Ben C Smith

I used a good portion of my Thanksgiving holiday break to transcribe and translate those passages in Epiphanius, Panarion 51, that most apply to the fabled Alogi. Before I update my web page on Gaius of Rome I wanted to post the passages here so that anyone with good Greek skills might be able to point out any flaws in my translation. I usually check my Greek or Latin translations against professional efforts so as to make certain I am not out in left field (or out in right field for you lefties), but in this case I have no translation of Epiphanius on hand, so any corrections will be much appreciated.

So here goes, and hack away:

Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3:

Φασκουσι τοινυν οι Αλογοι, ταυτην γα�? αυτοις τιθημι την επωνυμιαν. απο γα�? της δευ�?ο ουτως κληθησονται, και ουτως, αγαπητοι, επιθωμεν αυτοις ονομα, τουτεστιν Αλογοι. ειχον γα�? την αι�?εσιν καλουμενην αποβαλλουσαν Ιωαννου τας βιβλους. επει ουν τον λογον ου δεχονται τον πα�?α Ιωαννου κεκη�?υγμενον, Αλογοι κληθησονται. αλλοτ�?ιοι τοινυν πανταπασιν υπα�?χοντες του κη�?υγματος της αληθειας α�?νουνται το καθα�?ον του κη�?υγματος, και ουτε το του Ιωαννου ευαγγελιον δεχονται ουτε την αυτου αποξαλυψιν. και ει μεν εδεχοντο το ευαγγελιον, την δε αποκαλυψιν απεβαλλοντο, ελεγομεν αν, μη πη α�?α κατα ακ�?ιβολογιαν τουτο ποιουνται, αποκ�?υφον μη δεχομενοι δια τα εν τη αποκαλυψει βαθεως και σκοτεινως ει�?ημενα· οποτε δε ου δεχονται φυσει τα βιβλια τα απο του αγιου Ιωαννου κεκη�?υγμενα, παντι τω δηλον ειη οτι ουτοι εισι και οι ομοιοι τουτοις πε�?ι ων ειπεν ο αγιος Ιωαννης εν ταις καθολικαις επιστολαις, οτι, Εσχατη ω�?α εστι, και ηκουσατε οτι αντιχ�?ιστος ε�?χεται· και νυν ιδου, αντιχ�?ιστοι πολλοι, και τα εξης. π�?οφασιζονται γα�? ουτοι, αισχυνομενοι αντιλεγειν τω αγιω Ιωαννη δια το ειδεναι αυτους και αυτον εν α�?ιθμω των αποστολων οντα και ηγαπημενον υπο του κυ�?ιου, ος αξιως τα μυστη�?ια απεκαλυψε, και επι το στηθος αυτου ανεπεσε. και ετε�?ως αυτα ανατ�?επειν πει�?ωνται. λεγουσι γα�? μη ειναι αυτα Ιωαννου, αλλα Κη�?ινθου, και ουκ αξια αυτα φασιν ειναι εν εκκλησια.

This, then, is what the Alogi allege, for I place this eponym upon them. For from now on so will they be called, and so, beloved, let us place this name upon them, that is, Alogi, for it befits the heresy to be so called which casts away the books of John. Since, therefore, they do not receive the logos which has been preached by John, they will be called Alogi. These men of another [persuasion], therefore, altogether shrinking from the preaching of truth, deny the purity of the preaching and receive neither the gospel of John nor his Apocalypse. And if they at least received the gospel, and cast away the Apocalypse only, we would say, lest they be doing this with any degree of accuracy and in the interests of not receiving an apocryphon, that it was on account that things in the Apocalypse are so deeply and darkly spoken. But, since they do not receive in principle the books preached by the holy John, may it be clear to everyone that these men are also the same as those concerning whom the holy John in the catholic epistles said: It is the last hour, and you heard that the antichrist is coming, and now behold, there are many antichrists, and the rest. For these men make excuses, ashamed to speak against the holy John on account that they see that even he is among the number of the apostles, and beloved by the Lord, he who revealed the mysteries worthily and reclined upon his breast. And they try to overturn these [books] in another way, for they say that they are not of John, but of Cerinthus, and they say that they are not worthy to be in the church.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.4:

Φασκουσι γα�? καθ εαυτων, ου γα�? ειποιμι κατα της αληθειας, οτι ου συμφωνει τα αυτου βιβλια τοις λοιποις αποστολοις. και δοκουσι λοιπον επιλαμβανεσθαι της αγιας και ενθεου διδασκαλιας. και τι, φησιν, ειπεν;

[Epiphanius now quotes John 1.1, 14-15, 29, 38, 43; 2.1, mainly chronological notices from the early going of the fourth gospel, before continuing with the synoptic chronology.]

Οι δε αλλοις ευαγγελισται φασκουσιν αυτον εν τη ε�?ημω πεποιηκεναι τεσσα�?ακοντα ημε�?ας, πει�?αζομενον υπο του διαβολου, και τοτε υποστ�?εψαντα, και πα�?αλαβοντα τους μαθητας. και ουκ οιδασιν οι απα�?ακολουθητοι οτι εκαστω ευαγγελιστη μεμελετηται συμφωνως μεν τοις ετε�?οις λαλησαι τα υπ εκεινων ει�?ημενα, αλλα δη τα υπ εκεινων �?ηθεντα πα�?αλειφθεντα ουτως αποκαλυψαι.

For they allege, against themselves far more than against the truth, that his books are not in symphony with the rest of the apostles, and they think that the remainder attains to the holy and divine teaching. And what, they say, did he say?

....

But the other evangelists allege that he had spent forty days in the desert, tempted by the devil, and then returned and took disciples for himself. And these men, unabated, do not know that he has taken care to speak in symphony with the other evangelists those things spoken by them, but moreover to thus reveal the things left out from what was said by them.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.22:

Κατηγο�?ουσι δε παλιν οι αυτοι του αγιου ευαγγελιστου, μαλλον δε του αυτου ευαγγελιου, οτι, φησιν, ο Ιωαννης εφη πε�?ι δυο πασχων τον σωτη�?α πεποιηκοτα, οι δε αλλοι ευαγγελισται πε�?ι πασχα ενος. και ουκ οιδασιν οι ιδιωται οτι ου μονον δυο πασχα ομολογει τα ευαγγελια, αλλα δυο μεν π�?ωτα λεγει και αυτο δε εν ω πεπονθεν ο σωτη�?, τ�?ια πασχα των εν τω κη�?υγματι πεπ�?αγματευμενων.

But again these same men accuse the holy evangelist, and even more so his gospel, because, they say, John spoke concerning the two Passovers that the savior had made, but the other evangelists concerning only the one Passover. And the idiots do not know that the gospels not only confess two Passovers but also say that they were only the first two, which along with that in which the savior suffered his passion make three Passovers in all which have been dealt with in the preaching.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.32:

Ουκ αιδουνται δε παλιν οι τοιουτοι κατα των υπο του αγιου Ιωαννου ει�?ημενων εξοπλιζομενοι, νομιζοντες μη πη α�?α δυνανται την αληθειαν ανατ�?επειν, ουκ ειδοτες οτι καθ εαυτων μαλλον οπλιζονται, ηπε�? κατα της υγιους διδασκαλιας. φασκουσι δε κατα της αποκαλυψεως ταδε χλευαζοντες· Τι με, φησιν, ωφελει η αποκαλυψις Ιωαννου, λεγουσα μοι πε�?ι επτα αγγελων και επτα σαλπιγγων; ουκ ειδοτες πως αναγκαια και ωφελιμα τοιαυτα υπη�?ξεν εν τη ο�?θοτητι του κη�?υγματος.

But again such men are not ashamed to take up arms against the things spoken by the holy John, reckoning that they can in no way overturn the truth, not knowing that they are marching against themselves rather than against sound teaching. But they allege against the Apocalypse the following things, jeering: What use is the Apocalypse of John to me when it speaks to me concerning seven angels and seven trumpets? They do not know how necessary and useful such things were to the orthodoxy of the preaching.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.33:

Ειτα τινες εξ αυτων παλιν επιλαμβανονται τουτου του �?ητου εν τη αποκαλυψει τη αυτη. και φασκουσιν αντιλεγοντες οτι ειπε παλιν· Γ�?αψον τω αγγελω της εκκλησιας τω εν Θυατει�?οις, και ουκ ενι εκει εκκλησια Χ�?ιστιανων εν Θυατει�?η. πως ουν εγ�?αφε τη μη ευση; και ευ�?ισκονται οι τοιουτοι εαυτους αναγκαζοντες εξ αυτων ων κη�?υττουσι κατα της αληθειας ομολογειν.

Then again some from among them attack this which is spoken in the same Apocalypse, and they make allegations that oppose it because it said again: Write to the angel of the church in Thyatira, and there was no church of Christians in Thyatira. How then did he write to what did not exist? And such men are found compelling themselves to confess against the truth because of the very things that they preach.

From Epiphanius, Panarion 51.34:

Επαι�?ονται δε παλιν τη διανοια οι αυτοι λεξιθη�?ουντες απει�?ως, ινα δοξωσι πα�?εκβαλλειν τα του αγιου αποστολου βιβλια, φημι δε Ιωαννου το τε ευαγγελιον και την αποκαλυψιν, ταχα δε και τας επιστολας. συναδουσι γα�? και αυται τω ευαγγελιω και τη αποκαλυψει. και φασιν οτι, Ειδον, και ειπε τω αγγελω· Λυσον τους τεσσα�?ας αγγελους τους επι του Ευφ�?ατου. και ηκουσα τον α�?ιθμον του στ�?ατου, μυ�?ιαι μυ�?ιαδες και χιλιαι χιλιαδες· και ησαν ενδεδυμενοι θω�?ακας πυ�?ινους και θειωδεις και υακινθινους. ενομισαν γα�? οι τοιουτοι μη πη α�?α γελοιον εστιν η αληθεια. εαν γα�? λεγη τους τεσσα�?ας αγγελους τους εν τω Ευφ�?ατη καθεζομενους, ινα δειξη τας τεσσα�?ας διαφο�?ας των εκεισε εθνων καθεζομενων επι τον Ευφ�?ατην, οιτινες εισιν Ασσυ�?ιοι, Βαβυλωνιοι, Μηδοι, και �?ε�?σαι.

But these same men, although boundlessly unskilled, are again so proud of their understanding that they think to cast out the books of the holy apostle, but I say that both the gospel and the Apocalypse are of John, and probably also the epistles, for these, too, sing together with the gospel and the Apocalypse. And they say: I saw, and he said to the angel: Release the four angels which are upon the Euphrates. And I heard the number of the army, tens of thousands of tens of thousands, and thousands of thousands. And they were given breastplates of fire and brimstone and hyacinth. For such men were not accustomed that the truth should be in any way laughable. For, if it says that the four angels were those sitting at the Euphrates, this is to show forth the four different nations that sit upon the Euphrates, who are the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medes, and the Persians.

Thanks to Spin, by the way, for pointing me toward a .pdf facsimile of Epiphanius in the original. My usually reliable interlibrary loan had been letting me down with regard to Epiphanius.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Good on you! This will be useful to us all. What is the copyright status of the translation?

I don't have much Greek, but I do have Williams' translation to hand. I've quoted bits that disagree substantially, and added verse numbers.

W: And if they accepted the Gospel but rejected the Revelation, I would say they might be doing it from scrupulousness, and refusing to accept an "apocryphon" because of the deep and difficult sayings in the Revelation.

W: But since they do not accept the books in which St. John actually proclaimed his gospel,...

W:that the Lord rightly revealed the mysteries to him and <that he> leaned upon his breast.

W: For they say against themselves -- I prefer not to say "against the truth" --

W: that John's books do not agree with the other apostles. And now they think they can attack his holy, inspired teachings. [6] "And what did he say?" they argue.

W: And stupid as they are, they don't know that each evangelist was concerned to say what the others had said, in agreement with them, while at the same time revealing what they had not said but omitted.

...supposing that they can overthrow the truth ...

W: and say in contradiction of it, "He said in turn, 'Write...,' and there is no church of the Christians in Thyatira. How then... exist?" [2] In fact these people demolish themselves since they are compelled by their own declarations to confess the truth. For if they say "There is no church in Thyatira now," they are showing that John foretold this.

W: Again, in their endless hunt for texts to give the appearance of discrediting the holy apostle's books -- I mean John's Gospel and Revelation and perhaps the Epistles for these too agree with the Gospel and Revelation -- these people get excited [2] and quote, "I saw..."

W:For people like these thought that the truth might be <some sort of> joke.

I hope that helps!

I'd be glad to know where to find the PDF.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

The page is at Christian Hospitality, but it is not always available. I have had to download files at night to make sure the server is up.

Public domain... when I have it right.

Excellent. Thanks for doing that.

Several of the differences between Williams and myself appear to be due to my literalistic approach to translation; he paraphrases when the Greek gets stilted.

Several others, though, are due either to my own clumsiness or to my lack of aquaintance with both Epiphanius himself and later patristic authors in general.

On one of them I think I still prefer my own rendering, but will do some grammatical checking.

This one is interesting:

Williams: And stupid as they are, they don't know that each evangelist was concerned to say what the others had said, in agreement with them, while at the same time revealing what they had not said but omitted.

...αλλα δη τα υπ εκεινων �?ηθεντα πα�?αλειφθεντα ουτως αποκαλυψαι.

Could it be that either Williams has taken δη as a mistake for μη or Dindorf had the wrong reading?

Another interesting item:

Williams: ...supposing that they can overthrow the truth....

...νομιζοντες μη πη α�?α δυνανται την αληθειαν ανατ�?επειν....

I am uncertain how Williams is taking the μη in this case.

I shall adjust my translations accordingly. Thanks, Roger!

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Okay, I have made most of the changes, but am still tripping up on this one:

...και ευ�?ισκονται οι τοιουτοι εαυτους αναγκαζοντες εξ αυτων ων κη�?υττουσι κατα της αληθειας ομολογειν.

Williams: In fact these people demolish themselves since they are compelled by their own declarations to confess the truth.

Where is the word demolish coming from? Can ευ�?ισκονται, which usually means they are found, mean that?

And this:

Williams: For people like these thought that the truth might be <some sort of> joke.

...ενομισαν γα�? οι τοιουτοι μη πη α�?α γελοιον εστιν η αληθεια.

What is he doing with the μη? My thought was that Epiphanius was claiming that these Alogi criticized the passage at hand because it seemed laughable to them: For such men reckoned that the truth was not in any way to be laughable.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

I think he may be working from Holl's edition.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

I'm hesitant here but as a suggestion IIUC the clause with ευ�?ισκονται could be understood as they bring it on themselves, which Williams may be paraphrasing as they demolish their own case

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Okay, good, thanks for this. I was blissfully unaware the passive of eurisk�? could mean that.

The participle for compel is active, but I suppose Williams translates it passively because they are compelling themselves.

Ben.

Julian

Liddell-Scott does indeed support a possible reading of to bring onto oneself, for what it is worth...

Ben, I suggest you try it over at Perseus. In the large LS they should link to several examples of such usage. In case you don't have the link handy: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/lexica.html
Scroll down a bit for the Liddell-Scott lexicons.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Thanks, Julian. I used Perseus for several words in the passages, but not for eurisk�?.

Ben C Smith

I have updated my page on Gaius with the translations of the Epiphanius passages, as well as with the relevant passages from Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian, and Jerome. I also have the English of Photius, codex 48, but without the Greek as yet, which I should have access to in a couple of weeks.

Ben.