Tharmas

Theophilus makes a fascinating read.

I am not entirely convinced that he “hadn’t heard of” Jesus. For one thing, if he wrote against Marcion, surely he would have read GLuke; which Marcion is famous for popularizing, no?

Nevertheless it’s striking how, for the purposes of this particular document, Theophilus seems to go out of his way to avoid mentioning the name “Jesus.” Let me add a couple of additional examples I noticed.

When defending the Christian belief in bodily resurrection, Theophilus never mentions the Gospel narratives, but for specific examples picks Hercules and AEsculapius, and then launches into a long discussion about how the whole resurrection concept is supposed to be understood metaphorically (anticipating Frazer by 18 centuries!):

Then, again, you believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that AEsculapius, who was struck with lightning, was raised… consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits, and this, too, for the use of men? A seed of wheat, for example, or of the other grains, when it is cast into the earth, first dies and rots away, then is raised, and becomes a stalk of corn…Moreover, sometimes also a sparrow or some of the other birds, when in drinking it has swallowed a seed of apple or fig, or something else, has come to some rocky hillock or tomb, and has left the seed in its droppings, and the seed, which was once swallowed, and has passed though so great a heat, now striking root, a tree has grown up. And all these things does the wisdom of God effect, in order to manifest even by these things, that God is able to effect the general resurrection of all men. And if you would witness a more wonderful sight, which may prove a resurrection not only of earthly but of heavenly bodies, consider the resurrection of the moon, which occurs monthly; how it wanes, dies, and rises again... (CHAP. XIII, The Resurrection Proved by Examples).

What we’re seeing here, and I’m sorry I don’t have time to develop the idea in greater detail, is a sort of proto-Gnostic identification of God with his creation; the Creation is a speaking-forth from God, which is the Logos, etc. etc., but anyway, the point is, we’re talking resurrection without the Gospel Jesus. What’s being resurrected is the whole world, Jesus as Logos, the spoken creation. But like I said, I don’t have time to get into all that right now.

My second point comes from Part 3 of Theophilus to Autolycus, where Theophilus expounds on Christian virtues. There he quotes the Prophets, but he also quotes the gospels directly. Now, whether he’s quoting from a primitive “sayings” gospel like Q or one of the more modern versions, nevertheless he fails to attribute the quotes to any “Jesus.” It’s really quote remarkable:

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." (CHAP XIII, Of Chastity).

Or again:

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." (CHAP XIV, Of Loving Our Enemies).

Iasion

Greetings all,

Some comments that come to mind reading this work :

Theophilus is intelligent, moral, educated, well-read, multilingual :
* he quotes many Roman and Greek writers
* he quotes many books of the OT
* he wrote a lengthy defence of (an early variant of) Christianity in several volumes (now placed out of order?)
* he defends against the usual calumnies (loose sex, eating babies)

Theophilus' Christianity is a development of Judaism:
* he compares the OT to the Greek and Roman writings
* he cites and argues from the OT in detail and at length
* he seems to show echoes of Philo
* he develops ideas about the Logos

But Theophilus shows no signs he had ever heard of the four written Gospels or Jesus :
* he cites the OT hundreds of times
* he explicitly calls his lengthy work "a compendium" and also "compendius"
* he makes a tiny handful of possible quotes of Paul
* he uses the word Gospel informally twice, refering to sayings rather similar to G.Matthew (and G.Luke once).
* he never mentions Jesus, even when arguing at length about the resurrection etc.

As pointed out, he notably explains the meaning of the term "Christian" by reference to being "anointed" - essentially he says

"we are called Anointians because we are anointed"

(I translate 'Christian' literally as 'Anointian' to better preserve the original - he also puns 'Christian/Anointian' with 'serviceable' in Greek).


If he had known of a founder called Christ he would surely have said so - he could not plausibly have :
* written a detailed explanation of Christianity,
* including the actual meaning of the term,
* even making a secondary pun on the term,
* spending chapters defending the resurrection,
* spending chapters on Moses and other OT figures,
* without mentioning Jesus once,
if he knew Jesus Christ or the Gospel stories.

Far from being ridiculous, it is fairly clear from reading the text that the educated, widely-read late 2nd century Christian Father Theophilus had never even heard of Jesus Christ - just like his contemporary Athenagoras.

(Hard to imagine he knew of the Jesus stories but considered them beneath mention - and his reference to the Gospel seems to be informal oral tradition, he uses the phrase "voice of the Gospel").

Iasion

MortalWombat

Off-topic, but this reminds me of that poem from the Steve Martin movie "The Man with Two Brains"

Oh pointy birds, oh pointy pointy
Anoint my head, anointy nointy

Vorkosigan

SOTC, just go and read Book I. It is blindingly obvious that Theophilus of Antioch has no idea of Jesus at all. In Chap II Theophilus has his target ask "Show me god!" and Theo answers this without reference to an earthly Jesus.

The next chapter is on the nature of god. Perfect chance to mention Junior, nothing. He mentions the Resurrection, but no Jesus. And if he knew that Jesus walked on earth and had a mom, why did he attack the Greco-Roman deities for their earthly existences:

• And if you speak of the mother of those who are called gods, far be it from me to utter with my lips her deeds, or the deeds of those by whom she is worshipped (for it is unlawful for us so much as to name such things), and what vast taxes and revenues she and her sons furnish to the king. For these are not gods, but idols, as we have already said, the works of men's hands and unclean demons. And such may all those become who make them and put their trust in them!

Hard to image he could write that without special pleading on the Mary question. Again later he writes on the fabulous geneologies of the heathens, without any reference to Matt and Luke. His detailed Chronology of Roman passes by Augustus and Tiberias without any mention of Junior. How is this possible?

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Some more info on Theophilus:

Eusebius writes in Church History 4.24:

Jerome writes in Lives of Illustrious Men chapter 25:

"Theophilus, sixth bishop of the church of Antioch, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus composed a book Against Marcion, which is still extant, also three volumes To Autolycus and one Against the heresy of Hermogenes and other short and elegant treatises, well fitted for the edification of the church. I have read, under his name, commentaries On the Gospel and On the proverbs of Solomon which do not appear to me to correspond in style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works."

Can you say pseudonymity? The two commentaries are not mentioned by Eusebius, and our only authority (Jerome) says that the style and language were apparently different from the other works attributed to Theophilus.

If Theophilus wrote against Marcion, and if Marcion published a Gospel of the Lord, it seems reasonable to suppose that Theophilus had heard of Jesus--which is not to say that he put any stock in the stories. Unfortunately the book Against Marcion is no longer extant, nor is the history to which Theophilus himself refers, which dealt with the genealogy of man (Ad Autolycum 2.30).

Theophilus of Antioch is the first to refer to the Trinity, in Ad Autolycum 2.15: "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."

best,
Peter Kirby

SignOfTheCross

THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS

BOOK II

CHAP. XXII.--WHY GOD IS SAID TO HAVE WALKED.

You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?" Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but 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. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. 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.

Now please stop this nonsense.

Peace,
SOTC

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure what the argument is here. Theophilus was writing around 180 CE, way after the Gospels were written. Even if the Christ Myth was true, the writings of St Paul mentions "Jesus Christ" and the Christian Gnostics also talked of "Jesus Christ". So if Theophilus hadn't heard of a "Jesus Christ", then that would indeed make him an "Aniontian", rather than a Christian (Gnostic or otherwise).

His writings sound like Christianity, but then his influences could have been Philo, or other neo-Platonists. They may even have included Christian philosophers.

So he didn't know or didn't care about a "Jesus Christ". As this was 180 CE, it's interesting, but what's the big deal?

Peter Kirby

There is no need to take an adversarial stance here. I believe that we can learn from each other best if we aren't committed to putting down what another says as being nonsense.

Note that Theophilus does not say in this passage that the Word incarnated as Jesus Christ, neither of which name is ever found in the three books of Ad Autolycum. This passage does show that Theophilus knows the prologue of John. Then it is as I have already suggested, either one of the following scenarios:

1. Theophilus knew about the gospel stories, but he didn't put any stock in them, or he interpreted them allegorically.
2. Theophilus believed the gospel stories, but he suppressed mention of the God-man Jesus of Nazareth as an offence in his philosophical work.

Note that the prologue of John was particularly susceptible of mystical interpretation, as is evident from the earlier writings of Heracleon and Ptolemy. Other portions of John were interpreted allegorically by the Naassene Fragment. This is precisely the type of reference we would expect from someone who avoids speaking of the Word as a human being named Jesus Christ, as Theophilus did.

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon

OK, ignore my last question. After I saw SOTC's last post, I had a look myself and found: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book2.html
Theophilus seems to be going out of his way to avoid using the name of "Jesus Christ", but the use of the words "the holy word teaches us" can't be anyone else, Gnostic or not.

Could there have been a cultural reason why the words "Jesus Christ" weren't used at that time?

SignOfTheCross

I think we can all safely assume Theophilus had 1. heard of Jesus Christ, 2. was a Christian. No, we don't have it written down on a piece of paper, nor inscribed on a box, but we have reason to deal with such issues. It would be very unusual for the early Church to ordain as bishop a man who not believe, know of nor worship Jesus Christ. It would be equally unusual for Eusebius to quote from a someone who did not believe, know of nor worship Jesus Christ. Finally, it would be of insanity for the early Church not to have this man removed from office. It is clearly obvious Theophilus was a Christian, and whatever reasons he had for not mentioning Jesus Christ in his works (I'm sure he had one), does not affect this obvious truth.

The issue is, why didn't Theophilus of Antioch mention the words 'Jesus Christ' in his works, not if he believed or knew or what not.

Peace,
SOTC