuza were members of Herod’s court, then why wouldn’t this fact be mentioned in any of the other Gospels? Well, according to some scholars, Chuza’s story may be told in the latter part of John chapter 4:
Jesus came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Capernaum there was an official whose son was ill. When this man heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went to him [saying], ‘Sir, come down before my child dies.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go; your son will live.’ The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went on his way. As he was going down, his servants met him and told him that his son was recovering. So he asked them the hour when he began to get better, and they said to him, ‘Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.’ The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, ‘Your son will live.’ And he himself believed, and all his household (John 4:46-53 ESV).
The Greek word translated “official” in Jn 4:46 is “basilikos”17 which refers more specifically to a royal office bearer. In the Latin Vulgate, this word was translated “regulus,” meaning “little king,” and Aristotle used this same word to describe a “royal governor.”18 All this fits perfectly with what we know of Chuza who served as King Herod’s governor.19 If this linkage is correct, it would explain why a person in Joanna’s position would choose to leave the world of Herod’s court in order to follow this strange Rabbi from Nazareth. According to John 4:53, when the royal official’s son was healed, his “entire household believed.” Could this be the source of Joanna’s faith?
Cambridge scholar F.W. Farrar was an early advocate of this hypothesis. In his book, The Life of Christ (1874), he wrote, “As this courtier believed in Christ with his whole house, in consequence of the miracle now wrought, it has been conjectured with some probability that it was none other than Chuza himself.”20 John A.T. Robinson similarly argued that:
The basilikos or court-official in Jn 4.46-53 is…presumably a Herodian and the kind of person described in Luke 8:3 in the figure of Chuza, a financial or political officer of Herod’s administration. He could well indeed have been this very person, since we are told that his whole household became believers and Chuza’s wife Joanna was among the women of substance who kept the movement supplied.21
According to Richard Bauckham, however, this connection is possible, but not certain:
This is an appropriate point at which to mention the suggestion, made by some scholars that Chuza was the “royal official” (basilikos) of John 4:46, who was evidently resident in Capernaum and whose whole household came to believe in Jesus (4:53). The healing of his son (on this hypothesis Joanna’s son) would then explain Joanna’s devotion to Jesus’ ministry…If Chuza were the epitropos of Herod’s realm, he might have owned property in Capernaum. But the basilikos might be the head of one of the toparchies of Galilee, or a lesser official. We cannot consider his identity with Chuza more than a possibility.22
One of the curious features of John’s account of the royal official is the fact that the man’s name is never given. But if this was a well-known dignitary, wouldn’t the inclusion of his name add significance and depth to John’s narrative? Does this perhaps suggest that the account was written at a time in which it was too sensitive for the man and his family to be identified as followers of Jesus in a widely circulating document? In other words, perhaps this could be seen as another instance of “protective anonymity.”23
In my opinion, events recorded in Acts 12 make this hypothesis worthy of further consideration. Sometime around 39 AD, Herod Antipas was exiled by Claudius Caesar, and Herod Agrippa took his place. A few years later, between 43 and 44 AD, Agrippa began persecuting Christian believers, which is something Luke records in Acts 12:1-8:
About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also…And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him…Now when Herod was about to bring him out [an angel] woke him, saying…“Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.
Though it initially looked as if Peter himself was about to be martyred, Luke ended up narrating an unexpected scene involving his escape from prison with divine assistance. Once he had been set free, Peter left word about his “jailbreak” with the servant girl at the gate of the home where the other disciples were gathered. Then Luke informs his readers that Peter “departed and went to another place” (Acts 12:17).
It’s not difficult to guess why Luke kept the name of Peter’s destination out of his record, since, in the eyes of the Judean authorities, he was still a fugitive on the run. I see this as evidence that Acts was written not only while Peter was still alive, but at a time when it was still too sensitive to mention his specific whereabouts. Since most scholars place Peter’s death sometime between 64 and 67 AD, this can be seen as evidence that both Luke and Acts were written before this time.24
In Acts 13:1 we discover another character connected with Herod who is never mentioned in the Gospels. In his description of prophets and teachers in Antioch, Luke mentions a man called Manaen who was “a lifelong friend (suntrophos) of Herod the tetrarch…” The word suntrophos is sometimes rendered “foster-brother,” or “companion” to the king. In other words, Manaen was another member of Herod’s court who had also become a follower of Jesus. But why was his story kept out of the Gospels, and why does he now reside outside of Judea in the city of Antioch? In my opinion, the answer has to do with the Herodian persecution recorded in Acts 12.
When Agrippa began his reign of terror (sometime around 44 AD), it’s likely that Manaen and other Christians who formerly belonged to the court of Herod Antipas decided to flee the country. Perhaps this explains why a notable figure such as Manaen was never mentioned in the Gospels since identifying him as a believer in a widely circulating document could have put him at risk. But once enough time had passed and the persecution ceased, Luke felt free to mention him as one of the leaders of the church in Antioch.
This way of reading the situation could help us to understand Joanna’s story. She’s only mentioned by Luke in two verses, which means that for some reason the other Evangelists have chosen not to tell her story.25 So, let’s say for the moment that their collective silence is rooted in protective anonymity. Why then did Luke feel free to mention her by name? Well, perhaps when he wrote his Gospel, Joanna was no longer in need of protection. This suggestion is of course somewhat speculative, but outside of Luke’s two volumes, we have very credible evidence that Joanna left the region of Judea, and was later imprisoned for her faith.
This evidence comes to us from a statement Paul makes toward the end of his letter to the Romans. In 16:7 he writes, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” In his book Gospel Women, Richard Bauckham has a lengthy chapter devoted to Joanna and explores the possibility that the name “Junia” in Rom 16:7 is essentially a Latinized version of Joanna, and may be the same individual mentioned in Luke’s Gospel.
There are several reasons for concluding this: 1) Paul refers to Junia as his kinsman, which is his way of saying “fellow Jew,” and Joanna is a distinctively Jewish name (the Hebrew form is Yehohanah). 2) Paul says Junia is “well-known to the apostles,” and the original Greek word (episamos) underlying this statement could also be rendered, “eminent,” “splendid,” “outstanding,” and/or “distinguished”—all of which would be apt descriptions of Joanna. In fact, commenting on Lk 8:3 alone, I. Howard Marshall notes that Joanna and Chuza “are no doubt named as well-known personalities in the church and are evidence for the existence of Christian disciples among the aristocracy.”26 3) Paul also states that Junia was “in Christ before me,” which indicates that she became a follower of Jesus sometime between 28-32 AD, which fits beautifully with what we know of Joanna. Bauckham also sees this as another indication that Junia is a Jew from Palestine since Christianity had not spread far from Jerusalem in those early days.
But if Junia is Jewish, why does she have a Latin name? In his discussion of this feature, Bauckham writes,
The practice of adopting Greek names was well established before the Roman occupation [but] adopting a Latin name would [imply] alignment with Roman political rule. Few Palestinian Jews would have wanted a name that proclaimed allegiance to Rome. Thus it is not surprising that the majority of those who are known to have had Latin names are found within the sphere of the Herods…close friends, court officials, army officers, and other members of the Herodian households; the romanized Herodian aristocracy of Tiberias and Sepphoris. 27
The fact that Junia has a Latinized name and yet also appears to be Jewish is for Bauckham an indication that she “may have belonged to [the] Herodian elite.”28 And when this information is combined with the fact that she also happened to be a member of the church in the earliest days in Jerusalem, the case for connecting Paul’s Junia with Luke’s Joanna has moved from plausible to almost certain.
The final feature of Rom 16:7 that is important to mention is the fact that Paul calls Andronicus and Junia his “fellow prisoners.” According to Bauckham, this could mean that they “were taken captive at the same time as he, on the occasion of one of his imprisonments, and were held in prison with him. But it is also by no means impossible that they had been in prison, but not at the same time and place as himself.”29 The key point, however, is that they are his “‘fellow prisoners’ in the sense that they too had suffered imprisonment for their allegiance to the gospel.”30
In short, Andronicus and Junia appear to have been early Christian missionaries who, like Paul, had been persecuted in the process of spreading the faith. Once again, this appears to be another good fit from Bauckham’s perspective:
How appropriate it would have been for Joanna…[a] member of the romanized Herodian elite of Tiberias, to become a Christian missionary specifically in Rome. She would have known some Latin, doubtless a rare accomplishment among the first Jewish Christians of Jerusalem. She had the means to support herself and a degree of acculturation to Roman ways.”31
Another question we could ask is whether Andronicus can be identified with Chuza. Since the name does not appear to be a Latin equivalent, some scholars have suggested that Andronicus may be Joanna’s second husband. But this is speculative. In Acts 12:12 Luke introduces a wealthy Jerusalem disciple named “John, whose other name was Mark” (Markos). In other words, an individual’s Latin name wasn’t always a direct equivalent. Furthermore, the name Andronicus ends with “cus,” which does resemble Chuza. However, there are simply too many possibilities to consider at this point. While Andronicus could be Chuza’s Latin name, it’s also possible that Joanna’s husband died before 57 AD (when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans). Thus, Andronicus could be Junia’s second husband, or perhaps even the name of a close relative, such as her brother or son.32
As it turns out, Chuza is a Nabatean name, and there is an impressive tomb in Hegra, Saudi Arabia, featuring a first-century inscription that includes this name. In his discussion of the inscription, Richard Bauckham writes, “The tombs [in this area] plainly belonged to wealthy families, and many inscriptions identify their owners as high-ranking military officers or government officials.”33 The man identified as “Kuza” in one of these inscriptions, was in Bauckham’s view “a contemporary of Joanna’s husband, though not likely to be the same man.” However, this could be seen as evidence of a recurring name among a particular aristocratic Nabatean family.34
But if Chuza was a member of an aristocratic Nabatean family, is it likely that he would have been appointed by Herod Antipas to serve as his epitropos? Bauckham answers this question for us:
The Nabatean kingdom was the foreign power of most importance, after Rome, to the Herods, owing to proximity, to economic relationships, and to the policies of expansion in the direction of Herodian territories that the Nabateans occasionally pursued. But there were also family connections. Herod the Great’s mother was Nabatean, probably related to the Nabatean royal house, giving Antipas himself a distant family relationship to the Nabatean kings….Antipas…sought to cement a political peace by marrying the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV…It was in the long period of peaceful relations with Nabatea, while Antipas was married to Aretas’ daughter, that Chuza must have been appointed epitropos in Antipas’ administration. He might have been a Nabatean courtier who came to Herod’s court as part of the young princess’ entourage.35
This makes sense, for if Chuza was elected to serve as the king’s epitropos, he wasn’t likely to have been a mere peasant. But if Chuza was a member of the Nabatean nobility, what does this suggest about Joanna’s situation before she married? In my thinking, it implies not only that she belonged to the upper-class, but that her family was also part of the aristocracy. So here’s an intriguing question. Do we have any records of a person named Joanna who belonged to Israel’s ruling class? In fact, we do.
If you read my PDF resource The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, you may recall that I mentioned the discovery of an ossuary in the summer of 1983 that included the following inscription: “Yehohanah (Joanna) daughter of Yehohanan (John), son of Theophilus the high priest.”36 In my opinion, the Joanna mentioned in this inscription is a perfect match for the Joanna of Luke 8:3.
The Joanna named on this ossuary was the granddaughter of Theophilus the high priest, meaning that she was born into the Judean aristocracy. Though we’re likely to think of the office of high priest exclusively in religious terms, according to Josephus, in first-century Judea, this was both a religious and political office.37 So this particular Joanna was certainly worthy to be united in marriage to a member of the Nabatean nobility.38 It’s worth mentioning here that under the Hasmonean king, John Hyrcanus (164 - 104 BC), Nabateans had been forced to adopt Jewish customs and law, including circumcision (Ant. 13:257, 15:253-255), which served to eliminate various legal restrictions among the Jews related to intermarrying with outsiders.
The most striking thing about this ossuary is the fact that it presents us with two names in a single inscription that previously only appeared together in one other ancient text. Outside of this inscription, the only other document we know of that contains both the names of “Joanna” and “Theophilus” is the Gospel of Luke (cf. Lk 1:3, 8:3, 24:10). The intended recipient of this text is Theophilus (Lk 1:3) who is described as “most excellent” (kratistos), and Josephus uses a form of this same word to describe the high priesthood (War. 1:68).39 In other words, the Theophilus of Luke and the Theophilus of the ossuary (who served as high priest from 37-41 AD),40 each appear to be high-ranking officials.41 What’s even more intriguing is that both men appear to be associated with a person named “Joanna.”
In the case of the ossuary, Theophilus is a high priest and Joanna happens to be his granddaughter. In the case of Luke’s Gospel, the text is dedicated to a “most excellent Theophilus” and includes a reference to Joanna, the wife of Herod’s epitropos. Furthermore, as we discussed at the outset, Joanna’s name also appears at the center of a chiasm in Luke’s final chapter devoted to Jesus’ resurrection. Scholars haven’t known what to make of this chiasm, or why Joanna’s name appears at the center. But once this ossuary was discovered in 1983, a new interpretive possibility emerged. Perhaps Luke has presented Joanna as the key witness in his narrative because, as his granddaughter, she was of central significance to Theophilus himself.
Richard H. Anderson has written a series of articles42 and a fascinating book on this topic, titled: Who Are Johanna And Theophilus? It was through reading this material that I was first introduced to the discovery of Joanna’s ossuary. In his book, Anderson states that “The chronology and geography of the Yehohanah ossuary is consistent with the proposed identification of Yehohanah as Johanna, wife of Chusa.”43 However, he points out this identification is even more secure when one takes into account “the two-name combination of Johanna and Theophilus.” These two names, he says, appear together only on the ossuary and in the Gospel of Luke.
[W]hen considered together with the rarity of the Theophilus name in Palestine is strong circumstantial evidence that the proposed identification is correct. The strength of the “two name combination” is shown by the fact that J.T. Milik used a two name ossuary inscribed with “Alexander son of Simon,”…to propose that the tomb in question belongs to the family of him who helped Jesus to carry his cross.44
In his discussion of the chiasm that appears in Luke 24, Anderson states that Joanna’s placement at the center provides “additional evidence that [she] is someone important to Theophilus…” Craig Blomberg has famously argued that the center of any proposed chiasm should be something “worthy of that position.”45 In Anderson’s view, the reason so many scholars haven’t recognized the significance of the chiastic structure found in Luke 24 is due to the fact that before the discovery of the ossuary, no one knew why Joanna was such a significant character. But in light of the close family relationship that recently came to light, it seems that Luke had a very good reason to highlight Joanna’s role. Because his Gospel was written to Theophilus the high priest, is it any wonder that his granddaughter Joanna should be presented as the key witness?
So what are the implications of these things on our understanding of Luke’s Gospel as a whole? Many argue that the Third Gospel was originally written to an unknown Gentile dignitary, and the view outlined in this article—that it was written to the high priest Theophilus—certainly challenges that assumption. So, in the remainder of this essay, I’ll discuss the ways that Luke’s Gospel has been viewed across the centuries, and whether it makes sense to see it as a defense of the early Christian movement written to a leading Jewish authority whose family was directly involved in Jesus’ crucifixion.
In his Homilies on the Gospel of Luke, Origen (c. 185 - c. 253) argued the name Theophilus doesn’t actually refer to “a specific man named Theophilus.” Rather, he said, “If you are the sort of people God can love, then all of you who hear us speaking are Theophiluses, and the Gospel is addressed to you. Anyone who is a Theophilus is both ‘excellent’ and ‘very strong.’ This is what the Greek word theophilos actually means.”46 Similarly, Ambrose (c. 340 - 397) wrote that the Gospel of Luke “was written to Theophilus, that is, to him whom God loves. If you love God, it was written to you.”47
Though this approach was at one time quite common, over the past few centuries most commentators appear to have abandoned the idea that the name Theophilus was symbolic for anyone who loves God. In 1706 Matthew Henry wrote that “it is not certain who this Theophilus was…but it is rather to be understood of some particular person, probably a magistrate; because Luke gives him here the same title of respect which St. Paul gave to [the most excellent] Festus (Acts 26:25)”48 Other commentators have argued along similar lines, that though his identity is unknown, Luke’s description of Theophilus makes clear that he wrote to a real historical individual.49
Another group of commentators have gone further than this, and have argued that Theophilus was a Gentile ruler of one kind or another. Thus, in 1765 John Wesley informed his readers that “Theophilus (as the ancients inform us) was a person of eminent quality at Alexandria,”50 whereas in 1879, Phillip Schaff stated that the “mention of small places in Italy as familiarly known (Acts 27:8-16) makes it probable that his home was at Rome, a view confirmed by the abrupt conclusion of Acts. In any case, he was a Gentile.”51 In 1915, Louis Berkhof was a little less specific in his discussion of Theophilus:
We have no means of determining who this Theophilus was. It has been supposed by some that the name was a general one, applied to every Christian, as a beloved one or a friend of God. But the general opinion now is, and rightly so, that it is the name of an individual, probably a Greek [and] a person of high station…Now it is quite evident from the gospel itself that the evangelist is not writing for the Jews…It is very probable that that Gospel of Luke was intended for the Greeks, because Paul labored primarily among them, Theophilus was in all probability a Greek…52
Many other scholars down to the present day have made similar claims: Luke’s Theophilus was a Gentile ruler, whether specified or unspecified.53 However, over the past few centuries, a minority of scholars have argued that Luke’s two volumes may have been addressed to Theophilus the high priest. While many trace the origin of this suggestion to a detailed article written in 1725 by a German scholar named Theodore Hase, according to my own research, this view was first proposed in 1658 by John Lightfoot. In his Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud And Hebraica, Lightfoot writes: “[O]ne guesses this most excellent Theophilus to have been an Antiochian, another thinks he may be a Roman; but it is very uncertain either who or whence he was. There was one Theophilus amongst the Jews, at that very time, probably, when St. Luke wrote his Gospel…Josephus mentions him.”54
Though Lightfoot appears to have been the first to mention the possibility that Theophilus was a Jewish high priest, in that same passage he expressed doubt about this option: “I do not think this was he.” One who did become a strong advocate of this hypothesis was another German scholar named John David Michaelis. Here’s what he wrote in his Introduction to the New Testament (1750):
It would be tedious and even useless to relate the various opinions of ancient writers, relative to the character and residence of Theophilus: for they are in general more conjectures unsupported by historical evidence. Theodore Hase…contends that Theophilus was formerly, though not when St. Luke addressed his Gospel to him, a Jewish High Priest. The arguments advanced in favor of this opinion are so strong, as to render it more probable than any other. That a person of the name of Theophilus once executed the office of High Priest, appears from the Antiquities of Josephus…Theophilus therefore…was certainly of sufficient rank to be entitled to the appellation of kratistos [most excellent]. It is therefore not impossible that this person is the Theophilus, to whom St. Luke addressed his Gospel, which must then be considered as an historical apology for the Christian religion, addressed to one of the heads of the Jewish nation. Lastly, when we take into consideration that this Theophilus is the only person of that name, whose history is recorded in the annals of the first century; the possibility that he is the same with St. Luke’s Theophilus becomes a probability.55
In 1840, William Paley’s associate, James Tate became another advocate of this view, which he also attributed to Theodore Hase:
Who was Theophilus to whom the Gospel is dedicated? Here again we enjoy the decisive advantage of referring to a real person, the only one known to us by that name at that period; a person belonging to Judea, as having been high priest, who from the time about which he held that office, and from the early age at which it could then be held, was likely enough to be alive at the very date required, and who, as having held the high priesthood, was entitled to the address of rank, ‘kratiste,’ most excellent. We are indebted to the acute perspicacity of Theodore Hase for this most ingenious and highly probable supposition in all its principal points…and I am strongly inclined to recommend its adoption to the readers of these pages.56
Other advocates of this view included Robert Eisler (1938),57 Charles J. Ellicott (1957),58 and Richard Anderson, who in 1997 was the first to link this hypothesis to the ossuary of Joanna discovered in 1983.59 As I mentioned earlier, it was through Anderson’s 2011 book that I became aware of this interpretive option.60 In The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae (2004), Josep Ruis-Camps & Jenny Read-Heimerdinger also appear to have adopted this view: “The Jewish Scripture, teachings and expectations are so much in focus in…Acts that it is difficult to see what sense it would have made to a Roman officer, such as the ‘most excellent Theophilus’…is often assumed to be.” They go on to say that “If Luke’s Theophilus were the only Jew known to have had this name, none other than the former high priest, son of Ananas I, who had served in office from 37-41 CE, then…[his] involvement, as well as that of his family, in many of the events narrated in Acts would make the story particularly meaningful to him.”61
In his 2008 book, Luke The Priest, Rick Strelan became another advocate of this perspective:
The majority of scholars think the name Theophilus refers to an individual…the name is Greek but that should not mislead us into thinking that he therefore must have been a Gentile. Evans notes that the name Theophilus ‘is attested from the third century BC onwards, particularly for Jews in the Diaspora.’ I am surprised, then, that some scholars still argue along language lines that Theophilus was a Gentile, despite the fact that they are aware that very many Jews took on Greek and Roman names and that they Graecized or Latinized traditional Hebrew names…Given that Luke’s writings are saturated with allusions to and citations from the Jewish Scriptures, one might assume that Theophilus too was very familiar with them, if not skilled in them…62
Strelan then goes on to discuss the work of Richard Anderson, saying that his view of Theophilus fits best with his own research. In his 2010 book on The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, David Allen similarly argued that “the recipient of Luke-Acts was Theophilus, a former Jewish high priest who served in Jerusalem from AD 37–41,”63 and James R. Edwards made an identical argument in his Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (2015).64 The same goes for Peter G. Bolt, who in his recent discussion of Luke for The Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary (2022), noted that if the Theophilus of Lk 1:3 “can be identified as Theophilus the high priest (AD 37–41), then Luke’s narrative presents Jesus to a man who was at the centre of the Jewish circles that were largely responsible for rejecting Jesus. It is an ‘apologia’ (defense) as well as a ‘kategoria’ (accusation/critique).”65 Other recent advocates of this view include Jim R. Sibley (2019),66 David C. Mitchell (2021),67 and Cameron Joyner (2022).68
Some of these advocates also suggested that because Luke-Acts is thoroughly Jewish, we need to re-evaluate all our assumptions related to the author himself, and his purportedly Gentile background. As it turns out, this is a big topic among New Testament scholars at the present moment. Though a handful of scholars such as Nathaniel Lardner (1760),69 C.I. Scofield (1917),70 and William F. Albright (1966),71 have argued that Luke had a Jewish background, until recently this was clearly a minority opinion. At present, however, a growing number of scholars appear to be adopting this position.
In his book, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (1996), James Jervell noted that, “For years scholars were nearly unanimous in viewing Acts as a Gentile-Chritian document, written by a Gentile Chrisitan for Gentile Christians. This is not tenable any longer…Luke’s stylistic home was the synagogue. He was a Jewish Christian.”72 In the following year, Rebecca Denova argued that in Luke-Acts “we appear to have a Jewish author presenting arguments that will persuade other Jews that the prophets have been ‘fulfilled.’”73 In fact, she went on to say that the “ethnic identification of the author as a Gentile is not supported by the arguments he presents in the text…In my view [they] strongly suggest that the ethnic background of the author of Luke-Acts is Jewish, and that he presented arguments that were of some importance to Jews.”74
According to David Allen (2010), “For centuries, the paradigm in New Testament studies that Luke was a Gentile has been axiomatic, as can be seen by any cursory reading of commentaries on Luke-Acts. However, within Lukan studies today, there is no such consensus regarding Luke’s background.”75 Allen sees Luke as a Jew who “wrote primarily for a Jewish audience.” This he says, “is based on evidence brought to light by recent research and on the number of textual features that indicate a Jewish background for both writer and audience.” For example:
[In] Acts, we find Luke referring to many priests who had become obedient to the faith (6:7). In 19:14, he mentions the seven sons of the Jewish high priest Sceva and their escapades. Why include such material if Luke is writing to Gentiles only? Of particular interest is that in Acts 23:3–5 Paul rebukes the high priest, then apologizes when he learns that it was indeed the high priest he had addressed. The book of Acts speaks of priests or high priests many times: 4:1,5,6, 3,36; 5:17; 6:7; 7:1; 9:1; 19:14; 22:5,30; 23:2,3,4,5,14; 24:1; 25:2,15.76
In Jim Sibley’s view, the shifting consensus related to Luke’s ethnic background is real. In an essay that was included in A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (2019), Sibley writes: “Scholars have traditionally assumed that Luke was a Gentile; however, a growing number of New Testament scholars believe he was Jewish…”77 And in the view of Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, “Luke was indeed a native Greek speaker, but of Jewish rather than Gentile origin. There is a growing trend among commentators of Luke-Acts to adopt this opinion, based on extensive and complex knowledge of Jewish practices and traditions.”78 Other scholars who appear to have moved on this issue include Thomas McCall (1996),79 Michael Fuller (2006),80 Rick Strelan (2008),81 David Andrew Smith (2021),82 and more recently, Michael F. Bird (2023).83
Conclusion
I began this essay with a few questions about the identity of an obscure disciple named Joanna. Who is she, and why does she feature so prominently in Luke’s concluding chapter devoted to Jesus’ resurrection? As I mentioned, several New Testament scholars have commented on the fact that her name appears at the center of a chiasm in Luke 24, but they haven’t quite known what to make of it. In my thinking, Richard Anderson’s proposal makes the most sense. The 1983 discovery of the Joanna ossuary provides us with a new interpretive option. If Luke wrote to Theophilus the high priest, and Joanna was his granddaughter, this would explain why she features so prominently in Luke’s narrative. Her name appears at the center of a chiasm because, from the perspective of Theophilus, she was the most important witness.
“Joanna [granddaughter] of Theophilus the high priest.” Are these the same individuals mentioned by Luke? It seems likely, given that these two names appear together exclusively on the ossuary and in the text of Luke’s Gospel, both of which are from the first century. Here are four additional considerations that should be factored in:
1) PLACE: Luke’s Joanna was a member of the earliest Christian church located in Jerusalem, and this happens to be the city where the Joanna ossuary was discovered.
2) AGE: The woman of the ossuary died sometime after her grandfather became high priest in 37 AD and before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is consistent with Luke’s Joanna who was likely born sometime between 5 BC and 15 AD.
3) CLASS: The Joanna of the ossuary was the granddaughter of the high priest, while Luke’s Joanna was the wife of Herod’s governor. In short, they were both women of wealth and nobility.
4) OFFICE: Luke’s Theophilus was called “most excellent” (kratistos), which indicates that he was a high-ranking official (cf. Acts 26:25). Josephus used a form of this same word in his description of the high priesthood (War, 1:68), which involved both political as well as religious responsibilities (Josephus, Ant. 20:249-251; War, 2:563).
So, what are the implications of this proposal on our understanding of the Third Gospel? Well, first of all, it could end up changing our view of Luke’s entire purpose. For example, in his Luke commentary, James R. Edwards writes: “A high priest who had been removed from office by King Agrippa, who was brother of a high priest (Jonathan) deposed by Rome and later killed by Jewish insurrectionists, and who was father of a high priest (Mattathias) who suffered the ravages of the Jewish War may have had more reason to be open to the alternative Christian gospel than the average Jewish leader.”84 Seen in this light, Luke’s Gospel becomes a kind of apologetic defense for the truth of Christianity, written to a leader of Israel whose family members were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Was Theophilus on the fence about these matters up to this point, and if so, did he end up becoming persuaded? In light of Luke’s report that “tens of thousands” of Jews came to believe Jesus was the promised Messiah, including “a great crowd of priests” (Acts 6:7, 21:20), this suggestion is certainly not out of the question.
This view could also serve to deepen our understanding of the factual basis of Luke’s report. After all, if Peter G. Bolt is correct and Luke’s Gospel is a kind of “apologia” written to set the record straight for one of the chief priests who would have been around when these events took place (and whose family members were directly involved in Jesus’ death),85 this would lend more weight and credibility to Luke’s narrative. As John David Michaelis observed, “the Evangelist would hardly have ventured to dedicate to the son of that very Annas, who was High Priest when Christ was crucified, a narrative of facts performed in Palestine, unless he had been able to warrant their truth.”86
This also suggests an earlier date for both Luke and Acts. If Luke wrote his Gospel while Theophilus served as high priest, the text of his Gospel could have been written sometime in the early 40s AD (which isn’t impossible since we can place Luke in Jerusalem—among all the relevant eyewitnesses—at this time).87 On the other hand, if Luke wrote to the former high priest, his Gospel should be dated somewhere between the mid-40s and the mid-60s, since according to Josephus, Theophilus was no longer alive by the fall of 67 AD.88 Though it’s not uncommon for some scholars to date the book of Acts around 62 AD since it ends with Paul in house arrest in Rome and fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem, the death of Peter, or even Paul himself, late-date advocates typically dismiss this sort of reasoning as an argument from silence. However, if both Luke and Acts were written to Theophilus the high priest, it is not an argument from silence to date both of these texts before the time of his death. We don’t know precisely when he died, but we do know that he was no longer alive by the fall of 67. Thus, 67 AD would be the latest possible date for Luke to have written both volumes.89
Finally, this proposal affects our understanding of Luke himself. After all, would a Jewish high priest likely be persuaded by a Gentile convert? As I mentioned, even apart from considerations related to the identity of Theophilus, many New Testament scholars are now abandoning the idea that Luke was a Gentile. In fact, one might even be tempted to describe what’s happening as “a paradigm shift.”90 Whether or not the old view of Luke will be overturned remains to be seen. Either way, we should always remember that truth isn’t determined by counting heads. Hopefully, however, this essay has introduced you to some ideas that will inspire you to read Luke’s two volumes more closely and to ask important questions along the way.
Shane Rosenthal is the founder and host of The Humble Skeptic podcast. He was one of the creators of the White Horse Inn radio broadcast which he also hosted from 2019-2021, and has written numerous articles for TableTalk, Core Christianity, Modern Reformation, and numerous other sites and publications. Shane received a B.A. in Humanities from Cal-State Fullerton, and an M.A. in Historical Theology from Westminster Seminary California.
Related Books
Who Are Johanna & Theophilus?, Richard Anderson
Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, Richard Bauckham
Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, David Allen
Luke the Priest & Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, Rick Strelan
The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, Jacob Jervell
A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke and Acts, Michael Bird
Related Articles
John 5:2 “There is in Jerusalem…”, Shane Rosenthal & others
Authenticating The Fourth Gospel, Shane Rosenthal
Water Into Wine? Shane Rosenthal
The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, Shane Rosenthal
Outside The Gospels, What Can We Know About Jesus? Shane Rosenthal
Can We Trust Luke’s History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane Rosenthal
Simon of Cyrene: An Intriguing Archaeological Discovery, Shane Rosenthal
The Authenticity & Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, J.B. Lightfoot
What Have They Done with Jesus?: Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History–Why We Can Trust the Bible, by Ben Witherington III, (2006).
Philo, On Joseph 117, 184, 190, 196, 207; cf Gen 41:39-46.
Josephus, Ant. 10:211-212; cf. Dan 2:48-49.
Josephus, War 2:117, 169, 220, 252, 271, 6:238. Before Felix was given charge of Judea (Ant. 20:142), he was appointed by Claudius “to be procurator (epitropos) of Galilee” (War 2:247), which would have been the same district previously governed by Chuza. In nearby Arabia, Sylleus served as epitropos under King Odobas (War 1:487), and according to Josephus, he “managed most of his affairs for him” (Ant. 16:220), but when the king died he sought to take the kingdom for himself (Ant. 16:294-296). Josephus also wrote of an Egyptian king who appointed his brother “to be his deputy (epitropos) over Egypt” and “gave him all the authority of a king” (Apion 1:98; cf. 2Mac 11:1, 13:2).
F.W. Farrar, The Gospel According to St. Luke, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (London: Cambridge University Press, 1855), 161. By itself, the word simply refers to an “administrator,” or “manager.” Thus, in Mt 20:8 it refers to the “foreman” who oversees and manages the vineyard on behalf of the owner, and Paul uses the word in Gal 4:2 to describe parental “guardians.” In both of these cases, the context controls the definition. In a family context, an epitropos governs the children (similar to the nineteenth-century concept of a “governess”), whereas in the context of a working vineyard, he manages the laborers, etc. As the examples from Josephus and others make clear, a king’s epitropos would be responsible for managing the king’s affairs (i.e., all the affairs of state). Therefore, we should not assume that Chuza was a mere “household manager,” unless the word household was specifically used to specify this kind of limited role. Richard Bauckham provides one additional possibility: “In the case of a king, the manager of his estate was in effect also the finance minister of the kingdom…as well as the royal domains and household…[thus] Herod Antipas’ epitropos would have been a very high-ranking official at Herod’s court” (Gospel Women, 135-136). Interpreted in this light, Chuza would have been the administrator both of Herod’s estate and realm.
In light of the fact that Joseph is described as Pharaoh’s epitropos (see note 2 above), recall the language of Gen 41:40 in which Pharaoh says to Joseph: “You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” According to Richard Bauckham, “Chuza held one of the most important offices” of the “Herodian court” (Gospel Women, p. 144).
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, Pillar NT Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 233-234.
Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), 24-25.
The Dictionary of Paul & His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 73.
Walter Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 76. Though this device isn’t common in our day, on page 132 Kaiser and Silva state that “chiasms were used frequently in the ancient world.”
Ibid., 91.
Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 187.
John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35C, Luke 18:35-24:53 (Dallas: Word, 1993), 1190.
Richard H. Anderson, Who Are Johanna And Theophilus?: The Irony of The Intended Audience of The Gospel of Luke (Media, PA: self-published / Amazon Kindle, 2011, ISBN 978-0692014660), Kindle location 124.
Lydia McGrew, Testimonies to the Truth (Tampa FL: Deward Publishing Co., 2023), 59-60.
Ibid.
The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek defines the word basilikos as “kingly, regal, [or] royal.” When used as a noun (as in Jn 4:46), this adjective refers to a “royal or imperial functionary,” such as an “ambassador,” or “courtier.” According to BDAG, the basilikos mentioned in Jn 4:46 “could be a relative of the royal (Herodian) family…but more probably the reference is to a royal official.”
Aristotle, Politics, 1315:1-2: “…it is necessary to appear to the subjects to be not a tyrannical ruler but a steward and a royal governor (basilikon).”
Herod Antipas was the son of King Herod the Great. Though technically his role was reduced to that of a “tetrarch” (Mt 14:1, 3:1, 19, Lk 9:7), nevertheless he continued to be called “king” (Mt 14:9, Mk 6:14, 22-27). Some have attempted to identify the official of Jn 4:46 with the centurion mentioned in Mt 8:5-13, Lk 7:1-10, but several important differences help us to distinguish those accounts from the event recorded by John. First, in the Synoptic version, it was a Roman centurion (not a Herodian official) who sought Jesus’ help. Second, the person healed was the man’s slave (not his son); and finally, the centurion sought Jesus’ help in Capernaum, whereas in John 4 it took place in the village of Cana. In light of these differences, the latter part of John 4 should not be conflated with the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8 and Luke 7.
F.W. Farrar, The Life of Christ, Vol. 1 (London: Cassell, Petter & Galpin, 1874), 230-232.
John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985), 69, n 158. Another follower of Jesus from Herod’s social circle named Manaen is mentioned in Acts 13:1.
Bauckham, Gospel Women, 137-138.
I discuss protective anonymity at some length in my PDF resource, The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, (see pages 15 and following).
Based on the events recorded at the end of his narrative, many scholars have concluded that Luke completed the book of Acts sometime around 62 AD. There also appears to be evidence that his Gospel was circulating before Paul’s martyrdom in 64 AD, since a portion of it was cited by Paul as “Scripture” in 1Tim 5:18.
If Joanna happens to be the wife of the royal official mentioned in Jn 4:46, then her story is told in the Fourth Gospel, but in that case, it would certainly be worth mentioning that both she and her husband were presented by John as unnamed characters!
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 317.
Bauckham, Gospel Women, 182
Ibid.
Ibid, 171-172.
Ibid.
Ibid., 186.
In Acts 25:23, Luke writes, “So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp.” For many years I assumed this was a description of “the king and queen” (i.e., husband and wife), but according to Josephus and others, they were “brother and sister” (War, 2:220).
Bauckham, Gospel Women, 150-153.
Ibid., 153.
Ibid., 157-158.
Dan Barag and David Flusser, “The Ossuary of Yehohanah Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus,” Israel Exploration Journal, 36 No. 1/2, 1986, 39-44.
Josephus, Ant. 20:249-251: “Herod’s son Archelaus did like his father in the appointment of the high priests as did the Romans also, who took the government over the Jews into their hands afterward…Some of these were the political governors of the people under the reign of Herod, and under the reign of Archelaus his son, although, after their death, the government became an aristocracy, and the high priests were intrusted with dominion over the nation” (cf. Josephus, War, 2:563).
According to Josephus, daughters of the high priests intermarried with Herodians (cf. Ant. 15:319-320, 17:14, 19:297), and Herodians intermarried with Nabateans (cf. Ant. 18:109, 18:136, War 1:181). In fact, Herod the Great was Nabatean (Nabatea = Idumea, which in the OT was known as Edom; Ant. 1:221, 2:3). Herod’s father was Antipater the Idumean and his mother was Cypros, a native of Idumea (Ant. 14:10, 14:121). Herod Antipas (Lk 8:3) was half Nabatean and half Samaritan (War. 1:562), and his first wife was a Nabatean princess (Ant. 18:109). Finally, Sylleus was the epitropos of the Nabatean king Odobas (Ant 16:220-226). “That Sylleus was of noble birth,” writes Bauckham, “would seem required by the fact that he was considered eligible to marry Herod the Great’s sister Salome.” (Gospel Women, p. 136).
In this passage, Josephus refers to “the most excellent things (kratisteuo) in the world,” the government,” “the high priesthood,” and “the gift of prophecy.” Luke uses a similar form of this word when reporting Paul’s speech before the “most excellent (kratiste) Festus” (Acts 26:25), and since Israel’s high priests also happened to be political rulers (Ant. 20:251), the term would certainly be fittingly applied to them.
Josephus, Ant. 18:123, 19:297, 20:223. Theophilus was the son of Annas, the high priest who interrogated Jesus in Jn 18:19, and in my PDF resource, The Identity of the Beloved Disciple, I argued that Yehohanan (John), the son of Theophilus, could be the same individual as John the Elder.
As Tal Ilan has argued, “Identification can be almost certain in the case where the persons identified bear not only the same name but also the same title.” This quote is taken from her article: “Julia Crispina, Daughter of Berenicianus, a Herodian Princess in the Babatha Archive: A Case Study in Historical Identification,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 82, No. 3/4 (Jan-Apr, 1992), 361 -381.
R.H. Anderson, “Theophilus: A Proposal,” Evangelical Quarterly (1997), and “The Cross and Atonement From Luke to Hebrews,” Evangelical Quarterly (1999). You can also find many of his articles online at: http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com.
Richard H. Anderson, Who Are Johanna And Theophilus? (Media, PA: self-published / Amazon Kindle, 2011), Kindle location 672. Note: the Joanna of the ossuary appears to have died sometime between 37 and 70 AD, which is consistent with the Joanna / Junia of the NT, who is likely to have been born sometime before 15 AD, and survived at least until 57 AD. If she was 21 in the first year of Christ’s ministry, she would be age 50 when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in 57 AD.
Craig Blomberg, “The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7,” Criswell Theological Review, 4.1 (1989), 3-20.
Origen, Homilies on the Gospel of Luke, 1.6.14.
Ambrose, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, 1.12.11.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, (cf. Lk 1:3).
Francis W. Upham, Thoughts on The Holy Gospels (1881), p. 53; B.W. Johnson, The People’s New Testament (1891), cf. Lk 1:3 and Acts 1:1; J.B. Lightfoot, The Acts of the Apostles: A Newly Discovered Commentary (2014, orig., c. 1888), p. 281; F.W. Farrar, The Gospel According to St. Luke (1905), p. 43; Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible (1978), cf. Lk 1:3; Walter L. Liefeld, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (1990), cf. Lk 1:3; I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Commentary (1994), p. 980; Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (1997), p. 44; Amy Jill-Levine, The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd Edition (2017), p. 109; Darell Bock, Holman Apologetics Commentary on The Bible: Gospels & Acts (2013), p. 330; The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2016), cf. Lk 1:3; ESV Archaeology Study Bible, “Introduction to Luke: Author, Date, and Purpose” (2017), cf. Acts 1:1.
John Wesley, Wesley’s Notes on The Whole Bible, cf. Lk 1:3.
Philip Schaff, A Popular Commentary on The New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879), 24.
Louis Berkhof, New Testament Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1915), 97.
Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible by Albert Barnes (1834), cf. Lk. 1:3; J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. Luke, Vol. 1 (1858), p. 6-7; John Peter Lange, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (1865), cf. Lk 1:3; J.W. McGarvey, A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles, 7th edition (1872), cf. Acts 1:1; Frederick Louis Godet, A Commentary on The Gospel of St. Luke, Vol. 1, Fourth Edition (1889), p. 30; Louis Berkhof, New Testament Introduction (1915), p. 97; A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol 2 (1930), cf. Lk 1:3'; Richard C. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (1946), p. 33; F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (1954), p. 31 n. 8). William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (1973), p. 58-59; David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (1992, 1996), cf. Lk 1:1; Craig Keener, The IVP New Testament Background Commentary (1993), p. 187; Michael F. Bird, A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke & Acts (2023), p. 22.
John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament From The Talmud And Hebraica, Vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859 edition, orig. 1658), cf. Lk 1:3.
John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol 3, part 1, translated by Herbert Marsh (Cambridge: John Burges, Printer to the University, 1801), 237-240. The first German edition of Michaelis’ work appeared in 1750.
James Tate, The Continuous History of St. Paul: With William Paley’s Horae Paulinae Subjoined (London: Longman, Orme, Brown & Co., 1840), 163-164
Robert Eisler, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel (London: Methhuen & Co, 1938) 139, 208; cf. 45.
Charles Ellicott, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), xvi-xvii.
See his 1997 Evangelical Quarterly essay, “Theophilus: A Proposal.”
Richard H. Anderson, Who Are Johanna And Theophilus? (Media, PA: self-published / Amazon Kindle, 2011).
Josep Ruis-Camps & Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, Vol. 1 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 40. See also their 2013 book, Luke’s Demonstration to Theophilus (London: Bloomsbury | T&T Clark, 2013), vii, xiv, and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger’s 2014 essay, “The Parable of the Vineyard in Luke’s Gospel (20.9-19)…”, en Relectures de l’Escriptura a la llum del Concili Vaticà II (1). La vinya (ScrBib 14, Barcelona: ABCat – FTC – PAM 2014), 174-179.
Rick Strelan, Luke The Priest (London: Routledge, 2008), 107-109.
David Allen, The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010), 23-25.
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke; Pillar NT Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 28, n. 20.
Peter, G. Bolt, “Luke, A Commentary,” Nov 21, 2022, The Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary.
Jim R. Sibley, A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), 207.
David C. Mitchell, Jesus: The Incarnation of the Word (Brussels: Campbell Publications, 2021), 109.
Cameron Joyner, Friends of Israel, “Was Luke Really a Gentile?” Sept. 16, 2022
Nathaniel Lardner writes, “St. Luke was a Jew by birth, at least by religion. None of the writers out of whom we have made collections, call him a Gentile…That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at least by religion, may be argued from his being a constant companion of Paul in many places, particularly at Jerusalem. If Luke had been an uncircumcised Gentile, some exceptions would have been made to him…It is probable, that [Luke is the] Lucius, mentioned in Rom 16:21. If so, he was [a “kinsman” of] St. Paul…” History of the Apostles & Evangelists, Vol 1, 2nd edition (London: Buckland & Fenner, 1760), 235-236; 275-276
According to C.I. Scofield, “The writer of the third Gospel…was of Jewish ancestry, but his correct Greek marks him as a Jew of the dispersion. Tradition says that he was a Jew of Antioch, as Paul was of Tarsus.” Scofield Reference Notes (1917), cf. Lk 1:3.
William F. Albright writes, “In my opinion Luke himself was a converted Jew. Loukas, the form in which his name appears in the New Testament, is the Greek form of an Aramaic Luqa, which in turn is an abbreviation of a Roman freedman’s name…It is unlikely that a non-Jew would use an Aramaic form of a Jewish freedman’s Roman name” New Horizons in Biblical Research (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 49-50.
The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5.
Rebecca Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 39-40.
Ibid., 225.
David Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, 23-25.
Ibid., 388-392.
Jim R. Sibley, “The Jewish Disciples in the Book of Acts,” A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2019), 207.
Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, Luke’s Demonstration to Theophilus (London: Bloomsbury | T&T Clark, 2013), vii.
Thomas S. McCall, “Was Luke a Gentile?” Zola Levit Newsletter, March, 1996
“Luke may very well have been a Diaspora Jew,” Michael Fuller, The Restoration of Israel (2006). Cited in A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke & Acts by Michael F. Bird (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2023), 20.
“I propose that the author Luke was himself a priest…Luke cannot be written for pagans because far too much knowledge is assumed. Luke plunges his readers into the atmosphere of Judaism and the Old Testament at the very beginning of his Gospel and leaves them there until the end of Acts.” Rick Strelan, Luke The Priest (London: Routledge, 2008), 110-111.
David Andrew Smith, “The Jewishness of Luke-Acts: Acts: Locating Lukan Christianity Amidst the Parting of The Ways,” JTS Volume 72, Issue 2, 2021, 738-768.
In his 2023 book, A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke & Acts, Michael Bird writes that “Luke is normally regarded as having been a Gentile, but there is nothing in Luke-Acts or Paul’s letters that explicitly requires that he was a Gentile.” Bird then goes on to quote the views of scholars such as Jacob Jervell, Rick Streland, and Michael Fuller (cf. p. 20).
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke; Pillar NT Commentary, 28, n. 20
Commenting on Lk 1:1-4, Bolt says that, “Theophilus…has been a close observer of these events…If he can be identified as Theophilus the high priest (ad 37–41), then Luke’s narrative presents Jesus to a man who was at the centre of the Jewish circles that were largely responsible for rejecting Jesus. It is an “apologia” (defence) as well as a “kategoria” (accusation/critique). https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/commentary/luke/
John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, 240.
This insight comes from John Dickson. He made this statement on episode 52 of The Humble Skeptic podcast.
Just after the fall of Gamala, which took place in 67 AD, Josephus described Theophilus’ younger brother Ananus ben Ananus as “the oldest living high priest” (War, 4:151, 238). Since Theophilus was older than Ananus, this comment is a clear implication that he was no longer living at that time. For a helpful timeline of the Jewish War, see: https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/roman-jewish-wars/roman-jewish-wars-5/
Here I’m thinking of the date as it relates exclusively to Theophilus. There are however other indicators of an earlier dating for Luke-Acts, such as the fact that Luke intentionally left Peter’s whereabouts out of his narrative in Act 12:17, and Paul’s comment in 1Tim 5:18 in which he refers to a passage from Luke’s Gospel as “Scripture,” which seems to imply that Luke was “written” well before 64 AD.
The identification of Theophilus and his connection with Joanna is a new one for me. Thanks.
Thanks for the reply and the tip.