RELIGION OF THE BOOK: EXAMINING THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANON AND

CHRISTOLOGY AMONG ANTIOCHENE
AND ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANS

A Major Paper
Submitted to Dr. William Warren and Dr. Daniel Holcomb
of the
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment
for the Requirements of the Course
NTGK 9404: The Canon of the New Testament
In the Division of Biblical Studies

Mark Cooper
BA, Mississippi College, 2010
MA, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012
ThM, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014
November 29, 2014

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................

.............................

.................................................

27

APPENDIX 1

..................................................

30

APPENDIX 2

..................................................

31

...............................................

33

IDENTIRY, CHRISTOLOGY, AND CANON

Antiochene Christianity
Ignatius
Theophilus
Paul of Samosata
John Chrysostom
Conclusion
Alexandrian Christianity
Valentinianism
Clement
Origen
Athanasius
Conclusion
Conclusion
CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

iii

The formation of [the Essenes] own Scripture may have played an important role
in expressing their identity. It was through their canonical writings that they
could show in what way they differed from other groups.1

INTRODUCTION

The above statement, which was only a cursory insight on the part of Peter Balla, was the
foundation from which this study was performed. Ballas assertion raises numerous questions,
however. What role does Scripture play in identity formation? Does Scripture influence identity
or does identity influence canonicity? In what ways do communities utilize texts to distinguish
the ingroup from the outgroup? Could a canon of scriptures differ even among ingroup
members?
The present research paper will seek to determine the influence, if any, of canonicity in
the construction of identity. Rather than discussing the identity of the Essenes, this study will
concentrate the identity of Christians between the second and fifth centuries. The question to be
addressed at length is, How does the reception of a specific number of canonical books
contribute to the identification of Christianity, specifically in Antioch? The authors hypothesis
is, The identity of Antiochene Christianity correlates with the New Testament texts they accepted
as canonical.
The methodology will be two-fold. First, the Christology of four selective church fathers

Peter Balla, Challenges to New Testament Theology: An Attempt to Justify the Enterprise (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1997), 116.

2
will be discussed. Their Christology will be analyzed because, as addressed below, it formed the
basis by which their identity was constructed. Second, the canon of each church father will be
outlined. The results will be compared to determine if a relationship exists.
This study will be carried out in three steps. First, the identity of first century Christianity
will be proposed. This step is necessary since the identity of first century Christianity can serve
as a base from which later forms of Christianity developed. Next, the Christology and canon of
four representative church fathers from Antioch will be detailed. Third, another sample of
Christians from Alexandria will be examined to determine if the finders were exclusive to
Antioch or representative of Christianity as a whole.
Due to the scope of the current assignment, one facet of identity will not be considered
praxis. Praxis is the means by which individuals or groups are capable of expressing their
identity. The real shape of someones worldview can often be seen in the sort of actions they
perform, particularly if the actions are so instinctive or habitual as to be taken for granted. 2
Praxis also informs how worldview can be constructed in society if boundaries are encountered.
As a result, praxis could lead distinct communities to identify themselves in diverse manners. To
illustrate, the form of Christianity centered in Jerusalem seemed more stringent toward
adherence to Jewish customs than that of Antioch.3 Whereas the Christology and theology of
both Christian groups might have been identical (or at least similar), their differences in praxis

N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (COQG 1; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992),

124.
3

See Acts 15:15; Gal 2:110. See also Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, A History of the First Christians
(London: T&T Clark, 2004; idem, The Reasons for Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 2243; Jurgen
Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (O. C. Dean, Jr., trans. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 102
12.

3
led to a divergence in the interpretation of Christian identity. 4 And though praxis is an essential
component of identity formation, discussing the praxis of each church father would be too
extensive for the present purposes.
Determining canonicity remains a complicated issue since referencing a specific text
might not always indicate canonical status. Similarly, the absence of particular texts does not
imply rejection of that text. Not every church father intended to recite every text they deemed
canonical or detail every aspect of their Christology. Nevertheless, this study will proceed under
the assumption that both a canon and Christology can be ascertained, at least by the fathers under
consideration. This research will rely on Bruce Metzgers categorization of canonical texts for
each church father.5

IDENTITY, CHRISTOLOGY, AND CANON

Identity is the social status ascribed to individuals or groups.6 This status can be ascribed by
individuals or groups from both an ingroup or outgroup perspective. The process by which
identity is acquired is identification. Identification categorically structures individuals and groups
within their social setting.7 Udo Schnelle outlines three factors involved in identification. First,
identity is formed by individuals or groups who become aware of similarities or dissimilarities

See Acts 21:2125.

Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1987). Cf. Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon
(rev. and exp.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995; Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and
Meaning (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002).
6

See Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2007), 3436. See also Richard Jenkins, Social Identity (3rd ed.; Routledge: London, 2008), 115.
7

Jenkins, Social Identity, 13.

4
between themselves and their surrounding culture. Second, identity is shaped by encountering
self-imposed as well as externally imposed boundaries. Finally, identity is the recognition of the
individual or group as an autonomous unit.8 Identity and identification necessarily involve a
certain degree of social interaction. Societies are systematized networks of social interchange.
They consist of a seemingly innerumerable number of cultural influences.9 As a result, identities
could be assumed with elements that might perceptively stand in contradiction with one
another.10 Identity can therefore be shaped by an untraceable number of influences.11
In their classic treatment on social identity theory, Peter L. Berger and Thomas
Luckmann divided societies into subjective and objective realities. Subjective reality is an
internalized perception of reality through an organized body of knowledge. 12 The subjective
reality serves as the framework from which all of reality is perceived. 13 The subjective reality is
able to find its expression in the objective reality.

Schnelle, 35.

Jenkins, Social Identity, 6. See also Richard Miles, Introduction: Constructing Identity in Late Antiquity
in Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity (ed. Richard Miles; London: Routledge, 1999), 6.
10

Miles, 7.

11

Jenkins, Social Identity, 161. On the complexities involved in defining society see Richard
Jenkins, Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations (2nd ed.; Los Angeles: Sage, 2008),
2841.
12

Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology
of Knowledge (New York: Random House, 1966), 84. On symbolic universe see Berger and Luckmann, 194200.
13

Cf. Wright, New Testament, 3846. The present study will regard subjective reality and worldview as
similar concepts. In contrast, Wright associates worldview with Berger and Luckmanns notion of symbolic
universe. See Wright, New Testament, 123 ftn. 5. At times, however, Wright distinguishes between symbolic
universe and worldview: What someone habitually does, and the symbols around which they order their lives, are
at least as reliable an index to their worldview as the stories they officially tell. Wright, New Testament, 41.
According to this statement Wright perceives that symbols provide a system by which individuals and cultures
might orient their lives, or at least their worldviews. On other occasions, Wrights coalesces worldview and symbolic
universe: What evokes persecution is precisely that which challenges a worldview, that which up-ends a symbolic
universe. Wright, New Testament, 451. A distinction between symbolic universes and worldviews in Wrights own
worldview is apparent, however. Wright considers the symbolic universe a subsidiary of worldview but in reality the

5
Objective reality is formed with emblems and structures that embody the cultures
symbolic universe. The symbolic universe is a theoretical Matrix of all socially objectivated and
subjectively real meanings. 14 In other words, the objective reality is the construction of the
subjective reality in society. The objective reality is thereby made up of symbols that assimilate
the subjective reality to the society.
Symbolic universes provide an interpretive model in which subjective meaning can be
attached to society. These symbols are accepted by the culture as constituents of their identity.
The symbols could be constructs of history, relics from the past, or social networks.
Interpretation and appropriation of these symbols inform the identity of the culture and provides
an interpretive model in which subjective meaning can be attached to society. The symbolic
universe synthesizes both subjective and objective realities by ordering and maintaining the
subjective ideals within an objective realm.
The symbolic universe of first century Christianity, according to N. T. Wright, centered
upon: (1) Temple, (2) Torah, (3) Land, and (4) Ethnicity. 15 The Temple was the center of Jewish
worship. The Torah was the covenant charter between God and Israel. Adherence to the Torah
was the means by which Israels status as the righteous children of God could be maintained.

symbols that encapsulate worldviews also sustain the worldview; therefore, worldview and symbolic universe
should be considered distinct aspects of identity. Wrights implementation of worldview is much more similar to
subjective reality than it is to symbolic universe.
14

Berger and Luckmann, 114.

15

Wright, New Testament, 22432.

6
The land of Israel was the promised inheritance to Gods children. Finally, ethnicity safeguarded
the identity of the people of God as well as upheld the values of Judaism prescribed by Torah. 16
First century Christianity was, at its core, Jewish. Jesus was identified as the Jewish
Messiah. His ministry and mission was related to Jewish symbols. Following his death,
Christians continued to worship in Jewish institutions.17 Christian theology continued to maintain
the Jewish pattern-of-religion referred to today as Covenantal Nomism. 18 Even though first
century Christianity was by nature Jewish, by the middle of the first century, Christians were
beginning to distinguish themselves from Jews:
, ,
, (1 Cor 1:2223). In this passage Paul not only disassociated
Christians from Jews but also Greeks. And the factor that Paul believed distinguished Christians
was belief in the Christ.
Titles used to describe Jesus in the New Testament were derived from the Jewish
worldview. Jesus was the Messiah or political figure expected to bring about the restoration of
Israel (further expressed by epithets such as Son of God, Lord, Savior, etc.). 19 Jesus was
also referred to as the apocalyptic Son of Man who was given the authority to sit at the right

16

Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of
the Genealogies of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 85.
17

See Acts 4:46; 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:12, 10, 17; 18:5; 21:26.

18

On Covenantal Nomism see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of
Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 42223.
19

For an exceptional treatise on the subject see Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and
Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

7
hand of God. Correspondingly, Jesus was the second Adam of Gods new creation.20 Cultically,
Jesus fulfilled the role of the temple by being identified as the means through which Israels sins
were expiated by Gods eschatological act of ritual purification. 21 Jesus also fulfilled the office
of Moses by returning Israel from her exile and through the establishment of a new covenant. 22
Likewise, Jesus was the final prophet of Israels history. 23 Finally, Jesus subverted the imagery
of Lady Wisdom, Torah, and Logos as the agent of Gods expressive activity. 24 Jesus will also be
the agent to bring about the consummation of the Kingdom of God at the time of his parousia. 25
The Christ was not only the primary symbol from which first century Christians
constructed their identity, but was the center of Christianitys symbolic universe. The Jewish
worldview focused on the narrative of Gods involvement in Israels history.26 But the Christ
bought about a paradigm shift in the Jewish worldview. 27 For Christians, the climax of Gods
redemptive plan had been accomplished in-and-through the agency of Jesus. But the centrality of

20

Rom 5:12 19. See James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the
Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 98128.
21

1 Peter 1:19; Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:12; Heb 9:14. On the atonement as an act of social purification see
Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 28590.
22

Heb 9:15. On the eschatological return from exile see N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
(COQG 2; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 26874.
23

Luke 4:1721; Acts 10:38; Heb 1:12.

24

John 1:118; Col 1:1520; See especially Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.;
Baker Academic: 2003), 1:35063.
25

2 Thess 1:710; .Revelation 1922.

26

For a full treatment of the story in ancient Judaism see Wright, New Testament, 21623. See also
Edward Adams, Pauls Story of God and Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes in Creation in
Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Bruce W. Longenecker, ed.; Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2002), 1943.
27

See John H. Elliot, The Jewish Messianic Movement from Faction to Sect in Modelling Early
Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context (Philip F. Esler, ed.; London and New
York: Routledge, 1995), 7191.

8
the Christ symbol altered their standard of identification. The primary symbols of Judaism (the
Temple, Torah, Land, and Ethnicity) were no longer important factors for identity construction.
The symbols had been subverted by the Christ and had therefore lost the influence it once had on
their original subjective reality. Christ became, for the first generation of Christians, the fulcrum
by which all aspects of Jewish identity were subverted.28 Other symbols became prevalent
among Christians: the Cross, Missions, Church, and Jesus. 29 Ultimately, to speak of Christian
identity was to speak of Christology. But as Christians distanced their identity from that of the
Jews, introduced more aspects of Greek philosophy, and encountered new challenges to their
identity, more subsidiary were essential to maintain identity.
Plausibility structures are socially developed bases that legitimate subjective reality. 30
Plausibility structures may take the forms of rules, statements of identity, traditions, or relics.
These structures are necessary for the proper maintenance of identity. Later generations of
Christianity would introduce other forms of plausibility structures. Metzger recognizes six
authorities in Christianity: (1) the Hebrew Scriptures, (2) the testimony of Jesus, (3) apostolic
interpretations, (4) Christian literature, (5) Jesus and apostolic tradition, (6) and Christian
canon. 31 This study will focus on the ways in which the Christian canon legitimates and

28

The following survey of Christological formulations is not meant to be exhaustive. A more thorough
study would need to consider the Christology of each New Testament writer (as well as each individual text) which
would be much too extensive for the present purposes. See Charles H. Talbert, The Development of Christology
During the First Hundred Years and Other Essays on Early Christian Christology (Leiden: Brill, 2011); James D.
G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (3rd ed.;
London: SCM Press, 2006).
29

Wright, New Testament, 22432.

30

Berger and Luckmann, 88.

31

Metzger, 28. Two other structures could possibly be added to this list: apostolic succession and the Rule
of Faith. See W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 24550.

9
maintains worldview. Now that a base form Christian identity has set forth, attention can now be
given to the ways in which the Antiochene Christians maintained this identity through the use of
authoritative scriptures.
The process of canonizing a collection of historical texts is essential for maintaining
identity for present identity must have a connection to the past. Without some form of continuity
with history, identity has little-to-no meaning in society. 32 First century Christians utilized the
Hebrew Scriptures to validate their claims that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the use of
scriptures is recognized today as one of the phenomenal qualities of early Christianity. Averil
Cameron has rightly remarked, But if there was ever a case of the construction of reality
through text, such a case is provided by early Christianity. 33 Later generations of Christians
would likewise need to establish a canon to legitimate their own identity within the ongoing
development of Christian history. To this we turn to the church of Antioch.

Antiochene Christianity
In this section, the Christology and canon of four selective church fathers from the church of
Antioch will be analyzed. The fathers were selected based upon two criteria: (1) the availability
of their Christology and canon and (2) their role as representatives of Christianity within their
respective generation. One church father from each century up to John Chrysostom in 407 CE

32

Judith Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006), 6263.
33

A. Cameron, Christianity and Rhetoric of the Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. (SCL
45; Berkeley: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 21.

10
was chosen: Ignatius of Antioch (110), Theophilus of Antioch (bishop from 16981), Paul of
Samosata (20075), and John Chrysostom (349407).34

Ignatius
Christology was important to Ignatius. He frequently espoused the reality of the Jesus humanity
(see Trall. 9 and Smyrn. 13), recognized Jesus as , and even referred to him as
(Eph. 18.2; see also Eph. 19.2). He placed the incarnation of Jesus at the time of his conception
(Eph. 18.2). Though Jesus did not exist prior to his conception, he was eternal as the embodiment
of Gods preexistent (Magn. 7.2). Ignatiuss followed typical Jewish depictions.
The accompanied God at the dawn of creation (Magn. 6.1), was the expression of God
(Eph. 3.3), and came from God before returning to him (Magn. 7.2). As Gods Jesus was
the agent through whom God revealed himself to humanity (Magn. 8.2).
Michael Holmes considers it unlikely that Ignatius utilized the Gospel of John. 35 He
admits that Eph. 14.2 could parallel 1 John but remains doubtful. 36 The only gospel that Ignatius
seems to have had recognized was the Gospel of Matthew. Ignatius also appears to have
possessed a keen awareness of nine Pauline epistles: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, and 1 and 2 Timothy. Bruce Metzger
proposes a possible connection between Eph. 5.3 and 1 Peter 5:5, but such a connection is

34

The author recognizes that both Ignatius and Theophilus belong to the same century. But given that
Ignatius is recognized as the first bishop of Antioch, he death might have occurred as early as the first decade of the
second century, and the probably sixty to seventy year chronological gap between him and Theophilus, the author
maintains his categories.
35

Holmes., 174. Cf. Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient
Christianity (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1:345.
36

See Holmes, 174. Cf. Metzger, 47.

11
weakened, however, by considering that the statement derives from Proverbs 3:34 not 1 Peter
5:5. If a case were to be made that Ignatius recognized 1 Peter based on this passage, a similar
case would need to be made for James 4:6 which Metzger fails to do.

Theophilus
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch from 16981 CE, portrays a more extensive awareness of the
New Testament writings than Ignatius. Very little is known about. His only autobiographical
reference must be inferred from Ad Autolycum 3.27.3, 6 where his chronicle of the world
concludes with the death of Marcus Aurelius Verus in 108 CE. As obscure as he was, Theophilus
was regarded as orthodox by Lactanius (Inst. I 23), Eusebius (Hist.eccl. 4.20, 24), and Jerome
(Vir. ill, 25).
One aspect of Theophiluss Ad Autolycum that continues to baffle readers is the absence
of any reference to Jesus. Theophilus speaks frequently of the . But by not mentioning
Jesus, he effectively disassociates the from the physical person of Jesus. The is
capable of manifesting himself, however, as it did to Adam, Moses, and the prophets of the Old
Testament (Autol. II 10). In a matter similar to Isa 55:11, the was sent into the world to
fulfill the will of God (II 5, 22). The assisted God in the creation of the world (II 18), was
the light of the world (II 13), and served as the reason and wisdom of God (II 22).
Theophilus made substantial use of the New Testament and offers modern researchers the
earliest attestation to a New Testament canon at Antioch.37 The value of New Testament texts for
Theophilus can be recognized by his association of them with the Hebrew Scriptures. He
compares Matthew, Luke, and John to the Old Testament prophets (III 14). He speaks of 1 Tim

37

Robert McQueen Grant, The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch, JBL 66.2 (1947): 181.

12
2:12, Titus 3:1, and Rom 13:78 as .38 In Ad Autolycum III 13 the Gospel of
Matthew is referred to as . He also speaks of John as one of
(II 22). Theophilus also shows a familiarity with at least nine Pauline
epistles: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and the three Pastoral
Epistles. Theophilus does not refer to Hebrews, James, 1 or 2 Peter.39 He also does not refer to
the Johannine epistles or the book of Revelation though Eusebius insists that Theophilus used
Revelation when refuting Hermogenes (Hist. eccl. 4.26.1).

Paul of Samosata
Paul of Samosata was a controversial figure who served as bishop from 26068 CE. Unlike
Ignatius or Theophilus, Paul has no extant writings. What can be known about Paul is uncertain
due to the negative depiction that Paul received by later Christians. He along with his followers
was deemed heretical by later church fathers.
The controversial elements of Pauls Christology centered around three foci: (1)
Christological pre-existence, (2) the nature of Christs divinity, and (3) the insistence on Jesus as
a human prophet.40 Athanasius contended that Paul refused to regard the Christ as preexistent.41
Paul believed that any claim to eternality on the part of Jesus would be an affront to the divinity
of God.42 Consequently, Paul did not consider Jesus to be divine. 43 Paul was willing to admit that

38

Ibid., 183.

39

Ibid., 18485.

40

Sample, Robert Lynn. The Messiah as Prophet: The Christology of Paul of Samosata (PhD diss.;
Northwestern University, 1977), 78.
41

Athanasius, Syn. 45.

42

Sample, 78.

13
Christ was preexistent but only in light of Gods foreknowledge without any effect on Christs
divinity. Paul held to a heilsgeschichte view of history whereby Christ was foreknown to be the
figure God intended to redeem humanity. 44
Establishing a canon of texts from such a nebulus figure is certainly fraught with
difficulties. Fortunately, attestations to the theology of Paul and the subsequent Samosatenes
though exaggerated and biased at timesagree with each other at significant points and provide
a possible basis for constructing his canon. Pauls Christology was likely influenced exclusively
by a Lucan depiction of Jesus. Paul understood Jesus to be the eschatological prophet anointed
by God as the Christ. The prophetic overtones of Pauls Christology represent a prominent theme
throughout the Gospel of Luke. 45 The anointing of Jesus was not a claim to divinity but verified
his status as the Messiah. 46 The for Luke, and consequently for Paul of Samosata, was not
a celestial demiurge but rather the prophetic message of God for Israel: Logos, when used in a
technical sense, means the spoken word of God for the evangelist, and is the basis for Jesus
and the early Churchs preaching.47 Pauls adherence to Lucan Christology likely influenced
him to disavow any notion of a divine incarnation. 48

43

See D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 74.
44

Ibid., 8182.

45

See Luke 4:1718; 24:19.

46

Sample, 89.

47

Ibid., 153. After analyzing the quotes and beliefs attributed to Paul of Samosata, Sample convincingly
argues that Pauls Christology was derived from the Gospel of Luke and Acts, At first glance, the biblical
quotations associated with Paul generally seem rather scarce in the more reliable fragments. Yet these few are for
the most part Lucan: Luke 2:52, Acts 10:36, Luke 22:42 and, possibly, Luke 1:32. To bolster the notion that Paul
believed Luke-Acts to be authoritative is the frequent reference to the phrase which does not occur in
Matthew, Mark, or John, but appears ten times throughout Luke-Acts. Other phrases that associate Paul of Samosata

14
But it is not as though Paul did not recognize or even accept or other New Testament
texts. When commenting on John 5:28, John Chrysostom distinguished between his and Paul of
Samosatas translation of the passage (Hom. Jo. 39.3). Outside of Pauls (inferred) Lucan
Christology, and the comments made by Chrysostom, nothing else can be definitively claimed
about Pauls canon. Little can be said concerning Pauls use of the Apostle Paul other than he
likely interpreted the Pauline corpus in light of his adoptionist Christology. 49

John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom was a deacon of Antioch form 381397 CE and archbishop of Constantinople
from 397407 CE. He was a highly influential church leader and preacher. His rhetorical
prowess earned his the nickname Chrysostom which means golden mouth. While serving as
bishop Chrysostom delivered over 700 sermons. 50 He is regarded as one of the four great doctors
of the Eastern church alongside Athanasius, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nazianus.
Johns Christology is aptly stated in Hom. Matt. 1, 6:
But what are these points? Such as follows: that God became man, that he
wrought miracles, that he was crucified, that he was buried, that he rose again,
that he ascended, that he will judge, that he has given commandments tending to
salvation, that he has brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that he

exclusively with Luke-Acts include in Acts 2:23,47 and references to Jesus as the Nazarene (2:22; 3:6;
4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 24:5; 26:9). See Sample, 14859.
48

When discussing the incarnation of the in Johns Gospel, John Chrysostom explains that the
Evangelist John wrote his introduction to deter any Christians (particularly Paul of Samosata) from insisting on the
physical nature of Christ as expressed in the Synoptics. See Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 4.1.
49

50

Sample, 149.

Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen posits a minimum of 900 sermons. Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen,
John Chrysostom (TECF; London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 7.

15
is a Son, that he is only-begotten, that he is a true Son, that he is of the same
substance [] with the Father, and as many things as are like these?51
For Chrysostom the incarnation was the manifestation of Gods or redemptive plan for
humanity. 52 To speak of Jesus as the only-begotten Son is reminiscent of John 1:18. Language
that the Evangelist John ascribed to the has now, in the writings of Chrysostom, been
transferred to the Son or Jesus. Looking at the titles that Chrysostom attributed to Jesus, phrases
such as , Christ, and Son were synonymous.
Chrysostom spoke extensively on the . Chrysostom likened the nature of the
to God to such a degree that not only his nature was identical with Gods but also his temporality
(see Hom. Jo. 4). The incarnation for Chrysostom was the embodiment of the eternal
within humanity. Chrysostom differentiated between the eternal and the incarnated ,
however. The incarnation brought about a change in the nature of the . The incarnated or
enfleshed is the Christ. The distinction between natures was necessary since the
prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures were not fulfilled by the eternal but by the enfleshed
or the Christ. This enfleshed (Jesus) shared the same divine nature as the Father. To
regard Jesus as the same substance as God made Chrysostom the first of the Antiochene
Christians considered in this study to synthesize the nature of Jesus and God.
But Chrysostom went to great lengths to distinguish between the titles attributed to the
God and Jesus so as not to confuse their persons. Both Jesus and God can be referred to as

51

The translation is taken from John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies
and Letters, Homilies on the Statues (W. R. W. Stephens, T. P. Brandram, and R. Blackburn, trans.; vol. 9 of
NPNF1; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995).
52

See, Melvin E. Lawrenze, The Christology of John Chrysostom (Lewiston: Mellen University Press,
1996), 11013.

16
Lord and God but caution must be used to distinguish between the office of God as Father
and Jesus as Son (Inc.5, 90119).
John Chrysostom cites from the New Testament on more than 11,000 occasions.
Chrysostomus Baur relates that Chrysostom cited from the Gospel of Matthew on more than
2,400 occasions, the Gospel of John over 1,300, 1 and 2 Corinthians over 2,100 times, and
Romans over 900.53 Bruce Metzger favors Chrysostomus Baurs assertion that Chrysostom never
cited passages from 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude or Revelationthus making his canon identical
with the Peshitta.54

Conclusion
Given the foregoing information, certain observations can now be made regarding the
development of Christian identity in Antioch. Prior to the fourth century, Antiochene bishops
were relatively consistent in their Christology. Antiochene Christianity recognized Christ as the
fulfillment of Judaism and spoke of Jesus in Jewish symbolic categories. Their Christology was
generally more concerned with the ministry of Jesus than his divinity. For Ignatius, Jesus was the
embodiment of the who exemplified a righteousness that Christians should mimic.
Theophilus did not speak of Jesus but attempted to convert Autolycum by explaining how the
was the only way to know God. Paul of Samosata presented Jesus as the eschatological
prophet of Israels history. John Chrysostom emphasized the divinity of Jesus and the eternality
of the Christ.

53

Chrysostomus Baur, Antioch (Translated by Sr. M. Gonzaga; vol. 1 of John Chrysostom and His Time; 2
vols.; Westminster, Md.: Newman, 195960), 1:316.
54

Metzger, 215.

17
In light of this information, an anomaly is present in both the Christological and
canonical formulation of Antiochene Christianity during the third century. Antiochene identity
was developmentally consistent until the time of Paul of Samosata and John Chrysostom.
Ignatius and Theophilus possessed essentially the same canon (see Appendix 1) while
complementing each others Christology. Paul seemingly disavowed their logology (theology of
the ) as well as their canon of texts. John Chrysostom advocated Christological
terminology not espoused by Ignatius or Theophilus. At the same time Chrysostom utilized
several of the General Epistles unmentioned by his predecessors. Based on this analysis, the
identity of Antiochene Christianity underwent a series of developments beginning in the third
that would alter the subjective reality of Antiochene Christianity. But in order to better
understand the nature of the phenomena that occurred in the Antiochene church, the Christology
and canon of another, contemporary Christian community will need to be analyzed.

Alexandrian Christians
To better determine whether or not the Christological and canonical development of Antioch was
unique to that community, a second sampling of Christians will be examined. Alexandria is the
best candidate for comparison due to epigraphic, geographic, and economic purposes. From
Alexandria: Basilides and Valentinianism (second century), Clement of Alexandria (150215),
Origen of Caesarea (184254), and finally Athanasius (296373).

Valentinianism
The first accounts of Christianity in Egypt accessible to modern scholars was condemned by later
Alexandrian Christians. The earliest attested Christian theologian was Basilides who wrote a no
longer extant twenty-four book during the third decade of the second century. While little can be

18
known about Basilides,Valentinianism was a popular movement during the second century.
Valentinus was an Egyptian Christian who moved to Rome to establish a church around 140165
CE. He was a popular figure and Rome nearly ordained him as the Roman bishop. Like
Basilides, no writings from Valentinus are currently available. Thankfully, Irenaeus is believe to
have faithfully represented Valentinian thought in Adv. Haer. 1.1.18.5. Note, however, the
teachings in Irenaeus are not Valentenian in the sense that they are derived from Valentinus
but rather Ptolemy, a devout follower of Valentinus.
According to Ptolemy (Irenaeus) God created thirty aeons. Only one of the aeons, Mind,
was able to comprehend the Father. Another of the aeons, however, sought out to comprehend
the Father. Wisdom would have been destroyed in her pursuit if she had not been stopped by the
Limit or the Cross. In her pursuit of the Father Wisdom gave birth to a form of reasoning about
the Father. But since Wisdom had not truly comprehended the Father, the offspring of Wisdom
or Achamoth (derived from the Hebrew ) was imperfect. Mind corrected Wisdoms folly
by begetting two other forms of reasoning known as Christ and the Holy Spirit.55 Christ taught
the aeons that the Father was incomprehensible and the Holy Spirit unified them. The aeons had
been harmonized to such an extent that they synthesized their qualities into a single entity
Jesus.56 Christ then gave Achamoth an opportunity to repent and, after doing so, became a
demiurge. Unfortunately, Achamoth mistakenly depicted itself as the Father to the Israelites.
When Achamoth breathed life into humanity, the spiritual aspect of the aeons also implanted
itself into humanity as a soul. Humans were formed from three qualities: (1) physical body, (2)

55

Valentinianism depicted the Christ as an aeon which differed from the designations made by other
Alexandrian fathers. Nevertheless, Valentinianism described these aeons as with God.
56

Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.25.

19
spiritual body (or soul), and (3) material body. Since the soul contained elements of the Divine,
the Christ was able to appear as an immaterial physical body in order to instruct humanity on the
proper understanding of the Father. 57
While the canon of Basilides is not known, Ptolemys canon can be reasonably
reconstructed. Ptolemys canon of New Testament texts likely included Matthew, Romans, 1
Corinthians, Ephesians, and John. In addition, Bruce Metzger contends that the Valentenians
recognized Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians,
Revelation, traces of Acts, 1 John, and 1 Peter. The Marcosians (who were reportedly
Valentenian) held to a similar canon but seemingly also recognized the gospel of Luke, Mark,
and one or more of Pauls epistles. 58 Two extra-canonical texts are usually linked to the
Valentinians. The Gospel of Truth which was discovered at Nag Hammadi resembles
Valentinian thought and the Marcosians might have utilized the Gospel of Thomas. 59

Clement of Alexandria
The system of Christianity proposed by Valentinus was a synthesis of Christology and Platonic
philosophy. Turning from the heretical strands of Christianity in Alexandria, Clement of
Alexandria offers the first attestation to what would be considered Alexandrian orthodoxy.
Clement continued to advocate for the use of Alexandrian philosophy in Christological

57

For a more detailed description of Valentinian Christology see Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking
Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996),
1418.
58

Metzger, 83.

59

Ibid., 8283.

20
formation. 60 Contrary to Gnostic thinking, however, Clement maintained a positive disposition
toward creation and human free-will.
Clement spoke of the Christ as the manifestation of the :
The Word, then, that is the Christ is the cause both of our being long ago (for He
was in God) and of our well-being. This Word, who alone is both God and man,
the cause of all our good, appeared but lately in His own person to men; from
whom learning how to live rightly on earth, we are brought on our way to eternal
lifeThis is the New Song, namely, the manifestation which has but now shined
forth among us, of Him who was in the beginning, the pre-existent Word. Not
long ago the pre-existent Saviour appeared on earth; He who exists in God
(because the Word was with God) appeared as our teacher; the Word appeared
by whom all things have been created. He who gave us life in the beginning
when as creator He formed us, taught us how to live rightly by appearing as our
teacher, in order that hereafter as God He might supply us with life everlasting.
(Protr. 1 [Butterworth, LCL])
For Clement, a proper logology was essential for Christology. The was the Christ. Other
epithets for the included New Song, Saviour, Son of God, Christ, and Teacher.
Clement does not speak about Jesus as the , but rather the manifestation of the . The
indwelling , or Christ, was preexistent and shared a divinity with God.61
Clements Christology focused primarily upon the Christ as the supreme teacher.62 God is
undiscernable to humanity except through his . As the embodiment of the Jesus was
tasked to reveal to humanity the true knowledge of God (Strom. 4.25).
Clement had an extensive knowledge of ancient writings. Throughout his writings,
Clement cites, 359 classical and other non-Christian writers, 70 Biblical writings (including Old

60

See Oleh Kindiy, Christos Didaskalos: The Christology of Clement of Alexandria (PhD diss., The
Catholic University of America, 2007), 3240.
61

See B. Pade, Logos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Logos-Christologie des Titus Flavius Clemens von
Alexandrien: eine dogmengeschichtliche Studie (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1939), 68171.
62

See also Jesus Echevarria, A Re-Appraisal of Origens Christology in the Light of Modern Scholarship
(MA thesis; Durham University, 1994), 118, 190231.

21
Testament apocrypha), and 36 patristic and New Testament apocryphal writings, including those
of heretics. The total number of citations amounts to about 8,000, more than a third of which
come from pagan writers.63 Regarding his collection New Testament writings, Eusebius
proclaims that Clement recognized all four gospels (Hist. eccl. 6.14.57). His canon likely
represented the early Egyptian text and seemingly included all New Testament texts except
Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. 64

Origen
Much of Origens Christology was a development of his predecessor, Clement. all titles for the
Christ are synonymous. Origen refers to the Son as the (De Princ. 2.6.2; 2.3.2). In this
manner, the Son has subverted the identity of the or Wisdom of God. The Son must be
preexistent since it was the wisdom of God and God could not be without his wisdom (De Princ.
1.2.2). Just as in Valentinianism and Clement of Alexandria, the Son possessed a nature
with God (De Princ. 1.2.4). But while Origen believed that while the Father and the
Son were equal in essence, they were distinct in office. The Son of God was subordinate to the
Father.65
Furthermore, Origen emphasized the divinity of the Son while insisting on the
preexistence of Jesus. Origen associated the eternal soul of Jesus with the divine (De
Princ. 2.6.3). The basis for Origens argument for the preexistence of Jesus was a belief in the
eternality of the soul. Prior to a souls incarnation, they possessed free will. Disobedient souls

63

Metzger,131

64

Ibid., 131.

65

J. Nigel Rowe, Origens Doctrine of Subordination: A Study in Origens Christology (EUS 23, Theology
272; Bern: Peter Lang, 1987).

22
could be condemned by being implanted into misfortunate bodies. Conversely, obedient souls
would be incarnated into blessed bodies. Jesus was qualified to be the Son of God because his
soul was sinless. 66 In this manner, Jesus was the eternally divine . Origen is therefore the
first figure examined to identify Jesus (not the Christ) as the (see De Princ. 1.1.4).
Origens perspective on canonicity likely evolved throughout his lifetime. 67 Eusebius
claims that Origen accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as indisputable texts (Hist. eccl.
6.15.3). Texts that Metzger believes were authoritative for Origen (or at least quoted by him)
include Acts, Romans, all of the Paulines epistles except for 1 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter (though 2
Peter was disputed), the three Johannine epistles (though 2 and 3 John were disputed), and
Revelation. The state of James was uncertain and Hom. on Josh. 7.1 (translated by Rufinus)
Origen held to a canon of twenty-six books excluding Revelation.

Athanasius
The final leader of the Alexandrian church to be considered is Athanasius. Whereas Athanasius
was a forerunner in the / debate, he surprisingly, he did not seem to uphold
many of his predecessors emphases. The was the demiurgical creator of the cosmos who
with the Father. The therefore reveals Gods intended will for humanity. As the
embodiment of the , Jesus offered order, reason, and life to a corruptible world.68

66

See Echevarria, 65.

67

Metzger, 141.

68

See Matthew C. Steenberg, Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius
(London: T & T Clark, 2009), 16869.

23
Athanasius believed that Jesus was the human form of Gods (Ep. Epict. 2). Jesus
was appointed as the not through any merit of his own but in light of his very nature (C.
Gent. 46.78). But whereas the took on a human form, Athanasius rejected any notion that
the became actual flesh (Ep. Epict. 2). The incarnation of the implied the
polymerization of body and soul in the person of Jesus. Jesus did not exist prior to his birth since
his body did not share the same essence as the (Ep. Epict. 2). In this manner, Athanasius
did not believe that Jesus was eternal.
Athanasius was the first church father (known to modern scholars) to testify to a canon of
twenty-seven New Testament books. Athanasiuss list of canonical texts was recorded in his
thirty-ninth Festal letter. Originally these letters were written to provide a date for Easter as well
as other Christian festivals. After giving his list of twenty-seven canonical texts Athanasius
states, These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living
words they contain. In these alone is the teaching of godliness proclaimed. Let no one add to
these; neither let him take ought from them (Ep. fest. 39.6).69

Conclusion
The subjective worldview of Alexandrian Christianity was noticeably constructed in a manner
different from that of Antioch. Prior to the first century, Alexandria had become established as a
center for Platonic philosophy. 70 It should therefore come as no surprise that the Christological
emphasis of the Alexandrian fathers would focus on logology. Another important factor in the

69

This translation is taken from Athanasius, Select Works and Letters (Archibald Robertson et. al., trans.,
vol. 4 of NPNE2;Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.
70

Thomas Benatouil, Philosophical Schools in Hellenistic and Roman Times in A Companion to Ancient
Philosophy (Mary Louise Gill and Pierre Pellegrin, eds.; BCP; Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), 41718.

24
formation of Alexandrian identity was the role that heretical groups. If the existing epigraphic
evidence is a reliable indicator of Alexandrias second century Christianity, heretical groups
were a much greater threat in Alexandria than in Antioch. The theology of orthodox Alexandrian
Christians needed to be able to address heresies as they were encountered. Perhaps this may
account for the emphasis on orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy at Antioch.
Valentinian Christianity utilized cosmological logology to depict the Christ as the savior
of a humanity corrupted by the Jewish worldview. For Clement, Jesus was the embodiment of
the who alone is capable of instructing humanity about the will of the Father. Origen
depicted Jesus as the subversion of the . Athanasius believed that the manifested
itself in Jesus to restore order to a creation corrupted by sin.
The Christologies of each Alexandrian figure may be nuanced in different respects, but
certain elements are prevalent throughout. First, except for the Valentinians, all titles for Christ
were synonymous. The preexistent Christ manifested itself in the physical body of Jesus. Of the
fathers examined, only Origen attempted to prescribe preexistence and divinity to Jesus. For For
all fathers, however, the (or Son, Christ, Lord, etc.) was of the same essence as
with the Father.
Alexandrian Christians evidenced a more extensive canon of New Testament scriptures
than their Antiochene counterparts (see Appendix 2). By the end of the third century all the
church fathers would come to accept the four canonical gospels, all the Pauline (except for
Philemon on the part of Clement), Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude, and Revelation as
authoritative for Christian identity.

25
Conclusion
Now that the Christology and canon of each church father has been analyzed, a statement
might now be made about the alteration of Christian identity in Antioch during the third century.
The Christologies of Antioch and Alexandria were quite distinct from one another. Prior to the
time of Paul of Samosata, the Antiochene fathers (at least the ones that were examined) had little
interest in discussing the relationship between the and God. They concentrated more on
the role of the . If the data examined in this paper is correct, Ignatius as well as Theophilus
would have likely agreed that the was God and that Jesus was the incarnation of the .
But neither father was concerned with the extent to which the was divine. The situation is
different in Alexandria, however, where the was unanimously accepted as with
God.
The doctrines for which Paul of Samosata was condemned might shine light on the
subjective reality of not only his Christology but that of his opponents. Paul of Samosata was
condemned because he did recognize the preexistence of the Christ, the of the ,
and rejected that Jesus was divine. Those who condemned him would have assuredly avowed
these doctrines. But prior to the third century, none of these claims were components of
Antiochene Christianity. Ignatius nor Theophilus testified to the preexistence of the Christ,
professed that the was divine, or depicted Jesus as with the Father.
Perhaps Pauls Christology did not seek to disavow the Christian subjective reality, but
rather the Alexandrian worldview of Christianity. Alexandrian Christians synthesized the
Christian titles for Jesus. Paul likely did not consider the Christ to be preexistent because, at least
for Paul, the Christ was not the same of the . Also, Clement affirmed that the was

26
with God. Origen then extended this claim to Jesus.71 Antiochene Christians (and
perhaps even Paul) believed that the , not Jesus, was divine. Therefore the opponents to
Pauls Christology might have been influenced by Alexandrian Christology. Wallace-Hadrill
contends that Paul was primarily condemned by a group of Origenists. 72 Though he does not
substantiate his claim, his assertion seems reasonable since the obverse of Pauls Christology is
Origens.
As Antioch and Alexandria continued to interact, they would have further influenced the
Christology of each other. Miletius, who was Chrysostoms teacher, accepted Arianism at the
time he came to Antioch. Only after his arrival in Antioch did he reject it. By the time
Chrysostom began his ministry in 381 CE, his Christology had become influenced by the
proceedings of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE so much so that he now affirmed the eternality of
the Christ, the of the Son with the Father, and the divinity of Jesus. The subjective
reality of Antiochene Christianity had been subverted by its Alexandrian counterpart.

CONCLUSION

The present study has sought to determine whether or not canon played a role in the formation of
Christian identity in Antioch. After briefly proposing the identity of Christianity within the first
century, the Christologies and canons of Ignatius, Theophilus, Paul of Samosata, and John
Chrysostom were outlined. To determine whether or not the formation of identity at Antioch was

71

This does not imply that the Alexandrian fathers were the only Christians to advocate this perspective.
They were simply the only ones considered in this study.
72

Wallace-Hadrill, 70.

27
exclusive to that setting, four additional figures from Antioch were discussed: Valentinianism,
Clement, Origen, and Athanasius.
The hypothesis was that the identity of Antiochene Christianity correlates with the New
Testament texts they accepted as canonical. The most distinguishing factor for Christian identity
was Christology. Therefore, the Christology of each father was compared to their identity. In
conclusion, the hypothesis can be affirmed both positively and negatively; affirmed in the sense
that the church fathers examined in this paper (1) utilized the New Testament to legitimate their
worldview, (2) formed their Christology by emphasizing certain text over others. In both
instances, however, the subjective reality is the most important factor.
Generally the canon was utilized to supplement an already existing worldview.
Accounting for their theology, the canon of New Testament texts recognized by the Valentinians
was not significantly different from that of Clement or Ignatius. Therefore differences in
Christology cannot always result from adhering to a particular canon of scripture since the
Valentinians known texts do not support their cosmological speculations. Moreover, the
differences in identity between Antiochene and Alexandrian Christians are better explained as
differences worldview and not canon. The difference is emphasis in interpretation.
In Hom. Jo. 4.1John Chrysostom criticized Paul for basing his Christology on the
Synoptic traditions to the exclusion of Johns gospel. But it would be unreasonable to assume
that Paul did not recognize other canonical works given the history of the Gospel of Matthew and
the Pauline epistles among the Antiochene Church. Moreover, Chrysostom states that Paul
translated Johns gospel. But Paul's canon was more likely a reflection of his worldview. He
recognized other texts as belonging to the canon of Christian literature, but did not believe they
were binding for Christology. By doing so, however, his Christology threatened the subjective

28
reality of other Christians by disavowing their plausibility structures. Christology and canon
thereby constructed in conjunction with worldview
The research could benefit by further examining the number of scripture references used
to validate a particular church fathers Christology. If Paul of Samosata accepted a Christology
of Luke-Acts, could a similar case be made with Clement, Origen, or John Chrysostom? Could
their Christology have derived from a particular to the exclusion of other New Testament
writers? Another interesting project would be to compare Paul of Samosata and Marcions
Christology since both figures used the Gospel of Luke as their primary text. Finally, if the
Antiochene fathers recognized a form of canon commensurate with an early form of the Peshitta,
a thorough analysis of the Peshitta could perhaps assist in better understanding their Christology.
To return to Ballas statement from the beginning of this paper. Ancient communities
could have written texts in order to express their identity, but their writings might not have
necessarily been considered canonical (i.e. Would any of the church fathers analyzed in this
study believe their writings were canonical?). Moreover, the reception of a particular canon of
scripture did not always distinguish groups in antiquity, especially when the canon was fully
established. Paul of Samosata was criticized for his Christology, not his canon. After all,
worldviews can be more easily recognized than plausibility structures. Two groups or individuals
might possess the same worldview but have different canons (Clement and Origen). So canon
need not always testify to how ingroup members differed from each other. Certain Christians
might have perceived of their in-group differently based on their canonical texts, but throughout
history denominations with different canons have still been known as Christian. A noticeable
exception, however, is when member attempt to base their identity off a set of texts subsequent

29
to the development of an already authorized canon of scriptures. So if Ballas statement was to
be evaluated based on the evidence from this study, the response would be yes and no.

APPENDIX 1
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON OF IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, THEOPHILUS OF
ANTIOCH, PAUL OF SAMOSATA, AND JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

Ignatius
Matthew

Romans
1 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy

Theophilus
Matthew

Paul of Samosata

Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians

Luke
(John)
Acts

Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians

1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus

John Chrysostom
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
1 John

(Revelation)

30

APPENDIX 2
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON OF THE VALENTINIANS, CLEMENT OF
ALEXANDRIA, ORIGEN, AND ATHENASIUS

Valentinians
Matthew
Luke (Marcosians)

(Acts)
Romans
1 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Colossians

Clement of
Alexandria
Matthew
Mark
Luke

Origen

Athenasius

Matthew
Mark
Luke

Matthew
Mark
Luke

John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians

John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians

John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus

2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
(James)
1 Peter
(2 Peter)
1 John
(2 John)
(3 John)
Jude
Revelation

2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

Hebrews
(1 Peter)

1 Peter

(1 John)

1 John

Revelation

Jude
Revelation

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Edward. Pauls Story of God and Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes
in Creation Pages 1943 in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Edited
by Bruce W. Longenecker. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Athanasius. Select Works and Letters. Translated by Archibald Robertson. Vol. 4 of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers2. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.
Ayres, Lewis. Athanasius Initial Defense of the Term homoousios: Rereading the De
Decretis. Journal of Early Christian Studies 12.3 (2004):337359.
Baker, Coleman A. Early Christian Identity Formation: From Ethnicity and Theology to SocioNarrative Criticism. Currents in Biblical Research 9.2 (2011): 22837.
__________. Social Identity Theory and Biblical Interpretation. Biblical Theology Bulletin
42.3 (2012): 12938.
Barnard, L. W. Origens Christology and Eschatology. Anglican Theological Review 46
(1964): 21319.
Baur, Chrysostomus. Antioch. Translated by Sr. M. Gonzaga. Vol. 1 of John Chrysostom and
His Time. 2 vols. Westminster, Md.: Newman, 195960.
Becker, Jurgen. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Random House, 1966.
Benatouil, Thomas. Philosophical Schools in Hellenistic and Roman Times Pages 41529 in A
Companion to Ancient Philosophy. Edited by Mary Louise Gill and Pierre Pellegrin.
Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.
Brown, Raymond E. and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic
Chrisianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Brown, Raymond E. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press, 1984.
Cameron, A. Christianity and Rhetoric of the Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse.
Sather Classical Lectures 45. Berkeley: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Campbell, Williams S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

32

33
Chadwick, Henry and J. E. L. Oulton, ed. Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translation of
Clement and Origen. The Library of Christian Classics. London: SCM Press, 1954.
Clement of Alexandria. Stromateis 13. Translated by J. Ferguson. Fathers of the Church 85.
Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1991.
__________. The Exhortation to the Greeks. Translated by G. W. Butterworth. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. Can Converts to Judaism Say God of Our Fathers? Judaism 40.4 (1991):
41928.
Davies, W. D. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine.
Berkely: University of California Press, 1974.
de Wet, Chris L. Identity-Formation and Alterity in John Chrysostoms In Epistulam ad
Galatas Commentarius. Acta Theologica: Supplement Series 19 (2014): 1841.
Drobner, Hubertus R. The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction. Translated by
Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the
Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
__________. The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:1118). Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 18 (1983): 357.
__________. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of
Earliest Christianity. 3rd ed. London: SCM Press, 2006.
Echevarria, Jesus. A Re-Appraisal of Origens Christology in the Light of Modern
Scholarship. MA thesis, Durham University, 1994.
Elliot, John H. The Jewish Messianic Movement from Faction to Sect. Pages 7191 in
Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in its
Context. Edited by Philip F. Esler; London and New York: Routledge, 1995.
Estel, B. Identitat. Pages 193210 in Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe.
Edited by Gunter Kehrer, et al. 5 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988.
Eusebius Pamphilius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated and edited by Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L.
Oulton. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932.
Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

34

__________. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Eugene: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2002.
Gibson, Jack J. Peter Between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James, and the Gentiles.
Wissenchaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 345. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2013.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. 1 of The Story of
Christianity. Revised and Updated. New York: Harper Collins, 2010.
Grant, Robert McQueen. The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch. Journal of Biblical Literature
66.2 (1947): 17396.
__________. The Textual Tradition of Theophilus of Antioch. Vigiliae Christianae 6.3 (1952):
14659.
Gwynn, David M. Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic Father. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012.
Hartney, Aideen M. John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City. London: Duckworth,
2004.
Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A
Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. New York: Harper Collins, 1996.
Hill, C. E. Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
Holliday, Lisa R. Origen of Caesarea: Creating Christian Identity in the Third Century. PhD
diss., University of Kentucky, 2006.
Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
Jeffers, James S. Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Jefford, Clayton N. The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006.
Jenkins, Richard. Social Identity. 3rd ed. Routledge: London, 2008.
__________. Rethinking Ethnicity. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.
Jerome. De viris inlustribus. Edited by Ernest Cushing Richardson. Texte und Untersuchungen
14.1 Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1896.

35

Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

John Chrysostom. On the Incomprehensible Nature of God. Translated by Paul W. Harkins.
Fathers of the Church 72. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984.
__________. Homiliae in Matthaevm. Edited by Jacques Paul Migne. Patrologiae cursus
completus: Series graeca 57. Paris, 1862.
__________. On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the
Statues. Translated by W. R. W. Stephens, T. P. Brandram, and R. Blackburn. Vol. 9 of
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers1. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.
Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the
Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis 1: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. 2
vols. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Kindiy, Oleh. Christos Didaskalos: The Christology of Clement of Alexandria. PhD diss., The
Catholic University of America, 2007.
Krupp, R. A. Saint John Chrysostom: A Scripture Index. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America, 1984.
Lactanius. The Divine Institutes. Translated by W. Fletcher. Ante-Nicene Fathers 7. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1995.
Lawrenze, Melvin E. The Christology of John Chrysostom. Lewiston: Mellen University Press,
1996.
Laurence, Ray and Joanne Berry, ed. Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge,
1998.
Lieu, Judith M. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Greco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006.
__________. Neither Jew nor Greek: Constructing Early Christianity. London: T & T Clark,
2002.
Madden, N. An Aspect of Origen's Christology. Pages 2336 in Studies in Patristic
Christology. Edited by Thomas Finan and Vincent Twomey. Dublin: Four Courts, 1998.
Malaty, Tadros Y. Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church. Alexandria, Egypt: St. Georges
Coptic Orthodox Church, 1993.

36
Matak, Dragutin. Kairos. Another Look at the Antioch Incident (Gal 2:1114). Kairos:
Evangelical Journal of Theology 6.1 (2012): 4959.
Maxwell, Jaclyn L. Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom
and His Congregation in Antioch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Mayer, Wendy and Pauline Allen. John Chrysostom. The Early Church Fathers. London:
Routledge, 1999.
McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Rev. and exp. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1995.
McGuckin, John Anthony. The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology. The Westminster
Handbooks to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Miles, Richard. Introduction: Constructing Identity in Late Antiquity. Pages 115 in
Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity. Edited by Richard Miles. London: Routledge,
1999.
Mullen, Roderic L. The Expansion of Christianity: A Gazetteer of its First Three Centuries.
Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 69. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Origen. Homilies on Luke. Fathers of the Church 94. Edited by Max Rauer. Translated by Joseph
T. Lienhard. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996.
__________. On First Principles. Translated by G. W. Butterworth. Goucester, Mass.: Peter
Smith, 1973.
Pade, B. Logos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Logos-Christologie des Titus Flavius Clemens von
Alexandrien: eine dogmengeschichtliche Studie. Rome: Pontificia Universitas
Gregoriana, 1939.
Quasten, Johannes. The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to
the Council of Chalcedon. Vol. 3 of Patrology. 4 vols. Allen, TX: Christian Classics,
1983.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses. New
York: The Free Press, 1965.
Reeve, John Warren. The Theological Anthropology of Theophilus of Antioch: Immortality and
Resurrection in the Context of Judgment. PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2010.
Robertson, A. St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1892.

37

Rogers, Rick. Salvation by Law: The Protreptic Theology of Ad Autolycum. PhD diss.,
University of Michigan, 1996.
__________. Theophilus of Antioch: The Life and Thought of a Second-Century Bishop.
Lanham: Lexington Books, 2000.
Rowe, J Nigel. Origens Doctrine of Subordination: A Study in Origens Christology. European
University Studies 23, Theology 272. Bern: Peter Lang, 1987.
Runesson, Anders. Inventing Christian Identity: Paul, Ignatius, and Theodosius. Pages 5992
in Exploring Early Christian Identity. Edited by Bengt Holmberg. Wissemschaftlich
Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 226. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Rufinus.
Sample, Robert Lynn. The Messiah as Prophet: The Christology of Paul of Samosata. PhD
diss., Northwestern University, 1977.
Sandwell, Isabella. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Schnelle, Udo. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2007.
Schoedel, William R. Ignatius of Antioch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Shauls, David Paul. Galatians and Social Identity Theory. PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate
University, 2011.
Slee, Michelle. The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE. Journal for the Study of the New
Testament: Supplemental Series. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Sparks, Kenton L. Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic
Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns,
1998.
Steenberg, Matthew C. Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to
Athanasius. London: T & T Clark, 2009.
Tabor, James D. The Theology of Redemption in Theophilus of Antioch. Restoration
Quarterly 18.3 (1975): 15971.
Taylor, Nicholas. Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in
Earliest Christianity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

38
Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Edited and Translated by Robert Grant. Oxford, 1970.
Tuckman, Bruce W. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin 63.6
(1965): 38499.
Von Campenhausen, Hans. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Translated by J. A. Baker.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.
Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Williams, D. H. Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious
Protestants. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious
Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. A History of the First Christians. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
__________. The Reasons for Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
__________. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of
God 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Yoon, David I. The Antioch Incident and a Textual Variant: or in
Galatians 2:12. Expository Times 125.9 (2014): 43239.
Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to
the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London and New York: Routledge,
2003.