Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:38 pmPapias material, which we have via a well doctored compendium attributed to Eusubius (let's say the collection started under him, but the version we have is from the later middle ages), is focused on the Gospel order....
Do the Syriac manuscripts of the History of the Church from centuries V and VI lack the Papias material? Or what are you saying? Which parts of the History date to the late Middle Ages?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias »

Nah. Like Giuseppe if he doesn't like something he declares it to be a forgery, not part of the original etc. You know the way these characters work. Reminds me of John Travolta or one of the characters in Saturday Night Fever (I forget which) when a girl didn't sleep with him he immediately declares 'Lesbeen.' Like the only reason someone wouldn't find him attractive means they aren't attracted to men, a passage which contradicts a hobby horse must be 'fake.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias »

Since the author of AV mentions Marcus and a certain Gaius as a living, authoritative grandfather figure with a beard let's see what Hill says on the subject:
I introduce now, however, another intriguing possibility which does in fact involve Gaius’ name. There may be an unnoticed reference to Gaius in Tertullian’s De praescriptione haereticorum 33. 10, written between 200 and 203,89 very close to the time when Gaius published his Dialogue.90 In a section in which he is pointing to examples of heresies encountered by the apostles, Tertullian says, ‘John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those ‘‘who eat things sacrificed to idols,’’ and ‘‘who commit fornication.’’ There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans. Theirs is called the Gaian heresy (Gaiana haeresis dicitur).’ There has been disagreement, however, over the original reading. All the extant manuscripts (A P X) read Gaiana, and this was the reading printed by Rhenanus in his editio princeps of Tertullian’s works in 1521.91 But in Rhenanus’ third edition he printed Cainana (Cainites), which was then repeated in all the remaining sixteenth- and seventeenth-century editions of Tertullian’s works.92 This seems to have been simply his conjecture,93 based perhaps on an inability to identify a group of ‘Gaians’, and on the fact that Tertullian elsewhere reports that a female representative of the heresy of the Cainites, whom Tertullian calls a viper, had a few years earlier come to Carthage and had ‘carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine’ (De bapt. 1. 2). But here there is a textual problem as well! Codex Trecensis 523 (12th cent.), the only manuscript of De baptismo now surviving, has de canina haeresi vipera, but the edition of Martin Mesnart from 1545, curiously, has de Gaiana haeresi vipera.94 Quasten writes that the text of De baptismo in Mesnart’s edition, taken from an unidentified and now lost manuscript, is inferior to that of Trecensis. Based on a passage from Jerome, where he speaks of Caina haeresis and calls it a viper, Harnack in 1914 proposed that the true reading in both De praescriptione and De baptismo must have been Caina.95 This corresponds perfectly with the reference in De baptismo 1. 2 and is fairly taken as evidence that the text of Tertullian known to Jerome had de Caina haeresi there. What is more, the reference to vipers would be fitting in the case of a Cainite, as the Cainites are associated with the Ophites in Ps. Tertullian, Against All Heresies 2 (cf. Irenaeus, AH 1. 30, 31).96 But does this decide the case as well for De praescriptione 33. 10, as assumed by Harnack and others?97 The immoral practices of the Cainites, hinted at by Irenaeus (AH 1. 31. 2), might be seen as analogous to the practices of the Nicolaitans censured by John, to which Tertullian is comparing the heresy in question in De praescriptione 33. 10. On the other hand, in De baptismo, where Tertullian is faced with problems arising from the Cainites, he never refers to their morals (nor are bad morals mentioned in Ps. Tertullian). And the united reading of the three extant manuscripts of De praescriptione,98 Gaiana, is a reading which, unlike Cainana, is unlikely to have arisen through a conscious scribal attempt to make sense of an otherwise inscrutable reference. In addition, there is the matter of the reading of the lost text of De baptismo 1. 2 used by Mesnart in 1545, which evidently read de Gaiana haeresi vipera. If we presume that the original of this text read Caina, we must imagine that a Gaian heresy made more sense to some copyist than did a Cainite one. It is unlikely that Mesnart himself made this change, because in his edition of De praescriptione 33. 10, he had followed Rhenanius’ third edition in reading Cainana, not Gaiana which the surviving texts have. Thus, to account for the possibility of an original Gaiana in De praescriptione 33. 10 and an early scribal change from Caina to Gaiana in De baptismo 1. 2, we may now say that we know of a Gaius who might have shown himself, in Tertullian’s eyes, no less an enemy of the apostle John and his Revelation than the Nicolaitans were in John’s own day. It is also potentially important that whatever Gaius might have said about the Apocalypse of John (note that the Gospel is not here implicated!) was said in a Dialogue with a man named Proclus, a Montanist teacher whom we know Tertullian later came to hold in very high esteem (Val. 5; Scap. 4. 5).99 If Gaiana is the original reading of De praescriptione 33. 10—and I must emphasize that this is not certain—we then surely have an extremely important, contemporary evaluation of the views (some views) of someone named Gaius.100 It is interesting that Tertullian mentions ‘the Gaian heresy’ in a reference to the Apocalypse, not in a reference to the Gospel. The only fragment from Gaius’ Dialogue we possess which possibly bears on the Johannine literature is his comment which seems to link the Johannine Apocalypse with the carnal millennialism of Cerinthus. If Gaiana is the correct reading, the importance of this short comment lies not only in confirming that Gaius said something about Revelation (as he likely did in the Dialogue) which was known by Tertullian in Carthage at least as early as 200–3, but in revealing Tertullian’s dismissal of Gaius’ position on the Apocalypse as a heresy, as a fitting successor to the disgusting practices of the Nicolaitans. Whether it was already known by the name ‘the Gaian heresy’ or whether this was Tertullian’s own coinage we cannot of course tell. But this text would offer the earliest witness to Gaius’ views on the Apocalypse from orthodox quarters, and that witness is unarguably negative. There are critical questions surrounding both the alleged response by Hippolytus to Gaius and this possible reference to Gaius by Tertullian. But, such as they are, they are our only potentially contemporary responses101 and they unite in discouraging the idea that Gaius could have been representing a traditional position of the orthodox in Rome in charging that the Apocalypse of John taught the carnal chiliasm associated with Cerinthus, or in criticizing the contents of either Johannine work. On the contrary, they would be consistent with the results of the earlier portion of this study, which indicated that, based on the circumstantial evidence of various writers who had connections with Rome, both the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse must have been highly regarded by the major representatives of the Church there for quite some time prior to Gaius’ Dialogue. A later portion of this study will follow the fortunes of the Johannine literature through the fourth century or so. Here it may be said that, though Gaius may indeed stand at the beginning of a chain of events which would have negative consequences for the recognition of the Apocalypse of John in areas of the Christian Church, what is ironic, in the light of the OJP, is that he had no such effect on the continuing reception of the Gospel according to John. Outside of the ‘Alogi’ and Dionysius bar Salibi’s ‘Gaius’, I do not know of a defender of the position attributed to these figures, inside or outside the Church. This could be one more indication that Gaius indeed did not criticize the Gospel and that the legacy which has grown up around him is unhistorical. But if he did reject the Fourth Gospel, either simply as being in conflict with the other three or also as being the product of the heretic Cerinthus, we shall have to agree with Hengel in pronouncing his enterprise of Gospel criticism a colossal failure in the ancient Church. Its path to success did not begin until ad 1888.

88 ‘These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion.’
89 Quasten, Patrology, ii. 272, ad 200; Barnes, Tertullian, 55, ad 203.
90 Eusebius places the Dialogue in Rome at the time of Zephyrinus (199–217) (HE 2. 25. 7; 6. 20. 3). If this is so, then the debate may have taken place just after the new bishop was elected.
91 B. Rhenanus, Opera Q. S. Fl. Tertulliani (Basle, 1521); 3rd edn. 1539.
92 Martin Mesnartius (Paris, 1545, considered a 4th edn. of Rhenanus); S. Gelenius (Basle, 1550, considered a 5th edn. of Rhenanus); J. Pamelius (Paris, 1583/Antwerp, 1584, considered a 6th edn. of Rhenanus); N. Rigaltius (Paris, 1634). (Note the helpful annotations on early edns. by Roger Pearse, ‘Early Editions 1450–1859’, at www.tertullian.org/editions/editions.htm.)
93 It is possible that this was the reading of codex Gorziensis, which Rhenanus collated in the 3rd edn. but which is now lost. But the editor of the CCL edn. does not list it as a reading of Gorziensis as detectible from Rhenanus’ 3rd edn.
94 None of the MSS which contain De Praescr. has De Bapt.
95 A. von Harnack, ‘Tertullians Bibliothek christlicher Schriften’, Sitzungsberg. d. ko¨n. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin (1914), 303–34, at 323. Jerome’s text reads, et consurgit mihi Caina haeresis atque olim emortua vipera contritum caput levat (Epp. 59. 1). See Barnes, Tertullian, 279.
96 Barnes, Tertullian, 280.
97 CCL 2. Barnes, Tertullian, 279, also assumes this reading
98 Codex Parisinus Latinus 1622 (Agobardensis), 9th cent. (A); Codex Paterniacensis 439, 11th cent. (P); Codex Luxemburgensis 75, 15th cent. (X), though X is a descendant of P.
99 Praescr. was written before Tertullian’s conversion to Montanism. But his later reverence towards Proclus could suggest a sympathy towards this man even from the time of his reading of Gaius’ Dialogue. Perhaps it played a role in Tertullian’s eventual adoption of the New Prophecy.
100 There is, finally, one more possible reference to Gaius in the writings of Tertullian. In an ironical jab in Val. 32. 4 Tertullian mentions a ‘Marcus or a Gaius’ as ending up the brides and parents, by some angelic aeon, of aeonic offspring. But rather than being a reference to real people (Marcus the Valentinian and someone named Gaius) these appear to be names for common men (slaves, according to the note in the ANF).
101 It is possible that Gaius’ criticism was known already to the Ephesian Apollonius, who in his own refutation of Montanism in about ad 200 establishes the role of John in Asian Christianity. I have observed above that, unlike Gaius, Apollonius evidently used the Johannine Apocalypse positively against Montanism. If Apollonius wrote after Gaius and in knowledge of his work, he obvi-
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias »

Let's look again at this:
Gaius in hac carne barbatus et in hac anima severus maritus pater avus proavus
Why the emphasis on the beard? Clearly we see a paragraph removed the following reference for the other members of the sect - et quid facient spadones quos videmus apud illos "If so, what do the eunuchs do whom we see among them?" The brides are obviously eunuchs but the 'fathers' are masculine looking - hence the homosexual innuendo.
at present bearded in this body and in this soul a stern husband, father, grandfather, or great-grandfather - certainly masculine enough
So Gaius is old. But πάππας = pope also means grandfather. Gaius was authoritative. He must have been a Pope of some tradition in Rome.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias »

Tabernee:
the confrontation between Gaius and Proclus (if indeed an historical event) appears to have consisted merely of an intellectual, if passionate, dialogue on important issues. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.20.3), the dialogue took place in the time of Zephyrinus, which means, if accurate, that it probably occurred ca. 200 and was written up and published subsequently, perhaps as early as 202 - 3. Like Gaius, Hippolytus (ca. 170–ca. 236/7) was a Roman opponent of the New Prophecy. Also like Gaius, Hippolytus appears to have been a presbyter rather than a bishop—although the (erroneous) conclusion that he was a bishop seems to have been drawn by Jerome (Vir. ill. 61) from Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.20.2b: “And likewise, also Hippolytus, he being the one having superintended () some other church somewhere.” Jerome laments that he has not been able to discover the identity of Hippolytus' city (urbis). In Historia ecclesiastica 6.20.1–3 Eusebius refers to some learned 'orthodox' writers (6.20.1), only one of whom, Beryllus, is speciÀcally called a bishop () in the full ecclesiastical sense of that word (6.20.2a). Hippolytus is mentioned next.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias »

Gaius in hac carne barbatus et in hac anima severus maritus pater avus proavus
If the ambiguous reference here is to Gaius being πάππας Eusebius's point:
ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ Γαΐου, λογιωτάτου ἀνδρός, διάλογος, ἐπὶ Ῥώμης κατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον πρὸς Πρόκλον τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσεως ὑπερμαχοῦντα κεκινημένος· ἐν ᾧ τῶν δι' ἐναντίας τὴν περὶ τὸ συντάττειν καινὰς γραφὰς προπέτειάν τε καὶ τόλμαν ἐπιστομίζων, τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀποστόλου δεκατριῶν μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους μὴ συναριθμήσας ταῖς λοιπαῖς, ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ νομίζεται τοῦ ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν.

There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius, a very learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus, with Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the Hebrews with the others. And unto our day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle.
allows some flexibility for his dating. Could someone who denied the canonical status to the Gospel of John, Revelations, Hebrews etc have made his way down to the third century as an elder in the Church of Rome?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:06 pm
Gaius in hac carne barbatus et in hac anima severus maritus pater avus proavus
If the ambiguous reference here is to Gaius being πάππας Eusebius's point:
ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ Γαΐου, λογιωτάτου ἀνδρός, διάλογος, ἐπὶ Ῥώμης κατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον πρὸς Πρόκλον τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσεως ὑπερμαχοῦντα κεκινημένος· ἐν ᾧ τῶν δι' ἐναντίας τὴν περὶ τὸ συντάττειν καινὰς γραφὰς προπέτειάν τε καὶ τόλμαν ἐπιστομίζων, τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀποστόλου δεκατριῶν μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους μὴ συναριθμήσας ταῖς λοιπαῖς, ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ νομίζεται τοῦ ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν.

There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius, a very learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus, with Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the Hebrews with the others. And unto our day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle.
allows some flexibility for his dating. Could someone who denied the canonical status to the Gospel of John, Revelations, Hebrews etc have made his way down to the third century as an elder in the Church of Rome?
Gaius was a common name. What links Tertullian's Gaius to Gaius of Rome?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias »

Photius Bibl. 48
Read the treatise of Josephus1 On the Universe, elsewhere called On the Cause of the Universe and On the Nature of the Universe. It consists of two little treatises, in which the author shows that Plato contradicts himself. He also refutes Alcinous,2 whose views on the soul, matter, and the Resurrection are false and absurd, and introduces his own opinions on the subject. He proves that the Jewish nation is far older than the Greek. He thinks that man is a compound of fire, earth, and water, and also of spirit, which he calls soul. Of the spirit he speaks as follows : Taking the chief part of this, he moulded it together with the body, and opened a passage for it through every joint and limb. The spirit, thus moulded together with the body and pervading it throughout, is formed in the likeness of the visible body, but its nature is colder, compared with the three other substances of which the body is compounded. These views are not in harmony with the Jewish ideas of human physiology, and are below the customary standard of his other writings. He also gives a summary account of the creation of the world. Of Christ the true God he speaks like ourselves, openly giving Him the name of God, and describing, in language to which no objection can be taken, His indescribable generation from the Father. This might, perhaps, cause people to doubt whether the treatise is really by Josephus, although in respect of style it does not differ from the rest of his writings.

I find a marginal note to the effect that the work is not by Josephus, but by one Gaius,3 a presbyter of Rome, also the author of The Labyrinth,4 and of a dialogue against Proclus, the champion of the Montanists.5 The latter, which had no ascription, is attributed by some to Josephus, by others to Justin Martyr, and The Labyrinth to Origen. But there is no doubt that the work is by Gaius, the author of The Labyrinth, who at the end of this treatise has left it on record that he was the author of The Nature of the Universe. But it is not quite clear to me, whether this is the same or a different work. This Gaius is said to have been a presbyter of the Church at Rome, during the episcopate of Victor6 and Zephyrinus,7 and to have been ordained bishop of the gentiles. He wrote another special work against the heresy of Artemon,8 and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles of St. Paul, and does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Thus the idea that he was a Pope is confirmed (very good!). But WTF does 'bishop of the Gentiles' mean?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Secret Alias »

What links Tertullian's Gaius to Gaius of Rome
1. Gaius in hac carne barbatus et in hac anima severus maritus pater avus proavus (= πάππας = pope)
2. Photius ἐπὶ Οὐΐκτορος καὶ Ζεφυρίνου τῶν ἀρχιερέων, χειροτονηθῆναι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον

There seems to be a precedent for two popes in the example of Hippolytus, not only that he was antipope but he is said to have been pope of the Novatian tradition. Hippolytus's commentary against Gaius could have been written when Gaius was dead (like Contra Celsum). Also Gaius could have been the Praenomen of Victor, Zephyrinus or even Hippolytus. It's not easy to figure out. But I think (1) and (2) make a good case for the two being one and the same. He wrote against the Montanists and Tertullian considers him the leader of a sect. He mentions an unnamed leader at Rome standing in the way of his sect getting recognition in Rome too:
For this person was the first to import to Rome out of Asia this kind of wrong headedness-a man generally of restless character, and moreover
puffed up with boasting of his confessorship on account of nothing more than a mere short discomfort of imprisonment: though even if he had given his body to be burned he would have profited nothing, since he had not the love of God4 whose spiritual gifts he also drove out by assault. For at that time the bishop of Rome was on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia; but this man, by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their churches, and by insistence on the decisions of the bishop's predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already issued and to desist from his project of receiving the spiritual gifts. Thus Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil's business: he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy: he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.
Not sure I can connect the second bit to Gaius but it may have something to do with his connection to the Alogoi (i.e. he 'opposed' the Son so he 'necessarily' must have understood the Father to have been crucified in his place).

My guess on 'bishop of the Gentiles' as being an office separate from bishop of Rome is that perhaps the former oversaw the faith of all the Church and the latter only the affairs of Rome. Something like that is implicit in Gaius's own description of their being two separate burial places for Peter and Paul. As well Hegesippus seems to speak of 'Peter and Paul' and 'Linus and Clement' as distinct side-by-side seats perhaps (speculation) Paul oversaw the whole Church and Peter Rome. Also 'grandfather' is a rank higher than 'father' - the father of all fathers.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is there a Relationship Between Papias's Discussion of Mark's Gospel and the First Book of Against Heresies?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:33 pm
What links Tertullian's Gaius to Gaius of Rome
1. Gaius in hac carne barbatus et in hac anima severus maritus pater avus proavus (= πάππας = pope)
2. Photius ἐπὶ Οὐΐκτορος καὶ Ζεφυρίνου τῶν ἀρχιερέων, χειροτονηθῆναι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον
I think in this context it is just "father" (pater, avus, proavus = "father, grandfather, great grandfather"), the original meaning of the term, right?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply