Who Wrote Epiphanius's Against the Alogoi?

[Secret Alias]

It is well known that the Epiphanius's Panarion is likely filled with a great deal of recycled material. His account of the Carpocratians borrows heavily from Hegesippus and perhaps Irenaeus (unless Irenaeus's account was largely based on Hegesippus). His account of the Marcosians derives ultimately from Irenaeus. I have proposed that his alleged outline of textual variants for the Bible of Marcion derives entirely from material culled from pre-existent anti-Marcionite treatises including Irenaeus. What about the section that deals with the Alogoi, the sectarian group that allegedly rejected the Gospel and Revelation of John?

What's unusual about the attack at first glance is that the original Johannine controversy seems to have been limited to Revelation. It was said to have been written by Cerinthus in an attack that went as far back as Gaius and Dionysius of Alexandria. What's odd when you look at the account of the Alogoi is that most of the treatise has nothing to do with Revelation. At the outset given the attacks of Gaius http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/diony ... ion_01.htm one would have expected an account which principally deals with the problems of Johannine authorship of Revelations. Instead when we start to look at this section of the Panarion it looks less like anything Gaius or his circle would have written and instead a treatise in favor of the idea that all the individual gospels 'fit together' into a gospel harmony.

What I am proposing then is that the section on the Alogoi was likely an original treatise by Irenaeus which may have been recycled by Hippolytus in the manner of the Refutations or the Philosophumena. To me at least, it bears a striking resemblance to both (a) the section in Adversus Haereses 2 where Irenaeus argues for an almost 50 year old Jesus against the 'year of favor' argument of the heresies and more important (b) the long section in Book Three where the four gospels are first introduced to the world. Moreover there are repeated references to the Valentinian interest in 30 aeons which seem wholly out of place in a late fourth century author long after Valentinianism had died out.

But there is also that article that Ben brought to the forum which noticed anomalies in the chronology that is listed. Another argument seems to me (at least at first glance) that the author claims to know the exact year that Jesus was born from a Roman census. I could be wrong. I just looked at this last night. But this theme of the exact dates for Jesus's birth is one that resurfaces in a number of texts related to Irenaeus - i.e. Justin Martyr and Tertullian. It would also date the treatise to the late second century after the burning of the Library of Peace which housed a massive library of documents related to the Roman conquest of Judea in 70 CE including presumably records from the census. We must imagine that the Acts of Pilate and the Census might have been claimed to have been documents which were originally (but not sadly no longer) a part of the library when it was standing. This would date the argument to the reign of Commodus or Septimius Severus.

I am also open to the idea that the treatise might have originally been written by Hippolytus or reworked by Hippolytus from an original treatise penned by Irenaeus. The reason I say that is that Hippolytus's name was originally associated with the calculation of Easter, the date of Jesus's birth day set to December 25th as well as the original justification for placing the text into the Alogoi section in the first place - his opposition to Gaius. Whatever the case the description of active pagan sanctuaries in Alexandria for instance seems to hearken from a much earlier period too.

What I find equally striking about the treatise when you just read the long section that deals with the gospel is that we discover what is clearly something akin to the 'Rosetta Stone' for the creation of the Catholic canon. For it answers the question which is never tackled directly in any other Patristic source - how do the four gospels all 'fit' together? Indeed the amount of time spent on John pales in comparison to the 'set up' if you will which deals with how the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke set up, why doesn't Mark have a birth narrative, why did God 'stagger' the creation of four gospels and much more.

It is interesting that Epiphanius would have included this long treatise in the Alogoi section when it has very little to do with traditional arguments associated with Cerinthus's authorship of Revelations as noted earlier. Instead he includes in this tome that he sent to those two Syrian monks who probably used a gospel harmony a text explaining essentially why the gospel was written in four. Indeed when I examined all the references to the synoptic gospel authors in the rest of the Panarion it is surprising how little of the information can be demonstrated to have come outset of dictation from primary sources.

For instance the basic 'heretical universe' as it was is still defined by Irenaeus's original Adversus Haereses. The sections on the Ebionites mentions that they use a Hebrew gospel of Matthew. That comes from Irenaeus rather than any actual firsthand knowledge of Epiphanius. Epiphanius claims to have in his possession the Marcion Bible which contains a corrupt gospel of Luke but this is likely a lie. Rather it is Irenaeus defining the Marcionite canon and Epiphanius going along with it. While periodic references do come up for the four canonical gospels it is Irenaeus's (strange) claim that God established a quaternion to combat the four heresies that would later emerge and corrupt one of the four principal gospels that still guides the world outlook of the book.

This is also what makes the material behind the section on the Alogoi so interesting too. It is generally presumed that a harmony which did not contain Johannine material existed in Rome and was associated with Justin Martyr. This has been noted to me many times by Andrew Criddle. In other words, Justin's harmony gospel was different than Tatian's harmony gospel. But it seems to me to be equally true that there weren't just two harmony gospels either. There appears to have been another associated with Ammonius Sacca, the Marcionite gospel and presumably yet another associated with Apelles, the Gospel of the Hebrews just to name a few. Let's grant that there may have been overlap among these. But the point still remains that when Epiphanius does cite from one of the 'Jewish Christian' gospels (I forget which now) it doesn't resemble any known gospel at least in its introduction. It was distinct and it definitely didn't have the Johannine introduction.

If we imagine a universe where so many 'super gospels' existed side by side all with slightly different details about what happened to Jesus when and where it would be very difficult to come to a 'universal' Church. The people in the far reaches of the Empire would still have gospels with different details and would be drawing 'strange' conclusions based on these differences.

So what was the solution?

Let's go back to Irenaeus. He lived in Rome or had great influence in Rome, spent time in Rome whatever you want to call it. He tells us that in Rome there were all these 'gnostics' (Hegesippus tells us the same thing) who had all these crazy secret ideas developed from Pythagoreanism. You might be able to convince these neo-Platonic/neo-Pythagoreans that 'a long, long time ago' the apostles actually wrote four primal building block gospels which mostly disappeared which became the building blocks for all the 'harmonies' that were scattered around the Empire. On the one hand it does slightly diminish the value of the particular gospels in the possessions of the original churches from which the liturgy was developed but on the other hand it appeals to the 'all powerful' Tetrad which was at the heart of many of their belief systems.

What I mean is that in ancient 'science' it was understood that all living things in the universe were basically made of four elements - fire, water, air, and earth. There were four elements responsible for all this diversity. Similarly all numbers came from the Tetrad. The Pythagoreans believed 'one' was primal, 'two' represented 'opposite,' 'three' represented diversity and 'odd' numbers and 'four' was the number of 'generation' and even numbers. It was out of the four, the Tetrad that all the other numbers derived their origin. Similarly music came from the Tetrad with interestingly tone, octave, diapente and diatessaron as the fourth.

What I've been thinking about while reading the Alogoi treatise is that it reads like an appeal for harmony in the Church. Yet this unity is done through arguing that behind the individual 'gospels' scattered across the Empire that all disagreed with one another were four primal gospels which offered a 'solution' to various 'problems' raised by critics. For instance:

How can the day of his birth in Bethlehem have a circumcision eight days after it, and forty days later the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the things Simeon and Anna did for him, (3) when an angel appeared to him the night he was born, after the arrival of the magi who came to worship him, and who opened their bags and offered him gifts? As it says, ‘An angel appeared to him saying, Arise, take thy wife and the young child and go unto Egypt, for Herod seeketh the young child’s life.’ (8.2)

If we read this as we normally do we imagine that Epiphanius is dealing with objections to the two canonical gospels. But does this really make sense? Was there ever a community who only used the canonical gospel of Matthew? Where is the community which only used the Gospel of Luke? The Marcionites are the closest thing we have to a community alleged to have been built around Luke but their gospel didn't have a birth narrative.

So let's acknowledge as some already have that the birth narrative was a late addition to Luke. Why would someone have added a birth narrative that conflicts with Matthew's? That seems to be madness. If Marcion lived in the middle of the second century why would you add a badly crafted birth narrative to Luke and then make it conflict with Matthew when Mark and others didn't acknowledge a birth narrative? A better explanation I believe is found in patterning the quaternion as a literary Tetrad, an 'idealized creation' to allow for the existence of the plethora of gospel harmonies in the world but to serve as 'standards' for acceptable content. I am not sure if in the beginning there was even an effort to censor information. Look at the ending of John which as Trobisch says applies to the canon as a whole. There were lots of other stories leaving wiggle room from a few strange things still to be kept in the harmonies.

But it is my thinking that the Holy Quaterion defined the limit of 'inspired' narratives. These were the narratives which derived from the Four. These were the heavenly, spiritual stories. All other variants were altered likely by heretics. But the point is with regards to the birth narratives that they were produced rather haphazardly and likely you had two completely different accounts of what happened at Jesus's birth existing in gospels scattered around the world. Yet notice how the Arabic Diatessaron harmonizes those two accounts:

And when the angels departed from them to heaven, the shepherds spake to one another and said, We will go to Bethlehem and see this word which hath been, as the Lord made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe laid in a manger. And when they saw, they reported the word which was spoken to them about the child. And all that heard wondered at the description which the shepherds described to them. But Mary kept these sayings and discriminated them in her heart. And those shepherds returned, magnifying and praising God for all that they had seen and heard, according as it was described unto them.

And when eight days were fulfilled that the child should be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, being that by which he was called by the angel before his conception in the womb. 30 And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him before the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male opening the womb shall be called the holy thing of the Lord), and to give a sacrificial victim as it is said in the law of 33 the Lord, A pair of doves or two young pigeons. And there was in Jerusalem a man whose name was Simeon; and this man was upright and pious, and expecting the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been said unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death till he had seen with his eyes the Messiah of the Lord. And this man came by the Spirit to the temple; and at the time when his parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might present for him a sacrifice, as it is written in the law, he bare him in his arms and praised God and said, Now loosest thou the bonds of thy servant, O Lord, in peace, According to thy saying; For mine eye hath witnessed thy mercy, Which thou hast made ready because of the whole world; A light for the unveiling of the nations, And a glory to thy people Israel.

41 And Joseph and his mother were marvelling at the things which were being said concerning him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, Behold, he is set for the overthrow and rising of many in Israel; and for a sign of contention; and a spear shall pierce through thine own soul; that the thoughts of the hearts of many may be revealed. And Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, was also advanced in years (and she dwelt with her husband seven years from her virginity, and she remained a widow about eighty-four years); and she left not the temple, and served night and day with 46 fasting and prayer. And she also rose in that hour and thanked the Lord, and she spake of him with every one who was expecting the deliverance of Jerusalem. And when they had accomplished everything according to what is in the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to Nazareth their city.

3 2 And after that, the Magi came from the east to Jerusalem, and said, Where is the King of the Jews which was born? We have seen his star in the east, and have 3 come to worship him. And Herod the king heard, and he was troubled, and all 4 Jerusalem with him. And he gathered all the chief priests and the scribes of the 5 people, and asked them in what place the Messiah should be born. They said, In Bethlehem of Judaea: thus it is written in the prophet, 6 Thou also, Bethlehem of Judah, Art not contemptible among the kings of Judah: From thee shall go forth a king, And he shall be a shepherd to my people Israel.

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly, and inquired of them the time at which 8 the star appeared to them. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said unto them, Go and search about the child diligently; and when ye have found him, come and 9 make known to me, that I also may go and worship him. And they, when they Arabic, heard the king, departed; and lo, the star which they had seen in the east went before them, until it came and stood above the place where the child 10, was. And when they beheld the star, they rejoiced with very great joy. And they entered the house and beheld the child with Mary his mother, and fell down worshipping him, and opened their saddle-bags and offered to him offerings, gold and myrrh and frankincense. And they saw in a dream a that they should not return to Herod, and they travelled by another way in going to their country.

13 And when they had departed, the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, and said unto him, Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I speak to thee; for Herod is determined to seek the child to slay him. And Joseph arose and took the child and his mother in the night, and fled into Egypt, and remained in it until the time of the death of Herod: that that might be fulfilled which was said by the Lord in the prophet, which said, From Egypt did I call my son. And Herod then, when he saw that he was mocked of the Magi, was very angry, and sent and killed all the male children which were in Bethlehem and all its borders, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had inquired from the Magi.Then was fulfilled the saying in Jeremiah the prophet, which said, A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and much lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, And not willing to be consoled for their loss.

It is exactly how Epiphanius's source harmonizes the 'disagreement' between Matthew and Luke. Isn't that convenient! Are we supposed to believe that Matthew and Luke really were the two earliest gospels which just happened to allow for this sort of 'resolution' or were there two pre-existent supergospels which said absolutely conflicting and irreconcilable things like Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Jesus was born in Jerusalem? I suspect the latter.

The Tetrad of gospels was established in such a way that each text allegedly contained the 'original' material transposed to the individual 'gospel harmonies' (rather haphazardly too it must have been alleged). While the individual harmonies did not reconcile (because in reality they preserved the more original reading) these four faux originals allowed for a meta-gospel to emerge if the pieces were expertly placed together. How those pieces fit was the subject of Epiphanius's source material. But it implies that treatise was written for people who already possessed 'imperfect' or less than perfect gospel harmonies, exactly as the original audience for the Panarion (those two Syrian monks Acacius and Paul) were harmony users.

[Secret Alias]

That Epiphanius used Hippolytus for at least part (the Revelations part) of the Alogoi account:

In the first place we have to notice that this is not a mere guess on Bar Salibi's part. He knows what he is quoting and he knows its source. It follows from his familiarity with the author that he is familiar with the work containing the passage. Now, so far, we have only detected one single work of Hippolytus on Bar Salibi's bookshelf. This is the work against Gaius which Dr. Gwynn has referred to the Refutation of the thirty-two Heresies, and Lightfoot to the Apology for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John. The recognition of the Refutation under its pseudonym of Philosophumena contradicts the theory of the Irish critic. He was unable to accept Lightfoot's identification of the "chapters against Gaius" with the Apology, because he believed that Gaius accepted the Fourth Gospel, and Hippolytus was evidently opposing some one who rejected it. The passage cited from Bar Salibi proves conclusively that Gaius did not regard John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. He is in the critical position of the "Alogi," and we feel ourselves justified in regarding him as their leader and the principal object of Hippolytus' attack. It is still difficult to explain Eusebius' respect for Gaius, and we do not quite understand how Hippolytus could quote against him from the Fourth Gospel. But we feel that although these objections would have weight in the absence of other evidence, they cannot be allowed to |491 stand in face of the direct and positive testimony of Bar Salibi.

The removal of this objection leaves open the way for the other hypothesis----that there is an essential connexion between the "chapters against Gaius" and the Apology for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John. It may be noted that it is not at all improbable that this was what Ebed Jesu intended to imply in his catalogue of Hippolytus' works. A very brief acquaintance with the ways of Syriac scribes justifies us in omitting a conjunction, or at least in suspecting its presence. And in all probability Ebed Jesu intended to write first the full title of the work and then denote two of its sections, one concerned with the Apocalypse, the other with the Fourth Gospel. This view is strongly supported by the way in which the combatants are introduced by Bar Salibi. "The blessed Hippolytus," he says, "opposed this Gaius"----qam luqbal hana Gaius----a phrase so like the title of Hippolytus' work "rishe luqbal Gaius " as to justify us in regarding it as a reminiscence thereof. Lightfoot may have felt that Bar Salibi had robbed him of a favourite theory by proving the existence of Gaius ; he has now every reason for gratitude, for on two points, the authorship of the Muratorian Canon and the identity of the "chapters against Gaius," the Syrian Father has unexpectedly vindicated two out of the English critic's series of conjectures.

Now, this being the only work of Hippolytus which we have found in Bar Salibi's hands, the law of parsimony of causes compels us to attribute all quotations from this author to the same document unless we have some fairly strong evidence to the contrary. And an examination of the evidence seems to lead to a conclusion which confirms our first impression. We are now at liberty to use the Canon itself in order to determine its place in |492 Hippolytus' writings. And near the beginning we certainly find a most illuminating passage :

"Primum omnium Corinthiis schisma haeresis interdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem ordinem scripturarum, sed et principium earum esse Christum intimans, prolixius scripsit. De quibus singulis necesse est a nobis disputari."

So little has this passage been understood that some editors have even inserted "non" before "necesse." Needless to say, this has no foundation in the MS. and it leaves the passage really more inexplicable than ever. For why should these three epistles be especially mentioned if there is no need to discuss them? The very fact of their selection here shows, as Tregelles saw, that this Canon must have stood at the head of a controversial work. The points of difference will be :----

1. Heresy.

2. Circumcision.

3. Canonicity of certain books of Scripture.

4. Christology.

The word "ordinem" offers a difficulty. Its use in the first passage cited----a list of the Pauline Epistles----shows that it does not mean a definite orderly sequence. And it seems to have been the earliest translation of the idea expressed in the Greek ecclesiastical language by κάνων, " Canon," as a Latin word is not quoted in this sense before Augustine, while Quintilian (1, 4, 3) uses "ordo" with almost the same meaning: "Grammatici alios auctores in ordinem redigerunt, alios omnino exemerant numero." We recognize, therefore, that it is not simply the order of the books of the Scriptures, but a list of those which they oontain. Moreover, there would be little point in discussing the sequence of the books of Scripture in a treatise which involved the other matters; and as a matter of fact the sequence is immediately set at nought. |493

Hippolytus' meaning in this extract is clear. He points out how Paul had found it necessary to face and solve certain problems in certain of his Epistles. He remarks that he is faced with the same questions, and will have to discuss these same matters. The connexion in subject between this passage and Bar Salibi's quotation from Hippolytus is abundantly clear.

This Cerinthus was one who taught circumcision, and was angry with Paul because he did not circumcise Titus, and the Apostle calls him and his disciples in one of his letters "Sham apostles." ... Again he teaches that the world was created by angels and that our Lord was not born of a virgin. He also teaches carnal eating and drinking and many other blasphemies."
Primum omnium Corinthiis schisma haeresis interdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem; Romania autem ordinem scripturarum sed et principium earum esse Christum intimans prolixius scripsit. De quibus singulis necesse est a nobis disputari.

The parallel between the various subjects is easily seen when it is remembered that Bar Salibi does not mean to quote exactly. The question then arises, To which of Hippolytus' works is the passage to be referred? The natural answer is, The Philosophumena; but we have that work, and the passages concerned with Cerinthus make no mention of his Judaizing tendency. The Chapters against Gaius, however, must have contained sections on all the questions raised in the above citation from the Canon, because they are the points on which Cerinthus differs from the Scriptures. It is by enumerating and discussing such points, as Bar Salibi tells us, that Hippolytus refutes Gaius' objection to the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel. It becomes clear, therefore, that the most suitable suggestion for the source of this Canon is the book entitled Chapters against Gaius. |494

One more point may be brought forward. Can we be sure that this Cerinthus passage in Hippolytus comes from the same work as the other answers to Gaius? If it does, we may be fairly sure that our guess is right, and we have reached a point between probability and certainty. For this it is only necessary to turn to that arch-plagiarist, Epiphanius. Dr. Gwynn and Rendel Harris have already shown that he knew and quoted the "Heads against Gaius," and indeed, that his work is largely based on Hippolytus. We come to him with assurance, and find our expectations fully met, in the article on Cerinthus in Epiphanius' work on Heresies. The following extracts will make this sufficiently clear :----

BAR SALIBI.

EPIPHANIUS.
Patr. Gr., vol. 41, col. 377.

"The world was created by angels, and our Lord was not born of a virgin." ἐξηγεῖται καὶ οὗτος ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ σπέρματος Ἰωσὴφ τὸν Χριστὸν γεγεννῆσ-θαι, καὶ τὸν κόσμον ὁμοίως 29 ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων γεγενῆσθαι.
Col. 381.

"This Cerinthus was one who taught circumcision, and was angry with Paul because he did not circumcise Titus."
ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν τότε ἐπραγματεύθη κινηθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ προειρημένου ψευδαποστόλου Κηρίνθου· ὅς καὶ ἄλλοτε στάσιν αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ μετ' αυτοῦ εἰργάσαντο ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ὁπηνίκα Παῦλος ἀνῆλθε μετὰ Τίτου, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἔφη, ὅτι ἄνδρας ἀκροβύστους εἰσήνεγκε μεθ' ἑαυτοῦ, ἤδη περὶ τούτου λέγων, κεκοίνηκε, φησὶ, τὸν ἅγιον τόπον. διὸ καὶ Παῦλος λέγει· Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ Τίτος κ.τ.λ. (there follows a quotation taken from Gal. ii. 3-5).

Finally, a decisive passage :—

Col. 384.

"The Apostle calls him and his disciples, 'Sham apostles, crafty workers.'" καὶ οὗτοι εἰσὶν οἱ παρὰ τῷ Παύλῳ εἰρημένοι ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι μετασχηματιζόμενοι εἰς ἀποστόλους Χριστου.http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/diony ... ion_01.htm

[Secret Alias]

6,1 Against the sect which does not accept the Gospel according to John, and his Revelation. 31, but 51 of the series [1]

1,1 Following these sects—after the the ones called Phrygians, Quintillianists and Quartodecimans—there arose another sect, like a feeble snake which cannot bear the odor of dittany—that is, storax—or of frankincense or southernwood, or the smell of pitch, incense, lignite or hartshorn. (2) For those who are familiar with them say that these substances have the effect of driving poisonous snakes away; and some call dittany “tittany” [τίκταμνον] because professional physicians use it as an aid for women in childbirth.[τικτούσων] I may thus appropriately compare it with the divine Word who descended from the heavens, and has been begotten of the Father outside of time and without beginning.

1,3 Solomon says of a foolish, worthless woman, “She hateth a word of sureness.”[Prov 11:15] These people too have hated the Gospel’s surenesses, since they are of the earth and at enmity with the heavens. (4) Therefore, for fear of the Holy Spirit’s voice which says, “The voice of the Lord restoreth the hinds,” [Ps 28:9] < they reject his proclamation of the divine Word* > who told his servants and apostles, “Lo, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.” [Luke 10:19] (5) For this is the voice that restores the hinds, the voice which resounded in the world through the holy apostles and evangelists, to trample on the devil’s opposition.

< One of > these, St. John, checked this with the utmost effectiveness, and tried the power of the deceived, and of the snakelike heretics. 2,1 But these people will not prevail in the ark. The holy Noah is directed by God’s command to make the ark secure, as God says to him, “Thou shalt pitch it within and without” [Gen 6:14. The pun is on ἐπασφαλίσασθαι and ἀσφαλτώσεις] —to prefigure God’s holy church, which has the power of pitch, which drives the horrid, baneful, snake-like teachings away. For where pitch is burned, no snake can remain. (2) The holy storax incense stuns them, and they avoid its sweet odor. And the power of southernwood or frankincense < drives them away* > if it grows over the serpent itself and sprouts above its den. 2,3 For in the same place—I mean in Asia—where Ebion, Cerinthus and their coterie preached that Christ is a mere man and the product of sexual intercourse, the Holy Spirit caused this sacred plant or shrub to sprout which has driven the serpent away and destroyed the devil’s tyranny. (4) For in his old age St. John was told by the Holy Spirit to preach there, [Iren. Haer. 3.2.1, and the reconstructed monarchian prologue at Corssen pp. 80–81.] and bring back those who had lost their way on the journey— [bring them], not by force but of their own free choice, by revealing God’s light to the obedient, which is in God’s holy teaching. (5) But how long must I go on? It is a fact that no snake can stay any longer or make its den where southernwood grows; and where God’s true teaching is, a den of snake-like teaching cannot prevail but will be destroyed.

3,1 Now these Alogi say—this is what I call them. They shall be so called from now on, and let us give them this name, beloved, Alogi. (2) For they believed in the heresy for which < that* > name < was a good one* >, since it rejects the books by John. As they do not accept the Word which John preaches, they shall be called Dumb.[Ἄλογοι] (3) As complete strangers to the truth’s message they deny its purity, and accept neither John’s Gospel nor his Revelation. 3,4 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. (5) 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.”[1 John 2:16] (6) For they offer excuses [for their behavior]. Knowing, as they do, that St. John was an apostle and the Lord’s beloved, that the Lord rightly revealed the mysteries to him, and < that he* > leaned upon his breast, they are ashamed to contradict him and try to object to these mysteries for a different reason. For they say that they are not John’s composition but Cerinthus’, and have no right to a place in the church.

4,1 And it can be shown at once, from this very attack, that they “understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm.” [1 Tim 1:7] How can the words which are directed against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus? (2) 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. (3) For they appear to believe what we do; but because they do not hold to the certainties of the message God has revealed to us through St. John, they will be convicted of shouting against the truth about things which they do not know. (4) They will be known to them, though, if they choose to sober up and take notice; I am not discarding the teachings of the Holy Spirit in all their importance and certainty.

- Irenaeus treatise begins here I suspect -

4,5 For they say against themselves—I prefer not to say, “against the truth”—that John’s books do not agree with the other apostles. And now they think they can attack his holy, inspired teaching. (6) “And what,” they argue, “did he say," ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’[John 1:1] And, ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we knew his glory, glory as of an only Son of a Father, full of grace and truth.’ [John 1:14] (7) And immediately afterwards, ‘John bare witness and cried, saying, This he of whom I said unto you,’[John 1:15; 30] and, ‘This is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.’[John 1:29] “And next he says, ‘They that heard him said, Rabbi, where dwellest thou?’ [John 1:38] and in the same breath, (8) ‘On the morrow Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.’ [John 1:38] (9) And shortly thereafter he 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.’[John 1:43] (10) 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.” 4,11 And dense as they are, they don’t know that each evangelist was concerned to say what the others had said, in agreement with them, while at the same time revealing what they had not said, but had omitted. For the will was not theirs; both their order and their teaching came from the Holy Spirit. (12) If our opponents want to attack John, they must learn that the other three did not begin from the same point in the narrative.

For Matthew was the first to become an evangelist. The first issuance of the Gospel was assigned to him. (I have spoken largely of this in another Sect; [Pan. 20,8,4; 30,3,7] however, I shall not mind dealing with the same things again, as proof of the truth and in refutation of the erring.) (5,1) As I said, Matthew was privileged to be the first < to issue > the Gospel, and this was absolutely right. Because he had repented of many sins, and had risen from the receipt of custom and followed Him who came for man’s salvation and said, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” [Matt 9:13] it was Matthew’s duty to present the message of salvation < first >, as an example for us, who would be saved like this man who was restored in the tax office and turned from his iniquity. From him men would learn the graciousness of Christ’s advent.

5,2 For after the forgiveness of his sins he was granted the raising of the dead, the cleansing of leprosy, miracles of healing and the casting out of devils, so that he < would > not merely persuade his hearers by his speech, but publish [Klostermann: κηρύξῃ; Holl: <δύνηται> κηρύξαι] good tidings with actual deeds—[publish] the tidings of their salvation through repentance, to the perishing; the tidings that they would arise, to the fallen; and the tidings that they would be quickened, to the dead. 5,3 Matthew himself wrote and issued the Gospel in the Hebrew alphabet, and did not begin at the beginning, but traced Christ’s pedigree from Abraham. “Abraham begat Isaac,” he said, “and Isaac begat Jacob,” [Matt 1:2] and so on down to Joseph and Mary. (4) And he wrote at the beginning, ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David,” and then said, “the son of Abraham.” [Matt 1:1] Then, coming to his main point, he said, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (5) And Joseph, being a just man, sought to put her away privily. And lo, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, Put not away thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (6) For lo, she shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall save his people from their sins. And this was done,” he said, “to fulfill that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child,” [Matt 1:18–23] and so on. 5,7 “And Joseph,” he said, “being raised from sleep, did so and took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she brought forth her first-born son, and he called his name Jesus. (8) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” [Matt 1:24–2:2]

5,9 Now then, where is the story of Zacharias? Where are the subjects Luke discussed? Where is the vision of the angel? Where is the prophecy about John the Baptist? Where is the rebuke of Zacharias, so that he could not speak until the angel’s words had come true? 5,10 Where are the things Gabriel told the Virgin? Where is his reassurance, when Mary answered the angel himself with wisdom and asked, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” [Luke 1:34] And where is his accurate and clear explanation, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee?” [Luke 1:35]

6,1 Well, what shall I say? Because Matthew did not report the events which Luke related, can St. Matthew be in disagreement with the truth? Or is St. Luke not telling the truth, because he has said < nothing > about the things that had been previously dealt with by Matthew? (2) Didn’t God give each evangelist his own assignment, so that each of the four evangelists whose duty was to proclaim the Gospel could find what he was to do and proclaim some things in agreement and alike to show that they came from the same source, but otherwise [Klostermann ἄλλος <ἄλλως>, MSS ἄλλος] describe what another had omitted, as each received his proportionate share from the Spirit?

6,3 Now what shall we do? Matthew declares that Mary gave birth in Bethlehem < and > < describes* > Christ’s incarnation in terms of the pedigree he traces from Abraham’s and David’s line. St. Mark, we find, says none of this (4) but begins the Gospel with the event that took place in the Jordan and says, “The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, A voice of one crying in the wilderness.” [Mark 1:1–3] (5) < Is Mark lying, then? Of course not! There was no reason for him to repeat information which had already been given* >. Similarly, the things St. John discussed, and confirmed in the Holy Spirit, were not just meant to repeat what had already been proclaimed, but to speak of the teachings the others had had to leave to John.

6,6 For the whole treatment of the Gospel was of this nature. After Matthew had proclaimed Christ’s generation, his conception through the Holy Spirit, < and > his incarnation as a descendant of David and Abraham, an error arose in those who had not understood the narrative which was intended in good faith to provide assurance of these things from the Gospel. (Not that the Gospel was responsible for their error; their own wrong notion was.) (7) And this was why Cerinthus and Ebion held that Christ was a mere man, and < misled* > Merinthus, Cleobius or Cleobulus, Claudius, Demas and Hermogenes, who had loved this world and left the way of the truth. (8) For they contradicted the Lord’s disciples at that time, and tried to use the genealogy from Abraham and David as proof of their nonsense—not in good faith, but seizing on it as an excuse. (9) For they were often contradicted by St. John and his friends, Leucius and many others. But shamelessness struck its forehead, and did its best to bring its own woes on itself.

6,10 Mark, who came directly after Matthew, was ordered by St. Peter at Rome to issue the Gospel, and after writing it was sent by St. Peter to Egypt. (11) He was one of the seventy-two who had been dispersed by the Lord’s saying, “Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me”[cf. John 6:53]—as < can be > plainly proved to the readers of the Gospels. Still, after his restoration by Peter he was privileged to proclaim the Gospel by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. 6,12 He began his proclamation where the Spirit told him, and put the opening of it at the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, thirty years after Matthew’s account. (13) Since he was a second evangelist, and gave no clear indication of the divine Word’s descent from on high—he does this everywhere plainly, but not with as much precision [as Matthew]—a darkening of their minds fell once more upon these misguided people, so that they were not held worthy of the Gospel’s illumination. (14) “Look,” they said, “here is a second Gospel too with an account of Christ, and nowhere does it say that his generation is heavenly. Instead,” they said, “the Spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and < there came* > a voice, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’" [cf. Mark 1:10–11]

7,1 Since this was the conclusion that had been reached by these stupid people, the Holy Spirit compelled St. Luke and spurred him on to raise the minds of the misguided from the lowest depths, as it were, and once again take up what the other evangelists had omitted. (2) < But > lest some misguided person should think his description of Christ’s generation fictitious, he carried the matter back, and for accuracy’s sake went through his whole account in the fullest detail. (3) And he produced those who had been ministers of the word as his witnesses in support of the truth; and he said, “Inasmuch as many have attacked,”[Luke 1:1] to show that there were attackers—I mean Cerinthus, Merinthus and the others.

7,4 What does he say next? “It seemed good to me, having attended closely to them which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, to write unto thee, most excellent Theophilus”—whether he said this because he was then writing to someone named Theophilus, or to every lover of God—“< that thou mayest know > the certainty of the things wherein thou hast been instructed.” [Luke 1:3–4] (5) And he said that the instruction was already written, as though Theophilus had already been instructed by others, but had not learned the precise truth from them with certainty.

7,6 Next he says, “There was in the days of Herod the king a priest named Zacharias of the course of the high priest Abijah, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.” [Luke 1:5] (7) And he begins before Matthew. Matthew had indicated a period of thirty years from the beginning, while Mark—like Matthew and Luke—had set down what happened after < the > thirty years, the event which truly took place in the Jordan. (8) But Matthew began his account thirty years before the event at the Jordan and the baptism. Now Luke told of the period of six months before the Savior’s conception, and again, the period of the nine months and a few days following the conception of the Lord, so that the entire period of time [described in Luke] is thirty-one years and a bit more.

7,9 Luke also describes the shepherds’ vision, [which was shown them] by the angels who brought them the tidings. And he describes how Christ was born in Bethlehem, laid in a manger in swaddling clothes, and circumcised the eighth day, and how they made an offering for him forty days later in obedience to the Law, Simeon took <him> in his arms, and Anna the daughter of Phanuel gave thanks for him; and how he went away to Nazareth and returned to Jerusalem each year with his parents, who made the offerings for him that the Law required. But neither Matthew nor Mark has dealt with any of this, and certainly not John. Instead, they said, “the Spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and < there came* > a voice, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ ” [cf. Mark 1:10–11]

- segue by Epiphanius =

8,1 And so, as they go through their refutations of the Gospel account, certain other Greek philosophers—I mean Porphyry, Celsus and that dreadful, deceitful serpent of Jewish extraction, Philosabbatius—accuse the holy apostles, though they [themselves] are natural and carnal, make war by fleshly means and cannot please God, and have not understood < the things which have been said > by the Spirit. 8,2 Tripping over the words of the truth because of the blindness of their ignorance, each < of them > lit upon this point and said,

- return to Irenaeus -

“How can the day of his birth in Bethlehem have a circumcision eight days after it, and forty days later the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the things Simeon and Anna did for him, when an angel appeared to him the night he was born, after the arrival of the magi who came to worship him, and who opened their bags and offered him gifts? As it says, ‘An angel appeared to him saying, Arise, take thy wife and the young child and go unto Egypt, for Herod seeketh the young child’s life.’ [Matt 2:13] (4) Now then, if he was taken to Egypt the very night he was born and was there until Herod died, how can he stay [in Bethlehem] for eight days and be circumcised? Or how can Luke < fail to* > be caught in a lie when he tells us that Jesus was brought to Jerusalem after* < forty days* >?”—so they say in blasphemy against their own heads, because he says, “On the fortieth day they brought him to Jerusalem and < returned > to Nazareth from there.” [cf. Luke 2:22; 39]

9,1 And the ignoramuses do not know the power of the Holy Spirit; to each evangelist it was given to describe the true events of each time and season. And Matthew reported only Christ’s generation by the Holy Spirit and conception without a man’s seed, but said nothing about circumcision, or the two years—any of the things that happened to him after his birth. (2) Instead, as the true word of God bears witness, he describes the coming of the magi. For Herod asked the magi for the time, and demanded the exact time of the star’s appearance, and Matthew gave the magi’s answer, that it was no more than two years before. Thus this period of time is not the one Luke deals with.

9,3 Luke, however, describes the events before < the > two years— whereas Matthew spoke of Christ’s birth and then skipped to the time two years later and indicated what happened after < the > two years. (4) And so, when Herod deliberated after the magi’s departure by another route, he assumed that < the > new-born child himself would be found among all the other children and killed along with them. (5) For he ordered the killing of all the children in the vicinity of Bethlehem who had been two years old or less on the very day the magi came to him. Who, then, can fail to realize that the child who had been born was two years old when the magi came?

9,6 Indeed, the account itself makes the facts clear in their entirety. For Luke says that the child was swaddled as soon as he was born, and lay in a manger and cave because there was no room in the inn. (7) For a census was then in progress, and the people who had been scattered at the time of the wars in the Maccabees’ time were dispersed all over the world, and very few had continued to live in Bethlehem. And thus Bethlehem is called the city of David in one copy of the Evangelists, while in another it calls it a village, because it had come to occupy a small area. (8) But when the emperor Augustus’ decree was issued, and those who had been dispersed had to go to Bethlehem for enrollment because of their family origins, the influx of the multitudes filled the place, and because of the crowding there was no room in the inn.

9,9 But then, after the census, everyone went back to wherever they lived and room was made in Bethlehem. (10) Now when < the > first year was over and the second year had passed, Christ’s parents came from Nazareth to Bethlehem as though to the original gathering—as a sort of memorial because of what had happened there. (11) Thus the arrival of the magi occurred on this occasion, and probably not during Mary’s and Joseph’s visit at the time of the census which Luke mentions. For the magi did not find Mary in the cavern where she gave birth but, as the Gospel says, the star led them to the place where the young child was. (12) And they entered the house and found the baby with Mary—no longer in a manger, no longer in a cave, but in a house—showing the exact truth and the two-year interval, that is, from Christ’s birth until the arrival of the magi.

9,13 And the angel appeared that night, two years after the birth, and said to take the mother and child to Egypt. Thus Joseph did not go back again to Nazareth but escaped to Egypt with the child and his mother and spent another two years there. And so, after Herod’s death, the angel < appeared* > again < and* > sent them back to Judaea. 10,1 The Lord was born in the thirty-third year of Herod, the magi came in the thirty-fifth, and in the thirty-seventh year Herod died and his son Archelaus inherited the throne and reigned for nine years, as I have already said in other places. [E.g., at De Incarnatione 2.1–3.] (2) When Joseph heard of Archelaus he returned and went to Nazareth to make his home, and from there, in turn, went each year to Jerusalem.

10,3 Do you see the precision there is in the sacred Gospels about every event? But because the ignorant have blinded their own minds and do not know the intent of each saying, they simply shout and rave against the holy < evangelists >, saying nothing truthful but depriving themselves of life. And then, after the first part of his narrative, Luke tells in turn how Christ went to Jerusalem in his twelfth year, thus leaving no opportunity for those who think, as Cerinthus, Ebion and the rest supposed, that Christ simply appeared in the world as a grown man and came to the Jordan to John. (5) For the serpent is a dreadful one, crawls a crooked course, and does not stand by one opinion; some suppose that Christ was engendered by sexual congress and a man’s seed, but others, that he simply appeared as a [grown] man.

10,6 And this is why the holy evangelists write with precision, describing everything in exact detail. As though raising his mind from earth to the heavens, Luke expressly said, “And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.” [Luke 3:23] (7) Supposition is not fact; Joseph was in the position of a father to Jesus because this pleased God, but since he had no relations with Mary he was not his father. (8) He was simply called her husband because he was espoused to her as an old man of about eighty, with six sons (sic!) [Anc. 60,1–3; Pan 30,29,8; 11; 78,7–9. But Epiphanius regularly gives Joseph four sons
and two daughters, cf. Anc. 60,1; Pan. 78,7,6] by his actual first wife. But he was given this charge, as I have explained more precisely elsewhere. How could he be Christ’s father when he had no conjugal relations? This is not possible.

11,1 But you will ask me, if he did not have her, why was he called her husband? Whoever doubts this does not know the Law’s provision that once a woman is designated a man’s wife, she is called the wife of the man so designated, even though she is a virgin and still in her father’s house. And thus the holy angel said, “Fear not to take unto thee thy wife.” [Matt 1:20] 11,2 And lest it be thought that < there is > some error in the Gospels— for the mystery is awesome and beyond human telling, and only to the Holy Spirit’s children is the statement of it plain and clear—(3) < he says >, “He was about thirty years old, supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthan,”[Luke 3:23–24] and traces his ancestry to Abraham, where Matthew began. But he goes past Noah and comes to Adam, to indicate the first man, who was sought for by the One who came from his clay—that is, the One who came from the holy Virgin Mary. (4) (For Christ has come for that first man, and for those of his descendants who desire to inherit eternal life.) And he goes past Adam and says, “Son of God."[Luke 3:38] (5) From this, at length, it was perfectly plain that he was the Son of God, but that he had come in the flesh as Adam’s lineal descendant. But once more the misguided did not see the light; in their self-deceit, < and their preference of falsehood* > to truth, they spoke against what [Luke] said. (6) “Here is a third Gospel, Luke’s,” they said—(for Luke was given this commission. He too was one of the seventy-two who had been scattered because of the Savior’s saying. But he was brought back to the Lord by St. Paul and told to issue his Gospel. And he preached in Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy and Macedonia first, but originally in Gaul, as Paul says of certain of his followers in his epistles, “Crescens is in Gaul.” [2 Tim 4:19] It does not say, “in Galatia,” as some mistakenly believe, but “in Gaul.”)

12,1 But to get to the point. Although Luke had traced Christ’s pedigree from its end to its beginning and reached the point where, to turn the misguided from their error, he hinted at the divine Word’s advent and simultaneous union with his human nature, they did not understand. (2) Later, therefore, though from caution and humility he had declined to be an evangelist, the Holy Spirit compelled John to issue the Gospel in his old age when he was past ninety, after his return from Patmos under Claudius Caesar, and several years of his residence in Asia.

[Secret Alias]

I want to stop there and give people an interesting nugget of this work which plainly speaks to the text referencing a gospel harmony known to the author's readership. For this line stands out to me:

Mark, who came directly after Matthew, was ordered by St. Peter at Rome to issue the Gospel, and after writing it was sent by St. Peter to Egypt. (11) He was one of the seventy-two who had been dispersed by the Lord’s saying, “Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me (ἐὰν μή τις φάγῃ μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίῃ μου τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔστι μου ἄξιος)”[cf. John 6:53]—as < can be > plainly proved to the readers of the Gospels.

Let's first note the normal reading of John 6:53:

"unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς

Clearly the version of this saying used by the original author would be called (if anyone noticed it) a harmonized text - a fusion of John 6:53 and Matthew 10:37. But more interesting still is the underlying argument. Forget this crazy idea that each evangelist wrote to combat misunderstandings arising in the heresies. The strangest idea here is that Mark, who was one of the seventy-two heard these words "Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me" couldn't take the idea of having to eat the Lord's flesh and blood and was later restored by Peter! Leaving that aside the argument clearly demonstrates that the author - whom ever he was - hadn't merely worked out 'impromptu harmonizing' of the birth narratives (as demonstrated in the treatise) but also 'knew' by means of his harmony that the sending out of the seventy-two (Luke 10:1 - 3) was accompanied by the words now found only at John 6:53 - 54.

It is also important to note that later that Mark's fate is paralleled by Luke, as another member of the seventy-two heard John 6:53 and lost his faith only to be restored to faith by Paul and commissioned to write a gospel. The two have identical experiences with respect to the two pillars of the Roman Church - Peter and Paul. It would seem that John 6:56 was applied to the Seventy "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

[StephenGoranson]

In case it's of interest I'll mention (but not necessarily endorse) a new book by T. Scott Manor, Epiphanius' Alogi and the Johannine Controversy: A Reassessment of Early Ecclesial Opposition to the Johannine Corpus (Brill, 2016; Supp. to Vigiliae Christianae 135).
Publisher blurb:
In this work T. Scott Manor provides a new perspective on a common view, known as the ‘Johannine Controversy’, which maintains that the early church once tried to jettison the Gospel and Apocalypse of John as heretical forgeries.
Primary evidence comes from Epiphanius of Salamis, who mentions a heretical group with such views, the Alogi. This along with with other evidence from sources including Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Photius, Dionysius bar Salibi, Ebed-Jesu and others has led to the conclusion that a certain Gaius of Rome led the Alogi in this anti-Johannine campaign. By carefully examining Epiphanius’ account in relation to these other sources, Manor arrives at very different conclusions that question whether any such controversy ever existed at all.