Ben C Smith

For anybody who can assist....

What are our (ancient) sources for the datum that Gaius, presbyter of Rome, attacked the fourth gospel and the apocalypse of John?

Thanks.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

I wouldn't call a "datum," but a combination of different data (name, office, city, object(s) of attack). No single source combines all those details in one place. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by coordinating different ancient and medieval sources, including: Irenaeus, AH 3.11.9; Eusebius, HE 6.20.1-3 and 7.25.2; Epiphanius, Pan 51; Photius, Bibl; and Dionysius bar Salibi, In Apoc at Rev 8:8, 12, 9:2-3, 15, and 20:2-3.

These sources are collected, quoted, discussed, and criticized by Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: University Press, 2004), 172-204. NB: Hill was fairly skeptical of the current historical reconstruction about Gaius and points out some problems but, in my opinion, they are not significant.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Well, no wonder I was coming up empty in my secondary sources....

One supplementary question for you: Streeter (I think) mentions Hippolytus in connection with Gaius. Do we know for certain that Hippolytus responded to Gaius? Or is that a deduction from the title of a book defending the gospel and apocalypse listed on his statue?

Incidentally, one of my secondary sources for Gaius was Hengel, The Johannine Question. Thanks for the tip! I find in Hengel a constant reminder of just how little I know about patristic history and gospel origins, and how much more there is to learn.

(BTW, any chance you could just briefly summarize any modifications made to his thesis by Bauckham?)

Another book recommendation.... I shall try to find it.

Toto

Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: University Press, 2004), 172-204.

At that price, you might want to find a library copy, but you can search it on Amazon - put "Gaius" in the search and you will probably find what you need.

Ben C Smith

Indeed!

Yes, I meant to use interlibrary loan all along.

Thanks, Toto. I had never phrase-searched an Amazon book before. I like it.

S.C.Carlson

It was Dionysius bar Salibi who provides the information that Hippolytus wrote a refuation of Gaius. Hill cites the following for the seminal treatment of this piece to the puzzle: John Gwynn, "Hippolytus and his 'Heads against Caius'," Hermathena 6 (1888): 397-418.

Hengel got a little too cute and tried to make the case that the beloved disciple was deliberately enigmatic, designed to suggest both John the Elder and John of Zebedee. Bauckham thought this aspect was unnecessarily complicated and appeared more motivated to preserve a remnant of the post-second century traditional ascription of authorship than account for the features of the text.

It is rather pricey.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

And on page 130 he himself says of this little idea: "This hypothesis may sound fantastic." To which, as I was reading, I found myself silently mouthing: "Sure does."

Thanks for the info.

Ben C Smith

I got hold of this book yesterday via interlibrary loan (not personal purchase!) and have read up through the chapter on Gaius. You opine, Stephen, that the objections raised against the usual reconstruction are insignificant. Does it appear to you that Hill is underestimating the extent to which later churchmen, like ecumenical Eusebius, might have glossed over the late second-century conflict over the fourth gospel (especially if it indeed involved a high-ranking Roman church officer)?

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Many thanks for these details, Stephen.

I find from Sebastian Brock, A brief outline of Syriac literature,Moran Etho 9, Kottayam (1997), that Dionysius (or Jacob) Bar Salibi (aka Dionysius Syrus) died in 1197 AD, and was a monophysite author. From W. Wright, A short history of Syriac Literature (A&C Black, 1894, reprint. Gorgias 2001) I learn that copious extracts from his commentary on the NT were translated in to Latin; there are, in fact, English translations of portions of the commentary on the gospels (tr. Loftus, 1672, 1695), and on revelation (tr. J. Gwyn, Hermathena 6, p.397ff, and 7, p.137ff, the latter containing extracts from Hippolytus on Matthew; the journal started in 1873).

I think I might try and locate the Hermathena stuff and shove it on the web.

It's interesting that a 12th century author in Syriac should have access to lost works by Hippolytus. I see that a century later (AD 1298) 'Abdisho' bar Brika, in his Metrical catalogue of Syriac Writers does mention a work by Hippolytus against Gaius, although that doesn't mean it was necessarily extant at that time.

Epiphanius, Panarion 51 is directed against those who he calls 'Alogoi', but does not mention Gaius. He seems to have a book in front of him, ascribing the authorship of John's gospel to Cerinthus (Epiphanius comments that John attacks the views of Cerinthus in his gospel, which makes the ascription impossible), but doesn't seem to know anything else about the author(s) or any group to which they belong.

I was unable to find any reference to Gaius in Photius, unless it was the mention of an author of that name in codex 121, although not as attacking the Gospel of John. Is that the reference?

As usual with ancient sources, we're putting together a picture from fragments, none telling the whole story but together forming a mosaic of what happened.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

That would be great.

Your Tertullian site is already first-class, BTW. I find myself there often.

Hill, bouncing off of Pierre Prigent (Hippolyte, Commentateur de l'Apocalypse, in Theologische Zeitschrift 28, 1972, pages 391-412; Les Fragments du De Apocalypse d'Hippolyte, in Theologische Zeitschrift 29, 1973, pages 313-333; Citations d'Hippolyte trouvée dans le ms. Bodl. Syr 140, in Theologische Zeitschrift 30, 1974, pages 82-85, with R. Stehly) and Allen Brent (Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century, Supplement to Vigilae christianae 31, 1995), argues that Bar Salibi in fact did not possess the so-called Heads against Caius, but rather a florilegium of Hippolytan extracts that included legendary embellishments.

Hill refers to Abdisho, under the name Ebed-Jesu, on pages 173 and 184, and appears to hold that he simply deduced the Hippolytan work from the comments by Bar Salibi.

Hill argues that Epiphanius consolidated any and all with concerns about the fourth gospel and the apocalypse of John under the made-up heading alogoi, and was attacking, not any group or sect in particular, but rather a composite put together from comments made by Eusebius and Irenaeus. The entire picture is intensely complicated, and I do not yet have my mind wrapped around it all.

No, the reference comes from Bibliotheca 48:

I find a marginal note to the effect that the work is not by Josephus, but by one Gaius, presbyter of Rome, also the author of The Labyrinth, and of a dialogue against Proclus, the champion of the Montanists. The latter, which had no ascription, is attributed by some to Josephus, by others to Justin Martyr, and The Labyrinth to Origen. But there is no doubt that the work is by Gaius, the author of The Labyrinth, who at the end of this treatise has left it on record that he was the author of The Nature of the Universe. But it is not quite clear to me, whether this is the same or a different work. This Gaius is said to have been a presbyter of the Church at Rome, during the episcopate of Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been ordained bishop of the gentiles. He wrote another special work against the heresy of Artemon, and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles of St. Paul, and does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews.

This, according to Hill (pages 177-178, 196), is our only source for Gaius being a presbyter in the Roman church.

I could not find mention of Gaius in number 121.

Thanks for your insights, Roger, and for those links.

Ben.