In my previous post I talked about the church Father Epiphanius’s attack on a heretical group of Gnostics called the Phibionites. They allegedly based their practices on a now-no-longer-surviving book the Greater Questions of Mary (Magdalene). Epiphanius indicates he knows the book. Did he? Did it actually exist. Here I conclude the discussion, from my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
******************************
The prior question is whether Epiphanius’s description of the activities of the group is at all plausible. Historians have long treated Epiphanius in general with a healthy dose of skepticism.[1] No Patristic source is filled with more invective and distortion; Epiphanius frequently makes connections between historical events that we otherwise know are unrelated, and he expressly claims to write horrific accounts precisely in order to repulse his readers from the heresies he describes (Pan. Proem. I. 2). His description of the Phibionites and their sex rituals, nonetheless, has been taken as historically grounded by a dismaying number of competent scholars. For Stephen Gero, the fact that other heresiological sources down into the Middle Ages mention the group (which he calls the Borborites) and level charges of immorality against them indicates that they did indeed exist and that they were indeed immoral.[2] But surely the perdurance of traditional slander is not the best gauge of historical veracity. So too Stephen Benko argues that the close ties between the ritual activities of the group and their theological views shows that the account of Epiphanius is entirely plausible.[3] But this overlooks the fact that it is Epiphanius himself who establishes the linkage, which may just as well show that he has invented a set of scandalous rituals imagined as appropriate to the nefarious theology of the group.
How would we know?
One obvious place to start is with Epiphanius’s sources of information. Because he had some contact with the group as a young man – was nearly seduced into it — it is sometimes claimed that he had special access to their liturgical practices. But this is scarcely plausible. Epiphanius indicates that he spurned the advances of the two attractive Phibionite women before being drawn into their orb. This must mean that he was never present for any of the ritual activities. And it defies belief that missionaries would inform outsiders about the scandalous and reprehensible activities of the group before they were admitted into the inner circle. Potential converts were not likely to be won over by accounts of ritualistic consumption of fetuses.
Epiphanius stands in a long line of Christian heresiologists who claimed that their opponents, especially Gnostics, not only subscribed to impenetrable and ridiculous mythological understandings of the world, but also engaged in outrageous and scurrilous behavior, all as part of their religion.[4] As far back as Irenaeus, two centuries earlier, we learn of Valentinians who allegedly taught that
Some strange goings on back there in early Christianity. Join the blog and learn more! Click here for membership options
,,, and the Nicolaitans mentioned (symbolically?) in Revelation were also accused of similar obscure practices and rituals.
Thanks for a great post. Very interesting !
You mention the secretary hypothesis in your debate with Mike Licona. You state several times that the men who wrote the NT were educated Greeks. Does this mean the language used in their writings was good Greek. It’s been said that the reason scholars believe the person who wrote the Gospel of John was a different person than the author of Revelation is the latter’s language isn’t up to the standards of John.
Would you care to discuss the secretary hypothesis, the language of the NT, and the comparison of the language of John vs Revelation?
Yup, I can add them to the list! The NT authors can write correct Greek and are far more highly educated than most people at the time; but they are not at the upper echleons of the literary elite. The author of Revelation does not write nearly as well as the authof of the fourth Gospel.
I was finally able to watch the 6 hour debate with Licona. Thought you did a great job! I really enjoyed the format, especially with an apologist adversary. The format of a standard debate allows them to make a string of what sound like irrefutable points, with no time for you to respond to them all, and when you do respond, the format allows them to basically restate their initial point as fact without addressing your retort. I would love to see you do this style of debate with William Lane Craig.
Again, great job, Bart, even if you did forget about Joseph streaking in Egypt.
Ah, I thought he had some undergarments on. I need to look again at my picture Bible.
I watched Mike Licona’s intro. I’m waiting for the audio to become available so I can listen to the rest.
My sense is that Epiphanius did join the cult and even enjoyed their practices (at least some) and read their books…
No matter how bizarre, horrible and sick a sexual practice could be for us (or for me at least) it seems that others could find them ok (now and 1600 years ago) … to think that all is “bad press” is as bad as to believe all as it was written.Today’s reported horrors in Ukraine is only Zelenski’s bad press on russians ?
Maybe Epiphanius exaggerated , but I do not discard a core of truth in his “memories” , he certainly was not the first nor the last in reporting as inmoral a behavior he himself liked.
Interesting how accusations of sexual promiscuity and worse are used effectively today in order to disparate the Other. Most recent, QAnon accusations of cannibalistic sexual abuses of children by Liberal agents. In my own life as a one-time follower of Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church, Moon was accused of licentious sex and early followers were accused of sexual misdeeds (many sound like pagan accusations against early Christians). Nothing in the group’s sacred texts would condone such behaviors and I certainly never heard any accounts of such things by early followers during my decade in the group.
Some things never change!
Indeed, they just get recycled . . .
You and Mike Licona have debated numerous times. Which of your arguments in this debate had you not used in any of the previous ones?
I never explained how the laws of nature worked and how probabilities of teh past can be established and how ancient people viewed miracles and … and sundry other things.
In the year 2525, if man is still alive, what will historians think of the report from the 20th Century that the Roman Catholic church was a harbor for pedophilic priests? Will that be written off as propaganda by the Protestants? Or that certain evangelical churches were riddled with sexual scandals? Was that just an attack by the atheists? Even though we have much better record keeping than the ancients recent years have shown how well-documented facts are often questioned or dismissed!
Now is that *supposed* to be an allusion to Zager and Evans (1969)?
Dr Ehrman,
1. Among all the famous Christian heresiologists, who you think seems to be most reliable(representing Gnostics as they really were)?
2. Could the scandalous Anti-Gnostic rhetoric be termed as religio-erotica of 3rd century to make it more popular among masses/elites?
1. It’s hard to tell. Irenaeus is the longest and earliest known; others typically used on him and added their own materials. 2. I don’t know — we don’t have any kind of reader responses for any of them.
Do we have any literature from heretical groups that responds to protoorthodox Christian attacks against them?
Yup. One good one is the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter. I should post on it!
Bart,
I’ve been reading alot about Zechariah 13 and the weird thing is some Christians try to use parts of it
especially 13:6 to say hey look its Jesus! while others say oh no its about false prophets so dont say that!
So its a bit confusing to me especially with the different vers KJV etc…
I’ve listened to Rabbis, secular and Christian scholars describe their positions and wanted to check in and get your take – do you think 13:6 is *only* about false prophets and is a secondary reading that its about a suffering messiah even plausible – what are your views on this?
TY for your time!
Have a good day,
SC
No, I don’t think it’s talking about a messiah. It only seems the way if you read the story of Jesus *into* it. If you just read the whole passage — starting in verse 1 — or better yet, in chapter 1 verse 1, there’s nothing in the text itself to make anyone think it is referring to a future messianic figure.