Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:32:10.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Robert M. Grant
Robert M. Grant
Affiliation:
University of the South
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The three books to Autolycus of Theophilus of Antioch enjoyed a considerable measure of popularity among later Christian writers. His work was used not only by Greek but also by Latin writers. Eusebius found it in one of the libraries he used, probably at Caesarea; it was also employed by Methodius, Epiphanius, Procopius of Gaza, and John of Damascus. Novatian, Lactantius and Jerome certainly knew his writings; probably Minucius Felix should be added to the list. Three manuscripts of the Ad Autolycum survive; two are copies (one incomplete) of a third, an eleventh or twelfth-century manuscript now in Venice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 1947 , pp. 227 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Eusebius, HE iv. 24 (cf. vi. 20. 1, 32. 3).

2 Bonwetsch, N., Die Theologie des Methodius von Olympus (Göttingen, 1903), 163f.Google Scholar; U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, “Ein Stück aus dem Ancoratus des Epiphanios,” SB Berlin 1911, 759–72 (cf. also Panarion, ed. Holl, I 169:14, 171:3, 217:6, 378:19); Procopius, Comm. in Gen. ii (MPG 871, 157B, 164B; cf. M. Richard, “Les fragments exégétiques de Théophile d'Alexandrie et de Théophile d'Antioche,” RB 47 [1938], 387ff.); K. Holl, Fragmente vornicänischer Kirchenväter aus dem Sacra Parallela (TU 202, 1899) 56f.

3 Novatian, De trinitate 2; Lactantius, Div. inst. i. 23. 2; Jerome, De viris inlustr. 23; Minucius Felix, Octavius xviii. 10.

4 Professor Jaeger suggests a date later than the eleventh century.

5 F. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem (TU 461, 1930).

6 In most detail, Hitchcock, F. R. M., “Loofs' Theory of Theophilus of Antioch as a Source of Irenaeus,” JTS 38 (1937), 130ff., 255ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 On these dates see F. Vernet, “St. Irénée,” Diet, de théol. cath. VII 2400ff.

8 Archytas in Diogenes Laertius viii. 80; Cadbury, H. J. in Jackson, F. J. F.-Lake, K., The Beginnings of Christianity II (London, 1922), 9ff.Google Scholar

9 Audet, T.-A., “Orientations théologiques chez Saint Irénée,” Traditio 1 (1943), 15ff.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., 22f. Note the frequency with which Irenaeus refers to his teachers.

11 Adv. haer. ii. 13. 2 (I, 282 Harvey), 28. 4f. (354f.); Audet, op. cit., 49f.

12 Cf. Clausen, O., “Die Theologie des Theophilus von Antiochien,” ZWT 46 (1903), 99Google Scholar; Lortz, J., Tertullian als Apologet II (Münster, 1928), 5.Google Scholar

13 Conf. ling. 92, Mut. nom. 3; Kirk, K. E., The Vision of God (New York, 1932, 38Google Scholar. Theophilus seems to be replying to something like the attack of Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsum vi. 66 (p. 53. 4 Glöckner).

14 Cicero, De offic. iii. 102; M. Pohlenz, Vom Zorne Gottes (Göttingen, 1909).

15 For the Stoics, M. Adler's index to Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (ed. H. v. Arnim); for Philo, H. Leisegang's index to Cohn and Wendland's edition of Philo; for the earlier apologists, E. J. Goodspeed, Index apologeticus (Leipzig, 1912). θεός from Τίθημι Herodotus ii. 52, Philo, Conf. 137; from θέειν: Plato, Crat. 397c–d, Macrobius, Sat. i. 23. 3.

16 These four comparisons are to be found in Abr. 74–76.

17 Zeno, SVF I 155.

18 W. Bousset, “Eine jüdische Gebetssammlung im siebenten Buch der apostolischen Konstitutionen,” Nachrichten Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1915, 435ff.; Goodenough, E. R., By Light Light (New Haven, 1935), 306ffGoogle Scholar. If my hypothesis be correct, the similarity between C. A. viii. 12. 19 and Ad Autol. II 27 noted by A. D. Nock-F.E. Brightman (JTS 30 [1928–29], 395) would be due to borrowing by Theophilus.

19 Dial. 41 (p. 138 Otto); cf. I Clement xix–xx, and Bardy, G., “Expressions stoiciennes dans la 1a Clementis,” Rech. de science rel. 13 (1922), 73ff.Google Scholar

20 Otto (ad loc.) observes that this is a common patristic argument.

21 Quadratus in Eusebius, HE iv. 3. 2; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. ii. 32. 4.

22 Probably Theophilus is working over John xx. 29; in I 14 he paraphrases John xx. 27.

23 I Corinthians xv, I Clement xxiv–xxv, Justin, Apol. i. 19, etc. See Nautin, P., Je crois à l'Esprit Saint dans la Sainte Église pour la Résurrection de la chair (Paris, 1947), 30–32.Google Scholar

24 Rhet. i. 1. 11, p. 1355a; cf. Witt, R. E., Albinus and the History of Middle-Platonism (Cambridge, 1937), 33f.Google Scholar; SVF III 548 (p. 147:10); Aleith, E., Paulusverständnis in der alten Kirche (Berlin, 1937–Beih. ZNW 18), 39.Google Scholar

25 Nock, A. D., “The Genius of Mithraism,” JRS 27 (1937), 111Google Scholar; Heidel, A., The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago, 1942), 65f.Google Scholar

26 De sublimitate ix. 9 (p. 19 Jahn-Vahlen); Numenius, in Clement, Strom, i. 150; Corp. herm. i, iii; Galen, De usu partium xi. 14 (II, 158 Helmreich).

27 Rhodo (Eusebius, HE v. 13. 8), Apion, Candidus (v. 27); Robbins, F. E., The Hexaemeral Literature (Chicago, 1912).Google ScholarPubMed

28 E. g., Simon Magus (Hippolytus, Ref. vi. 15), Satornilus (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. i. 24. 1 [I, 196]), Marcus (i. 18. 1 [169].

29 Adv. Hermogenem.

30 HE iv. 24.

31 On the text and canon of Theophilus see my article in JBL 66 (1947) _____. For the school of Antioch see Pirot, L., L'œuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste (Rome, 1913), 1–41Google Scholar; he does not mention Theophilus. On Jewish influence see Kraeling, C. H., “The Jewish Community of Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932), 130ff.Google Scholar

32 Reading (p. 94 Otto) Τόπον ἐπέχοντος ὀροϕῆς against Paul, L. in Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 113 (1876), 115Google Scholar, and E. Bruhn in Commentationes philologae quibus O. Ribbeckio … congratulantur discipuli Lipsienses (1888), 496.

32 Reading τόπον with Maranus and Otto against manuscripts' τύπον.

33 Compare I 5 (the pomegranate).

35 BR i. 15; cf. L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern (Berlin, 1900).

36 BR iv. 5.

37 BR vi. 1.

38 Abot de-R. Nathan i. 18, p. 18 Pollak; Ginzberg, op. cit., 22.

39 Compare Wisdom viii. 19f., ix. 15.

40 Doubtless Marcionites; cf. Apelles in Ambrose, De paradiso vii. 35 (CSEL 321, 292:5).

41 Probably Marcionites.

42 BR xv. 7.

43 Opif. 154.

44 BR xvi. 5; cf. Ginzberg, op. cit., 38.

45 Protr. xi. 111, Strom, iii. 94; 103.

46 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. iii. 22. 4 (II, 124); Augustine, De peccator. merit, et remiss, i. 37 (MPL 44, 149); X. Le Bachelet in Diet, de théol. cath. I 370.

47 BR xiv. 7.

48 BR xxi. 7.

49 Isaiah xiv. 9, lxiv. 8, Jeremiah xviii. 1ff., Test. XII Patr. Naphthali 2:2–5 (p. 45f. Charles), Romans ix. 21.

50 Quaest. in Gen. i. 45, p. 30 Aucher.

51 Nemesius, De nat. hom. 1 (p. 45 bot. Matthaei); Wisdom ii. 23f.; C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London, 1935), 160.

52 BR xiv. 3.

53 Sanhedrin iv. 5 (p. 388 Danby); Ginzberg, op. cit., 25.

54 So the LXX renders Gen. ii. 21; a prophet in Clement, Strom, i. 135; Tertullian, De anima 21; Ginzberg, op. cit., 35.

55 Protr. ii. 12.

56 See Geffcken, J., Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig, 1902), 227ff.Google Scholar

57 Heintzel, E., Hermogenes der Hauptvertreter des philosophischen Dualismus in der alten Kirche (Berlin, 1902), 5.Google Scholar

58 Mand. i.1; a favorite text of the ancient church.

59 Tertullian, Adv. Hermogenem 2 (II, 340f. Oehler).

60 Diels, H. in Rhein. Mus. 30 (1875), 177Google Scholar; Elter, A., De gnomologicorum graecorum historia atque origine (Bonn, 1893), 136.Google Scholar

61 Justin, Apol. i. 15–17.

62 See my article, “The Decalogue in Early Christianity,” HTR 40 (1947), 1ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Kirk, K. E., Some Principles of Moral Theology (London, 1920), 33ff.Google Scholar

64 Stobaeus, Ecl. ii. 6. 5, Diogenes Laertius vii. 92.

65 Leg. alleg. i. 63.

66 Spec. leg. ii. 63.

67 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. iv. 32. 1 (II, 254).

68 Goodenough, E. R., An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (New Haven, 1940), 52.Google Scholar

69 Virt. 1.

70 See note 31.

71 Werner, M., Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas (Bern, 1941), 86.Google Scholar

72 Eusebius, HE vi. 12. 1.

73 Bardy, G., Paul de Samosate (Bruges, 1923), 33Google Scholar; cf. Epiphanius, Pan. haer. lxv. 2 (III 4:16 Holl).

74 SVF II 223, 137, 135; Plutarch, De Iside 7; Cornutus, Theol. gr. 16; Heraditus, Quaest. homer. 72.

75 Spec. leg. iv. 69, Mos. ii. 127–29; Drummond, J., Philo Judaeus II (London, 1888), 172ff.Google Scholar

76 Dial. 61:2.

77 Ad Gr. s (p. 6:4 Schwartz).

78 Leg. 10 (p. 127:27 Geffcken); cf. Bardy, G., Athénagore (Paris, 1943), 56ff.Google Scholar

79 Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig-Berlin, 1907), 181.

80 See note 11.

81 Excerpta ex Theodoto 8 (p. 46 Casey).

82 On such triads see Usener, H., “Dreiheit,” Rhein. Mus. N.F. 58 (1903), 1ff., 161ff., 321ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Athene, who according to Pseudo-Heraclitus 20 and other Stoic writers is ϕρόνησις; following Chrysippus, Diogenes of Babylon “in eo libro qui inscribitur de Minerva partum Iovis ortumque virginis ad physiologiam traducens diiungit a fabula” (Cicero, De nat. deor. i. 41; cf. Cornutus 20 [p. 35:6 Lang]).

83 Colossians i. 15.

84 As a Greek writer, Theophilus is not quite accurate in his exegesis, for the bowels should be the seat of emotion rather than of reason (see H. Lesêtre in Dictionnaire de la Bible II 1817f.). I owe this observation to the Rev. R. L. Hicks.

85 Burney, C. F., “Christ as the APXH of Creation,” JTS 27 (1925–26), 160ff.Google Scholar

86 Aristo of Pella (Routh, Reliq. sacr. i. 95); Tatian, Ad Gr. 5; Irenaeus, Epid. 43; etc

87 Reading ἀΐδιον with manuscripts against ἰδίων of Gesner, approved by Loofs, op. cit., 68, and L. Paul, op. cit., 115.

88 Supplying οὐχ with Loofs, op. cit., 68

89 Timaeus 41c, 42e; Aristobulus in Eusebius, PE viii. 10. 7; Philo, Opif. 72ff.

90 Moore, G. F., Judaism in the Age of the Tannaim I (Cambridge, 1927), 364.Google Scholar

91 Justin, Dial. 62.

92 Ginzberg, op. cit., 19ff.

93 As the ῥῆμα came down on John the Baptist (Luke iii.2); ῥῆμα = λόγος: Jeremiah i. 1f., 4, etc.

94 Apol. i. 5. 4, 66. 2.

95 Proverbs iii. 7, quoted in I 7.

96 Ephesians iii. 10, quoted in I 6.

97 Leisegang, H. “Sophia,” RE III A 1034.

98 Ibid., 1035.

99 Harris, J. R., The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel (Cambridge, 1917), 22.Google Scholar

100 Wisdom i. 9; Aetius, Plac. i. 6. 1 = Diels, H., Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1889), 292.Google Scholar

101 Job xxxiv. 14, quoted in I 7.

102 II 9, 22, III 12, 17; cf. P. Lejay in Bull, d'arch. chrét. 2 (1912), 43ff.

103 Aetius, Plac. iii. 7. 2 (p. 374 Diels).

104 Eusebius, PE vii. 12. 4, xi. 14. 4, reads “is a spirit.” Fichtner, J., Weisheit Salomos (Tübingen, 1938), prefers the other reading.Google Scholar

105 Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne II (Paris, 1928), 211.

106 John i. 1, Apoc. xix. 13.

107 II Cor. iii. 17.

108 Gen. i. 1, Col. 1. 15, Apoc. xxii. 13.

109 John i. 1.

110 I Cor. i. 24.

111 L'ideal religieux des grecs et l'évangile (ed. 2, Paris, 1932), 39; cf. R. Bultmann in TWzNT I 23ff.

132 Festugière, op. cit., 40; Hippolytus, On the Theophany p. 262:9 Achelis.

113 Frag. ii. 654 Mangey = Joh. Damasc, Sacra Parallela, MPG 96, 472A.

114 Apol. i. 20. 1f.

115 SVF II 625.

116 Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie I (Leipzig, 1880), 22.

117 Tertullian als Apologet II (Münster, 1928), 5.

118 “Die Theologie des Theophilus von Antiochien,” ZWT 46 (1903), 99.Google Scholar

119 Paul de Samosate (Bruges, 1923), 148f.

120 Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem (TU 462, 1930), 431.

121 Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen, 1934), 23.

122 Altchristliche Städte und Landschaften III. Antiocheia (Gütersloh, 1930), 57.