Theophilus of Alexandria and the First Origenist Controversy: Rhetoric and Power by Krastu Banev (review)

Theophilus of Alexandria ranks as one of the most despised figures from the patristic era. He represents for many the creeping shadow of episcopal heavy-handedness, demonstrated by his persecution of the Origenist monks and his deposition of John Chrysostom. Rarely does he receive a sympathetic hearing or a word of appreciation for his episcopal and theological accomplishments.

Recently, however, studies have emerged that push back against this entirely adverse reading of Theophilus. Placing a set of Theophilus’s texts into English for the first time (2007), Norman Russell expressed his hope that Theophilus might at least inspire respect if not affection. In this study of Theophilus and the Origenist Controversy, Krastu Banev credits Russell with breaking open a new view of Theophilus and consciously builds upon Russell’s work by examining the rhetorical and monastic contexts within which Theophilus operated.

Banev’s central question is this: Why did Theophilus succeed in bringing about the condemnation of Origen? If he was simply exercising raw power in a blatantly unjust way, as many argue, why were so many in his day persuaded by his efforts? Banev agrees with the contemporary scholarly consensus that most (though not all) of the criticisms leveled against Origen by Theophilus were inaccurate. Why then was Theophilus so effective? In answer, Banev appeals to the power of Theophilus’s rhetoric delivered in the context of the monastic ideals of the day.

The core of this study is a review of classical rhetoric followed by an analysis of how Theophilus effectively employed the rhetorical conventions of his day to make his case. Banev points to three major sources that shaped fourth-century rhetorical training: Aristotle, the progymnasmata tradition, and the Hermogenic corpus. Banev then shows how Theophilus, following the conventions of Aristotle, effectively employed pathos, ethos, and logos to discredit Origen both morally and theologically.

The context for this rhetorical display is crucial to Banev’s argument. He persuasively shows that Theophilus’s concerns were not just manufactured to gain political ends but were real and pressing, “propelled by genuine pastoral and theological concerns” (23). Through a review of Evagrius’s teaching, Banev finds a “high degree of similarity between the views rejected by Theophilus and those endorsed by Evagrius” (25), and concludes that “the theses condemned by Theophilus are clearly related to a set of ideas current in the Egyptian desert at the time” (26). To summarize the argument: Theophilus had genuine cause to be concerned about teaching current in the Egyptian desert that was explicitly based on the writings of Origen, and he marshaled his considerable rhetorical skill to make the case for condemning this teaching (and the magister from whom it sprang).

In a move that turns the tables on common assessments of the first Origenist Controversy, Banev claims that the monks wielded as much influence on Theophilus as he did on them. While Theophilus may have effectively used the monks to further his position politically and theologically, Banev claims that Theophilus achieved his aims by being attentive to monastic values and ideals, especially concerns for obedience and the proper practice of liturgy and prayer. By adopting monastic wisdom and practice to enhance his anti-Origenist polemic, Theophilus was in turn deeply shaped by the monks: “The exchange went both ways” (195). In the end, even if Theophilus was the master in the short run, Banev concludes that “the intellectual victory” belonged to the monks (196).

Banev makes a persuasive argument for understanding Theophilus and the Origenist Controversy in a new light. He claims that Theophilus gave attention to historical considerations to the degree that these were rhetorically necessary but that the condemnation of Origen “was used not for the sake of historical objectivity but to secure peace in Theophilus’ own community” (196). In Banev’s reading, “Theophilus, like all his contemporaries, would have been totally unacquainted with the modern notion of ‘objective’ and ‘fair’ representation” (196). Rejecting “the kind of cultural...