Scott Manor - Porphyry or Eusebius? Reassigning the Source of Epiphanius’ Criticism of the Matthean and Lukan Birth Narratives.

Amidst his refutation of the heresy known as the Alogi, Epiphanius includes a criticism that he attributes to Porphyry, Celsus and Philosabbatius (Haer. 51.8.1-4).  This criticism rests on the apparent incompatibility of the events surrounding the birth narrative of Jesus as portrayed by Matthew and Luke. The conclusion of these critics, according to Epiphanius, is that Luke must be lying when he says that Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to Jerusalem and returned to Nazareth after forty days (Lk. 2:22, 39).

The search for Epiphanius’ source of this criticism has produced varying results, all of which are inconclusive. As Philosabbatius is an otherwise unknown character, it is Celsus and Porphyry who receive due attention. Celsus is an unlikely candidate since Origen, in his Contra Celsum, only mentions the vague criticism of Celsus regarding the adoration of the Magi and the flight into Egypt (C. Cels. 1.58). As a result, Harnack included Epiphanius’ notice in his catalogue of Porphyrian fragments (Fr. 12).  Various scholars have accepted this attribution despite the fact that there is no textual evidence to support it. There is, however, an answer to the question of Epiphanius’ source for this criticism that has gone unnoticed.  

I shall argue in this paper that Epiphanius derived this criticism from Eusebius’ work, Gospel Questions and Answers. The similarities between Eusebius and Epiphanius are striking.  This Eusebian text presents the identical conflict posed between the Matthean and Lukan accounts recorded by Epiphanius. The same verses are pitted against one another: Mt. 2:13 vs. Lk. 2:22, 39.  Indeed, the same dilemma is posed: both accounts appear incompatible.  And while one could argue that both Eusebius and Epiphanius were reliant on a shared source, the fact that Epiphanius also repeats the very same response as found in Eusebius leaves little room to doubt that Epiphanius spliced this portion of Eusebius’ testimony into his account of the Alogi.  Therefore, there is reason to suggest that Porphyry was not Epiphanius’ source at all, but that he erroneously and arbitrarily attributed this criticism to a short list of critics of early Christianity.