What do we Know about the Anti-Trinitarian Theology of Theodotus of Byzantium?

Introduction

It has often been said that “history is written by the victors”.[1] Given the ultimate victory of Trinitarian theology, it is unsurprising that the early Christian writings preserved by the Church were those that were at least consistent with that theology. It is also unsurprising that the remaining records of early anti-Trinitarians are negative. One such anti-Trinitarian is Theodotus of Byzantium. Variously categorised as an ‘adoptionist’ or a ‘dynamic monarchian’ by modern scholars, he is condemned as a heretic in all extant reports. But is this portrayal accurate? In this article I will reconsider the evidence relating to Theodotus of Byzantium to reconstruct what can be known about this early anti-Trinitarian.

Sources

The earliest sources for Theodotus are those written by Hippolytus (d. 235), a brief reference in Against Noetus (3) and a more detailed description in his Refutation of All Heresies (also called Philosophoumena), previously attributed to Origen. Hippolytus considers Theodotus orthodox in part, because he acknowledges that all things were created by God, but associates his Christology with the Gnostics, Cerinthus, and the Ebionites (Ref 7.23).[2] In Against Noetus, Theodotus is briefly mentioned as having a one-sided approach to scripture to support his Christology (3).

Slightly later than Hippolytus is Little Labyrinth, a work known through several quotations by Eusebius (HE 5.28). The two main candidates for the author of Little Labyrinth are Gaius, based on the testimony of Photius, and Hippolytus, since the tenth book of Refutation is called “Labyrinth” (cf. Ref 10.1). Both these candidates seem unlikely. The testimony of Photius is, at best, uncertain, and the author of Little Labyrinth alludes to the Gospel of John, which is inconsistent with Gaius’ rejection of it. Hippolytus differed with the author over the orthodoxy of Tatian and in his characterization of Zephyrinus. Following the work of J. T. Fitzgerald, it is preferable to view Little Labyrinth as anonymous;[3] I shall refer to its author as LLA. Little Labyrinth is primarily a polemic against Artemon and his followers and so may be reasonably dated to 240s or 250s, prompted by the arrival of Artemon in Rome.[4] The writer recounts how Victor excommunicated Theodotus, the ‘father’ of Artemon’s following. LLA accuses the Theodotians of using pagan sources, of corrupting scriptures, and of repudiating some OT books.

Three later sources are Against Heresies wrongly attributed to Tertullian, Panarion by Epiphanius (c.375), and Diversarum Heresean Liber by Philastrius (c.385). These three works are often considered to be mutually dependent on Hippolytus.[5] Pseudo-Tertullian describes how Theodotus was arrested for being a Christian and denied Christ; after this he began his “blasphemies”, i.e. his Christology. (Haer 7.2; cf. 10.19). Epiphanius expands the report (Pan 54.1.3-7) and also asserts that the Theodotians “fabricate spurious books for their own deception” (Pan 55.1.1-5).

Epiphanius also seems to have access to a work by Theodotus, which seems to be a series of proof-texts for his Christology. Epiphanius does not say where he got this work. D. A. Bertrand has noted the parallels between these fragments and a similar selection of texts used by Tertullian in De Carne Christ.[6] It is possible that Theodotus and Tertullian were dependent on some earlier work on the humanity of Christ. There does not seem to be any plausible reason for assuming that Epiphanius invented the work, though it is possible he knows this only from an earlier source (e.g. Syntagma).[7] I present the Greek text and English translation of these fragments in an appendix.

Finally, Philastrius, a 4c bishop, remembered now for his work on heresies, and used by Augustine, adds little to the other sources (50.1-3).

Biography

Theodotus is described by Hippolytus as being a native of Byzantium (Ref 7.23) but he was clearly active in Rome. LLA records that he was excommunicated under Victor, bishop of Rome (189-199; HE 5.28.4). He is not mentioned by Irenaeus, which may suggest he was not active in the mid-170s, though it is possible he was not considered heretical at this time. P. Carrington suggests that Theodotus may have been a refugee from Byzantium following the destruction of its fortifications by order of Emperor Severus (196),[8] but he may have come to Rome for other reasons at an earlier date. LLA describes him as a σκυτεύς (leather worker or shoe maker). P. Lampe characterizes these craftsman as freeborn men, working in stalls and unlikely to be rich.[9] Epiphanius describes Theodotus as “very learned” (Pan 54.1.3).

Hippolytus implies that Theodotus had followers, but only names one – Theodotus the banker – who, he says, introduced a new doctrine (Ref 7.24). The later sources give the same picture, though they describe the followers of this second Theodotus as a separate sect; Epiphanius styles them ‘Melchizedekians’ (Pan 55.1.1). LLA names an additional disciple of Theodotus as Asclepiodotus. He records an incident during the episcopacy of Zephyrinus when Asclepiodotus and Theodotus the banker persuaded Natalius to become bishop of the sect, who later relented and was readmitted into communion by Zephyrinus. The implication of this is that the followers of Theodotus had a church of their own that was not in communion with the ‘orthodox’ church. We do not know who separated from whom, though it is conceivable that Natalius was the first bishop of the ‘Theodotion’ church and that was the moment of separation.

Charges against Theodotus and his Followers

Various charges were made against Theodotus:

1. Apostasy

Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius and Philastrius all report that Theodotus denied Christ under pressure, something not mentioned in the earlier sources. Pseudo-Tertullian says that he was apprehended for being a Christian and apostatized (Adv. Haer. 8.2); Philastrius writes similarly (Div. 50.1). Epiphanius greatly expands the report, saying that Theodotus was arrested along with others by the governor of Byzantium during a persecution of Christians. Whilst others went to martyrdom, Theodotus denied Christ. Moved with shame at his denial he fled Byzantium and came to live in Rome. The Christians in Rome, recognizing him, charged him with losing his grip on the truth. In response he creates the excuse that he did not deny God but denied a man (Pan 54.1.4-7).

Whilst Pseudo-Tertullian dates his adoption of his Christology from after his apostasy, Epiphanius considers it to be the cause, but the story of Epiphanius is leaky – he cannot identify the persecution during which Theodotus is meant to have been arrested or any of the particulars of the story. It seems probable that Epiphanius has imaginatively created this story out of a single line from an earlier source. K. Holl suspects the story was spun out of fragment 2 (see Appendix), which is based on Matt 12:31-32 where Jesus seems to make a distinction between blasphemy against him and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.[10]

We can probably disregard most of the apostasy story. Given it is mentioned in three sources, it is possible that Theodotus did deny Christ following his arrest by some authority. However, since it is not mentioned in Refutation or Little Labyrinth, despite it being perfect fodder for their polemics, we must consider this story to be suspicious.

2. Excommunication

LLA states that Victor excommunicated Theodotus “when he became the first to declare that Christ was merely human”. He is responding to the claims of the followers of Artemon that their Christology was taught by the church until the times of Victor. His argument is that Victor cannot have agreed with the views of Theodotus since he excommunicated him.

Whilst our other sources do not mention the excommunication of Theodotus, there is no good reason for doubting that it occurred. The establishment of a separate church by his followers implies a break from communion with the rest of the church at Rome. The excommunication of Theodotus would explain the need for a separate church. Our other sources regard Theodotus as a heretic which, whilst not necessarily entailing formal excommunication, would certainly imply it.

The other recorded instance of excommunication enacted by Victor relates to the quartodecimanism controversy. Eusebius records that following conferences on the issue, a rule was proposed by leading bishops that Easter should always be celebrated on Sunday regardless of the date of Passover (HE 5.23). The Asian bishops responded with a letter from Polycrates to Victor stating their intention to continue with the tradition that they had received. Victor reacts by attempting to excommunicate all the Asian dioceses on the ground of heterodoxy. Several others, including Irenaeus, intervened on behalf of the Asian churches arguing that the churches should not be divided over this issue. Eusebius does not record the outcome of this intervention (HE 5.24). The order of events is, perhaps, illustrative. Whilst the Asian churches had a different tradition, no action was taken until a rule was adopted and, significantly, until the Asian bishops made open declaration of their intention to excuse themselves from this ruling. It would appear that it was this open variance that prompted Victor’s action. As Irenaeus, a determined combatant of heresy, notes, the date of Easter had never previously been a prerequisite for communion.

It is possible that Victor, and the Roman church, simply regarded the views of Theodotus to be beyond the pale. The quartodecimanism controversy prompts an alternative explanation, that Theodotus was excommunicated not so much for his views but for his open disagreement with Victor and/or the Roman church.

3. Scriptures

LLA claims that some of the followers of Theodotus have “repudiated both Law and Prophets” (HE 5.28.18) and Epiphanius claims that “they also fabricate spurious books for their own deception” (Pan 55.1.5). From the proof-texts dossier preserved by Epiphanius it seems likely that Theodotus accepted Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Matthew, Luke, John,[11] Acts and 1 Timothy. The ‘new doctrine’ of Theodotus the Banker regarding Melchizedek seems based upon Hebrews (cf. Ps-Ter, Adv. Haer. 8.3), which presumably was also accepted. This sampling from OT and NT is almost certainly not exhaustive, and we may assume Theodotus accepts other books generally received by the wider church at this time, but this would be at odds with the claims of LLA and Epiphanius.

The claim of LLA may be correct as it is only applied to some followers rather than Theodotus himself. On the other hand, it may just be LLA’s spin, equating their doctrines with a rejection of the scriptures (that is, the doctrine he believed was contained within them). The claim is unsubstantiated by reference to any group titles; Epiphanius is unsure whether the “Theodotians” still exist, so his testimony on this point is dubious. Given the repeated associations with the Ebionites, Cerinthus and the Gnostics, it is possible that Epiphanius simply assumes that the “Theodotians” also created rival scriptures like these other heretics. The fact is that there are no known pseudepigrapha ascribed to Theodotus or his followers. Finally, neither claim is repeated by Hippolytus, which makes both unlikely.

4. Arts of Unbelievers

LLA accuses the followers of Theodotus of “putting aside the sacred word of God” in favour of Euclidean geometry, Aristotle and Theophrastus; he claims “to some of them Galen is almost an object of worship”. Galen, who wrote on philosophy and medicine, was physician to Commodus and consequently lived in Rome from the reign of Marcus Aurelius till his own death (c.199). He knew about Christians and compared their continence and contempt for death with that of philosophers.[12] It is likely that he was acquainted with Christians[13] and is not inconceivable that there was some contact between Galen and the followers of Theodotus.[14] Galen set store by the propositional geometry of Euclid, and praised the work on logic by Aristotle and Theophrastus.[15]Galen is also known for his use of textual criticism on the Hippocratic writings, perhaps something the followers of Theodotus were attempting to emulate.

Reading beyond the rhetoric, it seems likely that the followers of Theodotus made reference to pagan writers in their works. LLA writes “when people avail themselves of the arts of unbelievers to lend colour to their heretical views, and with godless rascality corrupt the simple faith of Holy Writ, it is obvious that they are nowhere near the Faith”. This would indicate that what LLA is complaining about is the use of geometry, logic and, perhaps, the citation of pagan sources in the writings of the followers of Theodotus. When he says Galen was “almost an object of worship”, he presumably means that they cite him often. Contact between Galen and the followers of Theodotus would also explain their use of Euclid, Aristotle and Theophrastus.

“When the Theodotians set out to explain the Christian faith in the terminology of post-Aristotelian Hellenistic logic … they are attempting to apply precisely Galen’s program of logic to their theology”.[16]

Without sight of their texts, we cannot know to what purpose the followers of Theodotus put these pagan sources. However the selection of pagan authorities makes it probable that it was syllogistic logic that was being utilised, rather than citing texts on metaphysics to support their theology. This would contrast with the use of pagan sources made by apologists like Justin and Theophilus of Antioch. It is telling that LLA regards Justin as orthodox; was Justin “corrupting the simple faith” when he cited pagan sources or had not LLA read the Apologies?

5. Syllogistic Logic

LLA writes, “if anyone challenges them with a text from divine scripture, they examine it to see whether it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogistic figure”. Attempts have been made to read the fragments of Theodotus as syllogisms, though most to do not fit this form. For example, ‘The apostles said, “a male approved among you by signs and wonders”, and did not say, “a God approved”’ (fr.7; cf. Acts 2:22) is not a syllogism but presents a simple challenge: why do the scriptures refer to Christ as a man in passages where one might expect reference to him as God?

One fragment (fr.3) does read like a syllogism, which might be presented as follows:[17]

The coming prophet was to be like Moses (Deut 18:15)
Moses was a man
Therefore Christ was a man

Of course, the syllogism has a hidden assumption that Christ was the coming prophet, though this was probably not controversial amongst Christians by this time (cf. John 1:45).

A second fragment that might imply a syllogism is fr.2 (cf. Matt 12:31), which might be reconstructed as follows:[18]

Blasphemy against Jesus is pardonable
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not pardonable
Therefore Jesus is not divine

Again, there are hidden assumptions here such that the Holy Spirit is identified as God, or at least as having divine nature.

This attempt to conform these fragments to formal syllogisms may be too crude an approach. W. A. Löhr suggests that the ‘school’ of Theodotus may have used logic as a preliminary exercise before exegetical study, in a similar way to the philosophical schools of the second century.[19]

Whatever the case with these fragments, LLA implies that syllogistic logic was being used to interpret passages that implied Jesus was God, not the passages that state Jesus was a man as are the extant fragments. We can only speculate about how these syllogisms went. Perhaps they sought to demonstrate some contradiction between divine and human nature (e.g. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), Jesus was tempted, therefore Jesus was not God), or perhaps they pulled apart proof-texts for Christ’s divinity (e.g. “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), an image is different from the thing it represents, therefore Jesus is not God). LLA seems to think this use of logic to be inappropriate, believing that “simple faith” in Jesus as God is the clear reading from scripture.

6. Textual Criticism

LLA also writes that the followers of Theodotus claim to have corrected the scriptures, making emendations to the text. He says that they have produced numerous copies but that these texts do not agree with one another. He equates this process with the falsification of the text. LLA does not give us any examples of these emendations or of the inconsistencies between their various versions so we are unable to judge the degree of these changes.

In a series of commentaries on the works of Hippocrates, Galen manifests his critical method for discerning the ‘real’ Hippocrates from the large collection of materials ascribed to him. This method not only involved deciding which books were authentic and which were spurious, but also diagnosing interpolations in authentic books. The general procedure seems to have been to identify an authentic core of Hippocratic doctrine and judge other passages against that core. Whilst Galen does deal with a few textual issues, his approach is largely literary-critical.[20]

It is possible that Theodotus and/or his followers adopted their critical method from Galen. If this is the case then it might imply that they did not restrict themselves to trying correct faulty passages but sought to identify spurious books and interpolations.[21] Yet, from what we can deduce from their ‘canon’ (see above), it seems they accepted a good number of NT books as authentic. This is in contrast to Marcion who rejected a large number of NT books based upon his view of what the authentic doctrine was. It is also worth noting that according to LLA, the followers of Theodotus attempted to re-interpret proof-texts for the divinity of Christ, which implies that they did not simply dismiss texts that they found problematic as spurious.

Comparison of the fragments with the NT text does not reveal a large number of changes. Bertrand identifies only one intentional change in fragment 4, where “Holy Spirit” has been changed to “Spirit of the Lord”. The motivation, according to Bertrand, was to guard against a Trinitarian reading by emphasizing that the Spirit is a power of God rather than a discrete person.[22]However, “Holy Spirit” and “Spirit of the Lord” were effectively synonyms in Christian usage (cf. Luke 4:18), so this may only reflect a paraphrase rather than an emendation.[23] A second variant is the change from angel (ἀγγελος) to gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) but this may be due to copyist error; there certainly seems no plausible motivation for this change. R. M. Grant asserts that Theodotus also omitted the “therefore” from Luke 1:35, separating the overshadowing the Spirit from a prediction of being called the Son of God.[24] This seems to be a misreading of Epiphanius’ report, who seems to be setting up straw men to knock down. In this fragment, Theodotus is actually defending the received reading (ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ) against a potential variant (γενήσεται ἐν σοί). We have no evidence of a manuscript containing such a variant and it seems more likely that Theodotus is rejecting a certain Christology, nevertheless it testifies to his interest in establishing the correct text.

LLA claims that he has seen the copies made by the followers of Theodotus and compared them. Further he asserts that he has compared earlier copies with later ones and this demonstrates that they have undergone further manipulation. Grant proposes that this represents a genuine attempt by the followers of Theodotus to address the issue of textual variants amongst extant manuscripts.[25]Without being able to compare the copies for ourselves it is impossible to assess whether their methodology was sound and their conclusions valid.

Whatever the merits of their critical approach to this or that passage, Theodotus and his followers, in contrast to other heretics, seem concerned to establish the authentic texts rather than rejecting or replacing them. Unlike the Ebionites, they did not create their own gospel; unlike Marcion, they did not choose their own canon; presumably one of the things their critics found so frustrating was that they shared the same scriptural basis but had reached a different conclusion.

Theology

1. General Theology

Hippolytus credits Theodotus with partly keeping to the doctrine of the ‘true church’ because he acknowledges God as creator, unlike the Gnostics (Ref 7.23). From the testimony of Hippolytus we may also deduce that Theodotus accepts the virgin birth of Jesus, his baptism, his miracles and his resurrection from the dead. The suggestion that some of the followers of Theodotus might have thought that Jesus was ‘made God’ after the resurrection is perhaps best understood as a reference to the ascension and exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God, which presupposes they also accepted this doctrine. Pseudo-Tertullian, describing the ‘new doctrine’ of Theodotus the Banker, implies that they regarded Christ as the advocate of human beings (Adv. Haer. 7.3), which would also seem to imply the ascension of Jesus and his continued existence as advocate before the throne of God.

LLA might be taken to imply that Theodotus rejected the identification of Jesus with the Logos (cf. John 1:1f), when he attempts to rebut him by citing hymns to Christ as the Logos (HE 5.28.4; cf. Epiphanius).[26] However, since Theodotus accepts the Gospel of John, it may be he believed Jesus to be, in some sense, the Word made flesh whilst not considering this to be same as identifying Jesus as God. After all, commentators have read John 1:1-13 without concluding that the Logos was a personal being prior to becoming flesh in v. 14. Indeed, the use of the neuter pronoun in v. 5 might recommend an impersonal reading. Theodotus probably rejected LLA’s assumption that being the Logos is the same as being God.

2. Adoptionism

Theodotus has generally been categorised as an Adoptionist. By definition, Adoptionism implies that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption, perhaps in the same sense that the Israelite king was a son of God (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7)[27] or Paul described believers being sons of God (Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26). Since the work of A. Harnack it has commonly been asserted that this was earliest Christology, based upon texts like Acts 2:36; 13:33 and Rom 1:3-4. Whilst Harnack, and others, included within his definition of Adoptionism the indwelling of the Spirit,[28] this seems unhelpful as leaves us unable to distinguish Adoptionism from forms of Spirit-Christology.

The Ebionites, though often classified as Adoptionists, claimed that the Holy Spirit entered into Jesus at his baptism and that the heavenly voice declared “today I have begotten you”.[29]This may imply that they regarded the Holy Spirit as the Son, which entered into Jesus as his baptism. M. Goulder has distinguished the Ebionites from Adoptionists by labelling their Christology “Possessionist”,[30] i.e. Jesus was possessed by the Spirit (=Son) rather than adopted as Son. The concept of Jesus as a vessel for the Holy Spirit is also found in the Epistle of Barnabas(7:3) and in the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim 5.2.1-11; 5.6.5-7), where the Holy Spirit is identified as the Son of God.

A third Christology that entailed Jesus was fully human is that of Cerinthus and the similar views of the Gnostics. According to Cerinthus, Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph but Christ was a spirit-being that descended into Jesus at his baptism and remained with him until the crucifixion (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.26.1). This view differs from the Ebionites in that the Christ-spirit is clearly a distinct personal being whereas the concept of the Holy Spirit as used by the Ebionites is unclear.

Hippolytus claims Theodotus appropriated his views from the Gnostics, from Cerinthus and from the Ebionites (Ref 7.23). This is not a claim repeated by Pseudo-Tertullian or LLA. Like Irenaeus before him, Hippolytus is attempting to interconnect the various heresies and, noting the similarities in Christology, attempts to connect Theodotus with other heretics. It is important be aware of this fact when evaluating the testimony of Hippolytus as he may well be manipulating the views of Theodotus to make them appear closer to Cerinthus.[31]

What Hippolytus records is that Theodotus held that Jesus was a man born of a virgin by the will of God. This coheres with his use of Luke 1:35 in fragment 4. This immediately differentiates Theodotus from Cerinthus who denied the virgin birth.[32]

Next, Hippolytus ascribes to Theodotus the view that the Christ-spirit descended on Jesus as his baptism. It seems unlikely that Theodotus held such a view since in our other sources his view is described as being that Christ was merely human. Also in the extant fragments Theodotus writes “Christ is a man” (fr1) and “Christ whom God raised up was also a man” (fr3), which makes it unlikely that he viewed Christ as a separate spirit-being. However, it is conceivable that some of Hippolytus’ account is correct, and Theodotus claimed that Jesus was unable to perform miracles until he received the Holy Spirit at his baptism. It seems unlikely that Theodotus could have identified the Holy Spirit as the Son (cf. Hermas) since he places so much weight on the distinction between Christ and the Holy Spirit (fr2).

3. Spirit-Christology

Theodotus seems to explicitly reject (at least) one form of Spirit-Christology when he writes of Luke 1:35 “it did not say, ‘the Spirit of the Lord shall enter into you’” (fr4). Here, Theodotus is rejecting the view that the Spirit was incarnated in Mary. Epiphanius accuses Theodotus of stupidity since the orthodox view is that it was the Son, not the Spirit that was incarnated, so of course it does not say “the Holy Spirit shall enter into you” (Pan 54.3.9). However, Justin seems to hold the very view that Theodotus is rejecting because he identifies the spirit in Luke 1:35 with the Logos (1 Apol 33.6). It is possible that Justin understood Luke 1:35 as speaking of a holy spirit rather than identifying the Logos with the Holy Spirit; neither Justin nor Luke uses the definite article.[33] For Justin, the Logos both causes the incarnation and is himself incarnated. Theodotus objects to this, saying that were this the case, the gospel should speak of the Spirit entering into Mary. Grant proposes that the implication of this fragment is that the Spirit did not enter into Mary but did enter into Jesus at his baptism (cf. Mark 1:10).[34] In this Grant is influenced by the assumption that Theodotus was an Adoptionist (as defined by Harnack). In fact we do not know how Theodotus understood Mark 1:10, or even whether he considered this a text in need of emendation, based on a comparison with the other Synoptic gospels.

In a curious piece of analysis Hippolytus reports that some of the followers of Theodotus do not think that Jesus was “made God”, not even when the Spirit descended, whilst others think that Jesus was “made God” after the resurrection (Ref 7.23). The implication is that, in the view of Hippolytus, one might reasonably expect someone to believe that Jesus could have been “made God” by the descent of the Spirit. Here ‘God’ cannot be mean an uncreate and eternal being, but divine in some lesser sense. This being the case, we can propose how the descent of the Spirit might have made Jesus divine if, for example, he was possessed by a divine spirit. The fact that, according to Hippolytus, the followers of Theodotus did not follow such a train of thought is further indication that they were not Possessionists.[35]

Theodotus, whilst rejecting the incarnation, accepts the virgin birth and consequently believes that Jesus had no earthly father. Did he therefore conclude that Jesus was the Son of God by virtue of his birth? This seems entirely plausible but it is impossible to substantiate from the available evidence. If this were the case then Theodotus cannot correctly be categorized as an Adoptionist. The idea that Jesus was “made God” (cf. Hippolytus) following the resurrection presumably refers to his exaltation, which it is likely the followers of Theodotus believed.

We conclude that Theodotus may be categorised as a dynamic monarchian inasmuch as his Christology would have preserved the unity of God by denying the deity and pre-existence of Jesus.

Origins of Theodotus’ Thinking

When considering the significance of the Theodotians in the history of Christian doctrine the important question is: Was Theodotus an isolated aberration or a recipient of a more primitive tradition?

1. Ancient Views

Our sources propose a number of scenarios for the origin of Theodotus’ views. From the preceding analysis we can see these explanations are unlikely and are motivated by polemical concerns.

Hippolytus claims he appropriated his views from other heretics, such as the Gnostics (Ref 7.23). Theodotus was not a Gnostic but was close to the Hippolytian orthodoxy. His views on creation, the virgin birth, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and also his canon, seem to have been consistent with those of the Roman Church (and with later orthodoxy). His Christology, though sometimes categorised as Adoptionist, differed from Cerinthus in several important respects and would seem to rule out any influence from Gnostic sources.

Epiphanius claims he invented his views as an excuse for denying Christ during persecution (Pan 54.1.3-7). Whilst we cannot rule out the possibility that Theodotus apostatised at one point, the story of his creating a Christology to legitimize his apostasy is most likely an invention of Epiphanius.

LLA claims Theodotus was the first to declare that Christ was merely human, which is demonstrably not the case and indicates a blinkered view of Christian history. The Ebionites and Cerinthus also denied the deity of Jesus, though they approach the question from different positions. As we shall see, it is plausible that Theodotus was not alone in holding the Christology ascribed to him.

2. Apologetic Development

A number of scholars have attempted to explain Theodotus as a development away from orthodoxy in response to a certain theological milieu. For example, Carrington writes

“it was a serious attempt to form a Christian theology out of traditional materials, preserving the monarchian idea of the indivisibility of God, and dispensing with the idea of the incarnate deity”.[36]

Similarly M. Peppard argues that the pagan milieu recommended this Christology development;

“but we can say that the adoptive imagery of the Theodotians would have been especially resonant in urban areas of the second-century Roman Empire because of the established adoptive imperial ideology”.[37]

Walzer suggested that Theodotion Christology was an attempt to restate Christian doctrine in a way that might appeal to the pagans like Galen.[38] Justin acknowledged that giving “second place after the unchangeable and eternal God … to a crucified man” was a stumbling block for pagans (1 Apol 13.4). Similarly, many of the second century apologists are coy regarding the incarnation, for instance, Theophilus of Antioch does not even mention Christ in To Autolycus. One might suspect that denying the deity of Christ might be a useful apologetic strategy for Christians of this period.

I have questioned to what extent Theodotus and his followers made use of pagan sources. It is entirely plausible that Theodotus and/or his followers had a special interest in the works of Galen and even were personally acquainted with him. Nevertheless, it is appears that their interest was primarily in logic and textual criticism, neither of which necessarily imply heresy. Any use of pagan sources would need to be contrasted with that by ‘orthodox’ writers, like Justin. Yet it is not clear whether denying the deity of Christ would be a sufficient concession, even for a sympathetic pagan like Galen. Galen’s criticisms of Christianity were that they relied on faith rather than demonstration and that they believed God could create out of nothing. Denying the deity of Christ does not address either of these concerns. Nor does Theodotus seem to have been influenced by them; as far Hippolytus is concerned Theodotus’ account of creation was orthodox. Galen, whilst accepting a designing providence, was unwilling to make specific claims about whether providence was a god (PHP IX.9.2); in one place he identifies providence with Nature (PHP IX.8.27). Theodotus seems to have made no attempt to accommodate such agnosticism within his theology. Justin is aware that the virgin birth is also a potential embarrassment (1 Apol 21:1ff) but Theodotus affirms it. Theodotus believed in the ascension of Jesus and some of his followers equated this with the divinisation of Jesus; it is not clear that this would be any more acceptable to pagan audience than the deity of Christ.

3. Pre-existing Tradition

Theodotus was originally a member of the Roman church and his views differed from (what would become) orthodoxy only significantly with regards to his Christology. One might suppose that his views were a development away from a pre-existing orthodoxy. However, such a view implies that the Roman church of this period was uniform in affirming the deity of Christ. This is unlikely to have been the case. Justin refers to some “of our race” who denied the deity of Christ (Dial 48). Whilst he states that he does not agree with them, the fact that Justin describes them as being of the “race” of Christians, rather than in the unfriendly terms he uses against Marcion (for example), implies that he did not regard them as heretics. It is probable that the Christian community in Rome included such views as were held by Theodotus.[39] We do not know whether Theodotus came to his views whilst already in Rome, or whether there were those with similar views in Byzantium, but in either case there is little justification for regarding Theodotus as the “father” of this Christology.

According to LLA, the followers of Artemon claimed that

“the apostles themselves received and taught the things they say themselves, and that the true teaching was preserved till the times of Victor”.

We do not know on what basis they made this claim. It is possible that they regarded the apostles (as represented by the NT) as teaching the same as Theodotus and simply assumed there was continuous tradition in the intervening period. However, it is possible that they had access to sources no longer extant which would broaden our knowledge of Christology in the second century. As we have seen, it is possible that Theodotus was excommunicated for open dissension, rather than for any of his specific views.

Conclusion

Reading behind the polemics against Theodotus, we find a man who had beliefs similar to modern Socinian Unitarians. There is no evidence that he was influenced in his views by either pagan philosophy or by Gnosticism. Rather, his views seem similar to those ‘orthodox’ Christians, except regarding the deity of Christ, which he denied.

If, as Harnack believed and others have repeated, the earliest Christology was adoptionist or something like that, then we should not be surprised to see remnants of that Christology expressed in the second century even though many prominent Christians had moved away from that position. The Ebionites and Hermas, whom I have described as Possessionists, may be examples of this continuing tradition from the earliest Christology. However if, as is generally supposed, the Gospel of the Ebionites was a redaction of the Gospel of Matthew, then the Ebionites might be seen as one step removed from the more primitive Christology of the Synoptics. Theodotus seems to represent a different form of Christology, based on the NT as generally received, but maintaining that Jesus was a man but not God.

If this picture is correct then the excommunication of Theodotus by Victor represents a shift in the history of Christianity as the Roman church began to decry certain Christologies. Carrington writes,

“at the end of the episcopate of Victor, therefore, the theology of incarnation had won a resounding victory over the theology of adoption; and when Zephyrinus succeeded him, a ‘monarchian’ theology of this type became the official theology of the Roman church”.[40]

At this point the followers of Theodotus became heretics as defined against the official orthodoxy of the Roman church. This heresy did not quickly die, being revived by Artemon in the third century and Paul of Samosata in the fourth, yet it was the position adopted by the Roman church that was to prevail.

Appendix: Fragments

The Greek text for the fragments is taken from K. Holl, Epiphanius II: Panarion haer. 34-64. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1980. The Greek text for the NT texts is taken from United Bible Societies fourth revised edition.

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.1.9

He asserted that ‘Christ said “But now you seek to kill me a man, one who has told you the truth”. You see’, he asserted, ‘that Christ is a man’.

Cf. John 8:40

[gk]νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτε με ἀποκτεῖναι ἄνθρωπον, ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.2.3

αὐτοῦ, φησί, τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰπόντος· πᾶσα βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἄνθρώποις, καὶ ὁ λέγων λόγον εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· τῷ δὲ βλασφημοῦντι εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ.

He asserted ‘Christ himself said, “All blasphemies shall be forgiven men”, and “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but he who blasphemes the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven”’.

Cf. Matt 12:31

πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἄνθρώποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. καὶ ὅς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τὸῦ υἱὸῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· ὅς δ᾿ ἄν εἴπῃ κατὰ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.3.1

καί ὁ νόμος περὶ αὐτοῦ ἔφη· προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ἐγερεῖ̣̔υμῖν κύριος ὡς ἐμέ· αὐτοῦ ἀκούσατε. Μωυσῆς δὲ ἀνθρωπος ἦν· ὁ οὖν ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγειρόμενος Χριστὸς οὗτος, φησίν, ἦν, ἀλλά ἀνθρωπος, ἐπειδή ἐξ αὐτῶν ἠν, |ὡς καί ὁ Μωυσῆς ἄνθρωπος ἦν.

‘The Law also said of him, “The Lord will raise up to you a prophet of your brothers who is like me; listen to him”. But Moses was a man. Therefore the Christ whom God raised up’, he asserts, ‘was also a man, for he was descended from them. As Moses, he was also a man’.

Cf. Deut 18:15 [LXX]

προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου, ὡς ἐμέ, ἀναστήσει σοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου· αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.3.5

καί αὐτὸ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἔφη τῇ Μαρίᾳ· πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καί οὐκ εἶπε· πνεῦμα κυρίου γενήσεται ἐν σοί.

‘The Gospel itself said to Mary, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon you”, and it did not say, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come to be in you”’.

Cf. Luke 1:35

καί ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἀγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ, πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.4.1

ὅτι καί ὁ Ἱερεμίας περί αὐτοῦ ἔφη ὅτι ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν, καὶ τίς γνώσεται αὐτόν

‘Jeremiah also said about him, “He is a man, and who will know him?”’

Cf. Jer 17:9 [LXX]

ἄνθρωπός ἐστι, καὶ τίς γνώσεται αὐτόν

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.5.1

καὶ Ἠσαΐας περὶ αὐτοῦ ἔφη ὅτι ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν, οὕως εἰπών· ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἰδὼς φέρειν μαλακίαν·καὶ εἴδομεν αὐτὸν ἐν πληγῇ καὶ ἐν κακώσει καὶ ἠτιμάσθη καὶ οὐκ ἐλογίσθη.

‘Isaiah also said about him he is a man, because he said, “A man acquainted with bearing infirmity; and we knew him afflicted and abused and despised and not esteemed”’.

Cf. Isa 53;3 [LXX]

ἄνθρωπος ἐν πληγῇ ὢν, καὶ εἰδὼς φέρειν μαλακίαν, ὅτι ἀπέστραπται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, ἠτιμάσθη, καὶ οὐκ ἐλογίσθη.

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.5.9

εἶπαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον εἰς ὑμᾶς σημείοις καὶ τέρασι, καὶ οὐκ εἶπαν· θεόν ἀποδεδειγμένον.

‘The apostles said, “a male approved among you by signs and wonders”, and did not said, “a God approved”’.

Cf. Acts 2:22

ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι καὶ σημείοις

Epiphanius, Panarion 54.6.1

ἔφη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀπόστολος ὅτι μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς

‘The apostle said about him, “the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”’.

Cf. 1 Tim 2:5

μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς

[1] [Ed AP]: Given the role of Pope Victor in this story, this appears to be a pun.
[2] Later, he describes a second Theodotus, commonly dubbed ‘the banker’, as introducing a new doctrine of Melchizedek as the greatest power (Ref 7.24).
[3] J. T. Fitzgerald, “Eusebius and The Little Labyrinth” in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson (eds. A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris& J. W. Thompson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 126-136.
[4] Fitzgerald, “The Little Labyrinth”, 136-144.
[5] W. A. Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter und Theodotus der Bankier – ein Beitrag zur römischen Theologiegeschichte des zweiten und dritten Jahrhunderts”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 87:1/2 (1996): 101 n1.
[6] D. A. Bertrand, “L’argumentation scripturaire de Théodote le Corroyeur”, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1 (1987) : 161-3; cf. Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 110.
[7] Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 112.
[8] P. Carrington, The Early Christian Church (2 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 2:415.
[9] P. Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus (London: Continuum, 2006), 344.
[10] Cited in Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 110.
[11] Epiphanius claims that Theodotus arose as an offshoot of a previous sect that denied the Gospel of John (Pan 54.1.1). He equates the denial of the Gospel of John with denial of “the divine Word who it declared was in the beginning”. Epiphanius takes the prologue of the Gospel to be a proof-text for the divinity of Christ and so equates the denial of the divinity of Christ with the denial of the Gospel. This need not imply that the Gospel was rejected.
[12] Arabic fragments cited R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), 15.
^[13] R. M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 60.
[14] Lampe, Christians at Rome, 347; cf. Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 103 n6.
[15] Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 67.
[16] Lampe, Christians at Rome, 347-8.
[17] Cf. Bertrand, “L’argumentation de Théodote le Corroyeur”, 157-8; Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 71.
[18] Cf. Bertrand, “L’argumentation de Théodote le Corroyeur”, 156.
[19] Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 103 n6.
[20] Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 61-67, 69.
[21] Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 104 n8.
[22] Bertrand, “L’argumentation de Théodote le Corroyeur”, 158.
[23] [Ed AP]: Thinkers could certainly take such a view, but whether they are synonyms is worth further study.
[24] Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 72.
[25] Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 69.
[26] Cf. Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 105.
[27] J. C. O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 16, has objected that Israel had no law of adoption. [Ed AP]: Nevertheless, whether ‘adoptionism’ is the right concept, the enthronement ceremony involved a declaration of sonship (Isa 9:6).
[28] A. Harnack, History of Dogma (2 vols; London: Williams & Norgate, 1894) 1:190.
[29] Fr.1 = Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 30.13; J. K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 15.
[30] M. Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (London: SCM Press, 1994), 107-134; cf. M. Goulder, “The Pre-Marcan Gospel”, Scottish Journal of Theology 47:4 (1994): 453-471 (456-7); M. Goulder, “A Poor Man’s Christology”, New Testament Studies 45:3 (1999): 332-348.
[31] Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 107.
[32] Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 106.
[33] D. Minns & P. Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 173 n6.
[34] Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 72.
[35] Cf. Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter”, 115-6.
[36] Carrington, Early Christian Church, 2:416
[37] M. Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 147.
[38] Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians, 75-86.
[39] Carrington also cites Hermas as a precursor to Theodotus. However, as detailed above, I think Hermas holds a Spirit-Christology that Theodotus would have rejected (Carrington, Early Christian Church, 2:416)
[40] Carrington, Early Christian Church, 2:416-7