In the last post, Epiphanius introduced a “sect” that he called the Alogi and this ascription of the Gospel and Revelation of John to Cerinthus. However, their actual objections against the Gospel of John and Revelation seem to have nothing to do with Cerinthus. Here are Epiphanius’s summaries of their objections, which I have taken from the English translation of the Panarion (“Medicine Chest”) in Frank Williams’ The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Sects 47-80, De Fide (Vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1993):

• “And shortly thereafter he [John] says, ‘And after three days there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage supper, and his mother was there.’ But the other evangelists say that he spent forty days in the wilderness tempted by the devil, and then came back and chose his disciples” (51.4.9-10; Williams, The Panarion, 29)
• “‘But the Gospel [issued] in John’s name lies,’ they say. ‘After ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ and a few other things, it says at once that there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee.'” (51.18.1; Williams, The Panarion, 45)
• “For even though they say that the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke reported that the Savior was brought to the wilderness after his baptism, and that he spent forty days in temptation, and after the temptation heard of John’s imprisonment and went to live at Capernaum by the sea—but [then go on to say] that John is lying because he did not speak of this…” (51.21.15-16; Williams, The Panarion, 48)
• “Again, they also accuse the holy evangelist—or rather, they accuse the Gospel itself—because, they say, ‘John said that the Savior kept two Passovers over a two-year period, but the other evangelists describe one Passover.’ The boors do not even know that the Gospels not only acknowledge two Passovers as I have shown repeatedly, but that they speak of two earlier Passovers, and of that other Passover as well, on which the Savior suffered,—so that there are three Passovers, from the time of Christ’s baptism and first preaching, over three years, until the cross.” (51.22.1-2; Williams, The Panarion, 50-51)
• “For they derisively say against Revelation, ‘What good does John’s Revelation do me by telling me about seven angels and seven trumpets?'” (51.32.2; Williams, The Panarion, 65)
• “Then again, some of them seize on the following text in Revelation, and say in contradiction of it, ‘He said, in turn, ‘Write to the angel of the church in Thyatira,’ and there is no church of Christians in Thyatira. How could he write to a non-existent church?'” (51.33.1; Williams, The Panarion, 66)
• “Again, in their endless hunt for texts, to give the appearance of discrediting the holy apostle’s books—I mean John’s Gospel and Revelation and perhaps the Epistles as well, for they too agree with the Gospel and Revelation—these people get excited and quote, ‘I saw, and he said to the angel, Loose the four angels which are upon the Euphrates. And I heard the number of the host, ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, and they were clad in breastplates of fire and sulfur and hyacinth.’ For people like these thought that the truth might be < some sort of > joke.” (51.34.1-3; Williams, The Panarion, 67)

If you want to know how Epiphanius responded to each objection in detail, you can read his lengthy chapter that extends from page 26 to page 68 in Williams’ translation. The Alogi argued that there is no space for the narrative of Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness in the other three Gospels within John’s chronological framework and that the fourth evangelist disagrees with the other three in recording more than one Passover during the ministry of Jesus (see John 2:13; 6:4; 13:1). They may have also objected that Jesus went to Capernaum before John the Baptizer is arrested in the Gospel of John (see John 2:12; contra Matthew 4:12-13). Epiphanius attempts to not only refute their specific arguments against John’s chronology, but to show exactly how the chronologies of Jesus’s ministry in all four Gospels are in total alignment with each other and to provide the exact dates (in years, months, and days) for when certain events happened in Jesus’s lifetime. He supplements his harmonized retelling of the life of Jesus with extensive arguments about calendars and lists of consuls. The Alogi made fun of the images of angels sounding trumpets or wearing breastplates of fire in Revelation because they took them too literally, while Epiphanius tries to show the deeper meaning underlying these images. Their objection to the fact that John of Patmos addressed a congregation in Thyatira on the basis that there were no Christ followers there in the Alogi’s day is difficult to understand based on the limited citation, but it might have something to do with Epiphanius’s answer that, from some Christians’ perspective, a charismatic prophetic movement known as Montanism had persuaded the Christ followers in the city and thus the assembly of believers there became “heretics” (see 51.33.2-10).

What is important to point out is that Epiphanius’s Alogi and Dionysius bar Salibi’s “certain heretic” (Gaius?) criticize John’s Gospel for omitting the temptation narrative, but Epiphanius and Dionysius bar Salibi’s “Hippolytus” offer different solutions. According to Epiphanius, the baptism and the temptation of Jesus happened before Jesus visited the Jordan River a second time when the events of John 1:29-51 happened as John was speaking about his vision of the Spirit descending on Jesus at his baptism in the past tense (e.g., 51.13.9-10). Second, not only do Epiphanius and Dionysius bar Salibi agree that the Alogi and “Gaius” had a problem with the imagery in Revelation 9:14-19, their counterarguments are similar, albeit not identical, in appealing to the point that angels have been put in charge of nations (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:7-9) and the empires of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Persians (51.34.3-7). There may also be some general agreement that the Alogi and “Gaius” did not like how Revelation pictured angels and were not fans of millenarians (e.g., Dionysius bar Salibi’s “Gaius” critiques the idea of a future millennium and the Alogi seem to reject the Montanists). The question, then, is whether Epiphanius and Dionysius bar Salibi were dependent on Hippolytus as a common source or whether Dionysius bar Salibi was influenced by Epiphanius and other sources in the centuries between these two writers.

Ancient Christian heresiological literature is not always pleasant to read, but no ancient heresiological source is more unpleasant to read than Epiphanius’s Panarion. This text is described by Epiphanius as a “medicine chest” that has the antidotes against heresy and it polemicizes against 80 supposed sects (20 are pre-Christian and 60 are Christian) that are compared to various kinds of snakes or insects. For a sympathetic bibliography of Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis (ca. 367-403 CE), see Young Richard Kim’s Epiphanius of Cyprus: Imagining an Orthodox World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015). Another study that does a good job of contextualizing Epiphanius’s ministry in the context of late antiquity is Andrew S. Jacobs, Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity, CLA 2 (Oakland: The University of California Press, 2016). See some of the online reviews of these two books here, here, here, here, and here. I would concede that Epiphanius was an impressive exegete and linguist, preserved numerous sources from antiquity that would not be otherwise known, and must have had leadership and pastoral skills to have served as an abbot of a monastery and a bishop. Frank Williams, who has translated the Panarion into English in a few volumes and recognizes Epiphanius’s contributions, summarizes why many modern scholars are not fans of this heresiologist:

• “Of all the church fathers, Epiphanius is the most generally disliked. It would be easy to assemble, from the writings of patrologists and historians of religion, a bill of particulars against him. He is a heresy hunter, a name caller and “nasty.” His judgments are uncritical. His theology is shallow and his manner of holding it intransigent. Above all he vehemently opposed the teachings of the great commentator Origen, the first Christian systematic theologian and as a thinker far superior to Epiphanius.” (Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 vols., NHMS 35, 36, 63 [Leiden: Brill, 1987, 1994, 2009], 1.xxxi)

I would add that, in my publications on Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and the Nazoraeans, I have found that Epiphanius includes a wealth of new material on them that are not mentioned by other heresiologists, but his reconstructions of them are generally quite misleading. I think that the scholars whose research focus is on the other individuals or groups that Epiphanius names, or on the Second Temple Jewish groups or Greek philosophical schools that are also included in his Panarion, would reach the same conclusion. Thus, the question is what to make of his fifty-first chapter on the Alogi. In this post, I will reproduce three quotations in which Epiphanius introduces the Alogi (see Williams, The Panarion, 2.28):

• “Now these Alogi [alogoi] say—this is what I call them. They shall be so called from now on, and let us give them this name, beloved, Alogi [alogoi] … As they do not accept the Word [logos] which John preaches, they shall be called Dumb [alogoi].” (51.3.1, 2)

• “And if they accepted the Gospel but rejected the Revelation, I would say they might be doing it from scrupulousness, and refusing to accept an ‘apocryphon’ because of the deep and difficult sayings in the Revelation. But since they do not accept the books in which St. John actually proclaimed his Gospel, it must be plain to everyone that they and their kind are the ones of whom St. John said in his General Epistles, ‘It is the last hour and ye have heard that Antichrist cometh; even now, lo, there are many Antichrists.'” (51.3.4-5)

• “For they say that they are not John’s composition but Cerinthus’, and have no right to a place in the church. And it can be shown at once, from this very attack, that they ‘understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm.’ How can the words which are directed against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus? Cerinthus says that Christ is of recent origin and a mere man, while John has proclaimed that <he> is the eternal Word, and has come from on high and been made flesh. From the very outset, then, their worthless quibble is exposed as foolish, and unaware of its own refutation.” (51.3.6–4.2)

In the next post, I will look at the Alogi’s specific objections. Based on Epiphanius’s introduction to them, one would expect that they had a real problem with John’s Christology or compared specific texts in the Gospel of John or Revelation to Cerinthus’s distinct ideas or practices. This expectation would be disappointed. Instead, the Alogi seem to have been more irritated by John’s chronology than by John’s theology and by the seeming absurdity of Revelation’s prophecies or apocalyptic imagery.

Filaster of Brescia attempted to summarize 156 heresies in his Diversarum hereseon liber (“Book of Various Heresies”) that he wrote in the mid-380s CE. Since his summaries are fairly concise, I will quote his excerpt on those who reject the Gospel and Revelation of John. This translation of chapter 60 is from A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, NovTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 233:

“Other heretics after these were those who do not accept the Gospel according to John and his Apocalypse. And because they do not understand the power of the scriptures and do not wish to be taught they persist in their error and go under, so that they even dare to say that these writings are by Cerinthus, that heretic and that and that the Apocalypse is not by the blessed John the evangelist and apostle himself but by Cerinthus the heretic who in the past was rejected by the Church by the blessed apostles as being an obvious heretic.”

In this post, we will continue to examine the fragments from Dionysius bar Salibi’s commentaries that have had such a significant impact on the scholarly debate over whether there was early opposition to the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation and who might have been behind in. Again, you can find the relevant fragments at Roger Pearse’s website. The five Syriac fragments from Dionysius bar Salibi’s Commentary on the Apocalypse were first published in John Gwynn, “Hippolytus and His ‘Heads Against Caius,” Hermathena 6 (1888), 399-404, 411-16. The preface to the commentary, which was not available to Gwynn in the manuscript at the British Museum that he studied, was found in a manuscript discovered in Tur Abdin and was first published in English by Theodore H. Robinson, “The Authorship of the Muratorian Canon” The Expositor 7 (1906), 486-87. Finally, Luke J. Stevens has provided an English translation of the Latin translation of Dionysius bar Salibi’s entire commentary on Revelation at his academia.edu page. First, I will summarize Gaius’s objections that try to show that Revelation is incompatible with other writings in the Christian Scriptures, while you can click on the first two links above to see how Hippolytus harmonizes Revelation to other scriptural writings:

• Gaius objects that it is impossible for the Lord to return like a thief in the night according to 1 Thessalonians 5:2 if the sea had been turned to blood beforehand in Revelation 8:8.
• Gaius compares the end of the world to the flood, in which the heavenly bodies would not be taken away, and objects that what happens to the sun, moon, and stars in Revelation 8:12 is inconsistent with Paul’s warning that people would be proclaiming peace when destruction suddenly comes upon them in 1 Thessalonians 5:3.
• Gaius objects that the prediction about locusts harming the wicked in Revelation 9:2-3 with other scriptural passages in which the wicked prosper and the righteous are persecuted (cf. Psalm 73:12; 2 Timothy 2:12-13).
• Gaius objects that the prediction that angels would slay a third of humankind in Revelation 9:15 contradicts the oracle in Matthew 24:7 about the nations going to war against each other.
• Gaius objects that the future binding of Satan during the millennium in Revelation 20:2-3 is unnecessary since Satan has already been bound in Jesus’s ministry (e.g., Matthew 12:29).

Gwynn stressed that the fragments do not include any alternate traditions for the authorship of the Gospel and Revelation of John nor critiqued the more problematic views about the millennium that Gaius had attributed to Cerinthus according to a fourth-century Christian historian who quoted Gaius (see pp. 405-406, 409), but Gwynn did not know the preface to Dionysius bar Salibi’s commentary. The preface offers further information:

• There is a summary of earlier traditions about the authorship and date of the book of Revelation that are paralleled in Patristic sources that I will discuss in later posts in this series.
• Gaius ascribed the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation to Cerinthus.
• Hippolytus stressed that Cerinthus’s teachings differ completely from John’s in that he “taught circumcision” (e.g., he was angry at the Apostle Paul for not circumcising the non-Jewish Christ follower Titus and was rebuked by Paul as one of the “sham apostles, crafty workers”) and also taught that “the world was created by angels, and that our Lord was not born of a virgin… and carnal eating and drinking, and many other blasphemies.”

The Medieval Syriac sources portray Hippolytus as opposing Gaius for attributing the Gospel of John and Revelation to Cerinthus. Gaius also forward a number of criticisms of the content of Revelation (and the content of John’s Gospel if Gaius was behind the objection about the omission of the temptation narrative between the baptism of Jesus and the wedding at Cana) that Hippolytus rebutted.

Update:  there may be further Syriac evidence in Sebastian Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Evidence) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995), 17-19, 92-96, 196-98. I do not have access to this book right now, so I am reliant on T. C. Schmidt’s quotations from it in The Book of Revelation and Its Eastern Commentators: Making the New Testament in the Early Christian World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, 106, 127. According to this sixth-century manuscript (MS Sinai Sp. 23a–b), Gaius objects that Revelation is “contrary to the Gospel” and “is not clear” and Hippolytus responds, “I imagine that the Jews, who think in a fleshly way, feebly understand Scripture in the same way as you understand it, O clever man” and “So, Gaius, learn that Revelation did not speak of something that has not been recorded [in Scripture] thinking in a Jewish way as you do.” Disputing the imagery in Revelation 12:1-6, Hippolytus argues that “When it spoke of the woman it spoke of a type of the Church, which is [going to] be persecuted by the Antichrist in the affliction that is to take place, and she will flee as the saints are scattered.” For Schmidt (165n.37), this is evidence that there already was a Syria translation of Hippolytus’s apology in the sixth century CE. T. Scott Manor (Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Johannine Controversy [SVC 135; Leiden: Brill, 2016], 102n.71) objects that, despite the general similarity that Gaius negatively contrasts Revelation with other Scriptures (i.e. Psalms and Matthew), there are no overlap between the objections recorded in this manuscript and in Dionysius bar Salibi’s commentary, that Gaius is treated in it as a Jewish critic rather than a Roman anti-Montanist, and that it is possible that this manuscript was part of a florilegium pseudonymously ascribed to Hippolytus and was one of Dionysius bar Salibi’s sources.

Roger Pearse has helpfully compiled the translations of the Syriac fragments from the commentaries by Dionysius bar Salibi that were brought to the attention of the wider scholarly community in publications between 1888 and 1908. Although these commentaries date to the twelfth century CE, they had a dramatic impact on how scholars assessed what had been written about the Alogi many centuries earlier. Here is Pearse’s rough English translation of a Latin translation of a fragment from Dionysius bar Salibi’s Commentary on the Four Gospels:

“Gaius the heretic used to criticise John because he was not in agreement with his fellow narrators 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, [uncertain in ms. — says to this?], 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!”

In the Gospel of John, John the Baptizer proclaims Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” and testifies to seeing the Spirit descend on him like a dove at the Jordan River. Jesus gathers a few disciples (i.e. an anonymous disciple, Andrew, Simon Peter) after John the Baptizer again points to him as the Lamb of God on the next day, encounters Philip and Nathanael in Galilee on the next day after that, and attends a wedding in Cana on the third day after John the Baptizer testified about him (see John 1:29-2:11). The problem is that, according to the other three Gospels, Jesus is tempted in the wilderness by the devil for forty days after his baptism (Matt 4:1–2; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1–2). The solution attributed to “Hippolytus” was simply to insert the temptation between the “day” that Jesus was baptized and the “day” when John the Baptizer had to point Jesus out to the individuals who would become Jesus’s disciples, for they had been looking for him and could not find him because Jesus had withdrawn to the wilderness.

Note that the one who uncovered this problem is “Gaius the heretic.” However, in addition to reproducing this Latin fragment from Dudley Loftus’s Latin translation of this commentary that had been preserved in the Bodleian Library and was taken to the Library of Trinity College in Dublin, J. Rendel Harris had tracked down two other manuscripts of this commentary at the British Museum. One of them only had the words “a certain heretic” and, in the other, the name Gaius was interpolated into the margin by a later scribe. See J. Rendel Harris, “Presbyter Gaius and the Fourth Gospel” in Hermas in Arcadia and Other Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 48. On the other hand, T. C. Schmidt (The Book of Revelation and Its Eastern Commentators: Making the New Testament in the Early Christian World [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021], 48n.48) notes “But I have observed from photographs of the earliest manuscript, MS Paris syr. 67 f. 270r left col., line 17 (1174 ce), that it does contain the name Gaius.”

In T. Scott Manor’s Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Johannine Controversy: A Reassessment of Early Ecclesial Opposition to the Johannine Corpus (Leiden: Brill, 2016), there is a translation of a section from Ebed Jesu’s catalogue that is relevant to the debate over whether there were early Christian critics of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John. At Roger Pearse’s website, there is an older translation from a book that is freely available in the public domain of the entire author catalogue by Ebed Jesu who died in the early fourteenth century CE. Here is Manor’s translation of the relevant section (p. 33):

“Blessed Hippolytus, bishop and martyr wrote a book concerning the interpretation of Little (or ‘Young’) Daniel and Susannah, and Heads (or ‘Chapters‘) against Gaius, and an Apology for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John, Apostle and Evangelist”

The last title (or titles) that is attributed to the bishop Hippolytus is the most interesting. According to Ebed Jesu, Hippolytus wrote against someone named Gaius and defended the Apocalypse and Gospel of John in some way. It is possible that this is the same work (i.e. Heads against Gaius and an Apology for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John, Apostle and Evangelist) or that the “and” separates two different works. If it is the same work, then “Hippolytus” was defending these Johannine writings against Gaius’s criticisms of them, but if they are separate works then it is unclear if they were dealing with the same issues or how much their content may have overlapped. Of course, this is to take the catalogue at face value as referring to actual then-extant texts from Hippolytus.

The last title may also be attested on the statue of Hippolytus that has a list of titles inscribed on it. One of the Greek inscriptions can be translated “concerning/on behalf of the Gospel according to John and Apocalypse” and there is a short word before it that is no longer legible. This has been commonly identified with the work catalogued by Ebed Jesu, but the first scholar to contest this conclusion was Allen Brent in Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century. Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 172. For further information about the titles on this statue, see T. C. Schmidt’s “Canon, Hippolytus” in The Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (ed. David G. Hunter, Paul J.J. van Geest, and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, 2022).

In the late fourth century CE, Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis, described a Christian group that rejected the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. He called them the Alogi because they did not accept John’s Gospel, which is the story about how the logos (“word”) became incarnate in the flesh in the person of Jesus, and he considered them to be quite “illogical” to do so. In this series, I will explore the ancient Patristic and Medieval Syriac sources that might shed light on what may have been Epiphanius’s sources for his reconstruction of the Alogi. There will be posts on Ebed-Jesu, Dionysius bar Salibi, Filaster of Brescia, Epiphanius of Salamis, Eusebius of Caesarea, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Gaius of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Polycarp of Smyrna. The series will conclude with my own tentative reconstruction of the controversial reception of the Gospel of John or Revelation in certain quarters.

I had briefly reviewed the reception of the Gospel of John in my first book The Gospel on the Margins: The Reception of Mark in the Second Century. I was comparing Walter Bauer’s argument that the Gospel of John was originally marginalized by the “orthodox” church until it was positively rehabilitated by Christian ecclesiastical leaders such as Irenaeus in their fight against “heresy” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity with Charles E. Hill’s counterargument that the Gospel of John had an early and widespread positive reception among “orthodox” Christians in The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, since this debate about the reception of John’s Gospel seemed to me to be a potential analogy for the possible early marginalization of the Gospel of Mark. However, looking back I do not think I had a good grasp of Hill’s arguments against the thesis that an early third century Christian scholar named Gaius of Rome was the leading critic of the Gospel of John. I had a better handle of how scholars have interpreted the Patristic and Medieval data on Gaius of Rome and the Alogi in the fourth chapter of my second book The Beloved Apostle: The Transformation of the Apostle John into the Fourth Evangelist, but I continued to learn more in subsequent articles about the traditions on Cerinthus here and here (also briefly here). I have been invited to write a chapter that will be tentatively titled “Epiphanius and John” for a forthcoming work that is still years away, but will hopefully summarize my most recent conclusions. In this series, I will go through the various texts that are relevant to the topic, starting with the latest evidence in the thirteenth century CE and working backwards until we get to the evidence from the second century CE. Here is a preliminary bibliography if you want to research this further:

• Bludau, August. Die Ersten Gegner der Johannesschriften. Freiburg: Herder & Co, 1925.
• Brent, Allen. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century. Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. 
• Culpepper, R. Alan. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994.
• Furlong, Dean. The Identity of John the Evangelist: Revision and Reinterpretation in Early Christian Sources. New York: Lexington Books, 2020.
• Heine, Ronald E. “The Role of the Gospel of John in the Montanist controversy.” Second Century 6 (1987): 1–18.
• Hill, Charles E. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: OUP, 2004.
• Kok, Michael J. The Beloved Apostle? The Transformation of the Apostle John into the Fourth Evangelist. Eugene: Cascade, 2017.
• Manor, T. Scott. Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Johannine Controversy: A Reassessment of Early Ecclesial Opposition to the Johannine Corpus. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
• Schmidt, T. C. The Book of Revelation and Its Eastern Commentators: Making the New Testament in the Early Christian World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
• Schwartz, Eduard. Gesammelte Schriften: Band 5: Zum Neuen Testament und zum Frühen Christentum. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963.
• Smith, Joseph Daniel. “Gaius and the Controversy over the Johannine Literature.” PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1979.
• Trevett, Christine. Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophesy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Watson, Francis. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
• See also the bibliography I compiled at the end of my online article on Cerinthus.