Artemon omitting the verse

Steven Avery


• Caius, Presbyter of Rome (also known as Gaius) was a Christian author who lived and wrote towards the beginning of the 3rd century.[1] Only fragments of his works are known, which are given in the collection entitled The Ante-Nicene Fathers. However, the Muratorian fragment, an early attempt to establish the canon of the New Testament, is often attributed to Caius and is included in that collection.[2] For the existing fragments from Caius' “Dialogue or Disputation Against Proclus,” we are indebted to Eusebius, who included them in his Ecclesiastical History.[1] In one of these fragments, Caius tells Proclus, ”And I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you choose to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.”[3] This is described by the Catholic Encyclopedia as ”a very valuable evidence of the death of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome, and the public veneration of their remains at Rome about the year 200."[1] There is also another series of fragments Eusebius gives from a work called ”Against the Heresy of Artemon,” although the Ante-Nicene Fathers note says regarding the authorship only that it is ”an anonymous work ascribed by some to Caius."[4] Caius was also one of the authors to whom the ”Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades” was ascribed at one time.[5] (It was also attributed, much more famously, to Josephus and still appears in editions of the William Whiston translation of his collected works, but is now known to be excerpted from a work by Hippolytus of Rome.)[6]
(Caius (presbyter). Wikipedia. <>)

Chapter XXVIII.—Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.

● In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient. Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:

o “For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all [PAGE 247] the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day. I refer to Justin and Miltiades and Tatian and Clement and many others, in all of whose works Christ is spoken of as God. For who does not know the works of Irenæus and of Melito and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their
slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?”

● So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus. The author of the above-mentioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:

o “I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, not long ago, but in our own day. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month. When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was [PAGE 248] ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion.”

"Caius the Presbyter of Rome", ANF vol 5; Eusebius Pamphilius, Church History, chapter 28; NPNF2 vol 1; Migne Graeca PG 20, 511-512 to 517-518 [516A-D to 517A-C] : 5.28.13 to 5.28.19)

Heretics Corrupt the Scriptures

• [Eusebius] ...And works of many others have come down to us whose names we are unable to give, orthodox and ecclesiastical, as their interpretations of the Divine Scriptures show, but unknown to us, because their names are not stated in their writings. In a laborious work by one of these writers ["an anonymous work ascribed by some to Caius. ”of Rome (180-217 AD)] against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient. Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:

“They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who comes from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshipped. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed. But some of them have not thought it worthwhile to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition. Let this suffice for these things.”
• Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book 5; NPNF02 vol 1 <>
Last edited:

Steven Avery


p. 210-220


Du Pin




John Gill
[URL unfurl="false"]

Thomas Randolph


Frederick Nolan

Ben David?

Theophilus Lindsey

Thomas Burgess

John Oxlee - Christian Remembrancer also Nolan



Thomas Belsham on Theophilus Lindsey

Eberhard Nestle

Last edited:

Steven Avery

RGA p. 3
Belief in the equality of the Father and the Son was thus normative for orthodox Christian belief. Deviations such as Adoptionism
(espoused by Artemon, Theodotus and the Ebionites) and Subordinationism (Origen, Arius and many others) were rejected. Such ideas were considered by the orthodox to injure the dignity of Jesus as the Christ, the anointed one of God. For orthodox apologists like Athanasius, they also raised the suspicion of idolatry. For if Jesus was created, then to worship him would mean worshiping the
creation rather than the creator.

When pondering who was responsible for deleting the passage, Kettner weighed a number of possible suspects: the Ebionites; the Valentinians and Gnostics; the Marcionites and Manichaeans; the Alogoi; the followers of Artemon; those overly influenced by Origen; the Samosatians; Jerome’s “unfaithful translators;” ignorant scribes; the Arians or others who would distinguish Jesus from the Christ, the divine from the human nature; or even orthodox readers who mistakenly believed (as Luther and Bugenhagen in a later age) that the passage had been inserted by heretics. For Kettner, the devil’s own participation in the process could not be discounted,

BCEME p. 4
The orthodox believed that ideas such as adoptionism (espoused by Theodotus, Artemon and Paul of Samosata) and subordinationism (Origen, Arius and many others) injured Jesus’ dignity as the Christ, the anointed one of God. For

Steven Avery

Magna bibliotheca ecclesiastica, sive Notitia scriptorum ecclesiasticorum veterum ac recentiorum; in qua ordine alphabetico continetur autorum sacrorum ... Simul & conciliorum omnium, tam generalium quàm particularium historia & decreta exhibentur ... Additis, ut plurimùm, De singulorum doctrina ac stylo, eruditorum judiciis. Cum indice autorum et conciliorum ..: 1. Litt. A (1734)