History, as we are often told, is written by the victors. By the end of the fifth century, Christianity had already taken its dominance over the Roman Empire. In the histories and artwork produced by the Christians of this era, we find a celebration of this achievement. Christianity had conquered the pagan empire, and they believed that it was time to glorify the way in which God had worked out this triumph. Peter Brown provides for us a powerful example of this tendency in fifth century Christianity: “The mood of triumph generated at this time is captured in a fifth-century papyrus fragment of an illustrated world chronicle. In its left-hand margin, the patriarch Theophilus [of Alexandria] is shown standing on top of the Serapeum, clasping the Gospels and framed by palms of victory. In the right margin, the usurper Eugenius, who put his trust in the gods, kneels in defeat.”[i] While many Christians saw Pope Theophilus, the Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 until 412, as a righteous servant of God, this was not universally accepted. Many Christians came to believe that his actions were not always motivated by an ardent love for the Christian faith. Instead, they thought he was consumed by greed and held a great love for power. We find such a presentation of Theophilus in the writings of many ancient historians, in texts which have served as the basis by which many scholars have come to know him.[ii] Thus we can find John Derksen saying, “Theophilus is perhaps the supreme example of an Egyptian monk who became consumed in ecclesiastical and political affairs. Elected patriarch in 385, he emerged as one of the most powerful, controversial and politically active figures of the Egyptian church. … Theophilus may have begun with high ideals, but in some of the methods used to reach his goal, he abandoned all monastic principles.”[iii] There are some who find this to be a too simplistic portrait.[iv] Instead, it might be better to say that he was a Christian idealist: he believed the time was ripe for Christianity to actively engage in the destruction of pagan idolatry, and this got the best of him.
With such a background, we can ask the question, what was Theophilus’ reaction to Hellenistic philosophy?[v] He was the Patriarch of Alexandria; we might assume he held a more positive assessment of it, since he was taught in the Alexandrian tradition. However, he was also a harsh critic of paganism, and this might lead us to think that he rejected the use of pagan philosophy in Christian theology. This question, as we will see, is difficult to address. On the one hand, we have a limited number of works which we can be certain are his. Some only exist in translation (as, for example, some paschal letters translated into Latin by St Jerome), and others exist only as fragments in Greek and Coptic. Yet, what makes things even more difficult is that we have works attributed to him which may or may not be his, and while it is probable some of them are, it is difficult to prove which they are.[vi] To this we can add some of the correspondences written to him by friend and foe alike. While they are not his own works, they can give us a way to approach Theophilus, because they were written by people who knew him and what he did, and what they said was important enough to be preserved. In a cursory glance through all this material, it would seem that he had a mixed, almost contradictory, attitude towards Hellenistic philosophy.
When trying to understand Theophilus’ reaction, we might want to line him up to some pre-conceived notion or model as to how early Christians reacted to Hellenism. For example, C. J. de Vogel lists five kinds of reactions to Greek philosophy, being, “(a) total rejection and hostility, (b) a great open-mindedness and assimilation of philosophical thinking forms, (c) an extremely critical attitude, yet reception on certain elements, (d) far-going acceptance of philosophical thinking forms, sometimes in spirit of syncretism, (e) far-going acceptance joined with transformation.”[vii] While we might find representatives of each of these categories in history, they really do not fit the whole of early Christian reaction to philosophy, and indeed, they do not really fit with what we find in Theophilus. We might expect him to agree with either option (a) or (c), but neither of them really addresses his own views. This shows us how difficult it is to actually describe early Christian reactions to philosophy, because people rarely follow any pre-conceived model which we might want to impose upon them.
At times, Theophilus was very critical of philosophy. But, as we shall see, his criticism had a pragmatic bent to it. His motives, although sometimes very hard to discern, related to the practical needs of those whom he was governing. Hence, he is at other times far less critical of Hellenism. Indeed, he was willing to accept the presence of pagan philosophers in Egypt, and even to actively dialogue with some of them. Thus, throughout his time as Patriarch, the Platonic philosopher Hypatia was free to teach in Alexandria without much complaint.[viii] And of her students, Synesius of Cyrene, a Platonic philosopher himself, was converted to the Christian faith and even ordained a bishop by Theophilus.[ix]
From cursory observations, many have come to the conclusion that Theophilus’ reaction to Hellenistic philosophy is based entirely upon political motivations. Looking at him in this way has helped to perpetuate an unsympathetic understanding of his life and work. It has continued the image of him being “a sorry figure of a bishop, violent and extremely unscrupulous.”[x] We need to ask, is this too simplistic a response? What other factors could help us to explain what seems to be a paradoxical behavior? We certainly should look at what he is most famous for: his reaction to Origenism (because the debate around Origenism is, in some respect, a debate about the application of philosophy within the Church). But we cannot be satisfied with just this. We need to understand the man, to understand where he came from, and see if we can figure out how he understood his own role in the Origenist crisis. To do this, we should also look at some of his activities before he joined himself with the anti-Origenists. When we do this, it seems that he played the role of mediator in many difficult situations, and this should help us realize that there was an irenic side to his activity which is often forgotten. This will, as we shall see, help contextualize his role within the Origenist crisis, and with it, hopefully help us come to understand his response (even if we might not agree with it). Finally, we will look beyond the Origenist crisis to the time when he elevated his friend Synesius of Cyrene to the bishopric. Here, we will find him faced with a philosopher who held positions similar to Origen and yet was given Theophilus’ full support. Is this because he was a shrewd politician who didn’t have a consistent policy, or was there something more going on? It is the hope of this presentation to answer this question in a way which will help form a new portrait of the Patriarch, one which no longer sees him merely as a hypocritical power-monger. Even if his reputation does not end up untarnished, we might come to better appreciate the time he lived in, the kinds of pressures and questions he faced, and more importantly, the influence that his decisions had upon subsequent Christian theology. While controversial, we must not forget that Christians in his time and afterwards saw that he played a major role in the victorious ascent of Christianity within the Empire. Many even looked up to him as a figure worthy of veneration.[xi]
Footnotes
[i] Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 128. Sarapis, to whom the temple was dedicated, was the center of a mystery religion much maligned by Christians. See Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity (trans. Brian McNeil: Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003), 138-139 for a description of the cult and the way Christians before Theophilus ridiculed it.
[ii] See for example, Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom (trans. Robert T. Meyer; New York: Newman Press, 1985), 17-18, 31, 40 -46; Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History 5.16-17; 6.7-17 (NPNF2 2); Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History 8.11-19 (NPNF2 2).
[iii] John Derksen, “The Political and Ecclesiastical Involvement of Egyptian Monks: From St. Antony to the Council of Chalcedon. Part II,” Theological Review 21, no. 2 (2000): 91-2.
[iv] This is the position found in Duncan H. Raynor, “The Faith of the Simpliciores: A Patriarch’s Dilemma,” Studia Patristica 22 (1984): 165 – 169. Raynor tells us that if we look at the sources which ridiculed Theophilus, we find that many of them were politically motivated and were written by those who had supported Theophilus’ enemies. If we look to the rest of the sources we have on him, we get a far more likeable figure. This allows us to understand why Coptic historians look positively at his accomplishment, as for example in Iris Habib el Masri, The Story of the Copts: The True Story of Christianity in Egypt, Book I (No City: The Coptic Bishopric for African Affairs, 1987), 193 – 200.
[v] At the time of Theophilus, the dominant form of Hellenistic philosophy was an eclectic form of Platonism, as Christopher Stead states, “The dominant [philosophical] tradition, however, in late antiquity was a Platonism of a positive and spiritualizing trend incorporating some Pythagorean and Stoic elements…” Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 64.
[vi]Tito Orlandi, “Theophilus of Alexandria in Coptic Literature,” Studia Patristica 16, II (1985): 100.
[vii] C.J. de Vogel, “Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common Ground?” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985):19.
[viii] It was only after the death of Theophilus, and in the reign of his nephew, St Cyril, that we find Hypatia assaulted and murdered in the streets of Alexandria (although probably not at the bidding of St Cyril). See Eleanor Duckett, Medieval Portraits From East and West (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1972), 83 -86 for a description of the events which led to Hypatia’s death.
[ix] There is a great amount of controversy surrounding Synesius of Cyrene, and whether or not he was ever a pagan. There is no doubt, however, as to the value Synesius placed upon Hellenism and Hellenistic philosophy. Theophilus’ engagement with Synesius showed his willingness to dialogue on these points, and his willingness to even admit Hellenists could have a place within Christianity. Theophilus did not demand Synesius to abandon his Hellenism in order to be elevated to the bishopric. More will be said about this later.
[x] Johannes Quasten, Patrology, III (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1960), 100.
[xi] Quasten tells us that Arnobius, Theodoret, Pope Leo the Great , and many others saw Theophilus as an important Church Father. Quasten, Patrology, 101.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In