Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

Just curious Andrew, what's the actual evidence for the pre-existence of the Constantinople Creed other than the reference in the Ancoratus?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

Another important thing. Filaster has almost the same order as Epiphanius in this section even though he did not use Epiphanius:

Epiphanius

20. Epiphanius Against the Herodians Being an account of the followers of Herod
21. Epiphanius Against the Simonians Being an account of the followers of Simon Magus
22. Epiphanius Against Menander Being an account of that heretic
23. Epiphanius Against Satornilus Being an account of that heretic
24. Epiphanius Against Basilides Being an account of the Gnostic Basilides
25. Epiphanius Against the Nicolaitans Being an account of the followers of Nicolai
26. Epiphanius Against the Gnostics Being an account of these heretics in general, and their so-called Gospel of Eve
27. Epiphanius Against the Carpocratians Being an account of the followers of Carpocrates
28. Epiphanius Against the Cerinthians Being an account of the followers of Cerinthus
29. Epiphanius Against the Nazoraeans Being an account of that sect
30. Epiphanius Against the Ebionites Being an account of the followers of Ebion
31. Epiphanius Against the Valentinians Being an account of the followers of Valentinus
32. Epiphanius Against the Secundians Being an account of that sect
33. Epiphanius Against the Ptolemaeans Being an account of the followers of Ptolemy, containing also his Letter to Flora
34. Epiphanius Against the Marcosians Being an account of the followers of Marcus
35. Epiphanius Against the Colorbasians Being an account of that sect
36. Epiphanius Against the Heracleonites Being an account of the followers of Heracleon
37. Epiphanius Against the Ophites Being an account of the worshippers of the serpent
38. Epiphanius Against the Cainites Being an account of the followers of Cain
39. Epiphanius Against the Sethians Being an account of the followers of Seth
40. Epiphanius Against the Archontics Being an account of that sect
41. Epiphanius Against the Cerdonians Being an account of the followers of Cerdonus
42. Epiphanius Against the Marcionites Being an account of the followers of Marcion, and the errors of his gospel
43. Epiphanius Against the Lucianists Being an account of the followers of Lucian
44. Epiphanius Against the Apelleans Being an account of the followers of Apelles
45. Epiphanius Against the Severians Being an account of the followers of Severus
46. Epiphanius Against the Tatianists

Filaster:

- XXVIII. HERODIANI.
- XXIX. SIMON MAGUS.
- XXX. MENANDRUS.
- XXXI. SATURNINUS.
- XXXII. BASILIDES.
- XXXIII. NICOLAUS ANTIOCHENUS.
- XXXIV. HAERESIS AB IUDA TRADITORE.
- XXXV. CARPOCRAS.
- XXXVI. CERINTHUS.
- XXXVII. EBION.
- XXXVIII. VALENTINUS.
- XXXIX. PTOLEMAEUS.
- XL. SECUNDUS.
- XLI. HERACLEON.
- XLII. MARCUS.
- XLIII. COLORBASUS.
- XLIV. CERDON.
- XLV. MARCION.
- XLVI. LUCANUS.
- XLVII. APELLES.
- XLVIII. TATIANUS.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

It's pretty obvious that Epiphanius must have had Hippolytus's lost Syntagma as his guide for the framework of this section of the Panarion. Note for instance that in the section on the Carpocratians he begins
Καρποκρᾶς τις ἕτερος γίνεται, συστήσας ἑαυτῷ ἀθέμιτον διδασκαλεῖον τῆς ψευδωνύμου αὐτοῦ γνώμης, χείρονας πάντων οὗτος τοὺς τρόπους κεκτημένος. ἐκ πάντων γὰρ τούτων, Σίμωνός τε καὶ Μενάνδρου, Σατορνίλου τε καὶ Βασιλείδου καὶ Νικολάου καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Καρποκρᾶ, ἔτι δὲ ἐκ προφάσεως Οὐαλεντίνου ἡ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως ἐφύη αἵρεσις, ἥτις Γνωστικοὺς τοὺς αὐτῆς ὠνόμασεν, ἀφ' ἧς οἱ Γνωστικοὶ ἤδη μοι δεδήλωνται, κατάγνωστοι ὄντες τὸν τρόπον. Οὗτος δὲ πάλιν ἄνω μὲν μίαν ἀρχὴν λέγει καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων καὶ ἄγνωστον καὶ ἀκατονόμαστον ἴσα τοῖς ἄλλοις εἰσάγειν βούλεται, τὸν δὲ κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων γεγενῆσθαι, τῶν πολύ τι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἀγνώστου ὑποβεβηκότων· τούτους γὰρ λέγει ἀποστάντας ἀπὸ τῆς ἄνω δυνάμεως οὕτω τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκέναι. Ἰησοῦν δὲ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἀπὸ Ἰωσὴφ λέγει γεγεννῆσθαι, καθάπερ καὶ
πάντες ἄνθρωποι ἐκ σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἐγεννήθησαν. εἶναι δὲ αὐτὸν ὅμοιον τοῖς πᾶσι, βίῳ δὲ διενηνοχέναι, σωφροσύνῃ τε καὶ ἀρετῇ καὶ βίῳ δικαιοσύνης.

Carpocrates makes another, for he founded his own unlawful school of his falsely named opinion, and his character is the worst of all. (For the sect of what is falsely termed 'Knowledge,' which called its members Gnostics, arose from all of these—Simon and Menander, Satornilus, Basilides and Nicolaus, Carpocrates himself, and further, because of Valentinus. I have already given a description of one branch of it—the 'Knowledgeable,' though in their behaviour they are despicable.) Carpocrates says in his turn that there is one first principle on high, and just like the others he wants to introduce a Father of all, unknowable and unnameable. But he says that the world, and everything in the world, has been made by the angels, who are far inferior to the unknowable Father.2 For he says that they rebelled against the power on high, and therefore have made the world. And he says that Jesus our Lord was begotten of Joseph, just as all men were generated from a man's seed and a woman.4 He is like all men but is different in his life—in prudence, virtue and a life of righteousness.
Filaster
Post istum Carpocras nomine surrexit, et ipse dicens Unum Principium, de quo Principio, id est, de Deo, prolationes factae sint Angelorum atque Virtutum: quae autem Virtutes deorsum sint, fecerint creaturam istam visibilem ubi nos consistamus. Christum autem dicit non de Virgine Maria, et divino spiritu natum (Luc. I, 35) , sed de semine Ioseph hominem natum arbitratur, deque eo natum carnaliter, sicut omnes homines, suspicatur. (1152A) Qui post passionem, inquit, melior inter Iudaeos vita integra, et conversatione inventus est, cuius animam in coelum susceptam praedicat: carnem vero in terra dimissam aestimat, animique salutem solum, carnis autem non fieri salutem opinatur.
The fact that Epiphanius refers to Carpocrates as Καρποκρᾶς throughout shows dependence on the same source for Philaster. Pritz thinks that Pseudo-Tertullian is the source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=vh84A ... us&f=false

Pseudo-Tertullian however uses the form Carpocrates. The order agrees only in one section:

Pseudo-Tertullian:

Carpocrates
Cerinthus
Ebion
Valentinus
Ptolemy
Secundus
Heracleon.
Marcus
Colarbasus.
Cerdo,
Marcion,
Lucan,
Apelles.
Tatian,
Cataphrygians,

20. Epiphanius Against the Herodians Being an account of the followers of Herod
21. Epiphanius Against the Simonians Being an account of the followers of Simon Magus
22. Epiphanius Against Menander Being an account of that heretic
23. Epiphanius Against Satornilus Being an account of that heretic
24. Epiphanius Against Basilides Being an account of the Gnostic Basilides
25. Epiphanius Against the Nicolaitans Being an account of the followers of Nicolai
26. Epiphanius Against the Gnostics Being an account of these heretics in general, and their so-called Gospel of Eve
27. Epiphanius Against the Carpocratians Being an account of the followers of Carpocrates
28. Epiphanius Against the Cerinthians Being an account of the followers of Cerinthus
29. Epiphanius Against the Nazoraeans Being an account of that sect
30. Epiphanius Against the Ebionites Being an account of the followers of Ebion
31. Epiphanius Against the Valentinians Being an account of the followers of Valentinus
32. Epiphanius Against the Secundians Being an account of that sect
33. Epiphanius Against the Ptolemaeans Being an account of the followers of Ptolemy, containing also his Letter to Flora
34. Epiphanius Against the Marcosians Being an account of the followers of Marcus
35. Epiphanius Against the Colorbasians Being an account of that sect
36. Epiphanius Against the Heracleonites Being an account of the followers of Heracleon
37. Epiphanius Against the Ophites Being an account of the worshippers of the serpent
38. Epiphanius Against the Cainites Being an account of the followers of Cain
39. Epiphanius Against the Sethians Being an account of the followers of Seth
40. Epiphanius Against the Archontics Being an account of that sect
41. Epiphanius Against the Cerdonians Being an account of the followers of Cerdonus
42. Epiphanius Against the Marcionites Being an account of the followers of Marcion, and the errors of his gospel
43. Epiphanius Against the Lucianists Being an account of the followers of Lucian
44. Epiphanius Against the Apelleans Being an account of the followers of Apelles

45. Epiphanius Against the Severians Being an account of the followers of Severus
46. Epiphanius Against the Tatianists
47. Epiphanius Against the Encratites
48. Epiphanius Against the Phrygians


Filaster:

- XXVIII. HERODIANI.
- XXIX. SIMON MAGUS.
- XXX. MENANDRUS.
- XXXI. SATURNINUS.
- XXXII. BASILIDES.
- XXXIII. NICOLAUS ANTIOCHENUS.
- XXXIV. HAERESIS AB IUDA TRADITORE.
- XXXV. CARPOCRAS.
- XXXVI. CERINTHUS.
- XXXVII. EBION.
- XXXVIII. VALENTINUS.
- XXXIX. PTOLEMAEUS.
- XL. SECUNDUS.
- XLI. HERACLEON.
- XLII. MARCUS.
- XLIII. COLORBASUS.
- XLIV. CERDON.
- XLV. MARCION.
- XLVI. LUCANUS.
- XLVII. APELLES.
- XLVIII. TATIANUS.
- XLIX. CATAPHRYGES.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

Pseudo-Tertullian:

Carpocrates, futhermore, introduced the following sect. He affirms that there is one Virtue, the chief among the upper (regions): that out of this were produced angels and Virtues, which, being far distant from the upper Virtues, created this world44 in the lower regions: that Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary, but was generated-a mere human being-of the seed of Joseph, superior (they admit) above all others in the practice of righteousness and in integrity of life; that He suffered among the Jews; and that His soul alone was received in heaven as having been more firm and hardy than all others: whence he would infer, retaining only the salvation of souls, that there are no resurrections of the body.

Filaster:

Post istum Carpocras nomine surrexit, et ipse dicens Unum Principium, de quo Principio, id est, de Deo, prolationes factae sint Angelorum atque Virtutum: quae autem Virtutes deorsum sint, fecerint creaturam istam visibilem ubi nos consistamus. Christum autem dicit non de Virgine Maria, et divino spiritu natum (Luc. I, 35) , sed de semine Ioseph hominem natum arbitratur, deque eo natum carnaliter, sicut omnes homines, suspicatur. (1152A) Qui post passionem, inquit, melior inter Iudaeos vita integra, et conversatione inventus est, cuius animam in coelum susceptam praedicat: carnem vero in terra dimissam aestimat, animique salutem solum, carnis autem non fieri salutem opinatur.

There is clearly a relationship here.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't know if Lipsius mentions this or not but Pseudo-Tertullian's work is called a libellus, Photius says Hippolytus's syntagma is a βιβλιαρίδιον/ Same thing.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote:Just curious Andrew, what's the actual evidence for the pre-existence of the Constantinople Creed other than the reference in the Ancoratus?
IIUC there is no direct evidence at all.

However, there is surprisingly weak evidence that the Constantinople Creed was composed at the council in 381. The earliest really direct evidence is that one group at the council of Chalcedon in 451 claimed that this (apparently largely unknown) creed had been officially promulgated in 381 and after discussion and investigation everyone else came to agree with them. Given the obscurity of the early history of the Constantinople Creed a date of composition before 381 cannot be entirely excluded.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

Could Epiphanius have thought that the redemption baptism of chapter 21 in Adversus Haereses belonged with the followers of Heracleon
One Heracleon, the founder of the so-called Heracleonites, is Colorbasus' successor; he is no less versed in the foolery of their nonsense. Whatever they say, he declares too; naturally, since he began as one of them and copied his poison from them. But he wants to surpass them by supposedly devising something further, on his own account, for the sake of gathering his own body of dupes ... Heracleon—and the Heracleonites who, as said, derive from him—like Marcus and certain of his predecessors makes allegations about the Ogdoads, I mean the upper and the lower. Then, too, he takes the same view of the syzygies of the thirty Aeons. He too alleges that the Father of all on high, whom he also called 'Depth,' is a man. He too wants to say that the Father is neither male nor female, but that the Mother of all, whom he calls both Silence and Truth, is derived from him. And derived from her is the second Mother, the one who had the lapse of memory, whom he too calls Achamoth. From her all things were brought into being defectively. But he too intends to say more than his predecessors, and it is this. He 'redeems' those of their people who are dying and have reached the actual point of death,3 taking his cue from Marcus, but no longer doing it in Marcus' way—for his part handling it differently by redeeming his dupes at the point of death, if you please.

For sometimes some of them will mix oil with water, and apply it to the head of the dying; others apply the ointment known as balsam, and water.' But they have in common the invocation as Marcus before him composed it, with the addition of certain names. And the invocation is this: 'Messia oupharegna mempsai men chal daian mosome daea akhphar nepseu oua jesou Nazaria.'5 And they do this in order that those who receive these invocations at the point of death, with the water and the oil or ointment mixed with it, will supposedly 'become untouchable by the principalities and authorities on high and invisible to them, allowing their inner man to pass them unseen— with their bodies left behind in the created world, while their souls are committed to the Demiurge'6 on high who originated in Deficiency, and so stay there with him. But as I said their 'inner man,'7 which is deeper down inside them than soul and body, ascends beyond him. This, they hold, has descended from the Pleroma on high. To the persons of whom they make fools in this way they give the direction,8 'If you come upon the principalities' and authorities, remember to say this 'after your departure, 'I am a son of a Father, a Father who was before me;9 and here and now I am a son. And I have come to see all that is mine and all that belongs to others—yet it by no means belongs to others but to Achamoth, who is female and made these things for herself. I derive from the One who was before her and am returning to my own, whence I came.'

And so saying he escapes the authorities but encounters the company of the Demiurge' on high, in the vicinity of the first ogdoad. (They too hold that there is a hebdomad below, after the Demiurge. He is in the seventh heaven as an eighth, but defectively and ignorantly.) 'And to the company of the Demiurge' the departed 'says, 'I am a vessel more precious than the female who made you. If your Mother is ignorant of her own root, I know myself and realize whence I am,12 and call upon the imperishable Wisdom who is in the Father, but who is the Mother of your Mother who has no father or even male consort. A female born of a female made you13 because she did not know even her mother and believed herself to be alone.14 I, however, call upon her Mother.' On hearing this the company of the Demiurge are most disturbed, and condemn their root and the Mother's stock; but the departed goes to his own casting off his chain15 and 'angel,' that is, the soul,'
(for they think there is something else in a man, after body and soul). 'And this is what I have been able to learn about redemption.'

But after listening to the extravagant nonsense of their mime the wise must laugh at the way each one lays down a law different from the others to suit himself and is not restrained from his own impudence but invents as much as he can. 'And it is difficult to discover or state all the doctrines of the people who' are being spawned and sprouting up among them 'even to this day, and every day find something new to say' and delude their converts. So again I shall rest content with what has been said about this sect, for I have given the information I myself have gathered about it.
This italicized section obviously - and this is universally acknowledged - derives from the last section of the description of the Marcosians:
But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the redemption. They, too, are accustomed to anoint with balsam. Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures, nor should that of those [beings] who are inconceivable, and incorporeal, and beyond the reach of sense, [be performed] by such as are the objects of sense, and possessed of a body. These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. For since both defect and passion flowed from ignorance, the whole substance of what was thus formed is destroyed by knowledge; and therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. This, however, is not of a corporeal nature, for the body is corruptible; nor is it animal, since the animal soul is the fruit of a defect, and is, as it were, the abode of the spirit. The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption.

5. Others still there are who continue to redeem persons even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water, or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time the above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body were left among created things in this world, while their soul is sent forward to the Demiurge. And they instruct them, on their reaching the principalities and powers, to make use of these words: "I am a son from the Father--the Father who had a pre-existence, and a son in Him who is pre-existent. I have come to behold all things, both those which belong to myself and others, although, strictly speaking, they do not belong to others, but to Achamoth, who is female in nature, and made these things for herself. For I derive being from Him who is pre-existent, and I come again to my own place whence I went forth." And they affirm that, by saying these things, he escapes from the powers. He then advances to the companions of the Demiurge, and thus addresses them:--"I am a vessel more precious than the female who formed you. If your mother is ignorant of her own descent, I know myself, and am aware whence I am, and I call upon the incorruptible Sophia, who is in the Father, and is the mother of your mother, who has no father, nor any male consort; but a female springing from a female formed you, while ignorant of her own mother, and imagining that she alone existed; but I call upon her mother." And they declare, that when the companions of the Demiurge hear these words, they are greatly agitated, and upbraid their origin and the race of their mother. But he goes into his own place, having thrown [off] his chain, that is, his animal nature. These, then, are the particulars which have reached us respecting "redemption." But since they differ so widely among themselves both as respects doctrine and tradition, and since those of them who are recognised as being most modern make it their effort daily to invent some new opinion, and to bring out what no one ever before thought of, it is a difficult matter to describe all their opinions
My question now would be twofold:

1. This is clearly an example of Epiphanius having the text of Irenaeus in his hand and dictating portions of the text to his secretary Anatolius. However it is an uncontrolled citation. He interjects bits and pieces of his own interpretation and clarification on top of the original text. Could such an individual - unrestrained as he is - have earlier in the section on Marcus controlled himself enough to simply read through verbatim 6 pages of original material from Irenaeus? I think this example (and the original reading from Hegesippus in the section on Carpocrates) disproves that the long citations from Irenaeus and the Marcionite treatise were composed by Anatolius via amanuensis. The sections were text was cited verbatim was copied later without Epiphanius being present.

2. How was it that Epiphanius understood that these last few paragraphs of chapter 21 (at the end of the Marcosian section in our editions of Adversus Haereses) described the Heracleonites)? Heracleon is only mentioned in passing in Book Two of Adversus Haereses. It is interesting that he is identified as operating near Rhegium (viz 'southern Italy') by late authorities:
Neander and Cave have suggested Alexandria as the place where Heracleon taught; but Clement's language suggests some distance either of time or of place; for he would scarcely have thought it necessary to explain that Heracleon was the most in repute of the Valentinians if he were at the time the head of a rival school in the same city. Hippolytus makes Heracleon one of the Italian school of Valentinians; but the silence of all the authorities makes it unlikely that he taught at Rome. It seems, therefore, most likely that he taught in one of the cities of S. Italy; or "Praedestinatus" may be right in making Sicily the scene of his inventions about Heracleon.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply