Theodore Hase - Bibliotheca Bremensis - acknowledged by Michaelis

Steven Avery

Administrator
The first person in modern times that we know who connected Theophilus with the high priest was Theodor Hase c. 1720. This was picked up by William Paley and Johann Michaelis did a fine section about it, agreeing with Hase from about his 3rd edition.

Questions from Theodore Hase include:

Did he definitely land on the high priest side?
What historical and exegetical evidences does he give, and scriptures?
Does he give hints of earlier writers knowing this connection?

So the question is finding and understanding the Latin section from Hase:

Bibliotheca historicophilologicatheologica
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_YTX3aSi0uNcC/page/n505/mode/2up
or
Bibliotheca Bremensis historico-philologico-theologica, Volume 4 (1720)
https://books.google.com/books?id=mv9SclcIL3AC&pg=PA506

p. 506-507 - Introduction

p. 507-508 - #1 - Fabricius and Heumann - Roman - many others

p. 508-509 - #2 - Athens 58 Olympic - Plutarch - Bar

p. 509-510 - #3 - Christian - Council of Nicea, martyr Diocletian - Theodosian Laws - Baronius

p. 510-511 - #4 - Michael Balbi - Photius - Basil Epistle ad Theodotum

p. 511-513 - #5 - Epiphanius - (Hippolytus-Fabricius) - Hodius - Wilhelm Schelguigius

p. 513-515 - #6 - 2 Samuel 12:25 - Josephus - Antiquities L.XVII Herod -- L.XX ch. 8 sect 17 - Matthaias father of Theophilus - Ananis with five sons, Caiaphas - Josephus L.VIII - c7 - 39 AD - Claudio Agrippa - Simone Boethi Josephus L.XIX ch. 6
Hebrew footnote - Simcha ben Gerson - Wolfius - Rabbi Jedidiae - name Theophilorum among Jews

p. 515-516 - #7 - key high priest starting point, where Luke mentions his being most excellent - Jerusalem (Hierosolymae)

p. 516 - #8 - Luke - Judaea - Jerusalem - Acts 24:7 Acts 21:15-18 Acts 27:1 Acts 28:1-16 - Jerusalame and Bethlehem

p. 516-518 - #9 - Francois Burman (1628-1679) - Acts 21:17-18 - Acts 6:7 - Josephus L.XX.c.8 - maybe different epoch ?

p. 518-519 - #10 -

p. 519-521 - #11 - Hesychius - Stephanus - Acts 21:21 - Acts 21:24 - Isidorus p. 520, Cyprian p. 521 - Heumann p. 521

p. 521-523 - #12 - high priest, Temple - discusses Caiaphas his father, Joanna is mentioned, (ossuary discovered later) Luke 3:3

p. 523 - #13 - Acts, Jerusalem, Theophilus,

p. 523-524 - #14 - Heumann - Jacob Hase

p. 524-525 - #15 - Claudius Candidus (d. 198) - Acts 23:26 - 24:3 - 26:27 - Luke 1:4 Acts 23:26

p. 525-526 - #16 - Roman

p. 526-528 - #17 - Heumann - Sergius Paulus - Acts 13:7-12 (earlier Michaelis) - Tertullian and persons

p. 528-529 - #18 - Pomponian - Tacitus - Nero - Tacitus and Suetonius

p. 529-530 - #19 - superstition Acts 17:19-20 - Eusebius life of Constantine

p. 530-531 - #20 - 2 Corinthians 7:10

p. 531 - #21 - Luke commentary - Tacitus - Theophilus Christian

END
And Theodore Hase discusses unimportant theories, like Christophe August Heumann, published the same year, also his brother Jacob Hase. They are mentioned in Michaelis.

Latin help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Michaelis - p. 236-239
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA236
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Review of Michaelis
https://books.google.com/books?id=3hk2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA362

Our author is very desirous to discover who Theophilus was, to , whom St. Luke åddressed his gospel, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, and seems decidedly of opinion that he was no believer. In this opinion we cannot agree with him, nor is it probable that he will have many followers, for the editor has shewn, what indeed will occur to every Greek scholar, that the argument, by which he attempts to establish it was absurd and ridiculous. He prefers, however, the opinion of Theodore Hase,
“Who contends that Theophilus was formerly; though not when St. Luke addressed his gospel to him, a Jewish High Priest. The arguments advanced in favour 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*. . He was the son of Annas, who was High Priest in the year in which Christ was crucified, and was himself nominated High Priest by the Roman governor Vitellius, in the place of his brother Jonathan, whom Vitellius deposed. This office Theophilus held till Agrippa was appointed King of Judea, who deposed him and made Simon Cantheras, High Prieti. Agrippa soon after dispossessed Cantheras of the High Priesthood, and offered it again to Jonathan, but he refused it, and recommended his brother Matthias, who was accepted. After several changes in the Priesthood, which are of no importance in the present inquiry, another son of Annas, named Ananus, was appointed High Priest; so that Theophilus had not only himself presided over the Jewish church, but had three brothers who had likewise executed that office. Lastly, his own son Matthias was nominaled High Priest in the place of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, and it was. during the Priesthood of Matthias, that the Jewish war commenced. Theophilus, therefore, though no longer High Priest, when St. Luke wrote his.. gospel, yet, as he had formerly held thal office, and moreover had brethren and a son for his succesors, was certainly of sufficient rank to be entitled to the appellation of (Grk) ”
True, a man who had once been High Priest, was certainly entitled to that appellation, and, as we know that before the martyrdom of St. Stephen, “ a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith,” and, as our Saviour himself assures, that at the commencement of the Jewish war “ the father should be divided againft the son, and the son against the father” it is certainly possible, that Theophilus might have been a believer in Christ, even while his son was High Priest of the Jews, and, of course, an inveterate enemy to the Christian name. It seems, however, somewhat surprising, that no mention whatever is made in the Acts of the Apostles, of the conversion of a man who had once been High Priest, and, therefore, without being pufirive on the subject, which is now of no great importance, we are inclined to adopt the opinion of Cave, who thinks that Theophilus was some man of rank at Antioch, perhaps the Governor, to whom the appellation (Grk) would naturally be given, and that he had been converted, to the faith, by the preaching of the Evangelist.

* Antiq. lib. xviii. xix. xx. + This is one of those blunders, into which, from mere inattention, Michaelis frequently falls, and which, of course, render his book of much less value than it would otherwise be. Annas was, indeed, the father of Theophilus, and had been High Priest, but not when Christ was crucified, for we know. by testimony, which our author has proved to be more deserving of credit than that of Josephus, that not Annas, but “ Caiaphas was High Priest that same year."
 
Last edited:
Top