Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And I want to make clear - I don't think that Epiphanius was unique in this regard. ALL the Church Fathers who tried to write something about the heresies were stuck in this position because Irenaeus's pioneering work was so bad. Let me rephrase that. Against Heresies was principally directed against the Valentinians and much of that material is reliable. But the list of sects that follow are unreliable - i.e. Basilides, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, Marcion etc. This isn't surprise as they were added as kind of an afterthought. Irenaeus simply added things he heard and read (or added to manuscripts of older Church Fathers). Because of problems in the original anyone wanting to add to the account is forced to lie, make up stuff etc.

This is what Epiphanius sounds like when he is making shit up out of thin air to fill in pages in his tome.

I'm not saying Epiphanius doesn't ever make things up. He is free to give his own conjectures or misunderstandings about whatever he likes. But in the case of the Ebionites at least, he notes whenever the information he gives is something that "they say" or "they speak of" and says things like "when you ask one of them."

And I more or less agree with what Pearse says in the citation I gave above from his critique of Ehrman:

There is another chapter in Epiphanius, where he quotes extensively from the books of a cult whom he knew slightly himself: the Ebionites. The material is very valuable. Rightly it is used without question in a book discussing them, by Bart Ehrman himself, who adds of the quotations, “we should like to have more.” Indeed we should.

You keep trying to rescue this idea that Epiphanius was a basically reliable writer. The reason you are doing this is that you want there to be this early Jewish Christian sect. I don't know why you want this idea so desperately. But you clearly do.

Because it seems like Christianity 101 to me, is all. I don't understand why you "want" to "ignore" what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:3-11:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all He appeared to me ... Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

I gather from the NT and related writings that Cephas, the Twelve, James, the apostles and of course Jesus himself were Jewish and thus Jewish Christians. It's not a matter of "wanting" them to be.

Now we should remember that the Irenaeus section on Cerinthus says that he learned from the Egyptians. Epiphanius never mentions this but instead says he was from Asia Minor - which isn't found in Irenaeus.

So Epiphanius never mentions that Cerinthus "learned from the Egyptians." Does he always say everything that Irenaeus says (or does he have to)? And can't someone have learned from the Egyptians while being from Asia? Jesus was also thought by some (rightly or wrongly) to have learned from the Egyptians but not that he was from there. 

And Epiphanius' statement that "Cerinthus lived in Asia and began his preaching there" is in keeping with Irenaeus' reference to Polycarp in AH 3.3.4:

There are also those who heard from him [Polycarp] that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."

So if Cerinthus was alive when John the disciple lived in Asia as per Polycarp (and who is arguably the John that Paul mentions in Gal. 2:9), it seems reasonable to me for Epiphanius to suppose (as he was free to do) that Cerinthus had lived during the time of Paul like John did and was thus one of the "false brothers" in Galatians who had opposed Paul, particularly given the similarities between Cerinthus and Jewish Christians regarding circumcision and such.

And from what I have seen, when Epiphanius doesn't know (or care to suppose) something he says so, like in Pan 28.8.1:

But they [the Cerinthians] are called Merinthians too, I am told. Whether the same Cerinthus was also called Merinthus I have no idea; or whether there was someone else named Merinthus, a colleague of his, God knows!

Why wouldn't he just make something up in these cases?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:45 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:51 pm
Of course I can't do anything with this if no one can find what Lightfoot supposedly saw. And now that I take another look at the book (I had copied it from an older thread), I see I had typed it wrong. It actually says, "Lightfoot says that he [Ebion] is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud as one of the founders of sects."

But if Lightfoot mistook Rabbi Abin for Ebion, I'd still like to see the passage that gave him the impression that he was "one of the founders of sects" (which I take to mean minim and thus as a pejorative). And where is the above passage you mention that refers to archheretics from? (Sorry if you've mentioned it already.)

The whole "founder of sects" thing looks like a misquote of Lightfoot to me, unless a passage can be found in which Lightfoot says that. What I have found is Lightfoot saying, "We find the names of some archheretics mentioned in the Talmuds, though we cannot say they were the same men." That is from here: https://books.google.com/books?id=-SlWA ... 22&f=false.

Strictly speaking an Archheretic is not an especially bad heretic. It means the founder of a heresy. I.E. It is almost the same as the founder of a sect.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:31 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:45 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:51 pm
Of course I can't do anything with this if no one can find what Lightfoot supposedly saw. And now that I take another look at the book (I had copied it from an older thread), I see I had typed it wrong. It actually says, "Lightfoot says that he [Ebion] is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud as one of the founders of sects."

But if Lightfoot mistook Rabbi Abin for Ebion, I'd still like to see the passage that gave him the impression that he was "one of the founders of sects" (which I take to mean minim and thus as a pejorative). And where is the above passage you mention that refers to archheretics from? (Sorry if you've mentioned it already.)

The whole "founder of sects" thing looks like a misquote of Lightfoot to me, unless a passage can be found in which Lightfoot says that. What I have found is Lightfoot saying, "We find the names of some archheretics mentioned in the Talmuds, though we cannot say they were the same men." That is from here: https://books.google.com/books?id=-SlWA ... 22&f=false.

Strictly speaking an Archheretic is not an especially bad heretic. It means the founder of a heresy. I.E. It is almost the same as the founder of a sect.

Andrew Criddle

Okay, that makes sense. Even so, in the quoted passage Lightfoot is claiming that the names are present, not necessarily that the names belong to the archheretics themselves; he is being duly cautious. And it means that the Talmud itself need not be making the same claim.

Does he always say everything that Irenaeus says (or does he have to)?

Yes but you have this habit of reframing what I am saying in a way that doesn't damage your main thesis - i.e. that 'Ebionites' are the Jewish Christians of antiquity. What I was saying - simply - is that

1. Epiphanius is dictating the composing of the Panarion to a secretary let's presume - in his office
2. For the section dealing with the Carpocratians he actually has Hegesippus in his hand and reads from the original material used by Irenaeus to make the relevant passage in AH.
3. Cerinthus follows Carpocrates in Irenaeus, 'the Cerinthians' follow 'the Carpocratians' in Epiphanius
4. I've demonstrated that Epiphanius is still reading from 'a' section dealing with Carpocrates at the start of his discussion of 'the Cerinthians' in the Panarion. Presumably it is Irenaeus's summary of Hegesippus.
5. Then he quickly paraphrases Cerinthus in Irenaeus and is in need of new material so he basically continues to read the account of 'the Ebionites' in Irenaeus and draw from this section to provide for new information about 'the Cerinthians' - i.e. that they use the Gospel of Matthew etc.

The first thing that this all shows is that Epiphanius is a terrible eyewitness. Yes one can say 'he is sticking to his sources' in the sense that he actually has written sources at his disposal. But come on, the decision to take from the section on the Ebionites and infer that 'the Cerinthians' - Irenaeus never speaks of a sect of 'the Cerinthians' to begin with - used Matthew is a terrible bit of misinformation.

Thus my point above all is that while it is a good thing that Epiphanius uses Irenaeus, it would be better if you used him in a way that inspired confidence. Your point that 'he doesn't have to say' that he was in Egypt is valid to a degree. However one would think A GOOD WITNESS would say something like 'some say he was in Egypt, others he was from Asia Minor.' The idea that Irenaeus is the principle witness for 'the Cerinthians' even though Irenaeus never says that there was a sect called 'the Cerinthians' and moreover says he lived in Egypt not Asia Minor, Irenaeus never says that 'they' used Matthew - is a worse and worse start to any reliance on Epiphanius.

Your secondary point about Cerinthus being from Asia Minor is similarly problematic. It may be argued that Irenaeus says that Cerinthus encountered Polycarp in Asia Minor and that's why Epiphanius says he was from Asia Minor. But Irenaeus is the source of both references. Surely any rational person would have assumed that Irenaeus would have said he was from Asia Minor in the Cerinthus section if that is what he really thought. Moreover heretics were often compared to 'wandering stars' because they moved around rather than bishops who staid steady in one place. Moveover, if you have Irenaeus's entry for Cerinthus and it says he learned from the Egyptians you decide to say he was from Asia Minor because of something else Irenaeus says in another section of the same book - you still have a situation where Epiphanius is only using one source about Cerinthus. He has no further information about Cerinthus anywhere else.

But they [the Cerinthians] are called Merinthians too, I am told. Whether the same Cerinthus was also called Merinthus I have no idea; or whether there was someone else named Merinthus, a colleague of his, God knows!

So let me get this straight - the fact that Epiphanius passes off his bit about Cerinthus and Merinthus as something he heard 'third hand' is a point for his reliability. If he was making shit up here we should expect that he would say 'hey I am making shit up.' Come on.

As I noted and Hall before me put in a footnote - the entire Cerinthus section after he runs out of garbage to recycle from Against Heresies is improvised from cryptic references in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Galatians. This is what Hall says and he is right. Now let's point out some facts that Price was the first to note:

Cerinthus = Corinthos

It doesn't matter whether or 'to the Corinthians' is somehow related to 'to the Cerinthians.' All that matters is that it might be the genesis of the whole existence of this 'heretic.' In other words, 'Judaizers' were at work in the letters to the Corinthians (i.e. Paul and Clement) and someone made the connection. With respect to Merinthus there is a famous passage 1 Cor 16:22 which mentions 'maranatha.' This just follows a pattern of how Epiphanius filled out the section with utter bullshit and guesses. Notice that as Epiphanius gets to the end of 1 Corinthians he makes mention of debates over whether our lord has come:

Some of these people have preached that Christ is not risen yet, but will rise together with everyone; others, that the dead will not rise at
all. 32 (7) Hence the apostle has come forward and given the refutation of both these groups and the rest of the sects at once on <the subject of resurrection >. And in the testimonies that he gave in full he produced the sure proof of the resurrection, salvation and hope of the dead (8) by saying, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,” 33 and again, “Christ is risen, the hrstfruits of them that slept.” 34 This was to refute both kinds of sects at once and truly impart the unsullied doctrine of his teaching to anyone who wanted to know God’s truth and saving doctrine. Hence it can be observed at every point that Cerinthus, with his supporters, is pathetically mistaken and has become responsible for the ruin of others, since the sacred scriptures explain it all to us, clearly and in detail.

Notice how Epiphanius is comfortable to reconcile differences between the Clementia and Irenaeus:

This sect now forbids celibacy and continence altogether, 8 as do the other sects which are like it. For at one time they prided themselves on virginity, presumably because of James the Lord’s brother,<and so> address their treatises to “elders and virgins.”

Epiphanius has no source for this information. He's just trying to reconcile what Irenaeus says with what is explicit from the Clementia.

Not only does Epiphanius accept the existence of a 'Ebion' but he makes up a backhistory based on the supposition that Ebion was a Nazorene originally:

And as far as I know, he first lived in a village called Cocabe in the district of Qarnaim—also called Ashtaroth—in Bashanitis. There he began his evil teaching—the place, if you please, where the Nazoraeans I have spoken of came from. (9) For since Ebion was connected with them and they with him, each party shared its own wickedness with the other. Each also differed from the other to some extent, but they emulated each other in malice. But I have already spoken at length, both in other works and in the other Sects, about the locations of Cocabe and Arabia.

Epiphanius has no actual information that 'Ebion' lived in this village but that there were Nazorenes here - and since he wants to connect the two sects he decides to make this the origin of Ebion. Terrible scholarship.