Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

potestas nostra jubet : our power orders
Theodotum protectorem Galilaeorum : that Theodotus protector of the Galileans
deorum vero hostem : truly (verily) enemy of the gods
Imperatorum mandatis non parentem (pareo, verb, to obey), who does not obey the orders (mandates) of the emperors
meque etiam contemnentem : and who is meprising me
gladii subire poenam : (our power orders that) he must suffer the death penalty by the sword
et decollati corpus igne comburi, : and that his beheaded corpse be burnt
ne illud nacti Christiani sepeliant.: so that the Christians could not find it and bury it.

nactus : past partciple of nanciscor, to find, to receive

What does it say a little further along about Jesus?

the Greek of "protectorem" is προστάτην, (accusative) which means "head person, leader" at a gathering or in an organization, not protector as we think in English. Theodotus, who is being tortured, was called the leader of the "Galileans" by the Roman Theotecnus.

After all the townspeople come to see Theodotus' execution, the martyr, Theodotus, prays his last prayer, beginning with the words "Lord Jesus Christ, maker of heaven and earth." After he finishes his prayer, and he sees the other Christians weeping, he tells them not to weep but to glorify Christ, who has made him (Theodotus) complete the race and vanquish his enemy.

What point was Ory trying to make with this reference?

This text does not call Jesus the ringleader of the Galileans. In it, the Roman official, Theotecnus, calls Theodotus the ringleader of the Galileans. And "ringleader" is a translation with a more negative twist than I think we can prove belongs to προστάτην. Wasn't Theodotus the bishop in Ancyra? If so, anyone, even a Christian, could legitimately call him a "prostates." I don't know whether the pagan who calls the Christians "Galileans" is using terminology that would have actually been used by a pagan during the lifetime of Theodotus.

What point was Ory trying to make with this reference?

He is trying to show that there was an early Jewish sect known generally as "Galileans" that eventually became conflated with Christians, but wasn't originally. Some early writers (including secular writers like Epictetus) knew of their existence, but not of Christians. In other words, Christians retroactively (and falsely) claimed the Galileans as precursors of their movement and made out the original disciples to all be Galileans.

This text — Theodotus being called the leader of the "Galileans" by the Romans — must be one piece of evidence he bases this on, although I get the feeling he slipped up and replaced Theodotus with Jesus in his citation.