² Cave does not mention the writer, and there is no article on him in either the Protestant or the Catholic Realencyclopädie, or in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. In Fabricius-Harles, vol. X, p. 757, we find only a misleading list of the authors named in Photius's extracts from the work; and Krumbacher barely alludes to it. Bardenhewer (Patrologie, 2d ed., 1901, p. 479) says: “Among the famous writers of the tritheistic party [for this ‘fame’ I have found no evidence, unless it be the surname ‘Gobarus’] was numbered Stephanus Gobarus, about 600 [for this date there is no evidence], now known only through extracts from his chief work [but we know of no other works] in Photius.”

³ He is not found either in Leontius or in Severus (although not all the writings of Severus are accessible in print). Mention of him is lacking also in the church histories of Evagrius and of John of Ephesus (although we do not possess the whole of the latter's great work). In later writers also my search has so far been in vain. For a possible identification, see below.

⁴ That is, of Gobarus.

⁵ καὶ οὐκ ἀθρόον πάντες, ἀλλὰ παρὰ μέρος. I am not sure about the understanding of this sentence.

⁶ That is, God.

⁷ That is, for the risen.

⁸ This remark is by Photius, since he never makes Gobarus speak in the first person.

⁹ I am not quite sure of the translation; τὸ καίεσθαι καὶ μὴ κατακαίεσθαι ϕθοράν ἐστιν ἄϕθαρτον ϕθείρεσθαι.

¹⁰ And hence eternal.

¹¹ Walch (l. c. p. 881) renders δ μέλλων αἰών by “the coming century,” a translation which seems to me impossible.

¹² The reading should be: καὶ οὐχ ὡς τὸ πνεῦμα αἰώνιος (Mss. αἰώνιον).

¹³ δτι οὐ πρόσκαιρος ἦν οὔτε ψυχή, ἀλλὰ νοῦς: corrupt text, but how emend it?

¹⁴ He refers to Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio.

¹⁵ That is, Basil.

¹⁶ μάλιστα δὲ έν οἶς τὸ Ἀριανῶν ἔθνος ἐπερείδεται. I am not sure of the translation I have given; τῷ ἔθνει would be expected.

¹⁷ Pseudo-Ignatius.

¹⁸ While the numbers 1–52 are certain (since Photius counted up the total, and in one instance [38] has given the number of the chapter), in the second half of the book the reader is in doubt as to how to arrive at the number 18 given by Photius. The system adopted above for numbering the single pieces is not satisfactory, but I can find no better one. The surmise that chapters were here missing, I have considered, and rejected.

¹⁹ Nevertheless the ‘o’ is not satisfactorily explained.

²⁰ Yet the designation may have been based on I, 1. (References to the fifty-two chapters of Gobarus's first, and “general,” series are denoted by I; those to the eighteen chapters of his second, and “more special,” series by II.)

²¹ Photius has named comparatively few of these in his extracts.

²² Gobarus's reputation must, however, have been limited to a local circle; otherwise he and his work could not have remained in such obscurity.

²³ For Dionysius Telmaharensis consult Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, II, pp. 72 ff.

²⁴ Cf. Walch, l. c, pp. 778 ff.; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, II. (2d ed), pp. 575 f.; Krüger, Protestantische Realencyklopädie, XIII, pp. 400 f. He became the founder of the Niobites (Adiaphorites), who attributed to Christ in the strictest sense only one nature.

²⁵ In some places cognate material is grouped together; but this is the exception rather than the rule.

²⁶ On the great difficulty in the numbering here see what has been said above.

²⁷ This designation is due to Photius, not to Grobarus; what men are actually meant is uncertain.

²⁸ From II, 16 this is not evident.

²⁹ This inference is to be drawn also from II, 3–5: in matters of eschatology Gobarus took a correct intermediate position, rejecting both apocatastasis and chiliasm.

³⁰ See Walch, l. c, VIII, pp. 771 ff., Schönfelder, Die Kirchengeschichte des Johannes von Ephesus, 1862, pp. 301 ff., Dictionary of Christian Biography, III, pp. 425 ff. The controversy as to the resurrection ended about the year 582.

³¹ The preference for Titus of Bostra (I, 15, 19; II, 16) likewise certainly results from the latter's Antiochian and rational, Aristotelian character, as does perhaps the preference (if one may call it such) for Severian of Gabala (I, 36).

³² That Photius did not reject Clement is not surprising. Thomas of Germanicia, Severus's letter to whom is mentioned in II, 2, was banished in 520 under Justin I as a Monophysite. He died in exile at Samosata about 541. Severus's letter to him is preserved (Wright, Catalogue, pp. 730, 567).

³³ Philoponus's literary activity began at latest in the year 529.

³⁴ The obscurity which long covered the date of Philoponus has been dispelled by recent investigations (Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophic VI, pp. 501 ff.; Stöckl, in Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexikon, VI, columns 1748ff.; Dictionary of Christian Biography, p. 426). Nevertheless the year of his death can be given only approximately. The tradition that he was still alive in the first quarter of the seventh century as a contemporary of Georgius Pisides or of the emperor Heraclius is incompatible with the certainly determined dates.

³⁵ For the course of the Origenistic controversies see Diekamp, Die Origenistischen Streitigkeiten im 6. Jahrhundert und das 5. allgemeine Konzil, 1899; and Jülicher's review, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1900, No. 6.

³⁶ Cf. Schönfelder, l. c, pp. 267 ff. (“der Tritheistenstreit”; the author has paid scant attention to chronology); Dictionary of Christian Biography, p. 426. The beginnings of the Aristotelian-tritheistic movement (Askusnages) fall in the first half of Justinian's reign, and Philoponus taught his tritheism before 550, but only under Justin II did matters develop into a public controversy which agitated the church, and into that memorable disputation between the two groups of Monophysite teachers (the tritheists and the antitritheists) which the orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, Johannes Scholasticus, held by order of the emperor (Photius, Bibliotheca XXIV; Evagrius, H. E., v. 4). By a chance coincidence one spokesman of the antitritheistic party was named Stephanus.

³⁷ Where Gobarus is to be looked for, remains problematical. Statistically a preponderance of references in the citations relate to Alexandria in Egypt; but since almost all these cases relate to great ecclesiastical persons and actions (Origen, Dionysius, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril), and since we do not know whether Gobarus's citations are at first or second hand, the result is after all a non liquet. Nevertheless the interest in Isidore of Pelusium inclines the balance in favor of Egypt, and the close relationship to Philoponus supports this conjecture. On the other hand, the surname Gobarus points to Syria, as has been said above. The question is of slight importance, for the reason that in the second half of the sixth century the Syrian and the Alexandrian Monophysites maintained an intimate intercourse with one another, and there were always many Syrians in Alexandria.

³⁸ The Catalogue of Fabricius-Harles has confused the fathers (and other persons) actually quoted by Gobarus and those only mentioned in his citations, with the result of a distorted image. In the following paragraphs the two groups are distinguished.

(a) Fathers cited by Gobarus (whether at first or second hand cannot be determined):

Alexander of Jerusalem (probably taken from Eusebius's Church History), II, 16

Athanasius, II, 7, 16

Atticus of Constantinople, II, 10

Basil, II, 6

Clement of Alexandria, II, 14, 15 (probably quoting from Eusebius)

Cyril of Alexandria, I, 39, 50 and II, 11

Dionysius of Alexandria, I, 50 and II, 16

“The doctors of the church,” I, 40

Epiphanius, II, 14, 16

Eusebius of Caesarea, II, 14, 15

Eustathius of Antioch, I, 38

Gregory of Nazianzus, II, 16

Gregory of Nyssa, II, 16, 17

Hegesippus, I, 13

Hippolytus, II, 14, 15, 17

Pseudo-Ignatius, II, 14

Irenaeus, I, 36, 44 and II, 15

Isidore of Pelusium, II, 12

Pseudo-Justin, I, 37

Severian of Gabala, I, 36

Severus of Antioch, I, 41 and II, 1–5, 13

Theodoret, II, 8, 14

Theophilus of Alexandria, II, 9, 16

Titus of Bostra, I, 15, 19 and II, 16.

The Apostle John is cited in I, 15 and 43, as are the Apostles Peter and Thomas in I, 47, John the Baptist in I, 2, the Mother of God in I, 3 and 42, and another Mary in I, 51. Photius says in his introduction that for the “non-ecclesiastical” half of his sentences Gobarus had cited only (?) ancient fathers as authorities (in accordance with contemporary use of language he means pre-constantinian fathers). Thus we should probably have had many other citations from lost ancient writings, as well as that from Hegesippus, if Photius's excerpt were more detailed. As it is, we can only show that of pre-constantinian fathers Gobarus cited Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Alexander of Jerusalem, Hippolytus, and Dionysius of Alexandria (besides Pseudo-Ignatius and Pseudo-Justin).

(b) Fathers and other persons mentioned in Gobarus's citations:

Bishops of Alexandria, II, 12

Clement of Rome, II, 15

Dionysius of Alexandria, II, 6–8

Gregory of Nyssa, II, 3

Irenaeus, II, 5

Isidore of Pelusium, II, 13

John of Antioch, II, 2

The Montanists, II, 17

“Mystagogues of the church,” II, 1

Nicolaus and the Nicolaitans, II, 14

Origen, II, 13 and 16

Papias, II, 4

Sabellius, II, 6

Theognostus, II, 16

Theotecnus, II, 16

Thomas of Germanicia, II, 2.

Furthermore, Socrates, I, 31; Plato, I, 31 and 37. In I, 31 Moses, the prophets, Socrates, Plato, John the Baptist and the Apostles are cited together. The Epistle to the “Hebrews is mentioned in II, 15.

³⁹ For even such a question as, for instance, that mentioned in I, 42, whether Mary suckled the Lord or not, is in the last analysis not only a question touching Mary (virginitas post partum), but also a question pertaining to the problem of the incarnation and the relation of the divine to the human. Similarly some mystery is certainly concealed behind I, 43, and at the bottom of the passover problem (I, 45, 61, 52) lies ultimately the problem of the body of Christ, and behind this the problem of the imperishable and the perishable.

⁴⁰ Back of these two also may have lain for the author a problem of metaphysical christology.

⁴¹ This is shown in particular by the chapters in which Gobarus has given theses only, without antitheses.

⁴² If Gobarus had been guided exclusively by the purpose of discrediting tradition, it would remain obscure why in two-thirds of the cases he selected the contradictory utterances of tradition from a single field, however extensive.

⁴³ In the second century there were indeed highly esteemed fathers who were tritheists; but they did not intend to be such — and they were subordinationists. The tritheists of the sixth century had great difficulty in maintaining their ground in the face of tradition.

⁴⁴ See my Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, II (4th ed., 1909), pp. 84 ffGoogle Scholar. Even so cautious a work as the Commonitorium of Vincent of Lerinum could not have been written in the East, for the idea of tradition was even more rigid here than in the West. Even the greatest theologian of the East and father of theological science in the Greek church took his stand firmly on the ground of ecclesiastical tradition. No one was permitted to depart from it. When the great Cappadocians were forced to recognize that there was no certain proof from tradition for the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, they invented for this doctrine a παράδοσις ἄγραϕος, being unable to believe that a tradition could be lacking. From the fifth century on the proof from tradition became the most important proof, for the biblical and the speculative proof yielded precedence to it. In the controversy that lasted for centuries between the orthodox party and the Monophysites and between the Monophysites among themselves, proof from tradition dominated all endeavors. Ere long mutual recrimination naturally broke out, with charges of partisan bias in the selection of evidence, of the misinterpretation, and even the falsification and invention of evidence. Thus Philoponus was reproached (Photius, Bibliotheca LXXV) with misusing for his tritheism the utterances of the fathers, in particular of Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Athanasius, and Cyril; John of Ephesus tells us (Church History v. 10) that the tritheists had “put together a great book out of the living body of those writings of the holy fathers which they supposed to confirm and corroborate their heresy.” “That,” says John, “is what the law forbids: ‘That which is torn with beasts he shall not eat’ (Lev. 22, 8). So they too tore away dead members out of the discussions (arguments) of the holy fathers, thinking to prove that these likewise taught and enounced a number of deities and many gods, like the heathen.” Especially interesting is the story told of Severus of Antioch (in Anastasius, Hodegos 6). It is said that in order to escape from the patristic proof-passages quoted by his opponents, which he was not able to refute, he repudiated these passages as forgeries in his work “Philalethes” (against John of Caesarea). This work was so highly esteemed by his adherents that they placed it even above the Gospel of John, and accepted only such utterances of the fathers as Severus had approved.

⁴⁵ Cf. the preceding note.

⁴⁶ Abaelardi, Petri “Sic et Non” primum integrum ed. Lindenkohl, Henke et, 1851Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Hence the judgment upon the work: “aeternis tenebris potius dignum quam luce” (Martène et Durand, Thesaurus nov. anecdotorum, V, Praefatio).

⁴⁸ Cf. the opening sentence: “Cum in tanta verborum multitudine nonnulla etiam Sanctorum dicta non solum ab invicem diversa, verum etiam invicem adversa videntur,” etc., and this from the concluding sentences: “Philosophus ille omnium perspicacissimus Aristoteles in praedicamento ‘ad aliquid’ adhortatur dicens: ‘Fortasse autem difficile est de hujusmodi rebus confidenter declarare, nisi pertractatae sint saepe; dubitare autem de singulis non erit inutile.’”

⁴⁹ One difference between Abaelard and Gobarus consists in the fact that the latter has also included in the scope of his antithetical work the mutually contradictory judgments of the fathers on leading persons and circumstances of church history. Abaelard refrained from this. But on the other hand both were careful not to quote in their citations “apocryphal” sayings (Abaelard, Praefatio, p. 17), and, like Gobarus, Abaelard too let Holy Writ alone; indeed, he expressly emphasized its certainty in contrast to tradition (Praefatio, pp. 10 ff.). The suggestions in Abaelard's preface as to how the contradictions of tradition can be obviated are of no great consequence.

⁵⁰ This characterization of Hegesippus must be due to Gobarus; Photius had no cause to characterize him in this way.

⁵¹ The following words: οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὄτι καὶ παθών, belong to Photius (see above).

⁵² It was formerly held that this confirmed the Jewish Christianity of Hegesippus; but Hegesippus was not a Jewish Christian.

⁵³ Neither τοῖς δικαίοις nor τὰ ἀγαθά is found in the verse from Paul.

⁵⁴ Cf. Resch, Agrapha, 1889, pp. 102 ff., 154 ff.; also his Agrapha, 1906, pp. 25 ff.; Zahn, Forschungen, VI (1900), pp. 247 ff. τὰ ἀγαθά is also found in this saying in Athanasius, De virginitate 18, and in Origen, Hom, xviii. 15 in Jerem.; in Origen are also the words οἱ δίκαιοι; see also Const. Apost. vii. 32 and Epiphanius, Haer. 64, 69. On the apocryphal sayings compare also Acta Petri Vercell., p. 98 (ed. Lipsius) and my discussion in Texte und Untersuchungen, XLII, Heft 4, pp. 43, 49.