Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-31-2006, 03:50 PM

The writings of Theophilus are a mystery to me, and I suspect to many. I can't find much commentary on them, and I find none that tries to explain why this person, in the 2nd century, clearly had a very firm grasp on all the main Christian teachings, including "Love your enemies", and hey seems not to have been aware of Jesus Christ at all.

What are the possible explanations for this?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book1.html

GakuseiDon · 12-31-2006, 04:18 PM

I addressed Doherty on his comments on Theophilus which may be useful:
My first comments:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...2.3 Theophilus

My follow up comments after Doherty's rebuttal to the above:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus..._Part2.htm#1.6

Links to Doherty's rebuttal are given on the webpages.

Two points:
1. Theophilus appears to have had some knowledge of the NT, and quotes from GJohn: "And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.""
2. Theophilus appears to be writing around 180 CE, when pagans must have had some idea of what Christians believed. If he was worried that Justin Martyr had associated Jesus Christ with "the Word" 20 years earlier, he doesn't show it.

If Theophilus was a Christian who believed in a historical Jesus, why didn't he mention this? I suggest it was for the same reasons that Tertullian didn't in Ad nationes. I look at several reasons in the links I gave above.

Toto · 12-31-2006, 04:32 PM

Wiki on Theophilus

New Advent

I think that Christians claim that Theophilus was aiming his arguments at a pagan audience, so he used pagan sources. And of course we might not have everything that he wrote.

The lack of reference to a human Jesus fits in well with Doherty's position.

GDon's comments are here on Theophilus. I should let him defend his position - he seems to strain to find some indication that Theophilus had actually read the gospels, and concludes that anyone who reads the gospels must be a historicist.

I'm not sure what else you are looking for.

eta - cross posted with GDon.

Malachi151 · 12-31-2006, 05:27 PM

I disagree with your comments GD.

Take for example the lone reference to a specific gospel:

Quote:

And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

Here he never quotes the passage that says "the Word was made flesh, etc."

There has also been speculation for a long time that there was a "Gnostic" version of John that may have been before Mark, and than there was a later revision to this work around 110 or 120 to bring it in line with the synoptics.

This work from Theophilus could easily support that, with Theophilus working from a remaining copy of the "Gnostic John".

Its not just that Theophilus doesn't mention Jesus, he says things that contradict a belief in Jesus. His commentary on resurrection makes no mention of Jesus, which according to other Christians is the whole basis of belief in the resurrection, and there are examples like this in almost every paragraph.

Why would he avoid talking about a human Jesus to pagans, it seems that the humanization of Jesus Christ was an act of Hellenism, and brought Jesus more in line with the traditional Greek and Roman views of gods and sons of gods.

As for writing contra Marcion, for all we know we was writing against Marcion's concept of a Jesus that came and acted on earth at all, even in "phantom form". By no means do we know that his opposition to Marcion was along the same lines of the other apologists.

Ben C Smith · 12-31-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...he seems to strain to find some indication that Theophilus had actually read the gospels....

From Theophilus, To Autolycus 2.22.2:

Οθεν διδασκουσιν ημας αι αγιαι γραφαι και παντες οι πνευματοφοροι, εξ ων Ιωαννης λεγει· Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον.

Whence the holy writings and all those borne by the spirit teach us, from whom John says: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God.

Are you suggesting that perhaps John 1.1, cited here under the name of John, was not actually part of our present gospel of John? Or that Theophilus had read the gospel of John only up through about verse 13 (after which point the historicist part, as it were, kicks in)? Or was your emphasis on the gospels (plural), and you were in fact conceding the single gospel of John?

Quote:

...and concludes that anyone who reads the gospels must be a historicist.

There are at least two somewhat related arguments possible here:

1. The gospel of John is an historicist document and supports historicism; Theophilus cites the gospel of John approvingly (as a text written by someone borne along by the spirit); therefore Theophilus approves of historicism (unless, of course, he had read only up to verse 13).
2. Theophilus knows and approves of the gospel of John; Theophilus is silent on an historical Jesus; therefore it is possible for someone who knows an historicist gospel and approves of it to be silent on the historical Jesus.

Do you disagree with either of these arguments? The first does not seem very conducive to a mythicist approach to Theophilus. The second does not seem very conducive to a mythicist approach to the entire second century.

Just wondering.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 12-31-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

His commentary on resurrection makes no mention of Jesus, which according to other Christians is the whole basis of belief in the resurrection....

I think you have this backwards. I think the early Christians believed in resurrection because their interpretation of the OT included resurrection; in this they were quite mainstream for Judaism. They were able to believe that Jesus rose from the dead at least in part because they already believed in resurrection.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul does not argue that, if Jesus was raised, then there is a resurrection, or that, if Jesus was not raised, then there is no resurrection. To the contrary. He argues that, if there is no resurrection, then Jesus was not raised.

Ben.

Toto · 12-31-2006, 05:45 PM

Theophilus cites part of the first verse of a gospel of John, but we don't know what followed it, or how he read it.

If Theophilus was a historicist, his silence about the historical Jesus seems strange.

There are, of course, other possibilities. We don't know how reliable the manuscript is - could the reference to the gospel of John be a later addition? Could the idea that Theophilus was an opponent of Marcion be a later myth?

GakuseiDon · 12-31-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Theophilus cites part of the first verse of a gospel of John, but we don't know what followed it, or how he read it.

If Theophilus was a historicist, his silence about the historical Jesus seems strange.

I agree. Just as it is strange for Tertullian in Ad nationes not to mention Jesus, not even the names "Jesus" nor "Christ". As well as others in the first few centuries:

* Clement of Alexandria (182-202 CE): "Exhortation to the Heathen" (Use of 'Jesus' and 'Christ', but no historical details)
* Ignatius (110-140 CE): "Philadelphians", "Polycarp" (Use of 'Jesus' and 'Christ', but no historical details)
* Tertullian (200 CE): "Against Hermogenes" (No historical details, 3 mentions of 'Christ', none for Jesus)
* Attributed to 'Justin Martyr' (late 2nd C or 3rd C): Horatory to the Greeks (No historical details, uses 'Logos' and 'Word' throughout, with a final association to a 'Jesus Christ' in the concluding paragraph)
* Commodianus (240 CE): “Instructions of Commodianus” (No historical details)

It's strange, but perhaps not uncommon.

gstafleu · 12-31-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

There are at least two somewhat related arguments possible here...

Is there a third argument possible: the version of GJohn that Theophilus had was not the current historicist document? This is at first blush a bit ad hoc, but Theophili silence on the HJ needs some explanation. I'm not sure if "it is possible for someone who knows an historicist gospel and approves of it to be silent on the historical Jesus" is an explanation or just a restatement of the issue in more favorable terms

. Reading the first verses of John, it seems that 1-3, maybe 1-4, is a fairly straightforward ritual invocation of a creation myth. But as of 5 things seem to veer of in the direction of grinding an ax with the aim of better hewing out one's agenda. Perhaps at one point a pre-agenda version of John existed?

Gerard Stafleu

GakuseiDon · 12-31-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Here he never quotes the passage that says "the Word was made flesh, etc."

There has also been speculation for a long time that there was a "Gnostic" version of John that may have been before Mark, and than there was a later revision to this work around 110 or 120 to bring it in line with the synoptics.

This work from Theophilus could easily support that, with Theophilus working from a remaining copy of the "Gnostic John".

Perhaps Theophilus is a Gnostic -- though what did gnostics believe on the subject of a historical Jesus, IYO?

Here is some more from Theophilus:

(Book 2) ... His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam... But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son?... The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place...

(Book 3) And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man's wife with our eyes to lust after her...

And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." "And he that marrieth," says [the Gospel], "her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." ...

And the Gospel says: "Love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you. For if ye love them who love you, what reward have ye? This do also the robbers and the publicans." And those that do good it teaches not to boast, lest they become men-pleasers. For it says: "Let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth."
Whatever Theophilus believed about the word, it seems to have been able to talk and be seen, and able to appear in the one place. Since Theophilus wrote after 180 CE, at least 30 years after Justin associated the Word with the historical Jesus, his reluctance to knock that concept down is just as strange as him not mentioning Jesus if he were a historicist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

As for writing contra Marcion, for all we know we was writing against Marcion's concept of a Jesus that came and acted on earth at all, even in "phantom form". By no means do we know that his opposition to Marcion was along the same lines of the other apologists.

True, but I suggest that it is reasonable to assume that later heresy writers would have known. "Marcion is wrong because there was no Jesus" would surely have attracted some attention. In fact, people seemed to have approved of Theophilus's writings. If he had written anything questionable, that would seem to have been unlikely.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-31-2006, 03:50 PM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Theophilus and Christianity without Jesus? The writings of Theophilus are a mystery to me, and I suspect to many. I can't find much commentary on them, and I find none that tries to explain why this person, in the 2nd century, clearly had a very firm grasp on all the main Christian teachings, including "Love your enemies", and hey seems not to have been aware of Jesus Christ at all. What are the possible explanations for this? http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book1.html

12-31-2006, 04:18 PM	#2
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	I addressed Doherty on his comments on Theophilus which may be useful: My first comments: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...2.3 Theophilus My follow up comments after Doherty's rebuttal to the above: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus..._Part2.htm#1.6 Links to Doherty's rebuttal are given on the webpages. Two points: 1. Theophilus appears to have had some knowledge of the NT, and quotes from GJohn: "And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence."" 2. Theophilus appears to be writing around 180 CE, when pagans must have had some idea of what Christians believed. If he was worried that Justin Martyr had associated Jesus Christ with "the Word" 20 years earlier, he doesn't show it. If Theophilus was a Christian who believed in a historical Jesus, why didn't he mention this? I suggest it was for the same reasons that Tertullian didn't in Ad nationes. I look at several reasons in the links I gave above.

12-31-2006, 04:32 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Wiki on Theophilus New Advent I think that Christians claim that Theophilus was aiming his arguments at a pagan audience, so he used pagan sources. And of course we might not have everything that he wrote. The lack of reference to a human Jesus fits in well with Doherty's position. GDon's comments are here on Theophilus. I should let him defend his position - he seems to strain to find some indication that Theophilus had actually read the gospels, and concludes that anyone who reads the gospels must be a historicist. I'm not sure what else you are looking for. eta - cross posted with GDon.

12-31-2006, 05:45 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Theophilus cites part of the first verse of a gospel of John, but we don't know what followed it, or how he read it. If Theophilus was a historicist, his silence about the historical Jesus seems strange. There are, of course, other possibilities. We don't know how reliable the manuscript is - could the reference to the gospel of John be a later addition? Could the idea that Theophilus was an opponent of Marcion be a later myth?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.