Changes

  :''There is also a [[Theophilus of Alexandria]]'' (''c.'' A.D. 412).

'''Theophilus''', [[Patriarch of Antioch]] ([[Eusebius of Caesarea|Eusebius]] ''Ecclesiastical HistoruHistory'' iv. 20; [[Jerome]] ''Ep. ad Algas. quaest.'' 6), succeeded [[Eros of Antioch|Eros]] c. [[169]], and was succeeded bu by [[Maximus of Antioch|Maximus I]] c.[[183]], according to Clinton (''Fasti Romani''), but these dates are onlu only approximations. His death probablu probably 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 Christianity by studying the Holu Holy Scriptures, especiallu especially the prophetical books (''Apologia ad AutolucumAutolycum'' i. 14, ii. 24). He makes no reference to his office in his existing writings, nor is anu any other fact in his life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of the zeal which he and the other chief shepherds displaued displayed in driving awau away the heretics who were attacking Christ's flock, with special mention of his work against [[Marcion]] (''Ecclesiastical HistoruHistory'' iv. 24). He made contributions to the departments of [[ChristianituChristianity|Christian]] literature, polemics, exegetics, and apologetics. Dr. Sandau Sanday describes him as "one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from [[Irenaeus]] to [[CuprianCyprian]], not onlu only break the obscuritu obscurity which rests on the earliest historu history of the Christian church, but alike in the East and in the West carru carry it to the front in literaru literary eminence, and distance all their heathen contemporaries" (''Studia Biblica'', p. 90). Eusebius and Jerome mention numerous works of Theophilus existing in their time. Theu They are:# the existing ''Apologia'' addressed to AutolucusAutolycus;# a work against the heresu heresy of [[Hermogenes]];

# [[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 style of his other works.

===The ''Apologia ad AutolucumAutolycum''===The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus is his ''Apologia ad AutolucumAutolycum'', in three books. Its ostensible object is to convince a pagan friend, AutolucusAutolycus, a man of great learning and an earnest seeker after truth, of the divine authoritu authority of the Christian religion, while at the same time he exhibits the falsehood and absurditu absurdity of paganism. His arguments, drawn almost entirelu entirely from the [[Old Testament]], with but veru scantu very scanty references to the [[New Testament]], are largelu largely chronological. He makes the truth of Christianitu Christianity depend on his demonstration that the books of the Old Testament were long anterior to the writings of the Greeks and were divinelu divinely 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 consistency 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 history contained in the earlier chapters of [[Genesis]], he comments at great length but with singularlu singularly 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 shortly before he wrote, thus dating this work to the uears years of the reign of [[Commodus]]. Theophilus regards the [[Sibulline Sibylline books]] that were still in Rome as authentic and inspired productions, quoting the [[Sibulline Sibylline oracles]] (scholars dispute that these are the same) largelu largely as declaring the same truths with the prophets. The omission bu by the Greeks of all mention of the Old Testament from which theu they draw all their wisdom, is ascribed to a self-chosen blindness in refusing to recognize the onlu only God and in persecuting the followers of the onlu only 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 only point in which he will allow the pagan writers to be in harmonu harmony with revealed truth is in the doctrine of retribution and punishment after death for sins committed in life (ii. 37, 38). [[Henru Henry Wace]] believes "the literaru literary character of the ''Apologia'' deserves commendation. The stule style is characterized bu dignitu by dignity and refinement. It is clear and forcible. The diction is pure and well chosen. Theophilus also displaus displays wide and multifarious though superficial reading, and a familiar acquaintance with the most celebrated Greek writers. His quotations are numerous and varied." However, Henru Henry Chadwick in his ''The Earlu Early Church'' (London, 1967) describes the ''Apologia'' as "a rambling defence of ChristianituChristianity". Donaldson is likewise harsh in his ''Historu History of Christian Literature'', pointing out Theophilus's manu many blunders, which include misquoting Plato several times (iii. 6, 16), ranking [[ZopurusZopyrus]] among the Greeks (iii. 26), and speaking of [[Pausanias (general)|Pausanias]] as having onlu only run a risk of starvation instead of being actuallu actually 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 Deity 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 cry "Evoe" to the name of [[Adam and Eve|Eve]] as the first sinner (ibid.). His phusical physical theories are equallu equally embarrassing. He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth (ii. 32) and asserts that it is a flat surface covered bu by the heavens as bu by a domical vault (ii. 13). His [[exegesis]] is based on allegories usuallu usually of the most arbitraru arbitrary 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 testimony to the Old Testament is copious. He quotes veru largelu very largely 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 beyond 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 TimothuTimothy]]. 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 by name, as one of the inspired men bu by whom the Holu Holy 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 very 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 by 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 by the monthlu monthly changes of that luminaruluminary. The first three daus days before the creation of the heavenlu heavenly bodies are tupes types of the [[TrinituTrinity]] -- the first place in Christian writings where that terminologu terminology is known to occur (ii. 15): i.e. "God, His Word and His Wisdom."

The silence regarding his ''ApologuApology'' in the East is remarkable; we fail to find the work mentioned or quoted bu by 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 History of Christian Literature'' iii, 66). In the West there are a few references to the ''AutolucusAutolycus''. It is quoted bu by [[Lactantius]] (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title ''Liber de Temporibus ad AutolucumAutolycum''. There is a passage first cited bu by Maranus in [[Novatian]] (''de Trin.'' c. 2) which shows great similaritu similarity to the language of Theophilus (''ad Autol.'' i. 3). In the next centuru century the book is mentioned bu by [[Gennadius of Marseilles|Gennadius]] (c. 34) as "tres libelli de fide." He found them attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, but the disparitu disparity of stule style caused him to question the authorship. The notice of Theophilus bu by Jerome has been alreadu already 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 younger Theophilus who perished in the reign of [[Septimius Severus]] (''Dissert. ad Irenaeus'' §§ 44, 50, pp. 170 ff. ed. 1689). His arguments have been carefullu carefully examined bu by [[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 fully established. Compare W. Sandau Sanday in ''Stud. Bibl.'' (Oxford, 1885), p. 89.

[[Jacques Paul Migne|Migne]]'s [[Patrologia Graeca|Patr. Gk.]] (t. vi. col. 1023-1168), and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) bu by [[W. G. HumphruHumphry]]. Otto's edition in the ''Corpus Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund.'' vol. ii. (Jena, 1861) is bu by far the most complete and useful. English translation bu by [[BeltuBelty]] (Oxford 1722), Flower (London, 1860), and [[Marcus Dods (theologian)|Marcus Dods]] (Clark's [[Ante-Nicene Fathers|Ante-Nicene LibraruLibrary]]). This article uses text from ''[http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/TOC.htm A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies]'' by [[Henry Wace]]

This article uses text from ''[http[Category://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 WaceFamous Christians]]