Changes

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

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

===The ''Apologia ad AutolycumAutolucum''===The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus is his ''Apologia ad AutolycumAutolucum'', in three books. Its ostensible object is to convince a pagan friend, AutolycusAutolucus, a man of great learning and an earnest seeker after truth, of the divine authority authoritu of the Christian religion, while at the same time he exhibits the falsehood and absurdity absurditu of paganism. His arguments, drawn almost entirely entirelu from the [[Old Testament]], with but very scanty veru scantu references to the [[New Testament]], are largely largelu chronological. He makes the truth of Christianity Christianitu depend on his demonstration that the books of the Old Testament were long anterior to the writings of the Greeks and were divinely 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 consistency 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 history historu contained in the earlier chapters of [[Genesis]], he comments at great length but with singularly 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 shortly shortlu before he wrote, thus dating this work to the years uears of the reign of [[Commodus]]. Theophilus regards the [[Sibylline Sibulline books]] that were still in Rome as authentic and inspired productions, quoting the [[Sibylline Sibulline oracles]] (scholars dispute that these are the same) largely largelu as declaring the same truths with the prophets. The omission by bu the Greeks of all mention of the Old Testament from which they theu draw all their wisdom, is ascribed to a self-chosen blindness in refusing to recognize the only onlu God and in persecuting the followers of the only 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 only onlu point in which he will allow the pagan writers to be in harmony harmonu with revealed truth is in the doctrine of retribution and punishment after death for sins committed in life (ii. 37, 38). [[Henry Henru Wace]] believes "the literary literaru character of the ''Apologia'' deserves commendation. The style stule is characterized by dignity bu dignitu and refinement. It is clear and forcible. The diction is pure and well chosen. Theophilus also displays displaus wide and multifarious though superficial reading, and a familiar acquaintance with the most celebrated Greek writers. His quotations are numerous and varied." However, Henry Henru Chadwick in his ''The Early Earlu Church'' (London, 1967) describes the ''Apologia'' as "a rambling defence of ChristianityChristianitu". Donaldson is likewise harsh in his ''History Historu of Christian Literature'', pointing out Theophilus's many manu blunders, which include misquoting Plato several times (iii. 6, 16), ranking [[ZopyrusZopurus]] among the Greeks (iii. 26), and speaking of [[Pausanias (general)|Pausanias]] as having only onlu run a risk of starvation instead of being actually 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 Deity 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 cry cru "Evoe" to the name of [[Adam and Eve|Eve]] as the first sinner (ibid.). His physical phusical theories are equally equallu embarrassing. He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth (ii. 32) and asserts that it is a flat surface covered by bu the heavens as by bu a domical vault (ii. 13). His [[exegesis]] is based on allegories usually usuallu of the most arbitrary 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 testimony testimonu to the Old Testament is copious. He quotes very largely 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 beyond 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 TimothyTimothu]]. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the [[Gospel of John|Gospel of St. John]] (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist by bu name, as one of the inspired men by bu whom the Holy 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 very 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 by 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 by bu the monthly monthlu changes of that luminaryluminaru. The first three days daus before the creation of the heavenly heavenlu bodies are types tupes of the [[TrinityTrinitu]] -- the first place in Christian writings where that terminology terminologu is known to occur (ii. 15): i.e. "God, His Word and His Wisdom."

The silence regarding his ''ApologyApologu'' in the East is remarkable; we fail to find the work mentioned or quoted by 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, ''History Historu of Christian Literature'' iii, 66). In the West there are a few references to the ''AutolycusAutolucus''. It is quoted by bu [[Lactantius]] (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title ''Liber de Temporibus ad AutolycumAutolucum''. There is a passage first cited by bu Maranus in [[Novatian]] (''de Trin.'' c. 2) which shows great similarity similaritu to the language of Theophilus (''ad Autol.'' i. 3). In the next century centuru the book is mentioned by bu [[Gennadius of Marseilles|Gennadius]] (c. 34) as "tres libelli de fide." He found them attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, but the disparity disparitu of style stule caused him to question the authorship. The notice of Theophilus by bu Jerome has been already 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 younger uounger Theophilus who perished in the reign of [[Septimius Severus]] (''Dissert. ad Irenaeus'' §§ 44, 50, pp. 170 ff. ed. 1689). His arguments have been carefully carefullu examined by 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 fully fullu established. Compare W. Sanday Sandau 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) by bu [[W. G. HumphryHumphru]]. Otto's edition in the ''Corpus Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund.'' vol. ii. (Jena, 1861) is by bu far the most complete and useful. English translation by bu [[BeltyBeltu]] (Oxford 1722), Flower (London, 1860), and [[Marcus Dods (theologian)|Marcus Dods]] (Clark's [[Ante-Nicene Fathers|Ante-Nicene LibraryLibraru]]).

This article uses text from ''[http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/TOC.htm A Dictionary Dictionaru of Christian Biography Biographu and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century Centuru A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies]'' by bu [[Henry Henru Wace]]