theomise wrote:Epiphanius, in general, never struck me as a guy overly concerned with accuracy. Maybe it's his writing style (and this is subjective, obviously), but to me he just comes across as sloppy, ill-informed, and perhaps not the brightest tool in the shed. When other church fathers say weird shit (Irenaeus, or Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, or etc.) it definitely gets my attention ... whereas I almost expect it with Epiphanius. There are a lot of instances where he seems to get into a groove and just starts "riffing" - regardless of how much he actually knows about a subject.
That being said, it's certainly an interesting passage. To the extent that it says anything about 4th century Christianity, I would interpret it as reflecting a certain casualness and fluidity toward the finer points of the imagined historical Jesus chronology. That is to say, a bit more supportive of mythicism than alternative-historicism.
theomise,
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. I've been playing with the Greek text and also Frank Williams translation and it is clear that even Williams was unsure how to translate some of the text in this section. Where elsewhere he seems to follow the Greek text pretty closely, in the segment cited by Andrew he goes off wildly, apparently trying to make sense of it, citing all sorts of variants of the statements found in other writers, possibly even adopting some of their readings.
Williams translates thus:
3,3 For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ’s arrival. Until he came < the > rulers < were anointed priests >, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judaea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (4) This position died out with this Alexander from the time of Salina also known as Alexandra, in the time of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus. (Though this Alexander was crowned also, as one of the anointed priests and rulers. (5) For when the two tribes, the kingly and priestly, were united — I mean the tribe of Judah with Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi—kings also became priests, for nothing hinted at in holy scripture can be wrong.) (6) But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned, and not David’s descendants any more.
The-Panarion-of-Epiphanius-of-Salamis (ET Frank Williams, vol 1, 2nd ed 2009)
Petavius' emendation produced something like this, using William's translation:
3,3 For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ’s arrival. Until he came < the > rulers < were anointed priests >, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judaea the order ended in the time of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus, and was altered. In the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (4) This position died out with this Alexander from the time of Salina also known as Alexandra. (Though this Alexander was crowned also, as one of the anointed priests and rulers. (5) For when the two tribes, the kingly and priestly, were united — I mean the tribe of Judah with Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi—kings also became priests, for nothing hinted at in holy scripture can be wrong.) (6) But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned, and not David’s descendants any more.
What I seem to get out of Epiphanius' Greek is something like this:
3,3) For with Christ’s royal coming, the succession of rulers from Judah ceased. For until he came rulers < were anointed priests >, but that order ended and was altered from his birth in Bethlehem of the Judeans. In the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. (4) This position died out with this Alexander from the time of Salina also known as Alexandra, in the time of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus. (Though this Alexander was crowned also, making the anointed (priests) to be rulers also (or alternately, making the anointed (priests) also subordinate governors). (5) For when the two tribes, the kingly and priestly, were united — I mean the tribe of Judah with Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi — kings and priests come together; for nothing hinted at in holy scripture can be wrong.) (6) But then in the time of a refugee from another tribe, King Herod, the crown was not passed on to David’s descendants any more.
No matter how one looks at it, it is still confused as hell. It was Simon, not Alexander Janneus, who was the first high priest to be declared a hereditary ruler. This was by popular decree, circa 141/140 BCE, and this declaration was confirmed by the Syrian ruler out of necessity, effectively making Simon an "independent" client king to Syria.
However, it was Hyrcanus II who petitioned Roman intervention in his civil war with Aristobolus II and in the process relinquished the rule to Roman procurators (Antipater, and later his sons, including Herod), although Hyrcanus II retained the high priesthood, until Herod was appointed king by the Romans when Hyrcanus was mutilated and carried away by the Parthians during the revolt of Antigonus II.
Even then the Hasmonean Aristobulus II, who had also exercised both high priestly and government roles when he was in control before Hyrcanus got the Romans to intervene, was still quite alive and was used by Caesar to threaten Herod's control of Judea under Antony, although Aristobulus was poisoned before he could make use of his two legions against Herod.
I'm inclined to think that Epiphanius has confused Alexander Janneus with both Simon the founder of the Hasmonean dynasty and Hyrcanus II who ended the practice of joint possession of government and high priestly duties. It doesn't seem that he sees any problem with priestly rule as a variance from rule by the house of David, since David was said to have some priestly characteristics (in the Psalms, mainly). The house of David was anyone from the people of Judah and the family of Aaron from Levi. He was cool with that. The Gospels say that Jesus was a descendant of David, so he must have been, at least spiritually, picking up where the physical descendants had failed. Scripture cannot be wrong, so he has no problem twisting historical reality to make it resonate with scripture. It's not like we don't see such attempts to make silk purses out of sows' ears even today.
DCH
