Book. Blanch. Epifanio de Chipre – PANARION Libro I volúmenes I-III (bilingüe). 2019-2020.

Epifanio de Chipre

O El Botiquín contra todas las herejías


Traducción, notas y comentarios de
Universidad Nacional de Villa María
Centro de Filología Clásica y Moderna

Esta publicación se inscribe en el proyecto El rol de la Filología en la traducción e interpretación de textos patrísticos. La intertextualidad en Padres Griegos y Latinos, acreditado por la Universidad Nacional de Villa María. El equipo que lleva adelante su realización está integrado por el Dr. Alfredo Eduardo Fraschini en carácter de Director y por el Mgter. Carlos Andrés Blanch. El lugar de realización ha sido el Centro de Filología Clásica y Moderna, dependiente del Instituto Académico Pedagógico de Ciencias Humanas de la Universidad Nacional de Villa María.
Se presentan aquí, en edición bilingüe anotada, los volúmenes I-III del primer libro del Panarion (Botiquín) de Epifanio de Chipre. Siguiendo la línea iniciada en ediciones anteriores de Padres de la Iglesia, se desarrollan, en las notas, las citas y alusiones que aparecen en el texto. De esta obra no hay traducciones al español anteriores a las que se exponen en este volumen; de allí la importancia que la presente publicación reviste para los interesados en los estudios de la Filosofía y la Teología de los Padres Griegos.

Disponibles en Academia:
Volumen I.
Volumen II.
Volumen III.

Quote. Gérard Vallée, ‘A study in Anti-Gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius’, Introduction. 1981.

Out of the large number of heresiologists who wrote during the first centuries, why concentrate on the Adversus haereses of Irenaeus, the Elenchos of Hippolytus, and the Panarion of Epiphanius? The answer, in a nutshell, is that these works are available ; they are typical ; and they each took on ‘all the heresies’ of their own day.

They are available – that is, they survived. Justin wrote a Syntagma dealing also with all heresies and so did Hippolytus. Unfortunately, both are lost, and efforts to reconstruct them have obviously not succeeded in giving them back to us in their entirety. At best we might identify generically the heresies they refuted and infer something of the influence of these now lost works on the history of heresiology. It is not possible, however, to gain a clear idea of the arguments they used to counter their opponents.

Second, the Adversus haereses, the Elenchos, and the Panarion are typical representatives of the literary genre called ‘heresiology’. These works offer us excellent illustrations of what heresiology was in three successive centuries, and they allow us to follow the development of heresiology in that period. Moreover, they had a decisive and lasting influence on the fixing of the style of Christian polemics. (Their respective sources or their interdependence are not of primary concern here, although at times it will be useful to indicate the probable source of their ideas ; but our main interest is in the authors themselves. Each is seen as representing one major moment in the heresiological tradition).

Third, all three did battle with all heresies they knew, not only with particular heresies. This distinguishes them from heresiologists like Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, or Origen who took aim at one or another chosen target (Marcion or the Valentinians).

After Epiphanius heresiology betrays a depletion of energies. Pseudo-Tertullian, Filastrius of Brescia, Theodoret of Cyrus, also writing against all heresies, rely primarily for their information on Hippolytus’s Syntagma. Filastrius and Theodoret do not directly depend on Epiphanius ; they rather parallel him, and do not expand our knowledge of early heresies. The same may be said of Augustine ; he knew the ‘Anakephalaioseis’ of the Panarion and it is on them that he based his information in his De haeresibus. After Epiphanius no fresh knowledge of ancient heresies can be expected. New methods of dealing with heretics will indeed be developed. (But a study of these methods would include medieval heresiology up to the Reformation, which is beyond the scope of the present study. We are interested here in understanding the methods of dealing with ancient heresies).

Gérard Vallée, ‘A study in Anti-Gnostic polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius’, Introduction; in “Studies in Christianity and Judaism: 1”, pp. 4-6. Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1981.

Quote. Einar Thomassen. Valentinian Ideas About Salvation as Transformation. 2009.

In his violent attack on the Valentinians in Book 31 of the Panarion, Bishop Epiphanius, amongst other grievances, also ridicules their views on resurrection:
They deny the resurrection of the dead, uttering some senseless fable about it not being this body that rises, but another one which comes from it and which they call “spiritual” (μὴ τὸ σῶμα τοῦτο ἀνίστασθαι, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον μὲν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ὃ δὴ πνευματικὸν καλοῦσι). But [salvation belongs?] only to those among them who are spiritual, and to those called “psychic” –provided, that is, the psychics act justly. But those called “material”, “carnal” and “earthly” perish utterly and are in no way saved. Each substance proceeds to what emitted it: the material is given over to matter and what is carnal and earthly to the earth. (Pan. 31.7.6–7; trans. P. R. Amidon)
It is somewhat amusing that what Epiphanius here calls a “senseless fable” of the Valentinians in fact seems to be sound Pauline doctrine. The spiritual body that rises from the present one as a new and transformed being is precisely what Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 15:44: σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. In other words, the Valentinians appear to have held a view of the resurrection that was more in agreement with Paul than was the doctrine professed by the heresy-hunting bishop.

Einar Thomassen. ‘Valentinian Ideas About Salvation as Transformation’. In “Ekstasis – Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages”, 1 – ‘Metamorphoses’, p. 169. 2009.