On "Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era" by Wayne A. Meeks and Robert L Wilkes ***

This very short volume provides an introduction and background information about Christianity in Antioch largely as a means to introduce two sets of fourth-century documents written in Antioch: a group of letters by Libanius and a couple of sermons by John Chrysostom. The unifying reason for presenting the two sets of works is the writings are about the Jewish people of Antioch.

Libanius mentions the Jews offhandedly in a kind of historian context; I found myself more drawn to Chrysostom's work, which heavily focuses on them and their interaction with Christians, whom he sees as too easily drawn to the religious practices of. We are presented only with two (the first and last) of his homilies against Jews, but they, especially the first, are incredible in terms of showcasing the degree to which some older Christian--that is, Jewish--traditions persisted, despite the attempts of men like Chrysostom.

On “From Jerusalem to Antioch” by Jerome Crowe ***

Crowe's work is an accessible good read. If one wants a basic introduction to Jerusalem and Antioch in the first century, this would be a good work to try. Crowe's main task here is to try to explain how the faith changed as it moved from a Jewish mileiu to a Gentile, from a Jerusalem context to an Antioch one. He wishes to show how religion alters across cultures. It's an interesting premise, but on that count, the work seems a bit superficial.

The gist of the book focuses on various ways in which church functions differed in the two locations—preaching, doing missionary work, the mode of worship, the specific message, organization. Most of the text recounts basic details that most people would already be familiar with. In Jerusalem, converts were Jews and met among Jews; they focused on a kingdom to be brought by Jesus, and all fit well within the system already set up. When things came to Antioch, the message had to change, especially as it moved into the pagan realm and out of the Jewish and Jewish curious realm. Now, the focus became philosophical, focused on the “one God” as seen via his son. Meetings moved from synagogue to houses, and so on. Much transformation obviously did occur, but the changes discussed don't seem very deeply analyzed. We get an accounting of how things were different, knowing that the reason was differing cultures, but not so much a discussion of why such changes were made.

“On Theophilus of Antioch” by Rick Rogers ***

We don't know much about Theophilus as it turns out, and Rogers's book doesn't tell readers much more as a result. Although the book's subtitle promises “a life,” we get few details of that. What we know of Theophilus mostly comes from his three-volume work, To Autolycus, and it is that which Rogers spends most of his book recounting—quoting passages from it, and then explaining what those passages mean. I didn't feel like I gained much from the work's first two-thirds. It's been a while since I read Theophilus's work, so the summary was useful, but a rereading of his volumes would have served much the same value. I was hoping for more background, more cultural insight. Most of what we get in that regard is Rogers's breakdown of the volumes into three kinds of works, explaining how to see the work as an apology, as it is usually read, is perhaps not quite as useful as seeing it as also a teaching work.

Where the book grows most useful is in its final third, where Rogers does his true analysis of the subject. Here, he plays off the work of R. M. Grant, whose work he also summarizes. Grant's thesis on Theophilus largely claims that the man was a low-Christology adoptionist (one who believed that Jesus has no prebirth divinity and who was “adopted” as divine at the start of his physical life) of a Jewish stamp (much like the Ebionites). Rogers critiques this view, arguing that although Theophilus claims to be a Christian yet talks very little about Christ in his work, the work was largely intended for a particular purpose that did not require extensive discussion about Christ's role (indeed, such discussion may have turned off his intended pagan audience). As such, it's difficult to assess Theophilus's view of Christ.

That Theophilus was viewed favorably by later early writers such as Eusebius and Jerome, however, suggests to Rogers that he was “orthodox enough” and that his view of Christ may well have been more line with thinkers like Ignatius and Ireneaus. Indeed, Rogers points out, Theophilus's heavy emphasis on law keeping would seem to suggest a closer tie to emphases that the writer James makes in his New Testament letter rather than views outside the pale. (Rogers sees James and Paul not so much as opposites—Paul had his own way of emphasizing the efficacy of the law—but as writers who emphasized different aspects of faith.) Theophilus talks little of the death of Jesus allowing the forgiveness of human sin (indeed, doesn't really mention it), instead emphasizing, like James, that Christian faith (and the salvation that comes with it) demands an adherence to high ethical standards set forth in Scripture. Such emphasis would have played well to Theophilus's purpose of attempting to win interest from a non-Christian, who would have been more drawn to the ethical dimensions of Christianity than to the theological ones.