Chapter Twelve
CHAPTER TWELVE
THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT
THE MANUSCRIPT AND ITS CONTENTS
In 1740 a Latin list of New Testament books was published by Lodovico Antonio Muratori, a distinguished antiquarian and theologian in his day, from a codex copied in the seventh or eighth century at the monastery of Bobbio, in Lombardy, but later lodged in the Ambrosian Library, Milan (of which Muratori had at one time been keeper); there it still is (catalogued J 101 sup., folios 10a–11a).
The date at which the list was originally drawn up is disputed; it belongs most probably to the end of the second century. The Latin text has suffered from being copied by one or more barely literate scribes; there are several errors which cry out for emendation. Many scholars have held that behind the Latin wording lies an original Greek text, which has been completely lost; on the whole, however, it seems more likely that Latin was its original language, and that the list dates from the time when the Roman church (which had been Greek-speaking since its foundation in the first century) was beginning to be bilingual.
The document is best regarded as a list of New Testament books recognized as authoritative in the Roman church at that time. In addition to naming the books, it makes a number of observations on them, reflecting the contemporary opinion of some churchmen.
The manuscript is mutilated at the beginning. Since its first complete sentence mentions Luke as ‘the third book of the gospel’, it had presumably mentioned two others, and it is not excessively speculative to suppose that these were Matthew and Mark. If so, the first words to be preserved on the manuscript are the last words of a sentence about Mark: ‘… at these, however, he was present and so he set them down.’ Then the document continues:
The third book of the gospel: according to Luke.
After the ascension of Christ, Luke the physician, whom Paul had taken along with him as a legal expert, wrote [the record] down in his own name in accordance with [Paul’s] opinion. He himself, however, never saw the Lord in the flesh and therefore, as far as he could follow [the course of events], began to tell it from the nativity of John.
The fourth gospel is by John, one of the disciples.
When his fellow-disciples and bishops encouraged him, John said, ‘Fast along with me three days from today, and whatever may he revealed to each, let us relate it one to another’. The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John in his own name should write down everything and that they should all revise it. Therefore, although different beginnings are taught for the various books of the gospel, it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since in all of them everything has been declared by one primary Spirit, concerning his nativity, passion and resurrection, his association with his disciples and his twofold advent—his first in humility, when he was despised, which is past; his second resplendent in royal power, his coming again. It is no wonder, then, that John should so constantly present the separate details in his letters also, saying of himself: ‘What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things have we written.’ For in this way he claims to be not only a spectator but a hearer, and also a writer in order of the wonderful facts about our Lord.
The Acts of all the apostles have been written in one book. Addressing the most excellent Theophilus, Luke includes one by one the things which were done in his own presence, as he shows plainly by omitting the passion of Peter and also Paul’s departure when he was setting out from the City for Spain.
As for the letters of Paul, they themselves show those who wish to understand from which place and for which cause they were directed. First of all [he wrote] to the Corinthians forbidding schisms and heresies; then to the Galatians [forbidding] circumcision; to the Romans he wrote at greater length about the order of the scriptures and also insisting that Christ was their primary theme. It is necessary for us to give an argued account of all these, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the order of his predecessor John, but not naming him, writes to seven churches in the following order: first to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third to the Philippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Galatians, sixth to the Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans. But although [the message] is repeated to the Corinthians and Thessalonians by way of reproof, yet one church is recognized as diffused throughout the whole world. For John also, while he writes to seven churches in the Apocalypse, yet speaks to all. Moreover [Paul writes] one [letter] to Philemon, one to Titus and two to Timothy in love and affection; but they have been hallowed for the honour of the catholic church in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.
There is said to be another letter in Paul’s name to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrines, [both] forged in accordance with Marcion’s heresy, and many others which cannot be received into the catholic church, since it is not fitting that poison should be mixed with honey.
But the letter of Jude and the two superscribed with the name of John are accepted in the catholic [church]; Wisdom also, written by Solomon’s friends in his honour. The Apocalypse of John we also receive, and that of Peter, which some of our people will not have to be read in church. But the Shepherd was written by Hermas in the city of Rome quite recently, in our own times, when his brother Pius occupied the bishop’s chair in the church of the city of Rome; and therefore it may be read indeed, but cannot be given out to the people in church either among the prophets, since their number is complete, or among the apostles at the end of the times.
But none of the writings of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades do we receive at all. They have also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion; [these we reject] together with Basilides [and] the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians …’
COMMENTS ON THE LIST
Twenty-one of the books which we have received in our New Testament are listed here as acceptable.
Luke, says the compiler, was not an eyewitness or hearer of Christ. What then was the nature of his authority? It derived from his association with Paul. He accompanied Paul, it is said, as a legal expert. This choice of words is a powerful argument in favour of regarding Latin as the original language of the document: it reflects a feature of Roman provincial administration. A Roman provincial governor had a legal expert (iuris studiosus, the phrase used here) on his staff. This expert drafted legal documents ‘in the name’ or ‘in accordance with the opinion’ of his superior; so Luke (it is implied), having been attached to Paul’s staff, issued his writings in his own name but in accordance with Paul’s opinion. Luke’s writings, that is to say, are endowed with apostolic authority although they do not appear under the apostle’s name.
Three points of interest arise in the account of the gospel of John. First, the tale about John’s fellow-disciples preserves a tradition that others apart from John himself were involved in the production or at least in the publication of his work: we may recall the anonymous endorsement at the end of the work by those who say of the evangelist, ‘we know that his testimony is true’ (John 21:24). Next, the insistence that all the gospels received in the church bear witness to one and the same faith is a corollary of the claim that John’s fellow-disciples shared responsibility for his gospel. This faith is summarized in a sequence paralleled in the old Roman creed. Thirdly, the emphasis on the eyewitness character of John’s record is linked with the opening words of his first epistle, affirming that the matters to be dealt with are those with which the writer has been in direct and personal touch. A contrast has been seen between those words of 1 John 1:1–3 (‘that … which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes …’) and the gnostic use of the quotation in 1 Corinthians 2:9 (‘what no eye has seen, nor ear heard …’). The words of this last quotation, derived by Paul from an unknown source, are ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Peter; they appear to have been pressed into service as an initiation formula in some gnostic schools (the initiate was promised experiences in which the rank and file could not share). The compiler of the Muratorian list was firmly anti-gnostic.
The list goes on to refer to Acts as ‘the Acts of all the apostles’. This title embodies a patent exaggeration of the subject-matter of the book. Even the traditional designation ‘the Acts of the Apostles’ is an exaggeration. The book records some acts of some apostles, and nothing more than this is claimed in the Greek title (praxeis apostolōn, ‘acts of apostles’). What the author originally called it is uncertain—perhaps ‘Luke to Theophilus, Volume 2’. Two apostles in particular, Peter and Paul, have their acts recorded here. What was the reason for the Muratorian exaggeration? Possibly it marks a reaction against Marcion: Marcion claimed that Paul was the only faithful apostle of Jesus, but the compiler of our list implies, in accordance with the judgment of the catholic church, ‘We acknowledge all the apostles, and not Paul only; here is an authoritative document which records their acts and not only Paul’s.’ An alternative possibility is that in saying, ‘The Acts of all the apostles have been written in one book’, the compiler wishes to emphasize that Luke’s Acts is the only genuine book of apostolic acts. From about ad 160 onwards there began to appear in various parts of the Christian world a number of compositions claiming to record the acts of this or that apostolic figure: the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of John, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas. The compiler may mean: none of these is authentic; all that can be known of any of the apostles is exclusively recorded in this ‘one book’.
Yet the compiler shows acquaintance with at least one of these volumes of apocryphal Acts—the Acts of Peter. He tries to explain the omission from Luke’s Acts of some events in the careers of the apostles by saying that Luke recorded only such things as took place in his own presence—an inept explanation, for the things that took place in Luke’s presence are confined to those sections of Acts where the story is told in the first person plural (the so-called ‘we’ sections). Luke, he says, omits all mention of Peter’s martyrdom or Paul’s embarkation for Spain because he was not there to witness them. Now these two events, unrecorded by Luke, are narrated in the Acts of Peter, which the Muratorian compiler evidently knew. The Acts of Peter opens with Paul’s setting out for Spain from Ostia, at the mouth of the Tiber, and ends with an account of Peter’s crucifixion (head downwards, at his own request). (Neither the writer of the Acts of Peter nor the compiler of the Muratorian list probably had any basis for Paul’s voyage to Spain apart from his own statement of his travel plans in Rom. 15:24, 28.)
As for the letters of Paul, thirteen are listed, including the three Pastorals. But special attention is paid to those addressed to churches, seven churches in all—so the compiler insists, but he is mistaken, for Galatians was addressed to several churches (all the churches of Galatia, in fact). In writing to seven churches, the reader is told, Paul followed the precedent of John who, ‘in his Apocalypse, while writing to seven churches, yet speaks to all’. The seven churches, that is to say, stand for the whole worldwide church. Even the Pastoral Epistles, while addressed to individuals, are credited with a catholic dimension.
This making Paul follow the precedent of John is chronologically preposterous; it probably indicates, however, that for the compiler the primary criterion of inclusion in the list was prophetic inspiration. In the early church as a whole the predominant criterion appears to have been apostolic authority, if not apostolic authorship; for this writer, however, even apostolic authorship evidently takes second place to prophetic inspiration.
John’s Apocalypse, being self-evidently the work of a prophet, was naturally included in the list. So also (but not so naturally) was the Apocalypse of Peter—no doubt in the belief that it was a genuine work by the prince of the apostles. It is acknowledged, however, that it did not find universal acceptance. But it was felt to be edifying—it contained lurid pictures of the torments of the damned, which in due course exercised some influence on Dante’s Inferno—and it was undoubtedly orthodox (by the standards of the Roman church) and therefore acceptable as the Gospel of Peter was not.
The letter of Jude is listed, and two letters of John—probably 1 John and 2 John. It has sometimes been suggested that, since 1 John has already been quoted, in the comment on the Fourth Gospel, the two letters mentioned here are 2 John and 3 John, but this is a less natural way to understand the reference. There is evidence elsewhere that 2 John and 3 John were ‘canonized’ separately.
The letter to the Hebrews is not mentioned, which is only to be expected in a Roman canon of the second or third century. As the letter of Clement shows, Hebrews was known at an early date in the Roman church, but was not accorded the authority enjoyed by the letters of Paul. What is indeed surprising in a Roman list is to find no mention of 1 Peter. One eminent scholar thought that both 1 and 2 Peter were originally listed after the mention of John’s Apocalypse, but were accidentally lost in the process of copying, through the omission of a line. When the existing text speaks of ‘John’s Apocalypse and Peter’s’, Theodor von Zahn thought that the list originally continued with the words: ‘… epistle. There is also another epistle of Peter’—followed by the clause ‘which some of our people will not have to be read in church.’ But this was a purely conjectural emendation, not required by the text.
If it is surprising to find the Wisdom of Solomon (known to us as a book of the Old Testament Apocrypha) listed here among New Testament books, let it be reflected that, so far as its date goes, it may be closer to the New Testament age than to that of the Old Testament. (Some students have dated it as late as ad 40.) As for the statement that it was ‘written by Solomon’s friends in his honour’, this may reflect the tradition that Wisdom is much too late to be the work of Solomon himself. Those who hold that a Greek original lies behind the Latin list have often suggested that ‘friends’ (philoi in Greek) was a wrong reading for ‘Philo’ (the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, who lived c 20 bc – c ad 50); what the compiler allegedly wrote was ‘written by Philo in Solomon’s honour’ or something like that. But this is an unnecessary supposition.
The allegorical work known as the Shepherd of Hermas was read with appreciation in the Roman church and elsewhere, but the compiler of our list excludes it from the New Testament scriptures. Its quality of inspiration might have entitled it to a place among the prophets, but the list of Old Testament prophets had been closed for a long time before the Shepherd was written; it was too recent a work to be included in the New Testament list along with such a prophetic work as the Apocalypse of John. The Shepherd, says the compiler, was written ‘quite recently, in our own times’, when Pius, the brother of Hermas, was bishop of Rome. Pius was bishop of Rome some time during the period when Antoninus Pius was Roman emperor (ad 138–161), but the Shepherd, to judge by internal evidence, may have been written even earlier than that, about the beginning of the second century. It has indeed been argued that the words ‘quite recently, in our own times’, mean little more than ‘in the post-apostolic age’ and are not incompatible with a fourth-century date for the Muratorian list, but this is not a natural way to understand them: the two terms ‘quite recently’ and ‘in our own times’, taken together, seem to emphasize the recency of the work. Its recency is the main argument against acknowledging it as a biblical document, on a par with those of an earlier generation. In itself, the Shepherd might have been unexceptionable, but if the door had been opened for the admission of second-century prophecies, there would be many strange claimants for inclusion.
The Muratorian list mentions other works which are rejected out of hand. At the end of the section on Paul’s epistles, two alleged letters of his are said to be Marcionite forgeries. One was addressed to the Laodiceans. We know that Marcion himself entitled the letter to the Ephesians ‘To the Laodiceans’; possibly the Muratorian compiler knew of this title and, not realizing that it was identical with Ephesians, concluded that it must have been forged in Paul’s name. Otherwise he may have known of an attempt to supply the missing Laodicean letter of Colossians 4:16—an attempt otherwise unknown to us. (We know a later ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans’, extant only in Latin; it is a perfectly innocuous and unimaginative cento of pieces from Paul’s genuine letters, but is of interest in the history of the English Bible because a translation of it was included in fifteenth-century copies of the Wycliffite version.)
Of the letter to the Alexandrines we know nothing. It cannot be identified with the letter to the Hebrews, which has no flavour of Marcion’s teaching about it. The rejected letters may have much of the truth in them, but it is vitiated by the admixture of error, as if poison were to be mixed with honey. The Latin words for poison (fel) and honey (mel) rhyme with each other, so that we may have here a proverbial Latin tag. This has been used as a further argument for the Latin origin of the list, since the assonance could not be reproduced with the corresponding Greek words.
At the end of the list reference is made to other works which are utterly repudiated. Arsinous we do not know. Valentinus we have met already. Miltiades appears to have been a Montanist leader. The ‘book of psalms’ compiled for Marcion may have taken the place among his followers that the Old Testament Psalter took in the catholic church, since the latter was naturally unacceptable to the Marcionites. Basilides, a gnostic teacher in Alexandria between ad 120 and 145, is said to have written a gospel and a commentary on it in twenty-four volumes. The Latin text of the list would imply that Basilides was ‘the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians’, but the conjunction ‘or’ or ‘and’ must have dropped out before this last phrase. Basilides is associated with Alexandria, not with the province of Asia, and he was not a Montanist, which is what the word ‘Cataphrygian’ means. (He lived a generation before the rise of Montanism.)
The ‘Asian founder of the Cataphrygians’ was Montanus, who launched a new charismatic movement in Upper Phrygia abut ad 156. He claimed that the age of the Paraclete, foretold by Jesus, had now arrived, and that he was the mouthpiece of the Paraclete. The gift of prophecy was accordingly exercised in greater vigour than ever by him and his followers, and their utterances presented a challenge to the catholic view of the faith as something ‘once for all delivered’ (Jude 3). If Paul and John insisted in the first century that it was necessary to ‘test the prophets’ and make sure that their utterances were consistent with the authentic witness to Christ, such testing was no less necessary a century later. The Montanist challenge from one direction, like the Marcionite and gnostic challenges from other directions, made it the more important that the limits of holy scripture should be clearly defined. Holy scripture, properly defined, would provide a check on uncontrolled prophecy as it did on undisciplined speculation. Montanism extended its influence far beyond its native Phrygia; its menace was felt in Rome itself.
One doughty opponent of the Montanists was a learned presbyter of the Roman church named Gaius, who flourished towards the end of the second century. He conducted a controversial correspondence with a Montanist leader in Asia named Proclus. Gaius apparently tried to cut the ground from under the Montanists’ feet by denying the authenticity of the document on which they relied for their teaching about the Paraclete, the Gospel of John. This was an excessive price to pay for the maintenance of catholic orthodoxy, and a quite unnecessary price. Those who agreed with Gaius on this point came to be called Alogoi, a word of double meaning: it meant primarily ‘those who refuse the Logos’ (the divine Word of John 1:1–14) but also, in its common usage, ‘irrational people’. But their negative attitude to the Fourth Gospel had no influence on catholic thought, in Rome or elsewhere. The Muratorian list reflects the Roman church’s policy at this time to rebut the Montanist and other challenges to catholic truth by identifying the sure written sources of apostolic teaching or, as these sources came to be called later, the canon of the New Testament.
Some fragments of the list have been identified in four codices of the eleventh and twelfth centuries at Monte Cassino. A facsimile and transcription of the list were published by S. P. Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (Oxford, 1867). A convenient edition of the text was published by Hans Lietzmann as No. 1 in the series Kleine Texte (Berlin, 21933); it includes the text of the Cassino fragments.
A. C. Sundberg, Jr., presents a strong case for a fourth-century date in ‘Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List’, Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973), PP. 1–41; he finds the closest affinities of the list to be with fourth-century lists of eastern origin. Quite apart from the question of dating, this article is one of the recent studies of the Muratorian list. On the point of dating, Sundberg has been ably answered by E. Ferguson, ‘Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance’, Studia Patristica 18.2 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1982), PP. 677–683.
E.g. S. P. Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 4 (following Muratori himself, who supposed it to be work of the Roman presbyter Gaius; see p. 168 below); J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, I: S. Clement of Rome, II (London, 21890), pp. 405f.
See p. 83, n. 1, with Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 53. Arguments for holding the Latin to be the original text have been presented by A. von Harnack, ‘Über den Verfasser und den literarischen Charakter des Muratorischen Fragments’, ZNW 24 (1925), pp. 1–16; A. A. T. Ehrhardt, ‘The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment’, The Framework of the New Testament Stories (Manchester, 1964), pp. 11–36, especially pp. 16–18.
The argument from iuris studiosus is set forth by A. Ehrhardt, ‘The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment’, pp. 16–18. Ehrhardt had the advantage of having been a Professor of Roman Law before he turned to the study of ecclesiastical history. Even so good a Latinist as Alexander Souter missed the point here: he tentatively adopted E. S. Buchanan’s emendation of quasi ut iuris studiosum, ‘as a legal expert’, to quasi adiutorem studiosum, ‘as a devoted helper’ (The Text and Canon of the New Testament [London, 21954], pp. 191, 193).
The tale about John’s fellow-disciples was probably derived from Papias (cf Harnack, ‘Über den Verfasser …’, p. 9; Ehrhardt, ‘The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment’, pp. 19–25).
See Ehrhardt, ‘The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment’, pp. 25f.
Gospel of Thomas, 17; Acts of Peter, 39.
Cf. Hippolytus, Refutation, 5.24.1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 4.18. Ehrhardt (‘The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment’, p. 30) cites their use in this sense in Pistis Sophia, 114; in Acts of Thomas, 36, and even in a Manichaean fragment from Turfan (M 789).
See pp. 202f.
Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16.
Acts of Peter, 1–3.
Acts of Peter, 36–41.
The curious order of Paul’s letters suggests that the basis was a list of the letters following more or less their order in Marcion’s New Testament (with Galatians removed from its leading place). If this list were written in two columns, so that Corinthians came at the top of the first column and Romans at the top of the second, then someone copying the titles down the first column and up the second would produce an order not unlike that in the Muratorian fragment. See also N. A. Dahl, ‘Welche Ordnung der Paulusbriefe wird vom Muratorischen Kanon vorausgesetzt?’ ZNW 52 (1961), pp. 39–53; ‘The particularity of the Pauline Epistles as a problem in the Ancient Church’ in Neotestamentica et Patristica (= NovT Sup 6), ed. W. C. van Unnik (Leiden, 1962), pp. 261–271.
K. Stendahl, ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Epistles of Paul in the Muratorian Fragment’, in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (New York, 1962), goes so far as to suggest that, for the complier of our list, the canonicity of Paul’s letters depended on that of John’s Apocalypse. The analogy between Paul’s seven churches and John’s is pointed out by Cyprian (Exhortation for Martyrdom, 11) and Victorinus of Pettau (On the Apocalypse, 1.7, on Rev. 1:20). Quite apart from the number of churches addressed by Paul, Tertullian emphasizes the universal relevance of Paul’s letters: ‘when the apostle wrote to some, he wrote to all’ (Against Marcion, 5.17).
On these criteria of canonicity see below, pp. 255–269.
Its position between Wisdom and the Shepherd does not mean that it is accorded only marginal canonicity; its earlier mention in the discussion of Paul’s letters is proof enough of that.
See p. 261.
See pp. 200f.
There is evidence that 3 John was translated into Latin by a different hand from 1 and 2 John. See A. Harnack, Zur Revision der Prinzipien der neutestamentlichen Textkritik (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 61f.; T. W. Manson, ‘The Johannine Epistles and the Canon of the New Testament’, JTS 48 (1947), pp. 32f.; J. Lieu, The Second and Third Epistles of John (Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 5–36. Behind the statement (in Latin) that two epistles of John ‘are accepted in the catholic [church]’, P. Katz, ‘The Johannine Epistles in the Muratorian Canon’, JTS n.s.. 8 (1957), pp. 273f., discerns a Greek form of words which means ‘two … in addition to the catholic [epistle]’; cf C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London, 31981), p. 266, n. 2.
Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, II (Erlangen/Leipzig, 1890), p. 142. B. H. Streeter concluded that, since 1 Peter was absent from the Syriac canon as late as the mid-fourth century ad, it was not among the books which Tatian took from Rome to Edessa c ad 172 (The Primitive Church [London, 1929], p. 119).
E.g. W. O. E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London, 1935), pp. 207–209.
In any case, the stylistic objections to ascribing Wisdom to Philo’s authorship, even if it was written in his lifetime, are almost insuperable.
See pp. 183, 209f.
Even so, there is evidence for ‘the inclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas in many (Western) exemplars of the Old Testament, even in the Middle Ages’ (A. Harnack, The Origin of the New Testament, E. T. [London, 1925], p. 171).
See A. C. Sundberg, ‘Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List’, pp. 8–11.
Latin nuperrime, temporibus nostris.
See pp. 237–240.
He is mentioned in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.16.3, where his name appears as that of a Montanist leader in a letter addressed to Avircius Marcellinus (see p. 281 below). (The name appears in the Muratorian fragment as Mitiades, but this is usually taken to be one of the many scribal mis-spellings).
See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.7.4–7. See p. 128 above for his quotation of John 1:9.
One of the Cassino fragments supplies the conjunction siue (‘or’).
This is the earliest extant occurrence of the designation ‘Cataphrygian’; it appears later in Eusebius, Epiphanius of Salamis (Cyprus) and John of Damascus.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.14.1–18.14.
1 Cor. 12:3; 1 John 4:1–3.
See Harnack, The Origin of the New Testament, p. 35.
And in Carthage (see p. 180).
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.25.5–7; 3.31.4; 6.20.3.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.28.1f., implies that Gaius ascribed the Apocalypse to the heresiarch Cerinthus—a view mentioned but rejected by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 7.25.2–4). His rejection of the Fourth Gospel is implied in the title of Hippolytus’s Chapters against Gaius or A Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse according to John. According to Bar-Ṣalibi, twelfth-century Syriac commentator on the Apocalypse, ‘Hippolytus of Rome states that a man named Gaius appeared, who said that neither the Gospel nor the Apocalypse was John’s, but that they were the work of Cerinthus the heretic.’ See T. H. Robinson, ‘The Authorship of the Muratorian Canon’, Expositor 7, 1 (1906), p. 487. See p. 178 below.
Epiphanius, Panarion 50–52. See J. Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1911), pp. 53–55.