Normal

Can't say I've researched it either. I guess I'll wait to see what sodium thinks that ritual is that seperates xians from non-xians.

Tristan Scott

I agree that by just mentioning Christians, Theophilus is not necessarily adding weight to the historic Jesus. The Christ being followed could have been someone besides Jesus. I understand that their was a potential Messiah on every street corner at the time of Jesus.

sodium

Peter Kirby has translations of many early Christian texts at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Theophilus to Autolycus is at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html

The "anointed" quote is as follows (Roberts-Donaldson English Translation):

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

Book I Chapter XII

By the way, does anyone know that the titles were in the original, and not added by the translator? The title of this section is "Meaning of the Name Christian".

I take this anointing to be symbolic. Christians believe the right things, and follow the true God, so they are anointed by God. It's possible Theophilus could be alluding to a ritual (like Baptism), but he doesn't mention one.

Regarding Tristan Scott's comment, it isn't just that Theophilus mentions a Christ who may not be Jesus of Nazereth. He doesn't mention a Christ at all, and if we interpret his use of the word "Christian" as implying a Christ, then we are going against what he actually says is the meaning of the word.

Also, I think people should read the three books of "To Autolycus" to get a sense of the nature of this document. It's fairly long, and sure looks like its meant as a thorough defence of Theophilus's faith, as opposed to a defence of monotheism, or an argument against specific Heresies. But he never uses the words "Jesus" or "Christ", although he does speak of "The Word".

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.

sodium

Here's another quote. This quote is interesting, partly because it gives us a clear idea of when "To Autolycus" was written (apparently shortly after the death of Marcus Aurelius in AD 180). But also because of what his "main epochs" of history leaves out. You'd be surprised at what apparently doesn't make the cut.

And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.

Peter Kirby

Thank you for that quote, sodium. This presents a marked contrast with Justin Martyr, who gives a date to his apology with reference to the birth of Christ, saying "Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius." The evidence suggests strongly that the author of the apology of Theophilus had no belief in Jesus of Nazareth. The only alternative of which I can think is that Theophilus has deliberately suppressed any mention of a God-man in his apology c. 180, perhaps because the idea was too offensive to be mentioned in a philosophical work (just as much, say, as a Mormon apology might not mention magic underwear or becoming gods). This idea may not be supported by much evidence (apart from the quotations from Gospel commentary cited by Jerome), but do we have any way to rule it out from consideration? This is an honest question, as I am inclined to side with the idea of the ignorance of the author, and I would like to know the strongest arguments for that position. Oh, and I suppose there is a third possibility, that the author heard of the Jesus of Nazareth but interpreted the Gospels as a simple allegory (which makes me want to look up the Jerome citations to see what they say).

best,
Peter Kirby

SignOfTheCross

But this type of attitude is what atheists are famous for. To suggest Theophilus had not heard of Jesus is RIDICULOUS at best. I need make no further comment since you all know this, but wish not to admit it in fear of hurting the feelings of your friend Sodium.

Peace,
SOTC

Peter Kirby

The history of science is littered with proofs of the difference between being ridiculous and being wrong.

best,
Peter Kirby

MortalWombat

This remark doesn't even deserve a response.There were two instances in Theophilus' writings listed above where, if he had heard of Jesus, he would have noted him:

1: The definition of the word "Christian"
2: The listing of major events and biblical people since the creation of the world.

So what we're left with is either Theophilus hasn't heard of Jesus, or is consciously not mentioning him on purpose. Which scenario is more "ridiculous?"Well why didn't you say you could read minds to begin with, instead of letting us go on and on and look foolish just because we didn't want to hurt sodium's feelings? The jig is up, fellas. Oh, sodium, by the way, I'm sorry I told you earlier that your butt looked too big in those pants.

Kosh

Everybody knows this isn't true.

Tristan Scott

No, it would be ridiculous at worst. At best it would be true.