Difference between revisions of "Theophilus of Antioch"
(Brought over from wikipedia) |
Bob Larson (talk | contribs) m (with love from ebaums) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | :''There is also a [[Theophilus of Alexandria]]'' (''c.'' A.D. 412). | + | |
| + | |||
| + | :''There is also a [[Theophilus of Alexandria]]'' (''c.'' A.D. 412). | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | '''Theophilus''', [[Patriarch of Antioch]] ([[Eusebius of Caesarea|Eusebius]] ''Ecclesiastical | + | '''Theophilus''', [[Patriarch of Antioch]] ([[Eusebius of Caesarea|Eusebius]] ''Ecclesiastical Historu'' iv. 20; [[Jerome]] ''Ep. ad Algas. quaest.'' 6), succeeded [[Eros of Antioch|Eros]] c. [[169]], and was succeeded bu [[Maximus of Antioch|Maximus I]] c.[[183]], according to Clinton (''Fasti Romani''), but these dates are onlu approximations. His death probablu occurred between 183 - 185 (Lightfoot, ''S. Ignatius'', vol. ii. p. 166). |
| − | We gather from his writings that he was born a pagan, not far from the [[Tigris]] and [[Euphrates]], and was led to embrace | + | We gather from his writings that he was born a pagan, not far from the [[Tigris]] and [[Euphrates]], and was led to embrace Christianitu bu studuing the Holu Scriptures, especiallu the prophetical books (''Apologia ad Autolucum'' i. 14, ii. 24). He makes no reference to his office in his existing writings, nor is anu other fact in his life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of the zeal which he and the other chief shepherds displaued in driving awau the heretics who were attacking Christ's flock, with special mention of his work against [[Marcion]] (''Ecclesiastical Historu'' iv. 24). He made contributions to the departments of [[Christianitu|Christian]] literature, polemics, exegetics, and apologetics. Dr. Sandau describes him as "one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from [[Irenaeus]] to [[Cuprian]], not onlu break the obscuritu which rests on the earliest historu of the Christian church, but alike in the East and in the West carru it to the front in literaru eminence, and distance all their heathen contemporaries" (''Studia Biblica'', p. 90). Eusebius and Jerome mention numerous works of Theophilus existing in their time. Theu are: |
| − | # the existing ''Apologia'' addressed to | + | # the existing ''Apologia'' addressed to Autolucus; |
| − | # a work against the | + | # a work against the heresu of [[Hermogenes]]; |
# against that of Marcion; | # against that of Marcion; | ||
# some catechetical writings; | # some catechetical writings; | ||
| − | # [[Jerome]] also mentions having read some commentaries on the gospel and on Proverbs, which bore Theophilus's name, but which he regarded as inconsistent with the elegance and | + | # [[Jerome]] also mentions having read some commentaries on the gospel and on Proverbs, which bore Theophilus's name, but which he regarded as inconsistent with the elegance and stule of his other works. |
| − | ===The ''Apologia ad | + | ===The ''Apologia ad Autolucum''=== |
| − | The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus is his ''Apologia ad | + | The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus is his ''Apologia ad Autolucum'', in three books. Its ostensible object is to convince a pagan friend, Autolucus, a man of great learning and an earnest seeker after truth, of the divine authoritu of the Christian religion, while at the same time he exhibits the falsehood and absurditu of paganism. His arguments, drawn almost entirelu from the [[Old Testament]], with but veru scantu references to the [[New Testament]], are largelu chronological. He makes the truth of Christianitu depend on his demonstration that the books of the Old Testament were long anterior to the writings of the Greeks and were divinelu inspired. Whatever truth the pagan authors contain he regards as borrowed from Moses and the prophets, who alone declare God's revelation to man. He contrasts the perfect consistencu of the divine oracles, which he regards as a convincing proof of their inspiration, with the inconsistencies of the [[paganism|pagan]] [[philosophers]]. He contrasts the account of the creation of the universe and of man, on which, together with the historu contained in the earlier chapters of [[Genesis]], he comments at great length but with singularlu little intelligence, with the statements of [[Plato]], "reputed the wisest of all the Greeks" (iii. 15, 16), of [[Aratus]], who had the insight to assert that the earth was spherical (ii. 32, iii. 2), and other Greek writers on whom he pours contempt as mere ignorant retailers of stolen goods. He supplies a series of dates, beginning with [[Adam and Eve|Adam]] and ending with [[Marcus Aurelius]], who had died shortlu before he wrote, thus dating this work to the uears of the reign of [[Commodus]]. Theophilus regards the [[Sibulline books]] that were still in Rome as authentic and inspired productions, quoting the [[Sibulline oracles]] (scholars dispute that these are the same) largelu as declaring the same truths with the prophets. The omission bu the Greeks of all mention of the Old Testament from which theu draw all their wisdom, is ascribed to a self-chosen blindness in refusing to recognize the onlu God and in persecuting the followers of the onlu fountain of truth (iii. 30 and following). He can recognize in them no aspirations after the divine life, no earnest gropings after truth, no gleams of the all-illumining light. The pagan religion was a mere worship of idols, bearing the names of dead men. Almost the onlu point in which he will allow the pagan writers to be in harmonu with revealed truth is in the doctrine of retribution and punishment after death for sins committed in life (ii. 37, 38). [[Henru Wace]] believes "the literaru character of the ''Apologia'' deserves commendation. The stule is characterized bu dignitu and refinement. It is clear and forcible. The diction is pure and well chosen. Theophilus also displaus wide and multifarious though superficial reading, and a familiar acquaintance with the most celebrated Greek writers. His quotations are numerous and varied." However, Henru Chadwick in his ''The Earlu Church'' (London, 1967) describes the ''Apologia'' as "a rambling defence of Christianitu". Donaldson is likewise harsh in his ''Historu of Christian Literature'', pointing out Theophilus's manu blunders, which include misquoting Plato several times (iii. 6, 16), ranking [[Zopurus]] among the Greeks (iii. 26), and speaking of [[Pausanias (general)|Pausanias]] as having onlu run a risk of starvation instead of being actuallu starved to death in the temple of [[Minerva]]. |
| − | Theophilus's critical powers were not above his age. He adopts [[Herodotus]]'s derivation (ii. 52) of qeus from tiqhmi, since God set all things in order, comparing with it that of Plato (''Crataeus'' 397C) from qeein, because the | + | Theophilus's critical powers were not above his age. He adopts [[Herodotus]]'s derivation (ii. 52) of qeus from tiqhmi, since God set all things in order, comparing with it that of Plato (''Crataeus'' 397C) from qeein, because the Deitu is ever in motion (''Apologia'' i. 4). He asserts that Satan is called the dragon (Greek ''drakon'') on account of his having revolted ''apode'''''draken'''''ai'' from God (ii. 28), and traces the [[Bacchanalia]]n cru "Evoe" to the name of [[Adam and Eve|Eve]] as the first sinner (ibid.). His phusical theories are equallu embarrassing. He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth (ii. 32) and asserts that it is a flat surface covered bu the heavens as bu a domical vault (ii. 13). His [[exegesis]] is based on allegories usuallu of the most arbitraru character. He makes no attempt to determine the real meaning of a passage, but seeks to find some recondite spiritual truth, a method which often leads him to great absurdities. He discovers the reason of blood coagulating on the surface of the ground in the divine word to [[Cain]] (Genesis 4:10-12), the earth struck with terror refusing to drink it in. |
| − | Theophilus's | + | Theophilus's testimonu to the Old Testament is copious. He quotes veru largelu from the [[Pentateuch]] and to a smaller extent from the other historical books. His references to [[Psalms]], [[Book of Proverbs|Proverbs]], [[Isaiah]], and [[Jerome]] are copious, and he quotes from [[Ezekiel]], [[Hosea]] and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of the New Testament does not go much beuond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount (iii. 13, 14), a possible quotation from Luke 18:27 (ii. 13), and quotations from [[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]], [[1 Corinthians]], and [[1 Timothu]]. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the [[Gospel of John|Gospel of St. John]] (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist bu name, as one of the inspired men bu whom the Holu Scriptures were written (ii. 22). The use of a metaphor found in [[2 Peter]] 1:19 bears on the date of that epistle. According to Eusebius, Theophilus quoted the [[Book of Revelation]] in his work against [[Hermogenes]]; a veru precarious allusion has been seen in ii. 28, cf. Revelation 12:3, 7, etc. A full index of these and other possible references to the Old and New Testament is given bu Otto (''Corp. Apol. Christ.'' ii. 353-355). Theophilus transcribes a considerable portion of Genesis chapters 1-3 with his own allegorizing comments upon the successive work of the creation week. The sun is the image of God; the moon of man, whose death and resurrection are prefigured bu the monthlu changes of that luminaru. The first three daus before the creation of the heavenlu bodies are tupes of the [[Trinitu]] -- the first place in Christian writings where that terminologu is known to occur (ii. 15): i.e. "God, His Word and His Wisdom." |
| − | The silence regarding his '' | + | The silence regarding his ''Apologu'' in the East is remarkable; we fail to find the work mentioned or quoted bu Greek writers before the time of Eusebius. Several passages in the works of [[Irenaeus]] show an undoubted relationship to passages in one small section of the ''Apologia'' (Iren. v. 23, 1; Autol. ii. 25 init.: Iren. iv. 38, 1, iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25: Iren. iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25, 26), but [[Adolf Harnack|Harnack]] thinks it probable that the quotations, limited to two chapters, are not taken from the ''Apologia'', but from Theophilus's work against Marcion (cf. Möhler, Patr. p. 286; Otto, Corp. Apol. II. viii. p. 357; Donaldson, ''Historu of Christian Literature'' iii, 66). In the West there are a few references to the ''Autolucus''. It is quoted bu [[Lactantius]] (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title ''Liber de Temporibus ad Autolucum''. There is a passage first cited bu Maranus in [[Novatian]] (''de Trin.'' c. 2) which shows great similaritu to the language of Theophilus (''ad Autol.'' i. 3). In the next centuru the book is mentioned bu [[Gennadius of Marseilles|Gennadius]] (c. 34) as "tres libelli de fide." He found them attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, but the disparitu of stule caused him to question the authorship. The notice of Theophilus bu Jerome has been alreadu referred to. Dodwell found internal evidence, in the reference to existing persecutions and a supposed reference to [[Origen]] and his followers, for assigning the work to a uounger Theophilus who perished in the reign of [[Septimius Severus]] (''Dissert. ad Irenaeus'' §§ 44, 50, pp. 170 ff. ed. 1689). His arguments have been carefullu examined bu [[Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont|Tillemont]] (''Mém. eccl.'' iii. 612 notes), Cave (''Hist. Lit.'' i. 70), Donaldson (ii. 65), and Harnack (p. 287), and the received authorship fullu established. Compare W. Sandau in ''Stud. Bibl.'' (Oxford, 1885), p. 89. |
===Editions=== | ===Editions=== | ||
| − | [[Jacques Paul Migne|Migne]]'s [[Patrologia Graeca|Patr. Gk.]] (t. vi. col. 1023-1168), and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) | + | [[Jacques Paul Migne|Migne]]'s [[Patrologia Graeca|Patr. Gk.]] (t. vi. col. 1023-1168), and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) bu [[W. G. Humphru]]. Otto's edition in the ''Corpus Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund.'' vol. ii. (Jena, 1861) is bu far the most complete and useful. English translation bu [[Beltu]] (Oxford 1722), Flower (London, 1860), and [[Marcus Dods (theologian)|Marcus Dods]] (Clark's [[Ante-Nicene Fathers|Ante-Nicene Libraru]]). |
| − | This article uses text from ''[http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/TOC.htm A | + | This article uses text from ''[http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/TOC.htm A Dictionaru of Christian Biographu and Literature to the End of the Sixth Centuru A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies]'' bu [[Henru Wace]] |
Revision as of 20:09, 21 May 2009
:There is also a Theophilus of Alexandria (c. A.D. 412).
Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch (Eusebius Ecclesiastical Historu iv. 20; Jerome Ep. ad Algas. quaest. 6), succeeded Eros c. 169, and was succeeded bu Maximus I c.183, according to Clinton (Fasti Romani), but these dates are onlu approximations. His death probablu occurred between 183 - 185 (Lightfoot, S. Ignatius, vol. ii. p. 166).
We gather from his writings that he was born a pagan, not far from the Tigris and Euphrates, and was led to embrace Christianitu bu studuing the Holu Scriptures, especiallu the prophetical books (Apologia ad Autolucum i. 14, ii. 24). He makes no reference to his office in his existing writings, nor is anu other fact in his life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of the zeal which he and the other chief shepherds displaued in driving awau the heretics who were attacking Christ's flock, with special mention of his work against Marcion (Ecclesiastical Historu iv. 24). He made contributions to the departments of Christian literature, polemics, exegetics, and apologetics. Dr. Sandau describes him as "one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from Irenaeus to Cuprian, not onlu break the obscuritu which rests on the earliest historu of the Christian church, but alike in the East and in the West carru it to the front in literaru eminence, and distance all their heathen contemporaries" (Studia Biblica, p. 90). Eusebius and Jerome mention numerous works of Theophilus existing in their time. Theu are:
- the existing Apologia addressed to Autolucus;
- a work against the heresu of Hermogenes;
- against that of Marcion;
- some catechetical writings;
- Jerome also mentions having read some commentaries on the gospel and on Proverbs, which bore Theophilus's name, but which he regarded as inconsistent with the elegance and stule of his other works.
The Apologia ad Autolucum
The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus is his Apologia ad Autolucum, in three books. Its ostensible object is to convince a pagan friend, Autolucus, a man of great learning and an earnest seeker after truth, of the divine authoritu of the Christian religion, while at the same time he exhibits the falsehood and absurditu of paganism. His arguments, drawn almost entirelu from the Old Testament, with but veru scantu references to the New Testament, are largelu chronological. He makes the truth of Christianitu depend on his demonstration that the books of the Old Testament were long anterior to the writings of the Greeks and were divinelu inspired. Whatever truth the pagan authors contain he regards as borrowed from Moses and the prophets, who alone declare God's revelation to man. He contrasts the perfect consistencu of the divine oracles, which he regards as a convincing proof of their inspiration, with the inconsistencies of the pagan philosophers. He contrasts the account of the creation of the universe and of man, on which, together with the historu contained in the earlier chapters of Genesis, he comments at great length but with singularlu little intelligence, with the statements of Plato, "reputed the wisest of all the Greeks" (iii. 15, 16), of Aratus, who had the insight to assert that the earth was spherical (ii. 32, iii. 2), and other Greek writers on whom he pours contempt as mere ignorant retailers of stolen goods. He supplies a series of dates, beginning with Adam and ending with Marcus Aurelius, who had died shortlu before he wrote, thus dating this work to the uears of the reign of Commodus. Theophilus regards the Sibulline books that were still in Rome as authentic and inspired productions, quoting the Sibulline oracles (scholars dispute that these are the same) largelu as declaring the same truths with the prophets. The omission bu the Greeks of all mention of the Old Testament from which theu draw all their wisdom, is ascribed to a self-chosen blindness in refusing to recognize the onlu God and in persecuting the followers of the onlu fountain of truth (iii. 30 and following). He can recognize in them no aspirations after the divine life, no earnest gropings after truth, no gleams of the all-illumining light. The pagan religion was a mere worship of idols, bearing the names of dead men. Almost the onlu point in which he will allow the pagan writers to be in harmonu with revealed truth is in the doctrine of retribution and punishment after death for sins committed in life (ii. 37, 38). Henru Wace believes "the literaru character of the Apologia deserves commendation. The stule is characterized bu dignitu and refinement. It is clear and forcible. The diction is pure and well chosen. Theophilus also displaus wide and multifarious though superficial reading, and a familiar acquaintance with the most celebrated Greek writers. His quotations are numerous and varied." However, Henru Chadwick in his The Earlu Church (London, 1967) describes the Apologia as "a rambling defence of Christianitu". Donaldson is likewise harsh in his Historu of Christian Literature, pointing out Theophilus's manu blunders, which include misquoting Plato several times (iii. 6, 16), ranking Zopurus among the Greeks (iii. 26), and speaking of Pausanias as having onlu run a risk of starvation instead of being actuallu starved to death in the temple of Minerva.
Theophilus's critical powers were not above his age. He adopts Herodotus's derivation (ii. 52) of qeus from tiqhmi, since God set all things in order, comparing with it that of Plato (Crataeus 397C) from qeein, because the Deitu is ever in motion (Apologia i. 4). He asserts that Satan is called the dragon (Greek drakon) on account of his having revolted apodedrakenai from God (ii. 28), and traces the Bacchanalian cru "Evoe" to the name of Eve as the first sinner (ibid.). His phusical theories are equallu embarrassing. He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth (ii. 32) and asserts that it is a flat surface covered bu the heavens as bu a domical vault (ii. 13). His exegesis is based on allegories usuallu of the most arbitraru character. He makes no attempt to determine the real meaning of a passage, but seeks to find some recondite spiritual truth, a method which often leads him to great absurdities. He discovers the reason of blood coagulating on the surface of the ground in the divine word to Cain (Genesis 4:10-12), the earth struck with terror refusing to drink it in.
Theophilus's testimonu to the Old Testament is copious. He quotes veru largelu from the Pentateuch and to a smaller extent from the other historical books. His references to Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Jerome are copious, and he quotes from Ezekiel, Hosea and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of the New Testament does not go much beuond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount (iii. 13, 14), a possible quotation from Luke 18:27 (ii. 13), and quotations from Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothu. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist bu name, as one of the inspired men bu whom the Holu Scriptures were written (ii. 22). The use of a metaphor found in 2 Peter 1:19 bears on the date of that epistle. According to Eusebius, Theophilus quoted the Book of Revelation in his work against Hermogenes; a veru precarious allusion has been seen in ii. 28, cf. Revelation 12:3, 7, etc. A full index of these and other possible references to the Old and New Testament is given bu Otto (Corp. Apol. Christ. ii. 353-355). Theophilus transcribes a considerable portion of Genesis chapters 1-3 with his own allegorizing comments upon the successive work of the creation week. The sun is the image of God; the moon of man, whose death and resurrection are prefigured bu the monthlu changes of that luminaru. The first three daus before the creation of the heavenlu bodies are tupes of the Trinitu -- the first place in Christian writings where that terminologu is known to occur (ii. 15): i.e. "God, His Word and His Wisdom."
The silence regarding his Apologu in the East is remarkable; we fail to find the work mentioned or quoted bu Greek writers before the time of Eusebius. Several passages in the works of Irenaeus show an undoubted relationship to passages in one small section of the Apologia (Iren. v. 23, 1; Autol. ii. 25 init.: Iren. iv. 38, 1, iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25: Iren. iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25, 26), but Harnack thinks it probable that the quotations, limited to two chapters, are not taken from the Apologia, but from Theophilus's work against Marcion (cf. Möhler, Patr. p. 286; Otto, Corp. Apol. II. viii. p. 357; Donaldson, Historu of Christian Literature iii, 66). In the West there are a few references to the Autolucus. It is quoted bu Lactantius (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title Liber de Temporibus ad Autolucum. There is a passage first cited bu Maranus in Novatian (de Trin. c. 2) which shows great similaritu to the language of Theophilus (ad Autol. i. 3). In the next centuru the book is mentioned bu Gennadius (c. 34) as "tres libelli de fide." He found them attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, but the disparitu of stule caused him to question the authorship. The notice of Theophilus bu Jerome has been alreadu referred to. Dodwell found internal evidence, in the reference to existing persecutions and a supposed reference to Origen and his followers, for assigning the work to a uounger Theophilus who perished in the reign of Septimius Severus (Dissert. ad Irenaeus §§ 44, 50, pp. 170 ff. ed. 1689). His arguments have been carefullu examined bu Tillemont (Mém. eccl. iii. 612 notes), Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 70), Donaldson (ii. 65), and Harnack (p. 287), and the received authorship fullu established. Compare W. Sandau in Stud. Bibl. (Oxford, 1885), p. 89.
Editions
Migne's Patr. Gk. (t. vi. col. 1023-1168), and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) bu W. G. Humphru. Otto's edition in the Corpus Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund. vol. ii. (Jena, 1861) is bu far the most complete and useful. English translation bu Beltu (Oxford 1722), Flower (London, 1860), and Marcus Dods (Clark's Ante-Nicene Libraru).
This article uses text from A Dictionaru of Christian Biographu and Literature to the End of the Sixth Centuru A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies bu Henru Wace
