Gaius of Rome

I don't care what other people say about this most interesting figure. Gaius was a conservative voice in the Roman Church. That's why he opposed the Johannine corpus which must have included not only the Gospel of John, the Revelation and the letters of the apostle.

I will give you a more detailed explanation is a subsequent post but just consider for a moment that Irenaeus and Florinus both boast of their relationship with Polycarp, a man who is certainly the one person whoever actually saw this 'apostle John.'

Can it really be coincidence now that Gaius the conservative Roman opposed the Johannine corpus just as these 'carpetbaggers of John' arrived from beyond Italy?

I certainly don't think so.

Irenaeus is certainly attacking Gaius in the famous passage in Against the Heresies where he notes "certain unnamed individuals rejected the gospel according to John because of its emphasis on the paraclete (John 14.16, 26; 15.26; 16.7); they wished to remove the prophetic spirit from the church." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.9]

Yes to be sure, Eusebius says that Gaius was active during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (199-217), composed the Dialogue with Proclus against Proclus, a distinguished Montanist [Eusebius, History of the Church 2.25.6-7]

Yet notice how the attack is already widening. Irenaeus just says makes it seem as if Gaius is against the CONCEPT of the paraclete whereas Eusebius notes that it is against a FIGURE or an INDIVIDUAL claiming to be the Paraclete.

We know that individual as 'Montanus' but did Gaius know that figure by another name? Clearly everyone and their uncle identified 'Cerinthus' as the one Gaius was opposing. However the name Cerinthus derives from the word for 'horn.' Abarbanel preserves a Christian tradition interestingly that the 'little horn' of Daniel was associated with a figure within the Christian church.

I am wondering if Gaius identified Polycarp as the author of Revelations and the Paraclete of 'Montanism' (and thus Tertullian preserves the original beliefs of Catholic Christianity before they were changed in the third century)

Read my paper on Polycarp and see how this is possible here.

Yet for the moment let us acknowledge just one thing - that Irenaeus strangely avoids naming 'Polycarp' in Book Four of Against the Heresies. He cites him only as 'the presbyter' as a way of getting around objections from those in Rome.

The Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp also mentions Gaius being very interest in the details of Polycarp's death. We read at the very end of the text that:

This account Gaius copied from the writings of Irenaeus, and he also had lived with Irenaeus (in Rome), who was a disciple of the holy Polycarp. For this Irenaeus, at the time of the martyrdom of the bishop Polycarp, was in Rome, and taught many, and many most excellent and correct writings are extant, in which he mentions Polycarp, saying that he had been his pupil, and he ably refuted every heresy, and he also handed on the ecclesiastical and catholic rule, as he had received it from the saint ... And this is also recorded in the writings of Irenaeus, that at the day and hour when Polycarp suffered in Smyrna, Irenaeus, who was in the city of Rome, heard a voice like a trumpet saying: "Polycarp has suffered martyrdom." From these papers of Irenaeus, then, as was stated above, Gaius made a copy, and Isocrates used in Corinth the copy of Gaius.

Yes, this only says that Gaius copied an original manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp which had a separate history from the main text written by Irenaeus. This pointed out in the standard ending to the text:

Gaius copied this from the writing of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, and he lived with Irenaeus, and I, Socrates, wrote it out in Corinth, from the copies of Gaius. Grace be with you all.

And I, again, Pionius, wrote it out from the former writings, after searching for it, because the blessed Polycarp showed it me in a vision, as I will explain in what follows, and I gathered it together when it was almost worn out by age, that the Lord Jesus Christ may also gather me together with his elect into his heavenly kingdom, to whom be glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.

The translator notes here that 'no explanation is given (of these two recensions) probably because the "Pionian" text was part of a larger "Acts of Polycarp." Either these Acts have entirely disappeared except for this letter of the church of Smyrna, or a fragment preserved in 'Codex Parisinus' may perhaps belong to them." Yet there clearly is a difficulty here.

There was clearly at least TWO versions of the Martyrdom of Polycarp where it WAS CLAIMED that Gaius of Rome's text went back to Irenaeus original even though this can't possibly be true.

It was only recently discovered that indeed an entirely different version of the Martyrdom of Polycarp was discovered in the Harris Fragments. All of which surely means that TWO versions of the circumstances of his death circulated in antiquity and I strongly suspect that Gaius' was originally not kind to Polycarp. It must have been closer in spirit to Lucian of Samosata's history.

In time this text might well have been polished up and 'corrected.' Yet for the moment let me ask the reader a common sense question.

How on earth could Gaius of Rome, the man who vehemently opposed the entire Johannine corpus and the New Prophesy movement have found it in his heart to love Polycarp?

It is utterly impossible.

Gaius of Rome's portrait must necessarily have been hostile. Gaius 'was a very learned (λογιωτατου) individual who lived in Rome' according to Eusebius [History of the Church 6.20.3]. Dionysius Bar Salibi makes clear he opposed both John's gospel and his Revelation

Gaius couldn't have liked Polycarp nor his carpetbagging associates. Period.

This in turn opens up an interesting question which I think I can prove in my next posts. Did Irenaeus modify Polycarp's original Gospel of John to answer 'objections' thrown at it by Gaius?

I think he did.

Again, I think I can prove that our four canonical gospels were developed from Polycarp's single, long gospel of John. Broken up if you will in order to facilitate Church unity in this age of uncertainty.

You'll have to just wait and see if I live up to the hype ...