No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
It might be thought that in five recent articles the productive ore in the mine of Theophilus of Antioch had been exhausted. On the contrary, these articles have been concerned primarily with the question of what Theophilus said. The basic problem “Why did he say it?” remains unsolved. The purpose of this article is to endeavor to analyze his thought more closely and to determine his place in the religious and philosophical movements of his time.
1 “The Decalogue in Early Christianity,” HTR 40 (1947), 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” JBL 66 (1947), 173–96Google Scholar; “Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus,” HTR 40 (1947), 227–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Early Antiochene Anaphora,” ATR 30 (1948), 91–94Google Scholar; “Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture,” HTR 42 (1949), 41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Cf. VC 3 (1949), 227. He may, however, be using the word in a less technical sense (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. iii. 11. 8; Origen, De orat. 32).
3 Cf. HTR 42 (1949), 41–51.
4 Ropes, J. H., The Epistle of St. James (New York, 1916), 203Google Scholar, after Bultmann.
5 Elter, A., De gnomologicorum Graecorum historia atque origine commentatio (Bonn, 1893–95), 139Google Scholar.
6 Cicero, Lucullus 109; Origen, Contra Celsum i. 11, p. 63:22 Koetschau, uses exactly the four examples of Clitomachus and they are common in the fathers.
7 Cf. Goedeckemeyer, A., Die Geschichte des griechischen Skeptizismus (Leipzig, 1905), 218Google Scholar.
8 Cf. Waszink, J. H., Tertullian De Anima (Amsterdam, 1947), 357Google Scholar.
9 Ibid., 391; cf. Cumont, F., After Life in Roman Paganism (New Haven, 1923), 184Google Scholar.
10 Cf. most recently G. Quispel in VC 3 (1949), 113–22, who finds traces of such a work in Minucius Felix.
11 Cf. Suetonius, Tiberius 44; Reinach, A., Textes grecs et latins relatifs à l'histoire de la peinture ancienne (Paris, 1921), no. 287.Google Scholar
12 Cf. SVF II 1071–74; Cook, A. B., Zeus III 2 (Cambridge, 1940), 1027 n. 5Google Scholar.
13 Emending (with Nolte) the meaningless φιλοκόλπος to φιλοπόλɛμος.
14 von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. in Sitzungsberichte … Berlin, 1911, 769Google Scholar.
15 Mnemosyne N. S. 55 (1927). 273–79.
16 On their contents cf. Schoeps, H. J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen, 1949), 457–79Google Scholar.
17 They contain (πɛριέχοντα) dialogues rather than consist of dialogues; against Schoeps, op. cit., 43.
18 On the date cf. the citations in Schoeps, op. cit., 38–39.
19 Clitomachus used a Euhemerist source: Mayor, J. B., Tullii, M.Ciceronis De Natura Deorum III (Cambridge, 1885), 201Google Scholar.
20 Routh, Reliquiae sacrae II (ed. 2, Oxford, 1846), 271:3 and 8; Eusebius, Praep. evang. x. 10. 4.
21 Cf. JBL 66 (1947), 189–95.
22 Schoeps, op. cit., 87–116. It is worth noting that Deut. 18:15 is not cited in the apostolic fathers, the other apologists, Irenaeus, or Clement. Perhaps it presented too many difficulties.
23 In an article in VC 4 (1950), 33–36.
24 Schoeps, op. cit., 299.
25 Gregorianum 25 (1944), 74–102. These affinities certainly do not show that Theophilus wrote Ad Diognetum.
26 Cf. Telfer, W. in JTS 45 (1944), 220–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 JBL 66 (1947), 181–84.
28 These may be islands for proselytes, taking the place of the older Jewish cities of refuge (cf. Philo, De fuga 91–99).
29 E.g., Xenophon, Eph. i. 13–14, pp. 16–18 Dalmeyda.
30 Also II 29, on the question to Cain. We cite Marcion in Harnack for convenience, and only after examining the sources to see if they are relevant. Cf. Quispel, G., De Bronnen van Tertullianus' Adversus Marcionem (Leiden, 1943)Google Scholar.
31 Schoeps, op. cit., 206–7.
32 Ibid., 209.
33 God the Creator, Providence, holy Law “sufficient for all righteousness”; cf. Clem. hom. iv. 13, 22.
34 Verus Israel (Paris, 1948), 356–93.
35 Ibid., 74–82.
36 Eusebius, H. E. iii. 27. 2; Epiphanius, Pan. haer. xxx. 18. 5. If we continue reading from II 24 to II 25, while bearing in mind the probability that while Theophilus discusses the work of Adam he has Jesus in mind, we shall perhaps find further traces of his interpretation of the life of Jesus. This seems to be the case in his discussion of obedience to parents. Children must obey their parents, and if their parents, how much more the God and Father of all? Furthermore, it is shameful for little children to have ideas beyond their years. For just as one gradually grows in age, so he grows in knowledge. Obviously this analysis is relevant to Adam. But it can also be regarded as an explanation of the difficult (from his point of view) passage Luke 2:40–52, where at the age of twelve Jesus recognizes that God, not Joseph, is his father. Theophilus can be understood as replying that (a) Jesus' reply to his parents (Luke 2:49) simply stressed his duty toward God, the Father of all; (b) he obeyed his parents by returning with them to Nazareth (Luke 2:51); and (c) he could not have regarded God as uniquely his father, because this conception came only with advancing years (Luke 2:52). Epiphanius (Pan. haer. xxx. 29. 5–11) uses this passage in Luke against the Ebionites.
37 Eusebius, H. E. v. 28. 6.
38 Pan. haer. liv. 1. 1 (or is this conjecture from their lack of a Logos-doctrine?)
39 Cf. Walzer, R., Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford, 1949), 75–86.Google Scholar
40 JBL 51 (1932). 130–60.
41 Loofs, F., Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem (Leipzig, 1930), 44–80Google Scholar.
42 VC 3 (1949). 228–29.