23
universe (5.5-6), and even the making of the angels (7.2).
We see in Tatian, as in other second century writers, a functioning of the Logos or "Word" that
preserves the transcendence of God and still maintains an intimate immanence. In fact, in Tatian the
immanence of God's presence is expressed in more explicit terms than other writers, and the most
pervasive and intimate relationship between God and man is achieved through the function of the Spirit.
The Spirit is called "divine" (To the Greeks 4.4; 13.3) and the "Spirit of God" (13.5), yet he suggested
that "souls which were obedient to wisdom attracted to themselves the kindred spirit" (13.6),
160
so the
Spirit of God dwells only in some (15.7). This uniting of the soul to the Spirit brings unity with God
(15.1),
161
so God himself dwells in the temple of the flesh by the Spirit, who is his representative in the
human body (15.4-5).
162
But those who reject the Spirit of God are said to have rejected God (13.6).
In Tatian we have no explicit Trinitarian assertions, though we can recognize the persons and works
of the Father, Son, and Spirit and their relationships to one another. The Father is the source and
principal in Tatian's concept of the Godhead, at the very least in a functional capacity beginning with
the coming forth of the Logos,
163
and perhaps even in an ontological sense if Tatian regarded the Logos
as having had a beginning.
164
Either way, it is clear that the Son (and the Spirit) are regarded by Tatian
as functionally subordinate to the Father's will.
165
*Summary: Of all the fathers studied in this paper, Tatian is the only one who eventually left the catholic
church and founded his own sect. Like his predecessors, he presented the Son and Spirit as submissive to the
Father's will, but unlike the other fathers he spoke in terms that could be understood as teaching that the
Logos had a beginning (To the Greeks 5.2). Tatian thus represents the fringe of second century Christology.
God, Word, and Wisdom: Theophilus (c. 170185)
166
Theophilus of Antioch presented the intratrinitarian relationships in terms consistent with his second
century predecessors. However, probably as points of contact with his pagan read, Autolycus,
Theophilus most often used the terms sofiva and lovgo" for the Spirit and Son. This was not unique in
the development of Trinitarian reflection, though, and through these terms we are still given a picture of
his views concerning the functional relationships in the Godhead.
167
160
= KaiV aiJ meVn peiqovmenai <th'/ qeou'>) sofiva/ sfivsin aujtai'" ejfei'lkon toV pneu'ma suggeneV".
161
Elze argues that in chapter 13 and 15, Tatian referred not to the lower spirit that organizes matter, but the "höheren,
göttlichen Pneuma" (Elze, Tatian und seine Theologie, 86). This seems to fit the context best.
162
= katoikei'n ejn aujtw'/ qeoV" bouvletai diaV tou' presbeuvonto" pneuvmato".
163
Perhaps reading Tatian with far more grace that is actually merited, Little suggests that "the secondary character of the
Logos relates only to His functions and activities in the universe, and not to His essential nature" (Little, Christology of the
Apologists, 192).
164
Since we are left with no clear statement concerning Tatian's concept of God, time, and eternity, or whether he even had
developed such a concept, we cannot be sure if the "event" of the Son's generation ought to be regarded as a time event or an
eternal, timeless generation.
165
Little writes, "In fact, the whole relationship of Logos to the Father is suggestive of the secondary position of the former. . . .
Likewise the Logos, identical in essence with the Father, is subordinate in an economic sense, since He was prolated by the will and
initiative of a senior Divine Person" (Little, Christology of the Apologists, 191).
166
The Greek text for Theophilus is from Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Theophili Antiocheni Ad Autolycum, ed. H. Christian
Brennecke and E. Mühlenberg, Patristische Texte und Studien, vol. 44 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995). The English translation is that is
Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, 1926 American ed., The Ante-nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (New York: Scribner's, 1926). On the
date of Theophilus's writings, the range from 170 to 185 is probably as narrow as we can get, though we can be rather certain the
writings are no earlier or later than this window, Rick Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch: The Life and Thought of a Second-Century
Bishop (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2000), 7.
167
I am aware of Rick Rogers's thesis that these terms are used in Theophilus's rhetoric as "personified agents with
anthropomorphic characteristics." He writes, "In talking about these divine agents, I do not think he took them to be real self-
sustaining entities, that is, angels or demigods. Rather, I think it is much more likely that he saw them as literary fictions useful in
describing God's power, God's revelation of himself and God's actions in the world" (Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch, 74). Rogers
does not, however, rule out the possibility that Theophilus himself viewed the personifications as objective entities or personal
intermediaries. Without denying the possibility of Rogers's thesis, there are several reasons why I believe it to be improbable.
Among the various fathers and apologists of the second century the terms lovgo" and sofiva already enjoyed a rich and stable
history of application as names for the objective personal entities, the Son and Spirit. We have seen this already in Justin, and we
shall see it again in Athenagoras and Irenaeus, who both wrote within a few years after Theophilus. It is improbable that Theophilus