On 2nd Century Origins Of New Testament Christianity: Considerations of 1 Clement

A critical examination of the New Testament in the light of known and verifiable history leads me to the theory that most, if not all of the writings known as the New Testament were written in the 2nd Century CE, as opposed to the common view that such are 1st Century CE historical accounts.  My theory is based upon:

A lack of evidence that the material written in the New Testament reflects actual 1st Century CE history.

And yet several traces of evidence that the material written in the New Testament do reflect actual 2nd Century CE history.

Some such history is cloaked in the form of rewritten material, but regardless the New Testament writings reveal traces of foreknowledge of verifiable historical realities which include the complete diaspora of Jews from Jerusalem; 132-135CE (cf Acts 8.1-3; 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16; Romans 9-11); the persecution of Christians and the subsequent Church doctrine of Martyrdom which occurred and developed during the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the 160’s through 170’s (Acts 14:21-22; Rom 8:35; 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 4:9; 12:10; Gal 6:12; 1 Thess 2:14); the development of an organized and recognized Church hierarchy of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; unknown of until the mid 2nd Century CE (Philippians 1.1); doctrinal discussions such as whether justification is by faith or by works of the law (Rom 4.1-5; James 2.14-24; cf Tertullian's Against Marcion (Ad Marc)  5.2); the relationship of the Old and New Testaments (Luke 16.16; Hebrews 9.15, cf Ad Marc; 5.2); whether one should be circumcised or merely baptized (Justin’s dialogue with Trypho Ch 39; Ad Marc 5.3; cf Galatians 2.3-4, 5.1-6); and the dual nature Paul (Gnostic Paul of Galatians as contrasted with Catholicized Paul of Acts of the Apostles) which reflects the transformation of Paul from Marcion’s personal false Apostle (Tertullian Ad Marc 5.1) to patron Saint Paul of Catholic Church fame.

Indeed, when the New Testament is read in the light of verifiable Church and World History, it is as though the history of 2nd Century Christianity is rewritten into the New Testament as alleged 1st Century history.

A common objection to the theory of the origins of Christianity dating to the 2nd Century CE, is to cite 1 Clement as a proof text of 1st Century origins.  The theory being that 1 Clement was written in 95 CE.  Yet, a critical analysis of the text of 1 Clement in the light of known and verifiable history yields the same results as a similar such approach to New Testament writings.  The text reveals traces of 2nd Century authorship which simply outweigh any notions that 1 Clement may have been written in the latter 1st Century, as is commonly believed.

Consider the overall theme of obligatory submission to rulers, presbyters, and bishops. There are several such passages throughout 1 Clement, which beg the question as to exactly what point in history the Orthodox Church might have actually developed a recognizable hierarchy and formal structure. It is difficult to pinpoint, but there is little evidence of any clerical hierarchy within Christianity prior to the mid 2nd Century CE.

1 Clement was of course a treatise which clearly promoted Orthodoxy by both confirming the authority of the Church hierarchy, all the while reminding laymen to know their place. A variety of topics are emphasized including unity, peace, harmony, and obedience, but such was merely laying the groundwork for putting “headstrong and selfwilled persons” (1.1) in their rightful place. Their rightful place of course being in submission to the Church hierarchy.

The apex of this argument is recorded in Chapters 40-42, in which the notion that all things must be done in order is asserted, even to the extent that the only acceptable worship is done at appointed times, places, and only by the administration of certain people. This was Clergy over laymen, Priests over people, authority over self will. The case for the ultimate authority of the Clergy was seemingly sealed tight by an appeal to Apostolic order, and the focal point of the case was a sober reminder to the rubble of the Orthodox Church that “the layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances” (40.5)

However; the struggle so described in 1 Clement between those who maintained a respect for order and hierarchy, in direct contrast to those “head strong and self willed persons” is strikingly reminiscent of Tertullian’s similar rebuke of the “heretics” who “are puffed up” and who “all offer you knowledge (gnosis)” as recorded in his “Prescription Against Heretics” (Ch. 41). Tertullian was aghast at the fact that Gnostic Christians (“heretics” per his terminology) allowed women to teach, and made no distinction between who served as deacon, presbyter, or bishop at any particular time in their assemblies. To Tertullian, the ultimate disrespect for the order of the hierarchy was that the “heretics” actually allowed laymen to function as priests!

Frankly, the general message of 1 Clement fits the setting of the latter 2nd Century CE struggle between the Orthodox and Gnostic Christianity so well, that there is no reason to assume that such was written any earlier.

Furthermore, the utility of Peter and Paul as mutual examples of martyrs of the faith (Ch. 5) is a clear indicator of latter 2nd Century CE authorship. Firstly, the era of Christian martyrdom as a means of salvation seems to have developed during the persecution of Christians during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, from 161 CE to the latter 170’s,thus this chapter appears suited to that chronological time frame. Secondly, the presentation of Peter and Paul as seemingly equals was the latter 2nd Century CE Orthodox approach to its struggles against the Gnostic Christian movement. In fact, the Acts of the Apostles seems to have been a literary tool utilized to help incorporate “the Apostle of the heretics” (“Against Marcion”; 3.5) into the fold of Orthodoxy by uniting the Pauline and Petrine legends into early Catholic Church compatriots. Thus, the content of Chapter 5 is indicative of latter 2nd Century CE authorship.

The internal evidence of 1 Clement when examined in the light of known and verifiable history thus reveals clear traces of 2nd Century authorship.  Hence, we maintain our theory that the origins of Christianity and the writing and composition of the New Testament date to the 2nd Century CE, and not the 1st Century as is commonly believed.   

The Enuma Elish and Genesis: A Contrast of Two Creation Myths

The Enuma Elish (literally "When On High") is an ancient Babylonian Creation Myth which may have influenced other cultural Creation Myths, including the Hebrew Creation Myths recorded in the Bible.


The Babylonian account opens with two original deities; one male and one female, as the explained original source of the gods (Table 1. 1-10;  cf. the Hebrew Creation Myths, each of which opens with a Monotheistic God as the explained source of all that is; Genesis 1.1; 2.4, though the existence of other deities is alluded to in 3.22).

The Babylonian account features a story of domestic dysfunction, which involved troublesome teen like disruptive behavior, quarreling parents, and which eventually escalated to the point of patricide (Table 1.21-69; cf. the Hebrew account which featured a story of sibling rivalry which likewise lead to murder; Genesis 4.1-8).

The Enuma Elish accounts for the creation of the earth and humanity, while exalting the Babylonian Warrior/Creator God Marduk and his mighty feats.  (Table 5; cf. the Hebrew Creation Myths which likewise account for the creation, all the while exalting the Hebrew Warrior/Creator God Jehovah; Genesis 1, 2.4; Exodus 15).

The Babylonian account portrays humanity as a slave race created by Marduk for forced servitude in order to benefit the gods (Table 6.5-8, 33-36; cf. the Hebrew account of Genesis 2-3; which portrays the Hebrew god creating man and then placing him in the garden to till it; Genesis 2.4-8,15).

The Babylonian account portrays the construction of Babylon as an act of the gods in order to serve as a shrine to the greatness of Marduk (Table 6.47-68; cf. the Hebrew account which portrays the construction of Babylon as an autonomous act of a human collective in order to make a name for themselves; Gen 11.4)


The Babylonian account then is a narrative of divine procreation, domestic dysfunction, death, and dominion.

The Hebrew account on the other hand is a narrative of monotheistic creation, domestic dysfunction, death, and dominion.

Although each respective narrative appears to be mythical; nonetheless they both contain elements of truth regarding human nature which transcend time and circumstance.

Genesis 3: A Myth of Life as an Existential Exile From Eden

Why is life so difficult?  Why is the ground cursed with thorns, thistles, and snakes?  Why do I have to work by the sweat of my brow just to survive?  Why does my wife have to suffer so merely to have babies?

Serves her right though, because she is to blame.  My life would be so much better if I didn't listen to her. She is to blame.  She holds me back.


Such seems to have been the perspective of the originator of the myth of the Garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 3.  He appears to have been a man who toiled strenuously to survive, yet never seemed to get ahead. Though he doubtlessly loved his wife, like so many men he felt that she was holding him back, and was surely the reason that his life was so damned difficult.

This disheartened man who felt trapped and downtrodden envisioned the plight of the human predicament as being due to independent women and weak men.  Perhaps he even resented himself as a pushover because he actually listened to his wife.

Regardless, the myth of the Garden of Eden is an early effort to address the existential circumstances of humanity as envisioned and expressed  by a frustrated dude living the domestic life back in the day.

Hard labor for man and woman alike.  And then we die.

(Commentary based upon Genesis 3)

The Two Conclusions of NT Mark: A Case to Deconstruct the Text

The New Testament book of Mark is the most basic of the known Jesus narratives. Compared to the other Synoptic accounts, the material in the Markan narrative is minimalist and concise.  One perspective is that Mark might be a condensed version of Matthew and Luke.  Then again, Mark may be the earlier of the accounts, in which case the additional material in the others could be due to the development of the Jesus legend over the course of time.  Regardless, I personally find Mark to be the best source to ascertain the basic content of  the Jesus narrative.

The basic narrative thus being the tale of a young Hebrew itinerant preacher, who engaged in exorcisms and healings; and who likewise exerted mystical powers over nature, including the power over death itself. He quickly gained a following, and his popularity was such that at times he could not even find the time to eat when at home, leading him to withdraw to remote areas from time to time. Although popular with the masses, his liberal interpretation and loose application of Jewish teachings and traditions lead to disfavor with the Jewish leaders; who subsequently conspired with the Roman officials to have the hero of the narrative executed by crucifixion. Then, depending upon which of the two conclusions of the tale one chooses to accept; either a) three days after his death his grave was found empty, and one sole eyewitness claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead; or b) Jesus made several appearances to numerous disciples after rising from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion.  As the narrative asserts that Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead on the third day, the implications of either documented conclusion have fascinated followers of the Jesus narrative for nigh unto two millenniums.  

It seems to me that the existence of two different endings to the narrative raises certain questions as to the composition of its content which merit serious consideration, separate and apart from the content of the material itself.  For example, why are there two endings?  Was the latter ending (16.9-20) a later rendition than the first ending (16.1-8)? What are implications of the two endings?  And perhaps the question most pressing in my mind relates to the credibility of the concept of an alleged united narrative, in the light of a fragmented finale.  In other words, since there are two different conclusions to this one single narrative, then can we reasonably assume that the narrative itself is a united text?

To my way of thinking, these questions are reasonable and relative to the study of the Markan narrative, in the light of the existence of two Markan conclusions. One popular means of dealing with the dual conclusion issue has been to gloss over the differences between the two accounts by writing them both into the text as a single conclusion.  Yet the end of the first conclusion account states that the women who fled the empty tomb were too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen, which would seem to contradict the account of the second conclusion that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.  The latter can hardly be reconciled with the former as a single conclusion since Mary Magdalene was one of the women who according to the first conclusion fled the empty tomb too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen.  Clearly then, these two conclusions are two different versions of the Jesus narrative.

My conclusion then with regards to the existence of the two conclusions of the biblical book of Mark is that it is therefore not reasonable to assume such to be a single narrative in and of itself, and furthermore that the entire text should be the subject of studious scrutiny as to its construction.  It is thus my personal perspective that there needs to be a reasonable yet critical analysis of the construction of the entire narrative itself, in order to be able to more accurately determine the nature of its composition.

Such an endeavor is for me in fact a work in process.

The Markan Myth Summarized

Many Biblical scholars regard Mark as having been written before any of the other Canonical Gospels.  Although I don't know for certain, it does seem reasonable in the light of its comparative brevity.  It would seem more reasonable that the additional content which is found in the other Gospels is supplemental to the Markan material, rather than the notion that the minimalist Markan author ignored material in the other gospels in order to abbreviate the story.  Or so it seems to me.

As to the nature of the material, Mark appears to be a fictional drama which portrays the heroics of one who rose from obscurity to overwhelming fame, only to be cut off in the prime of his life due to a traditional technicality.  The story may have been written after the complete diaspora of the Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE, in which case the narrative itself is possibly an allegory utilized to describe the rise and the fall of the Jewish independence movement during the first century and third of the common era. 

The tale features a small town commoner who is thrust into the limelight after a religious experience at his baptism renders him empowered by the Holy Spirit. The commoner uses his newly realized powers to slay the demonic forces which have plagued the villagers, hence becoming somewhat of a local superhero.  His mere presence leaves demons quaking in fear. The villagers are ever so grateful, and in spite of his expressed wishes for anonymity, they publicize his exploits far and near to the extent that he must oftentimes hide in secluded areas. 

The local authorities become suspicious of the small town commoner turned hero, and accuse him of being demon possessed himself. They soon grow weary of his popularity, and scheme to entrap him at an opportune time.  Since the hero of the tale speaks to his followers exclusively in parables,

 the authorities seem uncertain as to how to deal with the situation.  This all changes when he finally speaks plainly to them regarding his death, and makes the bold claim that he will be resurrected from the dead.  His band of faithful followers seem unsure themselves as to what to make of his claims, and so the opportunistic authorities seize the moment. 

First they pay one of his closest followers money to identify the controversial hero of the tale so they can arrest him. (The notion that such efforts for proper identification would have been unnecessary since the hero of the story had been teaching in their midst and was so well known to have developed a notable following seems lost to the author of the narrative.  As is oftentimes the case in a narrative, the quest for dramatic effect seems to supersede detail.) Subjected to interrogation, the

hero of the story finally admits that he actually believes that he is the Son of God, and is subsequently accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death.

The one final hope for the hero of the tale to be spared is the local tradition to free a criminal on a particular cultural holiday.  Under pressure from the populace of the people, who have inexplicably turned on the hero, the government unfortunately opts to free one who was a murderer and a seditionist instead. And so

 

at public expense and by public means, the hero of the tale is executed.

The developments being what they were, our hero’s final words expressed frustration at being forsaken by God in such a crucial situation.

And then the hero of the story dies, and is laid to rest.

In the cliffhanger conclusion of the tale, some of the hero’s female entourage visit his tomb o

n the third day after his execution

 in order to anoint his body with selected spices, only to find his tomb empty.  According to one unidentified individual who was on the scene, our hero was raised from the dead, precisely as he had promised while he was alive. 

In spite of being directed by the unidentified stranger to go tell his disciples what they had seen, the entourage of females flee the scene in fear, and told no one what they had seen.

And so the story ends.

Lukan Literature: Transitional Phases Within The Christian Myth

The nature of Lukan Literature is evident upon reading.  Both treatises of Lukan Literature are clearly mythical narratives.  The virgin birth and miraculous healings of Luke; the divine manifestations and miraculous healing handkerchiefs of Acts; and the sky flying, heavenward ascending Jesus of both Luke and Acts, are representative of legend and folklore.

The Gospel of Luke was an anonymously written version of the story of the earthly Jesus; a tale which evidently was in circulation as early as the mid 2nd CE.  As noted in the introduction to Luke, several writers had written their particular version of this common narrative.  By the late 2nd CE, the Orthodox Church had adopted four such versions as authentic and authoritative, one of those being the Gospel of Luke. 

Although each of the four Church sanctioned Gospels have a similar cast of characters, and although three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) seem to have used a common original source (either Matthew or Mark possibly being the original source), yet Luke is distinguished from the others in that he wrote Acts as an addendum; a supplementary treatise as it were, which provided a link between the story of the four Gospels and the late 2nd CE Orthodox Church.  The Lukan author also cited certain transitional phases which distinguish specific eras within the Christian narrative, thus establishing a direct relationship between Judaism and the early Roman Church.


"The Law and the Prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached" (Luke 16:16)

"all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44)



The major eras of the Christian myth were those of "The Law and the Prophets", and that of "the kingdom of God"; the former representing the national identity of the Hebrew people, and the latter referencing the era of the Church.  "The Law and the Prophets" are representative of the religion of Judaism, the Hebrew people, and their epoch struggle and collective obsession with independence and national identity.  Throughout the first Century and a third of the common era, certain elements of the Hebrew people were engaged in an ongoing revolt against what they perceived to be the Roman occupation of their homeland. As a result of their quest for religious freedom and national independence, several "Messianic movements" arose in support of a variety of attempted military coups against the reigning Roman government.  The final such effort; the Simon Bar Kochba uprising of 132-135CE, was seemingly successful for about 3 years, until a confederation of several national armies was dispatched by the Roman Emperor Hadrian to subjugate the insurgents and restore order to the region.  The action was swift, brutal, and effective.  Jerusalem was surrounded; the insurgents were starved out, Bar Kochba and his forces were killed, and the aftermath was that all Jews were driven out of Jerusalem, which was then leveled and hand plowed by the Roman victors.  The military tactics employed, the brutal nature of the subjugation of the Bar Kochba uprising, and the complete diaspora of all Jews from Jerusalem were historic events evidently known to the anonymous author of Lukan Literature (Luke 21:20-21; Acts 8:1,4).  After the unsuccessful Bar Kochba uprising and the complete diaspora of the Hebrew people from Jerusalem in 135CE, the Jews who were not slaughtered, starved to death, or sold into Egyptian slavery, became refugees who over the course of the following decades slowly assimilated into a variety of Roman-Greco cultures throughout the Empire.


"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22)


The baptism of Jesus by John is recognized in Lukan Literature as a transitional event which signified the end of one era of the Christian myth, and the dawning of another.  For whereas John symbolizes the end of the era of the Law and the Prophets, the baptism of Jesus by John marks the commencement of the proclamation of the kingdom of God. The nature of the kingdom God is then revealed at the baptism of Jesus, an event which could be interpreted as an anointing of the kingdom's symbol of peace.  Hence, rather than being crowned as an icon of militarism, Lukan Literature envisions Jesus the baptized as one anointed as a symbol of peace (Luke 3:21-22; cf  Luke 2:11,14).  And so the kingdom of God envisioned by Lukan Literature is a contrast to the sought after and fought for, yet ever elusive earthly kingdom based upon militarism; one which the Hebrew Zionists of the first Century and a third of the common era had coveted. For whereas the Hebrew Zionists had sought a national identity based upon militarism and might; the kingdom of God of Lukan Literature was rather a spiritual relationship based upon peace, healing, and non-violence (Luke 8:1; 9:1-2;10-11; 11:1-2; 22:15-16; Acts 1:3,6-8).


"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the Apostles whom he had chosen" (Acts 1:1-2)

"ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8)


The ascension of Jesus, by its very nature, represented the end of the era of the earthly Jesus, and likewise introduced an advanced role of the Apostles within the Christian myth.  For once Jesus cleared the clouds so to speak, the Apostles suddenly evolved from wandering comrades of Jesus, into confident witnesses of the resurrection of the same from the dead. The era of Apostolic authority in this embryonic stage soon developed into the Orthodox Church doctrine of Apostolic succession, which would prove to be their major competitive edge over Gnostic Christians in the 2nd CE, as well as the foundation for Church hierarchy ever since. 

New Testament Lukan Literature: The Addressee; Most Excellent Theophilus

Lukan Literature, which comprises over one-fourth of the volume of the writings of the New Testament, consists of two anonymously written treatises, each addressed to an individual named Theophilus.  Since he is addressed as "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:4), then the recipient of the Lukan writings was likely an official of sorts. In fact, the Lukan author evidently reserved such phraseology exclusively for persons of social rank (cf Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). Furthermore, Theophilus was evidently a Christian (Luke 1:4).  The phrase "the things you have been taught" contains a form of the word 'catechism'.  Hence, Theophilus had been indoctrinated into the Christian faith. 

Yet, in spite of having been indoctrinated in the Christian faith, the Lukan author apparently felt that there was an element which was lacking in the understanding of the "most excellent Theophilus".  So much so that in spite of the social status of his addressee, the Lukan author nonetheless felt compelled to more correctly instruct Theophilus so that he might "know the exact truth" about the things that he had been taught.

The identity of Theophilus then might actually be identified, if in the annals of Early Christian Literature, the record might be found of a Christian official so named, who would have lived during the time period that Lukan Literature was written, and whose understanding might have lacked a basic element of Orthodox Christian ideology.  Such an individual would surely be a likely candidate as being the addressee of the New Testament Lukan literature.

And it so happens that there is in fact among the annals of Early Christian Literature the record of a person who meets all such qualifications. Theophilus; the Bishop of the Antioch Church from the late 160's to the early 180's, was not only a Church official, but likewise a  capable Christian Apologist.  His only remaining writings, an Apology to his pagan friend Autolycus (Ad Autolyc), reveal that Theophilus had extensive knowledge as to Greek and Hebrew mythology, and was furthermore a zealous and capable defender of the Christian faith.  His knowledge and convictions notwithstanding, the writings of Theophilus reveal a deficiency in his knowledge which would seem unfathomable to a contemporary Christian, yet which is quite revealing as to the state of affairs of 2nd Century Christianity.

For the fact is that although Theophilus identified himself as a Christian, believed fervently in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, preached the need for repentance and confession, related water baptism to the remission of sins, warned of the eternal judgment of the just Creator God, and was the first person ever known to use the word "Trinity"; he nonetheless refers to all such topics while remaining seemingly unaware of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus.  

For although Theophilus proudly identified himself as a Christian ("you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God"; Ad Autolycum 1:1); and although he maintained that the truth was exclusive to such ("we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:33); and although he even addressed the reason for the name 'Christian' ("we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God"; (Ad Autolycum 1:12); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any point, not even while discussing the name "Christian". 

 In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.

And as to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, although Theophilus cited several natural examples, including recurring seasons ("consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits"; Ad Autolycum 1:13) and the lunar cycle ("the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection"; Ad Autolycum 2:15) as sufficient evidence "that God is able to effect the general resurrection of all men." (Ad Autolycum 1:13, 2:); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus as an example of one raised from the dead.  

In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.

And although Theophilus maintained that faith is the primal quality necessary for humankind ("why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith is the leading principle in all matters?"; Ad Autolycum 1:8); and although he preached the need for repentance and confession ("being long-suffering, He (God) gave him (Adam) an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26); and although he believed in water baptism for the remission of sins ("the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration"; Ad Autolycum 2:16); and although he warned of eternal fire and damnation for disbelievers ("But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men"; Ad Autolycum 1:14); and although he offered hope for those who would be obedient to the law and the commandments ("he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption"; Ad Autolycum 2:27); nonetheless Theophilus never refers to Jesus at any time, not even while discussing these topics which are so basic to the Christian faith.

In fact, Theophilus never mentioned Jesus at all.

And again, with reference to the nature of God, although Theophilus was the first to ever reference the Trinity, ("In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom" Ad Autolycum 2:15"); and although he maintained that God made all creation by the Word ("but His Word, through whom He made all things"; Ad Autolycum 2:22); and although he noted that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence; and although he acknowledged that  "the Word" of God was also "his son"; nonetheless he specifically distinguishes "the Word" from the concept of being the product of human birth ("the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God."), rather clarifying that "when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word uttered, the first-born of all creation".  And even when Theophilus cites the example of the Word "assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all", noting that "whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place"; even then the example that he opts to utilize with reference to such an occurrence was when the Word "went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam"; rather than to cite Jesus as such an example, in any shape or form.

Theophilus simply seems to have never heard the doctrine of an earthly Jesus Christ.

The fact that Theophilus, the Church Bishop of a major city, who was familiar with the nature of God and with the basics of Orthodox Christian doctrines, and was himself a capable Apologist on behalf of the same, should be ignorant as to the doctrine of an earthly Jesus as late as the early 180’s, is actually quite revealing.  For it is evident that; contrary to popular belief, the doctrine of an earthly Jesus was by no means the foundation of Christianity.  Rather, the concept of an earthly Jesus appears to have been a late developing doctrine within the 2nd CE Christian movement itself. Foreign as such thinking might seem in this day and age, the fact is that the Christian doctrine is by no means dependent upon the concept of an earthly Jesus.

For evidently, in the early days of Christianity, faith was not the belief in the resurrected Jesus, but rather the trusting belief that God was able to raise one's own self from the dead in order to inherit incorruption ( “When you shall have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall you see God worthily. For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal… But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now.”; Ad Autolycum 1:7,8)  Confession then was not to express one's belief in the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was the profession of the penitent sinner to amend their ways and to turn away from their sinful ways, so as to be restored to their original state ("countless are the sayings in the Holy Scriptures regarding repentance, God being always desirous that the race of men turn from all their sins."; Ad Autolycum 3:11; "those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:17; "And as to God's calling, and saying, Where are you, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession"; Ad Autolycum 2:26; "When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil those also shall be restored to their original gentleness; Ad Autolycum 2:17). Baptism then was not administered in the name of Jesus, but rather was an act to procure the remission of sins ("Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God."; Ad Autolycum 2:16").  Thus, the holy church in the early days of Christianity was by no means the church of Christ due to the existence of an earthly Jesus, but rather was so, as the assembly of the saved ("so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies — we mean holy churches — in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God"; Ad Autolycum 2:14).


And so it is evident that the concept of an earthly Jesus was a later development within the Christian movement. It is furthermore clear that even as late as 180 CE, the distribution of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus was still somewhat limited. At least such was the case with reference to Antioch, which was alleged to have been a major church within the New Testament. And so it is the fact that Theophilus of Antioch seems to have been ignorant of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus which leads me to speculate that such may well be the very context of the writing of the New Testament Lukan literature.  As the Lukan author explains to the one he calls "most excellent Theophilus"; he himself "having investigated everything from the beginning", took it upon himself to  "write it out for you in consecutive order... so that you might know the exact about the things which you have been taught" (Luke 1:3,4).  Evidently, the Lukan author felt that though Theophilus had been taught, that nonetheless there was something lacking in his knowledge.  And what more basic doctrine of the Christian story should a Church Bishop know than that of the life and doings of the earthly Jesus? Such seems to supply a logical and verifiable context then for the Lukan writings, as introduced in the opening verses of the Gospel of Luke.

My ongoing studies of Lukan Literature then will allow for the viable theory that the anonymous writer of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles addressed both treatises to Theophilus; the Church Bishop of Antioch, in order to instruct him in the basics of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus, as a developmental process within the late 2nd CE Orthodox Church.