The Source of Epiphanius's Alogoi Section

[Secret Alias]

And in case the idea of another gospel which references the marriage at Cana immediately following the 'Johannine' prologues and infancy narratives without John the Baptist notice the order of the gospel of the Epistle of the Apostles:

In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, (1) that he is the word become flesh (2) that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, (3) not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God: (4) that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it.

(5) This did our Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent by Joseph and Mary his mother to be taught. [And] when he that taught him said unto him: Say Alpha: then answered he and said: Tell thou me first what is Beta (probably: Tell thou me first what is <Alpha and then will I tell thee what is> Beta. This thing which then came to pass is to true and of verity.

(6) Thereafter was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and they bade him with his mother and his brethren, and he changed water into wine. (7) He raised the dead (8) he caused the lame to walk (9) him whose hand was withered he caused to stretch it out, (11) and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years touched the hem of his garment and was healed in the same hour. And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done, he said: Who touched me? Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee. But he answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me. Straightway that woman came before him, and answered and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee. And he answered and said unto her: Go, thy faith hath made thee whole. (12) Thereafter he made the deaf to hear and the blind to see; (13) out of them that were possessed he cast out the unclean spirits, (14) and cleansed the lepers. (15) The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked.

(16) Thereafter he did walk upon the sea, and the winds blew, and he cried out against them (rebuked them), and the waves of the sea were made calm. (17) And when we his disciples had no money, we asked him: What shall we do because of the tax-gatherer? And he answered and told us: Let one of you cast an hook into the deep, and take out a fish, and he shall find therein a penny: that give unto the tax-gatherer for me and you. (18) And thereafter when we had no bread, but only five loaves and two fishes, he commanded the people to sit them down, and the number of them was five thousand, besides children and women. We did set pieces of bread before them, and they ate and were filled, and there remained over, and we filled twelve baskets full of the fragments, asking one another and saying: What mean these five loaves? They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Ghost the comforter, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins.

These things did our Lord and Saviour reveal unto us and teach us

Clearly the gospel of John is not the earliest source for this story. The epistle is likely from the second century.

[Stuart]

You are truly a nutcase. This is another case of your special pleading of VERY LATE source material to be correct, but only selectively when it fits your assumptions and theories.

So a 4th century source, which upon your reading may have drawn from 5th century or later sources, has the original story before the 2nd century Gospels ... Therefore because you want it to be from an early source you simply declare "Clearly ... the epistle is likely from the second century." I'd flip it the other way and say the epistle has dependencies on the Gospels, so cannot be earlier than the 3rd century, and given other elements s more likely a product of the 4th or 5th century (for example the phrase holy church). And we have mountains of evidence that most Apocrypha derived from Canonical sources.

John's Cana wedding story can much more easily be explained as being drawn from the Synoptic saying bits, specifically Matthew 9:15-17. It is part of his refutation of Matthew and Mariology.

[Secret Alias]

I will take one more insult from you and then I will start treating you with the contempt you show me. As I said one more insult and then I fire back. To the rest of the forum I will say that Epiphanius clearly has earlier sources whom he cites both explicitly and implicitly. I accept that Stuart has a limited intellectual capacity and so can't possibly fathom how ridiculous it would be if Epiphanius actually wrote all 80 or so chapters from the Panarion from scratch! So for instance Stuart assumes - wrongly I would argue - that the Marcion section is drawn with exactness from Epiphanius's own examination of the texts in the Marcionite canon. So too the dozens of pages on Mani, Origen and the various topics that dot the Panarion. To argue this is of course a sign of not only a lack of probity. Epiphanius displays sloppy reuse of sources (= the material from Hegesippus stands out) but this is not the only section. The question comes down again to how you imagine Epiphanius composed the Panarion. He clearly dictated something to a scribe or scribes. But did Epiphanius write the lengthy discussion of how Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 'fit' within a harmonization of the gospel? The answer has to be no. This effort would of course be for too sustained and meticulous for Epiphanius. Epiphanius had to be using an earlier source and some of the anomalies in the text argue for that point of view.

Let's not forget that Ben has brought forward a study of the chronicle at the heart of the same Alogoi section and that clearly supposes that this section again goes back to the second century. Again, I am not addressing Stuart specifically because he lacks any sort of imagination and can only deal with the Marcionite section as if Epiphanius drafted it himself. Why? Because he believes in the Patristic creation of Marcion. Why? Because he lacks any imagination. Not a cutting insult like 'nutjob' or whatever else he spews forth but a criticism which is ultimately more accurate and damning. That Epiphanius used earlier material should not be controversial. The only reason it is for Stuart is that he doesn't have Epiphanius explicitly acknowledging he is re-purposing earlier material and on occasion (in the case of the Marcion section) denying it outright. I can't be expected to make an unimaginative soul see things beyond the letters of the page. It is beyond my abilities to breath intelligence into lifeless corpses.

[Secret Alias]

This is for Stuart - a monograph on Epiphanius's use of earlier sources in the Alogoi section - https://books.google.com/books?id=IuAzD ... 22&f=false

"In fact, he used a variety of earlier sources in this account, each of which makes some mention of the Gospel or Apocalypse of John; none, however, fully reflect the way Epiphanius describes the Alogi. They are like pieces of a puzzle, each of which adds to the picture Epiphanius paints. A close look at the relationship between Epiphanius' account and sources such as Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius reveals that he has amalgamated aspects from each of these sources and used them as 'building blocks' for his account"

The good news is that I very happy lately so I will not insult or deride Stuart for his intellectual shortcomings. Just read more before you post your resentments.

[Ben C. Smith]

And in case the idea of another gospel which references the marriage at Cana immediately following the 'Johannine' prologues and infancy narratives without John the Baptist notice the order of the gospel of the Epistle of the Apostles:

In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, (1) that he is the word become flesh (2) that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, (3) not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God: (4) that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it.

(5) This did our Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent by Joseph and Mary his mother to be taught. [And] when he that taught him said unto him: Say Alpha: then answered he and said: Tell thou me first what is Beta (probably: Tell thou me first what is <Alpha and then will I tell thee what is> Beta. This thing which then came to pass is to true and of verity.

(6) Thereafter was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and they bade him with his mother and his brethren, and he changed water into wine. (7) He raised the dead (8) he caused the lame to walk (9) him whose hand was withered he caused to stretch it out, (11) and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years touched the hem of his garment and was healed in the same hour. And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done, he said: Who touched me? Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee. But he answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me. Straightway that woman came before him, and answered and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee. And he answered and said unto her: Go, thy faith hath made thee whole. (12) Thereafter he made the deaf to hear and the blind to see; (13) out of them that were possessed he cast out the unclean spirits, (14) and cleansed the lepers. (15) The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked.

(16) Thereafter he did walk upon the sea, and the winds blew, and he cried out against them (rebuked them), and the waves of the sea were made calm. (17) And when we his disciples had no money, we asked him: What shall we do because of the tax-gatherer? And he answered and told us: Let one of you cast an hook into the deep, and take out a fish, and he shall find therein a penny: that give unto the tax-gatherer for me and you. (18) And thereafter when we had no bread, but only five loaves and two fishes, he commanded the people to sit them down, and the number of them was five thousand, besides children and women. We did set pieces of bread before them, and they ate and were filled, and there remained over, and we filled twelve baskets full of the fragments, asking one another and saying: What mean these five loaves? They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Ghost the comforter, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins.

These things did our Lord and Saviour reveal unto us and teach us

Clearly the gospel of John is not the earliest source for this story. The epistle is likely from the second century.

Just for reference, here is the order of miracles in the Epistula Apostolorum, along with the canonical parallels:

Wedding in Cana [specified as the first miracle in John 2.1-11].
Raising the dead [Matthew 9.18-19 = Mark 5.21-24 = Luke 8.40-42 (daughter of Jairus); Luke 7.11-17 (young man in Nain)].
Healing the lame.
Healing a man with a withered hand [Matthew 12.9-14 = Mark 3.1-6 = Luke 6.6-11].
Healing of a hemorrhaging woman [Matthew 9.20-22 = Mark 5.25-34 = Luke 8.43-48].
Healing the deaf [Mark 7.31-37].
Healing the blind [Matthew 20.29-34 = Mark 10.46-52 = Luke 18.35-43 (Bartimaeus); Matthew 9.27-31 (two men); Mark 8.22-26 (with spittle)].
Casting out unclean spirits [Mark 1.23-28 = Luke 4.33-3 (in Capernaum); Matthew 17.14-21 = Mark 9.14-29 = Luke 9.37-43a (a boy)].
Cleansing lepers [Matthew 8.1-4 = Mark 1.40-45 = Luke 5.12-16; 17.11-19 (ten men)].
Casting out the legion of spirits [Matthew 8.28-34 = Mark 5.1-20 = Luke 8.26-39].
Walking upon the sea [Matthew 14.22-33 = Mark 6.45-52].
Calming the sea [Matthew 8.23-27 = Mark 4.35-41 = Luke 8.22-25].
Fishing for the didrachma tax [Matthew 17.24-27].
Feeding the five thousand [Matthew 14.15-21 = Mark 6.35-44 = Luke 9.12-17; John 6.3-15].

[Secret Alias]

I would extend the list to include the Johannine, birth narrative and apocryphal gospel allusions:

harmonized 'Johannine Prologue' with virgin birth narrative [John 1.14, Luke 1.35, John 1.13]
birth narrative [Luke 2.7]
infancy narrative [Marcosian gospel, Infancy Gospel of Thomas]
Wedding in Cana [specified as the first miracle in John 2.1-11].
Raising the dead [Matthew 9.18-19 = Mark 5.21-24 = Luke 8.40-42 (daughter of Jairus); Luke 7.11-17 (young man in Nain)].
Healing the lame.
Healing a man with a withered hand [Matthew 12.9-14 = Mark 3.1-6 = Luke 6.6-11].
Healing of a hemorrhaging woman [Matthew 9.20-22 = Mark 5.25-34 = Luke 8.43-48].
Healing the deaf [Mark 7.31-37].
Healing the blind [Matthew 20.29-34 = Mark 10.46-52 = Luke 18.35-43 (Bartimaeus); Matthew 9.27-31 (two men); Mark 8.22-26 (with spittle)].
Casting out unclean spirits [Mark 1.23-28 = Luke 4.33-3 (in Capernaum); Matthew 17.14-21 = Mark 9.14-29 = Luke 9.37-43a (a boy)].
Cleansing lepers [Matthew 8.1-4 = Mark 1.40-45 = Luke 5.12-16; 17.11-19 (ten men)].
Casting out the legion of spirits [Matthew 8.28-34 = Mark 5.1-20 = Luke 8.26-39].
Walking upon the sea [Matthew 14.22-33 = Mark 6.45-52].
Calming the sea [Matthew 8.23-27 = Mark 4.35-41 = Luke 8.22-25].
Fishing for the didrachma tax [Matthew 17.24-27].
Feeding the five thousand [Matthew 14.15-21 = Mark 6.35-44 = Luke 9.12-17; John 6.3-15].

[Secret Alias]

An interesting example of (a) Epiphanius and the Epistula sharing the same tradition and (b) a modern observer noting that Epiphanius can't have come up with the same conclusions on his own https://books.google.com/books?id=0umDq ... 22&f=false

On the specifically 'Johannine' character of the Epistula Apostolorum "We may note the Epistula Apostolorum as a Quartodeciman representative of this Johannine tradition. 1 1 1 The Epistula Apostolorum was first claimed as Quartodeciman by Schmidt who argued this on the grounds that this was the prima facie probability on the basis of its Asian origin, which Asian origin was indicated by its Johannine bias and by the prominence of Cerinthus as the arch- heretic. https://books.google.com/books?id=QGSF- ... ne&f=false

On Epistula Apostolorum as a Johannine document see Hills Tradition and Composition who, at 161, speaks of the "marked, if not pervasive, Johannine character of much of the author's language and theology", as well as Stewart-Sykes "Asian Context"

[Secret Alias]

Another curious detail from the lengthy chronology later in the Alogoi section. The section reconstructs the life of Jesus in relation to the rulers of the Empire. The text begins:

For Christ was born in the month of January, that is, on the eighth before the Ides of January — in the Roman calendar this is the evening of
January fifth, at the beginning of January sixth. In the Egyptian calendar it is the eleventh of Tybi.

Now we all remember that Clement (Strom 1.21) reports that the Basilideans had 15th of Tybi (instead 15th of Tiberius) but mentions that some have 11th of Tybi. The reason for the variation is clearly that January 5/6 is the key date and that - over time - the corresponding date on the Egyptian calendar went from the 15th of Tybi to the 11th of Tybi. https://books.google.com/books?id=1DsAB ... f=falseThe latter number appears in this text. But what is even more intriguing is the fact that you'd expect a reference to the fifteen of Tiberius somewhere in the lengthy text given that it is trying to establish the regnal year of Jesus' ministry - but it does not appear. Instead - as we saw consistently throughout the earlier section the Lukan chronological passage of choice is:

As I have often remarked, the holy Gospel according to Luke bears me out with some such words as, “Jesus began to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.”

If the author is interested in establishing the year of Jesus's ministry why doesn't he simply cite Luke 3:1?