Folia Theologica 19. (2008)
Perendy László: Judging Philosophers - Theophilus of Antioch on Hellenic inconsistency
206 PERENDY, László Theophilus accuses him of introducing many arguments for atheism. Actually, Epicurus and the Stoics also advocate atheism, the most dangerous charge brought up against the Christians. The implicit question in Theophilus' work is obvious: why are the Epicureans and Stoics not persecuted, as the Christians are? He mentions also that the Stoics advocate cannibalism, and some Platonists recommend promiscuity. Actually, Greek philosophers not only tolerate, but they also encourage these hideous crimes. Christians are accused of atheism, cannibalism, and licentiousness. Why do the authorities apply double standards: persecuting the Christians and glorifying the Hellenes for the same kind of behaviour? As we have seen, Theophilus gives a rather comprehensive overview about the doctrines of Greek philosophers until Clitomachus, who died almost 300 years before he wrote his Ad Autolycum. However, one important name is missing: Aristotle. Why is not he mentioned by name? Why is not he criticised? Or is he included among the followers of Plato by Theophilus? If not, does this silence mean that his philosophy is approved of by Theophilus? He was definitely more influential than Clitomachus, and several of his views were obviously contradictory to some Christian doctrines. However, Aristotle can be present behind the scenes in the Ad Autolycum. The aim of the Ad Autolycum strongly reminds us of the aim of the Protrepticus of Aristotle. This work is not extant. Our main source about it is the Protrepticus of Iamblicus from the late third century AD, but Cicero's lost work, Hortensius also had similar characteristics. Both of them were exhortations to the philosophic life.34 The Hortensius was read by Augustine. It exerted a deep influence on him, helping him in the process of his conversion. The other remarkable feature of this concise history of Hellene philosophy is that Theophilus is silent about the three centuries preceding his own times. As we have seen, the last philosopher he mentions is Clitomachus, who died in 109 BC. Did he not take the contemporary representatives of the Academy or the Stoa seriously? Or was he rather using a manual which could have been compiled hundreds of years be34 Cf. F. Young, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, in M. Edwards et alii (eds.) Apologists in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Oxford, 1999, 90.
