This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Question of Early Ecclesiastical Opposition to the Johannine Corpus By T. Scott Manor Ph.D. Thesis The University of Edinburgh 2012 Declaration I composed this thesis, the work is my own. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or qualification. Name……………………………….. Date……………………………………… 2 ABSTRACT The Johannine literature has been a cornerstone of Christian theology throughout the history of the church. However it is often argued that the church in the late second century and early third century was actually opposed to these writings because of questions concerning their authorship and role within “heterodox” theologies. Despite the axiomatic status that this so-called “Johannine Controversy” has achieved, there is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that the early church actively opposed the Johannine corpus. This thesis is a detailed study of the primary evidence recorded by the fourth- century Church Father, Epiphanius of Salamis, which is the earliest record to explicitly note ecclesiastical opposition towards the Gospel and Apocalypse of John, taken together. In his Panarion, Epiphanius states that a group called the “Alogi” rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse of John, and attributed both to the heretic Cerinthus. He does not record any identifying features of this group’s provenance, theology or constituency; rather he only notes two objections that these Alogi had against the Gospel of John, and three against the Apocalypse. The identity of this group remained a mystery for centuries until consideration was given to the testimonies of two later Syrian writers who indicate that a certain “Gaius” made similar criticisms against the Gospel and Apocalypse of John in a debate with Hippolytus of Rome. As a result, the consensus view throughout modern scholarship is that an early churchman, Gaius of Rome, was the leader of this group that sought to eradicate the Johannine corpus from the church, and that Epiphanius as well as the later Syrian writers used a work of Hippolytus, now lost, as the primary source of their information. This thesis is a careful examination of the evidence that supports the theory that the early church actively opposed the Johannine literature. Thus, particular attention is given to the testimony of Epiphanius concerning the Alogi. It is demonstrated here that when priority is given to the early evidence, the Alogi is a fictional heretical sect, created by Epiphanius from various testimonies to account for what he believed to be antagonism primarily against the Gospel of John, and secondarily the Apocalypse. The later Syrian evidence is also examined in light of the early evidence, not the other way around, as is often the case. As a result, these 3 sources are shown to be less reliable in their portrayal of the early reception of the Johannine literature than has previously been recognized. The first section of this thesis engages the question regarding the likelihood that Epiphanius derived his knowledge of this group from an earlier work of Hippolytus. The internal and external evidence about this group suggest that it is Epiphanius’ own creation. The second section explores the testimonies of earlier writers, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Dionysius of Alexandria, and the way in which Epiphanius used these sources in the construction of this heresy. The third and final section critically examines the reliability of the later Syrian evidence concerning Gaius and his supposed ties to the Alogi. I argue that these later sources are not as reliable as many scholars maintain, and that Gaius of Rome was not associated with the Alogi, nor was he a heretic. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 6 Abbreviations 7 Introduction 9 Section I: The Inflation and Deflation of the Alogi 19 Chapter One: Review of the Literature Concerning the Alogi 21 Chapter Two: The Origins of the Alogi 45 Section II: The Conflation of Sources in Epiphanius’ Account of the Alogi 69 Chapter Three: The Broader Historical Context of the Alogi 75 Chapter Four: Epiphanius’ Use of Papias and Irenaeus 89 Chapter Five: Epiphanius’ Use of Origen 104 Chapter Six: Epiphanius’ Use of Eusebius 128 Chapter Seven: Sources for the Alogi’s Objections to the Apocalypse 150 Section III: The Obfuscation and Clarification of the Alogi 168 Chapter Eight: Gaius of Rome 171 Chapter Nine: The Syrian Evidence: Dionysius bar Salibi and Ebed-Jesu 197 Conclusion 240 Bibliography 244 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is the product of my time as a doctoral student at New College. Thanks go first to my supervisor, Dr. Sara Parvis, for her constant support, guidance, and generosity throughout my research. I also wish to thank my second supervisor, Dr. Paul Foster, for his support, encouragement, and perspective. In addition, Dr. Paul Parvis has generously given much time, attention, and advice at various points throughout my research. To my parents, Tim and Beth Manor, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for their love, encouragement, and generosity. The sincerity of their Christian faith has challenged and influenced my own. Without their overwhelming generosity this wonderful experience would not have been possible. Most of all, my deepest gratitude and appreciation belong to my wife, Rebecca. Her constant support and encouragement provided a source of strength and motivation throughout this journey. Her joy and sense of humor ensured that I maintained a balanced perspective. Her intellect, editorial eye, countless hours of discussing and reading my work, and genuine interest in this project have influenced every single page of the thesis. It is to her that I dedicate this work. 6 ABBREVIATIONS Adv. Marc. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem Adv. omn. haer. Pseudo Tertullian, Adversus omnium haereseum Adv. Val. Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos AH Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses Ancor. Epiphanius, Ancoratus Ant. Hippolytus, De Antichristo Bibl. Photius, Bibliotheca BO Bibliotheca Orientalis C. Cels Origen, Contra Celsum Comm. Apoc. Dionysius bar Salibi, In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas Catholicas Comm. Jo. Origen, Commentarium in Joannem CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Dan. Hippolytus, Commentarium in Danielem De Prin. Origen, De Principiis De vir. ill. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus Dial. Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphoni Div. her. lib. Philaster, Diversarum heresion liber GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller Haer. Epiphanius, Panarion Haer. fab. comp. Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium HE Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Hom. Luc. Origen, Homilia in Lucam HTR Harvard Theological Review JBL Journal of Biblical Literature 7 JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History JTS Journal of Theological Studies NovT Novum Testamentum PG Migne, Patrologia Graeca PTS Patristische Texte und Studien Ref. Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium SC Sources Chrétiennes TU Texte und Untersuchungen TZ Theologische Zeitschrift VC Vigiliae Christianae WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche *All translations are my own, except where otherwise indicated. 8 Introduction Despite the profound influence that the Johannine corpus has had on Christian theology throughout history, its acceptance and role in the earliest years of Christianity has been a matter of debate for a long time. Scholarship has produced numerous works on the reception of the Johannine literature, which have focused primarily on the questions regarding which person or group was responsible for their authorship, when and by whom these works were first used, and which theological group(s) they originally supported. Numerous studies are devoted to the question of whether the Johannine corpus was originally a “heretical” production, or if it was always considered to be a part of the accepted writings within the “orthodox” church.1 Such inquiries are critically important in seeking to determine the place of the Johannine corpus in the development of the church’s canon of accepted writings. Indeed, he varying hypotheses that have emerged from these studies demonstrate the sheer complexity of the evidence from this era. Nevertheless, there is one common formulation of the evidence that has received widespread acceptance over the past century of scholarship, which postulates that the early church was originally very 1 I use the terms “orthodoxy”, “ecclesiastical”, “heresy” and “heterodoxy” as well as other similar terms despite the fact that such designations are