36

William Adler

rism”, “Scythianism”, “Hellenism”, and “Judaism”. The four-fold classification, derived
from Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, was meant to reflect what in Epiphanius’ view
were the “mode of life” and “opinion” distinctive of a discrete stage in the history of
religion.46 As with Malalas, the defining features of the age of Hellenism were idola-
try and the plastic arts. Nor did it originate in Greece. Existing long before Cecrops
introduced the ideology to the Greeks, “Hellenism” and the practices associated with
it arose out of the custom of deifying “unhappy tyrants” and “magicians” who had
deluded the world. It began with Serug and was subsequently refined by Abraham’s fa-
ther Terah, the inventor of the manufacture of statues from clay and the art of pottery.
From there, the heresy spread to Babylonia, Egypt, Phrygia, and Greece, absorbing
elements of magic and sorcery along the way.47 While the narrative elements of Jubilees
are still dimly visible, they have been conformed to the requirements of Epiphanius’
own system of classification and woven into a history of religion.48
The literary vehicle that Epiphanius seized upon for his exposition of the origins
and early development of heresy was well-suited for his purpose: a highly compact
chronicle of universal history beginning with Adam and based on dates and notices
retrieved from Africanus and Eusebius.49 For that reason, Malalas, and many chroni-
clers after him, found in Epiphanius’ system a most serviceable platform for conduct-
ing their own inquiries into the roots of idolatry and religious error.50 But accommo-
dating Jubilees to Malalas’ own euhemerizing explanation of the origins of idolatry
and “Hellenism” required extensive revision. Absent in Malalas are Jubilees gruesome
litany of the many excesses of the age of Serug and the mischief and provocations of
demons. Inserting supernatural agents into the narrative would only have detracted
from Malalas’ robustly historicizing explanation of how and when mortal men and
women became the object of cult. He also had to reassess Serug’s own role in the
process. According to Jubilees, Serug may have participated in the religious folly of
his day; but the author of Jubilees does not hold him directly accountable for it.51 By
46 Epiphanius, Panarion haer. 1-4 (pp. 172, 5-183,10 Holl). Cf. Ad Colossenses epistula 3,11: “Here there
cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but
Christ is all, and in all”.
47 Epiphanius, Panarion haer. 3, 4-12 (pp. 177, n-179, 8 Holl). According to Epiphanius (contra Malalas),
the historical Cronus, Zeus, Rhea and Hera were despots and magicians, not enlightened philosopher
kings and culture heroes. This is in line with the more polemical tone of Epiphanius’ Euhemerism.
48 Regarding the source for the tradition about Serug and the origins of Hellenism, Epiphanius speaks
only vaguely of “information that has reached us” (ώς ή έΛθούσα εις ή μας γνώσις περιέχει)”:
Panarion haer. 3,4 (p- T77> Σ3 Holl). For Epiphanius’ use of material from Jubilees elsewhere in his writ-
ings, see Rönsch (1874), pp. 252-265.
49 See Adler (1990), pp. 472-501.
50 For appropriation of Epiphanius’ system by Byzantine chroniclers, see also Chronicon Paschale p. 42,9-11
Dindorf: “The mothers of heresies that are both preeminent and well-known are these: Barbarism,
Scythianism, Hellenism and Judaism”; see further Chronicon Paschale pp. 87, 6-88, 7 Dindorf (on the
origins of “Hellenism”); Chronicon Paschale^). 118,16-17 Dindorf (on the origins of “Judaism”); Georgius
Monachus, Chronicon pp. 57,14-58,4 de Boor (on Serug and the origins of “the Hellenic doctrine” [τού
ΈΛΛηνικοΰ δόγματος]). See also Suda σ 254 Adler s.v. Σερούχ.
51 Liber Jubilaeorum 11, 6.