THEOPHILUS (PERSON) [Gk Theophilos (Θεοφιλος)]. The name, meaning “friend or beloved of God,” appears in literature, inscriptions, and papyri of both Jews and gentiles from the 3d century B.C. (BAGD 358). In the NT, Theophilus is the only person mentioned to whom writings were dedicated (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Many scholars believe that he was a real person, because dedications of the time customarily referred to real persons. However, this specific person is not easy to identify, and the pseudonym “Theophilus” was probably used to protect this individual from the political authorities. Any number of suggestions have been made about Theophilus’ identity: (1) Theophilus, the brother-in-law of Caiaphas; (2) Theophilus, an Athenian official convicted of perjury by the Areopagus; (3) Theophilus of Antioch; (4) Sergius Paulus, proconsul (Acts 13:6–12); (5) Lucius Junius Annaeus Gallio (Acts 18:12–17), the brother of Seneca; (6) Titus Flavius Clemens, the husband of Domitilla and the heir presumptive of Domitian, who may have been executed because of his interest in Christianity; (7) Philo; or (8) Agrippa II (Acts 25:13–26:32; Marx 1980: 18–26). The title which Luke gives Theophilus, “most excellent” (Luke 1:3; cf. Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), suggests that he was a person of social and political prominence, perhaps a Roman governor, procurator, or magistrate, but this is by no means certain (Minear 1973: 133). Very likely, he was a leading figure in the group that Luke was addressing (Maddox 1982: 12).

For example, Greek historian Polybius and the Roman historian Livy seem to disagree in their description of Hannibal’s route in crossing the Alps in Italy during the second Punic War. Yet ancient historians do not question whether Hannibal made this trek. (Groothuis, CA, 561)

Some minor differences in the telling of this story indicate authenticity, not substantial error. If each account perfectly mirrored the rest, this would likely be a sign of collusion, not accurate history told from differing (but equally truthful) perspectives. (Groothuis, CA, 562)

Retired Los Angeles Police Department cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace is a recognized authority in evaluating the testimony of eyewitnesses. As a professional expert, he has spent hundreds of hours interviewing eyewitnesses and handling eyewitness testimony. He has examined the gospel accounts and explains for us why divergent testimonies are still considered reliable, even when there are points of disagreement:

If there’s one thing my experience as a detective has revealed, however, it’s that witnesses often make conflicting and inconsistent statements when describing what they saw at a crime scene. They frequently disagree with one another and either fail to see something obvious or describe the same event in a number of conflicting ways. The more witnesses involved in the case, the more likely there will be points of disagreement

Before I ever examined the reliability of the gospel accounts, I had a reasonable expectation about what a dependable set of eyewitness statements might look like, given my experience as a detective. . . . It turns out that my expectations of true, reliable eyewitness accounts are met . . . by the Gospels. All four accounts are written from a different perspective and contain unique details that are specific to the eyewitnesses.

Finally, the last account (John’s gospel) clearly attempts to fill in the details that were not offered by the prior eyewitnesses. John, aware of what the earlier eyewitnesses had already written, appears to make little effort to cover the same ground. . . . I recognized that they were consistent with what I would expect to see, given my experience as a detective.

If one were to fabricate an empty tomb and risen Jesus in first-century Mediterranean culture, one would not cite women as eyewitnesses, given their low status as credible witnesses in the eyes of the people and the courts. It is therefore reasonable to think that what is recorded actually happened. Why would the gospel writers make up these details to support their story? They knew their culture far better than we do, and if they were making up a tale, they would not begin it with a story to cast their new religion in such a poor light. It would not be a proper way to begin their myth. Scripture’s identification of women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb thus supports the historical veracity of the accounts.

1. Mary Magdalene: John 20:11–18

2. Women leaving the tomb: Matthew 28:8–10

3. Emmaus disciples: Luke 24:13–35

4. Simon Peter: Luke 24:34 (see also 1 Corinthians 15:5)

5. Disciples without Thomas: Luke 24:36–43

6. Disciples with Thomas: John 20:24–29

7. Disciples at the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias): John 21:1, 2

8. Disciples on a mountain in Galilee: Matthew 28:16, 17

9. Disciples: Luke 24:50–52

10. 500 believers: 1 Corinthians 15:6

11. James (Jesus’ half-brother): 1 Corinthians 15:7a

12. Paul (an enemy of the church): Acts 9:3–6