I think once we go back and actually incorporate what we know about Epiphanius's composition methods for the Panarion it becomes very obvious that the added section with the readings from Marcionite canon were added later and not at the time of the original composition.
I should start by noting that Epiphanius, as Williams notes, was dictating the contents of the Panarion to his scribe.Παραθήσομαι δὲ καὶ ἣν ἐποιησάμην κατ' αὐτοῦ πραγματείαν πρὶν τοῦ ταύτην μου τὴν σύνταξιν ἐσπουδακέναι διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν τῶν ἀδελφῶν προτροπῆς ποιήσασθαι.
I shall here insert the work which I composed against him before I devoted myself to this work which I undertook at your urging, my brothers.
I am also going to append the treatise which I had written against him before, at your instance, brothers, hastening to compose this one. (Williams)
At at least one another juncture he sends a 'mental note' to the scribe to go back and 'fill in the space' that follows with a written work. So in the section that deals with the Marcosians he is just blabbering on half remembering or carelessly reading from Irenaeus when he declares to the secretary:Epiphanius must have started composing, or at least mapping out the Panarion*, or “Medicine Chest [against Heresies],” while he was still working on the Ancoratus. Ancoratus 12.7–13.8 (GCS n.F. 10.1:20–22) already lists the eighty heresies (twenty before Christ, sixty after) of the Panarion. The main composition of the Panarion took place roughly in the years 375–378. Like the Ancoratus, the Panarion was composed upon request: a certain Acacius and Paul had “heard the names applied by Your Honor to the heresies,” and asked for a full explanation of them.58 Whether they had read the Ancoratus and were puzzled by the (out-of-the-blue) list of heresies, or whether Epiphanius was publicizing his list by other means, we cannot know. Epiphanius composed the Panarion rather quickly (in under three years), considering its length, complexity, and (presumably) his other episcopal duties during this period. As is the case with the Ancoratus, Epiphanius's compositional style seems to have left little time for editing after his initial dictation. The Panarion contains a wealth of other Christian documents (from both “heretics” and "orthodox") our only Greek fragments of Irenaeus's Against Heresies, Ptolemy's Letter to Flora, and various documents pertaining to theological struggles during Epiphanius's own time, to name just a few. In addition to these texts, Epiphanius has also included writings of his own, dictated directly into the Panarion, including a lengthy “refutation” (elenchos) of Marcion's Bible, which he had written “some years before” (apo etōn hikanōn)59 and later embedded in Panarion 42 (against the Marcionites),60 and his aforementioned Epistula ad Arabos, in defense of Mary's virginity. These are merely the two earlier writings he names: given that he also copies material from the Ancoratus (sometimes without signaling that he is doing so61) we might also imagine Epiphanius economically recycling other earlier written materials at hand that have not otherwise survived.[Jacobs Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity p. 20, 21]
58. Epistula Acacii et Pauli 1.9 (GCS n.F. 10.1:154).
59. Epiphanius, Panarion 42.10.2 (GCS 31:106).
60. Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11–12 (GCS 31:107–82). Note that, although this refutatio is only two chapters of the Panarion, it covers 75 pages in the critical edition.
61. See, for instance, Panarion 70.7.6–8.4 (GCS 37:239–40), which repeats the argument of Ancoratus 54.1–7 (GCS n.F. 10.1.63, 64)
Indeed the question that is rarely asked by scholars is how was the Panarion composed. I see very clearly laid out in this section.But for my part, so as not to commit myself to a second hard task I feel I should be content with the work written against Marcus himself and his successors by the most holy and blessed Irenaeus
τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ λεπτολογίας οὐκ ἐβουλήθην ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ συντάξαι, εὑρὼν παρὰ τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ Εἰρηναίῳ τῷ ἀρχαίῳ τὴν κατ' αὐτοῦ πραγματείαν γεγενημένην.
Quite clearly Epiphanius had in his possession Against Heresies. He has been loosely citing from in chapter 30, 31, 32 to identify the details about the Valentinians (30), the Secundians (31 developed from the Latin word 'second' which originally appeared in Irenaeus's text) and the Ptolemaeans (32). Clearly Epiphanius is bored by the undertaking. He has the text of Adversus Haereses but out of boredom needs to make this more interesting and so - in the discussion of Ptolemy for instance - 'jazzes up' what he is reading from Irenaeus with embellishments of his own.
First Irenaeus:
And then Epiphanius's bored 'riffing' for his section:But the followers of Ptolemy say that he [Bythos] has two consorts, which they also name Diatheses (affections), viz., Ennoae and Thelesis. For, as they affirm, he first conceived the thought of producing something, and then willed to that effect. Wherefore, again, these two affections, or powers, Ennoea and Thelesis, having intercourse, as it were, between themselves, the production of Monogenes and Aletheia took place according to conjunction. These two came forth as types and images of the two affections of the Father,--visible representations of those that were invisible,--Nous (i.e., Monogenes) of Thelesis, and Aletheia of Ennoea, and accordingly the image resulting from Thelesis was masculine,(3) while that from Ennoea was feminine. Thus Thelesis (will) became, as it were, a faculty of Ennoea (thought). For Ennoea continually yearned after offspring; but she could not of herself bring forth that which she desired. But when the power of Thelesis (the faculty of will) came upon her, then she brought forth that on which she had brooded.
2. These fancied beings (like the Jove of Homer, who is represented as passing an anxious sleepless night in devising plans for honouring Achilles and destroying numbers of the Greeks) will not appear to you, my dear friend, to be possessed of greater knowledge than He who is the God of the universe. He, as soon as He thinks, also performs what He has willed; and as soon as He wills, also thinks that which He has willed; then thinking when He wills, and then willing when He thinks, since He is all thought, [all will, all mind, all light,](6) all eye, all ear, the one entire fountain of all good things.
Ptolemy succeeds Secundus, and the man named Epiphanes who got the cue for his own opinion by barter from Isidore. He belongs to the same sect of the so-called Gnostics, and with certain others is one of the Valentinians, but he has suppositions which are different from his teachers'. His adherents even pride themselves on his name and are called Ptolemaeans. This 'Ptolemy, with his adherents, has come before us as someone still more expert' than his own teachers and one who invents lots and lots of a sort of addition to their teaching. 'He invented two consorts for the god they call Depth and bestowed them on him; and these he also called 'dispositions,3 Conception' (ἐννοια) and Will.' Conception had always coexisted with him, continually conceiving of the emission of something, but Will arose in him later. 'For he first conceived of emitting something,' Ptolemy says, 'and then he willed to.
Thus when Conception and Will, these two dispositions or faculties'—in turn he calls them faculties—'had been mixed together as it were, the emission as a pair of Only-Begotten and Truth took place. These came forth as types and visible images of the Father's two invisible dispositions; Mind of Will, and Truth of Conception. And thus the male became an image of the later Will, but the female, of the ingenerate Conception. Will, then, was a faculty of Conception. For Conception had always conceived of the emission, but was unable by herself to emit what she had conceived of. But when the faculty of Will supervened, she then emitted that of which she had conceived.'
What nonsense of the lame-brain! No one of sound mind could understand this even of man, let alone of God. Homer strikes me as more sensible than he, with his portrayal of Zeus' worrying, fretting and angry, and lying awake all night over a way to plot against the Achaeans, because Thetis had demanded that the Greek leaders, and the Greeks themselves, be punished for their insult to Achilles. For Ptolemy has thought of nothing more suitable in glorification of what he calls Father of all and Depth, than what Homer has said of Zeus.
But rather, he has understood him to be 'Zeus, as though he had got the notion from Homer.' For one may fairly say that when he was belching out such impudence, he had 'Homer's apprehension' of Zeus and the Achaeans 'rather than that of the Lord of all, who simultaneously with the conceiving of it has likewise accomplished that which he willed, and simultaneously with the willing also conceives of that which he willed, for he conceives when he wills, and wills when he conceives. He is all conception, all will, all mind, all light, all eye, all ear, all fount of all that is good,' and is subject to no vicissitudes. He is God, and not worried or at a loss like Depth, or Zeus. For in speaking of Depth, Ptolemy mimicked Homer speaking of Zeus.
At this point in the Panarion the Letter to Flora is inserted which begs the question - was the letter in Epiphanius's hand when he dictated to his secretary or was it added later? The answer is clearly later when you look at what immediately follows the citation of the Letter - viz. a section which necessarily originally followed the loose lazy and improvised citation of Irenaeus:
In other words in the original Panarion dictation, Epiphanius was standing with the text of Adversus Haereses in his hand and doesn't even acknowledge that Irenaeus is his source. He dictates a loose improvised narration based on Irenaeus's report without naming Irenaeus as his source which looked like this:Who can put up with these words and the idiocy of this charlatan and his supporters—I mean Ptolemy and his circle, who concoct fabrications at such length and baste them together? None of the ancient tragic poets, nor the imitative ones after them—I mean Philistion, and Diogenes who composed incredible yarns, or all the others who wrote the myths down and recited them, could make up as much falsehood as these people have manufactured horrors for themselves in their impudent attack on their own life, and have smothered their converts' minds with foolish questions and endless genealogies.
In fact they themselves did not understand what was under their noses, and yet they professed to survey the heavens with measurements of some sort, and adopted the profession of midwives as though for some heavenly mothers—for non-existent mothers as though they existed. When one hears this from them—if he is a complete fool—he will think that he has learned something sublime from them and easily be swept off his feet by the lie. (Scripture says, 'Every bird flocketh with its kind, and a man will cleave to his like.')
But if a person of understanding and sound reason should happen on them he will laugh at so much silliness, and from the very subject of the things they say will know the refutation of them. For they are convicted in every way of arming their useless labour's lies against themselves. Where did you learn Depth's dimensions, you gentleman and lady Ptolemaeans? And the pregnant mothers' deliveries, and the reasons they got pregnant? You profess to give us the knowledge, as though you had been there and seen the origins of the heavenly beings, as though you were in existence before your so-called Depth himself. But no prophet has ever said this, not Moses himself, not the prophets before him, not the prophets after him, not the evangelists, not the apostles—unless you mean the works of heathen mythology by Orpheus, Hesiod, Hicesius and Stesichorus, in whose writings the generations of men have been turned into names of gods, and human doings made into dramatic poetry. For they too held beliefs of this kind and by making gods of Zeus, Rhea, Hera, Athena, Apollo and Aphrodite and honouring the children of their wickedness, they pushed the world into a delusion of polytheism and idolatry.
But I won't have much further need for the refutation and rebuttal of you and your kind, Ptolemy, since your forebears have already received the refutation in sufficient measure. Since I have achieved your disgrace through the things I have said, I am going over imposture of the others—calling on God as the aid of my meagre ability so that, in every people, I may discover the doctrine they have wickedly invented and make a spectacle of it. And I ask God’s grace for my zealous undertaking.
Clearly Epiphanius tiring under the weight of a lengthy dictation of material from Adversus Haereses and anyone who had the original text of Irenaeus would see how sloppy Epiphanius's reporting was.Ptolemy succeeds Secundus, and the man named Epiphanes who got the cue for his own opinion by barter from Isidore. He belongs to the same sect of the so-called Gnostics, and with certain others is one of the Valentinians, but he has suppositions which are different from his teachers'. His adherents even pride themselves on his name and are called Ptolemaeans. This 'Ptolemy, with his adherents, has come before us as someone still more expert' than his own teachers and one who invents lots and lots of a sort of addition to their teaching. 'He invented two consorts for the god they call Depth and bestowed them on him; and these he also called 'dispositions,3 Conception' (ἐννοια) and Will.' Conception had always coexisted with him, continually conceiving of the emission of something, but Will arose in him later. 'For he first conceived of emitting something,' Ptolemy says, 'and then he willed to.
Thus when Conception and Will, these two dispositions or faculties'—in turn he calls them faculties—'had been mixed together as it were, the emission as a pair of Only-Begotten and Truth took place. These came forth as types and visible images of the Father's two invisible dispositions; Mind of Will, and Truth of Conception. And thus the male became an image of the later Will, but the female, of the ingenerate Conception. Will, then, was a faculty of Conception. For Conception had always conceived of the emission, but was unable by herself to emit what she had conceived of. But when the faculty of Will supervened, she then emitted that of which she had conceived.'
What nonsense of the lame-brain! No one of sound mind could understand this even of man, let alone of God. Homer strikes me as more sensible than he, with his portrayal of Zeus' worrying, fretting and angry, and lying awake all night over a way to plot against the Achaeans, because Thetis had demanded that the Greek leaders, and the Greeks themselves, be punished for their insult to Achilles. For Ptolemy has thought of nothing more suitable in glorification of what he calls Father of all and Depth, than what Homer has said of Zeus.
But rather, he has understood him to be 'Zeus, as though he had got the notion from Homer.' For one may fairly say that when he was belching out such impudence, he had 'Homer's apprehension' of Zeus and the Achaeans 'rather than that of the Lord of all, who simultaneously with the conceiving of it has likewise accomplished that which he willed, and simultaneously with the willing also conceives of that which he willed, for he conceives when he wills, and wills when he conceives. He is all conception, all will, all mind, all light, all eye, all ear, all fount of all that is good,' and is subject to no vicissitudes. He is God, and not worried or at a loss like Depth, or Zeus. For in speaking of Depth, Ptolemy mimicked Homer speaking of Zeus.
Who can put up with these words and the idiocy of this charlatan and his supporters—I mean Ptolemy and his circle, who concoct fabrications at such length and baste them together? None of the ancient tragic poets, nor the imitative ones after them—I mean Philistion, and Diogenes who composed incredible yarns, or all the others who wrote the myths down and recited them, could make up as much falsehood as these people have manufactured horrors for themselves in their impudent attack on their own life, and have smothered their converts' minds with foolish questions and endless genealogies.
In fact they themselves did not understand what was under their noses, and yet they professed to survey the heavens with measurements of some sort, and adopted the profession of midwives as though for some heavenly mothers—for non-existent mothers as though they existed. When one hears this from them—if he is a complete fool—he will think that he has learned something sublime from them and easily be swept off his feet by the lie. (Scripture says, 'Every bird flocketh with its kind, and a man will cleave to his like.')
But if a person of understanding and sound reason should happen on them he will laugh at so much silliness, and from the very subject of the things they say will know the refutation of them. For they are convicted in every way of arming their useless labour's lies against themselves. Where did you learn Depth's dimensions, you gentleman and lady Ptolemaeans? And the pregnant mothers' deliveries, and the reasons they got pregnant? You profess to give us the knowledge, as though you had been there and seen the origins of the heavenly beings, as though you were in existence before your so-called Depth himself. But no prophet has ever said this, not Moses himself, not the prophets before him, not the prophets after him, not the evangelists, not the apostles—unless you mean the works of heathen mythology by Orpheus, Hesiod, Hicesius and Stesichorus, in whose writings the generations of men have been turned into names of gods, and human doings made into dramatic poetry. For they too held beliefs of this kind and by making gods of Zeus, Rhea, Hera, Athena, Apollo and Aphrodite and honouring the children of their wickedness, they pushed the world into a delusion of polytheism and idolatry.
But I won't have much further need for the refutation and rebuttal of you and your kind, Ptolemy, since your forebears have already received the refutation in sufficient measure. Since I have achieved your disgrace through the things I have said, I am going over imposture of the others—calling on God as the aid of my meagre ability so that, in every people, I may discover the doctrine they have wickedly invented and make a spectacle of it. And I ask God’s grace for my zealous undertaking.
As a result at some point subsequent to the original dictation the Letter to Flora is added - in order to brighten up the text from being a mere sloppy citation of Irenaeus. Pay special notice to the manner in which the new material is appended both between the end of the original reporting of Irenaeus (and Epiphanius 'improv' interpretation) and then an additional 'improv' interpretation of the added Letter to Flora is itself appended onto the end of the original conclusion:
Ptolemy succeeds Secundus, and the man named Epiphanes who got the cue for his own opinion by barter from Isidore. He belongs to the same sect of the so-called Gnostics, and with certain others is one of the Valentinians, but he has suppositions which are different from his teachers'. His adherents even pride themselves on his name and are called Ptolemaeans. This 'Ptolemy, with his adherents, has come before us as someone still more expert' than his own teachers and one who invents lots and lots of a sort of addition to their teaching. 'He invented two consorts for the god they call Depth and bestowed them on him; and these he also called 'dispositions,3 Conception' (ἐννοια) and Will.' Conception had always coexisted with him, continually conceiving of the emission of something, but Will arose in him later. 'For he first conceived of emitting something,' Ptolemy says, 'and then he willed to.
Thus when Conception and Will, these two dispositions or faculties'—in turn he calls them faculties—'had been mixed together as it were, the emission as a pair of Only-Begotten and Truth took place. These came forth as types and visible images of the Father's two invisible dispositions; Mind of Will, and Truth of Conception. And thus the male became an image of the later Will, but the female, of the ingenerate Conception. Will, then, was a faculty of Conception. For Conception had always conceived of the emission, but was unable by herself to emit what she had conceived of. But when the faculty of Will supervened, she then emitted that of which she had conceived.'
What nonsense of the lame-brain! No one of sound mind could understand this even of man, let alone of God. Homer strikes me as more sensible than he, with his portrayal of Zeus' worrying, fretting and angry, and lying awake all night over a way to plot against the Achaeans, because Thetis had demanded that the Greek leaders, and the Greeks themselves, be punished for their insult to Achilles. For Ptolemy has thought of nothing more suitable in glorification of what he calls Father of all and Depth, than what Homer has said of Zeus.
But rather, he has understood him to be 'Zeus, as though he had got the notion from Homer.' For one may fairly say that when he was belching out such impudence, he had 'Homer's apprehension' of Zeus and the Achaeans 'rather than that of the Lord of all, who simultaneously with the conceiving of it has likewise accomplished that which he willed, and simultaneously with the willing also conceives of that which he willed, for he conceives when he wills, and wills when he conceives. He is all conception, all will, all mind, all light, all eye, all ear, all fount of all that is good,' and is subject to no vicissitudes. He is God, and not worried or at a loss like Depth, or Zeus. For in speaking of Depth, Ptolemy mimicked Homer speaking of Zeus.
Who can put up with these words and the idiocy of this charlatan and his supporters—I mean Ptolemy and his circle, who concoct fabrications at such length and baste them together? None of the ancient tragic poets, nor the imitative ones after them—I mean Philistion, and Diogenes who composed incredible yarns, or all the others who wrote the myths down and recited them, could make up as much falsehood as these people have manufactured horrors for themselves in their impudent attack on their own life, and have smothered their converts' minds with foolish questions and endless genealogies.2:6 But next, in further refutation of the fraud, I am going to subjoin and quote the seductive and dangerous words which were actually written by himself to a woman named Flora—lest anyone think that I am refuting the cheat from hearsay only, without becoming acquainted with his phoney teaching first. For besides the things I have mentioned, he is not ashamed to blaspheme God's Law given through Moses as well. Here are his words: Ptolemy's Letter to Flora
3:1 After noting the discrepant opinions about it, my good sister Flora, I think you too will see at once that not many before us have understood the Law given through Moses by accurate knowledge either of the Lawgiver himself or of his commandments.
3:2 For some say it was given by our God and Father but others, taking the direction opposite to theirs, insist that it was given by our adversary the devil, the author of corruption—as, indeed, they ascribe the creation of the world to him, calling him the father and maker of this universe.
3:3 But these parties have certainly stuttered in singing their rival songs and, each in their own way, have completely missed the truth of the matter.
3:4 It is evident, since logical, that the Law has not been made by the perfect God and Father, since it is imperfect and in need of fulfilment by another person, and contains ordinances inappropriate to the nature and intention of such a God.
3:5 Nor, again, is it appropriate to attribute to the iniquity of the adversary a Law which abolishes iniquity—this must be the opinion of fools, and persons who cannot draw inferences—in accordance with our Saviour's words, 'A house or city divided against itself cannot stand.'4
3:6 And further, depriving the liars beforehand of their unfounded wisdom, the apostle says that the creation of the world is the Saviour's, that all things were made by him and without him nothing is made,5 and that creation is the work of a righteous God who hates iniquity, not of a god of corruption. This latter is the view of thoughtless persons who take no account of the Creator's providence and are blinded, not only in the eye of the soul, but in the eye of the body as well.
3:7 From the foregoing it will be plain to you that they have completely missed the truth. Each party has got into this predicament in its own way—the one through its ignorance of the God of justice; the other through ignorance of the Father of all, whom none but the only One who knows him has come and made known.
3:8 But as I have been vouchsafed knowledge of both, it is left to me to declare to you and accurately describe both the nature of the Law itself and the person by whom it was given, the lawgiver. I shall provide the proofs of the things I shall say from the words of our Saviour, by which alone we are surely guided to the perception of the truth.
4:1 First, it must be understood that the whole of that Law which is contained in the five books of Moses has not been made by one legislator. I mean that it has not been made by God alone, but some of its provisions have been made by men. And the words of the Saviour teach us that it is triply divided.
4:2 It is divided into (the words of) God himself and his legislation, but it is also divided into (the words of) Moses—not as God legislates through him, but as Moses too made certain provisions of his own notion. And it is divided into (the words of) the elders of the people, for it is plain that they too have inserted certain commandments of their own.
4:3 You may now learn how the truth of this can be proved from the words of the Saviour.
4:4 In the Saviour's discussion with those who were disputing with him about the bill of divorce—the bill which had been sanctioned by the Law—the Saviour told them, 'Moses for the hardness of your hearts permitted a man to divorce his wife. For from the beginning it was not so. For God,' he said, 'hath joined this pair together, and what the Lord hath joined,' he said, 'let not man put asunder.'6
4:5 Here he proves that the Law of God, which forbids the separation of a wife from her husband, is one law; but the law of Moses, which permits this couple’s separation because of the hardness of their hearts, is another.
4:6 Indeed, in this case Moses is giving a law contrary to God's, for separating is contrary to not separating. If, however, we examine Moses purpose in making this law, we shall find that he made it not of his own choice but of necessity, owing to the frailty of those for whom the laws were made.
4:7 They could not honour God's intention if forbidden to divorce their wives with whom some were living unwillingly, and so risking being turned further to wickedness and consequent destruction.
4:8 On his own initiative then, to end this discontent by which they were risking destruction as well, Moses gave them a second law, the law of the bill of divorce, as though exchanging, in a pinch, a lesser evil for a greater.
4:9 Thus if they could not keep the former law, they would at least keep this, and not be turned to iniquities and evils from which their utter destruction would result.
4:10 This is Moses' intent in the instances in which he makes laws contrary to God's. Still it is undeniable that Moses' law is here shown to be other than God's, even if for the present we have proved it from (only) one example.
4:11 That certain traditions of the elders have been intermingled with the Law the Saviour also makes plain. 'For God said, Honour thy father and thy mother that it may be well with thee,' he says.
4:12 'But ye,' he says, speaking to the elders, 'have said, That wherewith thou mightest be profited by me is a gift to God; and ye have nullified the Law of God by the tradition of you elders.
4:13 And Isaiah cried this out when he said, 'This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' '7
4:14 From these passages, then, it is plainly shown that that Law as a whole is divided into three. For in it we have found Moses' own legislation, the legislation of the elders, and the legislation of God himself. And this division of that Law as a whole which I have made here has made clear what in it is true.
5:1 But the one portion, the Law of God himself, is again divided into some three parts. It is divided into the pure legislation with no admixture of evil, which is properly termed the 'law' which the Saviour came not to destroy but to fulfil. (For that which he fulfilled was not foreign to him but was in need of fulfilment, for it was incomplete.) It is also divided into law mixed with inferior matter and injustice, which the Saviour abolished as incongruous with his nature.
5:2 And it is divided also into the typical and allegorical legislation in the image of things that are spiritual and excellent. This the Saviour transformed from the perceptible and phenomenal into the spiritual and invisible.
5:3 And the Law of God, the pure Law unmixed with inferior matter, is the Decalogue itself—those ten commandments engraved on the two tablets to prohibit what must be eschewed and enjoin what must be done. These were in need of fulfilment by the Saviour, for though they contained the legislation in its pure form they were incomplete.
5:4 The law intermingled with injustice is the law which regards retribution and the requital of those who committed the prior injustice, and enjoins the knocking out of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and the retribution of a murder with a murder.8 For the second offender does no less of an injustice and commits the same act, changing it merely in its order.
5:5 In any case this commandment was and is just, though owing to the frailty of its recipients it was given in violation of the pure law. But it is not in accord with the nature and goodness of the Father of all.
5:6 It is perhaps appropriate, but is rather a matter of necessity. For in requiring the murderer to be murdered in retaliation, making a second law, and presiding over two murders after forbidding the one, he who opposed even the one murder by saying, 'Thou shalt not kill'9 was an unwitting victim of necessity.
5:7 Thus the Son who came from him has abolished this portion of the Law, while acknowledging that it too was a law of God—just as he has shown agreement with the old school, both in other matters and in his words, 'It is God who said, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.'10
5:8 But this is the typical portion of the Law, the part that has been made the image of things which are spiritual and excellent, I mean the laws of sacrifices, circumcision, the Sabbath, fasting, the Passover, the feast of unleavened bread and the like.
5:9 For all these, being images and allegories, were transformed when the truth appeared. Outwardly and in bodily observance they were abrogated but spiritually they were adopted, with the names remaining the same but the things altered.
5:10 For the Saviour has commanded us to offer sacrifices, not of dumb animals or their odours but by means of spiritual hymns, praises, and thanksgiving, and of charity and acts of kindness to our neighbours.
5:11 He also desires that we have a circumcision, not of the bodily foreskin but of the spiritual heart—
5:12 and that we keep the Sabbath, for it is his will that we desist from evil works.
5:13 And that we fast—but it is his will that we keep not the bodily fast but the spiritual, which includes abstinence from all evil. We do observe outward fasting however, since this can be of some use to the soul as well when done with reason—not in mimicry of someone or by custom, or for the sake of a day, as though a day were set aside for it.
5:14 At the same time it serves as a reminder of the true fast, so that those who are as yet unable to keep that may have a reminder of it through the outward fasting.
5:15 That both the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were likewise images, Paul the apostle makes plain by saying, 'As our Passover, Christ has been sacrificed,' and, 'that ye may be unleavened, not partaking of leaven'—by 'leaven' here he means evil—'but that ye may be a new lump.11
6:1 Thus even the Law which is acknowledged to be God's is divided into three—into the part which is fulfilled by the Saviour (for 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' are included in his prohibition of anger, lust and oaths).
6:2 And also into the part that is annulled altogether, for 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'12 which is intermingled with injustice and itself contains an act of injustice, was annulled by the Saviour through its opposites.
6:3 But opposites have the property of cancelling each other: 'For I say unto you that ye resist not evil by any means, but if a man smite thee, turn to him the other cheek also.'13
6:4 There is also the division which has been transformed and altered from the physical to the spiritual—this allegorical legislation in the image of the things that are excellent.
6:5 For since the images and allegories were indicative of other things, they were rightly performed as long as the truth was not here. But once the truth is here we must do what is proper to the truth, not to the image.
6:6 The Saviour's disciples have given proof of these divisions, and so has the apostle Paul. For our sakes he gave proof of the part which consists of images with (his remarks about) the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as we have said already. And of the part which consists of the law which is mixed with injustice by saying, 'The law of commandments contained in ordinances is abolished.'14 And of the part which consists of the law with no admixture of inferior matter by saying, 'The Law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.'15
7:1 I think you have been given sufficient proof, so far as this can be done concisely, of the human legislation which has invaded the Law, and of God's Law itself with its triple division.
7:2 It remains for me to say who this God is who has made the Law. But I feel that this too has been shown you in my earlier remarks, if you have listened attentively.
7:3 If, as we have explained, the Law was not given by the perfect God himself, and certainly not by the devil—it is not proper even to say this—then this lawgiver is someone other than these.
7:4 But this is the demiurge and maker of this entire world and everything in it. As he differs from the essences of the other two and stands in between them, he may properly be titled 'The Intermediate.'
7:5 And if, by his own nature, the perfect God is good—as indeed he is, for our Saviour has declared that his Father, whom he made manifest, is the one and only good God—16 and if a god of the adversary's nature is evil and is marked as wicked by his injustice—then a God who stands between them, and is neither good17 nor, certainly, evil or unjust, may properly be called 'just,'18 being the arbiter of his sort of justice.
7:6 As he is generate, not ingenerate, this God will naturally be weaker than the perfect God and inferior to his righteousness (there is one Ingenerate, the Father, of whom are all things since all things, each in its own way, have been framed by him. But he will be greater and possessed of more authority than the adversary, and will be of an essence and nature different from the essence of either of these.
7:7 For the essence of the adversary is corruption and darkness, since he is material and composite. The essence of the unbegotten Father of all is incorruption and self-existent light, simple and uniform. And the essence of this God has shown a sort of dual capacity, but in himself he is the image of the better.
7:8 Do not let this disturb you for now, even though you desire to learn how these natures, that of corruption and that of the intermediate, natures which differ in kind, arose from one first principle of all, one which is simple and is confessed and believed by us, the unbegotten, imperishable and good—though it is the nature of the good to beget and bring forth its like and its own kind.
7:9 God willing, you shall learn both their origin and their generation next, since you are adjudged worthy of the apostolic tradition which I have received in my turn, together with the assessment of all its statements by the standard of our Saviour's teaching.
7:10 I have not begrudged19 you these things which have been said in a few words, my sister Flora, and have set forth the brief statement of them, at the same time making the matter sufficiently plain. They will be of the utmost value to you in what follows as well, if, like good soil, hospitable to fertile seeds, you bear the fruit which is their product. This concludes the Letter to Flora.
In fact they themselves did not understand what was under their noses, and yet they professed to survey the heavens with measurements of some sort, and adopted the profession of midwives as though for some heavenly mothers—for non-existent mothers as though they existed. When one hears this from them—if he is a complete fool—he will think that he has learned something sublime from them and easily be swept off his feet by the lie. (Scripture says, 'Every bird flocketh with its kind, and a man will cleave to his like.')
But if a person of understanding and sound reason should happen on them he will laugh at so much silliness, and from the very subject of the things they say will know the refutation of them. For they are convicted in every way of arming their useless labour's lies against themselves. Where did you learn Depth's dimensions, you gentleman and lady Ptolemaeans? And the pregnant mothers' deliveries, and the reasons they got pregnant? You profess to give us the knowledge, as though you had been there and seen the origins of the heavenly beings, as though you were in existence before your so-called Depth himself. But no prophet has ever said this, not Moses himself, not the prophets before him, not the prophets after him, not the evangelists, not the apostles—unless you mean the works of heathen mythology by Orpheus, Hesiod, Hicesius and Stesichorus, in whose writings the generations of men have been turned into names of gods, and human doings made into dramatic poetry. For they too held beliefs of this kind and by making gods of Zeus, Rhea, Hera, Athena, Apollo and Aphrodite and honouring the children of their wickedness, they pushed the world into a delusion of polytheism and idolatry.
But I won't have much further need for the refutation and rebuttal of you and your kind, Ptolemy, since your forebears have already received the refutation in sufficient measure. Since I have achieved your disgrace through the things I have said, I am going over imposture of the others—calling on God as the aid of my meagre ability so that, in every people, I may discover the doctrine they have wickedly invented and make a spectacle of it. And I ask God’s grace for my zealous undertaking.
However, Ptolemy, not to leave unchallenged the three little literary efforts, the ones you boasted of sending to your girlfriend Flora—(the teachings of serpents always 'deceive silly women laden with sins,'21 as the apostle said).—I have quoted the words themselves here at the right time, and will next give their corresponding refutation—an essential one, or the the root of your tare-like crop might be left.
9:2 You claim that the Law has three divisions, Mister, and that one owes something to God, but one comes from Moses and one from the elders.
9:3 You can't show the part you think was written by the elders; this much is plain. The traditions of the elders are nowhere to be found in the Law. From your ignorance both of the books and of the truth you are imagining these by misrepresenting and altering the consequences of every kind of accurate knowledge.
9:4 The traditions of the elders are called 'repetitions'22 by the Jews, and there are four of them. One is circulated in the name of Moses, a second in that of the person named Rabbi Aqiba, a third of Adda or Judah, and a fourth of the sons of Hasmonaeus.
9:5 Where, you trouble-maker with your erratic judgment, can you show that the words mentioned by the Saviour—'He who shall say to his father Korban, that is, a gift, he shall profit nothing from him'23—were said in the five books of the Pentateuch and God's legislation?
9:6 You can't show it. Your argument has failed then, since the saying is nowhere to be found in the Pentateuch, and you have deceived your dupe Flora for nothing.
9:7 And neither were the laws given by Moses given independently of God. They came from God through Moses, as is shown by the Saviour's own verification (of the fact). The very texts you have brought forward, you have assembled against yourself.
9:8 In the Gospel the Lord says, 'Moses wrote for the hardness of your hearts.'24 But what Moses wrote, he did not write independently of God's will; his legislation was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
9:9 For the Lord in the Gospel said, 'That which God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' And to let us know how God joined them, he explained it fully by affixing the saying, 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.'
9:10 He then adds, 'That which God hath joined together, let not man put asunder25—although the Lord said nothing like this at the time when he formed Adam and Eve, but only, 'Let us make him an helpmeet like himself.'26
9:11 Those words were said by Adam when he awoke and said, 'This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called wife, for she was taken out of her husband.'27—And then he says, 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.'28
9:12 Now since God did not say this but Adam did, and yet the Lord in the Gospel testifies that the words spoken through Adam were God's, by his statement itself he proved that in the one case29 Adam spoke but uttered the words by God's will, while in this one30 Moses made a law because God had commanded the legislation.
9:13 And that the making of laws is God's business; this is plain. But God makes laws everywhere, some temporary, some typical, and some to reveal the good things to come, whose fulfilment our Lord Jesus Christ, when he had come, made known in the Gospel.
10:1 But I shall take up your other distinction of gods—again, a triple distinction—and show that this too is slander on your part and simply the work of a charlatan.
10:2 What sort of third God do we have here—made up of two likenesses although he is neither of the two, having no wickedness or injustice, as you said, and no goodness or luminous essence either, but right in between, 'just?'
10:3 As you are in fact strange to all justice you naturally do not know what justice is, and so you think it is something other than goodness. You’ll get good and refuted you tamperer, you stranger to the truth! Justice comes from nowhere but from goodness, and no one can become good other than by being just.
10:4 And so, to praise the legislation and its just men, the Lord said, 'Ye garnish the tombs of the prophets, and build the sepulchres of the just, and your fathers killed them.'31 But where have prophets and just men come from, if not from the Father’s goodness?
10:5 And, to prove that the just man belongs in the category of goodness, he said, 'Be ye like unto your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on good and evil, and sendeth rain on just and unjust,'32 to make it plain that just is good and good is just, and that evil is unjust, and unjust, evil.
10:6 Nor can you prove the Law's intermixture (with evil) of which you spoke. You have been caught making a false accusation against the Law by your ascription of some intermixture to it because the Law has said, 'eye for eye and tooth for tooth,'33 and because the Law murders the murderer.
10:7 But it will be shown, from our Lord Jesus Christ's own treatment of the matter, that there was no intermixture, but that the legislation was the same and had the same effect as the commandment given by the Saviour, 'If a man smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'34
10:8 For the Law too ensured this long ago by saying 'an eye for an eye,' or in other words, 'Turn your other cheek to him.' To avoid what would happen to him if he struck a blow, a man would present his cheek to the one who was striking him—knowing that if he put an eye out, he would suffer the same because of the Law.
11:1 A father who wishes to discipline his children progresses with the discipline by suiting it to each age. He surely does not discipline a little baby like a boy, a boy like a youth, or a youth like a grown man.
11:2 An infant is disciplined with a finger, an older child with the slap of a hand, a boy with a strap, and a youth with a cane. But by law a man is punished with the sword for the more serious offences. Thus the Lord too, in consequence, made the laws that were suitable for each generation.
11:3 He chastened the earlier one with fear, as though he were speaking with little children who did not know the power of the Holy Spirit, but he considered full grown adults worthy of full mysteries.
11:4 For in the Gospel as well, in many places, he tells the disciples something like, 'Ye know not what I do, but ye shall know hereafter'35—that is, 'when you grow up.' And again, 'They knew not until he was risen from the dead.'36
11:5 And Paul says, 'Ye were not able, neither yet are ye able,'37 to show that commandments become more advanced as time goes on—the same ones, but changed to another form, formulated in one way for the young; in another for the more mature.
11:6 For when the Law enjoined 'an eye for an eye,'38 it did not tell them, 'Put one eye out after another,' but, 'If someone puts an eye out, the eye of the one who put it out will be put out.' And to spare his own body, everyone would present his cheek to be struck, and not strike himself.
11:7 And what is now stated clearly in the Gospel was observed from that time on—by compulsion then, as though children were being trained, but now by choice, since adults are being persuaded.
11:8 But if you claim that this is an involvement—to say 'an eye for an eye' and have a murderer put to death—then observe! Even of the day of judgment we see the Saviour saying, 'His Lord shall come'—but he was saying this of himself, since he is Lord of all—and he says, 'and cut the servant himself asunder and appoint his portion with the unbelievers.'39
11:9 In other words, by quibbling about words again you are taking up arms even against the Saviour; and you would say that he is not good but just—although he is begotten of a good Father, and is good himself—and is different from the Father.
11:10 So you are capable of separating even him from the nature of the Father, Mister—you who appear before us once more as a dissector and surveyor of the laws, dividing everything into threes!
11:11 And by saying that some things in the Law are written allegorically, as types, you have touched on little bits of the truth, so that with the little bits you can fool people in the other points.
11:12 'These things' indeed 'happened unto them typically, and were written for our admonition on whom the ends of the ages have come'40 as the most holy apostle says, speaking of circumcision, the Sabbath and so on.
11:13 If only you would tell the truth about everything, and not inflict your nonexistent third, intermediate God on us any more—or rather, not inflict him on yourself any more, and on your dupes!
12:1 But by now, you tramp, I feel that enough has also been said about your remarks. Having refuted them I shall go to the remaining sects, calling as usual on the same God to aid my meagre ability in making plain the rebuttal of every distorted heresy.
12:2 For by what has been said it has been shown that Ptolemy deceived Flora and others with her with a letter as though he had risen out of the sea, summoning sharks and a viper with his own piping.
12:3 But by entangling him in the net of the truth—the symbolic meaning of which the Lord in the Gospel declared to be the kingdom of heaven—and by exposing him as one of the bad fish by bringing his unsound words to light, we have overcome him with the teaching of the true faith.
12:4 Having thrashed him by the power of God let us give thanks to God ourselves, and set ourselves, as I said, to go on to the rest as well.