Gaius of Rome.

A complicated case.


Attributed text(s).
Dialogue with Proclus.
Labyrinth.
Against the Heresy of Artemon.
On the Essence of the Universe.

Related text(s).
None.

Useful links.
Hippolytus and the Heads against Caius.
Montanism in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

On July 19, 2005, I posted an inquiry on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB) as to what our ancient sources are for the datum that Gaius, presbyter of Rome, rejected both the apocalypse and gospel of John. S. C. Carlson replied that it was better described as a set of data than as a datum, since none of our sources describes Gaius, his ecclesiastical office, his rejection of the gospel of John, his rejection of the apocalypse of John, and his attribution of either or both to the heretic Cerinthus all at the same time. Rather, whoever we think Gaius was, and whatever we think he did, will be a construct (perhaps a plausible and even necessary construct, but a construct nonetheless).

Carlson also referred me to Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, which I have found to be a very worthwhile read. Hill in turn refers to a number of books and articles that deal with Gaius of Rome, among which is an 1888 article by John Gwynn, Hippolytus and the Heads of Caius* (Hermathena volume 6, pages 397-418), which is online because Roger Pearse of the Tertullian Project joined the thread and promptly scanned it onto his site. He also scanned (A) a related 1890 article by Gwynn on Hippolytus and Matthew 24 and (B) a 1906 article by T. H. Robinson on Hippolytus and the Muratorian canon; these are both to be found on the same page, noted above, as the article by Gwynn.

* Note that Gaius and Caius are alternate forms of the same Latin name.

The purpose of this page, then, is to present the results (so far, at least) of my inquiry into Gaius of Rome.

Table of data.

The following table is meant to coordinate the various data from our ancient sources; it is meant as a summary of each of our most pertinent patristic passages:

Datum. Source.
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.
Gaius, a churchman in Rome under 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.
Gaius charged the heretic Cerinthus with promulgating false portents and an earthly millennial kingdom and wedding feast full of lust and pleasure by attributing written angelic revelations to a great apostle. Eusebius, History of the Church 3.28.2, quoting from the Dialogue with Proclus.
In his Dialogue with Proclus Gaius quotes Proclus as giving a tradition about the tombs of Philip and his four prophetic daughters in Hierapolis. Eusebius, History of the Church 3.31.4, quoting from the Dialogue with Proclus.
Gaius was a very learned (λογιωτατου) individual who lived in Rome at the time of Zephyrinus and disputed with Proclus of the Phrygians (another name for the Montanists) in his Dialogue with Proclus, in which he ennumerated only thirteen Pauline epistles, omitting that to the Hebrews. Eusebius, History of the Church 6.20.3.
Dionysius of Alexandria was familiar with certain individuals who, before his time (middle of and late century III), had attributed the apocalypse of John to Cerinthus, declaring it unknowable and illogical (αγνωστον και ασυλλογιστον). Eusebius, History of the Church 7.25.2, quoting a letter of Dionysius.
A heresy appeared in or before the time of Tertullian (late century II or early III) that he compared to the Nicolaitans of Revelation 2.6, 15; he called this movement the Gaian heresy. Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics 33.10.1
A group later tagged with the name Alogi (Αλογοι, a pun that turns their rejection of the λογος in John 1.1-14 into a rejection of reason or good sense) rejected both the apocalypse and the gospel of John, attributing both to Cerinthus. Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3.1-6.
The Alogi objected to the fact that the chronology of the gospel of John does not mesh easily with that of the synoptic gospels with respect to the baptism and temptation of Jesus, the imprisonment of John, and the wedding at Cana. Epiphanius, Panarion 51.4.5-10; 51.21.15-16.
The Alogi objected to the fact that John the evangelist narrates two Passovers while the synoptics narrate only one. Epiphanius, Panarion 51.22.1; confer 51.28.6; 51.30.14.
The Alogi regarded the seven angels and seven trumpets of Revelation 8.6-9.21; 11.15-19 as a worthless account. Epiphanius, Panarion 51.32.1-2.
The Alogi thought the address of an epistle to Thyatira in Revelation 2.18 ridiculous, as there was no church in Thyatira. Epiphanius, Panarion 51.33.1-3.
The Alogi ridiculed Revelation 9.14-15, the passage about the four angels bound and released at the river Euphrates. Epiphanius, Panarion 51.34.1-2.
Gaius, in the time of the bishop Zephyrinus of Rome, disputed with Proculus of the Montanists in a volume in which he also ennumerated only thirteen Pauline epistles, omitting that to the Hebrews. Jerome, On Famous Men 59.
The Dialogue with Proclus, the Labyrinth, Against the Heresy of Artemon, and On the Essence of the Universe were all written by a certain Gaius, a Roman presbyter, who was ordained in the time of Victor and Zephyrinus, and was bishop of the nations. (All this according to a marginal note in the Dialogue that Photius read, though his copy elsewhere attributed itself to Josephus.) Photius, Bibliotheca 48.2
Caius, a heretic, objected to Revelation 8.8, the great mountain being cast into the sea, a third of which then turns to blood, on the grounds that the advent of the Lord will come as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5.2; Matthew 24.42-44). Hippolytus answered this objection in a work against Caius. Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Apocalypse (refer to the article by Gwynn).
Caius objected to Revelation 8.12, the third part of the sun, moon, and stars being darkened, on the grounds that destruction will come when people are speaking of peace and safety (1 Thessalonians 5.3). Hippolytus answered this objection in his work against Caius. Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Apocalypse (refer to the article by Gwynn).
Caius objected to Revelation 9.2-3, the locust plague that consumes the unrighteous, on the grounds that the sinners will prosper (Psalm 73.12) while the righteous will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3.12-13). Hippolytus answered this objection in his work against Caius. Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Apocalypse (refer to the article by Gwynn).
Caius objected to Revelation 9.14-15, the four angels at the Euphrates released to kill a third of mankind, on the grounds that nations, not angels, are to rise against nations (Matthew 24.7). Hippolytus answered this objection in his work against Caius. Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Apocalypse (refer to the article by Gwynn).
Caius objected to Revelation 20.2-3, the binding of Satan for a millennium, on the grounds that Satan was already bound when Christ bound the strong man and spoiled his house (Matthew 12.29). Hippolytus answered this objection in his work against Caius. Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Apocalypse (refer to the article by Gwynn).
A certain heretic named Gaius rejected the gospel of John because it disagrees with the synoptics regarding the chronology of the baptism of Jesus and the miracle at Cana. Hippolytus answered this objection. Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Gospel of John.
Hippolytus stated that Gaius had attributed both the apocalypse and the gospel of John to Cerinthus instead of to John; Hippolytus then refuted the judgment of Gaius by showing the difference between the teachings of John and those of Cerinthus. Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Apocalypse, from the (once lost) introduction.
Hippolytus wrote one book called the Head[ing]s [κεφαλαια] Against Caius, and another called Defense on Behalf of the Apocalypse and Gospel of John. Ebed-Jesu, Catalogue.
Hippolytus wrote a book called Concerning the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse ([τ]α υπερ του κατα Ιωανην ευαγγελιου και αποκαλυψεως). The statue of Hippolytus, discovered in an old cemetary on the via Tiburtina in century XVI.3
1 According to Hill on page 200, the extant manuscripts read Gaiana haeresis, as the editio princeps of Rhenanus in 1521 attests, but then Rhenanus printed Cainana, apparently as a conjecture, in his third edition, and all subsequent editions from centuries XVI-XVII followed Rhenanus.
2 The Labyrinth, far from having been authored by Gaius, is actually the tenth book of the Refutation of All Heresies by Hippolytus, according to Hill, page 197. Likewise, On the Essence of the Universe is regarded as Hippolytan (ibidem). Against the Heresy of Artemon is apparently (according to Lightfoot on page 378 of The Apostolic Fathers, part 1, volume 2) a descriptive name for another Hippolytan work, the Little Labyrinth. Only the Dialogue with Proclus is known to be from the pen of Gaius. Lightfoot hypothesized that these four books were at one time bound together, and only the last identified its author internally; hence the attribution of all four to Gaius (see Hill, page 197, especially note 79).
3 This statue, preserved in the Lateran Museum, has inscribed upon its chair a list of texts, presumably those authored by the individual so sculpted, whom another inscription identifies as Hippolytus. Hill gives the relevant title as [τ]α υπερ του κατα Ιωαννου ευαγγελιου και αποκαλυψεως, though the genitive Ιωαννου looks like a typo to me. The version that I have given follows T. H. Robinson, The Authorship of the Muratorian Canon, adding only the [τ]α from Hill.

The dizzying complexity of the case of Gaius of Rome ought to be noticed immediately. Our clearest statements come from Dionysius bar Salibi, writing in century XII. The complexity stems in part from the fact that at least 5 different groups or individuals are mentioned, and are linked only in our later sources. These groups or individuals are...:

  1. ...the unnamed skeptics that Irenaeus mentions.
  2. ...Gaius of the church of Rome.
  3. ...the unnamed skeptics known to Dionysius of Alexandria.
  4. ...the Alogi glossed by Epiphanius.
  5. ...the heretic Gaius (or Caius) mentioned by Dionysius bar Salibi.

It is not, therefore, altogether surprising to find that a certain Allen Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century, regards the entire conflict between Gaius and Hippolytus as a later legend (Hill discusses this hypothesis on pages 183-190).

Patristic passages.

Irenaeus.
Tertullian.
Eusebius.
Epiphanius.
Jerome.
Photius.
Dionysius bar Salibi.

Irenaeus.

From Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.9:

Alii vero, ut donum spiritus frustrentur quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt quae est secundum Iohannis evangelium, in qua paracletum se missurum dominus promisit, sed simul et evangelium et propheticum repellunt spiritum.

Others truly, in order that they might set frustrate the gift of the spirit which in recent times has been poured out upon humankind by the good pleasure of the father, do not admit that aspect [of the fourfold gospel] which is according to the gospel of John, in which the Lord promised that he would send the paraclete, but simultaneously put away both the gospel and the prophetic spirit.

Tertullian.

Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics 33.10:

Ioannes vero in apocalypsi idolothyta edentes et stupra committentes iubetur castigare. Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitae; Gaiana haeresis dicitur.

John truly in the apocalypse is commanded to chastise those who eat things sacrificed to idols and who commit stupidities. There are even now other Nicolaitans; it is called the Gaian heresy.

Eusebius.

The English translations in this section are slightly modified from Lake and Oulton.

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.25.5-7, writing of Nero:

Ταυτη γουν ουτος, θεομαχος εν τοις μαλιστα πρωτος ανακηρυχθεις, επι τας κατα των αποστολων επηρθη σφαγας. Παυλος δη ουν επ αυτης Ρωμης την κεφαλην αποτμηθηναι και Πετρος ωσαυτως ανασκολοπισθηναι κατ αυτον ιστορουνται, και πιστουται γε την ιστοριαν η Πετρου και Παυλου εις δευρο κρατησασα επι των αυτοθι κοιμητηριων προσρησις, ουδεν δε ηττον και εκκλησιαστικος ανηρ, Γαιος ονομα, κατα Ζεφυρινον Ρωμαιων γεγονως επισκοπον, ος δη Προκλω της κατα Φρυγας προισταμενω γνωμης εγγραφως διαλεχθεις, αυτα δη ταυτα περι των τοπων, ενθα των ειρημενων αποστολων τα ιερα σκηνωματα κατατεθειται, φησιν· Εγω δε τα τροπαια των αποστολων εχω δειξαι. εαν γαρ θελησης επελθειν επι τον Βασικανον η επι την οδον την Ωστιαν, ευρησεις τα τροπαια των ταυτην ιδρυσαμενων την εκκλησιαν.

In this way then was he the first to be heralded as above all a fighter against God, and he was raised up to slaughter against the apostles. It is related that in his time Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified, and the title of Peter and Paul, which is still given to the cemeteries there, confirms the story, no less than does a writer of the church named Gaius, who lived when Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, and who in a written discussion with Proclus, the leader of the opinion among the Phrygians, speaks as follows of the places where the sacred relics of the apostles in question are deposited: But I can point out the trophies of the apostles, for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.28.1-2:

Κατα τους δηλουμενους χρονους ετερας αιρεσεως αρχηγον γενεσθαι Κηρινθον παρειληφαμεν· Γαιος, ου φωνας ηδη προτερον παρατεθειμαι, εν τη φερομενη αυτου ζητησει ταυτα περι αυτου γραφει· Αλλα και Κηρινθος ο δι αποκαλυψεων ως υπο αποστολου μεγαλου γεγραμμενων τερατολογιας ημιν ως δι αγγελων αυτω δεδειγμενας ψευδομενος 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 γινεσθαι.

We have received the tradition that at the time under discussion Cerinthus founded another heresy. Gaius, whose words I have quoted before, in the inquiry attributed to him writes as follows about Cerinthus: Moreover, Cerinthus, who through revelations attributed to the writing of a great apostle lyingly introduces portents to us as though shown him by angels, and says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be on earth and that humanity living in Jerusalem will again be the slave of desire and pleasure. He is the enemy of the scriptures of God, and in his desire to deceive he says that the marriage feast will last a thousand years.

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.31.4:

Ταυτα και περι της των δε τελευτης· και εν τω Γαιου δε, ου μικρω προσθεν εμνησθημεν, διαλογω Προκλος προς ον εποιειτο την ζητησιν, περι της Φιλιππου και των θυγατερων αυτου τελευτης, συναδων τοις εκτεθεισιν, ουτω φησιν· Μετα τουτον προφητιδες τεσσαρεςαι Φιλιππου γεγενηνται εν Ιεραπολει τη κατα την Ασιαν· ο ταφος αυτων εστιν εκει και ο του πατρος αυτων. ταυτα μεν ουτος.

So much concerning their death [that is, that of Philip, his daughters, and John]. And, in the Dialogue of Gaius which we mentioned a little above, Proclus, against whom he directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted, speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters: After him there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father. Such is his statement.

Eusebius, History of the Church 6.20.3:

Ηλθεν δε εις ημας και Γαιου, λογιωτατου ανδρος, διαλογος, επι Ρωμης κατα Ζεφυρινον, προς Προκλον της κατα Φρυγας αιρεσεως υπερμαχουντα κεκινημενος, εν ω των δι εναντιας την περι το συνταττειν καινας γραφας προπετειαν τε και τολμαν επιστομεζων, των του ιερου αποστολου δεκατριων μονων επιστολων μνημονευει, την προς Εβραιους μη συναριθμησας ταις λοιπαις, επει και εις δευρο παρα Ρωμαιων τισιν ου νομιζεται του αποστολου τυγχανειν.

And there has reached us also a dialogue of Gaius, a very learned man who was at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, with Proclus the champion of the heresy of the Phrygians, in which, while curbing the recklessness and audacity of his opponents in composing new scriptures, he mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not numbering the epistle to the Hebrews with the rest, seeing that even to this day among the Romans there are some who do not consider it to be of the apostle.

Eusebius, History of the Church 7.25.2, quoting from the lost work On Promises by Dionysius of Alexandria, who in turn is writing about those who have in times past rejected the Apocalypse of John:

Ιωαννου γαρ ουκ ειναι λεγουσιν, αλλ ουδ αποκαλυψιν ειναι, την σφοδρα και παχει κεκαλυμμενην τω της αγνοιας παραπετασματι, και ουχ οπως των αποστολων τινα, αλλ ουδ ολως των αγιων η των απο της εκκλησιας τουτου γεγονεναι ποιητην του γραμματος, Κηρινθον δε τον και την απ εκεινου κληθεισαν Κηρινθιανην συστησαμενον αιρεσιν, αξιοπιστον επιφημισαι θελησαντα τω εαυτου πλασματι ονομα.

For they say that it is not of John, nor yet a revelation, since it is veiled by its heavy, thick curtain of unknowability, and that the author of this book was, not only not one of the apostles, nor even one of the saints or those belonging to the church, but Cerinthus, the same who created the sect called Cerinthian after him, since he desired to affix to his own forgery a name worthy of credit.

Epiphanius.

Epiphanius, Panarion, inscription to heresy 51:

Κατα της αιρεσεως της μη δεχομενης το κατα Ιωαννην ευαγγελιον και την αυτου αποκαλυψιν ͵λαʹ, της δε ακολουθιας ͵ναʹ.

Against the heresy which does not accept the gospel according to John or his apocalypse, number 31, but of the whole work number 51.

In Ancoratus 13.5 Epiphanius also mentions the Αλογοι, οι το ευαγγελιον και την αποκαλυψιν Ιωαννου μη δεχομενοι (Alogi, who do not accept the gospel and the apocalypse of John).

Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3:

Φασκουσι τοινυν οι Αλογοι, ταυτην γαρ αυτοις τιθημι την επωνυμιαν. απο γαρ της δευρο ουτως κληθησονται, και ουτως, αγαπητοι, επιθωμεν αυτοις ονομα, τουτεστιν Αλογοι. ειχον γαρ την αιρεσιν καλουμενην αποβαλλουσαν Ιωαννου τας βιβλους. επει ουν τον λογον ου δεχονται τον παρα Ιωαννου κεκηρυγμενον, Αλογοι κληθησονται. αλλοτριοι τοινυν πανταπασιν υπαρχοντες του κηρυγματος της αληθειας αρνουνται το καθαρον του κηρυγματος, και ουτε το του Ιωαννου ευαγγελιον δεχονται ουτε την αυτου αποξαλυψιν. και ει μεν εδεχοντο το ευαγγελιον, την δε αποκαλυψιν απεβαλλοντο, ελεγομεν αν, μη πη αρα κατα ακριβολογιαν τουτο ποιουνται, αποκρυφον μη δεχομενοι δια τα εν τη αποκαλυψει βαθεως και σκοτεινως ειρημενα· οποτε δε ου δεχονται φυσει τα βιβλια τα απο του αγιου Ιωαννου κεκηρυγμενα, παντι τω δηλον ειη οτι ουτοι εισι και οι ομοιοι τουτοις περι ων ειπεν ο αγιος Ιωαννης εν ταις καθολικαις επιστολαις, οτι, Εσχατη ωρα εστι, και ηκουσατε οτι αντιχριστος ερχεται· και νυν ιδου, αντιχριστοι πολλοι, και τα εξης. προφασιζονται γαρ ουτοι, αισχυνομενοι αντιλεγειν τω αγιω Ιωαννη δια το ειδεναι αυτους και αυτον εν αριθμω των αποστολων οντα και ηγαπημενον υπο του κυριου, ος αξιως τα μυστηρια απεκαλυψε, και επι το στηθος αυτου ανεπεσε. και ετερως αυτα ανατρεπειν πειρωνται. λεγουσι γαρ μη ειναι αυτα Ιωαννου, αλλα Κηρινθου, και ουκ αξια αυτα φασιν ειναι εν εκκλησια.

This, then, is what the Alogi allege, for I place this eponym upon them. For from now on so will they be called, and so, beloved, let us place this name upon them, that is, Alogi, for it befits the heresy to be so called which casts away the books of John. Since, therefore, they do not receive the logos which has been preached by John, they will be called Alogi. These men of another [persuasion], therefore, altogether shrinking from the preaching of truth, deny the purity of the preaching and receive neither the gospel of John nor his Apocalypse. And if they at least received the gospel, and cast away the Apocalypse only, we would say, lest they be doing this in the interests of accuracy and of not receiving an apocryphon, that it was on account that things in the Apocalypse are so deeply and darkly spoken. But, since they do not receive in principle the books preached by the holy John, may it be clear to everyone that these men are also the same as those concerning whom the holy John in the catholic epistles said: It is the last hour, and you heard that the antichrist is coming, and now behold, there are many antichrists, and the rest. For these men make excuses, ashamed to speak against the holy John on account that they see that even he is among the number of the apostles, and beloved by the Lord, who worthily revealed the mysteries to him, and he reclined upon his breast. And they try to overturn these [books] in another way, for they say that they are not of John, but of Cerinthus, and they say that they are not worthy to be in the church.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.4:

Φασκουσι γαρ καθ εαυτων, ου γαρ ειποιμι κατα της αληθειας, οτι ου συμφωνει τα αυτου βιβλια τοις λοιποις αποστολοις. και δοκουσι λοιπον επιλαμβανεσθαι της αγιας και ενθεου διδασκαλιας. και τι, φησιν, ειπεν;

Epiphanius now quotes John 1.1, 14-15, 29, 38, 43; 2.1, mainly chronological notices from the early going of the fourth gospel, before continuing with the synoptic chronology.

Οι δε αλλοις ευαγγελισται φασκουσιν αυτον εν τη ερημω πεποιηκεναι τεσσαρακοντα ημερας, πειραζομενον υπο του διαβολου, και τοτε υποστρεψαντα, και παραλαβοντα τους μαθητας. και ουκ οιδασιν οι απαρακολουθητοι οτι εκαστω ευαγγελιστη μεμελετηται συμφωνως μεν τοις ετεροις λαλησαι τα υπ εκεινων ειρημενα, αλλα δη τα υπ εκεινων ρηθεντα παραλειφθεντα ουτως αποκαλυψαι.

For they allege against themselves, I prefer not to say against the truth, that his books are not in symphony with the rest of the apostles, and now they think to assault the holy and divine teaching. And what, they say, did he say?

....

But the other evangelists allege that he had spent forty days in the desert, tempted by the devil, and then returned and took disciples for himself. And these men, unabated, do not know that he* has taken care to speak in symphony with the other evangelists those things spoken by them, but moreover to thus reveal the things left out from what was said by them.

* Or perhaps each.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.22:

Κατηγορουσι δε παλιν οι αυτοι του αγιου ευαγγελιστου, μαλλον δε του αυτου ευαγγελιου, οτι, φησιν, ο Ιωαννης εφη περι δυο πασχων τον σωτηρα πεποιηκοτα, οι δε αλλοι ευαγγελισται περι πασχα ενος. και ουκ οιδασιν οι ιδιωται οτι ου μονον δυο πασχα ομολογει τα ευαγγελια, αλλα δυο μεν πρωτα λεγει και αυτο δε εν ω πεπονθεν ο σωτηρ, τρια πασχα των εν τω κηρυγματι πεπραγματευμενων.

But again these same men accuse the holy evangelist, and even more so his gospel, because, they say, John spoke concerning the two Passovers that the savior had made, but the other evangelists concerning only the one Passover. And the idiots do not know that the gospels not only confess two Passovers but also say that they were only the first two, which along with that in which the savior suffered his passion make three Passovers in all which have been dealt with in the preaching.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.32:

Ουκ αιδουνται δε παλιν οι τοιουτοι κατα των υπο του αγιου Ιωαννου ειρημενων εξοπλιζομενοι, νομιζοντες μη πη αρα δυνανται την αληθειαν ανατρεπειν, ουκ ειδοτες οτι καθ εαυτων μαλλον οπλιζονται, ηπερ κατα της υγιους διδασκαλιας. φασκουσι δε κατα της αποκαλυψεως ταδε χλευαζοντες· Τι με, φησιν, ωφελει η αποκαλυψις Ιωαννου, λεγουσα μοι περι επτα αγγελων και επτα σαλπιγγων; ουκ ειδοτες πως αναγκαια και ωφελιμα τοιαυτα υπηρξεν εν τη ορθοτητι του κηρυγματος.

But again such men are not ashamed to take up arms against the things spoken by the holy John, reckoning that they can in no way overturn the truth, not knowing that they are marching against themselves rather than against sound teaching. But they allege against the Apocalypse the following things, jeering: What use is the Apocalypse of John to me when it speaks to me concerning seven angels and seven trumpets? They do not know how necessary and useful such things were to the orthodoxy of the preaching.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.33:

Ειτα τινες εξ αυτων παλιν επιλαμβανονται τουτου του ρητου εν τη αποκαλυψει τη αυτη. και φασκουσιν αντιλεγοντες οτι ειπε παλιν· Γραψον τω αγγελω της εκκλησιας τω εν Θυατειροις, και ουκ ενι εκει εκκλησια Χριστιανων εν Θυατειρη. πως ουν εγραφε τη μη ευση; και ευρισκονται οι τοιουτοι εαυτους αναγκαζοντες εξ αυτων ων κηρυττουσι κατα της αληθειας ομολογειν.

Then again some from among them attack this which is spoken in the same Apocalypse, and they make allegations that oppose that he said again: Write to the angel of the church in Thyatira, and there was no church of Christians in Thyatira. How then did he write to what did not exist? And such men bring it down on themselves because they compel themselves by the very things that they preach to make a confession according to the truth.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.34:

Επαιρονται δε παλιν τη διανοια οι αυτοι λεξιθηρουντες απειρως, ινα δοξωσι παρεκβαλλειν τα του αγιου αποστολου βιβλια, φημι δε Ιωαννου το τε ευαγγελιον και την αποκαλυψιν, ταχα δε και τας επιστολας. συναδουσι γαρ και αυται τω ευαγγελιω και τη αποκαλυψει. και φασιν οτι, Ειδον, και ειπε τω αγγελω· Λυσον τους τεσσαρας αγγελους τους επι του Ευφρατου. και ηκουσα τον αριθμον του στρατου, μυριαι μυριαδες και χιλιαι χιλιαδες· και ησαν ενδεδυμενοι θωρακας πυρινους και θειωδεις και υακινθινους. ενομισαν γαρ οι τοιουτοι μη πη αρα γελοιον εστιν η αληθεια. εαν γαρ λεγη τους τεσσαρας αγγελους τους εν τω Ευφρατη καθεζομενους, ινα δειξη τας τεσσαρας διαφορας των εκεισε εθνων καθεζομενων επι τον Ευφρατην, οιτινες εισιν Ασσυριοι, Βαβυλωνιοι, Μηδοι, και Περσαι.

But these same men, endlessly wordhunting in order to criticize the books of the holy apostle (and I speak of both the gospel and the Apocalypse of John, and probably also the epistles, for these, too, sing together with the gospel and the Apocalypse), get excited and say: I saw, and he said to the angel: Release the four angels which are upon the Euphrates. And I heard the number of the army, tens of thousands of tens of thousands, and thousands of thousands. And they were given breastplates of fire and brimstone and hyacinth. For such men reckoned that the truth was not in any way to be laughable. For, if it says that the four angels were those sitting at the Euphrates, this is to show forth the four different nations that sit upon the Euphrates, who are the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medes, and the Persians.

Jerome.

Jerome, On Famous Men 59:

Gaius sub Zephyrino, Romanae urbis episcopo, id est, sub Antonino, Severi filio, disputationem adversus Proculum, Montani sectatorem, valde insignem habuit arguens eum temeritatis super nova prophetia defendenda et in eodem volumine epistulas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enumerans quartam decimam, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, dicit non eius esse; sed apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur.

Gaius, in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome,* that is, in the reign of Antoninus, the son of Severus, held a very notable disputation against Proculus, the follower of Montanus, convicting him of temerity in his defense of the new prophecy, and in the same volume also enumerates only thirteen epistles of Paul and says that the fourteenth, which is now called to the Hebrews, is not by him, and is not held among the Romans to the present day as being by the apostle Paul.

* This translation is based on that from the series of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers by Philip Schaff, hosted at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, but is corrected here to show that Romanae urbis episcopo modifies Zephyrino, not Gaius. The original translation had Gaius, bishop of Rome.

Jerome has quite evidently gotten his information from Eusebius, especially History of the Church 6.20.3.

Photius.

From Photius, Bibliotheca 48 (English translation formatted from that by J. H. Freese, whose translation of codices 1-165 is to be found online at the Tertullian Project):

Ανεγνωσθη Ιωσηπου περι του παντος, ο εν αλλοις ανεγνων επιγραφομενον περι της του παντος αιτιας, εν αλλοις δε περι της του παντος ουσιας. εστι δε εν δυσι λογιδιοις. δεικνυσι δε εν αυτοις προς εαυτον στασιαζοντα Πλατωνα, ελεγχει δε και περι ψυχης και υλης και αναστασεως Αλκινουν αλογως τε και ψευδως ειποντα, αντεισαγει δε τας οικειας περι τουτων των υποθεσεων δοξας, δεικνυσι τε πρεσβυτερον Ελληνων πολλω το Ιουδαιων γενος. δοξαζει δε συγκεισθαι τον ανθρωπον εκ πυρος και γης και υδατος, και ετι εκ πνευματος, ο δαι ψυχην ονομαζει, περι ου πνευματος αυταις λεξεσιν ουτω φησιν· Τουτου το κυριωτερον ανελομενος αμα τω σωματι επλασε, και δια παντος μελους και αρθρου πορειαν αυτω παρεσκευασεν· ο τω σωματι συμπλασθεν και δια παντος διικνουμενον τω αυτω ειδει του βλεπομενου σωματος τετυπωται, την ουσιαν δε ψυχροτερον υπαρχει προς τα τρια, δι ων το σωμα συνηρμοσται. ουτω μεν ουν αναξιως της τε των Ιουδαιων περι ανθρωπου φυσιολογιας ταυτα ειπων και της αλλης αυτου περι τους λογους ασκησεως, διεξεισι και περι της κοσμογονιας κεφαλαιωδως. περι μεντοι Χριστου του αληθινου θεου ημων ως εγγιστα θεολογει κλησιν τε αυτην αναφθεγγομενος Χριστου, και την εκ πατρος αφραστον γεννησιν αμεμπτως αναγραφων. ο τινας ισως και αμφιδοξειν ως Ιωσηπου ειη το συνταγματιον αναπεισειεν. ουδεν δε το της φρασεως αυτω προς τα υπολοιπα του ανδρος αποδει.

Read the treatise of Josephus,* 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, 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 molded it together with the body, and opened a passage for it through every joint and limb. The spirit, thus molded 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.

* Josephus is probably a mistake for Hippolytus.

Ευρον δε εν παραγραφαις οτι ουκ εστιν ο λογος Ιωσηπου, αλλα Γαιου τινος πρεσβυτερου εν Ρωμη διατριβοντος, ον φασι συνταξαι και τον λαβυρινθον, ου και διαλογος φερεται προς Προκλον τινα υπερμαχον της των Μοντανιστων αιρεσεως. ανεπιγραφου δε καταλειφθεντος του λογου φασι τους μεν Ιωσηπου επιγραψαι, τους δε Ιουστινου του μαρτυρος, αλλους δε Ειρηναιου, ωσπερ και τον λαβυρινθον τινες επεγραψαν Ωριγενους. επει Γαιου εστι πονημα τη αληθεια του συντεταχοτος τον λαβυρινθον, ως και αυτος εν τω τελει του λαβυρινθου διεμαρτυρατο εαυτου ειναι τον περι της του παντος ουσιας λογον. ει δ ετερος και ουχ ουτος εστιν, ουπω μοι γεγονεν ευδηλον. τουτον τον Γαιον πρεσβυτερον φασι γεγενησθαι της κατα Ρωμην εκκλησιας επι Ουικτορος και Ζεφυρινου των αρχιερεων, χειροτονηθηναι δε αυτον και εθνων επισκοπον. συνταξαι δε και ετερον λογον ιδιως κατα της Αρτεμωνος αιρεσεως, και κατα Προκλου δε σπουδαστου Μοντανου σπουδαιαν διαλεξιν συντεταχεναι, εν η τρισκαιδεκα μονας επιστολας αριθμειται Παυλου ουκ εγκρινων την προς Εβραιους.

I find a marginal note to the effect that the work is not by Josephus, but by one Gaius, a presbyter of Rome, also the author of The Labyrinth and of a dialogue against Proclus, the champion of the Montanists. 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 Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been ordained bishop of the gentiles. He wrote another special work against the heresy of Artemon, and also composed a weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he reckons only thirteen epistles of Saint Paul, and does not include the epistle to the Hebrews.

Dionysius bar Salibi.

The following passages are taken directly from the article by Gwynn; these are his translations from the original Syriac of Dionysius bar Salibi, Commentary on the Apocalypse (the lines immediately following the Roman numerals I through V are from Gwynn himself; the indented passages are his translation of the relevant sections in the Syriac commentary by bar Salibi):

I. The first is as follows:—

[Rev. viii. 8: A great mountain was cast into the sea, and the third part of the sea became blood.] (fol. 3r, line 13)

On this, Caius the heretic objected to this revelation, and said that it is not possible that these things should be, inasmuch as as a thief that cometh in the night, so is the coming of the Lord [1 Thess. v. 2].

Hippolytus of Rome answered him, and said that, in like manner as God wrought signs such as these in Egypt, so is He to work when Christ appears. And those that [were wrought] in Egypt were partial, inasmuch as a part of the people was subjected there ; but these are to be general, before the judgment, on all the world. Accordingly, by the revelation John declared that there are to be plagues before the judgment, as though for the avenging of the righteous and retribution on the unbelieving, that when involved in these they may not trouble the faithful.

So also the Lord said, There shall be in that day tribulation such as has been none like it [St. Matth. xxiv. 21]; and Joel, I will shew signs in heaven and on earth, blood and fire and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord come [Joel ii. 30, 31] ; and Amos, To what end is the day of the Lord for you, for it is dark and not light? in like manner as if thou fleddest from a lion and a bear met thee, or one leaned his hands on a wall and a serpent bit him [Amos v. 18, 19].

The text, that the day of the Lord cometh as a thief, signifies as regards the unbelieving that they are darkness, inasmuch as the faithful are children of light, who walk not in the night [St. John xi. 10; xii. 35, 36 ; Eph. v. 8]. Accordingly, in Egypt this type was completed; for the Egyptians had darkness, but the Hebrews had light [Exod. x. 22, 23].

II. The second goes on much the same lines:—

[Rev. viii. 12: The third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened.] (Ms. Rich. 7185, f. 3v, line 20)

On this Caius said that, just as in the Flood the heavenly bodies were not taken away and suddenly submerged, thus also is it to be in the end, as it is written [St. Matth. xxiv. 37] ; and Paul says, When they shall say, Peace and safety, destruction shall come upon them [1 Thess. v. 3].

But Hippolytus says, in reply to this objection of the heretic: Before the Flood there was none of these signs, inasmuch as the Flood was partial; and the heavenly bodies were not removed, inasmuch as the general end had not arrived : but when heaven and earth are about to pass away [St. Matth. xxiv. 35], it must needs be that by little and little their splendour shall perish.

And to this Joel testifies : Before him verily the earth shall be confounded and the heavens shaken, and the sun and moon shall be darkened, and the stars their light shall set [Joel ii. 10]. And our Lord said, in the Book of Luke, And there shall be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations, and the powers which are in heaven shall be shaken [St. Luke xxi. 25, 26]. And as to this, that He sent a manifest token, it is with regard to the non-perception of the unbelieving that He signifies.

And as to the text, When they shall say Peace, destruction shall come upon them, it is with regard to the Jews that He signifies, that they expect to possess their land and to be able to live in peace, and forthwith Christ appears and they are put to shame.

III. The third is not dissimilar.

[Rev. ix. 2, 3: There came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth, and unto them was given power, even as the scorpions of the earth have power.] (Ms. Rich. 7185, f. 4r, line 14)

On this Caius objects, that according to this, the unrighteous are consumed by the locusts; whereas Scripture has said that sinners prosper and the righteous are persecuted, in the world' [Ps. lxxiii. 12 ]; and Paul, that the faithful shall be persecuted and the evil shall flourish, deceiving and being deceived [2 Tim. iii. 12, 13].

But Hippolytus answers him, and says that the faithful, those who are persecuted by the unrighteous, at this period are to have rest, because they have been sealed; but the unrighteous who persecuted the saints, on them comes the plague of locusts; even as the Egyptians were devoured, and the Hebrews were free from the plagues, while they dwelt in one place. Thus the saints in this time are to be in well-being, even as our Lord said, When these things begin to be, be of good cheer, and lift up your heads, inasmuch as your redemption is nigh [St. Luke, xxi. 28]; that is, when plagues come on the evil, the righteous have rest. And this, that evil men deceive and are deceived [2 Tim. iii. 13], at the present day is coming to pass : that crafty men, who alter the words of the Lord and of the Scriptures after their evil thoughts, that even though at the present day they are proceeding further, yet in the end they are to be rebuked : even as Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses [ib. 8, 9], and afterwards were overcome and put to shame.

IV. The fourth takes up different ground, and (as will presently be shown) contains a further element of interest.

[Rev. ix. 15: And the angels were loosed, which were prepared for seasons and for days, to slay the third part of men.] (Ms. Rich. 7185, f. 4v, line 7)

On this Caius says: It is not written that angels are to make war, nor that a third part of men is to perish; but that nation shall rise against nation [St. Matth. xxiv. 7].

Hippolytus in reply to him: It is not of angels he says that they are to go to war, but that four nations are to arise out of the region which is by Euphrates, and to come against the earth, and to war with mankind. But this that he says, four angels, is not alien from Scripture. Moses said, When He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the boundary of the nations according to the number of the Angels of God [Deut. xxxii. 8 (LXX.)].

Since therefore nations have been assigned to angels, and each nation pertains to one angel, John rightly declared by the Revelation a loosing for those four angels: who are the Persians, and the Medes, and the Babylonians, and the Assyrians. Since then these angels who have been appointed over the nations have not been commanded to stir up those who have been assigned to them, a certain bond of the power of the word is indicated, which restrains them until the day shall arrive and the Lord of all shall command. And this then is to happen when Antichrist shall come.

V. The fifth has a special importance, as touching on the matter of millennarian prediction.

[Rev. xx. 2. 3: And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up and sealed the bottomless pit upon him, in order that he should not deceive the nations till the thousand years should be fulfilled: after that, he must be loosed a little season.] (Ms. Rich. 7185, f. 9v, line 8)

On this Caius the heretic objected: that Satan is bound here, according to that which is written, that Christ went up into the strong man's house and bound him, and spoiled his goods for us [St. Matth. xii. 29].

Hippolytus answered this and said: If the Devil has been bound, how does he deceive the faithful and persecute and plunder men? And if you say that he has been bound as regards the faithful, how did he draw near against Christ, Him who aid no sin? according to the text, The Prince cometh and findeth no sin in me [St. John, xiv. 30 4]. And if then he has been bound, how did the Lord teach us to pray, that we should be delivered front the evil one [St. Matth. vi. 13]? and why did he desire to tempt Simon and the Apostles [St. Luke, xxii. 31]? And how was one who had been bound able to sift and trouble the disciples [ib.]?

And truly for us the conflict is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, and against the rulers of the darkness of this world [Eph. vi. 12]. If he had been bound, he would not maintain the conflict, or catch away the word which was sown [St. Matth. xiii. 19], as is said in the Parable of the Seed. That He has bound the strong man;5 the meaning of it is this: that He has rebuked and cast scorn on those who did not come unto Him when He went against the Devil in order to purify them from his bondage and make them sons unto the Father.

And this is proved by what He said just after, that he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad [St. Matth. xii. 30]. Accordingly, in the end of times, the Devil is to be bound and to be flung into the bottomless pit, when the Lord comes ; even as Esaias hath said, that the wicked shall be taken away in order that he see not the glory of the Lord [Isai. xxvi. 10—LXX. (Syr. Hex.)].5

And the number of the years is not the number of days, but it represents the space of one day, glorious and perfect; in which, when the King comes in glory with His slain, the creation is to shine: according to the text, The sun shall shine twofold [marg., sevenfold; Isai. xxx. 26]; while the righteous eat with Him and drink of His vine. This is the day which the Lord hath made [Ps. cxviii. 24], which David spoke of.

Accordingly, when with the eye of the spirit John saw the glory of that day, he likened it to the space of a thousand years; according to the saying, One day in the world of the righteous is as a thousand years [2 Pet. iii. 8 ?]. And by the number he shows that day to be perfect, for those that are faithful.

But as for what he has said, that after the thousand years he shall be loosed, and shall deceive the nations [Rev. xx. 7, 8], it is this: that justly he is to be loosed, and to be cast into the burning, and to be judged [ib. 10, 12]; with those who from old time were gathered together with him, when he gathered the strangers of the kingdom, and Gog and Magog [ib. 8].

In 1909 I. Sedlacek published the Syriac Commentary on the Apocalypse by Dionysius bar Salibi (also known as Dionysius Syrus or Jacob bar Salibi) and also translated it into Latin; Carlson supplied the introduction from this work for us in one of his posts on the IIDB thread:

Postquam enim absolvimus expositionem Evangelii, o frater noster, fuse et lucidissime, parati sumus aggredi explicationem Apocalypsis Iohannis evangelistae. Vos autem lectores, cum incitatoribus petitionum spiritualium, orationes emittite pro Dionysio peregrino, ut et vos sanemini.

Initio sermonis dicimus multos magistros dubitavisse de Apocalypsi Iohannis et dixisse eam ipsius non esse. Et hoc exponit Eusebius Caesaraeensis in libro eqlisiastiqi seu Historiarum ecclesiasticarum. Dicit enim Dionysius, episcopus Alexandriae: Apocalypsis non est Iohannis apostoli, sed Iohannis alius, presbyteri, qui habitabat in Asia; nam non est similis typus, id est species sermonis, Evangelii et Apocalypsis. Et Iohannes nullibi in Evangelio commemoravit suum nomen; hic vero, initio et fine Apocalypsis posuit nomen suum. Et a Domino nostro accepisse revelationem eum, qui eam scripsit, profitemur. Irenaeus episcopus et Hippolytus Bosrae dicunt Apocalypsim Iohannis evangelistae esse et sub finem regni Domitiani ipsi revelatam esse. Etiam Eusebius Caesaraeensis his assentit at statim dicit: Si quis non admittit Apocalypsim esse Iohannis apostoli, evangelistae, dicimus: ergo est Iohannis presbyteri, qui tempore Iohannis apostoli extitit. Et duo sunt sepulcra in Asia, unum evangelistae et alterum Iohannis presbyteri.

Hippolytus Romanus dixit: Apparuit vir, nomine Caius, qui asserebat Evangelium non esse Iohannis, nec Apocalypsim, sed Cerinthi haeretici ea esse. Et contra hunc Caium surrexit beatus Hippolytus et demonstravit aliam esse doctrinam Iohannis, in Evangelio et in Apocalypsi, et aliam Cerinthi.

Ille quidem Cerinthus docebat circumcisionem, et iratus est in Paulum, quod non circumciderat Titum, et vocat apostolum eiusque discipulos in quadam e suis epistulis "apostolos falsos et operarios fallaces". Docebat etiam mundum ab angelis creatum esse; et non e virgine Dominum nostrum natum esse, et cibum et potum materiales, et multas blasphemias.

Evangelium et Apocalypsis Iohannis mentem Scripturarum sequuntur; ergo mendaces sunt qui dicunt Apocalypsim non esse Iohannis apostoli. Nos autem Hippolyto assentimur. Etiam Iohannis evangelistae esse Apocalypsim testatur s. Cyrillus, et Mar Severus et omnes Doctores qui adducunt testimonia in libris suis, sed etiam Theologus in oratione valedictoria ab eo adducit argumentum et dicit: "Quemadmodum docet me Iohannes per revelationem suam: 'Auferte viam populo meo; et hos lapides'...", cum "lapides" haereticos et doctrinam eorum vocat.

Pearse then offered his own on-the-fly English translation two posts later (reformatted slightly here):

After in fact we finished the exposition of the gospels, O our brother, on a grand scale and very clearly, we were prepared to attempt an explication of the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist. However you, dear readers, with those who incite spiritual petitions, please utter prayers on behalf of Dionysius the pilgrim, so that you also may be saved.

In the beginning of the text, we say that many masters have doubted concerning the Apocalpyse of John and said that it is not his. And this Eusebius of Caesarea expounds in the book The Church or The Church History. For Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria says: The Apocalypse is not by the apostle John, but by another John, a presbyter, who used to live in Asia; for they are not of the same type, that is species of text, in the Gospel and the Apocalypse. And John nowhere in the Gospel mentions his name; but here, at the start and end of the Apocalypse he gives his name. And we declare that we have received from our Lord his revelation, who wrote it. Bishop Irenaeus and Hippolytus of Bosra say that the Apocalypse is by John the Evangelist and was revealed to him at the end of the reign of Domitian. Also Eusebius of Caesarea assents to these things and immediately says: If anyone does not admit that the Apocalypse is by John the apostle, the evangelist, we say: therefore it is by John the presbyter, who lived in the time of John the apostle. And there are two sepulchers in Asia, one of the evangelist and the other of the presbyter John.

Hippolytus of Rome said: A man appeared, by name Caius, who used to assert that the Gospel was not by John, nor the Apocalypse, but that they are by the heretic Cerinthus. And against this Caius* the blessed Hippolytus rose up and demonstrated that the teaching of John, in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse, was one thing, and that of Cerinthus another.

* Robinson transliterates this Syriac phrase as qam luqbal hana Gaius and compares it to what Ebed-Jesu lists as a Hippolytan work in his catalogue (online translation at the Tertullian Project), rishe luqbal Gaius, or head[ing]s against Gaius.

This Cerinthus indeed used to teach circumcision, and was angry against Paul, because he did not circumcise Titus, and he calls the apostle and his disciples in some of his letters "false apostles and workers-for-hire". He also used to teach that the world was created by angels; and that our Lord was not born from a virgin, and the importance [?] of food and drink, and many blasphemies.

The Gospel and Apocalypse of John [both?] follow the plan of the Scriptures ; therefore they are liars who say that the Apocalypse is not by John the apostle. However we agree with Hippolytus. Also there testify that the Apocalypse is by John the evangelist: St.Cyril, and Mar Severus, and all the Doctors [of the church], who adduce witnesses in their books, but also [Gregory] Theologus in the valedictory oration adduces an argument from this and says: "In the way that John teaches me by his revelation: 'take away the way from my people and these stones'...", where he calls heretics and their doctrine "stones".

Pearse then went well above the call of duty and actually drove to Oxford University to take a look at Fell manuscripts 6 and 7 in the Bodleian library. These manuscripts contain a Latin translation made in century XVII by Dudley Loftus of the Syriac commentary on the gospels by Dionysius bar Salibi. Fell 6 contains the commentaries on Matthew and Mark, Fell 7 those on Luke and John. The commentary on John fills folios 105-193. Pearse transcribed a small portion from folio 124, the comments on John 2, starting at the top of that page. What follows is his transcription from a post on the IIDB (all underscores are from Loftus):

Et die tertio factum est convivium. Expositio Mosis Bar Capha, — non conformendo hunc diem cum die baptismi, ita dixit, sed cum isto die quo rediit e deserto, cum vicisset Diabolum; si enim cum die baptismi eum contulisset, composisetur esse quartus dies, non tertius, quia antea dixit die postero, id est, post diem interrogationis sacerdotum vidit Johannes Jesum bonientem, alioque die stabat, & duo ex discipulis eius, alio etiam die voluit Jesus exire in Galileam; non refert igitur hunc diem ad diem baptismi sed ad ipsum quo rediit e deserto.— Sanctus Hypolitus Romanus> dies primus, ipso fuit, quo interrogarunt Pharisei Johannem, Quis es? et secundus dies, fuit ipse, quo baptisavit Dominum nostrum, statimque abiit in desertum, ibique mansit quadraginta dies et postea rediit, primus dies fuit, quando vidit eum ambulantem & secuti sunt eum duo discipuli, secundus quando abiit in Galileam, tertius quando factum est convivium. Gaius haereticus reprehendebat Johannem quia non concors fuit cum sociis dicentibus, quod post baptismum abiit in Galileam. et fecit miraculum vini in Kaina. Santus Hippolytus e contrario, s[??] dicit [?], Christus postquam baptizatus fuerat abiit in desertum, et quando inquisitio facta erat de illo per discipulos Johannis et per populum, quarebant eum & non inveniebant, quia in deserto erat, cum vero finita fuisset temptatio & rediisset, venit in partos habitatas non ut baptizaretur, baptizatus enim iam fuerat, sed ut monstraretur a Johanne qui dixit intuens eum, Ecce agnus Dei!

Roger Pearse even supplies his own translation:

And on the third day the [wedding] feast happened. The exposition of Moses Bar Kepha, — this day cannot be made to agree with the day of baptism,1 but with that day when he returned from the desert,2 when he had conquered the Devil; for if it be tied to the day of baptism, four days will be computed, because earlier he said 'the next day', i.e., after the day of the interrogation of the priests, John saw Jesus and his goodness, and on another day also two of his disciples, and on another day again Jesus wanted to leave Galilee; therefore this day does not relate to the day of baptism, but to that on which he returned from the desert. — St. Hippolytus of Rome> the first day, so-called, when the Pharisees asked John, Who are you? and the supposed second day, when he baptised our Lord, and at once he went off into the desert, and remained there for 40 days, and afterwards returned, was the first day, because he saw him walking and two disciples were following him; the second when he went off into Galilee, the third when the [wedding] feast happened. Gaius the heretic used to criticise John because he was not in agreement with his fellow relaters [of the account] because [he says that] after the baptism he went off into Galilee and performed the miracle of the wine in Cana. St. Hippolytus, on the contrary, [...], Christ, after he had been baptised, went off into the desert, and when an inquiry was made concerning him by the disciples of John, and by the people, seeking and not finding him, because he was in the desert, when indeed the temptation had been finished and he had returned, he came into the habitable parts, not to be baptised, for he had already been baptised, but that he might be pointed out by John who said, looking at him, Behold the lamb of God!

1 Matthew 3.13.
2 Luke 4.14.

Also of interest, an English translation of the first 165 sections of the Bibliotheca of Photius (the relevant section is number 48), as well as an English translation of the Catalogue of Syriac writers by Ebed-Jesu, also known as Abdisho bar Brika (the list of Hippolytan works, including the Heads Against Gaius, kicks off page 364, in the third section). B. H. Streeter discusses Gaius and Hippolytus in chapter 15 of his landmark book, The Four Gospels.