stephan huller

Everyone seems to think that Gaius of Rome was a third century Church Father because Hippolytus wrote an account against his rejection of the Gospel of John. But there are a number of reasons to doubt this assertion:

1. Origen wrote against Celsus of Rome in the middle of the third century even though Celsus's work was actually written c. 177 CE. Patristic responses to original material were often delayed (Tertullian's Against Marcion is another example, Against Hermogenes etc.).
2. It wasn't just Hippolytus who is said to have written against Gaius but Irenaeus too.
3. The Martyrdom of Polycarp might be argued to have referenced Gaius as a contemporary of Irenaeus "This account Gaius copied from the papers of Irenaeus."

Yet most compelling of all is the argument which emerges from Hippolytus's refutation of Gaius that Gaius was appointed 'bishop of the Gentiles' (AR. 32. a); for Hippolytus in the Refutation speaks of himself as holding the episcopal office (AR 1) and addresses the Gentiles more than once as though they were his special charge. Is this a reference to a period when there were two Churches in Rome - one for the 'Jews' (i.e. Jewish Christians) and the other for the Gentiles roughly corresponding to the two heads of the Church (Peter AND Paul) witnessed in the hypomnemata ascribed to Hegesippus and borrowed by Irenaeus (AH 3.3.2)? It is hard to say but I generally think the dating of Gaius is too late. I would prefer a date of 155 - 180 CE for him. This is just a hunch but I have been thinking about this for a while.

andrewcriddle

Eusebius explicitly dates Gaius (Caius) as writing his refutation of Proclus while Zephyrinus was Pope c 198-217. It is unclear what evidence Eusebius had for this date.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Yes you are right about that. Eusebius does say that. The question I guess is what did Hippolytus mean when he addresses Gaius as 'the bishop of the Gentiles.' It's a very strange title. Could Gaius have been a disciple of Irenaeus and lived to write at the time of Zephyrinus? Yes certainly. Could Gaius of Rome have been the Gaius of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Yes certainly. Yet the dangerous question is why Gaius is referenced as a 'bishop' if he is consistently identified as being 'of Rome'? Could Gaius have been an ultimately displaced bishop of Rome? Just look again at all the names of the Popes in the period - they don't sound like real names. We already went through that at another thread. But Gaius was a bishop and he was 'of Rome' and the name 'Gaius' seems far more historical name than 'Soter' or 'Eleutherius' or 'Anicetus.' We already have the idea that Hippolytus was a Novatian 'shadow Pope' in the third century. Was Gaius a deposed bishop of Rome from the latter half of the second century? What does it mean that he was 'bishop of the Gentiles'? I keep looking at the strange double founding of the Roman Church in various traditions (but most notably the hypomnemata of Hegesippus) - viz. Peter and Paul - and wonder was Gaius somehow connected ONLY with the Pauline Church in Rome and does that date him to a period before Irenaeus, the hypomnemata and the claim that Peter and Paul were reconciled and jointly found the Roman See.

stephan huller

An interesting point made by Lightfoot:

Caius is simply an interlocutor in a dialogue against the Montanists written by Hippolytus. By this person, who takes the orthodox side in the discussion, Hippolytus may have intended himself, or he may have invented an imaginary character for dramatic purposes. In other words, such a dialogue may really have taken place, or the narrative may be fictitious from beginning to end. In the former case, we may suppose that Caius was his own praenomen ; for then he he would naturally so style himself in the dialogue, just as Cicero appears under the name of Marcus in his own writings.

I am not asking anyone to follow Lightfoot's lead with regards to Hippolytus have the praenomen Caius but rather that Zephyrinus or some other bishop might well have written using his other name.

It is worth also citing Photius citation of a parallel (but slightly different) report to that of Eusebius "'This Caius, is reported to have been a presbyter of the church in Rome during the pontificate of Victor and Zephyrinus and to have been ordained bishop of the Gentiles.'

Could Gaius have been Callixtus's praenomen?

andrewcriddle

Does Hippolytus claim that Gaius was 'bishop of the Gentiles' . Photius, as you note, makes this claim but is it based on Hippolytus ?

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Andrew, I actually worked that out last night. I think that Photius wrongly attributed the title to Gaius when it actually applied to Hippolytus. He was following a marginal note. Nevertheless though it still is a curious reference even if it applies to Hippolytus given that he was Pope at the same time as Callixtus was explicitly identified as the representative of St. Peter by Tertullian.