Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Panarion Addition Detailing Marcion Canon Was Added Late

Post by Secret Alias »

The next παραθήσομαι appearance is in the Ptolomean passage. The next one after that the introduction of the appended Marcionite treatise.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Panarion Addition Detailing Marcion Canon Was Added Late

Post by Secret Alias »

The next use is to bolster a particularly weak section that deals with a report about 'Origenists' who might or might not be followers of Origen who have dirty sexual habits drawn wholly from unreliable oral tradition:
3,1 And this is their filthy act, which deceives their own minds and is blinded by the devil. (2) I see no need for me to cite the texts which have been their downfall. 4 Otherwise I might seem to be using the texts which I mean as criticisms, to discourage the evil practices of each sect, as an incentive to those whose minds are always unstable and vain, and who pursue evil for themselves rather than desiring good.
(3) Rather than this I shall offer a few sample arguments as protection against this frightful, snake-like sect (εἰς ἀλέξησιν δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς δεινῆς ταύτης καὶ ἑρπετώδους αἱρέσεως ὀλίγα ἀπὸ πολλῶν παραθήσομαι).

3,4 Where have you gotten the idea of your vile act, you people? For to begin with, who cannot see that your teaching is entirely the teaching of demons, and the mischief you have contrived is the behavior of deluded, corrupt persons? (5) If conception is in any way evil, this is not because of childbearing but because of carnal relations. Why, then, do you give in to lust and have carnal relations?

3,6 And if carnal relations are not evil, neither is it evil for the one who has them to consummate what he has done. Or < must > an ascetic not cultivate the fruits of the soil, as “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground?” 5 (7) But if one tills the ground, like Noah who“became an husbandman and planted a vineyard” 6 — Noah did not plant a vineyard in order for it not to yield vintage. He planted it and “drank of the fruit thereof and was drunken,” 7 as scripture says.

3,8 But the aged man is excus< able >; he was pleasing to God, and did not fall to drink from intemperance. Perhaps he was overcome with grief and fell into a stupor, and succumbed to weakness from infirmity and old age because he could not bear them; [in any case] it was not to be mocked by his son. (g) But the son who mocked him received his curse, for the punishment of those who offer insult to their parents, and of thoughts in us that rebel against the knowledge of God and the ordinance he has rightly decreed.

4,1 For even though marriage is not as highly honored as virginity and virginity is superior to it — for true virginity is called glorious and virtuous, not unclean — marriage is respectable too, < if one > employs 8 God’s good creatures for procreation, not shame, and does not misuse God’s appointed method of conjugal intercourse. (2) For in fact, virginity is the state the apostle commends because he says, “The virgin, and the unmarried woman, careth for the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord, that she may be holy in body and soul” 9 — showing that even though the unmarried state is open to suspicion, it is no cause of faults.

4,3 Indeed, < propriety must be preserved in marriage* >. We know that Abraham sired children although he was dear to the Lord, and Isaac, Jacob and the rest. And they did not sully themselves with vile acts by touching filth and < slime* >, or oppose God’s good ordinance of procreation through lawful wedlock. (4) Nor did those of them who practiced chastity and virginity debase the contest and make something else of it, as though to evade by trickery the virtuous mode of competing. (5) Elijah too never lightly entered towns or associated with women, but lived in deserts. Elisha, John, and all who < exhibited > this great mark of the imitation of the angels, made themselves eunuchs in the right way for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, in accordance with the Lord’s ordinance in the Gospel.

And although I have a great deal to say about them, and could expose the devil’s mockery of their minds with many proofs from scripture, I rest content with these few.
For anyone can see that their behavior is not sensible, and that such knowledge is not from God; their ridiculous activity, and their fall into the practice of iniquity, are diabolically inspired. And now that we have maimed this sect too — like the horrid snake we call the viper, which has a short body but breathes a breath which is fearful for its venom, and blows destruction at those who come near it — let us go on to the rest since we have crushed it, calling on God to help us keep the promise of our whole work in God.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Panarion Addition Detailing Marcion Canon Was Added Late

Post by Secret Alias »

The next example:

4,5 But he has other downfalls too, which are more serious. He says that the human soul is preexistent, and that souls are angels and celestial powers, but have sinned and so been shut up in this body as a punishment. (6) They are sent < down > by God as a punishment, to undergo a first judgment here. And so the body is called a “frame” (Sepa), says Origen, because the soul has been “bound” (SeSect&cxi) in the body, imagining the ancient Greek fabrication. And he spins other yarns about this as well. He says that we speak of a “soul” (iJjuxv]) because it has "cooled off” (4>uX&v)vo!i) in coming down. 25

4,7 He smears on texts from the sacred scriptures that suit him, though not as they are or with their real interpretation. He claims that the words of the prophet, “Before I was humbled, I offended,” 26 are the words of the soul itself, because it “offended” in heaven before it was “humbled” in the body. (8) And “Return unto thy rest, O my soul,” 27 are the words of one who has been valiant in good works here, returning to his rest on high because of the righteousness of his behavior. 4.9 And there is much else of the sort to be said. He says that Adam lost the image of God. And this is why the skin tunics are signalized in scripture, for “He made them tunics of skin and clothed them” 28 refers to the body. And he talks a great deal of nonsense which is widely repeated.

4.10 He makes the resurrection of the dead a defective thing, sometimes nominally supporting it, sometimes denying it altogether, but at other times < saying > that there is a partial resurrection, (n) Finally, he gives an allegorical interpretation of whatever he can — Paradise, its waters, the waters above the heavens, the water under the earth. He never stops saying these ridiculous things and others like them. But I have already mentioned things of this sort about him, and discussed them at length, in some of my other works.
But even now (δὲ καὶ νῦν), in the Sect that deals with him, it will do no harm to describe them again for the same reason and purpose, and give his refutation from his own counterfeits. (2) For there is a great deal of his nonsense that came later, and the cultivation of an idea that is false and departs from the truth. (3) For he appeared to speak against every sect before him and refute each one, but later he spat this sect up into the world, one of no little influence. 5,4 So then, first I shall quote his own words in refutation of his false, bogus notion; then I shall show what I, in my mediocrity, intend to say against him (καὶ πρῶτον μὲνοὖν τὰ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ῥηθέντα εἰς ἔλεγχον τῆς αὐτοῦ παραπεποιημένης ἐπιπλάστου ἐννοίας παραθήσομαι, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τὰ κατ' αὐτοῦ ῥηθησόμενα παρὰ τῆς ἡμῶν μετριότητος ὑποδείξω).

And here they are, the things he told the world in The First Psalm ; for though he is always on slippery ground in every scripture, in the essential parts he erred in so many words. But since < his writings are* > very bulky — as 1 mentioned, he is said to have written a long work on every scripture — < it is impossible to quote all of it; but Origen never* > refused to say what he thought < in his expositions of the scripture* >. (6) And he has a modest reputation for what he said about ethics, types of animals and so on in his sermons and prefaces, and often gave clever expositions. (7) But in his position on doctrines, and about faith and higher speculation, he is the wickedest of all before and after him, except for the shameless behavior in the sects. (8) (For as I indicated above, he chose to adopt even an ascetic style of life. Some say that his stomach was ruined by his excessively severe regimen, and fasting and abstention from meat.

5,9 Well then, I shall quote his own words from the First Psalm< along with > his doctrinal speculations in it — word for word, so that no one may call my attack on him vexatious. (10) Not, by any means, that he strayed from the truth only in the First Psalm; as I have often said, he did it in every exposition. But because of the bulk of his work let me select some things from his Psalm here, and show the whole of his unsoundness in the faith from one, two or three remarks, of course taking care to speak against them. (11) And here, at once, is the text of every word, to show you, scholarly hearer, that Origen plainly held that the Son of God is a creature, and also show you, from his impudence about the Son, that he taught that the Holy Spirit is the creature of a creature. (12) Let us take a part of the Psalm, from the beginning until the actual expression [in question], in Origen’s own words.

The beginning of Origen’s commentary on the first Psalm

God’s oracles tell us that the sacred scriptures have been locked away and sealed with the “key of David” 31 — also, perhaps, with the seal of which it said, “an impression of a seal, hallowed to the Lord ” 32 They are sealed, in other words, by the power of the God who gave them, the power which is meant by the seal. (2) In the Book of Revelation John instructs us further about this locking away and sealing and says, “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and none shall shut, and shutteth, and none shall open. I know thy works; behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it .” 33 (3) And a little further on, “And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And / saw another strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book and to loose the seals thereof? (4) And no man in heaven, nor on earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept, because no man was found worthy to open the book, neither to look thereon. (5) And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and the seven seals thereof ” 34

And, of the sealing alone, Isaiah says the following: “And all these words shall be unto you as the words of this book that is sealed. The which, if It be given to any man that is learned, saying Read this, he shall say, I cannot read it, for it is sealed, And this book shall be given into the hands of a man that is not learned, and one shall say unto him, Read this. And he shall say, I am not learned. ” 35

6,7 We must take it that this is said not only of John’s Revelation and Isaiah, but of all of sacred scripture — admittedly, even by those who are capable of a fair understanding of the oracles of God. For scripture is filled with riddles, parables, difficult sayings and manifold other forms of obscurity, and is hard for human comprehension. (8) In his desire to teach us this the Savior too said, “Woe unto you lawyers!" — as though scribes and Pharisees held the key but made no effort to find the way to open the door. “For ye have taken away the key of knowledge. Ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye suffered not to enter. ” 36

7,1 I have said this by way of preface, holy Ambrose, since I am compelled by your great love of learning and my respect for your kindness and humility, to embark on a struggle of the utmost difficulty, and admittedly beyond me and my strength. (2) And since I was hesitant for a long time, knowing the
danger not only of speaking of holy things but, far more, of writing of them and leaving one’s work for posterity, you will be my witness before God of the disposition with which I have done this — even though, with all the world, I too inquire into these matters. For with all sorts of friendly blandishment, and with godly encouragement, you have brought me to it. (3) And I sometimes hit the mark, but sometimes argue too vehemently or < otherwise * > appear to say something < too daring* >. I have, however, investigated the sacred writings without despising the aptly put, “When thou speakest of God, thou art judged of God," and, “It is no small risk to speak even the truth of God." Now since without God there can be no good thing, most of all no understanding of the inspired scriptures, I ask you to approach the God and Father of all through our Savior and High Priest, the originated God, and pray that he wUL grant me, first, to seek rightiy. For there is a promise of finding for those who seek; [but] it may be that there is no promise at all for seekers if God deems them to be proceeding by a road that does not lead to finding.


So far the excerpt from Origen

And first I need to discuss the term, “originated God,” with this braggart with his illusory wisdom, this searcher out of the unsearchable and exhibitor of the heavenly realms, who, as a greater man than I has said, has filled the world with nonsense. (2) And anyone can see that there are many equivalents and synonyms. (3) If the term were used by someone else, one might say that this too had been said with right intent. But since I have found in many instances that Origen wrongly distinguishes between the Only-begotten God and the Father’s Godhead and essence — and the same with the Holy Spirit — it is plain that by saying “originated God” he is pronouncing him a creature. 8.4 For though some would like to outwit me and say that “originated” is the same thing as “begotten,” < this > is not admissible. < The latter may be said only of God, but the former* > may not be said of God, but only of creatures. “Originated” is one thing, “begotten,” another.

8.5 Now as to Origen’s statement that God is created or originated, let me ask first, "How was the person created whom, by this expression of
yours, you honor as God? And if he is created, how can he be worshiped?” (6) Set aside the holy apostle’s censure of those who make gods of created
things; grant that a creature can be worshiped as God by the principles of the godly faith, which worships the creator, not the creature! Then it will
be reasonable for you to derive your erroneous argument from the piety of the fathers. But you can certainly not prove this. (7) And even if you ventured to steal it from somewhere and distort it — even so, you Godstruck simpleton, you cannot change the good sense of the godly into judgment as poor as this! Both your intent and your argument are against you; (8) as I said, no created thing is worthy of worship. But if it is worthy of worship at all, then, since there are many other created things, it will make no difference to us if we worship them all along with the one creature; they are its fellow servants, and in the same category. g,i But let us see by the four Gospels through which the divine Word, when he came, revealed our whole salvation, whether Christ has ever said, “God created me,” or, “My Father created me!” And let us see whether the Father declared in any of the Gospels, “I have created the Son and sent him to you.”

(2) But enough of this for now; as to proof-texts, I have often cited them at length against people who introduce the notion of the Son’s
creaturehood. 9,3 Even here, however, it will do no harm to show the ease with which the term can be refuted and ask the would-be sage, “Mister, how can he be a creature when he says, “I am in the Father and the Father in me, and we two are one?” 37 (4) How can he be different from the Father when
he has equal honor? For “No man knoweth the Son save the Father, nor the Father, save the Son,” 38 and, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father?” 39

And in turn, resuming the thread I am likewise going to speak of all his doubts about resurrection, again from his own words.
And let me make the whole of his opinion plain and reveal the infidelity of his doctrinal position from one passage. (6) < For > even though he has often spoken at length of this and talked nonsense about it in many books, I shall still offer the refutation from the argument he gives in The First Psalm against the sure hope of us who believe in the resurrection (εἰ γὰρ καὶ διὰ πλάτους αὐτῷ εἴρηται πολλάκις περὶ τούτου καὶ ἐν πολλαῖς βίβλοις πεφλυάρηται, ὅμως τὴν ἔλεγξιν παραθήσομαι ἀφ' ὧν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ψαλμῷ ἐξηγήσατο κατὰ τῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν τῆς βεβαίας ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν πεπιστευκότων).

10.1 And it is as follows. He says, Therefore the ungodly shall not arise In the judgment . 40 Next (in his usual manner of parading the versions, Likewise Theodotlon, Aqulla and Symmachus. Then he scornfully attacks the sons of the truth:

Thus the simpler believers suppose that the ungodly do not attain the resurrection and are not held worthy of the divine judgment; but they have no way of explaining what they suppose the resurrection is, and what sort of judgment they imagine. (3) For even if they think they are expressing their opinion of these matters, examination will show that they cannot defend the consequences of their beliefs, having no grasp of the nature of resurrection
and judgment. Thus if we ask them what it is a resurrection of, they reply, “Of the bodies we have now." If we then ask further whether or not there is a resurrection of our whole being before we examine them they say, “Of our whole being.’” (5) But if, allowing for the naivete of those who do not even
< understand* > the mutability of nature, we raise further questions and inquire whether all the blood that has been lost in bleedings will rise with
our bodies — and all the flesh that has wasted away in illness, and all the hair we have ever had, or only the hair we had at the last, towards our end —
(6) they are distressed and sometimes take offense at the questioning since they believe we must allow God to deal with these things as he wills. But
sometimes, since they believe that our hair at the end of this life goes down to the grave with the body, they say that it will arise with it. (7) The better of them, however, to avoid having to take account of the blood which has flowed from our bodies on many occasions, and the flesh which changes <to> sweat or something else in illness, say that it is our body at the end that rises.


u,i These are the would-be sage’s trifling objections to the truth; I have been obliged to quote them as proof for those who wish to know the full sense of his disbelief in the resurrection. Indeed, he makes many other < silly remarks* > in the course of the Psalm, one after another. (2) For he says, Therefore the ungodly shall not arise in the judgment . 41 From here on he attacks those who declare the certainty of the resurrection, and who believe in the sure hope of the resurrection of the dead, for their naivete. And by adducing many weak points, inculcating a sophistical opinion, (3) < and presenting > no reliable argument but any old thing drawn from logic for the ruin of his followers, he tried to overthrow the confession of our true hope in the resurrection by referring to the accidents of our nature.

But given my limited ability, I wouldn’t dare hope to improve on those who have done good work already and replied with full justice to all the rhetorical villainy Origen has thought of. I believe I may rest content with the blessed Methodius’ remarks against Origen with reference to the matter of the resurrection. I shall present these here, word for word; (Ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν καλῶς ἤδη κεκμηκότων καὶ δικαιότατα ἀνατρεψάντων τὴν πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ ἐπινενοημένην ῥητορικὴν κακουργίαν μὴ ἐν τόλμῃ καλλίων βουλόμενος εἶναι, οἷα δὴ βραχὺς ὑπάρχων, ἀρκεσθῆναι ἐνόμισα καλῶς ἔχειν τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ μακαρίτου Μεθοδίου εἰς τὸν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγον κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ὠριγένους εἰρημένοις, ἅτινα ἐνταῦθα κατὰ λέξιν παραθήσομαι). Methodius’ words as he composed them are as follows

An epitome of Origen’s arguments, from the writings of Methodius

So far the excerpt from Methodius

[extremely long section]

This is the < selection* > of consecutive passages < which I have made*> < from > Methodius’, or Eubulius’, < comments* > on Origen and the heresy which, with sophistical imposture, Origen puts forward in his treatise on resurrection. I believe that my quotation of these passages here will do for his silly teachings, and sufficiently refute his < destruction* > of men’s < hope* > for life with a malignancy which has been taken from pagan superstition and plastered over. (2) For many other things — surely even as many more — were also said in his followup of the subject by Methodius, a learned man and a hard fighter for the truth. (3) But since I have promised to say a few things in its refutation about every sect — there are not few of them! — I content myself with quoting Methodius’ work [only] this far. (4) And I, of my poverty, shall add a few more comments of my own on Origen’s nonsense and conclude the contest with him, awarding the prize to God who gives us the victory and, in his lovingkindness, adorns his church at all times with the unfading wreaths of the teachings of the truth. So, as best I can, I too shall speak against him.
63,5 As I have indicated earlier, Mister, you scornfully say, “Was God a tanner, to make skin tunics for Adam and Eve when no animals had yet been slaughtered? And even if animals had been slaughtered, < there was no tanner there. What the scripture meant, then, was* > not skin tunics, but the body of earth which surrounds us.” (6) And you are exposed in every respect as a follower of the devil’s < inspiration > and the guile of the serpent, who brought the corruption of unbelief on mankind, deceived Eve, and continues to corrupt the minds of simple people with the villainy < of his inspiration > 235

63,7 Let’s see whether your arguments can stand, then, since you’ve worked so hard and carried the struggle of writing so many books out to such useless length. (8) For if the story of your composing 6000 books is true, 236 you energy-waster, then, after expending all that futile effort on lampoons and useless tricks and rendering your work valueless and empty, you made the toil of your trafficking profitless by being mistaken in the main points with which you counterfeited the resurrection.

For if the body does not rise, the soul will have no inheritance either. The fellowship of the body and the soul is one and the same, and they have one work. But faithful men exhaust themselves in body and soul in their hope of the inheritance after resurrection — and you say there will not be one! Our faith is < of no value >, then; and there is no value in our hope, though it is in accordance with the apostolic and true promise of the Holy Spirit.

63.10 But though you, on the contrary, confess a resurrection yourself, since what you have is an illusory appearance and nothing real, you are compelled to say nothing but the name. How can we speak of a soul’s “rising,” when it doesn’t fall and isn’t buried? (11) It is plain from the name that the resurrection of the body, which has fallen and been buried, is proclaimed, everywhere and in every scripture, by the sons of the truth. But if the body doesn’t rise, the resurrection proclaimed by all the scriptures isn’t possible. (12) And if there is no resurrection, [any] expectation of the resurrection of the dead is useless. For there is no resurrection of souls, which have not fallen; but there is a resurrection of bodies, which have been buried. (13) And even if a portion of the body is raised while a portion is laid to rest, how can there be any such portion? There cannot be parts of the body which are raised, and parts which are laid to rest and left behind.

63,14 < Anyone with a sound mind can see* > that, [just] because there is a spiritual body and an ensouled body, the spiritual body is not one thing and the ensouled body something else; the ensouled and the spiritual body are the same. (15) We have ensouled bodies while we are in the world and doing the corruptible deeds of the flesh; for in the world we are enslaved to the soul in its wicked deeds, as you too have said up to a point. (16) When we are raised, however, there is no more enslavement to the soul but there is a following of the Spirit, for from that time on they have the Earnest 237 as scripture says, “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit; and if we walk by the Spirit, by mortifying the deeds of the body we shall live.” 238 (17) There will be no more marriages, no more lusts, no more struggles for those who profess continence. There will be no more of the transgressions which run counter to purity, and no more of the sorts of deeds that are done here; as the Lord says, “They that are accounted worthy of that resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.” 239

64.1 And thus Enoch was translated so as not to see death, and was not found. But at his translation he didn’t leave his body, or part of his body, behind. If he had left his body he would have seen death, but being translated with his body, he did not see death. For he is in a living body, and because of his translation his state is spiritual, not ensouled, though, to be sure, he is in a spiritual body. 64.2 The same < has been said* > of Elijah, moreover, because he was taken up in a chariot of fire and is still in the flesh — but in a spiritual flesh which will never again need, < as > it did when it was in this world to be fed by ravens, drink from the brook of Kerith, and wear a fleece. It is fed by another, spiritual nourishment the supplier of which is God, who knows secrets and has created things unseen; and it has food which is immortal and pure.

64.3 And you see that the ensouled body is the same as the spiritual body, just as our Lord arose from the dead, not by raising a different body, but his own body and not different from his own. But he had changed his own actual body to spiritual fineness and united a spiritual whole, and he entered where doors were barred, (4) as our bodies here cannot because they are gross, and not yet united with spiritual fineness. 64,5 What was it, then, that entered where doors were barred? Something other than the crucified body, or the crucified body itself? Surely, Origen, you cannot fail to admit that it was the crucified body itself! (6) ft refutes you by the clear demonstration it gave to Thomas, telling him besides, “Be not faithless, but believing.” 240 For Christ displayed even the mark of the nails and the mark of the lance, and left those very wounds in his body even though he had joined his body to a single spiritual oneness. (7) Thus he could have wiped the wounds away too, but to refute you, you madman, he does not. Therefore it was the body which had been buried for the three days in the tomb, and which had arisen with him in the resurrection. For he displayed bones, skin and flesh, as he said, “See
that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” 241

64,8 Why, then, did he enter where doors were barred? Why but to prove that the thing they saw was a body, not a spirit — but a spiritual body, not a material one, even though it was accompanied by its soul, Godhead, and entire incarnate humanity, (g) ft was the same body, but spiritual; the same body, once gross, now fine; the same body, once crucified, now < brought to life* >; the same body, once conquered, now unconquerable, ft was united and commingled with his divine nature and never again to be destroyed, but forever abiding, never again to die. (10) For “Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept.” 242 < But once risen > “He dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” 243 65,1 But also, to show you why Christ is called “the firstfruits of them that slept” 244 even though he was not the first to rise — Lazarus and the widow’s son arose before him by his aid, and others by the aid of Elijah and Elisha. (2) But since they all died again after rising, Christ is the firstfruits of them that slept. For after his resurrection “He dieth no more,” 245 since, through his life and lovingkindness, he is to be our resurrection. 246

65,3 Now if he is the hrstfruits of them that slept, and if his body arose in its entirety together with his Godhead, his human nature < must appear in its entirety > after its resurrection with none of it left behind, neither its body nor anything else. “For thou shalt not leave my soul in hades, neither shalt thou give thine holy one to see corruption.” 247 (4) And what is said about the soul in hades means that nothing has been left behind; but “holy one” is said to show that the holy body has not seen corruption, but has risen uncorrupted after the three days, forever united with incorruption.

65,5 But Mister, you claim that these bodies are the skin tunics 248 though the passage nowhere says so. But you say it because of the seeds of the Greeks’ heathen teaching which were sown in you to from that source, and because of the Greeks’ perverse notion which brought you to this and taught you. (6) "For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit; for they are foolishness unto him, because they are spiritually discerned.” 249 65,7 If Adam and Eve had gotten the tunics before their disobedience, your falsehood would be a plausible one, and deceptive. But since it is plain that < the flesh is already there* > at the time of Eve’s fashioning, < how can it not be an easy matter to refute your foolishness?* > What was Eve fashioned from? From a body, plainly; scripture says, “God cast a deep sleep upon Adam and he slept, and God took one of his ribs.” 250 (8) But a rib is simply a bone; for God built up “flesh in its place.” If flesh is mentioned [at this point], how can its creation still be in prospect?

65, g And it says earlier, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness.” 251 “And he took dust of the earth,” it says, “and fashioned the man.” 252 But dust and flesh are nothing else than body. (10) Then later “Adam awoke from his sleep and said, This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” 253 (11) The skin tunics were not there yet — and neither was your allegorical falsehood. “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” plainly means that Adam and Eve were bodies, and not bodiless.

65,12 And “She took of the tree and ate” 254 when she was seduced by the serpent and fell into disobedience; and Adam heard the voice of God walking in the garden in the evening, and Adam and Eve hid themselves among the trees.” And God said to Adam, “Where art thou?” But because he was found out, Adam answered, “I heard thy voice and hid, for I am naked.” 255 (13) What did he mean by “naked?” Did he mean the soul or the body? And what did the fig leaves cover, the soul or the body?

65.14 Then God said, “And who told thee that thou art naked, if thou hast not eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee that of it alone thou must not eat?” And Adam said, “The woman whom thou gavest me gave unto me and I did eat.” 256 Now where was the woman “given” from if not from the side, that is, from Adam’s body — before the tunics were given to Adam and Eve! 65.15 And God said to the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?” And she said, “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat, and gave unto my husband also.” 257 And God laid the curse on the serpent, the pangs of childbirth on the woman, and the eating of bread by his sweat on the man.

65.16 “And afterwards God said, Behold, Adam hath become as one of us. [And now] lest he put forth his hand and touch the tree of life and live forever.” 258 (17) And do not suppose, hearer, that the Lord said, “Behold, Adam hath become as one of us,” as a statement of fact. He said it in reproof, to reproach Adam’s vanity for being won round by the deceit of the serpent. What Adam had thought would happen, had not happened; that is, Adam had not “become as one of us.” From the desire to rise higher, Adam had fallen lower.

65,18 And it was not from envy that God said, “Let us cast him out, lest he put forth his hand to the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,” but to make sure that the vessel which had been damaged by its own fault would not always remain damaged. (19) Like a master potter he reduced the vessel with its self-inflicted damage to its raw material, the earth, [to] remold the righteous at the resurrection, completely undamaged, immortal in glory, capable of enjoying the kingdom — and remold the unrighteous at the final resurrection, with the ability to undergo the penalty of damnation. (20) For God planted nothing evil, never think it! Fie planted just the tree, and by his own decree permitted Adam to take its fruit at the proper time, when he needed it.

65.21 But you will retort, “What becomes of ‘In the day in which ye eat thereof ye shall surely die,’ 259 if Adam could eat from it? “Ye shall surely
die’ would apply to him, surely, no matter when he ate from it!”

65.22 But to the one who says this I reply, “God decreed Adam’s death for the transgression he would commit, since, even before giving the commandment, God, < who > knows the future, knew that Adam would be deceived and eat of the tree.” (23) Because they are mistaken in this point
the sects blaspheme God and say, “Some God of the Law! He envied Adam, cast him out and said, ‘Let us cast him out, lest he put forth his hand and
take of the tree of life and live forever!’ ” 260

65,24 But their stupid idea stands exposed as the false accusation it is. Not only did God not forbid them to eat from the tree of life in the beginning; he even encouraged them by saying, “Of every tree in the garden thou mayest eat for food.” But the tree of life too was one of “all the trees in the garden,” right before Adam’s eyes. (25) Only from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did God forbid them to eat. But Adam’s greedy mind disobeyed the commandment instead, from simplicity and < by listening > to his wife Eve who had been deceived by the devil.

65,26 Since Adam, then, had become defective by his own doing, God did not want him to live forever defective. Like a master potter God chose to change the vessel, which had been spoiled by its own doing, back to its raw material, and again change it from its material, as though on the wheel, at the regeneration, remaking and renewing it with no defects so that it could live forever. (27) Hence at first he threatens death, but the second time he no longer says “death,” but says, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” 261 “without having consigned the man to death . . ,” 262 (28) And after some other material, “And God made tunics of skin and clothed Adam and Eve, and cast them out of the garden.” 263 And you see, Origen, that your novel nonsense is worthless. How long Adam and Eve had had bodies!

66.1 But if this shows your guilt, you unbeliever and worse, and if you cannot receive the grace of the Spirit because of your soulish thinking, then tell me how wonderful and astonishing is each thing that God has done. (2) How has the heaven been spread out from nothing and hung in mid-air? How was the sun made bright, and how were the moon and the stars created? From which primal matter was the earth taken, when it was made from nothing? From which materials were the mountains hewn?

66,3 What was the origin of the whole world, which God brought forth from nothing? How were the clouds formed, which cover the sky in an instant? (4) Where were the gnats and fleas provided from by God’s command, for his servant Moses? How did God change Moses’ wooden rod into a living serpent that crawled? How was Moses’ hand changed to snow? (5) And in Adam’s time too, you unbeliever, God willed, and made actual skin tunics without animals, without human craft and any of the various sorts of human work — < and > made them for Adam and Eve at the moment of his willing them, as he willed at the beginning, and the heaven, and all things, were made at that very moment.

66,6 And for those who care < to choose* > life, salvation can be put in a few words and heresy is an easy matter to refute. But for those who are unwilling to receive the doctrine of salvation, not even the whole aeon would not be time enough for discussion, since, as the sacred oracle says, “Their hearing is ever deaf, like the < deaf > adder that stoppeth her ears, refusing to receive the voice of the charmer and the spell cast by the wise.” 264 However, although what I say here is not extensive, I believe that it is of no little value to the sons of the truth.

67.1 But I shall pass on to the discussion of resurrection which you base on the first Psalm. For when you deceive the ignorant, you waster of effort,
by palming your ideas off on them, and say that some “simple” people believe that the impious do not attain resurrection — and when you show later how you ask these “simple” people which body will be raised, and < mock them by replying* > in your own words for the people you call “simple” — < you are compelled >, for I must say this plainly, to call your so-called “simple” people “good.” 265 (2) < For > you are not saying this of yourself, and no grace is being given to your speech; you say it because of the truth, which compels you to give the signs of the superiority and goodness of the servants of God!

67.3 Even the heathen proverb says, “Simple is the speech of the truth.” We are accustomed to call the harmless persons, whom the Savior praises
at many points, "simple.” < For example >, [he says], “Be simple as doves,” 266 and, “Suffer the little children” — that is, the simplest of all — “to come
unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 267 67.4 Now the “simple,” as you say, gave you the answer that the resurrection is that of this body in which we are enclosed. And when you raise a difficulty in reply to this and ask them, “Is it a resurrection of the whole body or of a part of it?” they answer, “of the whole body.” (5) But when, in your very silly way, you say that this is no good because of the blood that is drained from our bodies, and the flesh, hair, and other things that are voided through our spittle, nostrils and excrement, there is a great deal of trickery in your wrong diagnosis. A better man than I, the venerable and most blessed Methodius, has already countered your fabrication with many arguments.

67,6 But you will also hear a bit from my modest self. Anything we want, we want perfectly clean; we do not require the excess material which is removed from a thing that is clean. (7) Once a garment has been woven on the web it is complete and that is what is cut from the warp, with < nothing > added to it or removed from it. If it is given to a fuller it will not be expected back from the fuller reduced in size; even from the fuller we get it back perfectly whole. (8) Thus it is plain to everyone that it is entirely the same garment, and has become a smaller body in no way but by the removal of the spots and dirt. And surely, since he has removed the dirt, we will not demand the garment back from the fuller dirty; we shall want the garment itself, untorn, in good condition, and perfectly clean.

67, g But here is another illustration. You have raised the question of the fluid which is drained away by bleedings, illness, excretion, and the dribbling of our spittle and nostrils; but you will be refuted from the very things you have said. (10) For not just this is in the body; vermin — lice and bugs — grow from us, as it were, and are not considered either apart from the body or part of the body. (11) And no one has ever hunted for a bug shed by the body, or a louse bred from the flesh itself, to keep it, but to destroy it. Nor would anyone regard its destruction as a loss. (12) <Just so > we shall not make a foolish search for the fluids we excrete — though it is often as you say 268 — nor would God return these for our reconstitution. He would leave them behind the second time, like dirt which is the garment’s dirt but has been removed from the garment itself for neatness’ sake. The creator would plainly return the whole garment by the goodness of his skill, with nothing missing or added; for all things are possible to him.

67.13 But if it were not that way — you, with your brains damaged by your long-winded notion! [If it were not that way], our Savior and Lord, the Son of God, who came to make our salvation entirely sure, and who illustrated our hope mostly in his own person to prove his truthfulness to us, could have discarded part of himself and raised part of himself, you trouble-maker, in keeping with your destructive fiction and accumulation of a host of worthless arguments.

67.14 For to refute your sort of argument, he himself says at once, “Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it fall and die, it beareth many grains.” 269 And whom was he calling a “grain?” (15) ft is plain to everyone, and the whole world agrees, that he was speaking of himself — that is, of the body of the holy flesh which he had received from Mary, and of his whole human nature. (16) But he said “fall” and “die” of the three-day sleep of his body itself as he says, “Where the fallen carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together” 270 — and you yourself will admit it. For his Godhead can never sleep, fall, be mastered, or be changed.

67,17 And so the grain of wheat died and rose. Well, did the grain rise whole, or did a remnant of it rise? Did another grain rise in place of the original grain, or did He Who Is himself arise into being? You will surely not deny < that the body* > arose, which Joseph had wrapped in a shroud and laid in a new tomb. (18) Then who did the angels tell the women had risen? — as they say, “Whom seek ye? Jesus of Nazareth? He is risen, he is not here. Come, see the place!” 271 This was as much as to say, “Come, see the place, and let Origen know that there is no question of a remnant’s lying here; the body has risen whole.” (ig) And to show you that it has risen whole, < scripture says > in refutation of your nonsense, “He is risen. He is not here.” For no remnant of him was left behind; the very same body < had risen > which had been nailed [to the wood], pierced with the lance, seized by the Pharisees, spat upon. (68,1) And why should I give the multitudes of arguments that demolish this pitiable wretch and the nonsense that has been generated in him? As Christ has risen and has raised his own body, so he will raise us.

68,2 For the holy apostle demonstrated our hope on this basis by saying, “How say some of you that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither is Christ risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your hope is vain. And we are also found false witnesses of God, for we have said that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, 272 and so on. (3) And later he adds, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” 273 And he didn’t just say “mortal,” or just say “corruptible,” or, “the immortal soul.” He said “this corruptible,” with the addition of “this;” and “this mortal,” with the addition of “this.” (4) His grain has risen itself, whole. A part of him has not risen; he has risen whole, and not as a grain different than the first. The very grain that fell in the tomb has risen whole.

68,5 And how can your nonsense have any validity? The sacred scrip- ture knows of two “grains,” one in the Gospel and one in the Apostle. (6) And the one gives the full explanation because of the process that has been carried to completion in it, which is the pattern of < our > resurrection. For by giving this teaching and putting it into practice, the Savior has surely done everything to prove it to us. (7) No sooner did he speak of the grain than he raised the grain, as a true confirmation of the faith of our hope for our resurrection.

68,8 Here the apostle takes over by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, once more using a grain of wheat to tell us of the saints’ glory after the resurrection, and displays their < hope > for the enjoyment of good things. (9) He denounces unbelievers with, “But thou wilt say unto me, How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?” 274 And to anyone who says such things he replies, “Fool!” For anyone with any doubt of resurrection is a fool and has no understanding. (10) Then he says, “or of other seeds, and it is not quickened except it die. But God giveth it a body as he hath willed, and to every seed its own body. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat or of other seeds, and it is not quickened except it die. But God giveth it a body as he hath willed, and to every seed its own body 275

68,11 And you see that the body is not changed. No one sows barley and looks for wheat, and no one has sown cummin and gotten barley; the thing that is sown is the same as the thing that is raised. (12) But if — here, in the case of this perishable wheat which is not under judgment — < some > of it is left below in the ground and its shoot comes up, the part that is left behind is of no use, but the thing that comes up from it is better. But because of the unbelief of those who do not look for the hope of God, Paul chose to display its splendor. In fact, the grain of wheat is a very tiny thing. Where are the roots, the bottom parts of it, the stems and the joints, in so tiny a grain? Where is such a number of quills, heads, sheaths, ears, and grains multiplying?

69,1 But to put this more clearly by describing things that are like it — how could Moses, the son of Jochabed and Amram, pierce the rock with his staff, bring water from its impenetrable matter, change something dry to something wet? How could he strike the sea, and part it into twelve highways in the sea, by < God’s > command? (2) How could he gather so many frogs in an instant? How could he send the lice upon the Egyptians? How could he mingle the hail with fire? How could he make the blackness of a moonless night even darker for the Egyptians? How could he slay the Egyptians’ first-born with pestilence? 69.3 How could he lead the people whose shepherd he was with a pillar of fire? How could he bring the bread of angels by prayer and supplication? How could he provide the flock of quails, and glut so many myriads by God’s command?

69.4 How could he hear God’s voice? Why was he, among so many myriads, privileged to hear God’s voice and talk with God? How could he not need the requirements of human nature for forty days and forty nights? How could his flesh be changed to the brightness and shining ray of the sun, making the people so giddy that the children of Israel could not look him in the face? How could his hand, though flesh, be changed to snow? (5) How could he bid the earth open its mouth and swallow Korah, Dathan, Abiram and Onan (sic!)? (6) Why was he told at the end of his life, “Ascend the mount and die there?” 276 Why does no man know his sepulcher? Holy writ suggests that Moses’ body was not buried by men but, as may reasonably be supposed, by holy angels. (7) And all this was while Moses was still in this world and still in this ensouled body — which had, at the same time, become fully spiritual.

69,8 Taking this as the earnest < of our hope, let us use it > as the model of the perfect sprouting then, when “It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power” 277 is fulfilled, (g) For how can something sown without knowing where be anything but “weak?” How can something dumped in a grave and heaped with dust, something torn, decomposed, and without perception, be anything but “dishonored?”

69,10 How can a thing be anything but “honored,” when it is raised, abides forever, and obtains a kingdom in heaven by its hope in God’s lovingkindness — where “The righteous” shall shine “as the sun;” 278 where they shall be “equal to the angels;” 279 where they shall dance with the bridegroom; where Peter and the apostles “shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel;” 280 where the righteous shall receive “what eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him?” 281 (11) Our resurrection, then, rests with God, and so does any man’s — righteous and unrighteous, unbeliever and believer, some raised to eternal life but some to eternal damnation. Quiet, Babel, you ancient confusion who have been brought to life again for us! Quiet, Sodom, and your loud, awful clamor that ascends to God! (2) “For the redeemer shall come from Zion, and turn away iniquities from Jacob,” 282 “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall arise,” 283 and “We shall be caught up to meet him in the air” 284 as < my > better, the < venerable and > blessed Methodius, has said, and I myself have added by building on the same words.

70,3 For from the context of each expression one can see what the wages are. Though the holy apostle distinguished the natures of the two kinds [of saved persons], he united them in one hope with his words, “We shall be caught up in the clouds to meet him” — showing that it is actually this body < that rises > and not something else; for one who is “caught up” has not died. (4) And by indicating that “We shall not precede the resurrection of the dead” 285 as proof that what is impossible for men is easy and possible for God — “For we, the living, shall not precede them that are asleep and their resurrection” 286 — he made it plain that the living are caught up as well. This shows, from the living, that the bodies of the dead will be raised whole; and from the fact that the dead precede those who are alive and remain, it shows what is possible to God. (5) “For the dead shall arise, and they that are in the graves shall be raised up,” 287 says the prophet.
But since I do not want to omit what the prophet Ezekiel says about resurrection in his own apocryphon, I shall give it here (ἵνα δὲ καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰεζεκιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀποκρύφῳ ῥηθέντα περὶ ἀναστάσεως μὴ παρασιωπήσω, καὶ αὐτὰ ἐνταῦθα παραθήσομαι).

To give a symbolic description of the just judgment in which the soul and the body share, Ezekiel says, A king had made soldiers of everyone in his kingdom and had no civilians but two, one lame and one blind, and each < of these > lived by himself in his own home. (7) When the king gave a marriage feast for his son he invited everyone in his kingdom, but despised the two civilians, the lame man and the blind man. They were annoyed however, and thought of an injury to do the king.

70.8 Now the king had a garden. The blind man addressed the lame man from a distance and said, “How much did we have to eat with the crowds
who were invited to the celebration? Come on, let’s get back at him for what he did to us!" ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

I think with our discovery of this cluster of 'additional references' to the Origen section we can confirm the overall pattern of secondary additions which includes the section on 'Marcionite readings' in chapter 42. What we've discovered so far:

1. Epiphanius dictated an original draft or edition of the Panarion to a scribe:

Image

The evidence suggests that Epiphanius had before him a number of texts from various authors. The composition was loose, the dictation was often imaginative, the citations of these earlier texts was loose and 'off the cuff.'

2. At a subsequent point in time Epiphanius went back and decided to bolster that original argument.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

Kim, Epiphanius "We know that Epiphanius dictated his thoughts to his scribe Anatolios; and perhaps due to haste and the petitioners' desperation, we might forgive the bishop for the work's seeming lack of organization.130 However, examining the text with a better understanding of the context in which it was written reveals a broad pattern of sections that address specific theological themes and issues, address specific theological themes and issues, such that the Ancoratus functions in a way as a series of catechetical lessons. Epiphanius covered several essential subjects, including the correlative divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the full Incarnation,
The Panarion itself enacts this improvisational performance of institutional power in miniature: a rigorously detailed set of books, insistent on the singularity of orthodox truth, published in a style of Greek that cannot help but highlight the performative aspects of its own composition. As anyone who has read Epiphanius's Greek can attest, his preferred method of composition was to dictate, often with supporting texts at hand to read out, and have his dictation taken down in shorthand by an amanuensis who would then transcribe the entirety. Epiphanius then sent the final transcription out without further editing. The resulting text is a pastiche of rigourous moralizing orthodoxy in loose spontaneous language.127

127 Epiphanius De Fide 25,3-4 (GCS 37:526) “All the brothers with me greet Your Honor, especially Anatolius, who taking notes and drafting (σημείων καὶ σχεδαρίων) the matters of these heresies (I mean the eighty) with a lot of trouble and affection, has been deemed worthy to transcribe and correct them, along with Hypatius, his most honored fellow deacon, who made the transcription from the drafts into quires." See also Epiphanius, Ancoratus 119.16 (GCS n.F. 10.1:149): “All the servants of the Lord greet you, especially myself, Anatolius, who writes this book which is entitled 'the WellAnchored Discourse' and I pray that you are strengthened in the Lord."
I think I have solidified the secondary nature of the insertion process with this quote:
... just in the same manner in which the Constantinopolitan Creed has been inserted in the "Ancoratus" of St. Epiphanius by the scribe Anatolius, but so clumsily as to leave the description of it as the work of the fathers at Niceea unaltered. https://books.google.com/books?id=pClDA ... oQ6AEIPDAD
It would seem that in his original dictation Epiphanius referenced the Nicene Creed and then in the final editing of the MS his scribe Anatolius inserted a later version of the Creed making it seem as if Epiphanius thought the Constantinople Creed was established at Nicea.
Most importantly the huge Panarion, begun and finished within three years, is for the most part oral Greek. It was chiefly dictated, we may suppose in haste, and taken down just as Epiphanius delivered it. His stenographer and scribe, the deacons Anatolius and Hypatius, sign their names at the end of De Fide. Presumably Epiphanius had notes before him, or copies of some of his sources, but much of his composition is plainly ad lib. Thus at 30, 1 3,2 he suddenly interrupts his discussion of Matthew’s gospel in Hebrew to bark out, “And they call this thing ’Hebrew’!” His assistants must have grinned.

Epiphanius’ sentences show more coordination than subordination and will often simply run on until they finish a story. A short example — which we break into more than one sentence — is found at 30,18,3, where Epiphanius tries in one breath to tell the reader all he knows of Ebionite customs. When in a hurry he may cover his ground with a long string of genitive absolute phrases. Not often but in a few instances a sentence will not quite construe throughout; this is due, one assumes, to the speaker’s haste. An Epiphanian sentence can be a tangle as in his invective against Valentinians and Gnostics at 31,1,1-2. Sometimes, as at 29,3,7-9, one can be no more than several elements set side by side, scarcely deserving the name of “sentence.” All this evidences oral composition and probably lack of time for revision — the busy bishop would have had little time for that.

This oral delivery can be effective. There are passages of lively argument, like the discussions of the Demiurge and “matter” at 36,4,5f or of the origin of evil at 24,6, 1 -3. Epiphanius’ imaginary “dialogues” with heretics long dead are vivid and amusing. Sometimes we find a well arranged extemporaneous sermon, as when Epiphanius pillaries the Ophites in Sect 37. https://archive.org/stream/ThePanarionO ... s_djvu.txt
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

On the role of the scribe Anatolius in the shaping of the final composition.

The Ancoratus was composed around 373 - 374. The title seems to be Epiphanius's drawing on a metaphor in his prologue of a ship seeking safe harbor; furthermore his secretary Anatolius mentions it in his subscription "I, Anatolius, who wrote this book of the treatise named Ancoratus." On what exactly is supposed to be “anchored” (the faith? the reader? the treatise?), I follow Oliver Kösters and Young Richard Kim, who think it makes most sense to understand the title (as conveyed by Anatolius) as Ankurōtos logos, “the well-anchored treatise."

His stenographer and scribe, the deacons Anatolius and Hypatius, sign their names at the end of De Fide [Epiphanius's long, concluding doxological chapter]. Presumably Epiphanius had notes before him, or copies of some of his sources, but much of his composition is plainly ad lib.26 This characterization of Epiphanius as hasty author, dictating but not editing his works before sending them off, stands in stark contrast to figures like Augustine or Gregory of Nazianzus, whose careful management of their own literary legacies can sometimes obscure their original contexts. https://books.google.com/books?id=bbIlD ... it&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote:
I think I have solidified the secondary nature of the insertion process with this quote:
... just in the same manner in which the Constantinopolitan Creed has been inserted in the "Ancoratus" of St. Epiphanius by the scribe Anatolius, but so clumsily as to leave the description of it as the work of the fathers at Niceea unaltered. https://books.google.com/books?id=pClDA ... oQ6AEIPDAD
It would seem that in his original dictation Epiphanius referenced the Nicene Creed and then in the final editing of the MS his scribe Anatolius inserted a later version of the Creed making it seem as if Epiphanius thought the Constantinople Creed was established at Nicea.
There is no doubt Epiphanius meant to reference the Nicene creed here not the Constantinopolitan creed found in our manuscript. Since, however, the creed was probably first composed at the council of 381, the error may be due to a later copyist rather than the scribe Anatolius.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

From the author of a recent critical work on Epiphanius (not Kim):

Dear Mr. Huller,

Thank you for your keen interest in my book.

It is, of course, very difficult to reconstruct the exact circumstances of Epiphanius's composition--both the sources he had on hand and the process by which he went from oral dictation to circulated text. Given that Anatolius worked with him for several years (on both the Ancoratus and Panarion) they doubtless had a close working relationship. But, again, it is very difficult to figure out the specifics of that relationship: was Anatolius a trained scribe with experience in archives? A monk given stenographic training to be Epiphanius's assistant?

Likewise Epiphanius's procedure; I myself can easily imagine him reading Irenaeus for hours on end and the amanuensis taking down dictation. I can also imagine him working from notes taken (in his own library or elsewhere) or even, as some would suggest, just fabricating. All of these (direct reading, working from notes, invention) are procedures we know existed in ancient composition. Which Epiphanius followed at what times--or even if he had a consistent method--is difficult to pin down.

I think we are a bit more confident in saying that his texts underwent very little post-dictation editing. This is not merely my opinion, but that of the two recent English translators of his major works (Young Richard Kim and Frank Williams). That is, there seems to be little work done to "polish" the prose or make it more literary. If it is the case that Anatolius's main task was to transcribe stenographic notes into readable text--rather than the kind of full-scale editing we see with other ancient Greek authors--I would have more difficulty imagining the significant level of intervention that you propose.

Of course, as I say, it is very difficult to reconstruct with any confident. Perhaps Anatolius had a much stronger hand in the construction of a text like the Panarion than the simple colophon suggests. I would just add I think scholars tend to overestimate the number of texts Epiphanius actually owned while composing his texts. Given the lengthy citations of Ptolemy and Irenaeus I would think he had those handy. But with other texts he could easily have been working from notes or even--as some have suggested--memory.

As a final note, I guess I would want a strong argument as to why Epiphanius would invent a prior composition like his notebook against Marcion. Mere assertion of his general mendacity aside, when he makes stuff up he tends to have a specific reason. On the other hand, he does include other previous compositions (such as sections of the Ancoratus and his Letter to the Arabians) so it is not unprecedented.

Good luck with your project and I hope I have been of some help.

Onward,
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by Secret Alias »

So the timeline of publications by Epiphanius:

374 Ancoratus was written
375 - 377 Panarion was composed as something of a sequel to the Ancoratus (owing to E's allusion to various heresies that puzzled the two abbots to whom the Ancoratus was addressed)
381 Creed of Constantinople was established as an amended form of the Nicene Creed
the Ancoratus makes reference to the Nicene Creed but instead of the original formula the Creed of Constantinople

The question is how did a creed from 381 get into a work published in 374?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Understanding How Epiphanius Wrote the Panarion

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote:So the timeline of publications by Epiphanius:

374 Ancoratus was written
375 - 377 Panarion was composed as something of a sequel to the Ancoratus (owing to E's allusion to various heresies that puzzled the two abbots to whom the Ancoratus was addressed)
381 Creed of Constantinople was established as an amended form of the Nicene Creed
the Ancoratus makes reference to the Nicene Creed but instead of the original formula the Creed of Constantinople

The question is how did a creed from 381 get into a work published in 374?
There are two possibilities :

a/ The council of Constantinople in 381 adopted a creed composed a decade or so before which was also used in the published version of the Ancoratus.
b/ The original text of the published version of the Ancoratus contained the Nicene creed which was at that time the standard 'Trinitarian' creed. Centuries later when the Creed of Constantinople had become the standard 'Trintarian' creed (what most people thought of as the Nicene creed) a copyist of the Ancoratus replaced the Nicene creed with the much more familiar Creed of Constantinople.

My preference would be for b/.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply