EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS  Patristic Theological Library Protopresbyter George Dion. Dragas General Editor Daryle R. Lamoureux Technical Editor Titles Included in his Series: 1. Protopresbyter George Dion. Dragas. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: Original Research and New Perspectives 2. Protopresbyter Gus George Christo. he Church’s Identity Es- tablished through Images according to Saint John Chrysostom Patristic Theological Library 3 EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS Doctor of Iconoclasm? Deconstruction of a Myth Steven Bigham orthodox research institute Rollinsford, New Hampshire Published by Orthodox Research Institute 20 Silver Lane Rollinsford, NH 03869 www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org © 2008 Steven Bigham All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo- copying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author or publisher. Library of Congress Control Number: ISBN 978-1-933275- TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Epiphanius of Salamis  FOREWORD S ince the creation of the Chair of the History of Liturgical Arts and Iconology at St. Sergius Institute of Orthodox heology in Paris, which I have occupied since 1986, our research has been oriented in two directions: on the one hand, studies of a speciically iconographic nature, as deined by the famous Russian iconographic school whose most well-known representatives have been F. Bouslaef, N. Konda- kof, and D. Aïnalof in Russia along with A. Grabar in France; and on the other, studies of a more theological nature which deal especially with the status and doctrine of the image in the Church, studies car- ried out in the perspective elaborated by L. Ouspensky, the creator of a new academic discipline which he himself called “the theology of the icon.” It is especially in the framework of this second orientation that the visits of Fr. Steven Bigham to the Institute have been a precious enrichment for the research and teaching of our Chair. From the be- ginning, we sensed a deep agreement with Fr. Steven on the perverse nature of confessional prejudices which have carefully maintained and repeated, from generation to generation, a good number of myths: for example, the supposed, doctrinal aniconism of the irst Christians or the existence of a theologically motivated hostility toward images which goes back to the apostles and was preached by the most “en- lightened” of the Fathers. It was this hostility which inally burst forth iv Epiphanius of Salamis for everyone to see in the great movement of Byzantine iconoclasm which, being concerned with a “pure and spiritual” Christianity, re- jected as pagan and idolatrous the making of any liturgical images and, even more, their veneration. What is more, I have always felt that any serious study of the theology of the icon requires a detailed analysis of the “founding documents” of iconoclasm just as much as the answers of the holy apologists. We were thus immediately faced with the very serious question of the authenticity of these documents and have noted, with a certain relief, that in the inal analysis, ac- cording to the most recent research, there are only three documents which deserve a detailed study: canon 36 of the Council of Elvira, the so-called letter of Bishop Eusebius1 in Palestine to the Empress Con- stantia, and inally a group of writings attributed by the iconoclasts to St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, a proliic writer, Father of the Church, and specialist on Christian heresies. his latter group of writings has already been the object of a rath- er violent controversy between the German Protestant historian, Karl Holl, and the young, Russian Orthodox scholar, George Ostrogorsky, who, in his famous Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilder- streites (Breslau, 1929), felt he had proved, against Holl, the inauthen- ticity of the “pseudo-Epiphanian” corpus. Let us remember that his arguments impressed such eminent scholars as Fr. G. Florovsky and Fr. J. Meyendorf. he former spoke of these writings as “being most certainly inauthentic” while the latter qualiied them as being of “a doubtful authenticity.” In the inal analysis, it was less the unques- tionable scholarly respectability of Holl than the inertia of the Ger- man academic world and its confessional solidarity which brought about the nearly unanimous rejection of Ostrogorsky’s arguments by the disciples of Adolf von Harnack and those who followed his lead. he reader can follow the stages and the argumentation in this pres- ent work. 1 Steven Bigham, “Eusebius of Caesarea and Christian Images,” Early Christian Attitudes toward Images, Rollinsford NH, Orthodox Research Institute, 2004, pp. 185-216. Foreword v I would therefore like to underscore here the merit of Fr. Steven for having been receptive to my proposition to open once again the thorny dossier of the so-called “iconoclasm of Epiphanius” despite the nearly 80 years of peaceful, “scholarly consensus.” Enthusiastic and full of self-efacement, he refused the easy solution which has been ad- opted by the vast majority of those who have seen it to deal with the question by simply aligning themselves with the opinion of one or the other main authors: Holl or Ostrogorsky. On the contrary, he did not hesitate to take up the challenge of reconsidering the vast dossier with its two sections. he irst of course is the Byzantine controversy, but he knew quite well that it constitutes in its own right the determining element in a correct understanding of the second section, the modern debate, and this is what Holl did not want to recognize. he cour- age of our Canadian friend has been rewarded. His deconstruction of the myth of “Epiphanius’s iconoclasm” cannot be ignored by any scholar who will henceforth deal with this subject to which Fr. Steven has been able to bring new elements and a personal relection. his postdoctoral study, with a rich bibliography and very useful annexes for further research, is intended not only for the scholarly public, knowledgeable about the intricacies of Byzantine iconoclasm, but also for those of the larger public, obviously educated, who desire to delve more deeply into a problem whose real scope was missed by a good number of historians, Byzantinists, and theologians of all categories. In this sense, all readers will appreciate in the irst part the English translation of the corpus delicti itself, that is, all the iconopho- bic writings attributed to Epiphanius, which are completed by his as- tute “general portrait — as it is presented in the iconophobic writings.” he second part deals with the Byzantine controversy, its chronology, and the arguments of the ancient authors against the authenticity of the writings, among whom the lion’s share goes obviously to the pa- triarch St. Nicephorus and his major work — still under appreciat- ed — Refutation of Eusebius and Epiphanides. he third part contains a detailed dossier of the modern controversy which presents for all researchers not only a gold mine of precious information on a debate, vi Epiphanius of Salamis which as Fr. Steven has proved is still not closed, but also a vast fresco of the astonishing twists and turns that the paths of knowledge and its transmission have oten taken. In the fourth part, the author gives us his personal evaluation of all the arguments against the authentic- ity of the iconophobic writings attributed to Epiphanius. From the conclusion, we would especially like to highlight the following points: 1. “We take it for that it is not credible that Epiphanius of Salamis could have claimed that no one, at the end of the fourth century, had ever heard of Christian images.” 2. “We accept that the iconophobic writings manifest a docetic Christology, that is, a one-sided Christology, leaning in favor of the divinity, which thus diminishes the full reality of the humanity. his orientation clearly contrasts with the opinions of Epiphanius.” 3. “However eccentric Epiphanius of Salamis may have been, there is no authentic witness that allows us to see him as an extreme iconophobe or an iconophobe of any sort, nothing that allows us to call him “Doctor of iconoclasm.” 4. “We accept Nicephorus’ point that the key to solving the au- thenticity question is found in the doctrinal diferences between the two corpora [the true and the false writings of Epiphanius: N. Ozo- line] and not in the similarities of literary style.” It is in fact this last argument, proof of the holy patriarch’s clear vision, which seems to me to be decisive for solving the authentic- ity question regarding the “iconophobic corpus” falsely attributed to Epiphanius. We also note that the doctrinal similarity with the so- called Letter of Eusebius to Constantia was not lost on the scholarly Nicephorus. It seems to me that this allows a common appreciation of both the pseudo-Eusebian letter and the pseudo-Epiphanian cor- pus. he obvious anachronism of their overall problematic is glar- ingly visible, for it is there that the question of venerating icons is central. However, as we know from archaeological and liturgical sources, icons, in the technical sense of portable portraits of Christ and the saints as well as the liturgical veneration of these images, did Foreword vii not yet exist either at the end or, even less, at the beginning of the fourth century. What is more, Christ’s material, human body is seen to have been dissolved in his divine nature, which indicates a clearly Monophysite tendency, and this had already previously been noted by Ostrogorsky and in our own time strongly underscored by von Schönborn. he iconoclastic forgers thus succeeded, even without using the word aperigraptos, in proclaiming the indescribability of the Savior, for “we must not abase with lifeless and dead colors the blind- ing brightness of the radiant, unspeakable divine glory of Christ and the saints.” And inally, all the writings in question express the same dualistic revulsion, typically Neo-Platonic and Origenistic, toward the body and the lesh for which there is no hope of salvation. he conclusion is obvious to everyone: the iconoclasts lacked pa- tristic quotations that witnessed to an unquestionable condemnation of the veneration of icons. In their eyes, the two famous bishops, Eu- sebius and Epiphanius, under whose names fraudulent documents were composed, lent themselves better than any others to such a hoax. It seems clear to me that the decisive arguments for or against a fraud are not found on the side of philological “proofs.” he Byzantine falsiiers easily imitated the style and terminology of the fourth-cen- tury authors. Nonetheless, besides the unquestionably anachronistic character of the supposed practice of venerating images at the time of Eusebius and Epiphanius, the most irrefutable indication of forg- ery consists, as Fr. Steven has also said, in their identical theological argumentation. Falsely attributed to the two bishops, this argumen- tation perfectly coincides with the theses of the “choir director” of iconoclasm, Constantine V Copronymus and his entourage. It is they, in my opinion, who are the real authors of the pseudo-Epiphanian writings as well as the so-called letter of Eusebius to Constantia. Fr. Nicholas Ozoline d  chapter one INTRODUCTION 1 Who Was St. Epiphanius of Salamis? St. Epiphanius was born around 315 in Eleutheropolis, Palestine. We know nearly nothing of this period, and the little information we do possess is dis- puted, as we will see later on. Very young — we cannot say more — he went to Egypt to study, and there, either on inishing them or inter- rupting them, he adopted the monastic life. Around the age of 20 to 30 — scholars do not agree — he returned to Palestine where he founded a monastery at Besanduc, near Eleutheropolis, and he be- came its igumen. For unknown reasons, St. Epiphanius let Palestine and immigrated to Cyprus1 where, in 367,2 the bishops of the island 1 Following P. Nautin, col. 619, it may be that St. Epiphanius wisely decided to leave Palestine or that he was gently expelled because he was in conlict with bishop Euthychius who had accepted the decree of the Council of Seleucia, 359. his council rejected the homoousios of Nicaea, and it would have been diicult for Epiphanius to live with a bishop of such a theological orientation. 2 According to Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom, Robert T. Meyer, tr., Ancient Christian Writers 45, New York NY, Newman Press, 1985, p. 105: “Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, who served the Church there for thirty-six years — well, heophilus made him out as a heretic or a schismatic at the time of Damasus and Siricius. But later on, writing to Pope Innocent and reviling the blessed John, he is to be found calling Epiphanius a most holy saint!” If we accept 403 as the date of St. Epiphanius’s death, he be- came bishop in 367. hose who prefer 402 as the year of his death say that his election took place in 366. 2 Epiphanius of Salamis elected him head of the Church of Salamis, that is, archbishop of Cy- prus, and he remained at that post until his death in 403. he life of St. Epiphanius is therefore divided into four periods of varying lengths the dating of which is only approximate, except for the last period: 1. 315 to 330: his earliest years in Palestine; 2. 330 to 340: his education and monastic training in Egypt; 3. 340 to 367: his leading of the monastery in Besanduc, Palestine; 4. 367 to 403: his episcopate in Salamis, Cyprus, lasting nearly 40 years.3 3 For a list of the ancient sources on the biography of St. Epiphanius, see Jon Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity, North American Pa- tristic Society, Patristic Monograph Series 13, Macon GA, Mercer University Press, 1988, p. 7. On the date of St. Epiphanius’s death and his biography in general, see the following authors: P. Nautin, “Épiphane (Saint) de Salami- ne,” Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastique 15, col. 617-631; W. Schneemelcher, “Epiphanius von Salamis,” Reallexion für Antike und Chris- tentum, tome 5, Stuttgart, 1962, col. 909-927; Aline Pourkier, L’Hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine, Paris, Beauchesne, 1992, pp. 29-51, especially the bibliography on pp. 499-509; Philip R. Amidon, “Foreword,” he Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis Selected Passages, New York NY, Oxford University Press, 1990, without page numbers. hese authors put Epiphanius’s death in 402. Others choose 403: Johannes Quasten, Patrology III, Westmin- ster ML, Christian Classics, Inc., 1990, p. 385; Roger Tandonnet, “Épiphane (saint) de Constantia (Salamine) en Chypre, évêque,” Dictionnaire de Spiritua- lité, tome IV, First Part, Paris, Beauchesne, 1960, col. 854-861; George Floro- vsky, he Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century, vol. 7 in he Collected Works, Vaduz, Europa, Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987, p. 236; B. Hemmerdinger, “Saint Épiphane, iconoclaste,” Studia Patristica, vol. X, Berlin, Akademie-Ver- lag, 1970, pp. 118-120; Berthold Altaner, Précis de patrologie, Paris, Éditions Salvator, Mulhouse, 1961, pp. 454-458; and Calogero Riggi, “Épiphane de Sa- lamine,” Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien, tome 1, Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1990, pp. 841-842. Frank Williams, tr., “Introduction,” he Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I, Leiden, Holland, Brill, 1997, pp. XI-XVI, chooses neither date and mentions both. We accept 403 as the date of St. Epiphanius’s death. Introduction 3 As a result of his written works, his travels, his asceticism, and his ight against any and all heresies, St. Epiphanius acquired a world- wide reputation for holiness of life and purity of doctrine.4 Even though many revered him, from the greatest of this world to the most humble, he was not appreciated by everyone. His unbending opin- ions and the ferocious determination of his ight against heresies and those he considered heretics made for him many enemies. He was no doubt sometimes the source of his own problems. 2 The Authentic Works of St. Epiphanius of Salamis. St. Epiphanius’s reputation rests primarily on his written works. Chronologically, his irst is called Ancoratus5 (he Anchored Man). It was written in 374 at the request of the Christians in Syedres in Pamphilia; they wanted a treatise on the traditional doctrines of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. St. Epiphanius’s second work, inished in 377, is called the Panar- ion6 (pharmacy, medicine box or cabinet). In answer to the request of 4 St. Jerome, Letter 57, 2, “On the Best Method of Translating,” New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001057.htm) tells us that when in 395 or 396 Epiphanius wrote a letter to John of Jerusalem, everyone wanted a copy: “About two years ago the aforesaid Pope Epiphanius sent a letter to Bishop John, irst inding fault with him as regards some of his opinions and then mildly call- ing him to penitence. Such was the repute of the writer or else the elegance of the letter that all Palestine fought for copies of it.” 5 Migne 43, 17-236; for a critical edition, see Karl Holl, Die griechischen christ- lichen Schritsteller 25 (1915), pp. 1-149. For a German translation, see J. Hör- mann, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 38, Munich (1919), pp. 6-182; for a partial Italian translation, see Calogero Riggi, L’ancora della fede, Rome, 1977. For a complete French translation of the Ancoratus, go to the website srbigham.com. 6 Migne 41-42; for a critical edition, see Karl Holl, Die griechischen christlichen Schritsteller 25 (1915), Heresies 1–33; Die griechischen christlichen Schritsteller 31 (1922), Heresies 34-64; Die griechischen christlichen Schritsteller 37 (1933), Heresies 65-80; for a partial German translation, see J. Hörmann, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 38, Munich (1919), pp. 185-263; for a partial Italian transla- tion, see Calogero Riggi, Epifanio contro Mani, Rome, 1967; for a partial French translation, see Pourkier; for a partial English translation, see Philip R. Ami- don; for a complete English translation, see he Panarion of Epiphanius of Sa- 4 Epiphanius of Salamis two priests from Chalcis and Berea (the modern city of Aleppo) who begged him to write a book on the heresies,7 St. Epiphanius speeded up the research and composition he had already started. he Panari- on is a catalogue of 80 heresies, along with a refutation of each one. On Measures and Weights,8 On the 12 Gems,9 and Letters10 are all minor and fragmentary works that have nonetheless been recognized as authentic. Other documents, iconophobic in nature, attributed to St. Epiphanius, will be analyzed later. Modern, scholarly criticism has judged still other texts not to be authentic.11 3 The Theological Profile of St. Epiphanius of Sala- mis.12 As for his theological culture, St. Epiphanius was able to inspire both admiration and scorn. his is as true for later periods as for Antiquity. Everyone agrees that he knew a great deal, that he read a lot, that he wrote volumes, but everyone does not agree about the lamis, Frank Williams, tr., Leiden, Holland, Brill, Books II & III in 1994 and Book I in 1997. 7 See the complete, French translation in Pourkier, pp. 47-49 ; the title: “Let- tre écrite en l’an 92 du règne de Dioclétien […] à Épiphane d’Éleuthéropolis en Palestine, jadis Père d’un monastère situé dans la campagne aux alentours d’Éleuthéropolis, actuellement évêque de la ville de Constantia de la province de Chypre, de la part d’Acace et de Paul, prêtres, archimandrites — c’est-à-dire Pères — des monastères des régions de Chalcis et de Bérée de la Coelé-Syrie, pour le prier d’écrire contre toutes les hérésies, beaucoup d’autres aussi l’ayant invité et pour ainsi dire forcé à en venir là.” (pp. 47–48). 8 For a critical text and an English translation, see J. E. Dean, Epiphanius’ Trea- tise on Weights and Measures. he Syriac Version (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 11), Chicago IL, 1935. 9 For an English translation based on the Georgian version, see P. R. Blake and H. De Vis, Epiphanius: De Gemmis (Studies and Documents 2), London, 1934. 10 St. Jerome’s Letters, “Letter 51” and “Letter 91,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers VI, Second Series, pp. 88–89 and pp. 184–185. 11 See Quasten, “Spurious Writings,” pp. 393–396. 12 his theological proile is based on the commentaries and analyses of the an- cient and modern authors mentioned in note 3 above. For more details on out- standing points of St. Epiphanius’s theological vision, the reader should consult these studies. Introduction 5 depth of his thinking, even his intelligence. His education in Egypt, even if we say it was classical, did not make a great impression on his thinking or his works. Scholars have evaluated his Greek as only slightly above the Koinē Greek of the New Testament. He received, on the other hand, a solid grounding in the Scriptures and mastered several languages, although to difering degrees. His monastic train- ing in Egypt inluenced his thinking all through his life and made him allergic to classical and pagan culture. his Biblical and monastic education can be seen in his works in which he defends his ideas by appealing to the Scriptures, the Tradi- tion of the Church, and the Fathers. Very little interested in meta- physics and speculative philosophy, he very early on saw Origen as the great enemy, reacting against the latter’s allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures and metaphysical speculations. St. Epiphanius was a ferocious defender of the theology of Nicaea I (325) and of homoousios: the Son’s being consubstantial with the Fa- ther. He saw Origen’s doctrine of the Son’s subordination to the Father as the root of Arianism. St. Epiphanius also had a great concern for the purity of the Church, especially for its doctrine. Heresies were therefore bites in- licted by poisonous snakes, and the antidotes for these bites were found in the medicine box, that is, his book the Panarion. All his life, St. Epiphanius fought against doctrines that deviated from what he thought was the true doctrine of the Church, orthodoxy. 4 The Problem. he problem that we propose to deal with in this study has two elements. 1. he authenticity of ive iconophobic documents.13 Nearly all scholars of modern times have judged these iconophobic documents, 13 1) the Post-Scriptum of the Letter of Epiphanius Written to John, Bishop of Jerusalem; 2) the Treatise of St. Epiphanius against hose who Follow an Idola- trous Practice and Make Images with the Intention of Reproducing the Likenesses of Christ, the Mother of God, the Angels, and Prophets; 3) the Dogmatic Letter; 4) the Letter to the Emperor heodosius; 5) the Will. 6 Epiphanius of Salamis attributed to St. Epiphanius, to be authentic. Are they right in their judg- ment? Or are the documents false, falsiied, or wrongly interpreted? 2. he attitude of St. Epiphanius toward Christian images. Since these same scholars recognize the authenticity of the iconophobic documents, they logically conclude that St. Epiphanius was a dogmat- ic iconophobe, that is, he considered a Christian image to be an idol. What is more, they claim that St. Epiphanius is an eminent witness to the fundamental iconophobia of ancient Christianity. Here again are they right? he answer given to the irst question obviously conditions the answer to the second one, but it is to be noted that the iconophobic reputation of Epiphanius rests uniquely on these documents. he problem, however, is not new. hese documents entered his- tory only 300 years ater the death of St. Epiphanius in 403. It was during the period of Byzantine iconoclasm14 (730–843), in the bloody 14 Nicée II 787–1987: Douze siècles d’images religieuses, F. Boespflug and N. Lossky, eds., Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1987; Alfred Lombard, Études d’his- toire byzantine: Constantin V: empereur des Romains 740–775, Paris, Phenix Éditions, 1902, New Edition, 2004; Gervais Dumeige, Nicée II, Paris, Éditions de l’Orante, 1978; Michel Kaplan, La chrétienté byzantine: Du début du VIIe siècle au milieu du XIe siècle, Paris, Éditions Sedès, 1997; J. F. Haldon, “Some Remarks on the Background of the Iconoclast Controversy,” Byzantinoslavica 38, 2 (1977), pp. 161–184; Charles Barber, Figure and Likeness: on the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 2002 and “From Transformation to Desire: Art and Worship ater Byzan- tine Iconoclasm,” he Art Bulletin 75, n 1 (March 1993) and “he Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art,” Speculum 72, n° 4 (Oct. 1997), pp. 1019–1036; Alain Besançon, he Forbidden Image: An Intel- lectual History of Iconoclasm, Chicago IL, he University of Chicago Press, 2001; Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Chicago IL, he University of Chicago Press, 1994; James Breckenridge, “he Iconoclasts’ Image of Christ,” Gesta 11, n° 2 (1972), pp. 3-8; Nicolas Ca- las, “Iconolatry and Iconoclasm,” College Art Journal 29, n° 2 (Winter 1969–1970), pp. 184–199; Robin Cormack, “he Arts during the Age of Icono- clasm,” Iconoclasm, A. Bryer and J. Herrin, eds., Birmingham, 1977, pp. 35 f; W. Kaegi, “he Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm,” Byzantinoslavica, 27 (1966), pp. 48–70; David Freedberg, “he Structure of Byzantine and European Icon- oclasm,” Iconoclasm, pp. 165 f; Hans-Jürgen Geischer, Der byzantinische Bil- derstreit, Gütersloh, 1968; Anthony Julius, Idolizing Pictures: Idolatry, Icono- Introduction 7 clasm, and Jewish Art, New York NY, hames and Hudson Inc., 2001; Herburt Kessler, “On the State of Medieval Art History,” he Art Bulletin, 70, n° 2 (June 1988), pp. 66-187; John Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, New York NY, Phaidon Press Inc., 2001; Hans Georg Beck, “Bilderkult und Bilderstrum,” Funkkolleg Kunst, Munich, 1987, pp. 108 f; John McEnroe and Deborah Pok- inski, eds., Critical Perspectives on Art History, Upper Saddle River NJ, Prentice Hall, 2002; W. J. T. Mitchell, Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology, Chicago IL, he University of Chicago Press, 1986; David Mock, ed., Legacy of the West: Read- ings in the History of Western Civilization, New York NY, Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996; Lawrence Nees, Early Medieval Art, New York NY, Oxford University Press, 2002; Lyn Rodley, Byzantine Art and Architecture: An Intro- duction, New York NY, Cambridge University Press, 2001; Paul Alexander, he Patriarch Nicephorus and Religious and Political History and hought in the Byzantine Empire, London, Special Edition for Sandpiper Books Ltd., 2001; “he Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7, Cam- bridge, MA, 1953, pp. 37–66; M. V. Anastos, in Cambridge Medieval History IV, he Byzantine Empire: Part I: Byzantium and Its Neighbours, Joan M. Hussey, ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1966, pp. 61–104 and Studies in Byzantine Intellectual History, and “he Argument for Iconoclasm as Presented by the Iconoclastic Council of 754,” Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Hon- or of Albert M. Friend Jr., Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1955, pp. 177–188; Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, Tradition and Life in the Church, London, 1968, pp. 171–200; Leslie Barnard, he Graeco-Roman and Oriental Background of the Iconoclastic Controversy, Leide, 1974, and “he Em- peror Cult and the Origins of the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Byzantion XLIII (1974), pp. 13–29, and “Byzantium and Islam: the Interaction of Two Worlds in the Iconoclastic Era,” Byzantinoslavica 36 (1975), pp. 25–37; Patrick Henry, “What Was the Iconoclastic Controversy About?,” Church History 45 (1976), pp. 15–31; Norman Baynes, “he Icons before Iconoclasm,” Harvard heologi- cal Review XLIV, 1951, pp. 93–106; L. Bréhier, La Querelle des Images, Paris, Bloud, 1904; Daniel Sahas, Icon and Logos. Sources in Eighth Century Icono- clasm, Toronto ON CAN, 1986; S. Brock, “Iconoclasm and the Monophysites,” Iconoclasm: 9th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, 1977; Peter Brown, “A Dark Age Crisis,” English Historical Review 88 (1973), pp. 1–34; George Florovsky, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Church History 19, 1950, pp. 77–96; Stephen Gero, “Byzantine Iconoclasm and Monachomachy,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28, n° 3 (July 1977), pp. 241–248, and “he Libri Caro- lini and the Image Controversy,” Greek Orthodox heological Review 18 (1973), pp. 7 f, and “he Eucharistic Doctrine of the Byzantine Iconoclasts and Its Sources,” Byzantinische Zeitschrit 68 (1975), pp. 4–22, and Byzantine Icono- 8 Epiphanius of Salamis clasm during the Reign of Leo III, Louvain, (CSCO vol. 346, Subsidia Tomus 41), 1973, and Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, Louvain, Se- crétariat du Corpus SCO, 1977, and “Byzantine Iconoclasm and the Failure of a Medieval Reformation,” he Image and the Word: Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Joseph Gutman, ed., Missoula MT, Scholars Press, 1977, pp. 49-62; André Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archéologique, Paris, Flammarion, 1957; Oleg Grabar, “Islam and Iconoclasm,” Iconoclasm: 9th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, 1977; J. Gouillard, “Aux origines de l’ico- noclasme: le témoignage de Grégoire II?,” Travaux et Mémoires, t. III, Paris, Université de Paris: Centre de recherche, d’histoire et de civilisation byzantines, 1968, pp. 243–307, and “Le Synodikon et sa doctrine des images,” Travaux et Mémoires 2, Paris, Université de Paris: Centre de recherche, d’histoire et de ci- vilisation byzantines, 1967, pp. 169-182; G. L. Huxley, “Hagiography and the First Byzantine Iconoclasm,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 80, C (1980), pp. 187–196; Gerhard Ladner, “Origin and Signiicance of the Icono- clastic Controversy,” Medieval Studies 2 (1940), pp. 127–149, and “he Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953), pp. 1–34; V. Laurent, “L’œuvre canonique du concile in Trullo 691-692,” Revue des études byzantines 23 (1965), pp. 7–41; Cyril Mango, “Historical Introduction,” Iconoclasm: 9th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Bir- mingham, 1977; E. J. Martin, History of the Iconoclastic Controversy, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930; John Meyendorff, Byzan- tine heology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal hemes, New York NY NY, Ford- ham University Press, 1974 and Christ in Eastern Christian hought, Crestwood NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975; Kenneth Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile hought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, New York NY, E. J. Brill, 1996; Moshe Barasch, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea, New York NY, New York University Press, 1992; Ambrosios Giakalis, Images of the Divine: he heology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, New York NY, Brill Academic Publications, 1994; Anthony Julius, Idolizing Pictures: Idolatry, Iconoclasm, and Jewish Art, New York NY, hames and Hudson, 2001; George Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites, Breslau, 1929, and “Les débuts de la querelle des images,” Mélanges Charles Diehl 1, Par- is, 1930, pp. 235-255; Jaroslav Pelikan, Imago Dei: he Byzantine Apologia for Icons, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990, and he Spirit of Eastern Christendom, History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 91–145; A. Sharf, “he Jews, the Montanists and the Emperor Leo III,” Byzantinische Zeitschrit 59 (1966), pp. 37–46; Igor Sevcenko, “Hagiography of the Iconoclast World,” Iconoclasm: 9th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, Centre for Byzantine Introduction 9 controversy over the legitimacy of Christian images — their very ex- istence and their veneration — that these documents were quoted for the irst time. It was the Byzantine iconoclasts who attributed them to St. Epiphanius. he adversaries of the iconoclasts, the iconodules, answered that the documents were forgeries invented or falsiied by the iconoclasts and attributed to the Father of orthodoxy in order to support their cause. At the Protestant Reformation of the 16t cen- tury, and even today, these documents are quoted as a witness to the iconophobia of the ancient Christian tradition and as a justiication for every kind of iconoclasm, whether moderate or radical. We said earlier that “nearly all scholars of modern times” ac- cept the authenticity of these iconophobic documents attributed to St. Epiphanius of Salamis. Other scholars, very much in the minority, have expressed doubts on the subject. In this present study, we hope to study more deeply the question of the authenticity of the icono- phobic documents attributed to St. Epiphanius. Are scholars justiied in classifying them among St. Epiphanius’s authentic works and, con- sequently, in recognizing in him a “doctor of iconoclasm”?15 Studies, University of Birmingham, 1977; Jean-Pierre Arrignon (in collabora- tion with B. Merdrignac and C. Treffort) Christianisme et chrétientés en Oc- cident et en Orient (milieu VIIe-milieu XIe siècle), Gap-Paris, Ophrys, 1997; Marie-France Auzépy, “Les Sabaïtes et l’iconoclasme,” in he Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fith Century to the Present, (Orientalia Lo- vaniensia Analecta 98), Joseph Patrich, ed., Louvain, Peeters, 2001, pp. 305–314, and L’hagiographie et l’iconoclasme byzantin. Le cas de la Vie d’Étienne le Jeune, Aldershot, Ashgate-Variorum Reprints, 1999 (Birmingham Byzantine and Ot- toman Monographs 5); Alain Boureau, “L’Église franque et la controverse sur les images dans ses relations avec Byzance,” in M. Bertrand (under the direc- tion of), Lumière et théophanie: l’icône, Connaissance des religions, 1999, pp. 140–157; Anne-Marie Eddé (in collaboration with F. Micheau and C. Picard), Les communautés chrétiennes en pays d’Islam du VIIe au XIe siècle, Paris, Sedès, 1997. 15 Pierre Maraval, “Épiphane, ‘Docteur des iconoclastes,’” Nicée II 787–1987: Douze siècles d’images religieuses, F. Boespflug and N. Lossky, eds., Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1987, pp. 51–62. d  chapter two TRANSLATIONS OF THE ICONOPHOBIC DOCUMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (310/315–403) 1 Translations. Toward the end of the fourth century, Epipha- nius of Salamis, archbishop of the Church of Cyprus, supposedly wrote ive documents that express, among other things, an icono- phobic and iconoclastic attitude toward Christian images. During his life, Epiphanius had the reputation of being a great defender of orthodoxy; he wrote the Ancoratus, a defence of the traditional faith of the Church, and the Panarion, a catalogue of 80 heresies with a refutation of each one. In the light of the deinition of Nicaea II (787) concerning Christian images, the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius stand in singular contrast. For the iconoclasts of every century, these documents are a tremendous support for their cause, and, for the iconodules, an immense burden. he question of authen- ticity is at the heart of the debate. Are they really from Epiphanius? We present them here in English translation based on the Greek texts assembled and published by Herman Hennephof in the collection Textus Byzantinos ad Iconomachiam Pertinentes, Leiden, Épiphane J. Brill, 1969, pp. 44–49. We present the documents in chronological order — assuming that Epiphanius wrote them — rather than in the order of the Textus. 12 Epiphanius of Salamis a) Post-Scriptum1 of the Letter of Epiphanius Written to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. he Letter to John of Jerusalem2 is made up of two unequal parts: in the irst part, sections 1–2, Epiphanius defends himself against the accusation of having uncanonically ordained St. Jerome’s brother, Paulinian, deacon and priest while he, Epipha- nius, was in the jurisdiction of John of Jerusalem, without the latter’s knowledge or permission. In the second part, sections 3-8, Epipha- nius refutes Origenism and invites John to repudiate this heresy. We then have the following text which we present here as the Post-Scrip- tum, section 9 in which Epiphanius tells us about an incident that took place at Anautha in Palestine where he tore down a door curtain 1 We call this text post-scriptum because it is found at the end of a letter which can legitimately be entitled Letter to John of Jerusalem. See “Letter 51,” NPNF VI, pp. 83–89. We will see later on (Section 204 of the Refutation and Destruc- tion of the Decree of the Council of 815, St. Nicephorus of Constantinople, Codex Parisinus graecus Coislinianus 93) that St. Nicephorus identiies the irst sentence of the Post-Scriptum (“he God of peace …”) as the natural ending of a letter. his closing, according to him, ended the Greek letter, now lost. For some unknown reason, the closing was detached from its natural context and attached to what we call the Post-Scriptum. Considering his classical education and linguistic and literary talents, it seems to us legitimate to recognize in him the competence to identify the closing of a Greek letter. We therefore call the closing and the text that follows it Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. 2 We have this Letter (sections 1–2 and 3–8) only in a Latin translation Letter 51 of St. Jerome. See the critical text of I. Hilberg, Corpus Scriptorum Chris- tianorum Orientalium 54, pp. 395–412. For an English translation of the Latin text, see “Letter 51,” New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30001057. htm) he authenticity of the irst two sections is not questioned. he Libri Caro- lini, the document that Charlemagne had written around 792 to contest the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787, contain the Latin translation of the Post- Scriptum. (See Libri Carolini IV, XXV, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio III, Concilia 2-Supplementum, Hanover-Leipzig, 1924, pp. 223–225.) he Greek text of the Post-Scriptum is found in Nicephorus of Constantinople, Refutation and Destruction of the Decree of the Council of 815, and was discov- ered at the beginning of the 20t century by D. Serruys. Our English transla- tion of the Post-Scriptum is based on the Greek text (see J. M. Featherstone, Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 33, Leuven-Turnhout, Leuven University Press, 1997, pp. 325–326) published ater Hennephof ’s collection. Translation of the Iconophobic Documents 13 in a church. On the curtain, there was “represented something idol- atrous, in human form.” he parishioners objected to his impulsive gesture, and he promised to replace it with another curtain. he in- cident, the Letter to John of Jerusalem, and the Greek Post-Scriptum are dated to 393. May the God of peace always act in us according to his love for man so as to crush Satan under our feet and drive away every evil pretext, in order that the bond between us — the bond of sincere love for Christ and his peace, the bond of right faith and truth — may not be broken. I have heard that, during our3 trip to the holy place of Bethel, some people have been complaining. When we entered the vil- lage called Anautha, we saw there a burning lamp. We inquired about this and learned that there was a church in that place. We went in to pray and found a colored door curtain hanging in front of the door. On the door curtain, there was something idolatrous in the form of a man. hey [the parishioners]4 said that it was perhaps a representation of Christ or of one of the saints; I don’t remember.5 Knowing that such things are detestable in a church, I tore the door curtain down and suggested that it be used as a burial cloth for a poor person, but the parishioners, who have been complaining, said that I should have replaced the door cur- tain out of my own pocket before tearing it down. So, I promised to send a new door curtain to replace the irst one, but I waited a while because I needed to search for one. I waited until a curtain was sent to me from Cyprus. Having now found it, I sent it on. herefore, please see it to ask the priest of the parish to accept the new door curtain that the reader is bringing. I exhort you 3 he author switches back and forth from I/me to we/us/our when talking about himself. We have maintained the inconsistency of the Greek text. 4 he Greek word elegon can mean either “I said” or “they said.” We have taken the word to mean “they said” since if the author had wanted to say “I myself said,” “I said to/within myself,” or “I said for myself,” he would more naturally have said elegomén. St. Nicephorus understood the text to mean “they said.” Unfortunately, the Latin translation, not very close to the Greek text, sheds no light on the question. 5 Codex Parininus graecus Coislinianus 93: “… I do not remember having seen it.” 14 Epiphanius of Salamis [John] also to order that such things no longer be put up in the churches, for it is proper for your Honor to be concerned about everything and to examine carefully what is proitable for the Church of God and for the faithful. b) he Treatise6 of St. Epiphanius Against hose Who, Following an Idolatrous Practice, Make Images with the Intention of Repro- ducing the Likeness of Christ, the Mother of God, the Angels and the Prophets. If, on the basis of the sequence of the documents, we follow not only the dates established by Holl but also the scenario that he proposed,7 the Treatise was written in 394. It is thus assumed to be Epiphanius’s theological defence justifying his gesture at Anautha. Let us examine the patriarchs and prophets, who acted ac- cording to the will of God, and let us imitate them so that we can truly be called the sons of the catholic and apostolic Church. I therefore speak to those who know the law. hose who run around without knowing where they are go- ing, let them answer. Who among the holy fathers ever pros- trated himself in front of a representation made by men’s hands or allowed his own disciples to prostrate themselves in front of it? Who among the saints, having abandoned the inexhaustible treasure — that is, the hope in the knowledge of God — ever had his portrait painted and ordered people to prostrate themselves 6 he Greek text of he Treatise is found in he Refutation and Destruction of the Arguments of Eusebius and Epiphanides, Stupidly Put forward against the Incar- nation of Christ Our Savior. Our English translation is based on this Greek text. he Greek text of he Refutation and Destruction was published by J. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense IV, pp. 292–380, 1853, based on ive manuscripts: Par- is, Gr. 909, 910, 911, 1250 and Coislinianus 93. Pitra: “Ex quinque codicibus Pariensibus, qui priorem partem habent, sub his numeris in Bibliotheca imperiali asservati, 911, 910, 909, 1250, Coislin. 93, hisque deinceps siglis designati A, B, Г, E Δ; quibus adde Sorbon. ς fragmenta. ” (p. 292) 7 Holl, Karl, “18: Die Schriten des Epiphanius gegen die Bilderverehrung,” Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte II, Darmstadt, Wissenschatliche Buchgesellschat Darmstadt, 1928, pp. 351-387 (a second edition of the text published in 1916), pp. 380-382, as well as Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity, pp. 392-397. Translation of the Iconophobic Documents 15 in front of it? Abraham, the leader of the faithful, was he not called the friend of the living God, and did he not lee dead things? Or Moses did he not refuse to take pleasure at that time (in these things) by leeing such an error? But you will say to me, “he fathers detested the idols of the nations, but we make images of the saints in their memory, and we prostrate ourselves in front of them in their honor.” Precisely by this reasoning, some of you have had the audacity, ater hav- ing plastered a wall inside the holy house, to represent the im- ages of Peter, John, and Paul with various colors, as I can see by the inscriptions written on each of the images which falsely bare the name [image]. he inscriptions have been written under the inluence of the painter’s insanity and according to his [twisted] way of thinking. And irst of all, as for those who believe they are honoring the apostles by doing such things, let them realize that, instead of honoring the apostles, they are dishonoring them even more, for Paul insulted him who was falsely called “priest,” and Paul called him “white-washed wall” [wall covered with plaster, Acts 23:3]. So then, with virtue, let us put their commandments in the place of their images. But you will say, “We contemplate their images in memory of their external forms.” So then, where do you get the order to do such things? We have already accused such men of working in vain, carried away by ignorance. For we know, says John, that “when he appears, we will be like him” (1 Jn 3:2), and Paul has proclaimed that the saints will be likened to the form of the Son of God.8 (Rm 8:29) How then do you want to see the saints, who are going to shine in glory, represented in something vile, dead, and voiceless since the Lord said of them, “hey will be like the angels of God”? (Mt 22:30) But I say that the angels do not either want to have people prostrate themselves in front of them. “Be sure not to do that! I am a servant like you and like your brothers who are witnesses for Jesus.” John says, “Prostrate yourself only in front of God.” (Rv 22: 9) On the subject of angels, the fathers who gathered at Lao- dicea spoke precisely on this question. “If anyone abandons the 8 Romans 8:29: “… reproduce the image of his Son.” 16 Epiphanius of Salamis Church of God and invokes angels, let him be anathema because he has abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ and has given himself to idolatry.”9 Again, how can you prostrate yourselves in front of angels, who are spiritual, ever-living beings; how can you draw their images in dead matter since the prophet said, “He who made his angels spirits and his servants lames of ire”? (Ps 103:4) Such a person [the artist] must answer, from his own know- ledge, where did the idea come from to represent on the image of the archangel his bones and nerves so well adjusted to each other. But neither did the apostles want to have people prostrate themselves in front of them when they were sent out to evangel- ize. hey did not want people to prostrate themselves in front of them, but in front of Christ who had sent them, for he who had received from Christ the power to bind and to loose on earth and in heaven [Peter] said to Cornelius, “I am a man standing in front of you who has feelings like you,” and he taught him not to prostrate himself in front of him but in front of Christ the Savior. (Ac 10:26) I have heard it said that some people have ordered that the incomprehensible Son of God be represented: to hear and be- lieve such a blasphemy makes one shiver. How can anyone say that God, incomprehensible, inexpress- ible, ungraspable by the mind, and uncircumscribable, can be represented, him whom Moses could not look at? Some people say that since the Word of God became perfect man born from the ever-virgin Mary, we can represent him as man. Did the Word become lesh so that you could represent by your hand the Incomprehensible One by whom all things were made? So then, is not Christ similar to the Father and does he not give life to the dead? During his time on earth, when did Christ ever give the or- der to make an image of his likeness, to prostrate oneself in front of it, and to look at it? he order itself10 comes from the Evil One so as to dishonor God. 9 Canon 35 of the Council of Laodicea, held probably between 340 and 381; the dating is uncertain. 10 he order to make images, with reference to the 2nd Commandment. Translation of the Iconophobic Documents 17 People should therefore prostrate themselves in front of Him who lives, as it is said, “in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:24). May the gangrene not spread. For God, in all the Old Testa- ment and the New Testament, suppressed these things, saying exactly, “You will prostrate yourself in front of the Lord, and you will worship him alone.” (Mt 4: 10) And again, “By my life, says the Lord, every knee will bend before me…” (Rm 14: 10) We cannot serve two masters, one who is living and the other dead. For damned, he says, is the man who worships a creature in- stead of the Creator, for He contains all things and is contained by none. c) he Dogmatic Letter.11 Should we place the Dogmatic Letter in the third or ith position, before or ater the Letter to heodosius? It is diicult to decide, but if, again, we follow the chronology of those who accept the authenticity of the documents, it seems more logic- ally satisfying to put it in the third position. he incident of the door curtain (the Post-Scriptum written in 393) provoked the theoretical justiication of the Treatise, written in 394 and was quickly followed by the Dogmatic Letter, also written in 394. If anyone busies himself with representing the divine features of the Word of God in the incarnation with material colors, “let him be anathema.” d) Letter of Epiphanius, Bishop of the Cypriots, to the Emperor heodosius. Since the Emperor heodosius died in January 395, the Letter to heodosius must be place in 394, if it is authentic. 11 In his study, Holl attaches this text to the end of the Will, Holl, p. 363, but Os- trogorsky, p. 68 and Thümmel, “Die bilderfeindlichen Schriten des Epipha- nios von Salamis,” Byzantinoslavica 47, 2, 1986, p. 184, following Nicephorus, consider it to be an independent document. See the resemblance between this text and that of the Council of Hiereia (754) quoted by Nicaea II (787), Mansi XIII, 277 D. Taking into account the great probability that the Dogmatic Letter is a nearly word-for-word quotation of the anathema of Hiereia, most scholars in- clude “… let him be anathema” in the Dogmatic Letter even though Nicephorus does not quote it. 18 Epiphanius of Salamis By his evil cleverness, the devil introduced idolatry into the world where he sowed it, established it on a irm foundation, and turned men far away from God. Now again, ater the heresies and the idols, he is leading the faithful back into the old idolatry and is seducing them. In your piety and the wisdom that God has given you, you will relect on this, and you will search even in the depths of [your heart] to see if it is right for us to have God painted with colors. Who has ever heard of such a thing? [Nicephorus comments on a section of the Letter:] (In the Letter, he [Epiphanius] adds that from his early childhood, he himself followed the same faith as the Fathers of Nicaea, just like his parents who were conceived12 in the same confession and who held fast to it.) Since the faith is forever, has been protected in the past by a small number of people, has been confessed be- cause of the false doctrine of Arius by the Ecumenical Council of our holy fathers the bishops in the city of Nicaea, here is [that faith] as it was confessed and signed by the 318 bishops who did not proclaim a new faith, but proclaimed the one that has been forever. Following them, we also — like sons from our earliest childhood — as well as our parents who were conceived in this faith, we confess the same faith and hold it irmly like you too, O very pious Emperor. Hear then is that faith: “We believe in one, single God, the almighty Father [the rest of the creed …] [Nicephorus of Constantinople quotes the Letter to heo- dosius and comments on it:] (First of all, Epiphanius confessed that laughter and mockery spread throughout the assembly be- cause of his vain blabbering, and then he added …) I have oten advised those who are reputed to be wise — bishops, doctors, and concelebrants — to take down those things. Not everyone paid attention to me, actually only a few. Who has ever heard of this? Who among the ancient fath- ers has painted an image of Christ in a church or placed it in his own house? Who among the ancient bishops has painted Christ on door curtains, dishonoring him in this way? And who has ever painted on door curtains or on walls Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 12 Or “… were born.” Translation of the Iconophobic Documents 19 Moses, and the other prophets and patriarchs, or Peter, Andrew, James, John, Paul, or the other apostles? Who has ever dishon- ored them this way and exposed them to public ridicule?13 Do you not see, O Emperor beloved of God, that these works are not proper for God? his is why I pray you, O very pious Emperor and enemy of evil, to reject every error by the zeal for God which is truly in you and by your unshakable law which also sets punishments. If it is possible — I believe that by God you can do it if you want — [I pray you] to collect all those lying door curtains, wherever they exist, even if they show the images of the apostles, prophets, the Lord Christ himself. [I pray you again to take them out of] churches, baptisteries, houses, and martyrs chapels, and to use them for burying the poor. I pray you to whitewash the images painted in colors on walls. As for the mosaic images that people are hoping to make — because it is diicult to remove them — you will know what to command according to the wisdom God has given you. If it is possible to remove these things, that will be very good. If, on the other hand, it is impossible, people should be happy with the mosaics that have already been put up, but not to make any more. In fact, our fathers drew nothing other than the sign of Christ, the cross, on walls and that, everywhere. At the same time, on the basis of their own conceptions, they lie, those who represent the physical characteristics of the saints in various ways. Sometimes they paint them old; some- times they paint the same people young. As for these forms, they [the artists] have adopted them as their own without ever having seen them. For example, they represent the Savior with long hair, following their imagination, because he was called a nazirite. Now the nazirites did have long hair, but the artists lie when they try to associate the types with the Lord, for the Savior drank wine and the nazirites did not. Indeed these thinkers lie because they make images accord- ing to their own ways of thinking. hey draw the holy apostle Peter like an old man, his hair and beard cut short. Others rep- resent St. Paul a little bald on the front of his head while others 13 We would like to thank Madam Aline Pourkier for a suggestion she made to improve the translation of this sentence. 20 Epiphanius of Salamis represent him bald and with a beard. Other disciples simply have short hair. So, if the Savior had long hair while the disciples had short hair — if he did not have short hair and did not have the same appearance as the disciples — why did the Pharisees and the Scribes have to give 30 pieces of silver to Judas to show them, by kissing Jesus, that he was the one they were looking for? Could they not themselves, as well as others, recognize the one they were looking for by his long hair? hen they would not have had to pay money to have him pointed out. [Nicephorus of Constantinople comments:] (So therefore, if they [the iconoclasts] who accept the horrible thinking con- tained in this letter maintain their position, they will also have to follow the other absurdities that it contains: like allowing people to fast up to the ninth hour on Saturdays not only during Lent but also all the rest of the year. Concerning the inal paragraph of the Letter to heodosius, St. Nicephorus, Holl, Ostrogorsky, and hümmel have all included this fragment in their reconstruction of the Letter. hey have also commented on its content, but Hennephof does not include it in his collection of texts. he fragment is found in St. Nicephorus’s refuta- tion where he does not quote the Letter word for word but seems to give a summary of other points in the text that he had in front of him. Hennephof did not include these sentences probably because they are not really a quotation of the Letter to heodosius. he summary is however important because it shows that the Letter to heodosius contained other points than those quoted here. We have chosen to include the fragment. e) he Will of Epiphanius Addressed to the Members of His Church. So, according to the scenario of those who believe in Epipha- nius’s iconophobia, he arrived at the end of his life disappointed that hardly anyone had paid attention to him on the question of images. He therefore prepared a inal message to his lock in the form of a will. It would have been written somewhat before his death in 403. Translation of the Iconophobic Documents 21 Be very careful and stand irm in the traditions that you have received, turning neither to the right nor to the let. And on this subject, remember, my beloved children, not to put up images in churches or in cemeteries of the saints, but through remembering, always keep God in your hearts, but not in a common house14 [residence?]. For it is not permitted for a Christian to become distracted through the eyes or by the agita- tion of the mind, but all of you, inscribe and chisel the things of God in your most inner parts. 2 A General Portrait of Epiphanius of Salamis as He is Presented in the Iconophobic Documents. According to the preceding documents, Epiphanius the iconophobe believed the following: 1. No Christian has ever prostrated himself in front of an object made by men’s hands. 2. To paint the images of holy people and to prostrate oneself in front of them dishonors these people. 3. he Fathers drew only the cross. 4. he commandment to paint images and to prostrate oneself in front of them comes from the devil. 5. he insanity and perverse imagination of Christian artists are the cause of the production of Christian images. 6. Christians should reproduce in their hearts the virtues and the commandments of Christ and the saints. 7. In the Old and New Testaments, God forbids his people to produce images and to prostrate oneself in front of them. 8. To prostrate oneself in front of angels and the apostles is to misdirect the worship which is meant only for God. 14 How should we understand the words oikon koinon? Literally, they mean common house, but what is the sense of this expression? Should we take it to be a synonym for church? Why then have two expressions for the same thing in such a short text? It seems more reasonable to take oikon koinon to mean a residence, a real home. In that case, there would be three places where images should not be found: churches, cemeteries, and houses. 22 Epiphanius of Salamis 9. he devil invented idolatry, seduced men through it, and, once it had been destroyed among Christians, reintroduced it among Christians. 10. Christians should not let their eyes be distracted or their minds wander by looking at images.  chapter three THE BYZANTINE CONTROVERSY 1 The Timeline of the Byzantine Controversy. At the be- ginning of the iconoclastic crisis in the eighth century, the icono- clasts started to quote documents which they attributed to St. Epiphanius of Salamis, the great doctor of orthodoxy and fearless ighter against heresies. Naturally, the iconodules immediately recognized the impor- tance of these documents, for if these texts were authentic and if the great doctor of orthodoxy really had a radical, iconophobic attitude towards Christian images, they would be in serious diiculty in their struggle against the arguments set forth by the iconoclasts. 1. Before 730:Some iconophobic documents attributed to St. Epiph- anius were in circulation. 2. Around 730: St. John of Damascus was the irst to bear witness to the fact that the iconoclasts were quoting iconophobic documents which they attributed to St. Epiphanius. Certain documents, prob- ably the Post-Scriptum and maybe the Treatise, were already in cir- culation. In his commentaries, St. John did not actually quote any of them but reacted to the airmations of the iconoclasts. 3. 754: he iconoclastic Council of Hiereia quoted the Will as proof of the iconophobic attitude of St. Epiphanius and claimed that there were also other documents. We only have these quotations thanks to the Council of Nicaea II which quoted Hiereia in order 24 Epiphanius of Salamis to refute its arguments. 4. 787: Some 30 years ater the Council of Hiereia, the Seventh Ecu- menical Council took place in Nicaea. It mentioned the Letter to heodosius as well as “little statements that are lying around against the venerable images …” without naming them speciically. 5. 792: Only ive years ater the Council of Nicaea II, at the other end of Europe, Charlemagne published the Libri Carolini in which we ind the Latin translation, supposedly made by St. Jerome, of the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to heodosius. 6. 815: he iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia of Constantinople1 quoted four of the ive documents attributed to St. Epiphanius. hese are found in a long list of patristic texts put forth by the icon- oclastic bishops of the Council of St. Sophia to bolster their case. 7. 815–820: he second to last moment in the Byzantine contro- versy concerns Patriarch Nicephorus himself. While he was in prison between 815 and 820, he wrote two works to combat the claimed authenticity of the iconophobic documents, in particu- lar, and iconoclasm, in general: Refutation and Destruction of the Arguments of Eusebius and Epiphanides and Refutation and De- struction of the Decree of the Council of 815. 8. 820: St. heodore Studite2 wrote three treatises, like St. John of Damascus, to defend images in the Church. 9. 825: he Carolingian Synod of Paris quoted the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem — naturally the Latin version.3 Summary of the Timeline of the Byzantine Controversy 1. Before 730: Iconophobic documents circulated 2. Around 730: St. John of Damascus 3. 754: Iconoclastic Council of Hiereia 1 Alexander, “Sophia,” pp. 37–66. 2 See On the Holy Icons, Catharine Roth, tr., Crestwood NY, St. Vladimir’s Sem- inary Press, 1981 and Trois controverses contre les adversaires des saintes images, Jean-Louis Palierne, tr., Lausanne, Éditions L’Âge d’Homme, 1999. 3 Mansi, tome XIV, ch. VII, col. 438. he Byzantine Controversy 25 4. 787: Nicaea II 5. 792: Libri Carolini 6. 815: Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia 7. 815-820: St. Nicephorus of Constantinople 8. 820: St. heodore Studite 9. 825: Carolingian Synod of Paris 2 The Arguments of Byzantine Authors against the Authenticity of the Iconophobic Documents At- tributed to Epiphanius, in Chronological Order. a) St. John of Damascus. St. John opened the Byzantine controversy, from the literary point of view, by answering the airmations of the icon- oclasts on the subject of the iconophobic documents attributed to St. Epiphanius. His answer has four points. 1. Probably basing himself in part on the Life of St. Epiphanius, chapter 132, St. John claims that the disciples of St. Epiphanius decorated the churches of Cyprus with images, even Epiphanius’s own church. 2. St. John accuses the iconoclasts of having falsiied an authentic work of St. Epiphanius or simply invented the Will. According to St. John, such forgeries were very common at the time. 3. St. John admits that if the Will is authentic, it should not be inter- preted as a prohibition or a refusal in principle of Christian images, but rather as a disciplinary measure intended to correct an abuse. 4. And even if the Will is authentic and St. Epiphanius did in fact forbid images in churches to correct an abuse and not to elimi- nate idols, his opinion in and of itself cannot change the Tradi- tion of the Church. St. John concludes that St. Epiphanius did not say that Christian images are idols. b) he Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787. 1. he irst argument put forward says that in the Panarion, Epiph- anius’s book which enumerates all the heresies (80 in all), pub- 26 Epiphanius of Salamis lished around 377, he mentions nothing indicating that Chris- tian images are a heresy. herefore, he did not believe that they were heretical. 2. hen, the council airms that the Church never accepted the opinion expressed in the documents, that is, that the produc- tion and the veneration of Christian images violate the 2nd Com- mandment. As a corollary of the second argument, the Fathers of the council declare that the contemporaries of St. Epiphanius themselves never accepted such an opinion. 3. he Council airms that, in contrast to all the works of St. Epiph- anius that the Church has received with joy, these documents have not been found anywhere before iconoclasm. c) St. Nicephorus of Constantinople, between 815 and 820. See below the section “Summary of the arguments of St. Nicephorus …” d) St. heodore Studite restates two arguments already presented. 1. he iconoclasts falsiied the authentic works of St. Epiphanius, a widespread practice at the time. 2. here have always been images in the churches of Cyprus, some- thing that would be impossible if St. Epiphanius had really been opposed in principle to Christian images. d) Summary of the arguments of St. Nicephorus against au- thenticity, as presented in the Refutation and Destruction of the Arguments of Eusebius and Epiphanides, Stupidly Put forward against the Incarnation of Christ Our Savior.4 In this section, we present a summary, chapter by chapter, of the arguments put forward by Nicephorus in his work against the authenticity of the iconopho- bic documents. 4 For a complete French translation of the Refutation and Destruction of the Arguments of Eusebius and Epiphanides, Stupidly Put forward against the Incar- nation of Christ Our Savior, go to the website: srbigham.com. he Byzantine Controversy 27 I. Introduction: Chapters 1–3 Chapter 1 According to Nicephorus, the heretics, as they so oten do, falsify the works of the Fathers to bolster their own doctrine, and, even if the iconophobic documents carry the name of Epiphanius, they are forgeries because they contain Docetic and Manichaean ideas which are not those of Epiphanius. he iconoclasts thus falsiied the Will at- tributed to St. Epiphanius. Chapter 2 Nicephorus gives a summary of the arguments he is going to de- velop. Chapter 3 Nicephorus tells the story of the Metropolitan of Sardis who claimed to have seen documents containing heretical doctrines, and in these documents someone had changed the author’s name from Epiphanidou to Epiphanou, by clumsily erasing the letter d. Nice- phorus, therefore, concludes that the real author of the iconophobic documents is called Epiphanides.5 II. Chapter 4: the Will By refusing images of Christ, Epiphanides did not believe in the complete and real incarnation of the Word. he image of Christ, the type, brings up memories of Christ and elevates the on-lookers’ thoughts to Him who is the prototype, Christ. Nicephorus concludes that images in no way cause a distraction of the eyes or an agitation of the mind. III. Chapter 5: the Dogmatic Letter he quotation comes, not from Epiphanius, but from a new Eu- sebius of Caesarea who believed that Christ’s human nature had been 5 From this point on, Nicephorus calls the author of the iconophobic documents Epiphanides. 28 Epiphanius of Salamis absorbed by the divine nature6 and is therefore not representable in art. Orthodox Christians believe, however, that Christ maintained the fullness of his human nature both in the incarnation and ater the resurrection and ascension. He is thus representable in art. IV. Chapters 6–13: the Treatise Chapter 6 Epiphanides accuses the iconodules of acting according to an idolatrous practice by making Christian images. It is rather Epipha- nides, according to Nicephorus, who violates the divine economy by not confessing Christ’s full and real incarnation. Epiphanides takes up Eusebius’s expression “like the pagans who have no faith”7 to ac- cuse the iconodules of idolatry. According to Nicephorus, by saying that Christian images are falsely called images, Epiphanides destroys the relation type-prototype. He implicitly says that Christ does not exist, as the pagan gods do not exist. he “images” of the gods are indeed representations falsely called images because if a representation is not a real image (a real type, the material image), then there is no prototype either (the real person). Nicephorus airms that Christian artists paint angels as these have manifested themselves in Israel’s history. Epiphanides says that Christ is indescribable in the incarnation and deforms Paul’s story of the Jewish priest (Ac 23: 3) to his advantage. Nicephorus airms that the insult thrown at the priest (“whitewashed wall”), has in fact noth- ing to do with walls painted with frescoes. Chapter 7 Nicephorus claims that the heretics misread the meaning of the Scriptures, interpreting them to their own advantage; for example, 6 Nicephorus links the idea contained here in the Dogmatic Letter to the one expressed in the Letter of Eusebius of Caesareae to Constantia, PG 20, 1548 A–1549 A; J. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense I, 383-386; H. Hennephof, Textus byzantinos 110; and Gervais Dumeige, Nicée II, pp. 225–227. 7 Dumeige, p. 226. he Byzantine Controversy 29 “We will be like him” (1 Jn 3:2), and Christians are “predestined to be likened to the image of his Son.” (Rm 8:29) Epiphanides deletes the word eikôn in his quotation of St. Paul. he prototype is found in the type because the two share the same form and the same name. Christ is in us and we are in Christ. he glory of the saints is certainly for the future, but not just for the future. heir glory is present now, at least in part. he material images of the saints [the types of the prototypes] — and those saints are now adoptive sons and daughters of God — share in the holiness and glory, at least in part, of the holy persons they represent. Nicephorus goes on: the saints, according to Epiphanides, are dishonored by being represented in vile, dead, and voiceless matter, that is, they cannot transmit their glory to that in which they are represented and present. heir glory is therefore de- fective and deicient. By saying that the saints are represented in vile, dead, and voiceless matter, Epiphanides is comparing the images of the saints to pagan idols, thus reducing the diference between Chris- tianity and paganism. Nicephorus concludes that, if the images of the saints are vile, dead, and voiceless because of their material nature, churches consecrated to their names are also vile, dead, and voice- less. And what do we say about the skins of dead animals used in holy books? And what about the relics of the saints? Chapter 8 Epiphanides declares that the images of the saints are dead, and being made of dead matter, but Epiphanius, in his books, refused to call the statues of worshiped men dead: “And yet the men who are worshiped have died, and their images, which have never lived, are introduced for worship — and since they’ve never lived they can’t be called dead either!”8 If the same person wrote the two texts — the Treatise and the Panarion — he puts the image of Christ and angels in the category of images of dead and worshiped men. hat is to say that Christ and the angels are dead men, still dead today, and that their 8 he Panarion 59, 4, 4–4, 5, Williams’ Books II and III, p. 624. 30 Epiphanius of Salamis statues are worshiped. Nicephorus accuses Epiphanides of insulting matter and therefore the Creator of matter, God, by saying that the saints are represented in something that is vile, dead, and voiceless. He inishes his argument by saying that if, in life, there is a movement from below to above, from inferior to superior, from young to old, from immaturity to maturity, from seed to fruit — in other words, a movement toward fulillment — no one should ridicule the previous steps of a development because of the later stages or the inal result. Chapter 9 Nicephorus claims that Epiphanius always honored and respect- ed the commandments of God as well as the works of Moses, that is, the sculpted cherubim for the Tent of Meeting and the Temple. Epiphanides’s declaration, according to Nicephorus, condemns just as much the making of images of angels as prostrating oneself in front of them. In the authentic works, on the other hand, Epipha- nius never opposed such things. Nicephorus accuses Epiphanides of not distinguishing between various kinds of prostration. Epiphanides does not recognize that the gesture of prostrating oneself can have many meanings, and Nicephorus mentions Biblical examples to sup- port his argument. Epiphanides forbids anyone to prostrate himself in front of men and angels, and even more in front of images, because the angel says to St. John (Rv 22:8–9) and St. Peter says to Cornelius (Ac 10:26) not to prostrate themselves in front of them. hey should prostrate themselves only in front of God. Nicephorus answers that by taking these two passages to be an ab- solute prohibition of the gesture of prostrating oneself in front of a man or an object worthy of honor, Epiphanides condemns many righteous men of the Old Testament who prostrated themselves in front of an angel or a man without being accused of idolatry. In the same way, St. Paul does not reprimand the jailer for prostrating himself. (Ac 16:29) Nicephorus also airms that if certain saints did not want people to prostrate themselves in front of them, it was because the saints rejected the honors and glory of men. Even though they did not want he Byzantine Controversy 31 to be honored in this way, due to their humility, they are all the more worthy of being honored. Certain kinds of prostrations are quite proper and other not: for example, when the Lycaonians wanted to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods. (Ac 14:11) Finally, Nicephorus pushes Epiphanides’s argument to the absurd limit: since Christ says that he does not want to be served, people should refuse to serve him. (Rm 15:6) Absurdity! Chapter 10 Epiphanides confesses that Christ is uncircumscribable, and therefore not representable, but Nicephorus wants to know about the airmation that says that he who was uncircumscribable before the incarnation and not representable became circumscribable in the incarnation and therefore representable. Nicephorus concludes that Epiphanides abolishes the economy of Christ because he distinguish- es his iconoclastic position from the iconodule position, which is put forward by those who evoke the incarnation as the justiication for images of Christ. Epiphanides airms that the Logos is of the same nature as the Father, and therefore uncircumscribable and not representable, but he does not airm that Christ is of the same nature as Mary his moth- er. Epiphanides’s position, pushed to its logical conclusion, says that Mary is not really Christ’s mother, for she is circumscribable and rep- resentable. Nicephorus concludes that Epiphanides does not actually believe in the real incarnation of the Word, but only in an appearance of incarnation. Epiphanides is thus Manichean. Chapter 11 We venerate the Cross of Christ, the Gospel Book, and other honor- able things without any direct command from Christ. herefore, where is the problem of honoring and venerating images of Christ without any direct command to do so? Epiphanides, on the other hand, evokes the necessity, according to him, of having a rule or a law for making images and for venerating them, but Christians, concludes Nicepho- 32 Epiphanius of Salamis rus, live according to faith and not according to the law. hey respond to the immense grace that Christ has bestowed on them, their hearts full of love and gratitude, by making appropriate gestures toward God: painting images and prostrating themselves in front of them. Chapter 12 Nicephorus brings up the story of Abgar of Edessa, the king who was not reprimanded for wanting to have an image of Christ.9 If Ab- gar had been condemned, Epiphanides would have been able to use the story for his argument. He should have been convinced of the rightness of images by the fact that Christ took the initiative of “mak- ing” his own image, which has performed miracles in Edessa and in other cities. According to Nicephorus, it is therefore quite useless to look for ordinances and laws about images. Christians, no lon- ger under the law but under grace, proclaim the beneits of Christ by painting images and venerating them. Nicephorus asks: How is it possible that Epiphanides dares to attack something — the image of Christ — which the Savior himself took the initiative to make? Chapter 13 Epiphanides says that Christ did not order anyone to make images and to venerate them, but, answers Nicephorus, Christ did not for- 9 Ernst von Dobschutz, “Das Christusbild von Edessa,” Christusbilder. Untersu- chungen zur christlichen Legende, “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literature,” New Series, 3, Leipzig, 1899, pp. 102-196; Steven Run- ciman, “Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa,” Cambridge Historical Journal III, 1, 1929, pp. 238-252; Averil Cameron, he Sceptic and the Shroud, King’s Col- lege, London, 1980, and “he History of the Image of Edessa. he Telling of the Story,” Okeanos. Essays Presented to I. Sevcenko, Harvard Ukrainian Studies VII, 1983, pp. 80-94; André Grabar, La Sainte Face de Laon. Le mandylion dans l’art orthodoxe, Prague, 1931; Carol Bertelli, “Storia e vicende dell’immagine edesse- na a S. Silvestro in Capite, a Roma,” Paragone, 217, New Series, 37, 1968, pp. 3 f; Colette Dufour Bozzo, Il “Sacro Volto” di Genova, Roma, 1974; Nicole Thierry, “Deux notes à propos du Mandylion,” Zograph 11, 1980; Ian Wilson, he Shroud of Turin. he Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?, “Image Books,” Revised Edition, New York NY, 1978; J.B. Segal, Edessa “he Blessed City,” Oxford, 1970. he Byzantine Controversy 33 bid it either. By accepting the story of Abgar and the image not made with hands, we can rightly ask, according to Nicephorus, how Christ could possibly be opposed to something that he did himself. Or again, by which commands did Christ order Epiphanides to “purify” the churches of Christ, to damage the altars, and to burn sacred objects? Nicephorus airms that Epiphanides talks like Eusebius because the two of them only recognize one kind of prostration instead of dis- tinguishing two diferent kinds and because the two of them put the idols of the Old Testament in the same category as the image of Christ (in the New Testament). Nicephorus concludes: either Eusebius and Epiphanides do not see the diference between idols and Christ’s im- age, or they see a diference but ight against it anyway. In any case, they have forgotten that there were images in the Old Testament. V. Chapters 14–23: the Letter of Epiphanius to the Emperor heodosius Chapter 14 Epiphanides airms that in the beginning the devil introduced idolatry into the world and used it to seduce many people. Christ chased idolatry away, and the Church was pure and free from it for a long time, but at an unknown date, the devil succeeded in reintro- ducing idolatry into the Church in the form of Christian images. Nicephorus notes that, in another Letter to heodosius10 which appears in the Life of St. Epiphanius — not the iconophobic docu- ment — Epiphanius does not ask the emperor to intervene against Christians who were making and venerating Christian images, that is, against those who were giving themselves over to idolatry. he idolatry practiced by Christians in the Church, according to Nice- phorus, would be much more serious than “simple” doctrinal devia- tions of those who are outside the Church or hardly in the Church. Nicephorus notes also that Epiphanius does not mention idolatry on 10 he Life of St. Epiphanius, 105-106. See Istvan Bugar, “What Did Epiphanius Write to Emperor heodosius,” Studia Patrum, Peter Nemeshegyi and Zoltan Rihmer, eds., Budapest, 2002, pp. 91–100. 34 Epiphanius of Salamis the part of Christians in the Panarion where for each false doctrine, he gives the name of the heresy, its founder, the place where is has taken root, and those who have been infected. On the contrary, in the iconophobic Letter to heodosius, there are no details of this kind about a deviant practice relating to Christian images, while Epipha- nius does mention certain women in Arabia who conducted an im- proper worship service for Mary.11 In the conclusion of the Panarion,12 Epiphanius praises the Church as pure and holy, as being the harbor of the saved, without mentioning the reappearance of idolatry in the Church. Nicephorus then concludes that the Panarion and the iconophobic Letter to heo- dosius are in disharmony. Chapter 15 he Life of St. Epiphanius says that Epiphanius was of Jewish ori- gins while the Letter to heodosius says that he was born into a family of Nicene Christians. Nicephorus then notes that Epiphanides ap- peals to the emperor asking him to eliminate Christian images, but heodosius was known for his zeal in decorating churches. heodo- sius is one of those who had images made; logically therefore, he is also guilty of idolatry, Nicephorus notes, but Epiphanides does not reprimand him for his “sin.” Nicephorus concludes that Epiphanides asks heodosius to do something that is contrary to what he has al- ready done with such joy and enthusiasm. Chapter 16 he iconoclasts have ideas similar to those of Valentinus who said that the incarnation only took place in appearance. he Word did not assume everything that is in human nature. herefore, says Nicephorus, all the elements of man were not saved. According to the iconoclasts, the image of Christ has no relation to his humanity. It is therefore an idol. 11 Panarion 59, Williams’ Books II & III, pp. 620–629. 12 Ibid., “De Fide,” pp. 638–665. he Byzantine Controversy 35 Nicephorus notes that in the Panarion13 Epiphanius denounces the Valentinians and their doctrine of an incarnation only in appear- ance. he Life of St. Epiphanius says that he opposed a Valentinian bishop and his doctrine. In the Ancoratus,14 Epiphanius says that the Logos assumed everything that is a part of human nature. It is there- fore legitimate, concludes Nicephorus, to deduce that Epiphanius thought that Christ could be represented in an image according to his humanity. Chapter 17 If a new idolatry had been introduced into the Church, why did not historians or councils talk about it? Nicephorus asks why Epipha- nius did not accuse heodosius of having fallen back into idolatry. he emperor was known for his ight against idolatry, and he wanted to correct heretics but did nothing to eradicate the “new” idolatry in the Church. And neither did the other bishops react against the supposed idolatry. Nicephorus concludes therefore that they too are guilty of idolatry. How then can we accept them now as guides and doctors of the faith? Chapter 18 Nicephorus notes that no echo of this new idolatry is preserved anywhere and that Epiphanides asks if the ancient Fathers ever paint- ed an image of Christ or if ancient bishops ever dishonored Christ, the prophets, and the apostles by painting their images, while sup- posing that they never did anything so horrible. But all these ancient igures bear witness to the existence of images: Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Naziansus, Basil the Great, and Asterius. Epiphanides should also be convinced by the monuments that Constantine and other Christian emperors build. 13 Panarion 31, Williams’ Book I, pp. 152–191. 14 Ancoratus 75. 36 Epiphanius of Salamis Chapter 19 Epiphanides accuses Christian artists of lying by painting the apos- tles and Christ in various ways. hey lie, according to Epiphanides, by giving Christ long hair because they imagine that he was a nazirite, but Christ drank wine and therefore was not a nazirite, and therefore he did not have long hair, concludes Epiphanides. Nicephorus asks, “How is it that Epiphanides knows for certain that Christ did not have long hair?” Nicephorus says that the prophets predicted that the Messiah would have the physical feature of long hair, but he airms that by refusing to recognize Christ as a nazirite, Epiphanides thought that he had shown that Christ did not have long hair and, by that very fact, he condemns Christian artists who show Christ with long hair. Epiphanides accuses the evangelists of lying because they call Jesus a nazirite while they knew he drank wine. According to Nicephorus, the fact that Christ drank wine does not justify Epiphanides in refus- ing to call him a nazirite. Nicephorus notes that in the Panarion,15 Epiphanius criticizes monks who let their hair grow long. According to Epiphanius, Chris- tians should not have long hair or cut their beards. Now, these monks cut their beards. hey therefore did the opposite of what the Scriptures and the apostolic tradition say. he nazirites of the Old Testament, and only the nazirite, had long hair, as a preiguration of him who was to come, Christ. Epiphanius concludes that ater Christ, who is the fulillment of the prophets, men should no longer have long hair. He also says that the sons of Joseph and others were nazirites. Nicephorus concludes that Epiphanius and Epiphanides contradict each other. Nicephorus notes again that Epiphanides says that Christian artists lie and fool themselves by painting Peter in this way and Paul in that way and the disciples in yet another way, according to the artists’ imagi- nations. Nicephorus asks, “Are the disciples only names empty of any physical substance, or are they creatures diferent from human beings? Did they not have various physical appearances all through their lives? 15 Panarion VII, 80, 6, 5, pp. 634–635. he Byzantine Controversy 37 Chapter 20 On the one hand, Epiphanides says that Jesus’ disciples did not have short hair because, according to him, Christian artists lie when they paint the disciples with short hair. hey therefore had long hair. On the other hand, he says that Jesus’ disciples had short hair because, according to him, the Pharisees had to bribe Judas to identify Jesus, af- ter having said that Christ did not have long hair. Christ therefore had long hair. Nicephorus concludes that Epiphanides contradicts himself. To prove his idea that Christ had the same physical appearance as the disciples, Epiphanides has to admit that they had short hair, but he says that Christian artists lie when they paint them that way. Chapter 21 Valentinian,16 Marcion,17 and Mani18 taught that the Logos was 16 Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies I, 1–21; II, 14 & 31, he Ante-Nicene Fath- ers I, pp. 316–347 and pp. 376–379 & 406–408; Hippolytus of Rome, he Refuta- tion of all Heresies VI, 26–37, he Ante-Nicene Fathers V, pp. 86–94; Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, he Ante-Nicene Fathers III, pp. 503–520; Origen, Com- mentaire sur Jean XIII, Sources Chrétiennes 222; Clement of Alexandria, he Excerpta ex heodoto of Clement of Alexandria, Robert Pierce Casey, tr., London, Christophers, 1934; “Against the Valentinians,” Panarion 31, Williams’ Book I, pp. 152–191; W. Völker, Quellen zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis, Tübingen, 1932, pp. 57–141; M. Simonetti, Testi gnostici cristiani, Bari, 1970, pp. 119–259; H. Leisegang, Die Gnosis, Leipzig, 1924, pp. 281–297; F.M. Sagnard, La Gnose valentinienne et le témoignage de saint Irénée, Paris, 1947; B. Layton, ed., he Rediscovery of Gnosticism I: he School of Valentinus, Leiden, 1980. 17 Tertullian, Against Marcion, he Ante-Nicene Fathers 3, pp. 271–474; Epipha- nius, “Against the Marcionites,” Panarion 42, Williams’ Book I, pp. 272–338; E. C. Blackman, Marcion and his Inluence, London, 1949; U. Bianchi, “Mar- cion: héologien biblique ou docteur gnostique?” Vigiliae Christianae. A Re- view of Early Christian Life and Language 21, Amsterdam, 1967, pp. 141–149; J. G. Gager, “Marcion and Philosophy,” Vigiliae Christianae. A Review of Early Christian Life and Language 26, 1972, pp. 53–59; Hans von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christilichen Bibel, Tübingen, 1968, pp. 173–194; A. Linde- mann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen, 1979, pp. 378–395. 18 Alexander of Lycopolis, Contre les opinions de Mani, Clavis Patrum Grae- corum II, 2510; New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0618.htm; PG 18, 409-448; A. Brinkmann, Alexandri Lycopolitani, Contra Manicaei opiniones, 38 Epiphanius of Salamis only man in appearance, that Christ had only one nature, the divine, and that his human nature was real only in appearance. By saying that Christ was uncircumscribed in his divinity and in his human- ity, Epiphanides is saying that he had only one nature. Nicephorus asks the following question: Do images present Christ and the dis- ciples with the same physical appearance? he answer is “no.” If it were “yes,” Epiphanides would have a very strong support for his ar- gument which claims that they had the same physical appearance. Unfortunately, notes Nicephorus, the images show the opposite of what Epiphanides airms. Nicephorus concludes then that if Epipha- nides wants to maintain that Christ and the disciples had the same physical appearance, the disciples must have either short hair or long hair. here is no middle position between the two. Epiphanides thus contradicts himself. Chapter 22 Epiphanides wants the Emperor heodosius to remove all images from the churches, whatever their medium, to cancel the making of those that have been ordered, but to leave those that he cannot re- move. Nicephorus wonders to himself: Why leave certain mosaics? Mosaics are more seductive than any other medium, and they are oten in the sanctuary. hey thus profane the church and the mys- teries. Nicephorus concludes that all the arguments of Epiphanides fall apart because he is ready to accept, to tolerate, “idols” and idola- trous customs in the sanctuary. Epiphanides airms by implication that heodosius is guilty of idolatry because he is planning to order more images, but Epiphanides does not reprimand him. He is thus guilty of a serious incoherence. Epiphanides implicitly airms that Leipzig, 1895; C. Riggi, “Una testimonianza del ‘kérygma’ cristiano in Alessan- dro di Licopoli,” Salesianum 31, 1969, pp. 561–628; H. Ch. Puech, Le Mani- chéisme, son fondateur, sa doctrine, Paris, 1945; J. Ries, “Introduction aux études manichéennes,” Ephemerides heologicae Lovanienses 33, 1957, pp. 453–482 and 35, 1959, pp. 362-409; G. Widengren, Il Manicheismo, Milano, 1964; C. Riggi, Epifanio contro Mani, Roma, 1967; M. Tardieu, Le manichéisme, Paris, 1981. he Byzantine Controversy 39 images exist in the churches, and this for some time, since mosaics cannot be made in a day. He says again that mosaics require a great deal of money, planning, and work. heir existence supposes there- fore a rather long history behind those that have already been ex- ecuted. his is not the irst medium people think of when they want to make an image. Nicephorus concludes that heodosius would not have accepted the destruction of images in the churches because he did not accept the destruction of his own images and statues in Anti- och. John Chrysostom was however inally able to calm heodosius’s anger.19 If heodosius felt outraged by the destruction of the images of an earthly king, how can we imagine that he would agree to attack images of the heavenly King? Chapter 23 In the Letter to heodosius, Epiphanides recommends fasting on Saturday, and this is what Marcian had already recommended.20 Epiphanius, on the other hand, taught the opposite.21 Nicephorus claims that there was one other doctrine contained in the Letter to heodosius that he had before him, but which he does not quote word for word: sinners cannot justify themselves by repentance, but Epiph- anius taught the opposite.22 Nicephorus mentions a third strange doctrine contained in the Letter to heodosius: a sword killed Mary, but Epiphanius says nothing about this. According to Nicephorus, due to Epiphanius’s simple style, the great number of his works, and his unsophisticated manner, the forgers were able to easily falsify texts to produce the iconophobic documents.23 19 Homelies on the Statues, Later and Post-Nicene Fathers 9, 1889, pp. 317–489; “Homélies sur les statues,” Saint Jean Chrysostome: œuvres complètes III, M. Jeannin, ed., Montréjeau, J.M. Soubiron Librairie, 1899, pp. 1–129. 20 Panarion, “Against Marcionites” 42, 3, 4, Williams’ Book I, p. 274. 21 See further on the discussion of Holl and Ostrogorsky on Epiphanius’s opin- ion about fasting on Saturday: Holl III, B, 4c, and Ostrogorsky III, B, 5i. 22 Panarion IV, “Against the Impure ‘Purists’” 59, 1–2, 6, pp. 102–104. 23 Nicephorus makes one last airmation: “he Apollinarists say that Epipha- nius taught anthropolatria.” We have not been able to ind a satisfactory reason 40 Epiphanius of Salamis VI. Chapters 24–30: Patristic Texts Chapter 24 Nicephorus castigates the iconoclasts for having corrupted the meaning of a quotation of St. Gregory the heologian’s poems.24 In the poem, Gregory speaks of the faith that does not exist in the depths of the hearts of those who lean toward Arianism. Such a faith is only on the surface, like colors of a painting which can be efaced by washing or scraping. Nicephorus airms that the iconoclasts in- terpreted this passage of St. Gregory as if he were speaking against images themselves. Chapter 25 Nicephorus airms that Epiphanides quotes only certain lines of the Letter of Nilus of Ancyra to Olympiodorus25 in which Nilus rejects the images that Olympiodorus proposed to put in his new church. he iconoclasts, according to Nicephorus, took this refusal as a rejec- tion of all images. Nicephorus notes, however, that they did not quote the passage of the Letter to Olympiodorus where Nilus suggests that Olympiodorus paint images of the Old and New Testaments instead of those suggested. which explains why the Apollinarists would accuse Epiphanius of anthropol- atria, unless anthropolatria is a synonym for anthropomorphic. 24 his text of St. Gregory is not found among the poems we have from him. he editor of the Greek text of Nicephorus, Pitra, p. 366, note 7: “Fugit me locus in vasto Nazianzeni carminum corpore.” 25 PG 79, 577B–580A; Clavis Patrum Graecorum 6043-6084; P. Bettiolo, Gli scritti siriaci di Nilo il Solitario, Louvain-La-Neuve, 1983; Dictionnaire de Spiri- tualité 11, 345–354; H. Ringhausen, Zur Verfasserschat und Chronologie der dem Nilus Ancyranus zugeschriebene Werke, Frankfurt, 1967; J. Gribomont, “La Tradition manuscrite de s. Nil,” Studia Monastica 11, 1969, pp. 231–267 and “Saint Nil d’Ancyre,” Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien II, pp. 1750–1751; A. Cameron, “he Authenticity of the Letters of St. Nilus,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17, 1967, pp. 181–196; “Nilus of Ancyra,” Quasten, pp. 496–504. he Byzantine Controversy 41 Chapter 26 he iconoclasts — Nicephorus does not name Epiphanides — quote a passage from Basil of Seleucia26 in which he says that it is preferable to put stories of the saints into one’s memory through writings than by rep- resenting them in images. What is more, the same iconoclasts, he claims, did not quote the text in which Basil writes to the Emperor Leo to tell him how a pagan priest was converted by an image of St. hecla.27 Chapter 27 he iconoclasts produced a passage from the heretic Leontius28 who ordered that no image of Christ be painted because his face was illumi- nated like the sun during prayer, the Baptism, and the Transiguration. Chapter 28 Nicephorus quotes the real Leontius of the Neapolitan, Cyprus,29 who says that he venerates the image of Christ without worshiping the medium or the colors, as the Jews venerate the Bible without worship- ing the paper or ink. he iconoclasts, according to Nicephorus, twisted the words of Amphilochius of Iconium30 and heodotus of Ancyra.31 Chapter 29 Nicephorus gives a résumé of his arguments against the authentic- ity of the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis. 26 he quotation cannot be identiied among the works of Basil of Seleucia. Source unknown. 27 he story is erroneously attributed to Basil of Seleucia. See Gilbert Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte hècle, Subs Hag 62, Bruxelles, 1978. 28 he Leontius quoted here and the quotation are unknown. He is erroneously called Leontius of Neapolis, Cyprus. 29 PG 93, 1597–1610. 30 he reference comes from Nicaea II, Mansi 301 D; the source is otherwise unknown: “We should not busy ourselves with representing the bodily faces of the saints on boards and with colors; we have no need of these things. What we need, rather, is to imitate the behavior of the saints by being virtuous.” 31 he reference of Nicephorus does not mention any work of heodotus; he does not quote the passage either. he source is unknown. 42 Epiphanius of Salamis — Conlict between the biographical data: the Life of St. Epipha- nius says that he was of Jewish origin while the Letter to heodosius says he was born in a Nicene, Christian family. — he Will and the other iconophobic documents are unknown in Cyprus where they ought to be known before any other place. — he falsiication of the old book: changing Epiphanides to Epiphanius (Epiphanidou to Epiphaniou) would have been in reality very possible and easy to do. — In the Panarion against all the heresies, there is no trace of any reproach against the Church or Christians for having accepted idola- trous practices. — Nowhere in his authentic writings does Epiphanius ever call idols “dead,” while this adjective oten applied to them in writings of the iconoclasts. — In the authentic Letter to heodosius, Epiphanius does not ask the emperor to eliminate idols — that is, Christian images — from the churches. — Epiphanius opposed fasting on Saturday while the Letter to heodosius advocates fasting every Saturday of the year, up to the ninth hour. — Epiphanius recognizes Jesus as a nazirite, who therefore had long hair. Epiphanides says that Jesus was not a nazirite because he drank wine and therefore did not have long hair. — In his authentic works, Epiphanius attacks Docetism while Epiphanides shows a Docetic tendency: the Logos is uncircumscribed before and in the incarnation. — Images were present in Cyprus during Epiphanius’s life as well as ater. Chapter 30 Nicephorus mentions certain heretical works: — he Treatise on the Incarnation: a quotation from the Arian he Byzantine Controversy 43 bishop of Constantinople32 shows that the Arians did not believe in the full and real incarnation of the Logos. — he Treatise on Easter: a quotation of Lucius, the Arian bishop of Alexandria shows that the Arians did not believe in the full and real humanity of the Logos. — Quotations of Mani33 show that he believed in Docetism. — Quotations from Apollinaris34 airm that Christ had only one nature, mixed, both bodily and divine. — Letter to Alexander: a quotation from Dioscorus of Gangre35 airms that Christ had two natures before, but only one nature ater the incarnation. — he Treatise against the Marcianists or the Acephales: a quota- tion of Timothy36 who said that Christ’s body was uncircumscribed, as was his divine nature. 32 Clavis Patrum Graecorum 3405–3410; M. Tetz, Eudoxius-Fragmente, Stu- dia Patristica 3 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 78), Berlin, 1961, pp. 314–323; Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géogra- phie Ecclésiastique 15, col. 1337-1340; Dictionnaire de héologie Catholique 5, col. 1484–1487. 33 G. Bardy, “Manichéisme,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique t. 9, partie 2, 1927, col. 1847: “Cinq fragments de soi-disant lettres de Mani adressées à Scy- thianus, à Addas ou Odda, à Koudaros le Sarrasin, à Zébénas, se trouvent dans les traités de Nicéphore de Constantinople contre Eusèbe, contre Épiphanide et contre le grand concile iconoclaste, dans Photius résumant les discours d’Eulo- ge, et dans la Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Dei Verbi. Ces cinq fragments ne sont pas authentiques; ils professent la doctrine monophysite en des termes que Mani ne pouvait pas employer et ils ne sauraient être retenus.” See also Alexander of Lycopolis, Contre la doctrine de Mani, André Villey, tr., Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1985. 34 Clavis Patrum Graecorum II, 3545–3695; heologische Realenzyklopädie 3, Berlin-New York NY, 1976, pp. 270-371; H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris v. Lao- dicea und seine Schule, Tübingen, 1904, Hildesheim, 1970; E. Muehlenberg, Apollinaris von Laodicea, Göttingen 1969; C. Kannengiesser, “Une nouvelle interprétation de la christologie d’Apollinaire,” Revue de Sciences Religieuses 59, 1971, pp. 27–36. 35 Reference unknown. 36 Reference unknown. 44 Epiphanius of Salamis f) he Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. Section 181 At several places in the iconophobic documents, the author Epiphanides says that he has seen images of Christ and the apostles, but in the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem, he says that he never saw an image of Christ or the apostles. Section 203 he Letter to John of Jerusalem, which does not include the Post- Scriptum, has two parts: the irst, unquestionably authentic, contains 99 % of the Letter; the second part, the Post-Scriptum, is modeled on the irst and contains the story of the torn-down door curtain. Here Nicephorus inserts the Greek text of the Post-Scriptum. Section 204 he Post-Scriptum begins with the usual salutation found at the end of a letter: “May the God of peace act in us … the bond of right faith and truth.” herefore, what follows, the story of the torn-down door curtain, is an iconoclastic addition. Nicephorus asks whether the same man could have said, on the one hand, that he had seen the im- ages and then, on the other hand, say that he had never seen them. It is not credible that the real Epiphanius could have said that he had never seen such images since he traveled everywhere. Nicephorus concludes that even though there is nothing in the Life of St. Epiphanius say- ing that he saw images of Christ and the apostles, his long life and all his travels make it impossible to airm that he never saw any. John of Jerusalem, notes Nicephorus, did not obey Epiphanius’s order, for the writings of John and other Fathers, as well as the monuments in Jerusalem and elsewhere, show that there was no war against images. Nicephorus claims that the iconoclasts refused to accept the doctrines expressed in Epiphanius’s authentic works. By airming that Epipha- nius had iconophobic ideas, like them and despite his authentic works, the iconoclasts should also accept what certain other iconoclasts were saying: Epiphanius introduced the worship of Christ’s humanity. Nice- he Byzantine Controversy 45 phorus concludes that the simplicity of Epiphanius’s style, completely devoid of any rhetorical sophistication, as well as the great number of his works, make it plausible that the iconoclasts falsiied certain of his works to produce the iconophobic documents. Section 205 Nicephorus once again gives a résumé of his arguments against the authenticity of the iconophobic documents attributed to St. Epiphanius. — First, the genealogical data shows the obvious diference be- tween the two men. — hen, the wills, or last testaments, are diferent: the disposi- tions of the iconophobic documents and those found at the end of the Life of St. Epiphanius. — No one living in Cyprus knows about the false Will or the oth- er documents falsely attributed to Epiphanius. — he falsiied title of the book, about which the metropolitan of Sardis spoke, wherein Epiphanius’s name was substituted for the name of Epiphanides. In fact by erasing the letter d from the Greek genitive Epiphanidou, the iconoclasts obtained another Greek geni- tive Epiphaniou. — Even though Epiphanius wrote many things on the subject of pagan images and idols, nothing in his work against the heresies gives the impression that he believed that the Church had accepted any such “idolatrous practice.” — In the Panarion, the chapter against the Collyrites, Epiphanius writes nothing about idols being dead because they have never been alive; on the other hand, Epiphanides calls them dead everywhere. — In the authentic Letter to the Emperor heodosius, which is found in the Life of St. Epiphanius, asking for the expulsion of heretics from Cyprus, Epiphanius does not indicate his opposition to what is contained in the Letter to John of Jerusalem. — As for the iniquitous practice of fasting on all the Saturdays of the year, it was the disciples of the impure Marcian who preached it, 46 Epiphanius of Salamis but Epiphanius opposed it. — In the Panarion, the chapter against the Messalians, Epiphanius shows that the physical feature of long hair, which was characteristic of the nazirites, had been attributed to Christ. Epiphanides however says the opposite and tries to confound those who want to attribute this feature to Christ by saying in the forged Letter to heodosius that Christian artists lie when they paint Christ with long hair. — Epiphanius abundantly denounces the Docetics by preaching the complete and real incarnation of the Word of God, thus following the thinking of the Church, but Epiphanides agrees with the heretics by reproducing their fantasies. — he points raised in the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Je- rusalem do not agree with what is found in the Life of St. Epiphanius. — Sacred history, both from the Bible and the history of the Church, shines in images painted in the churches of Cyprus.  chapter four THE MODERN CONTROVERSY 1 The Structure of the Debate 1904–1916: he preface. he period before the debate between Holl and Ostrogorsky. Daniel Serruys, Simon Vailhé, and Otto Bardenhewer argue that the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem is a forgery. 1916: he thesis: Karl Holl publishes his studies: all the documents are authentic. 1928 and 1931:he antithesis: George Ostrogorsky counters Holl’s arguments and argues, in his 1928 publication, that the Will is authentic but that the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem, the Letter to heodosius, the Treatise, and the Dogmatic Lettre are forgeries. In 1931, Ostrogorsky reines his historical evaluation and accepts the authenticity of the Post-Scriptum along with that of the Will. 1931–2007: he postface. Ater Ostrogorsky’s publications in 1928 and 1931, a long series of scholars have evaluated the arguments of the two men. Nearly all of them con- clude that Ostrogorsky did not succeed in overturning Holl’s position. hus began the academic tradition which is dominant nearly everywhere still today. 48 Epiphanius of Salamis 2 The History of the Modern Debate. We present here an outline of the modern debate on the iconophobic documents. It is our intention to analyse all the studies on the subject and to present a summary of the various arguments. a) Daniel Serruys.1 Daniel Serruys opened the twentieth century by discovering the manuscript containing Nicephorus’s work against the second iconoclastic council in Constantinople, 815. In this work, he found the Greek text of the last section, section 9, the Post-Scrip- tum, of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. Epiphanius had written the Letter around 393, and Jerome had nearly immediately translated it into Latin, such was the immense interest at the time for anything written by Epiphanius: “Such was the repute [fame] of the writer [Epiphanius] or else the elegance of the letter that all Palestine fought for copies of it.”2 he Letter to John of Jerusalem no longer exists in Greek, but we have the Latin translation. For centuries now, we have only known the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem in Latin, and all scholars have used the Latin translation to evaluate Epiphanius’s attitude toward images. hanks to Serruys’s discovery, we can now consult the original Greek text of the Post-Scriptum. Serruys was the irst to compare the Greek and Latin texts, and immediately doubt about the authenticity of the Latin translation of the Post-Scriptum arose in him mind. He arrived at the conclusion that the Latin translation was a forgery, subsequently made by some- one who did not know Greek very well and who incorporated his translation into the authentic Letter to John of Jerusalem. To bolster his thesis, Serruys puts forward the following argu- ments. First, the Post-Scriptum breaks the continuity of the Letter and does not naturally low from the body as an ending. What is more, the two Latin words notanda historialia that preceded the Latin Post- Scriptum, show that a scribe wrote them in this place to indicate an addition to the manuscript and that the Post-Scriptum was not ori- 1 Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1904, tome I, Paris, Alphonse Picard and Fils, 1904, pp. 360-363. 2 St. Jerome, Letter 57 2, NPNF VI, p. 112. he Modern Controversy 49 ginally part of the Letter. hen Serruys says that the Greek text does not seem to be part of a longer document which it brings to a conclu- sion. It seems to be a complete text on its own. It even has its own introduction which is present in the Latin translation and inishes the translation of Jerome and is found in the collections of his works, but which is missing in the Latin translation quoted by the Libri Caro- lini. he Latin translation of the Post-Scriptum is certainly not from Jerome because it deviates too much from the Greek. he transla- tor did not know Greek very well because the Latin does not have Jerome’s scholarly polish. According to the ith argument, Epipha- nius did not write the Post-Scriptum which appeared in a collection of chréseis, that is, a list of patristic quotations that the iconoclasts presented to support their thesis. Finally, to explain how a forgery written in Greek in Byzantium could be found in a bad Latin trans- lation at Charlemagne’s court and be included in the Libri Carolini, composed around 792, Serruys proposes that a Byzantine iconoclast wrote the Post-Scriptum in Greek and included it in the collection of chréseis. he iconoclastic government in Constantinople then sent the collection to Charlemagne hoping to obtain his support against the pope who was supporting the iconodules. A Carolingian made a poor translation of the Post-Scriptum and attached it to the authentic Letter to John of Jerusalem. he author of the Libri Carolini as well as the Synod of Paris in 825 made use of it. hen to justify this other- wise unknown, but supposed, exchange of documents between two governments hostile to iconodulia, Serruys mentions the well-known correspondence between Michael the Stammerer (820–829) in Con- stantinople and Louis the Pius (814–840) in the West, two emperors who were both moderate iconoclasts. A correspondence between Byzantium and Charlemagne is therefore not out of the question. b) Simon Vailhé.3 Two years ater Serruys, Simon Vailhé accepts his conclusion and dates the creation of the chréseis collection to be- 3 “Notes de Littérature ecclésiastique IV. La lettre de saint Épiphane de Chypre contre les images,” Échos d’Orient IX, Paris, 1906, pp. 222–223. 50 Epiphanius of Salamis tween 717, the date when Leo III the Isaurian, the irst iconoclastic emperor, came to the throne, and 729/730, the date when Leo started to put his iconoclastic policy into efect. During these twelve years, the emperor made known his theoretical position and certain bishops, namely heodore of Ephesus, Constantine of Nacoleia, and homas of Claudiopolis — either because of their real and sincere iconoclastic convictions or for political reasons — undertook to support the em- peror’s position with patristic quotations. his catalogue circulated under the name of chréseis Epiphaniou. Vailhé did not exclude the possibility that “the hoax could be dated still earlier and that the col- lection was created even before 717.”4 c) Otto Bardenhewer.5 Bardenhewer mentions in passing that the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem is a forgery and refers the reader to Vailhé’s article. d) Karl Holl.6 Karl Holl is the irst of two adversaries — Ostro- gorsky being the other — who accepted to make an in-depth study of the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis. He had the courage to confront the prevailing opinion of his time and to conclude that it was not well grounded. In his study which has become a classic now, Holl declares that “the writings against the veneration of images are certainly as authentic as the Ancoratus and the Panarion.”7 He could not have been clearer or more precise. i. Holl’s arguments against Serruys and Vailhé. As for the Post- Scriptum, Holl rejects Serruys’s airmation about the expression notanda historialia as unworthy of consideration. Such an expression 4 Ibid., p. 222. 5 “6. Briefe Unechtes,” Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur: Dritten Band, Das Vierte Jahrhundert, Breiburg im Breisgau, Herder & Co., 1923, pp. 301–302. Even though Bardenhewer should be chronologically the fourth author since he published his work in 1923, ater Holl, he is placed here in the third position before Holl because he did not know Holl’s study. 6 “18: Die Schriten des Epiphanius gegen die Bilderverehrung,” Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte I, Darmstadt, Wissenschatliche Buchgesell- schat Darmstadt, 1916, reprinted en 1964, pp. 351–387. 7 Ibid., p. 380. he Modern Controversy 51 could, according to Holl, just as well prove the authenticity of the Post-Scriptum as its inauthenticity. Holl accepts, however, Serruys’s comment that the Post-Scriptum broke the continuity of the Letter to John of Jerusalem as far as the main subject goes: the ight against Origenism, but he shows that the Post-Scriptum is intimately tied to the objective of the Letter which attempts to settle three sore points between Epiphanius and John of Jerusalem: 1) that Epiphanius had ordained Jerome’s brother dea- con and priest in John’s diocese without his permission, 2) that John seemed to lean to Origenism, and 3) that Epiphanius had torn down a door curtain in a church of John’s diocese and was tardy about re- placing it. Holl rejects Serruys’s opinion that the introduction to the Greek text is an indication that the Post-Scriptum was not part of a longer letter, but that it was an independent document. Holl states that it is very normal that this introduction should be found at the beginning of the Greek text and also in the Latin translation present in all the manuscripts of Jerome’s works, but not in the Latin text quoted in the Libri Carolini. Holl then concludes that whoever took the Greek text out of its original context thought it was necessary to add a little explanation to help the reader situate the document. Holl also rejects Serruys’s opinion that the Greek text is a falsi- ication sent to the West, from which was made a bad translation into Latin and then attached to the real Letter to John of Jerusalem translated by Jerome but without the Post-Scriptum. Holl airms that in and of itself the Latin translation is written in a good style and conforms to other translations done by Jerome. Its faults appear only when it is compared to the Greek text. It is true that the Greek text and the Latin translation do not correspond to each other: the one is a bad translation of the other. But which one is the translation of the other? Holl proposes to invert Serruys’s hypothesis. he Greek text as we have it today was not sent to the West where someone made a bad translation into Latin. he Latin translation as we have it today is, however, a translation of the ancient or irst Greek text, now lost. 52 Epiphanius of Salamis Someone sent this Latin translation to Constantinople where some- one else made a bad translation into Greek. he second iconoclas- tic council of 815, called the Council of St. Sophia, used the second Greek text, translated from Latin, as one of its chréseis, patristic quo- tations. To bolster his thesis even more, Holl misinterpreted a passage from Serruys: “Most of the quotations from the Greek Fathers that we ind in the Libri Carolini appear also in Nicephorus’s work.”8 Holl understood something else: “Most of the quotations from the Greek Fathers that we ind in the Libri Carolini also appear in the Acts of the synod of Constantinople.”9 In fact, only the Post-Scriptum is found in both the Libri Carolini and the Acts. he Libri Carolini therefore cannot be the source of the Acts of the iconoclastic council of 815, as Holl claims. Ater having established the Greek texts from all the manuscripts he had available to him in Germany, 1916, Holl presents his own comments and arguments to justify his thesis that Epiphanius is the author of all the iconophobic documents. ii. Holl’s Arguments in Favor of Authenticity. Holl airms that all the documents come form the same author, whoever he was; the same vocabulary, the same style, and the same point of view are present in all. he documents give the impression that the events they talk about are all taken from real life. What is more, according to Holl, the complete title of the Treatise shows that the document appeared before the ith century: Treatise of St. Epiphanius against hose who, by Following an Idolatrous Prac- tice, Make Images with the Intention of Reproducing the Likeness of Christ, the Mother of God, the Martyrs, the Angels, and the Proph- ets. he enumeration here does not mention the images of ascetics or monks. In similar enumerations ater the ith century, Holl af- irms, if the lists mention the martyrs, they also always mention the holy monks, or they combine the two groups into the category of hoi 8 Serruys, p. 362. 9 Holl, note 2, pp. 353–354. he Modern Controversy 53 hagioi. Holl concludes that the fact of mentioning only the martyrs, without the holy monks, is a sure sign that the document was written before the ith century, thus at the time of Epiphanius. As for the Letter to heodosius, Holl says that the author mani- fests such an intimate knowledge of the Emperor heodosius I and writes with such vivacity that he can only be a contemporary of heo- dosius himself, and this allows us to date the document to the end of the fourth century, precisely the time of Epiphanius. he author’s personality is very clearly apparent and appears in all the documents. He presents himself as a bishop and indeed only a bishop could have written the prescriptions contained in the Will. Holl continues: the author of the Letter to heodosius speaks about “the heresies and the idols” as a phenomenon already in the past. He concludes that this is a veiled reference, due to modesty, but nonetheless obvious, to Epiphanius’s own book. iii. Holl’s Arguments against Nicephorus. In his treatise against Epiphanides, Nicephorus seeks to refute the claims of the iconoclasts who identify Epiphanius as the author of the documents and notes what he thinks is a contradiction between the position expressed in the Letter to heodosius and the opposite opinion found in the Panar- ion.10 According to Nicephorus, the author of the Letter to heodo- sius approves fasting on all the Saturdays of the year, up to the ninth hour. Nicephorus underscores that in the Panarion,11 Epiphanius condemns Marcian who approved fasting on Saturday. Holl tries the show the high probability that Epiphanius also accepted fasting on Saturday throughout the whole year. If Holl is correct, this would cancel out Nicephorus’s argument, eliminate the contradiction, and prove that the Letter to heodosius and the Panarion agree on this point. Holl constructs his arguments this way: Epiphanius designated all Wednesdays and Fridays of the year as fasting days, until the ninth hour when vespers began. Now Epiphanius also prescribed fasting 10 Panarion, “De Fide” 21–22, Williams’ Books II & III, pp. 661–663. 11 Ibid. 42, 3, 3–4, Williams’ Book I, p. 274. 54 Epiphanius of Salamis on Saturdays during Lent, up to the ninth hour when vespers began. Holl concludes therefore that it is reasonable to deduce by extrapola- tion that Epiphanius approved of fasting on Saturdays during “the whole year” and not just in Lent. However, Holl recognizes that one iconodule argument is well founded. Since, in the Panarion, Epiphanius does not mention a her- esy of making and venerating images, Holl concludes that Epipha- nius, at the moment of writing the Panarion, did not consider it to be a heresy. Holl claims that Epiphanius undertook his ight against images ater 376, the year when he published the Panarion. According to Holl, Nicephorus confuses the Greek words nazôr- éen and naziréen and misunderstands a text from the Panarion12 which identiies James the Just, but not all the sons of Joseph, therefore Jesus, as a nazirite. he authentic Epiphanius, notes Holl, oten says that Jesus drank wine;13 Holl concludes therefore that Jesus was not a nazirite, and the contradiction between the two corpora disappears. e) Joseph Wilpert.14 Wilpert has the honor of being the irst to comment on Holl’s study and accepts its conclusions, rejecting Ser- ruys’s eforts to overturn the dominant, scholarly opinion of his day which said that the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem was authentic. On the other hand, we know that Wilpert used the Latin translation to talk about the “torn-up” [sic] door curtain that Epiphanius found in the church at Anautha as well as the Scriptures that forbid such images in a church. It is somewhat strange to hear a fervent Catholic scholar support the Protestant thesis that makes a great Father of the Roman Catholic Church into an iconophobe. By supporting Holl, Wilpert seems to have shown, perhaps, a hidden 12 Ibid., Books II & III, Section VII, “Against Antidicomarians,” 78, 7–8, pp. 605–607. 13 Ibid., Book I, Section II, “Against Ebionites”, 30, 19, 1, pp. 134–135; Section III, “Against Semi-Arians” 45, 4, 3, p. 437; Section IV, “Against Encratites” 47, 3, 3, pp. 5–6. 14 Wilpert, Joseph, “Kleine Beiträge: Drei unbekannte bilderfeindliche Schrif- ten des hl. Epiphanius,” Historisches Jahrbuch 38: Jahrgang 1917, Munich, pp. 533–535. he Modern Controversy 55 agenda: showing that the Christian East was much slower than the West in accepting art. Wilpert maintains that Rome, and especially the popes, were the irst to transform monumental art into a servant of the Church, and this already in the 1st century! f) George Ostrogorsky.15 he second scholar, George Ostrogor- sky, ater having studied Holl’s writing and scrutinized the documents attributed to Epiphanius, arrives as a diferent conclusion: the docu- ments attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis are forgeries, produced by the Byzantine iconoclasts to bolster their doctrines. For his part, Os- trogorsky answers Holl’s objections and ofers his own arguments to discredit the thesis of authenticity. i. he Enumeration of Categories of Saints. First of all, Ostrogor- sky claims that Holl’s position is untenable. In the complete title of the Treatise [of St. Epiphanius against hose who, by Following an Idol- atrous Practice, Make Images with the Intention of Reproducing the Likeness of Christ, the Mother of God, the Martyrs, the Angels, and the Prophets], that is the enumeration of the categories of saints repre- sented in images, there is a sure sign that the document was written in the fourth century. Ostrogorsky shows that, if the words hoi hagioi and the references to images of the hagioi are a sure indication that a text comes from ater the ith century, then the documents them- selves must be placed ater the ith century since hoi hagioi and a reference to images of hagioi are found in the documents themselves: “But you will say to me, ‘he Fathers detested the idols of the nations, but we make images of the saints [tas eikonas tōn hagiōn] in their memory, and we prostrate ourselves in front of them in their honor.’” Ostrogorsky says ironically that if Holl was right in his analysis of the enumeration of the categories of saints, his own reasoning excludes the possibility that Epiphanius is the author of the documents. In any case, Ostrogorsky continues, the major premise of Holl’s argument is 15 For his irst position, “Die Pseudo-Epiphanischen Schriten gegen die Bilder- verehrung als Bindeglied zwischen den Ikonoklastischen Synoden von 754 und 815,” Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreits, Amsterdam, 1928, reprinted in 1964, pp. 61–113. 56 Epiphanius of Salamis false. here are similar enumerations ater the fourth century where hoi hagioi, the martyrs, the monks, the ascetics are arranged without in any way taking Holl’s airmation into account. Ostrogorsky con- cludes that Holl’s argument for dating the Treatise to the fourth cen- tury and, consequently all the documents, is without value and must be completely rejected. Ostrogorsky also airms that there is a resemblance, of course supericial, between the documents and the iconoclastic literature of the eighth century. However, in two cases, hoi hagioi is omitted from an enumeration in an iconoclastic context of the eighth century. He further calls attention to the fact that in the Treatise the icono- clasts accuse the iconodules of “prostrating themselves in front of the image of Christ and of looking at it.” He notes that the accusation of looking at the image of Christ is characteristic of the debate of the eighth and ninth centuries. A passage of the Synodikon, a collection of iconodule declarations of the ninth century, says, “Let those who receive the economy of the incarnation of the Word of God in spoken word, but refuse to look at it represented in an image … anathema.”16 To draw attention to the word look, concludes Ostrogorsky, seems to indicate a publication date in the iconoclastic period rather that in the fourth century. ii. Two Iconodule heses. Ostrogorsky notes that the documents, especially the Treatise, ight against two iconodule theses that were clearly at the heart of the debate during the eighth and ninth cen- turies. he irst: “We make images of the saints in their honor, and we prostrate ourselves in front of them in their honor”; the second: “… since the Word became perfect man from Mary the ever-virgin, we represent him as man.” Airming as he must that Christ is always “indescribable and incomprehensible” like his Father, the author of the documents rejects the iconodule argument by which the incar- nation modiied, not to say abolished, the 2nd Commandment: God 16 Mansi XIII, 817; Jean Gouillard, “Le Synodikon et sa doctrine des images,” pp. 169–182. he Modern Controversy 57 the Indescribable and Incomprehensible One cannot be represented before the incarnation, but because he himself took on visibility, the Word is representable only in his human form. Ostrogorsky says that the author of the documents, by his tactic, put words into Epipha- nius’s mouth, but these words have no echo in the context of the fourth century. However, he goes on, they ring and resound when set in the iconoclastic period. iii. Two Camps at War. Ostrogorsky claims that the documents, especially the Treatise, show two groups ighting against each other. Each group of combatants had its own battery of arguments which it uses in debates. he Treatise: “But you say to me: ‘… we make im- ages …’ and “certain people say … ‘we represent him as man.’” Ac- cording to Ostrogorsky, there is no indication of such a theological struggle in the fourth century. On the other hand, in the eighth and ninth centuries, the battle was ferocious and bloody. he theologic- al justiication of Christ’s image, founded on the incarnation, does not appear in the theological literature until the seventh century in a writing of John of hessalonica, around 68017 and in canon 82 of the Quinisexte Council in 692.18 he argument which appeals to the incarnation has no echo in the fourth century, but it rings clear in the eighth and ninth centuries. iv. Where Are the Iconodule Writings of the Fourth Century? he Fathers of Nicaea II, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, quotes all the patristic texts possible to support their cause and to refute the argu- ments of the iconoclasts who put forward the texts of the fourth cen- tury attributed to Epiphanius and Eusebius of Caesareae. he iconod- ules, however, site no pro-image writings from the fourth century. Ostrogorsky asks: If the author of the iconophobic documents is a witness to the irst controversy over images, in the fourth century, and if there were a “me” against “some of you” as well as an “I” against 17 John, Bishop of hessalonica († around 630) is quoted by Nicaea II in 787, Migne XIII, 164–166. 18 Cyril Mango, he Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1986, p. 139. 58 Epiphanius of Salamis a “you,” and if there were iconophobic texts of the fourth century coming from one single author, “me” and “I,” why then did the Fath- ers of the Nicaea II not quote the iconodules designated by “certain people,” “you,” and “we”? What is more, did these iconodules of the fourth century not write anything? Have their writings been lost to history, leaving no trace whatsoever? Ostrogorsky answers that such a situation would be very strange, to say the least. He notes and con- cludes that the best and the simplest explanation remains the one that ascribes the “documents of Epiphanius” to an iconoclast of the eighth century.19 v. Epiphanius Anticipates the Iconoclastic Arguments. Ostrogor- sky notes that Holl, assuming that the documents were written in the fourth century, marvels at Epiphanius’s capacity to anticipate, in the fourth century, the iconoclasts’ arguments in the eighth century: “Epiphanius again underlines, as if he were able to see ahead of time a later objection, that the commandment to worship only God, would be as applicable in the New Testament as in the Old Testament.”20 Os- trogorsky stresses, ironically, just how prophetic Epiphanius was in the fourth century; he was indeed quite a prophet since he anticipated a 19 It is interesting to note, as an aside, that the iconoclasts, who quoted Eusebius and Epiphanius from the fourth century, did not quote any supposedly icono- phobic authors from the irst three centuries. H. Koch (Die altchristliche Bilder- frage nach den literarischen Quellen, Göttingen, Vanderhœck & Ruprecht, 1917) presents a list of iteen authors before Constantine who, according to him and others who support the Hostility heory, witness to primitive Christianity’s hos- tility to images in the Church. In fact, these authors, from Aristides of Athens through Clement of Alexandria and on to Arnobius of Sicca, attacked idolatrous images, idols, and pagan idolatry. hey say little or nothing about images in a Christian context or the attitude of early Christians toward them. It is very note- worthy that those who needed all the patristic ammunition they could get — the Byzantine iconoclasts — did not delve into this treasury of so-called iconophobic material. We cannot say the iconoclasts did not know about these writers, but they apparently did not see their relevance to their own cause. hey knew quite well that an attack on pagan idols could not be used as an attack on Christian images. his point, however, has been lost on subsequent generations. 20 Holl, p. 387. he Modern Controversy 59 good number of iconoclastic arguments which were to win the day in the eighth century. He concludes that it becomes even more plausible to say that the iconoclasts simply put words in Epiphanius’s mouth. vi. he Greek Text Is not a Bad Translation of the Latin.21 Holl claims that the Greek text is a bad translation of the Latin text and not the other way round. Ostrogorsky categorically rejects Holl’s thesis and airms just the opposite, agreeing with Serruys and Vailhé that someone made a bad Latin translation from the Greek, which we ind in Nicephorus’s treatise Refutation and Destruction of the Decree of the Council of 815.22 Ostrogorsky points out several diferences between the Greek and the Latin texts. he Greek text is elegant, rhythmical, carefully constructed while the Latin is inelegant. It is rare, he claims, that a translator produces an elegant translation from an inelegant source text. he opposite is much more probable. While the Greek text is very lively and succinct, having an easy style, the Latin text is heavy, rough, too long, and full of grammatical errors. What is more, the Greek text alternates between “I” and “we” when the author is talk- ing of himself. It says that he made a pilgrimage alone to meet John of Jerusalem at Bethel while the Latin text maintains that the two of them went on a pilgrimage together. Ostrogorsky concludes that the Latin text is a translation of the Greek text, but due to its poor quality, it cannot be attributed to Jerome. Nicephorus presents the Greek text as a whole with its own title: pros Iōannēn ton Aileias episkopon epigegrammenē epistolē and not as an integral part of a longer document. he title of an excerpted section of another document would begin with “ek …” he title of Nicephorus’s Greek text, however, does not begin with “ek …” he introduction, which Holl thinks is normal to give to the Post-Scrip- tum and which someone took out of the longer letter, in no way has 21 See Holl’s argument above; Ostrogorsky: “Holl also rejects Serruys’s opinion which airms that the Greek text is a falsiication sent to the West …,” Die Pseu- do-Epiphanischen Schriten, p. 71. 22 J. M. Featherstone, pp. 238–241. 60 Epiphanius of Salamis the characteristics of an introduction added to help the reader situate the text. he Latin text of the Post-Scriptum breaks the continuity of the authentic Letter to John of Jerusalem, translated by Jerome. In rela- tion to Jerome’s translation of the Letter to John of Jerusalem, which is coherent, light, and vivacious, the Latin text of the Post-Scriptum is rough and heavy. In the Latin translation of the Letter to John of Jeru- salem, Epiphanius speaks naturally to John using “tu,” “dilectissime,” and “frater” while the Latin text uses “honestatem tuam.” Ostrogorsky concludes that the Latin text difers from the Greek text and the real Letter to John of Jerusalem. Ostrogorsky here presents an interesting idea: it is possible that there was a second letter of Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem which only dealt with the question of the door curtain Epiphanius tore down. his second letter could have been sent to the West, poorly translated and attached to Jerome’s authentic translation.23 If we had a manuscript of Jerome’s works that antedated the iconoclastic period, the question could be answered. We could also verify whether the Post-Scriptum is present or not. Unfortunately, as of now, the manuscripts of Jerome’s works do not go back beyond the eighth century. Ostrogorsky resigns himself therefore to waiting for possible new discoveries. vii. Variety of Models. In the Letter to heodosius, the author com- plains that the iconodules of the fourth century, according to Holl, painted Christ and the saints according to several models, that is ac- cording to their own fanciful thinking and not as the saints really were. Byzantine iconoclasts made the same criticism of Byzantine ic- onodules who eventually eliminated the variety of images and estab- lished one model for each saint. his variety, concludes Ostrogorsky, is a sign of a considerable development and range of Christian art, a development that is characteristic of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, rather than of the fourth century. 23 Although interesting as a proposal, there is nothing in history or in any docu- ments that supports it. he Modern Controversy 61 Ostrogorsky analyses the development of Christian images dur- ing four periods. At irst, the fourth century manifested a certain de- velopment of Christian art which was neither uniform nor evenly spread geographically. In the second period, before iconoclasm, be- tween the ith and seventh centuries, Christian art developed rapid- ly. It produced a great variety of styles and models and spread to all corners of the Christian world. he third period, the eighth and ninth centuries, saw the rise of iconoclasm which openly and vigorously criticised this variety of models as an expression of the artists’ fanci- ful thinking and lying spirit. he iconoclastic and especially the post- iconoclastic periods forced the iconodules to reduce the number of models of Christ and the saints in order to counter the iconoclastic attacks. he author’s criticism in the Letter to heodosius against the variety of models, concludes Ostrogorsky, is more naturally set in the context of the third and fourth periods and not in the irst. viii. “Ater the Heresies and the Idols”: A Reference to the Panarion. Ostrogorsky notes that Holl understands the expression “ater the her- esies and the idols”24 to be a reference to the Panarion, Epiphanius’s book of eighty heresies. Ostrogorsky remarks that such an expression is more likely to be said by a man of the eighth century when the clas- sical period that deined the Trinity and the incarnation had already come to an end. According to Ostrogorsky, in the eighth century, the period of the classical heresies was already part of the glorious past, as much for the iconodules as for the iconoclasts. ix. Ostrogorsky Evaluates Certain Arguments. By highlighting the contradiction in facts between Epiphanius’s works and the icono- phobic documents, Nicephorus hopes to prove that Epiphanius did not write the latter. Holl rejects all the arguments based on the Life of St. Epiphanius because it is not very reliable. Ostrogorsky accepts Holl’s criticism on this point. Holl also rejects as “unproved and unprovable”25 Nicephorus airmation, partially based on the Life, that 24 Holl, pp. 367–368. 25 Ibid., note 2, p. 369. 62 Epiphanius of Salamis Epiphanius’s disciples set up images of their master in the churches during his life and immediately ater his death. Here again, Ostro- gorsky accepts Holl’s point. On the other hand, he rejects Holl’s third point that considers Nicephorus’s accusation about Docetism to be childish: “Whoever rejects images is Docetic.”26 Ostrogorsky objects that making the link between images and Christology is the greatest achievement of Orthodox theology. It is the glory of Nicephorus and the iconodules to have seen in Christ’s image the conirmation of the real and non illusory incarnation. According to Ostrogorsky, Nice- phorus is perfectly right to compare Epiphanius’s balanced Christ- ology, expressed in the Ancoratus and the unbalanced Christology of the documents, which have a Docetic tendency leaning toward Eutychian Monophysitism, that is, a tendency to deemphasize the humanity as much as the divinity. According to Ostrogorsky, all that Holl is able to prove in his long exposé on fasting can be summed up in three points. Epiphanius ac- cepted fasting on Saturday during Lent, on all Wednesdays and Fri- days of the year, and until the ninth hour whatever the fast day when vespers would begin. According to Ostrogorsky, Holl’s deduction that Epiphanius approved fasting on all the Saturdays of the year is un- acceptable because no Christian, except the heretic Marcian, whom Epiphanius condemns, has ever prescribed Saturdays outside Lent as fast days. Ostrogorsky accepts Holl’s argument that there is no contradic- tion between Epiphanius and the Letter to heodosius on the question of Christ’s being a nazirite, in contrast to what Nicephorus tries to establish. x. Epiphanius’s Attitude toward Images in the Panarion. Ostro- gorsky rejects Holl’s airmation that the Panarion presents the same attitude toward images as the documents. Ostrogorsky airms not being able to perceive the slightest agreement between the Panarion and the documents. On the other hand, he accepts that the Panar- 26 Ibid. he Modern Controversy 63 ion does not have a very high appreciation of images, not only in a pagan context but in general. Ostrogorsky notes that the attitude expressed in the Panarion, however, is very far from that presented in the documents. Holl uses the Latin Translation to show the harmony between the two corpora, but Ostrogorsky shows the worthlessness of the arguments because Holl’s quotation is not found in the Greek text. He feels therefore that a very big piece of Holl’s arguments falls apart. he most Ostrogorsky is willing to accept is this: seeing the coolness, the indiference, even the “hostility” of the Panarion to- ward images — therefore of Epiphanius himself — it is possible that Epiphanius’s attitude may have been strengthened in his later years, and he may have occasionally expressed his disapproval and may even have let certain words to this efect in his Testament. It is far too daring — unless of course there arose some real problem during his life that he wanted to ight against — to imagine that Epiphanius turned his old age into a crusade against Christian images and that he wrote a treatise on the subject, which he sent around the world, ater a whole life of coolness or indiference toward them. xi. Documents Full of Life. Ostrogorsky agrees with Holl that the documents are full of life, but that does not exclude the hand of a forger. He also accepts the fact that the documents express the same point of view and that the same author wrote them, but here again that does not prove that Epiphanius is the author. Holl quotes three expressions to support his opinion that a single author produced all the documents: 1) images are called pseudônymoi, that is, “falsely called images”; 2) Christ is akataléptos, “incomprehensible”; 3) to honor the saints in images is really to dishonor them. Ostrogorsky accepts, as already stated, Holl’s opinion of this point, but he adds that the repetition of these phrases in the documents serves to indi- cate that Epiphanius is the author only if they are found in Epipha- nius’s authentic works. According to Ostrogorsky, there is a problem here for Holl’s thesis. First of all, expressions 1 and 3 are not found in Epiphanius’s works, and expression 2 is found so widely in patris- tic literature that it cannot be used to identify any particular author. 64 Epiphanius of Salamis Ostrogorsky concludes therefore that the expressions support the theory of a single author but are of no use to prove that Epiphanius is that author. To justify his identiication of Epiphanius as the author of the documents, Holl puts forward expressions that are found in the docu- ments and in Epiphanius’s writings: 1) pantôs, to introduce a doubtful airmation; 2) pōs oun, to draw a conclusion from a Biblical passage already mentioned; 3) akribōs légōn; and 4) exaggerated expressions for Peter, instead of calling Peter by his name in both the documents and Epiphanius’s writings, he is referred to by grandiose, exaggerated, and lowery titles. For expressions 1, 2, and 3, Ostrogorsky inds it unbelievable that Holl gives so much weight to such general expres- sions. As for Peter’s titles, he maintains that they are empty phrases of a lowery style and a wide-spread type of rhetoric which expressed the taste of the time and which was used throughout the Middle Ages. In summary, Ostrogorsky refuses to give any credibility to the hypothesis of authenticity if it is based on similarities that are so insigniicant. According to Holl, it is rare in theological literature that authors omit the word Testament when they write “the Old and New Testa- ment.” Now, in Epiphanius’s works and in the documents, we ind “the Old and the New.” Holl concludes therefore that this is a sign that Epiphanius is the author of the two corpora. Ostrogorsky rejects the argument saying that this omission is not as rare as Holl claims and gives references. Holl thinks he sees a sign of Epiphanius’s style in the way the author of the documents combines two Biblical texts and amalgam- ates two others. Ostrogorsky sees no proof in these comparisons that Epiphanius is the author of the documents. xii. Judas’s Kiss. Holl concludes: “Finally, we cannot forget Epipha- nius’s truly penetrating mind in the way … he exploits Judas’s kiss in his attempt to repudiate images of Christ and the apostles.27 Holl’s comment in no way impresses Ostrogorsky who concludes that all 27 Holl, p. 369. he Modern Controversy 65 the parallels between Epiphanius’s works and the documents put for- ward by Holl in an attempt to prove that Epiphanius is the author of both corpora are very weak. xiii. Parallel Expressions. Holl proposes another expression from the Treatise, phaidrynesthai en dokséi (“to shine in glory”) and quotes a passage from the Ancoratus 90, 2 and another from the Panar- ion 62, 7, 6 as parallels between the two corpora. According to Ostro- gorsky, here again, the parallels are very weak, but when the text of the Treatise containing phaidrynesthai en dokséi is put beside a quotation from the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia (754), we note that the two quotes are nearly identical. For Ostrogorsky, this is a very strong indi- cation that the author of the Treatise borrowed ideas from the Acts of this council and sometimes even took its expressions verbatim. When the irst anathema of the Council of Hiereia, 754, is set next to the text of the Dogmatic Letter, the two texts28 are nearly identical. So the question must be asked: who copied whom? According to Holl, the Council of Hiereia copied Epiphanius. According to Ostrogorsky, it is rather the author of the documents who copied the Council of Hiereia. To support his position, Ostrogorsky wonders why the mem- bers of the Council would add to their irst quotation a very serious anathema taken from a written document nearly 400 years old. Why would the Council not have named Epiphanius if they really had such a quote at their disposal? Ostrogorsky concludes that the author of the documents was not Epiphanius in the fourth century, but an icono- clast of the eighth century who composed them ater 754. Ostrogorsky claims that by adopting some words of the Acts of the Council of Hiereia, the author of the documents betrayed his forger’s hand. In the Acts, the expression pseudônymoi eikones is found in an 28 he Greek texts are slightly diferent, but the English translations give nearly identical wording. Dumeige, p. 237. he decree of the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia: “If anyone busies himself with representing the divine image of God the Word in the incarnation with material colors, let him be anathema.” he Dog- matic Letter I, A, 4: “If anyone busies himself with representing the divine features of the Word of God in the incarnation in material colors, ‘let him be anathema.’” 66 Epiphanius of Salamis explanation of iconoclastic doctrine which proclaimed the Eucha- rist as the only true image of Christ, all the other so-called “images,” that is, paintings, mosaics, etc., are falsely given the name of images because they are not real images. he forger, says Ostrogorsky, took the expression pseudônymoi eikones from the Acts and put it into his documents without however reproducing the explanation which lies behind it. Isolated in the Treatise, it stands out like a sore thumb. xiv. Proposal for a Date. Ostrogorsky believes he has suiciently undermined the credibility of Holl’s thesis in favor of the authenticity to be able to propose his own. In a period of relative calm during the struggle against Christian images, ater the death of Constantine V in 775, but before the Council of Nicaea II in 787, a forger borrowed from the Acts of the 754 Council, but he sotened the harshness of the Council’s iconoclasm, as the iconoclasts of the second iconoclas- tic period were going to do. he forged iconophobic documents did not help win the day for the forger’s cause at the Council of Nicaea II, 787, but rather at the second iconoclastic council of 815. he mem- bers of this council consulted the Acts of the Council of Hiereia and the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius. hey and the author of the documents — as well as the iconodules — used the same methodology. All along the way, everyone, the forger or the council, used previous texts, adapting and developing them to continue the struggle on the question of Christian images. he iconophobic docu- ments therefore served as a link between the two iconoclastic councils: the Council of Hiereia in 754 and the Council of St. Sophia in 815. g) Henri Grégoire.29 In his critique of Ostrogorsky’s book Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites, Grégoire reviews Os- trogorsky’s thesis on the documents attributed to St. Epiphanius. He admits the authenticity question, at least for the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem, is complicated and that of the other docu- ments “ininitely obscure.”30 Ostrogorsky’s argumentation against 29 “Comptes Rendus” Byzantion, tome IV, 1927–1928, pp. 769–771. 30 Ibid., p. 770. he Modern Controversy 67 the authenticity of the Post-Scriptum, on the other hand, does not persuade Grégoire who recognized, nonetheless, that Ostrogorsky’s best argument is the one in which he shows that the expression pseu- dônymoi eikones is “less well motivated”31 in the documents than in the Acts of the Council of Hiereia in 754. As for the other documents attributed to Epiphanius, Grégoire does not express an opinion. h) Franz Dölger.32 Dölger agrees with most of Holl’s arguments and rejects as inadequate those that Ostrogorsky directed against them. He therefore is squarely in the camp of those who accept the authenticity of all the documents. Nonetheless, Dölger agrees with Ostrogorsky, against Holl, when Holl places the documents in the fourth century because the word askétai (ascetics) is not speciically mentioned in the enumeration of the categories of saints.33 According to Holl, this word always appears in the list of saints ater the ith century and never before. Ostrogor- sky34 shows that this is not the case, with examples to support his airmation, and Dölger gives him the debating point. Dölger rejects Ostrogorsky’s thesis35 that claims that a discus- sion or controversy over images did not take place before the sev- enth century. Ostrogorsky claims that the expressions èreis moi and phasin tines (“You will say to me” and “Some people say”) show that there was “a vigorous controversy between two parties”36 in the fourth century but which has let no trace in subsequent Christian literature. hose who accept the authenticity of the documents more or less agree with Ostrogorsky that the words indeed bear witness to such a controversy. Dölger claims, on the other hand, that these words do not show that there was “vigorous controversy between two parties” in the fourth century, but that they are “a simple and 31 Ibid., p. 770, note 1; Die Pseudo-Epiphanischen Schriten, p. 101. 32 Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 8, 1929, pp. 353–372. 33 Holl, pp. 366–367. 34 Die Pseudo-Epiphanischen Schriten, pp. 75–76. 35 Ibid., pp. 78–80. 36 Ibid., p. 78. 68 Epiphanius of Salamis artiicial form of rhetoric used to introduce opposing arguments, possible or conceivable.”37 Dölger recognized with Ostrogorsky that the Greek version of the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem is the original and that the Latin version is a translation of it. According to Dölger, Holl’s thesis that states the exact opposite is not acceptable. Ostrogorsky maintains that “the development and the degree of development of Church painting of the Savior and the apostles”38 dem- onstrated in the documents is not characteristic of the fourth century but rather of the eighth and ninth centuries, therefore right before the beginning of iconoclasm. Dölger claims that Ostrogorsky does not really put forward anything that proves his opinion, but Dölger proposes another hypothesis. In fact Dölger accepts the conclusion of many iconodules to the efect that there is a real contradiction between the Post-Scriptum in which the author admits that he cannot identify who was represented on the door curtain and the Letter to heodosius where the author manifests an extensive knowledge of artistic forms. Dölger supports Holl in rejecting Nicephorus and Ostrogorsky’s claim that the documents manifest a Docetic tendency as “a childish supposition.”39 On the question about Epiphanius’s approval of fasting on Sat- urdays outside of Lent, Nicephorus claims that there is a contradic- tion between the authentic Epiphanius who rejects such fasting and the Epiphanius of the documents who accepts it. Dölger seems to accept Holl’s extrapolation which concludes that Epiphanius believed in fasting on all Saturdays of the year. Dölger recognized, however, 37 Dölger, p. 359. As far as we know, no one other than Dölger has questioned the implication of the phrases. Unfortunately for Dölger and for those who ac- cept the authenticity of the documents, if there were no real, historical contro- versy and if the words are only a simple rhetorical device, we then have to im- agine that the Epiphanius of the documents is speaking and disputing in a void and charging out, like Don Quixote, against imaginary adversaries. He must surely have had real adversaries in mind, if Epiphanius is the author. 38 Die Pseudo-Epiphanischen Schriten, p. 90. 39 Holl, note 2, p. 369. he Modern Controversy 69 the diiculty of concluding deinitely for Holl or Ostrogorsky just on the basis of the Saturday fast outside Lent, but he leans nonetheless in favor of Holl. Dölger, like everyone else, accepts that Epiphanius does not con- sider Christ to have been a nazirite, and on this question, Nicephorus is wrong to see a contradiction between the documents and the au- thentic Epiphanius. What attitude does Epiphanius manifest toward images in his au- thentic works? Dölger, like Holl, rejects Nicephorus’s airmation that Epiphanius was not in the least hostile to images, but he reproaches Holl for having exaggerated the point and Ostrogorsky for having commented on only one passage put forward by Holl. Dölger sup- ports Holl in judging that the Latin translation, even though it is not literal, expresses well the thought of the Greek text. According to him, Ostrogorsky is wrong to see a lagrant translation error in the Latin version of the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. Dölger, unlike Ostrogorsky, considers the image of Epiphanius painted in the documents to be realistic, if they are authentic: at the end of his life, Epiphanius made the struggle against Christian im- ages into the ight of his old age and wrote many documents to sup- port his position. Dölger seems to accept the internal relation that Holl tries to es- tablish between the Letter to heodosius and the Treatise. Holl under- stand the phrase, “I oten advised...the bishops...to remove these things. However, not everyone paid any attention to me, in fact very few people” as meaning that Epiphanius had several times written to bishops. Among these written documents, we have the Treatise and maybe the Dogmatic Letter of which we have only one sentence. Os- trogorsky, however, cannot support this thesis unless the word ad- vised is interpreted metaphorically to mean written. Dölger sees no problem in accepting a metaphorical interpretation of this word. Dölger does not follow Ostrogorsky in his efort to trivialize the vocabulary parallels and the style established by Holl. He inds them very convincing. 70 Epiphanius of Salamis By quoting the agreement, in part literal, between certain pas- sages of the documents and the text of the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia, 754, Ostrogorsky hopes to show that the forger of the docu- ments used the texts of the council and not the opposite: that is, that the council used Epiphanius’s works. He points out that in its list of anathemas, Hiereia reproduces the Dogmatic Letter word for word, but without any reference to St. Epiphanius. Dölger responds that we do not know if Nicaea II had read out all the patristic texts quoted by Hiereia. He suspects that there were other passages of Epiphanius explicitly quoted by Hiereia but that Nicaea II let out, and these were put into one vague category called “other documents.” He also sus- pects that Nicaea II explicitly quotes only the colorless Will. Dölger accuses Nicaea II of having deformed the real texts of Hiereia, delet- ing what was troublesome. Two theses clash: 1) the members of the Council of Hiereia, 754, had only the colorless text of the Will, and they appealed to zealous re- searchers to ind other texts from Epiphanius’s authentic works, texts which they had heard about and which were found before Nicaea II, 787. his Seventh Ecumenical Synod suppressed the newly-found texts or amalgamated them under the title of “other documents.” 2) Hiereia “discovered” the colorless Will and with no justiication claimed that there were other authentic works that zealous and interested research- ers found before Nicaea II which was aware of only the Will, already known to Hiereia, as well as the Letter to heodosius. Nicaea II cor- rectly quotes Hiereia which had before it only the Will and which real- ly did send out zealous researchers “to ind” other texts. “Naturally,” they found them. Dölger leans toward the irst hypothesis. Dölger is not impressed by the fact that the expression pseudônym- oi eikones is well reasoned and deined in the texts of Hiereia and that it appears unmotivated and isolated in the Treatise. Ostrogorsky sees in this transfer — from a natural to an awkward context — a sign that the forger quotes only the expression for itself, forgetting its context. he opposite movement seems quite unreasonable to Ostrogorsky. Dölger notes that pseudônymoi is part of Epiphanius’s vocabulary and he Modern Controversy 71 therefore maintains that the expression should not be taken as an argument in favor of Ostrogorsky’s thesis. Since he does not accept Ostrogorsky’s arguments that seek to establish the dependence of the documents on Hiereia, Dölger rejects Ostrogorsky’s attempt to deine more clearly the dates between which the forger could have produced the documents. He also rejects Os- trogorsky’s efort to identify the forger as a priest and not a bishop. According to Dölger, Ostrogorsky makes another methodological error. He thinks that it is not very probable that Hiereia could in one of its anathemas quote a text that Epiphanius had written some 400 years before. He claims that it is the forger who quotes a text of Hiereia while attributing it to Epiphanius. However, the second iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) quotes it again and this time attributes it to Epiphanius. Dölger replies that if the Council of St. Sophia could quote the anathema, why not Hiereia? Ostrogorsky places the creation of all the documents in the years before Nicaea II, 787, and accepts that they are the work of one author. Now, John of Damascus, still far from Nicaea II in time, speaks of a logos attributed to Epiphanius which he rejects as inauthentic. Ac- cording to Dölger, the word logos in the singular cannot indicate a letter or a will, but a treatise. Now, this is precisely the Greek title of one of the documents attributed to St. Epiphanius: Treatise [Logos] of St. Epiphanius … Dölger concludes that if the document which John of Damascus refers to is indeed this treatise, Ostrogorsky’s theory falls apart because Ostrogorsky claims that all the documents form a whole and are to be placed before Nicaea II. Ostrogorsky refuses to divide the documents into two groups: those documents written before Nicaea II and those ater. Dölger accepts that John of Damascus is talking about the Treatise and, therefore, rejects Ostrogorsky’s theory. i) Edward James Martin.40 In a half page of his study,41 Martin re- jects the Will and the Letter to heodosius as forgeries while accepting 40 A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930. 41 Ibid., p. 134. 72 Epiphanius of Salamis that “where there is smoke, there’s ire.” He sees in the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem an expression of Epiphanius’s ec- centric personality and of his hostility toward images. Based on the Post-Scriptum and the tradition to which it gave birth, the iconoclasts created the pseudo-Epiphanian documents. Martin justiies his con- clusion on the following points: 1) he Carolingian Synod of Paris, 825, only quotes the Post- Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. If the members of this synod had thought that the other documents were authentic, they would certainly have quoted them. Martin supposes that they knew about them. He does not say “If they had known about them …” but “if the other passages had been authentic...” Martin’s arguments seem to be that the Carolingians of the 825 synod knew about the docu- ments other than the Post-Scriptum but that they did not quote them because they thought they were forgeries. 2) he other documents are unknown to History up to the Byzan- tine iconoclastic crisis. 3) he argumentation against images is too developed and rea- soned for the fourth century. 4) he practice of the Church of Cyprus in relation to images knows nothing, no memory or tradition, of a prescription such as is contained in the Will. j) Paul Maas.42 On the question of the style of the Greek text, Maas inds that everything is in line with what we know of Epipha- nius in his authentic works. He explains the “monstrous sentence” at the beginning of the Post-Scriptum as a psychological efect due to the painful subject Epiphanius is dealing with. Epiphanius rapid- ly dictated the text using his usual unsophisticated vocabulary. For Maas, the style is Epiphanius’s. Maas recognizes that the Latin translation “is not false but not exactly faithful either.” He attributes the problem to Jerome who 42 “Die Ikonoklastische Episode in dem Brief des Epiphanios an Johannes,” By- zantinische Zeitschrit 30, Stuttgart, 1930, pp. 279–286. he Modern Controversy 73 says himself that he translated the Letter to John of Jerusalem quick- ly and according to the meaning of the words rather than literally. Even though Maas acknowledges the problems and imperfections of the Latin translation, he accepts it as the work of Jerome, excusing him because “the numerous additions were not intended to falsify the meaning …” On the crucial sentence (“It is against the authority of the Scriptures to hang up the image of a man …”), Maas makes the following comment: “Whether the longer addition (chapter 9, 2: “contra scripturarum hominis imaginem pendere auctoritatem”) bet- ter represents Epiphanius’s thought or must be considered as insig- niicant, I must leave the question unanswered.” Maas believes that the episode of the torn-down door curtain deinitely has its place in the general structure of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. On this point, he takes up Holl’s idea: the episode expresses a third element of the theme of Letter, that is, Epiphanius wanted to resolve sore points between him and John of Jerusalem, one of which was the door curtain that he was not very quick in replacing. he conclusion of the Letter, like the beginning and the middle, manifests an alternating rhythm between accusation and defence. Maas severely judges Nicephorus and his efort to discredit the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. He inds the argu- mentation so lamentable that he suspects Nicephorus of bad faith. For Maas, the question of authenticity is closed: the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem is incontestably authentic, period. k) Venance Grumel.43 Ater having summarized Ostrogorsky’s article, Grumel enumerates the objection that Franz Dölger makes and adds his comments: 1) he style and background of the documents are in line with those of Epiphanius. Ostrogorsky underestimates the parallels noted by Holl; 2) by admitting that at least the Will could be from Epiphanius, thus opening the possibility that he opposed images, Ostrogorsky puts his own argument in jeopardy; 43 “Les écrits du Pseudo-Épiphane,” Échos d’Orient 29, 1930, Paris, pp. 95–100. 74 Epiphanius of Salamis 3) the link between images and Christology is certainly present in the documents, but Grumel asks if there is a valid reason for exclud- ing the possibility that the link was also made in the fourth century since the Christological argumentation relects neither the language nor the vocabulary of the controversies of the ith century; 4) he episode of the torn-down door curtain agrees with the general theme of the whole Letter, that is, to resolve sore points be- tween Epiphanius and John. Grumel accepts Dölger’s objections and the authenticity of all the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius. l) Hans von Barion.44 i. he Contradictions Alleged by Nice- phorus. Barion evaluates Nicephorus’s argument which tries to show contradictions between the documents and Epiphanius’s authentic works, contradictions that prove the documents to be forgeries. He comments on three points which Holl retained and refuted which Ostrogorsky, in his turn, felt he refuted. First of all, on the question of fasting on Saturday, which, accord- ing to Nicephorus, Epiphanius opposed, but which the documents accept, Barion says that Holl, despite his eforts, proves only the pos- sibility of a compatibility, or a contradiction, between the documents and the authentic Epiphanius. he conclusion that the two corpora are compatible is not obligatory. Barion recognizes the possibility that there is a contradiction, as claimed by Nicephorus and Ostro- gorsky, but categorically rejects Ostrogorsky’s arguments. hen, Barion leans to Ostrogorsky’s side, and therefore to Nice- phorus’s, when he indicates that there is indeed a contradiction be- tween the two corpora: Epiphanius probably thought that Christ was a nazirite, while the documents say that he was not. Finally, as for the authentic Epiphanius’s attitude toward images and that of the documents, Barion gives the debating point to Os- trogorsky who recognizes the ambiguity of Epiphanius’s attitude to images. here exists a clear diference in tone between Epiphanius’s 44 “Kleinere Mitteilungen,” Römische Quartalschriten 28, 1930, pp. 82–90. he Modern Controversy 75 works, soter, and the documents, more cutting. Nonetheless, accord- ing to Barion, Ostrogorsky does not prove that there is a contradic- tion in principle between the two corpora. ii. Holl’s Positive Arguments in Favor of his Position. First, Barion leans toward Ostrogorsky who airms that the stylistic parallels be- tween the two corpora do not prove that Epiphanius is the author of the documents. According to Barion, Ostrogorsky refutes at least part of Holl’s argument that is based on the enumeration of the categories of saints: since the documents do not mention “the holy monks” among the saints, this is a sure sign that they were written before the ith cen- tury and therefore during Epiphanius’s time. Barion nonetheless does believe that the omission is quite typical of the fourth century. Finally, on the authenticity of the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem, Barion feels that Ostrogorsky suiciently refutes Holl’s arguments so that Holl proves only the possibility, though not the certitude, that Epiphanius is the author. iii. Ostrogorsky’s Arguments in Favor of his Position. Barion’s over- all evaluation of Holl’s and Ostrogorsky’s arguments inclines him to be in favor of Ostrogorsky, though taking into account other arguments. As for the Latin translation of the Post-Scriptum, which Ostro- gorsky thinks is unworthy of Jerome and deinitively inferior to his talent as a translator, but which Holl thinks is quite worthy of being attributed to Jerome, Barion, leaving aside the Greek text, feels that it is diicult to prove the existence of an essential diference between the Letter of John of Jerusalem and the Post-Scriptum. As for the content of the Post-Scriptum, Ostrogorsky believes that its subject is totally other than that of the Letter and that if the Post- Scriptum is authentic, it must be an independent letter, translated by someone other than Jerome and attached to the irst. Holl accepts that the subject is diferent, but that the theme is the same: resolve sore points between Epiphanius and John of Jerusalem. Barion concludes that the two arguments have their problems and that neither the one nor the other deinitively solves the problem. More arguments are necessary. 76 Epiphanius of Salamis On the subject of the link between images and Christology, Os- trogorsky airms that it appears only in the seventh century as an element in the debate over images, and not in Epiphanius’s time. Holl accepts this point, but that in no way proves Epiphanius is not the au- thor. Barion also accepts that there is no iconodule argument based on the incarnation before the seventh century, but that does not al- low us to date the documents to the eighth century. he iconoclastic arguments deal with the two natures of Christ, and that point is ab- sent from the documents. If we suppose that someone wrote them ater Hiereia, 754, why do they not contain the two-nature argument which was taken up again by the Council of St. Sophia, 815? Considering that the literal agreements between the documents and Hiereia indicate a dependence of the documents on Hiereia, Os- trogorsky claims that 1) Hiereia would not have placed an isolated quotation from Epiphanius at the head of a list of anathemas about images and that 2) the iconoclastic council would not have quoted colorless expressions of Epiphanius if its members had had before them the strong statements of the other documents. Barion inds Os- trogorsky’s irst argument correct without nonetheless giving it any conclusive force. he second question is more important, but the an- swer is to be found in the fact that Hiereia wanted to demolish the Christological arguments of the iconodules. he council claimed to have other Epiphanian texts at its disposal, but since these do not contain any Christological arguments, the council does not quote them. he iconoclasts’ patristic texts and the documents agree on this important point: the image of God must be in the heart of the faithful believer who worships God in spirit and in truth. As for the expression pseudōnymoi eikones, “falsely called images,” Ostrogorsky says that the expression is well justiied in the council of 754. he Eucharist is the true image because it is consubstantial with Christ himself. A painted image, however, is a false image because it is not consubstantial with the person represented. In the documents, the expression, copied from the Acts of Hiereia, is not found in a well-reasoned context. Holl simply airms that the Acts have their he Modern Controversy 77 source in the documents, and Barion feels that Ostrogorsky’s objec- tions make no sense. Barion further notes that in the text of the Trea- tise, the person represented in the image is identiied by the name written below it and not by the image itself. he expression, therefore, seems to be motivated by the desire to negate the internal relation between the image and the person represented. Barion concludes that Holl proves only the possibility that Epiphanius is the author of the documents while Ostrogorsky fails in his attempt to prove that the documents come from an eighth- century forger. he dating, therefore, must be either in the fourth or the eighth century. It is a tie without other considerations. iv. Points Put forward by Barion to Decide in Favor of Holl. Barion puts forward the hypothesis that if the Letter to heodosius and the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem are not from the time of heodosius and John of Jerusalem, then all the other documents are also false, and Ostrogorsky wins, but it is yet to be proved that they all come from the eighth century. According to Barion, the Post- Scriptum must be dated to the fourth century. Who, he asks, would have invented such a detailed story which is not particularly conclu- sive or convincing for the controversy? If the Greeks had sent a forged letter to the West, why not other forgeries which were ignored in the Libri Carolini? he Greeks would not have had enough time to falsify the Post-Scriptum, translate it, attach it to Jerome’s translation of the Letter to John of Jerusalem, and send them to the West without worry- ing about the other forgeries. Ostrogorsky’s dating, concludes Bar- ion — between 780–790 — is impossible. he fourth century is there- fore the period of their creation, in other words, Epiphanius’s time. Barion supposes that the forger, if there were one, would have made historical errors, but there are none. He airms that the dog- matic point of view is that of the fourth century because the docu- ments show no sign of the two-nature doctrine. hey attack the ven- eration of images with arguments that are quite diferent from the reasoning of the peuseis. he eighth-century forger would have had to reproduce the point of view of his own century. 78 Epiphanius of Salamis Barion concludes that there remain diiculties with both Holl’s and Ostrogorsky’s positions, but to adopt Ostrogorsky’s, according to which an eighth-century forger produced the documents, caus- es other problems that are resolved only by adopting positions that lead to still more diiculties. So, using the principle of Occam’s razor, which states that the simplest hypothesis has the best chance of being the right one, Holl wins. m) George Ostrogorsky (Revised Position).45 Ater having read Paul Maas’s article (see above: k) Paul Maas), Ostrogorsky accepts the authenticity of the Post-Scriptum but maintains his position that the three other documents—the Letter to heodosius, the Treatise, and the Dogmatic Letter—are eighth-century forgeries. He had al- ready accepted the authenticity of the Will. Ostrogorsky’s modiied position: the two documents that contain no iconophobic doctrine are authentic, that is, the Will and the Post- Scriptum. he documents that set out iconoclastic theology are from an eighth-century forger, that is, the Letter to heodosius, the Treatise, and the Dogmatic Letter. n) Edwyn Bevan.46 Bevan admits that it is not possible to ab- solutely prove either the authenticity or the inauthenticity of the documents. he two sides present arguments that are more or less probable. He continues the debate by indicating a new direction for research: the point of view of those who deal with the question. In evaluating the probability that Epiphanius is the author of the docu- ments, it is quite possible that scholars’ theological, confessional, and national biases tip the scales in one direction or the other. He notes that nearly all those in favor of the authenticity of the documents are Protestant and that nearly all those who oppose the authenticity are Orthodox or Catholic. Bevan concludes that Ostrogorsky’s argu- ments have greater weight. 45 “Critique de A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Byzantinische Zeitschrit, 1931, pp. 389–390. 46 Holy Images, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1940, note 1, pp. 117–118. he Modern Controversy 79 o) Paul Alexander.47 Without speaking directly of the controversy over the documents’ authenticity, Alexander makes reference to them as if they were all from Epiphanius. he only slight deviation from this position is found at the beginning of the article when he lists the patris- tic sources which the Council of St. Sophia used to support its icono- clastic thesis. Alexander says, “… a great number of passages attributed to Epiphanius …” Nonetheless, Alexander must be placed among those who accept the authenticity of the documents attributed to Epiphanius. p) Ernst Kitzinger.48 Kitzinger accepts the authenticity of all the documents, but curiously he does not exclude the possibility of the opposite. He says that Ostrogorsky’s arguments have not however persuaded the other Byzantinists (Dölger). He concludes that it would seem that the last word has not yet been spoken on the subject. q) Roger Tandonnet.49 Tandonnet takes no stand, either for or against the authenticity of the documents, but in talking about Epiphanius’s iconophobia, he just mentions that opinions are divided. According to him, St. Epiphanius’s biography presents a certain num- ber of uncertainties. Was he born into a poor Jewish family, as the Life of St. Epiphanius states, which he does not consider very reliable or into a family of rich Christians? He cannot decide one way or the other, but gives the impression that he does not give much credibility to the iconophobic documents. he way he deals with Epiphanius and the fact that he does not discuss Epiphanius’s presumed icono- phobia seem to indicate Tandonnet’s position. r) John Meyendorf.50 Without giving any reasons, John Meyen- dorf says that the iconoclasts had only a series of fragmentary docu- ments attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis, and according to him, they are of doubtful authenticity. 47 Alexander, “Sophia,” pp. 37–66. 48 “he Cult of Images in the Age Before Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1954, note 28, pp. 92–93. 49 “Épiphane (saint),” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité IV, 1, 1960, col. 854–861. 50 Christ in Eastern Christian hought, Crestwood NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975, pp. 173–192. 80 Epiphanius of Salamis s) Charles Murray.51 Murray concentrates her attention on the Post-Scriptum and considers the passage about the torn-down door curtain to be very certainly authentic. As for the other documents, she leaves them aside without expressing her opinion on their authenti- city. She believes, however, that it is possible that they are forgeries. What is interesting in Murray’s position is not so much her atti- tude toward the question of the authenticity of the Post-Scriptum, but rather the way she interprets the Greek text in relation to the Latin translation while accepting its authenticity. Her objective is the same one pursued by those who reject the authenticity of the documents: to exonerate St. Epiphanius of the accusation of being a fanatic icono- phobe and iconoclast some 350 years before the Byzantine crisis. Her method consists in claiming that Epiphanius’s iconophobic reputa- tion rests not on the Greek text but on the Latin translation which does not accurately relect the Greek and which falsely introduces an iconophobic coloration. By comparing the two texts, she shows that the Greek text, in contrast to the Latin translation, speaks of an idol in human form represented on the door curtain; the parishioners thought it was an image of Christ or a saint. he Latin translation says that the rep- resentation was an image of Christ or a saint. Continuing the com- parison, she notes that the Latin translation adds that such a thing is against the authority of the Scriptures. here is nothing in the Greek text that corresponds to this Latin sentence. Her conclusion is simple: Epiphanius’s iconophobic reputation stands on a faulty translation. his reputation is in no way supported by the original Greek text. t) George Florovsky.52 Florovsky airms that it is nearly certain that the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius do not come from him despite the conclusions of certain modern scholars. 51 “Art and the Early Church,” he Journal of heological Studies XXVIII, 2, Ox- ford, Oct. 1977, pp. 336–342. Despite the masculine name Charles, the author is a woman, Sister Charles Murray. 52 “St. Epiphanius of Cyprus,” he Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century, pp. 236–239. he Modern Controversy 81 He suspects that the episode in the Post-Scriptum is a later addi- tion. Florovsky’s airmation seems to include all the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius, but he accepts the Will as au- thentic.53 Florovsky follows Ostrogorsky in his general interpreta- tion of Epiphanius’s attitude. Epiphanius’s authentic works and the Will — Ostrogorsky later adds the Post-Scriptum — manifest a certain critical attitude, but do not contain any iconophobic theology. On the basis of a critical, but not iconophobic, tendency, the iconoclasts created the iconophobic documents, or they falsiied authentic ones, which they then attributed to Epiphanius. u) Hans Georg hümmel.54 hümmel accepts the authenticity of all the documents and refers to previous scholars, but by re-examining the sequence of fragments established irst by Holl and then revised by Ostrogorsky, hümmel reorganizes certain fragments according to his criteria. He feels he has shown that behind the fragments, re- produced in Nicephorus’s works (he Refutation and Destruction of the Arguments of Eusebius and Epiphanides and he Refutation and Destruction of the Decree of the Council of 815), which are presented in isolated segments in these works, there were coherent and con- tinuous texts. What is important here for our purposes is that hüm- mel only reorganizes the sequence of fragments given by Hennephof, the sequence we used for this study. herefore, although useful for other purposes, hümmel’s study changes nothing in regards to the content of the Greek texts attributed to Epiphanius. v) Jaroslav Pelikan.55 Even though Pelikan is strongly tempted to airm the authenticity of the documents, he hesitates to do so as categorically as do other authors. He claims that, even in the modern 53 To reject all the documents except the Will and to refuse to read Epiphanius’s authentic works as an implicit refusal of Christian images, this is Ostrogorsky’s irst position. 54 “Die bilderfeindlichen Schriten des Epiphanios von Salamis,” Byzantinoslavi- ca 47, 2, 1986, pp. 169-188. 55 he Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 2: he Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), Chicago IL, University of Chi- cago Press, 1977, p. 102. 82 Epiphanius of Salamis period, their authenticity has been brought into question, but that they are now considered as probably authentic. w) Istvan Bugar.56 he Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem is authentic. On the other hand, the Dogmatic Letter is nothing other than a text copied from the irst anathema of the Council of Hiereia. Attributing this anathema to Epiphanius casts a shadow over the other documents. he arguments of the Letter to heodosius have too many paral- lels with doctrines of the eighth-century iconoclasts not to suspect a forger’s hand. For example, the cross is the only acceptable represen- tation. In addition, the arguments of the documents are too well developed for the fourth century. he echo of the door curtain to be used to bury a poor person, reproduced from the Post-Scriptum, along with the reference to the “common house [home]” found in the Will seem too easy and strengthen the suspicion. he “sudden” ac- quisition of a vast knowledge about Christian art, that is, going from the ignorance manifested in the Post-Scriptum to the great familiar- ity shown in the Letter to heodosius, is not credible. To claim that the old idolatry has been reintroduced into the Church seems to be an iconoclastic response to the iconodule position about the absence of a heresy of Christian images in the Panarion. What is more, the fact that the author of the Letter to heodosius claims that no one listened to him seems to be a repost to the iconodule airmation that one swallow does not mean that spring has arrived. In other words, the opinion of one man cannot overturn the Church’s tradition. And inally, the image of an aged Epiphanius is too absurd to be true. Since Epiphanius had already written a letter to heodosius, the iconoclasts simply added iconophobic elements that were not in the authentic letter to produce the false Letter to heodosius. 56 “What Did Epiphanius Write to Emperor heodosius,” pp. 91–100; “Origenist Christology and Iconoclasm: he Case of Epiphanius of Salamis,” Christus bei den Vätern, Innsbruck-Vienne, Tyrolia-Verlag, 2003, pp. 96–110; “Epiphanius of Salamis as a Monastic Author? he So-Called Testamentum Epiphanii in the Context of the Fourth-Century Spiritual Trends,” 2003. he Modern Controversy 83 he Treatise is also problematic. Too much importance is given to Christ’s divinity and not enough to his humanity. It is at least possible that there is an anachronism related to the quotation of canon 35 of the Council of Laodicea. If we accept 394 as the date when Epiphanius wrote the Treatise and if the council is dated in the reign of heodo- sius I (379-395) or even to heodosius II’s reign (408-450)—the dat- ing of the council is controversial—there exists at least the possible problem of dating. hen again, the well-developed arguments in the Treatise have no parallels in the fourth century. Epiphanius did not understand the nature of an image in relation to its prototype—for example, God and his image, man—in terms of consubstantiality, as did the iconoclasts who claimed that a true image must be con- substantial with its prototype: the Eucharistic bread and the body of Christ. Epiphanius, on the other hand, noted that the form of the bread is one thing and the form of Christ’s body is another. None- theless, Epiphanius airms that we believe that the one, the bread, is the other, the body of Christ. Equally, man is the image of God even though man is not consubstantial with God. herefore, the argument contained in the Treatise cannot come from Epiphanius who wrote the Panarion, in part, on the background of the idolatry of the na- tions. It was therefore not diicult for the iconoclasts of the eighth century to use it to write a treatise on idolatry and images and then to attribute it to St. Epiphanius. Finally, the Will may be from Epiphanius, but here again it is not certain. Even though the expression en koimétériois hagiōn seems ar- chaic, therefore not ater the fourth century, the text speaks of the nous which is a keyword in the vocabulary of the intellectualist and Origenistic theology that Epiphanius fought all his life. his theology tends to see the image of God in man only as the nous while Epipha- nius clearly taught that man as a whole — body, soul, spirit — is the image of God, now and ater the resurrection. In summary, Bugar’s position is the following: the Post-Scriptum is authentic, the Letter to heodosius, the Treatise, and the Dogmatic Letter are forgeries; the Will is problematic. 84 Epiphanius of Salamis x) Oliver Kösters.57 Kösters puts forward two new arguments which, according to him, make the Letter to heodosius very doubt- ful. First, the Epiphanius of the Letter claims that he was born into a Nicene family and that even his parents were born in the faith of Ni- caea. Kösters believes that such a claim is a common place which, at the end of the fourth century, is natural for those who want to present themselves as orthodox. If the Greek word gegennéntai, “were con- ceived/born,” is correctly spelled, Epiphanius would have been born and spent his younger years before Nicaea in 325, to say nothing of his parents. Kösters does not comment on the other documents. y) Paul Speck.58 According to Speck, the time has come to place the iconophobic documents in the context of the iconoclastic theology of the eighth century. He is not the least impressed by the arguments of Holl et al, seeing too many anachronisms in the documents if they are placed in the fourth century. On the other hand, if they are set in the eighth century, as iconoclastic forgeries, they are a natural echo of all their arguments. Of all the authors we have considered, Speck has the merit of being the only scholar to act on his conclusion: he intends to use the pseudo-Epiphanian documents, where needed, as a source to write about the history and theology of the eighth century. 57 Kösters, Oliver, Die Trinitätslehre des Epiphanius von Salamis: Ein Kommen- tar zum ‘Ancoratus’, Göttingen, Germany, Hubert & Co., 2005, pp. 17–20. 58 Paul Speck, “Apsismosaik Anthologia Palatina I, 1 und das Apsismosaik der Hagia Sophia,” Varia II, Albrecht Berger and Lucy A. Hunt, eds., Bonn, R. Ha- belt, 1987, pp. 286–329, especially Anm. 1 : “Die Bilderschriten angeblich des Epiphanios von Salamis,” pp. 312–315.  chapter five EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS DEALING WITH THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ICONOPHOBIC DOCUMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS 1 The Arguments against Authenticity. a) Style or Doc- trine? hose who defend the authenticity of the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius attempt to show that the same lit- erary style exists in both Epiphanius’s unquestionably authentic works and the iconophobic documents. his is quite legitimate, but what are the two things that scholars are comparing in order to establish the similarities? On the one hand, we have about ive pages of text, for the iconophobic documents, and, on the other, an entire encyclopedia, for the authentic works. It is as if we were comparing an immense mosaic and one tiny piece of colored glass. To get an idea of the diference between the two corpora, let us take Williams’ English translation of the Panarion, nearly 1000 pages, and that is only for the Panarion, to say nothing of the Ancoratus which ills about 200 columns in Migne’s Patrologia. We obviously have enough authentic texts — the encyclo- pedia or the immense mosaic — to determine the characteristics of Epiphanius’s literary style. In comparison to this vast body of writing, we have a little over 2000 words of English translation. If the two corpora are really from Epiphanius, we will naturally expect to see a similarity of style. On the other hand, if the icono- 86 Epiphanius of Salamis clasts had created the iconophobic documents or if they had falsiied already existing texts, they would have had little work to do. In the irst case, as in the second, we would expect to see stylistic similar- ities. If not, it would be too easy to prove the presence of at least two authors: Epiphanius and pseudo-Epiphanius. For the moment, then, let us accept the irst hypothesis: the iconoclasts created the documents. If they did this using the model of Epiphanius’s authentic works, they would not have had to imitate his style for very long. he chances are minimal of making a blunder signiicant enough to betray the forger’s hand. On the other hand, if they worked from authentic texts, now lost, the chances of making an error are even less. Epiphanius’s authentic style is already there. hey would have had only to touch up the texts here and there. So, ac- cording to both hypotheses, the stylistic similarities between the two corpora are established. And this is precisely what various scholars have concluded ater studying the subject closely. But here is the essential question: to prove the authenticity of the iconophobic documents is it suicient to show stylistic similar- ities? Nicephorus, among others, has already drawn our attention to Epiphanius’s not-very-elevated literary style: “Due to the simplicity of Epiphanius’s writing style and his unsophisticated way of expressing himself, and the great number of his works, the forgers chose to at- tack certain of his works and thus produced such frauds.”1 It seems therefore that there are in fact literary and stylistic simi- larities between the two corpora, whatever the reason. hese simi- larities are suicient enough to permit the hypothesis that the same author wrote the two groups of texts. At least, the criterion of stylistic similarities, by itself, excludes the possibility of proving the inauthen- ticity of the iconophobic documents by alleging signiicant, literary diferences. he result is that stylistic comparisons are not suicient to decide the question of authenticity. Consequently, we need to follow Nicephorus’s advice and examine the doctrines of the two corpora 1 he Refutation and Destruction 23. Evaluation of the Arguments 87 to establish similarities and diferences, even contradictions which can decide the question of authenticity. “We must not pay attention to questions of language even if we ind elements of a common style between Epiphanius’s authentic works and [any] document, for as for doctrine, there is a great diference.”2 Holl himself give us a very good illustration of this point.3 In his listing of expressions and words found in the documents and in Epiphanius’s authentic works, he uses the word akatalēptos (incompre- hensible) or its variants to prove irst of all that one single author pro- duced all the documents and then that Epiphanius is that author. Indeed the word is found in both corpora; Epiphanius uses it sever- al times. In his review of Holl’s article, Dölger accepts that the presence of akatalēptos in the documents and in Epiphanius’s authentic works is a parallel that shows that Epiphanius is the author of both. Ostrogorsky does not agree and claims that a forger could have copied the word. Let us now apply Nicephorus’s principle to the question: not to pay attention to “common stylistic elements,” but to take note of the doctrine behind the words. By examining the following texts on the use of akatalēptos, we believe we have found a distinct diference in the theological contexts of the words. In Epiphanius’s authentic works, the word akatalēptos is found in a discussion of the Trinity, the Logos, or the divine nature before or apart from the incarnation and never in or in relation to the incarnation. In the documents attributed to Epiphanius, akatalēptos describes the Logos in the incarnation. According to the text of the Treatise,4 it seems to us that the word akatalēptos (incomprehensible) and the other apophatic adjectives 2 Ibid. 2. 3 Holl, note 1, p. 366. 4 We have put certain words in italics: the Treatise: “I have also heard that some people order that the incomprehensible Son of God be represented in an image: hearing and believing such a blasphemy makes me shiver.” “How can anyone say that God, incomprehensible, inexpressible, ungraspable by the mind, and uncircumscribable, can be represented in an image, he whom Moses could not look at.” “Did the Word become incarnate so you could by your hand represent in an image the Incomprehensible One by whom all things were made?” 88 Epiphanius of Salamis refer to the Logos both before the incarnation and in the incarnation. From the author’s point of view, despite the incarnation, the Logos remains incomprehensible. Now in the authentic works of the Panarion and the Ancoratus, we hear Epiphanius use the same apophatic vocabulary in reference to the Logos before the incarnation or in relation to the Trinity, to the divinity in itself. he doctrine expressed in these passages is classic and orthodox, exactly what would be expected. On the other hand, if there are authentic texts which use in- comprehensible to describe the incarnate Logos, our argument will be seriously undermined, not only because the word incomprehen- sible is found in the two corpora but because the theological setting is the same. A doctrinal opposition on the same subject would thus be avoided, but we have found no such texts. We have, however, found a text from the Ancoratus which Dölger quotes to support Holl’s thesis: the parallels between Epiphanius’s works and the documents strengthen the claim that Epiphanius is the author of the two cor- pora. In the Ancoratus 36, 5, Epiphanius comments on Jn 1:45 where Philip speaks to Nathanael. Epiphanius: It is said: “We have found the Messiah, the one Moses wrote about” (Jn 1:41 & 45). hose that found him did not do so through the incomprehensible nature [but by the comprehen- sible nature5] that is by the incarnation. he Son was not found due to [his] incomprehensibility, and this is why the doctors of the law were able to grab hold of him; they were able to ind him 5 Even though the word katalēptos is not found in the Greek text edited by Holl — Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion); herausgegeben von Karl Holl, Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1915, p. 46 — Holl adds in a note what he considers to be the missing words : alla dia tēs katalēptikēs. he Ger- man translator — J. Hörmann, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 38, Munich, 1919, p. 63, note 1 — adds this comment: “Der folgende Satz ist sinnegemäss ergänzt,” and adds the following translation: “Sie fanden ihn aber nicht seinem unbegreif- lichen Wesen nach, sondern nach seiner sinnenfälligen, d. h. seiner leiblichen Natur […].” We have translated Holl’s addition and put it in brackets: “[but by the comprehensible nature].” Evaluation of the Arguments 89 because “he gave his back to those who struck [him] and did not turn away his face from the shame of spitting” (Is 50:6). He cried and all the other things that are attributed to him. Who would have been able to whip or strike God the Word in heaven or spit on the Unspeakable and Incomprehensible One? his passage shows that Epiphanius has a double vocabulary: one, apophatic, which includes akatalēptos/incomprehensible to talk about the Logos before the incarnation or in his divine, intratrinitarian life and the other, kataphatic, which includes katalēptos/comprehensible to talk about the Logos in the incarnation. Here we have a contrast between the documents and Epiphanius’s works: two distinct, theological vocabularies used to describe the two states of the Logos. he unincarnate state is called akatalēptos and the incarnate state, katalēptos. We have, on the one hand, the balanced, orthodox doctrine of the two natures of the Logos, expressed in an unquestionably authentic text of Epiphanius, and, on the other, the unbalanced, heterodox doctrine, with a tendency toward Docetism or Euthychian Monophysitism, in which the Logos is described, be- fore and in the incarnation, only in apophatic terms. Was not Nice- phorus right to draw our attention to the illusion and weakness of “common stylistic elements”? Here then is the trap into which Holl, Dölger and others have fallen when making their analyses. We therefore consider Nicephorus’s point as established. On the one hand, the two corpora show common elements of style, but, on the other, these parallels could be due to the fact that Epiphanius wrote both of them or to the fact that Epiphanius wrote one and a forger the other. he stylistic parallels cannot decide the question. he theology, the doctrines, behind the words must be examined. here and only there can we see that the literary parallels present in fact two contrast- ing doctrines, and thus the existence of two diferent authors. b) he Accusation of a New Idolatry in the Church. he author of the Letter to heodosius claims that idolatry, in the fundamental and classical sense of the word, has been reintroduced into the Church. He does not speak of an isolated group, of a sect, or an established 90 Epiphanius of Salamis and organized heresy at the outer limits of the Church or outside the Church. his new idolatry — practice and doctrine — is inside the Church. However, in contrast to the heresies described in the Panar- ion, the accusation contained in the Letter to heodosius does not give any details. Who introduced it? Where? When? What is its extent? Who are its followers? here are no answers to these questions, answers that would make the accusation more concrete, real, and credible. his lack of preci- sion prevents us from deining the problem. We have the impression that the “cancer” has spread nearly everywhere. he author warns the other bishops of the danger — the great doctors of the time and the emperor and he expects that they will take up the ight at his side. Obviously, the author gives great importance to the phenomen- on. We are not dealing here with a small, local problem that concerns only a village lost in the mountains of Cyprus, but a phenomenon that requires the urgent attention and intervention of the established powers of Church and State. he integrity and holiness of the Church, its very being, seem to be in great danger. To point out a contradic- tion between the two corpora, Nicephorus correctly draws our atten- tion to the praise of the Church’s purity and holiness which Epipha- nius sings at the end of the Panarion.6 Can we say that the problem developed so rapidly ater the publication of Panarion? hat does not seem very possible. Our knowledge of the history of Christian art prevents us from accepting the thesis of such a rapid and massive development in such a short time. According to the Letter to heodosius, Church authorities re- mained indiferent to this supposed new idolatry. he author’s insist- ence as well as the repetition of his advice7 exasperated the other bish- ops. Neither did heodosius the Great, it seems, react to follow up on the author’s recommendations. herefore, logically, the great doctors of the golden age of patristics and the Emperor heodosius — other- 6 Panarion, “De Fide,” Williams’ Books II & III, pp. 638–665. 7 Did he advise the other bishops in council, by letter, or individually face to face? From the text itself, we cannot say. Evaluation of the Arguments 91 wise known for his zeal for orthodoxy and his campaign against pagan idolatry — were tainted with idolatry and became accomplices by not acting according to the author’s appeal. It is at least reasonable to draw this conclusion. Nicephorus does so, and we believe it is legitimate. It is not credible, however, that a bishop with a worldwide repu- tation should accuse the most eminent doctors of the Church, and by insinuation, the emperor of idolatry, and that such an accusation should have no echo in the writings of these bishops and doctors or in those of contemporary and later historians. For Christians, to say nothing of Jews and Moslems, idolatry is the highest treason against the Biblical and monotheistic faith. No one launches such an accusation frivolously. It is inconceivable that the historical Epiphanius of Salamis would have made such a serious and repeated accusation without leaving a trace anywhere. We have two historical examples of the reaction that the accusa- tion of idolatry provoked: Byzantine iconoclasm and the Protestant Reformation. hose who were the targets of the accusation, the ic- onodules and Roman Catholics, did not take it lightly. In both cases, a bloody conlict followed and many martyrs perished. A lood of writ- ings, for and against the accusation, inundated the society. For each of these periods, the accusation of idolatry marked a major turning point in history. Nothing was ever the same aterwards. So, if we assume the authenticity of the documents attributed to Epiphanius, we must conclude that Epiphanius of Salamis several times called on the highest ranks of the Church and the Empire to re- move images from the Churches. And why? Because such representa- tions of Christ and the saints, which illed the churches, were idols. If the authorities sanctioned the presence of such images — idols — in the churches, if they did not act, they would then become responsible for sanctioning idolatry. It seems reasonable to expect some kind of reaction, somewhat like those that we know about from the time of Byzantine iconoclasm and the Protestant Reformation. But what do we hear from Epiphanius’s contemporaries and in the histories of the time? A deafening silence! How can we explain such a silence except 92 Epiphanius of Salamis to say that the documents that describe the campaign of Epiphanius of Salamis against Christian images are forgeries? In addition, Epiphanius of Salamis was not a minor bishop of a relatively insigniicant Church. He had a great reputation; he was known and venerated for his holiness of life, for his miracles, and for his ight against heresies. His reputation was such — and his naiv- eté — that the very wily patriarch of Alexandria, heophilus, thought it useful and easy to enrol Epiphanius in his crusade against John Chrysostom on the question of Origenism.8 We must not forget that due to his prejudices and ight against Origen, Epiphanius had ad- versaries, even enemies, in the Church, as well as admirers. he irst would have been quite happy to undermine his authority by pro- claiming loud and clear that the poor old Epiphanius “has totally lost his marbles” by throwing around the accusation of idolatry. But no, here again a total silence reigns on the subject in the contemporary and subsequent documents. he author complains that he had little inluence over the other bishops and inally resigns himself to his fate—living in a Church full of idolatry! his is indeed a very strange situation, if true. Socrates and Sozomen9 both tell us how Epiphanius convoked a synod in Cy- prus to condemn Origen’s writings. He persuaded the bishops of the island to support his anti-Origenist position. He then used this syn- odal condemnation to persuade other bishops to follow his example. So he did have inluence on the bishops of Cyprus and elsewhere. If this is the case, where do we get the image of a poor, old bishop, misunderstood, discouraged, powerless, and isolated — nonetheless valorous and courageous, ighting the good ight against desperate odds — a bishop acting solely out of his great concern for the purity of the faith and the Church? What a romantic picture! But does it it with the image that the historians of the time have painted? 8 Socrates, VI, 14, Ecclesiastical History, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, p. 148; Sozomen VIII, 14, Ecclesiastical History, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, pp. 407–408. 9 Ibid. VI, 10, p.145 and Ibid. VIII, 14, pp. 407–408. Evaluation of the Arguments 93 he two “doctrines” — idolatry and Origenism — are not of the same order. Idolatry is the supreme apostasy. here is no greater sin, and Christians have no tolerance for it. Opinions about Origen, however, were and are divided. Some were for, others against. So if Epiphanius was able to inluence the bishops of Cyprus on a sub- ject he considered to be a heresy, how is it that he did not exercise the same inluence over a question eminently more serious than a “simple” heresy, that is, idolatry? Nicephorus puts forward the same argument, and we believe he is right. Let us not forget that the icono- phobic documents say that an image of Christ or a saint is an idol and that venerating such an image is idolatry. For such a serious question, why did Epiphanius not act in his synod where he had already per- suaded other bishops? According to the Letter to heodosius, Epipha- nius had the attention of a certain number of other bishops. he au- thor himself says that “very few people” paid any attention to him. “Very few people,” however, indicates how many? If only ten percent of the bishops, even ive percent, supported his position, that would not be an insigniicant number. Let us suppose that at Epiphanius’s time there were 500 bishops in the East. Five to ten percent would be about 25 to 50 bishops. here would have been therefore a core of bishops who agreed with Epiphanius that the old idolatry had re-in- iltrated the Church. Is it conceivable that these bishops never wrote anything on the subject? In the theological and historical writings of the time, we have not a single word, not a single reference, no echo whatsoever of a group led by one of the most eminent hierarchs of the time, a group that supported the thesis claiming that Christian churches were polluted with idols. It is simply not credible. Naturally, there is no problem at all if the Letter to heodosius is a forgery, and this is precisely what we claim. If the image of Epiphanius’s time, as painted in the iconophobic documents, conforms to reality, if there were really an iconoclastic crisis during the second half of the fourth century — even a mini- crisis, but the accusation of idolatry seems to exclude the possibility 94 Epiphanius of Salamis that the crisis was “mini” — where, today, are the scholarly studies, the doctoral dissertations, the international colloquia to discuss the irst of three iconoclastic crises? We normally hear about only two iconoclas- tic crises.10 Here again, nothing. here are two explanations: either the fourth-century crisis inds no interest among scholars — that would be indeed surprising — or there is simply nothing to study. c) he Absence of a Heresy of Christian Images in the Panar- ion. We have already seen that Holl accepts the iconodule argument that the absence of a heresy of Christian images in the Panarion is a problem for the authenticity thesis.11 his is a very great conces- sion coming from the champion of the authenticity thesis. It makes the work of those who defend the authenticity of the documents all the more diicult. If the advocates of authenticity want to make Epiphanius into a radical iconophobe during all his life, and not just at the end, they must explain the absence of a heresy of Christian images in the Panarion and deal with Holl’s important concession to his adversaries. If the defenders of authenticity accept Holl’s pos- ition — Epiphanius became a radical iconophobe at the end of his life — they have to explain how in so short a time he became a con- vert to extreme iconophobia. Holl and those who follow him must also explain how Epiphanius went from silence in the Panarion to an extreme position: that the Church itself was being taken over, not just by a new heresy, but by 10 Marie-France Auzépy, L’iconoclasme, collection, Que sais-je?, no. 3769, Pa- ris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2006, p. 4: “Christianity itself has known two iconoclastic periods, the Byzantine ‘Image Dispute’ in the eighth and ninth centuries and in the sixteenth century, the Reformation movement that was oten accompanied with iconoclastic actions...” We can only suppose that Ma- dame Auzépy does not accept the authenticity of the iconophobic documents since she writes only about the two recognized iconoclastic crises. If she had recognized the authenticity of the documents, she would have written about the fourth-century crisis, the irst of three, or would at least have mentioned Epiphanius’s quarrel with some fourth-century iconodules. Are we justiied in reading her silence as a tacit agreement with our thesis? 11 Holl, p. 381. Evaluation of the Arguments 95 idolatry. Is such a change of thinking credible, without leaving a trace in any of his works or elsewhere? Even Tertullian, whose life was a procession toward extremism, let signs of his eventual radicalization. When speaking of the Carpocratians and their syncretistic, idol- atrous worship ofered to statues of Jesus and certain philosophers,12 was Epiphanius horriied by the very existence of such an image or was he opposed to the idolatrous worship ofered to it and to the other images, whose existence as such was not a problem? Did he oppose the existence or the use of Jesus’ image? Epiphanius does not hesitate to call “idolatrous” the worship of an Arabian sect, the Collyridians13, in which women ofered breads to Mary and then “had communion” by eating them. Why did Epiphanius not denounce another practice in the Church if he thought it to be idolatrous, the existence and the veneration of Christian images? We take it then as an established fact that Epiphanius does not mention the heresy of Christian images in the Panarion because, at least at the time he wrote the book, he did not think that the existence and veneration of Christian images was a heresy. As with other ques- tions posed by the documents, the problem disappears if they are not authentic, that is, if Epiphanius was in no way iconophobe, either when he wrote the Panarion or at the end of his life. d) Epiphanius’s Attitude toward Images in the Panarion. Every- one agrees that there is no heresy of Christian images in the Panar- ion, but does the Panarion give us any insight about Epiphanius’s at- titude toward Christian images? Ater all, we are not trying to ind out his attitude toward idols. First of all, does he distinguish between idolatrous and non idolatrous images? In the Panarion,14 Epiphanius says: 12 Panarion 27, 6, 9, Williams’ Book I, p. 105. he same problem of interpreta- tion exists for Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies I, 25, 5, Ante-Nicene Fath- ers I, p. 351 and Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies VII, 20, Ante-Nicene Fath- ers V, p. 114. 13 Ibid. 79, 1, 6, Williams’ Books II & III, p. 621. 14 Ibid. 55, 1, 9, “Against Melchizedekians,” Williams’ Books II & III, p. 78. 96 Epiphanius of Salamis he profundities and glories of the sacred scripture, which are beyond human understanding, have confused many. he na- tives of Petra in Arabia, which is called Rokom and Edom, were in awe of Moses because of his miracles, and at one time they made an image of him, and mistakenly undertook to worship it. hey had no true cause for this, but in their ignorance their error drew an imaginary inference from something real. We have here the problem of whether Epiphanius identiies or distinguishes between idolatrous and non idolatrous images, either pagan or Christian ones. For him, are there two distinct categories of images, or did he believe that every image is idolatrous by nature? Is it one thing to make an image of Moses, not bad in itself, and another thing to worship it, “mistakenly”? It is diicult to draw a conclusion from this passage, but it is certain that the iconophobic writings claim that Epiphanius thought all images were idols. here is another passage in the Panarion15 in which Epiphanius mentions an image that is not worshiped toward which he manifests no hostility. his passage seems to support the hypothesis that he rec- ognized two distinct categories of images. hey [the Orphites] cite other texts as well, and say that Moses too lited the bronze serpent up in the wilderness and exhibited it for the healing of persons whom a snake had bitten. For they say this sort of thing serves as a cure for the bite … he thing Moses held up in those times efected healing by the sight of it — not because of the nature of the snake but by the consent of God, who used the snake to make a sort of antidote for those who were bitten then. Epiphanius continues to speak of the bronze snake as a preigura- tion of Christ, he who was to be lited up on the cross for our salvation. Here, therefore, is an example where Epiphanius shows that he can dis- tinguish between two sorts of images, idolatrous and non idolatrous. he irst kind is to be rejected, and the second can be used according to needs. If he can make that distinction here, why not elsewhere? 15 Ibid., “Against Ophites” 37, 7, 1–3, Williams’ Book I, p. 246. Evaluation of the Arguments 97 As Nicephorus says: “… we judge what is doubtful by what is accepted by everyone.”16 It seems reasonable then to conclude that Epiphanius of Salamis was in fact able to distinguish between two sorts of images. We have thus found a contrast between the icono- phobic documents and Epiphanius’s authentic works and therefore a reason to reject the documents as inauthentic. e) he Transformation of the Historical Epiphanius into a Radical Iconophobe. Nicephorus claims that the iconoclasts altered Epiphanius’s authentic works or created others, as many heretics have done in the past, to paint an iconophobic image of the historical Epiphanius. We have three examples of this transformation process. i. he Latin Translation of the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. Whether the Post-Scriptum is authentic or not in its present, Greek form is not relevant for the moment. It is enough to note that the Latin translation inserts an element of iconophobic doc- trine that is not in the Greek original. Here is the English translation of the Greek: … we saw there a lamp burning. We inquired about this and learned that there was a church in that place. We went in to pray and found a colored door curtain hanging in front of the door. On the door curtain, there was something idolatrous in the form of a man. hey [the parishioners] said that it was perhaps a representation of Christ or of one of the saints; I don’t remem- ber. Knowing that such things are detestable in a church, I tore the door curtain down and suggested that it be used as a burial cloth for a poor person. Here is the English translation of the Latin translation:17 I came to a town called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the door of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly 16 he Refutation and Destruction 2, argument 7. 17 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. II, vol. VI, p. 89. 98 Epiphanius of Salamis remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. he Latin translation introduces several elements that are absent from the Greek text and which transform it into a doctrinally icono- phobic document. First, the Latin text does not mention that the im- age was “idolatrous and having the form of a man.” hen, it does not say that the parishioners were the ones who identiied the image as being of Christ or one of the saints. And inally, the Latin translation introduces a theological principle of the greatest importance, a prin- ciple that has no justiication in the Greek. According to the Latin, it is against the Scriptures to have the image of a man in a church. Instead of having in a church, according to the Greek text, an idolatrous and anthropomorphic image that the parishioners mistook for an image of Christ or a saint, we have in the Latin translation, an image of Christ or a saint in a church, and this is said to be a sacrilege because the Scriptures forbid putting the image of a man in a church. ii. Prostrating Oneself in Front of a Person or hing. In the icono- phobic documents, the author is hostile to every kind of prostration in front of an object made by the hand of man or before a creature (man or angel), calling this bodily gesture idolatry. He does not distinguish between the diferent meanings that the gesture can express. he au- thor as well as all those who adopt this rigorist attitude run up against the many Scriptural and historical examples which show a clear dis- tinction between an idolatrous and an honoriic prostration. As Ni- cephorus notes,18 such an attitude leaves no place for exceptions. We would expect therefore to hear Epiphanius condemn anyone who pros- trated himself before someone or something other than God himself. We would not expect at all to see Epiphanius prostrate himself before a creature. In other words, Epiphanius as he is portrayed in the icono- 18 he Refutation and Destruction, 9. Evaluation of the Arguments 99 phobic documents is a rigorist and an absolutist. Prostrating oneself in front of a man, angel, or object is ipso facto a gesture of idolatry. But what do we ind in Epiphanius’s authentic works and in the Life of St. Epiphanius? First of all, an authentic work: the Letter to John of Jerusalem, not the Post-Scriptum but the uncontested section where Epiphanius denounces Origenism. Epiphanius: “Wherefore I beseech you, dearly beloved [John], and, casting myself down at your feet, I entreat you … that you would save yourself, as it is written, ‘from an untoward generation’ (Ac 2:40). Withdraw, dearly beloved, from the heresy of Origen …”19 Here is the Latin translation of Jerome: “Qua- propter obsecro te, dilectissime, et advolutus pedibus tuis precore: … et recede ab heresi Origenis.” Since we do not have the Greek text, we must rely on St. Jerome’s Latin translation, but it is nearly certain that the Greek behind “advolutus pedibus tuis” is some form of the verb proskyneô. We have here precisely the opposite of what we should expect: Epiphanius of Salamis prostrated before John of Jerusalem, pleading with him to keep away from heresy. It is true that Epipha- nius is not physically prostrated before John, but he clearly expresses his desire and intention to do if he had been in John’s presence. Even if we take this expression only as an expression of politeness, the fact that Epiphanius uses it shows that the bodily gesture is not in and of itself repugnant to him and that he could distinguish between idol- atrous and honoriic prostrations.20 It is strange that Nicephorus does not quote this passage of the Let- ter to John of Jerusalem, as proof of his position. It is possible that he did not know about it. On the other hand, Nicephorus notes that in his au- thentic works Epiphanius does not condemn Paul for not having repri- manded the jailer who prostrated himself before him21 (Ac 16: 29). 19 St. Jerome, Letter 51, 3, NPNF VI, p. 84–85. 20 I would like to thank Madame Pourkier for her comment on this question and for her permission to use it: “In my opinion, Epiphanius knows quite well how to distinguish an idolatrous prostration from an honoriic prostration, [that is] a simple question of politeness.” 21 he Refutation and Destruction 9. 100 Epiphanius of Salamis As for the Life of St. Epiphanius, even if it poses questions of au- thenticity for us, it was authoritative for both the iconoclasts and iconodules of the eighth and ninth centuries. hus taking up the weapons at hand, Nicephorus uses the Life against his adversaries. In the Life of St. Epiphanius, we have several examples of prostra- tion: — Chapter 7, Epiphanius and his sister prostrate themselves in front of Lucian and the bishop; — Chapter 38, the philosopher Epiphanius prostrates himself in front of Epiphanius; — Chapter 62, Epiphanius prostrates himself in front of Pappos; — Chapter 72, Epiphanius prostrates himself before God in prayer; — Chapter 132, Maximus prostrates himself in front of Epipha- nius’s tomb. On the question of prostration, the image of Epiphanius painted in the Life and in the Letter to John of Jerusalem is clearly diferent from the image painted in the documents. It is diicult therefore not to see in the portrait of Epiphanius painted in the iconophobic docu- ments a work of transformation, even the invention of a rigorist at- titude as to the meaning given to prostrating oneself. In summary, three elements manifest the diference between the two Epiphanius’s on the question of prostrating oneself: —in an authentic work, Epiphanius “mentally or symbolically” prostrates himself in front of John of Jerusalem; —Epiphanius does not condemn Biblical and historical examples of honoriic prostration; —the Life contradicts the rigorist image of Epiphanius painted in the iconophobic documents. It seems to us that Nicephorus was quite right to draw our atten- tion to this contrast. Evaluation of the Arguments 101 iii. A Sentence in the Panarion. Following Murray’s analysis,22 we note that Ernst Kitzinger translated a phrase of the Panarion23 in a questionable way. he sentence is found in a passage where Epipha- nius describes the Carpocratians and their practices. hey [the Carpocratians] possess paintings — some, moreover, have images made of gold, silver and other materials — and say that such things are portraits in relief of Jesus, and made by Pon- tius Pilate! hat is, the reliefs are portraits of the actual Jesus during his sojourn among men! hey possess images like these in secret and of certain philosophers besides — Pythagoras, Pla- to, Aristotle, and the rest — and also place other reliefs of Jesus with these philosophers. And having erected them, they wor- ship them and celebrate heathen mysteries. For once they have set these images up, they then follow the customs of heathen; yet what are the customs of the heathen but sacriices and the rest? Kitzinger translated the irst half of the last sentence this way, “… when images are put up, the customs of the pagans do the rest.”24 On Kitzinger’s translation, Murray says, “Kitzinger has made into a generalization about images what in Epiphanius was a speciic refer- ence to a speciic group of heretics and not a discussion of imagery at all.”25 he interpretation of this sentence is important for establish- ing whether Epiphanius distinguished between idolatrous and non- idolatrous images and whether he considered that the very existence of images was part of “the [idolatrous] customs of the nations.” he Greek passage from the Panarion runs like this: “… stésantes … tas eikonas ta tōn ethnōn ethē loipon poiousi.” We have found four trans- lations of this passage, each one giving it a diferent interpretation: — Kitzinger: “when images are put up, the customs of the pa- gans do the rest”; 22 “Art and the Early Church,” pp. 341–342. 23 Panarion 27, 6, 10, Williams’ Book I, p. 105. 24 “he Cult of Icons before Iconoclasm,” p. 93. 25 Murray, p. 342. 102 Epiphanius of Salamis — Amidon: “For they set up these images and do everything else customary to the pagans”;26 — Pourkier: “he fact is that they set up images and follow the other customs of the pagans”;27 — Williams: “For once they have set these images up, they then follow the customs of the heathen.”28 he essential question to be asked is this: can we tell from this text whether Epiphanius believed setting up images or making im- ages is one thing, and not in itself idolatrous, while worshiping them is another and part of “[idolatrous] pagan customs”? Which transla- tion is the best? Let us examine the Greek. Right away, we can put aside Kitzinger’s translation. As Murray has demonstrated, the grammatical subject of stēsantes and of poiousi is the same, that is, the Carpocratians. he three other translators recognize that. If “the customs of the pagans” were the subject, as Kitzinger has translated, the neutral plural, ta tōn ethnōn ethē, would have a singular verb, but the verb is plural. herefore “the Carpo- cratians” is the subject of the participle, stēsantes, and the conjugated verb, poiousi: [the Carpocratians], having set up images, they [the Carpocratians] … Amidon and Pourkier understand the word loipon to mean “the rest of …,” and link it to ta tōn ethnōn ethē to give “and they do all the other things which are customary for the pagans” and “follow the other customs of the pagans.” hese translations imply that setting up images or making images is part of “the customs of the pagans.” hese translations do not seem to be satisfactory because loipon does not have the article to, which would support the translation “the rest of …” What is more, if loipon indicates “the rest of X” then ta … ethē, “the rest of the customs of the pagans,” would be a genitive, but it is a nominative/accusative. herefore, loipon cannot mean “the rest of the customs of the pagans.” Loipon by itself, without the article is oten an 26 Amidon, p. 86. 27 Pourkier, p. 280. 28 Panarion 27, 6, 10, Williams’ Book I, p. 105. Evaluation of the Arguments 103 adverb that means “for the rest/already/then/well then/inally.” (Lid- dell and Scott) Since loipon is found right in front of the verb poiousi, it seems more reasonable to understand it as an adverb which modi- ies poiousi. So then, the best translation is that of Williams: “For once they have set these images up, they [the Carpocratians] then follow the customs of the heathen.” Epiphanius himself seems to reinforce the separation between the making and setting up of images, on the one hand, and the worshiping of them, on the other. He asks and an- swers: “… yet what are the customs of the heathen but sacriices and the rest?” So, if our analysis of this crucial passage is correct, and if the best translation is Williams’, it follows that Epiphanius distinguished be- tween the existence of images, on the one hand, and the worship of images, on the other. he result is that we have a clear contradiction between the two corpora. f) A Genealogical Question. As for the question of Epiphanius’s ethnic origin, we have the choice of two stories which cannot both be true. he question is clearly stated in this way: was Epiphanius of Salamis born a Jew, of poor Jewish parents; did he grow up in the Jewish faith being baptized as a young adult, according to the Life? Or was he born into a family of Nicene Christians growing up and being educated in that faith, according to the Letter to heodosius? If we accept Epiphanius’s Jewish origin, we accept the Life as historical, at least on this point, and the credibility of the Letter to heodosius, and consequently the other iconophobic documents, is seriously undermined. On the other hand, if we accept the Letter to heodosius as authentic, the Life, like on other points perhaps, has little historical value. Let us note in passing that on the question of Epiphanius’ attitude to prostration, the Life is faithful to an authentic, historical work in that Epiphanius by intention if not in reality pros- trated himself in front of John of Jerusalem. he iconophobic docu- ments are therefore not authentic in that they say that the physical gesture of prostrating oneself in front of a creature is idolatry. he similarity of attitudes on this question between the Letter to John of 104 Epiphanius of Salamis Jerusalem and the Life do not solve all the problems, but we have an indication that the Life is not totally devoid of historical credibility. First of all, is the Life historically accurate on the question of Epiphanius’s ethnic origin? Since the publication of the Greek and Latin texts of the Life in 1853 accompanied by a monitum,29 a warn- ing, and even before, scholars have been afraid to give the Life the least amount of credibility. Nicephorus, on the one hand, accepted everything in the Life as historical and used it to combat his adversar- ies. his was a good tactic because at the time the Life was accepted by everyone. Holl, on the other hand, rejects in principle any argument based on the Life. Due to this monitum, everyone is blocked, unable even to consider the question of authenticity. As far as we know, there are no studies of the Life to determine what is and is not credible. Dr. Claudia Rapp of the University of California is preparing a critical edition, but it has not yet been published.30 But if we examine the monitum itself, we see that it does not say to reject everything as un- worthy of credibility. he editor says that there is in it good grain as well as chaf. he reader must exercise his critical mind and judgment to separate the one from the other. Here is the Latin text and a trans- lation of the monitum. he Life of Saint Epiphanius Monitum Subjecta Epiphanii Vita, Latine olim a Surio edita, Graece nunc primum prodit, multis in locis recognita. Quae quanquam in ple- risque fabulae est quam historiae propior, ut jamdudum monuit Baronius in Annalibus (a) erit tamen in lutulenta illa narratione fortasse quod tollere possit. Et alioqui multa continet quae cum vera receptaque ab omnibus historia consentanea sunt, sed ea- dem admista falsis. In quibus discernendis si nihil aliud, tuum Lector humanissime, judicium, ac kritiké tés istorias dunamis exerceri possit. 29 PG 41, col. 23-24. 30 We would like to thank Dr. Rupp for the text she made available to us, 95% critical, as well as for her advice. Evaluation of the Arguments 105 Surius has already, long ago, edited the Latin version of the Life of Saint Epiphanius. We present now for the irst time the Greek version which has been revised many times. In most sections, the events are very close to fabulous stories. As Baronius has shown a long time ago in the Annales (a), the Life will none- theless be mired in mud because of these stories, but it may be possible to pull it out. And again, many stories in the Life have been accepted as true by usage and conirmed by the historical writings of all historians. Nonetheless, the historical stories are mixed in with false ones. herefore, when evaluating the stories, dear Reader, very humanist, at least exercise your judgment as well as your critical sense of history. So let us follow this wise advice. First of all, the irst eight chapters which tell the story of Epipha- nius’s Jewish youth do not give the impression of being unreal fan- tasy. In all, these eight chapters contain about eight percent of the whole text. Why would the author go to such lengths to invent a story that was not true? And that is not all. When reading the irst eight chapters, we do not hear of many miraculous events. — Chapter 3, Cleopas heals Epiphanius of an injury caused by the undisciplined animal and curses it; it falls down dead; — Chapter 5, Epiphanius sees a piece of clothing descend from heaven to cover Lucian; — Chapter 8, the bishop sees Epiphanius’s face shine and a piece of clothing descends from heaven to cover Epiphanius. Except for these episodes, which are not as fantastic as all that, the story reads as though coming from someone who actually lived it. Other elements also highlight Judaism. In Chapter 4, Epiphanius’s stepfather, Tryphon, a doctor of the law, teaches him Hebrew. his is a very natural explanation of his knowledge of this language: “by the word Pentateuch, I mean Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; in Hebrew, B’reshith, Elleh sh’moth, Vayyiqra, Vayidab- ber, and Elleh ha d’varim.”31 31 Panarion 9, 2, 1, Williams’ Book I, p. 30. 106 Epiphanius of Salamis If we do not count Tryphon, Epiphanius meets two other doctors of the law during his life (Chapters 26 and 47) with whom he con- verses. In Chapter 66, we hear the strange story of a sailor who wants to see if Epiphanius, dead and laid out on the ship, is circumcised or not, therefore Jewish. He lits up Epiphanius’s tunic to check. Despite the problems that the Life of St. Epiphanius may pose for us, we see no reason to reject a priori the historicity of these irst eight chapters. On the other hand, the iconoclasts had a very good reason for giving Epiphanius a Christian and Nicene ethnic origin: to give more luster to his reputation for orthodoxy. What is the advantage for an author before iconoclasm to have invented such a long and detailed story about Epiphanius’s Jewish youth so as to highlight his Jewishness? An iconoclastic forger, on the other hand, would have had a great deal of interest in solidly anchoring his iconoclastic stan- dard bearer in the Nicene faith. Our analysis has received the support of Dr. Claudia Rapp,32 at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), who has studied Epiphanius and his Life for a long time and is preparing a critical text of it. We asked her opinion about the authenticity of the irst eight chap- ters, and despite the problems that the Life may present, Dr. Rapp does not see any prima facia reason for rejecting the historicity of Epipha- nius’s Jewish origin. Seeing no reason for rejecting its historicity is ob- viously not the same thing as airming its historicity, but at least our 32 We present here an email we received from Dr. Rapp, 26/06/02: “… I see no reason why modern scholars should be troubled by Epiphanius’ Jewish origin. he Vita insists on it at the beginning and again at the end (the sailor who tries to ind out whether E. is really circumcised is punished for his curiosity — per- haps a humorous warning to the over-curious reader?). I ind it unlikely that the hagiographer invented his Jewish background, as it does not serve any other purpose in the story. Moreover, both the Iconoclasts and the Iconophiles agreed in their appreciation of Epiphanius as a patristic authority, and accepted his Jewish origin. he question of how much Hebrew he knew (the only conceiv- able reason to invent his education by the rabbi Trypho) is still debated among scholars … You are welcome to quote me on this, if it helps to make your argu- mentation easier. With all best wishes, Claudia Rapp” We would like to thank Dr. Rapp for her message. Evaluation of the Arguments 107 analysis and Dr. Rapp’s opinion have the merit of putting into practice the advice of the monitum: exercise your critical thinking and judg- ment. Perhaps Nicephorus erred on one side by accepting everything in the Life as historical, but Holl et al, on the other, certainly went astray in rejecting everything as fantastic and unworthy of credibility. It is no longer suicient to mention the monitum in order to discredit the Life of St. Epiphanius on this question. If any scholars do mention it, at least they should follow its advice and separate the grain from the chaf. A recent article draws our attention to the necessity of exercising discernment about such questions. Without expressly saying not to do what Holl, Nicephorus et al have done, namely, reject or accept the Life as a whole, that is, without previous examination, homas Pratsch33 poses precisely this question about hagiographical litera- ture. What can we accept as historical and by which criteria can we separate the good grain from the chaf? According to Pratch, … the distinction between fact and iction has to be made not for the genre of hagiography as a whole, nor even for individual saints’ Lives6 (note 6: For example by regarding one saint’s Life as fact throughout, another as pure iction.), but for each single piece of information.34 In other words, it is the wisdom of the monitum. Pratsch also presents six criteria of discernment. By applying them, we can arrive at a better appreciation of the historicity of a piece of information contained in a life. Pratsch’s method and criteria are highly relevant to our question. 1. Topoi: a literary common place. A story or event that is oten repeated and added to a life because the author lacks infor- mation or he wants to make a good impression. 33 “Exploring the Jungle: Hagiographical Literature between Fact and Fiction,” Fity Years of Prosopography: he Later Roman Empire, Byzantium and Beyond, Averil Cameron, ed., Oxford University Press for he British Academy, 2003, pp. 59–72. 34 Ibid., p. 62. 108 Epiphanius of Salamis 2. An obvious leaning: the author shows a prejudice for or against someone or something. He writes to support or con- demn a current of opinion, a politico-religious party, etc. 3. Distribution of information: the division of a life into pro- logue, narration, miracles, epilogue. he most reliable infor- mation is found in the narrative sections and the least, in the prologue, epilogue, and miracle stories. 4. Credibility and probability: in the context of a life, a piece of information that is credible, likely, probable, possible, or or- dinary is more likely to be accepted as historical than one that is not credible, unlikely, improbable, impossible, extraordin- ary, or fantastic. 5. he time between the period when the saint lived and the time his life was written: in general, what is written closer to the time when the saint lived is more credible that what was written much later. 6. Levels of language, literary models used by the author, and the audience the author was writing for. If we apply these discernment criteria to the Life of St. Epiphanius and speciically to the chapters about his Jewish youth, what results do we obtain? 1. It is not a common place to give a Jewish ethnic origin to a saint; it is rather more unusual. If the author had nothing to say about Epiphanius’s youth, why would he have added eight chapters of de- tailed information? If an author lacks information, he does not invent a long story. He passes rather quickly over the period with general- ities, and this is exactly what the authors of articles on Epiphanius do in encyclopedias and patristic dictionaries. Does a Jewish youth make a good impression? Not necessarily. It does not make a bad impres- sion either, seeing that Epiphanius converted as an adult. herefore the criterion of “a common place” does not undermine the credibility of Epiphanius’s Jewish origin. 2. Does the author of the Life show a leaning in favor or against Judaism? No. He does not seem to lean either way. He is simply trans- Evaluation of the Arguments 109 mitting information. Does Epiphanius’s Jewish origin give him a greater reputation or increase his holiness? Not necessarily. Does his Jewish origin play a key role; does it have an eminent or crucial place in the structure of the Life? Not especially. In fact, the parts referring to Judaism could be taken out without making the story incompre- hensible. So then, why add it? Because the information came from Epiphanius himself or from a source close to him. 3. As for the distribution of information, we must admit that the story of his youth is naturally found at the beginning, therefore in the prologue, but upon examining the text more closely, we see that the author begins directly with the narration: “Epiphanius came from the region around Eleutheropolis109 … on a farm...his father was a farmer and his mother a linen weaver …” here is no prologue if we understand that to mean a section in which the author himself speaks and justiies his unworthy, but necessary work. he Life of St. Nice- phorus begins with such a prologue: Gentlemen, had not a time of tears brought me to the point of heartbreak …, my narrative would have lowed switly and smoothly, fulilling its eager desire to the best of its ability, al- though falling short of its subject … Come, therefore, let us por- tray for you his entire image in its heavenly and spiritual di- mensions by sketching the man starting from his family and by outlining the events of his material life.35 So if the Life of St. Epiphanius does not have a prologue but begins directly with the narration, the third criteria leans clearly in favor of the historicity of the irst eight chapters, and therefore in favor of Epiphanius’s Jewish origin. 4. Is there anything incredible or improbable in the irst chapters of the Life? he answer is no. Putting aside the two visions and the incident of Epiphanius’s being healed followed by the sudden death of the undisciplined animal, the story is completely plausible and 35 Byzantine Defenders of Images, he Life of St. Nicephorus, Elizabeth A. Fisher, tr., Washington DC, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998, pp. 41–44. 110 Epiphanius of Salamis credible. During his teenage years, Epiphanius received a not very profound education, certainly not classical, in Hebrew rather than in Greek. His non Greek intellectual education, combined with an ordinary intelligence, also explain his rather mediocre literary style in Greek, we might even say lame, from the point of view of the lan- guage aristocrats in Constantinople and Alexandria. If he were born into a rich and cultivated family of Nicene Christians, he would cer- tainly have had the advantage of a more classical education, which would not necessarily have included the study of Hebrew. In con- clusion, the criteria of probability and likelihood positively support the historicity of the Jewish origin of Epiphanius; at least it does not undermine it. 5. Since we have only one text of the Life, we cannot compare various versions and apply criteria number ive. Once again, nothing undermines the hypothesis that Epiphanius was of Jewish origin. 6. Having only one version of the Life, the criteria of language level etc. cannot be applied, thus neither conirming nor undermin- ing the historicity of the section. Even though Pratsch’s method does not “prove” beyond any doubt that the irst eight chapters of the Life of St. Epiphanius are historical, it seems reasonable to conclude that the historicity of Epiphanius’s Jewish origin has in no way been cast into doubt. We might even say that having successfully run the gauntlet, it has in fact been re- inforced. In other words, Pratsch’s method positively contributes to establishing the strong probability that these chapters are historical. Another recent work36 highlights the problems related to af- irming that, according to the Letter to heodosius, Epiphanius and his parents were conceived/born in the faith of Nicaea. First of all, Kösters claims that an author at the end of the fourth century would naturally want to present himself as being in the line of Nicene ortho- doxy. According to Kösters, this sort of claim is a common place of many authors and should not be taken very seriously. Secondly, the 36 Kösters, pp. 18-20. Evaluation of the Arguments 111 word gegennēntai inspires doubt in him. he Epiphanius of the Letter to heodosius says, “… we also — like a son from our youngest child- hood — as well as our parents who were conceived/born in this faith, we confess the same faith and we irmly hold to it, as you also …” If we say, as is generally accepted, that Epiphanius was born between 310 and 315, thus ten to iteen years before the Council of Nicaea in 325, how is it possible that he could have been raised “from our youngest childhood” in the Nicene faith? And even less, his parents who were born, let us say, at least twenty years before, around 290 or 295? his second airmation of the author of the Letter naturally fol- lows the irst to reinforce Epiphanius reputation of orthodoxy. From these two points, Kösters concluded: “hus, it seems that Epiphanius [rather the author], especially in the Letter, wants to invent a Nicene tradition.”37 In other words, the author invented for Epiphanius a family history that was meant to amplify his reputation for ortho- doxy. Kösters does not draw the conclusion, as we do, and deny the authenticity of the Letter, but the fact of doubting the authenticity of this crucial passage is an objective support of our thesis. To suppose that the author added elements to Epiphanius’s biography naturally leads us to conclude that it was not Epiphanius who produced them. At the end of his life, would the historical Epiphanius have needed to reinforce his reputation for orthodoxy? Who would have put it in doubt? On the other hand, who except the iconoclasts of the eighth century would have had such a great interest in reinforcing Epipha- nius’s reputation by adding such elements to his biography? hey would certainly have wanted to appropriate his prestige for a cause iercely disputed: iconoclasm. Here again, by rejecting the authenti- city of the Letter to heodosius, a false problem disappears. So then, seeing no reason to reject the authenticity of the irst eight chapters of the Life of St. Epiphanius, we accept it and as a result Epiphanius’s Jewish origin. And so the whole argumentation in favor 37 Ibid., pp. 19–20. “Es scheint so, dass Epiphanius in dem Brief vor allem eine nizänishe Tradition herstellen wollte.” 112 Epiphanius of Salamis of the authenticity of the iconophobic documents has been severely undermined. g) An Archaeological Question. Nicephorus says: [the 6t argument] As for the most convincing argument of all, here it is: from the very beginning of time, and even in his own time, according to the Life of the most holy Epiphanius even to our own time, all the churches [of Cyprus] consecrated to God shine brilliantly with the decoration of sacred images.38 Many defenders of images in the iconoclastic period counter- attacked by claiming that, during Epiphanius’s own life and immedi- ately ater his death, there were images, even of him, in the churches of Cyprus. If this is so, how could Epiphanius have thought that Christian images were idols? In chapter 132 of the Life, we read the following: he Emperor Arcadius … ordered that a pious man, a soldier called Maximus, go along with the delegates. Now Maximus had an evil spirit in him and as soon as he arrived in Constantia, he entered the place where our holy father’s relics were found, as he had been ordered to do. He prostrated himself on the ground and made the following prayer on the coin: “Oh St. Epipha- nius, worthy man of God, drive out of me the evil spirit and I will set up this type [image] for all to see, as a thanksgiving of- fering.” And immediately, the evil spirit went out of Maximus. he following day, he uncovered the type [image] in public and everyone was very joyful because of this gesture. Of course, some may say that the author later on transposed the situation of his time back to Epiphanius’s time. hat is fair, but we have here a question which archaeology can help us to resolve. What do we know about images in the churches of Cyprus during the life of Epiphanius, and let us say, for ity years ater his death, during a time when the faithful would have had a strong memory of him? Let us say between 350 and 450. Is there the slightest trace of igurative images in the churches of Cyprus during that time? If yes, or if later on archaeologists discover some, the authenticity of the iconophobic 38 he Refutation and Destruction 2. Evaluation of the Arguments 113 documents and Epiphanius’s so-called iconophobia would seriously be compromised. Up to now, we have not been able to ind any ar- chaeological evidence relevant to the question; archaeology is none- theless capable of someday helping to resolve it. If archaeologists do ind some evidence that there were images in the churches of Cyprus during Epiphanius’s time, the historicity of the Life on this question, the credibility of Nicephorus’s argument, and the thesis that Epipha- nius is not the author of the documents will be greatly strengthened. h) he Letter to heodosius: “… to have God painted in colors. Who ever heard of such a thing?” In the Letter to heodosius, Epiphanius the iconophobe asks a series of questions which suppose a negative answer. Who among the ancient fathers has painted an image of Christ in a church or placed it in his own house? Who among the an- cient bishops has painted Christ on door curtains, dishonoring him in this way? And who has ever painted on door curtains or on walls Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the other prophets and patriarchs, or Peter, Andrew, James, John, Paul, or the other apostles? Who has ever dishonored them this way and exposed them to public ridicule? It would seem that the author claims to live in a Church where no one has ever heard of Christian images or where the appearance of Christian images is a very recent phenomenon. But can we take such a claim seriously? On the other hand, we read in the Treatise that the author in fact knew about and had seen frescoes of the apostles: Precisely by this reasoning, some of you have had the audacity, ater having plastered a wall inside the holy house, to represent the images of Peter, John, and Paul with various colors, as I can see by the inscriptions written on each of the images falsely called (images). he inscriptions have been written under the inluence of the painter’s insanity and according to his (twisted) way of thinking. We also read in the Letter to heodosius that there existed mo- saics and that the emperor intended to create more of them: 114 Epiphanius of Salamis As for the mosaic images that people are hoping to make — be- cause it is diicult to remove them — you will know what to command according to the wisdom God has given you. If it is possible to remove these things, that will be very good. If, on the other hand, it is impossible, people should be happy with the mo- saics that have already been put up, but not to make any more. So then, the author admits that there were mosaics in the church- es. If the Letter to heodosius is authentic, Christian images, especially mosaics, already existed for some time. Mosaics are not made on the spur of the moment. hey must be planned, the costs are enormous, and the work needed to make them is immense. he author does not say where he found the mosaics, but we can suppose that they existed at least in Constantinople around 394, the date commonly accepted for the composition of the Letter to heodosius, if it is authentic. But is it credible that a man who had traveled everywhere in the Roman Empire between 360 and 403, who had visited the great cen- ters of Christianity, could seem to say that he and others had never seen nor heard about Christian images? Many sources bear witness to the fact that Christian images had already existed for a long time. Around the year 200, Tertullian39 bears witness to the fact that a bishop of the Great Church — maybe even the bishop of Rome — had a chalice on which was engraved the image of the Good Shepherd, which symbolically represented Christ. Images of Christ, Adam and Eve, St. Peter and others appeared around 25040 at Dura-Europos, to say nothing of the images of the prophets in the synagogue at Dura, around 240.41 39 De Pudicitia X, 11–12, he Ante-Nicene Fathers IV, “On Modesty,” p. 85. 40 C. Kraeling, he Excavations at Dura-Europos: he Christian Building Final Report VII/I, New Haven CN, Yale University Press, 1967, as well as encyclo- pedia articles and books on Christian art. 41 Ibid., he Excavations at Dura-Europos: he Synagogue Final Report VIII/I, New Haven CN, Yale University Press, 1956, and Gabrielle Sedrajna, L’art juif, Paris, Citadelle and Mazenod, 1995, as well as encyclopedia articles and books on Jewish art. Evaluation of the Arguments 115 Between 360 and 403, the catacombs of Rome42 were very popu- lar. It was there that were found, and still today, the images which the iconophobic Epiphanius claims never to have heard of, even though he visited Rome at the time when Christians, like St. Jerome, loved to visit them: “In my childhood, at Rome, when I was doing my liberal arts studies, I was accustomed, along with friends of my age and way of life, to visit the tombs of the apostles and martyrs on Sunday. We oten entered into the crypts deeply cut into the ground …”43 Can we imagine that the bishop of Rome would not have shown the cata- combs to a visitor of mark like Epiphanius? Can we imagine that a pious man like Epiphanius would not have wanted to visit the tombs of the martyrs, decorated with images? In his he Proof of the Gospel,44 Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that around 300 he himself saw an image of the three mysterious visitors to Abraham. He also saw the bronze statue, supposedly of Christ at Panias, as well as portraits of Christ and the apostles.45 At the Council of Elvira46 in Spain around 300, the bishops pro- hibited the painting of Christian images on the walls of churches, thus 42 Vincenzo Nicolai, he Christian Catacombs of Rome, Schenell and Steiner, 2006; Philippe Pergola, Christian Rome: Past and Present: Early Christian Rome, Catacombs, and Basilicas, Getty Trust Publications, 2002; Umberto Fasola, he Catacombs of Rome and the Origins of Christianity, Scala, 1981, as well as en- cyclopedia articles and books on Christian art. 43 St. Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel XII, xl, 5/13, Corpus Christianorum Lat- ina 75: S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, Part I, 4, 1964, pp. 556–557: “Dum essem Romae puer et liberalibus studiis erudirer, solebam cum ceteris eiusdem aetatis et prospositi, diebus Dominicis sepulcra apostolorum et martryum circumire, cre- broque cryptas ingredi auae, in terrarium profunda defossae …” 44 he Proof of the Gospel V, 9, W.J. Ferrar, tr., London, Society for the Propaga- tion of Christian Knowledge, 1920, pp. 153–254. 45 he History of the Church VII, XVIII, G. A. Williamson, tr., Dorset Press, 1984, pp. 301–302. 46 “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is ven- erated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.” Steven Bigham, Early Chris- tian Attitudes toward Images, “Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira,” pp. 161–166; J. Gaudemet, “Le concile d’Elvire,” Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclé- siastique 15, 1963, col. 317-348; S. Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality: he Emergence 116 Epiphanius of Salamis bearing witness to the existence of Christian frescoes at that date. he controversy surrounding this council is another question, but at least we know that such images existed then and for some undetermined amount of time. Eusebius says, around 335, “I partly endeavored to gather from the prophetic visions apt illustrations of the symbols it displayed,”47 “it” being the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. Even if the expression “the symbols” is here rather imprecise, other authors have used it to designate igurative images. his passage demonstrates most deinitely the possibility as well as the probability the there were images on the most important church in the world at that time. Various other orthodox Fathers of the fourth century speak about Christian images in their works.48 It is possible to cite other, similar examples, but these should suf- ice to establish with certainty that the Christian world at the end of the fourth century was far from being aniconic. Consequently, it is not very credible for a man who has lived so long and traveled as much as Epiphanius did to claim that no one had ever heard about the existence of Christian images. It was the forger of the iconophob- ic documents who, mistaking his desires for reality, put these words into Epiphanius’s mouth. Some may say that these questions are only rhetorical, that they are the result of Epiphanius’s tendency to emotional exaggeration, of his iery character, and of his ability to lose his head. Certainly, that can be of Canon Law at the Synod of Elvira, Philadelphie, Temple University Press, 1972; Henri Leclercq, “Elvire (Concile d’),” Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie 14/2, 1921, col. 2687–2694; H. Koch, Die altchristliche Bilderfrage nach den literarischen Quellen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917, pp. 31–41. 47 he Life of Constantine, he Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers I, IV, XLV, Grand Rapids MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986, p. 552. 48 St. Basil the Great, Sermon 19, “On the Holy Forty Martyrs,” Translated by the Holy Transiguration Monastery, http://htmadmin.phpwebhosting.com/ forty_martyrs.htm; St.Gregory of Nyssa, “In Praise of St. heodore,” http:// www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stt22001.htm; and St. Gregory Naziansus, “Polemon,” Poem on Virtue, PG 37, 737–738. Evaluation of the Arguments 117 said, but at the same time, we have to suppose that the author wanted to be taken seriously. If someone writes a letter to the emperor or a polemical text that will be examined by one’s adversaries, one must be very prudent. Such an author cannot airm just anything as being true when everyone knows that the opposite it true. So we have a choice: either Epiphanius, despite his eccentric personality, never wrote these words or else he was far more bizarre than what anyone thinks. i) Precious But Unexploited Data. As we have seen in the intro- duction of this study, the vast majority of modern scholars accept the authenticity of the iconophobic documents and consequently the iconophobic portrait of Epiphanius that they paint. It seems then somewhat strange that the historical and artistic data that are found in them are nearly absent from the works that deal with these subjects. In the last section of his study, however, Holl tells us that “the main proit to be gained through our documents deals with the history of Chris- tian art and the history of image veneration.”49 If scholarly studies have established their authenticity, why is there such reticence about adding the “solid” data to the corpus of credible knowledge and about incorporating them into the general works on the fourth century and on Christian art? Can it be that there is still some doubt? Do contem- porary scholars writing on these subjects not know the content of the documents or the relevance of their data? Is there a diference between accepting the authenticity of a document and assimilating its content into scholarly studies? Let us look at some examples. i. Epiphanius’s Ethnic Origin. If we assume the authenticity of the iconophobic documents, why do we not see the information about Epiphanius’s parents, and thus his lineage, in encyclopedia articles and general studies of Patrology? Quasten50 mentions simply that Epiphanius was born near Eleutheropolis, and C. Riggi51 in his arti- cle on Epiphanius does the same. hat is all. Tandonnet52 mentions 49 Holl, pp. 382 f. 50 Quasten, p. 384. 51 Riggi, Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien I, p. 841. 52 Tandonnet, col. 854–855. 118 Epiphanius of Salamis the two versions of Epiphanius’s ethnic origin, but Dechow53 is the only author to clearly state that Epiphanius “was raised in a Christian family with Nicene sympathies, but the idea that his parents were rich is conjectural; it seems though that they sent him to Egypt for studies.” Most scholars do not speak about the question. On the other hand, “Epiphanius” says in the Letter to heodosius, “Following them, we also — like sons from our earliest childhood — as well as our par- ents who were conceived in this faith, we confess the same faith and hold it irmly like you too, O very pious Emperor.” ii. he controversy over images in the fourth century. In the Trea- tise (“he fathers detested the idols of the nations, but we make im- ages of the saints in their memory, and we prostrate ourselves in front of them in their honor.”), we hear the echo of a quarrel between ic- onodules and the author. Was Epiphanius the iconophobe alone in his struggle, or was he part of a group of iconophobes? he text seems to indicate that he protested alone, at least he speaks in the singu- lar. But there is an indication that there was a party.54 In any case, the iconodules justiied frescoes of the saints, speciically of Peter, John, and Paul by saying that they commemorate the saints and that they prostrate themselves in front of their images to honor them. We therefore learn the following from the text: — that there was a dispute over Christian images at the end of the fourth century between at least one bishop with a worldwide reputa- tion and eminent bishops of the time, to say nothing of the emperor; — that there were some churches with frescoes of the saints on which their names were written; — that the iconodules prostrated themselves in front of these images; — that the iconodules justiied this practice by invoking com- memoration of the saints and the honor paid to them through their images; 53 Jon Dechow, pp. 14–15. In note 1, p. 15, Dechow: “At any rate, Epiphanius’ parents were not poor Jews who brought him up in their faith until he was 16, as stated in Jo. Disc., V. Épiph. 2.” 54 See above Chapter 4, “he Accusation of a New Idolatry in the Church.” Evaluation of the Arguments 119 — that several iconophobes attacked the iconodules by saying that such practices never existed; — that the iconodules invoked the incarnation as justiication for the image of Christ. Recently, Michel Kaplan, professor of Byzantine history at the Uni- versity of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, wrote about the appearance of the veneration of images in Eastern Christianity, by saying, “First, the ven- eration of relics and the tombs of the martyrs spread; at the beginning of the sixth century, there appeared the irst texts saying that prosky- nesis was practiced in front of images in the churches.”55 If the Treatise is authentic, as is claimed by the dominant scholarly opinion, Professor Kaplan should have written “at the end of the fourth century,” but he did not. Does he not know about such an important source of information, or does he not consider the documents authentic? In the irst case, as in the second, the thesis of the authenticity of the iconophobic documents is not given any credit. Hans Belting seems to be another example of the same phenomenon: “It was in the sixth century that for the irst time the question of the use of religious images in the Church was raised.”56 iii. he Data Found in the Letter to heodosius. he Letter to heo- dosius shows us a great deal about Christian art in Epiphanius’s time, if indeed he is the author. However, in studies of paleochristian art, we have not found any references to these documents which, accord- ing to Holl, are so useful: — the iconophobic attitude of Epiphanius was known to the bish- ops of his time. He himself oten made it known to them, but few paid attention to what he said; — wall and door curtains existed in churches, baptisteries, hous- es, martyr’s chapels, and they carried the image of Christ, the apostles and the prophets; —frescoes of these same people were on the walls of Christian buildings; 55 La chrétienté byzantine, p. 35. 56 Hans Belting, p. 195. 120 Epiphanius of Salamis —mosaics also existed in these buildings; —the authorities planned to make more mosaics; —the Fathers everywhere painted the cross on walls, the author claiming that they painted only the cross; —Christian artists painted Christ with long hair; —St. Peter was represented old, with short hair and a beard; —St. Paul was represented either as a little bald on the front of his head or completely bald, but with a beard; —the other disciples had short hair. v. Data Found in the Will. he Will shows us that Christians painted images on church walls and in cemeteries. If this were not the case, the author would not have said not to do it. A prohibition supposes the people are doing what is prohibited. vi. Data Found in the Dogmatic Letter. he Dogmatic Letter shows that certain Christians painted Christ in colors. No one is anathema- tized for something unless people are doing that thing. If Holl, and all those who follow him, is right when he says that “the writings against the veneration of images are as certainly authen- tic as the Ancoratus and the Panarion,57 why do scholars and authors not exploit this data? Why are these “facts” not integrated into books on Christian art? Even though scholars speak of Epiphanius for other things, they do not mention the information on Christian art at his time. Does this reticence indicate a fear of risking academic reputa- tions? Is it possible that the historical and artistic data contained in the iconophobic documents are not as sure as some claim? Holl wrote in 1916 and Ostrogorsky in 1928. We are now in 2007. Surely this is enough time, nearly a century, to allow the scientiic community to integrate and digest the “facts.” Despite the airmations of Holl et al, we believe that this aca- demic reticence shows that scholars are not really at ease with the Holl’s conclusions. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that scholars remain unconvinced. 57 Holl, p. 380. Evaluation of the Arguments 121 j) Are the Iconophobic Documents Docetic? According to the iconodule counter-attack, Epiphanius the iconophobe expresses a heretical Christology (Docetic, Manichaean, or Monophysite of the Eutychian type) which is the source of his attitude toward Christian images. Is this claim credible? It is hardly possible to accuse the his- torical Epiphanius of such a Christological deviance, but what does the iconophobic author say that could justify the iconodules in mak- ing such an attack? he author is certainly strong in his airmation of Christ’s divin- ity. No one can attack him on this point. he words incomprehensible, inexpressible, ungraspable by the mind, and uncircumscribable put him clearly in the camp of Nicene orthodoxy. Christ is consubstantial with the Father. Very good. However, it is on the incarnation that we see his weakness. He does not clearly say that the Logos, in becoming man of Mary, became comprehensible, expressible, graspable by the mind, and circumscribable. Everything that is said about the divinity of the Logos, before as well as in the incarnation, all the apophatic qualii- cations should be kataphatic when speaking of the incarnate Logos’s humanity. But the author says nothing about that. We have already dealt with the subject when talking about the word akatalēptos.58 Rather, the author knows that the iconodules put forward pre- cisely this argument, but it is natural to understand that “certain people say that...” means that he, the author, does not say that, does not share that opinion. Here we put words into the author’s mouth: “You, the iconodules, you say one thing, but I, a non iconodule, I say something else.” herefore by only using an apophatic vocabu- lary for the incarnate Logos and by rejecting the iconodules’ theo- logical justiication based on the reality and fullness of the Logos’s human nature, including a real humanity consubstantial with that of his mother, therefore representable, the author opens himself up to the charge of Docetism (Jesus was only man in appearance) or of Monophytism of the Eutychian type (his humanity was absorbed 58 See above Chapter 4, “Style or doctrine.” 122 Epiphanius of Salamis into his divinity). However the author conceives the humanity of the Logos in the incarnation, he does not speak of it in a balanced way, as do the iconodules and the historical Epiphanius. Is not Docetism precisely that: refusal to give to Christ’s humanity all the characteris- tics of our humanity, excepting sin? In the Dogmatic Letter, the author anathematizes those who use material colors to represent the divine features of the Word of God in the incarnation, and not the human or physical features. Everyone agrees that no one can paint the Word’s truly divine features, either be- fore or in the incarnation. “Represent the divine features” is certainly an unusual expression. Who would defend the thesis that Christian artists can represent the “divine features” with material colors, or otherwise, before or in the incarnation? But what about the human or physical features in the incarnation? Why does the author not clearly speak out on this question? he Letter to heodosius maintains the ambiguity: “… if it is proper for us to have God [Christ] painted in colors.” How can God be painted in colors except in his incarnation? It was not diicult for Nicephorus to ind a key passage in Epipha- nius’s authentic works where Epiphanius clearly expresses what the iconophobic Epiphanius hesitates or refuses to say. By expression himself clearly on this matter, Epiphanius separates himself from the language and thought of the author: In the fullness of his divinity and in the consubstantial existence [hypostasis] of God the Word, he embraces the fact of being man as well as everything that is man. I say perfect man who possesses all the things that are in man as well as the way of being man. he Unbegotten Son came and assumed this perfect human existence so as to perfectly carry out the fullness of salvation, as God, in the perfect man. He wanted nothing to be lost; he did not want to forget any part of man, for such a forgotten part in its turn would no doubt then again become food for the devil.59 It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there exists a real difer- ence between the two corpora on the incarnation: the Epiphanius of 59 Ancoratus 75, quoted by Nicephorus in the Refutation 2. Evaluation of the Arguments 123 the Ancoratus expresses a doctrine of the fullness of Christ’s human nature while the Epiphanius of the iconophobic documents express nothing of the kind. he hypothesis of two diferent authors is only strengthened by this analysis. Holl and others think that the accusa- tion of Docetism does not even merit a response; it is “infantile,” but Nicephorus’s accusation of Docetism stands as one of the weightiest arguments in his arsenal. k) Did Epiphanius hink Jesus Was a Nazirite? Do we have another contradiction between the two corpora on the question of whether Jesus was a nazirite or not? It is obvious that Epiphanius the iconophobe refuses to recognize him as such, according to this pas- sage from the Letter to heodosius: At the same time, on the basis of their own conceptions, they lie, those who represent the physical characteristics of the saints in various ways. Sometimes they paint them old; sometimes they paint the same people young. As for these forms, they [the art- ists] have adopted them as their own without ever having seen them. For example, they represent the Savior with long hair, fol- lowing their imagination, because he was called a nazirite. Now the nazirites did have long hair, but the artists lie when they try to associate the types with the Lord, for the Savior drank wine and the nazirites did not. Can we say, however, that in his authentic works, Epiphanius thought Christ was a consecrated man according to the nazirate and thus attributed to him long hair? First of all, there is the question of vocabulary.60 In the Panarion, Epiphanius uses three words with dis- tinct deinitions: — nazōrēen: this word is the name given to Jesus because he was from the town of Nazareth; he was a Nazōrēen and not a Jerusalemite, for example. Later nazōrēen came to designate those who followed Jesus of Nazareth and believed him to be the Messiah. According to Epipha- nius, nazōrēen was the irst name used to designate those who were later 60 Here we follow the analysis of A. Pourkier: L’hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Sa- lamine, “La notice contre les nazôréens” XIII, pp. 414–475, surtout pp. 450–454. 124 Epiphanius of Salamis called Christians. And inally, the word designated the heretical sect of Judeo-Christians. Ancoratus 13 gives nazōrēen in a list of heresies. — nazarēen designates an exclusively Jewish sect: the Panarion, Heresy 18. —nazirēen is Epiphanius’s word for a man consecrated to God according to the nazirate, a nazirite (Nm 6:12). It is to be noted that in the Panarion and in the Ancoratus, Epipha- nius is consistent in his use of vocabulary. He does not confuse the words. Epiphanius the iconophobe, on the other hand, uses the word nazōrēen to mean nazirēen, a nazirite. We have here a clear change in vocabulary from what we see in the Panarion and the Ancoratus. Here is another objective diference between the two corpora. In the Refutation,61 Nicephorus uses the three words as does Epiphanius the iconophobe. For Nicephorus, nazôréen means a nazir- ite. If we assume that at the beginning of the ninth century, it was common practice to use the word nazōrēen to mean a nazirite, there is therefore a striking resemblance between the Refutation written be- tween 815 and 820 and the Letter to heodosius. On the other hand, the last two writings are clearly diferent in their use of these words from the Panarion and the Ancoratus written around 374. Is this not a reason to date the Letter to heodosius to the same period as the Refu- tation, that is end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth century? Apart from the question of vocabulary, we understand the essen- tial question to be as follows: for the historical Epiphanius was Jesus a nazirite or not; did he have long hair or not?62 Nicephorus presents certain passages from the Panarion to prove that Epiphanius thought that Jesus was a nazirite, wanting to show a contradiction between the two Epiphanius’s. Which passages did he refer to? In the chapter “Against Antidicomarians,”63 Epiphanius tells us that James, irst-born son of Joseph and “brother of the Lord,” was a 61 he Refutation and Destruction 19. 62 Nm 6:5: “As long as he [the nazirite] is consecrated by his vow, a razor will not pass on his head...he will let his hair grow freely.” 63 Panarion 78, 7, 5, Williams’ Books II & III, p. 605. Evaluation of the Arguments 125 man consecrated according to the nazirate. Further along,64 Epipha- nius says that the sons of Joseph knew the practices of the nazirate. his is not a clear airmation that Jesus himself was a nazirite, but, according to Epiphanius, he was at least closely associated with this form of consecration to God and knew it intimately. In the chapter “Against Messalians,”65 Epiphanius condemns cer- tain monks in Mesopotamia for letting their hair grow and for cutting their beards. He justiies this condemnation by referring to the typol- ogy of the nazirites in the Old Testament who, according to him, had long hair “because of the type.” he nazirites were preigurations of the antitype who was to come, Christ. And since the antitype, Christ, has come, he who was to fulill the law and the prophets as well as all the Old Testament types, one of which was the nazirite’s long hair, men should no longer let their hair grow long. It seems reasonable to conclude that in the Panarion, Epipha- nius believed that Jesus had long hair and that he was either formally a nazirite or a nazirite by association with his family. his second explanation would resolve the problem of his being a nazirite while drinking wine, a sort of “deutero-nazirite.” Let us say that Jesus was not formally a nazirite, but that he had adopted certain practices, such as long hair, but not all of them. If, according to Epiphanius’s conception, Jesus had had short hair, the typology would have no meaning and his argument against the monks would lose its force. So, these two passages from the authentic works of Epiphanius support Nicephorus’s airmation that there are real difer- ences between the two corpora perhaps on the question of Jesus’ being a nazirite and certainly on the question of his long hair. hey reveal the presence of two diferent authors: the historical Epiphanius of the au- thentic works and Epiphanius the forger of the iconophobic documents. l) Disdain for Matter. In the Treatise, Nicephorus attacks the doctrine on matter and its incapacity to carry holiness as well as the 64 Ibid., 78, 14, 3 p. 611. 65 Ibid., 80, 6, 5–7, 4, pp. 622–635. 126 Epiphanius of Salamis glory of God and the saints.66 he author of the Treatise says, “How then do you want to see the saints, who are going to shine in glory, represented in something vile, dead, and voiceless …” Or, “Again, how can you prostrate yourselves in front of angels, who are spiritual, ever-living beings, drawing their images in dead matter …?” Nicephorus is quite right in accusing the author of scorning matter, and thus God the Creator, by designating it as vile, voiceless, and dead. According to Epiphanius the iconophobe, by representing the saints in an image composed of “dead, vile, and voiceless mat- ter,” artists dishonor them. So, matter, according to the author of the iconophobic documents, cannot be theophoros, that is, a carrier of God. It is diicult to attribute such scorn for matter to Epiphanius of Salamis who wrote the following, among other things:67 But I shall say once more, what is the reason for the mixture of the spiritual with the soulish and material? For the thing that you call an inner man, which is united with the second and third “outer man,” I mean with the soul and the body? And if it exists by the will of the power on high, the Father of all … then, as I said, the creation around us here is commingled with the things on high, and hence not incompatible with them. For it is with the consent of the Father on high that the spark, your “spiritual” and inmost man, has been sent down from him above. It seems to us that Nicephorus has correctly identiied a contra- diction between the two corpora. m) Why Do Some Saints Refuse to Have People Prostrate hem- selves in front of hem? Nicephorus gives an interesting answer to those who cite the texts where St. Peter (Ac 10:26) and an angel (Rv 22:8–9) refuse to have anyone prostrate himself in front of them.68 he iconoclasts used these Biblical passages to show that people should prostrate themselves only before God. Nicephorus takes the question head on because he needed an iconodule explanation for their refusals. 66 he Refutation and Destruction 8. 67 Panarion “Against Heracleonites” 36, 5, 4–5, Williams’ Book I, p. 240. 68 he Refutation and Destruction 9. Evaluation of the Arguments 127 He says that, in the case of St. John and the angel in Revelations, the an- gel stops St. John from prostrating himself in front of him because the angel saw himself as the equal to, and not the superior of, St. John who had laid his head on the Christ’s chest. Prostrating oneself is therefore not necessary, nor even desirable, between equals. Two people of the same rank do not prostrate themselves in front of each other. Nicephorus confounds Epiphanius the iconophobe by his own argument. If the iconophobic Epiphanius is right to say that people should prostrate themselves only before God, should not St. John be reprimanded for an idolatrous gesture? his is a very clever reply. According to the same logic, St. Paul should also be condemned for allowing the jailer to prostrate himself in front of him without repri- manding him (Ac 16:29). As for the other cases, one of which is St. Peter and Cornelius, Nicephorus skilfully answers that humility and fear of praise are what motivated St. Peter to say what he did. hose saints who refuse honors such as prostrating oneself in front of them, because of their humility, are all the more worthy of honor. Nicephorus points out very well the diiculties of rigorists, like Epiphanius the iconophobe, who claim that all prostration in front of a living creature or a material object is a gesture of idolatry. His argu- ment in and of itself is not a proof that the Treatise is not authentic, but it does show a contradiction between the two corpora on the question. To show the contradiction, we need a passage from an authentic work which clearly shows that Epiphanius distinguished between idolatrous and honoriic prostrations. he passage in the Letter to John of Jerusa- lem, which we discussed before,69 gives us the example we need and adds weight to the arguments against authenticity. n) he Explanations of the Letter to John of Jerusalem. Nice- phorus claims that the Greek Post-Scriptum, which contains the story of the torn-down door curtain, is an addition of the eighth century iconoclasts because the Post-Scriptum is preceded by a closing that normally ends a letter. Consequently, what seems to be the begin- 69 Chapter 4, “Bowing Down before Someone Other than God.” 128 Epiphanius of Salamis ning of the Post-Scriptum is in fact the end of the preceding letter. herefore, what follows is an addition. It is naturally possible that Epiphanius himself added a real post-scriptum to his own letter or that he wrote a second letter,70 but in the irst case, we could reason- ably expect a note, a word, or a sign, to indicate such an addition. Now the Greek text that we have today shows no sign of this kind of transition.71 Nicephorus concludes that forgers clumsily attached this story to the authentic letter. Is this argument credible? We know that in the fourth century Jerome translated into Latin the Letter to John of Jerusalem written by Epiphanius. he question naturally is whether the Post-Scriptum was part of the Jerome’s translation. Nicephorus says no, as does Daniel Serruys,72 who brought scholarly attention to the existence of the Greek Post-Scriptum more than a century ago. Serruys notes that the Post-Scriptum is “set in a disparate context” and that the Latin is quite diferent from what precedes; it shows that the translator hardly knew Greek and did not have the literary talents of St. Jerome. Serruys agrees with Nicephorus on this point in claim- ing that the iconoclasts wrote the Post-Scriptum and attached it to the authentic Letter to John of Jerusalem. hen the Byzantine iconoclasts sent to Franks a Greek lorilegiem of falsiied texts, and there, some- one awkwardly translated the Post-Scriptum into Latin, attached it to Jerome’s translation, and the whole was put into the Libri Carolini. It is impossible to verify whether the Post-Scriptum really was part of Jerome’s translation because “the oldest manuscripts that contain the so-called Latin translation do not go back beyond the ninth century.”73 We have to ask, “Even though it is not impossible, is it true?” Since we 70 Ostrogorsky has already suggested the possibility of a second letter to John of Jerusalem: Ostrogorsky, pp. 88–89. 71 he Latin translation, on the other hand, begins with praeterea, which means “in addition,” “besides that,” “what is more,” or in this case, “a last word.” Some- one added a transitional word to the Latin text, but this word or phrase is not in the Greek. 72 Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1904, tome 1, pp. 360-363. 73 V. Grumel, “Recherches récentes sur l’iconoclasme,” Échos d’Orient, XXIX, 1930, p. 95. Evaluation of the Arguments 129 have no way of knowing if Jerome really translated the Post-Scriptum or not, it is possible to airm with Nicephorus that it was composed in the eighth century by the iconoclasts. At least, this is not an utterly fantastic argument, and if it is a forgery, Epiphanius’s iconophobic image is weakened. On the other hand, if we accept Murray’s explanation — that the Greek text is authentic, but the Latin translation of St. Jerome falsi- ies the meaning — we can still maintain that Epiphanius was not the dogmatic iconophobe that the documents paint him out to be. Murray’s explanation seems to us to be the most satisfactory. In this case, we could argue that Epiphanius wrote the Greek Post-Scriptum at the moment he composed the Letter to John of Jerusalem, or he wrote it later and added it himself to the irst. Jerome then trans- lated the whole in haste and without much attention, thus the cause of the bad translation.74 he Latin Letter to John of Jerusalem and the Post-Scriptum have been transmitted through history until the authors of the Libri Carolini quoted the Latin Post-Scriptum around 792. It remains to be seen, however, whether the Latin translation of the Letter done by Jerome and the Latin text of the Post-Scriptum, as we have it today, are from the same translator. Is it possible that the actual Latin text has been falsiied by Carolingians who wanted to transform Epiphanius into an iconophobe? It is possible that Jerome made a better translation than the rumors indicate? Again, without any manuscript of Jerome’s works that predate the ninth century, we can only speculate. In any case, whatever the history of the transmis- sion of the Latin text of the Post-Scriptum, it is not that text that we want to deal with. Since we have the Greek text, thanks to Nicephorus who copied it, to Pitra who published it, and to Serruys who discov- ered it, any reference to the Latin text is now superluous, to say noth- ing of a methodological error. We can now airm that any study that 74 Let us not forget that we do not have the Greek text of the Letter to John of Jerusalem, only of the Post-Scriptum. So a comparison is not possible, but if the translation of the Post-Scriptum is any indication, the Latin translation of the Letter to John of Jerusalem was not of a very high quality. 130 Epiphanius of Salamis bases itself, or based itself, on the Latin translation to maintain that Epiphanius believed that setting up an image of a man in a church is contrary to the Scriptures, is to be disqualiied.75 But what is the real story told by the Greek text of the Post-Scrip- tum? Epiphanius entered a church where he saw an idolatrous and anthropomorphic image on a door curtain. No doubt, as Murray says, it was an image that the parishioners, pious but not very alert, thought would be a beautiful ornament for their church. Not know- ing that there were limits to what could and could not be adopted from pagan art, they naively installed a door curtain with what they designated as an image “of Christ or one of the saints,” an image that for Epiphanius went beyond the tolerable limits. he parishioners did not accuse Epiphanius of iconoclasm, but rather of vandalism, of having torn down the door curtain without replacing it with some- thing more appropriate. He was somewhat late in replacing it, but he did replace it. And he took advantage of the situation to advise John 75 It is to be noted that in his discussion of Epiphanius’s activities between 385 and 394, Dechow speaks of Epiphanius’s so-called iconoclasm and three times falls into the trap of erroneous translations which undermine his arguments about Epiphanius’ iconophobia. 1) He cites the Latin translation to support his point of view: “Epiphanius was opposed to the fact that ‘a man’s image was hanging in the church of Christ contrary to the authority of the scriptures’ … Hangings of this sort ‘go against our religion,’ Épiphanius wrote in the Letter to John,” p. 393. He does not even mention the Greek text. 2) A little farther along, he gives a bizarre and erroneous translation of the Will: “ …Epiphanius wrote a last will and testament in which he advised his Cypriot constituents ‘always, through memory, to have God only in their hearts, but not in an ordinary building, since it is impossible for Christ to be raised up through the eyes and musings of the mind,’” p. 394. 3) He uses Kitzinger’s faulty translation to attribute to Epiphanius a hostile attitude to all images. See above the discussion of Kitzinger’s translation: Chapter 4, “A Phrase.” Elizabeth Clarke, he Origenist Controversy: he Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992, also uses the Latin translation for her argument. About the door curtain, she says, “...he ripped it to shreds [sic] as a blasphemous object.” If Epiphanius had ripped it to shreds, how could he have recommended to the parishioners to use it for burying a poor person? he Greek text says that Epiphanius tore down the door curtain. Clarke does not mention the Greek text at all. Evaluation of the Arguments 131 of Jerusalem to no longer allow Christians in his diocese to have im- ages of that sort in their church. Seen in the light of this explanation, the incident has nothing of the theological content that the Latin text of the Post-Scriptum possesses. Epiphanius did not like idolatrous images in the churches. Is that very surprising? We can ask ourselves what Epiphanius considered “an idolatrous image” to be, but since we do not know the exact nature of the image on the door curtain and since the expression “of this sort” remains uncertain, we are again in the realm of speculation. Nonetheless, we can easily understand why the iconoclasts could not resist the temptation of using the incident to show that Epipha- nius of Salamis had torn down an image in a church. he gesture alone was important to them, without delving into its meaning. Now, we cannot isolate a gesture from its meaning without emptying it of its very content, and especially without risking being unfaithful to that meaning.76 Nicephorus certainly wanted to do everything he could to re- move the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem from the iconoclasts’ arsenal of arguments. He knew that Epiphanius’s ges- ture seems, on the surface, to show them as being right. He therefore was obliged to act. his text, placed in the context of the four other documents which the iconoclasts attributed to Epiphanius, seems to have a theological meaning because of its association with the other 76 Every critical attitude or gesture with regards to Christian images is not nec- essarily an expression of aniconism and iconophobia. Let us take the example of Asterius of Amasea. Do his critical comments on certain customs relating to images indicate that he thought Christian images are idols? Not in the slightest, but if we quote only certain sentences of his, we could get that impression. See “Sermon 1: On the Abuse of Riches: On the Parable of the Bad Rich Man and Lazarus” (Lk 16: 19), Taking only this sermon, we might get the impression that Asterius of Amasea was opposed to Christian images and that he preached imi- tating the saints’ virtues and the veneration of the living images of God, rather than painted images. However, in Sermon 11: “On the Martyrdom of Saint Eu- phemia,” we see that he expressed another attitude toward Christian images. Partial quoting only highlights the error of those who read just a section of an author’s works, and that from a prejudiced point of view. 132 Epiphanius of Salamis texts, but in reality, it has no theological content. he iconoclasts in- terpreted a gesture that expressed a reaction to an inappropriate im- age in a church. he gesture was not an expression of an extreme iconophobia, in contrast to what their own theological iconophobia expressed. On the basis of this incident and their interpretation of it, the iconoclasts created the myth of Epiphanius the iconophobe. To defend iconodulia, Nicephorus chose to deny the authenticity of the Post-Scriptum. We prefer to airm the authenticity of the Greek text of the Post-Scriptum while giving it a non iconophobic interpretation. he result is the same: Epiphanius of Salamis was not a rigorist icono- phobe. So when the Greek text of the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem is properly interpreted,77 it appears authentic but not iconophobic. n) Epiphanius, Origenism, and Iconoclasm. Since the publi- cation of George Florovsky’s article78 certain scholars make a link between Origen’s theology, especially his Christology, and the theo- logical foundation of the Byzantine iconoclasts. Florovsky proposes the following hypothesis as a line of research: despite the condemna- tion of Origen himself and certain of his airmations, in the Fith Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553, the Origenist theo- logical vision continued to exist and to have a great inluence in the Church. It is this vision that the Byzantine iconoclasts, descended in a direct line from Eusebius of Caesarea who linked the Christology of Origen and the rejection of images of Christ and the saints. Accord- ing to this hypothesis, the diference between the iconoclasts and the iconodules reproduced the conlict in the ancient Church between those who wanted to Hellenize Christianity and those who wanted to Christianize Hellenism. his conlict only continued a division with- in pagan Hellenism itself between the Platonists and Neo-Platonists, on the one hand, who wanted to lee everything that was material and historical, and those, on the other hand, who had a more positive 77 It to be noted that Pierre Maraval, “Épiphane, Docteur des iconoclastes,” p. 53, admits that such an interpretation is possible. 78 “Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy,” pp. 77–96. Evaluation of the Arguments 133 attitude toward matter and history. Florovsky’s fundamental idea is that those who favor Origen also favor iconoclasm. Von Schönborn79 follows Florovsky and inds “a powerful link between refusing icons and Eusebius’s Christology,” that is, Origen’s Christology. Gero,80 on the other hand, contests this link. Elizabeth Clarke81 also follows Florovsky and tries to show that Evagrius Pon- ticus’s spirituality on mystical prayer without mental images is linked to an iconophobic attitude. Evagrius was closely associated with Ori- genism and was also condemned with him in 553. Clarke thinks she has established an opposition between two currents of opinion: the materialists and the immaterialists. — he irst group, called anthropomorphites, believed that God has a human, material form and that man, being in the image of God, maintains the bodily image of God in his own body, even ater the fall. — he second group, Origenists, called anti-anthropomorphites, believed that God is immaterial and that man lost the immaterial im- age of God in the fall. Evagrius and his mysticism of mental prayer without images it perfectly into the second group. Clarke claims in addition that iconodulia, the acceptance of material images, is asso- ciated with the irst group,82 the anthropomorphites, and that icono- phobia and iconoclasm are associated with the second group,83 the anti-anthropomorphites. 79 Christoph von Schönborn, L’icône du Christ, Freiburg, Suisse, Éditions Uni- versitaires Fribourg, 1976, p. 77. 80 Stephen Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, pp. 103–105. 81 Clarke, pp. 43–84. 82 he idea that God has a human, material form leads to the idea that man continues to have God’s bodily image, and these two ideas lead to a favorable attitude towards material images: corporeal God + man as corporeal image of corporeal God = favorable attitude toward material images. 83 he idea that God is immaterial leads to the idea that man’s immaterial soul is the immaterial image of God in man — an image that man totally or partially lost ater the fall — and these two ideas lead to an unfavorable attitude toward material images: incorporeal God + incorporeal image of God in man = oppos- ition to material images. 134 Epiphanius of Salamis What interests us in this association of Origenism and icono- phobia is the position held by Epiphanius of Salamis. Clarke cor- rectly places Epiphanius in the camp of those who opposed Origen’s entirely immaterialist theology. At a certain point, Ruinus accused Epiphanius of being an anthropomorphite,84 one of those who be- lieve that God has a human form, even though Epiphanius, accord- ing to Jerome declared himself an anti-anthropomorphite.85 Putting aside the furious accusations at the heart of the dispute, it is certain that Epiphanius was not an Origenist. Ironically, Clarke claims to have found in the Ancoratus a parallel between Epiphanius and the Byzantine iconodules in their deinition of an image. he whole man, not just one of his parts, with his de- fects and materiality, is the image of God. To be in the image of God does not mean to be the same thing as God, nor equal to God. As an illustration of the principle of dissimilarity between man in the image of God and God himself, Epiphanius refers to the Eucharist. Even though the bread and wine do not have the appearance of the body and blood of Christ, they are still considered to be the body and blood of Christ. “Epiphanius, like the later Iconodules, implies that a lack of exact ‘likeness’ between archetype and image in no way dam- ages the power of an image to represent its model.”86 his makes us think about the diference between the Byzantine iconoclasts and ic- onodules concerning the deinition of an image. he iconoclasts said that an image must be consubstantial with its prototype, and there- fore the Eucharist is the only real image of Christ. he iconodules answered that an image is substantially diferent from its prototype. If Clarke’s parallel is valid, Epiphanius aligns himself with the iconod- ules and distinguishes himself from the iconoclasts on this question. One would think that if Epiphanius was indeed the doctor of icono- clasm, as some think, the opposite would be true. 84 St. Jerome, Apology. for Himself against the Books of Ruinus III, 23, NPNF vol. III, p. 531. 85 Clarke, note 145, p. 104; Jerome, Contra Ioannem 11, PL 23, 380. 86 Ibid, p. 90. Evaluation of the Arguments 135 So then, according to the parallelism established by Clarke, Epiphanius, a fervent anti-Origenist, is found in the second group and should be considered an iconodule and not an iconophobe. Now, if the iconophobic documents that are attributed to him are authentically from St. Epiphanius and if Clarke’s equation is valid, Epiphanius was a rigorist iconophobe and should no doubt also be an Origenist. he opposite, however, is true, at least for his being an Origenist. here is therefore a problem: either the parallelism be- tween Origenism and iconophobia, that is, that the irst leads nat- urally to the second, does not hold up, or Epiphanius was not at all an iconophobe since the documents are not authentic. Clarke herself notes that the case of Epiphanius seems to contradict her hypothesis: “Surprisingly, the sentiments contained therein seem much closer to Evagrius’s position on images than we might have expected, given Epiphanius’s anti-Origenist stance.”87 Istvan Bugar also agrees with Clarke and the current of opinion that links Origen’s Christology with iconoclasm: “… if we denote by Origenism an excessive intellectualistist tendency in Christian- ity …, the charge of Origenism against the iconoclasts is perhaps justiiable.”88 And again: “… we can follow the remark of Clarke who is surprised to what degree Epiphanius’s notion of an image in his authentic works resembles the later, iconophile position89.” Bugar, however, goes beyond Clarke’s surprise and on the basis of the appar- ent contradiction between the equations Origenism = iconophobia and anti-Origenism = iconodulia, on the one hand, and Epiphanius’s anti-Origenism = iconophobia, on the other, and presents arguments that deny the credibility of this assertion. he opposite of what the theory predicts is true. Epiphanius, a ferocious anti-Origenist, should 87 Ibid., p. 103. 88 Bugar, “Origenist Christilogy and Iconoclasm: he Case of Epiphanius of Salamis,” p. 97. We would like to thank Michel Stavrou for having drawn our attention to this author and Istvan Bugar himself for his collaboration. 89 Ibid., p. 100. See Chapter 3 for Bugar’s arguments against the authenticity of the iconophobic documents. 136 Epiphanius of Salamis be an iconodule, but according to the image painted of him in the iconophobic documents, he was not that. However, if the documents are not authentic, except for the Greek Post-Scriptum, Epiphanius was not iconophobic and the hypothesis of Clarke et al is saved or at least the case of Epiphanius does not undermine it. 2 Excursus on the Will: Authentic, Forgery, or Com- posite? St. Nicephorus of Constantinople completely rejects the authenticity of the Will. Holl, Ostrogorsky, et al accept it; Bugar inds it problematic. St. John of Damascus had a double line of de- fence against it. First, he believed that the Will is a forgery, but even if it is authentic, it is not necessary to interpret it as though it supports the iconoclastic dogma: Christian image = idol. How many answers can we give to the question of its authenti- city? Only two? Authentic or forgery? Is it possible even so to choose “forgery” but with important nuances? A total forgery or some au- thentic elements combined with false ones? First of all, if the Will is a total fabrication, it obviously says noth- ing about Epiphanius of Salamis or his attitude toward images. St. Nicephorus adopted this position and thus, in his opinion, neutral- ized the Will and the other documents which were powerful weapons in the iconoclastic arsenal. his solution is also the simplest for our thesis, but since Ostrogorsky accepted it as authentic and St. John of Damascus considered the possibility of its authenticity, we hesitate to reject it completely. On the other hand, if we accept the authenticity of the Will, can we interpret it so as not to give credit to the iconoclastic thesis, sup- ported by Holl and others, that Epiphanius believed a Christian im- age was an idol? Let us irst of all analyse the content of the text. We have divided the text into what we believe are its basic components. 1. Be very careful and stand irm in the traditions that you have received, turning neither to the right nor to the let. 2. And on this subject, Evaluation of the Arguments 137 3. remember, my beloved children, not to put up images in church- es or in cemeteries of the saints, 4. but 5. through remembering, always keep God in your hearts, 3.1 but not in a common house [residence?]. 6. For 7. it is not permitted for a Christian to become distracted through the eyes or by the agitation of the mind, 8. but 9. all of you, inscribe and chisel the things of God in your most in- ner parts. 1. he irst sentence is not in itself problematic; it is simply a call not to abandon the traditions of the Church. Any of the Fathers could have said it. he question is, in the mind of the author, what is the content of the word traditions. Speciically what are the transmitted traditions? Do these traditions accept or reject Christian images? he sentence as such does not answer the question. 2. Whatever the real traditions represented by the word, by say- ing “And on this subject,” the author intends to place what follows among them. 3. We come now to the heart of the problem of the Will. Ac- cording to the author, it is an authentic tradition to have aniconic churches and cemeteries, no images whatsoever. At the same time, the sentence is a witness to the fact that the Cypriots had such im- ages or had begun to have them, despite the transmitted “tradition.” Injunctions are issued against what is already being done or about to be done. hey are not issued against things people have never thought about. 4. he word but introduces the alternative the author is going to propose to putting up images. 5. Instead of putting up images, the faithful should meditate on God in their hearts. 3.1 he author introduces a third place where images should not be: the “common house” or residence. 138 Epiphanius of Salamis 6. Here we have the reason Christians should not do the one and should do the other. he word For announces the reason. 7. Christians do not have the right to let their minds wander either by what they see (images) or what they think (ideas). 8. he conjunction but already described announces an alterna- tive to replace the erroneous practice. 9. Instead of the prohibited practice, putting up images, the faith- ful should inscribe and chisel the things of God in their inner beings (hearts). If the Will as we have it is authentic, we have a prohibition against putting Christian images in churches, cemeteries and homes because they are a distraction. Let us be very careful to note the reason given. It is not that images were idols. We are here very far from the serious- ness of the accusation expressed in the three theological documents, which equate a Christian image with an idol. his text, authentic or false, cannot be used to support Holl’s thesis, followed by others, that Epiphanius was a rigorist iconophobe: image = idol. Ater having conceded that Epiphanius, when he published the Panarion, did not believe there was a heresy about Christian images, to say nothing of a new idolatry, Holl proposes the hypothesis that Epiphanius evolved in his thinking about Christian images: — in the Panarion, he did not identify them as a heresy or idolatry; — in the Greek Post-Scriptum, he begins to show a moderate hos- tility; — in the Letter to heodosius, the Treatise, and the Dogmatic Let- ter, he preaches a rigorist and dogmatic theology where Christian images are idols. he Will, however, does not support this scenario. It obviously comes at the end of his life, and we should expect, if Holl’s scenario is true, for the Will to invoke idolatry as the reason not to put images. But no. We here put words into Epiphanius’s mouth: “Do not put up images because they are idols!!!” What we hear, however, is a weak, non theological objection. Again we put words in his mouth: “Do not put up images because they are a distraction!” If the scenario Evaluation of the Arguments 139 proposed by Holl relects the development of Epiphanius’s thinking, the reasoning of the Will should be placed ater his period of indif- ference, ater the irst stage, but we ind it, “out of place,” at the end of his life. hinking that images are a distraction from prayer make us think of certain rabbis who opposed having images in synagogues—not be- cause they were idols, as we might expect—but because they distract- ed people from their prayers or even that they drained away money which should be used to help poor Torah students.90 To note that an author is critical of Jewish or Christian images does not justify jump- ing to the conclusion that he thought that images are idols. If we accept the authenticity of the Will, Epiphanius opposed putting up images in the three places for a non theological reason. Following this assumption, we can agree with John of Damascus in his argument that Epiphanius’s objection is to be placed on the same level as Athanasius’s condemnation of the Egyptian custom of ex- posing their dead and not burying them. Or even, like Augustine of Hippo who knew about superstitious Christians who had erroneous practices concerning images and cemeteries.91 It would be very risky to claim, on the basis of this text alone, that Augustine believed the Christian images were idols. Epiphanius also, we can suppose, wanted to correct an abuse and was not intending to condemn Christian im- ages as idols. We can then apply the other arguments of John of Da- 90 Early Christian Attitudes toward Images, pp. 72–73. 91 On the Morals of the Catholic Church 34, 75, NPNF IV, Series 1, p. 62: Au- gustine speaks to the Manicheans: “Do not summon against me professors of the Christian name, who neither know nor give evidence of the power of their profession. Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant people, who even in the true religion are superstitious, or are so given up to evil passions as to forget what they have promised to God. I know that there are many worshippers of tombs and pictures. I know that there are many who drink to great excess over the dead, and who, in the feasts which they make for corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and give to their gluttony and drunkenness the name of reli- gion. I know that there are many who in words have renounced this world, and yet desire to be burdened with all the weight of worldly things, and rejoice in such burdens.” 140 Epiphanius of Salamis mascus precisely because the reasoning of the Will is not theological. If Epiphanius’s prohibition is not based on theological principles, but rather on disciplinary, nearly canonical, principles to avoid distrac- tions, we have a good example, among many others, of the Church’s canonical and disciplinary tradition where a bishop or bishops in syn- od criticize and prohibit such and such a practice because they believe that it should be abolished, corrected, or controlled. If we assume the authenticity of the Will as we have it as well as the disciplinary and non theological scope and nature of the prohibition, we are very far indeed from the airmations of the three theological documents. And since the Church developed its canonical tradition by iltering opinions and practices of various local Churches, accepting some, forgetting others and prohibiting still others, Epiphanius’s opinion and prohibition (if the Will is authentic) of putting up images in churches, cemeteries, and homes because they are a distraction, are simply part of those that the Church has not retained. John of Damascus already said it, “One exception cannot be a law for the Church, nor does a single swallow mean that spring has come to stay, as Gregory the theologian and teacher of truth, says. (Oration 39) Nor can a single opinion overturn the unanimous tradition of the whole Church which has spread to the ends of the earth.”92 he Will, therefore, does not prove the dogmatic iconophobia of Epiphanius of Salamis. If the Will is not entirely authentic or totally false, but a mix- ture of the two, our thesis is strengthened. What does “mixture of the two” mean? It means that we have a document partially written by Epiphanius and partially falsiied by the iconoclasts to support their doctrines. What can we put forward to uphold such an interpreta- tion? Here again we need to examine the text. As we already said, the irst sentence says nothing for or against iconoclasm or iconodulia. No one would say that the real Epiphanius could not have said it. he iconoclasts may have taken the irst sentence from whatever source and placed it at the beginning of their pseudo-Epiphanian will. 92 On Divine Images I, 25, pp. 32–33. Evaluation of the Arguments 141 As for the last sentence, in and of itself, detached from the preced- ing sentence, it could come from almost any source. It is the conjunc- tion For that logically links the preceding sentence to the last one and which gives it its iconophobic coloration, which in fact it does not have. he heart of the diiculty with the Will is found in the second sentence. Let us assume that Epiphanius really advised his faithful not to put up images “in cemeteries” because of some abuse, as St. John of Damascus believed, or for some unknown reason. Bugar has already called our attention to the archaic form — therefore before the fourth century — of the Greek expression “en tois koimētēriois tōn hagiōn.” Let us suppose in addition that the iconoclasts found this text and inserted into it “nor in churches” and “but not in the common house [residence].” By linking the discovered or invented sentences by two conjunctions to give the impression of a uniied text, the iconoclasts have given us the following result. We propose that the underlined words come from the iconoclasts Be very careful and stand irm in the traditions that you have received, turning neither to the right nor to the let. And on this subject, remember, my beloved children, not to put up images in churches or in cemeteries of the saints, but through remembering, always keep God in your hearts, but not in a com- mon house [residence?]. For it is not permitted for a Christian to become distracted through the eyes or by the agitation of the mind, but all of you, inscribe and chisel the things of God in your most inner parts. Obviously our analysis does not absolutely prove that the text is a composite, but the hypothesis of the composition and construction of the document allows us to consider it at least partially authentic and partially forged, therefore to be suspicious of the whole. We choose to put the Will in this third category (inauthentic on the whole) while accepting that we can maintain our thesis according to the two other evaluations: fully authentic or completely false. We believe therefore that it is possible to maintain our thesis by accepting any of the three possibilities mentioned above. Our thesis 142 Epiphanius of Salamis is that Epiphanius of Salamis’s reputation of being a rigorist and dog- matic iconophobe is based either on forged documents — the Letter to heodosius, the Treatise, and the Dogmatic Letter — or on a bad translation and a false interpretation of the Post-Scriptum of the Let- ter to John of Jerusalem. We believe that the Will occupies a middle place in the corpus and that it contains both real and forged elements. Whatever the truth about its authenticity, we can maintain our thesis in the face of any one of them. he fact that Epiphanius of Salamis could consider Christian images as a distraction in no way makes him a dogmatic iconophobe. 3 Interesting but not Very Convincing Arguments. Ni- cephorus advances certain arguments that seem interesting but not very weighty or convincing. a) he Metropolitan of Sardis. he story of the metropolitan and the book93 in which the name Epiphanidou had been changed to Epiphaniou by erasing the letter d is certainly entertaining, but it has little to do with the question of the authenticity of the documents. b) he Will is absent from the Life of St. Epiphanius. It is true that the Will and Epiphanius’s other admonitions are not found in the Life, but Epiphanius could have written it at another time. he Will is to be evaluated according to criteria other than its presence or absence from the Life. c) Idols are dead. We accept that the authentic Epiphanius never says that idols are dead, as Nicephorus claims. It is an objective difer- ence between the two corpora. his diference would take on greater importance if we could prove the inauthenticity of the documents by other means. d) he destruction of the relation type-prototype. Nicephorus accuses Epiphanides, the iconophobe, of destroying the relation type-prototype (material image-person represented) by saying that the image of Christ or the saints is falsely called image. For a rep- 93 he Refutation and Destruction 3. Evaluation of the Arguments 143 resentation to be a real image, there must be a real prototype, person, that the type, the work of art, mirrors. If, as in the case of idols, the painted or sculpted god does not really exist — therefore there is no prototype — the work of art is not a real image. So when the icono- clasts say that the representation of Christ is falsely called an im- age — it is really an idol — they are saying that the prototype, Christ, does not really exist. his is the equation that underlies Nicephorus’s argument: a real image establishes a relation between a type and a prototype, between the work of art and the person represented so that the person is mirrored in the representation. Idols are not real images because there is no real prototype for the work of art to mir- ror. If the prototype does not exist, the work of art is not a real im- age, but at best a personiication or an allegory. In short, saying that Christ’s representation is an idol and not a real image is the same as saying that the work of art, the type, represents a non existing proto- type, another way of saying that Christ does not exist. When Epiphanius is talking about the Carpocratians,94 he rec- ognizes that the statue of Christ is an image, that is, it is a representa- tion that establishes the relation type-prototype between the person represented and the representation. It is here that Nicephorus wants to show the contradiction between the two corpora. he historical Epiphanius recognizes the relation type-prototype on the basis of which the honor, or dishonor, shown to an image rebounds onto the person represented. Epiphanius the iconophobe seems to reject this idea. hough sound in principle, Nicephorus’s argument needs to be reined. e) he omission of the word eikōn. It is true that Epiphanius the iconophobe omits the work eikôn from the quotation of St. Paul. (Rm 8:29) It is an unfortunate omission for the author, even if we suppose that it was not done intentionally. He thus exposes himself to the ac- cusation that Nicephorus does not hesitate to launch at him: he has tampered with the Scriptures. 94 Panarion 27, 6, 9–11, Williams’ Book I, p. 105. 144 Epiphanius of Salamis We can — and we must — assume that the author of the icono- phobic documents was not stupid. Heretics are rarely stupid, but it is a little diicult to believe that the author let out the word eikōn by accident. How could he not know that his adversaries would joyfully jump on such an omission? he whole controversy turned around this word. Rather than think that the historical Epiphanius was so negligent, it is more credible to attribute such an omission to some- one deeply involved in a controversy where falsiication was a major issue. If, on the basis of other proofs, the iconophobic documents are shown to be false, then the omission of the word eikōn will ind its place among them. For the moment, we leave this argument in sus- pense. he author of the Treatise did in fact omit the word eikōn, but that does not prove that the Treatise is a fake. f) he commandment to paint images. In the Treatise, Nice- phorus makes a good reply to the author who is looking for a com- mandment that justiies the making of images. he patriarch says that Christians do many things for which there is no direct command- ment from Christ. Ater admitting that the painting of images and their veneration are based not on an order from Christ or the apos- tles, but on the Church’s tradition, Nicephorus can easily and rightly delect the attack by saying that the production and veneration of Christian images is an expression of Christians’ gratitude, love, and respect toward Christ for what he has done for them as well as an expression of the honor and respect they show to the saints for their faithfulness and spiritual exploits. Nicephorus continues saying that if Christ did not command that images be painted, he did not forbid it either. Where is the command to paint the cross? In the Letter to heodosius, the author admits that the Fathers always painted the cross. Nicephorus’s answer is a good argument and neutralized the attack, but it is not an argument for or against authenticity. g) he image made for Abgar. he story of the image made by Christ for Abgar circulated throughout the whole Christian world and was known by nearly everyone. he question of its historicity Evaluation of the Arguments 145 was not asked at Nicephorus’s time. It was therefore quite appropriate for Nicephorus to mention it against the author. No one ever repri- manded Abgar for wanting to have an image of Christ, and since Christ himself took the initiative to make what we call the Holy Face, the iconoclasts were hard put to discount the story. he Abgar story of course adds weight to the arguments against the position expressed in the Treatise, but it is not evidence that helps prove that the documents are forgeries. By bringing up the story, Ni- cephorus aims rather at underlining the inconsistency of the doc- trines expressed in the documents. he advantage of the story for the iconodules is that it shows that Christ himself was the irst to produce his own image. Since we have another evaluation of the Abgar story, it cannot serve the same purpose today. h) he Carpocratians show that Christians had images. How should we evaluate Nicephorus’s argument that a passage from Epiphanius against the Carpocratians — they had and worshiped im- ages of Jesus and certain philosophers — witnesses to the fact that Christians had images? He constructs his argument in this way: he Carpocratians used images in their liturgies, one of which was of Jesus. hey worshiped these images. hey called themselves Chris- tians, fraudulently according to Nicephorus, and by giving them- selves this name, they claimed that there were similarities between them and the Great Church so as to fool the simple and ignorant. he fact that they had a statue of Jesus strengthens their claim to be Christians. According to Nicephorus, this claim shows that the Great Church had images of Jesus. If not, the contrast between them and the Christians of the Great Church would be too obvious. Here is an illustration of Nicephorus’s logic: THE CARPOCRATIANS THE CHRISTIANS hey call themselves Christians. hey call themselves Christians. hey have images of Jesus. [hey have images, of Jesus also (?)] he argument leads to the conclusion that the Christians of the Great Church also had images, but by following the same logic, we 146 Epiphanius of Salamis could also just as easily conclude that the Great Church had statues of certain philosophers and that these were worshiped. THE CARPOCRATIANS THE CHRISTIANS hey call themselves Christians. hey call themselves Christians. hey have images of Jesus. [hey have images, of Jesus also (?)] hey have images of philosophers. [hey have images of philosophers (?)] hey worship the statues. [hey worship the statues (?)] he last two conclusions drawn for Christians are obviously false, but is Nicephorus’s argument valid and persuasive? Does it prove that Christians had images of Jesus? Well, not really. he argument is in- teresting, but for the question of the authenticity of the iconophobic documents, it has nothing to ofer. i) Knowledge of Christian images. Nicephorus draws our atten- tion to what he thinks is a contradiction among the iconophobic documents concerning the author’s/authors’ knowledge of Christian images. On the one hand, we read the following in the Treatise: “I have heard that some people order that the Incomprehensible Son of God be represented” and “… to represent images of Peter, John, and Paul with diferent colors, as I see from the inscriptions written on each image falsely named …” On the other hand, we read this in the Letter to heodosius: “Who among the ancient Fathers has painted an image of Christ … Who among the ancient bishops has painted Christ...? And who has ever painted on a door curtain or on walls Abraham, Isaac, Jacob … Peter, Andrew … or the other apostles?” And inally, in the Post-Scriptum: “I do not remember having seen it.” Nicephorus wonders how one man, supposedly Epiphanius, could manifest a great knowledge of Christian images and at another time, so little knowledge. However, even if we grant that Nicephorus has pointed out a contradiction or something strange in the documents, it is not a proof of inauthenticity.  chapter six CONCLUSION W e consider that the arguments against the authenticity of the iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis, presented in this study, and summarized below, are suiciently con- vincing to justify the rejection of the conclusions of Holl et al to the efect that Epiphanius of Salamis is the author of all these documents, thus giving credit to the his iconophobic reputation. Only the Greek Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusalem is authentic, but it in no way supports the iconophobic portrait of Epiphanius that is presented in the other documents. However eccentric Epiphanius may have been, there is no authentic, credible evidence that allows us to consider him to be an extreme iconophobe or an iconophobe at all, and certainly nothing that permits us to call him “the doctor of iconoclasm.” We accept Nicephorus of Constantinople’s point that the key to deciding the question of authenticity is found in the doctrinal difer- ences between the two corpora and not in stylistic, literary parallels. We accept the accusation of idolatry as the keystone in the argu- mentation against authenticity. We airm that there exists a prejudice in favor of the iconophobic Epiphanius and that this prejudice has conditioned and continues to condition scholars to over-evaluate the arguments for authenticity and to under-evaluate those against authenticity. 148 Epiphanius of Salamis We accept that Epiphanius was born into a poor Jewish family ac- cording to the irst eight chapters of the Life of St. Epiphanius, having no valid reason to reject them as unhistorical. We accept that it is not credible for Epiphanius to have claimed, at the end of the fourth century, that no one has ever heard about Christian images. We believe that the fact that so few scholars have integrated the so-called historical and artistic data into the corpus of general know- ledge about the fourth century manifests a lingering doubt about their historicity, despite their declarations to the contrary. We accept that the iconophobic documents manifest a Docetic Christology, that is, an unbalanced Christology in favor of Christ’s divinity, thus diminishing the full reality of his humanity; this unbal- anced doctrine clearly contrasts with the opinions of Epiphanius. We accept that the scornful attitude manifested toward matter does not agree with Epiphanius’s opinion. We accept as established that Epiphanius was able to, and did, distinguish between idolatrous and honoriic prostrations, a distinc- tion denied by the iconophobic documents. We accept that the Post-Scriptum of the Letter to John of Jerusa- lem is not a monument to Epiphanius’s extreme and dogmatic icono- phobia since the Greek text has been wrongly interpreted through the deforming prism of the faulty Latin translation. We maintain that there was no “irst iconoclastic controversy” in the fourth century and feel it is very signiicant that the iconodules of the eighth and ninth centuries quoted no iconodule, theological work, no iconodule theologian of the fourth century, despite the fact that the iconophobic documents talk about such theologians and their arguments. On the basis of these conclusions, we believe that we have estab- lished what is necessary to refute the claim that Epiphanius of Sa- lamis was an iconophobe and iconoclast some 300 years before the outbreak of Byzantine iconoclasm. How then should we understand Conclusion 149 the iconophobic documents attributed to him and how should we situate them in history? he incident of the torn-down door hanging and the Greek text of the Post-Scriptum that describes it are authentic, but the Greek Post-Scriptum does not bear witness to Epiphanius’s so-called rad- ical iconophobia and even less to an iconophobic theology. Epipha- nius tore down a door curtain that showed an idolatrous, anthropo- morphic image, which he naturally considered unacceptable, but which the parishioners, well intentioned but little educated, found acceptable. It is not diicult to imagine that village Christians— pious but not very concerned about the ornaments they put up in their church—found a door curtain with a questionable image to hang in their church. Epiphanius disagreed and tore it down. his gesture shows his eccentricity and tempestuous character but not his dogmatic iconophobia. As for the identity of the person represented on the door hang- ing, we unfortunately have no way to determine that. hose who want to delve into the subject must go beyond Epiphanius’s words “androeikelon ti eidôloeides” (something idolatrous in the form of a man) and speculate. We note that many have done just that, but on the basis of this incident, Byzantine iconoclasts produced forged documents, probably modeled on authentic writings now lost, and put their doctrines into Epiphanius’s mouth. From that time on, we have been debating the question of the authenticity of these docu- ments and Epiphanius’s supposed iconophobia. If the subject of this study concerned only the attitude of one man in the fourth century toward such and such a phenomenon, one might ask why we have spent so much time and efort to show that he did not have the attitude attributed to him. We can ask the same question of those who want to prove the authenticity of the docu- ments. Even though the subject dealt with is precise and limited, the scope of the question is vast and potentially revolutionary. Why do we feel justiied in making this claim? 150 Epiphanius of Salamis he so-called iconophobia of Epiphanius of Salamis, a notion that is present in the popular imagination and in scholarly works for nearly a century now1, is an important pillar that supports the no- tion of the corruption and subsequent paganization of the Church and Gospel of the apostles. he iconophobic documents attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis as well as the Letter to Constantia attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea and canon 36 of the Council of Elvira are the three columns holding up this intellectual structure. So, if we have succeeded in shaking or overturning one of those columns, we will at the same time have accredited the unshakable airmation of the iconodules: from the time of the apostles, the Christian tradition has been and remains fundamentally and essentially iconodule. 1 “As for Christianity, its position [in regards to images] has varied from hostility based on principle when it was a minority and militant religion in the Roman Empire where images of gods abounded to a nuanced acceptance when it be- came … the state religion of the same Roman Empire …” Marie-France Auzépy, L’iconoclasme, p. 4.