Epiphanius's Alogi Chapter and Irenaeus. Again Please Help!

[Ben C. Smith]

What I am imagining is that Gaius or the Alogi wrote at a time where John only had two Passovers and no mention of Cana and they were criticizing a new canonical set where additional stories were added prompting the mention in chapter 21 to justify the 'update' from John - i.e. that he had lots of stories so the addition was natural.

My issue with this idea would be that Cana actually fits quite well with the rest of Epiphanius' sequence; it is the feast in John 5.1 that does not (but it is not actually called a Passover, despite Irenaeus taking it as such), as well as that bit I highlighted above from chapter 7.

To put this another way, the issue that the Alogi described by Epiphanius had with Cana does not have anything to do with the Passover said to happen afterward. Rather, the issue was that the synoptics narrate the baptism followed immediately by the temptation of 40 days, whereas John narrates the baptism followed immediately by a sequence of numbered days leading up to Cana. John appears to have Jesus turning water into wine for his mother at the same time that the synoptics would have him a few days into his tenure in the wilderness.

[Secret Alias]

I get what Epiphanius is actually saying. You're right in your analysis and I am grateful for it. But what do we do with this:

“From this day, the twelfth of Athyr, he “preached the acceptable year of the Lord” as had been foretold in the prophet Isaiah … For he indeed preached an acceptable year of the Lord, that is, a year without opposition. He preached for the first year after < the > thirtieth year of his incarnation … In this year he went up to Jerusalem, after being baptized and passing the forty days of the temptation, and the twenty days prior to the first miracle, which I have spoken of, and the choosing of his disciples. It is plain that, after returning to the Jordan from the temptation, and crossing the Sea of Tiberias and going to Nazareth, he went up to Jerusalem and, midway through the feast, cried out, “If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink.” And then he went to Nazareth, Judaea, Samaria and Tyre” And at the close of the first year he went up to Jerusalem again , and now they tried to arrest him during the feast and were afraid to ; at this feast he said , “ I go not up at this feast .

You're right if Epiphanius is writing everything - and none of it is a citation - no problem. But this statement on its own seems to point to the position of the Alogi - i.e. one year from Luke 4 - John 7 and then six months to his crucifixion - as such TWO Passovers. I know it doesn't fit with what Epiphanius is saying and it doesn't make sense that Epiphanius would cite from the Alogi because it doesn't help his argument. But could it tell us about how the Panarion was written - i.e. with Anatolius his secretary 'filling in' the arguments with citations from material Epiphanius used during his oration? And using it badly? Again I ask doesn't the cited passage say - irrespective of what else Epiphanius says in the chapter - that the year of favor ended in chapter 7 of John? Yes or no? Please. I don't want this to be true. It complicates my understanding or what I want to say. Nevertheless I read this as Luke 4 happens and then all this stuff in John until chapter 7 and that was one year. Right or wrong?

[Secret Alias]

I quoted the material incorrectly omitting this:

And at the close of the first year he went up to Jerusalem again , and now they tried to arrest him during the feast and were afraid to ; at this feast he said , “ I go not up at this feast .

Sorry about the first citation. My error. Now do you see what I am talking about? That's why I am now thinking it is from the Alogi = only two Passovers result. What about that paper you cited which dealt with this chronology? That was particularly brilliant and I think the author argued it derived from older material.

[Ben C. Smith]

I quoted the material incorrectly omitting this:

And at the close of the first year he went up to Jerusalem again, and now they tried to arrest him during the feast and were afraid to ; at this feast he said , “ I go not up at this feast .

Sorry about the first citation. My error. Now do you see what I am talking about? That's why I am now thinking it is from the Alogi = only two Passovers result. What about that paper you cited which dealt with this chronology? That was particularly brilliant and I think the author argued it derived from older material.

You may have missed this post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7062#p110409. Your quote above ("at the close of the first year") is what I underlined there. But that portion fits well into what Epiphanius himself is saying. It is the highlighted portion of that post that is the issue.

[Ben C. Smith]

But this statement on its own seems to point to the position of the Alogi - i.e. one year from Luke 4 - John 7 and then six months to his crucifixion - as such TWO Passovers.

Maybe, but I think the Alogi may have opted for one single year, right? The synoptics have been read that way before. Epiphanius opts for two full years and then a few months. Irenaeus opts for at least 3 years.

[Secret Alias]

Sorry. Cool. Again a million thanks.

[Secret Alias]

I ask you this question every year but - what was the name of that article you brought up years ago where someone went through the chronology here and in Papias?

[Ben C. Smith]

But this statement on its own seems to point to the position of the Alogi - i.e. one year from Luke 4 - John 7 and then six months to his crucifixion - as such TWO Passovers.

Maybe, but I think the Alogi may have opted for one single year, right? The synoptics have been read that way before. Epiphanius opts for two full years and then a few months. Irenaeus opts for at least 3 years.

Part of it may be the translation. In the Greek that first year has been completed; the translation says "at the close of the first year," which can be a bit misleading, since it may suggest that the first year has not yet ended. But, if the first year is over and the third year has yet to begin, then "the first year having been completed" is a decent way to express Epiphanius' own opinion.

[Ben C. Smith]

I ask you this question every year but - what was the name of that article you brought up years ago where someone went through the chronology here and in Papias?

Do you mean the Morin and Muratori texts in Latin that I translated from Chapman because I could not find a translation anywhere?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2103

[Ben C. Smith]

Andrew links to the article about Papias (by Chapman) at the bottom of that first page.