The Source of Epiphanius's Alogoi Section

[Secret Alias]

The context of whole idea of the 'alogoi' is very strange in the Panarion. Let's listen very carefully to what Epiphanius reports:

Then what has gotten into these people < who > have deceived their own minds and spewed this sect out on the world, that they reject the Gospel according to John? 1 was right to call their sect “Dumb”; they will not accept the divine Word who came from on high, the Word preached by John.

(11) Not understanding the meaning of the Gospels they say, “Why have the other evangelists said that Jesus fled to Egypt from Herod, came back after his flight and remained at Nazareth, and then, after receiving the baptism, went into the wilderness, and returned after that, and after his return began to preach? (18,1) But the Gospel [issued] in John’s name lies,” they say. “After ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ 81 and a few other things, it says at once that there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee.”

18,2 With their deliberate foolishness these people have not remembered that John < himself >, after saying that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us — or in other words, became man — said that Jesus went to John the Baptist at the Jordan and was baptized by him. (3) < For> John himself testifies that John the Baptist said, ‘This is he of whom I said unto you,” 82 “I saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove
and remaining on him,” 83 and, “This is he that taketh away the sin of the world.” 84

18,4 You see that none of this is said from forgetfulness; John has omitted the matters Matthew dealt with. There was no more need for these
things, but there was need for the full explanation, in reply to those who believed that Jesus was called Christ and Son of God [only] from the
time of Mary, and [those who say that] he was originally a mere man but received the title, “Son of God,” as a promotion in rank. (5) Thus in writing his account of Christ’s coming from above, John is concerned with essentials — it is all important and essential, but the heavenly things are more so. (6) But these people say that the Gospel according to John is non-canonical because it did not mention these events — I mean the events of the forty-day temptation — and they do not see fit to accept it, since they are misguided about everything, and mentally blind.

19,1 The blessed John came fourth in the succession of evangelists. With his brother James he was the first after Peter and Andrew in the order of calling, but he was the last to issue a Gospel. He was not concerned to give information which had been adequately set down before him, but preferred what had not been said to what had been, and discoursed < along those lines >. (2) For Matthew begins with Abraham, but resumes his narrative after its beginning, and two [undescribed] years after Christ’s birth. Mark, however, begins at the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, but gives < no > account of < the > interval after the beginning. And Luke added a beginning before the beginning, his treatment of Elizabeth and Mary before < they > conceived.

Obviously the strangest thing about the report is the association of 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius' with Mark (which certainly helps explain why the Basilideans think 15 Tyb = the 15th day of the Egyptian month of Tybi (according to various scholars). The Basilideans seem to use Mark but in our canonical set 'the 15th of Tiberius' appears in Luke not Mark.

The next thing that is striking about the report is that the 'spiritual gospel' criticized by the unnamed source(s) has the Prologue associated with John immediately lead to the Marriage at Cana. Despite the author's best efforts there is no baptism narrative in this gospel - only likely a reference to Jesus descending from heaven and becoming flesh in the prologue and then the marriage at Cana. The author and his source(s) may be dealing with two different gospels. But clearly the gospel of his sources is not our canonical John. The author clearly has four gospels but they do not line up - it seems - exactly with our gospels especially Mark, a phenomenon already witnessed in Irenaeus.

There are also clear signs in the report of phrases which are unique such as the identification of Christ as the 'gift' of God:

He [John] thus gives a spiritual account (πνευματικῶς τὴν ὑφήγησιν ποιεῖται) of the Gift which came down to us from the Father who has no beginning (τῆς ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ πατρὸς ἀνάρχου δωρεᾶς ἡμῖν ἐλθούσης), of the Father’s good pleasure took flesh in the holy Virgin’s womb.

But at the very same time the terminology surrounding this reference are mostly Clementine:

1. describing the Gospel of John as the 'spiritual' gospel
2. describing the Father as 'without beginning' cf. the end of Stromata 5 "it is then, now clear to us, from what has been said, that the beneficence of God is eternal (ἀίδιος ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐποιία), and that, from an unbeginning principle (ἀρχῆς ἀνάρχου), equal natural righteousness reached all, according to the worth of each several race, -- never having had a beginning (οὐκ ἀρξαμένη ποτέ)."

Yet Clement does not stress the Virgin Birth in this manner. The terminology seems more at home in Irenaeus as we see from a passage defending the 'correct interpretation' of the Gospel of John:

3. identifying the Son who descended as the 'good pleasure of the Father' = Irenaeus "But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father (εὐδοκίαν τοῦ πατρὸς), became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ."

The incorporation of the Virgin Birth into a defense of the Gospel of John seems strange given the fact that John does not mention the Virgin Birth. It seems more in keeping with a baptism narrative rather than the Virgin Birth:

This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased

And interestingly the very next line in Epiphanius's report we see an emphasis on the baptism narratives:

For when all the events of the baptism and temptation were over and then, as 1 have often said, Jesus had gone to spend a few days’ time in Nazareth and nearby, and near Capernaum — < and > after he had met John at the Jordan < and returned to Galilee* >, taking a few disciples with him on the next day [after his meeting with John] — Jesus performed this first miracle in Cana, the third day after [he had met] John but the twentieth after his return from the temptation, and < began > his preaching. For John does not say that Christ had gone to a wedding before the
temptation, or that he had worked any of his miracles < before > he started preaching — except, perhaps, the ones he is said to have performed in play as a child.

It is very tempting then to assume that the reference to the Virgin Birth is not actually in the original source but added later by Epiphanius.

[Secret Alias]

It also important to remember that both THIS GOSPEL and the Apocalypse are denied to be 'according to John' so there is a complexity here not recognized or appreciated by previous interpretations of this section.

Knowing, as they do, that St. John was an apostle and the Lord’s beloved, that the Lord rightly revealed the mysteries to him, and < that he* > leaned upon his breast, they are ashamed to contradict him and try to object to these mysteries for a different reason. For they say that they are not John’s composition but Cerinthus’, and have no right to a place in the church.

In the Apocalypse section we are clearly dealing with critics who know that the Apocalypse is claimed to be 'by John' and they deny the ascription. However in the gospel section of the Alogoi it is the author (Epiphanius's source) who argues for Johannine authorship. The source(s) never identify the gospel as specifically Johannine. They just deny the contents of a gospel which happen to be found in our canonical gospel of John. Nevertheless the gospel is not canonical John. As noted above it goes from the prologue or something like the prologue to the marriage at Cana.

I suspect - in keeping with the secondary manipulation of the report - that the highlighted section is a later addition:

“And what,” they argue, "did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ 14 And, ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we knew his glory, glory as of an only Son of a Father, full of grace and truth.’ 15 (7) And immediately afterwards, ‘John bare witness and cried, saying, This he of whom I said unto you,’ 16 and, ‘This is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.’ 17 “And next he says, ‘They that heard him said, Rabbi, where dwellest thou?’ 18 and in the same breath, (8) ‘On the morrow Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.’ 19 (g) And shortly thereafter he says, ‘And after three days there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage supper, and his mother was there.’ 20 (10) But the other evangelists say that he spent forty days in the wilderness tempted by the devil, and then came back and chose his disciples.”

The reason for this is the repetition of the idea a few lines later:

After ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ and a few other things (καὶ ὀλίγα τινά), it says at once (εὐθὺς λέγει) that there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee.

'A few things' can't be:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

He answered, “No.”

22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”[d]

24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

26 “I baptize with[e] water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. 27 He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

28 This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John Testifies About Jesus
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”[f]

John’s Disciples Follow Jesus
35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”

37 When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”

They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?”

39 “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.”

So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon.

40 Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[g]).

Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael
43 The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, “Follow me.”

44 Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

46 “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.

“Come and see,” said Philip.

47 When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.”

48 “How do you know me?” Nathanael asked.

Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”

49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”

50 Jesus said, “You believe[h] because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you[j] will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’[k] the Son of Man.”

2.1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee.

I think 'a few' means something like:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
2.1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee.

This especially when he says repeatedly that his opponents 'forget' about the account of John's baptism and other alleged parts of the gospel.

[Secret Alias]

The second time the report references 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius' in Mark:

through Peter, he was brought back and considered worthy [καταξιοῦται] to write a Gospel, after being filled with the Holy Spirit [πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἐμπεφορημένος]. He begins his proclamation at the point from which the Spirit exhorted [ἄρχεται δὲ κηρύττειν ὅθεν τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῷ παρεκελεύσατο]: from the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [τὴν ἀρχὴν τάττων ἀπὸ πεντεκαιδεκάτου ἔτους Τιβερίου Καίσαρος], thirty years after Matthew's treatment. But since he was the second evangelist to write and did not distinctly signify the descent from above of God the Word distinctly signify the descent from above of God the Word [καὶ μὴ περὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν καταγωγῆς τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου τηλαυγῶς σημήναντος] but plainly in all sorts of ways, though without such verbal precision — he became for the aforementioned beguiled a second "mind-clouder" [εἰς δεύτερον σκότωσις τῶν διανοημάτων], so that they would not be deemed worthy [καταξιωθῆναι] of the gospel's illumination [φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου]. (Pan. 51.6.10- 13)

Black in his study of Mark begins by admitting that "on a first reading these comments may seem unprecedentedly strange." But of course as all systematizers operate - he quickly latches on to minor agreements with tradition ignoring the obvious anomalies.

Earlier on he speaks in terms of Matthew "As I said, Matthew was privileged to be the first < to issue > the Gospel, and this was absolutely right." (οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ Ματθαῖος καταξιοῦται <πρῶτος κηρῦξαι> τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἔφην, καὶ δικαιότατα ἦν). Interestingly the word does no come up in the discussion of Luke the evangelist but tangentially after the mention of a scene from Luke's infancy narrative:

John, however, who was earlier in his calling than they but became an evangelist later, confirms the events before the incarnation. For most of what he said was spiritual, since the fleshly things had already been confirmed. (4) He thus gives a spiritual account of the Gift which came down to us from the Father who has no beginning (τῆς ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ πατρὸς ἀνάρχου δωρεᾶς ἡμῖν ἐλθούσης), < and > of the Father’s good pleasure took flesh in the holy Virgin’s womb. And he omitted nothing essential; but by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration he < introduced > the divine Word who was before all ages, begotten of the Father without beginning and not in time, and told of his coming in the flesh for our sakes. In this way we may obtain full and precise knowledge, fleshly and divine, from four evangelists.

20,1 For when all the events of the baptism and temptation were over and then, as I have often said, Jesus had gone to spend a few days’ < time > in Nazareth and nearby, and near Capernaum — < and > after he had met John at the Jordan < and returned to Galilee* >, taking a few disciples with him on the next day [after his meeting with John] — Jesus performed this first miracle in Cana, the third day after [he had met] John but the twentieth after his return from the temptation, and < began > his preaching.

(2) For John does not say that Christ had gone to a wedding before the temptation, or that he had worked any of his miracles < before > he started preaching — except, perhaps, the ones he is said to have performed in play as a child. (3) (For he ought to have childhood miracles too, to deprive the other sects of an excuse for saying that “< the > Christ,” meaning the dove, came to him after [his baptism in] the Jordan. 86 They say this because of the sum of the letters alpha and omega, which is [the same as the sum of the letters of] “dove,” since the Savior said, “I am the Alpha and I am the Omega.”)

This is also why Luke represents Jesus, in his twelfth year, as having asked Mary, “Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?” when she came looking for him, and he was engaged in dispute with the doctors at Jerusalem. This refutes the argument of those who claim that he became the Son of God at the time of his baptism, when the dove, which they say is the Christ, came to him. And it makes it clear that the divine Word came from above and was made flesh of Mary at his coming, and that the Spirit descended upon him in the Jordan, to identify the One of whom the Father testified, “This is my Son, the Beloved, hear ye him.” It was also a sign [ὑπόδειγμα], to those who would be enlightened in him [ἐν αὐτῷ φωτίζεσθαι], that they would be vouchsafed < the > gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and, by the grace he has given, the remission of their sins [ὅτι καταξιωθήσονται <τῆς> πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐν τῷ λουτρῷ [τῆς] δωρεᾶς καὶ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν διὰ τῆς χάριτος τῆς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ δοθείσης].

[Secret Alias]

The paradox of this account is that there appears to be a complexity in the original narrative. Not only are there those who deny a gospel which goes almost straight from the Prologue to the marriage at Cana (identified as 'according to John' by the author) but the original author seems to make many references to a gospel which resembles that of the Marcosians. Note:

1. the identification of Christ as the 'gift' of God and at the end the given 'grace' (χάριτος) of God
2. the emphasis on childhood miracle narratives (cf AH 1.20.1 "Among other things, they bring forward that false and wicked story which relates that our Lord, when He was a boy learning His letters, on the teacher saying to Him, as is usual, Pronounce Alpha, replied [as He was bid], Alpha. But when, again, the teacher bade Him say, Beta, the Lord replied, First tell me what Alpha is, and then I will tell you what Beta is. This they expound as meaning that He alone knew the Unknown, which He revealed under its type Alpha.")
3. the saying (identified as of Luke now) “Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?” and the Marcosian gospel "Some passages, also, which occur in the Gospels, receive from them a coloring of the same kind, such as the answer which He gave His mother when He was twelve years of age: Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" (AH 1.20.2)
4. the reference to Christ being the Alpha and Omega - "For he ought to have childhood miracles too, to deprive the other sects of an excuse for saying that “< the > Christ,” meaning the dove, came to him after [his baptism in] the Jordan. They say this because of the sum of the letters alpha and omega, which is [the same as the sum of the letters of] “dove,” since the Savior said, “I am the Alpha and I am the Omega.” (cmp AH 1.14.6 He asserts that the fruit of this arrangement and analogy has been manifested in the likeness of an image, namely, Him who, after six days, ascended(1) into the mountain along with three others, and then became one of six (the sixth),(2) in which character He descended and was contained in the Hebdomad, since He was the illustrious Ogdoad,(3) and contained in Himself the entire number of the elements, which the descent of the dove (who is Alpha and Omega) made clearly manifest, when He came to be baptized; for the number of the dove is eight hundred and one)

The complexity here is that there seems to be a sense that 'twenty miracles' took place between the temptation and Cana. This is very hard to understand from the Gospel of John or even the author's own reconstruction of a gospel harmonization.

[Secret Alias]

So there are the parallels with the Marcosian gospel. But there is more. The obsession it seems from the critics is that (a) whether Cana was the first miracle and (b) whether or not it took place after the baptism. We read in what immediately follows:

And then he began to work all his miracles, during the time of his preaching — < for > it says, “This first miracle did Jesus in Cana of Galilee.” 90 (2) As I have said many times, this was not before the baptism. It was after his return from the temptation, the third day after the two days John’s two disciples spent with him, the disciples who had heard [John] speak and followed Jesus. (3) Thus, immediately after the two days they spent with him, the Gospel adds, “And he went forth into Galilee and hndeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.” 91 21,4 Then immediately, on the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Since there was a wedding just after he had left Judaea, he was rightly invited in its honor, as a blessing on marriage. (5) And it says, “On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called, and his disciples who were with him, to the marriage. (6) And when they wanted wine,” it says, “The mother of Jesus saith, They have no wine. And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” 92

21,7 < This took place* > after he came from the wilderness following the temptation, and after he had been taken to Jerusalem and had stood on the pinnacle of the temple, and had been borne from Jerusalem to a very high mountain which many say is Mt. Tabor, or Itarbion in translation; this mountain is in Galilee. (8) For Matthew, who said, “Jesus, hearing that John was cast into prison, departed into Galilee,” 93 assumed this order of events. (9) Now Luke, who also accurately described the departure from the mountain and spoke first of the mountain and the kingdoms the devil showed the Lord, mentions the pinnacle and Jerusalem later, and how Jesus returned to Galilee and Nazareth. And Matthew says in agreement with him, “Leaving Nazareth he went unto Capernaum.” 94

21,10 For he went to Nazareth and from there to the Jordan to visit John, and after crossing the Jordan betook himself to his boyhood home, to his mother at Nazareth, and stayed there (i.e., at the Jordan) for two days, at which time Andrew and the others also stayed with him. Then, for the salvation of mankind, he was moved to begin preaching; (n) and because he had come [there] after an interval he stayed two days, accom-
panied by the disciples he had taken by then. And dismissing the two who had followed him he went to Galilee at once, to preach and work the first
miracle, the one he performed at the wedding.

The reason I find this all curious is that it almost perfectly corresponds to the Arabic Diatessaron:

24 And the child grew, and became strong in spirit, becoming filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him.

25 And his kinsfolk used to go every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the pass- over. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to their custom, to the feast. And when the days were accomplished, they returned; and the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem, and Joseph and his mother knew not: and they supposed that he was with the children of their company. And when they had gone one day's journey, they sought him beside their people and those who knew them, and they found him not; so they returned to Jerusalem and sought him again. And after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teach- ers, hearing them and asking them questions; and all who heard him wondered at his wisdom and his words. And when they saw him they wondered, and his mother said unto him, My son, why hast thou dealt with us thus? behold, I and thy father have been seeking for thee with much anxiety. And he said unto them, Why were ye seeking me? know ye not that I must be in the house of my Father? And they understood not the word which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth; and he was obedient to them: and his mother used to keep all these sayings in her heart.

36 Arabic. And Jesus grew in his stature and wisdom, and in grace with God and men.

37 And in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor in Judaea, and one of the four rulers, Herod, in Galilee; and Philip his brother, one of the four rulers, in Ituraea and in the district of Trachonitis; and Lysanias, one of the four rulers, in Abilene; in the chief-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the command of God went forth to John the son of Zacharias in the desert. And he came into all the region which is about Jordan, proclaiming the baptism of repentance unto the forgiveness of sins. And he was preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying, Repent ye; the kingdom of heaven is come near. This is he that was spoken of in Isaiah the prophet, The voice which crieth in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, And make straight in the plain, paths for our God.

44 All the valleys shall become filled, And all the mountains and hills shall become low; And the rough shall become plain, And the difficult place, easy; And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

46 This man came to bear witness, that he might bear witness to the light, that every man might believe through his mediation. He was not the light, bat that he might bear witness to the light, which was the light of truth, that giveth light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made 50 by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. And those who received him, to them gave he the power that they might be sons of God,--those which believe in his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and took up his abode among us; and we saw his glory as the glory of the only Son from the Father, which is full of grace and equity. John bare wit- Arabic, ness of him, and cried, and said, This is he that I said cometh after me and was before me, because he was before me. And of his fulness received we all grace for grace. For the law was given through the mediation of Moses, but truth and grace were through Jesus Christ.

SECTION IV.

4 1 No man hath seen God at any time; the only Son, God, which is in the bosom of his Father, he hath told of him.

2 And this is the witness of John when the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem priests 3 and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? And he acknowledged, and denied not; 4 and he confessed that he was not the Messiah. And they asked him again, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he said, I am not he. Art thou a prophet? He 5 said, No. They said unto him, Then who art thou? that we may answer them that 6 sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? And he said, I am the voice that crieth in 7 the desert, Repair ye the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. And they 8 that were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him and said unto him, Why baptizest thou now, when thou art not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor a prophet? 9 John answered and said unto them, I baptize with water: among you is standing one whom ye know not: this is he who I said cometh after me and was before me, the latchets of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. And that was in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

12 Now John's raiment was camel's hair, and he was girded with skins, and his food Arabic, was of locusts and honey of the wilderness. Then went out unto him the people of Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region which is about the Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to be baptized, he said unto them, Ye children of vipers, who hath led you to flee from the wrath to come? 16, Do now the fruits which are worthy of repentance; and think and say not within yourselves, We have a father, even Abraham; for I say unto you, that God is able to raise up of these stones children unto Abraham. Behold, the axe hath been laid at the roots of the trees, and so every tree that beareth not good fruit shall be taken and cast into the fire. And the multitudes were asking him and saying, What shall we do? He answered and said unto them, He that hath two tunics shall give to him that hath not; and he that hath food shall do likewise. And the publicans also came to be baptized, and they said unto him, Teacher, what shall we do? He said unto them, Seek not more than what ye are commanded to seek. And the servants of the guard asked him and said, And we also, what shall we do? He said unto them, Do not violence to any man, nor wrong him; and let your allowances satisfy you.

24 And when the people were conjecturing about John, and all of them thinking in their hearts whether he were haply the Messiah, John answered and said unto them, I baptize you with water; there cometh one after me who is stronger than I, the latchets of whose shoes I am not worthy to loosen; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire: who taketh the fan in his hand to cleanse his threshing-floors, Arabic, and the wheat he gathereth into his garners, while the straw he shall burn in fire which can not be put out.

27 And other things he taught and preached among the people.

28 Then came Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized of him. And Jesus was about thirty years old, and it was supposed that he was the son of Joseph. And John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, This is the Lamb of God, that taketh on itself the burden of the sins of the world! This is he concerning whom I said, There cometh after me a man who was before me, because he was before me. And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I to baptize with water. And John was hindering him and saying, I have need of being baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? Jesus answered him and said, Suffer this now: thus it is our duty to fulfil all righteous- 35 ness. Then he suffered him. And when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And immediately he went up out of the water, and heaven opened Arabic, to him, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the similitude of the body of a dove; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And John bare witness and said, I beheld the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove; and it abode upon him. But I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt behold the Spirit descending and lighting upon him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God.

42, And Jesus returned from the Jordan, filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately the Spirit took him out into the wilderness, to be tried of the devil; and he was with the beasts. And he fasted forty days and forty nights. And he ate noth- ing in those days, and at the end of them he hungered. And the tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, speak, and these stones shah become bread. He answered and said, It is written, Not by bread alone shall man live, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil brought him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: And they shall take thee on their arms, So that thy foot shall not stumble against a stone.

49 Jesus said unto him, And it is written also, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And the devil took him up to a high mountain, and shewed him all the king- Arabic, doms of the earth, and their glory, in the least time; and the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this dominion, and its glory, which is delivered to me that I may give it to whomsoever I will. If then thou wilt worship before me, all of it shall be thine.

SECTION V.

51 Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou 2 shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serve. And when the 3 devil had completed all his temptations, he departed from him for a season. And behold, the angels drew near and ministered unto him.

4,5 And next day John was standing, and two of his disciples; and he saw Jesus as 6 he was walking, and said, Behold, the Lamb of God! And his two disciples heard 7 him saying this, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw them coming after him, and said unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Our master, 8 where art thou staying? And he said unto them, Come and see. And they came and saw his place, and abode with him that day: and it was about the tenth hour. 9 One of the two which heard from John, and followed Jesus, was Andrew the brother of Simon. And he saw first Simon his brother, and said unto him, We have found the Messiah. And he brought him unto Jesus. And Jesus looked upon him and said, Thou art Simon, son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas.

12 And on the next day Jesus desired to go forth to Galilee, and he found Philip, Arabic, and said unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Simon. And Philip found Nathanael, and said unto him, He of whom Moses did write in the law and in the prophets, we have found that he is Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth. Nathanael said unto him, Is it possible that there can be any good thing from Nazareth? Philip said unto him, Come and see. And Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, This is indeed a son of Israel in whom is no guile. And Nathanael said unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus said unto him, Before Philip called thee, while thou wast under the 18 fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and said unto him, My Master, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. Jesus said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, hast thou believed? thou shalt see what is greater than this. And he said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

21 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee.

22 And on the third day there was a feast in Cana, a city of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and Jesus also and his disciples were invited to the feast. And they lacked wine: and his mother said unto Jesus, They have no wine. And Jesus said unto her, What have I to do with thee, woman? hath not mine hour come? And his mother said unto the servants, What he saith unto you, do. And there were there six vessels of stone, placed for the Jews' purification, such as Arabic, would contain two or three jars. And Jesus said unto them, Fill the vessels with water. And they filled them to the top. He said unto them, Draw out now, and present to the ruler of the feast. And they did so. And when the ruler of the company tasted that water which had become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants knew, because they filled up the water), the ruler of the company called the bridegroom, and said unto him, Every man presenteth first the good wine, and on intoxication he bringeth what is poor; but thou hast kept the good wine until now. And this is the first sign which Jesus did in Cans of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him. And his fame spread in all the coun- try which was around them. And he taught in their synagogues, and was glorified by every man. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and entered, according to his custom, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. And he was given the book of Isaiah the prophet.And Jesus opened the book and found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, And for this anointed he me, to preach good tidings to the poor; And he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, And to proclaim forgiveness to the evil-doers, and sight to the blind, And to bring the broken into forgiveness,

[andrewcriddle]

Mark begins with the ministry of John the Baptist. Luke tells us that this ministry began in the 15th year of Tiberius. Therefore Epiphanius (who believes that the historical information in Luke is accurate) regards Mark as beginning with the 15th year of Tiberius even though Mark does not contain this particular synchronism.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Right ... but only kind of. The underlying idea in the treatise is that the gospels were produced successively with Matthew first and Mark second. The collection seems to end with the statement (usually identified as being a part of John but see Trobisch on this) that there were many unrecorded things that Jesus did. The argument on the part of the author now is that there is a historical reality which is contained only when all four gospels are brought together. So then - strangely - the Arabic gospel harmony basically 'unlocks' the historical reality of Jesus's ministry where all the individual gospels only garner 'pieces' of the truth.

Of course this understanding is quite useful for someone who believes or promotes the literal truth of the canon. But there are enough disagreements or hints at disagreements between what the source is saying about John and what his unknown opponents are saying about another gospel to raise doubts about the 'agreement' discovered in the gospel harmonies.

For instance his opponents say that the baptism hadn't happened at the time of the marriage of Cana. They seem to hint that the marriage at Cana falsely claims that this is the first miracle or wonder accomplished by Jesus - with some sort of reference to the infancy material alluded to by Epiphanius's source. The point is that if the source is not actually dealing with the gospel of his sources then John 'the spiritual gospel' seems to be a falsely manufactured substitute for the contentious text which does fit in with the synoptics. In other words, instead of having a miracle precede the baptism John is corrected so as to allow for those who think that Christ only came upon Jesus at baptism (thus allowing for the miracles to be attributed to receiving the spirit at baptism).

There seems to be no reference to John in this gospel. Jesus comes down from heaven in the prologue and the gospel simply begins with the marriage at Cana. The source also makes specific reference to the temptation narrative not fitting in with this 'other gospel' given again that there is no room for Jesus's humanity in such a gospel. Jesus needs to undergo the transfiguration immediately following baptism because - in an intellectual sense - the Holy Spirit is new to him. Yes of course 'the official dogma' says that Jesus was always Christ since the virgin birth. Even if we aren't 'adoptionists' it is hard to read Mark without inferring on some level that Jesus was transformed by his baptism.

All of which brings us to the source's treatment of Mark. Even though our present text reworked with glosses from Epiphanius makes reference to the virgin birth and criticizes adoptionism it is hard not to see that the original source nominally accepted this understanding. The source's specific identification of the transfiguration taking place on Tabor for instance seems to hearken back to the Gospel of the Hebrews (coupled with the reference of Matthew being written in Hebrew). The Jewish gospel's account understanding the Holy Spirit (a 'she') lifted Jesus to the transfiguration on Tabor:

Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor. (Origen, Commentary on John 2.12.87)

I don't think this agreement is generally recognized (i.e. between the author of the Alogoi text and Origen's report about the Jewish gospel). Epiphanius's doesn't demonstrate knowledge of this story as far as I know in other sources. I think this establishes that the author isn't dealing exactly with canonical texts. Matthew isn't 'canonical Matthew.' The reference to Mark and the 15th of Tiberius has to be treated in the same manner.

The author seems to have fit together four texts into a 'gospel harmony' template by altering the originals - perhaps successively. Matthew is remembered to be something not like Matthew. John something not like John (by his opponents). Mark clearly not like Mark. This pattern extends to other part of Irenaeus too. Mark isn't always as we know it. There are strange anomalies in the account of the birth narratives. It seems we have another glimpse of the canonical texts having a prehistory where they didn't always look as we think they did. Stories were shifted into an arrangement as a master template - a gospel harmony - was contrived to make the pieces all fit into a master pattern. The use of 'kingdom of heaven' side by side 'kingdom of God' is part of this sloppiness.

It is hard to believe that when someone speaks of each gospel being created in chronological order (as the source does) that a reference to the '15th of Tiberius' in relation to Mark being the second gospel makes any sense unless that bit of information was understood to be in the gospel. After all what the author is saying in the section is 'Matthew told us this' and 'Mark THEN told us that ...' As it stands Mark does not tell us that the ministry took place in the 15th of Tiberius. Luke does. We don't know that Jesus's ministry took place at that time until the third gospel is created. It doesn't matter whether or not 'it really did happen at that time.' The Acts of Pilate must have been known at this time. They gave a different account of the year or Jesus's ministry. It wasn't settled fact until the year was nailed down in writing and that was only done - according to our canon - with Luke. I am not sure that the author would have been so confident about the year of Jesus's ministry given the presence and influence of the Acts of Pilate - especially if the treatise is older than Epiphanius.

Epiphanius can't have spent all this time reconstructing a detailed account over the controversies related to this obscure late second century sect (the detail in the section contrasts with Epiphanius's sloppiness elsewhere). The Panarion was a massive undertaking and it seems like Epiphanius was rushing through a lot of source material. He has clearly taken over a late second century text. To this end the year of Jesus's ministry wasn't simply to be taken for granted. There were a lot of contemporary sources (not just the Acts of Pilate but likely Josephus too) which point to a 20-21 CE dating for Jesus's ministry. In a discussion of chronological succession of revelation of information regarding Jesus Christ from Matthew then Mark then Luke and finally John - all fitting neatly in a harmonized historical record - the reference to the 15th of Tiberius as being Mark's revelation can't be viewed as carrying over 'facts' shared in common with Luke. The author is saying that Mark testifies to this fact.

[Secret Alias]

He began his proclamation where the Spirit told him, and put the opening of it at the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, thirty years after Matthew’s account (ἄρχεται δὲ κηρύττειν ὅθεν τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῷ παρεκελεύσατο, τὴν ἀρχὴν τάττων ἀπὸ πεντεκαιδεκάτου ἔτους Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, μετὰ ἔτη τριάκοντα τῆς τοῦ Ματθαίου πραγματείας). Since he was a second evangelist, and gave no clear indication of the divine Word’s descent from on high — he does this everywhere plainly, but not with as much precision [as Matthew] — a darkening of their minds fell once more upon these misguided people, so that they were not held worthy of the Gospel’s illumination. “Look,” they said, “here is a second Gospel too with an account of Christ, and nowhere does it say that his generation is heavenly. Instead,” they said, “the Spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and < there came* > a voice, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ ” Since this was the conclusion that had been reached by these stupid people, the Holy Spirit compelled St. Luke and spurred him on to raise the minds of the misguided from the lowest depths, as it were, and once again take up what the other evangelists (i.e. Matthew and Luke) had omitted.

I didn't include the initial section where the author says that Mark (as one of the 72) was present at the utterance of “Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me” (John 6:58) but fell away to write a gospel which denied or showed no trace of Jesus's heavenly origin. This is a very curious argument on several levels. Firstly Mark doesn't mention the 72 - this is a Lukan account. While understanding shows up elsewhere the author doesn't see the obvious logical difficulties of asserting Mark's declaring things 'plainly' throughout his gospel but neglecting mention things such as the 72 and his belonging to the group. Secondly Mark doesn't mention hearing John 6:58 which is easy to explain on one level. The author himself uses it to explain why no mention of Jesus's heavenly or spiritual nature is referenced in Mark. But the closer we look at the account of Mark the more likely does it seem as if the gospel was more expansive than the canonical text. Notice he doesn't clarify if Mark reported the existence of the 72 (why open this can of worms in the first place) and secondly the reference to another Lukan narrative - the fifteenth year of Tiberius.

Also notice that while saying that Luke was prompted by the Holy SPirit to 'take up what Matthew and Mark' had omitted to write 'the fifteenth of Tiberius' is not one of these facts.

[Secret Alias]

And in the second mention of the association with Mark (so it isn't an 'offhand reference' but something that is repeatedly stressed) he repeats the connection alongside things explicitly said by the other evangelists:

But these people say that the Gospel according to John is non-canonical because it did not mention these events — I mean the events of
the forty-day temptation — and they do not see fit to accept it, since they are misguided about everything, and mentally blind. The blessed John came fourth in the succession of evangelists. With his brother James he was the first after Peter and Andrew in the order of calling, but he was the last to issue a Gospel. He was not concerned to give information which had been adequately set down before him, but preferred what had not been said to what had been, and discoursed < along those lines >. (2) For Matthew begins with Abraham, but resumes his narrative after its beginning, and two [undescribed] years after Christ’s birth. Mark, however, begins with the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Μάρκος δὲ ἄρχεται ἀπὸ πεντεκαιδεκάτου ἔτους Τιβερίου Καίσαρος) but gives < no > account of < the > interval after the beginning. And Luke added a beginning before the beginning, his treatment of Elizabeth and Mary before < they > conceived.

I think this is the clincher. Each gospel writer is explicitly referenced in terms of THINGS THEY REFERENCED in their gospel. John DID NOT REFERENCE the temptation. Matthew DID REFERENCE and begins with Abraham, Mark begins with the fifteenth of Tiberius and Luke added something else. Compare Chrysostom on Hebrew 11:23 - ἄρχεται ἀπὸ τῶν γονέων τοῦ Μωϋσέως, ἀσήμων τινῶν ΑΝΔΡΩΝ: he begins with the parents (γονεῖς) of Moses, some undistinguished. I think this is pretty clear.

[Secret Alias]

Photius's use of ἄρχεται ἀπὸ

Read the ten books of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. Beginning from the birth of Christ, our true God, Ἀνεγνώσθη Εὐσεβίου ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία ἐν τόμοις δέκα. Ἄρχεται ἀπὸ παρουσίας Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν

Read the Ecclesiastical History by a certain John.2 It begins with the reign of Theodosius the Younger, the heresy of Nestorius and his deposition Ἀνεγνώσθη Ἰωάννου ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία. Ἄρχεται ἀπὸ τῆς Θεοδοσίου τοῦ νέου βασιλείας

Read the Ecclesiastical History of Basil the Cilician.6 It begins with the death of Simplicius, bishop of Rome,1 who wrote to Acacius of Constantinople Ἀνεγνώσθη Βασιλείου Κίλικος ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία. Ἄρχεται ἀπὸ τῆς τελευτῆς Σιμπλικίου τοῦ Ῥώμης,

Read the Historical Epitome of Nicephorus patriarch of Constantinople.1 It begins with the death of Maurice and goes down to the marriage of Leo and Irene. Ἀνεγνώσθη ἱστορικὸν σύντομον Νικηφόρου τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀρχιερέως. Ἄρχεται ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναιρέσεως Μαυρικίου καὶ κάτεισι μέχρι τῆς εἰς γάμον κοινωνίας Λέοντος καὶ Εἰρήνης

I think it is a stretch to argue that the author 'inferred' that Mark began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. The usage suggests that he is citing from Mark as does the context of the greater discussion of the gospels.