Executive summary

A minority proposal identifies Luke’s dedicatee (“most excellent Theophilus,” Luke 1:3) with Theophilus ben Ananus, a Jerusalem high priest known from Josephus. The proposal is possible but not well evidenced: it relies mostly on (a) the honorific κράτιστε (kratiste, “most excellent”), (b) broad thematic “fit,” and (c) name coincidence. By contrast, the two most common explanations in scholarship and reference works are that Theophilus was (1) a real individual of high status—often framed as a patron/sponsor in line with Greco-Roman dedication practice—or (2) a representative/generic addressee (“lover of God”), though the honorific weighs against a purely symbolic reading. 

1) The identification question

Claim under review: The “Theophilus” of Luke 1:3 / Acts 1:1 is Theophilus ben Ananus, the high priest removed by Agrippa I (per Josephus). 

What would count as strong evidence?

An early external witness (patristic, archival, inscriptional) explicitly connecting Luke–Acts’ dedicatee to that high priest; or A tight internal argument that uniquely points to the Jerusalem high priesthood rather than generic elite patronage.

Neither currently exists in a decisive form.

2) The internal (textual) data in Luke–Acts

2.1 The honorific “most excellent” (κράτιστε)

Luke addresses the dedicatee as κρατίστε Θεόφιλε (“most excellent Theophilus,” Luke 1:3). The same honorific is used elsewhere in Acts for Roman governors (e.g., Felix and Festus), which is why many interpreters treat it as a marker of high status / office rather than a purely affectionate “dear friend.” 

Implication for the high-priest hypothesis:

A high priest could plausibly be addressed with a high honorific in Greek, but the Acts parallels most directly support administrative rank in the Greco-Roman world rather than priestly office specifically. 

2.2 The “missing honorific” in Acts 1:1

Luke 1:3 includes “most excellent,” while Acts 1:1 simply says “O Theophilus.” Many arguments for the high-priest identification lean on this drop: e.g., “he was ‘most excellent’ while in office, then not once out of office.”

Competing explanations (all simpler than a specific high priest):

Stylistic variation between the prefaces of two volumes. The honorific is used once to establish the relationship, then not repeated. The second preface assumes the dedication is already clear.

This is why the “honorific drop” is suggestive but not diagnostic.

2.3 The stated purpose: assurance/certainty about prior instruction

Luke says he is writing so Theophilus may know the certainty of what he has been taught (Luke 1:4). That framing fits well with a catechetical / apologetic purpose directed at someone who has received prior instruction but wants an orderly account. 

Implication:

This description fits a wide range of candidates (elite patron, interested inquirer, recent convert, etc.) and does not uniquely point to a high priest.

3) The external (historical) data about Theophilus ben Ananus

Josephus explicitly mentions “Theophilus, the son of Ananus,” being removed from the high priesthood by Agrippa I and replaced by Simon son of Boethus/Cantheras. 

This establishes:

There was a historically real, high-status Theophilus in Jerusalem’s elite. The name “Theophilus” and a prestigious office can coincide in the relevant era.

But it does not establish:

Any tie to a Christian author. Any patronage relationship. Any reason Luke would dedicate a two-volume work to him.

4) The best arguments for the high-priest identification (and how strong they are)

Argument A: “κράτιστε” implies a top official

Strength: moderate (it does imply high status).  Limit: it does not point uniquely to which kind of top official (Roman provincial administration is the clearest NT parallel usage).

Argument B: Temple/Jerusalem focus suggests a priestly addressee

Strength: weak-to-moderate (Luke–Acts is Jerusalem/Temple-aware). Limit: Temple focus is also expected if Luke is narrating Christian origins; it doesn’t require the dedicatee to be a priest, much less a particular high priest.

Argument C: Honorific disappears in Acts because the recipient left office

Strength: weak (plausible narrative, but multiple simpler explanations exist).

Argument D: Name coincidence (Theophilus is “right there” historically)

Strength: weak (Theophilus was a common Greek name; name matching alone is not strong). 

5) The best arguments against the high-priest identification

Counterargument 1: Patronage/dedication norms better fit a living sponsor or elite friend

Reference works and many interpretive traditions note that Greco-Roman works were commonly dedicated to a patron/friend who might sponsor production/dissemination—an explanation that fits Luke’s polished preface and two-volume project well. 

Counterargument 2: “κράτιστε” in Acts most clearly attaches to Roman governors

Luke uses the honorific for Felix/Festus in Acts—this leans interpreters toward Roman administrative rank as the nearest analogue, not Jerusalem high priesthood as such. 

Counterargument 3: No early external witness nails the identification

We have Josephus for the high priest, and we have Luke’s shown dedication, but we do not have an early bridge-text saying “Luke wrote to that Theophilus.” The absence isn’t disproof, but it keeps the hypothesis from rising above “intriguing.”

6) A sober probability judgment

Based on the present evidence:

Highly likely: “Theophilus” is a real person of high status, given “most excellent.”  Plausible (and common): he functioned as patron/sponsor or elite recipient consistent with dedication practice.  Possible but weakly supported: he is Theophilus ben Ananus specifically (high priest).  Less likely (but still discussed): “Theophilus” is purely symbolic (“lover of God”)—the honorific makes this harder to sustain. 

7) What evidence would actually move the needle

If you ever encounter any of the following, the hypothesis gets materially stronger:

Early patristic testimony identifying Theophilus as a high priest (not just “a man of rank”). Papyrological / epigraphic evidence of a Theophilus with title “most excellent” plausibly in Judea/adjacent administration and connected to Christian circles. A defensible reconstruction showing Luke’s preface is tailored to priestly concerns in a way not explainable by normal elite patronage.

Absent these, the best scholarly posture is to label “Theophilus ben Ananus” as an interesting candidate but not established.