Scripture among the Apologists: Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Eccl. Hist. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Translated by G. A. Williamson. Revised and edited by Andrew Louth. London: Penguin Books, 1989.
Lives Jerome. Lives of Illustrious Men. Translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.
CA Josephus. Contra Apionem. Translated by William Whiston. The Works of Flavius Josephus in Four Volumes, Volume IV. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.
Dialogue Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Revised by Thomas P. Halton. Selections from Fathers of the Church, Volume 3. Edited by Michael Slusser. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 2003.
Apology –. First Apology. Translated by Leslie William Barnard. Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation 56. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.
Oration Tatian. Address to the Greeks. Translated by J.E. Ryland. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Edited by Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.
Autolycum Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Translated by Robert M. Grant. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
Acta The Martyrdom of the Holy Martyrs. Translated by Marcus Dods. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

 

Continue reading

Scripture among the Apologists: Conclusions

Open BibleThis study has examined the manner in which two early Christian apologists, Justin Martyr in his Apology and Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum, employed written sources in their writings. This study argues that Justin and Theophilus both demonstrated the authority of specifically Christian writings, especially in their use of the Fourth Gospel and implementation of Johannine logos theology. This study also suggested that a contextualized methodology constitutes a necessary component for accurate study of early Christian literature; that Justin and Theophilus employed a wide matrix of scriptural authorities in their writings; and that comparison of Justin and Theophilus underline important similarities and differences between these writers which inform the understanding of second century Christianity. It is the hope of this study to have fulfilled Theophilus’ final dictum in Ad Autolycum, to have read “these books carefully in order that [we] may have a counselor and pledge of the truth.”[ii]


[i] Hagner, 233. [ii] Autolycum 3.30.

Scripture among the Apologists: Differences

justin-martyr1Yet there are also considerable differences in these apologists’ approaches to written sources as well. Concerning Greco-Roman sources, while Justin remained primarily Platonic, Theophilus was more influenced by the Sibylline Oracles, Homer, and Hesiod. Justin’s philosophical background and prowess were considerably superior to Theophilus’ training, and Justin’s innovate recasting of Greco-Roman philosophical motifs was more innovate than anything Theophilus had to offer. Continue reading

Scripture among the Apologists: Similarities

Apostolic FathersThe argument of this paper, that Justin and Theophilus each view specifically Christian writings as useful authorities for the construction of their apologetic works, has already been demonstrated. To more fully engage the considerations of the authority with which these two second century apologists viewed Christian sources, this study now offers a comparative analysis of how these two writers conceived of and employed written sources in the construction of their apologetic theologies, paying special attention to the function of the Gospel of John and Logos for each. Continue reading

Scripture among the Apologists: Theophilus on Scripture

theophilus-of-antiochTheophilus of Antioch clearly found numerous sources valuable for the construction of his apologetic Ad Autolycum, drawing upon numerous Greek, Jewish, and Christian sources in this writing. Especially important for his conception of scripture was the doctrine of the Logos, formed in Hellenistic Judaism and applied by Justin Martyr to Christian apologetics, but in Theophilus developed most clearly from the Gospel of John. This doctrine allowed Theophilus to locate writings inspired by the Logos, whether they were composed by the Sibyl, Moses, Paul, or someone else. The Logos is that with whom Greek philosophy must accord, that who inspired the prophets of Israel, and he who continues to serve God’s salvific nomos.[i] In this sense, Theophilus did not explicitly locate the Logos with any one “person,” but instead focused on the literary personification and work of the Logos, an endeavor with which those seeking God had to bring themselves into accordance. This is an admittedly Jewish way of thinking, leading Grant to posit that Theophilus’ Jewish-Christian perspective ultimately stands behind the later excesses of Antiochene exegetical theology.[ii] Continue reading

Scripture among the Apologists: Theophilus’s Other Christian Sources

Apostle Paul WritingTheophilus also made use of a number of Pauline writings.[i] Evidence is most convincing for reliance on Romans,[ii] 1 Corinthians,[iii] 2 Corinthians,[iv] Philippians,[v] Colossians,[vi] 1 Timothy,[vii] and 2 Timothy.[viii] In addition to these literary connections, Theophilus reflects a broad knowledge of Pauline phraseology, indicated most clearly in his discussion of resurrection in Autolycum 1.8 and critique of idolatry in Autolycum 2.2.[ix] Continue reading