Caius of Rome and the Alogi

CAIO di ROMA e gli ALOGI. — Eusebius reports that the works of Berillus of Bostra, of Hippolytus (without geographical indication), and of C. were found in the library of Jerusalem. All three authors are described as literati (λόγιοι) and men of the Church (ἐκκλησιαστικοί: V. Hist. eccl., VI, 20, 1. Of C., Eusebius knew a dialogue, either written or held, under Pope Zephyrinus at Rome against the Montanist Proclus: op. cit., VI, 20, 3). From the passages cited in Eusebius—II, 25, 6; III, 28, 1; III, 31, 4; VI, 20, 3—we see that C. polemicized against the new writings of the Montanists, opposed their millenarianism, rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, and did not include the Epistle to the Hebrews in his canon of the Pauline Epistles. From Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 28, 4 and VII, 25, 1) it may be deduced that Dionysius of Alexandria knew C.’s dialogue. It appears that, according to C., the Apocalypse of St. John was the work of Cerinthus (Eusebius, op. cit., III, 28, 1, 2). Against the Montanists, who boasted of possessing the tombs of Philip and his prophetic daughters, C. emphasizes the possession of the tombs of Peter in the Vatican and of Paul on the Via Ostiense (Eusebius, op. cit., II, 25, 7). C.’s polemic against the Apocalypse thus resembles the polemic of the so-called Alogi: a large part of scholars has denied the existence of a distinct sect of Alogi, declaring that in reality they were only C. The name “Alogi” is an invention of Epiphanius, who in Panar. haeret., 51 (CB, 31, p. 248 ff.), deals at length with this polemic against the writings of John, designating the opponents as “alogoi,” because they denied the Logos in the Johannine writings. Ed. Schwartz has dealt more successfully with the criticism of the “Alogi” in Der Iod der Söhne Zebedaei (Abhandlungen der Götting. Ges. der Wissensch. Phil. Hist. Kl., new series, 7, v [Berlin 1904], p. 30 ff.), but this scholar also recognized the difficulties opposing the identification of the Alogi with C. (op. cit., p. 41 f.), since in that case Irenaeus would already have polemicized against C. (Adv. Haer., III, 11, 9; ed. A. Stieren, I, Leipzig 1848, p. 473), the date assigned by Eusebius to the dialogue (around 200) would be impossible, and it also seems unlikely that Eusebius, who had read the dialogue, would not have denounced the heretical character of an author who denied the authenticity of the Gospel of St. John. The possibility, also discussed by Schwartz (op. cit., p. 42), of supposing that the dialogue was anonymous and that C. was the name of one of its participants likewise seems untenable in view of Eusebius’s words. On the other hand, it cannot be said that C. accepted only part of the Alogi’s criticism, namely that concerning the Apocalypse, because the fragments of a work by Hippolytus against C., preserved in Dionysius bar Salibi (Commentar. in Apocalypsim: Corp. Scr. Chr. Or., 2nd series, vol. 161, p. 4, 4 f.; 11, 16 f.; 12, 24 f.; 13, 17 f.; 14, 10 f.; 25, 3 f.; CB, 1, p. 241 ff., and Commentario sul IV Vangelo), show that C. had also denied the authenticity of the Gospel of John. It is now evident that Epiphanius’s chapter on the Alogi depends to a great extent on Hippolytus. According to Ebedjesu (d. 1318), Hippolytus is said to have written Capita advenus Caium et Apologium pro Apocalypsi et Evangelio Iohannis apostoli et evangelistae (J. S. Assemani, Bibl. orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, III, 1, Rome 1725, p. 15). It is debated whether this refers to one or to two works by Hippolytus. In any case, the second title is also found in the list of Hippolytus’s works on his statue. These findings show that both the question of the date of the dialogue and that of Eusebius’s favorable judgment of C. remain unusual. C., Hippolytus’s adversary, became in tradition a substitute for Hippolytus (cf. Ed. Schwartz, Zwei Predigten Hippolyt, in Sitzungsberichte der Bayr. Akademie, Philos. histor. Abt., Munich 1936, fasc. III, p. 36 f.); the reasons for this substitution likewise remain unknown.