sodium

Theophilus of Antioch, that is.

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

He is an early Christian apologist, but his writings are hard to fit into the historical Jesus scheme. Here's a summary of the problem.

- He never mentions Jesus or Christ
- He says that Christians get their name from being anointed by God, which is a plausible derivation.
- He mentions the "Word of God", which he sees as a part of God, and God's Son, and who carries out various functions. God created the world through the Word. The Word speaks through scriptures and prophets. The Word, unlike God, can be contained in a place, as when God is said to have walked in the Garden of Eden.
- Theophilus knows some sayings from gospels, which he believes are inspired by God, in the same way that the prophets were inspired. They contain sayings we attribute to Jesus and Paul. And yet, it would seem that they don't mention names, since Theophilus still appears unaware of Jesus.

I think a Historicist would probably maintain that Theophilus knew about Jesus, but didn't mention him for some reason. But I think that's a hard case to make, based on the nature of the writing. For example, in book I Chapter 13, he tries to explain why Christians believe in Resurrection of the Dead, but never claims that Jesus was resurrected.

But if it is decided that Theophilus most likely did not know about Jesus, it strongly suggests that the Jesus story was grafted onto both an earlier theology, and an earlier set of sayings. So an important piece of the historical Jesus vanishes.

Peter Kirby

Two things are of interest here:

(1) The apology of Theophilus is firmly dated 180-182 CE. Does this mean that no gospel-type material was known to this author at such a late date? I don't know if that can be sustained.

(2) Other writings are attributed to Theophilus: "Eusebius mentions other writings of his,—a work against the heresy of Hermogenes, another against Marcion, and a few books for the instruction and edification of the faithful. St. Jerome mentions a Commentary on the Book of Proverbs and Commentaries on the Gospel. Of all these works, there remain but the fragments of the Commentaries cited by St. Jerome." (Tixeront, Handbook of Patrology, p. 46)

What say you?

best,
Peter Kirby

sodium

Well, he might have heard of the narrative gospels, but not considered them (or the Jesus or Christ figure) of much importance. Just as a Baptist can describe Christianity without ever mentioning Mormonism. But I think it is also possible Theophilus had not heard of the gospels. They didn't have mass-media back then.

What's the alternative? He must have had some reason for not mentioning Jesus, and defining Christianity without reference to Christ. If he didn't know about these things, it makes a certain amount of sense. If he attempted to excise these elements from an existing Christian orthodoxy, it's hard to believe that he wouldn't have felt the need to defend this approach, and its hard to believe that other Christians would not have considered him a heretic. (I seem to remember Doherty making this exact argument).

I don't think this necessarily proves there was no Jesus. But I think it shows that the Jesus group most likely arose within a pre-existing Christian community, which already had much of their theology, and had sayings which would eventually be attributed to Jesus. I think that Minucius Felix also represents pre-Jesus Christianity, although it is clear that he wrote after Jesus Christianity was invented.

I don't think we have much to go on in speculating what these works might have been like, or why they might have been lost.

Ted Hoffman

It all goes to demonstrate that Jesus was a later invention. One could embrace Christianity without embracing the idea of Jesus.

SignOfTheCross

I don't know what you're trying to prove but no respected historian would ever take what you wrote seriously.

Peace,
SOTC

Kosh

Argumentum ad Vericundiam

Let the argument stand or fall on it's own merits.

SignOfTheCross

Encouragement is always a nice thought.

Of course, the arguement falls, since it is common knowledge Jesus was a very popular CHRISTIAN figure during the post apostolic era, particularly in Antioch.

Peace,
SOTC

keyser_soze

It is going to depend on when you wish to date the post apostolic era. Do tell....But be cautious, the ground is treacherous here, there be monsters.

MortalWombat

It also depends on how you define Christian, since it is "common knowledge" that in places like northern Syria (where Antioch was) and Egypt, Gnosticism was prevalent before more orthodox (by today's standards) Christian beliefs.

Arken

It's not as if this religion sprung up in the major crossroads between the east and west on the silk trade making such information quick and easy to disseminate across the often-travelled Roman empire... oh wait, yes it did.