Young Richard Kim - 'Reading the Panarion as Collective Biography' the Heresiarch as Unholy Man

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/004260309X12482628566565

Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010) 382-413 brill.nl/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

Reading the Panarion as Collective Biography: The Heresiarch as Unholy Man*

Young Richard KimHistory and Classics, Calvin College, 1845 Knollcrest Circle SE,

Grand Rapids, MI 49546, [email protected]

AbstractThis article proposes a reading of the Panarion, a fourth-century heresiology, as a collective biography, a genre that compiled shortened biographical snapshots of prominent individuals who together embodied an idealized way of life. Epiphanius, the defender and model of orthodoxy, augmented his power and authority through his writing and heresy-hunting activities. The Panarion included miniature biographies of heresiarchs in many of the entries, and together these biographies constructed the composite image and character of the heresiarch and collectively portrayed the unholy life.

KeywordsEpiphanius, collective biography, heresiarch, heresies, classical culture, Origen as her-etic, Arius, Aetius, Marcion, Mani, (un)holy man

Introduction

Epiphanius composed the Panarion or the medicine chest as an encyclo-pedic manual that described the beliefs, practices, and corresponding ref-utations of eighty dierent heresies.1 The range of entries that he chose to

*) The preliminary contents of this article were delivered as a paper at the 30th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference in Baltimore, MD, October 28-31, 2004.1) Translations of the Panarion (henceforth Pan.) are my own (unless otherwise noted) and are based on the editions of K. Holl, Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion) in Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs Buchandlung, 1915, 1922, 1933), in three volumes, with revised editing by J. Dummer (Berlin and New York: Akademie Verlag/Walter de Gruyter, 1980, 1985). For a complete English translation, see F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 volumes (with revised

Reading the Panarion as Collective Biography 383

include varied from the well-known succession of Gnostic heresies to the contemporary Origenist and Arian controversies (and seemingly everything in between), but he also incorporated pre-Christian heresies, including certain schools of Greek philosophy and sects of Judaism.2 He intended his work to provide remedies against the poisonous teachings of all of these heretical groups rst through exposing them, then refuting them with his careful biblical expositions. However, like other heresiologies writ-ten before the Panarion, the highly rhetorical nature of these texts presents modern scholars with a number of interpretive challenges, and in general we must critically read and consider these texts and not necessarily accept the contents at face value. Heresiology itself is a dicult genre, on the one hand perceived as tedious and unimaginative, on the other hand bemoaned as polemical and one-sided. However, as Averil Cameron has argued, these reactions stem from a faulty perspective on heresiologies merely as sources of information rather than as performative or functional texts.3

Epiphanius lived in a time when the tradition of classical paideia was the culture of the elite in the Mediterranean world at large and also among powerful leaders within the ecclesiastical hierarchy.4 However, Epiphanius was bishop of Salamis (at that time known as Constantia) on Cyprus, a see which certainly did not rank among the more prominent bishoprics in the Roman east, such as Constantinople, Alexandria, Caesarea Palestine, and

rst volume), Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 35, 36, 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1987, 1994, 2009).2) For the rationale and precedents behind the choice of entries, see A. Pourkier, LHrsiologie chez piphane de Salamine (Paris: Beauchesne, 1992), 77-114. For Epipha-nius and his all-encompassing understanding of heresy, see E. Moutsoulas, Der Begri Hresie bei Epiphanius von Salamis, Studia Patristica 7 (1966): 362-71; F. Young, Did Epiphanius know what he meant by Heresy?, Studia Patristica 17 (1982): 199-205; A. Cameron, Jews and HereticsA Category Error?, in The Ways That Never Parted. Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. A. Becker and A. Reed, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 95 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003): 345-60; J. Schott, Heresiology as Universal History in Epiphanius Panarion, Zeitschrift fr Antikes Christentum 10 (2007): 546-63.3) See A. Cameron, How to Read Heresiology, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33.3 (2003): 471-92 for reections on how scholars should approach heresiologi-cal texts, especially as it continued in the Byzantine tradition.4) For example, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus were both educated in Athens, John Chrysostom studied with the notable pagan rhetor Libanius in Antioch, and Jerome had received a classical education in Rome. On the social and political function of paideia: P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 3-70.

384 Y. R. Kim / Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010) 382-413

especially Antioch, with which Cyprus would struggle for decades over the issue of autocephaly.5 Furthermore Epiphanius own education was not in elite paideia, but in a strand of Egyptian monasticism that priori-tized a more straightforward (literal?) reading of Scripture and shied away from speculative and mystical theology, arguably inuenced by Greek philosophy.6 Though his bishopric and his education placed Epiphanius in a disadvantaged position, this did not deter him from becoming an inuential gure who was deeply involved in the ecclesiastical politics, controversies, and disputes of the late fourth century.

Furthermore, Epiphanius possessed a deeply rooted knowledge of the Scriptures, and his biblical erudition and ascetic devotion served as the foundations for his theological convictions. Building upon these personal strengths, he forged for himself a reputation and role as a defender of orthodoxy and an expert heresiologist, and the various requests made to him for help against heretics and his later travels and involvement in dif-ferent doctrinal controversies were proof positive of his status and active

5) For a general history of Roman Cyprus: T. B. Mitford, Roman Cyprus, Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt 7.2 (1980): 1285-1384. On the issue of Antiochene primacy over Cyprus: B. Engelzakis, Epiphanius of Salamis, the Father of Cypriot Autocephaly, in Studies on the History of the Church of Cyprus, 4th-20th Centuries, trans. N. Russell (Brook-eld, VT: Variorum, 1995), 29-40; J. Hackett, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (Oxford: Methuen, 1901), 13-32; C. Kyrris, History of Cyprus (Nicosia: Nicocles Publishing House, 1985), 16-175.6) Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 6.32, tells us that at a young age Epiphanius received a primarily monastic education in Alexandria, though he may have had some training in rhet-oric. For biographical sketches of Epiphanius, see P. Nautin, piphane (Saint) de Sala mine, in Dictionnaire dHistoire et Gographie Ecclsiastiques 15 (Paris: Letouzey et An, 1963), c. 617-31; J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity. Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen, North American Patristics Society Patristic Monograph Series 13 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), 25-124; Pourkier, LHrsiologie, 29-47. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism, 31-43 emphasizes the dierent types of monasticism in competition in the late fourth century. Epiphanius lifestyle reected a more conservative asceticism, what Dechow calls monastic intransigence, in contrast with the desert monks of Nitria, including the four Tall Brothers and Evagrius Ponticus, who represented a more speculative and mystical monasticism. E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 86-104 describes Epiphanius understanding and criticisms of Origenism. For example in his attack on Origens interpretation of Genesis 3.21, Epiphanius emphasized a literal interpretation of the text, to which Clark observes: Epiphanius is clearly more interested in pressing a literal reading of the Bible than in engaging in philosophical debate about the status of materiality (88).


attempts at asserting this expertise.7 By attempting to make himself the master over the parameters by which one could dierentiate between ortho-doxy and heresy, he sought to become a guardian of the faith and a physi-cian for the heretically inicted. One particular rhetorical focus in the Panarion was on the deadly link between classical culture and heresy, and he questioned or raised potential doubts about the orthodoxy of those Christians who were well-versed in classical culture or at least open to mingling philosophical speculation with theology.8 He implicitly argued that all Christians should reject classical Greek culture and those who did not might nd themselves in the company of the heretics of the Panar-ion. Furthermore, he could even diagnose his more highly educated and powerful colleagues, and if necessary either rehabilitate or even amputate them. Thus an underlying function of the Panarion was the increase of personal power and authority, because through this text Epiphanius solid-ied his personal reputation as an expert in heresy by systematically cata-loguing the characteristics, symptoms, and remedies for all heresies. If we

7) Before Epiphanius completed the Panarion, he had already written at the request of Christians in Pamphylia a lengthy treatise known as the Ancoratus. He wrote the Panarion in response to a letter to him by two Syrian presbyters. Epiphanius traveled to Antioch in 376 in an attempt to resolve the Melitian schism (Pan. 77.20.5-23.6), as well as to Rome to appear before Pope Damasus in 382 over the same issue (Jerome, Epistulae 108; Theo-doret, Historia ecclesiastica. 5.8.10). He went to Jerusalem in 393 to confront Bishop John on Origenism (Jerome, Contra Ioannem Hierosolymitanum), and his nal days were spent in Constantinople in an attempt to depose John Chrysostom (Socrates, Historia ecclesias-tica 6.10-14; Sozomen, HE 8.14-15). Theophilus of Alexandria apparently considered Epiphanius a worthy ally in the Origenist controversy, as did Jerome (Jerome Epist. 90). For Epiphanius role in the Melitian schism: Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism, 57-91. For a thorough but old analysis of the schism: F. Cavallera, Le schism dAntioch (IV e-V e sicle) (Paris: Picard, 1905), and a more recent reassessment, K. M. Spoerl, The Schism at Anti-och Since Cavallera, in Arianism After Arius. Essays on the Development of Fourth Century Trinitarian Conicts, ed. M. R. Barnes and D. H. Williams (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 101-26. The best scholarly assessment of the Origenist controversy is Clark, The Origenist Controversy. For the role of John Chrysostom in the controversy: J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of John ChrysostomAscetic, Preacher, Bishop (London: Duck-worth, 1995), 191-290. For Theophilus role: N. Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 18-34.8) See J. R. Lyman, Ascetics and Bishops. Epiphanius on Orthodoxy, in Orthodoxy, Chris-tianity, History, ed. S. Elm, E. Rebillard, A. Romano, Collection de Lcole Franaise de Rome 270. (Rome: Ecole franaise de Rome, 2000), 149-61 for a discussion of how Epiphanius recognized heresy as a problem internal to the church and shifted the focus of heresiology to safeguard unity and compel obedience.


recognize that the Panarion was a highly rhetorical text that served an underlying, power-generating function, then we can approach it in new and innovative ways. For this article, I propose a reading of the Panarion as collective biography.

Collective Biography

Many entries in the Panarion included both short and long biographical sketches of individual heresiarchs, some of which provided mere snippets of information while others oered substantial details and anecdotes, and together one can read them as if a collective biography. In the Greek tra-dition, biography became a means for promoting a given way of life or moral code, and the life dedicated to philosophy was one such example of a model life.9 In late antiquity the life based on the Neopythagorean or Neoplatonic traditions and the image of the divine philosopher as a holy man, who demonstrated spiritual and intellectual superiority over normal men, became particularly important.10 Some divine philosophers were characterized by their biographers as closer to the divine than to human-ity, as if sons of a god, while other philosophers were portrayed as existing rmly in the plane of human reality but demonstrating certain godlike characteristics.11 The importance in either case was in the intimate relation-ship between the philosopher and the divine. In the third century C.E. a number of pagan writers composed biographies of eminent philoso-phers, as in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus, the Life of Pythagoras and the Life of Plotinus by Porphyry, and On the Pythagorean

9) Socrates was the rst of these philosophic heroes, as seen in the works of Plato and the Memorabilia of Xenophon. For discussions of the development of Greek biography and corresponding theories of its origin: F. Leo, Die griechisch-rmische Biographie nach ihrer litterarischen Form (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1901); A. Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biog-raphie (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1956); A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); P. Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983).10) On the pagan holy man in late antiquity, see G. Fowden, The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antique Society, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 102 (1983): 33-59. On comparisons between Christian and pagan hagiography in Late Antiquity, see, M. van Uytfanghe, Lhagiographie: un genre chrtien ou antique tardif?, Analecta Bollandiana 111 (1993): 135-88; R. Goulet, Les Vies de philosophes de lAntiquit tardive, tudes sur les Vies de philosophes de lAntiquit, ed. R. Goulet, Textes et Traditions I (Paris: J. Vrin, 2001): 3-63.11) Cox, Biography, 17-44.


Life by Iamblichus.12 These works were either stand-alone biographies or part of a larger body of writings, but each in some way promoted the idealized philosophic life with its intimate connection to the divine as modeled especially in the lives of Pythagoras and Plotinus. In the pref-ace to his exposition on the Pythagorean way of life, Iamblichus said the following:

All right-minded people, embarking on any study of philosophy, invoke a god. This is especially tting for the philosophy which takes its name from the divine Pythagoras (a title well deserved), since it was originally handed down from the gods and can be understood only with the gods help. Moreover, its beauty and grandeur surpass the human capacity to grasp it all at once: only by approaching quietly, little by little, under the guidance of a benevolent god, can one appropri-ate a little.13

Pythagoras divinely received his philosophy, and the personal connection to the divine as a means to understanding and enlightenment was crucial to students of his philosophy. Similarly in the biography of his teacher, Porphyry described how Plotinus had already demonstrated in his earthly lifetime his intimate connection to God: for his end and goal was to be united to, to approach the God who is over all things. Four times while I was with him he attained that goal, in an unspeakable actuality and not in potency only.14

12) See G. Clark, Philosophic Lives and the Philosophic Life: Porphyry and Iamblichus, in Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, T. Hgg and P. Rousseau, eds. (Berke-ley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000), 29-51. On Apollonius as divine gure, especially in the Pythagorean mold, see C. Macris, Becoming Divine by Imitating Pythagoras?, Mtis 4 (2006): 279-329, in particular 312-16, 320-22.13) Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 1, trans. G. Clark, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Life, Translated Texts for Historians 8 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989). On the Pythagorean tradition, see C. Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. A Brief History (Indi-anapolis: Hackett, 2001); C. Macris, Pythagore, un matre de sagesse charismatique de la n de la priode archaque, in Carisma profetico: fattore di innovazione religiosa, ed. G. Filoramo (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2003), 243-89; C. Macris, Autorit carismatica, direz-ione spirituale e genere di vita nella tradizione pitagorica, in Storia della direzione spiritu-ale, Vol. 1, ed. G. Filoramo (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2006), 75-102; C. Macris, Becoming Divine, 279-329. 14) Porphyry, Vita Plotini 23, trans. A. Armstrong, Plotinus, Loeb Classical Library 440 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966). See Cox, Biography, 102-33. For a thorough study of Porphyrys work, including indices, introductions, text, translation (French), and studies, see L. Brisson et al., Porphyre. La vie de Plotin, 2 Vols., Histoire des doctrines de lAntiquit Classique 6, 16 (Paris: Vrin, 1982, 1992).


As a special form of traditional biography, collective biography assembled together a series of snapshots of the lives and deeds of a specic group of heroes or outstanding gures, with the intention of promoting a particu-lar way of life or mode of thinking. This subgenre took the biographical highlights of particular individuals, shortened them, and grouped them together with the accounts of other individuals into a conglomeration of miniature biographies of varying length. Naturally the most prominent gures in a collection usually received lengthier biographies. Plutarchs parallel Lives and Suetonius Lives of the Caesars were early examples of Graeco-Roman biographical collections, while Diogenes Laertius Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers and Philostratus Lives of the Sophists were important third-century collective biographies that centered on rep-resentatives of a particular aspect of elite Greek culture.

Diogenes identied representatives of the philosophic life in a larger cast of characters, and for him the unbroken succession and pedigree of phi-losophy from the Greeks was a central theme and organizing principle. In the prologue he dismissed the assertion that other cultures had rst stud-ied philosophy, and he concluded: and thus it was from the Greeks that philosophy took its rise: its very name refuses to be translated into foreign speech.15 The actual collection began with the Seven Wise Men, and Dio-genes then proceeded to describe the various schools of philosophy with corresponding biographies of the founders and important successors. The importance for Diogenes was the Greekness of his collection of philoso-phers, as this was the means by which he demonstrated the primacy of Greek philosophy.16 Meanwhile Philostratus was interested in collecting biographies of the ancient sophists of Classical Greece to connect them in a lineage with his own contemporaries, who arguably practiced the same art during the so-called Second Sophistic.17 He did not shy away from

15) Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum, Prologue 1.5, trans. R. Hicks, Diogenes Laer-tius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 2 Vols., Loeb Classical Library 184 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925). For a general introduction to Diogenes: J. Mejer, Dio-genes Laertius and His Hellenistic Background, Hermes Einzelschriften 40 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1978); J. Mejer, Diogne Larce, in Dictionnaire des philos-ophes antiques II, ed. R. Goulet (Paris: CNRS ditions, 1994), 824-33. Also see the intro-ductions and translations (French) in M.-O. Goulet-Caz, ed., Diogne Larce. Vies et doctrines des philosophes illustres (Paris: Le Livre de Poche, 1999).16) Mejer, Diogenes Laertius, 51-52.17) On Philostratus: G. Anderson, Philostratus. Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third Century A.D. (London: Croom Helm, 1986). For a discussion on Philostratus importance as a historical source and voice for the Second Sophistic: G. Bowersock, Greek Sophists


pointing out the aws in either the character or behavior of his subjects, so he was not necessarily painting a collective picture of the ideal way of life. Nevertheless he consistently stressed the eloquence and extempore speaking abilities of his characters which were universally important to sophistry, and in numerous examples he also highlighted the ability of many of these sophists to act as mediators on behalf of their cities or com-munities with the powers that be, especially emperors.18 Ultimately in both of these works an organizing principle provided a unifying frame-work to the collection of biographical sketches and promoted a particular aspect of Greek culture important to the respective author.

The recent collection of articles entitled Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity captures the vibrancy and popularity of biography in the late Roman world, and in this volume Patricia Cox Miller discusses the shift of collective biography in the late fourth century towards an empha-sis on representing character in terms of religious values and on the importance of the biographers intimate relationship with his subject(s).19 Specically the notion of the holy man in both pagan and Christian contexts became a focal point of biographical writing (both individual and collective) in late antiquity.20 Biographies continued to exhibit the idealizing and propagandistic features of Graeco-Roman biography but with a crucial addition. They were involved in religious controversy and so attempted to sway not mere opinion but belief.21 She also argues that an important change had taken place in the organizing principle of the collective biographies of the late fourth century:

Further, the center of the personality is no longer human but divine; thus com-parison of individuals is not only pointless but impossible. There is no longer an interplay between type and individual or between sameness and dierence; rather,

in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 1-16. On the Second Sophistic: G. Anderson, The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire (London and New York: Routledge, 1993); S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World, AD 50-250 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).18) Anderson, Philostratus, 23-96. On civic patronage: Bowersock, Greek Sophists, 17-58.19) T. Hgg and P. Rousseau, eds., Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berke-ley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000). P. Cox Miller (2000), Strate-gies of Representation in Collective Biography, in Hgg and Rousseau, 209-54. 20) See n. 10 above.21) Cox, Biography, 16.


any real sense of dierence between individuals evaporates to the extent that each one exemplies the subjectivity that is the heart of the collections interest.22

Thus Cox Miller sees in Eunapius Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists and the anonymous History of the Monks competing collective pictures of the ideal life, not lives, and she identies this as a hagiographical impulse that distinguishes the collective biographies of this century with their pre-decessors.23 So amid the proliferation of individual biographies extolling the holy man in both Christian and pagan contexts, authors in late antiquity also wrote collective biographies in this atmosphere of competi-tive written rhetoric and established a composite picture of the paradig-matic holy life. In the History of the Monks the anonymous author compiled snapshots of individuals who together were part and parcel of the ideal life, as one single human identity which lived in ever closer approximation to the paradigm of Christ himself.24 In the prologue, the author stated his goal:

Accordingly, since I have derived much benet from these monks, I have under-taken this work to provide a paradigm and a testimony for the perfect, and to edify and benet those who are only beginners in the ascetic life. Therefore, if God wills, I shall begin this account with a description of the way of life of the holy and great fathers, and show that even in these times the Savior performs through them what he has performed through the prophets and apostles. For the same Lord now and always works all things in all men.25

The author intended to provide the collective paradigm for his readers of a singular way of life pursued by the desert fathers, through whom Christ was working just as he had with his own disciples.26

22) Cox Miller, Strategies of Representation, 221.23) Cox Miller, Strategies of Representation, 222. A. Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni-versity of California Press, 1991), 145: Pagans also engaged in this creative use of history, taking exemplary gures from their own past and making them into literary models of the pagan life; they continued the precedent with lives of their own holy men, even to the extent that Christian and Neoplatonist rivalries could seem to be expressing themselves in a war of biography.24) Cox Miller, Strategies of Representation, 231.25) Historia monachorum in Aegypto, Prologue 12-13. Translation from N. Russell, The Lives of the Desert Fathers. The Historia Monachorum in Aegypto, Cistercian Studies 34 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1980).26) See Cox Miller, Strategies of Representation, 230-35.


Similarly Eunapius wrote a collection of short biographies that ideal-ized the philosophers way of life, and he emphasized the importance of paideia and the traditions of elite Hellenic culture as pathways to the divine.27 In particular he honored the Neoplatonist successors of Iambli-chus with an emphasis on their theurgic holiness, perhaps even as a pagan hagiographical counterpart to individual biographies of Christian holy men.28 The teacher-student relationship was a particularly important ele-ment of his collection, and he traced the unbroken chain of philosophers from Plotinus to Chrysanthius, his own teacher, which ultimately placed the author himself in the succession. Eunapius also included a number of prominent contemporary sophists, including Libanius, and physicians, and he celebrated these rhetors and doctors as representatives of all that is good with classical culture, as integral parts of the whole that constituted paideia.29 His admiration for the truly divine philosopher was perhaps best embodied in his direct teacher and mentor Chrysanthius. Eunapius strategically placed his biography of Chrysanthius at the end of his collec-tion, after his descriptions of the sophists and physicians. This placement

27) On Eunapius: R. Penella, Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Century A.D. Studies in Eunapius of Sardis (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1990); R. Goulet, Sur la Chronologie de la vie et des oeuvres dEunape de Sardes, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 100 (1980): 60-72; R. Goulet, Eunape de Sardes, in Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques III, ed. R. Goulet (Paris: CNRS ditions, 2000), 310-24; M. Civiletti, Eunapio di Sardi. Vite di Filoso e Sosti (Milan: R. C. S. Libri S.p.A., 2007), which includes an introduction, par-allel Greek edition and translation (Italian), and substantial notes.28) Cox Miller, Strategies of Representation, 222, 235-49. See also Penella, Greek Philoso-phers, 39-78; Civiletti, Eunapio di Sardi, 23-30, 45-53; Goulet, Les Vies de philosophes, 19-23. For studies on Iamblichus and the Iamblichan tradition, see J. Dillon, Iamblichus of Chalcis, Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt 2.36.2 (New York: de Gruyter, 1987): 862-909; H. J. Blumenthal and E. G. Clark, eds., The Divine Iamblichus. Philosopher and Man of Gods (London: Bristol Classical Press, 1993); G. Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul. The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995). For a more skeptical assessment of Eunapius ability to set up the comparison between Christian and pagan saint, see F. P. Rizzo, Sosti e Santi: Due esemplarit nellImpero Romano-Cristiano dei secoli IV e V d.C., Christianesimo nella storia 19 (1998): 243-53. 29) Cox Miller, Strategies of Representation, 239-40 argues that Eunapius also connected the sophists with the Iamblichan tradition. See Civiletti, Eunapio di Sardi, 33-45 for sophists and physicians as foundations of Hellenism, contra Christianity. Also R. Goulet, Les Intellectuels Paens dans lEmpire Chrtien selon Eunape de Sardes, in tudes sur les Vies, ed. R. Goulet, 373-386: Eunape voit dans ses philosophes, ses sophistes et ses mdecins le multiple reet dune forme humaine idale et ternelle (385). On the dierences between philosophers and sophists, see R. Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995), 60-69.


brought the reader full circle to the sublimity of philosophy, and Chry-santhius was the exclamation point to Eunapius idealization of the philo-sophic life that began with Plotinus.30 Eunapius wrote how his teacher was inamed with the love of philosophy because of the divine qualities of his nature, and ultimately his studies made him

so marvelously enlightened and uplifted by the plumage of his soul, as Plato says, that he arrived at equal perfection in every branch of every type of wisdom, and was an adept in every branch of divination. Hence one might have said of him that he rather saw than foretold future events, so accurately did he discern and comprehend everything, as though he dwelt with and were in the presence of the gods.31

Through the life of Chrysanthius, Eunapius demonstrated that the study of and devotion to philosophy could lead to the divine, that is, to the very presence of the gods, and this was the underlying ideal of his collective biography.

Eunapius and the author of the History of the Monks both likely wrote sometime in the 390s, while Epiphanius wrote the Panarion in 370s. Although his collective biography preceded the late antique examples discussed above, Epiphanius was still writing in the context of the late fourth century and its competitive representation of holy men in bio-graphical form. He likely had read neither Diogenes Laertius nor Philo-stratus nor any other collective biography written in prior centuries, and he certainly did not set out deliberately to mimic this genre. Nevertheless I will argue that the structure and certain prevalent themes of the Panar-ion allow us to read it as a collective biography; and if we read it as such, we can see a unique twist in the collective representation of the holy life. Many of the entries in the Panarion included introductions which focused on individual heresiarchs and included very specic biographical informa-tion about them (though some entries had no specic or identiable founder). And if we read all of the introductory biographies together,

30) Eunapius arguably arranged his lives in rough chronological order, though I would argue the placement of Chrysanthius at the end still had strategic and thematic impor-tance. Civiletti, Eunapio di Sardi, 21-23: Il cerchio nalmente si chiude. Si ritorna, cos, al punto di partenza, a quello che eettivamente constituisce il nucleo tematico dello scritto biograco eunapiano, nonch il suo orizzonte concettuale e ediologico: i loso, e in particolare il maestro di Eunapio, il divinisimo Crisanzio (21). 31) Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum 500, trans. W. Wright, Eunapius. Lives of Philosophers, Loeb Classical Library 134 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921).


then a collective picture emerges, with very specic shared character traits and themes which I will argue underscored Epiphanius rhetorical strategy of dening the arch-heretic, using the accusations of heresy to augment his authority, and ultimately oering his own life as an orthodox ideal. The Panarion painted a picture of the paradigmatic opposite of the hagio-graphic biographies of the fourth century: the heresiarch as unholy man.32

Succession

A central feature of classic collective biography was the concept of succes-sion or . For the writers in this genre, a traceable genealogy of the collected characters provided a sense of continuity and unity, as each per-son in succession received a given tradition and then embodied the ideal-ized characteristics or lifestyle of this tradition. Similarly, heresiologists also emphasized the importance of succession from one person to the next, though in the case of this genre each heresiarch received false teach-ings from his predecessor, further corrupted them while himself became more corrupted, and then passed them on to the next in an ever worsen-ing chain of heresies. Aline Pourkier has even suggested that classic collec-tive biographies inuenced heresiologists in this respect: Pour exposer les doctrines des hrtiques, les premiers chrtiens se sont inspirs de ces livres, y puisant en particulier lide quil existait une succession des coles hr-tiques entre elles comme il en existait une pour les coles philosophiques.33 When Epiphanius wrote the Panarion, he had at his disposal the heresiolo-gies of his predecessors.34 These heresiologists demonstrated how heretics thought and acted in ways which were contrary to what were right and holy, and each heresiarch seemingly learned, adopted, or adapted his heretical way of life from a predecessor, companion, or teacher to form a

32) See Pourkier, LHrsiologie, 20-23; 487-8 for the suggestion that the genre of heresiol-ogy was the opposite of hagiography.33) Pourkier, LHrsiologie, 21. 34) Epiphanius quoted large portions of Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, and he depended upon the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus. The author of the text known as the Elenchos or Refutatio omnium haeresium is much disputed, though I follow M. Marcovich, Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium, Patristische Texte und Studien 25 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 8-17. See Pourkier, LHrsiologie, 52-76 for a discussion of Epiphanius predecessors and his use of them. She argues that the author of the Elenchos was Josipus, 63-70. Cf. P. Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe. Contribution lhistoire de la littrature chretienne du IIIe sicle (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1947).


succession of heretics.35 We can see this line of succession most clearly in the so-called Gnostic heresies, beginning with the heresiarch Simon Magus.36 Epiphanius also included this well-established tradition of Gnos-tic heresies in the rst half of the Panarion, and he too emphasized the importance of this succession. For example, he wrote the following about the heresiarch Valentinus:

For sowing his dream into many, calling himself a Gnostic, he linked many scor-pions into one chain, as it says in the old and famous parable. They say that scor-pions linking up one after the other like a chain, up to ten or even more, will let themselves down from a roof or housetop, and thus with cunning inict their harm on men. So this man and those derived from him called Gnostics have become authors of error; and taking their false ideas from him, each man has become pupil to the other, produced additional error after his teacher, and intro-duced another heresy clinging to its predecessor. And thus in a succession those called Gnostics have been divided into dierent heresies, having taken their pre-tenses, as I have said, from Valentinus and those who preceded him.37

35) Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.28.1; Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 42; Hippoly-tus, Refutatio 5.6.1-4.36) See. G. Valle, A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, Studies in Christianity and Judaism 1 (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1981). On Simon Magus as the rst Gnostic heresiarch, see Pan. 21.4.4; cf. Justin Martyr, Apologia I, 26.1-3; 56.1-4; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.23.1-4; Hippolytus, Refutatio 6.7.1-32.4; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.13.1-6. See also K. Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die christli-che Gnosis, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 16 (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck, 1974); S. Haar, Simon Magus: The First Gnostic?, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche 119 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). Hippolytus may have changed his mind about the pro-genitor of Gnostic heresies: Marcovich, Hippolytus, 34-35.37) Pan 31.36.4-6: , , , , . , . o . On the Valentinians: E. Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed. The Church of the Valentinians (Leiden: Brill, 2006).


The heresiarchs who succeeded Valentinus in the Panarion included Secun-dus, Ptolemy, Marcus, Colorbasus, Heracleon, Cerdo, Marcion, Lucian, Apelles, and even Bardesanes.38 Epiphanius identied Tatian as the here-siarch of another succession of heresies, and he was succeeded by the Encratites, the Montanists, the Pepuzians, and the Apostolics, while the other loosely connected heresiarchs with biographical sketches were The-odotus, Noetus, Navatus, and Sabellius.39

Epiphanius established another broad series of heresies, from the Valesians (Pan. 58) to the Massalians (Pan. 80), which constituted his own unique contribution to the genre of heresiology.40 Within this sequence he identi-ed a specic succession of heresiarchs from Origen to Arius: For from this man [Origen], Arius took his false ideas, as well as the succeeding Ano-moeans and others.41 Since Epiphanius accused Origen of holding subor-dinating views of Christ, he then made the genealogical and theological connection with Arius, whom he accused of doing the same. 42 This par-ticular succession was vital to his rhetoric of accusation in the late fourth century, because so many of Epiphanius ecclesiastical contemporaries either admired Origen as a theologian and Christian philosopher or adhered to some form of Arian teaching. 43 Later during the escalation of the Origenist controversy, Epiphanius had warned Bishop John of Jerusa-lem about the dangers of Origen: You ought not to praise the father of Arius and the root and parent of other heresies.44 The thought and writ-ings of both Origen and Arius had particular signicance to Epiphanius, as the theology of Arianism and its oshoots continued to be debated

38) See Pan. 32-36, 41-44, 56.39) See Pan. 46-49, 61; 54, 57, 59, 62. On the organization, rationale, and errors of these lists of heresies and heresiarchs, see Pourkier, LHrsiologie, 77-114.40) Pourkier, LHrsiologie, 107-1441) Pan. 64.4.2: - . On Epiphanius charges against Origen and how they relate to the theology of Arius: Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism, 273-390.42) Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism, 273-95.43) For example, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus were great admirers of Origen, compiling the Philocalia, an anthology of Origens writings (see below, n. 100). Jerome and his friend Runus also had deep interests in Origen, whose writings ultimately became the source of their later enmity.44) Jerome, Epist. 51.3.3: Arii patrem et aliarum hereseon radicem et parentem laudare non debetis. Text: I. Hilberg, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi. Epistulae. Pars I: Epistulae I-LXX, Corpus Christianorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum LIV (Vienna: Verlag der sterreichis-che Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 400.


ercely in his own time, and the controversy over Origenism would escalate over the two decades after the completion of the Panarion.45 As we will see in greater detail below, in the biography of Origen contained within Panarion 64, Epiphanius focused his rhetoric against Origens clas-sical education and therefore implied that any of his contemporaries who were deeply learned in this tradition were liable to the same type of cor-ruption that befell Origen. Paul of Samosata (Pan. 65) succeeded Origen in the genealogy of heresiarchs, though Epiphanius specically labeled the followers of Paul as Neo-Jews because they denied the proper divine sta-tus of Christ the Son.46 After a lengthy digression on Mani (Pan. 66) and Hieracas (Pan. 67), Epiphanius began his series of entries dealing with Arius and his many successors.

The series of entries dedicated to Arianism and its oshoots, though ensconced in the narrative and structure of a heresiology, reads almost as a contemporary ecclesiastical history. Epiphanius chronicled not only the actions and teachings of heretical bishops and church ocials, but he also included an orthodox hero, Athanasius, whom he called exceedingly zeal-ous for the faith and a protector of the church.47 For Epiphanius, the his-tory of the church of the fourth century was one of an epic struggle between the heroes of orthodox Christianity, like Athanasius and Epipha-nius, and the propagators of heresy. The attack on the dierent forms of Arianism was the most pressing for Epiphanius, as he was part of a minor-ity of bishops in the eastern Mediterranean who claimed to adhere strictly to Nicene orthodoxy. Even the emperor in his half of the empire was decidedly unorthodox.48 So the succession of Arius and the condemnation

45) See Clark, The Origenist Controversy.46) Pan. 65.2.4 (translation of as Neo-Jews by Williams, Panarion, Vol. 2, 210); Eusebius, HE 7.27.1 derided Paul for a base and low teaching about Christ, though Eusebius did not make any associations with him and the Jews. 47) Pan. 69.11.7: . Athanasius and Epiphanius would of course represent links in the ortho-dox succession. On the career of Athanasius: A. Martin, Athanase dAlexandrie et lglise dgypte au IV e sicle (328-373), Collection de Lcole Franaise de Rome, 216 (Paris: cole franaise de Rome, 1996); T. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).48) At the time of his composition of the Panarion, the emperor in the eastern half of the empire was Valens. On Valens Christianity: N. Lenski, Failure of Empire. Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), 211-63. Epiphanius was strategic about how he described Valens, whom he would have identied as a heretic. Rather, he emphasized the piety of the emperor and


of all forms of Arianism were important rhetorical tools which Epipha-nius utilized in the ecclesiastical struggles of the late fourth century to undermine his opponents.49 We have already seen how Epiphanius con-nected Origen with Arius, but he also linked Arius to the historic here-siarchs Cerinthus and Ebion because of their belief that Christ was merely a man, and with Sabellius and his followers because they also rejected the confession of the homoousion.50 Thus Epiphanius made retrospective links between Arius and the older genealogy of heresiarchs.

We read of important biographical details on the life of Arius in the entry describing the Melitian schism in Egypt, and Epiphanius gave a brief but important sketch of the events leading up to the Council of Nicaea and its aftermath.51 Although the council anathematized and exiled Arius, in subsequent years pro-Arian bishops climbed into posi-tions of power and worked toward the reinstatement of Arius. Epiphanius informs us that Arius tried to secure his restoration when he denied [the heresy] in the presence of the blessed emperor Constantine and with oaths made statements of orthodoxy under false pretenses.52 However Arius

the corruption and deception of the bishops around him. Pan. 69.13.1: Valens was a very pious man and lover of God, but an Arian gang of serpents prevailed again through Eudoxius, who slithered in and corrupted again the sense of hearing of the most reverent and God-loving Valens, the God-fearing emperor. See n. 66 below for Greek text.49) The bibliography on Arius and Arianism is immense, so I mention here a few works as starting points. On the person of Arius himself: R. Williams, Arius. Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1987). For the Arian controversy: R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988); R. Gregg and D. Groh, Early Arianism. A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981); H. C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homer. Der Osten bis zum Ende der homischen Reichskirche, Beitrge zur historischen Theologie, 73 (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1988); M. Barnes and D. Williams, Arianism After Arius. Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conicts (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993).50) Pan. 69.40.6: , , ; Pan. 69.72.4: . 51) Pan. 68.4.1. Though Epiphanius dedicated an entry specically against Melitius, he viewed him not as a doctrinal heretic but as a schismatic. In fact Epiphanius seems to have considered Melitius and his followers as entirely orthodox in belief. For a thorough assess-ment of the Melitian schism, including an in-depth examination of Pan. 68, see Martin, Athanase dAlexandrie, 219-98, especially 261-85 for Epiphanius account, and H. Hauben, piphane de Salamine sur le schism mlitien, Salesianum 67.4 (2005): 737-70.52) Pan. 68.4.6: .


only succeeded through his partnership with Eusebius of Nicomedia, a notorious supporter of Arius and his teachings and the eventual baptizer of Constantine. Furthermore, Epiphanius implied Arius restoration was made possible when he later described how a number of Melitian schismatics befriended Eusebius of Nicomedia . . . for they knew that he wielded parrhesia before the emperor Constantine.53 In exchange for his patron-age, Eusebius demanded that these Melitians receive Arius into commu-nion, which they agreed to do. Epiphanius lamented that these Melitians, eeing the smoke, fell into the re and most have now been deled by the wicked belief of Arius, turned away from the faith in our time.54 Thus through the historical narrative of the Melitian schism, Epiphanius exposed the dangerous, corrupting power of heretics like Arius and Euse-bius in the promulgation of false belief, and he connected Arius and his successors in the continuing genealogy of heretics.55

This succession also included heresiarchs who even opposed Arius, as in the case of Photinus and Marcellus of Ancyra: With the power of God we have torn apart Arius wretched teachings, which from the beginning he spewed forth as if a man seized in drunkenness, and of those who came after him, I mean Photinus, but also Marcellus, in which brief time he appeared to have been shaken.56 Epiphanius wrote that Photinus believed in a view of Christ like that of Paul of Samosata, but worse, while in the case of Marcellus he ultimately concluded that the hidden things of his thinking are known by God and that he showed himself similar to the thought of Sabellius; and for this he has been refuted and numbered among the heretics.57 In their opposition to heresy, they went too far in

53) Pan. 68.6.1: . . . . After Melitius death, Alexan-der began to persecute the followers of Melitius, who were then forced to seek aid from the emperor. See Martin, Athanase dAlexandrie, 284-6. 54) Pan. 68.6.5-6: . . . , .55) Sozomen, HE 2.21.1-5.56) Pan 73.1.1: , , , , . 57) On Photinus, Pan 71.1.1: - , . With regard to Marcellus, Epiphanius situated him (Pan. 72.1.2) in opposition to the Arians because of his composition of an anti-Arian pamphlet, for which he was compared with Sabellius and Navatus. However, Epiphanius also added that others had defended Marcellus as


the opposite direction away from the narrow path of orthodoxy, thus rendering themselves heresiarchs. Epiphanius next condemned Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea as the heresiarchs of Semi-Arianism: In order that they might propose a similar word, those around Basil and George, I mean, the leaders of this Semi-Arian heresy, say:

we do not say homoousion, but homoioousion. They were the ones from the synod [of Ancyra] who split from the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, the same Basil of Ancyra, their leader, and George of Laodicea from Daphne by Antioch, that is to say Coele-Syria.58

Epiphanius chided the Semi-Arians as deceivers: thus wishing to mislead the pure, they are in appearance, in practice, and in wicked belief, the same as Arius and the Ariomaniacs.59 Next in the Arian succession came Aerius, who still alive in the esh and remains in the world, is an alto-gether Arian. For he does not think dierently, but just like Arius, and yet he inquired even further into the doctrines of Arius, and Eustathius, who held the doctrine of Arius from the beginning until the end, and even the aictions of the persecutions did not set him straight.60 In the lengthy entry on the Anomoeans, Epiphanius included a biographical sketch of the heresiarch Aerius, a certain deacon promoted through his foolishness by George of Alexandria, who was appointed as an Arian bishop in

orthodox, and because of this there is much controversy concerning him. Pan. 72.1.3-4: . . . . . See Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, 217-38; J. T. Lienhard, Contra Marcellum. Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999): Epiphanius listed Marcellus in his catalogue of heresies, but had a hard time saying just what his heresy was (9).58) Pan. 73.1.5: , [] , , , . , .59) Pan. 73.1.3: . 60) Pan. 75.1.3: , . , , ; Pan. 75.2.6: , .


Alexandria in 359 to replace Athanasius.61 Later in the same entry Epiph-anius identied Eunomius as a disciple of Aetius: and those learning from him [Aetius] have contrived a still more far-fetched madness, and their successor, a certain person falsely called Eunomius, still alive and a great evil, another shameful thing.62

For Epiphanius the key theological problem with all of these here-siarchs was their respective distorted views on Christ. Furthermore, many of these heresiarchs and heretics were alive some time during Epiphanius lifetime, and their theological ideas were still held by some of his contem-poraries. Thus in a sense this succession of heresiarchs was alive and well and continued to breed other heretics. As we will see below, throughout the dierent entries on the Arian heresies Epiphanius named many con-temporary bishops and leaders in the ecclesiastical hierarchy as heretics. This act of naming served a rhetorical purpose because not only would the new names be connected with Arius, but also with Origen and even Simon Magus, in one long, continuous succession of heresiarchs. Thus as part of the Panarion, any individual found within the pages of this text would have been guilty by association in a long succession with all of the unholy heresiarchs of the past. Each heretic was a link in the chain of her-esiarchs that began all the way back with Simon Magus and continued to grow in Epiphanius own day. So in addition to the original succession of heresiarchs identied by Epiphanius predecessors, he identied a second succession, one which was rhetorically advantageous because he could simultaneously attack a cultural tradition not his own and ecclesiastical opponents who were still active in his own day. Thus the organization of the Panarion as successions of heresies and heresiarchs reected similar strategies employed by the authors of traditional collective biographies in grouping together individuals who represented an admired aspect of Greek culture or an idealized way of life, but the succession of heresiarchs in the Panarion diered from this tradition because the lives together exemplied an antithetical life, an unholy life.

61) Pan. 76.1.1: , . See Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, 598-611; Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus, 12-29.62) Pan. 76.54.32: , , , . Epiphanius alleged Eunomius introduced the practice of rebaptism. See Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, 611-36; Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus, 312-63.


From Holy to Unholy

A common theme joining many of the heresiarchs in the collective biog-raphy of the Panarion was that they were orthodox bishops, prominent leaders, or inuential thinkers in the church before they became the founders of heresies. In other words, heresiarchs were not necessarily born as such, but someone or something in the course of their lifetimes cor-rupted them. This was a subtle, but crucial distinction in Epiphanius understanding of the succession of heresiarchs and may reect a shift in the development of the concept of heresy.63 For Epiphanius the potential corrupting factors could include heretical teachers and companions, demonic powers, greed, and physical lust, and in his mind the line between orthodoxy and heresy was very narrow. However, as we shall see below, in his mind there was one factor which could corrupt the orthodox above all others: classical culture. In one sense the Panarion served as a warning to its readers. This text was written at the request of two lower ranking clergymen from Syria, who reected a broader audience inter-ested in Epiphanius work and expertise.64 This was the perfect opportu-nity for Epiphanius to caution his fellow believers about how easy it was to fall into heresy. A good Christian could veer onto the path of heresy in little or no time, so what then could help keep a believer on the right course and avoiding deadly heretics better than a guidebook like the

63) This was a recognition that heretics were in some sense homegrown rather than out-siders who attacked orthodoxy externally. This is the internal error discussed by Lyman, Ascetics and Bishops. This strategy was contrary to that of the second-century heresiolo-gists, who emphasized the outsider status of heretics. On the shift of strategy, see A. Le Boulluec, La notion dhrsie dans la littrature grecque (II e-III e sicles), 2 Vols. (Paris: tudes Augustiniennes, 1985), 157-84. On the linguistic change of the notion of heresy exemplied in the person of Origen, see J. R. Lyman, The Making of a Heretic: The Life of Origen in Epiphanius Panarion 64, Studia Patristica 31 (1997): 445-51. On the devel-opment of the concept of heresy from its earliest usage, see M. Simon, From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy, in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tra-dition. In Honorem Robert Grant, ed. W. Schoedel and R. Wilken (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979), 101-16; H. von Staden, Hairesis and Heresy: The Case of the haireseis iatrikai, in Jewish and Christian Self-Denition, Vol. 3: Self Denition in the Greco-Roman World, ed. E. Sanders (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); A. Le Boulluec, La notion dhrsie. 64) Pan. Letter of Acacius and Paul. See also Jerome, De viris inlustribus 114. The dedica-tion of the Ancoratus to Pamphylia and a letter written by Epiphanius to Christians in Arabia (Pan. 78.2.1-24.6) also reected the trust others had in Epiphanius as an expert on heresies. In Pan. 64.27.3, Epiphanius mentioned that he had written the Ancoratus to refute the Arians at the urgent request of other brethren.


Panarion? Furthermore, the author of such an important text also must have been an example of both an orthodox belief and an orthodox way of life. Epiphanius made himself the guide and example that his readers could follow, and indeed it seems he became extremely popular through the course of his lifetime to the point that the historian Sozomen later wrote, hence, I think that he is entirely the most famous man under heaven, so to speak.65

But more importantly, Epiphanius emphasis on the details of the lives of heresiarchs before they were corrupted allowed him to question those in the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself. Since so many heresiarchs had at one time served in the leadership of the church, then even Epiphanius con-temporary colleagues and rivals could potentially descend into heresy. In fact the inclusion of specic names and details of near contemporaries in the Panarion could challenge the authority and orthodoxy of those in oce and those chosen to succeed. For example, Epiphanius wrote how an Arian gang of serpents prevailed again through Eudoxius, who slithered in and corrupted again the sense of hearing of the most reverent and God-loving Valens, the God-fearing emperor.66 Epiphanius exoner-ated Valens of heretical guilt, though he too was a notorious supporter of Arian theology, and he instead focused his attack on the ecclesiastical leaders around the emperor, especially Eudoxius, who had baptized the emperor and therefore held particular inuence at court.67 Though Eudoxius was not a heresiarch per se, he was a leader of the Arian party and his presence in the entry on the Arians forever linked him with the heresiarch. He was therefore a link in the succession of heretics and guilty by association with Arius the heresiarch. Epiphanius identied Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea as the founders of the Semi-Arian heresy, but he also included many names of other contemporary church leaders who became rivals in the dierent opposing heretical factions, including: George of Alexandria, Euzoius of Antioch, Acacius of Caesarea, Eutychius

65) Sozomen, HE 6.32.4. For other anecdotes about Epiphanius popularity: Jerome, Contra Iohannem Hierosolymitanum 4; Epist. 57.2, 108.7; Palladius, Dialogus de vita Iohannis Chrysostomi 17.66) Pan. 69.13.1: . Eudoxius was bishop of Constantinople from 360-70.67) Socrates, HE 4.1.6; Sozomen, HE 6.6.10; Theodoret, HE 4.12.1-4. Lenski, Failure of Empire, 243-6.


of Eleutheropolis, Silvanus of Tarsus, Eleusis of Cyzicus, Macedonius of Constantinople, Eustathius of Sebaste, Demophilus, and Eunomius among others.68 Audius, another schismatic, was noted in his fatherland for his purity of life, godly zeal, and faith, while Photinus was consecrated as a bishop of the holy catholic church before he became a heresiarch.69 Epiphanius also tells us that Eustathius had become bishop and ordained Aerius as a presbyter, but a rift emerged between them, with Aerius accus-ing Eustathius of misusing church funds.70 The aforementioned George of Alexandria had made Aetius a deacon.71 One particularly bittersweet example of a heresiarch who was once a faithful Christian leader was Apolinarius:

For certain people, those setting out from among us and beginning in the high-est state, commended always by us and revered by all the orthodox, have resolved to cast aside the mind from the Incarnate Christ and to argue that our Lord Christ, when he came, took esh and a soul, but did not take a mind, that is not a complete man . . . the elderly and revered Apolinarius of Laodicea, always beloved by us and by the blessed Athanasius and all the orthodox, was the one who originally conceived and brought forward this notion.72

By highlighting the fact that certain men who served in church oces became the worst of heretics, Epiphanius rendered the oce of bishop and other ordained positions vulnerable to the charge of heresy. A person could not hide behind his oce, reputation, writings, or contributions to the church, and Epiphanius used the examples from his list of heresiarchs and heretics to bolster his own ability to challenge and question the orthodoxy of other prominent Christians.73

68) Pan. 73.1.6, 73.23.2-7, 73.37.1-38.4.69) Pan. 70.1.2: ; Pan. 71.1.1: .70) On the rift between Aerius and Eustathius, see Pan. 75.1.5-2.4.71) See n. 61 above.72) Pan. 77.1.4, 77.2.1: , -, , - . . . , , , .73) Epiphanius later clashes with Bishop John of Jerusalem and Bishop John Chrysostom exemplify his use of heresy as a charge to undermine his opponents.


We can nd other examples of good-Christians-gone-bad among the heresiarchs before Epiphanius time as well. Earlier in the Panarion, Epiphanius described the heresiarch Nicolaus as one of the rst seven deacons chosen by the Apostles along with Saint Stephen, the rst martyr, and Prochorus, Parmenas, and the others, while Marcion, started out liv-ing as a monk and was the son of a bishop of our holy catholic church.74 Epiphanius wrote that Tatian was strong in faith, as long as he was with the holy Justin Martyr, but after Justins death he was corrupted by the thinking of Valentinian.75 Bardesanes was also at rst the best sort of man and was even nearly martyred for his faith, but he fell in with the Valentinians and then preached his own heresy.76 Paul of Samosata served as bishop of the holy catholic church in Antioch, although Epiphanius tells us that pride later led him to heresy, and Hieracas started out in truth as a Christian, but did not abide in the way of Christ. For he fell, and slipping he came to ruin.77 Melitius was a bishop before he caused a schism in the church in Egypt, and of course even Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria.78

However, the most signicant example of a heresiarch who was once a prominent Christian was Origen, who became for Epiphanius the sym-bol of unstable orthodoxy.79 Though Origen was never ordained as a bishop, he was an important Christian teacher and author of important

74) Pan. 25.1.1: ; Pan. 42.1.4: .75) Pan. 46.1.4-7: , .76) Pan. 56.1.2-2.1: .77) Pan. 65.1.4: - . Pan. 67.1.4: , - .78) Pan. 68.1.1-4, 69.1.2.79) Quotation from J. R. Lyman, The Making of a Heretic, 447. She insightfully situates Epiphanius condemnation of Origen in a concern over Origens theology and how it potentially undermined the ascetic enterprise. The problem lay with Origens intellect and education, which was irreconcilable with a humble asceticism and ultimately resulted in his corruption. The bibliography on Origen and his thought is, of course, immense, but see the following for introductions: J. Danilou, Origne (Paris: La Table Ronde, 1948); P. Nautin, Origne. Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977); H. Crouzel, Origne (Paris: Lethielleux, 1985); J. Trigg, Origen (London and New York: Routledge, 1998).


texts. Epiphanius even described an episode in which Origen suered per-secution as a youth in Alexandria for his faith:

For at one time, as the story goes, having shaved his head the pagans placed him on the steps of the temple of their idol called the Serapeum and commanded him to distribute palm branches to those going up to perform their lawless deed and to prostate themselves before the idol, for the priests of their idols take this posture. Taking the branches, with a loud noise and clear intention, neither fear-ing nor hesitating he cried out saying Come, take not the branch of the idol, but the branch of Christ! And many accounts of his brave deeds are handed down to us by the ancients.80

Nevertheless Epiphanius said that the reason why certain pagans were so wont to mistreat him was because he was resented with extreme envy because of the superiority of his learning and education, and this particu-larly provoked the authorities of his day.81 Here Epiphanius seemed to be hinting at the coming source of troubles for Origens life. Some time thereafter, Origen left Alexandria for Palestine under dubious circum-stances, and in Jerusalem he was asked as an ordained presbyter to preach because of his exegetical skill and education.82 Origen later convinced a certain heretic named Ambrose, who was either a Marcionite or Sabellian, to shun his false beliefs and adopt orthodox Christianity, and Epiphanius went so far as to say: For Origen was at that time of the orthodox and catholic faith.83 These are rather remarkable words to describe a man

80) Pan. 64.1.4-5: , , - . , - , . . Lyman, The Making of a Heretic, 448. Nautin, Origne, 209 suggests Epiphanius likely received this positive story about Origen from the apologetic defense of Origen written by Pamphilus and Eusebius. I would add that Epiphanius added his own particular rhetorical spin on this hagiographic story to set up his attack of Origen.81) Pan. 64.2.1: . On the contrary, Eusebius, HE 6.2.15-3.13 implies Origens secular education prepared him for service and inspired many to the faith.82) See Pan. 64.2.6-7; Eusebius, HE 6.8.4-5, 6.26.1.83) Pan. 64.3.1: . Cf. Eusebius, HE 6.18.1-4.


whom Epiphanius vilied as one of the worst of all heresiarchs. So if a man was not necessarily born a heretic, what then could make a good Christian turn bad?

Unholy Men and Unholy Culture

In an early entry in the Panarion, Epiphanius explained that Hellenism emerged rst when humans made gods of prominent men.84 Once this development happened, then the mysteries and initiatory rites of the Greeks began, having been imported from the Egyptians, Phrygians, Phoenicians, and Babylonians, and were later organized into heresies during the life-times of Epicurus, Zeno the Stoic, Pythagoras, and Plato.85 Epiphanius then described how Plato became known at that time, and those before him, Pythagoras and later Epicurus. From whom, as I have said, they took their pretext and the Greek writings came to their established state, and after this time the celebrated heresies of the philosophers.86 This resulted further in the rise of poets, prose authors, historians, astronomers, and those introducing other errors, the ones preparing the mind for a myriad of wicked causes and conduct, which have blinded and darkened the notions of humanity.87 The early history of human depravity was marked by a slow descent toward what would be classical tradition. For added measure Epiphanius included four entries in the Panarion dedicated to specic Greek philosophical schools: Stoics, Platonists, Pythagoreans/Peripatetics, and Epicureans.88 It seems Epiphanius had only a cursory understanding of some of the core beliefs of each, and the focus of his criticism was the philosophical view of God and the nature of the soul of each philosophy. But by specically including these philosophies, Epipha-nius equated Greek philosophy and culture with heresy. Pagans or Hellenists

84) See Pan. 3.9-12. Schott, Heresiology as Universal History, 554-5.85) Pan. 4.2.7: .86) Pan. 4.2.8-9: . .87) Pan. 8.2.1: [] .88) Compare for example with Hippolytus, Refutatio 1.2.1-18, 1.19.1-22.5.


were guilty of heresy because they denied the one, true God and instead made gods of men, and the authors of classical texts have fooled, confused, and deceived men.

The pervasive culture of the elite in the Roman world of the fourth century was rooted in Greek paideia, so a logical focal point in much of Epiphanius rhetorical attack against heresies was this Greek cultural tradition. This was strategically important because, unlike Epiphanius, many prominent ecclesiastical leaders and thinkers were also educated as elites, so an attack on the prevailing culture of the day also opened the door to an attack on prominent church leaders as well. Ultimately, Epipha nius believed Christians should reject classical culture and litera-ture, especially philosophy, because in his mind, orthodox faith mingled with classical myth and philosophy could only result in heresy. This was a theme he consistently developed in the Panarion.

In the brief biography of Simon Magus, the father of heresiarchs, Epiphanius built on the characterization of his predecessors that Simon was corrupted and deceived by demonic deceit in magic, and always ready to demonstrate the barbaric acts of his wickedness and the work of demons through his magic trickery.89 Epiphanius also emphasized the depravity of Simons character and behavior, especially as it related to his paramour, a Tyrian wanderer named Helen, whom the heresiarch equated with vari-ous mythological gures such as the Gnostic aeons Ennoia and Prunicus, Helen of Troy, and the goddess Athena.90 Simon apparently provided for his followers an image of himself as the god Zeus, and clearly Epiphanius saw in the heresiarch Simon the hybridization of demonic magic, sexual immorality, Gnostic theology, and classical Greek myth. In the later entry on the Gnostics, Epiphanius wrote, for all the heresies, having gathered for themselves from the Greek myths, were changing the error, altering it into another worse notion.91 He was even more specic about the con-nection between heresy and classical culture in his entry on the Valentinians, when he described how Valentinus had been educated in Alexandria in the learning of the Greeks and in mimicry of the Theogony of Hesiod . . .

89) Pan. 21.2.1: , . Cf. Irenaeus 1.23.1; Hippolytus, Refutatio 6.7.1.90) Pan. 21.2.4-3.5; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.23.2-3; Hippolytus, Refutatio 6.19.1-8.91) Pan. 26.16.7: , .


he wished to deceive the world, changing the same ideas as Hesiod, from one name to another.92 Epiphanius even cited Hesiod in parallel with Valentinus to demonstrate that the latter merely borrowed his myth from the Greek poet and changed the names of the gods.93 In the entry on the Secundians, Epiphanius identied Epiphanes as an important follower and teacher of this heresy, who on account of the excess of his education, both general and Platonic, the whole deceit came from him to those aforementioned, both the heresy and the other error, I mean the one turn-ing the local people to idol-mania. This Epiphanes, then, joined Secundus and those around him.94 In his refutation of Ptolemy, Epiphanius wrote that God is not anxious or at a loss like Depth or Zeus. When Ptolemy spoke about Depth, he was imitating Homer talking about Zeus.95

Epiphanius derided the heresiarch Mani as the comedian Menander, because you mislead your dupes, having introduced the works of the Greeks in place of the truth.96 He alleged that Mani described the trans-migration of souls from body to body, perhaps nding such a lie either from Plato, Zeno the Stoic or some other deceived person.97 In the case of Mani, the unholy corruption worked in the opposite direction from other examples; Mani was not an orthodox Christian who was corrupted by classical culture, but rather he was essentially a pagan who added a false veneer of Christianity to his depraved ideas. Nevertheless, Epiphanius identied the strong connection between heretical or false ideas and clas-sical culture in the person of Mani, though he was not a Christian here-siarch in the strictest sense. Furthermore, Mani combined Jewish and

92) Pan. 31.2.3-4: . . . . . Hippolytus, Refutatio 6.37.1-9 rather accused Valentinus of plagiarizing Pythagoras and Plato.93) See Pan. 31.2.4.94) Pan. 32.3.8-9: , -, , , . .95) Pan. 33.2.5: , . Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.12.2.96) Pan. 66.46.11: .97) Pan. 66.55.1: , - .


Christian beliefs, classical culture, pagan mythology, astrology, and magic into a syncretized heresy, worthy only of absolute rejection. The heresiarch Hieracas lived in Leontus in Egypt and was quite educated, trained in all the literary pursuits of the Greeks, well versed in medicine and the other subjects of the Egyptians and Greeks. Perhaps the man also tried his hand at astronomy and magic.98 After synopsizing Hieracas heretical beliefs, Epiphanius said, thus how many things will my mind be able to grasp about this, as opposed to all of his falsied thinking? And this man died in old age. He wrote in both Greek and Coptic, expounding and writing on the six days of creation, making up certain myths and vainglorious allegories.99 It seems in Epiphanius estimation Hieracas was too smart for his own good.

As many Christian theologians of the fourth century admired Origen for his intellectual contributions and legacy of biblical exegesis, Epiphanius became one of the harshest critics of the Alexandrian.100 As we have seen

98) Pan. 67.1.2: , , , . 99) Pan. 67.3.6-7: - ; . , - , .100) Eusebius and his mentor Pamphilus were great admirers of Origen and direct bene-ciaries of his library in Caesarea: R. Amacker and E. Junod, eds., Pamphile et Eusbe de Csare: Apologie Pour Origne suivi de Run dAquile. Sur la Falsication des Livres dOrigne, 2 Vols., Sources Chrtiennes 464, 465 (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 2002). Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus arguably compiled excerpts from Origens writings known as the Philocalia; see P. Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni-versity of California Press, 1994), 82-84. On the uncertainty of their role in the compila-tion, see E. Junod, Remarques sur la composition de la Philocalie dOrigne par Basile de Csare et Grgoire de Nazianze, Revue dHistoire et de philosophie religieuse (1972): 149-56; E. Junod, Basile de Csare et Grgoire de Nazianze sont-ils les compilateurs de la Philocalie dOrigne? Rexamen de la Lettre 115 de Grgoire, in Mmorial Dom Jean Gribomont (1920-1986), Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 27 (Rome, Institutum Patris-ticum Augustinianum, 1988), 349-60. Before turning against Origens writings during the Origenist controversy, Jerome admired and translated the Alexandrians works, as did Runus, who remained committed to Origen; Jerome De vir. inl. 54; see Clark, The Ori-genist Controversy, 121-51, 159-93. For a substantial introduction to Origen and his rela-tionship to classical culture, especially philosophy, see G. Dorival, Origne dAlexandrie, in Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques IV, ed. R. Goulet (Paris: CNRS ditions, 2005), 807-42.


in some of the early details of Origens biography, Epiphanius included some positive anecdotes to demonstrate for his readers how a good Chris-tian could fall, though he made it clear that Origen had received a classical Greek education.101 Ambrose, the heretic whom Origen led back to the orthodox faith, requested that Origen interpret the entire Bible, and Epipha-nius described how Origen exerted great eort in this task, rst collecting six dierent versions of the Hebrew Scriptures into what was known as the Hexapla.102 It was at this point Origen began to descend into heresy, as Epiphanius said for his great experience led to great calamity. From his goal, wishing to leave no Scripture uninterpreted, he clothed himself in sinful reasoning and brought forth deadly exegeses.103 What followed in the remainder of the entry were explanations of Origens ideas, a brief excerpt from a commentary on Psalm 1 by Origen himself, and a long reproduction from a treatise by Methodius against Origen, as well as Epiphanius own assessments and refutations.104 On Origens mistaken view of the resurrection of the body, Epiphanius chided the heresiarch for his interpretation of the skin clothes in Genesis 2:21 as bodies: because the seeds of the pagan teaching from the Greeks were sown in you from the beginning, and because thence provoked in you the malicious reason-ing of the unbelief in the resurrection, I mean that of the Greeks which led you to this and taught you.105 Epiphanius in fact contrasted himself with Origen at the end of the entry by my customary calling on Gods help for my lack of education.106 What Epiphanius lacked with respect to a worldly education, he believed would be compensated by a divine knowledge. He compared Origens learning to the bite of a terrible viper, that is your secular education, and clearly he believed Origens heretical ideas were inspired by his Greek education.107 In the concluding remarks

101) Pan. 64.1.1.102) See Pan. 64.3.1-7; Eusebius, HE 6.16.1-4, 6.23.1-2.103) Pan. 64.3.9: . , , .104) Again, for a thorough analysis of Epiphanius charges against Origen: Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism, 243-390; Clark, The Origenist Controversy, 86-104.105) Pan. 64.65.5-6: , - .106) Pan. 64.72.2: .107) Pan. 64.72.5: , .


of his entry on Origenism he wrote, Thus you, Origen, your mind blinded by your Greek education, have vomited poison for your followers and have become noxious food for them, by which you yourself have been harmed while harming more people.108 So if the great biblical exegete ultimately succumbed to heresy because of his classical education, then Epiphanius implied that the proper Christian response would have been to reject this tradition in order to preserve theological orthodoxy.

Epiphanius also linked the Arian heresiarchs with the corrupting inu-ence of classical culture. He attacked Arius and his successors as born sophists and word-twisters and Neo-Aristotelians, who imitated his poi-son by their use of dialectical arguments in defense of their theological positions.109 We can nd an example of a more explicit connection between an Arian heresy and classical culture in the biographical details of Aetius, the founder of the Anomoean heresy. Epiphanius described him as an uneducated deacon, who began attending lectures in Alexandria of an Aristotelian philosopher and sophist and then learning their dialectic.110 He conceptualized God through a fusion of geometry and gures of speech, while remaining the deepest of Arians and holding on to the insane teachings of Arius.111 Later in the entry Epiphanius said of Aetius, you twist together a myriad of Aristotelian syllogisms for us, and you abandon the heavenly, simple, and holy teaching of the Holy Spirit.112 A consistent theme Epiphanius emphasized in his entry against Aetius was the vast dierence between the errors of philosophic speculation applied to theology and the simplicity of the orthodox faith: it is not possible for us to be convinced to become students of Aristotle, your master, and to concede the teaching of those shermen enlightened by the spirit of God, and though they were uneducated and ignorant, were guardians of the

108) Pan. 64.72.9: , , , .109) Pan. 69.56.7: ; 69.71.1-2: -. . . . . Cf. Socrates, HE 1.5.2; Sozomen, HE 1.15.3. On dialectic and the Arian controversy: R. Williams, The Logic of Arianism, Journal of Theological Studies 34.1 (1983): 56-81; Lim, Public Disputation, 109-48.110) Pan. 76.2.1: ; Socrates, HE 2.35.6; Sozomen, HE 3.15.8. 111) Pan. 76.2.2-3: .112) Pan. 76.23.4: , .


truth of which they were deemed worthy in the power of God.113 For Epiphanius, Aetius combination of Arianism with Aristotelian reasoning led to an even worse manifestation of the heresy, in contrast to a simple, heavenly (perhaps uneducated?) truth as taught by Jesus disciples.

In the numerous biographical sketches in the Panarion, Epiphanius frequently used comparisons between heresiarchs and their ideas with images or references to classical culture to demonstrate the synonymy of heresy and paideia. In other examples, Epiphanius made explicit connec-tions between worldly knowledge and education and the corruption of the orthodox Christian faith. Thus in the collective picture of the unholy life of heresiarchs in the Panarion, the tradition of secular Greek educa-tion went hand-in-hand with the development of heretical ideas. For his readers, the disastrous aect and inuence of classical culture on ortho-doxy would not have gone unnoticed; and perhaps for Epiphanius more educated audience, the subtle warning and attack on the knowledge of the elite would have put them on notice.

Conclusion

In this article I have attempted to apply the point that heresiologies can be studied not only as sources of information, but also as performative or functional texts, and I have built upon Aline Pourkiers suggestion that heresiology was a sort of anti-hagiographical genre. Building on Patricia Cox Millers discussion on collective biography in late antiquity, I have argued that Epiphanius wrote the Panarion as a power-generating text in which he was able to construct a composite image of the here-siarch, whose characteristics could cast the shadow of heresy on any of Epiphanius ecclesiastical opponents. While the Panarion will always be useful for what it tells us about the alleged beliefs and practices of Chris-tian heresies, I hope to have demonstrated in this article that it is also use-ful for what it tells about the beliefs and practices of the author himself, and by extension of those who looked to him as a trusted spiritual authority. Epiphanius lived, wrote, and ministered in an environment of great com-petition and controversy over many issues relevant to the Christian faith

113) Pan. 76.37.16: -, , , , .


and in a time when such issues were embodied in the lives of idealized heroes in biographical form. As a man who was not educated in the high-est traditions of classical paideia nor held the most powerful of bishoprics, Epiphanius had to devise some other means by which he could augment his status and authoritative voice in the church. The Panarion was the rst step, the foundation upon which Epiphanius would build his reputation and status. He employed the rhetorical language of heresy to his advan-tage by trying to establish himself as the empires expert on heresy and by attacking those whom he viewed as doctrinally suspect, particularly through undermining the basis for their theological views, which Epipha-nius ultimately believed was classical culture. I have suggested that a col-lective picture of the unholy life emerges in the Panarion when we examine together the biographical details of the heresiarchs contained within. Epiphanius of course did not intend his work to be read as part of this literary genre, but he did desire to describe for his readers the charac-ter and conduct of heresiarchs, and together, the lives of these heresiarchs embodied the paradigmatic life of the unholy man.

Documents

Young Richard Kim - 'Reading the Panarion as Collective Biography' the Heresiarch as Unholy Man