Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Johannine Controversy

Supplements to
Vigiliae Christianae

Editors

J. den Boeft
B.D. Ehrman
K. Greschat
J. Lössl
J. van Oort
D.T. Runia
C. Scholten

VOLUME 135

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vcs

Epiphanius’ Alogi and the
Johannine Controversy
A Reassessment of
Early Ecclesial Opposition to
the Johannine Corpus

By

T. Scott Manor

LEIDEN | BOSTON
Want or need Open Access? Brill Open offers you the choice to make your research freely accessible online
in exchange for a publication charge. Review your various options on brill.com/brill-open.

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.

issn 0920-0623x
isbn 978-90-04-30938-8 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-30939-5 (e-book)

Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents

Preface ix
Abbreviations x

Introduction 1

Section 1
The ‘Johannine Controversy’ Theory

1 The Evidence 15
1.1 Irenaeus 16
1.2 Hippolytus of Rome 17
1.3 Gaius of Rome 18
1.4 Origen 19
1.5 Dionysius of Alexandria 20
1.6 Epiphanius of Salamis 21
1.7 Dionysius bar Salibi 26
1.8 Ebed-Jesu 32

2 An Implausible Consensus and a New Way Forward 34

2.1 The Formation of a Consensus 35
2.2 Challenges to the Consensus 45
2.3 The Fall of the Consensus? 48
2.4 A New Way Forward 48

3 Exonerating Gaius of Rome 52

3.1 The Gaian Paradox 53
3.2 The Historical and Literary Legacy of Gaius 55
3.3 Gaius of Rome vs. bar Salibi’s Caius Haereticus 57
3.4 The Dates of Gaius 60
3.5 Gaius and the Fourth Gospel 64
3.6 Gaius and the Apocalypse 74
Summary 81
vi contents

4 Dismantling the Syrian Evidence: Dionysius bar Salibi and

Ebed-Jesu 84
4.1 Scholarship on bar Salibi’s Sources 85
4.2 The Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu 93
4.3 Dionysius bar Salibi: A Closer Look at the Evidence 97
4.4 Discrepancies between bar Salibi and the Early Sources 110
4.5 The Manufactured Dialogue between Gaius and Hippolytus 114
4.6 Epiphanius and bar Salibi 116
Summary 119

Section 2
Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

5 Epiphanius: History and Heresy 123

5.1 Epiphanius as Historian and Heresiologist 123
5.2 Dissociating Hippolytus from the Alogi 130
Summary 142

6 Epiphanius’ Alogi in Context 143

6.1 Outline of the Account of the Alogi 143
6.2 The Broader Context of the Alogi 147
6.3 Epiphanius’ Alogi: A Sweeping Defense of the Four-fold Gospel 149
Summary 159

Section 3
The Sources of Epiphanius’ Account of the Alogi

7 Epiphanius’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 163

7.1 Papias on the Origins of the Four Gospels 163
7.2 Irenaeus and the Four-Fold Gospel 166
7.3 Irenaeus’ Testimony as the Foundation of the Alogi 167
7.4 Irenaeus and the Second Objection to the Gospel of John 173
Summary 176

8 Epiphanius’ Use of Origen 177

8.1 Origen on the Authority of the Gospels 177
8.2 Origen and Epiphanius: Differing Hermeneutical Paradigms 179
Contents vii

8.3 Origen and the Discrepancies Among the Gospels 184

8.4 Origen and the First Criticism of the Alogi 185
8.5 Origen and the Second Criticism of the Alogi 189
8.6 Origen or Gaius of Rome? 191
8.7 Other Examples of Anti-Origenism in Epiphanius’ Account of the
Alogi 195
Summary 198

9 Epiphanius’ Use of Eusebius 200

9.1 Eusebius, Papias, and Origen on the Four Gospels 200
9.2 HE 3.24.8b–13 as a Corrective of Origen 211
9.3 Epiphanius’ Appropriation of Eusebius’ Rebuttal 213
9.4 Eusebius as the Source for the Criticism of Porphyry, Celsus, and
Philosabbatius 214
9.5 Other Connections between Eusebius and Epiphanius 217
Summary 219

10 Sources Behind the Alogi’s Objections to the Apocalypse 220

10.1 The Reception of the Apocalypse Prior to Epiphanius 221
10.2 Origen and the Apocalypse 225
10.3 Dionysius of Alexandria and the Apocalypse 227
Summary 229

Conclusion 230

Bibliography 233
Index of Modern Authors 250
Subject Index 251
Preface

My heartfelt thanks go first to Sara Parvis who generously offered her support
and guidance throughout my research as a doctoral student at the University
of Edinburgh. Paul Parvis and Paul Foster have also given much time, atten-
tion, and advice at various points throughout my research. Frances Young and
Helen Bond kindly provided incisive and critical feedback on the earliest ver-
sion of this work as a doctoral thesis. As this work emerged into its current
form, Mattie Kuiper, Tessa Schild, and Debbie de Wit at Brill have proven to
be as gracious as they are skilled in seeing it through the publication process.
I am very grateful to Charles E. Hill, whose scholarship, guidance, and
friendship have had a significant impact on this work. For their excellent schol-
arship on Epiphanius, for their kindness, and for their thoughtful feedback I
am indebted to Young Kim and Andrew Jacobs. I am also fortunate to have
worked with dear friends and colleagues at the University of Edinburgh and
Knox Theological Seminary, who have been a wonderful source of encourage-
ment and camaraderie.
The New College Library at the University of Edinburgh offered numerous
resources that facilitated the majority of this research. When it became neces-
sary to view ancient manuscripts or other special resources, the Bibliothèque
Nationale de France, the Bodleian Library, and the Vatican Library graciously
accommodated my requests.
I would like to give special thanks to my parents, Tim and Beth Manor, for
their love, encouragement, and generosity. The sincerity of their Christian
faith has challenged and influenced my own.
Most of all, my deepest appreciation belongs to my wife, Rebecca. Her con-
stant support and encouragement have been crucial in seeing this project
through to the end. Her joy and sense of humor ensured that I maintained a
balanced perspective. Her intellect, editorial eye, countless hours of discussing
and reading drafts, and genuine interest in this project have influenced every
single page of the book. It is to her and our two kiddos that I dedicate this work.
Abbreviations

Adv. Marc. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem

Adv. omn. haer. Pseudo Tertullian, Adversus omnium haereseum
Adv. Val. Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos
AF Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers
AH Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses
AJT American Journal of Theology
Ancor. Epiphanius, Ancoratus
Ant. Hippolytus, De Antichristo
Bibl. Photius, Bibliotheca
BO Bibliotheca Orientalis
C. Cels Origen, Contra Celsum
Comm. Apoc. Dionysius bar Salibi, In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas
Catholicas
Comm. Jo. Origen, Commentarium in Joannem
CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
Dan. Hippolytus, Commentarium in Danielem
De Prin. Origen, De Principiis
De vir. ill. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus
Dial. Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphoni
Div. her. lib. Philaster, Diversarum heresion liber
GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller
Haer. Epiphanius, Panarion
Haer. fab. comp. Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium
HE Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
Hom. Luc. Origen, Homilia in Lucam
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JR Journal of Religion
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSupp Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSupp Novum Testamentum Supplements
Abbreviations xi

PG P.G. Migne, Patrologia Graeca

PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
Rbib Revue Biblique
Ref Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium
SC Sources Chrétiennes
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
VC Vigiliae Christianae
VCSupp Vigiliae Christianae Supplements
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die
Kunde der älteren Kirche

*All translations are my own, except where otherwise indicated.

Introduction

Despite the profound influence that the Johannine corpus has had on Christian
theology throughout history, its acceptance and role in the earliest years of
Christianity has been a matter of debate for a long time. Scholarship has pro-
duced numerous works on the reception of the Johannine literature, many of
which have focused on the questions of which person or group was respon-
sible for their authorship, when and by whom these works were first used, and
which theological group(s) they originally supported. A number of other stud-
ies are devoted to the question of whether the Johannine corpus was origi-
nally a ‘heretical’ production, or if it was always considered to be a part of the
accepted writings within the ‘orthodox’ church.1
Such inquiries are critically important in seeking to determine the role of
the Johannine corpus in the development of the church’s canon of accepted
writings, and the varying hypotheses that have emerged from these studies

1 Throughout this work the terms ‘orthodoxy’, ‘ecclesiastical’, ‘heresy’, and ‘heterodoxy’ as well
as other similar terms are used despite the fact that such designations are inherently anach-
ronistic and, to one degree or another, imprecise. The difficulties that accompany the use of
these terms are perhaps best articulated in the work of Walter Bauer, one of the most notable
products of twentieth century scholarship. See Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei
im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1934), ET, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest
Christianity, eds. Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).
Although many of his conclusions have drawn serious questions and intense criticism—
this work is no exception—perhaps Bauer’s greatest achievement was his appreciation and
articulation of the complexity of the theological world in the first centuries of Christianity.
It is true that terms such as ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ do not accurately capture the variety of
forms within earliest Christianity, or perhaps even what comprised the ‘majority’ and ‘minor-
ity’ representative factions. However, alternative terms such as ‘proto-orthodox’ or ‘proto-
catholic’ do not provide a satisfactory recasting of the language and perceived notions
of such terms. They only serve to blur the existing vocabulary, to soften its edges; they do
not provide new, non-anachronistic, and stable categories of understanding the various
theological distinctions, divisions, and complexities within early Christianity. Moreover,
the argument that there was a severe lack of some discernible form of what has become
commonly known as orthodox Christianity in the first two centuries need not be overstated.
The witness of the early Fathers and the broad coherence of their theological tenets are not
as volatile and incoherent as Bauer suggests. Nevertheless, as with Bauer (xxii–xxiii), in this
work I shall use the terms ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ along with their synonyms and derivative
terms to represent what one customarily understands them to mean, with the unfortunate
realization that such language continues to fail to adequately express the complex world of
earliest Christianity.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_002

2 Introduction

reflect the complexity of the evidence from this era. Nevertheless, there is one
common formulation of the extant evidence that has received widespread
acceptance over the past century of scholarship, which postulates that the
early church was originally very reticent, if not actively opposed to accept-
ing the Johannine corpus as authoritative. The present study calls into ques-
tion the viability of this prevailing view commonly known as the ‘Johannine
Controversy’.2
It is often said that the early church’s opposition to the Johannine cor-
pus is seen most clearly in its consternation concerning the Fourth Gospel.
Indeed, the extant evidence may suggest that those who first appropriated this
text in support of their theology were heretical groups such as the Gnostics,
Montanists, and Docetists. As these heretics continued to develop their con-
troversial theological claims based on this gospel, the early church was dis-
tancing itself from it more and more. In the words of one scholar, ‘To trace the
influence of the fourth gospel upon Christian theology would be more than
the task of a lifetime; to trace its influence upon the thought of the first half
of the second century is easy, for it had none.’3
Thus, if the early church were to have accepted the Fourth Gospel it would
have threatened early Christianity by implicitly endorsing and potentially
adopting the views of the heretics that preferred this text. In contrast, to reject
it as a heretical forgery would serve to rid the church of such cancerous, hereti-
cal opinions. The choice was clear, so also was the decision: the early church
threw the Johannine baby out with the heretical bathwater. This rejection
originally took the form of silence towards the Fourth Gospel by the Apostolic
Fathers, eventually graduating into explicit rejection.4 The watershed moment
when John’s Gospel finally emerged onto the orthodox scene came by way of
Irenaeus’ treatise, Adversus Haereses, in which he transformed it from a liabil-
ity to an asset in his efforts to condemn and eradicate heresy.5 And yet many

2 A full survey of scholarship that comprises this consensus view on the role of the Johannine
literature in the early church is provided in Chapter Two.
3 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on
the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1955), 52.
4 As Bauer notes, ‘If we listen to the sources without prejudice, it seems to me that this is
the result: a current of caution with regard to the gospel of John runs continuously through
ecclesiastical Rome, that center of orthodoxy, right up to almost the end of the second cen-
tury—a mood that manifests itself through silence and through explicit rejection.’ Bauer,
Orthodoxy and Heresy, 208. All citations of this work will follow the pagination of the English
translation.
5 In addition to Walter Bauer, other notable works on this topic include (but are by no means
limited to): A. Bludau, Die Ersten Gegner der Johannesschriften (Freiburg: Herder & Co.,
Introduction 3

scholars suggest that Irenaeus was not a fair representative of the greater eccle-
siastical opinion towards the writings attributed to John.
In fact, the Fourth Gospel was not the only Johannine work to have a mixed
reception. Initially, particularly in the west, the Johannine Apocalypse enjoyed
positive welcome and near universal attribution to John the Apostle. However,
about the same time that the Gospel of John was finding its rightful place in
some of the church fathers’ lists of accepted works, the Apocalypse was begin-
ning to disappear, for it too had ties with an assortment of heresies. Some ques-
tioned its use by the Montanists, while others claimed it was the work of the
arch-heretic Cerinthus. By the fourth century it had completely vanished from
the canonical lists of Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nazianzus. Yet, ques-
tions about its authenticity and theology had surfaced a century earlier with
Dionysius of Alexandria, followed by Eusebius of Caesarea, both of whom had
their own suspicions about its authorship and reservations about its chiliastic
eschatology.
When all of the bits of evidence are assembled together, the common view
is that the early church was initially hostile to the idea of accepting both the
Gospel and Apocalypse of John, and to a lesser extent the epistles that bear his
name. Although it is undeniable that the evidence surrounding the authority
and acceptance of these works in the first centuries of Christendom is complex
and at times disjointed, is it possible to say with certainty that the early church
had originally set its face against those works that would later steer Christian
theology for centuries to come?
Recent scholarship has begun to reassess this question. Most notably,
Charles E. Hill, in his important work, The Johannine Corpus in the Early
Church, aims to counteract this view that he dubs ‘orthodox Johannophobia’.6
Hill is not alone. Other scholars have questioned whether the influence of the

1925); J.N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1943); the unpublished dissertation of M.R. Hillmer, ‘The Gospel of John in the Second
Century,’ (Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1966); Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of
the Christian Bible, trans. John A. Baker (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1972); E. Haenchen,
John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1–6, trans. R.W. Funk (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984); R.M. Grant, ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Church,’ HTR 35, n. 2 (April 1942): 95–116;
T.E. Pollard, Johannine Christology and the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970); J. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?
(Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995); J.D.G. Dunn, ‘John and the Synoptics as
a Theological Question,’ in R.A. Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (eds.), Exploring the Gospel
of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 308.
R.A. Culpepper, John: The Son of Zebedee, the Life of a Legend (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).
6 C.E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
4 Introduction

Johannine corpus in the early church, especially that of the Fourth Gospel, has
been underestimated.7 These studies provide new and valuable considerations
regarding the extent of early orthodox appropriation of the Johannine litera-
ture. However, despite all the ink that has been dedicated to numerous efforts
to discern whether and to what extent the early church did, in fact, use the
Johannine literature, there has been surprisingly little attention paid to the
evidence concerning whether or not the early church actively opposed these
writings. This is a critical issue that, although distinct, should not be divorced
from the question of the ecclesiastical reception of the Johannine writings.
And yet the methodological approach of Hill and others to delimit the use
of the Johannine writings in early Christianity does not necessarily indicate
whether or not the early church wilfully rejected or accepted them. For exam-
ple, just because the Gospel of John is not explicitly cited among the Apostolic
Fathers does not necessarily mean that they rejected it. However, one should
also exercise caution in regards to counter claims. Just because there is some
evidence to suggest that the Gospel of John was familiar to some within early
orthodox circles does not require the conclusion that it was widely and posi-
tively received. It is equally plausible to conclude that such evidence may only
represent particular segments of early Christianity that found it acceptable
while others did not. Thus, the question of how and to what extent the Gospel
of John was used or ignored cannot produce adequate results to the question
of whether or not the early church actively opposed it. In order to arrive at the
answer to this question, it is necessary to begin from a different starting point
that focuses directly on the evidence concerning such opposition. Such is the
purpose of the present work.

7 See especially the collection of essays in T. Rasimus, ed., The Legacy of John: Second-Century
Reception of the Fourth Gospel. NovTSupp 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Other notable works
include: M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM Press, 1989) and The Four Gospels
and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM Press, 2000); Titus Nagel, Die Rezeption des
Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten
Evangeliums in christlich-gnosticher Literatur. Arbeiten Zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte,
2 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsantalt, 2000); Kyle Keefer, The Branches of the Gospel of John:
The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). Also,
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand
Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2006); also, ‘Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,’
JTS 44 (1993): 24–69; Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010). Another recent collection of essays addressing these concerns is: Peter Head (ed.),
Historical and Literary Studies in John: Challenging Current Paradigms. WUNT 2 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
Introduction 5

Where exactly does one find evidence that the early church actively engaged
in a campaign against the Johannine literature? After all, if the ecclesiastical
leaders made efforts to expunge these texts from the church, it is natural to
expect to find some evidence of their anti-Johannine campaign. If this move-
ment were widespread, as is often argued, the volume of evidence should be
substantial. The paucity of such evidence is surprising, however. It is not until
the fourth century that one finds unambiguous testimony that tells of a faction
within the church that rejected the Johannine writings as heretical forgeries.
Epiphanius of Salamis is the earliest extant witness to record the anti-Johan-
nine views of a group known as the Alogi. This group claimed that Cerinthus
was the true author of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John, and thus they
should be rejected as heretical forgeries. Although the Alogi have achieved sig-
nificant notoriety in New Testament and Patristics scholarship, many scholars
have overlooked, set aside, or were unaware of the various difficulties in estab-
lishing the dates, provenance, theology and constituency of this heresy. These
questions are important, and a close examination of Epiphanius’ testimony in
light of other early sources demonstrates that there is much more to the story
of this heretical sect than has been recognized.

Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Early Orthodox Opposition to the

Johannine Corpus

In the last quarter of the fourth century, Epiphanius compiled a catalogue of

heresies known as the Panarion, or ‘medicine chest’, in order to provide fellow
believers with a set of remedies for the ‘toxic bites’ of the ‘snake-like heresies’.
This work was in response to the request of two presbyters, Acacius and Paul,
who knew of Epiphanius’ reputation as a great slayer of heresies and therefore
desired a full list of sects to be avoided. Epiphanius was certainly not the first
to compile such a catalogue, yet he is the earliest extant witness that mentions
a certain group that explicitly rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse of John as
works of Cerinthus. He devotes the fifty-first entry of his Panarion to this sect,
and he furnishes them with the name ‘Alogi’.
Chronologically, Epiphanius places these Alogi immediately after the
Quartodecimans (Haer. 50) and well before the Noetians (Haer. 57), thus
some time in the late second or early third centuries. This being the case, one
might expect to find some evidence of the Alogi’s existence in the writings of
other contemporary church fathers. Surprisingly, earlier heresy-hunters do not
expound upon such a heretical group. The Alogi do not appear in Irenaeus’ list
of heresies, nor are they included in Hippolytus’ Refutatio. Similarly, the Alogi
6 Introduction

are not mentioned in Pseudo-Tertullian’s work against the heresies; they do not
appear on Tertullian’s radar; Origen knows nothing about them; and no men-
tion of them is made by Eusebius who was quite taken with matters concern-
ing the authority and integrity of Christian literature.
One would naturally suppose that a group with these anti-Johannine convic-
tions would have caught the attention of one or more of these Fathers, and yet
not only is there general silence about these Alogi from other early witnesses,
Epiphanius himself is not forthcoming in detailing any their defining features.
As a result, there is a healthy level of confusion surrounding the provenance
of the Alogi, with scholarly opinions ranging from Asia Minor to Rome.8 The
dates that scholars attach to the Alogi are equally speculative. Some main-
tain that they emerged prior to Irenaeus,9 while others argue that Hippolytus
railed against them in a work that was lost in the unfolding of time.10 Some
believe the Alogi were active from the time of Origen to the era of Dionysius of
Alexandria.11 Despite the possibility of a century-long window of Alogi activity,
it remains a period of time in which no other church father mentions them by
name.
What about their theological tenets? On this account the Alogi are many
things to many people. For some, the Alogi opposed the Gospel of John
because it was the preferred Gospel of the Gnostics.12 Others maintain that
the Alogi disliked the Montanist use of John.13 Some split the difference, claim-
ing they were scared of both Gnosticism and Montanism.14 Why not add the
Quartodecimans to the list of John-loving heretics that made the Alogi take

8 Rome: see Dom John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1911), 53–4 n. 1; Sanders, Fourth Gospel, 35. Asia Minor: see von
Campenhausen, Formation, 238. See also Fr. Vincent Rose, ‘Question Johannine: Les
Aloges Asiates et les Aloges Romains,’ Rbib 6 (1897): 516–34.
9 Vincent Henry Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents 3 vols. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1903), Vol. I, 200; Robert M. Grant, ‘The Origin of the Fourth
Gospel’ JBL 69 (1950), 307; Campenhausen, Formation, 242 n. 184.
10 See Bludau, 165.
11 See E. Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
Johannesevangeliums,’ Abhandlungen d. Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wiss. N.F. VII, 5 (1904),
44–53; also the Ph.D. dissertation of J.D. Smith Jr., ‘Gaius and the Controversy over the
Johannine Literature’ (Ph.D. Diss., Yale University, 1979), 195–6.
12 Sanders, Fourth Gospel, 110; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (London:
SPCK, 1978), 66–84.
13 Campenhausen, Formation, 242; Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 44–53.
14 Haenchen, 23–4.
Introduction 7

up arms?15 Or, perhaps it is sufficient to claim that the orthodox-minded Alogi

simply detected ‘a spirit of heresy’ in the Johannine literature that could not
be reconciled with the ecclesiastical attitude in Rome.16 Nevertheless, despite
all the confusion and conflicting views surrounding the dates, provenance, and
theological tenets of the Alogi, they are heralded as representing a widespread
ecclesiastical movement against the Johannine corpus.
But exactly how widespread were these views? Which members of the
early church belonged to this sect? Epiphanius refrains from naming names.
In addition to the general notice that they rejected the Johannine Gospel and
Apocalypse and attributed both to the heretic Cerinthus, the only identify-
ing information that he provides are two criticisms from this group against
the Fourth Gospel and three against the Apocalypse. Against these charges,
Epiphanius attempts his own counter-assurances of Johannine veracity and
integrity. As a result of the limited information Epiphanius provides, questions
have persisted throughout history regarding the precise nature of this heretical
group.
It is true that the answers to the questions surrounding the Alogi are to be
found in Epiphanius’ sources; however, this approach is more complex than
one might expect. For centuries scholarly attempts to secure details about this
group were largely relegated to speculation due to the fact that there were no
clear lines to be drawn between Epiphanius’ account and those of his predeces-
sors. But at the end of the nineteenth century a discovery was made that would
breathe new life into the question of the Alogi. This recent addition to the pool
of evidence came by way of two Syrian sources that were written nearly a mil-
lennium after the time of the Alogi. Dionysius bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu both
note that a certain ‘Gaius’ held anti-Johannine views that, when juxtaposed to
the objections of the Alogi, were strikingly similar.
Various conclusions were soon reached as a result of this ‘new’ evidence. For
one thing, the relatively obscure third-century Roman church figure, Gaius of
Rome, emerged as the leader and possibly the sole constituent of this heretical
group. Although this identification has become widely accepted throughout
modern scholarship, there is ample reason to suggest that it is the mistaken
result of questionable methodology and a sloppy handling of the evidence.
In particular, it is assumed that a lost work by Gaius, or perhaps a polemical
work against him, was the common source for both Epiphanius and the later
Syrian sources. Methodologically, this presumes too much upon Epiphanius’
reliance upon earlier sources and fails to take into account the unique way

15 Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel’, 108–10.

16 Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 208.
8 Introduction

that he conceived of and recorded his history of heresy, which, as recent stud-
ies have shown, was a blend of fact and imaginative fiction.17 As to the critical
question of his sources, this approach also presumes the content of works that
are lost, and which may or may not have existed in the first place.
In order to sustain the current view that Gaius of Rome and his fellow mem-
bers of the Alogi led a sweeping movement against the Johannine literature,
it is necessary to cobble together different pieces of evidence spanning over
a millennium while presuming the existence and content of works that may
be nothing more than a figment. To be sure, the picture of the ecclesiastical
figure Gaius of Rome as the leader of the Alogi as opposed to his otherwise
boring reputation as an ‘orthodox churchman’ and staunch anti-Montanist
makes for a fascinating and compelling story of how the early church once
tried to dispose of the Johannine literature. However, this approach relies on a
significant methodological problem that must be reassessed. It prioritizes the
later evidence rather than the earliest sources, and it makes the fundamental
assumption that the later testimonies of Dionysius bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu are
as reliable, or more reliable, than the surviving sources from the era in which
the Alogi supposedly coordinated their anti-Johannine campaign. To deter-
mine whether or not this is the case, the veracity of these later sources must
be judged in light of what the earlier sources tell us, not the other way around.

Methodology and Outline

The purpose of this book is to ask afresh what has become a very familiar
question: Did the early church once reject the Johannine Corpus? However,
it departs from similar studies in two fundamental ways. First, in contrast to
many works on this topic, it argues that it is anachronistic, presumptuous,
and methodologically dubious to begin such an inquiry with the later sources.
Because the Syrian evidence of bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu provides information
that is not explicitly found in the earlier testimonies, it has become fashion-
able to interpret the latter in light of the former; however, this reverses the
proper methodology of the historian. Second, this book is not primarily con-
cerned with the related but distinct issues regarding how, when, and by whom
the Johannine materials were first appropriated. It is certainly true that this
inquiry indirectly relates to others that are concerned primarily with early

17 T. Scott Manor, ‘Epiphanius’ Account of the Alogi: Historical Fact or Heretical Fiction?’
Studia Patristica 52 (2012), 161–170; Young R. Kim, ‘The Imagined Worlds of Epiphanius of
Salamis,’ (Ph.D. Diss. University of Michigan, 2006).
Introduction 9

appropriation of the Johannine literature, but its trajectory is aimed at a very

different line of inquiry focused on putative opposition to these works.
The guiding methodology of the present work is to refocus attention back
on the early evidence that might speak of the existence of early ecclesiasti-
cal opposition to the Johannine corpus. As such, the earliest explicit record of
such activity provided by Epiphanius, in addition to other second- and third-
century sources that are contemporaneous to the time in which the Alogi are
said to exist, are given primary attention. It is true that for centuries the incon-
gruities of the early evidence ultimately led to a dead end for many scholars
who tried to pin down the details about the Alogi; however, as I shall argue,
the same conclusion is ultimately true of studies that prioritize the later evi-
dence as well. There is clearly a need for a new way forward that makes sense
of the all the evidence. And yet the question may rightly be asked; if both of
these approaches lead to inconclusive results, how does the methodology
of this work shed new light on an old problem?
The inadequacies of both approaches are due in large part to a fundamen-
tal misunderstanding of Epiphanius’ methodology in composing the Panarion
and his reasons for creating it in the first place. He approached this work from
the perspective of a concerned pastor and rigid theologian whose imagination
caused him to occasionally blur the lines between fact and fiction. When com-
pared with earlier heresiologies, the Panarion tends to be regarded as histori-
cally sloppy and theologically shallow. Yet this is due, at least in part, to the fact
that Epiphanius conceived of the entire history of the world as an epic strug-
gle between the faithfulness of God and purity of the gospel message against
the erroneous beliefs that deviated from the truth, from the time of Adam to
his own day. There is, therefore, an imaginative aspect to Epiphanius’ histori-
ography which must be recognized in order to arrive at a better understand-
ing of why he composed the Panarion the way he did. In turn, the otherwise
confusing, disjointed, or garbled aspects of his writing begin to emerge with
greater clarity. Ultimately, his imaginative historicizing is best understood in
light of the pastoral care he had for his flock in Salamis and elsewhere. The
Panarion reveals his concern to protect fellow believers against the threat of
false belief, actual or potential. In the case of the latter, such fictitious sects are
not conjured out of thin air, for Epiphanius does not create heresies; rather,
one can discern traces of various sources that he has woven together to create a
seemingly coherent picture from a disparate group of evidence. In many ways,
therefore, his approach parallels that of many modern scholars that create a
coherent narrative based on fragmented pieces of information.
These three issues I have just discussed—the history of scholarship and
its deficiencies, Epiphanius’ unique perspective of recording history and
10 Introduction

refuting heresy, and the methodology he used to accomplish this task—reflect

the themes of the three sections into which this work is divided. In the first
section, I catalogue the extant evidence followed by a review and dismantling
of the scholarship that has interpreted this evidence as bearing testimony to a
vibrant ‘Johannine Controversy’ in the early church. Inspired and informed by
various challenges to the consensus view, I offer further arguments against the
reliability of the later evidence and provide reasons why Gaius of Rome should
be exonerated from the false accusations of theological and canonical impro-
priety. A new paradigm is thus required to provide a new way forward into the
question of the Alogi and the Johannine Controversy.
The second section examines how Epiphanius’ role and methodology as a
historian and heresiologist led him to construct various abstract heresies in
the Panarion. The Alogi is certainly not the only such heretical sect that suf-
fers from dubious historical grounding. When one considers the historical
and theological context that preceded Epiphanius, his rationale for wanting
to secure the theological and canonical integrity of the Fourth Gospel and, to a
lesser extent, the Apocalypse becomes more apparent.
The third and final section assesses how Epiphanius went about construct-
ing the Alogi. In fact, he used a variety of earlier sources in this account, each of
which makes some mention of the Gospel or Apocalypse of John; none, how-
ever, fully reflect the way Epiphanius describes the Alogi. They are like pieces
of a puzzle, each of which adds to the picture Epiphanius paints. A close look
at the relationship between Epiphanius’ account and sources such as Papias,
Irenaeus, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius reveals that he has
amalgamated aspects from each of these sources and used them as ‘building
blocks’ for his account.
Over the years many scholars have told different versions of the story
of the secretive and menacing Alogi, and yet I find it surprising that to date
there has not been a full-length study devoted to this heretical group. Does
the evidence support the story of a subtle yet forceful ecclesiastical move-
ment against the works attributed to John the Apostle? Or were the Alogi a
cleverly devised heretical figment that Epiphanius constructed in order to
vanquish the heretical opinions of those who failed to understand and appre-
ciate the integrity of these works? The conclusions reached in the following
pages point toward the latter. As such, they are at odds with those of many
illustrious patristic historians past and present who have contributed to
the overall discussion with which this work is concerned. Yet when the evi-
dence does not tell the same story as its interpreters, there is a need to
dismantle the broken paradigm and provide an alternative explanation. Such
is the primary contribution of this work. An equally important contribution of
Introduction 11

this work is the new light it sheds on the misunderstood and often maligned
fourth-century bishop.
Epiphanius is almost always interpreted through paradigms and criteria
that produce negative results. From a strictly historical point of view, his work
tends to be seen as frequently garbled and a poor substitute for the works of
his predecessors on which he relied heavily. As a theologian, he is known less
for his doctrinal insights and theological acumen than for his all-consuming
anti-Origenism. As a man, he comes off as a rigid, disenfranchised blowhard.
In fact, as one scholar notes,

Of all the church fathers, Epiphanius is the most generally disliked. It

would be easy to assemble, from the writings of patrologists and histo-
rians of religion, a bill of particulars against him. He is a heresy hunter,
a name caller, and “nasty.” His judgments are uncritical. His theology is
shallow and his manner of holding it intransigent. Above all he vehe-
mently opposed the teachings of the great commentator Origen, the
first Christian systematic theologian and as a thinker far superior to
Epiphanius.18

In no way do I claim that such an assessment is entirely unfair or inac-

curate. However, there is more to the story of this Cypriot bishop and the
works he composed. The story of the Alogi demonstrates this, and yet it only
begins to scratch the surface of this complex church father and his writings.
Reconsidering Epiphanius within the context of his own biography and his-
toriographical methodology reveals a parallel storyline of a concerned pastor
and exegete whose imaginative approach to history and theology had a more
significant impact on contemporary and modern readers of his work than has
been recognized thus far.

18 Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I (Sects 1–46). 2nd ed.
(Leiden: Brill, 1994), xxxi.
 Section 1
The ‘Johannine Controversy’ Theory

∵
 CHAPTER 1

The Evidence

By the latter part of the nineteenth century virtually nothing was known with
any certainty about the Alogi. It was seen as an anomalous heresy of the early
church, mentioned by name only in the writings of Epiphanius and largely
ignored by other early sources. That was then. Today, the Alogi are regarded as
the epicentre of a full-scale ‘Johannine Controversy’ in the Roman church at
the dawn of the third century. Over the past century it has become commonly
accepted that one of the members of the Alogi, the bishop Gaius of Rome,
spearheaded an influential movement to reject the Gospel and Apocalypse of
John as the products of Cerinthus, the heretical nemesis of the Apostle John.
In his day, Gaius’ position was not only ‘permissible’; it also reflected the gen-
eral ecclesial sentiment of the time.1 It was only after many years of sustained
counterattacks by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen and Eusebius that the danger-
ous ideas of the Alogi were finally put to rest.
To understand this fascinating rise in the Alogi’s significance and its role
in the so-called ‘Johannine Controversy’ it is necessary to account for the full
range of primary evidence and how scholarship over the past century has
arranged these disparate pieces to create such a narrative. One of the most
surprising aspects of such an investigation is that none of the evidence on
its own supports this tidy summary of the church’s battle over the Johannine
literature. However, when taken together, numerous pieces of evidence span-
ning over a millennium have be arranged to seemingly support this grand
narrative. Whether or not such a configuration is valid is the central question
at hand.
Although Epiphanius alone claims to know all of the particulars of the
Alogi, other sources that span over a millennium may have made implicit ref-
erences to this group. What follows is a catalogue of these lost and extant pri-
mary sources along with necessary comments and explanations. The first of
these sources comes from the earliest staunch defender and advocate of the
Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus.

1 Cf. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 207.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_003

16 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

1.1 Irenaeus

The Bishop of Lyons never mentions the Alogi directly; however, he makes two
brief comments that have been interpreted as implying his knowledge of this
heresy. The first comes from his work Against Heresies in which he describes a
group who rejected both the Paraclete and the Fourth Gospel. There are clear
parallels between Irenaeus’ comments and Epiphanius’ final description of the
Alogi (Haer. 51.35.1–3) such that the two seem to be linked.2

Others (Alii), indeed, in order to frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in the
most recent times—according to the pleasure of the Father—was poured
out on the human race, do not admit that appearance in the Gospel of
John, where the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete; but they
reject both the Gospel and the Prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed,
who want3 to be false prophets, they in fact reject the prophetic grace
from the Church, just like those who—on account of those who come
in hypocrisy—also abstain from communion with the brethren. I under-
stand, moreover, that those of this kind (also) do not accept the Apostle
Paul; for in that epistle which is to the Corinthians, prophetic gifts are
mentioned, and he (Paul) knows men and women prophesying in the
Church. Sinning against the Spirit of God in all these things, therefore,
they fall into the irremissible sin (Mt. 12:32; AH 3.11.9).4

2 Cf. Chapter 7.3.

3 Many scholars have proposed amending the Latin text by replacing the word ‘nolunt’ for
‘uolunt’, thus: ‘qui pseudoprophetas quidem esse nolunt’ (‘they do not wish to be false proph-
ets’). Other emendations include transposing ‘pseudoprophetas’ for ‘pseudoprophetae’. These
emendations are generally proposed to clarify a reading of Irenaeus that presumes the pro-
phetic Spirit is a reference to the Montanist Paraclete. J.D. Smith, Jr., who does not believe any
emendations are necessary, states the issue well: if Irenaeus is referring to a group of anti-
Montanists in this passage, ‘Why would such persons desire to be prophets at all, especially
false prophets, since it is this very audacious activity with respect to the prophetic charisma
which is suspect to them and has resulted in their own repudiation of the Gospel of John?’
Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 147. For a summary of scholarly positions on various emendations, see Bludau,
31ff.; Pierre de Labriolle, La Crise, Montaniste (Paris: Ernst Leroux, 1913), 234ff. Although such
a textual amendment is entirely understandable and possibly reflects the original text, I have
chosen to preserve the standard Latin reading because the transmitted text is comprehen-
sible and coherent as it stands.
4 Latin text from A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, Irénée de Lyon: Contre les Hérésies, Livre III. SC
211 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974), 170–2.
The Evidence 17

The second piece of evidence from Irenaeus’ writings comes at the end of
another work, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. Here he references
another anonymous group, which some have linked with the similarly uniden-
tified Alii of AH 3.11.9.5

Others do not accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and repudiate the pro-
phetic charisma which enables men to bring forth the fruit of divine life.
These are those of whom Isaiah (Is. 1:30) said, “You shall become like
a terebinth stripped of its leaves, and like a garden that has no water.”
These are good for nothing to God for they are incapable of bearing fruit
(Dem. 99).6

1.2 Hippolytus of Rome

In contrast to the evidence from Irenaeus, that from Hippolytus is far

less straightforward. As such, the supposed link between Hippolytus and
Epiphanius requires elaboration. Although Epiphanius is often criticized as
being over reliant upon Hippolytus, the surviving evidence that directly links
the latter with the former’s account of the Alogi is slim. Nevertheless, there are
two key pieces of evidence (both of which are now lost) that are often touted
as undeniable proof that Hippolytus knew and refuted the Alogi.
First, in 1865, Lipsius was the first to argue for the reliance of Epiphanius,
Philaster of Brescia and Ps.-Tertullian upon a common document (Grundschrift),
presumed to be Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma Against Thirty-Two Heresies, noted
by Photius (Bibl. 121).7 There is, however, no indication from corroborating
sources that the Alogi was included in Hippolytus’ Syntagma; nor was it listed
in Hippolytus’ extant work Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (Elenchos). Lipsius
himself excluded the Alogi from his reconstructed Syntagma although others
assumed its presence.8 There is, however, another major piece of evidence that
may indicate Hippolytus wrote against this sect.
Secondly, and perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence to support
the notion that Hippolytus refuted the Alogi is the title of his work, υπὲρ τoῦ
κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως listed on the back of the plinth of

5 Cf. Smith, ‘Gaius’, 163; Campenhausen, 239, n. 159.

6 Tr. from Campenhausen, 239, n. 159.
7 R.A. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1865), 16–32. The
Syntagma is also mentioned in Chronicon Paschale 8.
8 Cf. Chapter 5.2.
18 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

the statue of Hippolytus in Rome.9 Although many scholars have argued that
this work may have been foundational to Epiphanius’ account10 it has not sur-
vived, thus relegating any link between it and Epiphanius’ Alogi to the realm
of conjecture.11

1.3 Gaius of Rome

The only primary evidence that comes from the hand of Gaius of Rome is
preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea, and this comes by way of a number of
decontextualized fragments.12 Indeed, Eusebius only employs the words of
Gaius when they conveniently serve his own purposes.13 The work cited in the
Historia Ecclesiastica is the Dialogue with Proclus, a polemical treatise against
a leader of the New Prophecy, composed during the episcopate of Zephyrinus
(ca. 198/9–217 AD). A few certifiable facts may be derived from these fragments:
Gaius was in Rome, he was an anti-Montanist, and he rejected the ‘scriptural’
status of Montanist writings.

But I (Gaius) have the trophies of the apostles to show (you), for if you
(Proclus) were to go to the Vatican or the Ostian Way, you will find the
trophies of those who established this church. (HE 2.25.7)
Gaius, whose words are quoted earlier, in his disputation, investigates
these things concerning this man [Cerinthus]. He writes, ‘But also
Cerinthus, who through revelations (ἀποκαλύψεων) as if having been
written by a great apostle (ἀποστόλου μεγάλου), introduces marvellous
stories to us that he falsely claims have been given to him by angels,

9 For images of the Statue, see the Plates provided in Brent, Hippolytus, XIII–XXXVI.
10 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers i, 2 (London: Macmillan & Co., 1890), 394–5 (hereafter AF);
Theodore H. Robinson, ‘The Authorship of the Muratorian Canon’, The Expositor 7.1
(1906): 494; Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 209; Bludau, 165; and Prigent, ‘Hippolyte, commentateur de
l’Apocalypse,’ TZ 28 (1972), 407–412. Labriolle argued that Epiphanius used either (or
both) the Hippolytan work Heads against Gaius, noted by the later Syrian writer Ebed-
Jesu, and Defense of the Gospel etc. in his chapter on the Alogi. (Pierre de Labriolle, Les
Sources De l’Histoire Du Montanisme [Paris: Ernst Leroux, 1913), LXXI).
11 The issue of Epiphanius’ dependence upon Hippolytus is significant and will be addressed
more fully in Chapter 5.2.
12 Chapter 3.2 provides additional details from other sources that reference Gaius of Rome,
but as these are primarily dependent upon Eusebius, they are not included here.
13 Cf. T. Scott Manor, ‘Proclus, the North African Montanist?’ Studia Patristica LXV (2013):
139–146.
The Evidence 19

saying after the resurrection there will come an earthly kingdom of Christ,
and that flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be enslaved to desires and
pleasures. And being hostile to the scriptures of God, desiring to lead
[others] astray, he says there will be a thousand years for marriage festivi-
ties.’ (HE 3.28.1b-3)14

Although the following citation is from Proclus—perhaps in response to Gaius’

claim of the ‘trophies’ (above)—it should be noted here as one of the few frag-
ments of Gaius’ Dialogue that still exists.

After him15 there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at

Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father. (HE
3.31.4)

As far as Eusebius’ estimation of Gaius, we are told he was an ‘ecclesiastical

man’ (ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ, HE 2.25.6) and a ‘very learned man’ (λογιωτάτου
ἀνδρός, HE 6.20.3).

1.4 Origen

In his Commentary on John, Origen emphasizes the discrepancies among

the gospels in an effort to demonstrate the need for his allegorical exegesis.
Because the Alogi also criticized the Gospel of John for not aligning with the
Synoptic Gospels, and given some parallels between the criticisms of Origen
and the Alogi, it has been frequently noted that Origen’s work is a clear allusion
to the ‘Johannine Controversy’.

They say—those who accept the four Gospels and who suppose that the
discrepancy (διαφωνίαν) is not to be resolved through anagogical inter-
pretation (διὰ τῆς ἀναγωγῆς)—they will have to explain the difficulty
noted beforehand, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for
which there is no room that can be found in the account of John, (and)
when the Lord came into Capernaum . . . But if we ask when Christ was
in Capernaum the first time, they will say to us, according to the words
of Matthew and the other two, it was after the temptation, when ‘leaving

14 GCS 9,1, 256–8.

15 Because Eusebius excludes the earlier portions of this statement, the referent of ‘him’ is
unknown.
20 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Nazareth He came and stayed in Capernaum next to the sea.’ But how can
they claim both the account of Matthew and Mark be true—that it was
on account of Him hearing that John was delivered up that he withdrew
into Galilee—and that according to John, [which states] after a number
of other events than just His stay at Capernaum alone, namely His going
up to Jerusalem, and His journey from there to Judea, that John was not
yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in the Aenon near Salim?” And
there are many other points where, if someone carefully scrutinizes the
Gospels concerning their historical disagreement, (τὰ εὐαγγέλια περὶ τῆς
κατὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν)—we will try to present each as they happen, insofar
as we are able—he will surely become dizzy and will either shrink from
confirming the Gospels as true, and choose one of them at random since
he would not dare to deny completely the faith concerning our Lord, or
accept that there are four <and inquire> that their truth is not to be found
in the outward characteristics (σωματικοις χαρακτῆρσιν; Comm. Jo. 10.2).16

Later, in the same book, Origen provides some additional comments that have
been compared with Epiphanius’ comments on the Alogi.

I have cited lengthy sections from the Gospels, but I think it has been nec-
essary to do so in order to render the stated discrepancy. Three Gospels
place these events, which are assumed to be the same as those written
by John, as occurring in one journey of the Lord to Jerusalem. But John
places them in connection with two visits, which are divided from each
other, in between which there were many acts of the Lord and journeys
made to other places. Therefore, I find it impossible for those who accept
nothing other than the history in their interpretation to admit that these
discrepancies are in agreement. And if someone thinks that we have not
provided a sound exposition, let him produce an intelligent rebuttal to
our view (Comm. Jo. 10.15).17

1.5 Dionysius of Alexandria

Of course, the Alogi rejected not only the Fourth Gospel, but the Apocalypse
as well. Without a doubt the clearest and most viable connection between

16 Cécile Blanc, Origène, Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Tome II (Livres VI et X). SC 157 (Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1970), 386–390. Cf. Epiphanius, Haer. 51.18.6.
17 Emphases mine. SC 157, 464. Cf. Chapter 8.
The Evidence 21

Epiphanius’ testimony regarding the Apocalypse and the early extant litera-
ture is the testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria, as preserved by Eusebius.
Dionysius takes a non-literal interpretation of the Apocalypse. It is wrong, he
claims, to think that there will be a thousand years of bodily pleasures that will
contain eating and drinking and marrying in an earthly Jerusalem (HE 7.25.1–
3). Furthermore, he attributes this view to Cerinthus. This is how Eusebius
records the words of Dionysius:

Some before us (τινὲς. . .πρὸ ἡμῶν) have set aside (ἠθέτησαν) and dis-
mantled (ἀνεσκεύασαν) the whole book, amending (διευθύνοντες) each
chapter, and displaying it as unintelligible (ἄγνωστόν) and illogical, and
maintaining that the title is a lie. For they say (λέγουσιν) that it is not from
John, nor is it a revelation because it is covered thickly and deeply by a
curtain of ignorance (ἀγνοίας). And they say that none of the apostles,
neither the saints, nor anyone in the church wrote it, but that Cerinthus,
who founded the sect, which is called the Cerinthians after him, desir-
ing trustworthy authority for his own forgeries, assigned the name. (HE
7.25.1–2)18

1.6 Epiphanius of Salamis

In the last quarter of the fourth century Epiphanius compiled his list of eighty
heresies along with his own refutations, or antidotes, to the ‘bites’ of these
snake-like sects. The account of the Alogi is far too lengthy to fully reproduce
here, but the most notable sections are provided below. He opens his account
of the Alogi in this way:

Therefore these Alogi (Ἄλογοι)—for this is the name I am giving to them.

From now on, they shall be so called, beloved. We shall call them this
name, these Alogi, for they held to the heresy for which [that] name <was
worthy>: they rejected the books of John. Since they do not accept the
Word, which John has preached, they will be called Alogi. Being absolute
strangers to the message of truth, they deny the purity of the message
and accept neither the Gospel of John nor the Apocalypse. And if they
accepted the Gospel, but rejected the Apocalypse, we would say they are
doing it on account of precision—not accepting an ‘apocryphon’ because
of the deep and dark sayings in the Apocalypse. But when they do not

18 GCS 6,2, 690. Cf. Chapter 10.3.

22 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

receive the books which are preached from Saint John, it is clear to every-
one that they and those like them are those concerning whom Saint John
said in his general epistles, ‘It is the last hour, and you heard that the
Antichrist is coming and now behold there are many Antichrists’ (I Jn.
2:16) . . . For they say that these works are not from John but Cerinthus
and are not worthy to be affirmed in the Church (Haer. 51.3.1–6).19
And it can be shown from this hostility that, ‘They neither understand
what they are saying nor what they maintain strongly’ (I Tim. 1:7). For
how can the words against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus? Cerinthus says
that Christ is ‘recent’ and only a man, but John has proclaimed that
[Christ] is the eternal Word who has come from on high and been made
flesh. Therefore their frivolous attack has been put to shame as a false
accusation and unaware from where it is refuted. For they appear to
believe as we do, but not holding to the certainties that are from God
revealed to us through Saint John, they will be convicted of shouting
against the truth about things that they do not know. They will be known
to them, if they return to sobriety of mind and knowingly understand; for
we are not rejecting the teachings of the Holy Spirit, which are important
and authoritative (Haer. 51.4.1–4).20

In his lengthy portrayal and refutation of this sect, he presents two primary
arguments of the Alogi against the Gospel of John and three against the
Apocalypse. The first objection concerns the fact that the Gospel of John does
not record the forty-day temptation, whereas the Synoptics do. This objection
is divided into two parts (Haer. 51.4.5–10; 51.17.11–18.6). The second objection
to the Gospel of John is much more succinct and concerns the discrepancy in
the number of Passovers that John record as compared to the Synoptics (Haer.
51.22.1).

1.6.1 Objection 1—Gospel of John

For they say against themselves—I do not say against the truth—that
[John’s] books do not agree (ὀυ συμφωνεῖ) with the other apostles’.
And now they believe they can attack the holy and inspired teachings.
“And what did he say?” he asserts (φησίν). “In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was with God and the word was God.” And that,
‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we knew his glory,

19 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 250–1.

20 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 251.
The Evidence 23

glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” And
immediately, “John bore witness and cried, saying, ‘This is the one of
whom I was telling you.’ ” And that “This is the lamb of God, who takes
away the sin of the world.”
And next [John] says, “And those that heard him said, ‘Rabbi, where do
you dwell?’ ” and in the same breath he says, “in the morning Jesus wanted
to go into Galilee and found Philip and Jesus said to him, ‘Follow me.’ ”
And after a little while he says, “And after three days there was a wedding
in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the wedding
supper, and his mother was there.” But the other evangelists say that he
spent forty days in the wilderness being tempted by the devil, and then
returned to choose his disciples. And they [the Alogi] have not seen that
each evangelist has taken care to say what the others had said, in agree-
ment with them, while at the same time revealing what each had not
proclaimed, but had neglected to disclose. For the will was not their own:
but the sequence (ἀκολουθία,) and teachings came from the Holy Spirit. If
these opponents attack these writings [of John], they must learn that the
other three of these [Gospels] did not begin in the same way (Haer.
51.4.5–12a).21

Epiphanius then provides a lengthy rebuttal to this initial criticism before

picking up the second half of this first objection, which reads:

Not understanding the power of the Gospels they say, “Why have the other
evangelists said that Jesus fled from before Herod to Egypt, and after the
flight he came back and remained in Nazareth; then, after receiving the
baptism, went up into the wilderness, and returned after these things,
and after his return began to preach? But the Gospel which was issued
under John’s name lies,” they say (φασί). For, after it says that “The Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us” and a few other things, immediately
it says that there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee (Haer. 51.17.11–18.1).22
But they say that the Gospel according to John is non-canonical
(ἀδιάθετον) because it did not mention these things—I am speaking
about the events of the forty-day temptation—and they do not deem it
worthy of being accepted, since they are deceived about everything and
mentally blind (Haer. 51.18.6).23

21 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 251–2.

22 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 274–5.
23 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 275–6.
24 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

1.6.2 Objection 2—Gospel of John

But they accuse the holy evangelist again, more so the Gospel itself,
because, he says (φησίν), ‘John said that the Savior kept two Passovers over
a period of two years, but the other evangelists describe one Passover’
(Haer. 51.22.1).24

Towards the end of his account, Epiphanius records the three objections that
the Alogi had against the Apocalypse of John.

1.6.3 Objection 1—Apocalypse

And again these people are not ashamed to take up arms against the
things said by Saint John, believing that they are able to overturn the
truth, but being unaware that they are attacking themselves rather than
sound teachings. For they say mockingly of the Apocalypse, ‘What use
is it to me, he says (τί με, φησίν), when the Apocalypse of John tells me
about seven angels and seven trumpets?’—not knowing that such things
were essential and profitable to the correctness of the proclamation”
(Haer. 51.32.1–3; cf. Rev. 8:2).25

1.6.4 Objection 2—Apocalypse

Again some of them attack the following text in the Apocalypse and say
in contradiction that ‘He said, in a contradiction, ‘Write to the angel of
the church that is in Thyatira,’ and there is no church of Christians in
Thyatira. How then did he write to a church that does not exist?’ In fact
these people destroy themselves since they are compelled by their own
declarations to confess the truth. For if they say, ‘There is now no church
in Thyatira,’ they show that this was foretold by John.
For since those who are of the Phrygians settled there [and] grabbed
the minds of the simple believers like wolves, and converted the whole
area to their heresy, those that reject the Apocalypse attacked this text at
that time in an effort to discredit it (Haer. 51.33.1–3; Rev. 2:18).26

24 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 283.

25 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 305.
26 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 306–7.
The Evidence 25

1.6.5 Objection 3—Apocalypse

But again these people get excited in their boundless hunt for texts to
give the notion of throwing out the books of the holy apostle—I mean
the Gospel and Apocalypse of John (and perhaps the Epistles also, for
these are also in accord with the Gospel and Apocalypse)—and they say
(φασιν) that, ‘I saw, and he said to the angel, “Loose the four angels that
are upon the Euphrates.” And I heard the number of the host, ten thou-
sand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, and they had been
fortified in breastplates of fire and sulfur and hyacinth.’ (Rev. 9:14–17) For
these people considered that the truth might somehow be <a kind of>
joke (Haer. 51.34.1–3a).27

At the end of his account, Epiphanius summarizes the sins of the Alogi in this
way:

But since these people have not received the Holy Spirit they are judged
for not observing the things of the Spirit, and being willing to speak
against the words of the Spirit. They do not see the gifts of grace in the
holy Church, which, with understanding and a sound mind, the Holy
Spirit set out in detail, so also the holy apostles, and the holy prophets
have followed truly and vigorously. Among these, St. John has given his
gracious gift to the holy church, through the Gospel, the Epistles and
Revelation. But as it is said, ‘He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit,
it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the one to come.’ (Mt.
12:32) For they have also waged war against the words spoken by the Spirit
(Haer. 51.35.1–3).28

This account represents the earliest extant evidence of any opposition to the
Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. As noted above, others such as Philaster of
Brescia later followed Epiphanius’ notice of a group that rejected the Gospel
and Apocalypse of John. None of these sources, however, provided any further
details than what has been catalogued thus far. This all changed in the late
nineteenth century, however, when one scholar stumbled across a commen-
tary from a writer who was active seven centuries earlier. The incorporation of
this evidence would drastically change the way many interpreted the earlier
evidence.

27 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 308–9.

28 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 310–11.
26 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

1.7 Dionysius bar Salibi

In 1888 the Irish scholar John Gwynn published some fragments of the
Commentary on the Apocalypse, Acts and Epistles, written by the twelfth-
century Jacobite Βishop of Amid, Dionysius bar Salibi (d. 1171).29 Although bar
Salibi’s work makes no mention of the Alogi, it does identify another figure
of the early church as a Johannine antagonist who, in a debate with a certain
Hippolytus Romanus, offered similar objections to those of the Alogi against the
Apocalypse. Bar Salibi identifies this person only as ‘Gaius’, and since Eusebius
mentions a certain ‘Gaius of Rome’ who was active around the same time as
Hippolytus, the two quickly became linked.
In this putative debate between Hippolytus and Gaius the ‘heretic’, the latter
offers five objections against the Apocalypse based on its incompatibility with
other scripture.30

1.7.1 Objection 1
Gaius’ objection to Rev. 8:8, concerning the notice that a great mountain will be
cast into the sea and a third of the sea became blood.

On this, Caius the heretic objected to this revelation, and said that it is
not possible that these things should be, inasmuch as, ‘as a thief that
cometh in the night, so is the coming of the Lord’ (1 Thess. 5:2).31

1.7.2 Objection 2
Gaius’ objection to Rev. 8:12, concerning the notice that the third part of the sun
was darkened, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars.

On this Caius said that, Just as in the Flood the heavenly bodies were not
taken away and suddenly submerged, thus also is it to be in the end, as it

29 John Gwynn, ‘Hippolytus and his ‘Heads against Caius,’ ’ Hermathena. A Series of Papers
on Literature, Science and Philosophy, by Members of Trinity College, Dublin. Vol. 6
(1888), 397–418. Bar Salibi’s work on the Apocalypse is published in its entirety by
Sedlacek, I. (ed.) Dionysius Bar Salîbî. In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas catholicas. CSCO
60. Scriptores Syri. Versio. Series Secunda. Tomus CI. Romae: Excudebat Karolus de Luigi,
1910. Hereafter referred to as Comm. Apoc.
30 The list of Gaius’ objections and Hippolytus’ rejoinders is found in Gwynn, pp. 399–404.
31 Comm. Apoc., 8; cf. Gwynn, 399. Caius haereticus impugnavit hanc visionem et dixit:
Impossibile est, ut ista fiant, nam, «sicut fur, qui venit noctu», ita erit adventus Domini.
The Evidence 27

is written (Mt. 24:37); and Paul says, When they shall say, Peace and safety,
destruction shall come upon them (I Thess. 5:3).32

1.7.3 Objection 3
Gaius’ objection to Rev. 9:2–3, concerning the notice that locusts came out of the
smoke and were given power like the power of scorpions on the earth.

Here Caius objects, how will the unrighteous be consumed by the locusts,
when Scripture says that sinners prosper and the righteous are persecuted,
in the world (Ps. 73:12); and Paul, that the faithful shall be persecuted and
the evil shall flourish, being deceived and deceiving (II Tim. 3:12–13)?33

1.7.4 Objection 4
Gaius’ objection to Rev. 9:15, concerning the angels, which are loosed to slay a third
of mankind.

On this Caius says: It is not written that angels are to make war, nor that
a third part of men is to perish; but that nation shall rise against nation
(Mt. 24:7).34

1.7.5 Objection 5
Gaius’ objection to Rev. 20:2–3, concerning the notice that Satan will be bound for
a thousand years.

On this Caius the heretic objects: that Satan is bound here, according to
that which is written, that Christ Went into the strong man’s house and
bound him, and seized us who were his goods (Mt. 12:29).35

32 Comm. Apoc., 9; cf. Gwynn, 400. Caius dixit: Sicut in diluvio elementa non sublevata sunt, et
subito aquis submersa sunt, ita etiam in fine erit, sicut scriptum est; et Paulus: «cum dicent:
Salus est et securitas, surget in eos interitus».
33 Comm. Apoc. 10; cf. Gwynn, 401. hic obiicit Caius: Quomodo scelesti percutientur locus-
tis, cum dicat Scriptura peccatores prosperaturos et iustos persecutioni obnoxious fore in
mundo; et Paulus: «Fideles persecutionem patientur et mali prospere agent, errantes et
decipientes»?
34 Comm. Apoc. 10; cf. Gwynn, 402. Caius (dicit): Non est scriptum angelos bellum gessuros
esse, nec tertiam partem hominum perituram esse, sed: «Surget gens contra gentem».
35 Comm. Apoc. 19; cf. Gwynn, 402–3. Caius haereticus obiicit: Satanas hic vinctus est secun-
dum quod scriptum est: «Ingressus est Christus domum fortis et ligavit eum et rapuit nos,
vasa eius».
28 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Gwynn noticed that Gaius’ fourth objection concerning whether the angels
mentioned are to be released to slay the third of mankind (Rev. 9:15),
was almost identical to one of the arguments lodged by the Alogi (Haer.
51.34.2–8).36 In addition, both Epiphanius and Hippolytus make the same
appeal to Deut. 32:7–9 as justification in their rebuttals.37 The implication was
clear: there must be some connection between the source(s) of bar Salibi’s
commentary and Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi. Either Epiphanius and bar
Salibi were dependent upon the same Hippolytan work, or perhaps bar Salibi
simply altered the testimony of Epiphanius and provided missing information
that connected the Alogi with Gaius of Rome. Gwynn was drawn to the former
and concluded that a Hippolytan work entitled Heads Against Gaius, men-
tioned only in the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu (below), was the common source
of both.38
Yet a full connection between Gaius and the Alogi was missing one cru-
cial element: the bar Salibi commentary in Gwynn’s hands only recorded
Gaius’ rejection of the Apocalypse, whereas the Alogi rejected the Gospel of
John as well. In fact, Gwynn argued that Gaius could not be identified with
the Alogi because it appears he was receptive of the Gospel of John. This is
seen in Hippolytus’ replies to the first and final charges of Gaius against the
Apocalypse where he cites the Gospel of John (11:10, 12:35–36; 14:30), ‘evi-
dently as an authority admitted by his opponent.’39 Furthermore, Gwynn
noted that none of the criticisms of Gaius demonstrate that he ‘went to such
lengths in his condemnation of the Apocalypse as to assign it to Cerinthus.’40
According to Eusebius, in his Dialogue with Proclus, Gaius opposed Cerinthus’
carnal chiliasm as expressed in an apocalyptic work that Cerinthus falsified
under the name of a ‘great apostle’ (HE 3.28.1–2). Is this a reference to John’s
Apocalypse? For Gwynn, if Gaius had actually gone so far as to attribute this
work to Cerinthus, surely Hippolytus and bar Salibi would have included and
refuted such a position. Thus, the absence of any such reference led Gwynn to

36 Gwynn, 402, 406–7; Comm. Apoc., 10.

37 Gwynn, 406–7. Cf. Haer. 51.34.5–7; Comm. Apoc. 10.
38 Hippolytus’ Heads Against Gaius was, according to Gwynn, a distinct work from another
work listed in the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu entitled, Defense of the Gospel and Apocalypse
according to John. Ibid., 404–5.
39 Gwynn, 406; Comm. Apoc. 8, 19.
40 Gwynn, 408–9.
The Evidence 29

conclude that Gaius could not have attributed the Johannine Apocalypse to
Cerinthus, as had the Alogi (Haer. 51.3.6).41
However, shortly after Gwynn’s publication, J. Rendell Harris and T.H.
Robinson provided additional bar Salibi materials that indicated Gaius prob-
ably rejected the Gospel of John as well as the Apocalpyse. Harris discovered
some manuscripts of the bar Salibi commentary on the Gospel of John, while
Robinson stumbled upon a separate copy of bar Salibi’s commentary on the
Apocalypse that contained a portion of the prologue that was missing from
Gwynn’s copy of the same work.
Here is the extract of Harris’ discovery of a Latin translation of bar Salibi’s
commentary on the Gospel of John made by Dudley Loftus:

Gaius haereticus reprehendat Johannem quia non concors fuit cum sociis,
dicentibus, quod post baptismum abiit in Galilaeam, et fecit miraculum
vini in Katna. Sanctus Hypolitus e contrario (l. adversus eum) scilicet . . .42

A heretic Gaius rebukes John because he was not in agreement with his com-
panions, since after the baptism he went into Galilee, and made the miracle
of wine in Cana. Saint Hippolytus said against him . . .

Harris noted a significant corruption in the manuscript tradition, however.

After reviewing two manuscripts of the same work, housed in the British
Library (MSS Codd. Add. 7184 and 12,143), Harris suspected that ‘the name of
Gaius was not in the primitive draft of the Commentary.’43 In MS. Add. 7184
the text reads: ‘A certain heretic had accused John . . .’ above which a later hand
prescribed the name Gaius. The second British manuscript (MS. Add. 12,143)
contains the same objection but with no mention of the name ‘Gaius’ at all. In

41 Ibid., 405–6. Shortly after Gwynn’s publication, Adolf von Harnack also argued that Gaius
did not reject John or ascribe it to Cerinthus, only that he may have utilized elements of
the Alogi’s arguments against Revelation. Adolf von Harnack, Das Neue Testament um das
Jahr 200 (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1889), 63ff.
42 J. Rendell Harris, ‘Presbyter Gaius and the Fourth Gospel.’ In Hermas in Arcadia and Other
Essays, 43–59 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896): 48. See Harris (48) for the
full reproduction of Hippolytus’ response in the Latin. Harris located this Latin translation
by Dudley Loftus in the Bodleian Library, Fell MSS. 6 and 7, which Loftus translated from
the Syriac MS listed in the Manuscripts Department of Trinity College Library, Dublin as:
TCD MS 1512 fol. Chart., s.xii. Syriac—Dionysius (Jacob) Barsalibi; Commentarius in Quator
Evangelia. Written by Matthew, son of John, for his nephew Matthew, son of Bakhititujar,
A. Gr. 1509; AD 1198.
43 Harris, 48.
30 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

the words of Harris, ‘as we can see no reason for the omission of the name of
Gaius in these two copies, we suspect that it has come in by editorial correc-
tion. Indeed the opening words which answer to the Greek αἱρετικός τις would
of themselves suggest the absence of the name of the heretic.’44 However,
given that this anonymous objection is followed by a rebuttal by Hippolytus, as
in the case of the objections to the Apocalypse, Harris maintained Gaius’ name
was rightly added by a later source for the sake of identification.
It did not take long for the third and final piece of ‘new’ evidence from the
bar Salibi commentaries to arrive. In 1906, T.H. Robinson published an article in
which he argued that Hippolytus was the author of the Muratorian Fragment.45
This conclusion was based on Robinson’s assumption that Epiphanius was
wholly reliant upon a singular work of Hippolytus, as Harris had suggested.
Robinson also argued that the defense of the Gospel of John recorded in the
Muratorian Fragment is too similar to the response of Hippolytus against Gaius
to deny that the Muratorian Fragment is a product of Hippolytus as well.46 To
prove this, Robinson published the introduction to bar Salibi’s Commentary on
the Apocalypse, which had been missing from Gwynn’s copy of the same work.47
In this recovered portion one finds an historical introduction in which Gaius
is portrayed as clearly rejecting both the Gospel and Apocalypse of John and
attributing both to Cerinthus.48 As to where bar Salibi got this information,
Robinson concluded that the law of parsimony of causes necessitates that all
of bar Salibi’s quotations must have come directly from Hippolytus’ Defense of
the Apocalypse and Gospel of John.49

. . . At the beginning of the treatise we must say that there are many teach-
ers who are in doubt regarding the Revelation of John, and say that it is not
his. And Eusebius of Caesarea declares the same thing in his ecclesiasti-
cal writings. For Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, says that the Revelation
was not that of John the Apostle, but of another John, ‘the Presbyter,’ who
lived in Asia. The reason is, that the style of the Revelation is not like the

44 Ibid., 48–9.
45 Robinson, ‘Authorship,’, 481–495.
46 Ibid., 494–5.
47 See Gwynn, 410.
48 Robinson (487) translated the preface to bar Salibi’s work, which includes this statement:
‘Hippolytus of Rome states that a man named Gaius had appeared, who said that neither
the Gospel nor yet the Revelation was John’s; but that they were the work of Cerinthus the
heretic.’
49 Ibid., 491.
The Evidence 31

type of the language of the Gospel. Also John makes no mention of his
name at all in the Gospel, but does put his name at the beginning and end
of the Revelation. Now we agree that he received the Revelation of which
he wrote from our Lord. Irenaeus the bishop, and Hippolytus of Bozra say
that the Revelation is that of John the Evangelist, and that it was granted
about the end of the reign of Domitian. And Eusebius of Caesarea agrees
with this, but immediately says that some do not accept it as being the
Revelation of John the Apostle, so saying that it is the work of John the
Elder, who was a contemporary of John the Apostle. And there are two
tombs in Asia, one being that of the Evangelist, the other that of John
the Elder.
Hippolytus of Rome states that a man named Gaius had appeared,
who said that neither the Gospel nor yet the Revelation was John’s; but
that they were the work of Cerinthus the heretic. And the blessed
Hippolytus opposed this Gaius, and showed that the teaching of John in
the Gospel and Revelation was different from that of Cerinthus. This
Cerinthus was one who taught circumcision, and was angry with Paul
when he did not circumcise Titus, and the Apostle calls him and his dis-
ciples in one of his letters ‘sham apostles, crafty workers.’ Again he teaches
that the world was created by angels, and that our Lord was not born of a
virgin. He also teaches carnal eating and drinking, and many other blas-
phemies. The Gospel and Revelation of John, however, are like the teach-
ing which the Scriptures contain; and so they are liars who say that the
Revelation is not by the Apostle John. And we agree with Hippolytus that
the Revelation is the Evangelist John’s. This is attested by S. Cyril and Mar
Severus, and all the teachers who bring evidence from it. Also the
Theologian,50 in his ‘Address to the Nation,’ testifies that there is no proof
from the conclusion, and says, ‘as John taught me by his Revelation; He
made a way for thy people, and these stones’—where he calls the heretics
and their teaching stones.51

Later, in the middle of the twentieth century, thanks to the contributions of

M. Chabot towards the critical editions of the bar Salibi commentaries, Pierre
de Labriolle was made aware of another copy of bar Salibi’s commentary
on the Gospels in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. This manuscript (Cod.
parisinus syr. 67) contains the name ‘Gaius’ as part of the original text. Labriolle
cites it in this way:

50 Robinson understands this figure to be Gregory of Nazianzus.

51 Robinson, 487. Latin translation in Sedlacek (ed.), Comm. Apoc. 1–2.
32 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Caius hareticus arguebat Iohannem quod non consentiret Evangelistis

eius sociis qui dicunt (sic) quod post baptismum iuit in Galileam et fecit
Canae miraculum uini.52

It is readily apparent that another textual issue arises, though not pertain-
ing to the inclusion of Gaius’ name. The translation of this manuscript reads
incoherently:

Gaius the heretic accused John because it does not agree with the other
Evangelists who say (pl.) that after the baptism he came into Galilee and
made the miracle of the wine in Cana.

In fact this is the Johannine chronology, not that of the Synoptics as is indi-
cated in this passage. Labriolle suggested the original reading must have read,
‘. . . dicunt quod post baptismum iuit <in desertum, dum ipse dicit quod statim
iuit> in Galileam, etc . . .’53 Labriolle also noted that another copy of the bar
Salibi commentary (Cod. Paris. syr. 68) neglected to include the objection of
Gaius altogether. He also referenced a relatively recent copy (1904) of a sev-
enteenth-century manuscript that provides a text analogous to that of Cod.
parisinus syr. 67, which includes Gaius’ name.

1.8 Ebed-Jesu

The last major piece of evidence comes from the Syriac Catalogue of Ebed-
Jesu (ca. 1300). The seventh chapter of this work lists a number of works by
‘Hippolytus, bishop and martyr’ (Hippolytus Epifcopus & Martyr). Lightfoot
translated the entry into Greek, Assemani into Latin.54

Lightfoot Translation Assemani Translation

Κύριος Ἱππόλυτος μάρτυς 1 Sanctus Hippolytus martyr

52 Labriolle, Crise, 285, citing Cod. parisinus syr. 67 Fol. 270, r°, col. 2. Not surprisingly, Smith
based his translation on this manuscript due to its inclusion of Gaius’ name. See Smith,
‘Gaius’, 201, n. 2.
53 Labriolle, Crise, 285, n. 1
54 Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 350. See also J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana,
tomi tertii pars prima Romae (Rome: S.C. Propaganda Fide 1719–1728) III.1, 15.
The Evidence 33

καὶ ἐπίσκοπος ἔγραψε βιβλίον 2 Et Episcopus composuit librum

περὶ οἰκονομίας καὶ ἑρμηνείαν De Dispensatione: &
expositionem
Δανιὴλ τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Σουσάννας 3 Danielis minoris & Susannae

καὶ κεφάλαια κατὰ Γαΐου 4 Et capita adversùs Cajum:

καὶ ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ τῆς 5 Et Apologiam pro Apocalypsi
ἀποκαλύψεως
καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰωάνου [sic] Et Evangelio Joannis
τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ. Apostoli & Evangelistae

Blessed Hippolytus, martyr and bishop wrote a book concerning the

interpretation of Little (or ‘Young’) Daniel and Susannah, and Heads (or
‘Chapters’) against Gaius, and an Apology for the Apocalypse and Gospel
of John, Apostle and Evangelist.

With the addition of this last piece of evidence, the preceding entries in the
catalogue of evidence concerning the Alogi and Gaius would seem to fall in
place. Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue appears to acknowledge the existence not only of
the lost work inscribed on the plinth of the Statue of Hippolytus, but also the
unknown source that informed the commentaries of bar Salibi. Although the
Alogi are not mentioned, the parallels between Gaius’ criticisms and those of
the Alogi would steer scholarship throughout most of the twentieth century
towards the conclusion that the former mounted an ecclesiastical campaign
against the Johannine literature. The following chapter will outline in greater
detail this this trajectory of scholarship.
 CHAPTER 2

An Implausible Consensus and a New Way Forward

Prior to Gwynn’s discovery of the bar Salibi commentaries, just as little was
known about Gaius of Rome as was known of the Alogi. In fact, shortly before
Gwynn’s publication, J.B. Lightfoot went so far as to question the historical
existence of Gaius, hypothesizing that he was nothing more than a fictitious
character invented by Hippolytus for dramatic purposes in his polemic against
the Montanists—perhaps even a double of Hippolytus himself.1 Lightfoot’s
clever hypothesis was based on the fact that Eusebius is the only early witness
to Gaius and his attacks on the Montanist Proclus (HE 2.25.6–7; 3.28.1–2; 3.31.4;
6.20.3). Since Eusebius knows of Gaius only through what must have been an
anonymous copy of the anti-Montanist work entitled Dialogue with Proclus,
Lightfoot argued that he incorrectly assumed that because Gaius is the main
protagonist of this work he must also be its author. He concluded it is more
likely that this work, as with many of the particulars of Gaius, should be predi-
cated to Hippolytus, thus eliminating Gaius as an historical figure.
Gwynn’s discovery appeared not only to disprove Lightfoot’s hypothesis by
securing the historical existence of Gaius of Rome, but also to add to the Gaius’
legacy by providing new information of his refusal to accept the Apocalypse
as canonical.2 Ironically, Gaius of Rome, once venerated by Eusebius as an
‘ecclesiastical man’ (ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ, HE 2.25.6) and a ‘very learned man’
(λογιωτάτου ἀνδρός, HE 6.20.3) of good—if not prominent—standing within
the early church, was now cast as a ‘heretic’ by Dionysius bar Salibi.3 It is at
this point that scholarship began re-examining the earliest evidence through
the lens of the bar Salibi commentaries. The following summary of scholar-
ship over the past century describes the evolution of the once-inconsequential

1 J.B. Lightfoot, ‘Caius or Hippolytus?’ Journal of Philology I, no. 1 (1868): 98–112. See also AF i, 2,
377ff.
2 In response to Gwynn’s discovery Lightfoot conceded the falsity of his hypothesis, but did not
entirely let go of his position. ‘Gaius therefore is alive once more, though he seemed to me to
be dead. But, whether this is really Gaius the Roman presbyter or another, may perhaps still
be an open question.’ Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 388.
3 Dionysius bar Salibi refers to ‘Caius haereticus’ in the first and fifth objections raised by Gaius
against the Apocalypse of John. See Gwynn, 399, 402; Comm. Apoc. 8, 19. In contrast, Photius
goes so far as to suggest that Gaius was a presbyter of the church in Rome and was ordained
‘bishop of the Gentiles’ (Bibl. 48).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_004

An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 35

Alogi and Gaius of Rome to the point where they became the epicentre of the
‘Johannine Controversy’.

2.1 The Formation of a Consensus

2.1.1 Eduard Schwartz

In a series of three articles written in the early twentieth century, Eduard
Schwartz provided fresh insights into the discussion of Gaius of Rome and the
opposition to the Johannine writings.4 The first two articles linked Epiphanius’
Alogi with the unnamed opponents of the Gospel of John and the Prophetic
Spirit mentioned by Irenaeus (AH 3.11.9).5 For Schwartz, Irenaeus’ use of the
plural ‘others’ (Alii), along with Epiphanius’ Alogi, does not necessitate that
this opposition to the Johannine writings indicated numerous opponents.
Rather, Schwartz argued the plural form was a common stylistic device used
in the polemical genre in which both Irenaeus and Epiphanius wrote. Based
on this analysis, Schwartz further concluded that there is no doubt that the
opposition to the Gospel and Apocalypse of John was limited to one person:
Gaius of Rome.6
Hippolytus, a pupil of Irenaeus, was therefore the intermediary to Epiphanius
and the source for his knowledge of the opposition to the Johannine writ-
ings. Moreover, Schwartz argued that because Irenaeus was responding to the
criticisms of Gaius, Eusebius’ testimony of the date of Gaius’ Dialogue dur-
ing the reign of Zephyrinus (199–217 AD; cf. HE 2.25.6; 6.20.3) must have been
erroneous.7 In his opinion, around 160 AD one could still refuse the Fourth
Gospel and avoid excommunication; thus Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus must
have been written around this time.
Despite the fact that Schwartz was unaware of Harris’ discovery of bar
Salibi’s commentary on the Gospel of John, his analysis of the Syriac fragments
of bar Salibi’s commentary on Revelation led him to the conclusion that Gaius

4 Eduard Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
Johannesevangeliums,’ Abhandlungen d. Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wiss., N.F. VII, 5 (1904):
3–53; ‘Noch einmal der Tod der Söhne Zebedaei,’ ZNW, 11 (1910): 89–104; ‘Johannes und
Kerinthos,’ ZNW 15 (1914): 210–219. The first and third articles are located in Eduard Schwartz,
Gesammelte Schriften, V (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1963), 48–123 and 170–182 respec-
tively. Pagination references correspond to the original publications.
5 See esp. Scwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 30.
6 Ibid., 40, 44; Schwartz, ‘Noch einmal,’ 99.
7 Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 40ff.
36 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

must have rejected the Gospel of John as well.8 This is based largely on the
similarity in style between the objections raised by the Alogi in Epiphanius and
Gaius in the commentary of bar Salibi.9 Schwartz hypothesized that Eusebius
did not mention Gaius’ rejection of the Gospel of John due to the fact that he
had an incomplete copy of the Dialogue in which this criticism was deleted.10
Finally, Schwartz found further evidence of orthodox backlash against Gaius
in the writings of other early writers. For example, he drew parallels between
the Alogi’s criticisms and the arguments of Origen concerning the discrepan-
cies in the chronology of Christ’s ministry recorded in the Gospel of John as
compared to that found in the Synoptics (Comm. Jo. 10). Schwartz argued that
since Gaius was the sole member of the Alogi, Origen’s response is, in fact, his
own polemic against Gaius. In addition, Schwartz argued that it is not unlikely
that Eusebius’ discussion of the order in which the Gospels were written
(HE 3.24) was directed at the criticisms that originated from Gaius, although
Eusebius was not aware that Gaius was at the core of this opposition.11
In his third article, however, Schwartz modified and retracted some of his
previous positions.12 Most notably, Schwartz no longer held that Gaius rejected
the Gospel of John, nor did he uphold his earlier view that Gaius was to be
identified with the Alogi. Gaius, independent of this heretical group, based his
attacks on the Johannine Apocalypse from a previous second-century, anti-
Montanist work that rejected both the Gospel and Apocalypse of John. The
existence of such a work, however, is pure conjecture. Nevertheless, Schwartz
maintained that Gaius only rejected the Johannine Apocalypse, which was not
an uncommon position in the early third century. Likewise, Epiphanius uti-
lized the same hypothetical work in his description of the Alogi, who wanted to
take away the apostolic foundation for the Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete
and thus ascribed Revelation to Cerinthus. The Gospel of John, guilty by autho-
rial association, was therefore ascribed to Cerinthus as well.13
As with Gaius and Epiphanius, Hippolytus himself is indebted to this previ-
ous, hypothetical work, which, along with Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus, served
as a foundation for his two distinct treatises: the Defense of the Gospel of John

8 Ibid., 36. Schwartz translated the Syriac fragments of bar Salibi’s commentary on
Revelation back into Greek, as it is the only ‘scientific’ and ‘permissible’ language for this
type of analysis.
9 Ibid., 36ff.
10 Ibid., 42.
11 Ibid., 44–5.
12 Schwartz, ‘Johannes und Kerinthos,’ 210–19.
13 Ibid., 213–4.
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 37

and Revelation as well as the Heads against Gaius.14 Furthermore, Schwartz

abandoned his previous dating of Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus and adopted
Eusebius’ dating during the time of Zephyrinus.15 For Schwartz, the Alogi
existed independent of and prior to Gaius of Rome.

2.1.2 August Bludau

In 1925, August Bludau composed a comprehensive study focused squarely on
the evidence to support the view that would become known as the ‘Johannine
Controversy’.16 Some of his conclusions fell in step with those of Schwartz and
others, however his analysis also raised important questions regarding the way
in which scholars were calibrating the evidence.
Bludau agreed that Irenaeus’ anonymous Alii in AH 3.11.9 must have been a
group of anti-Montanists that rejected the Gospel of John, but there is noth-
ing to suggest that the Apocalypse was also included.17 Thus, Irenaeus was not
referring to the Alogi. Furthermore, he concluded that Gaius of Rome was to
be distinguished from the Alogi as well, particularly because there is nothing
to indicate that the Alogi were anti-Montanists.18 However, in his Dialogue with
Proclus, Gaius did utilize the arguments of the Alogi, which preceded him.19
Also, contra Schwartz’s earlier view, Epiphanius clearly portrays this heresy as
more than a single individual, thus eliminating the possibility of Gaius being
the only member of the Alogi.20
As to the source(s) for Epiphanius’ testimony, Bludau pointed to Hippolytus,
based on bar Salibi’s testimony.21 Because neither the Alogi nor Gaius are men-
tioned in any of his extant works, Hippolytus must have composed two dif-
ferent apologetic works later in his life: one against the Alogi (Apology) and
one against Gaius (Heads against Gaius). Whether or not these two works are
related is unclear.22 It is certain, however, that Epiphanius did not conceive of
Gaius as the Alogi, thus he used Hippolytus’ Apology, not the Heads against
Gaius, as his source.

14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., 212.
16 A. Bludau, Die ersten Gegner der Johannesschriften. Biblische Studien 22 (Freiburg: Herder
and Co., 1925).
17 Ibid., 39–40.
18 Ibid., 120.
19 Ibid., 165.
20 Ibid., 222–3.
21 Ibid., 150ff.
22 Ibid., 165; cf. 184–5.
38 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

2.1.3 Walter Bauer, J.N. Sanders, R.M. Grant, and Hans von
Campenhausen
In 1934, Walter Bauer added a new dimension to the study of Gaius of Rome.23
In his work, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, he did not give par-
ticular attention to the details surrounding the numerous dimensions of the
study of the Alogi upon which previous scholars had focused. Rather, he was
content to amalgamate prior scholarship into a tidy summary of Gaius and the
Alogi that fit squarely within his overall purpose, which was to demonstrate
that early Christianity was far more diverse and complex in nature than the
traditional narrative suggests.
Bauer argued that Gaius of Rome ‘vigorously’ rejected the Fourth Gospel and
is ‘closely connected’ with Epiphanius’ Alogi. Irenaeus was also aware of this
group around 175 AD (AH 3.11.9), even if Gaius was not a member of the Alogi
at that time. The reason why Gaius was not condemned as a heretic at this
point suggested to Bauer that it was permissible for a Roman Christian—and
in this case an officeholder—to consider the Apocalypse and Gospel of John as
forgeries of Cerinthus.24 Bauer held that Gaius personified the general mood
of early orthodoxy in Rome towards the Fourth Gospel, which manifested its
reticence through silence and explicit rejection. It was the association of the
Gospel of John with Montanism and Gnosticism that caused Gaius, the Alogi,
and the orthodox community in Rome to reject it. In fact, ‘history is unable to
name a single orthodox Roman for whom the Fourth Gospel had been of any
significance’ until Irenaeus defended its apostolicity without reservation.25
J.N. Sanders echoed much of the overall analysis of Walter Bauer in his work,
The Gospel of John in the Early Church.26 At the foundation of Sanders’ argu-
ment was the notion that the Gospel of John originated in Alexandria and bore
proto-gnostic elements that were intended to resonate with people inclined
towards such religious speculation, but the Gospel was eventually exploited by
Alexandrian and Valentinian gnostics such as Basilides, Ptolemy, Heracleon,
and Valentinus in the second century in order to validate the apostolic heritage

23 Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: J.C.B.

Mohr, 1934), ET, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, eds. Robert A. Kraft and
Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).
24 Ibid., 207.
25 Ibid., 208.
26 J.N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1943).
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 39

of their teachings.27 Gaius and the conservative Alogi essentially conceded

the validity of the Valentinian exegesis of the Gospel of John in their rejec-
tion of the Gospel and attribution of it to the ‘early Gnostic Cerinthus’. It was
left to Irenaeus to demonstrate the legitimacy of the orthodox kerygma within
the Gospel and its usefulness as a weapon against the Gnostics and the Alogi
(implied in AH 3.11.9) by means of superior exegesis.28 Rome was the epicentre
of orthodox reticence towards accepting the Gospel of John and Revelation
and the ‘headquarters’ of the Alogi.
Shortly thereafter, Robert M. Grant29 continued the trend of interpreting
Irenaeus’ statements (AH 3.11.9) as demonstrating the fact that Eusebius wrongly
dated Gaius during the reign of Zephyrinus.30 For Grant, the Roman orthodox
group, the Alogi, is to be identified with Gaius, who staunchly upheld the posi-
tion of Roman orthodoxy and its triad of gospels against the Gospel of John and
the threatening views of the Gnostics, Montanists and Quartodecimans with
which it was associated.31 He argued that Gaius rejected the Gospel of John in
the Dialogue and Heads against Gaius alike, and that Eusebius did not provide
a full, accurate series of quotations.32 Furthermore, the testimony of Eusebius
proves that yet another early church figure, Dionysius of Alexandria, made
use of Gaius’ Dialogue in his work On the Promises (HE 7.25.1–3). Grant argued
that Cerinthus’ Christology does not agree with the chiliasm of the Johannine
Apocalypse and that the theories of Gaius concerning the authenticity of the
Gospel of John and the Apocalypse were ‘simply anti-Montanist propaganda’.33
Irenaeus, Hippolytus and the Muratorian Fragment demonstrate the judgment
that was eventually pronounced on Gaius: ‘The church had spoken; Gaius’
defence of an outmoded orthodoxy was henceforth heretical.’34

27 Sanders later argued for a Syrian followed by an Ephesian origin of the Gospel of John
in J.N. Sanders, The Foundations of the Christian Faith (London: Adam and Charles
Black, 1951), 161–2 and A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, ed. B.A. Mastin
(New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1969), respectively.
28 Sanders, Fourth Gospel, 65–6, 85.
29 R.M. Grant, ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Church,’ HTR 35, no. 2 (April 1942): 95–116 and
‘The Origin of the Fourth Gospel,’ JBL 69, no. 4 (December 1950): 305–322.
30 Grant would later modify this position, noting that Gaius post-dated Irenaeus. See R.M.
Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature,
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 93.
31 Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’ 109; ‘Origin,’ 307.
32 Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’ 109, n. 85.
33 Grant, ‘Origin,’ 310.
34 Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel and the Church,’ 110.
40 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

However, not everyone believed the Johannine Controversy was a Roman

phenomenon; Hans von Campenhausen argued that it probably originated in
Asia Minor.35 He also broke with the view that Eusebius’ dating of Gaius was
wrong. Campenhausen adhered to the Eusebian dating of Gaius during the
time of Zephyrinus, and argued that Gaius was merely attempting to disman-
tle Irenaeus’ four-fold Gospel canon. Thus, Irenaeus is not to be considered
a ‘relevant source’ since he predates Gaius, who was ‘a respected theologian’
and certainly not the first spokesperson of Roman orthodoxy to attribute the
Johannine writings to Cerinthus, even if the reasons for this particular attribu-
tion ‘can hardly be determined with certainty.’36 Nevertheless, the Alogi had
only one member: Gaius of Rome.37

2.1.4 Joseph Daniel Smith, Jr.

The sustained progression towards the identification of Epiphanius’ Alogi
with Gaius of Rome culminated in 1979 with the Ph.D. dissertation of Joseph
Daniel Smith, Jr.38 The scope of Smith’s analysis is exhaustive and his conclu-
sions echo the views many scholars before him, particularly Schwartz’s original
position. Until now his unpublished dissertation remains the most thorough
examination of the evidence concerning the Alogi and Gaius of Rome, and it is
still considered by some to be authoritative.39
Smith argued that there is an interrelationship between the earlier testi-
monies of Irenaeus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius
and others. These can be calibrated to suggest that Gaius stood alone in his
opposition to the Gospel and Apocalypse of John and is the sole figure behind
the enigmatic heretical ‘group’ Epiphanius refers to as the Alogi. The glue that
holds all these pieces together is the later testimonies of Dionysius bar Salibi
and Ebed-Jesu.
First, Smith maintained that Irenaeus’ defence of the four-fold gospel was
in response, at least in part, to the arguments of Gaius (AH 3.11.9).40 Irenaeus
did not specifically name him because Gaius was situated within the orthodox
camp, not demonstrably ‘heretical’ as were the Valentinians or Marcion, whom

35 Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible. Trans. L.A. Garrard.
(London: Adam & Charles Black, 1972), 238.
36 Ibid., 240., n. 164; 239, n. 161.
37 Ibid., 239, n. 163; 240, n. 164.
38 Joseph Daniel Smith, Jr. ‘Gaius and the Controversy over the Johannine Literature’ (Ph.D.
diss., Yale University, 1979).
39 See Culpepper, John, 121.
40 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 141–68.
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 41

Irenaeus mentions earlier in this passage.41 Because Irenaeus is attacking those

who wish to impugn the Gospel of John as a result of its use by another (anony-
mous) group of individuals to validate their claims of the prophetic spirit, the
context suggests these Alii were an anti-Montanist faction within the church
that reacted sharply against the ‘extreme, exaggerated and fanatical claims
to the possession of the Spirit and prophetical gifts by the Montanists.’42 Yet
Smith had a number of obstacles to overcome in his identification of Gaius
with Irenaeus’ Alii.
He faced the same problem as Schwartz in that Eusebius Gaius during the
time of Zephyrinus (199–217 AD; HE 2.25.6–7; 3.31.4), whereas Irenaeus’ Against
Heresies is generally dated between 170–180 AD. Either Eusebius was wrong in
his dating of Gaius, or Irenaeus was somehow aware of Gaius’ anti-Montanist,
anti-Johannine stance well before Gaius wrote his Dialogue with Proclus. Smith
took the middle ground, suggesting that Irenaeus must have known the oral
tradition of Gaius before the compositions of the Dialogue with Proclus.43 He
also followed Schwartz in arguing that Irenaeus’ use of the plural Alii (AH
3.11.9), along with Epiphanius’ Alogi (Haer. 51), does not necessitate that this
opposition to the Johannine writings indicated a multiplicity of opponents.44
Another problem arises in that nowhere does Irenaeus mention that this
group rejected John’s Apocalypse. To overcome this, Smith argued that Irenaeus
could have insinuated a rejection of the Johannine Apocalypse in the phrase,
‘. . . but set aside at once both the gospel and the prophetic Spirit’ (cf. e.g. Rev.
19:10, 22:6).45 This would, of course, force ‘prophetic spirit’ to have a double
entendre: the Paraclete and a cryptic reference to the Johannine Apocalypse.
Despite his reluctance in associating spiritum propheticum with the Johannine
Apocalypse,46 Smith nevertheless saw fit to presume Irenaeus had intended

41 Ibid., 168. See also Stanton, 202; Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 3–53.
42 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 159. Smith is correct in noting that Irenaeus is not referring to a group of
Montanists in this passage, as suggested by various nineteenth-century writers, including
A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nice Christian Library: Translations of the Writings
of the Fathers down to AD 325. 5 Vols., 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), 295f. See further the
discussion in Bludau, 13–27 and Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 153ff.
43 The identical conclusion was reached by Grant, ‘Origin,’ 307.
44 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 223. See Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 40, 44; ‘Noch einmal,’ 99. Cf. Bludau,
222–3.
45 ‘. . . sed simil et Evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum.’
46 ‘. . . it is questionable whether the text can sustain such an interpretation,’ Smith, ‘Gaius,’
143, n. 3. Stanton (202) argued that it is ‘probable’ that this group also opposed the
Apocalypse.
42 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

this double meaning.47 This is confirmed by his interpretation of Eusebius (HE

3.28.1–2), in which Smith believes Gaius rejected the Johannine Apocalypse
and ascribed it to Cerinthus.48 He argued that Eusebius included Gaius’ tes-
timony because of his own disdain for the book, which he describes as hav-
ing questionable content and dubious authorship (cf. HE 3.24–25, 3.39.6).49
Similarly, Dionysius of Alexandria, whom Eusebius quotes immediately after
Gaius’ statements (HE 3.28.3–5; cf. 7.25.1–3), used Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus
as the source for his attack against yet another anonymous group that attrib-
uted the Johannine Apocalypse to Cerinthus.50 This group is likely to include, if
not solely consist of Gaius.51 Thus, both Eusebius and Dionysius of Alexandria
knew that Gaius rejected Revelation in his Dialogue and apparently attributed
it to Cerinthus.52
Smith also agreed with Schwartz that Origen was indirectly responding
to Gaius’ arguments against the Gospel of John in his Commentary on John
(Comm. Jo. 10.1–3).53 Thus nearly every extant witness to any explicit or implicit
anti-Johannine sentiments from the testimonies of Irenaeus (ca. 175 AD),
Origen (ca. 225–230 AD), Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 250–255 AD), Eusebius
(ca. 324–325 AD) and Epiphanius (ca. 374–377 AD) implicate Gaius alone in his
rejection of both the Gospel and Apocalypse of John.
The foundation for Smith’s conclusions is the major assumption that all
the sources that speak of Gaius and/or the Alogi are entirely dependent upon
Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus or Hippolytus’ Defense of the Gospel of John and
Revelation, the latter supposedly being the same as the work Heads against
Gaius.54 The exception to this necessary dependence on the writings of Gaius
or Hippolytus is, of course, Irenaeus. By limiting the presumed source(s) of
all knowledge of the Johannine opposition to Gaius and/or Hippolytus, Smith
was able to strategically limit the scope of possibilities for identifying who

47 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 168. Smith was preceded in this notion by B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A
Study of Origins (London: Macmillan & Co., 1927), 438.
48 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 182. Smith follows the lead of Hans von Campenhausen (Formation 241, n.
181), who argued that ‘There can be no doubt that Gaius does here have the Revelation
of John in mind,’ not a distinct Apocalyptic writing from Cerinthus’ own hand. See also
Bludau, 40–60; Gwynn, 398.
49 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 191–2.
50 Ibid., 184–190. See also Chapman, 57.
51 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 188.
52 Ibid., 190.
53 Ibid., 195–6. See also Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 44–5; cf. ‘Johannes und Kerinthos,’ 213–4.
54 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 264, 136f., 225–6.
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 43

comprised this anti-Johannine faction. Inevitably this would point to Gaius

of Rome.55
Smith’s work hinges entirely on the viability of the above premise; otherwise
his entire thesis would disintegrate. That is, if Hippolytus had, in fact, writ-
ten two treatises, Epiphanius could have utilized one of Hippolytus’ treatises
(viz. the Defense of the Apocalypse and Gospel of John) for his description of
the Alogi, and Hippolytus could have crafted his polemic against Gaius in a
separate treatise (viz. the Heads against Gaius), of which Epiphanius may have
been unaware.56 But, Smith relied on the same presumption as other scholars
that these two works were singular in nature.57 He claimed that possibility of
two works is ‘hardly plausible’, because ‘[t]he duplication would be entirely
unnecessary.’58
Smith concludes his work by claiming, ‘The name “Alogi” is entirely a fictitious
fabrication by Epiphanius himself and in no way does it represent an historical
group. There is only one known so called “Alogi” who rejected the Gospel of John
and Revelation and denied that John the Disciple was the author, and he is the
historical Gaius of Rome.’59 He emphatically denies that this means that Gaius
is to be considered as a figure of disdain or reproach in the early church. Rather,
he sought to ‘rehabilitate’ Gaius as an early ‘orthodox and venerated ecclesias-
tical leader’ of the church in Rome at the dawn of the third century. Gaius was
a biblical critic and scholar, whose contributions greatly impacted the history
of the canon, the history of biblical interpretation, the history of doctrine and

55 ‘If this conclusion stands the test, then all knowledge of an opposition to the Johannine
writings ultimately goes back to Gaius himself or to his Dialogue with Proclus.’ Smith,
‘Gaius,’ 227.
56 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 223ff.
57 Lightfoot noted, ‘The Heads Against Gaius are mentioned in the list of Ebedjesu as a
separate work. But they have every appearance of being extracts from that part of this
apologetic work which relates to the Apocalypse’ [viz. Defense of the Apocalypse . . . ].
Lightfoot, AF i. 2, 395. See also Harris, 46f.; Carl Schmidt, ‘Exkurs I: Der Gnostiker Kerinth.
Die Aloger,’ in Gespräche Jesu Mit Seinen Jüngern Nach Der Auferstehung (Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1919), 447; Robinson, 491. In addition, Smith argues (366)
that the structure of this singular work was comprised of three sections: a defense of the
Gospel of John, a defense of Revelation, and a refutation against Cerinthus.
58 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 427, 429, 226.
59 Ibid., 427 (italics those of Smith); see also 137, 265–6. Smith’s conclusion had been repeat-
edly articulated by a number of previous scholars including Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’
40, 44; ‘Noch einmal,’ 99; Pierre Ladeuze, ‘Caius de Rome, le seul Aloge connu,’ in
Mèlanges Godefroid Kurth (Liege: Sonderabdruck, 1908), 49–60; Chapman, 53, n. 1; R.M.
Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’ 109; ibid., ‘Origin,’ 307.
44 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

the history of the institution of the church.60 He also argued that Gaius’ rejec-
tion of the Johannine writings was ‘merely incidental’ to his main focus, which
was the growing Montanist presence in Rome. ‘Gaius was unequivocally on
the side of orthodoxy and viewed his treatise against Montanism the Dialogue
with Proclus, including the opposition to the Johannine writings, as being in
the service of the church at Rome.’61
In summary, the scholarly consensus over the past century has evolved to
support the following positions: (i) Gaius is to be identified, at least in part,
with Epiphanius’ Alogi;62 (ii) Gaius and the Alogi rejected both the Apocalypse
and Gospel of John as non-apostolic;63 (iii) Irenaeus was referring to some
form of the anti-Montanist, anti-Johannine phenomenon of the Alogi (and
Gaius) in his defense of the Gospel of John (AH 3.11.9);64 (iv) the opposition
to the Johannine writings by the Alogi and the ecclesiastical Gaius is indica-
tive of the overall attitude of Roman orthodoxy towards a ‘tainted’ gospel;65
(v) Epiphanius and Dionysius bar Salibi were both dependent on the same

60 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 425–37.

61 Ibid., 429.
62 E.g., ibid., 427; Pierre Ladeuze, ‘Caius de Rome, le seul Aloge connu.’ In Mélanges Godefroid
Kurth, 49–60. Vol. 2 (Liège: Sonderabdruck, 1908); 50; D.A. Carson, The Gospel According
to John, (Cambridge: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 28; Haenchen, 18ff.; R.M. Grant, Heresy and
Criticism, 97; Williams, trans., The Panarion Vol. I, 28, n. 9. R.A. Culpepper agrees com-
pletely with the work of Smith, noting that, ‘Recent scholarship has therefore dismissed
the Alogoi from the stage of history. We have no evidence for such a group. The figure of
Gaius has emerged with greater clarity, however.’ Culpepper, John, 122. See also the appa-
ratus in Karl Holl and Jürgen Dummer (eds.), GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II: Panarion haer. 34–64
(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1980), 251–2.
63 E.g., Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 429; B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin Development
and Significance, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 104–105; R.E. Heine, ‘Role of the Gospel
of John in the Montanist Controversy,’ Second Century 6 (1987), 14; Haenchen, 18, 23;
Hengel, Johannine Question, 5; Four Gospels, 21; D.M. Smith, ‘The Problem of John and the
Synoptics in Light of the Relation Between Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,’ in John
and the Synoptics ed. A. Denaux BETL 101 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 157.
64 E.g., Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 168; Culpepper, John, 121; G.M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment
and the Development of the Canon, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 102; Haenchen, 23–4;
Hengel, Johannine Question, 5; cf. Four Gospels, 12, 21; Campenhausen, Formation, 238–9,
n. 159. Perhaps Smith too hastily concluded that, ‘All evidence of criticisms against the
Gospel of John and Revelation, their rejection, and denial of apostolic authorship can be
traced back to Gaius of Rome and to no other person or group.’ Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 427.
65 E.g., Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 427; Culpepper, John, 121; Hengel, Four Gospels, 137–8; cf. Bauer,
Orthodoxy and Heresy, 207–8.
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 45

source for their information, which must have been a work of Hippolytus that
is now lost;66 (vi) and the more peripheral conclusion based largely on the
works of Walter Bauer, J.N. Sanders and R.M. Grant, although dismissed by
Smith, that the orthodox anti-Johannine response of the Alogi and Gaius was
linked to anti-Gnostic sentiments.67
It is important to recognize that the most crucial element to this formula-
tion is the cache of extracts in the writings of Dionysius bar Salibi. And whereas
a majority of scholars are apt to take these later testimonies as reliable, two
works have raised serious questions regarding their reliability and their por-
trayal of the early ecclesiastical opposition to the Johannine literature.

2.2 Challenges to the Consensus

2.2.1 Allen Brent

The first work to devote substantial attention to questioning the veracity of
the bar Salibi statements and the resulting connection of Gaius and the Alogi
came in the form of Allen Brent’s work on Hippolytus.68 Brent concludes that
there is no reason to assume that bar Salibi was reliant upon a lost Hippolytan
polemical work against Gaius. Rather, he likely drew his information from a flo-
rilegium, thus rendering the supposed conflict between Gaius and Hippolytus
as a product of bar Salibi’s editorializing, not an actual encounter. To prove
this, Brent points to a variety of eastern pseudepigrapha in which Hippolytus’

66 E.g., T.H. Robinson, 489; Pierre de Labriolle, Sources, LXIX–LXXVI; Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’
108–9; Campenhausen, Formation, 236–42; Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 196–204, 222–8; Haenchen, 23;
Culpepper, John, 122. Cf. Aline Pourkier, who takes a more conservative approach to this
question in L’Hérésiologie Chez Épiphane de Salamine Christianisme Antique 4 (Paris:
Beauchesne, 1992), 105.
67 Sanders, Fourth Gospel, 65–6, 85; Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 107–109; R.M. Grant,
‘Fourth Gospel,’ 108ff. See also Stanton, 404f.; Haenchen, 23–4; Hengel, Johannine
Question, 5ff.; Hahneman, 102; R. Brown, The Epistles of John, (New York: Doubleday, 1982),
113f.; J.J. Gunther, ‘Early Identifications of Authorship of the Johannine Writings,’ JEH 31
(1980), 427. The early perspective of Adolf von Harnack suggested that the argument of
the Alogi for Cerinthian authorship of the Gospel of John demonstrates the fact that they
considered the Gospel of John to be a gnostic document with a Docetic christology, and
that they were intently opposed to Gnosticism. See A. von Harnack, ‘Die Gwynn’schen
Cajus-und Hippolytus-Fragmente,’ TU (1890), 121–123. For a full summary of scholarship
on early orthodox ‘Johannophobia’ see Hill, Johannine Corpus, 13–55.
68 A. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension
before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. VCSupp 31. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
46 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

name is used as an unhistorical literary character engaged in various polemical

dialogues.69
Regarding the Hippolytan work Heads against Gaius, Brent suggests that
Ebed-Jesu simply deduced the existence of such a work from reading bar
Salibi’s Commentary on the Apocalypse.70 ‘Both external and internal consider-
ations preclude it from being anything else than a general exegetical tradition
dressed up pseudepigraphically under the cipher-names of “Hippolytus” and
“Gaius”.’71 As such, the similar work on the statue should not be read as an
apology.
Ultimately, the original source for the criticisms that bar Salibi attributes to
Gaius is Epiphanius. Notably, Brent argued that the Alogi were not an histori-
cal group;72 rather, he notes that Epiphanius ‘succeeded in uniting a disparate
group of objectors and objections into a composite heresy called the Ἄλογοι.’73
According to Brent, Epiphanius created the Alogi by ‘grouping under this one
term disparate groups of people not necessarily doctrinally united, such as the
Montanists alone.’74 Thus, rather than identifying Gaius as the only member
of the Alogi, Brent argues that bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu are dependent upon
the development of tradition that has its roots ultimately in the testimony of
Epiphanius, not Hippolytus.
Brent’s conclusion, if correct, has significant bearing on the question of the
history and significance of the Alogi. However, given that the focus of his work
was primarily on questions surrounding the Hippolytan corpus, not directly
on the Alogi, he stops short of developing which sources Epiphanius may have
used.75 However, another recent challenger to the consensus view has begun
this important task.

69 Ibid., 178.
70 Ibid., 170–4. Here, Brent follows the view of P. Nautin. Le dossier d’Hippolyte et de Méliton
dans les florilèges dogmatiques et chez les historiens modernes. Patristica I. (Paris: Éditions
du Cerf, 1953), 146.
71 Brent, Hippolytus, 184.
72 Prior to Brent, Campenhausen (Formation, 242) notes this possibility, noting briefly that
Epiphanius ‘makes up some tale about a formal sect of anti-Johannists.’ He nevertheless
continues to maintain that Gaius was still one of the members of this group.
73 Brent, 173.
74 Ibid., 140.
75 Ibid., 143. Brent only suggests that these may have included Porphyry, Celsus and
Philosabbatius, whom Epiphanius names in Haer. 51.8.1.
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 47

2.2.2 Charles E. Hill

In his work The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, Charles E. Hill76 has
offered tentative support to the arguments of Brent concerning the Alogi.
He suggests, ‘If Brent is correct, the entire edifice of opposition to the Fourth
Gospel based around Gaius of Rome completely implodes, leaving scarcely a
trace. But is he correct?’77 Following Brent, Hill develops some strategic ave-
nues to discern the sources that Epiphanius used in the creation of this sect.
First, there is no doubt that Irenaeus influenced Epiphanius’ testimony. Hill is
right in pointing to the notice of Irenaeus (AH 3.11.9) as a foundational source of
Epiphanius’ testimony. Epiphanius (Haer. 51.23.3–4) also shows reliance upon
Irenaeus’ comments on the Valentinians’ view that their number of celestial
Aeons corresponds to the age of Jesus at his death (AH 2.22.3).
In addition to Irenaeus, Hill finds aspects of Eusebius’ account of the ori-
gins of the Gospel of John (HE 3.24.5–17) in Epiphanius’ testimony, as well as
the more notable influence of Origen. Hill has initiated a rather compelling
case that Epiphanius may have drawn the criticisms of the Alogi from Origen’s
Commentary on John.78
Hill’s brief analysis of Epiphanius’ testimony is extremely valuable in locat-
ing which sources may have comprised the aggregate Alogi. It is, however,
limited in scope. He does not survey the possible sources for Epiphanius’ tes-
timony regarding the criticisms of the Apocalypse, nor does he recognize vari-
ous other aspects of the account of the Alogi that derives from the writings of
Epiphanius’ predecessors. Hill also stops short of any detailed analysis of the
bar Salibi commentaries or the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu, which have dominated
the discussion of the Alogi for over a century.
Thus, from Hill’s perspective, Brent ‘scores some very important points’
and ‘may be correct overall,’79 but his support is tempered with a degree of
caution. ‘It is understandable that some may want to withhold full endorse-
ment of Brent’s position, pending further studies.’80 It is true that the com-
plexities of the evidence surrounding the Alogi extend well beyond the recent
analyses of Brent and Hill; however, their works have provided an important
contribution and counterpoint to the consensus view regarding the Alogi and
the early ecclesiastical sentiments toward the Johannine corpus.

76 C.E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007).
77 Ibid., 186.
78 Cf. ibid., 186–90.
79 Ibid., 186.
80 Ibid., 191.
48 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

2.3 The Fall of the Consensus?

At present, there are two distinct ways of viewing the history and significance
of the Alogi. On the one hand, many scholars continue to uphold the consen-
sus view that this heretical group represents the negative sentiments of the
early church towards the Johannine writings. On the other hand, there have
emerged a handful of scholars that questions whether the influence of the
Alogi in the early church extends beyond the imagination of Epiphanius. In
both instances, there is more to the story than the version told by proponents
of the consensus view as articulated by Smith as well as that which Brent and
Hill have postulated. Although the consensus view still has much traction, it
cannot be ignored that the questions of its viability as well as a fresh look at the
evidence, which might suggest an equally (if not more) plausible narrative that
tells a very different story, has done serious damage to the chorus of scholarly
assessments over the past century. It remains true, however, that if an alterna-
tive narrative is warranted it must begin afresh with a new way forward.

2.4 A New Way Forward

It is a curious feature of scholarship over the past century that a good num-
ber of scholars have sought to locate the sources of Epiphanius’ Alogi by look-
ing forward in time. There is a blatant over-reliance on the commentaries of
Dionysius bar Salibi, who wrote some eight hundred years after Epiphanius. An
appeal to the later evidence is perhaps understandable, since it would appear
that it holds the keys that would unlock the puzzle of this heretical group.81 Yet
it must be recognized that since the initial publication of portions of Dionysius
bar Salibi’s commentary on the Apocalypse by John Gwynn, a fundamental
methodological shift has occurred in the way the Alogi have been analyzed:
the earliest sources, generally held to be of utmost value to the historian, have
been reinterpreted and re-contextualized in light of much later sources.
Methodologically this approach is perplexing. The task of the historian is
to bring together relevant information in a judicious way to determine the
most accurate picture of the scrutinized subject, despite the difficulties often
imposed by an absence of data that has been lost in the unfolding of history.
Inversely, the historian’s task is not to promote the most convenient solution,

81 As Harris (‘Presbyter Gaius,’ 47) notes, ‘And now for our problem; did Gaius write against
the Fourth Gospel, yea or nay? The answer will come from the same quarter as before, for
the Syrian Church holds the keys of all the problems.’
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 49

particularly when a notably facile conclusion requires that the earliest evi-
dence be altered, misinterpreted, or taken out of context. Nevertheless, it has
become common to take the information provided by bar Salibi at face value,
assigning it an evidentiary value equal to that of the earliest extant sources.82
Although it is true that similarities in the contents of these writings would
naturally incline one to place them in the same pool of evidence, few have
raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the bar Salibi evidence to
effectively determine how one is to understand a history that came some thou-
sand years earlier. The testimony of bar Salibi has become the ink in the water
of the evidence pertaining to the Alogi: all the early evidence now bears its
mark and is interpreted in light of it.
This raises an important question. Has the original context of the Alogi
become lost in this process? If the bar Salibi evidence is set aside as the mediat-
ing factor in the pool of evidence and the focus is placed on the writings of the
earlier Church Fathers—sources that are very familiar to Epiphanius through-
out his Panarion—one finds that these sources hold a set of keys themselves,
which unlock a very different explanation of the Alogi.
I have yet to find any compelling or adequate reasons to follow J.D. Smith,
Jr.’s claims to have intuited the content of lost Hippolytan and Gaian works,
which he argues are the ultimate sources of information for bar Salibi,
Epiphanius, and ‘all later reflections’ on the Johannine controversy, and that
they can be seen through the testimony of bar Salibi.83 By prioritizing the later

82 Harris juxtaposes Epiphanius’ testimony with the bar Salibi commentaries and uses
the latter as an interpretive device for the former (52–3). The same is also true of T.H.
Robinson (494). R.M. Grant includes the bar Salibi material as part of his collection of
various second-century fragments. R.M. Grant, Second-Century Christianity: A Collection
of Fragments, 2nd edition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 86. Grant’s
introduction to the section entitled ‘Gaius on New Testament Books’ is telling: ‘Eusebius
quotes fragments of Gaius of Rome . . . on Christian antiquities but not his criticism of the
Gospel and Apocalypse of John, for which we have to rely on the account of the ‘Alogi’
by Epiphanius and on the twelfth-century commentary by Dionysius Bar Salibi’ (83–4).
Moreover, the apparatus of Holl’s critical edition of the Panarion and Williams’ recent
English translation both align the bar Salibi evidence with Epiphanius’ testimony as an
explanatory feature. GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 251; Williams (trans.), Panarion: Books II and
III, De Fide. Second, Revised Ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 26, n. 1. Even in his collection of docu-
ments from the early Church, J. Stevenson includes a portion of bar Salibi’s commentary
as indicative of ‘yet another controversy at Rome in the early third century.’ J. Stevenson
(ed.), A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337. Revised by
W.H.C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987), 153.
83 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 425–6; emphasis that of Smith. Cf. 387ff. The Dialogue with Proclus is
lost except for that which has survived in Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica (HE 2.25.7,
50 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

evidence, Smith arrives at a number of conclusions before his examination

of Epiphanius’ testimony ever takes place.84 Inevitably, this methodology has
aligned the evidence in such a way that the Alogi must be reduced to a single
individual, Gaius of Rome. However, this analysis also amounts to a forfeiture
in recognizing the elements of Epiphanius’ testimony that are clearly drawn
from earlier extant sources that do not require the bar Salibi commentaries
to act as an intermediary. Neither is it necessary to presume that Epiphanius
garnered all his information from a lost work of Hippolytus.
I also do not find the works of Brent and Hill to be entirely sufficient in
establishing an entirely coherent counter-narrative. Their criticisms and anal-
yses are helpful in establishing the initial groundwork upon which a revised
storyline based primarily on the earliest evidence can be constructed, but
more work remains to be done. Building up on the questions of Brent and Hill,
the focus of the remainder of this work is deconstruction of the old methodol-
ogy and the construction and implementation of this new way forward. Thus,
in the next chapter the task will be to exonerate Gaius of Rome for a crime
he never committed. Careful attention will be paid to disproving the con-
clusion that Gaius of Rome and bar Salibi’s Caius Haereticus are one in the
same. Having exculpated Gaius, the way forward is open to asking new ques-
tions about the Johannine Controversy. This involves delving into the complex
character and sometimes-fanciful writings of Epiphanius of Salamis. Upon
establishing Epiphanius’ unique methodology as an historian and heresiolo-
gist, it is then possible to ask the question whether or not he fabricated his
account of the Alogi based on his own amalgamation of various bits from his

3.28.2, 3.31.4, cf. 6.20.3). For Smith’s analysis of the Dialogue with Proclus see 268–311, for
Hippolytus’ lost Defense see 336–418.
84 Ibid., 222–55. Elsewhere, Smith has this to say on the issue of determining Epiphanius’
sources for the objections to the Gospel of John: ‘Our primary objective in this section is
to examine the structure and content of Epiphanius’ refutation and defense of the Fourth
Gospel in order to determine how valuable it is in reconstructing Hippolytus’ refutations
in the Defense against Gaius and his solutions for harmonizing the contradictions alleged
against the Gospel of John.’ He goes on to say, ‘Determining the arguments contained in
Epiphanius’ refutations which derive from Hippolytus as his primary source is especially
difficult. Epiphanius is essentially dependent on Hippolytus’ Defense for the content and
form of the objections and also for the content of the refutations which answers directly
to the objections and for the general form of the refutations.’ (381). Smith admits other
influences as well (e.g. Ephraem the Syrian in Haer. 51.22.7, the Syriac Didaskalia in Haer.
51.26–27, as well as the criticisms of the Greek Philosophers in Haer. 51.8–9), but these are
‘unrelated discussions’ (382).
An Implausible Consensus And A New Way Forward 51

predecessors. This is the focus of the final section of this work, which aims to
reverse engineer Epiphanius’ account in order to determine the sources behind
his construction of the Alogi. Yet throughout each of the following chapters it
will be evident that by giving priority to the earliest evidence, a very different
picture of the Alogi emerges, one in which the Alogi is seen to be much broader
in scope than has been realized.
 CHAPTER 3

Exonerating Gaius of Rome

Was Gaius orthodox or heretical? Or, was Gaius orthodox and heretical?1

Poor Gaius. It is truly unfortunate that he has come to personify the antago-
nism with which the early church treated the Johannine literature because
the evidence to support such a claim simply is not there, despite the fact that
‘definitive’2 studies of Gaius claim otherwise.3
Despite branding him as a heretic, scholars are careful to strike a balance
with claims of a successful ‘rehabilitation of Gaius as an early biblical critic.’4
This forces the question, which side is Gaius on? Is he orthodox or heretical?
Scholars tend to want it both ways. Thus, we read claims that Gaius is indeed
the lone member of the ‘heresy’ known as the Alogi, but his views, at least in
his own time, were actually representative of the early Roman ecclesiastical
sentiments towards the Johannine literature. As such, Gaius was ‘unequivo-
cally on the side of orthodoxy’ in his fight against Montanism and his rejection
of the Johannine literature was actually ‘in the service of the church in Rome.’5
From a later perspective this blend of orthodoxy and heresy seems incom-
patible, but in the second and third centuries we are reassured that it was not
so anomalous. According to some modern estimations, Irenaeus tried, and
failed, to exterminate Gaius’ dangerous views (cf. AH 3.11.9), however in the
end Irenaeus overstated his case, for his idea of a four-fold Gospel canon was
simply that—an ‘idea’, not a reality.6 Nor would it become a reality for some

1 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 2.
2 Culpepper, John, 137, n. 86.
3 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 426–7.
4 Ibid., 430.
5 Ibid., 429. Here Smith follows closely the views of Schwartz (‘Über den Tod,’ 93), who
describes Gaius in precisely the same way.
6 E.g. Schwatz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 42: ‘Irenäus literarische Polemik war für die Praxis des römischen
Bischofs nicht maßgebend.’ Likewise, G.M. Hahneman (101), in support of his later dating of
the Muratorian Fragment, argues that Irenaeus’ four-fold Gospel must have been ‘something
of an innovation, for if a fourfold gospel had been established and generally acknowledged,
then Irenaeus would not have offered such a tortured insistence on its numerical legitimacy’.
This view, while prevalent, is not universal. For an opposing view, see Stanton, ‘Fourfold
Gospel,’ 319ff., esp. 322: ‘By the time Irenaeus wrote in about 180 AD, the fourfold gospel was
very well established. Irenaeus is not defending an innovation, but explaining why, unlike

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_005

Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 53

time.7 This is true at least for the epicenter of nascent Christianity and Gaius’
hometown, Rome, where, ‘To around the close of the second century, history
is unable to name a single orthodox Roman for whom the Fourth Gospel had
been of any significance.’8
As the argument goes, for the true status of the Gospel canon in the early
church one must look not to Irenaeus, but to the accused. Thus, attention turns
to Gaius of Rome, who by modern (and ancient) accounts was a ‘conserva-
tive’ Roman ecclesiastical leader, ‘quite competent and astute in his rhetorical
and exegetical skills,’9 who defended local Roman orthodox tradition against
‘innovative’ foreign theologies that were potentially undermining of the truth
of the Gospel.
Yet many scholars have pushed Gaius’ role in the early church further. It was
because of Gaius’ careful study of the differences amongst the four canoni-
cal Gospels that later church fathers took seriously his analysis and wrestled
with the issue of which works should constitute the Christian canon of scrip-
ture. From this view, Gaius is actually an underappreciated leader of the early
church; one to whom subsequent Christianity owes a debt of gratitude for
his preservation and promulgation of orthodoxy. Gaius comes off as a figure
that is praised for his orthodoxy while also condemned for his heterodoxy.

3.1 The Gaian Paradox

Gaius’ attempt to protect the Roman church from the Montanist heresy by
means of rejecting the Johannine literature thus creates a paradox where
Gaius is both orthodox and heretical. It is a common refrain that it is not
his fault that later church tradition would turn its back on his conservative,

the heretics, the church has four gospels, no more, no less.’ Also, Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?,
34–68, and Hengel, Four Gospels, 10: ‘He [Irenaeus] certainly did not invent this collection [of
the Gospel ‘canon’] himself; it had already existed for quite a long time in the mainstream
church, largely recognized and used in worship.’
7 For example, Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Random
House, 2004), 111, argues that it was not until the fourth century when Athanasius ‘took up
and extended Irenaeus’s agenda’ of the four-fold Gospel. See also Lee M. McDonald, ‘The
Gospels in Early Christianity: Their Origin, Use, and Authority,’ in Stanley E. Porter (ed.),
Reading the Gospels Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 150–178. McDonald notes
(170), ‘Irenaeus’s acceptance of the four canonical Gospels alone was not generally shared by
his contemporaries or even by many Christians at a later time.’
8 Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 208.
9 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 430–31.
54 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

protectionist views that legitimately saw the Johannine literature (and espe-
cially those heretical views that used the Gospel of John to support their
errant theologies such as the Montanists and the Gnostics) as a threat to the
integrity of the church. Gaius was a man of the times, and his opposition to
the Johannine writings for the sake of orthodoxy was nothing if not the sta-
tus quo. Earlier estimations of Gaius as being within the bounds of orthodoxy
in his rejection of the Johannine literature continue today. As one scholar
notes, ‘Gaius’s standing as a leader of the church at Rome shows that the
authority of John and its apostolic authorship were not so firmly established
(at least in Rome . . . ) that it could not be challenged by one of the scholars of
the church.’10
The story of Gaius as the conservative Roman church official who remained
true to his orthodox sensibilities and thus rejected the questionable Johannine
literature is a very compelling theory, and the more it is repeated the stronger
its authority appears to be. And while it is certainly one way of calibrating a
meagre pool of evidence, this conclusion, while convenient, is misguided. The
remainder of this chapter will therefore take a closer look at the evidence con-
cerning this ‘orthodox heretic’ Gaius.
For a ranking ecclesiastical figure in Rome whose influence was supposedly
widespread, the paucity of evidence concerning this man is astonishing. When
his name does appear, many ecclesiastical writers that would have found
Gaius’ supposed denunciation of the Gospel of John (and to a lesser extent
John’s Apocalypse) to be reprehensible speak of him very fondly, thus raising
the question of whether bar Salibi’s Caius haereticus is to be identified with
the historical Gaius of Rome.11 Furthermore, a surprisingly small amount of
attention has been paid to the dates of Gaius’ activity. His negative views of
John’s Gospel have been read into nearly every instance in which the integrity
of this work has been questioned, from Irenaeus’ anonymous opponents of
the Johannine Paraclete, to the assumed defence of the Gospel of John in the
Muratorian Fragment, and of course the work attributed to Hippolytus that
(purportedly) defended the Gospel and Apocalypse of John against the views
of Gaius. However, a more precise dating of Gaius precludes him from being
read into any and every situation in which the Gospel of John appears volatile.
By establishing the dates of Gaius, it will be possible to determine the limits of
his influence.

10 Culpepper, John, 121.

11 For a catalogue of the evidence concerning Gaius prior to Gwynn’s discovery of the bar
Salibi commentaries, see Martinus Josephus Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, Vol. II (Oxonii: Typis
Academicis, 1814), 2–32. All of his notices are considered here as well.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 55

Once a clearer picture of the evidence concerning Gaius’ historical back-

ground has been established, it will be possible to consider more carefully
Gaius’ views on the Johannine literature. This analysis not only calls into ques-
tion whether Gaius was at the center of the so-called ‘Johannine Controversy’,
it also provides a foundation upon which the evidence from Dionysius bar
Salibi and Ebed-Jesu may be scrutinized even more carefully.

3.2 The Historical and Literary Legacy of Gaius

Because so little is known of Gaius of Rome, his reputation is malleable, but

not necessarily indiscernible. From all extant accounts up to the time of bar
Salibi in the twelfth century, Gaius was the furthest thing from a heretic.
The first notice recorded of Gaius is that of Eusebius, who, upon reading his
anti-Montanist polemical work against Proclus, labels him as an ‘ecclesiasti-
cal man’ (ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ, HE 2.25.6) and a ‘very learned man’ (λογιωτάτου
ἀνδρός, HE 6.20.3).12 Despite the numerous scholarly annotations to the con-
trary, Eusebius does not speak of Gaius holding any official position within the
Church.13 Twice over Eusebius states that Gaius operated during the pontifi-
cate of Zephyrinus (199–217 AD; HE 2.25.6; 6.20.3), and he notes that Gaius does
not accept Pauline authorship of the book of Hebrews (HE 6.20.3). Eusebius is
also the only witness who claims to have read Gaius’ work, the Dialogue with
Proclus, and he provides quotes from this work intermittently. It is odd, though,
that Eusebius never cites the Dialogue as a source in book five of the Historia
Ecclesiastica, in which he launches his offensive against the New Prophecy.
In fact, there would be little reason to suspect that the Dialogue was an anti-
Montanist work if Eusebius did not expressly tell us that this was the case.
Nevertheless, Eusebius provided us with a great service on the one hand, for if
it were it not for him, it is likely that this work would have never been known
to exist. On the other hand, however, the fact remains that due to his meager
reporting, there is very little about the Dialogue with Proclus that can be known
with any surety.14

12 A certain ‘Gaius’ is also mentioned in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (22.2), but there is little
reason to connect him with Gaius of Rome; although Bludau (40) disagrees.
13 The listing of a certain ‘Gaius’ as bishop of Rome in Eusebius’ Chronicon does not comport
with the dating of Gaius of Rome, for the Gaius of the Chronicon is dated ca. 282 CE. Also
Eusebius is clear that Gaius was active while Zephyrinus was bishop, thus excluding a
Gaian pontificate.
14 Manor, ‘Proclus,’ 141.
56 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Around the turn of the fifth century Jerome would include Gaius in his list
of Illustrious Men. It is safe to assume that the bulk of his information was
taken directly from Eusebius,15 notably Gaius’ role as a Roman anti-Montanist,
his rejection of Pauline attribution of Hebrews and his activity during the pon-
tificate of Zephyrinus (De vir. ill. 59). A bit later Theodoret admits to knowing
nothing more of this Gaius beyond his authorship of a Dialogue with Proclus
(Haer. fab. comp. 2.3, 3.2). Again, Eusebius was undoubtedly the source.
In the ninth century, Photius embellishes Gaius’ reputation to one of even
greater orthodox prestige. He claims to have found information on Gaius from
a ‘marginal note’ (ἐν παραγραφαῖς) in one of his sources that claimed Gaius
was a presbyter in Rome and ordained ‘bishop of the nations’ (έθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον;
Bibl. 48). This information would not have come from the few, brief notices in
Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica. Photius records that ‘some’ think the Dialogue
with Proclus should be attributed to Josephus or Justin Martyr. But Photius
places his trust in his unknown marginal source and reclaims this work as from
the hand of Gaius, along with two other works, On the Universe, the Labyrinth,
and Against the Heresy of Artemon.
It was not until the twelfth century Gaius’ legacy would change drastically
with the comments from Dionysius bar Salibi († 1171 AD). Of course, here the
‘heretic Gaius’ lodged a number of objections against the Johannine litera-
ture in a dispute with Hippolytus of Rome. Around a century later (ca. 1300),
Ebed-Jesu would record a list of Hippolytan works that includes the title Heads
against Gaius.
In the middle of the eighteenth century, Ludovico Antonio Muratori, the
discoverer of the oldest list of New Testament books (including the Gospel and
Apocalypse of John) that now bears his name, believed the author to be none
other than Gaius the Presbyter (viz. Gaius of Rome).16 Again, Muratori’s Gaian
attribution is probably based largely on what he knew of Gaius from the record
of Eusebius.17
Thus, aside from the late Syrian evidence, Gaius’ reputation had clearly
blossomed posthumously, making him one of the great luminaries of the early
church. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, Gaius would become
stripped of much of his literary legacy. A number of works once attributed

15 In the introduction to this work, Jerome states that Eusebius has been ‘of utmost impor-
tance’ for his information.
16 Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Antiquitates italicæ medii ævi, Tom. III (Mediolani: ex typo-
graphia Societatis palatinae, 1738–1742) 809–880 at 851. The manuscript itself is number I
101 sup. Cf. Hahneman, 30.
17 Robinson, ‘Authorship,’ 481.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 57

to Gaius were properly reallocated to Hippolytus. Lightfoot, Robinson and

others eliminated Gaius as the author of the Muratorian Fragment, arguing
that it actually came from the hand of Hippolytus.18 Moreover, as a result of
Lightfoot’s analysis, into Hippolytus’ hands went nearly all the other works
that Photius had attributed to Gaius, save the Dialogue with Proclus.19

3.3 Gaius of Rome vs. bar Salibi’s Caius Haereticus

The question that should be asked, yet almost never is, centers around whether
it is valid to identify bar Salibi’s Caius haereticus with Gaius of Rome. It would
seem that only Lightfoot expressed any reservations about linking the two:
‘Gaius therefore is alive once more, though he seemed to me to be dead. But,
whether this is really Gaius the Roman presbyter or another, may perhaps be
still an open question.’20 To my knowledge, no one has carefully considered this
important question. Despite the fact that it is generally taken for granted that
bar Salibi is referring to the very same Gaius of Rome mentioned by Eusebius,
Jerome and others, the association of bar Salibi’s Caius with Gaius of Rome
(and Epiphanius’ Alogi) is, in fact, far from certain.
Yet the only biographical data about Gaius in the writings of bar Salibi comes
from the introduction to his Commentary on the Apocalypse where he states,
‘Hippolytus of Rome said: “A man appeared, named Gaius, who claimed that
the Gospel was not by John, nor the Apocalypse, but by the heretic Cerinthus.” ’21
Following this, bar Salibi refers to him as ‘this Gaius’ (hunc Caium),22 ‘Gaius
the heretic’ (Caius haereticus)23 or simply ‘Gaius’ (Caius).24 The evidence from

18 Ibid.; Lightfoot, AF, i, 2, 405–413; M.-J. Lagrange, ‘L’auteur du canon de Muratori,’ Rbib 35
(1926), 83–88. Cf. Brent, Hippolytus, 133.
19 Lightfoot, AF, i, 2, 377–381; cf. Routh, 143. Though in 1947 Pierre Nautin argued that all
the works attributed to Hippolytus on the Statue in Rome that now bears his image and
those mentioned by Photius actually belong to the ‘Josephus’ indicated in Photius’ mar-
ginal note. See Pierre Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe: Contribution a l’histoire de la Littèrature
Chrétienne du troisième siècle (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1947); Hippolyte, Contre les heresies:
fragment, etude, et edition critique (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1949). Nautin’s theory has not
received widespread acceptance.
20 Lightfoot, AF, i, 2, 388.
21 Hippolytus Romanus dixit: Apparuit vir, nomine Caius, qui asserebat Evangelium non esse
Iohannis, nec Apocalypsim, sed Cerinthi haeretici ea esse. Comm. Apoc., 1.
22 Comm. Apoc. praescr., 2.
23 Idem, 8–9 (in his comments on Rev. 8:8, 12; 20:2).
24 Idem, 10 (in his comments on Rev. 9:2, 15).
58 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

the manuscripts now housed in the British Library that Harris brought forward
(and minimized) takes us even further away from establishing the identity of
this ‘Gaius’, for it is clear that bar Salibi originally failed to include his name in
his Commentary on John. Nowhere does bar Salibi indicate that this ‘Gaius’ is
the same as the author of the Dialogue with Proclus, or that the ‘Gaius’ of his
commentary held any anti-Montanist sentiments. Nor does bar Salibi refer to
Gaius as Caius Romanus as in the case of Hippolytus Romanus, and he does
not state that ‘Gaius’ rejected Hebrews as genuinely Pauline, as Eusebius and
others noted.
The ‘Gaius’ of bar Salibi has become identified as the author of the Dialogue
with Proclus due to various inferential leaps that span some distance. Behind
this is feeble historical and textual rationale. Historically, bar Salibi places
Gaius as an interlocutor with Hippolytus of Rome, thus situating him around
the same time that Gaius of Rome lived. It is argued that when taken together,
the evidence from bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu in conjunction with the title on the
statue of Hippolytus in Rome (which, it should be remembered, does not bear
Gaius’ name) all suggest that Hippolytus wrote against a certain Gaius’ anti-
Johannine views. Since both were contemporaries and presumably located in
the same city, it is assumed this must be Gaius of Rome.
Textually, bar Salibi’s ‘Gaius’ is assumed to be the same as ‘Gaius of Rome’
due to a dubious reading of Eusebius’ notice in HE 3.28.1–2, where Gaius
attacks Cerinthus’ Apocalpyse. This is due to the fact that many have mistak-
enly interpreted Eusebius’ record to mean that Gaius of Rome attributed John’s
Apocalypse to Cerinthus, thus linking Eusebius’ Gaius with bar Salibi’s Caius
haereticus.25
Yet there are important differences that often go unnoticed. For example,
there is nothing in bar Salibi’s record of the criticisms of ‘Gaius’ to insinuate
that these had anything to do with Montanist eschatological views, let alone
any opposition to the Johannine Paraclete, thus raising important questions
as to whether bar Salibi’s source was (as Smith argues) Gaius’ Dialogue with
Proclus and/or Hippolytus’ Apology, which is assumed to have been Hippolytus’
response to Gaius’ Dialogue.26 Nor do the criticisms relate in any way to the
carnal millennium desired by Cerinthus, to which Gaius took such strong
exception (cf. HE 3.28.1–2).
What about the fact that Gaius of Rome did not consider the book of
Hebrews to be Pauline, as noted by Eusebius (HE 6.20.3)? Bar Salibi men-

25 See below (3.4).

26 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 425–6.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 59

tions this, but he mistakenly attributes this view to Hippolytus, not Gaius.27
Furthermore, the criticisms of Caius haereticus themselves do not reflect the
stylings of Eusebius’ ‘learned’ man, Harris’ ‘higher critic’ or Smith’s ‘reputable
scholar’. They are, instead, trite and simplistic. Simply put, prima facie, bar
Salibi’s designation of Gaius haereticus does not cohere with Eusebius’ Gaius
as ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ. We are therefore left either with a Gaian paradox or
incompatibility between these two ‘Gaius’ figures.

3.3.1 Gaius of Rome, the Presbyter/Bishop?

The ‘Gaian paradox’ is even more compelling when one considers his suppos-
edly high ecclesiastical rank from which he disseminated his anti-Johannine
rhetoric. Yet the reference to the Eusebian Gaius holding an ecclesiastical
office is only mentioned once by the anonymous author of the marginal note
in Photius’ records, where Gaius is said to have been ‘bishop to the nations’.
Where did this information concerning Gaius’ ecclesiastical rank originate?
There are at least two explanations. First, if Hill and Brent are right, this is eas-
ily accounted for given the erroneous assumption by the author of Photius’
marginal note that Gaius of Rome was the author of The Labyrinth (the tenth
book of Hippolytus’ Elenchos). In this work the author describes himself as an
‘adviser’ (σύμβουλος) to a long list of various ethnic groups (Greeks, barbar-
ians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Egyptians, Lybians, Indians, Ethiopians, Celts and
Latin generals, and all those living in Europe, Asia and Libya; Ref. 10.34.1).28 It
is not difficult to see how the author of Photius’ marginal comments could
have garbled this information to reflect the author’s role as έθῶν έπίσκοπον.
Furthermore, Photius’ source may also have formed the dates he attributes to
Gaius. We know from Eusebius that the work Against Artemon, which Photius’
source attributed to Gaius, directly and repeatedly refers to the times of Victor
and Zephyrinus (ap. HE 5.28.3–6, 8).29 Secondly, if Lightfoot’s early hypothesis
were to be considered, as I believe it ought, then the confusion of Gaius and
Hippolytus is to blame. In his Refutation, Hippolytus speaks of himself as hold-
ing an Episcopal office (Ref. praef.) and gives special addresses to the Gentiles
as though they were his special charge (Ref. 10.31, 32, 34).30

27 Comm. Apoc., 3–4. Cf. Photius (Bibl. 121) where he states that Hippolytus rejected Hebrews
as a Pauline work.
28 See Hill, Johannine Corpus, 197–8; Brent, Hippolytus, 132. For the Greek text, see
Marcovich, 415.
29 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 198, n. 84; Brent, Hippolytus, 132.
30 Lightfoot, ‘Caius or Hippolytus,’ 104.
60 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Both explanations of this information are entirely possible, but not alto-
gether necessary. After the analysis of Lightfoot, it is clear that whoever pro-
vided Photius’ information was misinformed as to the true identity of Gaius,
and thus the designation of him as ‘bishop’ or ‘presbyter’ is irrelevant. This
claim to office rests on the presumption that Gaius of Rome was the author of
works that he never wrote. Perhaps Gaius did hold an office within the Church,
but given that there is no reliable source to indicate this is the case, there is no
reason to continue to make this claim.31 Photius’ account is too confused and
demonstrably unreliable to warrant uncritical acceptance, and those sources
that are chronologically nearest to Gaius and familiar with his work make no
mention of him holding any office whatsoever.
Since there is no concrete evidence to prove that Gaius of Rome occupied
an official church office, the Gaian paradox has become slightly less forceful.
The question remains as to whether the paradox is true at all. The evidence
examined thus far leads away from a positive identification. However, if Smith
is right, and Gaius of Rome personifies the Johannine controversy, then he is
to be seen lurking behind Irenaeus’ notice of an anonymous group opposed
to the Johannine Paraclete, works of Hippolytus that have been lost in time,
Origen’s notice regarding issues of Gospel incompatibility, the implied defense
of John’s writings in the Muratorian Fragment, and Dionysius of Alexandria’s
anonymous predecessors that rejected the Apocalypse of John as a work by
Cerinthus—a very busy man indeed for the apparent lack of anyone noticing
his anti-Johannine exploits, and whose dates could span from the mid second
century well into the third. Thus, in order to determine whether any of these
associations are plausible it is critically important to establish the dates of
Gaius’ activity.

3.4 The Dates of Gaius

There is almost universal harmony amongst all the sources regarding the dates
of Gaius’ battle against the Montanists. Eusebius mentions twice that Gaius
was active in Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (199–217). Jerome
and Theodoret agree. The unreliable marginal note in Photius’ manuscript
mentions that Gaius’ activity included the earlier time of Victorinus (189–199)
in addition to Zephyrinus. Although the dating of Gaius appears secure, the

31 Contra Tabbernee, who, on the basis of Photius’ testimony, states, ‘There is no reason
to doubt that Gaius was a presbyter.’ William Tabbernee, Fake Prophecy and Polluted
Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and Imperial Reactions to Montanism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 69.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 61

available sources that speak directly to his dates (with the exception of Photius)
are ultimately reliant upon Eusebius’ placement of the historical Gaius. Thus,
some have argued that Eusebius was wrong and Gaius of Rome mounted his
attack against the Gospel and Apocalypse of John much earlier than the begin-
ning of the third century. The most notable arguments come from Schwartz
and Smith.

3.4.1 Dating of Gaius by Schwartz and Smith

Schwartz called into question Eusebius’ dating of Gaius in part because he main-
tained that Irenaeus’ anonymous Alii, who rejected the Johannine Paraclete,
must have been Gaius of Rome.32 He substantiated his position by appealing
to Eusebius’ notice that in his refutation of Proclus Gaius appeals to the Asiatic
‘trophies’ of Peter and Paul, but not John. Schwartz argued that this indicated
Gaius lived prior to the tradition of the Ephesian John as told by Polycrates in a
letter to Victor, preserved in part by Eusebius (HE 3.31.3–4).33 Thus, around the
time of AD 160 it was still possible to doubt the authenticity of John’s Gospel
without being excommunicated or branded a heretic, and thus Gaius’ Dialogue
must have been written during this time.34 Eusebius wrongly believed Gaius to
be contemporaneous with Hippolytus because of a fictitious dialogue between
the two, fragments of which were in Eusebius’ hands and are identical to the
proof text of bar Salibi. This fiction was the product of Hippolytus’ own written
refutation of Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus, written decades earlier.35
Schwartz’s theory provides an explanation for why Gaius could reason-
ably be an ‘ecclesiastical man’ and maintain his anti-Johannine convic-
tions, but it requires a severe recalibration of the extant evidence.36 For one
thing, Eusebius, who may have had his own misgivings about the Johannine
Apocalypse, did not share any ambivalence towards John’s Gospel. If Gaius
had rejected only the Apocalypse, then Eusebius may have been comfortable
with issuing his praise of Gaius; but if he also rejected the Gospel as a heretical
forgery, it is beyond question that Eusebius would not have stamped Gaius so

32 Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 41–2. Later, Grant (‘Fourth Gospel and the Church,’ 108, n.77)
concurred, noting that Gaius’ objections are ‘pre-Irenaean’.
33 Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 41–2.
34 Ibid., 42.
35 See also P. Ladeuze, 56–8, who argues that Gaius’ Dialogue must have antedated Irenaeus’
notice, and the reason Irenaeus uses the ambiguous terms Alii is that Gaius’ position
would not have constituted an heretical opinion in his own time.
36 See Gustave Bardy, ‘Cerinthe,’ Rbib 30 (1921): 358–9, n.1.
62 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

positively. This fact prevented later scholars such as Carl Schmidt37 from fol-
lowing Schwartz’s original hypothesis, and with good reason. In abandoning
Eusebius’ dating of Gaius, Schwartz was left to create a history for Gaius out of
thin air, with little to go on except Irenaeus’ brief notice. Schwartz would later
come around and affirm Gaius’ dates as stated by Eusebius.38 Nevertheless,
some modern scholars still presume an earlier date for Gaius of Rome.39
Smith has his own unique solution to this dilemma. He argues that Irenaeus
was indeed responding to Gaius in AH 3.11.9, not because he had read Gaius’
objections in the Dialogue but due to the ‘oral stage’ of these criticisms. ‘It was
not until fifteen or twenty years later that Gaius shaped these discussions and
arguments in the form of a literary dialogue,’ and thus, ‘Irenaeus’ comments
reflected the early historical tradition of the Johannine controversy, not its lit-
erary tradition.’40 Though he accepts Eusebius’ date of Gaius’ Dialogue, as with
Schwartz, Smith is left reconstructing a hypothetical history for Gaius to facili-
tate his conclusions.
The dating of Gaius is founded on either taking Eusebius’ dating at face value
or rejecting it and hypothesizing Gaius’ dates earlier into the mid-second cen-
tury. However, there is one other concrete piece of information that deserves
attention: the fact that Gaius battled with the Montanist leader, Proclus. If the
dates of Proclus can be established, the dates of Gaius should become clearer.

3.4.2 The Dates of Proclus

Amidst all the confusion, this much is certain: Gaius wrote a treatise against
the Montanist Proclus. Eusebius read it, liked what he found therein, and dated
it at the beginning of the third century. Despite the theories that date Gaius
much earlier than Eusebius suggests, there is no evidence that Proclus was a
pre-Irenaean figure.
In addition to Eusebius’ notices that establish Proclus and Gaius in the
time of Zephyrinus, Ps.-Tertullian (Adv. omn. haer. 7.2) also states that
Proclus headed up a division of adherents to the New Prophecy known as
the Cataproclans, which Ps.-Tertullian contrasts with those who followed
Aeschines (Cataeschinetans). He distinguishes the Aeschinian version of
New Prophecy as decidedly modalist monarchian, for ‘they affirm Christ to be
Son and Father.’ Is it possible to surmise from this that Proclus had encoun-

37 Cf. Schmidt, 436ff.

38 Schwartz, ‘Johannes und Kerinthos,’ 212–13.
39 E.g. Culpepper (John, 121) takes for granted the view that Irenaeus was responding to
Gaius in AH 3.11.9.
40 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 279–80.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 63

tered the monarchian controversy—with which Hippolytus is a well-known

participant—and that his school of the New Prophecy had taken the more
orthodox Christological fork in the road?
Tertullian, himself of Montanist convictions, places Proclus last in a list
of venerated anti-Valentinian writers (following Justin Martyr, Miltiades and
Irenaeus; Adv. Val. 5). He describes Proclus as ‘Proculus noster’, which could
simply imply Tertullian’s fraternal identification within the New Prophecy,41
or one could interpret it as a designation that Proclus was a contemporary of
Tertullian.42 In support of the latter, Tertullian is privy to personal details of
Proculus (his eloquence and chastity in old age), thus suggesting that the two
were personal acquaintances. If Proclus were a contemporary of Tertullian,
and if the monarchianism against which Proclus reacted were of Sabellian43
variety (flourishing in the early third century), then Eusebius’ dates of Proclus,
and thus Gaius, may be correct after all.44
There is, in fact, no evidence that Proclus was active in the New Prophecy
movement prior to Irenaeus. In light of this, Smith’s dating of Gaius may
finally be put to rest alongside the early view of Schwartz. Because Proclus is
a third-century figure, Gaius’ accusations against this Montanist leader belong

41 E.g. T.D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971),
44.
42 There is little reason to doubt Proclus and ‘Proculus’ are to be identified as one in the
same (cf. De. vir. ill. 59). See Campenhausen, Formation, 233, n. 126.
43 Tertullian was also a critic of Sabellianism (Adv. Prax.). Hippolytus (Ref. 8.19) is aware of
this division within Montanism, for he notes that some of the Montanists held similar
beliefs to the Noetians, viz. that the Father and the Son are one in suffering and in death.
Epiphanius describes Sabellius’ beliefs as similar to that attributed to Aeschines (Haer.
62.1.4); so also does Didymus of Alexandria (De Trin. 3.41). According to Didymus, this
teaching originated from an oracle of Montanus in which he states, ‘I am the Father and
the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ For his part, Jerome makes the explicit connection between
Montanism and Sabellianism (Ep. 41.3). H.J. Lawlor Evsebiana: Essays on the Ecclesiastical
History of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). Lawlor (111) held
that the Montanists ‘taught what later became known as Sabellianism.’ In addition to
Didymus, Lawlor also notes the record of Asterius Urbanus (ap. HE 5.16.17) who cites
Maximilla as saying ‘I am Word and Spirit and Power’, which, according to Lawlor (ibid.),
‘for the words ῥῆμα, πνεῦμα, and δύναμις must be taken as equivalent to Montanus’s Son,
Spirit and Father.’ Lawlor is correct in noting that Tertullian was very much against the
Monarchianistic tendencies of Praxeas, which further bolsters the present argument that
the issue of Sabellianism caused a split in the Montanist camp and the views of Tertullian
and Proclus stood in sharp contrast to that of the Cataeschinetans.
44 In his final article on the subject, E. Schwartz maintained this view. See ‘Johannes und
Kerinthos,’ 212–14.
64 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

around the same time. Thus, Eusebius’ dating of Gaius complies with the other
available evidence. Nevertheless, the tendency to see Gaius as the identity of
Irenaeus’ Alii is also based on the view that Gaius of Rome actually rejected the
Gospel of John. Thus the question persists: is Gaius of Rome the same as bar
Salibi’s Caius haereticus? Is there validity to the Gaian paradox? If so, Gaius of
Rome must have campaigned against the Johannine writings in his efforts to
abolish Montanism.

3.5 Gaius and the Fourth Gospel

The status of the four-fold Gospel canon at the beginning of the third cen-
tury is a crucial issue that remains the subject of much debate. Was the Gospel
of John on the outer fringes of early ecclesiastical acceptance by this time, or
did Irenaeus’ four-Gospel canon represent a common view? Did Gaius have
any role in pushing the gospel canon away from John’s Gospel?45 However, the
evidence to support this conclusion is built on a tenuous sequence of ques-
tionable inferences. When the evidence is carefully scrutinized, the conclu-
sion that emerges from historical and textual analysis suggests that Gaius has
wrongly been accused of a crime that he did not commit.
If Gaius did reject the Gospel of John, there should be a literary trail that
leads back to Gaius himself as well as corroborating historical evidence from
this period of time. Textual and historical considerations will aid in discerning
Gaius’ view of the Fourth Gospel.

3.5.1 The Textual Evidence

First, since Gaius is known to have written only one work against the Montanist
leader Proclus, Gaius’ antagonism towards John must be found therein.46 The
testimony of Eusebius is therefore of unmatched value. As noted above,
Eusebius mentions that Gaius only accepts thirteen Pauline epistles and
rejects Hebrews (HE 6.20.3). Yet, he mentions nothing about Gaius’ (supposed)
negative views on John’s Gospel. Eusebius is quick to note that Gaius’ rejection
of Hebrews from the Pauline corpus is still acceptable to some in Rome even

45 ‘If Gaius, a champion of orthodoxy, could reject the Johannine literature, can we be cer-
tain that the fourfold canon was irrevocably established at Rome?’ Smith, ‘Gaius’, 6–7.
46 Culpepper (John, 121) argues that after Irenaeus had refuted his anti-Johannine position,
‘Some time later (ca. 202–203) Gaius wrote down his arguments against Montanism in the
form of a Dialogue with Proclus. In this treatise Gaius explained his rejection of the Gospel
and Revelation on literary-historical grounds . . .’
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 65

in his own day. This should not be understood as a defense of Gaius per se,
for Eusebius makes the same point earlier in his initial discussion of canoni-
cal and acknowledged texts (έδιαθήκων καὶ ὁμολογουμένων) and disputed
(άντιλεγομένων) texts (HE 3.3.5). Similarly, according to Photius who claims to
have read the lost Syntagma, Hippolytus himself said that Paul was not the
author of Hebrews (Bibl. 121).
The fact that Eusebius includes Gaius’ negative views towards Hebrews is
notable. Why does he mention this point, which would otherwise be one of lit-
tle consequence? In fact, he records this view of Gaius because the delineation
of which works he accepted is a primary theme of his Dialogue with Proclus.
According to Eusebius, Gaius devotes his Dialogue to ‘curbing the indiscretion
and boldness of the opposition who collect new scriptures’ (HE 6.20.3).47
The criticism against Montanism’s unique literature is nothing new. The
Anonymous, for example, shows reluctance to engage in a debate with the
Montanists, lest it seem that he were adding to the doctrines of the New
Testament and the Gospels (HE 5.16.3). The Anonymous’ citation of a Montanist
oracle also suggests they had already been written down (HE 5.16.17).48
Apollonius mentions a certain ‘catholic epistle’ (καθολικὴν έπιστολήν) written
by the Montanist Themiso in which he imitated that of ‘the apostle’ (HE 5.18.5).
Hippolytus also criticizes the Montanists for ‘having infinite books’ (ὧν βίβλους
ἀπείρους ἔχοντες) from which they claim to have learned something more than
what is found in the ‘Law, Prophets and Gospels’ (Ref. 19.1–2). If Hippolytus’ tes-
timony may be used as a comparison, then it is clear that the ‘new Scriptures’
are set in contrast to those that were already accepted by the church—the Law,
Prophets and the Gospels. Ps.-Tertullian states that Proclus believed that the
Paraclete was not in the apostles, but chose to speak through Montanus ‘more
things’ than Christ had said in the Gospel; indeed, not only more things, but
also better and greater things (Adv. omn. haer. 7).
Gaius of Rome set out in his anti-Montanist work to distinguish ‘new
scriptures’ from those of the church, but as these examples indicate, this was
not a new strategy. The question is whether John’s Gospel is included in this

47 GCS 6,2, 566.

48 See Campenhausen, Formation, 227, esp. n. 98, who also cites Tertullian (Fuga 9.4)
and Epiphanius (Haer. 48) as further examples of Montanist writings. Douglas Powell,
‘Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,’ VC 29 (1975): 33–54, argues that ‘Montanism was a liter-
ary movement’ (50), citing Fuga 9 and De resurr. carnis 10 as examples of Tertullian’s cita-
tion of Montanist ‘scripture’.
66 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

category,49 or are these ‘new scriptures’ better understood as collections of

Montanist oracles?50
It would be strange for a ‘learned’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ man to be wholly
unaware of the tradition associated with John’s Gospel that dates back as
far as Papias. In addition to what I shall argue is Eusebius’ record of Papias’
statements about John (HE 3.24.5–13), Polycrates (HE 5.24.2–7), Irenaeus
(AH 3.1.1) and others (e.g. the ‘elders’ in AH 2.22.5; cf. Polycarp at 3.3.4) speak
of the Ephesian tradition that maintains John, who reclined on Jesus’ breast
(Jn. 21:20), wrote this Gospel during his tenure in Asia.51 This tradition was also
well known to Gaius’ contemporaries scattered throughout the Mediterranean
basin.52
To claim that the Gospel of John was a recent production, a ‘new scripture’,
would be a bizarre claim for Gaius to make. To state that it was a product of
the heretic Cerinthus would be to demonstrate the most severe ignorance
of a well-known tradition. Cerinthus’ dates preclude any work attributed to
him as ‘recent’, and his teachings were entirely contrary to that found in John’s
Gospel, most notably the pre-existent Logos and John’s Logos Christology.53
Also, the tradition about John’s opposition to Cerinthus makes any such
claim severely problematic. The most obvious comes from Irenaeus (and later
Epiphanius), who makes it plain that John wrote his Gospel to ‘remove the
error of Cerinthus’ (AH 3.11.1; cf. Haer. 51.4.1). Moreover, Polycarp’s account of
John fleeing the baths because Cerinthus was there was well known (cf. AH
3.3.4). Eusebius relays this story a few sentences after noting Gaius’ accusation
of Cerinthus’ claim to authorship of ‘revelations’ that he ‘pretends were writ-
ten by a great apostle’ (HE 3.28.6, 4.14.6; Gaius at 3.28.2). This is significant, for
at the very moment Eusebius is writing this section against Cerinthus he has
two books in front of him: Gaius’ Dialogue and Irenaeus’ Against Heresies.54 He

49 So argues R.M. Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’ 108.

50 Cf. Campenhausen, Formation, 227, n. 98: ‘Certainly, when we hear of the innumerable
books of the Montanists, about which Hippolytus complains . . . we should think primar-
ily of such collections of oracles.’
51 There is no reason to believe the radical statement of J.J. Gunther, ‘The Alexandrian
Gospel and the Letters of John,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1980): 407–427: ‘The cre-
ation of a Johannine Asian myth started with Montanism.’ idem, ‘Early Identifications,’
410.
52 E.g. Clement of Alexandria ‘gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters as to the order
of the Gospels’ (ap. HE 6.14.5–7). So also Origen (HE 6.25.9–10; Hom. Luc. 1; Comm. Jo. 1.6),
Hippolytus of Rome (Comm. Dan. 1.17) and Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.2, 5).
53 Even Smith agrees that Gaius did not attribute John’s Gospel to Cerinthus (though he
maintains Gaius still rejected it). See Smith, ‘Gaius’, 334.
54 As well as Dionysius of Alexandria’s On the Promises (HE 3.28.3–5).
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 67

cites both verbatim and finds their contents worthy of inclusion in his con-
demnation of Cerinthus.
Now, either Gaius made that audacious claim that John’s Gospel ought to
be rejected as new scripture written by Cerinthus and Eusebius fails to men-
tion this or no such designation was made at all. Labriolle’s suggestion that
Eusebius possessed an incomplete copy of Gaius’ Dialogue that was void of
Gaius’ criticisms and attribution to Cerinthus is too hypothetical to be con-
vincing.55 The same is true for Grant’s view that Eusebius simply did not recite
Gaius’ criticisms of John.56 It is clear to Eusebius after reading Gaius’ Dialogue
which books are on Gaius’ bookshelf, and there is no reason to believe that the
Gospel of John was absent. If Gaius had attacked the Fourth Gospel because
of its ties to Montanism or its association with Cerinthus, it is safe to presume
that Eusebius would have not only noticed this in Gaius’ attack on Proclus but
counteracted this view.
Furthermore, as Harnack57 realized long ago and as Schwartz came to real-
ize, if Gaius did reject John’s Gospel Eusebius would never have referred to
Gaius as a ‘learned’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ man. Whatever ambivalence Eusebius
may have felt towards John’s Apocalypse, there was no doubt in his mind that
John’s Gospel was included in the canon. It is seen clearly in his introduction to
the account of the origins of the Gospel of John. Eusebius praises the Gospel of
John as ‘undisputed’, which, along with Matthew’s Gospel, was written by a dis-
ciple of the Lord (HE 3.24.2–5). At the end of his account he repeats the notice
that not only John’s Gospel but also his first Epistle were accepted without any
argument, both now and long ago (HE 3.24.17). Indeed, the ‘holy quaternion of
the Gospels’ tops his list of ‘accepted books’ (HE 3.25.1). In short, Eusebius’ high
estimation of John’s Gospel on the one hand and Gaius of Rome on the other
are totally incompatible if Gaius did, in fact, reject the Gospel of John.
To presume that Eusebius gave a pass to Gaius’ supposedly negative views
of John’s Gospel is absurd. For example, as I shall argue later, Eusebius did not
permit Origen’s criticisms of John’s Gospel to escape his own rebuttal (cf. HE

55 Labriolle, Crise, 283–4, n. 6.

56 Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’ 109, n. 85. Elsewhere Grant (Eusebius as Church Historian [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1980], 132), based on the bar Salibi evidence, he argues that Eusebius
does recite Gaius’ criticisms of John in HE 3.24, but he does not mention Gaius’ name
because, ‘It seems that he is already working toward a discussion of the Apocalypse,
which Gaius also rejected. He [Eusebius] is planning to appeal to the authority of Gaius
on the Apocalypse while rejecting his view on the Gospel. For this reason he certainly
prefers to leave out Gaius’ name at this point.’
57 Adolf von Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 2 vols
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897–1904), Vol. I, 27.
68 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

3.24.5–13), and Origen accepted the Gospel of John!58 The argument posed
by Smith and others that Eusebius did not know the origins of this criticism
of Johannine-Synoptic incompatibility is faulty, for Eusebius has read both
Origen’s Commentary on John and Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus. In fact, he cites
from Gaius’ Dialogue shortly after his defense of Johannine-Synoptic compat-
ibility (cf. HE 3.28.1–2; 3.31.4), without any indication that he was responding
to Gaius. I shall argue below in the third section of this work that Origen is the
true culprit.
The close proximity of Eusebius’ citations of Gaius’ Dialogue with his
account of the origins of the Fourth Gospel is not surprising, for throughout the
third book of his Historia Ecclesiastica Eusebius is treading through the issue of
canonical works, the very concern of Gaius’ own work. Towards the beginning
of Book III, Eusebius has plainly stated that as he presents his account of his-
tory he will be careful to show what the ecclesiastical writers (ἐκκλησιαστικῶν
συγγραφέων) think of disputed works as well as canonical (ἐνδιαθήκων) and
accepted writings (ὁμολογουμένων; HE 3.3.3).
If he had read this criticism of John’s Gospel in Gaius’ Dialogue, Eusebius
surely would have relayed a radically different opinion of the man whom he
knows only through reading this work. However, the bonds of loyalty and
esteem that he had for Origen were much stronger than any he had towards
Gaius. Smith may be correct that Eusebius withholds specifying the source of
this criticism in order to protect the identity of the accuser, but this reticence
is best understood as a protective act on account of his fidelity to Origen, not
Gaius of Rome.
Regarding Epiphanius’ testimony, it is true that these objections are
described as coming from a single individual (φησι—‘he says’), but this does
not inevitably point to Gaius, as Smith argues.59 Nowhere in Epiphanius’ writ-
ings does he mention any knowledge of Gaius of Rome or a Dialogue with
Proclus, nor does he mention Montanism as an issue in his account of the criti-
cisms of John.
Indeed, the only textual link between a person by the name of Gaius and a
rejection of the Gospel of John is from a source that post-dates Gaius of Rome by a
millennium. Even here, the evidence is far from secure.60

58 Cf. Ch. 9 below.

59 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 233; so also Ladeuze, 54.
60 The only link remains the notice provided in the preface to bar Salibi’s Commentary on
the Apocalypse, that Gaius rejected John’s Gospel and Apocalypse. This will be discussed
at length below (see Chaper 3.6).
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 69

3.5.2 Gaius, Montanism, and the Historical Context

Further corroboration that Gaius did not reject John’ Gospel is found from an
historical perspective, where on a number of fronts Gaius’ anti-Montanism is
incompatible with anti-Johannine views. Although it is often touted, it is far
from certain that the earliest Montanists pointed to the Paraclete passages in
the Gospel of John to substantiate their prophetic ‘gifts’.61 Out of the paucity
of the surviving evidence it is worth noting that Apollonius, the Anonymous
and the eastern oracles do not use the term ‘Paraclete’.62 Nor do any of the
extant prophetic utterances make any appeal to Scripture.63 Furthermore,
R.E. Heine has argued that there is no evidence to suggest that Phrygian
Montanists utilized the Paraclete passages in support of their ‘New Prophecy’
in the second century.64
Such is the state of the evidence concerning the earliest years of the New
Prophecy in the provenance of Asia Minor. But what about Rome at the begin-
ning of the third century when Gaius was active? According to Heine, once
Montanism moved to Rome the Gospel of John became ‘a point of conten-
tion between the opposing parties.’65 Heine goes on to list the ‘meager’ evi-
dence to support this view: (i) Irenaeus’ notice (AH 3.11.9); (ii) Gaius’ Dialogue
with Proclus; (iii) bar Salibi’s commentaries, which Heine argues to preserve
statements from Gaius’ Dialogue; (iv) Hippolytus; (v) Ps.-Tertullian and
(vi) the Muratorian Fragment.66 However, in fact this evidence does not sup-
port Heine’s view.

61 See F.E. Vokes ‘The Use of Scripture in the Montanist Controversy,’ Studia Evangelica 5
(1968): 317–320, where he makes a succinct and convincing case for exercising caution in
presuming the use of the Fourth Gospel by early Montanists.
62 F.C. Klawiter, ‘The New Prophecy in Early Christianity; the Origin, Nature and
Development of Montanism, AD 165–200.’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1975), 111, n. 1.
63 Campenhausen, Formation, 222.
64 R.E. Heine, ‘The Gospel of John and the Montanist Debate at Rome,’ Studia Patristica 21
(1989): 95–100; ‘The Role of the Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy,’ 1–18. Cf.
Campenhausen, Formation, 225, esp. n. 92. Smith (‘Gaius,’ 157–8) has to point to the fact
that ‘Later evidence indicates that they [Montanists] must have made substantial use of
the Fourth Gospel,’ but he offers no early evidence to support such an assertion. Trevett
disagrees with Heine, emphasizing that there was ‘an assumed relation between Christian
prophecy and the presence of the Paraclete.’ See Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender,
Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 63.
65 Heine, ‘Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy,’ 11.
66 On the Muratorian Fragment as a rebuttal to Gaius of Rome, see Culpepper, John, 129; cf.
Gunther, ‘Early Identifications,’ 411–13.
70 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Much, if not all, of this brings little clarity to the role of the Gospel of John
in the Montanist crisis at Rome. It is far from certain that Irenaeus’ notice
(AH 3.11.9) refers directly to anti-Montanist views in the capital city, nor is
John’s Gospel that which is being rejected. I shall argue that it is the Paraclete
and prophecy that is at the center of this antagonism, as is made clear when
Irenaeus’ other notice (Dem. 99) is considered.67 It has also just been demon-
strated that Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus did not contain a rejection or criticisms
of John’s Gospel; nor does bar Salibi indicate that he cites this work in his com-
mentaries.68 Likewise there is little extant evidence from Hippolytus that sup-
ports Heine’s position. When Hippolytus does speak of the Montanists there
is nothing that indicates the Gospel of John was particularly at stake beyond
the use of the term Paraclete (Ref. 19.1–2; also 10.25 which does not contain
this term). Ps.-Tertullian, not surprisingly, echoes Hippolytus’ view that the
Montanists claimed the Paraclete was not in the apostles, but in Montanus.
However, Ps.-Tertullian also states that the Montanist claim is not necessarily
based on John’s Gospel, but that the Paraclete’s words exceed those of Christ
in the Gospels—‘not merely more, but likewise wiser and greater’ (Adv. omn.
haer. 7.2). Finally, the Muratorian Fragment, perhaps also from Hippolytus,
makes no connection between Montanism and the Gospel of John. It does men-
tion that the ‘number of prophets is complete’, but this is immediately after a
reference to the Shepherd of Hermas, not a Johannine work (lines 75–79).
Furthermore, the Fragment makes no allusion to the criticisms of John that
supposedly originated from Gaius. It does mention the general concern of
‘different beginnings’ (uaria . . . principia) of the Gospels, but this ‘makes no
difference to believers’.
Thus, returning to Heine’s argument, where does one find any explicit evi-
dence that ‘the Gospel of John has become a point of contention between the
opposing parties’ in Rome? The problem with this calibration of the evidence
is that Gaius of Rome is seen to be dominating both sides of the equation,
where it is argued that Gaius of Rome, in his endeavor to eradicate Montanism,
must have rejected the Johannine literature, which goes to show that the New
Prophecy’s use of the Fourth Gospel created a backlash within the church to
the degree that some rejected it, as in the case of Gaius of Rome, and so on.
The issue with this equation, aside from its dubious logic, is that the evidence
mounted thus far leads away from a secure pronouncement that Gaius rejected

67 See Chapter 7.2.

68 I cannot agree with Heine’s rationale (‘Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy,’ 14),
‘It is but a small step to assume that Gaius’ denial of the Johannine authorship of the
Gospel was a part of his defense against Proclus.’
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 71

the Fourth Gospel at all, and there is no concrete evidence outside of Gaius’
supposed denunciation of John to support Heine’s position.
If Gaius did reject John’s Gospel as a means of combating Montanism, it is a
massive leap to conclude that such a position was normative of Roman senti-
ments at the time. As T.K. Seim notes, Heine’s argument ‘depends on his recon-
struction of an assumed Montanist counter-strategy to a certain line of critique
in Rome and on an exclusive association of both Irenaeus and Tertullian with
Rome—denouncing their connections with Asia Minor and knowledge about
the situation there.’69 Moreover, even though there is an unfortunate lack of
evidence relating to Montanism in Rome during the second and early third
centuries, that which has survived bears very little indication of being colored
in a predominantly anti-Johannine hue.70
Strategically, one may wonder why there would be such a pull for Roman
anti-Montanists to reject John’s Gospel as the primary means of dispelling this
sect from the church. Although the third century Montanists such as Tertullian
used John’s Gospel, it was not their only Scriptural proof text.71 Moreover,
Tertullian was in Carthage, not Rome. To banish John’s Gospel as a means to
eradicate the New Prophecy, then, would in itself not be the solution to the
problem. If the idea was to take away this movement’s textual foundations,
Matthew would also be banished,72 Luke would have to go,73 so also would
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians for, as Irenaeus argued, he too speaks of
prophecy (AH 3.11.9; I Cor. 11:4–5). The rest of the Pauline corpus would also
be clipped, for Trevett notes that Paul was a ‘very significant source’ to the
Montanists, and ‘both sides, catholic and Prophetic, were claiming the Pauline
high ground.’74 The Montanist appeal to prophetic succession that reaches
back as far as the apostles places the Acts of the Apostles next in the list of
works to reject.75 These are just a few examples; the list goes on. Excising the

69 T.K. Seim, ‘Johannine Echoes in Early Montanism,’ in The Legacy of John: Second-Century
Reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. Tuomas Rasimus (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 353–4.
70 Cf. ibid., 358. See also Brent, Hippolytus, 137–8.
71 De virg. vel. 1; cf. De mon. 2, 3. See Labriolle, Sources, 12–50.
72 Cf. the Anonymous (ap. HE 5.16.12) where the Montanists use Mt. 23:34 to identify their
prophets and explain the ecclesiastical hostility to them.
73 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. who appeals to Lk. 9:33 as an example of Peter not knowing what
he said during the Transfiguration.
74 Trevett, Montanism, 130–1, who cites the ‘ardent Paulinist’ Abercius Marcellus’ encourage-
ment of the Anonymous’ anti-Montanist activities, and Tertullian’s use of Paul on mar-
riage, prophecy and the role of women in the churches (cf. De monog. 14.3).
75 Cf. Miltiades (ap. HE 5.17.3–4). Also Acts 10:11–13 in Epiphanius (Haer. 48.7). See Heine,
‘Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy,’ 6, 9.
72 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

possible proof texts for Montanism would be akin to a redaction of Scripture

on a Marcionite scale; but this is not what happened.76
Rather, the evidence points to the fact that the methodology of the church
was primarily twofold: (i) to distinguish the New Prophecy from that found
in Scripture and the apostolic age, and (ii) to condemn the Montanist praxis.
Concerning the first, this polemical methodology is seen in earliest opponents
of Montanism in Asia,77 as well as during the time of Hippolytus in Rome (Ref.
8.19.2) and later.78 Moreover, the desire of the church towards ‘testing the spirit’
of the prophets, as Tabbernee notes, was nothing new in Asia Minor and can
be derived from a Johannine injunction to ‘test the spirits to see whether they
are from God’ (I Jn. 4:1).79 In two other passages that are likely directed against
Montanism, at least in part, Hippolytus emphasizes that the ‘divine Scriptures’
(αἱ θείαι γραφαί) are the basis for the entire discussion (Dan. 4.19.1, De Antichristo
1–2).80 Heine (along with Trevett) is surely correct in stating, ‘The Roman
Church did not argue with the Montanists about true or false prophecy . . . It
refused to grant the possibility of any prophecy after the apostles.’81 Likewise,
Klawiter notes that Hippolytus believed genuine prophecy is found in ‘experi-

76 Contra Campenhausen who states that Gaius ‘seems to have been a spokesman for the
extreme anti-Montanists. As such he was not content with rejecting the ‘new scriptures’
of the Montanists, but strove for a revision and reduction of the whole New Testament’
(Formation, 237).
77 E.g. The Anonymous: ‘[Montanus] was prophesying in a manner contrary to the con-
stant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning’ (HE 5.16.7).
Apollonius: ‘Does not all of Scripture prohibit a prophet to receive gifts and payment?’
(HE 5.18.4). Also, Miltiades’ argument that the Montanists could not claim those prophets
of the New Testament (Agabus [Acts 11:28; 21:10]; Judas and Silas [both at Acts 15:32]; and
most notably the daughters of Philip [Acts 21:9], which Gaius of Rome also claimed for
the side of orthodoxy [HE 3.31.3]). Cf. also HE 5.17.1.
78 E.g. Epiphanius, Haer. 48.3.3; cf. 48.3.3–7.
79 See Tabbernee, Fake Prophecy, 89–90. See also Epiphanius, Haer. 48.1.6–7.
80 Klawiter, 211–15. Klawiter (211) argues that while the New Prophecy is not mentioned by
name in either of these passages, ‘It is reasonable to assume that Hippolytus’ conceptions
were worked out with some conscious attention given to the positions held in the New
Prophecy.’ See also Tabbernee, Fake Prophecy, 75, Labriolle, Crise, 147–9; Brent, Hippolytus,
278.
81 Heine, ‘Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy,’ 15; Trevett, Montanism, 65. This may
be seen in Hippolytus Comm. Dan. 4.38.1–2 as well as in the Muratorian Fragment where
this work lists its reasons for excluding the Shepherd of Hermas. Yet even if the Roman
Church in the third century were anti-prophecy, not just anti-Montanist, in no way does
this necessarily mean that the Gospel of John was in peril.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 73

ences [that were] gone and in the past. A Christian could do nothing better
than to adhere to the deposit of that experience as found in holy scripture.’82
The second strategy is more straightforward. Condemnation of the
Montanist practices comes from a number of early sources such as Eusebius’
Anonymous,83 Apollonius84 and Hippolytus.85 One could also detect a third
strategy, which was simply to identify the Montanists as the emissaries of
Satan.86
The common assumption that Gaius’ strategy was to reject the Fourth
Gospel is not evidenced anywhere prior to the twelfth century writings of
Dionysius bar Salibi, and it is interesting that even bar Salibi does not make a
connection between a rejection of John and efforts to abolish Montanism. In
fact there is no explicit evidence anywhere to suggest that the church chose to
cede the Johannine corpus to the Montanists. On the contrary, later heresiolo-
gists used John’s Gospel as a weapon against the Montanists. Epiphanius pits
John’s Gospel (5:43) against the words of Montanus to show that his teachings
are in total disagreement with the sacred Scriptures, as is evident to anyone
paying attention (Haer. 48.11.4; cf. Jn. 7:37 at 48.13.5). The ‘spirit’ behind the
Montanist prophecy was not the Johannine Paraclete, but an evil spirit (Haer.
48.1.4–7, 48.2.23, 48.4.4).87 Furthermore, in combating the Montanist appeal
to the Gospel of John, Jerome, in a letter to Marcella, does not criticize John’s
Gospel, nor is he aware of any historical precedent for such a position. Rather,

82 Klawiter, 213, who bases his position on reading Ant. 2. See also Laura Nasrallah, ‘An
Ecstasy of Folly’: Prophecy and Authority in Early Christianity. Harvard Theological Studies
52 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), 174.
83 HE 5.16.9 against the Montanist understanding of the role of women (so also Hippolytus,
Ref. 8.19.2).
84 HE 5.18.2 against (i) the claim that Pepuza (and Tymion) would be the site of the ‘new
Jerusalem’, (ii) their illegitimate practice of prophets requesting money, and (iii) other
unseemly economic practices.
85 Ref. 8.19.2 against their ‘novelties’ of fasts (νηστείας), feasts (ἑορτὰς), eating dried food
(ξηροφαγίας), and eating radishes (ῥαφανοφαγίας); also Comm. Dan. 4.20.3 appears to be
directed against the Montanists’ fasting on the Sabbath, which Christ did not sanction. Cf.
Labriolle, Sources, 12.
86 E.g. the Anonymous (ap. HE 5.16.7, 9); Hippolytus (Comm. Dan. 4.20). This went both ways,
however. See Tertullian: ‘Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome—he drove
away prophecy and brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the
Father’ (Adv. Prax. 1). Tabbernee (Fake Prophecy, 87–124) divides ecclesiastical charges
against Montanism into three categories: (i) Pseudo-Prophecy, (ii) Novelties, such as
their ‘new scriptures’ and more rigoristic novelties such as fasting, ‘Judaizing’, etc., and
(iii) Heresy.
87 See Tabbernee, Fake Prophecy, 88.
74 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

he demonstrates that it is to be interpreted in light of other Scripture, namely

the Acts of the Apostles (Ep. 41).
Hermeneutical differences, therefore, is the primary issue. On this note,
Allen Brent notes that despite the trend in modern exegesis to see John’s
promise of the Paraclete as directly supporting Montanism, in the late second
and early third century, Jn. 20 was interpreted as ‘limiting the charisma of the
Spirit within the ordered, presbyteral/episcopal succession. The consequence
of such an exegesis was that there was no need to attack the Fourth Gospel as
opposed to simply reclaiming it from the Montanists who had allegedly dis-
torted it.’88 One may detect a similar trend in the writings of Irenaeus against
the Gnostic use of John. In terms of the canon, the only visible textual diffi-
culty found in the evidence concerns the unique Montanist writings that they
claimed to be authoritative. The Gospel of John, however, is conspicuously
absent in this debate.
What is the value of all this analysis? Both historically and textually, there
is no early evidence that Gaius rejected the Fourth Gospel. Assertions to the
contrary inevitably carry with them the claims of Dionysius bar Salibi and
Ebed-Jesu. That these sources are not altogether reliable is the subject for the
following chapter. For now, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the pre-
dominant scholarly methodology over the past century has woven together a
very compelling storyline based on incompatible evidence in which the early
church was indecisive at best about accepting the Fourth Gospel. Gaius, who
has stood accused of going so far as to reject it, has been wrongly convicted of
this crime, which he never committed. The point at which there is agreement
with previous scholarship is the need to rehabilitate Gaius of Rome, but not
as a textual critic who was paradoxically ‘orthodox’ and ‘heretical’. Rather, the
rehabilitation of Gaius of Rome is back to his original legacy as a ‘learned’ and
‘ecclesiastical’ man whose battle with the Montanists served to protect rather
than reject the authentic ‘scriptures’, including the Fourth Gospel. This, of
course, means that Epiphanius’ source for the Alogi’s criticisms of the Fourth
Gospel would not have originated from Gaius of Rome. But what about Gaius’
objections to the Apocalypse?

3.6 Gaius and the Apocalypse

The common view that Epiphanius derived the criticisms to the Apocalypse
from a lost work of Hippolytus against Gaius of Rome is not impossible, but it

88 Brent, Hippolytus, 138.

Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 75

is unlikely. There are two pieces of evidence that have often been read in favor
of the notion that Gaius did reject the Apocalypse and attribute it to Cerinthus,
to which Hippolytus responded in his lost work(s).
The first comes from a portion of Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus, preserved by
Eusebius (HE 3.28.1–2), where Gaius states that Cerinthus wrote an apocalyptic
work under the guise of an unspecified ‘great apostle’. Eusebius quotes Gaius
this way:

Gaius, whose words are quoted earlier, in his disputation, investigates

these things concerning this man [Cerinthus]. He writes, ‘But also
Cerinthus, who through revelations (ἀποκαλύψεων) as if having been
written by a great apostle (ἀποστόλου μεγάλου), introduces marvellous
stories to us that he falsely claims have been given to him by angels, say-
ing after the resurrection there will come an earthly kingdom of Christ,
and that flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be enslaved to desires and
pleasures. And being hostile to the scriptures of God, desiring to lead
[others] astray, he says there will be a thousand years for marriage festivi-
ties.’ (HE 3.28.1b–3).89

Immediately following this citation of Gaius, Eusebius records this statement

by Dionysius of Alexandria:

But Cerinthus . . . desiring trustworthy authority for his own forgery

(πλάσματι), assigned the name. For this was the doctrine of his teachings:
the kingdom of Christ will be on earth. And he dreamed that this would
consist of those things he desired, since he was a lover of the body and
altogether fleshly: satisfaction of his belly and those parts below—that is,
in food and drinks and wedding feasts and through those provisions (by
which he supposed to make himself more presentable) in festivals and
sacrifices of holy victims. (HE 3.28.4–5)90

It is often suggested that Eusebius intentionally juxtaposes these two quota-

tions in order to reflect his own opinion that Gaius must be referring to the
Johannine Apocalypse. It is clear from Eusebius’ lengthier citation of this
portion of Dionysius’ work in the seventh book of the Historia Ecclesiastica

89 GCS 9,1, 256–8. Cf. Ch. 1.3.

90 GCS 9,1, 258. Cf. the translation of A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-
Christian Sects. NovTSupp, 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 103–5.
76 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

(7.25.1–2), that Dionysius is referring to the John’s Apocalypse, but that does
not necessarily mean Gaius of Rome does the same.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the second batch of evidence that links Epiphanius’
record of the Alogi’s criticisms of the Apocalypse with an earlier work of
Hippolytus comes from bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu. The latter records that
Hippolytus wrote a refutation of Gaius and an apologetic work in defense of
the Gospel and Apocalypse of John; the former alludes to a similar Hippolytan
work against Gaius, citing five criticisms of Gaius against the Apocalypse, one
of which is very similar to one of the objections of the Alogi. These later writers
are the first to attribute these concerns to Hippolytus.91
If priority is given to the later evidence, then it is all but certain that
Epiphanius’ source must have been a lost Hippolytan work upon which
Epiphanius and bar Salibi are both reliant. However, the early evidence, exam-
ined below, tells a different story. When one carefully studies Gaius’ statements,
it is evident that he never rejected the Johannine Apocalypse as a Cerinthian
forgery. Moreover, the similar statements of Dionysius of Alexandria ought to
be considered in light of their own historical context, which makes no allu-
sions to Gaius or the Montanist controversy.

3.6.1 The Statements of Gaius

In HE 3.28.1–2 Gaius never rejected John’s Apocalypse and attributed it to
Cerinthus. In light of the bar Salibi commentaries, it is natural to presume he
meant John’s Apocalypse; on its own merit, however, Gaius’ testimony does
not indicate this.92 To impugn Gaius of rejecting the Johannine Apocalypse
requires sautering together pieces of evidence that are otherwise totally
unconnected.
In fact, there was broad and positive attestation to John’s Apocalypse at
this time. Thus it is safe to presume Gaius was at least aware of this work,
and if he had knowledge of Cerinthus claiming John’s Apocalypse as his own,
one could expect Gaius to have stated as much. Also, given Eusebius’ suspi-

91 See Bardy, 353; Klijn and Reinink, 4.

92 This is a point that Smith attempts to overturn by introducing ‘tentative’ grammatical and
syntactical emendations to Eusebius’ text that produce his desired reading, which is that
Cerinthus supported his own doctrine from the text of John’s Apocalypse. Smith (‘Gaius,’
332) states that his emendations to the Greek ‘are the preferred ones when examined in
terms of the existing fragments themselves rather than under the umbrella of the sum-
mary statements of the later polemicists.’ His overall analysis, however, is not as impartial
as he suggests, and his proposed emendations are unnecessary and unsupported by the
manuscript tradition.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 77

cions about John’s Apocalypse, which emerge clearly in this third book of his
Historia Ecclesiastica,93 it is likely he would have enunciated this point further
if Gaius had, in fact, attributed it to Cerinthus. After all, just a few paragraphs
before quoting Gaius, Eusebius twists Irenaeus’ statements about the ‘so-called
Apocalypse of John’ (ἐν τῇ Ἰωάννου λεγομένῃ Ἀποκαλύψει; HE 3.18.2). Nowhere
does Irenaeus provide such a putative label. Furthermore, in HE 3.24.18 Eusebius
emphasizes his view that the Apocalypse stands on shaky ground. Although he
records Dionysius of Alexandria’s negative views towards the Apocalypse (cf.
HE 7.25), nowhere does Eusebius explicitly speak of Gaius’ antagonism towards
John’s Apocalypse. This is odd, particularly if R.M. Grant is right in arguing, ‘At
this point in Book III [Eusebius] was using every available weapon to discredit
the book.’94
First, Gaius does not specify the ‘great apostle’.95 It is feasible that this could
be John the Apostle, but given the extant textual evidence it is unknown which
‘great apostle’ Cerinthus meant, in no way does it necessitate this conclusion.
For example, one finds a different explanation emerging from the writings of
Apollonius, who mentions that the Montanist Themiso wrote ‘a certain catho-
lic epistle’ in imitation of ‘the apostle’ (HE 5.18.5). Speculation on the intended
identity of this nameless apostle is rampant, ranging from I John to II Peter and
Jude. Campenhausen, following Zahn, is convinced that the term ‘the apostle’,
when absent from any specific context, must denote the apostle Paul.96 If this is
correct, and if Apollonius’ statements are analogous, perhaps Gaius addressed
the same issue in his discussion of pseudo-Pauline works (cf. HE 6.20.3).
Second, Cerinthus’ claim to a sensual chiliasm in which Jerusalem would
play host to the longings and desires of the flesh can hardly be derived from
John’s Apocalypse.97 As Brent notes, Cerinthus’ ‘marriage festivities’ (ἐν γάμῳ
ἑορτῆς) have little in common with the ‘marriage feast of the lamb’ (τὸ δεῖπον
τοῦ γάμου τοῦ ἀρνίου; Rev. 19:9) either philologically or in the idea expressed.98
Cerinthus’ views are equally incompatible with another known Apocalyptic
work in the early Church, the Apocalypse of Peter. In this work there is no view

93 Cf. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 131, who notes that Eusebius’ earlier views (viz. in
his Chronicon, treat the author of the Apocalypse as John the Apostle, teacher of Papias,
Polycarp and Ignatius. See Helm (ed.), GCS: Eusebius VII: Chronik Des Hieronymus (Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1984), 192–4 (275–6F).
94 Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 134.
95 The Paris MS (Bibliothèque Nationale 5500) of Rufinus records ‘quasi apostolo’ here.
96 Campenhausen, Formation, 228, n. 103.
97 Contra Klijn and Reinink, 5, who argue that Gaius’ references to the work he mentions
‘make it almost certain that he is referring to the canonical Apocalypse.’ Cf. Bardy, 356, n. 3.
98 Brent, Hippolytus, 134. Interestingly, Smith (‘Gaius,’ 181–2) concurs.
78 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

of a licentious millennium in a distorted Jerusalem as Cerinthus claimed, nor

does it make any mention of the marriage festivities. Other pseudepigraphi-
cal apocalypses such as those of Paul and Andrew do not support Cerinthus’
eschatological frivolities.99
Third, some have argued that the reference to an angel granting Cerinthus
his eschatological visions is an allusion to Rev. 1:1, where Jesus imparts the
revelation to John through an angel. However, just because an angel revealed
these things to Cerinthus does not necessarily point to John’s Apocalypse,
particularly since an angelic mediator is a standard feature in the apocalyp-
tic genre.100 Furthermore, from the time of Hippolytus onward, it is recorded
that Cerinthus also claimed that the Law and Prophets were given through the
angels and through them the world was created (Ref. 10.21; Adv. omn. haer. 3;
Haer. 28.1.2–3).
Finally, it may reasonably be deduced from Gaius’ statement that he means
Cerinthus composed his own ‘revelations’ under the guise of a pseudo-apostolic
confection.101 It is noteworthy that Theodoret certainly maintained the view
that Cerinthus wrote his own Apocalypse. This is how he interprets the state-
ments of Gaius and Dionysius: ‘Cerinthus also invented certain revelations
pretending to have seen them himself. Against him not only have the above-
named persons written, but with them also Gaius and Dionysius the Bishop of
Alexandria’ (Haer. fab. comp. 2.3).102 Moreover, O. Skarsaune has argued that
Cerinthus’ millennial views, as described by Dionysius of Alexandria, may have
been refuted as early as Justin Martyr (Dial. 118.2).103 Prior to bar Salibi, there is
no explicit evidence to indicate Gaius means Cerinthus claimed authorship of

99 For a summary of various explanations other than assuming Gaius is speaking of the
Johannine Apocalypse, see Bludau, 43ff.
100 Contra Smith (‘Gaius,’ 182–3; cf. Bludau, 44), who argues, ‘The expressions ‘a great apostle’
and ‘revelations shown to him by an angel’ create the impression generally accepted, that
Gaius is referring to John the Apostle and the revelation which was mediated to him by an
angel.’ In contrast, a mediating angel is seen in the earliest apocalypses (e.g. Dan. 10:8–19;
1 Enoch 60:3–4) and up through those apocalyptic works that are generally contempora-
neous with John’s Revelation (e.g. 4 Ezra 10:29–31, 2 Enoch 2:7–8, Apoc. Abraham 11:1–6).
On this issue I am indebted to the research and guidance of my friend and colleague,
John Markley. See also, John J. Collins, ‘Introduction: Towards a Morphology of Genre,’ in
Semeia 14 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 1–21, esp. 9.
101 See Bardy, 356.
102 Translation in Lightfoot, AF i, II, 387. See also Brent, Hippolytus, 135–6.
103 O. Skarsaune, The Proof From Prophecy, A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-
Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. NovTSupp 34, n. 2 Vol. LVI (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 406.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 79

the Johannine Apocalypse;104 rather, his testimony as well as that of Theodoret

(and possibly Justin) suggest that Cerinthus concocted his own apocalyptic
work, or perhaps drastically altered that of John (or maybe Peter), to fit his own
views.105 Interestingly, before the emergence of the bar Salibi commentaries
this was the general opinion of Routh, Westcott, and Lightfoot.106
Gaius, it should be remembered, was a ‘learned’ man (HE 6.20.3), and it is
difficult to reconcile his intelligence with the strange view that Cerinthus was
responsible for John’s Apocalypse.107 One might be tempted to postulate that
if Gaius did not reject John’s Apocalypse, Hippolytus would not have had any
reason to write a polemic against his views. In this case, Epiphanius’ state-
ments do not necessarily reflect a lost work of Hippolytus. This, however, is
getting too far ahead of the evidence. For now, it is necessary to grapple with
Dionysius of Alexandria’s similar statement which has prompted many to sug-
gest that Dionysius must be referring to Gaius of Rome in his statement that
‘some before us’ held these views.108

3.6.2 The Statements of Dionysius of Alexandria and Their Historical

Context
It is not impossible that Dionysius’ testimony could reflect his own under-
standing of Gaius’ statements, but if this is the case it must be recognized that
Dionysius has gone well beyond what Gaius says. There are clear limits to what
Gaius actually reports in HE 3.28.1–2. For example, he does not indicate which
apostle Cerinthus was impersonating or that anyone rejected the Johannine
Apocalypse; nor does he provide the specifics of Cerinthus’ millennial hopes of
pleasure. Dionysius, on the other hand, crosses these boundaries, and various
others.109 As Hill notes, ‘[I]t would seem that Eusebius has gone to the trouble

104 See Smith, ‘Gaius’, 333, where he agrees that Gaius did not attribute John’s Apocalypse
to Cerinthus, but that Hippolytus introduced this errant notion as part of his polemic
against Gaius.
105 Cf. Bardy, 356, who thinks Cerinthus did not write his own work, but commented on
John’s.
106 Routh, 14ff.; B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, (London:
Macmillan and Co., 1875), 245, n.1; Lightfoot, ‘Caius or Hippolytus?’ 110.
107 Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 386–7. See also Brent, Hippolytus, 135–7; Bludau, 120–9.
108 Lightfoot, AF, i, II, 386; Bludau, 50; Bardy, 361; Campenhausen, Formation, 237; Klijn and
Reinink, 8; Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 134; Smith, ‘Gaius’, 190. Cf. Weinrich (ed.),
xviii; Hill, ‘Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast?’ 164–5.
109 See here esp. Skarsaune, 408. Skarsaune notes that Dionysius reports Cerinthus’ vision of
a ‘re-establishment of the sacrificial cult,’ which ‘cannot be derived from Gaius.’ See also
Hill, Johannine Corpus, 175.
80 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

of quoting Dionysius in Historia ecclesiastica 3.28.1–5, and not Gaius alone,

partly for the very reason that Dionysius supplies this bit of information about
Cerinthus which was not available to Gaius.’110 If Dionysius were referring to
Gaius’ statements, perhaps it is a case of careless reading, or maybe he felt
at liberty to re-appropriate Gaius’ notice and make it more inflammatory for
the situation he is addressing, which was very different than that with which
Gaius was concerned, for Dionysius’ notice has nothing to do with Montanism
or Rome.111
Eusebius notes specifically that Dionysius wrote his work On the Promises
as a response to the millenarian views of a certain Nepos, whose eschatologi-
cal expectations approximated those of Cerinthus. Eusebius states, ‘Nepos, a
bishop in Egypt, taught that the promises to the saints in the Holy Scriptures
are to be rendered in a more Jewish manner, teaching that there will be a thou-
sand years of bodily luxuries upon this earth’ (HE 7.24.1–2).112 To support this
notion, Nepos believed he could establish his opinions from the text of John’s
Apocalypse. These he wrote in a book entitled Refutations of the Allegorists—a
clear swipe at the spiritualizing exegesis of Origen and those who followed his
hermeneutical approach, such as Dionysius, who felt that it was necessary to
issue a rejoinder to Nepos’ views.
Nepos’ eschatology had levelled a destructive force in the region of Arsinoë,
Egypt, with various churches experiencing rampant schisms and apostasies. To
combat these divisions, during a visit to Arsinoë Dionysius called together the
ecclesial hierarchy to discuss matters. For three days he conversed with believ-
ers the views of the late Nepos and compared these with the Scriptures. The
result was that the leader of the movement, Coracion, who had once affirmed
Nepos’ views, consented to the opinions of Dionysius and agreed to cease his
chiliastic teachings.
This historical context is important, for it is after this description of the
events in Arsinoë that Dionysius goes on to address the issue that ‘some before
us’ attributed John’s Apocalypse to Cerinthus. Interestingly, there is nothing
in the evidence that leads to the conclusion that Montanism had been a part
of the Nepos schism at all; Eusebius certainly does not make the connection.

110 C.E. Hill, ‘Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem,’ JECS 8 (2000),
149. Hill continues (ibid.), ‘Therefore, Skarsaune may be justified in concluding that
Dionysius’ information about Cerinthus’ chiliasm had another source besides Gaius that
is unknown to us.’
111 See Brent, Hippolytus, 136.
112 Perhaps Nepos was a later representative of the views against which Origen speaks in
De Princ. 2.11.2, where he notes that some interpret the promises in a Jewish sense and
believe that the future will include ‘bodily pleasure and luxury’.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 81

If Gaius’ supposed attribution of John’s Apocalypse to Cerinthus were a part

of the equation then one would expect Eusebius to be more explicit in link-
ing Gaius’ testimony with the statements of Dionysius of Alexandria or at
least align the Montanist issue with the Nepos schism.113 Eusebius, however,
remains totally silent and offers no reason to believe that Gaius and Dionysius’
‘some before us’ are directly connected.
I shall argue below that Epiphanius was reliant upon Dionysius of
Alexandria for at least some of his information regarding antagonism towards
the Apocalypse.114 This does not mean, however, that such a link must presup-
pose reliance upon Gaius of Rome as the ultimate source of these objections,
as is often suggested.115 Such a view relies far too heavily on coincidence and
fails to take into account the historical context in which Dionysius is writing
and the issue he is addressing. Dionysius does not refer to Gaius by name, and
his notice that ‘some before us’ (τινὲς μὲν οὖν τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν) in addition to the
aorist plural verbs (ἠθέτησαν καὶ ἀνεσκεύασαν) suggest that this was the opin-
ion of more than one man. It is therefore difficult to presume that Dionysius
drew his information from a copy of Gaius’ Dialogue.116 Furthermore, the com-
mon denominator between Gaius’ statements and those of Dionysius is not
Montanism, but Cerinthus’ millennial views. If Cerinthus’ ‘crude’ chiliasm
was well known, his association with both scenarios bears significant force.117
Aside from this there is little commonality.

Summary

The evidence considered in the question regarding Gaius’ rejection of the

Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse of John has pointed away from the standard
view. As to the former, there is nothing in the testimony of Gaius himself or
Eusebius’ knowledge of his anti-Montanist work against Proclus to indicate
that Gaius harbored any negative feelings towards this work. Furthermore,
no other early writer up to the time of Epiphanius mentions anything about

113 Eusebius does juxtapose the testimonies of Gaius and Dionysius of Alexandria (HE 3.28.1–
5), but not because they both refer to Montanism; rather it is because they share similar
indictments of Cerinthus’ chiliasm. When Eusebius reiterates Dionysius’ testimony in
fuller detail, Gaius of Rome and Montanism are nowhere to be seen.
114 See Chapter 10.3.
115 E.g., Klijn and Reinink, 8; Smith, ‘Gaius’, 426–7.
116 This was suggested by Bludau, 50–1, but this does not necessitate that Hippolytus and his
putative work against Gaius must be the intermediary link, as Bludau supposed.
117 Cf. Skarsaune, 408; Campenhausen, Formation, 239; Hill, Johannine Corpus, 175.
82 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

a formal rejection of John’s Gospel. Indeed, there are a number of scholars

have agreed and expressed doubts that Gaius of Rome rejected John’s Gospel.118
Even if scholars remain convinced that he did in spite of the evidence, this
does not necessarily imply a full-blown ‘Johannine Controversy’.
Regarding Gaius’ antagonism towards the Apocalypse, the solution that
Gaius must be behind these criticisms and Hippolytus behind the responses
requires the erroneous assumption that both of these figures held views that
are not mentioned in any of their writings. To find an alternative solution,
it is necessary to survey those writers that mention the Apocalypse prior to
Epiphanius in order to determine if any of these earlier sources approximate
the views Epiphanius associates with the Alogi.
The early evidence does not support the view of Gaius as the ecclesiastical
leader who fought to eradicate the Johannine literature because of its ties to
heresy. After the analysis of Smith, Gaius has become synonymous with the
Alogi, but ironically, Smith’s argument may work against the larger point he is
trying to make. When he states that Gaius alone constitutes the Alogi and that
all the evidence of criticisms of the Johannine literature and denial of their
apostolic authorship can be traced back to Gaius of Rome and to no other per-
son or group,119 he actually demonstrates that the anti-Johannine sentiments
that were supposedly rampant throughout the Roman church at the beginning
of the third century were actually quite limited in scope.120 Thus, Gaius would
have been very much alone in his purported anti-Johannine sentiments, but as
I have demonstrated, this was not the case. Rather, when examined carefully,
the Gaian Paradox is unsustainable and his connection to the Alogi untenable.
The later sources that paint Gaius in a heterodox light do not comport with
the earlier evidence of Gaius of Rome. Given the conflicting reports about
him, there is no solid evidence to connect the Caius haereticus of the bar
Salibi commentaries with Gaius of Rome. Thus, Lightfoot’s premonition that
a distinction may be drawn between Caius of bar Salibi lore and the ‘ecclesi-

118 E.g. Harnack, Das Neue Testament, 63–5; Schwartz’s later article, ‘Johannes und Kerinthos,’
212–13; Schmidt, 436, 444–5; Stanton, 239–43; Brent, Hippolytus, 148.
119 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 426–7.
120 Here it is worthwhile remembering the words recorded long ago by Theodore Zahn,
brought back into light by Martin Hengel. Zahn, who assumed that Gaius did reject the
Fourth Gospel, observes that Gaius, ‘in declaring that the Johannine writings were unwor-
thy to be in the church, acknowledged that they were in fact recognized in the church, and
in attributing their authorship to Cerinthus, a contemporary of John, acknowledged that
they were written in John’s lifetime.’Theodore Zahn, ‘Aloger,’ in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie
der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft 3, 1 (Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1896): 386–8, 387, cited
in Hengel, Johannine Question, 6. Cf. Stanton, 240–3.
Exonerating Gaius Of Rome 83

astical’ and ‘learned’ Gaius of Rome is certainly plausible if not probable. The
only evidence to support Gaius’ rejection of the Johannine literature comes
from the later Syrian sources. In the following chapter, it will become even
more apparent that bar Salibi’s notice of Caius haereticus is the product of his
own misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the early evidence. As a result,
there is ample reason to seek answers to the question of Epiphanius’ source(s)
elsewhere.
 CHAPTER 4

Dismantling the Syrian Evidence: Dionysius bar

Salibi and Ebed-Jesu

Gaius may have been exonerated from the charges of leading an anti-­Johannine
conspiracy, but questions still remain about the content and value of the later
Syrian evidence with its claims of a certain heretic, Gaius. This, along with the
resulting dubious connection of Gaius and the Alogi, will be the focus of this
chapter.
In fact, bar Salibi himself never claims that Gaius is to be identified with the
Alogi. The connection between Gaius and the Alogi is the product of modern
scholarship. There are three fundamental assumptions that support the con-
nection of Epiphanius’ testimony of the Alogi with that of bar Salibi, which
may be summarized as follows:1

I. Hippolytus wrote a work in which he specifically attacked Gaius’

rejection of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John.

a. This work must be an Hippolytan apologetic treatise on the

Apocalypse and Gospel of John, which is evidenced by a title on
the plinth of the statue of Hippolytus in Rome ([τ]ὰ ὑπερ τοῦ κατὰ
Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλυψεως).2 It is further argued that this
work listed on the statue is the same as a Hippolytan treatise listed
in the fourteenth-­century Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu (ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ
τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰωάννου).3
b. This Hippolytan work is also identified by many scholars with
another work in the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu, the Heads against
Gaius (κεφάλαια κατὰ Γαΐου), as one in the same, given their juxta-
position in the Catalogue.

1 See Smith, ‘Gaius’, 203–4, where he lists similar points that may be ‘unequivocally stated on
the basis of the fragments preserved by bar Salibi in his commentaries on Revelation and
John.’
2 Accented Greek from Brent, Hippolytus, 144; modified here only in the word κατὰ. which
Brent leaves without the accent.
3 Greek translation of the Syriac Catalogue titles (Apology and Heads in the following para-
graph) is taken from Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 350.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_006

Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 85

Ii. Epiphanius is primarily dependent upon this lost work of Hippolytus

for his testimony of the Alogi, but he omitted Gaius’ name.
Iii. Dionysius bar Salibi also possessed this Hippolytan work and pro-
vided a summary of the exchange between Gaius and Hippolytus.

There are serious difficulties with each of these points. First, there is reason
to question the reliability of the testimony of bar Salibi in recounting what
actually happened a millennium earlier when there are no corroborating wit-
nesses. There are also textual issues within the commentaries themselves.
It is therefore necessary to establish the source(s) of bar Salibi’s information.
Furthermore, there are many complex issues surrounding the identification of
the works listed in Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue with the inscription upon the chair
of the statue of Hippolytus in Rome. By examining the sources for these later
witnesses, it is possible to explain the reasons for the marked dissonance in the
portrait of Caius that emerges from the commentaries of bar Salibi in contrast
to what is known of Gaius of Rome from the earliest sources.
The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to provide a careful examina-
tion of the later Syrian evidence to better understand the deep influence
these testimonies have had on defining the nature, background and origins
of the criticisms of the Johannine literature and their potential relationship to
the Epiphanius’ testimony—particularly in the identification of Gaius as the
true identity of the Alogi. This chapter begins by addressing recent scholarship
on the bar Salibi commentaries before providing a full analysis of this later
Syrian evidence, beginning with Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue, then looking at the bar
Salibi texts themselves.4

4.1 Scholarship on bar Salibi’s Sources

Although Bar Salibi never identifies the source of his information on the
exchange between Gaius and Hippolytus of Rome, many scholars have
assumed he must have utilized a lost Hippolytan work against Gaius—Heads
against Gaius, which many have identified as the Apology for the Gospel and
Apocalypse of John. The strongest argument for this came from a series of arti-
cles published by Pierre Prigent.

4 Cf. the evidence, Chapter 1.7–8.

86 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

4.1.1 Pierre Prigent

Shortly after Smith completed his dissertation, Pierre Prigent, unaware of
Smith’s work, set about the task of identifying bar Salibi’s use of Hippolytus
throughout his Commentary on the Apocalypse.5 Whereas Smith took for
granted the fact that bar Salibi used a lost Hippolytan work for his source,
Prigent set out to establish this position through textual analysis of Hippolytan
works and bar Salibi’s Commentary.6
Prigent’s overall aim was to confirm the integrity of Hippolytus’ citations
against Gaius by demonstrating Hippolytan influence on the entirety of bar
Salibi’s Commentary on the Apocalypse. By establishing the Hippolytan char-
acter of other portions of bar Salibi’s Commentary, Prigent would be in a posi-
tion to argue that the citations that the Syrian exegete attributes to Hippolytus
are genuine as well.7 Yet as Gwynn and P. Nautin noted, the delimitation of
Hippolytus’ quotes by bar Salibi is not without difficulty, since it appears the
latter has summarized the words of the former rather than provide actual
citations.8
With this in mind, Prigent first traced what he maintained are concrete links
between portions of bar Salibi’s Commentary on the Apocalypse with extant texts
attributed to Hippolytus, namely On the Antichrist (Ant.) and the Commentary

5 See Pierre Prigent, ‘Hippolyte, Commentateur de l’Apocalypse,’ TZ 28 (1972), 391–412; Prigent

and R. Stehly, ‘Les Fragments du De Apocalypsi d’Hippolyte,’ TZ 29 (1973), 313–333; Prigent
and R. Stehly, ‘Citations d’Hippolyte trouvée dans le ms. Bodl. Syr 140,’ TZ 30 (1974), 82–85.
6 Prigent concurred with Harris’ notion that the marginal note indicated that ‘Gaius’ was the
heretic in question. He also offered two additional fragments from bar Salibi’s commentary
on Revelation that were discovered subsequent to the publication of the CSCO edition edited
by I. Sedlacek, which he argued are from the putative work, Heads against Gaius. The first
additional bar Salibi fragment from Prigent comes from the prologue of his commentary
and is very similar to that of Robinson’s discovery. See Fragment 00 (Prigent, ‘Hippolyte,’ 407)
where he highlights the likelihood that the first fragment (00) is ‘precisely the character of the
work of Hippolytus that one could well qualify as an Apology of the Gospel and Apocalypse
of John in response to the allegations of Gaius.’ The second fragment (01), from bar Salibi’s
commentary on Rev. 1:4, ‘must come from the same work of Hippolytus.’ See ibid., 408. This
fragment is provided by Prigent as: « Hippolyte dit: ‘Quand il a écrit, il a écrit à sept églises,
comme Paul qui a écrit ses treize lettres à sept églises.’ Celle aux Hébreux, il ne reconnaît pas
qu’elle est de Paul, mais de Clément peut-être. » Cf. Nautin, Dossier, 145; Comm. Apoc., 2–3.
7 ‘De nombreux passages du commentaire sont en réalité des extraits d’oeuvres hippolytiennes
bien que rien ne vienne signaler leur origine. De plus certaines interprétations sont indéni-
ablement marquees au coin de l’exégèse hippolytienne. Il faudra donc élargir la question et
poser le problème de la composition du commentaire de Denys: Doit-on y déceler les traces
du De Apocalypsi d’Hippolyte?’ Ibid., 392. Cf. Brent, Hippolytus, 150.
8 Gwynn, 404; Nautin, Dossier, 146.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 87

on Daniel (Dan.).9 Prigent also considered another possible Hippolytan source

for bar Salibi’s commentary, the work entitled De Apocalypsi mentioned by
Jerome (De vir. ill. 61) and his successors (Sophronius, Nicephorus Callistus and
George Syncellus). In 1897 H. Achelis had published twenty-two Hippolytan
fragments, which he attributed to this lost work.10 But Prigent argued that
De Apocalpysi was nothing more than a fictitious work presumed to exist by
these various writers throughout Christian history.11 Thus, De Apocalypsi is a
spurious title given to what is actually a florilegium of Dan. and Ant. in con-
junction with what he argues is the authentic, lost Hippolytan Apology, which
Prigent held to be identical to the work Ebed-Jesu listed as Heads against
Gaius.12 According to Prigent, the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu has ‘only relative
value’ and one should not distinguish between these two works.13
This raises a crucial question. Did the citations that bar Salibi attributes to
Gaius and Hippolytus really come from a distinct work (Heads against Gaius),
or did bar Salibi derive these from a florilegium as well? In other words, is it
possible that the Heads against Gaius is not a distinct work but part of this
catena tradition? Prigent rejected this notion, arguing that the citations of
Hippolytus against Gaius are genuine and derive from this lost work because
they have ‘precisely the character of an apologetic work’.14 He therefore bet
on the veracity of the notices of the existence of the Apology found in the
Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu and (presumably) the same work found on the Statue
over against the testimonies of Jerome and others that speak of the authentic-
ity of the work De Apocalypsi.15
To prove the authenticity of Hippolytus’ polemic against Gaius in the bar
Salibi commentary, Prigent pointed to two extant fragments that he believed

9 Prigent, ‘Hippolyte,’ 392ff.

10 Achelis used quotations from the translation by R. Payne Smith of MS. Bodl. Syr. 140 as
well as MS. Parisinus arab. 67. H. Achelis, Hippolytus Werke Band 1, 2 Hippolyt’s kleinere
exegetische und homiletische Schriften, GCS (1897), 231–238. See also J. Schmid, Studien zur
Geschichte des Griechischen Apokalypse-Textes. 1. Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas
von Kaisareia (München: K. Zink, 1955–1956).
11 Prigent, ‘Hippolyte,’ 395–403.
12 Prigent and Stehly, ‘Citations,’ 84–5; idem, ‘Les fragments,’ 333; 316.
13 Prigent, ‘Hippolyte,’ 411–412; cf. Nautin, 146–147: ‘On s’abstiendra donc désormais de
considérer les « chapitres contre Caïus » comme un ouvrage distinct de l’Apologie de
l’Apocalypse et de l’Évangile de Jean.’
14 Prigent, ‘Hippolyte,’ 407, 411–12.
15 ‘On ne retiendra du témoignage de Denys (et d’Ebed Jesu) qu’une seule chose: Hippolyte
a écrit, en répondant à Caïus, une Apologie de l’Apocalypse et de l’Evangile de Jean.’ Prigent,
‘Hippolyte,’ 412.
88 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

were derived from the lost Heads against Gaius, but which Achelis wrongly cat-
egorized under the title De Apocalypsi.16 Achelis lists Frag. II as a commentary
on Rev. 10:2–4, but as Prigent notes it is more likely a reference to Rev. 7:9–17,
referring to the tribulation (cf. Mt. 24:21).17 Prigent argued that this fragment
shows a degree of a polemical context, and he suggests that it fits with bar
Salibi’s record of Hippolytus’ statements on Rev. 11:2, where he discusses this
Matthean verse as well.
The second Achelis fragment that Prigent examined is Frag. IX on Rev. 12:16.18
The context of this passage is that of the woman and the dragon (Satan),
where the earth aids the woman in her flight from the dragon. In this Arabic
fragment, two interpretations are given: one literal, one symbolic. The author
of the fragment only attributes the latter to Hippolytus, but Prigent believed
both belong to him. Prigent argued that these interpretations represent exege-
sis that is characteristic of an Apology, and that there are parallels with bar
Salibi’s citations of Hippolytus’ refutations of Gaius elsewhere.19
However, Prigent noted that there were some difficulties with his argument
for bar Salibi’s dependence upon the lost Heads against Gaius. He recognized
that some of bar Salibi’s statements have strong affinities to what is actually
found in Irenaeus. But these, he argued, must have been relayed through
Hippolytus as intermediary.20 Other portions of bar Salibi’s commentary on
Revelation had no parallel with any extant Hippolytan work at all. He never-
theless maintained his argument that those fragments that bar Salibi directly
attributes to Hippolytus must be authentic since Hippolytan influence was
seen elsewhere, and since these responses to Gaius have precisely the char-
acter of an Apology, they must have derived from Hippolytus’ refutation of
Gaius (Apology).21 Prigent thus concluded that bar Salibi’s Commentary on

16 Achelis, Hippolyt’s Kleinere Exegetische und Homiletische Schriften, GCS (Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1897), 232–8.
17 Prigent, ‘Les Fragments,’ 321; cf. Brent, Hippolytus, 158.
18 Achelis, 233 (esp. lines 11–13): ‘Wenn es heisst: ‘Und die Erde öffnete ihren Mund, und ver-
schlang den Wasserstrom, welchen der Drache dem Weibe nachwarf’, so lässt das, dass die
Erde die ausgesandten Heere verschlang, zwei Deutungen zu. Die eine ist die äusserliche,
so dass es ihnen ergangen wäre wie einst den Korachiten, als die Erde sich aufthat, und
sie in ihre Tiefen stürtzten, und sie sie zudeckte. Und die andere ist, dass man so erklärt,
dass das ‘sie verschlang dieselben’ so viel ist als: sie (die Heere) irrten auf ihr umher und
kamen von ihrem Marschziel ab. Diese (letztere) hat Hippolytus.’
19 Prigent, ‘Les Fragments,’ 325. He finds parallels with Rev. 8:8 on the plagues of Egypt,
Rev. 8:11 on the miracle of Mara, Rev. 8:12 on the Flood as a prophecy of the last things.
20 Prigent, ‘Hippolyte’, 404–7, 411.
21 Ibid., 407.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 89

the Apocalypse is composed partially from quotations derived from Ant., what
appears to be a citation from Dan, and the rest—more than two-thirds of bar
Salibi’s statements—come from Hippolytus’ lost Apology of the Gospel and
Apocalypse of John in response to Gaius.22
Prigent’s case for the authenticity of the Hippolytan fragments in the bar
Salibi commentaries is compelling, and if his analysis is correct, bar Salibi is
the lone witness to explicitly record anything from the lost work of Hippolytus
against Gaius. Furthermore, given the similar criticism against the Apocalypse
of John along with another against John’s Gospel in the writings of bar Salibi
and Epiphanius, it could be possible to forge a direct textual link between
bar Salibi’s Gaius and Epiphanius’ Alogi. In other words, it would appear that
Prigent had proven Smith’s argument that both Epiphanius and bar Salibi were
dependent upon the same Hippolytan source. However, Allen Brent’s work
may have overturned much of what Prigent sought to establish.

4.1.2 Allen Brent

After examining Prigent’s analysis and conclusions, Allen Brent determined
that Hippolytus’ influence throughout bar Salibi’s Commentary may not be as
strong as Prigent maintained. The primary target of Brent’s counter argument
is Prigent’s unfounded suppositions that the lost De Apocalypsi was a florile-
gium, but that the Apology, which comprised part of that florilegium, was itself
genuine, and the source of bar Salibi’s quotations of Hippolytus against Gaius.23
Brent agrees with Prigent that many of bar Salibi’s citations derive from
known works (namely Dan. and Ant.), and sometimes they have been ‘garbled
and distorted’ to the extent that they are ultimately derived from a florilegium
of Hippolytan apocalyptic writings.24 Thus, Brent finds common ground with
Prigent in that the De Apocalypsi may not be genuine at all. But given the dates
of the manuscripts examined by Prigent, bar Salibi would have had access to
a similar florilegium of Hippolytan writings, in which case bar Salibi could
have used Hippolytus’ works (Dan. and Ant.) directly in some instances, but
in others it is possible that bar Salibi may reflect ‘the garbled hermeneutic
represented by such florilegia.’25 Therefore, there is no reason to assume with

22 Ibid., 411.
23 Brent, Hippolytus, 151. Brent finds it ‘interesting . . . to consider precisely why [Prigent]
held the De Apocalypsi to be a spurious construction, and yet held that the κεφάλαια
[=Apology] were genuine even if they came down to us themselves via such a florilegium.’
24 Ibid., 159, see esp. n. 158.
25 Ibid., 161.
90 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Prigent that the Heads against Gaius was an authentic component part of the
same florilegium of Hippolytan extracts.26
What about Prigent’s argument that two of Achelis’ fragments must have
come from the lost Apology from Hippolytus? The first of these is Frag. II,
but the content of this fragment does not actually square with the passage
in bar Salibi. In the Arabic fragment listed by Achelis, Hippolytus claims that
the prophecy applies to the general resurrection and not to the Maccabees.27
In bar Salibi, Hippolytus argues that Mt. 24:21 rejects the application of this
verse to the taking of Jerusalem by Vespasian.28 Moreover, no objection to this
verse by Gaius or anyone else is noted in bar Salibi’s Commentary.
Furthermore, Brent finds Prigent’s argument for second fragment (Frag. IX)
as part of the Heads against Gaius ‘particularly weak’.29 The parallels that
Prigent sought to draw between this fragment and Hippolytus’ refutations of
Gaius are not unique. Rather, Brent notes that they ‘are too common to apoc-
alyptic hermeneutic in general to yield any specific parallel.’30 Thus, Brent
argues, these two fragments do not prove the existence of an authentic work
(Heads) as part of the florilegium.
Upon reading the summary statements at the beginning of his Commentary
on the Apocalypse it is a fair inference that bar Salibi paints the dispute
between Gaius and Hippolytus as having been derived from a work in which
Hippolytus was the author.31 What possible Hippolytan text could have served
as bar Salibi’s source? Dan. and Ant. demonstrate no such parallels with any

26 ‘But Prigent insisted nevertheless that the κεφάλαια is genuine and not itself the product
of a similar process of literary transmission [as De Apocalypsi]. We need to ask whether
in that case Prigent may be wrong in concluding that sometimes Barsalîbî is quoting
from these two works as part of his own commentary, but in other parts, those directed
at Gaius, from the κεφάλαια as a genuine work. The κεφάλαια may well be the product
of such secondary material whose garbled character has produced, as in the case of the
putative De Apocalypsi, the illusion of being citations from a genuine lost work.’ Brent,
Hippolytus, 161.
27 Achelis, 230: [Fragment] II. Apok. Joh. 10, 1–7. Hippolytus, der römische Bischof, tritt der
Ansicht bei, dass die erwähnte Weissagung auf diejenigen toten, die auferstehen, gehe,
und nicht auf die Makkabäer.
28 Comm. Apoc. 13 (Rev. 11:2): ‘Erit oppressio, qualis non fuit similes ab initio mundi,
et cetera; h. e. dixit Hippolytus: Hoc non evenisse in obsidione Vespasiani, non enim
accidit quidquam novi in mundo in diebus eius, praeter ea, quae iam antea evenerant . . .’
29 Brent, Hippolytus, 159.
30 Ibid.
31 E.g., Hippolytus Romanus dixit: Apparuit vir, nomine Caius, qui asserebat Evangelium non
esse Iohannis, nec Apocalypsim, sed Cerinthi haeretici ea esse. Comm. Apoc. praef. (1–2).
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 91

citations by bar Salibi regarding the contest between Gaius and Hippolytus.
Both Prigent and Brent agree that De Apocalypsi is most likely a fabricated title
for a catena of Hippolytan extracts. By process of elimination, then, one must
turn to the possibility that bar Salibi used a Hippolytan work under the title
Apology and/or Heads against Gaius, noted in Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue. Given the
lack of any extant manuscript from such a work, Prigent himself can only infer
that since these citations imply a dispute and refutation, they must derive from
such a work. Yet there is another possibility to this supposition.
Brent points out that the notion that Hippolytus would have referred to
himself as Hippolytus Romanus is very odd, and the self-proclaimed designa-
tion as beatus Hippolytus is even more bizarre.32 He also notes that ‘there is no
evidence before Epiphanius that an opponent of the Apocalypse deserved the
description Γαίος ὁ αἱρετικός rather than—and as late as Eusebius—λογιωτάτος
or ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ.’33 Nor does bar Salibi’s record of this dialogue find any
viable parallels with the standard literary forms of the time, seen for example
in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho or Origen’s Contra Celsum.34
Rather than presuming reliance upon a lost Hippolytan work, Brent argues
that the supposedly Hippolytan elements in bar Salibi’s Commentary may
actually reflect a strand of Hippolytan pseudepigrapha that is evidenced in
other Eastern writings.35 Brent points to the works κατά Βήρωνος καὶ Ἥλικος,
περὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ κόσμου and εἰς τὰ ἅγια θεοφάνεια as examples of such
pseudepigrapha, the first of which is part of a florilegium entitled Doctrina
Patrum.36 Hippolytus was a frequent pseudonym for various works in the East
and therefore bar Salibi’s Commentary could have drawn from this preceding
context.
Finally, Brent suggests that bar Salibi used Hippolytus Romanus as a
cipher for the ‘orthodox’ position in the squabble over the integrity of the
Johannine writings. For support, he lists six works from Eastern writers that
portray Hippolytus anachronistically as a representative of the apostolic age:

32 Brent, Hippolytus, 149, 176.

33 Ibid., 149.
34 Cf. Smith, ‘Gaius’, 285–6.
35 Brent, Hippolytus, 178.
36 PG X col. 829–852; PG X col. 903–952; and Achelis, 255–263 (respectively). Brent also
points out the pseudepigraphic works of the Arabic Pentateuch with commentaries by
the Fathers in ms. Hutling 84 and ms. Bodleian NE c. 33, printed in Fabricius’ edition of
the works of Hippolytus. See Brent, Hippolytus, 178, esp. n. 193; J.A.S. Fabricius Hippolyti
Opera non antea collecta (Hamburg: Christian Liebezeit, 1716). Critical edition by Franz
Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der
Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1907).
92 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Theodoret, Palladius, Andreas of Caesarea, Cyrillus of Scythopolis, Leontius of

Byzantium and Pseudo-Chrysostom.37
What is the bearing of all this for the bar Salibi commentaries? Regarding
the question of bar Salibi’s source(s), Brent’s analysis introduces another plau-
sible explanation that does not require attributing bar Salibi’s work to a lost
work of Hippolytus that may never have existed at all. Rather, bar Salibi could
have employed Hippolytus as an orthodox ‘everyman’ and Gaius the heretical
counterpart for a fictitious dialogue created by none other than bar Salibi him-
self and in support of which there is no historical evidence.38
There are, however, pieces of evidence that would stand in the way of
Brent’s position. The first is the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu, which attributes both
the works Heads against Gaius and the Apology to Hippolytus. It is possible,
though very unlikely, that Ebed-Jesu knew of an Hippolytan work by this title
that went unmentioned by those familiar with Hippolytus’ works for over a mil-
lennium. Brent favors the view of P. Nautin, that Ebed-Jesu manufactured this
title as a gloss for what he derived from his own reading of the contest of Gaius
and Hippolytus in bar Salibi’s Commentary.39 Thus, both internal and external
considerations preclude the Heads against Gaius and the Apology, ‘from being
anything else than a general exegetical tradition dressed up pseudepigraphi-
cally under the cipher-names of “Hippolytus” and “Gaius”.’40
The second evidentiary obstacle to Brent’s view is the Statue of Hippolytus
and its list of possibly Hippolytan works, one of which pertains to the Gospel
and Apocalypse of John. He argues that the title on the Statue does not neces-
sitate that the work is of an apologetic genre.41 From the title alone, the pur-
pose and content of this work is entirely unknown. In the following chapter I
shall argue that it is entirely plausible that it was concerned with the question
of authorship of these works rather than an apology.42 Thus, for Brent, there is
little reason to suggest equivalence between the title of the work mentioned by
Ebed-Jesu and that of the Statue.43
Brent has levelled some heavy and, in some instances, decisive blows to
Prigent’s attempt to verify the integrity of the Hippolytan quotations in bar
Salibi’s writings. Although Brent shows no awareness of Smith’s work at all,

37 See Brent, Hippolytus, 183 for full citations of works and dates.
38 Brent, Hippolytus, 183.
39 Ibid., 170–74. See also Nautin, Dossier, 146.
40 Brent, Hippolytus, 184.
41 Ibid., 172.
42 Cf. Chapter 5.2.
43 Brent, Hippolytus, 172.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 93

by way of association his argument has also sustained critical damage. The
most salient contributions to the question of bar Salibi’s sources that Brent
provides are: (i) the arguments against the authenticity of the work Heads
against Gaius as a component of what is clearly admitted on all sides as a flo-
rilegium, and (ii) the recognition of the likelihood that the later Syrian work
may be explained by evidence that is in closer to the time of the composition
of these writings (such as the pseudo-Hippolytan works and Ebed-Jesu’s reli-
ance upon later commentaries for his information on Hippolytus), rather than
the earliest sources.
There are, however, notable weaknesses in Brent’s argument. For example,
just because figures ranging from Theodoret in the fifth century to Leontius of
Byzantium in the seventh make Hippolytus to be a hero of the patristic era,
this does not mean that five or six centuries later bar Salibi does the same. Also,
while Brent’s explanation for why bar Salibi manufactured a debate between
Gaius and Hippolytus as the orthodox and heretical ‘everyman’ is compelling,
it does not adequately explain the reason why bar Salibi chose to pit these two
figures against one another in the form of a debate. If Gaius was conceived to
be the heretical ‘everyman’, bar Salibi could have simply used the unspecified
haereticus as he does elsewhere rather than putting a name to this figure. It is
important to remember that bar Salibi paints an historical portrait of this con-
test between Gaius and Hippolytus. The question is whether his read on early
church history is accurate, or did he misinterpret the early sources, or did he
manipulate his sources to reflect what he wanted them to say? Another pos-
sibility is that bar Salibi was the beneficiary of other, later accounts that were
garbled but which he took to be historically accurate.
Thus far, it is clear that the standard explanation of bar Salibi’s sources, as
articulated by Prigent and Smith, does not add up. Brent’s counter-proposal is
plausible and does a better job of explaining the evidence than Prigent’s argu-
ment, but it still requires modification. Thus, other items must be considered.
First, the veracity of Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue will be examined before looking
more carefully at the commentaries of bar Salibi.

4.2 The Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu

Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue44 is a curious bit of writing. He records a short list

of works by a person he knows only as ‘Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr’—a
designation identical to that recorded by Theodoret (Haer. fab. comp. 3.1;

44 For Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue of Hippolytan works, see BO III.1, 15.

94 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Dial. 1–3) and Photius (Bibl. 202).45 Included in this list are works that are
­otherwise unattested anywhere in the history of Christianity, namely the Heads
against Gaius and Apology for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John. But how trust-
worthy is this account, and are these works authentic?

4.2.1 The Catalogue and the Omission of Known Hippolytan Works

One puzzling feature of the Catalogue is the absence of any mention of other
well-known, extant works by Hippolytus. For example, why does Ebed-Jesu not
include any of the Hippolytan works are mentioned by Eusebius or Jerome?
After noting his work on the chronology of the paschal feasts, Eusebius lists
these Hippolytan works: On the Hexaemeron, On the Works after the Hexaemeron,
Against Marcion, On the Song of Songs, On Portions of Ezekiel, On the Passover
and Against All Heresies (HE 6.22).46 As with Eusebius, Jerome knows of
Hippolytus as a bishop, but is unaware of the location of his See. Jerome notes
a number of Hippolytan works cited by Eusebius (Against Marcion, Against All
Heresies, On the Passover, On the Song of Songs), but he also records additional
works by Hippolytus not found in Eusebius’ record: On Exodus, On Genesis, On
Zechariah, On the Psalms, On Isaiah, On Daniel, On Proverbs, On Ecclesiastes,
the putative On the Apocalypse (De Apocalypsi), On the Resurrection, On the
Pythonissa and On the Praise of our Lord and Savior (De vir. ill. 61).
It is puzzling that Ebed-Jesu failed to record at least some of these well-
known, well-attested works. After all, Ebed-Jesu’s contemporary, Nicephorus
Callistus (ca. 1300), provides a lengthy list of corroborated Hippolytan works in
his Ecclesiastical History (4.31).47 Moreover, Nicephorus’ list makes no mention
of any such Apology or Heads against Gaius. Indeed, if one reads Lightfoot’s48
detailed listing of ancient references to a person named ‘Hippolytus’, it is clear
that this apologetic work listed by Ebed-Jesu is unattested by any other writer
who mentions a certain Hippolytus—even where there may exist confusion
over multiple identities that may have shared the same name.

4.2.2 The Catalogue and the Dubious Link with Known Hippolytan Works
What about the other works that Ebed-Jesu attributes to Hippolytus? Is it pos-
sible to authenticate these as certifiably Hippolytan? Ebed-Jesu lists a pecu-
liar work entitled ἑρμηνείαν Δανιὴλ τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Σοθσάννας (‘Interpretation

45 See J.A. Cerrato, Hippolytus Between East and West: The Commentaries and Provenance of
the Corpus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 13.
46 Cf. Ibid., 28–33; Brent, Hippolytus, 391–2.
47 For his list of Hippolytan works, see the excerpt in Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 349–50.
48 Ibid., 318–65.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 95

of Little Daniel and Susannah’). Strictly speaking no such work under the title
Little Daniel (or Young Daniel) emerges from any of the early sources. There is
a Syriac manuscript that bears the title Little Daniel, a text which is commonly
dated no later than the beginning of the third century; but this is dating based
exclusively on the testimony of Ebed-Jesu.49
According to W. Wright, the only available manuscript of this work is dated
to the twelfth century.50 H. Schmoldt, whose unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion examined this manuscript, notes that the Young Daniel is a composite,
redacted work comprised of two primary components, the bulk of which is
the apocalyptic sections that are Jewish and may date from the first or sec-
ond centuries, the other sections are Christian and represent a later addition.51
Lightfoot himself examined a fragment of this work in Wright’s Catalogue of
Syriac Manuscripts, and surmised this Little Daniel is ‘a distinctly Christian
apocryphal writing.’52
The question naturally presents itself, which work did Ebed-Jesu intend
in his notice of Hippolytan works? Is it possible that Ebed-Jesu meant
Hippolytus’ well-known Commentary on Daniel? In this case one would expect
to find some precedent of Ebed-Jesu’s version of this title (in reference to the
Commentary on Daniel) in the various extant lists of Hippolytan works, but
there is none. Perhaps the two works are markedly similar such that confu-
sion in content may lead to confusion in titles. Yet here it is worth noting that
the extant manuscript of Little Daniel is composed almost entirely in poetic
meter;53 Hippolytus’ Dan is not. Thus the difference in genre excludes ques-
tions of equivalence between these works.
Moreover, what about Ebed-Jesu’s inclusion of the work Susannah? At
the beginning of Dan., Hippolytus refers to the LXX addition Susannah as
‘Scripture’ (Dan. 1.5.1). If Ebed-Jesu had actually read Hippolytus’ Dan., and
if this is the work he intended under the title Little Daniel, this may partially
explain his addition of the title Susannah. However, if Ebed-Jesu had indeed
read Dan., he would have known the proper title of this work.

49 See Lorenzo DiTommaso, The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature.
Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 108–113.
50 British Library, cod. Add. 18715 fols. 239v–241r, listed in W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the Year 1838 (London, 1870),
No. XXXII, 1.19.
51 See H. Schmoldt, ‘Die Schrift ‘Vom jungen Daniel’ und ‘Daniels letzte Vision.’ herausgabe
und Interpretation zweier apokalyptischer Texte.’ (Ph.D. Diss.: Hamburg, 1972), 106–113,
cited in DiTommaso, 109.
52 Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 393.
53 DiTommaso, 109.
96 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

The other possibility is that Ebed-Jesu is relying heavily on relatively recent

information and equating it with similar, but different, evidence from much
earlier. Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel was well known, and Ebed-Jesu’s
knowledge of the Syriac Little Daniel, which is clearly evidenced by the MS tra-
dition as being available during his time, may have created a problem of equiv-
ocation. The fact that Ebed-Jesu chose to record the title Little Daniel rather
than Daniel lends itself to the fact that he was unfamiliar with the authentic
Hippolytan work. This is confirmed by his listing of Susannah as a separate
work, for, as Lightfoot noted, whereas the Greek additions to Daniel (Susannah,
the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon) are normally included under the title
Daniel, Ebed-Jesu separates Susannah as unique.54
Finally, what does one do with the other title listed by Ebed-Jesu and trans-
lated by Lightfoot as the περὶ οἰκονομίας? There is a work listed on the Statue in
Rome whose first part is destroyed and appears as [——] νίας. However, there
is simply not enough to connect these two without a generous dose of specula-
tion. Lightfoot hypothesized that this refers to the work listed on the Statue in
addition to Jerome (De vir. ill. 61): A Homily on the praise of our Lord and Saviour
(προσομιλία de Laude Domini Salvatoris), which Jerome states was delivered by
Hippolytus in the presence of Origen.55 Brent argues that this title very well
may reflect the Hippolytan pseudepigrapha of this time, especially since the
use of οἰκονομία was a ‘particularly Eastern commonplace’ term at this time for
the trinitarian mystery by Ebed-Jesu’s time.56
There is, therefore, good reason to exercise great caution in presuming the
authenticity of Ebed-Jesu’s list of Hippolytan works. The fact is, in a strict sense,
and taken as they appear in his Catalogue, none of the five works he attributes
to Hippolytus are corroborated by any other witness. Whereas there are traces
of similarity between some of his titles with early lists of Hippolytan works,
these are not enough to confidently identify them as the same. Moreover,
those well-known works of Hippolytus noted by Eusebius, Jerome and others
make no appearance in Ebed-Jesu’s list whatsoever. This is particularly strange
given that Ebed-Jesu lists the ‘librum Historiae Ecclesiasticae’ in his Catalogue
of Eusebian works.57 Finally, it should be noted that the bulk of the extant
explanatory evidence derives from sources that are contemporaneous with
Ebed-Jesu, not those from the early church. Having examined these other
works, it is to the final two titles in this Catalogue that we now turn.

54 Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 393.
55 Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 398, 423.
56 Brent, Hippolytus, 345.
57 BO III.1, 18.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 97

4.2.3 The Catalogue and the Apology/Heads against Gaius

In light of the preceding analysis, the works Apology and Heads against Gaius
should not automatically be granted absolute value as genuine works of
Hippolytus, particularly as no early source professes to know anything about
either of these works. As noted earlier, the Apology has been associated with
the title on the plinth of the statue of Hippolytus, but it is far from certain that
the title on the statue is an apologetic work. The two titles also do not corre-
spond precisely: the names of the Johannine works are in reverse order from
those listed on the statue. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate the work on
the Statue was an apologetic work.58
As with the other titles on Ebed-Jesu’s list of Hippolytan works, however,
there is an explanation from sources that are much closer to the time of Ebed-
Jesu. The argument originally noted by Nautin—that Ebed-Jesu did not actu-
ally possess a copy of the Apology or Heads, but simply surmised their existence
after reading bar Salibi’s Commentary—is very compelling and in all probabil-
ity correct. In this case Ebed-Jesu would have presumed the existence of the
former work from reading bar Salibi’s preface, and the latter from the dialogue
between Gaius and Hippolytus in the main body of the text.
Is it likely that Nautin is correct and Ebed-Jesu derived his knowledge of these
supposedly Hippolytan works from bar Salibi’s commentaries? If so, where did
bar Salibi get his information? It is clear that he has utilized a Hippolytan flo-
rilegium for much of his Commentary. Prigent admitted this, but maintained
that a portion of this florilegium is the authentic work Heads against Gaius.
Thus, bar Salibi’s Commentary is the only known source that may authenticate
this putative work. In order to establish the fact that this work was not the
source of bar Salibi’s commentaries, it is necessary to establish the sources of
this Commentary. If it is possible to demonstrate that bar Salibi has not used a
singular source for his report of a Gaius/Hippolytus dispute, then Ebed-Jesu’s
Catalogue of Hippolytan titles will be confirmed as spurious.

4.3 Dionysius bar Salibi: A Closer Look at the Evidence

Much attention has been paid to the relationship of bar Salibi’s writings with
Patristic sources, but what can one deduce from looking at the bar Salibi evi-
dence on its own? What features are unique to the way in which bar Salibi
composed his writings? He is, after all, separated from the Patristic era by a vast

58 For a convenient chart listing the Hippolytan works by Eusebius, Jerome, the Statue and
Ebed-Jesu, see Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 420–1.
98 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

amount of time, and thus it is naïve to presume his own concerns, methodol-
ogy and genre of writing are identical to those of the early Fathers. By under-
standing the unique aspects of bar Salibi’s commentaries, the relationship
between these writings and the earliest evidence will become much clearer.
In what follows I shall argue for the likelihood that bar Salibi has manufac-
tured the dispute between Gaius and Hippolytus based on his sources, which
is primarily a garbled catena, part of which is dependent upon Epiphanius’
testimony of the Alogi. Finally, I shall conclude with an analysis of the relation-
ship between Epiphanius’ Alogi and bar Salibi’s Gaius.

4.3.1 The Criticism-Response Form of Bar Salibi’s Writings

It is true that bar Salibi contextualizes the criticisms of Gaius as part of a dis-
pute with Hippolytus. Gaius objects to elements he has found in the Johannine
record, typically due to elements of incompatibility with other Scripture.
Hippolytus, in turn, provides a rebuttal in defense of the compatibility of
these texts. Scholars have made far too much of this. For Prigent, Hippolytus’
responses had the precise nature of what would be recorded in an Apology, and
therefore the work Heads against Gaius/Apology must be bar Salibi’s source.
Concerning Gaius’ objections, J.D. Smith argues, ‘The significance of the for-
mulation and role of the objections which Gaius raised against the Gospel
of John and Revelation cannot be overestimated.’59 Yet, this is precisely what
Smith proceeds to do.
Smith argues that the form and content of the dialogue between Gaius and
Hippolytus as recorded by bar Salibi offers unique insights into the nature
of Gaius’ Dialogue. Moreover, he makes the dubious assertion that there are
discernible parallels between bar Salibi’s introductory formulae with that of
Epiphanius: the former beginning with ‘Caius the heretic objected . . .’, the lat-
ter with ‘he says . . .’.60 Smith’s analysis digresses into further speculative asser-
tions about the nature and mode of the ‘elegant rhetorical question form’ of
the objections, as though the conflict bar Salibi records between Gaius and
Hippolytus was of such a unique calibre that it is unparalleled anywhere else.61

59 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 281.

60 Ibid., 283.
61 Smith does claim, however, that Gaius’ objections have similarities to what may be found
in the Rabbinic Midrash and Greco-Roman rhetoric (see Smith, ‘Gaius’, Appendix C). Yet
Smith admits (472–3), that it is impossible to connect Gaius with any specific rhetorical
school because, ‘Gaius does not give a detailed discussion of the objections nor does he
employ any of the technical vocabulary which the trained rhetorician would have applied
in his literary and historical criticism of a literary document.’
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 99

Smith errs on at least two points here. First, the Dialogue was not between
Gaius and Hippolytus but between Gaius and Proclus the Montanist. As
such it cannot be the source of bar Salibi’s record of a dispute between the
pair of Roman orthodox churchmen.62 Even if bar Salibi were dependent
upon Hippolytus’ putative refutation of Gaius, as Smith suggests elsewhere,63
this does not mean that this work accurately reflects the form and content of
the earlier work in which these criticisms purportedly arose. Secondly, and
more importantly, is the fact that there is nothing markedly unique about
bar Salibi’s record of the form of the objections and responses by Gaius and
Hippolytus at all.
So much attention has been paid to the few citations of Gaius and Hippolytus
in the bar Salibi commentaries that the rest of bar Salibi’s writings have been
neglected. Yet there is much to be gained in examining the broader scope of
these writings. In particular, it is abundantly clear that bar Salibi employs the
criticism-response form throughout his writings.
In each of his commentaries on the Gospels, bar Salibi attributes numerous
objections to ‘heretics’, some of whom he names, others he does not. To each
of these objections he provides a rebuttal. The form of these objections and
refutations bears a striking resemblance to those of Gaius and Hippolytus. For
example, in his commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels, one finds additional
examples of the criticisms-response form. Examples of the introductory for-
mulae of the criticism and response are as follows:

Mt. 1:25: Haereticus vero dicit . . . Et dicimus . . .

Mt. 2:13: At obiiciunt pagani . . . Et dicimus . . .
Mt. 26:38: Haeretici dicunt . . . Ad eos dicimus . . .
Mt. 27:46: Ariani dicunt . . . Nestoriani et Chacedonenses dicunt . . . Nos vero
dicimus

62 Brent, Hippolytus, 149. Brent notes, ‘If these fragments [of Gaius’ statements in bar Salibi]
are summaries of a position on the Apocalypse, any reason for assigning them specifically
to the πρὸς Πρόκλον mentioned by Eusebius is as tenuous as the supposition that that
dialogue was still available in the 11th Century.’
63 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 197. On the one hand, Smith argues that bar Salibi never had a copy of
Gaius’ Dialogue (197), and that he derived his knowledge of Gaius’ criticisms via the
lost Hippolytan Apology, which is the same as the Heads against Gaius (202); yet on the
other hand, Smith’s later arguments seem to presume bar Salibi actually had a copy of
Gaius’ Dialogue: ‘Dionysius bar Salibi and Epiphanius have provided a valuable witness
to this aspect [viz. Gaius’ criticisms] in the form and content of Gaius’ Dialogue’ (281).
He explains that Hippolytus’ refutation of Gaius must have preserved the original content
of Gaius’ Dialogue (204), but this is pure speculation.
100 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

ibid.: Verumtamen quidam obiiciunt . . . Et dicimus . . .

ibid.: Nunc redarguamus Arianos qui dicunt . . . Adversus eos dicimus . . .
Mk. 8:32: Haeretici seu Ariani hoc argumentum adducunt . . . Adversus eos
dicimus . . .
Lk. 1:35: Nestoriani dicunt . . . Adversus eos dicimus
ibid.: Rursus, haeretici dicunt . . . Adversus eos sic dicimus
ibid.: Haeretici dicunt . . . Adversus eos dicimus
Lk. 2:21: Haeretici et gentiles dicunt . . .
ibid.: Armeni, et Phantasiastae cum eis dicunt . . . Et dicimus . . .
Lk. 2:24: Haeretici autem dicunt . . . et dicimus . . .
Lk. 2:40: Haeretici dicunt . . . et dicimus
Lk. 2:49: Interroga haereticus . . .
Lk. 2:51: Haeretici dicunt . . . et dicimus . . .
Lk. 3:23: Haeretici dicunt . . . et dicimus . . .
Exp. Evangel. (Caput XXIX):64 Obiiciunt nobis Arabes . . . Et dicimus . . .
ibid. (Caput XXX): Verum etiam Iudaei accusant nos . . . Et dicimus . . .

This is but a sampling; there are many more examples. In fact, bar Salibi’s com-
mentaries on Scripture are not the only sources for this method of writing; this
criticism-response form is also seen elsewhere. For example, his Response to
the Arabs,65 a theological treatise against Islam, is so saturated with records
of criticisms by ‘heretics’ and responses by bar Salibi that to remove these
objections and responses would leave only scraps of this text. There are also
numerous examples where bar Salibi issues a rhetorical question that is not
attributed to any ‘heretic’, and in each instance he provides his own response
(Et dicimus . . .).66
This standard formulation is on par with what is found in the Gaius-
Hippolytus confrontation: the ‘heretics’ cite an objection after which a ­rebuttal

64 Dionysius bar Salibi, Expositionem Suam Quatuor Evangelistarum in D. Loftus (trans.),

The Exposition of Dionysius Syrus (1672), which is also provided in the recent edition of
I.-B. Chabot, CSCO Script. Syri. T. 16 (1906), 5–22.
65 See Joseph P. Amar (trans.), Dionysius Bar Salibi, A Response to the Arabs, CSCO T. 239,
vol. 615 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005).
66 For examples, see esp. his Exp. Evangel. just before his commentary on Matthew. A few
examples include: [1] Caput V.—Adversus eos qui dicunt Deum non generare. Et dicimus . . . ;
[2] Caput VIII.—Quare creatus est homo. Et dicimus . . . ; [3] Dubium XI.—Cum sciret Deus
hominem lapsurum, quare creavit eum? Et dicimus . . . ; [4] Investigatio XII.—Quare Filius
incarnatus est, et non Pater vel Spiritus? Et dicimus . . . ; [5] Quaestio XIV.—Quomodo dicit
Scriptura: Descendit Verbum et habitavit in Virgine, et: Misit Deus Filium suum et factus
est? Et dicimus . . . There are many other such instances in this portion of his commentary.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 101

is issued, typically beginning with ‘In response to them we say . . .’ The sheer
abundance of notices in bar Salibi’s writings of certain objections being raised,
followed by answers provided, does not strengthen the argument for the
unique qualities of the supposed dispute between Gaius and Hippolytus. The
primary distinction with the Gaius/Hippolytus dialogue is that bar Salibi pro-
vides individual names of the interlocutors.
Smith also makes much of the fact that Gaius pits the Johannine text against
other Scripture to prove that it is uncanonical.67 Gaius’ criticisms, in his view,
were unique in the way he used Scripture to invalidate the Johannine writ-
ings. However, this too is seen elsewhere in the writings of bar Salibi, with no
indication it has derived from Gaius. In his commentary on Mt. 27:46 bar Salibi
records an objection from an anonymous critic. In this instance Matthew’s
account of Jesus’ last words on the cross is pitted against statements made in
John’s Gospel. Bar Salibi states, ‘Nevertheless, someone objects: “How was the
Son forsaken by the Father when He Himself said, ‘I am in my Father and My
Father is in Me’ [Jn. 10:38]?”’68 Just as he does elsewhere, bar Salibi provides a
solution to this dilemma (without attributing it to Hippolytus). In his commen-
tary on Lk. 2:24, another nameless heretics state that Luke’s account is incom-
patible with other Scripture. Bar Salibi states, ‘However, heretics state: “This
does not fit with the Word God: ‘the days were fulfilled,’ (Lk. 2:6) etc., neither
that ‘He went up into the Temple and offered sacrifices’” (Lev. 12:8).’69 Later,
in his comments on Lk. 10:25, bar Salibi notes that another group of name-
less people (not designated ‘heretics’ per se), suggest that Luke’s account of the
lawyer who put Jesus to the test does not square with Matthew’s account. Here
again bar Salibi has a ready answer.70
In light of these other objections of similar style, it is difficult to find agree-
ment with Smith’s view that Gaius’ objections were unique in that he pitted
Scripture against Scripture to disprove the reliability of one or the other cita-
tion. Rather, Gaius’ criticisms correspond directly with the general form of
criticism-response writing that is seen elsewhere in the bar Salibi writings, and

67 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 282, 286–7.

68 CSCO Script. Syri. T. 99 Versio, 108: Verumtamen quidam obiiciunt: Quomodo Filius derelic-
tus est a Patre cum ipse dixisset: Ego sum in Patre meo et Pater meus in me?
69 CSCO Script. Syri. T. 61 Versio, 229: Haeretici autem dicunt: Non convenit Verbo Deo illud:
Impleti sunt dies, etc., neque illud: Ascendit in templum et obtulit sacrificia.
70 Ibid., 269. Quidam dicunt: Hic diversus est ab eo quem Matthaeus memorat; et patet ex eo
quod hic ut tentator accessit ad eum, ille vero non ut tentator, et ex eo quod scribam illum,
quem dicunt Matthaeus [Matt. 19:16] et Marcus [Mark 10:17], Lucas post hunc eventum
memorat [Luke 18:18]; quod si unus esset non bis descripsisset illum.
102 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

there is precedent elsewhere in bar Salibi’s writings for objections in which

Scripture is used to refute other Scripture. This also has direct bearing on
Prigent’s argument, for it is clear that scores of bar Salibi’s statements fit this
mold and thus the Gaius/Hippolytus dialogue is not strictly unique. Rather
than this type of form indicating an apologetic source, the widespread use
of the criticism-response formula suggests it is more likely a reflection of bar
Salibi’s own method of writing. In these instances, the only ‘Apology’ written
by a church Father was from the hand of the medieval Syrian Monophysite
himself. Likewise, the prevalence of this criticism-response formula scattered
throughout the writings of bar Salibi casts further doubt on the authenticity of
the Heads against Gaius/Apology recorded by Ebed-Jesu, especially if Nautin
and Brent are right in arguing that he presumed the existence of such a work
from having read bar Salibi’s commentary. Given all of this, I find it difficult to
maintain that bar Salibi indeed had an authentic text in his hands in which an
actual debate between Gaius and Hippolytus of Rome was recorded.71 There
are two important questions that remain: (i) where did he derive the names

71 It is true, however, that Sebastian Brock has located a sixth-century fragment in which a
certain ‘Gaius’ and Hippolytus appear to be in a dispute (Sebastian Brock, Catalog of Syriac
Fragments (New Finds) In the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai
[Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995], see 17–19 and the translation in the Appendix.
For Brock (19), the fragment, ‘is almost certainly to be identified with Hippolytus’ lost
Against Gaius,’ presumably referencing Ebed-Jesu’s Heads (or Chapters) Against Gaius.
Brock notes ‘several correspondences with Dionysius bar Salibi’s Commentary on the
Apocalypse,’ but also points out at least one discrepancy with a known Hippolytan work
(de Antichristo 49). I am unclear how Brock finds such a close connection between these
two texts, for these ‘correspondences’ serve more to distance than connect the frag-
ment from the work of bar Salibi. It is true that there is a broad similarity between these
texts in that the ‘Gaius’ character does make some accusations against the clarity of the
Apocalypse and its inability to comport with what is found in the Gospel of Matthew or
the Psalms. However, the distinctions far outweigh any similarities. None of the criticisms
in the fragment are identical to those in bar Salibi’s commenary, none of them make
appeals to the same precise texts, and none of the textual links Brock claims bar Salibi
derived from this fragment are substantive in any way (most would easily derive from the
Apocalypse itself). Most notable of all, Gaius is clearly portrayed not as an anti-­Montanist
Roman, learned and ecclesiastical man, but a Jewish critic. It is possible that bar Salibi
might have been familiar with this text, but to claim he used it in his commentary is unten-
able given the available evidence. Furthermore, given Brent’s argument (see above, 4.1),
considering the work Κατὰ Βήρωνος which is part of a florilegium including Hippolytan
pseudepigrapha dating back to the sixth century, the manuscript in Brock’s hands may
just as easily be another example of Hippolytus as a main character in a pseudonymous
work (cf. Brent, Hippolytus, 178).
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 103

Caius and Hippolytus Romanus, and (ii) if these names were not directly lifted
from a singular source, where did he get his information? To determine the
answers to these questions, we begin by turning to the preface of this exegeti-
cal work.

4.3.2 Bar Salibi’s Preface to His Commentary on the Apocalypse

Perhaps the most valuable piece of evidence that emerges from bar Salibi’s
Commentary on the Apocalypse is the preface. He notes that there are many
who doubt the authenticity of John’s Apocalypse before appealing to the tes-
timony of Eusebius regarding those in the early church who claimed it was
not his. However, a comparison between these two accounts suggests that his
read of the Father of Church History is generally representative, but not fully
accurate.

Dionysius bar Salibi72 Eusebius

And Eusebius of Caesarea declares the

same thing in his ecclesiastical writings.

(1.a) For Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, (1.b) HE 7.25.7–9: ‘Yet I cannot admit that
says that the Revelation was not that of [the author of the Apocalypse] was the
John the Apostle, but of another John, apostle, the son of Zebedee . . . who wrote
‘the Presbyter,’ who lived in Asia. The the Gospel and Catholic Epistle. For from
reason is, that the style of the Revelation the style of both and the forms of
is not like the type of the language of the expression, and the whole execution of
Gospel. Also John makes no mention of the book, I judge that it is not his. For
his name at all in the Gospel, but does nowhere does the evangelist give his
put his name at the beginning and end name, or mention himself in the
of the Revelation. Gospel . . . however, the author of the
Apocalypse introduces himself at the very
beginning.’
Cf. HE 3.39.4—‘John the Presbyter’
(Papias)

Now we agree that he received the

Revelation of which he wrote from our
Lord.

72 Translation from Robinson, 486–7.

104 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

(2.a) Irenaeus the bishop, and Hippolytus (2.b) HE 3.18.2–3 (cf. 5.8.5–6):
of Bozra say that the Revelation is that of ‘Irenaeus . . . speaks concerning John
John the Evangelist, and that it was [the evangelist], ‘. . . for it (the Apocalypse)
granted about the end of the reign of was seen not long ago . . . at the end of the
Domitian. reign of Domitian’ (cf. AH 5.30.3).
Cf. HE 6.20.2: Beryllus of Bostra,
Hippolytus, Gaius; HE 6.22.1–2: Works of
Hippolytus.

(3.a) And Eusebius of Caesarea agrees (3.b) HE 3.39.5–7: ‘The name John is twice
with this, but immediately says that some enumerated by him (Papias) . . . the first
do not accept it as being the Revelation being the one of the apostles, the other he
of John the Apostle, so saying that it is explicitly calls a presbyter . . . This shows
the work of John the Elder, who was a that the statement is true that there were
contemporary of John the Apostle. And two tombs in Ephesus, each of which is
there are two tombs in Asia, one being called John’s . . . It was probably the second
that of the Evangelist, the other that of that saw the Revelation which is attrib-
John the Elder. uted by name to John.’

It is immediately obvious from this comparison that bar Salibi has blended
together various pieces of Eusebius’ testimony to create a historical narrative
to introduce his commentary, or he drew his information from a catena tradi-
tion on the subject of the authenticity of the Apocalypse. But how accurate is
bar Salibi’s account? A closer look at the way in which he has handled Eusebius’
testimony will go a long way in clarifying the nature of the Hippolytus/Gaius
dialogue seen in the rest of his commentary. Each of these sections provided
will therefore be discussed in detail.

4.3.3 Dionysius of Alexandria on the Authorship of the Apocalypse

Dionysius bar Salibi begins his preface with Eusebius’ citation of Dionysius of
Alexandria on the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse (HE 7.25). Bar
Salibi is correct that Dionysius of Alexandria claims that John never put his
name on the Gospel (or the Epistles), whereas the author of the Apocalypse
does (HE 7.25.8–11). He also notes the differences in the style and language of
the Apocalypse as compared to the Gospel and Epistle (HE 7.25.7–8, 17–27).
There are, however, elements that he attributes to Dionysius of Alexandria
that are not found in his testimony. In particular, bar Salibi maintains that
he claimed the Apocalypse was written by ‘John the presbyter’ who lived
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 105

in Asia. This does not appear anywhere in Eusebius’ record of Dionysius of

Alexandria’s account. Rather, Dionysius of Alexandria’s testimony alludes to
the two ‘monuments’ in Asia each bearing the name John. This other ‘John’ is
identified by Papias and Eusebius as ‘John the Presbyter’ in HE 3.39.4–5, where
these two tombs are mentioned. It may be a fair inference to claim Dionysius
of Alexandria meant ‘John the Presbyter’ given that he appears to allude to the
Papian tradition, but the fact remains that bar Salibi has blended together dif-
ferent testimonies recorded in Eusebius.

4.3.4 Irenaeus and ‘Hippolytus of Bozra’ on the Authorship of the

Apocalypse
In this second section bar Salibi has combined the testimony of Irenaeus with
that of a person named ‘Hippolytus of Bozra’. His statements about Irenaeus
are verifiable, however his notice of this other Hippolytus is very strange, for
the earliest evidence does not speak of the existence of any such person.
The most obvious solution to the question of this unknown Hippolytus is
that it is due to a garbled interpretation of Eusebius (HE 6.20.2). Here, Eusebius
praises the writings of ‘very learned men of the time’ whose letters to each
other were preserved at Aelia. After familiarizing himself with works from this
library Eusebius notes Beryllus, who was bishop of Bostra in Arabia, followed
immediately by Hippolytus ‘who presided over another church’, followed by
Gaius, who disputed with Proclus (HE 6.20.1–3).
Interestingly, Rufinus’ Latin translation73 confuses this passage in such a way
that Hippolytus could easily be seen as from Bostra as well, yet bar Salibi would
not have had Rufinus’ work in his hands. Thus, either bar Salibi drew his infor-
mation from an earlier, erroneous translation, or directly from his own reading
of Eusebius in which case he would be responsible for this mistaken reading.
However, he would certainly not be the first.74 At the end of the fifth century,
Gelasius mentions a certain ‘Hippolyti episcopi et Martyris Arabum metropo-
lis in memoria haeresium’.75 Allen Brent also points to Jerome (Chronicon II,

73 Rufinus’ translation (GCS Band 6,2): Erat inter caeteros et Beryllus scriptorum praecipuus,
qui et ipse diversa opuscula dereliquit. Episcopus fuit hic apud Bostram, Arabiae urbem max-
imam. Erat nihilominus et Hippolytus, qui et ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit, episcopus.
74 J.J. Döllinger Hippolytus and Callistus; or, The Church o Rome in the First Half of the Third
Century. Trans. Alfred Plummer (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876), 83. See also Cerrato, 74–5,
who notes that as far back as the seventeenth century Jean-Baptiste Cotelier argued
that ‘Hippolytus Bostra’ was the product of a misreading of Eusebius. Cf. Jean-Baptiste
Cotelier, Ecclesiae graecae monumenta, 3 vols. (Paris, 1677–86), vol. II (1681), 639–40.
75 See Paul Lagarde, Hippolyti Romani Quae Feruntur Omnia Graece (Leipzig: B.G. Teubneri),
90–1.
106 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Ann. Abr. 2244, Alexandr. 6), who records, ‘Geminus presbyter Antiochenus et
Hippolytus et Beryllus episcopus Arabiae Bostrenus clari scriptores habentur.’76
There are also numerous written works that are attributed to ‘Hippolytus of
Bostra’. G. Garitte notes that out of the twenty-one Armenian manuscripts in
the catalogue of Yerevan that are attributed to Hippolytus, fourteen explicitly
refer to him by the name ‘Hipolit Bostrac‘i.’77 Some of these writings attributed
to ‘Hippolytus of Bostra’ are undoubtedly from Hippolytus of Rome.78 L.-M.
Froidevaux notes that ‘Hippolytus of Bostra’ is cited as the author of the por-
tion entitled ‘Questions and Answers’ in the lemma of the seventh century
Armenian florilegium entitled Seal of the Faith.79
It is possible that there was an historical person with this name. Froidevaux,
for example, has argued that portions of this Armenian florilegium attrib-
uted to ‘Hippolytus of Bostra’, is actually a pre-Nicene work from this other
Hippolytus. Froidevaux goes so far as to reconstruct his hypothetical life.
However, it is worth noting that Eusebius demonstrates no knowledge of such
a person. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome claim to know where Hippolytus’ See
actually was. And since bar Salibi himself claims to have derived his informa-
tion from Eusebius, either he has misread Eusebius’ testimony or he derived it
from a later source that has already confused the location of Beryllus of Bostra
with Hippolytus’ indeterminate See. In either case, it is important to note that
bar Salibi’s notice of Hippolytus Bosrae is distinguished from the Hippolytus
Romanus in the following confrontation with Gaius.
Finally, if bar Salibi is using Eusebius’ work as his only source, as he claims,
he has again blended portions of his testimony that are derived from differ-
ent portions of this work. Eusebius never mentions Irenaeus and Hippolytus
together, nor does he mention Hippolytus’ views on the Apocalypse or any
Hippolytan work on the subject.

4.3.5 Dionysius Bar Salibi, Eusebius, and Papias on the Authorship

of the Apocalypse
Bar Salibi claims that Eusebius agrees with the testimonies of Irenaeus and
Hipolytus Bosrae. It is true that Eusebius cites Irenaeus’ testimony of the dating
of the Apocalypse twice (HE 3.18.2–3; 5.8.5–6), but only in the first instance

76 Brent, Hippolytus, 149.

77 Gérard Garitte, ‘Une nouvelle source du « De fide » géorgien attribué à Hippolyte,’ Revue
D’Histoire Ecclésiastique 43 (1968): 835–43, 842, n. 3.
78 Ibid., 842.
79 ‘Hippolyti episcopi Bostrenorum, in sanctam Trinitatem, quaestio et responsum.’ See L.-M.
Froidevaux, ‘Les Questions et Réponses sur la sainte Trinité attribuées à Hippolyte, évêque
de Bostra,’ Recherches de science religieuse 50 (1962): 32–73, 49–54; cf. also Garitte, 836.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 107

does he affirm Irenaeus’ testimony. And it is clear in this passage that he only
agrees with the dating of the Apocalypse as from the time of Domitian, for it
is in this introduction of Irenaeus’ statement that he adds the ‘the so-called
Apocalypse of John’.
Bar Salibi also confuses Eusebius’ account of Papias (HE 3.39). He is
wholly unaware that the argument for ‘John the Presbyter’ as the author of
the Apocalypse originated from Eusebius himself, who took his cue from
Papias, and in all likelihood was influenced by the testimony of Dionysius of
Alexandria (HE 7.25.7ff.). Bar Salibi, however, implies that Eusebius is merely
recording the views of others.

4.3.6 Analysis of the Historicity of the Preface

Returning to the preface as a whole, what is one to make of bar Salibi’s
account of Eusebius? If bar Salibi only used Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica as
his source, then he has clearly amalgamated a number of different passages
into his p
­ reface. He is certainly aware of the major issues surrounding John’s
Apocalypse. The question of which ‘John’ wrote it is not lost on bar Salibi, nor
is the fact that there are two tombs in Asia that bear this name—an appeal
made both by Eusebius and Dionysius of Alexandria in their attempt to
explain (away) the author of the Apocalypse as someone other that John the
Apostle. Yet there is also a demonstrable lack of precision to his testimony.
He claims to have derived knowledge of a certain Hippolytus Bosrae from
Eusebius, who himself never mentions any such person. He puts words in the
mouth of Dionysius of Alexandria that he never uttered. Also, he totally exon-
erates Eusebius from having any qualms over who authored the Apocalypse.
Bar Salibi makes Eusebius out to be in agreement with Irenaeus and Hippolytus
Bosrae, when it is clear Eusebius himself manipulated Irenaeus’ words to cast
doubt on the ‘so-called’ Apocalypse, and he expresses his own doubts as to its
apostolic authorship.

4.3.7 Analysis of the Gaius/Hippolytus Dispute in the Preface

After his historical introduction, bar Salibi immediately begins to cite
Hippolytus of Rome and his description of the opponent of the Apocalypse,
Gaius. It is curious that it is not until this section that bar Salibi demon-
strates his knowledge of another critical issue: whether or not Cerinthus
was the author of the Apocalypse (and the Gospel) of John.80 He would have
been aware of this issue from the passages he has already noted. Dionysius
of Alexandria makes explicit reference to the question of Cerinthus and the

80 Cf. Brent, Hippolytus, 146.

108 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

Apocalypse, but nothing of John’s Gospel. Epiphanius, however, does link the
two, and it is interesting that elsewhere in his commentaries, bar Salibi dem-
onstrates that he is also familiar with the testimony of this Church Father.81
The question is whether bar Salibi has derived his information from a singular
source, or blended information from various sources as he has done in the first
part of his preface.
Smith argues that bar Salibi’s notice of Hippolytus as the narrator proves
that his source was from this Church Father. But if this is indeed the case,
as Brent notes it is bizarre that Hippolytus would have referred to himself as
Hippolytus Romanus and would have been found ‘quoting himself in saintly
proportions’ as beatus Hippolytus.82 Brent suggests bar Salibi has emerged
on the back end of a long literary legend concerning issues surrounding the
Johannine literature that ultimately derives from Epiphanius’ notice of the
Alogi. Thus, bar Salibi himself is responsible for the creation of this exchange
between Hippolytus and Gaius based on a general hermeneutical tradition
concerning John’s Apocalypse.
This is possible, if not likely, especially in light of the Hippolytan pseude-
pigrapha that Brent notes; but I believe another, perhaps more likely scenario
is that bar Salibi has surmised Gaius’ opposition to the Apocalypse from
a misreading of Eusebius. In HE 3.28.1–2 Eusebius only notes that Gaius, ‘in
his dispute’, wrote against Cerinthus’ carnal chiliasm that he claims in his
own apocalyptic work. Immediately afterwards, Eusebius provides a short-
ened form of Dionysius of Alexandria’s statements, of which bar Salibi was
well aware.83 It is also interesting that Eusebius, in transitioning from Gaius’
statements to those of Dionysius, states, ‘And Dionysius [in his work On the
Promises] . . . mentions the same man’ (HE 3.28.3). A careless reading could
conclude that Eusebius means Gaius, not Cerinthus. One wonders whether
bar Salibi has interpreted Eusebius’ statements along the same lines as what
is evident throughout the past century of scholarship, which sees the place-
ment of Gaius’ statements juxtaposed with those of Dionysius of Alexandria
and concludes that Gaius must be the one who maintained these views.

81 He notes Epiphanius in his statements on Matt. 27:5, in A. Vaschalde (ed.), Dionysii bar
Salibi: Commentarii in Evangelia II (1). Versio. CSCO Scriptores Syri Series Secunda, Tomus
XCIX (Leuven, 1933), 82. Also, his statements on Lk. 22:15, in ibid. II (2), p. 319.
82 Brent, Hippolytus, 176.
83 In his preface, bar Salibi cites Hippolytus as stating that Cerinthus taught carnal eat-
ing and drinking and many other blasphemies. This is identical information to what is
found in Dionysius of Alexandria, and very similar to what is noted by Gaius of Rome
(HE 3.28.1–5). Cf. Smith, ‘Gaius’, 197.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 109

From here bar Salibi, encouraged by Eusebius’ note that Gaius was involved
in a dispute on this subject, could have simply supplied the name Gaius as
the antagonist in the standard criticism-response formula that he uses
freely elsewhere.
It is peculiar that bar Salibi never mentioned the name ‘Gaius’ in his ear-
lier historical introduction, for Gaius clearly spoke out about Cerinthus and
his Apocalypse. If he understood Gaius’ criticism of the Cerinthian Apocalypse
in HE 3.28 as not bearing any reference to John’s Apocalypse, then this would
have provided bar Salibi with an excellent ‘learned’ defense against the views
mentioned by Dionysius of Alexandria. He could have pointed to Gaius as an
‘orthodox’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ man who notes that Cerinthus pseudonymously
composed his own apocalyptic work under the guise of ‘a great apostle’. But
bar Salibi makes no such appeal to Gaius as an ‘orthodox’ respondent to this
accusation. This leaves two possibilities: either (i) bar Salibi is wholly unaware
of Gaius’ statements regarding Cerinthus and a certain apocalyptic work, or
(ii) he has wrongly interpreted Gaius’ statements.
The first is unlikely given that bar Salibi is drawing on Eusebian texts
wherein Gaius is featured. The second possibility provides the better way
forward. It is important to note that in Eusebius’ notice of Gaius and the
Cerinthian Apocalypse, no mention is made of Gaius as an ‘ecclesiastical’ or
‘learned’ man, nor is there any hint that he was to be admired for his fight
against the Montanists, that he wrote his comments about Cerinthus to refute
the Montanist Proclus, or that he was located in Rome. Only in this passage (HE
3.28.1–2) is Gaius divorced from all defining factors that are present elsewhere:
he is simply quoted for his views against Cerinthus’ Apocalypse. From this pas-
sage alone, Gaius could easily be misunderstood as the spokesman for the view
that Cerinthus was the true author of the Apocalypse. In this case, bar Salibi
has his orthodox hero, Hippolytus, who, as Prigent notes, is a major source for
him throughout his Commentary on the Apocalypse. He also has the despicable
enemy, ‘Gaius’, whose perceived opinions against John’s Apocalypse and role
in a dispute on this subject may well have earned him the antagonist position
in the standard criticism-response formulae that is prevalent throughout bar
Salibi’s writings.
There is good reason, therefore, to suggest that bar Salibi has created this
exchange from a source or a catena that was available to him and simply sup-
plied the names Gaius and Hippolytus. It is reasonable to object, however,
that bar Salibi claims in his preface to have derived this information from
Hippolytus. Yet the veracity of bar Salibi’s citation of Hippolytus is not free
from questions. This may be seen in the way bar Salibi cites Hippolytus (and
other early Church Fathers).
110 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

4.4 Discrepancies between bar Salibi and the Early Sources

There are significant differences in the way bar Salibi cites Hippolytus in con-
trast to those statements in the extant Hippolytan literature. The following
examples do not bolster confidence that all the information bar Salibi claims
to have derived from Hippolytus actually does.
1. Gwynn originally noted a disagreement between the way in which bar
Salibi portrayed Hippolytus’ response to Gaius’ final objection on the binding
of Satan (Rev. 20:2–3) versus the binding of ‘the strong man’ (cf. Mt. 12:29),
and that of Hippolytus’ views in Dan. 4.33.4–5. In the latter passage, Satan has
already been bound; in bar Salibi’s notice, Hippolytus asks mockingly, ‘If the
Devil has been bound, how does he deceive the faithful and persecute and
plunder men?’84 Indeed, there are more similarities between Gaius’ views as
recorded by bar Salibi and those of Hippolytus in Dan. 4.33.4–5 than between
Hippolytus’ statements in Dan. and those in bar Salibi.
2. Hill has also noted disagreement on the portrayals of Hippolytus’ escha-
tological views. In contrast to the chiliastic views that bar Salibi attributes to
Hippolytus in his response to the same objection of Gaius, Hill has argued that
a close reading of Ant. 61, 65 (cf. Dan. 4.11.4) shows that he did not actually
maintain such chiliastic notions, but rather opposed them.85 Moreover, Hill
demonstrates that Hippolytus’ view of the millennium in Rev. 20—the very
chapter against which Gaius objects—actually refers to the present age.86 This
does not square with bar Salibi’s portrayal of Hippolytus.
3. Allen Brent has made two arguments that the supposed dialogue between
Hippolytus and Gaius demonstrates more contradictions than similarities
between bar Salibi’s record of Hippolytus and features of Dan. and Ant.87 First,
bar Salibi cites Hippolytus as equating the pollutionem desolationis with the
Antichrist,88 but he claims for himself the interpretation that it is the little
horn of Daniel 7:8, 20–21 that is the Antichrist. In fact, Brent shows that bar
Salibi’s own words are actually those of Hippolytus in Ant. 28 and 47. Not only
has bar Salibi attributed to Hippolytus an interpretation that was not his own,

84 Comm. Apoc. 19 (Rev. 20:2): Hippolytus refutat eum et dicit: Si est vinctus impostor, quomodo
decipiat fideles et persequitur spoliatque homines? Here I cite the English translation of
Gwynn, 403.
85 C.E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. 2nd Ed.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 160–5.
86 Ibid., 167.
87 Brent, Hippolytus, 179–80.
88 Comm. Apoc. 12 (Rev. 11:2).
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 111

but he claimed what Hippolytus did say for himself. Second, Brent also argues
that it is ‘extremely suspicious’ that the Logos Christology, which is a distinc-
tive feature of Hippolytus’ Dan. and Ant., is nowhere to be found in bar Salibi’s
dialogue between Hippolytus and Gaius.89
To these points I add the following:
4. In his preface, bar Salibi cites Hippolytus’ views of Cerinthus that are not
found in the extant Hippolytan corpus:

This Cerinthus was one who taught circumcision, and was angry with
Paul when he did not circumcise Titus, and the Apostle calls him and
his disciples in one of his letters ‘sham apostles, crafty workers.’ Again he
teaches that the world was created by angels, and that our Lord was not
born of a virgin. He also teaches carnal eating and drinking, and many
other blasphemies. The Gospel and Revelation of John, however, are like
the teaching which the Scriptures contain; and so they are liars who say
that the Revelation is not by the Apostle John.90

It is true that in his Refutatio (7.22; 10.21) Hippolytus notes that Cerinthus did
not believe in the Virgin birth, rather he held adoptionistic views of Jesus
and that the world was created by an angelic power. These are also noted by
Irenaeus (AH 1.26.1), to whom Hippolytus was indebted for much of his infor-
mation, with the exception that an angel was responsible for creation—that is
uniquely Hippolytan.91 However, this is all that connects this statement from
bar Salibi with known Hippolytan works.
Regarding the ‘eating and drinking’ and other blasphemies, this has direct
correlation with what bar Salibi has already recorded from the testimony of
Dionysius of Alexandria’s testimony in Eusebius (HE 3.28.5; 7.25.3). It is impor-
tant to note that Gaius is not recorded as making this accusation (HE 3.28.1–
2). Gaius’ description of the Cerinthian millennium is painted with broader
strokes. He notes only that the flesh will be subject to desires and pleasures.
Also, the fact that bar Salibi cites Hippolytus as criticizing Cerinthus’ views
of Paul and circumcision caused Klijn and Reinink to conclude that bar Salibi
did not derive this from an authentic Hippolytan work. Rather, they note
that, ‘These are ideas concerning Cerinthus that cannot be found e­ arlier than

89 Brent, Hippolytus, 180–2.

90 English translation in Robinson, 487; Latin translation in Comm. Apoc. 1–2.
91 Ps.-Tertullian makes the same claim (Adv. omn. haer. 3). See Klijn and Reinink, 4. Irenaeus
(AH 1.26) only refers to Cerinthus’ belief that a ‘Power’ created the world.
112 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

in Epiphanius.’92 It is true that nowhere in Hippolytus’ Refutatio or in Ps.-

Tertullian’s work is there any mention of Cerinthus’ views on circumcision
or Paul. Irenaeus mentions similar views concerning the Ebionites, whom
he links with Cerinthus on account of their erroneous christology, but not in
praxis (AH 1.26.2). Epiphanius, however, is more explicit in his account. He is
the first to read Cerinthus and his followers into Paul’s second Epistle to the
Corinthians (11:13), where Paul calls them ‘false prophets and deceitful workers’
(Haer. 28.4.6). This is precisely what bar Salibi records. What about the notice
of Cerinthus’ disillusionment that Paul did not circumcise Titus? No mention
of this is made by Hippolytus or Irenaeus, but again Epiphanius provides this
information in Haer 28.4.1–2, where he has read Cerinthus into the account
in Galatians 2:3–5. As Klijn and Reinink suggest, Epiphanius may have been
influenced by the tradition recorded in the Epistula Apostolorum, which lists
Cerinthus as one of the ‘pseudo-apostles’. From this notice, Epiphanius may
have linked Cerinthus as one of the ψευδαπόστολοι mentioned by Paul in II Cor.
11:13 (and the ψευδαδέλφους of Gal. 2:4).93
Bar Salibi clearly cites information that he claims to have originated from
Hippolytus. Some of this information does come from Hippolytus, but much
of it also comes from Dionysius of Alexandria by way of Eusebius, as well as
Epiphanius’ account of Cerinthus.
5. In his exposition on Lk. 18:8, bar Salibi cites Hippolytus as referring to the
Antichrist as the unjust judge, and the widow as the synagogue of the Jews.
In Ant. 57 Hippolytus does connect the unrighteous judge with the Antichrist,
however the widow is not the Synagogue but Jerusalem.
There are also various other instances, not involving Hippolytus, where bar
Salibi claims to derive information from early sources. In at least two places
there is an apparent disjunction between what bar Salibi records and what
the earlier sources actually said. To demonstrate this, consider his exposi-
tion on Mt. 27:5, where bar Salibi cites from Papias, followed immediately by
Epiphanius. Of Papias, he records: ‘Papias states that [Judas’] male organs
were swollen, and that putrid substance, vile stench and maggots came out
of them.’94 The only extant Papian fragment that resembles this comes from
Apollinaris of Laodicaea in the fourth century, who records that ‘His genitals
appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else’s, and when he relieved

92 Klijn and Reinink, 6.

93 Ibid., 10.
94 ‘Et Papias dicit: Etiam membra eius virilia intumuerunt, et putredo et foetor cum vermi-
bus manabant de eis.’ CSCO tom. 49, vols. 98, 82.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 113

himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body.’95
J. Rendell Harris, who is to be remembered for adamantly holding that bar
Salibi intended Gaius as the spokesman for the otherwise anonymous criti-
cism against John, claims here that the Syrian Father has derived this citation
after manipulating the catena that does not go back to Papias himself, but to
Apollinaris.96 The difficulties surrounding the textual tradition of Papias are
too numerous to know definitively whether bar Salibi’s information is fully
accurate, but the very next line suggests the verdict is negative.
Immediately following this, bar Salibi cites Epiphanius on Judas’ death.
‘Epiphanius says, [Judas] lived forty days after the crucifixion and was split
apart in the middle, and all of his internal organs were poured out.’97 Yet
nowhere does Epiphanius actually make the claim that Judas lived for forty
days after the crucifixion, or that Judas’ death was solely by disembowelment.
One would expect to find such statements in his refutation of the Cainites,
throughout which he associates Cain and Judas. In Haer. 38.8.3, Epiphanius
actually conflates the account of Judas’ death in a field (via disembowelment)
as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (1:18) with Matthew’s account (27:5)
that Judas hanged himself. He does not say this occurred forty days after Jesus’
death, however.
This by no means implies that bar Salibi is totally unreliable in his recount-
ing of the events of the early church. Yet it must be recognized that his cita-
tions of his predecessors should not be taken at face value. In those instances
where bar Salibi’s information is demonstrably inaccurate, either he has sim-
ply misread the earliest sources themselves, or, as Brent notes, he may stand
at the end of a tradition that has provided bar Salibi with mangled versions of
the evidence. In this case, bar Salibi is likely reliant upon a garbled catena in
which topics such as the death of Judas, the Antichrist, and the opposition to
the Apocalypse have been associated with the writings of the earliest Fathers,
sometimes accurately, and other times inaccurately.

95 English translation in Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker Press, 1999), 583, 585. The text from Apollinaris is
reconstructed from various fragments. C. Preuschen, Antilegomena, 2nd ed. (Giessen:
Alfred Töpelmann, 1905), 97–99.
96 J. Rendell Harris, ‘Did Judas Really Commit Suicide?’ AJT 4, n. 3 (Jul. 1900), 507.
97 CSCO tom. 49, vols. 98, 82–3: Epiphanius dicit: « Vixit post crucifixionem quadraginta die-
bus, et disruptus est per medium et diffusa sunt omnia viscera eius ».
114 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

4.5 The Manufactured Dialogue between Gaius and Hippolytus

Is it reasonable to presume the historicity of this dialogue between Hippolytus

and Gaius, or is this narrative a figment of bar Salibi’s historical misunder-
standing in conjunction with his standard criticism-response formulation
that he uses to drive his writings forward? Hippolytus’ influence on bar Salibi’s
Commentary on the Apocalypse is certifiable, however it is curious that this is
seen predominantly in those sections where no direct reference to Hippolytus
is made. In contrast, when bar Salibi does claim to cite Hippolytus, there are
various instances when the content of what the former puts in the mouth of
the latter does not square with the positions held by Hippolytus in his extant
writings. Other times Hippolytus appears to be the spokesman for multiple
parties, as in the preface where Hippolytus is cited with words that belong
partly to himself, partly to Dionysius of Alexandria and partly to Epiphanius.
Thus, it is rash to maintain that just because bar Salibi introduces a dialogue
with the phrase ‘Hippolytus Romanus dixit’, what follows must therefore have
actually been uttered by the speaker. It appears bar Salibi molds the words of
the speakers in his narrative to say what he wants them to say.
Just as the criticism-response form is a notable feature throughout bar
Salibi’s commentaries on the Gospels and in his refutation of the Arabs,
his Commentary on the Apocalypse is no exception. The primary difference
between this latter work and the others is that the otherwise anonymous inter-
locutors are given identities. Did bar Salibi simply give names to these partici-
pants based on what he found in the writings of Eusebius? Brent thinks that
bar Salibi already had a text in front of him in which the figures ‘Gaius’ and
‘Hippolytus’ were in dispute with one another.98 This is possible, but it is more
likely that bar Salibi has read Gaius’ statements concerning Cerinthus and
his Apocalypse in Eusebius and presumed him to lie behind the testimonies
of Dionysius of Alexandria and Epiphanius. It is not difficult to see how bar
Salibi could have presumed, based upon his reading of Eusebius (HE 3.28.1–2),
that ‘Gaius’—deprived of any other identifying remarks—was involved in a
dispute on the subject of an ‘Apocalypse’ by Cerinthus who pretended it was
by ‘a great apostle’. Armed with his Hippolytan florilegium that clearly main-
tained an opposing view, the Syrian Monophysite may well have provided the
names ‘Gaius’ and ‘Hippolytus’ as the identities of the parties for his criticism-
response form. The form of the Gaius/Hippolytus dialogue is consistent with
what is found elsewhere in bar Salibi’s writings, thus there is nothing demon-
strably unique about this supposed dispute. And, since the criticism-response

98 Brent, Hippolytus, 175. Cf. also the present work, p. 102, n. 71.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 115

form is not found anywhere else in his Commentary on the Apocalypse outside
of the statements of Gaius and Hippolytus, it is certainly possible that this dis-
pute represents nothing more than bar Salibi’s insertion of what he perceived
to be a known critic of the Apocalypse and a venerated church Father as the
identities of this fictitious dialogue.
Thus, there are elements of Brent’s conclusion with which I agree, and others
that need modification. First, it is apparent that Brent is correct that bar Salibi
used ‘Hippolytus’ as a cipher for the orthodox representative of the apostolic
age, though bar Salibi clearly conceives of him as a unique individual. Even
here, however, Hippolytus is not free from acquiring other ‘orthodox’ state-
ments from Fathers such as Epiphanius or Dionysius of Alexandria. In contrast
to Brent, Gaius is not merely a heterodox ‘everyman’.99 This is not a name that
is divorced from what bar Salibi perceived to be a very real antagonist of the
Apocalypse. As noted earlier, if bar Salibi wanted the objections to represent a
broad, heretical antagonism to the Apocalypse, he could have simply used the
less precise term haereticus, as he does in many other places, to accomplish
this task. But Gaius is specifically named, and from reading Eusebius, or the
catena rooted in Eusebius’ testimony, bar Salibi has clearly conceived of Gaius
as the nucleus of anti-Johannine sentiments. This was to be confirmed by the
references to anonymous antagonists mentioned by Dionysius of Alexandria
and Epiphanius, whose testimonies are clearly used by bar Salibi intermit-
tently. Thus, it is clear that bar Salibi himself deduced that Gaius is the lone ref-
erent in each of these cases, but this conclusion is his own inferential leap, not
a documented reality. Moreover, unless and until further studies draw a clear
link between bar Salibi and the fragment published by S. Brock, noted above,
I find it unlikely that bar Salibi’s source(s) contained such a pseudepigraphic
dialogue between these two figures. If this were the case, such a dispute would
be more widely evidenced, and given bar Salibi’s propensity towards manufac-
tured disputes throughout his writings, I maintain the origins of this dialogue
likely come from bar Salibi.
It should also be noted that if Gaius of Rome had made actual objections
to the Apocalypse, especially if he argued Cerinthus was its true author as bar
Salibi claims, it would be fair to presume that some of these criticisms would
pertain to these concerns. But upon reading bar Salibi’s commentary on Rev.
20–21, nothing is even remotely hinted concerning Cerinthus’ chiliastic views.
Also, bar Salibi’s Caius never records anything about Cerinthus’ authorship

99 Cf. Brent, Hippolytus, 177–8. Although I would support his more tentative statement, ‘Even
if the character of Gaius as ‘everyman’ takes on in Barsalîbî’s mind a modicum of histori-
cal colouring for that dramatic presentation, that colouring is hardly very accurate.’
116 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

of this work or anything about an earthly Jerusalem, sensual pleasures or

­marriage feasts. It is therefore clear that the Caius of the historical introduc-
tion and ‘Caius’ the antagonist are not linked except for bar Salibi’s view of him
as an opponent of the Apocalypse. Thus without any evidence of actual criti-
cisms by this ‘Caius’, he too has been attributed with statements that he never
made. Some, but not all of these derive from Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi.
Others have come from sources that are simply unknown.

4.6 Epiphanius and bar Salibi

Bar Salibi’s ‘Caius’ is not identical to the Alogi of Epiphanius. It is true that in
some instances Gaius’ criticisms appear to derive from Epiphanius’ account of
the Alogi, but the correlation between these testimonies is found only in two
instances out of the five objections recorded by the Alogi against the Johannine
literature and the six criticisms noted by bar Salibi against the same corpus.
Even here, one of the two instances of overlap—concerning the Gospel of
John—carries the difficulty of the absence of Gaius’ name in much of the man-
uscript tradition. If Gaius were the true identity of the Alogi, and indeed if bar
Salibi and Epiphanius were dependent upon the same, shared source, there
would be more compatibility than what actually exists. Given the traces of
Epiphanius’ testimony that are woven throughout bar Salibi’s account, either
the Syrian commentator has compared what he has understood to be Gaius’
attribution of the Apocalypse to Cerinthus with Epiphanius’ description of the
Alogi and made the link himself, or the catena tradition from which bar Salibi
drew his information had juxtaposed portions of these testimonies.

4.6.1 Gaius and the Alogi on the Gospel of John

This, then, explains the overlap in the criticisms between Epiphanius and bar
Salibi. Regarding the criticism against John’s Gospel, this did not come from
Gaius. As Gwynn noted from the beginning, it is unlikely Gaius rejected John’s
Gospel because it is used by Hippolytus at least once in their supposed argu-
ment ‘as an authority admitted by his opponent.’100 Moreover, as Brent notes in
light of the dubious manuscript tradition, bar Salibi ‘cannot have made refer-
ence to a work on the Apocalypse that included a defence of the Fourth Gospel
since he has no citations of Gaius on the Gospel itself.’101 Interestingly, Lorenz
Schlimme has found that bar Salibi’s Commentary on John derives from Moses

100 Gwynn, 406.

101 Brent, Hippolytus, 171.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 117

bar Kepha ‘almost exclusively’.102 Further studies along these lines may pro-
duce even more definitive results and perhaps provide further clarity as to bar
Salibi’s sources.
Given the fact that Gaius’ name is inserted into the bar Salibi Commentary
on John by a later editor, it is fair to conclude (i) that bar Salibi never men-
tioned Gaius’ name in connection with this criticism, and (ii) that the editor,
upon reading the preface to bar Salibi’s Commentary on the Apocalypse, wrote
in the name Gaius by way of clarification.
The fact remains that the only explicit statement that indicated Gaius
rejected John’s Gospel is in the preface to this later commentary. But it has
been shown that this historical prelude is an assortment of various testimo-
nies that bar Salibi has amalgamated together, and that some of his records of
earlier Fathers miss the mark of accuracy. Also, as I have argued in the previous
chapter, there is no early evidence to suggest Gaius rejected either the Gospel
or Apocalypse of John.
For his part, Smith also has his own reservations about the integrity of the
information relayed in the preface. He maintains,

With regard to the Fourth Gospel there is absolutely no evidence to sup-

port the summary statements reproduced by Epiphanius and Dionysius
bar Salibi. These summary statements have too often provided the point
of departure for the studies and arguments of modern scholars and
have shaped the interpretations of the only statement of Gaius about
Cerinthus which Eusebius preserves from the Dialogue with Proclus (E.H.
III, 28, 1–2) who had direct access to the Dialogue in the library at Aelia.103

Smith argues that Gaius never attributed either Johannine work to Cerinthus,
maintaining that bar Salibi’s notice that Gaius attributed both Johannine works
to Cerinthus was ‘suspect’.104 Thus, according to Smith, Gaius never uttered
these words; rather it was Hippolytus who anchored his criticism of Gaius
with the inflammatory reference to the arch-heretic Cerinthus as a means
of discrediting his opponent. ‘Since the summary statements themselves are
dependent on Hippolytus, perhaps the suspicion should more appropriately

102 Lorenz Schlimme, ‘Die Bibelkommentare des Moses bar Kepha,’ in A Tribute to Arthur
Vööbus, Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian
East. Ed. Robert H. Fischer (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology, 1977), 68.
103 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 327.
104 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 170.
118 The ‘ Johannine Controversy ’ Theory

be cast in his direction.’105 If bar Salibi’s record of Hippolytus’ descriptions

of Cerinthus were authentic, this may be plausible, but the fact remains that
much of this information comes from Epiphanius.

4.6.2 Gaius and the Alogi on the Apocalypse

In terms of the clearest link between bar Salibi and Epiphanius, it is true that
the fourth objection of Gaius is similar to the final objection recorded by
the Alogi. Both are concerned with the loosing of the angels that are on the
Euphrates in Rev. 9:14–17. Harris juxtaposed these two texts in an effort to show
that their similarities are ‘so striking that it betrays a common origin, and this
must be the work of Hippolytus, which has been rehandled by Epiphanius, and
which appears, perhaps in an abbreviated form, in the extracts of Bar-Salibi.’106
It is also true that both Epiphanius and bar Salibi’s Hippolytus appeal to Deut.
32:7–9 for their rebuttal to this argument, but beyond that there are more dif-
ferences than similarities.
Gaius is concerned that this passage does not square with Matthew’s notice
that ‘nation shall rise up against nation’ (24:7). Epiphanius’ testimony, in con-
trast, makes no mention of this Matthean reference at all (cf. Haer. 51.34.2–7).
Indeed, this is the only objection where there is no explicit criticism on the
part of the Alogi. In each of the other objections, a Johannine passage is con-
fronted with a specific objection, either because it does not cohere with other
Scripture (viz. the objections to the Gospel) or because it is internally incoher-
ent (viz. the first two objections to the Apocalypse). In this last objection, how-
ever, Epiphanius only cites that the Alogi ‘get excited’ (ἐπαίρονται) about this
passage and think it is ‘laughable’ (γελοῖόν). No specific objection is raised, but
in light of Epiphanius’ response, it appears that the Alogi find humor in their
misunderstanding of the meaning of the four angels sitting on the Euphrates
(cf. Haer. 51.34.3–4). Gaius, however, offers the explicit concern that it does not
cohere with Matthew’s similar account.
However, the rebuttals in Epiphanius and bar Salibi may share an appeal to
Deuteronomy to refute these objections, but there are also dissimilarities that
are often overlooked. Brent has rightly noted that Epiphanius’ aim is to prove
that the angels must be released in order to command the nations that are sub-
ject to them into war (Haer. 51.34.6–7), whereas bar Salibi’s Hippolytus does not
conceive of the nations being ‘subjected’ to the angels in the same way.107 For
Epiphanius, the angels are eager to send the nations to war, but must wait for

105 Ibid., 325.

106 Harris, 52–3.
107 Brent, Hippolytus, 162–3.
Dismantling the Syrian Evidence 119

the end of God’s longsuffering. For bar Salibi’s Hippolytus, the nations them-
selves are eager for battle. Epiphanius aligns the four angels with the four king-
doms in that area during the time of Daniel (Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes
and Persians). Hippolytus, according to bar Salibi, makes no such appeal. He
does, however, say that, when that day of the Lord does finally come, that is
the time of the Antichrist. In contrast, Epiphanius makes no mention of the
Antichrist at all. Thus, even though the issues addressed in each source share
similarities of Scriptural references (Rev. 9:14–17; Deut. 32:7–9), it is not the
case that the same criticism and response are given in both cases. Naturally,
both make an appeal to the same passage in Deuteronomy, but with differing
exegetical conclusions.108

Summary

The evidence from Dionysius bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu only serves to cloud the
discussion with unwarranted and unfounded speculations about the nature
of the Alogi. The links between these sources and the questions concerning
a ‘Johannine Controversy’ have been forged together by means of assuming a
number of points that are far from certain. When compared with the early evi-
dence, both bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu show a demonstrable lack of coherence
with the history and writings of the era in which the Alogi purportedly existed.
Likewise, the supposed ‘dispute’ between ‘Gaius’ and Hippolytus appears to be
nothing more than a manufactured dialogue to serve the stylistic purposes of
bar Salibi’s writings. It is therefore necessary to abandon the well-worn meth-
odological starting point that presumes bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu are writing
with privileged historical knowledge that deserves to be taken at face value.
In its place, the appropriate starting point for any inquiry into the Alogi must
begin with Epiphanius himself and the fifty-first entry of the Panarion. Such is
the task of the following two sections of this work.

108 Cf. ibid.

 Section 2
Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

∵
 CHAPTER 5

Epiphanius: History and Heresy

Having dismantled the common methodological approach to the question of

the Alogi in the previous section, it is time to rebuild. The key evidence is not
to be found in a statue, later sources, or the assumed contents of works that no
longer exist (or never existed at all). Rather, the starting point for understand-
ing the Alogi must begin with the author of this account. Indeed, the whole
quest of clarifying the nature, provenance, dates and theology of the Alogi
up to the present has not properly taken into account the unique aspects of
Epiphanius as historian and heresiologist.

5.1 Epiphanius as Historian and Heresiologist

At least three possibilities exist that would explain Epiphanius’ account of this
heresy. First, he may have had in his cache of works an unknown source that
spoke of such a group, and he drew upon this work for his testimony of the
Alogi. Second, he could have simply concocted the entire account, and the
Alogi has no textual or historical foundations at all outside his own imagina-
tion. Third, Epiphanius could have constructed a heretical sect that would
encompass a variety of issues surrounding the Gospel and Apocalypse of John
of which he was made aware from reading the testimonies of his predecessors.
The previous section have rendered the first possibility untenable. As to the
second possibility, it is conceivable that Epiphanius was clever enough to cre-
ate a fictitious heretical sect out of thin air. After all, Epiphanius is capable
of all sorts of historical exaggeration where his imagination is presented as
fact. The examples are plentiful. There is the heroic tale of Epiphanius bravely
resisting the lustful advances of a multitude of Gnostic seductresses who, ‘with
great boldness tried to seduce [Epiphanius] . . . because they desired [him]
in [his] youth.’ Epiphanius records that he ‘escaped without being ensnared
by their bait,’ and subsequently reported these women to the local bishops
so that those who were ‘hidden within the church’ (about eighty altogether)
could be driven out of the city (Haer. 26.17.4–9). Also, in his witness against
the Alogi Epiphanius claims to have personally drunk out of one of a number
of streams and rivers—including the Nile—that annually turn into wine as a
commemoration of the first miracle of Jesus turning water into wine (Haer.
51.29.7–51.30.3). Moreover, Rufinus, an admirer of Origen, blasts Epiphanius for

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_007

124 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

deceitfully boasting to a large crowd that he had read six thousand of Origen’s
works (Adv. Rufinum 2.21–23), which Epiphanius denied (cf. Jerome Adv.
Rufinum 2.22). Later, however, he flaunts his knowledge of Origen’s six thou-
sand works in his polemic against the ‘Origen heresy’ (Haer. 63.9).
Further evidence of Epiphanius’ creative historicizing may be seen in the
way he structured his Panarion. The first twenty entries in this work, for exam-
ple, address pre-Christian ‘heresies’. Four of these (‘Barbarism’, ‘Scythianism’,
‘Hellenism’, and ‘Judaism’) derive from Epiphanius’ reading of Colossians 3:11
in which Paul states, ‘Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncir-
cumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all’ (ESV).
In taking his lead from the Apostle Paul, Epiphanius retroactively creates a his-
tory for these groups in which they are culpable for denying Christ well before
the incarnation (Haer. 1.1.9).
It is true that Epiphanius is often guilty of hyperbole, but does that mean
that the entire testimony of the Alogi is a baseless, creative fiction, and if so
how does one tell? The examples above are entirely sustained by Epiphanius’
testimony alone and incapable of being corroborated, but this is not the case
with his testimony of the Alogi. Rather, Epiphanius’ testimony corresponds to
aspects of a number of earlier sources. The remaining chapters of this work
demonstrate that the Alogi has textual roots and thus cannot be solely a con-
coction of Epiphanius’ imagination.
Finally, what about the last possibility? Did Epiphanius construct a hereti-
cal sect that never properly existed in an historical sense but is representa-
tive of various issues that he deemed heretical surrounding the Gospel and
Apocalypse of John that arose in the early Church? A close examination of
the lengthy portrayal of the Alogi in conjunction with corroborating evidence
from the testimonies of earlier Church Fathers points to the conclusion that
Epiphanius is not referring to a person or group of people at all. Rather, as with
his historicizing pre-Christian ‘heresies’ based on the words of Paul, Epiphanius
feels free to create a ‘history’ of the Alogi from the words of his predecessors.
The evidence suggests he amalgamates various issues that were noted by his
predecessors surrounding the Johannine literature into a single category under
an appropriate heading, the Alogi. Thus, whereas the issues that Epiphanius
records are real, the group itself is not. In fact, this is not the only heresy in the
Panarion that suffers from questionable historical grounding.

5.1.1 ‘Abstract Heresies’ in the Panarion

Clearly, Epiphanius possesses a certain fecundity of imagination and is
fully capable of recording as fact elements that are not historically true. The
Panarion betrays various examples of his abstract heretical groups. Perhaps
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 125

the clearest example is the group known as the Angelics (Haer. 60). Epiphanius
includes this sect in his Panarion despite the fact that he admits he knows abso-
lutely nothing about them other than their name (Haer. 60.1.1). He is aware of
them only through hearsay, nevertheless he is quick to denounce their views,
whatever those actually might have been. As Young Kim notes, ‘The example
of the Angelics exemplifies Epiphanius’ strategic use of heresy. The Angelics
were essentially a non-existent heresy chosen to suit Epiphanius’ architecture
for the Panarion; and in this case, the lack of detail hinted at a deliberate and
free application of the notion of heresy.’1
Epiphanius refutes other heresies about which he admits to knowing very
little. For example, in his introduction to the sect known as the Adamians
(Haer. 52) Epiphanius confesses that he has only heard of such a group. He has
not found it in any treatise, nor has he encountered anyone who espouses the
views he ascribes to this heresy (Haer. 52.1.6). He goes on to express his own
doubts about the existence of such a sect (Haer. 52.1.9),2 but concludes that
even if it is just hearsay, such a group is ‘worth mentioning’ (Haer. 52.1.8–9).
This is seen again in his account of the Valesians (Haer. 58). Here, Epiphanius
claims to have heard about them, but he confesses to know nothing about
Vales, from whence he came, or what his teachings were (Haer. 58.1.1).
Likewise, Epiphanius rails against the so-called group of Origenists
(Haer. 63)—not to be confused with the followers of Origen (cf. Haer. 64)—for
their sexual misconduct.3 Once again, Epiphanius is the only extant source to
mention this group. Epiphanius is well known for his disdain for Origen, and
although he claims that he does not know the origins of this title, his appeal
to ignorance may be inauthentic. As John Dechow has argued, ‘All heresies, in
Epiphanius’ mind, are ultimately related to the mode or content of Origen’s
thought.’4
There are also questions that surround the historical legitimacy of other
sects and their titles in the Panarion, such as the Antidicomarians (Haer. 78)

1 Kim, 19.
2 εἴτε γὰρ ἔστιν ἡ τοιαύτη εἴτε μὴ ἔστι. GCS 31,2, Epiphanius II, 312.
3 Although Epiphanius claims that he is unsure of the origins of the name for this heresy, he
hints it may in fact be Origen who is known as Adamantius the Author (cf. Adv. Rufinum
1.9; Haer. 64) or some other Origen. Yet in the very next heresy in the Panarion in which
he denigrates the theological positions of the historical Origen Adamantius (Haer. 64),
Epiphanius is again not inclined to link Origen with these ‘Origenists’ of Panarion 63 outside
of Origen’s supposedly similar sexual issues (cf. Haer. 64.3.10–13). See John Dechow, Dogma
and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen. Patristic
Monograph Series 13 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), 128–135.
4 Dechow, Dogma, 13.
126 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

and the Collyridians (Haer. 79). Epiphanius readily admits that he had to come
up with his own title for the Antidicomarians (Proem I 4.8, 5.9). He portrays
this group as being guilty of wrongly believing that Mary consummated her
marriage to Joseph after the birth of Jesus (Haer. 78.1.3).5 Such a thought was
unconscionable to Epiphanius, for he held that Mary remained a virgin her
entire life, and thus he describes them as opponents (ἀντίδικος) of Mary. On the
opposite end of the spectrum lies the sect to which Epiphanius gives the title
Collyridians. He accuses them of an overzealous glorification of Mary by offer-
ing sacrifices of small loafs of bread (κολλύρις) in her name. The historical exis-
tence of this group has been called into question, particularly as ‘Epiphanius
is the only early heresiologist to name the “Collyridians”, and later references
seem to derive from him, rather than having independent worth.’6 Just as he
describes the Antidicomarians as ‘opponents’ of Mary and Collyridians is a
witty title for those who offer small loaves of bread to Mary, the Alogi (Ἄ-λογοι)
is certainly a clever pejorative that Epiphanius stamped onto those whom he
believes rejected the Johannine Logos.7
What do these examples of Epiphanius’ abstract heresies reveal about the
Panarion? In such instances, Epiphanius clearly has some information, but

5 This appears to be the view of Victorinus of Pettau, as noted by Jerome in a letter against
Helvidius (Ad. Helvidius 19). Helvidius apparently formulated his opinions based on a com-
mentary on Matthew by Victorinus. Likewise, Jerome notes that Victorinus was an imita-
tor of Origen (Ep. 61.2). See W. Weinrich (ed.), Revelation: Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture, New Testament XII (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), xxi, n. 43.
6 A. Cameron, ‘The Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Religious Development and Myth-
Making,’ in The Church and Mary. Studies in Church History 39 (Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2004), 7.
See also, Ross Shepard Kraemer, ‘Women and Gender,’ in Oxford Handbook of Early Christian
Studies, eds. Susan A. Harvey and David G. Hunter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008),
474. It is possible that such a group did exist, but even Geoffrey Ashe, who has offered his
own attempt at reconstructing the history of this sect, admits that his portrayal belongs to
the world of ‘historical fiction’. Geoffrey Ashe, The Virgin (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1976), 149–71, esp. 161. Ashe claims his reconstruction is ‘strictly functional’ (170). Some,
however, have argued that the Collyridians are a splinter group of the Montanists. ‘[W]e do
know that the Montanist movement carried in itself the seeds of what, under favorable con-
ditions, could develop into the cult that Epiphanius called the Kollyridians.’ Stephen Benko,
The Virgin Goddess: Studies in Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology. Studies in the History
of Religions LIX (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 193. Here Benko reiterates the connection already made
in Michael P. Carroll, The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins. (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1986), 45.
7 
‘Epiphanius says that he himself coined the names, ‘Alogi,’ ‘Antidicomarians,’ and
‘Collyridians,’ and he may have done the same in other cases.’ F. Williams (ed.), Panarion I,
XVIII.
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 127

given the fact that he has no direct knowledge of these groups, he is left to fill
in the blanks himself. There are three categories of information from which he
claims to have composed this heresiologue: those sects about which he learned
from careful study, those about which he has only learned through hearsay, and
those he has experienced firsthand (Proem II 2.4). F. Williams suggests adding
an additional category, ‘In some cases we should a fourth to these: ­historical
conjecture on Epiphanius’ own part.’8 Thus, in his endeavor to provide a list of
eighty heresies (cf. Proem I 1.2–3),9 Epiphanius’ number of known sects may
have fallen short of the goal. Thus, he resorted to manufacturing a few along
the way, based on his limited knowledge. Such sects are a blend of fact and
fiction, where he presents the sources available to him through the filter of his
imagination.
These creative elements are indicative of the overall mindset of Epiphanius,
which has been explored in depth by Young R. Kim. His Ph.D. dissertation,
aptly titled ‘The Imagined Worlds of Epiphanius of Salamis,’ demonstrates
that although many scholars have mined the Panarion for information about
heresies, they have overlooked what this treatise indicates about the frame of
mind and personality of the man who wrote it. His study aims to, ‘reveal how
much more complex, deep, misunderstood, and slightly demented, if not radi-
cally devoted, this man was.’10 Kim proves this by means of exploring his role
throughout the Panarion as a geographer, biographer and historian. In each of
these areas, he makes a solid case for understanding Epiphanius’ tendency to
perceive and construct a world on the basis of his own beliefs and convictions
that sometimes stood in sharp contrast to the realities of the Roman world in
which he lived.11 By understanding the complexities of Epiphanius’ view of the

8 Ibid., XIX.
9 Epiphanius promises at the beginning of the Panarion to address eighty ‘heresies’ that
correspond with the eighty concubines mentioned in Song of Songs 6:8–9.
10 Kim, 1. For more, see 1–25.
11 Ibid., 21. Kim argues, for example, the division between ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ deter-
mined his views of geography, where he draws boundaries around those regions that gave
rise to prominent heretics and those that maintained a stronger Nicene confession. For
his role as biographer, Kim highlights Epiphanius’ portrayal of the lives of Origen, Mani
and Arius, where Epiphanius suggests that their heretical status was the product of their
Greek education. This was to serve as a warning to other Christians about the dangers of
mingling faith with Greek culture; it also emphasized Epiphanius’ connection between
what Kim calls ‘Romanness’ and orthodoxy. For his imagined history, Epiphanius’ flex-
ible view of ‘heresy’ gave him the ability to make determinations about pre-Christian
‘heresies’ such as Greek philosophical schools and Jewish sects on the one hand and the
‘proto-orthodox’ Christianity that is clearly seen in the first Adam on the other.
128 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

world as seen through the Panarion, it is possible to gain a greater appreciation

how Epiphanius ‘imagined and envisioned his world.’12
It is inevitable that Epiphanius’ worldview would have great influence on
his composition of the Panarion. As a fierce defender of Nicene orthodoxy,
Epiphanius considered anything that failed to cohere to this standard as theo-
logically suspect. There was no room for grey in his black-and-white perspec-
tive. Not only is this seen in the way he conceives of history, biography, and
geography as Kim has demonstrated, it is also seen in the way he portrays the
heresies throughout the Panarion.

5.1.2 Epiphanius’ Conception of ‘Heresy’ and ‘History’

Each of the refutations of heretical sects throughout the Panarion demon-
strates that Epiphanius has a unique understanding of what it means to be
heretical. Exactly how Epiphanius conceives of ‘heresy’ has been the subject
of a number of studies,13 which suggest that his notion of what constitutes
‘heresy’ must be understood in broad and flexible terms.
It is impossible to derive a narrow definition of what Epiphanius means by
‘heresy’ based on his Panarion. He includes ‘arch-heretics’ such as Marcion and
Cerinthus in this work alongside more abstract ‘heretics’ such as the Angelics or
Adamians. Epiphanius praises other groups such as the Audians (Haer. 70) for
their piety, but nevertheless condemns them for their minor theological devia-
tions from Nicene orthodoxy. Some heresies are splinter groups from within
Christianity, while others such as non-Christian philosophies never claimed to
exist inside the bounds of true belief.14 Although Epiphanius’ notion of heresy
may be flexible, there is a common attribute to each of the sects he includes in
his Panarion: all of them are guilty in one way or another of forsaking the truth.
For Epiphanius truth and heresy were antonyms, and thus anyone that did not
demonstrate true Christian piety or hold to the faith passed down from Christ
through the apostles were heretical.15

12 Ibid., 26.
13 For more on Epiphanius’ conception of ‘heresy’ see Williams (ed.), Panarion I, xviii;
Frances M. Young, ‘Did Epiphanius know what he meant by Heresy?’ Studia Patristica
17 (1983): 199–205; Pourkier, l’Hérésiologie, 85–91; J. Rebecca Lyman, ‘The Making of a
Heretic: The Life of Origen in Epiphanius Panarion 64,’ Studia Patristica 31 (1997): 445–451;
Kim, 16ff.; and Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie dans la littératur grecque IIe–IIIe
siècles, 2 Vols. (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1985), vol. I, 18–19.
14 Young, 200.
15 Kim, 17–18.
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 129

Some have taken Epiphanius’ broad and seemingly inconsistent notions of

heresy as indicative of him simply being confused.16 D.J. Chapman claims he
was capable of any amount of ‘muddleheadeness.’17 Other epithets describe
Epiphanius as the ‘narrow-minded enemy of the heretics’18 and ‘being known
for garbled reporting.’19 Although it is true that he is prone to confusion and
that he takes certain liberties with his portrayal of some heresies, such sen-
timents that portray him primarily as a heresiological bumbler are not alto-
gether warranted. Epiphanius takes proper belief and praxis seriously, and
his two major works demonstrate his efforts to convince others to uphold the
same standards as himself. His earlier work, the Ancoratus, or ‘well-anchored
person’, is his attempt to convey the proper views of the Trinity such that, once
the reader understands it, he or she too might be ‘anchored’ in the faith. The
Panarion is Epiphanius’ soul-saving resource for believers to avoid the venom-
ous bites of the heresies.20 The pastoral attention of Epiphanius in steering
others along the path of right belief is often overshadowed by the severity of
his rhetoric, but perhaps the former ought to be used as a lens through which
to interpret the latter.
It is ‘out of extreme love’ for the servants of God that Epiphanius wrote
his Panarion (Proem II, 2.6). His primary concern in this work is, as he states,
to provide his fellow believers with a defense of the truth and true religion
(Proem I, 2.1). He admits from the beginning that there are times where his
anger over the heresies will cause him to lose his temper in the way he portrays
these sects, but in the same breath he also notes twice that this is due to his
desire to protect the reader (Proem I, 2.3–4). As bishop, Epiphanius takes his
role as the shepherd of his flock seriously, and he certainly feels the responsi-
bility for leading other believers in distant regions. However, he does not com-
pare with earlier heresiologists such as Justin, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who
overcame the heresies by means of sharp wit and superior intellect. Rather,
he conquers his enemies often by way of insult and ridicule, wrapped in layer
upon layer of scriptural justification for his views.
Thus, there are two fundamental ways to conceive of Epiphanius as a his-
torian and heresiologist. From a strictly historical perspective, his account,

16 Young, 201.
17 Chapman, 53 n. 1.
18 Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Greek Church (London: A. & C. Black Ltd.,
1963), 152.
19 William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and
History in Scholarship, VCSupp 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 39.
20 His other work, De Mensuris et Ponderibus, also exhibits well his concern for proper belief.
130 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

while valuable especially for its preservation of lost materials that he cites
throughout his work, is at times questionable due to the fact that it is rid-
dled with inaccurate reports, exaggerations and uncorroborated assertions.21
If, however, one views this account as the product of a concerned bishop who
desired to issue warnings to his fellow believers against false belief, then the
Panarion takes on a different tone. It is a complete refutation of everything
that Epiphanius deemed to be heretical, regardless of the fact that he may have
taken liberties in the way he portrays certain sects. At times, this would take
the form of abstract heresies such as the Angelics, Adamians and Valesians,
about which Epiphanius has very little if any information. He sees the potential
of such beliefs as a danger to the Christian fold, regardless of whether or not
there existed specific groups that would have defined themselves according to
the views Epiphanius links with them. Perhaps he constructed these heresies
as a strategic way of achieving his total number of sects, or maybe his limited
information was enough for him to warrant their creation and inclusion in
his Panarion. The opinions espoused by the group he calls the Alogi certainly
earned themselves a lengthy treatment in his catalogue of heresies, but this
testimony may better reflect Epiphanius’ concerns as a leader of the Christian
fold to protect the theological truth of Christianity rather than to portray the
historical truth of this sect’s existence. The absence of understanding and
accounting for Epiphanius’ methodology has left many to assume he simply
garbled facts from the accounts of his predecessors. Most notably, many have
argued that he was reliant primarily (if not solely) on the lost work(s) of his
predecessor, Hippolytus of Rome.

5.2 Dissociating Hippolytus from the Alogi

Epiphanius derives much of his information for his Panarion from a number
of earlier sources, but he has been accused of being heavily reliant upon one
of his predecessors in particular, Hippolytus of Rome. This is certainly a fre-
quent accusation of his testimony of the Alogi, such T.H. Robinson’s label of
Epiphanius as the ‘arch plagiarist’ of Hippolytus.22 Such views persist despite
the fact that no extant work of Hippolytus appears to show any knowledge
of this group.23 In fact, the evidence stacks up in favor of a very different

21 Cf. Photius, Bibl. 122.

22 Robinson, 494, referring to the work, ‘Heads against Gaius’. See the similar sentiments in
Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’ 108; Culpepper, John, 122.
23 Cf. Chaper 1.2.
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 131

c­ onclusion; the presumption of Hippolytan origins of the Alogi is unnecessary

and misguided. In contrast, the internal evidence of Epiphanius’ account of
the Alogi provides clear evidence that this heresy originated with Epiphanius
himself.

5.2.1 The Hippolytus Question

Before addressing the question of whether or not Hippolytus knew of the Alogi,
it is important to recognize that there are many ambiguities that surround this
figure and his works. That a person with this name was an important figure
in the early church is certifiable; whether or not it is possible to know with
any degree of certainty where and when he lived, which works he wrote, and
whether or not there existed multiple persons by this name who were active in
the early third century church is a matter of contention.
The traditional portrayal of Hippolytus paints him as an active member of
the church in Rome at the dawn of the third century. He is said to have been
a staunch opponent of monarchianism. He is also known for his sharp criti-
cisms against the Roman bishop Callistus (218–222 AD), which has added to
his reputation of being a schismatic church leader and the first antipope of
the Christian church in Rome. Hippolytus is also credited with a sizeable lit-
erary output, ranging from theological works to commentaries on Scripture
and polemics against heresies. Although this is the common way of calibrating
the vast array of evidence ranging from the corpus of works ascribed to him
to archaeological evidence and patristic sources, for well over a century there
have been persistent questions regarding whether or not this evidence can
actually be aggregated in such a way to paint a coherent picture of Hippolytus
of Rome.
Eusebius (HE 6.20) and Jerome (De vir. ill. 61) speak of a man by the name of
Hippolytus who presided over a church, though neither mentions where. They
also portray him as a prolific writer of various exegetical works in addition
to a polemic against the heresies. Eusebius lists seven works of Hippolytus,
five of which correspond to the list of eighteen provided by Jerome. Some of
the titles provided by Eusebius and Jerome appear to correspond to a list of
thirteen works inscribed on the plinth of a statue of Hippolytus, originally
discovered in a mutilated state, the figure being unrecognizable, though repre-
sentative of a woman. On its side is etched a paschal calendar that appears to
match Eusebius’ notice of a similar work by Hippolytus. There are other titles
listed on the back of the statue, some of which bear similarities to those of
Jerome’s list of Hippolytan works, as well other works noted in the later record
of Photius. On the basis of these correlations as well as the putative location
of its discovery, the statue was restored to resemble Hippolytus and the works
132 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

inscribed on the plinth were added to his literary legacy. However, these works,
the statue’s reconstruction, and the supposed location of its discovery are all
far from certain.
Apollinaris of Laodicea, in a fragment from his commentary on Daniel,
notes a certain ‘Hippolytus, most holy bishop of Rome’.24 About the same time,
Theodoret, in his work, the Eranistes (1.88), suggests Hippolytus was an eastern
writer, but he provides him with no specific location. He gives excerpts from
nine works of Hippolytus, none of which match the lists of Hippolytan works
of Eusebius or Jerome. In the ninth century, Photius (Bibl. 121) records that
Hippolytus was a pupil of Irenaeus, and he lists an obscure work of Hippolytus,
the Syntagma Against Thirty Two Heresies. Dionysius bar Salibi suggests the
existence of a Hippolytan work that was written against a certain Gaius, and
Ebed-Jesu lists other works that are otherwise unknown.25 The latter does
not mention his provenance, yet bar Salibi clearly refers to him as Hippolytus
Romanus. The eastern provenance of Ebed-Jesu and bar Salibi in addition to
their unique information about Hippolytus have contributed to further confu-
sion surrounding his provenance and corpus of works.
When it comes to references to Hippolytus, there is a good cache of evi-
dence; however, when attempts are made to bring this evidence into a coher-
ent portrait of the man and his works, there is plenty of room for confusion.
For example, why do the lists of Hippolytan works from various sources vary so
widely? Why is he portrayed as a protégé of Irenaeus and a Roman schismatic
antipope in some of the evidence, and an eastern writer elsewhere? Were there
two early Christian writers by the name of Hippolytus, one from Rome and
one from the east, each writing various works that were to become collected
into a singular corpus due to confusion surrounding the fact that there were
two persons with the same name? Or was there a single, itinerant Hippolytus,
either from the east or from Rome, who is responsible for the entirety of the
works that are ascribed to him?
Answers to these questions vary widely. Some argue for a singular Oriental
Hippolytus, others for a singular Roman Hippolytus, and still others for a mul-
tiplicity of Hippolyti.26 Although the issues are far from settled, ­throughout

24 See A. Mai (ed.), Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus. 10 Vols. (Rome:
Typis Vaticanis, 1825–1838), i, II, 173.
25 See Assemani, BO III.1, 15.
26 The literature on the Hippolytus Question is extensive. Major contributions include that
of Döllinger, Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bei Eusebius,
2 pts., 4 vols. (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1893–1904), i, 2, 605–46; Pierre Nautin’s argu-
ment that some works ascribed to Hippolytus actually belong to a certain Josephus as
recorded by Photius: Hippolyte et Josipe and Le dossier; the modifications of Nautin’s the-
sis and a new division of Hippolytan works by Vincenzo Loi et al., Ricerche su Ippolito
Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 13 (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum,
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 133

this work, I shall provisionally assume the traditional view of a singular,

Roman Hippolytus who was active at the beginning of the third century
and the author of all the works ascribed to him, except in those cases where
I have specific concerns over the veracity of certain claims to Hippolytan
authorship.

5.2.2 The External Evidence: The Alogi and the Question of Hippolytan
Origins
There are three primary pieces of evidence to support the hypothesis that
Hippolytus knew of the Alogi: (i) the argument of R.A. Lipsius, which sug-
gests that Epiphanius and another fourth-century Church Father, Philaster of
Brescia, used the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus as the foundation for their own
heresiological works; (ii) a statue of Hippolytus, which has etched on its plinth
a work whose title reflects concerns over the Gospel and Apocalypse of John;
and (iii) the later Syrian evidence of Dionysius bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu, who
record the putative debate between Gaius and Hippolytus, which was explored
in the previous chapter.

5.2.2.1 Lipsius and the Question of Epiphanius’ Dependence upon

Hippolytus
In 1865, Lipsius was the first to argue for the reliance of Epiphanius, Philaster
of Brescia and Ps.-Tertullian upon a common document (Grundschrift). This
shared source was presumed to be Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma Against Thirty-
Two Heresies, noted by Photius (Bibl. 121).27 Lipsius noticed parallels between
the heresiological catalogues of Epiphanius, Philaster and Ps.-Tertullian, and
surmised that all three were dependent upon Hippolytus’ Syntagma. From
these three works, he attempted to reconstruct the list of heresies that com-
prised the lost Syntagma. According to Lipsius, the work of Ps.-Tertullian,
Adversus Omnes Haereses, preserved the list and order of the lost thirty-two
heresies of the Syntagma, effectively acting as a summary of this work. His
theory is still widely accepted to this day.28

1977); Miroslav Marcovich’s introduction to the critical edition: Hippolytus Refutatio

Omnium Haeresium PTS 25 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 1–51; the argument for a
Hippolytan school by Brent, Hippolytus, esp. 368ff. and Cerrato. A worthwhile summary
may be found in Ronald E. Heine, ‘Hippolytus, Ps.-Hippolytus and the early canons,’ in
The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature. Edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres
and Andrew Louth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004): 142–51.
27 R.A. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1865), 16–32.
28 However, see the important critique of Lipsius’ theory in general by Sebastian Moll,
‘Three Against Tertullian: The Second Tradition About Marcion’s Life,’ JTS 59/1 (April,
2008), 169–80, esp. 172ff.
134 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

The many parallels between Ps.-Tertullian and Epiphanius strengthen

the argument that Epiphanius made extensive use of the Syntagma in the
Panarion, however there are difficulties in assigning the Alogi to this lost
Hippolytan work. Though it is impossible to know for certain which here-
sies were in Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma, it is telling that Ps.-Tertullian’s work
makes no mention of such a group. Thus, Lipsius maintained that since the
Alogi were not included in Ps.-Tertullian’s work it should not be a part of his
reconstructed Syntagma.29 However, Adolf von Harnack and Theodore Zahn
argued for the likelihood that Hippolytus did refute the Alogi, suggesting the
possibility that the work noted on the plinth of the statue of Hippolytus (ὑπὲρ
τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως) may have been adjoined to the
Syntagma.30 Nevertheless, Lipsius held his ground and his reconstruction of
the Syntagma includes no mention of the Alogi:31

Lipsius’ Syntagma Ps.-Tertullian Epiphanius Philaster

28) Quartodecimans *Blastus (AOH 8)32 50) Quartodecimans 58) Quartodecimans

51) Alogi 60) Heretics that do
not accept John or
Revelation
52) Adamians
29) Theodotus Theodotus (AOH 8) 53) Theodotus 50) Theodotus
Byzantius

29 Lipsius, Quellenkritik, 23–8.

30 Adolf von Harnack, Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, II (1874), 162–170, Chronologie,
227; History of Dogma. Trans. James Millar, vol. III (Oxford: Williams & Norgate, 1897),
14. See also Theodore Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons vol. I (Erlangen:
Verlag von Andreas Deichert, 1888–1890), 223 (also vol. II, 970, 977). For Lipsius’ response
to Harnack, see Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte (Leipzig, 1875), 93ff.
31 For an expanded table of the works of these authors, see Lightfoot, AF i 2, 415–18.
32 *Ps.-Tertullian refers to Blastus as a person with Quartodeciman convictions. In Pacianus’
Epistola ad Sympronian. de catholico nomine, ch. 2 a certain Blastus is described as a
Montanist in addition to being a Quartodeciman. Irenaeus is known to have written a let-
ter to Blastus (On Schism) that is no longer extant, addressing Blastus’ heretical teachings
in Rome. These may have been the impetus for his fall from the presbyterate (HE 5.20.1;
5.15). Eusebius connects Blastus with Florinus, who also fell from the same presbyterate,
however Florinus was a gnostic (HE 5.15; 5.20.1).
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 135

Although no heresy fitting the description of the Alogi is recorded by Ps.-

Tertullian, the other source in the triad of Lipsius’ reconstruction, Philaster,
does mention a similar heretical group (Div. Her. Lib. 60). The critical question
is whether Philaster derived his information from Epiphanius or another inde-
pendent source.
Epiphanius and Philaster were contemporaries, and although it is difficult to
know with certainty when Philaster composed his Diversarum Hereseon Liber,
it does appear to post-date Epiphanius’ Panarion and Ancoratus.33 Philaster
relays a similar description as that of Epiphanius’ notice of the Alogi, only in
much shorter form. He redacts the title and replaces it simply with ‘others’, a
common designation throughout this work.

Others (Alii) after these are the heretics who do not accept (non accipiunt)
the Gospel of John and his Apocalypse, and since they do not understand
the virtue of Scripture nor do they wish to learn, they persist, persistently
being lost in heresy, and also they dare to say that <the Gospel according
to John> and his Apocalypse are not of the blessed John the Evangelist
and Apostle, but Cerinthus (non beati Iohannis euangelistae et apostoli,
sed Cerinthi heretici), who at the time when he was clearly a heretic, was
thrown away from the Church by the blessed Apostle.34

If Philaster derived his information about this group from Epiphanius, as the
evidence suggests,35 it is not likely to have come from the brief notice of the
Alogi in Epiphanius’ Ancoratus because no mention of Cerinthus is made there
(Ancor. 2.13). In this case, he must have summarized the details he found in the
Panarion. This is not the only instance where Philaster mimics information
from the Panarion that is not found elsewhere. For example, the Sabellians
(Haer. 62; Div. Her. Lib. 54), Paul the Samosatian (Haer. 65; Div. Her. Lib. 64),
the Manicheans (Haer. 66; Div. Her. Lib. 61) and the Photinians (Haer. 71;

33 Philaster’s work was composed around 384 AD Lightfoot (AF, i, 2, 415) argues for a date
around 380. Epiphanius’ Panarion was begun in 374–375 AD (‘the eleventh year of the
reigns of Valentinian and Valens and the eighth of Gratian’s’; Haer. Proem II 2.3) and com-
pleted about three years later. The Ancoratus was written in 374 AD in which he outlined
the heresies that were to comprise the Panarion (Ancor. 12.7–13.8).
34 CSEL 38 (Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1898), 31–32.
35 See Klijn and Reinink, 14–18. In addition to Philaster, they also indicate other areas of
reliance on Epiphanius by Ps.-Hieronymous, Augustine and Dionysius bar Salibi. Bludau
(154ff.) also sees Philaster as dependent upon Epiphanius.
136 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

Div. Her. Lib. 65) are all sources common to Epiphanius and Philaster, but are
absent from the witness of Ps.-Tertullian and Hippolytus’ Refutatio.
A number of scholars have overlooked the fact that Lipsius did not include
the Alogi in his reconstruction of Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma. For example, at
the end of the nineteenth century, George Fisher claims that Lipsius proved
that Hippolytus was the first to speak of the Alogi.36 John Gwynn, states that
Lipsius has made it ‘practically certain’ that Epiphanius and Philaster are
indebted to the lost Syntagma for their information about this group.37 Later,
in his affirmation of Lipsius’ theory Gustave Bardy would pronounce, ‘on se
rend compte qu’Épiphane a trouvé sans doute dans le Syntagma du prêtre
romain l’essentiel de sa notice.’38 Moreover, Robert Grant asserts, ‘The whole of
Epiphanius’ fifty-first chapter against the Alogi, as has been realized since 1865,
is based on Hippolytus.’39
The fact remains, however, that there is absolutely no allusion to the Alogi
anywhere in the work of Ps.-Tertullian. Lipsius’ argument that the Alogi were
not included in the Grundschrift may therefore be correct.40 Rather, the evi-
dence suggests that Philaster’s notice of a similar group came by way of
Epiphanius, not Hippolytus. There are other scholars who agree. As Labriolle
notes, it is unlikely that Philaster knew the original heretical texts, but rather
summarized ecclesiastical sources, and thus, ‘It hardly seems open to doubt,
although this has been contested, that he had before him the Panarion of
St Epiphanius.’41 He also argued that the Syntagma was not foundational for
Epiphanius’ testimony of the Alogi either.42 For his part, August Bludau is in
total agreement: Philaster got his information from Epiphanius.43 William
Tabbernee has also noted that recent scholarship has generally concluded that

36 George P. Fisher, Some Remarks on the Alogi (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1892), 3.
37 Gwynn, 407. In light of the bar Salibi evidence, Gwynn states (408), ‘[T]he theory of Lipsius
concerning the relation between the Panarion of Epiphanius and the lost Refutation of the
Thirty-two Heresies of Hippolytus, has received independent and strong confirmation.’
38 Bardy, 371.
39 Grant, ‘Fourth Gospel,’ 108.
40 Labriolle, Sources, LXXV.
41 Pierre de Labriolle, The History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius,
trans. Herbert Wilson (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1968), 299. He also states,
‘Que conclure d’une telle lacune, sinon que dans le Syntagma, les Aloges n’avaient point
trouvé place? D’autre part, la notice de Philastre, extrêmement sèche et courte, coincide
avec les données fondamentales d’Épiphane (encore que le nom d’ «Aloges» n’y soit pa
reproduit), et il est probable que Philastre s’y inspire du Panarion.’ (Sources, LXXV)
42 Labriolle, Sources, LXXV.
43 Bludau, 154–5.
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 137

the similarities between Philaster, Epiphanius and Ps.-Tertullian cannot be

explained by a shared source. Rather, ‘The agreement between Epiphanius and
Filaster is due to Filaster’s use of Epiphanius’ treatise. Epiphanius in turn used
Pseudo-Tertullian, but Filaster appears not to have used Pseudo-Tertullian.’44
Given that the theory regarding Epiphanius’ dependence on the Syntagma
for his portrayal of the Alogi is unlikely, it is necessary to inquire into other
possible Hippolytan sources. One would naturally turn next to Hippolytus’
Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (Elenchos) as a likely possibility. Yet while there
are definite parallels that may be drawn between some of the sects in the
Panarion and the Refutatio, the latter excludes any allusion to the Alogi or any
opposition to the Gospel and Apocalypse of John.45 Thus, out of the possible
heresiological works from Hippolytus, neither the Syntagma nor the Refutatio
demonstrate that he was aware of a heretical group that matched the descrip-
tion of the Alogi. There is, however, another major piece of evidence that may
indicate Hippolytus wrote against this sect.

5.2.2.2 The Statue of Hippolytus

Is it possible that Hippolytus refuted the Alogi in his lost work, ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ
Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, listed on the back of the plinth of the
statue of Hippolytus in Rome? Scholars from Lightfoot and Robinson up to
Smith have argued that this work was indeed the ultimate source of Epiphanius’
Alogi and Dionysius bar Salibi’s commentaries.46 However, such an argument
is not as clear-cut as it may seem.
First, the argument that this work was the source of Epiphanius (and oth-
ers) presumes that the statue and its list of works are to be associated with
Hippolytus of Rome—a point that is of intense debate.47 At the heart of the
issue is the fact that the statue was originally found by Pirro Ligorio in the

44 Tabbernee, Fake Prophecy, 75.

45 See Pourkier, L’Hérésiologie, 67–8, 105. See also Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 209; Harris, 51–2.
46 Lightfoot, AF i, 2, 394–5; Robinson, 494; Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 209; Bludau, 165; and Prigent,
‘Hippolyte,’ 407–412. Labriolle argued that Epiphanius used either (or both) the
Hippolytan work Heads against Gaius, noted by the later Syrian writer Ebed-Jesu, and
Defense of the Gospel etc. in his chapter on the Alogi. (Labriolle, Sources, LXXI).
47 Pierre Nautin has argued that the works are more appropriately to be attributed to a
certain Josephus based primarily on the testimony of Photius who attributes some of
the works found on the statue to a person of this name (Bibl. 48; 121), however Nautin’s
works have not received widespread agreement. See Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe; Hippolyte,
Contre les heresies.
138 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

s­ixteenth century in a mutilated state, missing its upper part.48 Thus, it is

unclear whose image this statue originally represented. Yet the works noted on
the plinth of the statue are presumed to be original and date to the first quarter
of the third-century. Because of the location of the statue’s discovery, which is
also a matter of debate,49 and because some of the titles on the plinth of the
statue corresponded with known works of Hippolytus of Rome, it was recon-
structed accordingly and it now stands at the entrance to the Vatican Library
in Rome. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that the original statue was
actually of a female figure—possibly Themista of Lampsacus, or Hippolyta.50
Even if this work is by Hippolytus, there is reason for caution in assuming
that it was the singular source for Epiphanius’ Alogi. The traditional rendering
of the transcription of the work on the plinth of the statue reads ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ
Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, which many scholars have associated
with the title of a work of Hippolytus provided by Ebed-Jesu in his Catalogue:
ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰωάννου.51 Regarding these
two notices, Lightfoot argued, ‘From the preposition (ὑπέρ, not περί) and from
the association of the two works together, it is a safe inference that this was an
apologetic work, directed against those persons who objected to both works
alike.’52 Streeter agreed, noting that the title itself demonstrated a coordinated

48 See Brent, Hippolytus, 9–10, who records Ligorio’s own description of the location and
statue (as found in ms., Naples XIII B 7, p. 424). Here Ligorio describes the statue as being
‘in certe ruine’.
49 Ibid., 9–38; also Margherita Guarducci, ‘La ‘Statua di Sant’ Ippolito’ e la sua provenienza,’
in Nuove ricerche su Ippolito, Studia Ephemeridis Augustiniana 30 (Rome: Institutum
Patristicum Augustinianum, 1989), 61–74, who argues against the reliability of the testi-
mony of Ligorio concerning the location of his discovery.
50 The statue and the works inscribed on it is the focal point of Allen Brent’s work on
Hippolytus. For a brief summary of the issues surrounding the statue of Hippolytus, see
E. Prinzivalli, ‘Hippolytus, Statue of.’ in EEC, I, 385; Heine, ‘Hippolytus,’ 142–51. That the
statue was originally represented a female was noted by Margherita Guarducci, ‘La statua
di ‘Sant’Ippolito’ in Vaticano,’ Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia
47 (1974–75), 163–90. For the statue as Themista of Lampsacus see M. Guarducci, ‘La Statua
di « Sant’Ippolito »’ in Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 13 (1977), 17–30. For the statue
as Hippolyta, see M. Vinzent, ‘Hippolyt von Rom und seine Statue,’ in zur Zeit oder Unzeit.
Studien zur spätantiken Theologie-, Geistes- und Kunstgeschichte und ihrer Nachwirkung.
Hans Georg Thümmel zu Ehren, eds. A.M. Ritter, W. Wischmeyer, and W. Kinzig. Texts and
Studies in the History of Theology, 9. (Cambridge, 2004), 125–34.
51 Greek translation of the original Syriac title of Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue is found in Lightfoot,
AF, i, 2, 150.
52 Ibid., 394.
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 139

backlash to the Johannine literature: ‘No one defends what nobody attacks.
We must, then, infer that there were people who rejected both.’53
But as Brent points out, M. Guarducci has detected a [τ]ὰ before the ὑπὲρ.54
She was preceded in this notion long ago by H. Achelis, who indicates the
existence of the article in his list of Hippolytan works on the statue.55 I have
also examined the statue myself, and the existence of an alpha before ‘ὑπὲρ’ is
undeniable. Although a crack in the statue has destroyed the top portion of the
letter, that which remains is clearly recognizable. A very careful eye would be
able to see it in the image provided by Brent in his recent work.56 Moreover, if
one follows the left margin from the bottom of the works listed on the rear cor-
ner of the statue (over the right shoulder of the figure), there is enough room
for a tau before the alpha, but nothing more. Thus, the word ἀπολογία could
not have been a part of that original title. It is true that ὑπὲρ plus the genitive
may indicate an apologetic work, but it is not the only solution. As Brent notes,
it is also possible that the title may also be rendered more broadly as ‘matters
concerning the Gospel according to John and Apocalypse’ (i.e. [τ]ὰ ὑπὲρ τοῦ
κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως).57
Nevertheless, many remain confident that it is an apologetic work and that
Epiphanius and the bar Salibi commentaries reflect and preserve its contents.
Here again, it must be noted that the tendency to assume that this work was
a defense of the Johannine literature is predicated on its association with the
work of Hippolytus listed in the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu. It is true that the titles
bear some resemblance, yet there are major differences as well. As Brent notes,
the titles are not identical: not only does the title on the statue exclude any
indication that it was an apologetic work, the order of the Johannine works are
in reverse order from those of Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue.58 Just because Ebed-Jesu
mentions an apologetic work whose title is similar to that on the statue, it does
not necessarily follow that the title on the statue must have been an apologetic
work as well.59

53 Streeter, Four Gospels, 437.

54 Brent, Hippolytus, 172. Nautin’s list of works on the statue reflects this as well. See Nautin,
Hippolyte et Josipe, 18.
55 H. Achelis, ‘Hippolytstudien,’ TU Heft 4 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung,
1897), 4.
56 See Brent, Hippolytus, pref., plate 5—‘Plinth: Inscription of List of Literary Works’.
57 Ibid., Hippolytus, 172. See also Hill, Johannine Corpus, 184.
58 Brent, Hippolytus, 172.
59 Contrary to Achelis (‘Hippolytstudien,’ 6), who argues that the two titles are identical.
140 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

Ebed-Jesu’s Catalogue does not provide the only explanation for this work
listed on the statue. It is known from the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria,
for example, that there were questions regarding the authorship of these works
(cf. HE 7.25). Eusebius, in his comments on Papias’ testimony, suggests that
there may have been two different persons named ‘John’ who wrote these works
(HE 3.39.6). Earlier, Dionysius of Alexandria makes the same point as well
(HE 7.25). Thus, Hippolytus could have addressed the concerns over Johannine
authorship for the Gospel and Apocalypse in this work. Brent argues that it
may have addressed the Johannine dating of the Crucifixion on Passover Day,
which was a major concern for the Hippolytan community, though I find this
questionable given that this is not a prominent theme in the Apocalypse.60
Finally, there is no indication from the title on the statue that Hippolytus
wrote it as a polemic against Gaius. Just as there is no room on the statue for the
word ἀπολογία, it is also true that the title could not have read Κεφάλαια κατὰ
Γαΐου ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, as Harris s­ uggested.61
There is, in fact, no clear indication that any Hippolytan work served as the
proof-text upon which Epiphanius and others relied for all of the information
of the Alogi. Yet there is one additional argument for a connection between
Epiphanius and Hippolytus that must be explored regarding the possibility
that Hippolytus was the original source of the name Alogi.

5.2.3 The Internal Evidence: Hippolytus and the Title Alogi

In his testimony, Epiphanius claims responsibility for the title Alogi, but some
have argued that it actually came from Hippolytus. The primary argument for
this view, touted by Lightfoot, Harris and others, is a comparison of the title
Alogi with Hippolytus’ reference to the heretic Noetus as ‘ἀνόητους’ (‘unintel-
ligent’; Ref. 9.10.9). They argue that Epiphanius, in his argument against the
Noetians, likely derived this notice from Hippolytus Νοήτου ἔχων ὄνομα, ἀνόητος
ὑπάρχει καὶ οἱ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀνοητοῦντες (Haer. 57.6.4).62 Thus, if Hippolytus was

60 Brent, Hippolytus, 172. See 63–5, where Brent provides solid evidence connecting this
issue with the Gospel of John, but nothing to directly associate it with the Apocalypse.
61 Harris, 46.
62 Lightfoot originally believed that Epiphanius’ use of the Alogi was ‘avowedly his own
invention.: J.B. Lightfoot, ‘Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of Saint
John’s Gospel’ in The Fourth Gospel and Its Authorship, (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1892), 134. He would later change his mind, suggesting instead that, ‘Indeed we may sus-
pect that Epiphanius borrowed the name ἄλογοι ‘the irrational ones’ from Hippolytus;
for these jokes are very much in his way; e.g. νοητός, ἀνόητος . . .’ (cf. C. Noet. 8; Ref. 9.10).
AF, i, 2, 394. See also J.B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London: MacMillan and Co., 1893), 119.
Harris later agreed with this assessment of Lightfoot, arguing, ‘the presence of the title
Epiphanius: History and Heresy 141

clever enough to prefix an alpha before ‘Noetus’, it is likely he did the same
for ‘Logos’ (viz. a-logoi) and spoke of such a group that rejected the Gospel
and Apocalypse of John in one of his lost works. However, Hippolytus’ use of
‘ἀνόητους’ may not be as significant as many suggest.
For one thing, as Marcovich notes in the critical edition of the Refutatio, in
this passage (Ref. 9.10.9) ἀνόητους is actually transmitted as νοητοὺς in Codex
Parisinus suppl. gr. 464 f. 112r, the only full manuscript to preserve books IV–X
of the Refutatio.63 Furthermore, in other places where it would have been nat-
ural for Hippolytus to have used the term ἀνοήτους, no such instance occurs.
For example, C. Noet. 3, reads οὐκ ἤδη δέ, εἰ Νοητὸς μὴ νοῇ, παρὰ τοῦτο ἔκβλητοι αἱ
γραφαί, and C. Noet 8 reads Νοητὸς μὴ νοῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.64 If ἀνόητους is a truly
significant wordplay by Hippolytus, one would have expected to clearly see it
at least in these citations and possibly other places throughout his work Contra
Noetus, however no other such instances exist.
Furthermore, the title Alogi never appears in the extant Hippolytan corpus.
There are various instances where one finds derivations of the Greek word
beginning with ‘Alog-’, however, an examination of these occurrences dem-
onstrates that not a single one could be interpreted as similar to Epiphanius’
Alogi.65 Attributing this title to Hippolytus is perhaps forcing something to be

Alogi is probable in the book or table of heresies upon which Epiphanius is working.’
Harris, 51–2. See also Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 217–21. Nautin (Hippolyte, Contra les heresies, 69) also
noted, ‘dans ces notices du Panarion l’image d’ensemble la plus fidèle des notices corre-
spondantes du Syntagma.’
63 Marcovich, 347. So also it is found to be nohtou.j in Millerus in editione pricipe
Oxoniensi; see L. Duncker and F.G. Scneidewin, eds. S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris:
Refutationis Omnium Haeresium: Librorum Decem Quae Supersunt (Gottingae: Sumptibus
Dieterichianis, 1859), 448. Harris was aware of this transmission, but he ignores its signifi-
cance. See Harris, 51.
64 Harris, 51; also 6–8.
65 A search of ‘αλογ-’ and all the possible lexical derivations in the Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae database offers thirteen possible derivations and only twenty-two total instances
of these derivations in the extant Hippolytan writings (transliterated): (1) ‘Αλογα’ occurs
three times: Dan. 2.4; Ref. Prologue 1; Ref. 4.10. (2) ‘Αλογον’ occurs three times: Ref. 9.17,
10.5, 10.31. (3) ‘Αλογος’ occurs once in C. Noet. 10.2. (4) ‘Αλογου’ occurs once in Fragmentum
in Genesim 4.23. (5) ‘Αλογους’ occurs once in two different editions: Fragmenta in
Proverbia (Achelis) Frag. 6 line 6; Fragmenta in Proverbia (Richard) Frag. 6 section 5 line 2.
(6) ‘Αλογων’ occurs twice: Ref. 5.7, 5.16. (7) ‘Αλογως’ occurs four times: Fragmenta in
Psalmos [sp.] (Achelis) Frag. 9 line 52; Ref. 4.42, 6.21, 10.19. (8) ‘Αλογω’ occurs once: Ref.
10.33. (9) ‘Αλογιας’ occurs once: Ref. 7.36. (10) ‘Αλογια’ occurs once: Fragmenta in Psalmos
[sp.] (Achelis) Frag. 22 line 24. (11) ‘Αλογιστου’ occurs once: Ref. Prologue 1. (12) ‘Αλογιστως’
occurs once: Ref. 6.19. (13) ‘Αλογιστω’ occurs once: Ref. 10.5.
142 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

the case that simply is not. Rather, there are alternative sources that may have
influenced Epiphanius’ creation of this title. As Hill notes, one possibility may
be Dionysius of Alexandria, who refers to those who rejected the Apocalypse
as ‘unintelligible and illogical’ (ἄγνωστόν τε καὶ ἀσυλλόγιστον; HE 7.25.1). Hill
states, ‘[these] alpha-privative adjectives . . . could have given Epiphanius the
idea for his pejorative Ἄλογοι, aptly taken from John 1:1, 14.’66 Even if Hill is cor-
rect, and I suspect he is, Epiphanius is still ultimately responsible for the title
Alogi. It is a clever designation with a double entendre: the Alogi aptly repre-
sents those who are without the Logos as well as those who are without reason,
or ‘irrational ones’.
Not only is there little reason to suggest Hippolytus came up with the title
Alogi, it is also clear that the other evidence such as the statue of Hippolytus
and the Hippolytan corpus of works—both extant and lost—does not warrant
the conclusion that Epiphanius relied solely upon Hippolytus for his account
of the Alogi. An examination of the internal evidence of Epiphanius’ testimony
as well as careful look at the broader context in which Epiphanius places the
Alogi will provide further clarity as to whether or not this heresy, both in name
and in substance, was his own construction.

Summary

Epiphanius’ background and theology influenced his view of heresy as any real
or imaginary threat to Nicene orthodoxy. Thus, various sects in the Panarion
including the Alogi reflect Epiphanius’ creative historicizing. Although the
Panarion is often criticized for its lack of historical precision, some schol-
ars have recently suggested that it offers a window into the way Epiphanius
manipulated and constructed his own concept of heresy in order to estab-
lish an ‘orthodox’ way of seeing the world. One underappreciated aspect of
this is the number of ‘abstract heresies’ in the Panarion, which are essentially
straw-man sects that he manufactured in order to present and refute errone-
ous beliefs that were not necessarily the official tenets of a specific person or
organized group. By his own admission, he had to provide his own titles for cer-
tain ‘abstract heresies’ such as the Antidicomarians and the Alogi. Elsewhere
he admits to knowing nothing about the Angelics other than their name; yet
this does not prevent him from presenting and refuting what he presumes to
have been their beliefs. Thus, rather than inheriting the information on these
and other abstract sects from Hippolytus or another predecessor, Epiphanius
based these accounts on a blend of hearsay or scanty source information and
historical conjecture.

66 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 187.

 CHAPTER 6

Epiphanius’ Alogi in Context

Epiphanius’ unique perspective on history and heresy is evident throughout

his account of the Alogi. His presentation is erratic, complex, and broadly con-
ceived. His attention to detail and his compulsion to maintain orthodoxy at
all costs can become so overwhelming both to himself (and the reader) that
any attempt at providing a clear flow of thought can quickly erode into ram-
bling. And yet amidst the chaos there is a discernible strategy that he employs
throughout this account. By outlining his account of the Alogi and establish-
ing the contexts behind his comments, one can detect that this testimony is a
well-intentioned, imaginative, and somewhat misguided attempt at a sweep-
ing defense of the four-fold Gospel canon.

6.1 Outline of the Account of the Alogi

The form and content of this account demonstrate that Epiphanius alone is
responsible for the creation of this heresy. There are four major sections to
the literary structure of his record of the Alogi. He opens his discussion with
a general introduction (Haer. 51.1.1–51.2.5), followed by a lengthy treatment of
the arguments of the Alogi against the Gospel of John (Haer. 51.3.1–51.31.11),
which dominates his description of this sect.1 A very brief discussion of the
arguments against the Apocalypse comprises the third section (Haer. 51.32.1–
51.34.8), followed by Epiphanius’ concluding remarks (Haer. 51.35.1–4).

6.1.1 The Introduction

Throughout his testimony there are various indications that Epiphanius took
certain creative liberties with this heresy. This is seen clearly in his introduction:

Therefore these Alogi (Ἄλογοι)—for this is the name I am giving to them.

From now on, they shall be so called, beloved. We shall call them this
name, these Alogi, for they held to the heresy for which [that] name <was
worthy>: they rejected the books of John. Since they do not accept the
Word, which John has preached, they will be called Alogi. Being absolute

1 Approximately ten times the amount of discussion is devoted to the Gospel of John as com-
pared to that of the Apocalypse.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_008

144 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

strangers to the message of truth, they deny the purity of the message
and accept neither the Gospel of John nor the Apocalypse. And if they
accepted the Gospel, but rejected the Apocalypse, we would say they
are doing it on account of precision—not accepting an ‘apocryphon’
because of the deep and dark sayings in the Apocalypse. But when they
do not receive the books which are preached from Saint John, it is clear
to everyone that they and those like them are those concerning whom
Saint John said in his general epistles, ‘It is the last hour, and you heard
that the Antichrist is coming and now behold there are many Antichrists’
(I Jn. 2:16) . . . For they say that these works are not from John but Cerinthus
and are not worthy to be affirmed in the Church (Haer. 51.3.1–6).2
And it can be shown from this hostility that, ‘They neither understand
what they are saying nor what they maintain strongly’ (I Tim. 1:7). For how
can the words against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus? Cerinthus says that
Christ is ‘recent’ and only a man, but John has proclaimed that [Christ]
is the eternal Word who has come from on high and been made flesh.
Therefore their frivolous attack has been put to shame as a false accu-
sation and unaware from where it is refuted. For they appear to believe
as we do, but not holding to the certainties that are from God revealed
to us through Saint John, they will be convicted of shouting against the
truth about things that they do not know. They will be known to them,
if they return to sobriety of mind and knowingly understand; for we are
not rejecting the teachings of the Holy Spirit, which are important and
authoritative (Haer. 51.4.1–4).3

This introduction points to the fact that Epiphanius is creating a heretical

group that is otherwise unknown.4 This is seen not only in the fact that he

2 G CS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 250–1.

3 G CS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 251.
4 In addition to these direct mentions of the name Alogi in the introduction, there are two
other references to the Alogi in this chapter of the Panarion, located in the middle and lat-
ter portions. In Haer. 51.17.10, Epiphanius asks rhetorically, ‘What are they thinking—those
who have deceived their own mind and vomited this heresy on the world that refuses the
Gospel according to John? I was right to call their heresy ‘Alogi’ because they will not accept
the divine Word who came from on high—the Word which John has preached.’ Again,
Epiphanius says in Haer. 51.28.4, ‘And those who have rejected the Gospel according to John
have been put to shame. I am right to call them Alogi since they throw away the Word of
God—the Word of the Father that was preached by John, which has come down from heaven
and accomplished our salvation [through] his advent in the flesh.’ Another reference is found
in Epiphanius’ earlier work, the Ancoratus: ‘The Alogi, who do not accept the Gospel and the
Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 145

repeatedly claims responsibility for this group’s title, it is also corroborated

by the fact that there is not a single mention of the Alogi by any other early
Church Father prior to Epiphanius. Thus, when it is said, ‘Recent scholarship
has therefore dismissed the Alogoi from the stage of history [because we] have
no evidence of such a group,’5 it is clear that there is at least some recognition
of the problem of corroborating Epiphanius’ testimony with those who came
before him.

6.1.2 The First Objection to the Gospel of John

After the introduction, Epiphanius spends a great deal of time presenting
and rebutting the first objection of the Alogi (51.4.5–21.32). At first glance,
Epiphanius’ defense seems counterintuitive, for he launches into a lengthy
discussion about the fact that the gospels do in fact differ in their beginnings.
Beginning with Matthew’s gospel, Epiphanius preserves and expands the
Papian tradition about the origins of the gospels. Yet he notes that God had
given individual assignments to each of the Gospel writers to correct errors that
arose from the mishandling of the gospel(s) that had gone before (51.6.2–7).
So, Matthew’s gospel produced some errant theological perspectives from the
likes of Cerinthus, Ebion, Merinthus, Cleobius, and others (51.6.7) that were
then corrected by the Spirit in calling Mark to write the gospel spoken by Peter.
Mark (or Peter) felt no need to rehash the words of Matthew about the genera-
tions of Christ, which led still other ‘stupid people’ to find fault with this gos-
pel text (51.6.14, 7.1). Once again, then, the Spirit guides Luke to write another
gospel to set things straight (51.7.1–12.1). Yet even here there arose some mis-
guided arguments by Porphyry, Celsus, and others that Luke’s gospel is unreli-
able (51.8.1–4).
At each point Epiphanius goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the
gospels are precise and coherent (51.10.3, 10.6, 15.3, 17.13, 21.14, et al.). They
may indeed appear to contradict one another, but that is merely the opinion
of those who are too ignorant to see the Spirit’s work in issuing Gospels that
complement one another without the need to reiterate all that had been said
before.

Revelation of John’ (Ancor. 2.13). There are three additional, albeit rather benign appear-
ances of the title Alogi in the Panarion: one where Epiphanius introduces the Theodotians
as an ‘offshoot of the heresy of the Alogi ’ (Haer. 54.1.1), one in Proem I (4.5; 5.6), and one
further reference in the fourth Anacephalaeosis, where Epiphanius again takes credit for this
­epithet. There is some question of the authenticity of the Anacephalaeoses in the Panarion.
For more on this see F. Williams (trans.), Panarion I, 16–17 and Kim, 16–17.
5 Culpepper, John, 122.
146 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

Epiphanius thus makes a lengthy argument for the compatibility and divine
inspiration of all four gospels whilst the first objection remains unanswered.
It is not until 51.12.6–17.3 that Epiphanius provides a proof for the fact that
John’s chronology does permit ample time for the temptation. The reader then
finds himself puzzled at the fact that Epiphanius then elaborates on the Alogi’s
first objection by adding the detail that these heretics also declared this Gospel
‘non-canonical’ (ἀδιάθετον, 51.17.10–18.1, 6). Puzzlement quickly turns to fatigue
as Epiphanius, unlike the gospels, reiterates and develops all that had been
said before, relating to gospel coherence (51.18.2–21.32).

6.1.3 The Second Objection to the Gospel of John

By the time Epiphanius arrives at the second objection of the Alogi he is over
two-thirds of the way through what would be his entire account of this heresy.
At 51.22.1–2 one reads of the Alogi’s charge that John’s Gospel mentions two
Passovers that Jesus kept over the course of two years but the Synoptics only
mention one. To disprove this assertion Epiphanius traces the life of Christ
from the date of His birth in the forty-second year of the Roman Emperor
Augustus (51.22.3, 19). The arrival time of the Magi is included (51.22.17) as is
a list of thirty consulships to show that Christ was thirty years old when He
began His ministry (51.22.1–30).
Having significantly veered off course, Epiphanius then finds himself going
even further by taking the evidence he has mounted thus far as an opportu-
nity to disprove the Valentinians’ claim that their number of Aeons (30) was
the same as the age of Christ when He died (51.23.3–28.1). As I shall argue
later,6 Epiphanius takes this opportunity to gently correct the earlier views of
Irenaeus (AH 2.22.3) as well. After establishing his chronological pre-eminence
over the Valentinians and Alogi, Epiphanius proceeds twice over to retrace the
timeline of Jesus’ life from the moment of birth through the temptation, trip
to Capernaum, and wedding at Cana (51.24.1–27.6, 29.2–31.10). All of this was
done to make his point that the Gospels do not contain one or two Passovers,
but three (51.23.6).

6.1.4 The Objections to the Apocalypse

Epiphanius spends very little time on the objections to John’s Apocalypse.
The first appears at 51.32.1–3 and is swiftly decimated by the time the reader
reaches 51.32.10. The same is true for the second and third objections to the
Apocalypse and Epiphanius’ responses (51.33.1–10, 34.1–8).

6 See Chapter 7.2–3.

Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 147

6.1.5 The Conclusion

Epiphanius concludes his account of the Alogi with the charge that this group
has not received the Holy Spirit’s words spoken through the Apostle John. As
such, they are condemned for having committed the unforgivable sin (Mt. 12:32;
Haer. 51.35.3). As with the conclusion to every other heretical entry, Epiphanius
then proudly proclaims to have trampled this pesky little heresy.
This brief survey of Epiphanius’ account demonstrates the complicated
and, at times, incoherent nature of this sect. For many scholars, this is just
another piece of evidence to demonstrate the erratic nature of Epiphanius’
writing. This may be true in part, but one can also see within the complexity
of this account the broader, multilateral attack Epiphanius is engaging against
all who would detract from the divine integrity and coherence of the four-fold
Gospel. A closer look at the broader context in which Epiphanius conceives of
the Alogi will make this clear.

6.2 The Broader Context of the Alogi

In order to fully understand Epiphanius’ record of the Alogi it is necessary to

consider the historical context from which these objections arose. Given the
chronology of Panarion, Epiphanius places this group around the end of the
second century or the beginning of the third, a particularly fertile time for vari-
ous heterodox theologies and orthodox counter-polemics. As such, scholarly
estimations have suggested that the Alogi emerged as a renegade orthodox
group that rejected the Johannine literature in an attempt to eradicate a cer-
tain form of heresy, most notably either Montanism or Gnosticism (or both).
However, Epiphanius provides no clear indication that the Alogi were engaged
in a theological or textual battle with either of these ‘heresies’. Although it is
true that Epiphanius’ primary accusation against the Alogi is their rejection of
the Johannine literature, a careful reading of this testimony suggests that his
concerns are much broader.

6.2.1 The Problem of Four Gospels

Epiphanius devotes more than ninety per cent of his testimony of the Alogi
to the issue of the compatibility of the Gospels. His chronological placement
of the Alogi fits squarely within the second-century church’s efforts to make
sense of the fact that there were four different written Gospel accounts of the
life and ministry of Jesus. The problem of this aporia is evident in a number of
ways. For one thing, the mere fact that there exist four different Gospel accounts
does not in itself point to the credibility of a singular Gospel m ­ essage. Is one
148 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

Gospel more authoritative than the others? Further complicating matters is

the fact that the collective biographical accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry in
these four Gospels are at times varying in the presentation of content or chro-
nology. This raises further questions of reliability: which Gospel preserves the
most authentic account? The variances between the Gospels are particularly
evident when one juxtaposes the broadly similar chronology of the Synoptics
Gospel with the different framework of John. The differences in the contours
of the Synoptics are far less pronounced than the apparent discrepancies that
are found when the Fourth Gospel is added to the mix. And here is where one
finds the familiar territory of the objections to the Gospel of John not only by
the Alogi, but also for many others in the second-century.
The type of objections espoused by the Alogi was in no way new to the his-
tory of the early church at the time that Epiphanius penned his Panarion.
Various critics highlighted the differences between the gospels in order to call
their reliability into question. Moreover, Epiphanius’ response in which he
appeals for the necessity of a four-fold Gospel canon is far from groundbreak-
ing. Various responses to gospel criticisms had been proffered by numerous
Church Fathers prior to Epiphanius. The entire account of the Alogi and their
criticisms of the Gospel of John are emblematic of a period of time from the
second century onward in which the four-fold Gospel was indeed an issue rec-
ognized by those within and outside the Church. Although the scope of the
Alogi’s official objections is limited to the Gospel of John, it is important not
to miss the fact that Epiphanius makes it clear that his response to these criti-
cisms is nothing less than his own apology for the necessity of the four-fold
Gospel canon—a defence that originates over two centuries earlier.
Beginning in the second century, the four-fold Gospel was met with ques-
tions, criticism and ridicule from opponents of Christianity; it was also an area
of concern within the church. What emerged at first as criticisms against the
plurality and discrepancies of the Synoptic Gospels was eventually broadened
to include attacks on the very divergent portrayal of the life of Jesus recorded
in the Johannine Gospel in comparison to that of the Synoptics. In addition
to the criticisms of the Alogi against John’s Gospel, Epiphanius records and
responds to other objections to all four gospels from various groups; and he
devotes a substantial amount of his testimony to refuting them. These views
are on par with those of the Alogi, and it is interesting that Epiphanius does
not draw a strong distinction between other critics of the gospels and the
Alogi. In particular, Epiphanius goes to great lengths to refute the criticisms
of Cerinthus and the Ebionites. He also refutes the objection from three other
Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 149

critics, Porphyry, Celsus and Philosabbatius. In doing so, he is accomplishing

his main task of offering a broad defense of the four-fold Gospel canon.

6.3 Epiphanius’ Alogi: A Sweeping Defense of the Four-fold Gospel

6.3.1 Cerinthus and the Ebionites

There were some who rejected the four-fold Gospel by means of only recog-
nizing one gospel, which was then used to support a wayward theology. One
such category of people to which Epiphanius often refers in his discussion of
the Alogi is that comprised of Cerinthus and the Ebionites, who chose only
to accept the gospel of Matthew (Haer. 30.3.7; cf. AH 1.26.2, 3.11.7; HE 3.27.4).
According to Irenaeus (AH 1.26.2), both Cerinthus and the Ebionites denied the
virgin birth, arguing that Jesus was the product of natural generation of Mary
and Joseph. Jesus was therefore fleshly and capable of suffering, but he was
endowed with the spiritual ‘Christ’ that descended upon him at his baptism in
the form of a dove. Because of its impassibility, this spiritual ‘Christ’ departed
from Jesus just prior to his Passion, leaving the fleshly Jesus to suffer on
the cross.
Epiphanius has plenty to say against these groups. References and rebuttals
to the adoptionistic perspective of Cerinthus and the Ebionites are found in
the introduction to the Alogi (Haer. 51.2.3–4, 51.4.1–2), in his discussions of the
Gospel of Matthew (Haer. 51.6.6–9), Mark (Haer. 51.6.12–14), and Luke (Haer.
51.7.2–5, 51.10.4–51.11.3, 51.20.4). Moreover, in his discussion of the baptism
and temptation of Jesus, Epiphanius clearly singles out those who hold to this
adoptionistic christology. He appeals to Lk. 2:49 in order to refute ‘the word of
those who say that he became the Son of God at the time of his baptism, when
the dove—which they say is Christ—came upon him’ (Haer. 51.20.5).
According to Epiphanius, the theological errors of Cerinthus and the
Ebionites persisted even though the Synoptic Gospels did not preach such a
position (Haer. 51.11.5–12.1), so the Holy Spirit compelled John to write his gospel
to correct their Christological views (Haer. 51.12.2–8, 51.19.3–5, 51.20.3; cf. 51.2.3–
4; 51.4.1). Although Haer. 51 is technically a refutation of the Alogi, throughout
his testimony Epiphanius is constantly engaged in refuting Cerinthus and the
Ebionites. Why does he constantly refer back to these groups? Is Epiphanius
simply losing track of the issue at hand—something he is known to do—or
does this point to the fact that the scope of the identity of the Alogi is broader
than originally thought? To clarify this, we turn to another example.
150 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

6.3.2 Celsus, Porphyry and Philosabbatius

In addition to his ongoing refutation of Cerinthus and the Ebionites, Epiphanius
dedicates a portion of his account of the Alogi to another group of critics. He
states that the Greek philosophers Porphyry, Celsus and Philosabbatius tried
to refute the gospels because they did not understand the gospel message as
it was given through the Holy Spirit (Haer. 51.8.1). The premise of these objec-
tors, as with the Alogi, is that the gospels are untrustworthy because of the
contradictions that exist between them.7 This is how Epiphanius relays their
criticism:

And so some other Greek philosophers, I mean Porphyry and Celsus and
Philosabbatius, who is a dreadful, deceitful snake from the Jews, accuse
the facts of the gospels through the overthrow of the holy apostles; being
natural and fleshly, leading their war according to the flesh and, being
powerless, they cannot please God; and they have not understood that
which is <said> by the Spirit.
For each <of them>, striking against the words of the truth because of
the blindness of their ignorance, in their attacks on this say: “How is it pos-
sible that the day of his birth in Bethlehem has a circumcision eight days
later, and forty days after a journey to Jerusalem and the things Simon
and Anna did for him, when on the night he was born it says an angel
appeared to him, after the magi had come to worship him and opened
the bags and offered him gifts? As it says, ‘An angel appeared to him say-
ing, “Get up, take your wife and the child, and go to Egypt, because Herod
is looking for the life of the child.”’ (Mt. 2:13) If he was taken to Egypt on
the night he was born, and was there until Herod died, how is it possible
that he remained [in Bethlehem] for eight days and be circumcised? Or
how is it possible after forty days,8 as it is found in Luke, who is lying?”
They say this blasphemously against each of their own heads, because he
says, “On the fortieth day they brought him to Jerusalem and <returned>
into Nazareth.” (cf. Lk. 2:22, 39; Haer. 51.8.1–4).9

7 On the subject of Gospel contradictions in the early church, see esp. the works of H. Merkel,
Widersprüche Zwischen Den Evangelien: Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der
Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin, WUNT 13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971); and Die Pluralität der
Evangelien: als theologisches und exegetisches Problem in der Alten Kirche. Traditio Christiana
III (Bern: Peter Lang, 1978).
8 Clearly implying Luke’s account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem.
9 G SC 31,2 Epiphanius II, 258.
Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 151

Allen Brent has suggested that Porphyry, Celsus and Philosabbatius are
the only named members of the Alogi.10 He is partially correct; Epiphanius
includes them as members of the Alogi, and yet there are certainly others that
he includes as well, not as a heretical fraternity that actually existed but as
examples of bad theology and wrong approaches to scripture.
It is interesting that Celsus and Porphyry were not contemporaries11 and
that the objection Epiphanius attributes to these critics has nothing to do with
the Johannine literature, yet Epiphanius still includes them in his account of
the Alogi. If the Alogi were an historical group that opposed the Johannine
literature, why would Epiphanius include these figures that were active in dif-
ferent centuries and whose criticism has nothing to with either the Gospel
or Apocalypse of John? It is because the scope of Epiphanius’ Alogi is much
broader than merely those who willingly criticized the Johannine corpus.
Celsus was a philosopher and outspoken critic of Christianity and the earli-
est opponent whose work has survived (at least in part). Fragments of Celsus’
The True Doctrine (ἀληθὴς λόγος), written between 177–180,12 are preserved in
the counter polemic of Origen’s Contra Celsum, written some seventy years
­later.13 It is apparent from Celsus’ attacks that he is familiar with the Gospels
and finds their lack of overall coherence to be a major strike against the valid-
ity of Christianity. For Celsus, Christianity was a threat to the Hellenistic reli-
gious culture and the ‘ancient tradition’ to which he adhered. Among other
scurrilous accusations, he also argued that it was an unfounded secret society
that represented a real threat to the Roman Empire.
Celsus’ arguments against Jesus as a divine figure and Christianity in general
are articulated through a fictitious Jewish character he employs as his spokes-
person (C. Cels. Pref. 6; 1.28).14 For Celsus the truth of Jesus is not that which
is portrayed in the Gospels, for their stories are inventions (C. Cels. 2.13, 26).
Origen records a specific objection to the Gospels in this way: ‘After this he

10 ‘He (Epiphanius) does not name any of the Ἄλογοι, with the exception of Porphyry,
Celsus, and Philosabbatius, who are rightly described as τινες ἄλλοι ἐξ Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφων
who criticised all the Gospels.’ Brent, Hippolytus, 143.
11 Philosabbatius is unknown apart from this notice of Epiphanius.
12 For this date I follow the analysis of H. Chadwick (ed., trans.) Contra Celsum (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965), xxviii. Merkel (Widersprüche, 9) suggests a date around
178 AD. Hengel (Johannine Question, 6) thinks it could date as early as 160.
13 Cf. Chadwick, Contra Celsum, xiv–xv; Merkel, Widersprüche, 9.
14 Celsus’ presentation of a Jewish mouthpiece for his criticisms may be in response to
Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. Some have pointed to the fact that Celsus’ True Doctrine
may be in response to Justin’s doctrine of the Logos. See D. Rokéah, Justin Martyr and the
Jews (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 5, n. 11.
152 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

(Celsus, or his Jew) says that some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go
so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or
four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny
difficulties in face of criticism’ (C. Cels. 2.27).15
The exact meaning of Celsus’ charge here is unclear. Origen’s rebuttal to this
criticism indicates that he believed Celsus to be referring to the alterations
of the Gospel by the Marcionites, Valentinians and the followers of Lucan. As
Chadwick notes, Origen may have been correct, but he also leaves the door
open for what many have considered to be a reference to the canonical four.16
If Celsus did intend the four Gospels as a number of scholars have suggested,17
his criticism would indicate he believed there to be one original Gospel upon
which the four derived their information. One could also infer that one of the
four was the Gospel of John because of a number of references in his work
point to the fact that he knows the Fourth Gospel, suggesting that it may have
already been in a place of authority in the early church at the time of Celsus’
critique.18
A century after the True Doctrine, Celsus’ criticisms against Christianity
and its textual foundations had become the platform of a voluminous work by
Porphyry of Tyre, Against the Christians (κατὰ Χριστιανῶν). Due to the fact that
his fifteen books were burned by order of Theodosius II and Valentinian III,
the extant material survives only in a fragmentary nature from quotations
extracted from later sources.19 The common view of the date of this work places

15 Translation from Chadwick (ed., trans.) Contra Celsum, 90.

16 Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 90, n. 2. He also provides the parenthetical notice that ‘(it is just
conceivable that the phrase shows knowledge of those who rejected St John).’ Cf. Merkel,
Widersprüche, 11.
17 See Hengel, Four Gospels, 22–3; Hill, Johannine Corpus, 310; Stanton, ‘Fourfold Gospel,’ 325;
Tj. Baarda, ‘Διαφωνία—Συμφωνία, Factors in the Harmonization of the Gospels Especially
in the Diatessaron of Tatian,’ in Essays on the Diatessaron (Kampen, The Netherlands:
Pharos, 1994), originally published in W.L. Petersen (Ed.), Gospel Traditions in the Second
Century: Origins, Recensions, Text and Transmission (South Bend, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1989), 133–54; R.M. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1961),
59–60; N. Perrin ‘The Diatessaron and the Second-Century Reception of the Gospel of
John,’ in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. Tuomas
Rasimus SNT 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 315.
18 On this see Hill, Johannine Corpus, 309–11; Hengel, Johannine Question, 6, n. 23.
19 The lion’s share of our textual information of Porphyry’s work comes from Jerome and
Macarius. For a brief account of the compilations of these fragments, see T.D. Barnes,
‘Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments,’ JTS ns. 24
(1973), 424–30; A.B. Hulen, Porphyry’s Work Against the Christians: An Interpretation,
Yale Studies in Religion 1 (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Press, 1933); Merkel, Widersprüche,
Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 153

it around 270 AD, although Timothy Barnes has pointed out that this dating
relies on a ‘fragile chain of deduction’, and the work more properly belongs
around the early years of the fourth century.20 In either case it would not be
long before Porphyry’s work prompted a swift response by various ecclesiasti-
cal Fathers.
Jerome records that the attacks of Porphyry were met with a sustained
counterattack by Methodius, Eusebius and Apollinaris. Methodius wrote a
response of around ten thousand lines—a meagre rebuttal when compared to
Eusebius’ twenty five books ‘Against Porphyry’ and Apollinaris’ thirty (Ep. 70.3
Ad Magnum). Porphyry was certainly the beneficiary of the work of Celsus,
who noted apparent contradictions between the beginnings of the Gospels.
Yet Porphyry shows a greater meticulousness in respect to his criticisms of
Christian Scripture regarding the contradictions and discrepancies he sees in
Christian literature. Many of his surviving arguments have a more religious
than philosophical or political emphasis.21 Nevertheless, a common thread
of both these critics was their attempt to discredit Christian texts such as the
Gospels in order to nullify the validity of the Christian faith.
The only extant information of the Jewish critic Philosabbatius is recorded
here by Epiphanius. No other extant writing appears to mention such a figure.
Nevertheless, Epiphanius includes him along with Celsus and Porphyry as one
who shared in a common criticism against the Gospels.
Because of the absence of original works by these critics, it is difficult to
know for certain what constituted Epiphanius’ source(s) of this criticism. It
is possible that Epiphanius may only have had access to one final work by
Porphyry in which Celsus and Philosabbatius are also associated with this
criticism, or he could have connected the dots to align these three with this
particular criticism from any number of sources—particularly if he had the
numerous ecclesiastical rebuttals of these critics at his disposal.22 However,
I shall argue later that Eusebius’ work, Gospel Questions and Answers, is the

13–18. Harnack includes this criticism recorded by Epiphanius as Fragment 15 in his cata-
logue of Porphyry’s fragments. A. von Harnack, Porphyrius ‘Gegen die Christen’ 15 Bucher:
Zeugnisse, Fragmente, und Referate, Abhandlungen der königlichen preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, phil-hist. Klasse (Berlin, 1916), 49.
20 Barnes, ‘Porphyry,’ 424–442.
21 See J.W. Hargis, Against the Christians: The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic, Patristic
Studies Vol. 1 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 67ff.
22 Cf. John G. Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism,
Studien und Texte zu Antike Christentum 3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 137–8.
154 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

ultimate source of Epiphanius’ information, not an independent work by one

of these critics.23

6.3.3 The Valentinians

Epiphanius also devotes a sizeable portion of his account of the Alogi to the
refutation of the Valentinian Gnostics (Haer. 51.23.1–28.3). He notes that they
believed that Jesus lived for thirty years, which they then used to support
their belief in thirty divine Aeons, or first principles. In response to this error,
Epiphanius meticulously goes through the list of consulships in order to prove
that Jesus actually suffered death in his thirty-third year in order to disprove
their erroneous account (Haer. 51.22.24–23.2). However, as with the criticism
of Porphyry, Celsus and Philosabbatius, this excursus has no direct relevance
to the criticisms of the Alogi.
He does not accuse the Valentinians of criticizing the four Gospels, nor does
he insinuate that the Alogi had anything to do with this Gnostic group. Rather,
in his attempt to rebut the second objection of the Alogi concerning the num-
ber of Passovers Jesus observed during his ministry, Epiphanius launches into a
long exposition on the chronology of the life of Christ (Haer. 51.22.1–30), begin-
ning with the year of his birth and concluding with the year of his death. By
the time he reaches the end of this chronological study he has shifted his focus
from a refutation of the criticisms of the Alogi against the Gospel of John to his
dismissal of the views of the Valentinians (cf. Haer. 51.28.3–4).
Although he does not explicitly accuse the Valentinians of criticizing the
compatibility of the Gospels, it is clear that Epiphanius finds them guilty of
this charge. He states that if they had paid attention to the Gospel of Luke
(3:23), when it states that Jesus began his ministry when he was about to be
thirty years old, then they would have known that their views were wrong
(Haer. 51.24.6). They also failed to understand what was meant by the ‘accept-
able year of the Lord’. If they had read the other Gospels (esp. Lk. 4:18–19), they
would have known it was not the last year of Jesus’ life, but rather ‘a year with-
out opposition’ at the beginning of his ministry (Haer. 51.25.1, 51.27.4, 51.28.2).
Thus, although there is no direct connection between the Valentinians and the
Alogi, Epiphanius includes this argument because they too are guilty of not
understanding and appropriating the authority of all four Gospels.

6.3.4 Other Criticisms of the Gospels

There were, of course, other critics of early Christianity that employed much
the same form of criticism as those noted by Epiphanius. Although Epiphanius

23 Cf. Chapter 9.4.

Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 155

does not mention these other critics in his account of the Alogi, they are nev-
ertheless part of the historical context that demonstrates the broad concerns
over the four-fold Gospel in the lead-up to the Panarion. For example, in the
Dialogue of Adamantius 1.7 one can find criticisms put forward by the later
Marcionites that the Gospels are far from harmonious. In Epiphanius’ own day,
Julian the Apostate, the last Roman emperor of the Constantinian dynasty in
the fourth century, was well known for his own condemnation of Christianity
by means of pointing out in particular the chronological discrepancies of the
Gospels.24 Similar arguments come from Hierocles of Bithynia in the early
fourth century (Eusebius, Contra Hieroclem).25 Thus, the issues surrounding
the four Gospels that originated in the second-century continued well into the
time of Epiphanius and after.
Indeed, one can see throughout various testimonies of the early Fathers that
the problem of the one Gospel message articulated in four separate Gospels,
which differ at various points in content and form, was a self-evident issue that
required attention. And although Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi is billed as
his response to criticisms against the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse, the
majority of his comments reflect his broader concerns regarding the compat-
ibility and integrity of the four-fold Gospel. His aim, therefore, is not only to
defend the Gospel of John, but the entire Gospel canon.

6.3.5 Attempts at a Solution to the Problem of Gospel Incompatibility and

the ‘Orthodox’ Response
There were, in effect, three methods of responding to the issues surround-
ing the various difficulties of a four-fold Gospel.26 First there were attempts
to reduce the number of Gospels. For example, Marcion opted for only one
­gospel—abandoning all but a redacted, Paulinized form of Luke. Despite the
swift denunciation by the early Church Fathers against Marcion and his gospel,
it did not eradicate the desire for a singular gospel text. It merely took a differ-
ent tack, from radical reduction to synthesis.
Here one finds Tatian, who created his Diatessaron (διὰ τεσσάρων; HE 4.29.6;
Haer. 46.1.8–9) as a singular harmony of the four. One can only speculate as to
his motivation. Perhaps it was a reaction to Marcion’s gospel,27 or in response

24 Cf. Merkel, Widersprüche, 19–23.

25 Ibid., 18–19. See also T.D. Barnes, ‘Sossianus Hierocles and the Antecedents of the “Great
Persecution”,’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80 (1976): 239–52. Barnes follows
Harnack in dating this work some time before 303 AD.
26 Cf. Campenhausen, Formation, 170–1.
27 Ibid., 175; cf. Perrin, ‘Diatessaron,’ 311.
156 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

to the apparent discrepancies between the four.28 Perhaps it was intended for
liturgical purposes.29 Some have argued that Justin Martyr, at one time Tatian’s
mentor, probably paved the way for Tatian’s work with his own harmonized
version of at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke (and probably John).30 Provided
this is true, either Tatian used Justin’s harmony, or it is possible that both were
reliant on the same, earlier, harmonized gospel form.31
Subsequent to Tatian’s work there were other attempts at Gospel harmoni-
zation. We know from Jerome (Ep. ad Algasiam 121.6) that Theophilus ‘joined

28 Baarda, Διαφωνία, 25.

29 The Diatessaron was certainly used for liturgical purposes in the East in the fourth cen-
tury where the Doctrine of Addai notes that Christians assembled to read the Old and
New Testaments and the Diatessaron. See G. Phillips (ed.), The Doctrine of Addai the
Apostle (London: Trübner and Co., 1876), fol. 23a, 34, cited in Carmel McCarthy (ed.), Saint
Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty
Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 5–6.
30 E.g. H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early
Christianity Vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 342–3, though Koester excludes
the Gospel of John in Justin’s harmony; Campenhausen, Formation, 174; Petersen, 27–9;
cf. J.R. Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Preliminary Study (London: C.J. Clay and Sons,
1890), 54; Hengel, Four Gospels, 20. Whether or not Justin knew the Gospel of John and
employed it is the subject of much scrutiny. Regarding the question of why no clear cita-
tions of the Fourth Gospel are found in Justin’s writings, Hillmer (70–80) argued, ‘The
best explanation is probably that Justin refused to use John because it was popular
among the Valentinians in Rome . . . while Tatian, who shows much more sympathy for
the teachings of these gnostics, could readily accept and use this gospel.’ However, more
than a century ago E. Abbot made a compelling case (now largely forgotten) for Justin’s
knowledge of (and use of) the Fourth Gospel. See E. Abbot, ‘The Authorship of the Fourth
Gospel: External Evidences,’ in The Fourth Gospel and its Authorship (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1892), 16–76. Also, more recent investigations have called into question
the general belief that Justin was at best reticent of the Fourth Gospel. The analysis of
Stanton (‘Fourfold Gospel,’ 330–1) is particularly compelling, especially his argument that
Justin’s Dial. 103.8 demonstrates that he accepts at least four Gospels, and due to the fact
that there is no clear evidence he accepted any other gospels than the canonical four, we
may presume he had in mind Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He thinks Justin may have
collected and harmonized clusters of the sayings of Jesus for catechetical purposes, but
not as a replacement for the four-fold Gospel (332). Others who agree that Justin knew the
Fourth Gospel include, C.E. Hill, ‘Was John’s Gospel among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs,’ in
Justin Martyr and His Worlds, eds. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2007), 88–94; Perrin, ‘Diatessaron,’ 313–14; Hengel, Johannine Question, 13.
31 Harris titled this hypothesized text ‘Pre-Tatian’ and suggested this was the source of both
Justin and Tatian. See Harris, Diatessaron, 54–56. See also Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 28.
Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 157

together in one work the words of the four Gospels.’32 Another example is
found in Ammonius of Alexandria, whom Eusebius says composed his own
‘Diatessaron’ (Ep. ad Carpianum 1).33 The Gospel According to the Ebionites,
from which Epiphanius quotes in his rebuttal of the group by the same name
(cf. Haer. 30.13.1–14.5), may also fall into the category of a Synoptic harmony.34
The pull towards a singular harmonized Gospel was a logical, attractive and,
one might argue, natural solution to the problem of the Gospel disharmony.
For others, it was misguided. The textual creation of a singular Diatessaron
came at a cost that was deemed unacceptable to others within the early
church. Although based on ‘authentic’ texts, such harmonies were new, artifi-
cial constructions that perhaps stood too close in proximity to the forgeries of
Marcion and the Valentinian Gospel of Truth. It was, by nature of its redacted
form, a gospel that reflected the work of the editor more than the apostolic
foundations of the original Gospel texts.
Thirdly, there were those who argued that all four gospels are inspired
accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus, which carry apostolic author-
ity; therefore all four should be accepted. Irenaeus is the first extant witness
to explicitly state the necessity of a four-fold Gospel canon. As he famously
argued, there can be no more, no fewer than these four (AH 3.11.8–9). His argu-
ment for accepting all four gospels was carried forward and enhanced by other
prominent writers in the early church such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria,
Eusebius of Caesarea, Augustine and others.
Some scholars have argued that the emergence of arguments for a four-fold
Gospel was a reactionary position in order to combat the views of Marcion
and the Valentinians.35 G.M. Hahneman agrees, arguing that Irenaeus’ well-
known notice, ‘must have been something of an innovation, for if a Fourfold
Gospel had been established and generally acknowledged, then Irenaeus
would not have offered such a tortured insistence on its numerical legitimacy.’36
Furthermore, E. Pagels argues that Irenaeus rescued John’s Gospel from the

32 ‘Theophilus Antiochenae . . . qui quattuor evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compin-

gens . . .’ Text in J. Labourt (ed.), Saint Jérome, Lettres, tome VII (Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
1961), 30.
33 See Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 32–4, 37–8. The Greek text of Eusebii Epistula ad
Carpianum et Canones I–X is conveniently located in Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum
Graece ed. xxvii (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), 84–5.
34 See Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 29–31.
35 Cf. Campenhausen, Formation, 164ff.; J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in
the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).
36 Hahneman, 101.
158 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

clutches of the Gnostics by welding it to ‘the far more widely quoted Gospels
of Matthew and Luke.’37
Here again we see a variety of compelling and dramatic interpretations of
what happened; yet, there is another plausible explanation. As noted through-
out history by scholars such as Harnack, Zahn, Hengel, Stanton, and others,
it may have been the case that there was an earlier conception of a four-fold
Gospel. In this case the emergence of the four was not as a reactionary position,
but a process of gradual acceptance that began prior to Marcion’s ‘Gospel’.38

37 E. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Random House, 2003), 112.
38 It has been argued that Marcion’s Gospel together with his corpus of ten modified let-
ters of Paul (the ‘Apostolikon’) represented the earliest known ‘New Testament canon’,
though caution should be exercised in presuming alongside Campenhausen and Knox
that the development of the canon within the Church was a heavily reactionary position.
See Campenhausen, Formation, 148ff.; and the full text of Knox, Marcion. To be sure, this
view has shaped many of the present views of canon formation, but in his important
work, The Arch-Heretic Marcion. WUNT 250 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), Sebastian
Moll has reframed the issue in light of Marcion’s own view of canon. He states, ‘Marcion
was surely not the first Christian to consider certain texts as authoritative. If at all, he was
the first to limit the number of these texts’ (103). Moll concludes, ‘we could still main-
tain that Marcion can legitimately be called the founder of the first Christian ‘authori-
tative collection of books’,’ and he proceeds to offer the following analysis, which cuts
straight to the core of the issue: ‘In order to establish a corpus of Scripture the Church
as well as Marcion had to reach a point at which they considered themselves to be in
a posterior age compared to the Urgemeinde. Once this deliberate distinction had been
made, they began to see themselves no longer as the ‘producers’ of Scripture, but merely
as its interpreters’ (104). Of course, in the whole discussion of the formation of a ‘canon’
this happened much earlier for Marcion than it did for the Church, because Marcion
believed the original texts had reached a point in which they were becoming falsified
and thus he attempted to re-establish the originals. In challenging the prevailing para-
digm of Marcion based on the works of Harnack, Moll has also reshaped the discussion
of Marcion’s role in the canon formation, though Harnack and Moll share some common
ground on this issue. Here see Harnack, Marcion, The Gospel of the Alien God, trans. John E.
Steely and Lyle D. Bierma (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth Press, 1990), translated from the orig-
inal: Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der
Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1921). Moll is quick to note,
however, that the exact process of orthodox canon making is not the main focus of his
study, but his insights provide a valuable contribution to the issue. Other scholars have
challenged the Campenhausen/Knox paradigm, including the studies of M. Hengel, who
argues that Marcion’s ‘canon’ was not the impetus for the creation of the catholic New
Testament, but that it expedited the process of an implicit acceptance of a four Gospel
canon that can be traced to a period before Marcion. See further, Hengel, Four Gospels,
esp. 32 and 229–30, n. 131; Stanton, ‘Fourfold Gospel,’ esp. 336ff.; and the recent work by
Epiphanius ’ Alogi in Context 159

I shall argue later that it is likely that early in the second century, Papias of
Hierapolis knew of all four Gospels and recorded the story of their origins—
thus providing a pre-Marcion account of the canonical four.39
Yet, the appeals by such writers did not address the specific issues with
which the bishop of Cyprus was concerned in his account of the Alogi. Their
concerns appear to be much broader. Irenaeus, it is true, provides a defense
and explanation of the quadriform Gospel; indeed, he actually celebrates the
fact that there are four versions with a single theological unity (AH 3.11).40 But
he is not responding to any specific criticism for their incompatibility. Among
various early Church Fathers there was particular interest in the subject of the
different beginnings of each of the Gospels. The issue of the different genea-
logical accounts in Matthew and Luke prompted Julius Africanus to pen an
epistle to Aristides in which he sought to resolve the discrepancies by show-
ing how the two accounts are actually in agreement (Ep. ad Aristidem; cf. HE
1.7, 6.31.3).41 There is also an attempt to explain the ‘different beginnings’ of
all four gospels in the Muratorian Fragment as well. Tertullian brushes aside
the issue of variations amongst the beginnings of the Gospels in his polemic
against Marcion (Adv. Marc. 4.2). The different beginnings of the Gospels are
also a prominent feature in Epiphanius’ testimony of the Alogi as well, but his
attention is devoted to the more specific criticisms that were not addressed by
his predecessors.

Summary

In light of this historical context, it is apparent that the account of the Alogi
is primarily Epiphanius’ own attempt at reconciling the four gospels, which
is couched in his response to the criticisms of the Alogi. Prior to Epiphanius
there were a number of different solutions to the differences between the

Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? It is important not to overlook the landmark works of A. von
Harnack, The Origin of the New Testament and the Most Important Consequences of the
New Creation (London and New York, 1925), 69–72; and Zahn, Geschichte des neutesta-
mentlichen Kanons I, 153. Both of these still provide excellent positions that run counter
to the later views of Campenhausen and Knox. See also the important insights of Metzger,
Canon, 90–9, and esp. 282, where he distinguishes between ‘canon’ as a ‘collection of
authoritative books’ and ‘an authoritative collection of books’.
39 Cf. Chapter 9.1.
40 See Stanton, ‘Fourfold Gospel,’ 320–1; also Merkel, Widersprüche, 42–3.
41 The Greek text of the Epistle ad Aristidem along with a German translation is provided by
Merkel, Plurität, 50–7.
160 Epiphanius and the Alogi in Context

gospels, many of which arose sharply in the second century. The debt that
Epiphanius owes to those that came before him will become clearer in the
following chapters. Yet, whereas many of his predecessors focused on the prob-
lem of accepting multiple gospels or the different beginnings of the gospels,
Epiphanius goes much further in recording other, specific objections that were
not treated in the writings of those that came before him. It is also notable that
his testimony is much broader than simply a record of the objections of the
Alogi against the Johannine corpus, for he records various criticisms regarding
the integrity and authenticity of the four-fold Gospel that do not directly fit
with the way in which he describes the Alogi. Although he accuses the Alogi of
attributing the Gospel and Apocalypse of John to Cerinthus, Cerinthus himself
emerges as a target of refutation throughout this testimony. The same is true
for the Ebionites, Valentinians, Celsus, Porphyry and Philosabbatius—all of
which do not fit the mould Epiphanius casts for the Alogi, but who are never-
theless included in his testimony because they are guilty in one way or another
of rejecting the integrity and compatibility of the gospels.
Having established the broader context in which Epiphanius describes the
Alogi, the focus now shifts to the way in which he uses the testimonies of ear-
lier Church Fathers in the construction of this heresy.
 Section 3
The Sources of Epiphanius’ Account of the Alogi

∵
 CHAPTER 7

Epiphanius’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus

The earliest identifiable source in Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi is that

of Papias of Hierapolis, whose early tradition of the origins of the Gospels
originated towards the beginning of the second century. This tradition is also
visible in the writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius,
and others. The extant information on Papias and his writings comes only
through the information provided by later writers. Irenaeus states that Papias
was ‘a hearer of John, companion of Polycarp and a man of old time,’ who
wrote five books (AH 5.33.4; cf. HE 3.36.1–2, 3.39.1). The identity of this ‘John’
is unclear and the subject of much scrutiny, as Papias’ account mentions two
Johns: John the apostle and John the elder (HE 3.39.4). Nevertheless, this tes-
timony, in addition to other fragments that suggest Papias’ work belongs in
the time of Hadrian, is central to the common dating of Papias in or around the
first quarter of the second-century.1

7.1 Papias on the Origins of the Four Gospels

Irenaeus preserves aspects of Papias’ eschatological views (AH 5.33.4), but he

does not mention Papias’ name in association with his testimony of the origins
of the Gospels (at least Matthew and Mark; AH 3.1.1) for which Papias is best
known, even though similarities between the two suggest that he is borrow-
ing from Papias’ account. Eusebius, in contrast, does attribute to Papias the
well-known account of the origins of the Gospels, at least those of Matthew

1 E.g. Philip of Side (5th cent.) records that Papias mentions those who Jesus raised from the
dead surviving to the time of Hadrian (117–38 AD). See frg. 16 in J. Kürzinger, Papias von
Hierapolus und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg: Verlag FriedrichPustet,
1983), 166–7 = frg. 5 in J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer (eds.), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts
and English Translations. Revised by Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 317–18.
For more, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 13–14; Campenhausen, Formation, 129ff.
See also frg. 4 in Kürzinger; cf. also frgs. 10–11 in Lightfoot, Harmer and Holmes for additional
information pertaining to Papias’ dates. However, see the recent argument for a later dating
of Papias and questions regarding whether he knew of a four-gospel canon by E. Norelli,
‘Papias de Hiérapolis a-t-il utilisé un recueil ‘canonique’ des quatre évangiles?’ in G. Aragione,
E. Junod and E. Norelli (eds.) Le canon du Nouveau Testament: Regards nouveaux sur l’histoire
de sa formation. Le monde de la Bible 54 (Geneva: Labor et Fides 2005), 35–85.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_009

164 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

and Mark. According to Eusebius, Papias himself claims not to have known
any of the apostles directly (HE 3.39.2–4). Nevertheless, Papias was deter-
mined to ‘examine closely the words of the elders—what Andrew or what
Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or
the other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the Elder John, the
disciples of the Lord, said’ (HE 3.39.4). Such a record would be of untold value,
but unfortunately Eusebius chose only to preserve fragments of the tradition
that Papias collected from those who knew the apostles. The most common
explanation for Eusebius’ scanty citations of Papias is that the former had a
low estimation of the latter, describing him as a man with a ‘very small mind’
(σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν) because of his chiliastic views (HE 3.39.12–13) with
which Eusebius took strong exception.
Despite his disdain for Papias, Eusebius does manage to preserve his tra-
dition of the origins of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In HE 3.39.15–17
Eusebius cites Papias as follows:

(15) And this the presbyter said: ‘Mark, who, becoming Peter’s interpreter,
wrote down exactly everything he remembered, however not in order,
the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor fol-
lowed him, but later, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teach-
ings as necessary but had no intention of making an ordered account of
the sayings of the Lord. So neither Mark did do anything wrong in writing
down some things as he remembered them, for he made one purpose:
not to leave out anything that he heard or to make some false statement
in them.’ These, then, are the accounts by Papias concerning Mark. (16)
But regarding Matthew he said: ‘Thus, Matthew arranged the sayings in
the Hebrew language and each person interpreted them as they were
able.’ (17a) He [also] used testimonies from the first epistle of John and
also from that of Peter.2

These are the words of Papias, but it is important to note that he is relaying the
tradition that was told to him by others, in this case the presbyter.3
The essential information on the origins of Matthew and Mark found in
the testimony of Papias was to be repeated by numerous subsequent Church
Fathers, including Epiphanius who maintains the notice that Matthew wrote
his account in Hebrew (Haer. 51.5.3) and that Mark’s Gospel is a product of

2 GCS 2,1 Eusebius Werke, 290–2.

3 Cf. C.E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and
Author of Ad Diongnetum. WUNT 186 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 33.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 165

his relationship with Peter (Haer. 51.6.10). Epiphanius does not claim to know
Papias’ work first-hand. Thus, this information is likely mediated by a later
writer who was reliant upon this tradition—perhaps Irenaeus or Eusebius.
However, Eusebius does not explicitly mention any record from Papias on
the Gospels of Luke and John, which raises the question whether or not Papias
knew them. If he did, and if he spoke of their origins, why does Eusebius not
record what he has to say? Despite Eusebius’ silence, many have argued that
there is good reason to believe Papias did know these Gospels. Regarding the
Fourth Gospel in particular, some scholars have argued that Papias’ sequence
of the apostles listed above (HE 3.39.4) does not reflect the Synoptic order, but
rather that of John. As Hengel notes, ‘the affinities between the sequence of
disciples in John 1.35–51, the list in John 21.2 and in Papias are striking and
certainly no coincidence.’4 Opinions such as that of Hengel have been around
since the time of J.B. Lightfoot and more recently in the works of R. Bauckham,
R.A. Culpepper, G. Stanton and C.E. Hill—each providing additional evidence
to suggest that Papias knew the Gospel of John.5
One consideration is the mention of I John, which points to the likeli-
hood of Papias’ knowledge of the Fourth Gospel for at least two reasons:
(i) as Lightfoot argued, I John was written not only at or around the same time
as the Gospel of John, but it was also probably attached to it;6 also, (ii) Papias
may have mentioned the first epistle of John to corroborate the Gospel by the
same author, much the same way as he does with I Peter and Mark’s Gospel.7
As to why Eusebius would not include Papias’ information on the Gospel
of John, Hengel may be right in noting the possibility that ‘Eusebius some-
times concealed information which seemed disagreeable to him or omitted
it through carelessness.’8 Yet there is another explanation that is more likely.

4 Hengel, Johannine Question, 17–18, also p. 155, n. 101. Also, Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 69.
5 Hengel, Johannine Question, 17–23; Lawlor, ‘Eusebius on Papias,’ Hermathena 19 (1922):
167–222, esp. 202, n. 1; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 63–70; R. Bauckham, ‘Papias and Polycrates,’
24–69; Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 225–6; Stanton, ‘Fourfold Gospel,’ 333; C.E. Hill, ‘What
Papias Said about John (and Luke): A “New” Papian Fragment,’ JTS 49 (1998): 582–629; ‘ “The
Orthodox Gospel”: The Reception of John in the Great Church Prior to Irenaeus.’ In The
Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel. Ed. Tuomas Rasimus, 233–300.
NovTSupp 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 285ff.; Culpepper, John, 111–12. For an opposing view, see
Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 204–5.
6 Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 63.
7 This presumes that the passages are I Peter 5:13 and I John 1:1–4. See Bauckham, ‘Papias,’
47, 55. Bauckham was preceded in this notion by J.B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work entitled
Supernatural Religion (London: Macmillan, 1889), 206. See also Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 594.
8 Hengel, Johannine Question, 21.
166 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

Hill has argued that Eusebius’ record of the origins of the Gospels of John in
HE 3.24.5–13 actually masks what is the tradition of Papias, and that Eusebius
simply did not attribute it to him.9 As I shall argue in Chapter 9, this is partially
true, but it is far more nuanced and much more significant than Hill realizes.
If it is true that Papias is behind Eusebius’ statements here (HE 3.24.5–13) then
the tradition of Papias is foundational to Epiphanius’ refutation of the Alogi.

7.2 Irenaeus and the Four-Fold Gospel

Any thorough discussion surrounding the use of, or opposition to, the Gospel
of John in the early church is inevitably tied to the testimony of Irenaeus
of Lyons. Irenaeus is the earliest Church Father to explicitly pronounce the
Gospel of John as an accepted work and he quotes from it extensively in his
refutation of the heresies. His argument for the necessity of a four-fold Gospel
is well known, particularly as it represents the earliest extant argument for a
closed Gospel canon that comprises only those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John. For Irenaeus, any attempt to reduce or expand the four-fold Gospel is
misguided: ‘It is not possible,’ he states, ‘that the Gospels can be either more or
fewer than they are’ (AH 3.11.8). Irenaeus’ conclusion for the necessity of a four-
fold Gospel is the capstone of a methodical, measured, and unique theological
argument for the recognition of these four books as the authoritative, inspired,
‘scriptural’10 foundation of the orthodox Rule of Truth (cf. AH 2.35.4, 3.9–11).
Irenaeus (AH 3.11.8) notes the different beginnings of the Gospels; yet, rather
than provide an explanation or apology for the differences found in the begin-
nings of the Gospels, Irenaeus cleverly converts the issue of four different
Gospels from a liability to an asset. Lightfoot puts it well: ‘He ransacks heaven
and earth for reasons why the evangelical record should thus be foursquared.’11
This ‘ransacking’ includes the fact that there are four zones in the world, four
principal winds, four faces of the cherubim (Ez. 1:1–21, 10:20), four living crea-
tures (Rev. 4:7), the four-fold activity of the Word of God, and four covenants
that God made with mankind.12 All of these points reflect the theological unity
of the Word’s dispensation of the quadriform Gospel(τετρἀμορφον εὐαγγέλιον),

9 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 582–269.

10 ‘Irenaeus, so far as we can tell, was the first catholic theologian who dared to adopt the
Marcionite principle of a new “scripture” in order to use it in his turn against Marcion and
all heretics.’ Campenhausen, Formation, 186.
11 Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 78.
12 See T.C. Skeat, ‘Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canon,’ NovT 34, no. 2 (1992): 194–199.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 167

held together by the Spirit (AH 3.11.8).13 Rather than being contradictory,
Irenaeus sees the four Gospels as enunciating the different characteristics of
Jesus’ life and ministry. John begins by displaying Jesus’ original, powerful, and
glorious generation from the Father. The beginning of Luke shows the priestly
character of Christ while Matthew relates His generation as a man. Finally,
Mark shows the prophetical aspect.
When one turns to Epiphanius’ response to the objections to the Gospel
of John by the Alogi, there is clear evidence of Irenaeus’ testimony (AH 3.1.1)
in which traces of Papias’ testimony are also readily apparent. Both Irenaeus
and Epiphanius note that Matthew wrote his Gospelfirst among the Hebrews
in their language (ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδιᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν; cf. Haer. 51.5.3). Next,
Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down the Gospelthat Peter
had preached (cf. Haer. 6.10). In his account (AH 3.1.1) Irenaeus adds the story of
the origins of the Gospels of Luke and John that is not found in Papias’ notice
in HE 3.39, but it does appear in the text of Epiphanius. Luke, the companion
of Paul, issued the Gospeltaught by Paul (cf. Haer. 51.11.6), and finally John pub-
lished his Gospel during his time in Ephesus in Asia (cf. Haer. 51.2.3–4, 51.12.2).
Irenaeus’ tradition of the origins of the four Gospels was surely influ-
enced by Papias’ account of the origins of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark
(HE 3.39),14 and quite possibly the Gospels of Luke and John as well, presuming
Papias said as much. This tradition was to become well known, repeated and
expanded elsewhere.15 There are definite parallels between Epiphanius and
Irenaeus concerning their accounts of the origins of the Gospels, but there is
also much more.

7.3 Irenaeus’ Testimony as the Foundation of the Alogi

Subsequent to his argument detailing the validity and necessity of these four
Gospels, Irenaeus attacks those who ‘destroy’ this quadriform Gospel. He notes
that some see the need for more Gospels, while others want fewer. Two groups
are readily predictable: the Valentinians claim that their Gospel of Truth is on
par with those of the apostles, and Marcion only accepts a dissected form of

13 See Hengel, Four Gospels, 10; Campenhausen, Formation, 195. Cf. Merkel, Widersprüche,
42–3. On the strength of this argument in an historical context, see G. Stanton, ‘The
Fourfold Gospel,’ New Testament Studies 43,3 (1997), 319ff.
14 Cf. Hengel, Johannine Question, 3. On Irenaeus’ use of Papias, see Chapman, 15–16;
Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 67–8.
15 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 585. Cf. Bauckham, ‘Papias,’ 63ff.
168 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

the Gospel of Luke (AH 3.11.9; cf. 1.27.2–4). Irenaeus then mentions another
anonymous group, who reject the Paraclete and therefore must also reject the
Gospel of John. This notice is important for a number of reasons; not least of
which is that it is a foundational element of Epiphanius’ Alogi.

Others (Alii), indeed, in order to frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in the
most recent times—according to the pleasure of the Father—was poured
out on the human race, do not admit that appearance in the Gospel of
John, where the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete; but they
reject both the Gospeland the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed,
who want to be false prophets, they in fact reject the prophetic grace
from the Church, just like those who—on account of those who come
in hypocrisy—also abstain from communion with the brethren. I under-
stand, moreover, that those of this kind (also) do not accept the Apostle
Paul; for in that epistle which is to the Corinthians, prophetic gifts are
mentioned, and he (Paul) knows men and women prophesying in the
Church. Sinning against the Spirit of God in all these things, therefore,
they fall into the irremissible sin (Mt. 12:32; AH 3.11.9).16

Epiphanius makes a nearly identical statement in his final description of the

Alogi. In his closing remarks, Epiphanius has this to say:

But since these people have not received the Holy Spirit they are judged
for not observing the things of the Spirit, and being willing to speak
against the words of the Spirit. They do not see the gifts of grace in the
holy Church, which, with understanding and a sound mind, the Holy
Spirit set out in detail, so also the holy apostles, and the holy prophets
have followed truly and vigorously. Among these, St. John has given his
gracious gift to the holy church, through the Gospel, the Epistles and
Revelation. But as it is said, ‘He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit,
it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the one to come.’
(Mt. 12:32) For they have also waged war against the words spoken by the
Spirit (Haer. 51.35.1–3).17

16 Latin text from A. Rousseau, Irénée de Lyon: Contre les Hérésies, Livre III. SC 211 (Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1974), 170–2.
17 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 310–11.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 169

When one compares these two testimonies it is clear that what Irenaeus says in
AH 3.11.9 is the platform upon which Epiphanius constructs his Alogi. The crime
and the punishment are identical—so also is the structure and sentiment.18

Epiphanius’ Alogi (Haer. 51.35.1–3) Irenaeus’ Alii (AH 3.11.9)

(I.a) Have not received the Holy Spirit (I.b) Frustrate the gift of the Spirit
(II.a) Do not know the gifts of grace in (II.b) Repel the gift of grace from the
the holy Church Church
(III.a) These are the gifts that the holy (III.b) Paul writes about prophetical
apostles and prophets have expounded gifts; (cf. AH 3.1.1–2, 3.6.1–5, 3.17.1)
(IV.a) John shared his holy gift through (IV.b) According to the Gospel of John
his Gospel, Epistles and Revelation. God promised the Paraclete
(V.a) They are guilty of the irremissible (V.b) They are guilty of the irremissible
sin (Matt. 12:32) sin (Matt. 12:32)

The parallels between these two testimonies are too striking to deny that
Epiphanius derived this portion of his testimony from anyone other than
Irenaeus.19 It is a well-known fact that Irenaeus does not record anything else
about his anonymous group whereas Epiphanius attributes criticisms and
other unique features to the Alogi.
Numerous scholars have suggested that the ‘Alii’ of AH 3.11.9 refers to a group
of anti-Montanists, who wanted to do away with the Fourth Gospel because
it was in this Gospel that the ‘prophetic Spirit’ is promised.20 The question
as to whether Irenaeus is referring to the issue of Montanism in AH 3.11.9 is
significant. First, it is far from certain that Irenaeus intended this group to
reflect anti-Montanists, for he does not mention the New Prophecy at all in his
treatise.21 There is also some confusion as to the viability of dating Irenaeus’

18 Cf. Bludau, 168.

19 See Bardy, 358; Hill, Johannine Corpus, 187. I find no reason to agree with Smith (‘Gaius,’
254) that this could have been mediated through Hippolytus’ lost work against Gaius;
such a view is pure conjecture.
20 Culpepper, 121; R.E. Heine, ‘The Gospel of John and the Montanist Debate at Rome,’ 99;
Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 254–5; Campenhausen, Formation, 238–9, n. 159; Fisher, 2; Streeter, 438–9.
21 For Irenaeus’ ‘wait and see’ attitude towards the New Prophecy, see Campenhausen,
Formation, 232; Labriolle, Crise, 231ff.
170 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

comments with the progression of Montanism. Eusebius notes that the

Montanism ‘outbreak’ (καινοτομηθείσης) occurred during the reign of Marcus
Aurelius, sometime in the decade of 170 AD (HE 4.27).22 Epiphanius offers a
much earlier date in the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius, around 156–7 AD
(Haer. 48.1.2), but Eusebius’ dating is more generally accepted.23 If Eusebius’
account is right, then the New Prophecy emerged within the same decade
as Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses, meaning he might have known of the New
Prophecy. His later comments about false prophets and those who pretend
to utter prophecies under the influence of a false spirit could reflect his own
questions about it (AH 4.33.6–7).24 Also, he might have known about ecclesi-
astical backlash to the New Prophecy, but this conclusion should be proffered
cautiously. Anti-Montanism is not the only possible explanation. Shortly after
the time of Irenaeus there was a trend to disallow any prophecy in the church.
True prophecy was a thing of the past, a feature of the apostolic era. In this
passage, Irenaeus may have been responding to those who advocated such
a view of prophecy, not necessarily the New Prophecy and the ecclesiastical
response to it. The fact remains that Irenaeus is not forthcoming, and the ten-
dency to see the anti-Montanist Gaius of Rome lurking behind his statements
is unnecessary.
Did Epiphanius indicate that the Alogi were anti-Montanists? Neither his
testimony that borrows from Irenaeus nor his entire defense of the Gospel of
John suggests he interpreted Irenaeus’ notice in AH 3.11.9 or the Alogi’s attacks
on the Gospel of John as having anything to do with Montanism. If he did, one
would expect to find some trace of the issue of the New Prophecy either in the
objections to the Gospel of John or in his rebuttal. There is, however, nothing of
the sort.25 He also is silent about any anti-Johannine rhetoric in his own refuta-
tion of the Montanists (Haer. 48). Thus, regardless of whether or not Irenaeus
is referring to a group of anti-Montanists, there is no indication in Epiphanius’
testimony that he conceives of the Alogi as being such.
The critical difference between Irenaeus and Epiphanius is the reversal of
the elements that are rejected. For Irenaeus, the rejection of the Spirit is what

22 For the complexities surrounding the dates of Montanism, see esp. T.D. Barnes, ‘The
Chronology of Montanism,’ JTS n/s, 21 (1970), 403–8; also Cerrato, 204.
23 Barnes (‘Chronology,’ 406) argues convincingly against Epiphanius’ dating. See also
Powell, ‘Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,’ 34 and Labriolle, Crise, 461ff.
24 Cf. Valée, 34.
25 Brent, Hippolytus, 143: ‘the absence of a specific anti-Montanist polemic on the part of the
Ἄλογοι is likewise evident. There is no discussion of the Paraclete passages nor of Jn. 21,
and the relationship between charisma and Order.’
Epiphanius ’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 171

leads to the rejection of the Gospel of John wherein the Paraclete is promised.
In contrast, Epiphanius inverts this relationship. This is an important point
that is almost universally overlooked; for Epiphanius, it is the rejection of the
Gospel of John that is tantamount to the rejection of the Spirit, which inspired
the apostles who authored the Gospels. Nowhere does Epiphanius indicate
that the Spirit is the target of this group’s disdain, as is found in Irenaeus.
Epiphanius’ take on Irenaeus’ testimony bears striking similarities to some
modern interpretations. This notice is overwhelmingly, and wrongly, inter-
preted as an anonymous group having formally rejected the Fourth Gospel. But
a closer look at this passage reveals that this is not what Irenaeus intends at all.
Rather, he is accusing this group of rejecting that aspect of John’s Gospel in qua
Paraclitum se missurum Dominus promisit. Allen Brent has noted this as well.
‘Irenaeus does not therefore claim that they reject the Fourth Gospel itself but
only that in rejecting the Spirit as Paraclete they are indirectly rejecting that
Gospel which they might indeed have formally accepted whilst being oblivi-
ous to the contradictions in such a position.’26 Irenaeus makes this abundantly
clear in the following lines, where he indicts these anonymous critics for ‘repel-
ling the prophetic grace from the Church’ (propheticam uero gratiam repellunt
ab Ecclesia). He also goes on to state that such persons must also reject Paul,
for he too speaks of prophecy. But in the same way that Irenaeus does not for-
mally state that they reject the Pauline corpus, his focus is not on the rejection
of these books themselves; the issue is the rejection of the Spirit that logically
necessitates such a rejection of John and Paul.
Moreover, the fact that this group is guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit—
the irremmissible sin—is further evidence that this group’s crime is against
the Paraclete, not necessarily the Gospel of John. Irenaeus offers a similar
notice in his later work, Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching (99), where he
mentions the same group that ‘do not receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit and
drive away the prophetic grace from the Church.’27 Yet here Irenaeus makes no
mention at all of the Gospel of John being at stake, rather it is the gifts of the
Holy Spirit that are rejected, and the grace of prophecy that is repudiated. If
there had existed a group within early Christianity that formally rejected the
Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus would undoubtedly have had more to say than this
brief gloss. While it is enticing to interpret Irenaeus’ notice in AH 3.11.9 this way,

26 Ibid., 139. See also Hengel (Four Gospels, 21), who rightly notes that this criticism is
directed against the Paraclete.
27 Alii autem dona Spiritus sancti non recipiunt et abiciunt a seipsis charisma propheticum.
Adelin Rousseau, Irénée de Lyon, Démonstration de la Prédication Apostolique. SC 406
(Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1995), 218.
172 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

the fairest reading of the evidence suggests that Irenaeus did not intend John’s
Gospel to be viewed as a volatile component of his four-fold Gospel canon.
Perhaps Epiphanius could be accused of garbling the reading of AH 3.11.9,
but if so he would not be alone. In fact, this passage has been interpreted many
different ways, and it remains the subject of much scrutiny. Before Epiphanius
is rendered incompetent, as he often is, it is easy to see where he would have
picked up his own way of thinking about the Gospel and the Spirit in the writ-
ings of Irenaeus. For example, immediately after this notice, Irenaeus goes on
to refer to the Spirit as that which appeared at Pentecost and dwelt within
the apostles as they went out to preach the Gospel (AH 3.12). He also states
that the apostles preached the Gospel because they were endowed with the
Holy Spirit (AH 3.1.1; cf. 3.24.1). Moreover, in his argument for the necessity of
a four-fold Gospel, he emphasizes the fact that this τετράμορφον . . . εὐαγγέλιον
is divinely willed to be ‘held together by one Spirit’ (AH 3.11.8).28 Thus, the role
of the Spirit as understood and articulated repeatedly29 by Epiphanius in his
defense against the attacks of the Alogi is also intimated in Irenaeus; but, for
Epiphanius, these Alogi do not understand the role of the Spirit, and as a result
of rejecting the Gospel of John they commit the sin of blaspheming the Spirit
(Haer. 51.35.1–3).

7.3.1 Cerinthus and the Ebionites in Irenaeus and Epiphanius

Epiphanius also borrows from Irenaeus (AH 3.11.1) in his introduction, where
he states that John was impelled by the Holy Spirit to correct the teachings
of Cerinthus and others (Haer. 51.2.3, 51.4.1–2, 51.12.3). As with Irenaeus (AH
1.26.1–2), Epiphanius associates Ebion with Cerinthus, both in his account of
the Alogi (Haer. 51.2.3, 51.10.4, 51.12.3) and in his account of the Ebionites (e.g.
Haer. 30.1.3, 30.3.7, 30.14.1). His knowledge concerning the similarity between
the Ebionites and Cerinthus most likely came from Irenaeus (AH 1.26.2), though
it is possible he could have used Hippolytus (Ref. 7.22), who follows Irenaeus
closely.30 Elsewhere in the Panarion, Epiphanius repeats Irenaeus’ notice that
the Ebionites have similar beliefs as Cerinthus: both believe that Jesus was
fleshly and not born of a virgin and that Christ was the spiritual form that came
to Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism (Haer. 30.16.3).
Yet it must be said that at times Epiphanius leaves little room to doubt the
fact that he does garble Irenaeus’ account. For example, in his chapter on the

28 See esp. Fr. gr. 11 of AH 3.11.8 in SC 211, 162.

29 (Haer. 51.4.11; cf. 51.6.2, 5, 11–12; 51.9.1; 51.12.2; 51.16.9; 51.20.5; 51.21.14).
30 Later writers, also indebted to Irenaeus, make this connection as well (e.g. Victorinus in
Apoc. 11.1; Jerome De vir. ill. 9; Monarchian Prologue).
Epiphanius ’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 173

Ebionites (Haer. 30), Epiphanius recounts the story of St. John encounter-
ing Ebion in the baths in Asia, at which time John cried out that they should
all leave lest the bath fall and bury them with Ebion inside (Haer. 30.24.1–5).
This story originates with Polycarp and is recounted by Irenaeus (AH 3.3.4; cf.
HE 3.28.6), only it was not Ebion, but Cerinthus in the baths. He also attributes
characteristics that Irenaeus gives only to the Ebionites and transfers them to
Cerinthus, such as the fact that Cerinthus only used the Gospel of Matthew
(Haer. 28.5.1, 28.7.4; cf. 30.14.2) and rejected Paul (Haer. 28.5.3).31 It is, at least
in part, because Hippolytus does not link Matthew with either of these groups
that suggests Epiphanius’ source is more likely Irenaeus.

7.4 Irenaeus and the Second Objection to the Gospel of John

The second objection of the Alogi focuses on the apparent discrepancy

between the number of Passovers during Jesus’ ministry that are recorded in
John’s Gospel as compared to the number in the Synoptics. Here again one can
detect traces of Irenaeus, though it is clear that Epiphanius does not always
agree with what he had to say. In particular, Hill is right to note that in his
response to the second objection against the Gospel of John, Epiphanius pro-
vides a corrective to what he perceives to be an erroneous position of Irenaeus
concerning the views of the Valentinian Gnostics.32
In AH 2.22, Irenaeus attacks the Valentinian claim that the thirty Aeons in
their godhead correspond to the thirty years of Christ’s life. In his attempt
to overturn this false correlation, Irenaeus argues that they do not correctly
understand the ‘acceptable year of the Lord’ (Is. 61:2), which the Valentinians
believed was the twelve month period of Jesus’ ministry after his baptism
(AH 2.22.1; 1.3.3) and the final year of his life.33 In contrast, Irenaeus argues that
the ‘acceptable year of the Lord’ was the entire period of time in which men
heard and believed the preaching of the Gospel (AH 2.22.2). To disprove their
belief that Jesus only preached one year and died at the age of thirty, Irenaeus
refers to the three Passovers recorded in the Gospel of John before stating the
obvious: these three Passovers did not all happen in one year.

31 Although Irenaeus mentions Cerinthus in the same passage as the Ebionites, he only
attributes these qualities to the latter (AH 1.26.2).
32 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 187–8. Smith (‘Gaius,’ 382) suggests this is simply an ‘unrelated
discussion’ that only has a ‘tangential relationship’ to the real arguments against the
Johannine literature by the Alogi.
33 So also was the view of Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1.21.
174 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

Perhaps this would have been sufficient to refute the Valentinians, but he
goes on to make the rather befuddling assertion that the Gospel of John and
the tradition from Asia Minor prove that Jesus lived for more than fifty years,
and thus the entire system of the Gnostic Aeons is proven to be false, ‘for the
period between the thirtieth and fiftieth year could never be regarded as one
year’ (AH 2.22.5–6; cf. John 8:56–57). ‘How is it possible,’ Irenaeus asks, ‘that
the Lord only preached for one year?’ (AH 2.22.3). Irenaeus is mistaken, and
Epiphanius, it turns out, has the answer.
Epiphanius overturns Irenaeus’ bizarre defense that Jesus died as a penta-
genarian and that the period of Jesus’ ministry identified as the ‘acceptable
year of the Lord’ (AH 2.22.2) lasted for much longer than one year. Epiphanius
is careful to note that the ‘acceptable year of the Lord’ is, in fact, ‘a year with-
out opposition’ (Haer. 51.25.1, 51.27.4, 51.28.2). Furthermore, after providing a
list of thirty consulships to demonstrate the accurate year of Christ’s suffering,
Epiphanius states:

For who has numbered the successive consulships, which cannot be

mistaken, and not think contemptuously about those who customarily
hold that there is a discrepancy in the number of years which is given by
the evangelists? For, because of this, it is also the downfall of the earlier
Valentinian heresy and some others with their fictitious recordings of the
thirty Aeons they thought they could compare the years of the Savior’s
life, in order to make it possible for them to record the story of their
Aeons and first principles. For one finds that it is the thirty-third year of
his incarnation that the Only Βegotten suffered (Haer. 51.23.2–4a).34

Epiphanius then expounds on his long and tedious chronological proof, provid-
ing the dates of Christ’s birth, ministry and death and numbers the Passovers
during Jesus’ ministry at three (Haer. 51.24.1–51.27.6). Following this excursus,
he returns to his refutation of the Valentinians and his correction of Irenaeus’
argument. ‘First, Valentinus is put to shame as a dramatist since he expects
(to prove) to us that there are thirty Aeons from the years of the Savior’s child-
hood leading up to his time as a man. He does not realize that [he] did not live
for only thirty years’ (Haer. 51.28.1). Epiphanius then states that Jesus was bap-
tized when he was ‘twenty-nine years and ten months,’ and that ‘all the years
of his incarnation, from his birth until his passion totalled thirty-two years and
seventy-four days;’ thus ‘Valentinus is refuted, and the many others who are
just as foolish’ (Haer. 51.28.2–3).

34 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 291–2.

Epiphanius ’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 175

It is certifiable that Epiphanius knows of Irenaeus’ witness concern-

ing the Valentinians, for he quotes all eleven chapters of Book I of Against
Heresies that describe the Valentinian Gnostics (Haer. 31.9.1–31.32.9).35 He also
refers to some of Irenaeus’ refutations, which happen to be found in the chap-
ters surrounding the argument for Christ living into his fifties.36 Epiphanius
even heralds the work of Irenaeus along with Hippolytus and Clement in refut-
ing the Valentinians when he states, ‘I have no wish to add to the work . . . since
these men satisfy me and my intent is precisely the same’ (Haer. 31.33.3). He
promises that he will not mention the Valentinians any longer (Haer. 31.36.2),
but of course this is not true for he is not fully satisfied with Irenaeus’ refuta-
tion of the Valentinians.
The fact that both Irenaeus and Epiphanius tie together the issue of the
number of Passovers to the argument against the Valentinians demonstrates
that Epiphanius knew and used Irenaeus’ testimony. Yet Irenaeus’ argument
is clearly mistaken, and so Epiphanius was compelled to use John’s Gospel to
correct this erroneous teaching that Jesus was in his fifties when he died and
thus the correlation between the number of Aeons and Jesus’ death is false
(AH 2.22.5; John 8:56–57). Moreover, Epiphanius does not agree with Irenaeus’
number of Passovers that Jesus celebrated or that the ‘acceptable year of the
Lord’ lasted any longer than the first year of Jesus’ ministry—a year without
opposition.
If Epiphanius is engaged with the testimony of Irenaeus, why does he not
mention Irenaeus’ name? It very well could be the case, as Hill suggests, that
he omits a reference to Irenaeus because he disagreed with his interpretation.37
Yet it is worth recognizing the fact that Epiphanius draws on the testimony of
Irenaeus repeatedly throughout his account of the Alogi without mentioning
his name.38 In fact, Epiphanius is known for pillaging previous materials with-
out always identifying his sources.
Furthermore, one may wish to consider another point made by Hill, that
the Valentinian controversy was a ‘precursor to that of those who reject John’s
Gospel, partly because of bad chronology.’39 This is theoretically possible, but
the evidence is beginning to mount in favor of looking past the testimony
of the Alogi as historical fact, and instead seeing it as a conflation of various

35 Cf. Williams, Panarion I, xxvi: ‘[W]hen discussing the Valentinians and their relatives
[Epiphanius] depends on him (Irenaeus) entirely.’
36 E.g. Haer. 31.35.4=AH 2.20.2, cf. AH. 1.3.3; Haer. 31.35.6=AH 2.23.1, cf. AH 2.20.1.
37 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 187, n. 56.
38 See Kim, 263.
39 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 188.
176 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

issues that Epiphanius brings together into a single category. This will become
even clearer as consideration is given to Epiphanius’ use of other early Church
Fathers.

Summary

There are traces of the earlier testimonies from Papias and Irenaeus that are
detectable in the testimony of Epiphanius’ Alogi. If Epiphanius is manufac-
turing a composite heresy, it is easy to see how the testimonies of these two
writers—particularly Irenaeus—were elements in the way Epiphanius went
about collecting the pieces for his portrayal of the Alogi. Not only is the testi-
mony of Irenaeus visible in the way in which Epiphanius describes the Alogi
both in the introduction and conclusion, it is also evident throughout the rest
of Epiphanius’ testimony as well, such as Irenaeus’ account of the origins of
the Gospels as well as the second objection of the Alogi against the Gospel
of John.
 CHAPTER 8

Epiphanius’ Use of Origen

Origen is the earliest extant Christian writer to claim that the chronology of
Jesus’ ministry recorded in the Gospel of John cannot be harmonized with that
found in the Synoptics. Throughout the tenth book of his Commentary on John,
he cites lengthy portions of all four gospels in order to highlight points of con-
flict that would eventually lead him to question their historical veracity, and
yet the issues he raises do not culminate in dissuading him from accepting the
authority of the gospels. Rather, he maintains Papias’ tradition of the four gos-
pels; however, in doing so he must wrestle with finding harmony amidst their
differences and contradictions. His proposed solution is found in his herme-
neutic: he interprets the gospels spiritually, or allegorically, rather than viewing
them as representing a precise history.
The conflict between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics is, of course,
the primary concern of the Alogi as well. Scholars have often noted
similarities between Origen’s analysis of the discrepancies amongst the gospels
and the criticisms of the Alogi. The question arises whether or not there was
an individual or group lurking behind these accusations, one which prompted
Irenaeus’ defence of John’s gospel, inspired Origen’s comments, and earned the
ire of Epiphanius. In the first part of this work I argued that the usual culprit
in this scenario, Gaius of Rome, has been unjustly accused. The link between
this early anti-Montanist and Origen is therefore broken, thereby welcom-
ing a reassessment of the connections between Origen and the criticisms of
the Alogi.

8.1 Origen on the Authority of the Gospels

Prior to discussing Origen’s concerns with the reliability and compatibility

of the four gospels it is important to recognize that he clearly accepts their
authority. Comments taken from his commentaries on Matthew and John, as
well as the fragments of his Homilies on Luke demonstrate that his account of
the origins of the four gospels is very much in line with the tradition that had
developed before him.
Eusebius preserves portions of the first book of Origen’s Commentary on
Matthew (HE 6.25.3–6) that indicates the latter only acknowledges (εἰδέναι)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_010

178 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

four gospels.1 They are ‘the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under
heaven.’ In what may be an echo of Papias, Origen states that he ‘learned by tra-
dition’ (ἐν παραδόσει μαθὼν) that Matthew wrote his gospel first in the Hebrew
dialect (γράμμασιν Ἑβραϊκοϊς συντεταγμένον) after which Mark was wrote a gos-
pel as Peter taught. Likewise, Origen notes that Peter refers to Mark as his son
in his first Epistle. Luke’s gospel was third, written for Gentile converts and
commended by Paul after which came the Gospel of John. Whether or not
Origen learned this tradition directly from Papias’ writings or an intermediary,
the parallels between Origen’s account and this tradition of the order of the
gospels and the details of their formation are self-evident.
Eusebius continues to present Origen’s views of scripture by citing his
Commentary on John, which affirms the authenticity of the Pauline epistles and
First Peter (HE 6.25.7–10). Origen has doubts about the second epistle of Peter,
but he is adamant that the writings of John include a gospel, the Apocalypse,
and at least one authentic letter. He takes the same view in his Homilies on
Luke,2 stating that the church has four gospels and the heretics have many, but
only four are approved (Hom. Luc. 1.2). The gospels attributed to Thomas and
Matthias are therefore out. His concern reflected in all of these statements is
not whether or not to reduce the number of accepted gospels, but to brush off
attempts at multiplying them unnecessarily. Thus his argument—at least at
this stage—is not technical but traditional. The church has claimed her four
gospels and Origen complies.
In another fragment Origen has this to say about the Gospel of John: ‘There
is a written record that John gathered the written gospels during his lifetime
under the reign of Nero. He approved and recognized those that the devil’s
lies had not tainted, but he rejected and excluded those that he saw as not
being truthful.’3 What was Origen’s source for this information? Clement of
Alexandria is a possibility, for he states that John knew the Synoptics and,
having perceived that the ‘external facts’ (τὰ σωματικὰ.) had been made plain
in these gospels, proceeded to write his own ‘spiritual’ (πνεθματικὸν) gospel
(HE 6.14.7). Origen made similar claims (cf. πνευματικῶς. . . σωματικῶς; Comm.
Jo. 10.4). However, Clement also notes that his information is derived from

1 This is the only extant fragment of this portion of the text.

2 Comm. Matt. 16.9 mentions Hom. Luc. 34. For the date of the Homilies, see J.T. Lienhard
(trans.), Origen: Homilies on Luke (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,
1996), xxiv.
3 Greek in Fr. 4—Ra 9 in H. Crouzel, F. Fournier and P. Périchon (eds.), Origène Homélies sur
S. Luc, Texte Latin et Fragments Grecs de M. Rauer (G.C.S.), SC 87 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1998),
466.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 179

the ‘earliest presbyters’ (ἀνεκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων; HE 6.14.5), implying that this

tradition had been around for some time. Similarly, Eusebius attributes to an
unspecified source a similar account of John collecting and verifying earlier
gospels (HE 3.24.7). That this original record most likely came from Papias will
be discussed in the following chapter.
This brief survey demonstrates that Origen falls in step with the growing tra-
dition that there are and can only be four gospels; however, he cannot escape
the fact that there are concerns that must be addressed if he is to maintain
this view. Most notably, the discrepancies among the gospels give Origen pause
in affirming their historical reliability. It is here that Origen takes a step into
previously uncharted territory by addressing the conspicuous discrepancies in
the chronologies of Jesus’ life and ministry as portrayed in the four gospels.
This is a shift from the earlier concerns over the different beginnings of the
gospels towards a critical examination of the four gospels as different (and dif-
fering) records of the singular gospel message. The specifics of his concerns
over various gospel discrepancies are detailed further below. First, however, it
is important to recognize how Origen used these issues to showcase the need
for a spiritual or allegorical exegesis of Scripture. Origen’s suggestion that the
gospels do not cohere and his resulting appeal for allegorical interpretation of
scripture were anathema to Epiphanius.

8.2 Origen and Epiphanius: Differing Hermeneutical Paradigms

For Origen, the apparent disagreements in the gospels do not negate their
truth, nor do they diminish the fact that Scripture is harmonious and perfect.
Just as a musical chord is comprised of distinct notes to create a coherent
sound, so also are the various points of disharmony in Scriptures. However,
he who is instructed in the music of God can bring together different points in
Scripture into harmonious chords that demonstrate the totality of Scripture is
the instrument of God (cf. Comm. Matt. 2 = Philocalia 6.1–2). The Law, Prophets,
gospels, and Apostolic writings are therefore demonstrated to be in complete
harmony through the work of the skilled exegete, the blessed peacemaker of
whom Jesus spoke at the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:9).4
Thus, the tensions between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels
do not make the former inferior in any way; in fact Origen has the highest
regard for the Fourth Gospel. For him, all scripture is gospel, the four gospels

4 Ignatius of Antioch makes a similar statement concerning the way that the bishop and the
presbyters in the church of Ephesus are in harmony as with strings on a harp (Ign. Eph. 4.1).
180 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

themselves are the ‘first fruits of scripture’ (Comm. Jo. 1.5), and the Gospel
of John is the first fruits of the gospels (Comm. Jo. 1.6). As to their content,
the gospel writers tried to present the truth both ‘spiritually and historically’
(πνευματικῶς ἅμα καὶ σωματικῶς; Comm. Jo. 10.4), but this was not always pos-
sible. If there are historical differences, Origen finds no reason for condemna-
tion, for such instances serve to convey the underlying ‘spiritual’ meaning.
Although the finer points of Origen’s hermeneutical approach to Scripture
are subject to a variety of opinions, the fourth book of Origen’s On First
Principles offers a general and broadly representative portrait of his methodol-
ogy. He notes that in Proverbs Solomon commands that the divine doctrines
should be recorded in a threefold manner. In the same way that man consists
of body, soul, and spirit, Scripture is given the same three senses (literal, moral
and spiritual) for mankind’s salvation.5 Thus, Scripture has three senses in
which it may be interpreted, although in practice he tends to emphasize only
two: the spiritual and the literal.6 Yet, a strictly literal exegesis can lead to error,
as seen in such use of Scripture by Basilides, Valentinus, and even Satan at
Jesus’ temptation (Hom. Luc. 31.2–3). Likewise, Christians with a limited edu-
cation who interpret Scripture only in a literal sense are prone to ignorant
claims and false opinions (De Prin. 4.2.4). In his response to Celsus’ charge that
Christians lack intellectual rigor, he concedes that few Christians have devoted
themselves to serious, devoted study of Scripture (C. Cels. 6.37). Origen labels
such believers the ‘simple ones’ (simpliciores).7
Origen was certainly not ‘simple’, and yet his appeal for allegorical interpre-
tation of scripture did serve a simple purpose. It was his attempt to maintain
the divine integrity of the Scriptures. He could have gone the way of Marcion or
Tatian and tampered with the text to make the pieces fit together more snugly,
and, to be sure, at times he felt the liberty to suggest minor modifications. But
Origen’s alterations were mere tweaks when compared to these other editorial
overhauls. Revising the text was not his standard practice. Rather, in response
to the problems created by literal interpretation and apparent textual discrep-

5 Origen’s hermeneutical approach is covered in detail by R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event:
A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM
Press, 1959). For an excellent assessment of Origen’s hermeneutic from a biographical per-
spective, see Peter Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life. Oxford
Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). See also Michael W. Holmes,
‘Origen and the Inerrancy of Scripture,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24/3
(Sept. 1981), 221–31, esp. 226.
6 See Hanson, Allegory and Event, 233ff.
7 Martens, 27.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 181

ancies, he issued what Peter Martens has dubbed the ‘Educational Mandate’ to
engage Scripture from a well-rounded education and firm grasp of philosophi-
cal thinking.8 From this approach, it is clear that the purpose of Holy Scripture
is not simply to be understood literally, particularly since some of the things
it says are not factually true (De Prin. 4.3.4). In fact there are various instances
where the gospels preserve a ‘spiritual truth’ in the outward form that some
may say is ‘a lie’ (Comm. Jo. 10.5).9
Yet the allegorical exegesis is not merely a tool to be used to make sense
of points in Scripture that are seemingly incompatible. In response to one of
Celsus’ attacks that Scripture cannot be interpreted allegorically, Origen points
to the Apostle Paul’s spiritual interpretation of various Old Testament passages
(C. Cels. 4.49). Elsewhere he argues that it is the spiritual interpretation of the
Law, as taught by Paul, that allows the ‘disciples of Christ’ to properly under-
stand its meaning in a way that differs from the mistaken, literal exegesis of
the ‘disciples of the Synagogue’ (Hom. Ex. 5.1).10 If the Apostle Paul approaches
Scripture this way, why should we not follow his lead?
Not everyone would agree with this method of interpretation. Even some
of Origen’s supporters balked at adopting his hermeneutical perspective indis-
criminately. A notable example of this is Eusebius, who once collaborated with
Pamphilus to write a lengthy defense of Origen; but, as I shall argue in the
following chapter, he also counteracted Origen’s views concerning the incom-
patibility of the four gospels through his own explanation of apparent histori-
cal differences (cf. HE 3.24.5–13). However, if the subtlety with which Eusebius
challenged certain aspects of Origen’s thinking reflects his respect for Origen’s
philosophical acumen and theological mind, then Epiphanius’ criticisms
and flagrant harassment of Origen indicate his smug disdain for the former
Alexandrian bishop and his followers.
Epiphanius could not stomach Origen’s approach to Scripture that wel-
comed philosophy and allegory as viable exegetical tools. For Epiphanius, phi-
losophy and classical paideia warranted no place in Christian theology. In fact,
he claims all heresy can be traced to their origins in Greek philosophy and
mythology (Haer. 26.16.7), and he dedicates much of the first quarter of the
Panarion to make this point painfully clear. He viewed Origen as the clearest
example of the inherent dangers of such formal education. It was this point
in particular that he emphasized to John of Jerusalem in a half-hearted letter
of apology for circumventing John’s authority and ordaining an anti-Origenist

8 Ibid., 28–33.
9 Cf. Holmes, ‘Origen,’ 228.
10 Martens, 158–9.
182 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

priest in his jurisdiction. Epiphanius claims that the votaries of all eighty her-
esies have at least one point in common with Origen: they all draw from the
pure well of Scripture but ignore the original sense in which it was written in
favour of exegesis that twists Scripture according to their own desires. Origen
tampers with ‘the true meaning of the narrative’ by means of his ‘false use of
allegory’, eventually distorting scripture to the point where he ‘makes them
mean what they do not mean at all’ (Jerome, Ep. 51.4).11
In the Panarion, Epiphanius informs the reader that the source of Origen’s
errors is the bite he suffered from the wicked serpent, which is worldly educa-
tion (κοσμικῆς προπαιδείας; Haer. 64.72.5). This explains his poisonous attempts
to comingle Holy Scripture with pagan philosophy: ‘And you also, Origen,
blinded by your Greek education, have spewed venom for your followers and
you have become poisonous food for them—damaging many people with the
poison through which you yourself have been damaged’ (Haer. 64.72.9).12 It is
not that Epiphanius wanted to separate philosophy and paideia from scripture,
as though they might have their proper place outside the realm of theology.
Rather, because heresy was directly tied to classical culture, it had to be com-
pletely eradicated.13 It was Origen’s wealth of learning that eventually led to his
downfall (Haer. 64.3.8).
Epiphanius therefore found it unnecessary to be skilled in rhetoric or phi-
losophy in order to prove the authority of Scripture. Epiphanius received some
formal education, but he admits to caring little for the rhetorical arts, and more
so for the spiritual health of those who would read his works (Haer. 31.35.1).
His concern was not for the intellectual elite, but the common man. Thus, he
would have worn Jerome’s notice that many ‘normal people’ read the works of
Epiphanius (De vir. ill. 114) as a badge of honor.
For Epiphanius, divinely inspired Scripture itself attests to the fact that its
description of historical events is accurate and literally true. However, this
does not necessarily mean, that he was a strict literalist, as some have sug-

11 For more on Epiphanius’ criticisms of Origen’s allegorical exegesis, see Elizabeth A.

Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 86–105.
12 Cf. Dechow, 15.
13 The work of Young R. Kim has shed new light on how Epiphanius’ background and
theology influenced his writings and perspective of the world. Kim offers a compelling
alternative to the common scholarly portrayal of Epiphanius as an inept historian and
intellectual lightweight. For more on Epiphanius’ rejection of classical culture, see Kim,
‘Reading the Panarion as Collective Biography: The Heresiarch as Unholy Man,’ VC 64
(2010), 382–413.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 183

gested. Such an either-or paradigm does not adequately reflect the nuances of
the different exegetical approaches of his time.14
In fact, Epiphanius uses allegorical exegesis throughout his writings. The
Panarion itself is structured on his allegorical interpretation of Song of Songs
6:8–9, ‘There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins without num-
ber. My dove, my undefiled is but one’ (Haer. 35.3.5–6). Of course, Epiphanius
sees the dove as the true bride of Christ, the church. He also interprets the
‘virgins without number’ as philosophies that have no ties to the Lord what-
soever, and Solomon’s eighty concubines as the total number of heresies—all
of which claim to bear the name of Christ but do not properly belong to him
(Haer. Proem I.4.2). As to his exegesis of the sixty queens, Epiphanius even
greater liberties with the text. For him they represent the generations of Adam
to Christ, only he has to fudge the numbers to make it work (De Fide 4.1–5.4).
Another Epiphanian work, On Weights and Measures, aims to explain the sig-
nificance of all the weights, measures, and numbers in scripture. ‘Measures are
worthy of spiritual contemplation for those who understand’ (De Mens. 30).
Thus, for example, the three measures of flour with which Sara made cakes
(Gen. 18:6) is clearly a reference to the Trinity (De Mens. 30).
Epiphanius’ unique exegetical approach to scripture reflects well the seem-
ingly self-contradictory complexities of Epiphanius himself. On the one hand,
his education and moments of lucid analysis and precise thinking do not quite
fit the mold of the simpliciores that Origen belittled as incapable of delving
into the deeper questions of God and Scripture. Although it may not be found
on every page of his works, there is enough evidence throughout his writings
to demonstrate that he is capable of profundity of thought. On the other hand
his conviction that all scripture is written by the Holy Spirit is a rather simple
premise that guides his firm conviction that the ‘truth speaks in plain words’
(Haer. 35.3.2). This is the root of Epiphanius’ disdain towards Origen’s herme-
neutic: Origen has gone beyond ‘the true drift of the passages’ of scripture
(Jerome Ep. 51.5). For Epiphanius, there is some room for allegorical interpreta-
tion of scripture, but spiritual understanding does not come at the expense of
historical truth. ‘But all of the holy words do not need to be bound to allegories

14 Recent studies have shown that the traditional Alexandria vs. Antioch model of allegori-
cal vs. literal exegesis (respectively) does not do justice to the evidence. See Ayres, Nicaea
and Its Legacy, esp. 31–40; Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian
Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002); John O’Keefe, ‘A Letter that Killeth: Toward
a Reassessment of Antiochene Exegesis,’ JECS, 8 (2000): 83–104. For Epiphanius’ herme-
neutical method in particular, see esp. Andrew Jacobs, ‘Epiphanius of Salamis and the
Antiquarian’s Bible,’ JECS 21 (2013): 437–64.
184 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

for their meaning; they require inspection and the perception to comprehend
the power of each principle. Yet tradition must be used as well, for not every-
thing from the sacred scripture can be grasped’ (Haer. 61.6.4–5).15
Despite their glaring differences, there are some common points between
Epiphanius and Origen. Most notably, Epiphanius is not adverse to allegorical
interpretation; in fact he uses it quite freely and without apology at various
points in his writings. Both wanted essentially the same thing: to demonstrate
the unity of Scripture. Their goal is identical; it is the approach that separates
them. Origen’s high standards for true exegesis and appeals to allegorize the
text did not resonate with Epiphanius whose concern it was to safeguard
the right to the truth—especially historical truth—through the reading of
Scripture by the common man.16

8.3 Origen and the Discrepancies Among the Gospels

In the tenth book of his Commentary on John, Origen’s ‘mortally dangerous’

exegesis is in clear view when he questions the historical veracity of some of
the events recorded in the gospels. He begins by questioning the historicity
of Jesus cleansing the Temple (which he later denies in favour of its spiritual
significance). This story is the second act of Jesus in John’s Gospel while the
gospels of Matthew and Luke situate it as part of the Passion narrative, thus
suggesting that it never happened (Comm. Jo. 10.15–16). The differences are so
great that he claims it is impossible to harmonize these accounts.
In his following comments, Origen moves on to other problems of incom-
patibility with John’s account of Jesus’ actions before and after the cleansing of
the Temple—namely, Jesus’ temptation and his first trip to Capernaum. Here
again, he finds that John’s record contradicts the other gospels. In Comm. Jo.
10.2 he issues an ultimatum:

If the discrepancy between the gospels is not solved, it is necessary to

abandon our trust in them as being truthful and written by a divine
Spirit, or as credible records, for these characteristics are said to belong
to these works. For they say—those who accept the four gospels
(οἱ παραδεχόμενοι τὰ τέσσαρα εὐαγγέλια), and who suppose that the
discrepancy (διαφωνίαν) is not to be resolved through anagogical inter-
pretation (διὰ τῆς ἀναγωγῆς)—they will have to explain the difficulty

15 Cf. Merkel, Widersprüche, 172.

16 Cf. Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 83.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 185

noted beforehand, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for
which there is no room that can be found in the account of John, (and)
when the Lord came into Capernaum . . . But if we ask when Christ was
in Capernaum the first time, they will say to us, according to the words
of Matthew and the other two, it was after the temptation, when ‘leaving
Nazareth He came and stayed in Capernaum next to the sea.’ But how
can they claim both the account of Matthew and Mark be true—that it
was on account of Him hearing that John was delivered up that he with-
drew into Galilee—and that according to John, [which states that] after
a number of other events than just His stay at Capernaum (namely His
going up to Jerusalem and His journey from there to Judea) that John was
not yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in the Aenon near Salim? And
there are many other points where, if someone carefully scrutinizes the
gospels concerning their historical disagreement (τὰ εὐαγγέλια περὶ τῆς
κατὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν ἀσυμφωνίας)—we will try to present each as they hap-
pen, insofar as we are able—he will surely become dizzy and will either
shrink from confirming the gospels as true, and choose one of them at
random since he would not dare to deny completely the faith concerning
our Lord, or accept that there are four <and inquire> that their truth is
not to be found in the outward characteristics (σωματικοῖς χαρακτῆρσιν;
Comm. Jo. 10.2).17

Origen offers compelling evidence to support his view that spiritual interpre-
tation offers a solution to this dilemma that, when interpreted literally, would
show that scripture is not trustworthy. To clarify his point, he poses a hypo-
thetical situation in which multiple witnesses report the same event but with
different, conflicting details. One might say that Jesus was sitting while giving
a speech and another may claim that he was standing. Both cannot be factually
true, but they may be spiritually important. So it is with John’s gospel, which
leaves no room for the temptation and confuses the details surrounding Jesus’
first trip to Capernaum.

8.4 Origen and the First Criticism of the Alogi

Origen’s analysis is so close to the first criticism of the Alogi such that the two
are nearly indistinguishable. Both are concerned with the fact that the Gospel

17 Cécile Blanc, Origène, Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Tome II (Livres VI et X). SC 157 (Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1970), 386–90.
186 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

of John leaves no room for the forty days of the temptation. Bearing in mind
Origen’s remarks, consider the Alogi’s first objection:

(5) For they say against themselves—I do not say against the truth—
that [John’s] books do not agree (οὐ συμφωνεῖ) with the other apostles’.
And now they believe they can attack the holy and inspired teachings.
(6) “And what did he say?” he asserts (φησίν). “In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was with God and the word was God.” And that,
“The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we knew his glory,
glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (7)
And immediately, “John bore witness and cried, saying, ‘This is the one
of whom I was telling you.’ ” And that “This is the lamb of God, who takes
away the sin of the world.”
And next [John] says, “And those that heard him said, ‘Rabbi, where
do you dwell?’ ” (8) and in the same breath he says, “in the morning Jesus
wanted to go into Galilee and found Philip and Jesus said to him, ‘Follow
me.’ ” (9) And after a little while he says, “And after three days there was
a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus was called, and his disciples, to
the wedding supper, and his mother was there.” (10) But the other evange-
lists say that he spent forty days in the wilderness being tempted by the
devil, and then returned to choose his disciples. (11) And they [the Alogi]
have not seen that each evangelist has taken care to say what the others
had said, in agreement with them, while at the same time revealing what
each had not proclaimed, but had neglected to disclose. For the will was
not their own: but the sequence (ἀκολουθία) and teachings came from the
Holy Spirit. (12) If these opponents attack these writings [of John], they
must learn that the other three of these [Gospels] did not begin in the
same way (Haer. 51.4.5–12a).18

Although the similarities between Origen’s comments and the first objection
of the Alogi have been noted for a long time, the nature of this relationship
has often been underappreciated and misunderstood. Specifically, it is often
argued that Gaius of Rome predated Origen as the source for this objection;
however, this notion has already been dismissed and further support is pro-
vided below. It is sufficient at present to seek alternative sources. With Gaius
out of the picture, the focus naturally turns to Origen as Epiphanius’ source, as

18 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 251–2. Epiphanius also reproduces this objection in slightly differ-
ent forms at Haer. 17.11–18.6 and 51.21.15–17.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 187

Charles Hill has noted.19 It is true that no other early extant source mentions
the specific issue over John’s omission of Jesus’ temptation, but this singular
point of contact, strong as it is, does not necessarily implicate Origen. There is,
however, additional evidence that links Origen’s comments with this criticism
of the Alogi.
In addition to John’s omission of the temptation narrative, Origen ques-
tions the claim that the gospels are divinely inspired and historically credible.
To this end, he devotes considerable space throughout the tenth book of his
Commentary on John to addressing additional discrepancies between John and
the Synoptics concerning Jesus’ first trip to Capernaum. Specifically, in Comm.
Jo. 10.2 he asks whether Jesus’ trip was because John the Baptist imprisoned,
as the Synoptics record, or if John was still baptizing in the Aenon near Salim,
as John’s Gospel claims. If Epiphanius did in fact use Origen as his source,
one should be able to detect additional points of contact with these addi-
tional points concerning Jesus’ trip to Capernaum. They are clearly not part
of the specific objection of the Alogi, but Epiphanius does address them in his
response, thereby forging a stronger link between Origen and the opinions of
the Alogi.

8.4.1 Epiphanius’ Response

Oddly, Epiphanius’ first line of defence against the charge of gospel discrep-
ancies is to admit to differences in the gospels. This does not mean, however,
that they are incompatible. He points to the different beginnings of all four
and provides a lengthy exposition of each (Haer. 51.4.11–13.6), tackling various
other heretical opinions along the way,20 before finally addressing the Alogi’s
argument that John leaves no room for Jesus’ temptation. In Haer. 51.13.7ff.
Epiphanius explains that the apparent confusion is resolved when one sees
that John’s Gospel is referring to an additional trip by Jesus to the Jordan where
he encountered John the Baptist. This is why John refers to Jesus’ trip in the
aorist tense, indicating that John had met Jesus prior: ‘This is He of whom I
said to you . . .’ (Jn. 1:30); ‘John bore witness . . . saying ‘I saw the Spirit’ . . .’
(Jn. 1:33). For Epiphanius, this proves that ‘John is speaking of two different
times as already having happened, in order to point out that this is not the
same time as the baptism, but a different one. For Jesus did not immediately go
from the temptation to John, but he first went to Galilee and then from Galilee
to the Jordan’ (Haer. 51.13.9–10).

19 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 188–9.

20 E.g. the criticisms that he associates with Porphyry, Celsus and Philosabbatius (Haer.
51.8.1ff.) as well as the views of Ebion and Cerinthus (Haer. 51.12.3ff.).
188 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

But Epiphanius has more to say, and his comments align well with the addi-
tional concerns of Origen. He repeatedly describes the sequence of events that
occurred after the temptation (Haer. 51.15.1–7, 51.16.1–9, 51.17.2–9, 51.20.1–21.13,
51.21.14–21, 51.30.4–13).21 One such example of this is found in Haer. 51.21.14–21,
which is worth reproducing at length:

(14) Heresies like these are overthrown by the truth and accuracy of
sacred scriptures, in particular by the harmony of the four gospels. For
no one who is thinking correctly would reject the things from the Holy
Spirit (which are) given accurately through the sacred gospels. (15) For
even though they say (λέγωσιν) that the evangelists Matthew, Mark and
Luke set out in detail that the Savior was brought to the desert after the
baptism, and that he spent forty days in temptation, and after the temp-
tation heard of John’s imprisonment and went to live at Capernaum by
the sea—(16) but (they then say) that John is lying (ψεύδεται) because he
did not speak about this, but that the Savior immediately came to John
(the Baptist), and all the other things he says [Jesus] did. Their complete
ignorance of the gospels’ precise wording will be made clear. (17) For John
the Evangelist makes it known that before the arrest of John the Baptist
(and) after the days of the temptation of the Lord, [the Lord] had gone
to him <again> (αὖθις). If John was incarcerated, how did the Savior still
return to him at the Jordan? (18) But they also do not know that the other
three evangelists give a precise account of the time after John’s imprison-
ment, saying, “But Jesus, hearing that John was cast into prison, leaving
Nazareth behind, settled in Capernaum which is upon the seacoast.” And
you see that everything the four evangelists said is according to the truth
and harmonious. (19) For it is clear that John follows the order already
laid out clearly [by the Synoptics] when he says that, after performing
the Savior’s first miracle and having gone to Capernaum and performed
some miracles there, and going back to Nazareth and having read the
scroll, then afterwards, when John the Baptist was in prison, he went and
dwelled in Capernaum for “not many days” (Jn. 2:12). (20) These are the
days after the Epiphany, Christ’s journey to Capernaum and Nazareth, his
pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover, and <his> coming again to John,
where he was baptizing at Aenon <near> Salim. (21) For it says, “After this
he went down into Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers, and
they remained there not many days” (Jn. 2:12). (He was not yet referring

21 Although Epiphanius’ account itself is not entirely harmonious. Here, see Smith, ‘Gaius,’
539ff.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 189

to Jesus’ final stay [in Capernaum], of which he said later <that> after
John’s imprisonment he was coming to dwell in Capernaum by the sea)
(Haer. 51.21.14–21).22

For his part, Origen demands that those who maintain the view that the gospels
are divinely inspired and credible but do not wish to resort to his prescribed
anagogical interpretation, they must provide an explanation of the missing
temptation narrative in John’s Gospel as well as when the Lord first came to
Capernaum. In this defence, Epiphanius provides such a response. Whereas
Origen argues that a close examination of the gospels proves their incompat-
ibility, Epiphanius claims that such opinions arise from complete ignorance of
the precise wording of the gospels. It must have given Epiphanius great plea-
sure to claim that he had not only solved this historical dilemma, but also to
deprive Origen of his justification for interpreting the gospels by means of his
mortally dangerous exegesis. Yet Origen promised to present to the reader the
‘many other points’ where the gospels disagree with one another, and there is
good reason to suggest that one such instance provided Epiphanius with the
second criticism of the Alogi.

8.5 Origen and the Second Criticism of the Alogi

Throughout the tenth book of his commentary, Origen delivers on his prom-
ise to present other instances of Scriptural incompatibility. For example, the
Apostle Paul is not always consistent (10.5), and there are differences in the
Gospel accounts of the call of Peter and whether or not Jesus baptized with His
disciples (10.6). For Origen, all of these instances point to the need for under-
standing the greater spiritual truth. Material and historical references do not
necessarily refer to material and historical things, but spiritual and intellec-
tual things (10.13). Thus, in John’s description of the Passover, Origen asks why
John refers to the ‘Passover of the Jews’, which seems redundant (10.11)? Does
he include the phrase ‘of the Jews’ to differentiate the human, Jewish Passover
from the true, divine Passover that is represented by Jesus (as Paul suggests in
I Cor. 5:7)?
Then, in 10.14–15, Origen addresses another significant discrepancy between
John and the Synoptic Gospels. Once again, Origen returns to the events
surrounding Jesus’ first trip to Capernaum. John’s gospel states that while
the Lord was there with his mother, brothers, and disciples, the Passover of

22 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 280–1.

190 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

the Jews was approaching (Jn. 2:12–17), so He left for Jerusalem and cleansed
the Temple. Much later, John’s Gospel records a second trip, first to Bethany six
days before the Passover (Jn. 12:1–8), after which came Jesus’ triumphal entry
into Jerusalem (Jn. 12:12–15). By contrast, Origen cites lengthy portions of the
Synoptic Gospels to demonstrate that they speak of only one trip to Jerusalem,
where Jesus celebrated the Passover and cleansed the Temple (Mt. 21:1–13;
Mk. 11:1–11, 15–17; Lk. 19:29–46). He continues,

I have cited lengthy sections from the gospels, but I think it has been
necessary to do so in order to demonstrate the stated discrepancy. Three
gospels place these events, which are assumed to be the same as those
written by John, as occurring in one journey of the Lord to Jerusalem. Yet
John places them in connection with two visits, which are divided from
each other, in between which there were many acts of the Lord and jour-
neys made to other places. Therefore, I find it impossible for those who
accept nothing other than the history in their interpretation to admit
that these discrepancies are in agreement. And if someone thinks that
we have not provided a sound exposition, let him produce an intelligent
rebuttal to our view (Comm. Jo. 10.15).23

When Origen states, ‘Three gospels place these events . . .’ he is clearly including
the Passovers, as determined by the preceding context. Charles Hill has noted
that this is remarkably similar to the second objection of the Alogi:24

But they accuse the holy evangelist again, more so the Gospel itself,
because, he says (φησίν), ‘John said that the Savior kept two Passovers
over a two-year period of time, but the other evangelists describe one
Passover’ (Haer. 51.22.1).25

For Hill, ‘When Epiphanius cites the second objection of the Alogi against
John, we seem to hear echoes of Origen’s voice.’26 However, one may rightly
protest that Origen’s emphasis is on the different locations of the cleansing
of the Temple in the gospels.27 Epiphanius makes no mention of this prob-

23 Emphases mine. SC 157, 464.

24 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 189.
25 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 283.
26 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 190.
27 Although Origen does not emphasize it in the first objection (10.1–2), he does raise the
issue of the chronological placement of the cleansing of the Temple there as well.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 191

lem. Perhaps he, like others, simply did not have a ready answer. Even Tatian’s
Diatessaron wholly ignores the Johannine placement of the cleansing of the
Temple in preference for the threefold witness of the Synoptics, despite the
argument that Tatian preferred the Johannine chronology.28 Eusebius also
ignored this issue in his Gospel Canons.
Nevertheless, it must be recognized that Origen does specify that John’s gos-
pel mentions two Passovers while the others only refer to one. Furthermore,
as seen in the previous chapter, Epiphanius was also concerned with Irenaeus’
argument against the Valentinians that there could not have been three
Passovers during one ‘acceptable year of the Lord’. Although Irenaeus was
right to claim the gospels refer to three Passovers (AH 2.22.3), he was wrong
to claim that ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’ extended well into Jesus’ fifties
(AH 2.22.5), which would therefore imply additional Passovers. It would seem,
therefore, that the combination of Irenaeus’ comments with Origen’s criticism
prompted Epiphanius to address this issue in his account of the Alogi. The
accusation itself surely belongs to Origen, however, for he alone mentions the
two Passovers in John’s Gospel and only one in the Synoptics.
Is it a mere coincidence the objections of the Alogi parallel Origen’s two
challenges to those who maintain the gospels are harmonious? In this second
criticism we see again Origen’s demand that ‘If someone thinks that we have
not provided a sound exposition, let him produce an intelligent rebuttal to our
view’ (10.15). In both instances Epiphanius responds to Origen’s criticisms and
challenges under the guise of the Alogi. He later turns the tables by issuing his
own challenge to those who follow Origen. After laying out various reasons
why Origen should be deemed a heretic, he provokes those who would dis-
agree with him, ‘But if anyone has a rejoinder to all this, bring it! If someone
<wishes> to counteract God, do it!’ (Haer. 64.70.20).

8.6 Origen or Gaius of Rome?

The criticisms of the Alogi against the Gospel of John most likely originated
with Origen, yet some have argued that Origen is simply recording the same
criticisms of Gaius, which he somehow picked up along the way. In addition to
the case for exonerating Gaius (Chapter 3), there are a number of reasons why
this is improbable.

28 For Tatian’s proclivity towards the Johannine chronology in his Diatessaron, see Perrin,
‘Diatessaron,’ 302ff. Cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 227; also Grant, Earliest
Lives, 23–6, who argues that Tatian did not favor the Johannine order.
192 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

First, and most importantly, these issues that Origen mentions in regards to
the incompatibility of the narrative of John with that of the Synoptics reflect
his own views and analysis. He makes similar observations elsewhere, as evi-
denced in a letter of his to Aristides, where, according to Jerome (De vir. ill.
63), Origen devotes much of his attention to the genealogical discrepancies in
Matthew and Luke. He also points out other areas of scriptural inconsistency,
such as the number of sandals of Jesus that John the Baptist said he was not
worthy to untie (Comm. Jo. 6.21), and the discrepancies in John’s narrative of
Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple (Comm. Jo. 10.15).29 If the criticisms stated by
Origen were views held by another person such as Gaius or a group such as the
Alogi, it would be natural to expect to find some indication that he cites these
issues as belonging to a separate party, as he does in the case of Heracleon’s
exegesis of the Gospel of John and Celsus’ views in his Contra Celsum. It is
true that Origen was aware of the disharmony of the gospels (e.g. C. Cels. 2.27),
but evidence of the issue of Gospel discrepancies, particularly the different
beginnings, is also attested broadly elsewhere in places such as Irenaeus, the
Muratorian Fragment, Eusebius, Julius Africanus and others. Indeed, the gos-
pels’ disharmony may have been a motivating factor of Tatian’s Diatessaron.
To claim that Origen had acquired privileged information that originated only
from Gaius of Rome or a small, otherwise-unattested group known as the Alogi
is to underestimate the scope of the issue. There is, in fact, no indication in
his testimony that he derives these issues from a source, either oral or writ-
ten, nor do we find any particular notice concerning the discrepancy over
the Johannine omission of the temptation in any of the other early Patristic
writings.
Secondly, there is the less persuasive argument that Origen was made aware
of these criticisms from an encounter with Hippolytus, who would have relayed
his opposition to Gaius on these matters.30 For his part, J.D. Smith concedes
that Origen did not have a copy of Hippolytus’ lost Defense in front of him, thus
making this chance meeting the only opportunity for him to learn of the trou-
bles caused by Gaius.31 Jerome mentions the only known encounter between
these two at a Roman church service during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (De
vir. ill. 61). Jerome learned about this meeting by reading Hippolytus’ On the
Praise of our Lord and Savior, in which the author claims to have been speaking
in the presence of Origen. But nothing about Jerome’s account the title of this
work indicates he discussed Gaius’ supposed anti-Johannine rhetoric. It should

29 For more examples and further analysis, see Hanson, Allegory, 260ff.
30 Schwartz, ‘Über den Tod,’ 44/45; Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 196.
31 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 403–4, n. 1.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 193

also be noted that having read this same work, Jerome still felt comfortable
including Gaius in his work on Illustrious Men (De vir. ill. 59). Had Hippolytus’
work been a polemic against Gaius and his rejection of the Johannine materi-
als, it is safe to presume Jerome may not have included Gaius’ name in this cat-
alogue. Furthermore, Jerome is silent on whether Hippolytus records anything
about actually meeting Origen, let alone the content of their exchange. For this
argument to work, it is necessary to believe that in their brief time together
Hippolytus relayed to Origen Gaius’ negative views of the Gospel of John, but
there is nothing to indicate that the encounter—if it did actually occur—had
anything to do with Gaius.
Even the flimsy evidence that could be construed as supporting this view is
not without problems. As Marcovich notes, Jerome mistook Eusebius’ notice
(HE 6.23.1) that Ambrose encouraged Origen to write commentaries on the
Scriptures, and suggested that it was Hippolytus who made such an appeal
(De vir. ill. 61).32 Later writers, including Sophronius, the translator of De viris
illustribus into Greek, and Photius (Bibl. 121), appear to have further misread
Jerome’s own misreading of Eusebius, when they claim Hippolytus was an imi-
tator of Origen.33 Photius reverses the direction of influence, claiming that it
was actually Hippolytus that demanded so many works of Origen that the lat-
ter referred to the former as a ‘hustler’ in one of his letters.
Eusebius states that Origen was only in Rome briefly before returning to
his duties of catechetical instruction in Antioch (HE 6.14.10–11), and he does
not mention that the Origen ever met Hippolytus, let alone that he attended
a service by Hippolytus in Rome. Presumably, an encounter between Origen
and Hippolytus would have been the subject of much attention, but absolutely
nothing is said about this anywhere, even in the later accounts that have clearly
inflated that of Eusebius. Is it fair to assume all of this about Origen’s time in
Rome? Smith seems to think so, since, without providing any further evidence,
he hastily concludes, ‘In any case it is clear that Origen knew of Gaius’ argu-
ment against Jn. 1–2.’34
Third, given Gaius’ reputation as an opponent of Montanism, if Origen drew
these criticisms from Gaius there would presumably be some element of an
anti-Montanist polemic or anti-Johannine rhetoric couched in terms that sug-
gest some degree of reticence concerning John’s Paraclete passages or proph-
ecy in general. But Origen does not provide any of this. Instead, the evidence
supports the argument that Origen expresses his own views.

32 Marcovich, 9.
33 Ibid.
34 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 196.
194 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

Finally, much has been made of the fact that Epiphanius records aspects of
the objections to John’s gospel as originating from an individual rather than a
group of heretics. In both objections to the Gospel of John (Haer. 51.4.6, 22.1)
Epiphanius introduces these criticisms with the singular ‘he says’ (φησίν).
For some, this is proof positive that behind this heretical ‘group’ there is a
single individual: Gaius of Rome.35 Yet the same argument can be made that
Epiphanius’ use of the singular points towards Origen, not Gaius. Furthermore,
the use of the singular in his portrayal of the criticisms in conjunction with
the use of the plural elsewhere in his testimony could suggest a two-pronged
indictment: Origen as well as those who followed him or share sympathetic
views are guilty of denying the Johannine Logos. They are Alogi.
Smith notes that there exist a variety of accounts in which some attack
apparent inconsistencies in Scripture in order to discredit them.36 He goes
on to argue, ‘In none of these writings hwoever [sic] are the contradictions
reported as precisely as those of Gaius.’37 The emphasis on precision is a worth-
while point, but it does not work in Smith’s favor. In fact, the Alogi’s objections
against the Gospel of John, have stronger parallels to those found in Origen’s
Commentary on John than what bar Salibi records of the ‘heretic’ in his own
Commentary on John.
For example, bar Salibi notes, ‘The heretic Gaius criticized John because it
did not agree with the other gospels, saying that after the baptism He went
to Galilee and performed the miracle of the wine in Cana.’38 This objection
broadly conforms to that of the Alogi.39 However, Origen specifies his criti-
cism in a way that concurs with the more precise nature of the Alogi’s objec-
tion: he states that John is incompatible with the Synoptics in regards to the
time of Jesus’ baptism because, it omits the story of Jesus’ temptation (cf. Haer.
51.18.6). Furthermore, bar Salibi does not record anything about the number of

35 ‘Our conclusion is that Epiphanius is extracting these quotations from a source in which
the objections were attributed to one single individual, who is Gaius himself!’ Smith,
‘Gaius,’ 233.
36 E.g. Justin’s Trypho (Dial. 66–7); Rhodon’s dialogue with Apelles (HE 5.13.6, 9); Marcion’s
argument against the Old Testament because it contradicted the Gospel (viz. his Gospel).
37 Smith, ‘Gaius’, 286.
38 ‘Gaius haereticus reprehendat Johannem quia non concors fuit cum sociis, dicentibus,
quod post baptismum abiit in Galilaeam, et fecit miraculum vini in Katna.’ Latin transla-
tion by Dudley Loftus, Fell. MSS. 6 and 7 in the Bodleian Library; recorded in Harris, 48.
39 Although it is important to remember that the name ‘Gaius’ is wanting in both of the
manuscripts of bar Salibi’s commentary that are housed in the British Library (MSS Add.
7184 and 12,143), leaving the origins of this objection anonymous: ‘A certain heretic criti-
cized John . . .’ See Harris, ‘Presbyter Gaius,’ 48–9.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 195

Passovers in John versus the number recorded in the Synoptics. Long ago, this
fact proved problematic for Harris, who preceded Schwartz in suggesting that
Gaius must be the source for both these criticisms. Despite the fact there was
no evidence linking Gaius or bar Salibi with this second objection, Harris nev-
ertheless surmised, ‘certainly Hippolytus must have dealt with the objection
made by the Alogi on the subject of the Passovers.’40 But if this were the case,
and if bar Salibi used Hippolytus’ refutation of Gaius as his source, why did bar
Salibi not mention it at all? In contrast, it has been demonstrated that Origen
raised a similar objection (Comm. Jo. 10.14–15) that corresponds well with the
second criticism of the Alogi (Haer. 51.22.1).
What does one make of this? Epiphanius’ testimony is void of anything that
would resemble anti-Montanism with which Gaius was so clearly concerned.
Rather, the evidence points in another direction: Epiphanius’ testimony is
saturated with anti-Origenist polemics. There are numerous other examples
throughout the account of the Alogi to demonstrate this.

8.7 Other Examples of Anti-Origenism in Epiphanius’ Account of the

Alogi

There are a number of additional instances that demonstrate that Epiphanius

is engaged with the testimony of Origen in his account of the Alogi. J.F. Dechow
has argued that the focal point of the entirety of Epiphanius’ Panarion is a
polemic against Origen. He states, ‘Epiphanius was sure that Origen was the
epitome and exemplar of all heresies from the beginning of time,’ and further-
more, ‘All heresies, in Epiphanius’ mind, are ultimately related to the mode or
content of Origen’s thought and to some degree diminish that which the creed
with its homoousion expresses: the reality of the triune God; specifically, the fully
divine and fully human reality of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the Savior.’41 Lest one
think Dechow overstates his case, it is important to note that Epiphanius him-
self makes it abundantly clear. For example, in his letter to John of Jerusalem,
whom Epiphanius deemed guilty of Origenist sympathies, he claims Origen to
be the ‘spiritual father of Arius’ and the ‘root and parent of all heresies’ (Ep. 51,
3–4). Origen’s actions are similar to the Manichaeans, Ebionites, Marcionites
and the votaries of the other eighty heresies. Epiphanius reiterates the same
argument in the Panarion (Haer. 64.4.2).

40 Ibid., 55.
41 Dechow, 13.
196 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

8.7.1 Origen’s Christology

One primary area of concern for Epiphanius was Origen’s christology, which
is addressed in the conclusion of Epiphanius rebuttal to the first objection of
the Alogi. Here Epiphanius recounts the story of Jn. 5:18, where the Jews per-
secuted Jesus because he said that God was His Father, thus making Himself
equal to God. Epiphanius then asks, ‘How can the sects which make the Son
inferior to the Father not be condemned? For the gospel says “making himself
equal with God” ’ (Haer. 51.21.30). It is true that the Ebionites and Cerinthus
are seen throughout his testimony, but it is also necessary to add Origen to this
category.42 In his condemnation of Origen, Epiphanius is explicitly clear about
how he feels about Origen’s christology. Epiphanius points to his Commentary
on Psalms as an example of his belief that Jesus was ‘created’ (γενητός) and thus
had a subordinate status to the Father (Haer. 64.7.4, 8.1–8).43 Epiphanius records
verbatim portions of Origen’s commentary on the Psalms to demonstrate
his errant christology: ‘And here, immediately, is each word in such a knowl-
edgeable manner, O eager hearer, that he declared the Son of God appeared
as a creature’ (Haer. 64.5.11). Earlier in his attack on Origen, Epiphanius states
that his first downfall is the denial that the Son is of the same essence as the
Father, but was created (κτιστόν). Rather, it is by grace that Christ is called ‘Son’
(Haer. 64.4.3–4). He then goes on in Haer. 64.9 to argue, in much the same way
as the passage noted above (Haer. 51.21.30):

(1) But let us look at the four gospels, through which, when the divine
Word came, revealed life to all of us, and see if Christ has ever said, “God
created me,” or “My Father created me!” And let us see if the Father made
known in any of the gospels, “I have created the Son and I have sent him
to you.” (2) Now, I have had enough of this; concerning written witnesses,
I have often quoted them against those who introduce the idea of being
created. (3) However, it will not be annoying to show how easy the term
can be refuted and I ask the aspiring sage, “How is it possible he is a crea-

42 Smith (‘Gaius,’ 387) points the finger in this direction.

43 See Dechow, 280 for other ‘creature-words’ Epiphanius uses to describe Origen’s view of
the Son of God, though Dechow may be right in suggesting that Epiphanius ‘understands
Origen only in an exaggerated anti-Arian sense.’ Dechow’s premise (273) is that, ‘Despite
the decline of interest in anti-subordinationism as primary grounds for anti-Origenism by
376, Epiphanius’ accusation shows how deeply rooted such criticism was among Nicene
conservatives.’ As he says later (285), this is seen in that ‘the Arians capitalized on the
ktisma-terminology for the sake of magnifying the distinctiveness of the Son from the
unbegotten Father.’
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 197

ture when it says, ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in me, and the two
of us are one’?” (Jn. 14:10; 10:30; Haer. 64.9.1–3).44

Here Epiphanius uses the Gospel of John to refute Origen’s christology, for it is
in this Gospel that Christ’s full deity is most clearly expressed.45 As he states,
confusion over the incarnation of Jesus persisted even after the writing of the
Synoptics, which is why the Holy Spirit compelled John to write his Gospel
and emphasize both the human and divine aspects of Christ (Haer. 51.12.1–8).
Recalling the way in which Epiphanius describes the Alogi, Origen fits the
mould quite well. Epiphanius states, ‘I was correct to call this heresy Ἄλογοι for
they have not accepted the divine Word who came from above, which has been
preached by John’ (Haer. 51.17.10).46

8.7.2 Textual Anomalies in Origen and Epiphanius

Another example of Epiphanius’ use of Origen in his account of the Alogi is
found in a unique textual link between Origen and Epiphanius. In Comm. Jo.
6.24, Origen records a distinctive reading of Jn. 1:28.

“These things happened in Bethabara (Βηθαβαρᾷ), on the other side

of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.” However, we know in nearly
all of the other copies (ἀντιγράφοις) it reads, “These things happened in
Bethany.” And this seems to have been the way it was rendered at earlier,
as in Heracleon, where we know it as “Bethany”. But we know for sure that
it is not “Bethany”, but “Bethabara”.47

Origen then proceeds to offer geographical reasons for editing this passage in
this way. This textual emendation is uniquely Origen’s, but it also reappears in
the account of the Alogi.
In their work, The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen, Ehrman,
Fee, and Holmes have reconstructed Origen’s manuscript of John as reading:

44 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 418.

45 Cf. Clark, Origenist Controversy, 90–1.
46 Hill (Johannine Corpus, 189 n. 60) provides an additional example, where he notes that
Epiphanius (Haer. 51.15.7–12, 51.17.4, 9) is likely responding to Origen’s discussion (Comm.
Jo. 10.6) of the apparent discrepancy between Jesus calling Andrew and Peter in Judea
after the baptism recorded by John (Jn. 1:40–42) and his calling of them in Galilee by the
lake, as found in Matthew (Mt. 4:18–22).
47 SC 157, 284–6.
198 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

ταυτα εν Βηθανιᾳ εγενετο περαν του Ιορδανού, οπου ην Ιωαννης βαπτιζων.48 They
preserved the reading of Βηθανιᾳ rather than Βηθαβαρᾳ because they ‘are inter-
ested in determining what Origen’s MSS read, not what he, on the basis of his
own scholarly work, believed the original text of the Fourth Gospel to have
been.’49 According to these scholars, ‘He himself emended Βηθανιᾳ the reading
found in his MSS of the Fourth Gospel, to Βηθαβαρᾳ.’ Furthermore, Origen’s
statement that ‘nearly all’ other copies read Βηθανιᾳ ‘should probably be taken,
then, as hyperbole; so far as we can tell, none of his MSS read otherwise.’50
Turning to Epiphanius, in Haer. 51.13.1 he states, ‘And when he describes
all these things he says, ‘These things were done in Bethabara’—but in other
copies (ἀντιγράφοις) ‘in Bethany, beyond the Jordan’ (Jn. 1:28). Epiphanius
clearly reproduces the very reading that Origen claims to have provided him-
self. One could argue that Epiphanius is simply using a later manuscript that
had adopted Origen’s use of Βηθαβαρα, but if this were the case, he would
not have provided the identical notice that it reads Βηθανια in other copies
(ἀντιγράφοις).51 Furthermore, to give one final correlation between Epiphanius
and Origen, Epiphanius repeats Origen’s notice that Cana means ‘the bride’ at
the end of his defence of the Gospel of John (Haer. 51.30.10; cf. Comm. Jo. 13.62).
There can be no doubt that Epiphanius has a copy of Origen’s Commentary on
John in front of him throughout his construction of the Alogi.

Summary

Origen’s testimony in his Commentary on John has far too many parallels with
the record of Epiphanius to deny its relevance in the formation of the sect that
Epiphanius calls the Alogi. Epiphanius has used the criticisms of his theologi-
cal nemesis, the ‘aspiring sage’ (ἐθελόσοφον), as the proof-text for the criticisms
of the Alogi against the Gospel of John. By questioning whether the gospels
were written by a divine Spirit (Comm. Jo. 10.2), Origen has committed the irre-

48 Bart Ehrman, Gordon Fee and Michael Holmes, The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the
Writings of Origen, vol. 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 72. See also B. Metzger, Historical
and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian, New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 8
(Leiden: Brill, 1968), 96–7. ‘Among present-day witnesses to the reading Βηθαβαρᾷ / are C2
K U L 083 1 22 33 syrs,c arm geo.’
49 Ehrman, et al., 72.
50 Ibid., n. 22. See also T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (London: Harvard University
Press, 1981), 109.
51 In his argument that Gaius is the true identity of the Alogi, Smith wrongly presumes this
section must have come from a lost Hippolytan work. Smith, ‘Gaius’, 393–4.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Origen 199

missible sin. He is not alone, however. Epiphanius surrounds him with other
heretics that deny the full authority that belongs to the gospels. Nevertheless, it
is upon Origen’s criticisms regarding the validity of the historical truths of the
gospels that Epiphanius is able to build his case against all those that do not
believe that the gospels agree and the evangelists do not contradict each other
(Haer. 51.30.14). Epiphanius was not the only person to respond to Origen,
however. As I shall demonstrate in the next chapter, Eusebius also reacted
negatively to his opinions.
 CHAPTER 9

Epiphanius’ Use of Eusebius

Origen was not only Epiphanius’ source for the objections of the Alogi to
the Gospel of John, Eusebius also found his criticisms to have gone too far.
Although he does not explicitly indict Origen, Eusebius also provides a defence
against Origen’s views that the Gospel of John disagrees with the Synoptics. As
an outspoken supporter of Origen, Eusebius is careful to couch his own argu-
ment for the compatibility of the gospels in subtle terms, so as not to impugn
his hero. He accomplishes this task by manipulating the testimony of someone
for which he has far less admiration: Papias of Hierapolis. This rebuttal became
an integral part of Epiphanius’ defence.
Eusebius preserves portions of the tradition of Papias concerning the ori-
gins of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, but he makes no mention of any
Papian comments about Luke or John. However, other scholars have argued
that Papias likely did speak of the Gospel of John. Notably, Charles E. Hill
has argued that Eusebius’ testimony concerning the origins of the Gospel of
John (HE 3.24.5–13) may originate with Papias, but Eusebius failed to ascribe
it to him. Hill’s argument is compelling and, generally speaking, convincing.
However, it is unlikely that the entirety of this passage comes from Papias
alone. Rather, Eusebius blends aspects of what Papias had to say with his own
solution to the discrepancies noted by Origen. In turn, Eusebius’ response to
Origen was to find its way into the testimony of the Alogi.

9.1 Eusebius, Papias, and Origen on the Four Gospels1

Eusebius begins his account in this way: ‘Let us now show the undisputed
writings of this apostle (John). Firstly, his Gospel, which is known to all the
churches under heaven,2 is acknowledged as genuine. That it has with good
reason been put by the men of old in the fourth place after the other three
may be seen in this manner . . .’ (HE 3.24.1b-2). After discussing the veracity and

1 Significant portions of this chapter also appear in T. Scott Manor, ‘Papias, Origen and
Eusebius: The Criticisms and Defense of the Gospel of John.’ VC 67.1 (2013), 1–21.
2 Cf. Origen ap. Eusebius (HE 6.25.4): ‘. . . the four gospels, which are the only indisputable ones
in the Church of God under heaven.’

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_011

Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 201

trustworthiness of the apostles, Eusebius continues to offer a similar account

of the Gospel origins as found in the writings of Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.

5. But still, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have
left us their recollections (ὑπομνήματα). A record preserves (κατέχει λόγος)
that they came to write out of necessity (ἐπάναγκες). 6. For Matthew, who
first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to others, com-
pensated those from whom he was sent for the lack of his presence, hav-
ing transmitted his gospel in writing, in his native language. 7. And when
Mark and Luke had already written their own gospels, it is said (φασὶ)
that John gave an unwritten proclamation (κηρύγματι) all the time, and
finally came to write for the following reason. The three gospels already
having been written and distributed to all, as well as to himself, it is said
(φασιν) that he welcomed (ἀποδέξασθαι) them and testified to their truth
(ἀλήθειαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιμαρτυρήσαντα), but the only thing missing in the
writing was an narrative (διήγησιν) about the things done by Christ at
the beginning and the outset of the proclamation (κηρύγματος). 8. The
record3 is certainly true (καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος).
[8b] For it is seen that the three evangelists had written down
(συγγεγραφότας) only the deeds done by the Savior during one year after
the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and they indicated precisely this
element at the beginning of their historical accounts (ἱστορίας). 9. For
Matthew, after the forty days fast and the temptation that followed it,
indicates the time of his own written account, saying, “But when he heard
that John was imprisoned, he withdrew from Judea into Galilee”
(Mt. 4:12). 10. And Mark in a like manner, “Now after the imprisonment of
John,” he says, “Jesus came to Galilee” (Mk. 1:14). And Luke, prior to begin-
ning the account of the deeds of Jesus, in a similar way, affirms the order
up front, noting that Herod, adding to his evil acts, “shut up John in
prison” (Lk. 3:19–20). 11. Now that on account of these things they say
(φασι) the apostle John was exhorted (παρακληθέντα) to hand down
(παραδοῦναι) in his Gospel an account of the time passed over in silence
(παρασιωπηθέντα,) by the first evangelists and the acts done by the Savior
during this period (these being the acts before the imprisonment of the
Baptist). This he indicates when he says, “This is the first of the miracles
(παραδόξων) Jesus performed” (Jn. 2:11). And then, referring to

3 The word λόγος referring to κατέχει λόγος in 3.24.5. For κατέχει λόγος in Eusebius as indica-
tive of a written record, see esp. Lawlor, Eusebiana, 22. Further scholarship in support of this
rendering may be found in Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 590, n. 21.
202 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

(μνηονεύσαντα) the Baptist in the midst of the acts of Jesus, [John] still
baptizing in the Aenon near Salim, where he states clearly, “For John was
not yet cast into prison” (Jn. 3:24). 12. Therefore John in his written Gospel
hands down (παραδίδωσιν) the things accomplished by Christ before John
was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists recall (μνημονεύουσιν)
the things after the imprisonment of the Baptist. 13. And if these things
are understood, no longer do the gospels appear to disagree with one
another (δόξαι διαφωνεῖν αλλήλοις τὰ εὐαγγελια), for that according to John
comprises the first acts of Christ, but the rest [record] the history
(ἱστορίαν) of the of what happened to Him at the end the period. Naturally,
John was silent concerning the genealogy of our Savior according to the
flesh, seeing as it was previously recorded in Matthew and Luke; but he
began with the description of his divinity, which, as it were, was reserved
for him, as their superior, by the Holy Spirit.4

Eusebius does not indicate where he derived this account of the order of the
gospels, but it is clear that he is drawing from a previous source. In HE 3.24.5
Eusebius remarks that ‘a record preserves’ (κατέχει λόγος) that the Gospel
writers composed their works out of necessity. H. Lawlor has shown that the
phrase κατέχει λόγος is a common introductory formula for Eusebius’ inclu-
sion of a narrative of some source, either oral or written.5 As to the identity
of Eusebius’ source, some scholars have floated the possibility of Origen
or Clement of Alexandria, although, on their own, neither is a truly viable
candidate.6 Hegesippus is a contender, particularly given the identical

4 Because this chapter deals primarily with Hill’s proposal, and in order to maintain uniformity
of the evidence, I have largely kept Hill’s interpretation of specific vocabulary.
5 Lawlor, Evsebiana, 21–2. According to Lawlor (22), the author of the source (if written) can be
determined by ‘a search through the passages from previous writers scattered over his pages’.
See also Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, VCSupp 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2003),
63ff.
6 Smith ‘Gaius,’ 193, n. 1 notes Origen as a possibility. Hill (‘What Papias Said,’ 608–11) has shown
that this is not possible. See also W. Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (New York:
Scribner’s, 1905), 69–70, who thinks it is likely Clement of Alexandria. But Clement’s record
of the origins of the Gospels preserved in Eusebius HE 6.14, while similar in parts, has marked
differences that prevent Clement from being Eusebius’ source (e.g. Clement’s order of the
Gospels begins with Matthew and Luke). Furthermore, Clement states that he received his
information from ‘the tradition of the earliest presbyters’ (HE 6.14.5). In addition, Eusebius
draws parallels between the account of Clement and Papias on the Gospel of Mark in HE
2.15.2, from which one could infer that Papias was a source of Clement. Here, see Bauckham,
‘Papias,’ 62. For further discussion, see Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 607ff.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 203

introductory formula (κατέχει λόγος) Eusebius uses to introduce his accounts

(HE 3.11–12, 19; 3.32.1).7 Hippolytus has also been suggested as Eusebius’
source.8 This is possible, but also entirely unverifiable, since there is no evi-
dence from any of his writings to substantiate this hypothesis. Even Sanday,
who put Hippolytus’ name forward as a possibility, chalked up this attribution
to nothing more than a ‘guess’ and leaned in stronger favor of Clement.
Charles Hill, however, argues that it originates from Papias. Although there
is no extant writing from Papias with which one can compare this portion of
Eusebius on the Gospel of John, the evidence does seem to stack up, at least
partially, in Hill’s favor.9 Yet, while I agree with much of his argument that there
is ample reason to think that Papias is behind some of the tradition Eusebius
records in HE 3.24.5–13, there are clear instances where Eusebius has broken
away from his source to provide his own response to the question of the dis-
crepancies among the gospels. To prove this, it is necessary to first consider
Hill’s argument more carefully.

9.1.1 The Argument of Charles E. Hill

Hill’s argument may be summarized as follows. First, it is often overlooked
that in 3.24.5–13 Eusebius is paraphrasing a written account.10 This is seen in
Eusebius’ use of the phrases ‘a record preserves’ (κατέχει λόγος; 3.24.5), ‘the
record is certainly true’ (καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος; 3.24.8), and the less precise ‘they

7 On the use of κατέχει λόγος in association with Hegesippus, though not specifically HE
3.24, see F.J.A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity: A Course of Lectures (Cambridge: Macmillan
and Co., 1894), 170–173; Lawlor, Evsebiana, 23–26, 50ff. Hill does not consider Hegesippus
as a possible alternative source.
8 Sanday, Criticism, 69.
9 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 582–629; Johannine Corpus, 186, 384–395, points to the analysis
of Lawlor and others to support his argument. Hill notes that he was preceded in this
notion of Papian attribution by V. Bartlet, ‘Papias’ “Exposition”: Its Date and Contents,’
in Amicitiae Corolla. A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris, D. Litt. On the
Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. H.G. Wood (London: University of London Press,
1933), 15–44. Graham N. Stanton (‘The Fourfold Gospel’, New Testament Studies 43.3 [1997],
333) is convinced Papias knew the Gospel of John based on his order of disciples that
is found only in the Fourth Gospel. This point is shared by Richard Bauckham, ‘Papias,’
44ff., who also argues that ‘There should be no doubt that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel’
(44). See also, Hengel (Four Gospels, 45–6, 238 n. 192), who argues that this tradition
does not belong in the second-century and that the portion on John may come from
Papias or a third-century source. See also Johannine Question, 17–21; Lawlor, Evsebiana,
22, n. 2, though he thinks it may only apply to the material on the Gospel of Matthew.
Cf. Campenhausen, Formation, 199, n. 259.
10 See Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 588–92.
204 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

say’ (φασι; 3.24.7, 11). He argues that the phrase κατέχει λόγος is of particular
value in signifying a written source.11 For Hill, this is none other than Papias,
and he goes on to argue that the rest of the testimony in HE 3.24.5–13 is tied
to this introduction, as is seen in the similar phrase associated with Eusebius’
testimony of the Gospel of John (καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος; HE 3.24.8), which he
argues is a reference to the earlier, similar statement.
There are two other primary factors Hill cites in support of Papias as
Eusebius’ source in HE 3.24.5–13. First, he notes a number of parallels that link
his source in HE 3.24 with Papias’ account of the origins of Matthew and Mark
(HE 2.15.1–2; 3.39.15–16).12 Secondly, he notes parallels with other authors who
knew Papias’ work, such as Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian Fragment,
Origen, Irenaeus, and (later) Victorinus of Pettau.13
Finally, Hill claims that Eusebius’ source could not have come from any
alternatives.14 This is a solid case for suggesting that a lost portion of the record
of Papias underlies some of Eusebius’ testimony in HE 3.24.5–13; however, there
are also a number of additional questions that deserve attention.
For example, Richard Bauckham, while generally inclined towards Hill’s
argument, has suggested a handful of qualifications. Two of these are particu-
larly compelling. First, he holds that Hill has not delimited Eusebius’ source
closely enough.15 Bauckham suggests Eusebius does indeed use his source in
HE 3.24.5–8a, but there is a break from HE 3.24.8b-10 where Eusebius provides
his own analysis. After this the source appears to be used again, as indicated

11 Here, Hill follows Lawlor, Evsebiana, 22. Lawlor recognized that it is a ‘fair inference’ that
Eusebius derived his information on Matthew (HE 3.24.5) from the accounts of Papias
(HE 3.39.16), Irenaeus (HE 5.8.2), or perhaps Origen (HE 6.25.4); but that is as far as he
would go in pointing to Papias as the full source of Eusebius’ testimony in HE 3.24.5–
13. Hill is right in noting that Eusebius attributes to this same written record both the
Matthean and Johannine traditions: ‘A record preserves (κατέχει λόγος) that they
(viz. Matthew and John) took to writing out of necessity’ (HE 3.24.5).
12 See Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 592–96. He lists the following examples: (i) authorial humility,
(ii) distillation of apostolic preaching, (iii) Apostolic ‘memoirs’ (ὑπομνήματα), (iv) order
of events in the Gospels (τάξις), and (v) canonical ratification. Hill provides a summary of
his own argument in Johannine Corpus, 385–94, 409–16; also, ‘The Fragments of Papias,’ in
The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers. 42–51. Ed. Paul Foster (New York: T&T Press, 2007),
46–7.
13 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 596–607. Hill lists the following parallels: (i) writing by request,
(ii) order in the Gospels, (iii) evangelists as ‘publishers’, and (iv) the number and order of
the Gospels.
14 Ibid., 606–11.
15 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 433.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 205

by ‘they say’ in 3.24.11, after which Eusebius again issues his own comments in
HE 3.24.12–13. These statements may utilize some of the vocabulary of the
source, but they do not strictly reflect the source itself, especially since
‘Eusebius can be quite free in his paraphrasing.’16
Second, Bauckham notes that Hill’s argument regarding Papias’ concern for
the ‘order’ in the gospels, when applied to the Gospel of John, does recognize
the differences between John and the gospels; but while recognition of ‘order
is a common factor, the solution to each case is quite different.17 He points to
HE 3.39.15–16, where Papias admits Mark’s gospel is not ‘in order’. The implied
solution to the different order of events in the gospels that ‘Papias must be
inferred to have offered’ is that John’s gospel follows a correct chronological
order while Matthew’s and Mark’s do not. In contrast, in HE 3.24.5–13, the
solution is markedly different. Here, all four are reconciled without any being
considered out of order; rather, the explanation given is that John wrote of the
events prior to the Baptist’s imprisonment and the others record the events
that happened afterwards. If Eusebius’ source is responsible for this explana-
tion of the differences (HE 3.24.11–13), Bauckham argues, then it points in favor
of the conclusion that it was not Papias, for it is inconsistent with aspects of
Papias’ comments on Mark in his undisputed fragment (HE 3.39.15).
Hill has dismissed Bauckham’s point about not delimiting the source as
something that he allowed for in his original argument. In so doing he disre-
gards its potential impact in calling into question whether the entirety of this
passage came from Papias alone.18 Regarding Bauckham’s second point, Hill
admits that further explanation is required. He then reproduces and expands
various points made in his original article before concluding, ‘I do not regard
Bauckham’s “qualifications” as carrying any weight against the identification of
Eusebius’ source in Hist. eccl. 3.24.5–13 as Papias.’19
However, Hill may have misjudged the value Bauckham’s critique. First,
I believe he is too quick to dismiss the issue of delimiting the text and that
Bauckham’s point may, in fact, stand—namely that there appear to be breaks
in the text that indicate Eusebius has dropped his source. This goes hand in
hand with Bauckham’s second point. Although Hill makes a solid case for see-
ing portions of this testimony relating to the testimonies of others that knew
the Papian tradition, he has overlooked the fact that the argument made in

16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., 435–7.
18 Hill, ‘The Orthodox Gospel,’ 288.
19 Ibid., 294.
206 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

HE 3.24.8b-13 is not found anywhere else prior to Eusebius’ testimony and thus
may not be a part of the Papian tradition at all. Rather, I believe that this por-
tion of Eusebius’ testimony constitutes a response to the criticism of Johannine
incompatibility with the chronology of the Synoptics, which Origen states in
his Commentary on John (10.2).
It is clear from the previous chapter that Origen knows and affirms the
Papian tradition (cf. HE 3.39.15–16). In light of this, if Hill’s hypothesis is correct
and Papias is the source for the entirety of Eusebius’ account in HE 3.24.5–13,
it makes little sense that Origen would still record the criticisms surrounding
the discrepancies of the gospels found in the Comm. Jo. 10 if Papias had already
addressed them. Is it possible that although Origen was well aware of the
Papian tradition, he did not know of the argument concerning the harmony of
the gospels in HE 3.24.5b-13 because it was never a part of the Papian tradition
at all? A closer look at the corroborating witnesses to the Papian tradition will
provide clarity to this question.

9.1.2 Corroborating Witnesses?

If Eusebius’ argument for the compatibility of the gospels did originate with
Papias, there should be some reference to this in the other testimonies that
rely on his tradition. Hill notes a number of parallels with other authors who
were concerned with the ‘order’ in the gospels and who (most likely) knew
Papias’ testimony,20 but nowhere in these works does one find anything that
resembles the argument found in HE 3.24.8b–13.
This is all the more surprising given the fact, which Hill repeatedly empha-
sizes, that the authors who knew Papias’ tradition were concerned with the
‘order’ (τάξις) in the gospels. He states, ‘All accounts (Papias and those early
writers who knew his work) profess themselves to be aware of the differences
between John’s and the other three gospels, and the question of ‘order’ is pres-
ent here in 3.24 as it is in Papias’ account of Mark.’21 This is true, but it does
not necessarily follow that their concern for ‘order’ extended specifically to
the events surrounding the wedding in Cana and those that occurred before
and after John’s imprisonment. Clearly, Origen took a strong stance against the
harmony of these events and they are also the focus in HE 3.24.11–13, not to
mention Epiphanius’ testimony of the Alogi. But, none of the other early wit-
nesses that Hill associates with the Papian tradition address this chronological
conflict.

20 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 596–606.

21 Ibid., 597; see also his discussion 596–602.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 207

For example, consider the Muratorian Fragment, to which both Hill and
Bauckham often refer as a likely source that reflects Papias’ statements. In the
middle of its statements concerning the Fourth Gospel, it mentions the ‘differ-
ent beginnings’22 (uaria . . . principia) of the gospels, but these uaria principia
‘make no difference to the faith of believers.’ What follows is a list of things
declared by the ‘one sovereign Spirit’: Jesus’ nativity, passion, resurrection,
walk with His disciples and double advent. No mention is made of Jesus’ temp-
tation, baptism or first miracle.23 This is striking, especially given Bauckham’s
statement that ‘the differences between John and the Synoptics’ was some-
thing that the author of the Muratorian Fragment ‘was particularly conscious
of.’24 It is also notable that all the other early writers who knew Papias’ testi-
mony fail to note these specific issues raised by Eusebius. Rather, the predomi-
nant concern among those who appear reliant upon the Papian tradition is the
very beginnings of the gospels. It is seen, for example, in Irenaeus (AH 3.11.8),
Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.2) and Julius Africanus’ defense of the different genea-
logical accounts of Matthew and Luke (HE 1.7.1).
Indeed, out of all these possibilities Irenaeus would presumably be our best
bet for a source that contained any indication of Papias having recorded what

22 I follow Hill’s translation here. I agree with his argument (ibid., 586, n. 13) that the context
of the Muratorian Fragment suggests that principia should be rendered ‘beginnings’ not
‘elements’.
23 Hill argues (ibid., 597) that Eusebius quotes Jn. 2:11 in HE 3.24.11, in which he employs the
unique word παραδόξων rather than the more common term, σημείων, which is universally
attested in the MS tradition. Because, Hill argues, the Latin Vulgate translates παράδοξος as
mirabilium in Lk. 5:26, so also the original Greek of the Muratorian Fragment must have
used παραδόξων rather than σημείων—just as in the case of Eusebius’ citation of Jn. 2:11.
Yet there is reason to refrain from attaching too much value to this connection. First, it
should be noted that there is no indication that the Fragment is citing Jn. 2:11 at all. Rather
it cites I Jn. 1:1–3 before making a general statement about John’s role as an ‘eyewitness’
and writer of the ‘marvellous deeds of the Lord in order.’ The theme of Jesus’ ‘marvellous
deeds’ runs throughout the Fourth Gospel (e.g. 2:23; 3:2; 4:54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47;
12:18, 37; 20:30), and thus it is more likely that the Fragment is referring to this constant
Johannine theme rather than Jn. 2:11 specifically. In a similar way, Origen uses παραδόξοις
rather than σημεῖα in his polemic against Celsus, where he refers generally to the ‘marvel-
lous deeds of Jesus’ (7.54). Secondly, the Vulgate also uses mirabilium as the Latin transla-
tion for θαυμάσια in Mt. 21:15. Thus mirabilium does not strictly correlate with παράδοξος.
Thirdly, Eusebius appears to be paraphrasing Jn. 2:11 in HE 3.24.11, not citing it verbatim. In
any case, there is no reason to believe παραδόξων must have originated with Papias. Thus
the appearance of παραδόξων rather than σημείων may not bear as much value in the end
as Hill suggests.
24 Bauckham, ‘Papias and Polycrates,’ 55.
208 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

is found in HE 3.24.8b-13, due to the fact that he had the writings of Papias
in front of him (AH 5.33.4; HE 3.39.1) and he was well acquainted with the
Asia Minor tradition both personally and through the knowledge he gained
from Polycarp. Yet where one might expect to find such a testimony, such as
Irenaeus’ discussion of the events surrounding Jesus’ baptism and miracle
at Cana (AH 2.22) and his argument for the necessity of a four-fold Gospel
(AH 3.11), there is nothing to suggest that he knew of the account found in
Eusebius’ testimony.25 In fact, out of the various early Christian writers to use
Papias’ testimony, none of them approximate what is found in HE 3.24.8b-13.
At this point there are two primary explanations for the questions surround-
ing Eusebius’ testimony: either (i) Hill is correct and Papias is the source for
what is found in HE 3.24.8–13, and everyone up to Eusebius simply ignored
Papias’ testimony, and, with the exception of Origen, they also ignored the
apparent problem of the divergent portrayal of the events in John’s Gospel; or
(ii) the testimony in HE 3.24.8–13 did not originate from Papias and Eusebius
has derived his information from elsewhere. If the second explanation is cor-
rect, there must be evidence that Eusebius has shifted away from using his
earlier source. There should also be telltale signs that he is engaged with the
Origen’s criticism of the inconsistencies found in John’s narrative.

9.1.3 The Limits of Eusebius’ Source

Because Eusebius is paraphrasing his source, it is not easy to determine exactly
where his source material and his own comments begin and end. Yet, as
Bauckham has noted, it is difficult to suppose with Hill that Papias is behind
all of the content of HE 3.24.5–13. In particular, Bauckham suggests that the

25 Hill (‘What Papias Said,’ 600–1) points to Irenaeus’ use of παραδεδωκέναι (Greek text
in Eusebius 3.23.3 citing AH 2.22.5) and Eusebius’ use of παραδοῦναι found in Eusebius,
HE 3.24.11 to suggest that they used the same source and that both Irenaeus and Eusebius
convey that John ‘handed down’ something that would prove that Jesus’ ministry lasted
well beyond his thirtieth year.’ Hill (ibid., 600) states: ‘[A]ll Irenaeus may have needed
from the independent witness of ‘the elders’ was simply an affirmation that Jesus’ min-
istry actually began well before the ‘one year’ which seemingly formed the basis of the
synoptic accounts . . . What may have been in the ‘elders’ witness’ was simply a defence
of the order of events in John based partly on the claim that John had recorded events
from the early ministry of John which had been omitted by the other evangelists, thus
confirming that the ministry of Jesus was in reality substantially longer than is recorded
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.’ Yet, in AH 2.22 Irenaeus makes no mention or allusion to the
discrepancies of the Gospels. Rather, as noted in Chapter 7, he is combating the views of
the Valentinians in AH 2.22 that the thirty years of Jesus’ life corresponds to their thirty
Æons. See also Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 431.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 209

phrase in 3.24.8, ‘The record is indeed true’ (καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος) marks
the end of the passage drawn from the source, beginning in 3.24.5 with the
phrase ‘tradition says’ (κατέχει λόγος). He continues by arguing that the rest of
HE 3.24.8 through HE 3.24.10 ‘is Eusebius’ own explanatory comment.’26 Hill
concedes that Eusebius does break from his source to issue his own comments,
but he maintains that Eusebius is still using the information from his source.27
However, Bauckham notes, Eusebius may maintain some of the vocabulary,
but his comments in HE 3.24.8b–10 ‘are not to be relied on for communicating
what the source itself said.’28
Eusebius’ dependence upon his source does appear to end in HE 3.24.8 (καὶ
ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος), for after this one finds Eusebius’ own solution to the issue
of Gospel incongruities beginning to take shape. Thus, I suggest that there is
an inclusio in which Eusebius is clearly drawing significantly from his source
beginning with κατέχει λόγος in HE 3.24.5 and ending with καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος
in HE 3.24.8a.
What follows (3.24.8b–10) is Eusebius’ argument that the Synoptics recorded
the deeds of Jesus for one year after John the Baptist’s imprisonment, for which
he presents synoptic proof-texts. Eusebius prefaces his reference to Matthew
by explicitly mentioning the forty-days fast and the temptation that followed it
before citing Mt. 4:12. He then proceeds to cite Mk. 1:14 and Lk. 3:20.
Following this, in HE 3.24.11, Eusebius proceeds with ‘they say’ (φασι), fol-
lowed by the notice that John was exhorted (παρακληθέντα) on account of these
things to hand down (παραδοῦναι) in his gospel an account of the period that
had been omitted by the other evangelists and the deeds done by the Savior
during the time prior to the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Hill argues
that Eusebius’ use of fasi shows that he is referring back to the same written
record,29 but there are a number of scholars who would disagree. Lawlor30
felt that the use of φασι here indicated an oral tradition, and Sellew31 suggested
that Eusebius typically uses φασι when ‘he had no clear written authority.’

26 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 433.

27 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 593–4, 599; ‘Orthodox Gospel,’ 288.
28 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 433.
29 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 591. See also n. 25, where he counters the positions of Lawlor and
Sellew.
30 Lawlor (Evsebiana, 22, n. 2) states, ‘For when in §§7ff. he recounts a story of the origin of
St. John’s Gospel, for which no earlier authority is known, he refers, and apparently with
some emphasis, to common report as the evidence for what he tells (fasi,, §§7 bis, 11).’
31 P. Sellew, ‘Eusebius and the Gospels,’ in H.W. Attridge and G. Hata, eds., Eusebius,
Christianity, and Judaism Studia Post-Biblica 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 117.
210 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

Indeed, Lawlor finds only one instance where φασι is equivalen to κατέχει λόγος
(HE 7.12),32 but Hill points to HE 2.15.1 as a counterexample of φασι referring
to a written source (Clement of Alexandria and Papias).33 Bauckham suggests
that the ‘likely explanation is that Eusebius’ written source was itself reporting
oral tradition,’ but this does not mean that it was necessarily Papias.34
I am not convinced that φασι demonstrates that Eusebius is referencing
the same λόγος source that he notes in HE 3.24.5, 8. Nevertheless, presuming
for the moment that Hill is correct, just how much of the following informa-
tion is to be attributed to this source? It could very well be that all Eusebius’
source said was that John handed down (παραδοῦναι) an account that included
the events in Jesus’ life that the Synoptic Gospels ‘passed over in silence’
(παρασιωπηθέντα; HE 3.24.11). It is true that some of the vocabulary in HE 3.24.11
is common to what is attributed to Papias elsewhere, as Hill notes. For exam-
ple, he points to the notice that John was exhorted (παρακλήθεντα; HE 3.24.11)
to hand down his Gospel, which parallels what Clement and Papias say about
Mark (παρακλήσεσιν; HE 2.15.1), Clement’s statement that John was ‘urged’ to
write (προτραπέντα; HE 6.14.7) so also the Muratorian Fragment and Victorinus
(cohortantibus).35 But just as there are different accounts as to who it was
that requested or urged John to write his Gospel,36 it is entirely possible that
Eusebius could have filled in additional information that was not contained
in his source (nor in any other source prior to Eusebius that used Papias). If
Eusebius’ source only mentions that John handed down an account of events
that the Synoptics passed over in silence (παρασιωπηθέντα) in addition to his
being ‘urged’, then Eusebius himself very well may have specified these events
that the Synoptics passed over in HE 3.24.11 to that time which surrounds the
incarceration of John the Baptist.
Eusebius repeats this argument again in HE 3.24.12, 13 all under the guise
that he is recording information from his source. But as Bauckham notes, it
is possible that the source itself said much less than Eusebius made it say.37
Bauckham goes on to say that Eusebius’ retrieval of his source probably does
not extend beyond HE 3.24.11, for in HE 3.24.12–13 one finds that he adds his

32 Lawlor, Evsebiana, 36, n. 2.

33 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 591, n. 25; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 435.
34 Bauckham, Jesus as Eyewitnesses, 434f.
35 Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 592, 596.
36 Hill (ibid., 596) notes these identities as follows: Clement: τῶν γνωρίμων; MF: condiscipulis,
et episcopis; Victorinus: episcopi.
37 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 436.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 211

own comments.38 Other scholars, including Bauckham, express hard and soft
reluctance in presuming that Eusebius’ argument in HE 3.24.8–13 originated
from Papias.39 Yet in both instances where Bauckham finds reason to believe
that Eusebius has dropped his source (HE 3.24.8–10; 12–13), he offers no expla-
nation as to why Eusebius chooses the direction that he takes his argument. If
Eusebius is indeed inserting additional details into the tradition that lay before
him, what are they and why would he have felt compelled to amend his source?
The answer is found in what Origen had to say regarding the discrepancies of
the gospels in Comm. Jo. 10.2.

9.2 HE 3.24.8b–13 as a Corrective of Origen

Eusebius’ argument found in HE 3.24.8–13 is a thinly veiled response to Origen’s

challenge to those who want to claim historical legitimacy to all four Gospel
accounts. It is remarkably simple, but thorough enough to provide an explana-
tion of the differences Origen has mentioned.
In HE 3.24.11, Eusebius states that John records the period passed over in
silence by the Synoptics, and then he specifies that period as being prior to John
the Baptist’s imprisonment. He mentions the wedding of Cana (Jn. 2:11) as one
of these events, with which Origen was clearly concerned as well. Furthermore,
in HE 3.24.12 he expands the scope of events that are unique to the Gospel of
John when he states that, ‘Therefore John in his written gospel hands down
(παραδίδωσιν) the things accomplished by Christ before John was cast into
prison, but the other three evangelists recall (μνημονεύουσιν) the things after
the imprisonment of the Baptist.’ By implication, this includes John’s record of
Jesus’ first trip to Capernaum, which Origen found to be incompatible with the
Synoptics. This means, of course, that John records a trip to Capernaum that is
not relayed in the Synoptic accounts. It will be demonstrated below that this
is also how Epiphanius later understood and applied Eusebius’ testimony
(Haer. 51.21.14–24), where, in his refutation of the Alogi, he states that John
records multiple trips of Jesus to Capernaum.
In Eusebius’ conclusion (HE 3.24.13), it is clear that he is responding to some
criticism surrounding apparent discrepancies amongst the gospels. But where
does Eusebius get the notion that the gospels are not coherent in regards to the
period of time he has just described? If one compares the language Eusebius

38 Ibid., 433.
39 Ibid., 435. See also Hengel, Four Gospels, 45–6; cf. Campenhausen, Formation, 130–4.
212 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

employs with that found in the testimony of Origen, there is good reason to
believe that the former is counteracting the latter’s views.
Origen repeatedly mentions the discrepancy (διαφωνίαν) of John’s account,
and he issues a challenge to those who accept the four gospels and suppose
this apparent discrepancy (δοκοῦσαν διαφωνίαν) is not to be solved by means of
anagogical interpretation (ἀναγωγῆς): they must clear up the difficulties he has
raised. It is easy to see how Eusebius’ testimony does just this. Indeed, he casts
his response in very similar language to that of Origen: ‘And if these things are
understood (οἷς καὶ ἐπιστήσανατι), no longer do the gospels appear to disagree
with one another’ (δόξαι διαφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις τὰ εὐαγγέλια; HE 3.24.13).
Furthermore, Origen’s criticism is clearly directed at the historical veracity
of the four gospels and the ‘many other points’ at which these gospels do not
agree (ἱστορίαν ἀσυμφωνίας; Comm. Jo. 10.2). Again in Comm. Jo. 10.3 he states
that those who believe these gospels are ‘history’ (ἱστορίαν) will deem it impos-
sible that these four writers are recording truth. Turning to Eusebius’ own
defence of John, he clearly drops the vocabulary of his written source for that
of Origen. In the early portions of his testimony, while reliant on the Papian
tradition, Eusebius refers to the gospels as ‘recollections’ (ὑπομνήματα; HE
3.24.5), and ‘proclamations’ (κηρύγματι, κηρύγματος; HE 3.24.7) of the evange-
lists; but beginning in HE 3.24.8b he adopts the vocabulary of Origen. That is,
Eusebius refers to the gospels as ‘historical accounts’ (ἱστορίας, ἱστορίαν) both at
the beginning and end of his argument (HE 3.24.8, 13).
If Eusebius is, in fact, responding to Origen, why does he not mention him?
Eusebius was a staunch defender of Origen and likely refrained from referring
to him because of his sympathies towards the man, which are seen through-
out the sixth book of his Ecclesiastical History. Yet Eusebius also is clearly
concerned that the four gospels be seen as harmonious. This is apparent in
his Epistula ad Carpianum to which he subjoined his Canones. In a battle for
Eusebius’ allegiance, the authority and integrity of the gospels have clearly pre-
vailed over the views of Origen, which do not square with Eusebius’ own con-
victions. Eusebius’ ten canons, in which he draws parallels between the four
gospels, provide ample evidence of his concern for the compatibility of the
four gospels. Eusebius’ analysis, conjoined with Papias’ tradition of the origins
of the Gospels, would have made for a tidy account and explanation of the dif-
ferences and overall compatibility of the Gospels. This may be precisely what
we have here in HE 3.24.5–13.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 213

9.3 Epiphanius’ Appropriation of Eusebius’ Rebuttal

Epiphanius utilized Eusebius’ testimony in his refutation of the Alogi. In par-

ticular, there are clear indications that Epiphanius’ testimony in Haer. 51.21.14–
24 is a pillaged form of Eusebius’ account in HE 3.24.11–13.40
As with Eusebius, Epiphanius’ response hinges on distinguishing those
events that happened before the imprisonment of John the Baptist and those
that happened afterwards. He argues, ‘For John the Evangelist signals that
before the arrest of John the Baptist, the Lord went to him <again> after the
days of the temptation. For if John was imprisoned, how did the Savior return
to him again at the Jordan? (Haer. 51.21.17)41 Epiphanius proceeds to comman-
deer the second-half of Eusebius’ argument: ‘But they did not know that the
other three evangelists set out in accurate detail the time after the imprison-
ment of John the Baptist’ (Haer. 51.21.18a).
He then chronicles a few of the events recorded in the Gospel of John dur-
ing this period before the Baptist’s imprisonment, all of which happen to be
explicitly mentioned by Origen (Comm. Jo. 10.2). There was Jesus’ first trip
to Capernaum (Jn. 2:12; Haer. 51.21.19–21),42 Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple
(Jn. 2:13–22; Haer. 51.21.22–23), and the encounter with Nicodemus (Jn. 3:1–
15; Haer. 51.21.23). Epiphanius then follows Eusebius in citing John 3:22–24,
‘Jesus came along with His disciples to Judea, and spent time there with them
and baptized. And John was also <baptizing> in Aenon near Salim, because
much water was there, for John was not yet cast into prison’ (Haer. 51.21.24, cf.
HE 3.24.11; Jn. 3:22–24).
As with Eusebius, Epiphanius emphasizes the fact that John records the
deeds of Christ prior to the John the Baptist’s imprisonment. Other than
Eusebius, no other writer prior to Epiphanius makes this particular argu-
ment to harmonize the chronology of John with that of the Synoptics. There
are other places in Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi where the fingerprints of
Eusebius are discernible as well.43

40 Smith (‘Gaius,’ 403–4) notes this as a distinct possibility, but wrongly suggests that
Eusebius’ argument for the harmony of the Gospel of John with the Synoptics is aimed at
Gaius, not Origen.
41 Here we see Epiphanius carrying forward his argument from earlier in his defence
that Jesus and John the Baptist had two separate meetings (cf. Haer 51.13.9–10; cf. Haer.
51.4.5–10).
42 The second trip to Capernaum (cf. John 6:16ff.) is noted in Haer. 51.21.32, which, Epiphanius
emphasizes, is ‘in agreement with the other Gospels’.
43 Hill has noted briefly the possible association between HE 3.24.5–17 and Epiphanius’ tes-
timony, but only in passing. Hill (Johannine Corpus, 186, n. 53) lists the following: 51.4.10;
6.5; 12.2; 21.1; 21.18, 24. See also, ‘What Papias Said,’ 607.
214 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

9.4 Eusebius as the Source for the Criticism of Porphyry, Celsus, and
Philosabbatius

Epiphanius cites a criticism that he attributes to Porphyry, Celsus and

Philosabbatius (Haer. 51.8.1–4).44 This criticism rests on the apparent incom-
patibility of the events surrounding the birth narrative of Jesus as portrayed by
Matthew and Luke. Luke’s sequence runs: birth, circumcision eight days later, a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem forty days later, and a record of the actions of Simeon
and Anna. Matthew, on the other hand, says that an angel appeared to ‘him’
(Joseph) and told him to go to Egypt, after the arrival of the Magi (Mt. 2:13). The
conclusion of these critics, according to Epiphanius, is that Luke must there-
fore be lying when he says that Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to Jerusalem and
returned to Nazareth after forty days (Lk. 2:22, 39). Here again is the criticism:

And so some other Greek philosophers, I mean Porphyry and Celsus and
Philosabbatius, who is a dreadful, deceitful snake from the Jews, accuse
the facts of the Gospels through the overthrow of the holy apostles; being
natural and fleshly, leading their war according to the flesh and, being
powerless, they cannot please God; and they have not understood that
which is <said> by the Spirit.
For each <of them>, striking against the words of the truth because of
the blindness of their ignorance, in their attacks on this say: “How is it
possible that the day of his birth in Bethlehem has a circumcision eight
days later, and forty days after a journey to Jerusalem and the things
Simon and Anna did for him, when on the night he was born it says an
angel appeared to him, after the magi had come to worship him and
opened the bags and offered him gifts? As it says, ‘An angel appeared to
him saying, “Get up, take your wife and the child, and go to Egypt, because
Herod is looking for the life of the child.” ’ (Mt. 2:13) If he was taken to
Egypt on the night he was born, and was there until Herod died, how is it
possible that he remained [in Bethlehem] for eight days and be circum-
cised? Or how is it possible after forty days,45 as it is found in Luke, who is
lying?’ They say this blasphemously against each of their own heads,
because he says, ‘On the fortieth day they brought him to Jerusalem and
<returned> into Nazareth.’ (cf. Lk. 2:22, 39; Haer. 51.8.1–4)46

44 Cf. Chapter 6.2.

45 Clearly implying Luke’s account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem.
46 GSC 31,2 Epiphanius II, 258.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 215

The search for Epiphanius’ source of this criticism has produced varying results,
all of which are inconclusive. Naturally, some have suggested it has come from
a lost work of one of these critics, while others presume Epiphanius derived
this criticism from all three.47 As Philosabbatius is an otherwise unknown
character, it is Celsus and Porphyry who receive due attention. Harnack
includes Epiphanius’ notice in his catalogue of Porphyrian fragments (Fr. 12).48
Likewise, J.G. Cook points towards Porphyry as Epiphanius’ most probable
source.49 Celsus is perhaps an unlikely candidate, as Origen, in his Contra
Celsum, only mentions the vague criticism of Celsus regarding the adoration of
the Magi and the flight into Egypt (C. Cels. 1.58).50
In the search for Epiphanius’ source, allusions are plentiful, however precise
correlations have been difficult to establish. But perhaps there is an answer to
the question of Epiphanius’ source for this criticism that has gone unnoticed.
Turning to Eusebius’ work, Gospel Questions and Answers, one finds the identi-
cal conflict posed between the Matthean and Lukan accounts.51 In this portion
of his work, Eusebius is responding to questions that supposedly originated
from a certain Stephanos. The final question that Eusebius records asks rhe-
torically, ‘How is it that Matthew reports that Jesus was brought by His par-
ents from Bethlehem to Egypt, but Luke states that they went to Jerusalem
and then to Nazareth?’ (Gospel Questions ad. Stephanos 16). The similarities
between Eusebius and Epiphanius are clear. The same verses are pitted against
one another (Mt. 2:13 vs. Lk. 2:22, 39) and the same dilemma of incompatibility
is posed. And although one could argue that both Eusebius and Epiphanius
were reliant on a shared source, the fact that Epiphanius also repeats the very
same response as Eusebius suggests that Epiphanius appropriated this portion
of Eusebius’ testimony into his account of the Alogi.
Eusebius’ response is to shift the presumed period of time of which Matthew
speaks to a period two years after Jesus’ birth. Matthew is recording elements
left out of Luke’s narrative, and the same is true vice versa. If we juxtapose these
two accounts, the links between Epiphanius and Eusebius are undeniable:

47 Smith, ‘Gaius,’ 382.

48 Harnack, ‘Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen.’
49 Cook, 137.
50 As noted by Claudio Zamagni (ed.), Eusèbe de Césarée, Questions Évangéliques,
Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes. SC 523 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2008),
184–5, n. 1.
51 Zamagni (184–5) hints at the parallels with Epiphanius, but he sides with Cook (137) in
presuming a Porphyrian source.
216 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

EUSEBIUS EPIPHANIUS

(Ad Stephanos Praef. 16) Problem: (51.8.4) Problem:

Matthew says Jesus and His parents Matthew says, Jesus was taken to Egypt;
went from Bethlehem to Egypt; Luke how can he stay (in Bethlehem)? Luke
states that they went to Jerusalem, then lies: saying Jesus went to Jerusalem, then
Nazareth. Nazareth.
(16.2) Answer: (51.9.1–2) Answer:
Matthew does not report what Luke Matthew does not cover the same period
does, but records other things (viz. the of time that Luke does—no mention of
Magi). circumcision or Jesus’ first two years
(16.3) Two years passed between Jesus’ (51.9.5) Herod ordered the killing of all
birth and Matthew’s account of the children two years and younger, thus Jesus
Magi, as seen in Herod’s edict to kill was two years old when the Magi came.
all newborns two years and under (Mt.
2:16).
(16.4) Mary and Joseph went back to (51.9.10) Christ’s parents went back to
Bethlehem a second time because of Bethlehem—coming as a sort of
the memory (μνήμης) of the miracle of memorial (μνήμης) of the events in
Jesus’ birth. Bethlehem.
(16.4) The time of the Savior’s birth (51.9.3) Luke describes the events before
in Luke is not the same as that Jesus was two years old; Matthew speaks
in Matthew, when the Magi are of His birth, then speaks of events two
encountered. years later.
(16.5) The Magi did not find Jesus in (51.9.12) The Magi entered the house and
the manger, but inside the house with saw the baby with Mary, no longer in a
His mother. Thus, it was a later time. manger or a cave, but in a house.

Now, questions naturally arise regarding the fact that Eusebius’ work claims
to be in response to questions posed by a certain Stephanos, but Epiphanius
attributes the source of this criticism as originating from Celsus, Porphyry and
Philosabbatius. Nevertheless, the style of criticism found throughout Eusebius’
account is closely related to the attempts by people such as Celsus and
Porphyry to find contradictions between Christian texts.52 As Zamagni notes,

52 ‘The method of looking for contradictions in Biblical narrative is very consistent with
Porphyry’s scholarly technique. One cannot claim that Epiphanius preserves an explicit
Porphyrian quotation.’ Cook, 137.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 217

the particular method of instruction that Eusebius employs is characteristic of

various schools of philosophy during this time, and is noted in, for example,
Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus (Vita Plot. 13).53
There is also a distinct possibility that Eusebius was directly influenced by
the style of Origen, who bridged philosophy and Christianity in a way that
pleased Eusebius (cf. HE 6.19). Α fragment in the catena of Origen’s Commentary
on Matthew provides essentially the same explanation of a two-year disparity
between Jesus’ birth and the arrival of the Magi. It should be noted, however,
that the fragment is attributed to both Eusebius and Origen, so its true origins
are unknown.54 Eusebius very well may have appropriated what he read in
Origen’s work, but it is less plausible to assume that Epiphanius did the same.
Whatever its ultimate source, such a question that emphasizes an apparent
discrepancy between Gospel texts in a way that insinuates their unreliability
aligns very closely with the style of attack issued by Celsus and Porphyry. It also
resonates with a certain Origenist tone. By pitting two Gospels texts against
one another to suggest disharmony, it also fits squarely with the nature of criti-
cisms Epiphanius is collecting in his account of the Alogi, regardless of the
fact that it has nothing to do with the Gospel of John at all. Thus, Epiphanius
may very well have used Eusebius’ testimony and simply presumed the ori-
gin of this argument from this trio of philosophers based on his knowledge
of their attempts at discrediting Christianity by attacking the reliability of its
honored texts.

9.5 Other Connections between Eusebius and Epiphanius

If the lens through which one examines Eusebius’ influence on Epiphanius’

defence is expanded, there are additional traces of Eusebius’ account through-
out the witness of the Alogi. Eusebius records that the tradition to which he
refers says (κατέχει λόγος) that John and Matthew were compelled to write
their written memorials ‘out of necessity’ (ἐπάναγκες; HE 3.24.5, cf. 3.24.11).
Epiphanius uses a similar vocabulary in his record that the Holy Spirit

53 Cf. Zamagni, 33ff. He notes (33), ‘En effet, les problèmes qu’Eusèbe soulève sont Presque
toujours liés à des contradictions entre différents passages des Évangiles, et non à l’exégèse
d’un seul texte, comme il arrive che Philon.’ The influence of certain aspects Hellenistic
philosophical thought on Eusebius is also noted by D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius of
Caesarea (London: A.R. Mowbray, 1960), 148ff.
54 See Zamagni, 184–5, n. 1; Frag. 23 in E. Klostermann (ed.), Origenes Werke. GCS 12,3 Band,
III, 1 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1941), 25.
218 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

compelled (ἀναγκάζει) John to write his Gospel (Haer. 51.12.2).55 Hill has rightly
noted the fact that John was ‘compelled’ to write his Gospel is broadly attested
in other accounts of the origins of the Gospels, but the identity of the party
requesting the Gospel to be written is a rather loose variable, perhaps indi-
cating that the tradition, presumably from Papias, stopped short of providing
the identity of those making the request. It is certainly not found in Eusebius,
where John is only passively described as being compelled to write his Gospel
(παρακληθέντα, HE 3.24.11). Epiphanius supplants the identity as being the
Spirit that compelled John and Matthew (as well as Mark and Luke) to write
their Gospels, but other writers supplied their own identities of those who
asked John for a written account.56 The insertion of the various names of those
who pressed John to write his Gospel is probably due to the fact that Papias
never mentioned them; nevertheless the core tradition shared broadly among
the witnesses that John was ‘compelled’ to write his Gospel points back to the
tradition of Papias.57
Furthermore, as Hill points out, Epiphanius’ notice in Haer. 51.6.5 (that John
did not wish to repeat what had already been said) has a very Eusebian flavor.58
This goes hand in hand with another example found in Epiphanius’ descrip-
tion of the purpose behind the writing of the Fourth Gospel. Epiphanius states
that John did not need to speak about the things that had already been con-
firmed, such as his advent (Haer. 51.12.3; cf. 51.6.2, 5). He repeats this notice
in Haer. 51.19.2–5 and adds that John omitted (ἀπεσιώπησεν) nothing essen-
tial, but that through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he spoke of the Divine
Word (θεὸν Λόγον). Eusebius says much the same thing: John naturally omitted
(ἀποσιωπῆσαι) the genealogy because Matthew and Luke had already spoken
of this; rather he spoke of the doctrine of his Divinity (θεολογίας) reserved for
him by the Divine Spirit (HE 3.24.13).
One could also argue that Eusebius’ notices on the Gospels of Luke and Mark
also find a home in the testimony of Epiphanius. In his address to Theophilus,
Luke claims to have written his ‘orderly account’ since many others have com-
piled narratives of the ministry of Jesus (Lk. 1:1–4). To this, Eusebius supple-
ments the additional details that Luke thought it ‘necessary to deliver us from

55 Epiphanius makes the same claim later on, arguing that the Holy Spirit compelled
(ἀναγκάζει) Luke to write his Gospel (Haer. 51.7.1).
56 E.g. the Muratorian Fragment (line 10) claims it was John’s fellow disciples (condescipulis)
and bishops (episcopis suis). Clement of Alexandria states it was John’s acquaintances
(γνωρίμων; HE 6.14.7).
57 Cf. Bauckham, ‘Papias,’ 62; Hill, ‘What Papias Said,’ 596–7.
58 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 186, n. 53.
Epiphanius ’ Use of Eusebius 219

other contested ideas’ (HE 3.24.15). Epiphanius makes a very similar point,
although he specifies that the Holy Spirit compelled Luke to raise up their
(viz. Cerinthus et al.; cf. Haer. 51.7.3, 51.20.4–5) misguided understanding from
the lowest depths (Haer. 51.7.1–3). With regard to Mark, Eusebius is the first to
mention in his account of the Gospels that Mark was sent to Egypt after writ-
ing his Gospel (HE 2.16.1). Likewise, Epiphanius preserves this information in
his own account (Haer. 51.6.10).59

Summary

Epiphanius was not the only one to disagree with Origen’s position that the
Gospel of John could not be considered an accurate record of history. Using the
testimony of Papias as his platform, Eusebius provides a response to Origen’s
demand for an explanation of how the apparent discrepancies between John
and the Synoptics are to be reconciled. For his part, Epiphanius used Eusebius’
justification in his own rebuttal against the criticisms of the so-called Alogi. He
also borrowed the criticism and response found in Eusebius’ Gospel Questions
and Answers, which he then attributed to known Gospel critics. These exam-
ples in addition to other Eusebian features throughout the account of the Alogi
solidify the fact that the ‘Father of Church History’ played an important role in
Epiphanius’ construction of this composite heretical sect.

59 Jerome would later preserve this notice as well (De vir. ill. 8).
 CHAPTER 10

Sources Behind the Alogi’s Objections to the

Apocalypse

From which source(s) did Epiphanius derive the criticisms against the
Apocalypse? Whereas it is possible to determine the source for the Alogi’s
criticisms against the Gospel of John, there is no extant literature prior to
Epiphanius that records any identical objections to those concerning John’s
Apocalypse. As such, the answer to the question is inherently open-ended, but
not without possible explanations. Some hypotheses, however, are more plau-
sible than others. This chapter examines the possible sources behind the criti-
cisms of the Alogi against the Apocalypse. Two of the earliest extant sources
that raise serious hermeneutical objections to the Apocalypse are Origen and
Dionysius of Alexandria, and given Epiphanius’ use of the former in the objec-
tions to the Gospel of John, it is not surprising that he likely used Origen and
his protégé as the sources for the criticisms of the Apocalypse by the Alogi.

The Objections to the Apocalypse of John

Objection 1

And again these people are not ashamed to take up arms against the
things said by Saint John, believing that they are able to overturn the
truth, but being unaware that they are attacking themselves rather than
sound teachings. For they say mockingly of the Apocalypse, “What use
is it to me, he says (τί μη, φησίν), when the Apocalypse of John tells me
about seven angels and seven trumpets?”—not knowing that such things
were essential and profitable to the correctness of the proclamation
(Haer. 51.32.1–3; cf. Rev. 8:2).1

Objection 2

Again some of them attack the following text in the Apocalypse and say
in contradiction that, “He said, in a contradiction, ‘Write to the angel of
the church that is in Thyatira,’ and there is no church of Christians in

1 G CS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 305.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_012

Sources: the Alogi ’ s Objections to the Apocalypse 221

Thyatira. How then did he write to a church that does not exist?” In fact
these people destroy themselves since they are compelled by their own
declarations to confess the truth. For if they say, “There is now no church
in Thyatira,” they show that this was foretold by John.
For since those who are of the Phrygians settled there [and] grabbed
the minds of the simple believers like wolves, and converted the whole
area to their heresy, those that reject the Apocalypse attacked this text at
that time in an effort to discredit it (Haer. 51.33.1–3; Rev. 2:18).2

Objection 3

But again these people get excited in their boundless hunt for texts to
give the notion of throwing out the books of the holy apostle—I mean
the Gospel and Apocalypse of John (and perhaps the Epistles also, for
these are also in accord with the Gospel and Apocalypse)—and they say
(φασιν) that, “I saw, and he said to the angel, ‘Loose the four angels that
are upon the Euphrates.’ And I heard the number of the host, ten thou-
sand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, and they had been
fortified in breastplates of fire and sulfur and hyacinth” (Rev. 9:14–17). For
these people considered that the truth might somehow be <a kind of>
joke (Haer. 51.34.1–3a).3

10.1 The Reception of the Apocalypse Prior to Epiphanius

Initially, the Johannine Apocalypse was warmly received among a number

of early Christian writers. Papias cites it,4 as do other writers such as Melito
of Sardis (HE 4.26.2), Apollonius (HE 5.18.14) and Theophilus of Antioch (Ad
Autolycum 2.28; HE 4.24.1).5 It is celebrated as the work of John the apostle in
the writings of Justin Martyr (Dial. 81), Irenaeus (AH 4.20.11)6 and Tertullian
(Adv. Marcion 3.24). None of these writings, however, mention anything that

2 G CS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 306–7.

3 G CS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 308–9.
4 See fragments 10, 11 and 24 in J.B. Lightfoot, J.R. Harmer and M.W. Holmes, The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 313–14, 318–19.
5 See A.C. Sundberg, Jr., ‘Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,’ HTR 66 (1973), 23–4. Sundberg
notes that Andreas of Caesarea (in Apoc. 34) also suggests that Papias used it.
6 Here, John is referred to as the Lord’s disciple, not as an ‘apostle’.
222 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

approximates the anti-literal hermeneutical approach to the Apocalypse, or its

attribution to Cerinthus.
For his part, Hippolytus accepts the Apocalypse as written by John the apos-
tle (Ant. 36), and he comments on it throughout his Commentary on Daniel and
De Antichristo. Later sources attribute Hippolytus with another commentary,
now lost, entitled De Apocalypsi. There is also the title of the lost work concern-
ing the Gospel and Apocalypse of John that is listed on the statue of Hippolytus,
and the Apology for the same works noted by Ebed-Jesu. The purpose, contents
and historical existence of any lost work of Hippolytus are unknown. As with
the sources noted above, the extant Hippolytan corpus does not provide any
parallels with the nature of the Alogi’s criticisms or that Cerinthus was charged
as the author of this work. Hippolytus does mention Cerinthus in his Refutatio
(7.21–23; 10.21), but he provides no information to suggest that this heretic
and the Johannine literature are in any way connected or confused with one
another. Furthermore, the author of the Muratorian Fragment accepts the
Apocalypse of John without qualification.
Origen also accepts the Apocalypse as canonical and certifiably Johannine
(Comm. Jo. 2.4; De Princip. 1.2.10, 4.1.25; C. Cels. 6.6.6; HE 6.25.7–10). He notes
in his Commentary on Matthew his intention to write a commentary on the
Apocalypse, and Didymus the Blind claims knowledge of such a work;7 how-
ever, if Origen did write such a work it has not survived in tact. There are,
however, thirty-nine scholia on the Apocalypse discovered by the Greek
scholar C. Diobouniotis and attributed to Origen by A. Harnack.8 Some
have questioned their authenticity;9 however, they possess some of the hall-
mark features that are intrinsic to Origen’s hermeneutic such that Harnack’s
argument in favor of them being from Origen remains the most plausible

7 See Weinrich, xxi, who notes the record of Didymus in SC 83, 123 and 84, 654–5.
8 Constantin Diobouniotis and Adolf von Harnack, Der Scholien-kommentar zur Apokalypse
Johannis nebst einem Stück aus Irenaeus, Lib. V, Graece. TU 38, 3. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung, 1911. See also the later revisions by C.H. Turner in two articles, ‘The Text of the
Newly Discovered Scholia of Origen on the Apocalypse,’ JTS 13 (1912): 386–97; also, ‘Origen
Scholia in Apocalypsin,’ JTS 25 (1924), 1–16.
9 In particular, as noted by E.J. Goodspeed (‘Recent Patristic Literature,’ AJT 20, n. 1 [1916],
116), Harnack’s argument (Scholien-kommentar, 50) the conclusion that Origen is directly
identified in Scholion XXIV could be wiped away with a small change in accentuation (viz.
changing ὡς οὐ for Ὠ σου), as originally noted by J.A.T. Robinson, ‘Origen’s Comments on the
Apocalypse,’ JTS 13 (1911), 296. However, Goodspeed maintains that this work is probably still
from Origen even though no explicit attestation of his authorship is found in the Scholia
themselves. Likewise, Robinson does not claim that the scholia are from anyone other than
Origen.
Sources: the Alogi ’ s Objections to the Apocalypse 223

explanation. As detailed below, aspects of these scholia have parallels with

the way in which Epiphanius reports the accusations of the Alogi against the
Apocalpyse. Finally, there is a Latin text of an Irish Commentary containing
various homilies on the Apocalypse. J.F.T. Kelly suggests that these came from
Origen,10 but questions abound, particularly since Origen is mentioned for the
first time in the prologue of only one manuscript of this very homiletical work,
dated to the eighth century.
Later, Victorinus of Pettau wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse.11
According to Jerome, who revised this work’s chiliastic views, Victorinus rep-
licated the anagogical hermeneutics of Origen (Ep. 61.2). This may be seen
throughout Victorinus’ commentary, although he also demonstrates reli-
ance upon Hippolytus and Irenaeus. Even if Victorinus’ Commentary on the
Apocalypse does reflect some of Origen’s views, nothing in his work aligns with
the criticisms of the Alogi or makes any note of Cerinthus.12
As time went on the place of John’s Apocalypse in the list of accepted
writings became more volatile, particularly along the eastern region of the
Mediterranean.13 The clearest point at which it began to be heavily scrutinized
came by way of Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 265) in his work On the Promises.
As noted above, Dionysius deemed the work to be acceptable, but only when
interpreted spiritually (HE 7.25.4–5). After a careful exegetical analysis of the
Apocalypse in comparison to the authenticity of the Gospel of John, the differ-
ences in content and vocabulary caused him to deny the author of the former
was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee (HE 7.25.7), though he refuses to
reject it or attribute it to Cerinthus, as ‘some’ before him had done. He suggests
rather that it may have come from a different ‘John’ (HE 7.25.9–27).
Later, Eusebius affirms Dionysius’ view that it may have been written by
another ‘John’ (HE 3.39.6; cf. 3.25.4), and his suspicions of its chiliastic teach-
ings are well known.14 By the middle of the fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem
had chosen not to include it in his canonical list (Catech. 4.36); nor did it make

10 J.F.T. Kelly, ‘Early Medieval Evidence for Twelve Homilies by Origen on the Apocalypse,’ VC
39, n. 3 (Sept. 1985): 273–9.
11 M. Dulaey (ed.), Victorin de Poetovio: Sur l’Apocalypse et autres écrits. SC 423 (Paris: Éditions
du Cerf, 1997).
12 M. Dulaey has attempted to decipher what elements of this work appear to be derived
from Origen in Victorin de Poetovio: Premier exégète Latin. 2 Vols. Collection des Etudes
Augustiniennes 139, 140. (Paris: Institut d’études Augustiniennes, 1993), 288–93; 295–99.
Cf. Weinrich, xxii.
13 Stephen Davis, ‘Introducing an Arabic Commentary on the Apocalypse: Ibn Kâtib Qaysar
on Revelation,’ HTR 101 (Jan. 2008), 78.
14 See esp. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian, 131ff.
224 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

the contemporary lists of Gregory of Nazianzus (Carmen 1.1.12.39), the Apostolic

Constitutions (7.47.85) or the Syriac Peshitta.15
Finally, in the last quarter of the same century, Epiphanius demonstrates
his own ambivalence towards the Apocalypse of John. At the beginning of his
account of the Alogi, he makes it clear that he would understand if these her-
etics only rejected Apocalypse of John (Haer. 51.3.4). The fact that he devotes
such an insignificant portion of his testimony to defending the Apocalypse
suggests his lack of any real concern for this work.16
Thus, while John’s Apocalypse retained much of its positive status in the
west, there is a discernibly less-than-enthusiastic reception over time in the
east.17 Out of all these witnesses, those with the clearest parallels to Epiphanius’
account are Dionysius of Alexandria and Origen. From Eusebius it is known
that Dionysius’ On the Promises is, at least in part, an examination of the
entire Apocalypse in an effort to demonstrate that it is impossible to under-
stand literally (HE 7.25.6). It is well known that his predecessor and mentor,
Origen, advocates a spiritual hermeneutic as well. Much of the Origen’s scholia
on the Apocalypse reflect the style of criticism that the Alogi had against the
Apocalypse. In fact, the parallels between the views of Origen and Dionysius of
Alexandria as well as the Alogi are close enough to suggest that the criticisms
of the Alogi against the Apocalypse fit squarely within the hermeneutical strat-
egy of both of these writers.
In light of the preceding chapters where Origen’s fingerprints are clearly
seen in the objections to the Gospel of John, it is not surprising to find that
he may have also influenced Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi’s criticisms of
the Apocalypse. Furthermore, the statements of Origen’s protégé, Dionysius of
Alexandria, have direct parallels with Epiphanius’ account, particularly in his
notice pertaining to the attribution of the Apocalypse to Cerinthus.
It is true that by appealing to these works any conclusion must presume
the content of works that are no longer fully extant—a methodological leap
of which I have been very critical so far. There are, however, important distinc-
tions to be drawn between the contents of a hypothetical work of Hippolytus
and that which may be gleaned from the accounts of Origen and Dionysius. If
Harnack is correct that the scholia are truly Origenian, then these fragments
further elucidate his views on the Apocalypse. Moreover, even though Eusebius
reproduces only part of Dionysius’ On the Promises, that which he does

15 See Davis, 78–9; Sundberg, 24–5.

16 Less than ten per cent of his account of the Alogi concerns the Apocalypse. Epiphanius
addresses the criticisms of the Apocalypse only in Haer. 51.32–4.
17 Davis, 79.
Sources: the Alogi ’ s Objections to the Apocalypse 225

preserve as well as Eusebius’ own comments about this work provide valuable
portals into its content. Thus, although it is imperative to proceed with cau-
tion, that which remains of these works provides is adequate to examine the
parallels between these sources and Epiphanius’ Alogi.

10.2 Origen and the Apocalypse

Although Origen accepts the Apocalypse, he is quick to denounce those who

understand it literally. For example, in his work De Principiis (2.11), Origen
issues a scathing critique of those who conceive of the promises of the future
millennium in this way. Such interpreters, are wrong to understand this text
‘in a Jewish manner’,18 adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law (De
Princ. 2.11.2). Throughout this work Origen is responding to chiliastic views
in such a way that, as Hill notes, ‘His onslaught is practically merciless, as he
scolds the literalists . . . for being too lazy to use their heads and too hospitable
to their carnal impulses.’19 He condemns those who understand the promises
as referring to things of this life, as though what exists now will exist again in
the future. This is also a primary concern of Dionysius of Alexandria in his
work, On the Promises (HE 7.24.5).20
There are numerous instances throughout Origen’s works where he claims
that the literal sense of Scripture simply cannot be true.21 It is seen in his
scholia on the Apocalypse, and in some important instances there are paral-
lels with what Epiphanius says about the opinions of the Alogi. For example,
Origen interprets the ‘voice of the trumpet’ (Rev. 4:1) spiritually as ‘the magni-
tude of understanding with perspicuity that came to [John].’22 Similarly, the
first objection of the Alogi finds no literal value in the notice about the trum-
pets (Haer. 51.32.2). Elsewhere, regarding Rev. 2:21 Origen speaks of Jezebel
as one who had a ‘damned nature’.23 It is interesting to note how Epiphanius
interprets this passage differently in his response to the second objection of
the Alogi to the Apocalypse. Here, he downplays the promiscuity of Jezebel
in Rev. 2:21, choosing rather to emphasize her role as a prophetess in Rev. 2:20
(Haer. 51.33.8) in order to draw a parallel with the Montanist prophetesses:

18 Cf. Hanson, Allegory and Event, 237.

19 Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 177.
20 Ibid., n. 5.
21 For a number of examples, see Hanson, Allegory and Event, 239–41.
22 See Diobouniotis and Harnack, frag. XXV, 32; cf. Hanson, 343–4.
23 Diobouniotis and Harnack, frag. XVII, 29.
226 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

‘Do you not see, that he is speaking about the women about whom he means the
prophets who are deceived and deceiving others; I mean Priscilla, Maximilla
and Quintilla.’24
Moreover, similarities between Origen and Epiphanius’ testimony might be
seen with the criticism regarding the lack of any Church in Thyatira. As noted
in Chapter 5, Origen notes that ‘Bethany’ in Jn. 1:28 should actually be rendered
‘Bethabara’ (Comm. Jo. 6.24). In the same passage he also notes that the town
of ‘Gergesa’ should actually be called ‘Gerasa’. Origen demonstrates his aware-
ness of, and concern with, Christian geography such that the fact that there
was no Church in Thyatira would be something in which he would have been
interested.
It is true that none of the scholia of Origen on the Apocalypse directly paral-
lels the objections of the Alogi, but those fragments that have survived provide
an important indication of his overall perspective. If one broadens the scope
of the present analysis, it is possible to detect additional connections between
the accusations of the Alogi and the views of Origen. Most notably, the Alogi’s
objections do not convey any real attempt to disprove the authenticity of the
Apocalypse, nor do they resonate with the style of criticisms one would find
in a polemical work. They are, in the words of J. Gwynn, the musings of a ‘cap-
tious critic’, which is a charge that could be levelled against Origen’s attempts
to demonstrate the points in Scripture where it is incapable of being under-
stood literally. Indeed, the criticisms of the Alogi are targeted against a literal
understanding of Scripture, such as what is found throughout Origen’s com-
mentaries (and perhaps Dionysius’ comments which are known only through
Eusebius’ gloss [HE 7.25.6]). They are exactly the type of criticisms Origen
would raise to argue that it should not be interpreted literally.
Thus, although these scholia bear only indirect parallels with the criti-
cisms of the Alogi, it is conceivable that Origen’s hermeneutical methodology
influenced Epiphanius, particularly if Epiphanius had a full copy of this work.
However, Origen does not associate in any way Cerinthus with the Apocalypse,
nor does he mention any call to reject it. Yet Origen’s views would have influ-
enced those of his student, Dionysius of Alexandria, who not only mentions the
arch-heretic but also endeavored to show how it was unintelligible when read
literally. In fact, W.H.C. Frend has suggested the possibility that an Origenian
work on the Apocalypse may be behind the comments made by Dionysius.25

24 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 308.

25 See Kelly (278), who notes that Frend made this comment in regards to Origen’s supposed
work, Homilies on the Apocalypse; although given the examples from the scholia it is pos-
sible that this may have also born some influence as well.
Sources: the Alogi ’ s Objections to the Apocalypse 227

10.3 Dionysius of Alexandria and the Apocalypse

Undoubtedly, the clearest and most viable connection between Epiphanius’

testimony regarding the Apocalypse and the early extant literature is the testi-
mony of Dionysius of Alexandria. In HE 7.25, Dionysius takes an identical posi-
tion to that of Origen concerning a literal interpretation of the Apocalypse. It is
wrong to think that there will be a thousand years of bodily pleasures that will
contain eating and drinking and marrying in an earthly Jerusalem (HE 7.25.1–
3). But Dionysius differs from his mentor on a few crucial points. Most nota-
bly, he attributes this view to Cerinthus; Origen does not. This is how Eusebius
records the words of Dionysius:

Some before us (τινὲς . . . πρὸ ἡμῶν) have set aside (ἠθέτησαν) and disman-
tled (ἀνεσκεύασαν) the whole book, amending (διεθύνοντες) each chapter,
and displaying it as unintelligible (ἄγνωστόν) and illogical (ἀσθλλόγιστον),
and maintaining that the title is a lie. For they say (λέγουσιν) that it is
not from John, nor is it a revelation because it is covered thickly and
deeply by a curtain of ignorance (ἀγνοίας). And they say that none of the
apostles, neither the saints, nor anyone in the church wrote it, but that
Cerinthus, who founded the sect, which is called the Cerinthians after
him, desiring trustworthy authority for his own forgeries, assigned the
name. (HE 7.25.1–2)26

In his following statements, Dionysius is careful not to reject the Apocalypse

just because he does not understand its meaning. Even though he sets out to
prove it cannot be understood literally, he is convinced that there is a con-
cealed, deeper meaning behind the words (HE 7.25.4). After this statement,
Eusebius breaks from his citation of Dionysius’ work to offer his own summary
of its contents. ‘After these things he [Dionysius] examined closely (βασανίσας)
the entire book of the Apocalypse. And he has shown that it is not possible to
understand it literally’ (HE 7.25.6).27 Unfortunately, this brief summary is all
that is known of the contents of this portion of his work.
There are two distinct critical analyses of Revelation mentioned in
Dionysius’ testimony. On the one hand, Dionysius mentions those that came
before him who rejected it as a forgery of Cerinthus (HE 7.25.1–3). Nothing is
known of the actual contents of this work, nor does Dionysius agree with their
views. Rather, in light of these prior accusations Dionysius provides his own

26 GCS 6,2, 690.

27 GCS 6,2, 692.
228 The Sources of the Account of the Alogi

analysis of the Apocalypse. Sadly, there is no recourse but to take Eusebius at

his word when he says that Dionysius’ analysis proved that it is impossible to
understand it literally.
Nevertheless, all of the necessary ingredients for Epiphanius’ description
of the Alogi’s views of the Apocalypse are present. Not only is this the first
instance where it is charged that this work was written by Cerinthus, it is clear
that Dionysius could not endorse a literal interpretation. It is possible that
Epiphanius had access to the source Dionysius references, however, because
Dionysius’ hermeneutics were similar to Origen’s, the work On the Promises
may have been all that Epiphanius needed.
Furthermore, there are other traces in Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi that
may bolster the likelihood that he was pulling from the record of Dionysius.
As noted earlier, Hill has suggested Epiphanius may have been inspired
to name this heresy the ‘Alogi’ based on Dionysius’ statement that those
before him declared the Apocalypse ‘unintelligible’ (ἄγνωστόν) and ‘illogical’
(ἀσυλλόγιστον).28 Moreover, a few lines after Epiphanius introduces this sect as
the Ἄλογοι, he addresses the question of whether or not John the apostle is the
true author of these works.

For they allege as an excuse, being ashamed to speak against St. John on
account of [their] knowledge that he was one of the apostles and the
Lord’s beloved, who rightly revealed mysteries to him who reclined on
[the Lord’s] breast, these people attempt to overturn [him] for other rea-
sons. For they say that they are not from John, but Cerinthus, and they say
that they are not worthy to be in the Church (Haer. 51.3.6).29

This could most certainly be applied to those who, according to Dionysius,

attributed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. But Epiphanius also makes it clear
that the Alogi also knew that John the Apostle wrote it, yet they ‘make excuses’
for why they cannot accept it. Dionysius’ lengthy argument to prove that John
the apostle was not the author of the Apocalypse (HE 7.25.7–27) certainly fits
this description.
There is one other tangential piece of evidence that links Dionysius and
Epiphanius. Dionysius is the first to mention Cerinthus’ sect as ‘Cerinthian’

28 Hill, Johannine Corpus, 187: ‘. . . the alpha-privative adjectives they used to slander John’s
Apocalypse could have given Epiphanius the idea for his pejorative Ἄλογοι.
29 GCS 31,2 Epiphanius II, 251.
Sources: the Alogi ’ s Objections to the Apocalypse 229

(Κηρινθιανὴν; HE 3.28.4; 7.25.2).30 Epiphanius repeats this title elsewhere in his

Panarion (cf. Haer. 28.1.1, 8.1).
Given that there is no surviving copy of Dionysius’ On the Promises, it is
impossible to know for certain that this was Epiphanius’ source. Nevertheless,
the nature of the criticisms of the Apocalypse recorded by Epiphanius fit
squarely within the hermeneutical milieu of Dionysius and his mentor,
Origen. Moreover, Dionysius is the first to mention the fact that some believed
John’s Apocalypse to be a Cerinthian forgery. It is also conceivable that just as
Epiphanius had a limited knowledge concerning Irenaeus’ comments about an
anonymous group that rejected the Gospel of John (AH 3.11.9), and filled in the
details with the criticisms of Origen, he have done with same with Dionysius’
comments concerning another anonymous group rejected the Apocalypse as
the work of Cerinthus and used this as the foundation for the latter part of his
testimony.

Summary

Although there is early evidence that links the Apocalypse with Cerinthus,
nowhere prior to Epiphanius is there any mention of Cerinthus being the
author of the Gospel of John. Epiphanius has amalgamated the testimony of
Irenaeus (AH 3.11.9) concerning the Gospel of John with the words of Dionysius
of Alexandria (HE 7.25.1–4) on the Apocalypse, in addition to a variety of other
sources I have discussed in the previous chapters. Although each of these tes-
timonies is a contributing factor to his description of the Alogi, independently
none of them fully reflects all of the characteristics that Epiphanius attributes
to this heretical sect. Rather, Epiphanius has incorporated Dionysius’ com-
ments into the broader category of the Alogi in which Cerinthus is now falsely
claimed to be the author of both the Apocalypse and Gospel of John.

30 Klijn and Reinink (8) wrongly state that Epiphanius was the first to provide this title.
Conclusion

The heresy known as the Alogi has had enormous influence on scholarship over
the past century, especially its central role within the ‘Johannine Controversy’.
According to modern estimations, this ecclesiastical group, spearheaded by
the Roman presbyter-bishop Gaius of Rome, almost succeeded in eradicating
the entire Johannine corpus from the canon of scripture. It is a compelling and
fascinating theory that, for over a century, has steered scholarly discussions
on the role and value of the Johannine materials in the early church. There is,
however, one very significant problem: the Alogi never existed.
Despite all the attention that has been paid to lost sources and hypothetical
encounters, there is no evidence that indicates that any of the early Church
Fathers knew anything about the so-called Alogi. The extant works of the great
heresiologists Irenaeus and Hippolytus make no mention of such a group.
Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius are all equally igno-
rant of the Alogi. It is only from the hand of Epiphanius that one first hears
of this heresy that supposedly existed during the time of many of these early
Church Fathers.
It is true that Epiphanius composed his account based on materials in his
library. However, the search for Epiphanius’ source(s) has produced results
that vary drastically from the prevailing notion, which holds that he derived
all his information on the Alogi from a lost work of Hippolytus. In contrast to
a single-source hypothesis, it is clear that he has borrowed from a number of
works written by various ecclesiastical luminaries that preceded him. A careful
examination of his testimony reveals that his account of the Alogi is a mul-
tilateral attack on a variety of critics of the four-fold Gospel, such as Celsus,
Porphyry, Philosabbatius, the Valentinians, the Ebionites and Cerinthus. As
such, it is not a history and refutation of a singular group with a defined set of
ideas and beliefs. Rather, Epiphanius pulls from a number of his predecessors’
testimonies to create this heretical group.
Most notably, Epiphanius utilizes Irenaeus’ testimony concerning an anon-
ymous group that rejected the Johannine Paraclete (AH 3.11.9) as the founda-
tional source in his construction of this heresy. Epiphanius clearly conceives
of the Alogi in similar terms as Irenaeus’ Alii, but his direct knowledge of these
Johannine assailants was limited by Irenaeus’ silence. Because the latter is not
forthcoming on any specifics of this group, Epiphanius filled in the blanks by
assembling a list of usual suspects.
Thus, the Alogi’s objections to the Gospel of John ultimately belong to
Origen, the theological nemesis of Epiphanius. In his Commentary on John,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004309395_013

Conclusion 231

Origen emphasized the apparent discrepancies between John’s Gospel and

the generally harmonious record of the Synoptic Gospels. These are his own
views; there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Origen’s criticisms came
to him by way of Gaius’ Dialogue with Proclus or via Hippolytus. As I have dem-
onstrated, Epiphanius was incensed by Origen’s argument that the Gospels—
especially the Gospel of John—do not reflect an accurate history and therefore
must not have been written by a divine spirit. He was also enraged at Origen’s
solution to this problem, which required that one must interpret the Gospels
spiritually. For these sins, Epiphanius made Origen the mouthpiece of the
Alogi.
Epiphanius utilized a number of different sources in his efforts to answer
Origen’s demands for an explanation of how all four Gospels can be proven to
be historically reliable. The structure of Epiphanius’ defense parallels the tradi-
tion of Papias concerning the origins of the Gospels. In the same way, Eusebius
recognized the problems associated with Origen’s criticisms of the Johannine
chronology, and responded by blending his own opinions with what Papias
had to say about John’s Gospel. Eusebius’ testimony ultimately found its way
into Epiphanius’ testimony.
Epiphanius’ record of the Alogi’s objections to the Apocalypse also originates
from the hermeneutical perspective of Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria. As
with the objections to the Gospel of John, those against the Apocalypse exploit
the difficulties in a literal exegesis, which find parallels in the remaining frag-
ments of Origen’s scholia on the Apocalypse along with that which Eusebius
preserves of Dionysius’ On the Promises. In addition, Dionysius is the first to
report that ‘some’ before him claimed that the heretic Cerinthus was the true
author of the Apocalypse of John.
What is conspicuously absent from Epiphanius’ account of the Alogi is any
hint that the Alogi were responding to the threat of Montanism, nor are there
any direct or indirect ties to Gaius of Rome. For his part, Gaius was not a hereti-
cal adversary of the Johannine corpus, nor was he the leader or only constitu-
ent of the Alogi. The later testimonies of Dionysius bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu
claim that a certain ‘Gaius’ maintained nearly identical views as the Alogi,
however, when their accounts are carefully scrutinized it is clear that they do
not accurately reflect the history that came centuries earlier.
Most notably, the Caius haereticus of the bar Salibi commentaries is incom-
patible with the historical figure Gaius of Rome. This is seen throughout bar
Salibi’s account, where he gives no indication that he is aware of Gaius’ prov-
enance in Rome or his battle against the Montanists that took the form of a
Dialogue against Proclus. As I have argued, the ‘Gaius’ of the bar Salibi com-
mentaries is based on the faulty interpretation of the bare figure of Eusebius’
232 Conclusion

account in HE 3.28.1–2. Rather than the ‘ecclesiastical’ man of Eusebius’ time,

bar Salibi has misunderstood Gaius as the opponent of the Apocalypse and,
with the supporting testimony of Epiphanius, the Gospel of John. Rather
than the ‘learned’ man of Eusebius’ era whose reputation grew posthumously
into one of orthodox and intellectual prestige, bar Salibi’s Gaius is attributed
with charges against the Apocalypse that more accurately reflect the style of
Origenian hermeneutical questions concerning textual integrity.
Finally, in all of the questions surrounding the history, theology, constitu-
ency and provenance of the Alogi, it is critically important to understand
the way in which Epiphanius conceives of ‘heresy’. His concern for theologi-
cal propriety in accordance with Nicene orthodoxy steers his conviction that
any deviation from this standard warrants his condemnation, regardless of
whether or not certain sects ever existed in any historical sense.
In the closing statements of his account of the Alogi, Epiphanius trium-
phantly claims to have crushed the errors of this sect. In typical Epiphanian
fashion, he sees his own response to these erroneous views as more than suf-
ficient for its eradication. Epiphanius likens every heresy in the Panarion to a
particular wild beast or snake-like creature, and his choice for the Alogi is par-
ticularly appropriate, as he refers to an insignificant creature that is comprised
of different component parts unified into one body. Thus, I conclude with the
final lines of Epiphanius’ testimony of the Alogi, for I believe he deserves the
last word. ‘It is similar to a woodlouse or a poisonous millipede that has many
feet, but it is not strong and its poison does not inflict much pain. It has an
elongated body with many feet, and by the power of God and truth, I have
trampled it’ (Haer. 51.35.4).
Bibliography

Abbot, E. ‘The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: External Evidences.’ In The Fourth
Gospel and its Authorship, edited by J.H. Thayer, 3–106. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1892.
Achelis, H. ‘Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften.’ GCS 1 (1897):
241–247.
———. ‘Hippolytstudien.’ TU Heft 4 Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1897.
Amar, J.P., trans. Dionysius Bar Salibi: A Response to the Arabs. CSCO Scriptores Syri
T. 239, Vol. 615, Versio. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Ashe, G. The Virgin. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976.
Assemani, J.S. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, III/1. Rome: S.C. Propaganda
Fide, 1719–1728.
Ayers, L. Nicaea and Its Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Baarda, T. ‘Διαφωνία—Συμφωνία, Factors in the Harmonization of the Gospels Especially
in the Diatessaron of Tatian.’ In Essays on the Diatessaron, edited by T. Baarda,
A. van der Kooij and A.S. van der Woude, 29–47. Kampen, the Netherlands: Pharos,
1999.
———. ‘A staff only, not a stick’ Disharmony of the Gospels and the Harmony of Tatian
(Matthew 10:9f., Mark 6:8f., Luke 9:3 and 10:4). In Essays on the Diatessaron, edited by
T. Baarda, A. van der Kooij and A.S. van der Woude, 173–96. Kampen, the Netherlands:
Pharos, 1999.
Bacon, B.W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate: A Series of Essays on Problems
Concerning the Origin and Value of the Anonymous Writings Attributed to the Apostle
John. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1910.
Baird, William. History of New Testament Research. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1992–2003.
Bardy, Gustave. ‘Cerinthe.’ Rbib 30 (1921): 344–373.
Barnes, Timothy D. ‘The Chronology of Montanism.’ JTS 21 (1970): 403–8.
———. Constantine and Eusebius. London: Harvard University Press, 1981.
———. Early Christianity and the Roman Empire. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.
———. ‘Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments.’ JTS
24 (1973): 424–42.
———. “Sossianus Hierocles and the Antecedents of the ‘Great Persecution’.” Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology 80 (1976): 239–52.
———. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text. London: SPCK, 1955.
234 Bibliography

———. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes
on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978.
———. The Gospel of John and Judaism: The Franz Delitzsch Lectures, University of
Münster, 1967. London: SPCK, 1975.
Bartlet, Vernon. “‘Papias’ ‘Exposition’: Its Date and Contents.” In Amicitiae Corolla. A
Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris, D. Litt. On the Occasion of His
Eightieth Birthday, edited by H.G. Wood, 15–44. London: University of London Press,
1933.
Bauckham, Richard. ‘Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel.’ JTS 44
(1993): 24–69.
———. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006.
Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1925.
———. Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr,
1934. Engligh Translation, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Edited by
Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Benko, Stephen. The Virgin Goddess: Studies in Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology.
Studies in the History of Religions LIX. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Blanc, Cécile. Origène. Commentaire sur Saint Jean, t. I: Livres I–V. Texte Grec, Avant-
Propos, Traduction et Notes. SC 120. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966.
———. Origène. Commentaire sur Saint Jean, t. II: Livres VI et X. Texte Grec Avant-
Propos, Traduction et Notes. SC 157. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1970.
Bludau, August. Die ersten Gegner der Johannesschriften. Biblische Studien 22. Freiburg:
Herder and Co., 1925.
Bousset, Wilhelm. Die Offenbarung Johannis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1906.
Braun, F.-M. Jean le Théologien et son Évangile dans l’église ancienne. Paris: J. Gabalda,
1959.
Brent, Allen. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in
Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. VCSupp 31. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
———. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images
of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity Before the Age of Cyprian. Boston:
Brill, 1999.
Brock, Sebastian. Catalog of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) In the Library of the
Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995.
Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday, 1982.
Buchanan, E.S. ‘The Codex Muratorianus.’ JTS 8 (1908), 537–545.
Camerlynck, Achilleus. De Quarti Evangelii auctore dissertatio. Lovanii: J. van Linthout,
1899.
Bibliography 235

Cameron, Averil. ‘The Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Religious Development and
Myth-Making.’ In The Church and Mary, edited by R.N. Swanson, 1–21. Studies in
Church History 39. Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2004.
Campenhausen, Hans von. The Fathers of the Greek Church. Translated by L.A. Garrard.
Edinburgh: R. & R. Clark, 1963.
———. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Translated by J.A. Baker. London: A. and
C. Black, 1972.
Carriker, Andrew. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. VCSupp 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Carroll, Michael P. The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1986.
Carrington, Philip. The Early Christian Church. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1957.
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Cambridge: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.
Cerrato, J.A. Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and Provenance of
the Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Chadwick, Henry, trans. Origen, Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1965.
———. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement
and Origen. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
———. ‘St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome: The Problem of the Memoria Apostolorum ad
Catacumbas.’ JTS 8, no. 1 (1957): 31–52.
Chapman, Dom John. John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1911.
Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of
John? Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Clark, Elizabeth. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early
Christian Debate. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Collins, John J. ‘Introduction: Towards a Morphology of Genre.’ In Semeia 14, 1–21.
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.
Cook, John G. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism.
Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
Crouzel, H, Fournier, and P. Périchon, P. (eds.). Origène Homélies sur S. Luc, Texte Latin
et Fragments Grecs de M. Rauer. GCS, SC 87 Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1998.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
———. ‘L’Application de la Narratologie à l’Étude de l’Évangile de Jean.’ In La
Communauté Johannique et son Histoire: La trajectoire de l’évangile de Jean aux
deux premiers siècles, edited by Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Jean-Michel Poffet and Jean
Zumstein, 97–120. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1990.
———. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
236 Bibliography

Davis, Stephen. ‘Introducing an Arabic Commentary on the Apocalypse: Ibn Kâtib

Qaysar on Revelation,’ HTR 101 (2008): 77–96.
De Soyers, John. Montanism and the Primitive Church: A Study in the Ecclesiastical
History of the Second Century. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1878.
Dechow, Jon. Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and
the Legacy of Origen. Patristic Monograph Series 13. Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1988.
Diekamp, Franz. Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione verbi. Ein griechisches
Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts. Münster: Aschendorffsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1907.
Diobouniotis, Constantin and Harnack, Adolf von. Der Scholien-kommentar zur
Apokalypse Johannis nebst einem Stück aus Irenaeus, Lib. V, Graece. TU 38,3. Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1911.
DiTommaso, Lorenzo. The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature. Studia
in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 20. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Döllinger, Johann Joseph Ignaz von. Hippolytus and Callistus; or, The Church of Rome in
the First Half of the Third Century. Translated by Alfred Plummer. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1876.
Donovan, John. The Authorship of St. John’s Gospel. London: Burnes Oates & Washburn,
1936.
Dulaey, Martine (ed.). Sur l’Apocalypse: suivi du fragment chronologique et de la con-
struction du monde. SC. 423. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1997.
———, ed. Victorin de Poetovio: Premier exégète Latin. 2 Vols. Collection des Etudes
Augustiniennes 139, 140. Paris: Institut d’études Augustiniennes, 1993.
Duncker, L. and Scneidewin, F.G. eds. S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris: Refutationis
Omnium Haeresium: Librorum Decem Quae Supersunt. Gottingae: Sumptibus
Dieterichianis, 1859.
Dunn, J.D.G. ‘John and the Synoptics as a Theological Question.’ In Exploring the Gospel
of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, edited by R.A. Culpepper and C. Clifton Black.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Ehrman, Bart D., Fee, Gordon D., Holmes, Michael W. eds. The Text of the Fourth Gospel
in the Writings of Origen. Vol. 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Evans, Ernest, trans. Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas. London: SPCK, 1948.
Exiguus, Dionysius. A Clear and Learned Explication of the History of Our Blessed Saviour
Jesus Christ: Taken Out of Above Thirty Greek, Syriack and Other Oriental Authors by
Way of Catena. Translated by Dudley Loftus. Dublin: Samuel Lee in Skinner Row,
1695.
Ferguson, E. ‘Canon Muratori Date and Provenance.’ Studia Patristica 17/2 (1982):
677–683.
Bibliography 237

Fisher, George P. Some Remarks on the Alogi. New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1892.
Frend, W.H.C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from
the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965.
Froidevaux, L.-M. Irénée de Lyons: Démonstration de la Prédication Apostolique. SC 62.
Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1959.
———. ‘Les Questions et Réponses sur la sainte Trinité attribuées à Hippolyte, évêque
de Bostra.’ Recherches de science religieuse 50 (1962): 32–73.
Froidevaux, L.M. Irénée de Lyons: Démonstration de la Prédication Apostolique. SC 62.
Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1959.
Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.
Garitte, Gérard. ‘Une nouvelle source du « De fide » géorgien attribué a Hippolyte.’ In
Revue D’Histoire Ecclésiastique 63 (1968): 835–43.
Goodspeed, Edgar, J. ‘Recent Patristic Literature,’ AJT 20, n. 1 (January, 1916): 115–21.
Grant, Robert M. ‘Ancient and Modern Questions about Authenticity.’ In Origins and
Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour
of John C. Hurd, edited by Bradley H. McLean, 295–301. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
———. ‘The Bible in the Ancient Church.’ JR 26,3 (1946): 190–202.
———. The Earliest Lives of Jesus. London: SPCK, 1961.
———. Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
———. ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Church.’ HTR 35,2 (1942): 95–116.
———. Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature.
Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1993.
———. ‘Historical Criticism in the Ancient Church.’ JR 25,3 (1945): 183–96.
———. Irenaeus of Lyons. London: Routledge, 1997.
———. ‘The Origin of the Fourth Gospel.’ JBL 69,4 (1950): 305–22.
———. Second Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments. 2nd ed. London:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
———, ed. Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
Guarducci, Margherita. ‘La statua di ‘Sant’Ippolito’ in Vaticano.’ In Rendiconti della
Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 47 (1974–5): 163–190.
———. ‘La Statua di “Sant’Ippolito”.’ In Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 13 (1977):
17–30.
———. ‘La “Statua di Sant’ Ippolito” e la sua provenienza,’ in Nuove ricerche su
Ippolito, Studia Ephemeridis Augustiniana 30 (Rome: Institutum Patristicum
Augustinianum, 1989): 61–74.
Gunther, J.J. ‘The Alexandrian Gospel and the Letters of John.’ Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 41 (1979): 581–603.
———. ‘Early Identifications of Authorship of the Johannine Writings.’ JEH 31 (1980):
407–27.
238 Bibliography

Gwynn, John. ‘Hippolytus and his “Heads against Caius”.’ Hermathena. A Series of
Papers on Literature, Science and Philosophy, by Members of Trinity College,
Dublin. Vol. 6 (1888): 397–418.
———. ‘Hippolytus on St. Matthew 24:15–22.’ Hermathena. A Series of Papers on
Literature, Science and Philosophy, by Members of Trinity College, Dublin. Vol. 7
(1889): 137–150.
Haenchen, Ernst. John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated and Edited by
Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the
Canon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
Hanson, R.P.C. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s
Interpretation of Scripture. London: SCM Press, 1959.
———. Tradition in the Early Church. London: SCM Press, 1962.
Hargis, Jeffrey W. Against the Christians: The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic.
Patristic Studies, Vol. 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.
Harnack, Adolf von. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 2 vols.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897–1904.
———. ‘Die Gwynn’schen Cajus-und Hippolytus-Fragmente.’ TU 6, no. 3 (1890),
121–123.
———. Porphyrius ‘Gegen die Christen’ 15 Bucher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente, und Referate,
Abhandlungen der königlichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil-hist.
Klasse. Berlin, 1916.
———. Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bei Eusebius. 2 parts in 4 vols. Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs, 1893–1904.
———. History of Dogma. Volume III. Translated by James Millar. London: Williams
& Norgate, 1897.
———. Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte
der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1921. English Translation, Marcion,
the Gospel of the Alien God. Translated by John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma. Durham,
N.C.: Labyrinth Press, 1990.
———. Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 200. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1889.
———. Origen of the New Testament And the Most Important Consequences of the New
Creation. Translated by J.R. Wilkinson. London: Williams & Norgate, 1925.
———. Porphyrius: ‘Gegen die Christen’ 15 Bucher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente, und Referate,
Abhandlungen der königlichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil-hist.
Klasse. Berlin, 1916.
———. Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, II. 1874.
Harris, J. Rendel. The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Preliminary Study. London: C.J. Clay and
Sons, 1890.
Bibliography 239

———. ‘Did Judas Really Commit Suicide?’ AJT 4, n. 3 (Jul. 1900), 507.
———. ‘Presbyter Gaius and the Fourth Gospel,’ in Hermas in Arcadia and Other
Essays, 43–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896.
Head, Peter, ed. Historical and Literary Studies in John: Challenging Current Paradigms.
WUNT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Heine, R.E. ‘The Gospel of John and the Montanist Debate at Rome.’ Studia Patristica
21 (1989): 95–100.
———. ‘Hippolytus, Ps.-Hippolytus and the Early Canons’ in The Cambridge History
of Early Christian Literature, 142–151. Edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and
Andrew Louth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
———. The Montanist Oracles and Testimonia. NAPS Patristic Monograph Series, 14.
Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989.
———. ‘The Role of the Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy.’ Second Century
vol. 6 (1987): 1–18.
Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation
of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Translated by John Bowden.
London: SCM Press, 2000.
———. The Johannine Question. London: SCM Press, 1989.
Hill, Charles E. ‘Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem.’
JECS 8 (2000): 135–172.
———. ‘The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Date of the Canon.’
Westminster Theological Journal 57:2 (Fall 1995): 437–452.
———. ‘The Fragments of Papias.’ In The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by
Paul Foster, 42–51. New York: T&T Press, 2007.
———. From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter
and the Author of Ad Diognetum. WUNT 186. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
———. ‘Hades of Hippolytus or Tartarus of Tertullian? The Authorship of the Fragment
de Universo.’ VC 43, no. 2 (June 1989): 105–26.
———. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. New York: Oxford University Press,
2004.
———. ‘The Marriage of Montanism and Millennialism.’ In Studia Patristica 26 (1993):
140–46.
———. ‘ “The Orthodox Gospel”: The Reception of John in the Great Church Prior
to Irenaeus.’ In The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel,
edited by Tuomas Rasimus, 233–300. NovTSupp 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
———. Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
———. ‘Was John’s Gospel Among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?’ in Justin Martyr and
His Worlds, edited by Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, 88–93. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2007.
240 Bibliography

———. ‘What Papias Said About John (And Luke): A “New” Papian Fragment.’ JTS 49
(1998), 582–629.
———. Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
Hillmer, Melvyn Raymond. ‘The Gospel of John in the Second Century.’ ThD diss.,
Harvard University, 1966.
Hitchcock, F.R. Montgomery. Irenaeus of Lugdunum: A Study of His Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.
Holl, Karl and Dummer, Jürgen. Epiphanius I. Ancoratus und Panarion haer. 1–33. GCS
25, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1915.
———. Epiphanius II. Panarion haer. 34–64. GCS 31,2, Bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1980.
Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers. 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
———. ‘The Biblical Canon.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, edited
by Susan A. Harvey and David G. Hunter, 406–426. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008.
———. ‘Origen and the Inerrancy of Scripture.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 24/3 (1981): 221–31.
Hort, Fenton John Anthony. Judaistic Christianity: A Course of Lectures. Cambridge:
Macmillan and Co., 1894.
Hulen, Amos Berry. Porphyry’s Work Against the Christians: An Interpretation. Yale
Studies in Religion, 1. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Press, 1933.
Hurtado, Larry. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003.
Jacobs, Andrew. ‘Epiphanius of Salamis and the Antiquarian’s Bible.’ JECS 21 (2013):
437–64.
Jeffers, James S. Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Kaestli, J.-D., Poffet, J.-M., and Zumstein, J., eds. La Communauté johannique et son his-
toire: La Trajectoire de l’évangile de Jean aux deux premiers siècles. Geneva: Labor et
Fides, 1990.
Keefer, Kyle. The Branches of the Gospel of John: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the
Early Church. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
Keener, Craig. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2003.
Kellum, L. Scott. The Unity of the Farewell Discourse: The Literary Integrity of John 13:31–
16:33. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Kelly, Joseph F.T. ‘Early Medieval Evidence for Twelve Homilies by Origen on the
Apocalypse,’ VC 39,3 (1985): 273–9.
Bibliography 241

Kim, Young Richard. ‘The Imagined Worlds of Epiphanius of Cyprus.’ PhD diss.,
University of Michigan, 2006.
———. ‘Reading the Panarion as Collective Biography: The Heresiarch as Unholy
Man.’ VC 64.4 (2010): 382–413.
Klawiter, Frederick C. ‘The New Prophecy in Early Christianity; the Origin, Nature, and
Development of Montanism, AD 165–220.’ PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1975.
Klijn, A.F.J., and Reinink, G.J. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. NovTSupp 36.
Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Klostermann, E. ed. Origenes Werke. GCS 12,3 Band, III, 1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag,
1941.
Knox, John. Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London:
SCM Press, 1990.
———. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.
———. ‘The Story of the Johannine Tradition.’ Sewanee Theological Review, 36 (1992):
17–32.
———. ‘Writings and the Spirit: Authority and Politics in Ancient Christianity.’ HTR
84, no. 4 (October 1991): 353–372.
Kraemer, Ross Shepard. ‘Women and Gender.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Early
Christian Studies, edited by Susan A. Harvey and David G. Hunter, 465–492. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008.
Kümmel, Werner Georg. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its
Problems. Translated by S. Gilmour and H. Kee. London: SCM Press, 1973.
Kunze, J. De Historiae Gnosticismi Fontibus: novae quaestiones criticae. Leipzig, 1894.
Kürzinger, Josef. Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments.
Regensburg: Verlag FriedrichPustet, 1983.
Labourt, J. Saint Jérome, Lettres, tomes I–VIII. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1949–1963.
Labriolle, Pierre de. La Crise Montaniste. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1913.
———. History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius. Translated by
Herbert Wilson. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1968.
———. La réaction païenne: étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du ler au Vle siècle.
Paris: l’Artisan du livre, 1934.
———. Les Sources De L’Histoire Du Montanisme. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1913.
Ladeuze, Pierre. ‘Caius de Rome, le seul Aloge connu.’ In Mélanges Godefroid Kurth,
49–60. Vol. 2. Liège: Sonderabdruck, 1908.
Laeuchli, Samuel. ‘The Polarity of the Gospels in the Exegesis of Origen.’ Church History
21 (1952): 215–24.
Lagarde, Paul. Hippolyti Romani Quae Feruntur Omnia Graece. Leipzig: B.G. Teubneri,
1858.
242 Bibliography

Lagrange, M.-J. Évangile Selon Saint Jean. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1927.

———. ‘L’Auteur du canon de Muratori.’ Rbib 35 (1926): 83–88.
Lampe, Peter. ‘Early Christians in the City of Rome. Topographical and Social
Historical Aspects of the First Three Centuries.’ In Christians as a Religious Minority
in a Multicultural City: Modes of Interaction and Identity Formation in Early Imperial
Rome, edited by Jürgen Zangenberg and Michael Labahn, 20–32. JSNTS 243. London:
T&T Clark, 2004.
———. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Translated
by Michael Steinhauser. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2003.
Lawlor, Hugh Jackson. Evsebiana: Essays on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Bishop
of Caesarea. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912.
———. ‘Eusebius on Papias.’ Hermathena 19 (1922): 167–222.
Lawson, John. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus. London: Epworth Press, 1948.
Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1987.
Le Boulluec, Alain. La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque IIe–IIIe siècles. 2 Vols.
Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1985.
Le Joly, Raymond, ed. Dionysii bar Salibi Enarratio in Ioannem. 4 Vols. Dison: Éditions
Concile, 1975.
Leipoldt, Johannes. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1907.
LeMarié, Joseph. ‘Saint Chromace d’Aquilée témoin du Canon de Muratori.’ Revue des
Études Augustiniennes no. 24, 1–2 (1978): 101–2.
Lewis, Frank Grant. The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel: Its Extent, Meaning
and Value. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908.
Lienhard, J.T. (trans.), Origen: Homilies on Luke. Washington D.C.: Catholic University
of America Press, 1996.
Lightfoot, J.B. The Apostolic Fathers. Part I: S. Clement of Rome. Vol. 2. London:
Macmillan and Co., 1890.
———. Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan and Co., 1893.
———. ‘Caius or Hippolytus?’ Journal of Philology 1, 1 (1868): 98–112.
———. Essays on the Work entitled Supernatural Religion. London: Macmillan, 1889.
———. ‘Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of Saint John’s
Gospel’: 131–171. In The Fourth Gospel and Its Authorship. London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1892.
Lightfoot, J.B. and Harmer, J.R., eds. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations. Revised by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Lipsius, Robert A. Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte. Leipzig, 1875.
———. Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1865.
Bibliography 243

Logan, Alastair H.B. The Gnostics: Identifying an Early Christian Cult. London: T&T
Clark, 2006.
Loi, Vincenzo et al., Ricerche su Ippolito Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 13. Rome:
Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1977.
Louth, Andrew. ‘Palestine: Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius’ in The Cambridge History
of Early Christian Literature. Edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew
Louth, 283–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Lyman, J. Rebecca. ‘The Making of a Heretic: The Life of Origen in Epiphanius Panarion
64.’ Studia Patristica 31 (1997): 445–51.
Mai, Angelo, ed. Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus. 10 Vols. Rome:
Typis Vaticanis, 1825–1838.
Manor, T. Scott. ‘Epiphanius’ Account of the Alogi: Historical Fact or Heretical Fiction?’
Studia Patristica 52 (2012), 161–70.
———. ‘Papias, Origen, and Eusebius: The Criticisms and Defense of the Gospel of
John.’ Vigilae Christianae 67.1 (2013), 1–21.
———. ‘Proclus: The North African Montanist?’ Studia Patristica 65 (2013), 139–146.
Marcovich, M. Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium. (PTS 25), Berlin-New York,
1986.
———. Iustini Martyris. Dialogue cum Tryphone. (PTS 47) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1997.
Markschies, Christoph. Between Two Worlds: Structures of Earliest Christianity.
Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1999.
Marx, F. ed. Sancti Filastrii Episcopi Brixiensis: Diversarum Hereseon Liber. CSEL 38.
Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1898.
Martens, Peter. Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life. Early Christian
Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
McCarthy, Carmel, ed. Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English
Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes. Journal of
Semitic Studies Supplement 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
McDonald, Lee M. ‘The Gospels in Early Christianity: Their Origin, Use, and Authority.’
In Reading the Gospels Today, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 150–78. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2004.
Merkel, Helmut. Die Plurität der Evangelien: als theologisches und exegetisches Problem
in der Alten Kirche. Traditio Christiana III. Bern: Peter Lang, 1978.
———. Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien; Ihre polemische und apologetische
Behandlung in der alten Kirche bis zu Augustin. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971.
Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and
Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
———. Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian, New Testament
Tools and Studies, vol. 8. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
244 Bibliography

Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Mingana, A., ed., trans. Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshuni. 4 vols.
Woodbrooke Studies. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1927.
Minns, Denis. Irenaeus. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1994.
Moffatt, James. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. 3rd ed.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927.
Moll, Sebastian. The Arch-Heretic Marcion. WUNT 250. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
———. ‘Three Against Tertullian: The Second Tradition About Marcion’s Life.’ JTS 59
(2008): 169–80.
Muratori, Ludovico Antonio. Antiquitates italicæ medii ævi, Tom. III Mediolani: ex
typographia Societatis palatinae, 1738–1742.
Nagel, Titus. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur
vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlich-gnosticher Literatur.
Arbeiten Zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte, 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsantalt,
2000.
Nasrallah, Laura Salah. ‘An Ecstasy of Folly’: Prophecy and Authority in Early Christianity.
Harvard Theological Studies 52. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Nautin, Pierre. Le dossier d’Hippolyte et de Méliton dans les florilèges dogmatiques et
chez les historiens modernes. Patristica I. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1953.
———. Hippolyte et Josipe: Contribution a l’histoire de la Littèrature Chrétienne du
troisième siècle. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1947.
———. Hippolyte, Contre les heresies: fragment, étude, et édition critique. Paris: Éditions
du Cerf, 1949.
———. ‘Hippolytus’ in The Encyclopedia of the Early Church, vol. I, 383–85. Edited by
Angelo Di Berardino. Translated by Adrian Walford. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.,
1992.
Norelli, Enrico. ‘Papias de Hiérapolis a-t-il utilisé un recueil ‘canonique’ des qua-
tre évangiles?’ In G. Aragione, E. Junod and E. Norelli (eds.) Le canon du Nouveau
Testament: Regards nouveaux sur l’histoire de sa formation. Le mond de la Bible 54.
Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2005: 35–85.
O’Keefe, John J. ‘ “A Letter that Killeth”: Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene Exegesis,
or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms.’ JECS 8.1 (2000): 83–103.
Osborn, Eric. Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House,
2003.
Perrin, Nicholas. ‘The Diatessaron and the Second-Century Reception of the Gospel of
John.’ In The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, edited
by Tuomas Rasimus, 301–18. NovTSupp 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Bibliography 245

Petersen, William L., ed. Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions,
Text and Transmission. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.
———. ‘Tatian’s Diatessaron,’ in Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and
Development, ed. H. Koester, 403–30. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press,
1990.
———. Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in
Scholarship. VCSupp XXV. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Phillips, George, ed. The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle. London: Trübner and Company,
1876.
Phipps, Charles B. ‘Persecution under Marcus Aurelius: An Historical Hypothesis.’
Hermathena 47 (1932): 167–201.
Piana, G. ‘The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century. The Episcopate of
Victor, the Latinization of the Roman Church, the Easter Controversy, Consolidation
of Power and Doctrinal Development, the Catacomb of Callistus.’ HTR 18,3 (1925):
201–77.
Poffett, Jean-Michel. ‘Indices de Réception de l’Évangile de Jean au II Siècle, avant
Irénée.’ In La Communauté Johannique et son Histoire: La trajectoire de l’évangile de
Jean aux deux premiers siècles, edited by Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Jean-Michel Poffet and
Jean Zumstein, 305–21. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1990.
Pollard, T.E. Johannine Christology and the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1970.
———. ‘John the Evangelist, Gospel of’, Encyclopedia of the Early Church. Cambridge:
James Clarke & Co., 1992. Vol. 1, 448–9.
Pourkier, Aline. ‘Épiphane Témoin du Texte d’Irénée: Note Critique sur Irénée, Adv.
Haer. I, 24, 6.’ VC 38 (1924): 281–284.
———. L’Hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine. Christianisme Antique 4. Paris:
Beauchesne Editeur, 1992.
Powell, Douglas. ‘Tertullianists and Cataphrygians.’ VC 29 (1975): 33–54.
Prigent, Pierre. Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John. Translated by Wendy Pradels.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
———. ‘Hippolyte, Commentateur de l’Apocalypse.’ TZ 28 (1972): 391–412.
———. ‘Les Fragments du De Apocalypse d’Hippolyte.’ TZ 29 (1973): 313–33.
Prigent, Pierre and Stehly, R. ‘Citations d’Hippolyte trouvée dans le ms. Bodl. Syr 140.’
TZ 30 (1974): 82–85.
Prinzivalli, E. ‘Hippolytus, Statue of,’ in The Encyclopedia of the Early Church, vol. I, 385.
Edited by Angelo Di Berardino. Translated by Adrian Walford. Cambridge: James
Clarke & Co., 1992.
Quispel, G. Ptolémée, Lettre à Flora. Texte, traduction et introduction. SC 24. Paris:
Editions du Cerf, 1949.
246 Bibliography

Ramsay, W.M. The Church in The Roman Empire Before AD 170. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1893.
Rasimus, Tuomas, Ed., The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth
Gospel. NovTSupp 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Roberts, A. and Donaldson, J. Editors. Ante-Nice Christian Library: Translations of the
Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. 5 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868.
Robinson, J.A.T. ‘Origen’s Comments on the Apocalypse.’ JTS 13 (1911): 295–7.
Robinson, Theodore H. ‘The Authorship of the Muratorian Canon.’ The Expositor, 7, 1
(1906): 481–95.
Röhl, Wolfgang G. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums in christich-gnostischen
Schriften aus Nag Hammadi, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Publications
Universitaires Européennes, 23, Theologie, 428. Frankfurt am Main, 1991.
Rokéah, David. Justin Martyr and the Jews. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series,
Vol. V. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Rose, V. ‘Question Johannine: Les Aloges Asiatiques et les Aloges Romains.’ Rbib 6
(1897): 516–34.
Rousseau, A. Irénée de Lyon. Démonstration de la prédication apostolique; introduction,
traduction et notes. SC 406. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1995.
Rousseau, A. and Doutreleau, L. Irénée de Lyon. Contre les hérésies. Édition critique
d’après les versions arménienne et latine. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1965.
Routh, Martinus Josephus. Reliquiæ Sacræ, Vol. II Oxonii: Typis Academicis, 1814.
Salmon, G. ‘The Commentary of Hippolytus on Daniel.’ Hermathena 8 (1892): 161–190.
Sanday, William. The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Eight Lectures on the Morse
Foundation, Delivered in the Union Seminary, New York in October and November,
1904. New York: Scribner’s, 1905.
Sanders, J.N. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Edited by B.A. Mastin.
New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1969.
———. The Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Study of the Teaching of the New
Testament in Light of Historical Criticism. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1951.
———. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1943.
Schlimme, Lorenz. ‘Did Bibelkommtare des Moses Bar Kepha.’ In A Tribute to Arthur
Vööbus, Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the
Syrian East, edited by Robert H. Fischer, 63–72. Chicago: The Lutheran School of
Theology, 1977.
Schmidt, Carl. ‘Exkurs I: Der Gnostiker Kerinth. Die Aloger.’ In Gespräche Jesu Mit
Seinen Jüngern Nach Der Auferstehung: Ein Katholisch-Apostolisches Sendschreiben
Des 2. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: J.D. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1919.
Schmoldt, H. ‘Die Schrift ‘Vom jungen Daniel’ und ‘Daniels letzte Vision.’ herausgabe
und Interpretation zweier apokalyptischer Texte.’ Ph.D. Dissertation: Hamburg,
1972.
Bibliography 247

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. 3 vols. Translated by Kevin
Smyth. London: Burns & Oates, 1968.
Schwartz, Eduard. ‘Johannes und Kerinthos.’ ZNW 15 (1914): 210–19.
———. ‘Noch einmal der Tod der Söhne Zebedaei.’ ZNW 11 (1910): 89–104.
———. ‘Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei.’ In Gesammelte Schriften 5, 48–123. Berlin:
Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1963. Originally published in Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
des Johannesevangeliums: Abhandlungen d. Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wiss. N.F.
VII, 5 (1904): 3–53.
Schwartz, E. and Mommsen, T. Eusebius Werke II, 1. Die Kirchengeschichte (GCS 9,1).
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Bucchandlung, 1903.
———. Eusebius Werke II, 2. Die Kirchengeschichte (GCS Neue Folge—Band 6, 2).
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999.
Sedlácek, I. Dionysius Bar Salîbî. In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas catholicas. CSCO 60.
Scriptores Syri. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1954.
Sedlácek, I and Chabot, I.-B. Dionysii bar Salibi, commentarii in evangelia I. CSCO 85.
Scriptores Syri. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1922.
Seim, Turid Karlsen. ‘Johannine Echoes in Early Montanism.’ In The Legacy of John:
Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, edited by Tuomas Rasimus, 345–64.
NovTSupp. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Sellew, P. ‘Eusebius and the Gospels.’ In Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, edited by
H.W. Attridge and G. Hata, 110–38. Studia Post-Biblica 42. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity.
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
———. The Proof from Prophecy, A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-
Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. Supplements to Novum Testamentun Vol. LVI.
Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Skeat, T.C. ‘Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canon.’ NovT 34, 2 (1992): 194–99.
———. ‘The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels.’ New Testament Studies 43 (1997):
1–34.
Smith, D. Moody. ‘The Problem of John and the Synoptics in Light of the Relation
between Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels.’ In John and the Synoptics, edited by
A. Denaux, 147–162. Bibliotheca ephemeridem theologicarum lovaniensium 101.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Smith, J.P. St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Ancient Christian Writers 16.
Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1952.
Smith Jr., Joseph Daniel. ‘Gaius and the Controversy over the Johannine Literature.’
PhD diss., Yale University, 1979.
Stanton, Graham N. ‘The Fourfold Gospel.’ New Testament Studies 43, 3 (1997): 317–46.
———. Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
248 Bibliography

———. ‘The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr.’ In The Holy Spirit and Christian
Origins: Essays in Honor of James D.G. Dunn, edited by Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W.
Longnecker and Stephen C. Barton, 321–34. Cambridge: Eerdman’s, 2004.
Stanton, Vincent Henry. The Gospels as Historical Documents. 3 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1903.
Stevenson, J., ed. A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD
337. Revised by W.H.C. Frend. London: SPCK, 1987.
Stonehouse, Ned B. The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church: A Study in the History of the
New Testament Canon. Goes, Holland: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1929.
Streeter, B.H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan & Co., 1927.
Sundberg, Jr., A.C. ‘Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List.’ HTR 66 (1973): 1–41.
Tabbernee, William. Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and Imperial
Reactions to Montanism. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
———. Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the
History of Montanism. Patristic Monograph Series 16. Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1997.
———. ‘The Opposition to Montanism from Church and State.’ PhD diss., University
of Melbourne, 1978.
———. ‘Portals of the Montanist New Jerusalem: The Discovery of Pepouza and
Tymion.’ JECS 11 (2003): 87–93.
———. Prophets and Gravestones: An Imaginative History of Montanists and Other
Early Christians. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009.
———. ‘Remnants of the New Prophecy: Literary and Epigraphical Sources of the
Montanist Movement.’ Studia Patristica 21 (1989), 193–198.
Trevett, Christine. Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Turner, C.H. ‘Origen Scholia in Apocalypsin.’ JTS 25 (1924): 1–16.
———. ‘The Text of the Newly Discovered Scholia of Origen on the Apocalypse.’ JTS
13 (1912): 386–97.
Turner, H.E.W. The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations between Orthodoxy
and Heresy in the Early Church. London: Mowbray & Co., 1954.
Vallée, Gérard. A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius.
Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1981.
Vaschalde, A. Dionysii bar Salibi, commentarii in evangelia II. CSCO 60. Scriptores Syri.
Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1939.
Vinzent, Markus. ‘“Philobiblie” im frühen Christentum.’ Das Altertum 44, 4 (1999):
301–30.
———. ‘Hippolyt von Rom und seine Statue.’ zur Zeit oder Unzeit. Studien zur spätan-
tiken Theologie-, Geistes- und Kunstgeschichte und ihrer Nachwirkung. Hans Georg
Bibliography 249

Thümmel zu Ehren, Edited by A.M. Ritter, W. Wischmeyer, and W. Kinzig, 125–34.

Texts and Studies in the History of Theology, 9. Cambridge: Edition Cicero, 2004.
Vokes, F.E. ‘The Use of Scripture in the Montanist Controversy.’ Studia Evangelica 5
(1968): 317–20.
Wallace-Hadrill, D.S. Eusebius of Caesarea. London: A.R. Mowbray, 1960.
Weinrich, William C., ed. Revelation: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New
Testament XII. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament. London:
Macmillan and Co., 1875.
Williams, F., trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1–46. Nag
Hammadi and Manichean Studies, vol. XXXV. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
———, trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Books II and III (Sects 47–80, De
Fide). Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies, vol. XXXVI. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Wingren, Gustaf. Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus.
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1959.
Wright, W. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the
Year 1838. 3 Vols. London, 1870.
Young, Frances M. ‘Did Epiphanius know what he meant by Heresy?’ Studia Patristica
17 (1983): 199–205.
Zahn, Theodor. Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen und der altkirchli-
chen Literature. Vol. 6. Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1900.
———. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 2 vols. Erlangen: Verlag von
Andreas Deichert, 1888–1890.
Zamagni, Claudio, ed. Eusèbe de Césarée, Questions Évangéliques, Introduction, Texte
Critique, Traduction et Notes. SC 523. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2008.
Zumstein, Jean. ‘La Communauté Johannique et son Histoire.’ In La Communauté
Johannique et son Histoire: La trajectoire de l’évangile de Jean aux deux premiers siè-
cles, edited by Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Jean-Michel Poffet and Jean Zumstein, 359–374.
Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1990.
Index of Modern Authors

Barnes 63 n. 41, 152 n. 19, 153, 155 n. 25, 170 Jacobs ix, 183 n. 14
nn. 22–23, 198 n. 50
Bauckham 4 n. 7, 163 n. 1, 165, 167 n. 15, 191 Keefer 4 n. 7
n. 28, 202 n. 6, 203 n. 9, 204–205, Kim ix, 8 n. 17, 125, 127–128, 145 n. 4, 175
207–208, 209, 210–211, 218 n. 57 n. 38, 182 n. 13
Brent 18 n. 9, 45–48, 50, 57 n. 18, 59, 71 n. 70, Koester 156 n. 30
72 n. 80, 74, 77, 78 n. 102, 79 n. 107, 80
n. 111, 82 n. 118, 84 n. 2, 86 n. 7, 88 n. 17, Lyman 128 n. 13
89–93, 94 n. 46, 96 n. 56, 99 n. 62, 102
n. 71, 105–106, 107 n. 80, 108 n. 82, 110, Marcovich 59 n. 28, 133 n. 26, 141, 193
111, 113–116, 118 n. 107, 133 n. 26, 138 n. 48, Martens 180 nn. 5, 7, 181
139–140, 151, 170 n. 25, 171 Merkel 150 n. 7, 151 nn. 12–13, 152, 155 n. 24,
159 nn. 40–41, 167, 184 n. 15
Cerrato 94 n. 45, 105 n. 74, 133 n. 26, 170 n. 22 Metzger 44 n. 63, 159 n. 38, 198 n. 48
Chadwick 151 n. 12–13, 152 Moll 133 n. 28, 158 n. 38
Clark 182 n. 11, 197 n. 45
Culpepper 3 n. 6, 40 n. 39, 44 n. 62–65, 45 O’Keefe 183 n. 14
n. 66, 52 n. 2, 54 n. 10, 62 n. 39, 64 n. 46,
69 n. 66, 130 n. 22, 145 n. 5, 165, 169 n. 20 Pagels 53 n. 7, 157, 158 n. 37
Perrin 152 n. 17, 155 n. 27, 156 n. 30, 191 n. 28
Dechow 125, 182 n. 12, 195, 196 n. 43 Petersen 129 n. 19, 152 n. 17, 156 nn. 30–31,
157 nn. 33–34
Ehrman 197, 198 nn. 48–49
Skarsaune 78, 79 n. 109, 80 n. 110, 81 n. 117
Grant 3 n. 5, 6 n. 9, 7 n. 15, 38–39, 41 n. 43, Stanton 6, 41 nn. 41–46, 45 n. 67, 52 n. 6, 82
44 n. 62, 45, 49 n. 82, 61 n. 32, 66 n. 49, nn. 118–120, 152 n. 17, 156 n. 30, 158, 159
67, 77, 79 n. 108, 130, 136, 152 n. 17, 191 n. 40, 165, 167 n. 13, 203 n. 9
n. 28, 223 n. 14
Tabbernee 60 n. 31, 72, 73 nn. 86–87, 136,
Hahneman 44 n. 64, 45 n. 67, 52 n. 6, 137 n. 44
56 n. 16, 157 Trevett 69 n. 64, 71–72
Head 4 n. 7
Heine 44 n. 63, 69–72, 133 n. 26, 138 n. 50, Vinzent 138 n. 50
169 n. 20
Hengel 4 n. 7, 44 nn. 63–65, 45 n. 67, 53 n. 6, Williams 11 n. 18, 44 n. 62, 49 n. 82, 126 n. 7,
82 n. 120, 151 n. 12, 152 nn. 17–18, 156 127, 128 n. 13, 145 n. 4, 175 n. 35
n. 30, 158, 165, 167 n. 13–14, 171 n. 26, 203
n. 9, 211 n. 39 Young 128 nn. 13–14, 129 n. 16, 133 n. 26, 183
Hill ix, 3, 4 n. 7, 45 n. 67, 47–48, 50, 53 n. 6, n. 14
59, 79, 80 n. 110, 81 n. 117, 110, 139 n. 57,
142, 152 n. 17, 156 n. 30, 159 n. 38, Zamagni 215 nn. 50–51, 216 , 217 nn. 53–54
164–166, 167 n. 15, 169 n. 19, 173, 175, 187,
190, 197 n. 46, 200, 201 n. 3, 202 nn. 4,
6, 203–210, 213 n. 43, 218, 225, 228
Holmes 113 n. 95, 163 n. 1, 180 n. 5, 181 n. 9,
197, 198 n. 48, 221 n. 4
Subject Index

Aenon 20, 185, 187–188, 202, 213 Dionysius bar Salibi 7–8, 26, 28–37, 40,
Aeons 47, 146, 154, 173–175, 208 n. 25 44–50, 54–59, 61, 64, 67 n. 56, 68 n. 60,
Alexandria 183 n. 14 69–70, 73–74, 76, 78–79, 82–93, 97–119,
allegorical exegesis 19, 179–183 132–133, 135 n. 35, 136–137, 139, 194–195,
Antichrist 22, 110, 112–113, 119, 144 231–232
Antioch 183 n. 14, 193 Dionysius of Alexandria 3, 6, 10, 20–21,
Apocalypse (of John) 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20–22, 39–40, 42, 60, 66 n. 54, 75–79, 81,
24–26, 28–30, 33–44, 46–48, 49 n. 82, 104–105, 107–109, 111–112, 114–115, 140,
54, 56–58, 60–61, 67, 68 n. 60, 74–82, 84, 142, 220, 223–227, 229, 230–231
86 n. 6, 89, 99 n. 62, 102 n. 71, 103–109, disciples 23, 111, 164–165, 181, 186, 189, 201,
113, 115–118, 123–124, 133, 135, 137, 203 n. 9, 207, 213, 218 n. 56
139–144, 146, 151, 155, 160, 178, 220–229,
231–232 Ebed-Jesu 7–8, 18, 28, 32–33, 40, 46–47,
Apollinaris 112–113, 132, 153 55–56, 58, 74, 76, 84–85, 87, 91–97,
Arsinoë 80 102, 119, 132–133, 137 n. 46, 138–140,
Asia Minor 6, 40, 69, 71–72, 174, 208 222, 231
Ebionites 112, 148–150, 157, 160, 172–173,
baptism 23, 29, 32, 149, 172–173, 187–188, 194, 195–196, 230
197 n. 46, 207–208 Egypt 23, 80, 88 n. 19, 150, 214–216, 219
Barbarism 124 Elder John 31, 104, 163–164
Basilides 38, 180 elders 66, 164, 208 n. 25
Blastus 134 Ephesus 104, 167, 179 n. 4
Epistles of John 3, 22, 25–26, 104, 144,
Cana 23, 29, 32, 146, 186, 194, 198, 206, 208, 168–169, 221
211 Eusebius 3, 6, 10, 15, 18–19, 21, 26, 28, 30,
canon 1, 40, 43, 52–53, 64, 67, 74, 143, 34–37, 39–42, 47, 49 n. 82–83, 55–68,
148–149, 155, 157, 158 n. 38, 159 n. 38, 163 73, 75–77, 79–81, 97 n. 58, 99 n. 62,
n. 1, 166, 172, 230 103–112, 114–115, 117, 131–132, 140, 153, 155,
Celsus 46 n. 75, 145, 149–154, 160, 180–181, 157, 163–166, 170, 177–179, 181, 191–193,
187 n. 20, 192, 207, 214–217, 230 199–200, 201–219, 223–228, 230–231
Cerinthus 3, 5, 7, 15, 18, 21–22, 28–31, 36,
38–40, 42, 43 n. 57, 57–58, 60, 66–67, flesh 19, 22–23, 75, 77, 111, 144, 150, 186, 202,
75–81, 82 n. 120, 107–109, 111–112, 214
114–118, 128, 135, 144–145, 148–150, four-fold Gospel 40, 52, 53 n. 7, 64, 143,
160, 172–173, 187 n. 20, 196, 219, 147–149, 155, 156 n. 30, 157–158, 160, 166,
222–224, 226–231 172, 208, 230
chiliastic 3, 80, 110, 115, 164, 223, 225
christology 39, 45 n. 67, 66, 111, 112, 149, Gaius 6 n. 11, 7–8, 10, 15, 16 n. 3, 17 n. 5, 18–19,
196–197 26–47, 48 n. 81, 49 nn. 82–83, 50, 52–71,
Clement of Alexandria 66 n. 52, 157, 163, 173 72 nn. 76–77, 73–82, 84–94, 97–102,
n. 33, 178, 202, 204, 210, 218 n. 56 104–110, 113–119, 130 n. 22, 132–133, 137
nn. 45–46, 140, 141 n. 62, 169 nn. 19–20,
Dialogue with Proclus 18–19, 28, 34–37, 39, 170, 186, 173 n. 32, 177, 186, 191–196, 198
41–42, 43 n. 55, 44, 49 n. 83, 55–58, n. 51, 202, 213 n. 40, 215 n . 47, 230–231
61–62, 64 n. 46, 66–70, 75, 98–99, 117, gnostic(s), gnosticism 2, 6, 38–39, 45 n. 67,
231 54, 74, 123, 134 n. 32, 147, 154, 156 n. 30,
Diatessaron 155, 156 n. 29, 157, 191–192 158, 173–175
252 Subject Index

Gospel of John 2 n. 4, 3–4, 6, 16, 19, 21–22, Johannophobia 3, 45 n. 67

24, 28–30, 33, 35–39, 41–44, 45 n. 67, John the Baptist 187–188, 192, 201, 209–211,
47, 50 n. 84, 54, 64, 66–70, 72 n. 81, 213
73–74, 98, 107, 116, 135, 140 n. 60, Jordan 187–188, 197–198, 213
143–146, 148, 152, 154–155, 156 n. 30, Josephus 56, 57 n. 19, 132, 137
165–174, 176–180, 186, 191–194, 197–198, Judas 72 n. 77, 112–113
200, 203–205, 211, 213, 217, 219–220, Justin Martyr 56, 63, 78, 156, 221
223–224, 229–232
Gospel of Truth 157, 167 Labyrinth 56, 59
Logos 66, 111, 126, 141–142, 151 n. 14, 194
harmonization 156
Hegesippus 202, 203 n. 7 Marcion 40, 128, 155, 157–159, 166 n. 10, 167,
Hellenism 124 180, 194 n. 36
Heracleon 38, 192, 197 Marcionites 152, 155, 195
heresy 1–2, 5, 7–8, 10–11, 15–16, 21, 24, 37, 46, Mary (mother of Jesus) 126, 149, 214, 216
52–53, 73 n. 86, 82, 123–125, 127 n. 11, Maximilla 63 n. 43, 226
128–129, 131, 135, 142–143, 144 n. 4, Miltiades 63, 71 n. 75, 72 n. 77
146–147, 160, 174, 176, 181–182, 197, 221, miracles 188, 201
228, 230, 232 Montanism 6, 38, 44, 52, 60 n. 31, 63 n. 43,
heterodox 82, 115, 147 64–65, 66 n. 51, 67–74, 80–81, 147,
Hippolytus 5–6, 15, 17, 18 n. 11, 26, 28–37, 39, 169–170, 193, 195, 231
42–43, 45–46, 50, 54, 56–61, 63, 65, Montanist 6, 16 n. 3, 18, 34, 36, 44, 53, 58,
69–70, 72–79, 81 n. 116, 82, 85–94, 62–66, 70–74, 76–77, 81, 99, 109, 126
129–134, 136–142, 169 n. 19, 172–173, 175, n. 6, 134 n. 32, 225
192–193, 195, 203, 222–224, 230–231 Montanists 2–3, 16 n. 3, 34, 37, 39, 41, 46,
Holy Spirit 17, 22–23, 25, 144, 147, 149–150, 54, 60, 63 n. 43, 65, 66 n. 50, 69–74, 109,
168–169, 171–172, 183, 186, 188, 197, 202, 126 n. 6, 169–170, 231
217–219 Muratorian Fragment 30, 39, 52 n. 6, 54, 57,
60, 69–70, 72 n. 81, 159, 192, 204, 207, 210,
Irenaeus 2, 3, 5–6, 10, 15–17, 31, 35, 37–42, 44, 218 n. 56, 222
47, 52–54, 60–64, 66, 69–71, 74, 77, 88,
104–107, 111–112, 129, 132, 146, 149, 157, Nepos 80–81
159, 163, 165–177, 191–192, 201, 204, 207, New Prophecy 18, 55, 62–63, 69–72, 169–170
208 n. 25, 221, 223, 229–230 Nicene orthodoxy 128, 142, 232
Noetians 5, 63 n. 43, 140
Jerome 56–57, 60, 63 n. 43, 73, 87, 94, 96–97
n. 58, 105–106, 124, 126 n. 5, 131–132, 152 oral tradition 41, 209–210
n. 19, 153, 156, 172 n. 30, 182–183, 192–193, Origen 6, 10–11, 15, 19–20, 36, 40, 42, 47, 60,
219 n. 59, 223 66 n. 52, 67–68, 80, 91, 96, 123–127,
Jesus 23, 47, 66, 78, 101, 111, 113, 123, 126, 151–152, 157, 163, 177–202, 204, 206–208,
146–149, 150 n. 8, 151, 154, 156 n. 30, 157, 211–213, 215, 217, 219–220, 222–231
163 n. 1, 167, 172–175, 177, 179–180, orthodox 1–4, 7–8, 36, 38–40, 43, 45,
184–192, 194–197, 201–202, 207–211, 213, 52–56, 63, 74, 91–93, 99, 109, 115, 127
213 n. 41, 214–218 n. 11, 142, 147, 155, 158 n. 38, 166, 232
Jewish 80, 95, 102 n. 71, 127 n. 11, 151, 153, 189,
225 Panarion 5, 9–10, 49, 119, 124–130, 134–137,
Johannine corpus 1–5, 7–9, 47, 73, 151, 160, 141 n. 62, 142, 144 n. 4, 147–148, 155, 172,
230–231 181–183, 195, 229, 232
Subject Index 253

Papias 10, 66, 77 n. 93, 103–107, 112, 113, 140, Rome 2 n. 4, 6–7, 30 n. 48, 34 n. 3, 38–39, 43,
159, 163–167, 176–179, 200–201, 202 n. 6, 49 n. 82, 52–54, 55 n. 13, 56, 57 n. 19, 60,
203–208, 210–212, 218–219, 221, 231 64, 69–72, 73 n. 86, 80, 131–132, 137, 156
Paraclete 16, 36, 41, 54, 58, 60–61, 65, 69–70, n. 30, 193
73–74, 168–169, 170 n. 25, 171, 193, 230
Passover 22, 24, 140, 146, 154, 173–175, Salim 20, 185, 187–188, 202, 213
188–191, 195 Shepherd of Hermas 70, 72 n. 81
Paul (the Apostle) 16, 27, 31, 61, 65, 71, 77–78, Synoptic Gospels 3 n. 5, 19, 22, 32, 36, 44
86 n. 6, 111–112, 124, 158 n. 38, 167–169, n. 63, 68–69, 146, 148–149, 157, 165, 173,
171, 173, 178, 181, 189 177–179, 187–192, 194–195, 197, 200,
Philaster 17, 25, 133–137 206–207, 209–211, 213, 219, 231
Philosabbatius 46 n. 75, 149–151, 153–154, Syriac 29 n. 42, 32, 35–36, 95, 84 n. 3, 96, 102
160, 187 n. 20, 214–216, 230 n. 71, 138 n. 51, 156 n. 29, 224
Photius 17, 34 n. 3, 56–57, 59–61, 65, 94, 130
n. 21, 131–133, 137 n. 47, 193 Tatian 155–156, 180, 191–192
Phrygians 24, 221 Tertullian 6, 63, 65–66, 71, 73 n. 86, 159, 207,
Polycarp 66, 77 n. 93, 163, 173, 208 221, 230
Polycrates 61, 66 Themiso 65, 77
Porphyry 46 n. 75, 145, 149–154, 160, 187 Theodoret 56, 60, 78–79, 92–93, 132
n. 20, 214–217, 230 Theophilus of Antioch 156, 157 n. 32, 221
Praxeas 63 n. 43, 73 n. 86
Ps.-Tertullian 17, 62, 65, 69–70, 111 n. 91, 112, Valentinians 40, 47, 146, 152, 154, 156 n. 30,
133–137 157, 160, 167, 173–175, 191, 208 n. 25, 230
Ptolemy 38 Valentinus 38, 174, 180
Victorinus of Pettau 60, 126 n. 5, 172 n. 30,
Quartodecimans 5–6, 39, 134 204, 210, 223
Quintilla 226
Zephyrinus 18, 35, 37, 39–41, 55–56, 59–60,
resurrection 19, 75, 90, 207 62, 192