1. Theodotus and His Teachings
Toward the end
of the pontificate of Eleutherus or at the beginning
of that of Victor (d. 190), Theodotus the tanner
went from Byzantium to Rome, and became the
founder
of
dynamistic Monarchianism. He had
probably come into contact with the
Alogi of Asia Minor, and was a man
of thorough education and highly es-
teemed. All that is certainly known
of him, however, is that he was excommunicated by Victor between 189 and 199 because of the Christology which he taught at
Rome.
The
Philosophumena
explicitly affirms Theodotus'
orthodoxy in theology and cosmology. In Christology he taught that Jesus was a man born of a
virgin through the operation of the Holy Ghost in
accordance with a special decree of God; but that
he received no specifically divine essence until, after
a ufe of perfect purity, the Holy Ghost
descended
on him at baptism, so that he became Christ and
received the power for his mission and the righteousness which rendered him preeminent above all
mankind. Nevertheless, even the descent of the
Spirit did not entitle Jesus to be considered God.
Some of Theodotus' followers asserted that Jesus
became God through his resurrection, but others
denied this. Theodotus and his school sought to
base their Christology on the Bible, and his citations, as preserved by Epiphanius through the
Syntagma of Hippolytus, show that the canon of
Scripture was now established and that the Gospel
of John was recognized. His exegesis is of interest
as representing the same sober system as that of
the Alogi. Epiphanius mentions the appeal of the
Theodotians to
Deut. xviii. 15;
Jer. xvii. 9;
Isa. liii. 2-3;
Matt. xii. 32;
Luke i. 35;
John viii. 40;
Acts ii. 22;
and
I Tim. ii. 5.
From
Matt. xii. 32,
they deduced that the Holy Ghost is superior to the
Son of Man; while from
Deut. xviii. 15
they argued that even the risen Christ was not God. In
Luke i. 35,
Theodotus stressed the phrase, " The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee," and, if Epiphanius
may be believed, misread
the remainder of the
verse, besides interpreting the "Word" of
John i. 14,
as "Spirit" (cf. II Clement, ix. 5).
The circle which gathered around Theodotus at
Rome seems to have been small, nor did he found
a separate sect there. His most im-
s. Succes- portant scholar, Theodotus the moneysors of changer, and a certain Aselepiodotus
Theodotus (both apparently Greeks), after being
and Their excommunicated by Pope Zephyrinus
Exegesis. (199-218), made a fruitless attempt to
found a church of their own in Rome,
and persuaded the
confessor Natalius of Rome,
who soon deserted them, to become their bishop
at a monthly salary of 150
denarii.
This abortive attempt in itself shows the wide cleft between the
Catholics and the Monarchians at Rome about 210;
while the author of the "Little Labyrinth" (pre
served in extracts by Eusebius,
Hist. eccl., v. 28) charges the leaders of the sect with shameless per
versions and falsifications of Scripture, in which
they were not even consistent with each other;
and also accuses them of rejecting the law and the
prophets altogether, and seeking support for their
allegations in the writings of Euclid, Aristotle, The.
ophrastus, and Galen. It is clear, from the very
statements of the author of the "Little Labyrinth,"
that the Monarchians, adopting the same methods
as were doubtless followed by the Alogi and the
older Tbeodotus, pursued their system of exegesis,
text-criticism, and the study of logic, mathematics,
and natural science entirely in the cause of their
theology; and he was also obliged to acknowledge
that they assailed neither the inspiration nor the
canon of the Scriptures. This implies, as con
trasted with orthodox Catholicism, the substitu
tion of the Empiricists for Plato and Zeno, gram
matical for allegorical exegesis, and a more original
for the traditional text. But the distinction, in the
theology of the time, was more than ane of method.
They remained, therefore, outside the Church,
though they considered themselves Catholics. Of
their works all traces have vanished, but their
researches confirmed them in their concept of Christ
as the man in whom the Spirit of God was peculiarly
operative, and made them opponents of the Logos
Christology.
It is not clear wherein the tenets of the younger
Theodotus differed from those of the older, though
it is evident from the PhiWophumena
that ",ere was a controversy among the
Monarehians whether
Christ could be called God after the resurrection.
On the other hand, they recognized
3. Melchi- the miraculous birth. Later writers,
sedicians, however, following Hippolytus' inter-
pretation of Theodotus the younger's
exegesis of Heb. v., vi. 20-vii. 3, 17, ascribed to
him the foundation of a sect of Melchisedicians.
Theodotus is said to have taught (Epiphanius,
Hist.
eccl., Iv.) that Melchizedek was "a very great
power" and more exalted than Christ, the relation
between the two being that of copy and original.
Melchizedek was considered the advocate of the
heavenly powers before God and as the high priest
of mankind. Jesus is a priest a degree lower and
born of Mary, while the origin of Melchizedek is
hidden because heavenly (cf.
Heb. vii. 3).
Epiphanius likewise adds that the sect offered their
oblations "in the name of Melchizedek," since he
was the " guide to God," " the king of righteousness," and "
the true Son of God." It would seem,
however, that Theodotus here played an exegetical
joke on his opponents, showing that by their arguments a preexistent Melchizedek could be deduced
from Heb.
v.-vii., a sarcasm the more biting since
the Catholics themselves were involved in controversy on the signification of Melchizedek. Nevertheless, the explanation can not be so simple, for
the statements of the Syrdagma and
Philmophu mena are obviously based on written sources and
stand in close proximity to assertions which are
clearly Theodotian, but which at the same time
show an exact parallelism with a concept long current in the Catholic community at Rome (cf. the
Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude V., especially vi.
3). As is clear from their exegesis of
I Cor. viii. 6,
where " Christ " was made to connote " Holy
Ghost " (the name of Jesus being here stricken
out), these Theodotians maintained that the.sole
divine essence besides
the Father was the Holy
Ghost, who was identical with the Son of God (thus
agreeing with Hermas). This Holy Ghost accordingly appeared to Abraham as the "King of righteousness." They further maintained that Jesus
was a man anointed with the power of the Holy
Ghost; and they were thus in accord with Catholic
teaching when they held that prayers and oblations
were due the true, eternal Son of God, the King of
righteousness that had appeared to Abraham, who
had blessed him and his descendants, i.e., the Christians. Furthermore, according to both Theodotus
and Hermas, Jesus, the chosen and anointed Son
of God by adoption, was inferior to and not to be
compared with the Holy Ghost as the true Son.
It must be borne in mind, however, that there was
a wide divergency between the Theodotians and
Hernias in that the former designed their speculations to discard the historic Jesus in favor of the
metaphysical. Views closely resembling those of
the
Theodotians are repeated by Origen in elevating
the eternal Son of God above the crucified; while
a like tendency is found with Hieracss and his
monks, as well as among the Origenistic monks in
Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries. It is evident, therefore, that these theologians retained the
old Roman Christology, though they revised its
theology and changed its purport.
