Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 6:43 pmAnd yet it's less often shown that Cerinthus is also a fiction, created for much the same reasons as Ebion. Recently, I think I came across the origin of the fictitious name. Recall that the "Gospel of the Ebionites" (called the Gospel according to Matthew) was used by those who, among other things, are attributed with vegetarianism and a rejection of sacrifices. And Epiphanius quotes from this text as follows (
Panarion 30.12 ... So when the text talks about eating honey, as though shaped into a pancake, what could be more appropriate as a way to taunt them but to call them the followers of a certain "bee-bread" man? Such is the fictitious Cerinthus.
Well, Cerinthus either was or wasn't. Later apocryphal details do not prove fiction: no, that's illogical and throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
The falsehood you imagine would need to begin with Irenaeus (c.175 AD) and be carried over by Hippolytus (c.225 AD); difficulties in Epiphanius (c.375 AD) couldn't be the basis for "the Fiction of Cerinthus." No; that's all too great a stretch, fervid imagination.
The Catholics say: "Additional light has been thrown on the character of Caius's dialogue against Proclus by Gwynne's publication of some fragments from the work of Hippolytus "Contra Caium" (Hermathena, VI, p. 397 sq.); from these it seems clear that Caius (c.200 AD) maintained that the 'Apocalypse of John' was a work of the Gnostic Cerinthus." Any tradition of Cerinthus would therefore reasonably date back at least 60 years before Caius; nor does it seem plausible that Caius invented Cerinthus himself. (All these Church Fathers chattering about Cerinthus do not lend credence to the 'Fiction Thesis' either.) It seems most probable there existed a well-known Cerinthus tradition by 140 AD, therefore older.
The
Epistle of the Apostles written about 160 AD would establish the personage as historical and explain/confirm how Irenaeus and Hippolytus both referred to a known heretic, not something (impossibly) of Epiphanius' creation. A book written 160 AD (naming Cerinthus) would also not necessarily be known by either Irenaeus or Hippolytus -- thus, it would be of an entirely independent tradition, and on the contrary, establishing the veracity of the heretic's existence (against the 'Utter Fiction' Thesis) as a contemporary of Simon Magus in then current tradition.
Cerinthus is admittedly obscure, as we would expect of such an ancient heretic/opponent of the Jesus Christ Myth. But obscure and problematic -- however frustrating -- does not equate to False.