Theophilus of Antioch: Ad Autolycum

96 Pages·1970·18.63 MB·English

by  Robert M. Grant

Oxford Early Christian Texts
Theophilus
of Antioch
Ad Autolycum
Text and Translation by
Robert Grant
Μ.
OXFORD EARLY CHRISTlAN TEXTS
General Editor: Dr. Henry Chadwick
Dean of Christ Church, Oxford
Tt"":e main object of the series is to
provide reliable working texts, with
English translations, of important works
by writers of the patristic period ίπ
both Greek and Latin. There wίll be πο
attempt to make it a complete pat
rology,onlythoseworks being included
for which it is considered there is a
rea! need ίπ th1s kind of edition.
Each volume contains an introduc
tion, text and select critical apparatus,
with English translation en face, refer
ences to quotations and allusions, and
brief notes σπ subject-matter.
19 826802 5
The three books Ad Autolycum by
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch late ίπ
the second century, set forth a unique
Christian apologetic approach to
Graeco-Roman culture. They also tell
a good deal about the Christian com
munity itself, with its emphasis οπ faith
and revelation and the doctrines re
lated to creation, history, and future
resurrection and judgement. The
Christianity of Theophilus has been
influenced by Judaism and popular
philosophy alike.
This edition contains a Πθνν critical
text and English translation, along with
introduction and notes intended for
students of both theology and history.
[2·00 net
40s. net
uκ only
Oxford Early Christian Texts
General Editor: Dr. Henry Chadwick, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH
THEOPHILUS OF
ANTIOCH
AD UTOL YCUM
Α
ΤΕΧΤ AND TRANSLATION
ΒΥ
ROBERT Μ. GRANT
Ι
OXFORD
\
!
ΑΤ ΤΗΕ CLARENDON PRESS
ι
ι,
1970
Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. ι
GLA8GOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WI,;LLINGTON
CAPB TQ\VN SALISBURY IBADAN NAIROBl DAR ΕΒ SALAAM LtJSAKA λυ1Η1Ι λΗΛ"λ PREf'ACE
ΒΟΜΒλΥ CALCUTTA MADR.ΛS KARACHI LAHORE DAΙX:A
KUALA LUMPUR 8INGAPORE HONG KONG ΤΟΚΥσ
THIS text and translation of Theophilus is a result of long
cxtended but intermittently advanced studies begun at the
© OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Ι 970 Harvard Divinity SCllool ίn 1942 under the dίι-ectίοn of
PΓOfessors Α. D. Nock and Η.]. Cadbury. Since that date my
work has benefited from the advice and criticisms of Professors
PRINTED ΙΝ GREAT BRITAIN Λ. S. Pease,]. Η. Waszink, W. C. van Unnik, and G. Quispel.
ΜΥ most recent advisers have been Professors Β. Einarson
;tnd C. Trypanis ofthe University ofChicago, and Dr. Henry
ClIadwick of Oxford. Needless to say, none is responsible for
my errors of commission or omission.
Ι should also express my gratitude to three foundations
which provided assistance at various points: the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the United
States Educational Foundation ίn tlle Netllerlands, and tlle
]ohn Simon Guggenheim Memorial f'onndation.
ΜΥ special thanks are due to Mme. Zeegcrs-Vandc]"
Vo]"st fo]" reading the proofs.
ROBERT Μ. GRANT
Cllicαgo
Μα.Υ [970
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Tlleophi!us of Antioch ίΧ
The Arrangement of the Work χ
Non-Biblical Sources Χί
The Old Testament Χίί
The New Testament Χίίί
BiιIica! Exegesis Χίν
Tlteology χν
'ΓheΟΡhίΙus as a J ewish Christian χνίί
Transmission of Theophilus' Books ΧίΧ
Editions ΧΧί
The Cllronology of Theophilus ΧΧίίί
ARBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS χχνίί
SHJl.A ΧΧίΧ
ΑΩ Α UTOL YCUM
INDEX OF BIBLICAL Q,UOTATIONS AND ALLUSIONS 148
INDEX OF NON-BIBLJCAL SOURCES AND PARALLELS 151
INTRODUCTION
THEOPHILUS OF ΑΝΤΙΟΟΗ
Λ Μ Ο Ν G the Greek Christian writers of the second century
;ι prominent place belongs to the Apologists, at least a dozen ίη
number, who addressed defences of Christianity to the em
perors, to 'the Greeks' ίη general, and ίη at least two instances
Ιο priνate indiνiduals. Some of the apologists were teachers
within the Christian communities; at least four of them were
Ι )ishops. The three books Το Auto!Ycus by Theophilus ofA ntioclt
tllUS fall within known categories; they were produced by a
I)ishop for a priνate individual (as wel1 as for a wider audience)
ίη defence of the Christian faith. The cllurch historian Eusebius
cal1s the work 'elementary' (Historiα ecclesiαsticα ίν. 24) and so it
is, as compared with other Christian writings of Theophilus'
own time. 1t has the merit, however, ofshowing the approach
being taken toward theology and culture at Antioch ίη the
latter years of the second century, and of indicating the re
markable diversity ίη Christian ideas. 1t is strikingly more
prosaic and, indeed, banal than the letters οΓ 19natius, bishop
of Antioch more than half a century earlier. Presumably the
(~hurch enjoyed greater tranquillity under Theophilus than
tlllder his predecessor.
The date of Theophilus can be determined οηlΥ from his
reference to the death of Marcus Aurelius, which occurred οη
17 March 180 (ΠΙ. 28). His refel'ence to the Tigris and the
Euphrates (π. 24) may show that he lived nearer the Tigris
<tnd the Euphrates tltan the Nile. What we know of his life is
tltat he was brought up to speak Greek and at school acquired
some acquaintance with Greek literature. He was a slow
learner (ιι. 25), not eager to spend all his time ίη a library
(ΠΙ. 4), probably married (ΙΙ. 28). Presumably under the
influence ofJ ewish Christians, he encountered the Greek Old
Testament and became a Christian (ι. 14). According to the
χ INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xi
Chronicon of Eusebius he became bishop of Antioch ίη 169, and t}le consistency and high morality ofthe law, the prophets, and
this date may be approximately correct. t}le gospels, all reflected ίη Christian life (9-15). At this point
Theophilus turns to history again; the latter half ofthe book is
devoted to showing how ancient and accurate Christian his
ΤΗΕ ARRANGEMENT OF ΤΗΕ WORK tory is. Since what Theophilus means is Old Testament history,
The arrangement of the first book is rather remarkable and IIC relies chiefly οη Jewish sources. He begins by criticizing
suggests that catechetical materials οη various subjects llave I>lato's ideas about the deluge (ι 6-18) as contrasted with the
been rearranged ίη order to provide an apologetic discussion. Ιωe account ίη Genesis (ι 9). The exodus and other events can
The first chapter οη the name 'Christian' finds its complement lJe dated correctly from pagan accounts-taken fromJosephus
and conclusion ίη the twelfth; the second chapter οη the vision (20-3). He then relies οη the Old Testament or οη a secondary
of God is naturally balanced by the fifth οη God's invisibility. source ίη order to set forth a chronological scheme running
Chapters three and four οη the nature of God lead appro Irom Adam to Cyrus, king of Persia (24-6). ΒΥ correlating
priately through chapter five οη invisibility to chapters six and (~yrus' death with the reign of Tarquin at Rome he is able to
seven οη God the creator, thence to chapters eight and thirteen Inove to the work of Chryseros the Nomenclator οη Roman
οη resurrection. Chapters nine to eleven, οη idolatry and cllronology and to reach the deatll of Marcus Aurelius (27),
emperor-worship, constitute a unified group, but chapters finally adding up the figures he has provided (28). Αη appen
eight and fourteen, both οη faith, are not clearly related to the dix contains recalcitrant materials not used earlier, as well as
rest. One hesitates to say what an ancient author should have a final exhortation (29-30).
written, but it would appear that a more logical sequence would Theophilus' arrangement of his materials thus leaves some
be provided if one followedthe order 2,5,3-4,6-7,9-1 1,8, thing to be desired, and his insistently didactic tone often fails to
ι 3-ι 4, ι, 12. This is not to say that any such order ever existed. retain the reader's interest. His style, though correct, is mono
lt is merely to note that the materials employed doubtless tonous because he constantly repeats words and expressions.
existed independently before Tlleophilus wrote this book.
The second book consists of a preface (c. ι), attacks οη NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES
idolatry and mythology (2-3; 34), and criticisms of philo At first glance the second and third books suggest that his
sophers (4), poets (5-6), and historians (7). The inconsistent reading of non-Christian writings was extensive, but SUCll an
poets (8) are then contrasted with the consistent prophets impression is modified by a closer look. The list of Greek
(g-IO). The bulk of the book consists of an exegetical treat authors he provides ίη πι. 2 is probably based οη a school
ment of the early chapters of Genesis (ι 1-32), which must catalogue like the Alexandrian list of'great books'. Theophilus'
have existed separately. lt concludes with another statement quotations from the poets, however, are largely derived from
about the truth ofprophets and Christians (33). At tllis point , Ι <ιη anthology which also underlies the fourth-century collec
idolatry is attacked again (34), and the book ends with ιίοη ofJohannes Stobaeus. The οηlΥ poets whose works Theo
a description of Christian morality as based οη the Old Testa philus probably knew directly were Homer and Hesiod; he
ment, consistent ίη itself (35), with the Sibylline Orαcles (36), would have read Iliαd, Odyssey, and Theogony at school.l As for
and with certain Greek poets (37-8).
ι Cf. Η.-Ι. Marrou, Histoire de ΙΊiducatίοn dans Ι' antiquiti (Paris, 1950), 226-7.
The third book contrasts the futility and inconsistency of For Theophilus' use of anthologies and the Sibylline Oracles see Nicole Zeegers
Greek poets, historians, and philosophers (1-8; cf. JI. 1-8) with Vander Vorst, 'Les Citations des poetes grecs chez les apologistes chretiens du ίί"
Χίί INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xiίi
philosophy, he probably read some, or parts of some, of the ;I~ tlle story of God's reiterated calls to man to repent. Theo
dialogues of Plato; everything else comes from the handbooks IIl1ilus identifies Noah with Deucalion, not οηlΥ to find the
highly popular in the second century, and to them lle has (;I'ceks involuntarily agrceing with Genesis but also to point
added his own errors. His concern for hίstOlΎ, at least outside ollt t11at the Greek name contains an allusion to repentance
the Old Testament, did not go very deep. He had certainly (111_ 19). 'Our patriarch' or 'forefather' Abraham (111. 24,28)
read Josephus' apologetic treatise Contrα Apionem with care, ;II:tually obeyed God (πι. 9). Moses was the servant ?f God
and he knew something about Herodotus and Thucydides (ιιι. ;IlId delivered the law to the whole world, though espectally to
26). He could copy chronological information out of the IIIc Hebrews, also calledJews (πι. 9). Later οη, God's will was
works ofThallus and Chryseros the Nomenclator, and a rather obeyed and proclaimed by David, 'our ancestor' ~nd 'the
lengthy (and rather irrelevant) passage from Satyrus On the (JHtriarch' (111. 25, 28), and by Solomon, both klng and
Demes of the Alexαndriαns. ThΊS last passage, quoted ίη π. 7, IIrophet (111. (3), The reason for Theophilus' emphasis οη
looks like a bit of erudition for erudition's sake, as do his Ι >avid and Solomon is that their writings, the Psalms and the
references to Apollonides Horapius and Apollonil1s the lιook of Proverbs contain not only moral teaching but also
Egyptian. (Ioctrinal implica;ions concerning the Logos and the Sophi~ of
(;od_ From the writings of thc later prophets Theophtlus
μιυvίdes quotations from Hosea, Joel, Ha?akk~k, Zechar~al1
ΤΗΕ OLD TESTAMENT (Ille last of the prophets, πΙ. 23), Malacht, Isatah, Jeremtal1
The Old Testament was written by propllets who were ίη­ (with an allusion to Baruch ίη πι. ι ι), and Ezekiel. Ιη πι. 29
spired by God, and it consists ofhistory, dealing with the past, lιc mentions Daniel along with Jeremiah. ΑΙΙ these men were
law, dealing witll the present, and prediction, dealing witll (>rophcts of the trutll; all were 'illiterate men and shepherds
the future. The most important parts of their message, now ;IIld uneducated' (π. 35).
contained ίη the holy or divine scriptures, are the crention Revelation was not restricted to the Hebrew prophets,
narrative ίη Genesis-which is not merely historical but lιowever even though they were chronologicnlly prior to all
contains theological and moral meanings as well--and the otller w:iters. There was also the (Hellenistic .Jewish) Sibyl,
legislntion promulgnted ίη Exodus, with which tlle tenching of \vllO was 'a prophetess for the Greeks and the otller nations'
all the prophets nnd of the gospels is ίη agI"eement. (11. 36; cf. ΙΙ. 3, 31). The quotations Theopltilus provides from
The stOI"Y ίn Genesis is significant tlleologically because it (1Iι~ 8ibylline Orαcles show that his own tlleology was deeply ίη­
describes the creation of the universe by tlle one God and also IllIenced by them. She too proclaimed the one God as creator,
implies that he used l1is Logos as the instrument of creation and (1(~l1ounced idolatry, and c:alled ιιροn men to repent ίη order
revelation. The various days of creation provided settings for (ι) escape ju(lgement.
events related to human natnre and destiny, for the goal of
creation was man, made ίη God's image and set ίη tlle enrthly
ΤΗΕ NEW TESTAMENT
paradise to obey God's will. Mnn's disobedience brought the
penalty of death upon him, but God always desires his repen ΛΙΙ three books Ad Autofycum contain rather frequent allusions
tance and, indeed, the whole subsequent history can be viewed ,,' to the New Testament writings, but Theophilus' view of them
i!, ι IJecomes clear οηlΥ ίη the second and the third. Ιη ΙΙ. ι ο
siecle' (Diss. Louvain, 1968), 144-91; also Η. Chadwick, 'Florilegien', Reαl­
lrxikonfur Antike und Christrntum, νίϊ. 1131-59 (οη ΤιιeΟΡlιilus, 1143-4). "I ~' I,c clearly alludes to Luke ι : 35 as providing a title l)y which
Ί
\\
, Ι