Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 11:07 am
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 7:59 pm
Lawlor makes the case that Epiphanius had Hegesippus in front of him and cites from it throughout the Panarion. It might mean that things that go beyond what Irenaeus says about the Carpocratians is found by Epiphanius in Hegesippus.
I acknowledged in my earlier post that Lawlor had suggested that Epiphanius may have had Hegesippus in addition to Irenaeus as a source for his information on the Carpocratians, but pointed out that we have no way of knowing whether the specific claim about Carpocratian homosexuality came from Hegesippus. Now that I look at it, though, it appears that Lawlor's case may be based primarily on a translation error. The cornerstone of his argument concerns the woman Marcellina. Lawlor, following Lightfoot, renders the beginning of the passage:
A certain Marcellina who had been led into error by them (the Carpocratians) paid us a visit some time ago.
Lawlor reasons that the use of the first person suggests that Epiphanius is not using Irenaeus, but Irenaeus's source, which was someone living in Rome at the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome, and this can only have been Hegesippus. Lawlor hypothesizes that Epiphanius retained the first person from the original, while Irenaeus modified it. (Lawlor,
Eusebiana, 74).
However, Frank Williams' more recent translation of the same passage renders it:
I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them (Epiphanius Panarion 27.6.1).
The Greek is:
Ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα
I think the difference is due to Lawlor/Lightfoot taking Ἦλθεν to mean "she came", meaning Marcellina, while Williams takes it to mean "it came" meaning a tradition about Marcellina.
This is possible. Several items give me pause, however.
First, I have tried to find examples in Epiphanius close to your proposed interpretation of this line, and have come up with the following:
Epiphanius, Panarion 28.6.4-5a: 4 For their school reached its height in this country, I mean Asia, and in Galatia as well. And in these countries I also heard of a tradition [ἐν οἷς καί τι παραδόσεως πρᾶγμα ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς] which said that when some of their people died too soon, without baptism, others would be baptized for them in their names, so that they would not be punished for rising unbaptized at the resurrection and become the subjects of the authority that made the world. 5a And the tradition I heard of says that this is why [καὶ τούτου ἕνεκα ἡ παράδοσις ἡ ἐλθοῦσα εἰς ἡμᾶς φησι] the same holy apostle said, "If the dead rise not at all, why are they baptized for them?"
Epiphanius, Panarion 28.8.1: 1 But they are called Merinthians too, I am told [ὡς ἡ ἐλθοῦσα εἰς ἡμᾶς φάσις περιέχει]. Whether the same Cerinthus was also called Merinthus I have no idea; or whether there was someone else named Merinthus, a colleague of his, God knows!
Epiphanius, Panarion 38.2.4: 4 Further, I have now learned of a book [ἤδη δὲ ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ βιβλίον] in which they have forged certain assertions which are full of wickedness, containing such things as, "This is the angel who blinded Moses. These are the angels who hid the companions of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and removed them elsewhere."
Epiphanius, Panarion 30.2.8: 8 And as far as I know [ὡς ἡ ἐλθοῦσα εἰς ἡμᾶς γνῶσις περιέχει], he first lived in a village called Cocabe in the district of Qarnaim — also called Ashtaroth — in Bashanitis. There he began his evil teaching — the place, if you please, where the Nazoraeans I have spoken of came from.
(The English is from the Williams translation; you can see, based on the Greek, how loose his translation is: a looseness I have had numerous occasions in the past to reflect upon.)
It is evident that Epiphanius is perfectly capable of referring to himself in the plural as the recipient of information or tradition; and there are other (less relevant, to my eye) examples across the
Panarion of him doing so. But in the above cases he expresses the subject in full (παραδόσεως πρᾶγμα, παράδοσις, φάσις, βιβλίον, γνῶσις); he does not leave it to an unexpressed "it." This is not a
huge deal on its own, but take it in conjunction with the rest.
Second, if we take the subject of ἦλθεν to be an unexpressed "it," then we have to take πως as introducing indirect discourse in order to explain the nominative Μαρκελλίνα (and then I
think we probably also ought to render it as πῶς,
with the accent, rather than as the enclitic, as the Greek edition seems to do). Yet ἤδη πως is a rather common Greek expression on its own merits, and it is unfortunate that these two words, completely unrelated to one another on a syntactic level in your reading, should have ended up sitting side by side, seemingly forming a common expression and making perfect grammatical sense in that capacity. Again, not a
huge deal, but something to consider.
Third, there is an evident relationship, whether direct or indirect, between Irenaeus and Epiphanius at this point of the text:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6a: 6a Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray [unde et Marcellina, quae Romam sub Aniceto venit, cum esset huius doctrinae, multos exterminavit]. They style themselves Gnostics.
Epiphanius, Panarion 27.5.9-27.6.1: 5.9 And this school of Carpocrates marks the right earlobes of the persons they deceive with a burning iron, or by using a razor or needle. 6.1 I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them [ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα; alternately, "and there came to us some time ago a certain Marcellina, who was deceived by them"], who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome [ἣ πολλοὺς ἐλυμήνατο ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης], the successor of Pius and the bishops before him.
Epiphanius obviously knew Irenaeus, so no problem so far. The issue is that, where Irenaeus has
Romam sub Aniceto venit, Epiphanius has words which could easily be viewed as representing much of the Greek behind the Latin translation of Irenaeus: ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς... ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου. I know the word order is different, but, much like the second point above, it is something to be noticed, in my opinion, that ἦλθεν, the most obvious Greek word one would use to translate
venit (or vice versa), should find a place in Epiphanius' text, seemingly by accident, as part of a completely different construction. But obviously the "us" did not come from Irenaeus, and this is where Lawlor's hypothesis comes in.
Fourth, we know from Eusebius,
History of the Church 4.22.2-3, that Hegesippus was in Rome until the time of Anicetus. (I take the next two sentences, from "his deacon was Eleutherus" to "the law and the prophets and the Lord" to fall outside of the quotation; Eusebius is filling out the list from, you guessed it, Irenaeus.) So already Marcellina coming to "us" in the time of Anicetus would make sense if Hegesippus is the source. But there is more. Irenaeus' list of the bishops of Rome (
Against Heresies 3.3.3), a list extending up through Eleutherius, bears two syntactical breaks. The first is at Clement, evidently in order to introduce all the personal information about him. The second is at Anicetus, for no reason obvious from the list itself (since no extraneous information is given for him): the members of the list after Clement and up to Anicetus are all in the nominative case as subjects of the verbs διαδέχεται and καθίσταται. However, after Anicetus, Soter is in the genitive case as part of a genitive absolute, while Eleutherus is back in the nominative case as the subject of the verb κατέχει. At the same time, the list given in Epiphanius ends with Anicetus:
Epiphanius, Panarion 27.5.9-27.6.1-3, 7-8: 5.9 And this school of Carpocrates marks the right earlobes of the persons they deceive with a burning iron, or by using a razor or needle. 6.1 I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them [ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα], who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome [ἣ πολλοὺς ἐλυμήνατο ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης], the successor of Pius and the bishops before him. 2 For the bishops at Rome were, first, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops — then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. 3 And no one need wonder why others before him succeeded the apostles in the episcopate, even though he was contemporary with Peter and Paul — for he too is the apostles' contemporary. .... 7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. 8 In Anicetus' time, then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so called Gnostics [ἀρχὴ Γνωστικῶν τῶν καλουμένων].
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3, English | Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3, Latin | Eusebius, History of the Church 5.5.8-5.6.5, English | Eusebius, History of the Church 5.5.8-5.6.5, Greek |
- | - | 5.8 Pothinus having died with the other martyrs in Gaul at ninety years of age, Irenæus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church at Lyons. We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp. 9 In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work. He writes as follows: | Ποθεινοῦ δὴ ἐφ' ὅλοις ζωῆς ἔτεσιν ἐνενήκοντα σὺν τοῖς ἐπὶ Γαλλίας μαρτυρήσασιν τελειωθέντος, Εἰρηναῖος τῆς κατὰ Λούγδουνον ἧς ὁ Ποθεινὸς ἡγεῖτο παροικίας τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν διαδέχεται· Πολυκάρπου δὲ τοῦτον ἀκουστὴν γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν νέαν ἐμανθάνομεν ἡλικίαν. τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὴν διαδοχὴν ἐπισκόπων ἐν τρίτῃ συντάξει τῶν πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις παραθέμενος, εἰς Ἐλεύθερον, οὗ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ἡμῖν ἐξετάζεται, ὡς ἂν δὴ κατ' αὐτὸν σπουδαζομένης αὐτῷ τῆς γραφῆς, τὸν κατάλογον ἵστησι, γράφων ὧδε· |
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. | Fundantes igitur et instruentes beati apostoli ecclesiam, Lino episcopatum administradae ecclesiae tradiderunt. huius Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum epistolis meminit. succedit autem ei Anacletus; post eum tertio loco ab apostolis episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui et vidit ipsos apostolos, et contulit cum eis, et cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem apostolorum et traditionem ante oculos haberet, non solus, adhuc enim multi supererant tunc ab apostolis docti. | 6.1 The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. 2 Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the episcopate. He had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, and their preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been taught by the apostles yet survived. 3 In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming the doctrine lately received from the apostles. | »θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν· τούτου τοῦ Λίνου Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται. διαδέχεται δ' αὐτὸν Ἀνέγκλητος, μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης, ὁ καὶ ἑορακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ἀποστόλους καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔτι ἔναυλον τὸ κήρυγμα τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων, οὐ μόνος· ἔτι γὰρ πολλοὶ ὑπελείποντο τότε ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων δεδιδαγμένοι. ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος στάσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθῳ γενομένης ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοις, εἰς εἰρήνην συμβιβάζουσα αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνανεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παράδοσιν εἰλήφει». |
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. | Sub hoc igitur Clemente, dissensione non modica inter eos qui Corinthi essent fratres facta, scripsit quae est Romae ecclesia potentissimas literas Corinthiis, ad pacem eos congregans et reparans fidem eorum, et annuntians quam in recenti ab apostolis acceperat traditionem,* annuntiantem unum deum omnipotentam, factorem coeli et terrae, plasmatorem hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Aegypti, qui collucutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit, et prophetas miserit, qui ignem praeparaverit diabolo et angelis eius. hunc patrem domini nostri Iesu Christi ab ecclesiis annuntiari, ex ipsa scriptura, qui velint discere possunt, et apostolicam ecclesiae traditionem intelligere, cum sit vetustior epistola his qui nunc falso docent, et alterum deum super dimiurgum et factorem horum omnium quae sunt commentiuntur. | 4 A little farther on he says: | καὶ μετὰ βραχέα φησίν· |
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. | Huic autem Clementi succedit Evaristus, et Evaristo Alexander, ac deinceps sextus ab apostolis constitutus est Sixtus, et ab hoc Telesphorus, qui etiam gloriosissime martyrium fecit; ac deinceps Hyginus, post Pius, post quem Anicetus. cum autem successisset Aniceto Soter, nunc duodecimo loco episcopatum ab apostolis habet Eleutherius. hac ordinatione et successione ea quae est ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos. et est plenissima haec ostensio, unam et eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae en ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate. | Evarestus succeeded Clement, and Alexander, Evarestus. Then Xystus, the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After him Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom gloriously; then Hyginus; then Pius; and after him Anicetus; Soter succeeded Anicetus; and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherus holds the office of bishop. 5 In the same order and succession the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto us. | »τὸν δὲ Κλήμεντα τοῦτον διαδέχεται Εὐάρεστος καὶ τὸν Εὐάρεστον Ἀλέξανδρος, εἶθ' οὕτως ἕκτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καθίσταται Ξύστος, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Τελεσφόρος, ὃς καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐμαρτύρησεν· ἔπειτα Ὑγῖνος, εἶτα Πίος, μεθ' ὃν Ἀνίκητος. διαδεξαμένου τὸν Ἀνίκητον Σωτῆρος, νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος. τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ ἥ τε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς». |
Now perhaps he got the fuller list from Irenaeus (or from Eusebius, for that matter) and stopped at Anicetus because he is talking about a woman from that time.
But what are we to make of the syntactic break in Irenaeus, then? My approach is not that every syntactic break requires an explanation, but rather that a syntactic break in
this case, at Anicetus in particular, when Anicetus is already making his presence known in intriguing ways in these texts, merits a closer look. I think that Lawlor may be right that Irenaeus was working from an existing list of Roman bishops, one which ran up through Anicetus, but he updated it to his own time by adding Soter and Eleutherus. If this is the case, then it seems possible that Epiphanius, too, was working from that same source, which would explain why he has "us" where Irenaeus has "Rome," and of course his list would stop at Anicetus, too, just like his source's did. (As for why Epiphanius would copy this first person plural over from his source, well, I think that Epiphanius was just a very clumsy author/editor; there are examples of his clumsiness in other parts of his work, and I think I have seen worse.) This interpretation also allows ἦλθεν to be followed by its natural subject, Μαρκελλίνα, much as in some of the examples I gave above, and it allows ἤδη πως to stand together as a distinct phrase, exactly as it appears to do (to my eye, at any rate, and I
think to that of the editors of the Greek, if the accentuation in the TLG is to be trusted).
You also wrote:
Williams translation is preferable as it does not multiply hypotheses about an original source using the first person....
I guess I view this as a complete nonobjection. There
is no multiplication of sources here; this is the possible
identification of a source with one already (and independently) known to exist. That Epiphanius
was working from a source should be obvious and noncontroversial. Irenaeus should be our first suspect; but I think that Lawlor makes a really good case for Hegesippus, instead.
One more observation (from Lawlor):
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6a: 6a Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray [unde et Marcellina, quae Romam sub Aniceto venit, cum esset huius doctrinae, multos exterminavit]. They style themselves Gnostics.
Epiphanius, Panarion 27.5.9-27.6.1-3, 7-8: 5.9 And this school of Carpocrates marks the right earlobes of the persons they deceive with a burning iron, or by using a razor or needle. 6.1 I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them [ἦλθεν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἤδη πως Μαρκελλίνα τις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπατηθεῖσα], who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, bishop of Rome [ἣ πολλοὺς ἐλυμήνατο ἐν χρόνοις Ἀνικήτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης], the successor of Pius and the bishops before him. 2 For the bishops at Rome were, first, Peter and Paul, the apostles themselves and also bishops — then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul whom Paul mentions in the Epistle to the Romans. 3 And no one need wonder why others before him succeeded the apostles in the episcopate, even though he was contemporary with Peter and Paul — for he too is the apostles' contemporary. .... 7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. 8 In Anicetus' time, then, as I said, the Marcellina I have spoken of appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so called Gnostics [ἀρχὴ Γνωστικῶν τῶν καλουμένων].
If Epiphanius' source is Irenaeus, then what gave him the idea that the Carpocratians were the
beginning of the Gnostics? Irenaeus (at least in his Latin translation) says less than that. I
would suggest that Epiphanius has merely overinterpreted Irenaeus,
except that Eusebius says something similar:
Eusebius, History of the Church 4.7.9a: 9a Irenaeus also writes that Carpocrates was a contemporary of these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the heresy of the Gnostics [ἑτέρας αἱρέσεως τῆς τῶν Γνωστικῶν ἐπικληθείσης πατέρα], who did not wish to transmit any longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one had done, in secret, but openly.
Okay, but we know that Epiphanius knew and used Eusebius, right? So he could be using both Irenaeus and Eusebius as sources for his treatment of the Carpocratians. Or, perhaps, as Lawlor suggests, he is really using only one source, and that source had something about the Carpocratians (or Marcellina on their behalf) spawning the Gnostics. In that case, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius would, all three, be using this original source, and we would actually be reducing Epiphanius' necessary sources for Carpocrates from two (Irenaeus and Eusebius) down to one (Hegesippus). Speculative, I know, but worth considering.
At any rate, the conjunction of "us" in the time of Anicetus, Epiphanius' list which ends at Anicetus, and the syntactic break at Anicetus in the list provided by Irenaeus is interesting, at least to my eye.
(I may or may not respond much to anything you might have to say in reply here; I am very busy elsewhere, and this post has already drained too much of my time. But I promise I will read it with an open mind, regardless. I am more interested in the kind of textual analysis Lawlor does than in whether he is correct overall or not.)