Rising from the intellectual crossroads of Antioch, Theophilus stands as a liminal figure in the evolving contours of early Christian thought—a convert from paganism, a bishop of the ancient East, and the first to employ the term “triad” in reference to the Holy Trinity. His sharp polemics, infused with biblical conviction and rhetorical elegance, display a man both formed by Greek learning and transformed by the Hebrew Scriptures. Though largely forgotten by later tradition, his legacy endures in the apologetic vigor and exegetical ambition of his writings.
Literature and Editions
The principal sources for Theophilus are:
– Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum, Volume VIII
– Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume VI, cols. 1023–1168
– Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature, III, pp. 63–106
– Renan, Marc-Aurèle, pp. 386ff.
– Theodor Zahn: Der Evangelien-Commentar des Theophilus von Antiochien (Erlangen, 1883), part of his Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons
– Zahn’s Supplementum Clementinum (1884), pp. 198–276
– A. Harnack: Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. I, Heft II, 282–298; Heft IV (I.8.3), 97–175
– A. Hauck, Zur Theophilusfrage (Leipzig, 1844); and article in Herzog, 2nd ed., XV, p. 544
– W. Bornemann, Zur Theophilusfrage, in Brieger’s Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (1888), pp. 169–283
Life and Conversion
Theophilus was converted from paganism through a profound engagement with the Christian Scriptures. He eventually became bishop of Antioch, occupying the episcopal seat as the sixth successor from the Apostles. His episcopacy occurred during the later years of Marcus Aurelius’ reign, and he is believed to have died around AD 181.1 His known predecessors include Peter, Evodius, Ignatius, Heron, Cornelius, and Eros.
Ad Autolycum: Defense and Instruction
Theophilus’ only surviving work is a trilogy of books addressed To Autolycus, an educated pagan friend whom he seeks to persuade of the truth of Christianity.² In these writings, Theophilus mounts a direct assault on the falsehoods of idolatry, contrasting them with the luminous truth of the Christian faith. With impressive familiarity with Greco-Roman literature and philosophical categories, he weaves an apologetic argument both rigorous and rhetorically graceful.
Yet his treatment of pagan philosophers, particularly poets and sages, is far less charitable than that of Justin Martyr. While conceding that figures like Socrates and Plato grasped fragments of truth, he accuses them of theft—asserting that whatever truth they taught had been plagiarized from the Hebrew prophets. For Theophilus, the Old Testament contained in itself the full treasury of divine wisdom, rendering Greek speculation superfluous.
Doctrinal Contributions: Triad and Logos
Theophilus was the first known Christian writer to use the term triad (τριάς) in a theological context to describe the Godhead.³1367 In his interpretation of Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man”), he perceives the divine dialogue as occurring between God and His own Reason and Wisdom—identifying these with the hypostatized Logos and Holy Spirit. This proto-Trinitarian formulation foreshadows later doctrinal developments and signals a deepening reflection on the inner life of God.
He is also the earliest known writer to quote the Gospel of John by name.⁴ Though others—Tatian, Athenagoras, Justin, and even Gnostic circles—had already employed Johannine theology, Theophilus explicitly attributes the words “In the beginning was the Word…” to the Apostle John, affirming the Gospel’s authority within the emerging Christian canon.
A Portrait of the Christian Life
Theophilus presents Christians as men and women governed by reason and grace: self-controlled, monogamous, chaste, just, lawful, peaceable, obedient to authority, and fervent in prayer for rulers—though never idolizing them. He rejects the spectacles of gladiatorial violence and the moral defilement of public entertainments, asserting that Christian piety demands the guarding of eyes and ears from corruption.
Lost Works and Exegetical Legacy
Though only Ad Autolycum survives, Eusebius mentions several other works by Theophilus:
– A polemic Against Hermogenes, in which he cites the Apocalypse of John
– A work Against Marcion
– “Catechetical books” (κατηχητικὰ βιβλία) of unknown content
Jerome supplements this list, noting commentaries on Proverbs and the Gospels, though he casts doubt on their authenticity based on stylistic inferiority. One Latin text under Theophilus’ name, an exegetical Gospel harmony, may have originated later and is likely not genuinely his.
The Gospel Commentary Debate
A Latin Gospel Commentary attributed to Theophilus was first published by Margarin de la Bigne (1576) from now-lost manuscripts. It was reprinted by Otto and again edited with rich annotations by Zahn. The Commentary opens with a symbolic interpretation of the four Gospels:
– Matthew: Compared to man, as he portrays Christ’s human birth and suffering
– Mark: Symbolized by the lion, echoing the voice in the wilderness and Christ’s royal invincibility
– John: Likened to an eagle for his lofty theological vision and Christ’s ascension
– Luke: Associated with the ox, symbolizing priesthood and sacrificial offering
This sequence, especially placing Luke fourth, suggests early Christian antiquity. The commentary begins with Matthew’s genealogy, noting that Matthew traces Jesus “through kings,” while Luke traces him “through priests.”
The four books of the commentary devote the first to Matthew, the second and third to Luke, and the fourth to John. It concludes with a beautiful allegory drawn from John 20:15, interpreting Christ as the gardener and the Church as His garden filled with the “roses of martyrs,” “lilies of virgins,” “violets of widows,” and “ivy of married couples.”
Authenticity and Scholarly Debate
Dr. Zahn, in his 1883 monograph, strongly defended the authenticity of the Gospel Commentary and dated the Latin translation to the third century. If genuine, it would make Theophilus the earliest Christian exegete and provide valuable evidence for the development of the New Testament canon.
However, theological vocabulary within the text—terms like regnum Christi catholicum, peccatum originale, and monachi—suggest a post-Nicene context. This suspicion was deepened by the discovery of a Brussels manuscript with an anonymous preface identifying the work as a compilation.
Adolf Harnack challenged Zahn’s thesis, arguing convincingly that the commentary is a fifth- or sixth-century Latin work by an unknown author. Zahn later admitted the force of this argument but maintained partial support for the attribution. Hauck placed the composition after AD 200, noting Jerome’s familiarity with it. Bornemann sided with Harnack, dating the work between 450 and 700.
Footnotes
¹ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV.20 and in his Chronicle under Marcus Aurelius. His predecessors: Peter, Evodius, Ignatius, Heron, Cornelius, and Eros. See also Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius (1878), p. 56.
² Theophilus to Autolycus (θεοφίλου πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον). Three manuscripts survive, the best preserved in Venice (11th c.). First printed in Zürich, 1546. English translations: J. Betty (1722), W. B. Flower (1860), Marcus Dods (1867) in Ante-Nicene Library, III. 49–133.
³ Ad Autol. II.15 (Migne VI, col. 1077): the first three days of creation are said to typify the Trinity—God, His Word, and His Wisdom. Also cf. II.18 (col. 1081). The Latin term trinitas appears five times in the Commentary. Among Latin theologians, Tertullian was the first to use the term (cf. Adv. Prax. 4; De Pud. 21).
⁴ Ad Autol. II.22: “The Holy Scriptures teach us… among whom John says: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.’” He then quotes John 1:3.
