GAIUS OR HIPPOLYTUS?
Gaius, the Roman presbyter, plays an important part in the literary history of Christianity at the opening of the third century. If the ravages of time have spared only fragments of his works, he has not been more hardly treated in this respect than many famous writers of the Antinicene Church. Even without the important fragment designated the Muratorian Canon, and the elaborate Refutation of all Heresies discovered in our own generation, both of which works have been ascribed to him by some modern critics, the literary remains bearing his name with the accompanying notes occupy some thirty pages in Routh's collection. Will it be thought audacious if I venture to question the existence of such a person?
The works attributed to Gaius by ancient writers and included under his name by Routh are the following:
(1) The Dialogue with Proclus, directed against the Montanists. It is quoted several times by Eusebius, who mentions Gaius as the author (H. E. ii. 25, iii. 28, 31, vi. 20).
A treatise on the Cause of the Universe, directed against the Platonic doctrine. Photius (AR. 32. a) states that certain persons attribute it to Gaius. A considerable fragment of this work is extant.
(3) The Little Labyrinth, from which long quotations are given by Eusebius, and which is mentioned by name by Theodoret (AR. 12 e). Of the relation of this work to the Labyrinth of Photius I shall have something to say hereafter (p. 378 sq).
(4) A treatise Against the Heresy of Artemon, mentioned by Photius (AR. 32. a) as assigned to Gaius.
But besides the works above enumerated, of whose literary parentage some account must be given, before we can dispose of Gaius, certain facts are recorded of his life, which seem at first sight to give him a substantial existence and to resist any attempt to annihilate him.
We learn from Eusebius that he was a member of the Catholic Church (εκκλησιαστικος ανηρ); that he was a man of great learning (λογιωτατος); that he resided at Rome; that he held the dialogue with the Montanist Proclus during the pontificate of Zephyrinus; and that he received only thirteen epistles of S. Paul, thus excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jerome, as usual, derives all his knowledge from Eusebius, and repeats the same statements somewhat more loosely. Theodoret only knows Gaius as the writer of the Dialogue against Proclus. Photius (AR. 32. a) is somewhat fuller. 'This Gaius,' he writes, 'is repoted to have been a presbyter of the Church in Rome during the pontificate of Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been ordained bishop of the Gentiles.'
I have already alluded to the fact that the 'Refutation of all Heresies,' which was brought to light less than forty years ago, was added to the literary achievements of Gaius by several able critics. This fresh honour was the immediate occasion of his downfall. The Refutation is now ascribed by pretty general consent to his learned contemporary Hippolytus. On this point the representatives of the most opposite schoolsBunsen, Wordsworth Döllingerare agreed; and the coincidence with respect to the authorship is more striking, because the work affords material for manifold theological controversy.
Unhappily for the fame of Gaius the Refutation cannot stand alone. Its author must have written all the treatise ascribed by ancient authorities to this learned Roman presbyter with the exception of the Dialogue with Proclus.
The Treatise against Artemon may be conveniently taken first. There cannot be much doubt that this treatise is identical with the Little Labyrinth mentioned by Theodoret (AR. 12. e). For though the extant fragments are directed chiefly against Theodotus, another leading monarchian, yet Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for their preservation, says that the work was written 'against the heresy of Artemon' (H. E. v. 28); and Theodoret, after mentioning both Artemon and Theodotus, says 'against the heresy of these men was composed the Little Labyrinth.'
The testimony of Photius (AR. 32. a) requires careful scrutiny. After discussing the authorship of the Treatise on the Universe he mentions
marginal notes (εν παραγραφαις) to the effect that it was written by Gaius, an elder living in Rome, who they say composed The Labyrinth also, and of whome a Dialogue is extant against a certain Proclus, champion of the Montanist sect; which (treatise On the Universe) being left anonymous has been ascribed to diverse persons, just as The Labyrinth has been ascribed by one to Origen. But 'in truth,' he continues, 'it is the work of Gaius who composed The Labyrinth, as he himself testifies that the Treatise of the Nature of the Universe is his.' 'They say that this Gaius,' he adds, 'composed another treatise also especially directed against the heresy of Artemon, and an important Dialogue against Proclus, a champion of Montanus.'
What does Photius mean by this Labyrinth? Shall we identify it with the Little Labyrinth of Theodoret? Our first impulse is to identify the two; but, if so, Photius must have given an incorrect account, for he obviously contemplates two separate works. This however he might very well have done, since he seems not to have seen the Little Labyrinth. But another solution offers itself, which deserves more consideration. There is every reason to believe that the Summary comprising the 10th book of the Philosophumena was circulated separately from the main portion of the treatise, and fell into the hands of some who were unacquainted with the rest. Now in the opening words of this 10th book Hippolytus says that after 'breaking through the Labyrinth of Heresies,' he will proceed to the Demonstration of the Truth. It would seem therefore that this summary was known as the Labyrinth from the opening words. This explains the further statement of Photius that 'at the close of the Labyrinth he testifies that he wrote the treatise On the Nature of the Universe'; for in one of the final chapters the author of the Philosophumena (x. 32) refers his readers to this work, as his own.
But though different works are probably indicated by the Little Labyrinth and the Labyrinth, the nomenclature points to the identity of authorship. The same person, who would describe a general work on heresies as penetrating a labyrinth, would select the appropriate title for a special treatise dealing with a particular group of heresies the Little Labyrinth. Thus the reference in the Philosophumena gives an additional confirmation of the Hippolytean authorship of the treatise Against Artemon. Even before the discovery of the Philosophumena, Routh had suggested this as the probable inference from the facts before him1.
1 In the Journal of Philology p. 98 sq, where this essay Gaius or Hippolytus? appeared in its original form, I had identified the Little Labyrinth of Theodoret with the Labyrinth of Photius, as writers before me had done; but the investigations of subsequent critics, showing the separate use of the Summary in the 10th book of the Philosophumena, gives another aspect to the question. The two can no longer, I think, be treated as titles of the same work.
The Little Labyrinth. The comparison of Eusebius with Theodoret leaves no doubt that by this name the treatise Against Artemon is meant as I have just shown. Gaius therefore is deprived of teh credit of the authorship of this work. Indeed the identification of the two supplies additional grounds for turning to Hippolytus as the true author.
To Hippolytus also must be assigned the Nature of the Universe. For this ascription there are abundant reasons, as I shall show below (p. 395 sq). It is sufficient to say here that the author of the Refutatio distinctly claims it as his own work; and no case has been made out for denying the Refutatio to Hippolytus. Indeed we may consider this latter point as established irrefragably, whatever doubt may have been entertained among critics at an earlier date.
[The above paragraphs are taken partly from an article which I wrote in 1868 in the Journal of Philology I. p. 98 sq, in which I was disposed to maintain that Gaius was only the double of Hippolytus, and that all the works ascribed to the former belong rightly to the latter. Only here and there a correction of statement has been rendered necessary in the foregoing paragraphs by further knowledge. So far I adhere to my former opinions. But in the light of recent discovery, as I shall explain presently, I feel myself no longer able to maintain this extreme view. It is now quite certain that there was a certain Gaius, against whom Hippolytus wrote. Yet my former discussion seems to me worth while reproducing in part, because it brings out many difficulties attending to the question which have never been solved and because it offers some suggestions which may not be useless in other ways even in the light of further knowledge. If we could suppose the wrter against the Montanists to be Hippolytus, and the opponent of the Apocalypse some unknown person of the name, we should have a solution of our difficulties; but I feel that I have no right to suggest this solution, except provisionally, with the evidence now before me.]
Thus stripped of his borrowed plumage, Gaius retains only the Dialogue with Proclus the Montanist. Of this work a brief notice is given by Eusebius, who also preserves two or three short fragments. It appears from these that the dialogue professed to have been held in Rome during the pontificate of Zephyrinus; that Gaius was the orthodox
and Proclus the Montanist disputant; that in defending the prophesyings of his sect Proclus appealed to the four daughters of Philip, who with their father were buried at Hierapolis; and that, as a set-off against these precoius reliques, Gaius offered to show his antagonist the tombs of St Peter and St Paul, the one at the Vatican, the other on the Ostian Way. Moreover, a passage is quoted (obviously from a speech of Gaius), which, as the exact representation have an important bearing on the subject of this paper, I shall here quote at length:
"But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations purporting to have been written by a great apostle, lyingly imposes upon us marvellous prodigies which he professes to have been shown him by angels, saying that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is an earthly kingdom, and again that men shall live in Jerusalem in th eflesh and be the slaves of lusts and pleasures. And, being an enemy to the scriptures of God, he would fain deceive, and says that a tale of a thousand years is to be spent in marriage festivities1."
Having thus given the facts which bear upon the decision, I will state my hypothesis. Unless I am mistaken, it explains all the phenomena better thatn they have hitherto been explained; and, if so, it may fairly claim a hearing.
Gaius is simply an interlocuter in a dialogue against the Montanists written by Hippolytus. By this person, who takes the orthodox side in the discussion, Hippolytus may have intended himself, or he may have invented an imaginary character for dramatic purposes. In other words, such a dialogue may really have taken place, or the narrative may be fictitious from beginning to end. In the former case, we may suppose that Gaius was his own praenomen; for then he would naturally so style himself in the dialogue, just as Cicero appears under the name of Marcus in his own writings. Not being a slave and being in some sense a Roman, Hippolytus must almost necessarily have had two names, if not more; just as his Alexandrian contemporary Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus. Such a combination as Gaius Hippolytus is natural in itself, and indeed occurs in an extant inscription found at Placentia; Q. POBLICIO L.L.C. HIPPOLYTUS2. On the latter supposition
1 Euseb. H. E. III. 28 αλλα και Κηρινθος ο δι αποκαλυψεων ως υπο αποστολου μεγαλου γεγραμμενων τερατολογιας ημιν ως δι αγγελων αυτω δεδειγμενας φευδομενος επεισαγει, λεγων μετα την αναστασιν επιγειον ειναι το βασιλειον του Χριστου. και παλιν επιθυμιαις και ηδοναις εν Ιερουσαλημ την σαρκα πολιτευομενην δουλευειν. και εχθρος υπαρχων ταις γραφαις του Θεου αριθμον χιλιονταετιας εν γαμω εορτης θελων πλαναν λεγει γενεσθαι.
2 Gruter, DCCCCLXXXIX. 4.
(that Gaius is an imaginary person), we may appeal to the legal formula 'Ubi tu Gaius, ego Gaia,' as suggesting that Hippolytus might avail himself of the name which corresponds to the anonymous N. or M. of our own formularies1. Of the former kind of dialogue, where the author himself is the orthodox disputant, the work of Justin against Trypho may be taken as a type: of the latter, where a fictitious person maintains the right cause, the dispute between Jason and Papiscus by Ariston of Pella will serve as an example2.
I suppose then that the copies of the Dialogue in general circulation were anonymous. The title may have run Διαλογος Γαιου και Προκλου (or προς Προκλον) η κατα Μοντανιστων. A writer, into whose hands this Dialogue fell, would naturally infer, as Eusebius inferred, (and the analogy of Justin's work would favour the inference), that Gaius was the actual author of the book. The few particulars which Eusebius gives respecting the life of Gaius were doubtless drawn form the Dialogue itself. Thoes which are added by Photius came from the other writings attributed to Gaius, from the Cause of the Universe or the Labyrinth, or perhaps from the Refutation itself. The critics, whom he quotes and to whom he is indebted for these particulars, had observed the cross references from one work to another and correctly inferred therefrom the identity of authorship. Among these cross references was one which connected the authorship of the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus with the other works, just as these are connected among themselves and proved to belong to the same author. Hence Gaius assumed to be the author of the Dialogue was credited with the other works also.
This is the explanation of the fact that all the particulars, which are predicated of Gaius, are predicated or predicable of Hippolytus also. They both flourish during the same pontificates; they are both styled 'presbyters,' and both live in Rome; they both receive only thirteen Epistles as written by St Paul, excluding the Epislte to the Hebrews; they both are men of great learning, though the Roman Church for some generations before and after this time was singularly devoid of literary eminence. And lastly, we have here an explanation of the
1 So Tertullian Apol. 3 'Nemo retractat, ne ideo bonus Gaius et prudens Lucius, quia Christianus'; ib. 48 'At enim Christianus, si de homine hominem ipsumque de Gaio Gaium repromittat.'
The work of Minucius Felix stands midway between the two; for, while the chief disputant on the right side is a third person, the writer himself is supposed to be present. Another instance of an early polemical writing thrown into the form of a dialogue is the dispute of Archelaus and Manes. (Routh's Rel. Sacr. v. p. 3 sq.)
otherwise not very intelligible statement, that Gaius was appointed 'bishop of the Gentiles' (AR. 32. a); for Hippolytus in the Refutation speaks of himself as holding the episcopal office (AR. 1), and addresses the Gentiles more than once as though they were his special charge1. If the designation 'bishop of the Gentiles' is not strictly correct, it was at least a very easy inference from his language in this work; and probably he expressed himself similarly elsewhere, when the occasion demanded, as for instance in the treatise on the Universe addressed to the Greeks.
To this identification of Gaius and Hippolytus another ancient notice also points. The extant manuscripts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp profess to be derived ultimately from a copy which was 'transcribed from the writings (or manuscripts or lectures) of Irenaeus the disciple of Polycarp by Gaius who also was intimate with Irenaeus2.' Now I shall not stop to enquire whether this postscript to the account of Polycarp's martyrdom contains authentic matter or not; but in any case it would seem that the transcriber here intended was none other than our Gaius, the Roman presbyter; for he is the only notable personage of the name and age, whose attestation would be of value to accredit the genuineness of the narrative. If so, it is remarkable that he is represented as a disciple of Irenaeus. For Hippolytus also attended the lectures of this father, and was much indebted to them for the materials of his earlier Compendium against Heresies. In his later Refutation also he twice mentions Irenaeus as 'the blessed elder,' and in the second of the two passages avows his great obligations to him (Ref. Haer. VI. 42, 45). May we suppose that Gaius in the Dialogue with Proclus expresses himself similarly with respect to this father?
Again, the hypothesis of an anonymous copy falls in with another class of facts mentioned above. The knowledge of Eusebius was limited in character and extent by the materials within his reach. To the library at Caesarea, collected by the diligence of his friend Pamphilus, we probably owe the valuable remains of early Christian literature which he has preserved to us; and, where this library was defective, his knowledge would be defective also. Now it appears to have contained some volumes bearing the name of Hippolytus; for, though he passes over
1 x. 31, 32, 34. In the close of the treatise, which is wanting, he may have alluded to his episcopate more directly, in connexion with the Gentiles to whom this peroration is addressed.
2 ταυτα μετεγραψατο μεν Γαιος εκ των Ειρηναιου μαθητου του Πολυκαρπου, ος και συνεπολιτευσατο τω Ειρηναιω; or, as it appears in the Moscow MS, ;μματων Γαιος μετεγραψατο (see Ignat. and Polyc. III. pp. 401, 403, ed. 2).
this father very lightly, he gives a list of several books written by him, adding, 'And you may find very many works besides still extant in the hands of many persons' (H. E. VI. 22). But, in addition to the works which he enumerates, the library also contained another stray volume, from which the writer's name was accidentally omitted, and of which Eusebius did not recognize the authorship. This volume comprised the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus, the Little Labyrinth, and the Cause of the Universe. The first of these Eusebius ascribes to Gaius (of whom he evidently knows nothing besides), because Gaius is the orthodox interlocutor. The second he quotes but quotes anonymously, not knowing who was the author. Of the third it is worth remarking this negative fact, that he has not included it in his list of the works of Hippolytus, though it is so included in the catalogue on the statue. From its subject it probably would not assist his historical researches, and he therefore does not quote from it, and probably did not read it. In the same form alsoperhaps in a copy transcribed from the archetype in the Caesarean librarythe three anonymous treatises fell into the hands of the critic or critics mentioned by Photius. They saw from th cross-references that the three works must be ascribed to the same author; and, either following Eusebius or drawing on the same easy but incorrect inference independently, they attributed the Dialogue against the Montanists to one Gaius. To Gaius therefore this anonymous volume was assigned.
But independently of the theory itself, are there reasons for supposing that Hippolytus ever did write against Montanism? There is at least a presumption, that so ruthless a scourge of heterodoxy in all its forms should not have left this type of error unassailed. Besides writing two general works against all the heresieshis earlier Compendium, the little book read by Photius, and apparently preserved (though not without considerable modifications) in the Latin treatise attached to the Praescriptio of Tertullian (see below, p. 413 sq), and his later and fuller work, the Refutation, first brought to light and published in our own generationhe likewise attacked in special treatises the more important heresies which were rife in his own age and church. We have seen how he refuted the monarchian doctrines of Theodotus and Artemon, by which the Roman community was assailed about this time. We have moreover an extant fragment of a work against Noetus (whether an independent treatise or not), whose heretical views also threatened this same church in his day. He wrote likewise against Marcion. It would seem strange therefore if so persistent a champion
of orthodoxy had been silent about Montanism, which was certainly one of the most formidable antagonists of the Catholic Church among the Roman Christians at this time.
On the other hand, in the Refutation he dismisses this heresy very briefly. Bunsen complains that 'the whole article is meagre,' and fails to fulfil the promise which Hippolytus made at the outset, that he would leave no form of error unanswered. I think this meagreness is easily explained on the hypothesis which I have put forward. Just as in a previous section Hippolytus had dismissed the heresy of Theodotus (though second in importance to none in its influence on the Christian history of his time) with a very few lines1, because he had controverted it in the Little Labyrinth, so now he disposes of Montanism with the same despatch, because he either has written, or intends to write, a special treatise on the subject. If the words which follow refer, as they perhaps do, not to the Noetians who are mentioned just before, but to the Montanists who are the main subject of the paragraph, this polemical work was still an unaccomplished project. 'Concerning these,' he says, 'I will write more in detail at a future time.' The supposition that the Dialogue was not yet written, though projected, is quite consistent with the fact, that the discussion which it reproduced purported to have been held during the pontificate of Zephyrinus. The Refutation indeed was not written till after the death of Callistus, the successor of Zephyrinus. But, as Callistus only held the see for four years (219-223), no long time ned have elapsed between the supposed date of the discussion and the publication of the Dialogue, so that no dramatic propriety would be violated. But on either supposition, whether the Dialogue existed already, or was only planned in the author's mind, the fact would explain why he is satisfied with this very cursory notice of the Montanists in his great work.
From this Dialogue also Stephanus Gobarus (AR. 20) may have quoted, when, as represented by Photius, he stated 'what opinions the most holy Hippolytus held concerning the Montanists.' The account of these heretics in the Refutation is alomst too short to explain this
1 Ref. Haer. viii. 19. Another case in point is the article on the Quartodecimans (viii. 18), who are dismissed still more summarily. Hippolytus had discussed them in his treatise On the Passover. In all these three cases Bunsen (Hippolytus I. pp. 376, 382, 385) supposes that our manuscript has preserved only an abstract of what Hippolytus wrote. The account I have given in the text seems to me much more probable. At the same time I am disposed to think that the Refutation was left unfinished by its author, and that he had intended to expand these meagre articles, making use of his special treatises for this purpose. This hypothesis will explain much which needs explanation in the form of the work.
language. And, if the Latin of the Pseudo-Tertullian at all adequately represents his earlier work, the Compendium also was equally brief. Indeed in the later work he does little more than repeat the statements of the earlier respecting these heretics.
It only remains to enquire, whether the extant fragments of the Dialogue are consistent with the hypothesis that Hippolytus was the author.
As regards style, the work might well have been written by this father; though any inference drawn from such scanty extracts can have but little value. The matter however presents some difficulty. The inference has been often drawn from the passage quoted above (see p. 381)1, that the writer of the Dialogue considered the Apocalypse of S. John to be a forgery of Cerinthus; and, if this inference were true, my hypothesis must be abandoned; for Hippolytus not only quoted largely from the Apocalypse as a work of S. John, but also, as we have seen, wrote a book in its defence. This adverse interpretation however may reasonably be questioned. It is difficult to see how an intelligent person should represent the Apocalypse as teaching that in the Kingdom of Christ 'men should live in the flesh in Jerusalem and be the slaves of lust and pleasures,' and again that 'a thousand years should be spent in marriage festivities2.' It is hardly less difficult to imagine how a man of great learning, as the author of the Dialogue is represented to have been, could have reconciled such a theory with the known history and tenets of Cerinthus. It must be confessed indeed that Dionysius of Alexandria appears so to have interpreted the language of Gaius in the Dialogue. At all events he speaks of some previous writers (τινες των προ ημων) as maintaining that the Apocalypse was written by Cerinthus, and describes their views in language somewhat resembling the passage of the Dialogue (Euseb. H. E. vii. 25; comp. iii. 28); though he himself, while questioning the Apostolic authorship of the book, has the good sense and feeling to reject this solution as untenable. It is not so clear that Eusebius also understood the passage in the same way.
1 Neander (II. p. 441 Bohn's transl.) writes thus: 'Moreover it deserves consideration in this respect, that by Stephanus Gobarus the judgments of Hippolytus and of Gregory of Nyssa respecting the Montanists are set one against the other, so that we may conclude that the former belonged to the defenders of Montanism.' And others have attributed Montanizing views to Hippolytus. But we do not know in what respect the opinions of these two fathers were contrasted by Stephanus, if they were contrasted. At all events Hippolytus in the Refutation speaks quite as strongly against the Montanists as the case justifies.
2 The word γαμος however need not signify a marriage festival, as it is used elsehwere of festivities generally; e.g. LXX, Esth. iv. 22.
On the other hand Theodoret adopted a diferent interpretation. 'Cerinthus,' writes this father, 'also invented certain revelations pretending to have seen them himself (ως αυτος τεθεαμενος). Against him not only have the above-named persons written, but with them also Gaius and Dionysius the Bishop of Alexandria (AR. 12 d).' So interpreted, the passage signifies that Cerinthus set himself up for 'a great apostle' who had revelations1: and this is more in accordance with his attitude towards S. John as it appears in other ancient notices. But, whatever be the exact bearing of the words ως υπο αποστολου μεγαλου γεγραμμενων, the description is inappropriate to the Apocalypse of our Canon. Nor indeed is it likely that an orthodox presbyter of the Roman Church should have so written a book which a contemporary presbyter of the same Church reverenced as the genuine work of an inspired Apostle; for the author of the Dialogue does not write as one who is putting forward an opinion which would be contested by his own compeers.
It may be said, however, that at all events Gaius attacks the millennarians, whereas Hippolytus himself held millennial views. But both propositions involved in this statement are open to question. Gaius did indeed condemn a sensuous millennium, but it is by no means clear that the passage goes so far as to condemn Chiliastic doctrine in all its forms. On the other hand it is not certain that he must have scouted all Chiliastic views which wore a sensuous garb. As regards the first point, he does indeed maintain that the world will last six thousand years, corresponding to the six days of creation, and that afterwards will come the reign of Christ, of which the Sabbbath is the type2, but the parallel is not pressed so far as to insist upon the same duration for his antitypical sabbath as for his antitypical working-day; and he elsewhere speaks of the second Advent in such a way as to leave no room for a millennium. It is at least remarkable, that though he again and again enalrges on eschatological subjects he is wholly silent on this one point, even where the subject would naturally lead him to state the doctrine, if he held it3. But, if it is hardly probably that Hippolytus held Chiliastic opinions
1 See the parallel given by Routh (II. p. 139) from Apollonius in Euseb. H. E. v. 18, μιμουμενος τον αποστολον, καθολικην τινα συνταξαμενος επιστολην, speaking of one Themiso, a Montanist. The more natural interpretation of the words however seems to be, that Cerinthus palmed off his forged Apocalypses under the name of some Apostle, perhaps S. Peter.
2 Hippol. Fragm. 59 (on Daniel), p. 153 (Lagarde).
3 See the treatise on Antichrist throughout (especially c. 44 sq), besides several fragments bearing on the subject.
of any kind, it is quite certain that he would have condemned, as strongly as any one, the sensuous conception of the millennium attributed by Cerinthus in the Dialogue. 'In the resurrection,' he writes, 'men shall be as angels of God : that is to say, in incorruption and immortality and immutability (αρευσια). For incorruptible being is not born, does not grow, does not sleep, does not hunger, does not thirst, does not toil, does not suffer, does not die, is not pierced by nails and spear, does not sweat, does not shed blood: such beings are those of the angels and of souls released from bodies; for both these are different in kind from (ετερογενεις), and alien to, the visible and corruptible creation of the (present) world1.'
When the above essay was written, I had thought also that the Heads against Gaius, which are mentioned in Ebedjesu's list (AR. 37) might have been this very Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus, which Eusebius mentions; and that owing to a careless heading, or to a superficial impression derived from its opening sentences, it might have been taken to be written against Gaius, because the interlocutor Proclus, who prehaps opened the debate, was found arguing against him. Thus the last vestige of evidence for the existence of Gaius as distinct from Hippolytus would have disappeared. But only last year Prof. Gwynn of Dublin discovered and published from Dionysius Barsalibi several fragments from this very treatise, in which Hippolytus maintains against Gaius the genuineness and authority of the Apocalypse of S. John (see below, p. 394 sq). 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.
1 Hippol. Fragm. 9, p. 90 (Lagarde).
Return to the Table of Contents of J. B. Lightfoot's The Aposstolic Fathers, Part I, Vol. 2
Please buy the CD to support the site, view it without ads, and get bonus stuff!