THEOPHILUS, Bishop of Antioch. - Little information is available about T.'s biography. The year of his birth, which took place near the Euphrates, and that of his conversion are unknown. It is known that he was elected bishop of Antioch in 169 and that until 181 he carried on continuous activity on behalf of Christianity, writing numerous works to defend it not only against the pagans but also against the heretics who threatened its unity.
A large part of his works has been lost; indeed, the writings Against the Heresy of Hermogenes, The Discourse against Marcion, the historical and catechetical studies, and the commentaries on Proverbs and the Gospels have not come down to us; only the Three Books to Autolycus remain, a broad apologetic work of no slight historical and dogmatic value.
No exact information can be given about the personality of Autolycus, nor about the circumstances that inspired the apology, but it may be argued that the three books were written not long after 180, following an oral controversy with Autolycus, a friend of T., highly cultured, still attached to the ancient religion. In the three books, as in the other apologetic works of the 2nd century, two themes are developed, one polemical and destructive, the other constructive, in which the nature and the concept of the new religion are set forth. In the polemical part violent attacks are made against polytheism and every form of pagan thought, but there is no close-knit critique of pagan philosophy and art, since T. loves to repeat with warmth and violence the traditional and popular anti-pagan themes. Although T. admits that a few thinkers may have been able to intuit some truth, guided by the natural light that God has placed in all men, or may have been able to draw from the Scriptures some accurate statement, he nevertheless reaches the conclusion that that little bit of good mixed with all the rest becomes pestilential, like a drink into which poison has been put.
If T. lacks dialectical vigor and speculative depth, he nevertheless possesses lucidity of thought, balance, and a solid attachment to tradition, so that, coming last among the apologists, he was able to transmit the doctrine elaborated at Antioch with unusual clarity and mastery, so as to raise no doubt concerning the orthodoxy of fundamental dogmas. On the nature and existence of God T. writes:
God is the place of all things (II, 3) and of himself (II, 2), he is eternal, he is not subject to change nor to death (I, 6), he is not circumscribed, he is omnipotent (II, 3), he cannot be comprehended nor perceived with the eyes of the flesh. His existence is grasped through the universe, created by him (I, 7) and watched over by him, being contained by his spirit (I, 8). The three persons of the Trinity are distinguished and defined by T. with great clarity; in him the term Trinity is found for the first time: "so also the three days that preceded the creation of the two luminaries represent the Trinity, God, the Word and wisdom" (II, 22). The third person is called, as by Irenaeus, συρὶς, whose procession is not clarified. T. is much clearer in defining the existence ab aeterno of the Word, considered without ambiguity as a person and not a quality of God. Two moments of the Word are distinguished, one prior to creation, the other posterior, two moments that are indicated by the Stoic terms λόγος ἑνδιάθετος and λόγος προφορικώς. The logos, son of God, has illuminated the world like a suspended lamp (II, 18); he has gathered the waters and sometimes descends to speak with men in the name of the father (II, 13). T. furthermore formulates unequivocally the dogma of the creation of the universe from nothing (II, 5). Man too was created from nothing, but, unlike the other creatures, in which God made use of the Word (II, 27), he was created directly by God, in his image and likeness. Man is the beloved creature, endowed with free will (II, 36), he is the maker of his own destiny: T. attributes to man even the possibility of making his own soul immortal. He indeed accepts the doctrine of conditional immortality, according to which only the soul of those who follow the divine precepts is immortal.
Concerning the resurrection, T. admits that in addition to the soul the body will rise, and man, risen in his entirety, will be placed in Paradise (II, 35), created by God precisely for him (II, 32-33).
To demonstrate the work of Providence, T. prefers to develop the concept of the heavenly inspiration of the Prophets (II, 48; III, 10), to whose inspired guidance the salvation of men is due. T. dwells at length to demonstrate the priority of the Prophets with respect to the pagan writers, who drew from the Scriptures the accurate things they said; thus he links the New with the Old Testament, spending a good part of Book III (17-31) defending Christianity from the historical point of view, refuting the accusation of novelty.
It is in T. that the New Testament is considered for the first time as an inspired text: the Evangelists are, like the Prophets, "Bearers of the spirit." T., a clear expositor of the Antiochene doctrine, if he has no notable literary value, exercised in the first century a wide influence on the formation of Christian doctrine, as is attested by the no slight debts toward him not only on the part of Irenaeus, but also of Hippolytus and Tertullian.
Bibliography15 works
Emanuele Rapisarda