There is significant debate about the nature of Theophilus in Luke's writings. Some say that the name is a symbolic term applied to all believers. This is because Theophilus (Θεόφιλος), can be translated to "lover of God," "friend of God," and even "God's beloved." This idea was made popular by the early church father Origen. This generic use of Theophilus is often compared to the tendency for early gentile Christians to be seen as "God-fears." Though this thought can be dismissed as Luke employs the words φοβούμενοι (Acts 13:26) and σεβομένων (Acts 13:43) to refer to such individuals who fear God.

Others posit that Theophilus was the given name of an actual person. This is because scholars, like Craig Keener, state that it would be unlikely to dedicate the text to an individual and leave out their real name. Though I agree that Theophilus was an actual person, I remain unconvinced that Θεόφιλος was his given name. The name Θεόφιλος is well documented from the 3rd century onward, but Θεόφιλος does not seem to appear often before hand. I admit that I cannot find a source to verify this information but all who speak about the use of "Theophilus" as a common name signify its relevance from the 3rd century onward. This presents some doubt in my mind as to "Theophilus" being the given name of Luke's recipient. (I welcome any and all suggestions concerning this perspective).

Additionally, the argument can made that Theophilus was of high status and even a government official. Consider that Luke uses the honorific "Most excellent" when addressing Theophilus in his gospel account. This word, κράτιστος, is used in only three other places in the New Testament. All appearances of the word are found in Luke's writings, (Luke 1:3; Acts 23:26, 24:3, 26:25). The three appearances in Acts see κράτιστος attached to a figure of high status and governmental authority. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that Theophilus is at least of high status, if not also a government official. If Theophilus was a government official it would have made sense to be more discrete in matters by using a pseudonym. Though it should be noted that this interpretation demands that a potential shift in relationship between Luke and Theophilus to have occurred due to Luke using ὦ as a term of endearment that precedes the name of Theophilus in Acts 1:1.

After researching Luke’s writings compiled for Theophilus, I am compelled to believe that Theophilus is neither a generic term to address all believers nor the recipient’s given name. Instead, I am convinced that it is a pseudonym adopted by an individual who occupies an important governmental office. Are there any robust or concrete examples of people taking on pseudonyms when associating themselves with the early church? Please point me to sources if you have them. (Since this is a tertiary issue, I will not be offended if you disagree with my conclusion. I am willing to be wrong on the identity of Theophilus).

There is significant debate about the nature of Theophilus in Luke's writings. Some say that the name is a symbolic term applied to all believers. This is because Theophilus (Θεόφιλος), can be translated to "lover of God," "friend of God," and even "God's beloved." This idea was made popular by the early church father Origen. This generic use of Theophilus is often compared to the tendency for early gentile Christians to be seen as "God-fearers." Though this thought can be dismissed as Luke employs the words φοβούμενοι (Acts 13:26) and σεβομένων (Acts 13:43) to refer to such individuals who fear God.

Others posit that Theophilus was the given name of an actual person. This is because scholars, like Craig Keener, state that it would be unlikely to dedicate the text to an individual and leave out their real name. Though I agree that Theophilus was an actual person, I remain unconvinced that Θεόφιλος was his given name. The name Θεόφιλος is well documented from the 3rd century onward, but Θεόφιλος does not seem to appear often before hand. I admit that I cannot find a source to verify this information but all who speak about the use of "Theophilus" as a common name signify its relevance from the 3rd century onward. This presents some doubt in my mind as to "Theophilus" being the given name of Luke's recipient. (I welcome any and all suggestions concerning this perspective).

Additionally, the argument can made that Theophilus was of high status and even a government official. Consider that Luke uses the honorific "Most excellent" when addressing Theophilus in his gospel account. This word, κράτιστος, is used in only three other places in the New Testament. All appearances of the word are found in Luke's writings, (Luke 1:3; Acts 23:26, 24:3, 26:25). The three appearances in Acts see κράτιστος attached to a figure of high status and governmental authority. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that Theophilus is at least of high status, if not also a government official. If Theophilus was a government official it would have made sense to be more discrete in matters by using a pseudonym. Though it should be noted that this interpretation demands that a potential shift in relationship between Luke and Theophilus to have occurred due to Luke using ὦ as a term of endearment that precedes the name of Theophilus in Acts 1:1.

After researching Luke’s writings compiled for Theophilus, I am compelled to believe that Theophilus is neither a generic term to address all believers nor the recipient’s given name. Instead, I am convinced that it is a pseudonym adopted by an individual who occupies an important governmental office. Are there any robust or concrete examples of people taking on pseudonyms when associating themselves with the early church? Please point me to sources if you have them. (Since this is a tertiary issue, I will not be offended if you disagree with my conclusion. I am willing to be wrong on the identity of Theophilus).

After researching Luke’s writings compiled for Theophilus, I was persuaded to conclude that Theophilus is neither a generic term for all believers nor the recipient’s given name. Instead, I am convinced that it is a pseudonym adopted by an individual who occupies an important governmental office. Are there any robust or concrete examples of people taking on pseudonyms when associating themselves with the early church? Please point me to sources if you have them.

There is significant debate about the nature of Theophilus in Luke's writings. Some say that the name is a symbolic term applied to all believers. This is because Theophilus (Θεόφιλος), can be translated to "lover of God," "friend of God," and even "God's beloved." This idea was made popular by the early church father Origen. This generic use of Theophilus is often compared to the tendency for early gentile Christians to be seen as "God-fears." Though this thought can be dismissed as Luke employs the words φοβούμενοι (Acts 13:26) and σεβομένων (Acts 13:43) to refer to such individuals who fear God.

Others posit that Theophilus was the given name of an actual person. This is because scholars, like Craig Keener, state that it would be unlikely to dedicate the text to an individual and leave out their real name. Though I agree that Theophilus was an actual person, I remain unconvinced that Θεόφιλος was his given name. The name Θεόφιλος is well documented from the 3rd century onward, but Θεόφιλος does not seem to appear often before hand. I admit that I cannot find a source to verify this information but all who speak about the use of "Theophilus" as a common name signify its relevance from the 3rd century onward. This presents some doubt in my mind as to "Theophilus" being the given name of Luke's recipient. (I welcome any and all suggestions concerning this perspective).

Additionally, the argument can made that Theophilus was of high status and even a government official. Consider that Luke uses the honorific "Most excellent" when addressing Theophilus in his gospel account. This word, κράτιστος, is used in only three other places in the New Testament. All appearances of the word are found in Luke's writings, (Luke 1:3; Acts 23:26, 24:3, 26:25). The three appearances in Acts see κράτιστος attached to a figure of high status and governmental authority. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that Theophilus is at least of high status, if not also a government official. If Theophilus was a government official it would have made sense to be more discrete in matters by using a pseudonym. Though it should be noted that this interpretation demands that a potential shift in relationship between Luke and Theophilus to have occurred due to Luke using ὦ as a term of endearment that precedes the name of Theophilus in Acts 1:1.

After researching Luke’s writings compiled for Theophilus, I am compelled to believe that Theophilus is neither a generic term to address all believers nor the recipient’s given name. Instead, I am convinced that it is a pseudonym adopted by an individual who occupies an important governmental office. Are there any robust or concrete examples of people taking on pseudonyms when associating themselves with the early church? Please point me to sources if you have them. (Since this is a tertiary issue, I will not be offended if you disagree with my conclusion. I am willing to be wrong on the identity of Theophilus).