Vorkosigan

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."

Interesting that the passage there in the Gospel of "John" follows on with a reference to John the Baptist. Perhaps Theophilus knew of a different "holy writing" of John which centered around John the Baptist, or were attributed to him, and included what we now think of as the Prologue to the gospel of John.

A very interesting bit of writing, Theo of Antioch.

Vorkosigan

SignOfTheCross

I ask, why can't John here be in reference to the gospel of John, of which begins with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Why do we have to postulate on unlikely alternatives?

Peace,
SOTC

Peter Kirby

No, it is not a mere terminological quibble. The fact that Theophilus never mentions "Jesus" or "Christ" is symptomatic of a larger phenomenon, that Theophilus never says in Ad Autolycam that the Word was incarnated as a human being in first century Palestine. This is especially glaring when Theophilus gives a timeline of biblical figures that skips over Jesus, when he gives the etymology of "Christian" without reference to a human founder, and when Theophilus quotes from the gospels while avoiding any reference to a human Jesus. (The original poster, sodium, was aware that there are quotes from gospels in Ad Autolycam.)

On the assumption that Theophilus had heard of Jesus of Nazareth, which seems likely given his knowledge of Marcion and the Synoptics&John, I have proposed two explanations for the omission of the incarnation:

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.

Can you (or anyone) add another explanation to the list?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

It probably is. The question is whether what Theo knew as the gospel of john is the same as what we know. GJohn was heavily redacted.. Looking at Theo's stance, I wonder if the redaction history of John is backwards -- that it was a Word gospel into which a narrative was fit, rather than a narrative into which the philosophical discourses were shoved. After all, GJohn assumed its final form after Theo, so...

Vorkosigan

SignOfTheCross

I'd reject your first point on the basis Theophilus treats the Scriptures (including the Gospel accounts) "reverently".

To Autolycus

1, 14

"But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God. For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men."

Also, there is no hint that he treats the gospel accounts allegorically, in fact quite the contrary since we find a literal interpretation of John 1:1 in 2:15 which would seem to suggest 2:22 is to also be taken literally. Why he didn't explicitly mention His name I don't know, however he might have only had the divine nature of Christ in mind (i.e. Word, begotten Son etc), and found the human nature of Jesus Christ to be of little relevance to his work. After all, his work was a response to a pagan who scoffed at the word 'Christian', so it's probable excluding 'Jesus Christ' had something to do with this. So I might give assent to your 2nd point, only without the negative connotation.

Peace,
SOTC

Vorkosigan

Are you sure he means the same thing you mean when he says "scriptures?" Looks to me like he is talking about the OT, which he references repeatedly.

Not if it ain't in his copy of John.

But really, we are talking about two people who don't know Jesus, since the pagan he is arguing with, if he really knew Christianity as you know it, would know that there is some mythical god-man involved, though he might not know details. The better explanation here is that there was a strain of Christianity at this time that either denied or de-emphasized the existence of Jesus entirely.

And that is damned strange. Doesn't The Octavius of Minucius Felix date from this time?

Vorkosigan

Tharmas

Let’s just put things in perspective.

As a scholar of this period I am a decided amateur, BUT I believe several observations may be made with some confidence about Christianity circa 180 AD.

1. There was no established canon of texts at that date. Marcion had been the first to put together a “Christian canon” (he considered himself an orthodox Christian), around 160, and it consisted of GLUKE and some heavily edited epistles of Paul.

2. There was no established universal Christian orthodoxy at that date. We are still dealing with a period of several competing local traditions.

3. It is not clear how the copies of the Gospels that were available at that time were related to the texts that have come down to us. Justin Martyr, also from around this period, quotes extensively from the Gospels, yet the quotes seldom reflect exactly the texts we have today.

With these facts in mind, I agree with Vork that when Theophilus refers to “scripture” it is almost certainly referring to what today we call the Old Testament.

I commented above about the really Gnostic flavor I found in Theophilus’ treatment of the resurrection as a metaphorical and spiritual event. My point is, in 180 orthodoxy and heresy weren't all that sharply defined. The doctrines that later became orthodox still weren't fully worked out.

In any case, I wish we had more of Theophilus’ writings. I’d like to have something to compare it to.

The alternative interpretation that occurs to me, the third choice that Peter is looking for, is that he may be deliberately “toning down” the version of Christianity presented here for a specific audience.

If Autolycus were a neo-Platonist, for example, the idea of a man-God capable of redeeming anything or anybody would appear laughable. I have some quotes I could dig up illustrating this point. But the way to approach one of these guys would be to stress the morality and ethics of Christianity, how Christianity fit in with the divine order, and not touch the passion narrative with a ten foot pole.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Some informative comments in this thread :-)

I can see I was wrong - Theophilus probably DID know of the Gospels as writings (perhaps not formalised yet).

However, perhaps he considered the Gospels (and the Jesus stories) as recent works, of lower value.

Considering he emphasises the hoary antiquity of the OT "scriptures" over the pagan, perhaps he thought the Jesus stories were very recent rubbish of no value.

Yet if he did so - why not say so?

Minucius Felix DID say so (about the same time too), arguing that Christians did NOT worship anyone crucified, and did not believe in an incarnation. Athenagoras, another contemporary, also wrote at length on the resurrection without mentioning Jesus.


The best explanation seems to be that he had heard of the Gospels stories, but considered them beneath mention.

This suggests a strain of late 2nd-century Christianity that rejected Jesus Christ?


Iasion

sodium

My view is that Theophilus's gospels are not the same as those found in the New Testament. I don't think they are narratives, and I don't think they mention Jesus or Christ. I think they are lists of sayings that are either unattributed, or attributed to Christian prophets (like John). Of course, all these sayings, like all the sayings of the Jewish prophets, are really the Word speaking to makind.

The alternative is that Theophilus read and believed gospels involving Jesus Christ, but then produced To Autolycus, where he left Jesus Christ out, and in fact, defines "Christian" without mentioning Christ, and doesn't think the Messiah and Word of God merits a "main epoch" in his history.

Of course, he might have read such gospels and disbelieved them, but he didn't,

Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.


Note that this is a little confusing if you think of a Gospel like our John. Were the utterances of Jesus in that Gospel inspired by the Word? No. In John, Jesus is the Word. He didn't inspire himself to say things. He just said them.

Peter Kirby suggests Theophilus might have read our Gospels, used their sayings, but interpreted any narratives allegorically. I'll have to think about that one.

sodium

Let's be careful not to overstate the case. His Timeline only includes what he considers to be "main epochs" of history. It doesn't include all important biblical figures. Nevertheless, if Jesus was seen as the Messiah, or even just the originator of God's favourite religion, it's hard to believe he wasn't included.

Right. If you take the view that early Christians all believed in Jesus Christ, and then this one guy comes along, and cuts him out of his theology, it's clear that they would have reacted as you say. He would have been a heretic, not a Church Father, and there is no way Eusebius would have ended up quoting him sympathetically.

But if there was a strain of Christianity without Jesus or Christ, geographically isolated from a strain with him, then if the Jesus strain took over, it might very well look at a Church father who had not taken part in the controversy as a good Christian, and been able to re-interpret his writings according to the new orthodoxy.

First, although I know you recognized this, its important to point out that the resurrection he's talking about is the eventual resurrection of dead humans by God, not the resurrection of Jesus.

I don't think he's necessarily being metaphoric, at least in the sense that resurrection is a poetic image, and not the literal truth. He views things like the corn coming back year after year as actual examples of God raising something from the dead, as proof that he could do this for humans as well. And as you point out, its just bizarre that Theophilus doesn't mention the obvious example (let alone Lazarus).