Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[Secret Alias]

Another possibility that I am strongly considering is that Epiphanius recognized the worthlessness of what Irenaeus was writing - because he had Hegesippus perhaps - and as a result felt free to improvise and improve it out of his own imagination.

And I can't get over how a group with a Semitic name 'Ebionites' are alleged to have a Greek gospel. Something's not right here.

[Secret Alias]

Let's look at this line by line. Epiphanius begins:

1,1 Now Cerinthus in turn, the founder of the so-called Cerinthians, has come from this bestial seed, bringing the world his venom. But almost nothing different from Carpocrates is spouting out into the world, just the same harmful poisons. For he slanderously gives the same account of Christ as Carpocrates, that he was born of Mary and Joseph’s seed, and likewise that the world was made by angels. In the inculcation of his teaching he differs from Carpocrates in no way except only in this, that he adhered in part to Judaism. He, however, claims that the Law and prophets have been given by the angels, and the law-giver is one of the angels who have made the world.

I would argue this proves that Epiphanius actually started the dictation for his section on the Cerinthians with the page in Irenaeus opened to Carpocrates which read:

Carpocrates, again, and his followers maintain that the world and the things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father. They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was stedfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed(3) within the sphere of the unbegotten God.

In other words, the reason why Epiphanius twice mentions Carpocrates in his opening lines of the Cerinthian section is because Epiphanius is actually hunting for something to say about the sect from the Carpocrates section not the Cerinthus paragraph.

[Secret Alias]

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

Cerinthus lived in Asia and began his preaching there. (5) I have already said of him that he too preached that the world was not created by the first,supreme power—and that when “Jesus,” the offspring of Mary and the seed of Joseph, had grown up, “Christ,” meaning the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, came down to him in the Jordan 4 from the God on high, revealing the unknowable Father to him, and through him to his companions. And therefore, because a power had come to him from on high, he performed works of power. 5 And when he suffered, the thing that had come from above flew away from Jesus to the heights. Jesus has suffered and risen again but the Christ who had come to him from above flew away without suffering'—that is, the thing which had descended in the form of a dove—and Jesus is not Christ.

The material that follows the ignored mention of Egypt all comes from Irenaeus:

Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

Clearly then we can demonstrate that when Epiphanius reaches the end of Irenaeus's cursive description of Cerinthus, he needed to find something more to say about them - and so - started making stuff up, which includes all the bits that follow - i.e. the repurposing of things said about Matthew, about Cerinthus being in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Galatians etc. This was all done for 'entertainment' value. He had no more information. He couldn't just have a paragraph devoted to Cerinthus, so he started making stuff up.

[Secret Alias]

The first thing he says after running of out of material from Irenaeus is:

2,1 But he too has come to grief, as all you lovers of the truth can see. He claims that the law-giver is not good, but he sees fit to be obedient to his Law—plainly, as to a good one. (2) How can the evil one have given the good Law? If it is good not to commit adultery and good not to murder, how much more must the giver of these commandments be better—if it be granted that the person who does not do these things is good! And how can someone who advises what is good, and gives a good Law, be accused of doing evil? The man who takes this sort of line is crazy!

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

[Ben C. Smith]

The first thing he says after running of out of material from Irenaeus is:

2,1 But he too has come to grief, as all you lovers of the truth can see. He claims that the law-giver is not good, but he sees fit to be obedient to his Law—plainly, as to a good one. (2) How can the evil one have given the good Law? If it is good not to commit adultery and good not to murder, how much more must the giver of these commandments be better—if it be granted that the person who does not do these things is good! And how can someone who advises what is good, and gives a good Law, be accused of doing evil? The man who takes this sort of line is crazy!

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

It sounds like you are suggesting that when Epiphanius is longwinded and overbearing he is being himself, and when he is at least somewhat concise and cogent he is following a source. If that could be demonstrated to be true, it could prove useful.

[John2]

No. Ehrman demonstrates he lies about attending that orgy. I once made a list of lies in the Panarion.

I don't know what this has to do with what Epiphanius says about the Ebionites or that Ehrman's demonstration "about [Epiphanius] attending that orgy" is necessarily correct. I do know that Epiphanius does not mention attending any Ebioinite orgies or that they even had any.

And I don't know if this is the argument you are referring to, but Pearse critiques Ehrman's argument that Epiphanius lied about the orgies of the Borborites here (and points out that Ehrman uses Epiphanius selectively by accepting Epiphanius' chapter on the Ebionites "without question"):

Ehrman’s argument can be summarised very briefly as follows. He argues that the account of the Borborites given by Epiphanius is factually wrong. He then highlights that Epiphanius claims personal knowledge of the cult, and uses this to “show” that Epiphanius must be lying. Once he has convicted Epiphanius of lying, he then dismisses the quotations from gnostic texts in Epiphanius as being forgeries. On this basis, he calls Epiphanius a forger ...

It would have been better, tho, if [Ehrman] had given the text and translation of chapter 26 in his book, perhaps as an appendix, so that the reader could decide for himself whether Epiphanius was saying what [Ehrman] suggests. But [Ehrman's] summary of the chapter is fair enough ...

That’s the end of [Ehrman's] discussion of Epiphanius. He doesn’t even attempt to explain why Epiphanius’ statements make him a forger, but just “propose”s it.

It is all very well to assert that Epiphanius was wrong about the Borborites – a group of people whom even [Ehrman] accepts he knew personally – and then that that he fabricated the texts he quotes. But the value of such claims is very low indeed.

We have already looked at Epiphanius’ chapter, and evaluated what we might make of it. To some extent it is impossible for us to be sure what to think. We are in no sense obliged to believe that every word in it is accurate, nor witnessed personally by Epiphanius. I think it is a great mistake to strain the words of a man of that generation for evidence that he is, or is not, attesting personally every line of a text writing down the memories of 30 years earlier. But that he wrote honestly seems beyond doubt. He records a peculiar and disgusting libertine group, of a kind known elsewhere in history, and whose pecularity is attested in gnostic texts also.

One final point. I have drawn attention above to the dangers of using texts selectively. There is a nemesis that awaits those who do so.

There is another chapter in Epiphanius, where he quotes extensively from the books of a cult whom he knew slightly himself: the Ebionites. The material is very valuable. Rightly it is used without question in a book discussing them, by Bart Ehrman himself, who adds of the quotations, “we should like to have more.” Indeed we should. But a writer can hardly be abused as a fraud and liar in one book, only to be used as a reliable source in another.


https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/201 ... ome-notes/

And I'm curious to see what Epiphanius' lies about the Ebionites you have on your list.

[John2]

And for those who want to see the methodology from Epiphanius with respect to Cerinthus:

1,1 Now Cerinthus in turn, the founder of the so-called Cerinthians, has come from this bestial seed, bringing the world his venom. But almost nothing different from Carpocrates is spouting out into the world, just the same harmful poisons.

1,2 2 For he slanderously gives the same account of Christ as Carpocrates, that he was born of Mary and Joseph’s seed, and likewise that the world was made by angels

Clearly this negates John2's nonsense about Epiphanius's 'faithfulness' to the written sources. As Hall notes:

The source of the information in the opening portions of this Sect is Irenaeus, upon whom Hipp. Synt. seems to be dependent ... Either by conjecture or front oral tradition, Epiph makes Cerinthus, who he believes taught the necessity of circumcision, the instigator of the controversies about circumcision which the NT records in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

Epiphanius's statement that Cerinthus had 'almost nothing different from Carpocrates' is a gross misrepresentation of his written sources. Epiphanius made that up.

I said (and have been consistently saying) that Epiphanius is "more or less true to his written sources." So you are doing to me what you are accusing Epiphanius of doing to his sources, i.e., misrepresenting what I said. But so what if Epiphanius has his own conjectures in addition to what his sources say. Does he attribute his conjectures to his sources?

[John2]

Epiphanius's statement that Cerinthus had 'almost nothing different from Carpocrates' is a gross misrepresentation of his written sources. Epiphanius made that up.

His bit in the section about the Ebionites where he says that the Ebionites used the gospel of Matthew alone, "just like Cerinthus," is also a known misunderstanding of Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2: "Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law." Epiphanius got the part about the Ebionites right, but brought Cerinthus in for the wrong reason (issues of canon rather than of kuriology).

Well, being dumb and being dishonest are two different things. I'm not arguing that Epiphanius was the smartest guy in the world.

[John2]

Epiphanius is only following in the footsteps of those who invented the identity of the Ebionites. There is nothing more than what Irenaeus says about either.

But unlike in what you cited above, Epiphanius frequently says regarding what he learned about the Ebionites things like, "they say," "some of them say," "others among them say," and regarding what he says he learned from a Jewish convert in the same chapter he says, "For I heard all this from his own lips and not from anyone else, in his old age, when he was about 70 or even more."

[Secret Alias]

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

What you keep ignoring - and ignoring, ignoring, ignoring, ignoring etc - is that I have clearly demonstrated that Epiphanius IS NOT A RELIABLE witness to the traditions he cites. The abuse he heaps on Irenaeus - and only Irenaeus's - account of Cerinthus - is undoubtedly an important parallel to what he did with the Ebionites. I will repeat so that you can't continue to ignore it with a good conscience:

1. After announcing that the entry for the 'Cerinthians' he leaps back to Irenaeus's account of the Carpocratians and draws information from them applying it as if it wholly applied to the 'Cerinthians'
2. Then after this he goes back to the account of 'Cerinthus' (there is nothing in Irenaeus to suggest that there ever were 'Cerinthians') and paraphrases it. We can throughout this process imagine the bishop standing with a copy of Irenaeus in his hand and at times reading from it.
3. Then after reaching the end he launches into a lot of nonsense from his own imagination. AT one point he goes to the next sect in Irenaeus's chronology - the Ebionites - and basically assumes that things said about the Ebionites apply to Cerinthus. But he clearly has no written source material for any of these assertions. He simply advances the idea that Irenaeus must have assumed that the enemies of the apostles were these sectarians and voila! - we have several paragraphs of reverse inference from Acts, 1 Corinthians and Galatians and the presence of 'Cerinthus' in all these passages.

This is not the way a reliable source operates. It is equally demonstrable that he does the same thing in the section on the Ebionites.