Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is Epiphanius a credible witness to the text of Marcion's gospel?

Expand Messages
  • David @ Comcast
    Marcion wrote his gospel around 140 AD, and our two major sources for his text are Tertullian: Against Marcion (207-208 AD), and Epiphanius: Panarion,
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Marcion wrote his gospel around 140 AD, and our two major sources for his
      text are Tertullian: 'Against Marcion' (207-208 AD), and Epiphanius:
      'Panarion, section 42' (c. 375 AD). Purely given the elapsed time periods,
      we should expect that Tertullian (65-70 years after Marcion) would be a
      better witness than Epiphanius (around 235 years after Marcion). However,
      because Tertullian is very long-winded and Epiphanius is short and to the
      point, it seems that most commentators rely more on Epiphanius than
      Tertullian when determining Marcion's text.



      Now, Tertullian and Epiphanius do not always agree, and some of the places
      where they disagree look like Epiphanius is misinterpreting Tertullian. So,
      how much trust should we put in Epiphanius? Should we treat Tertullian as
      the primary source and Epiphanius only secondary, or can we treat Epiphanius
      and Tertullian as equals? Do we even know whether Epiphanius read Marcion's
      gospel rather than Tertullian's comments on Marcion?



      David Inglis

      Lafayette, CA, 94549





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Dean Carpenter
      That s probably not a good date for Marcion, David. I know, I know, it is the orthodox dating... I think, however, that I posted fairly conclusive evidence
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 9, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        That's probably not a good date for Marcion, David. I know, I know, it is the orthodox dating... I think, however, that I posted fairly conclusive evidence here, from Joseph B. Tyson, "The Adate of Acts: A Reconsideration," Forum, 5.1 that showed Marcion to be active in the second decade of the second century. If one accepts the Apologists, all of the synoptic gospels are dated unreasonably early... with, of course, the so-called "heretics" coming much later.

        Other than that, I don't think Tertullian actually proves anything in his book.

        Dennis Dean Carpenter
        Dahlonega, Ga.



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David @ Comcast
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com ; gpg@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:13 PM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Is Epiphanius a credible witness to the text of Marcion's gospel?


        Marcion wrote his gospel around 140 AD, and our two major sources for his
        text are Tertullian: 'Against Marcion' (207-208 AD), and Epiphanius:
        'Panarion, section 42' (c. 375 AD). Purely given the elapsed time periods,
        we should expect that Tertullian (65-70 years after Marcion) would be a
        better witness than Epiphanius (around 235 years after Marcion). However,
        because Tertullian is very long-winded and Epiphanius is short and to the
        point, it seems that most commentators rely more on Epiphanius than
        Tertullian when determining Marcion's text.

        Now, Tertullian and Epiphanius do not always agree, and some of the places
        where they disagree look like Epiphanius is misinterpreting Tertullian. So,
        how much trust should we put in Epiphanius? Should we treat Tertullian as
        the primary source and Epiphanius only secondary, or can we treat Epiphanius
        and Tertullian as equals? Do we even know whether Epiphanius read Marcion's
        gospel rather than Tertullian's comments on Marcion?

        David Inglis

        Lafayette, CA, 94549

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David @ Comcast
        Dennis, I m inclined to think that Marcion had a text (not canonical Luke) that was used as the basis of his gospel earlier than 140 AD, possibly significantly
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 10, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Dennis, I'm inclined to think that Marcion had a text (not canonical Luke)
          that was used as the basis of his gospel earlier than 140 AD, possibly
          significantly earlier, but probably that his gospel was not made public
          until around 140 AD. The point I was making was that Epiphanius is much
          further removed in time from Marcion than Tertullian, and that this gives us
          a reason to consider Tertullian more 'trustworthy' than Epiphanius in his
          statements regarding the contents of Marcion's gospel. However, as Adv
          Marcion and Panarion 42 are very different, where does this put Tertullian
          vs. Epiphanius in the 'trust' stakes?



          Re. the book by Tyson, I have found large chunks available online here
          http://books.google.com/books?id=MU2U08v6aq0C
          <http://books.google.com/books?id=MU2U08v6aq0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gb
          s_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false>
          &printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false . Do
          you know of an online source that has the whole thing?



          David Inglis

          Lafayette, CA, 94549

          _____

          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Dennis Dean Carpenter
          Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:07 PM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Is Epiphanius a credible witness to the text of
          Marcion's gospel?





          That's probably not a good date for Marcion, David. I know, I know, it is
          the orthodox dating... I think, however, that I posted fairly conclusive
          evidence here, from Joseph B. Tyson, "The Adate of Acts: A Reconsideration,"
          Forum, 5.1 that showed Marcion to be active in the second decade of the
          second century. If one accepts the Apologists, all of the synoptic gospels
          are dated unreasonably early... with, of course, the so-called "heretics"
          coming much later.

          Other than that, I don't think Tertullian actually proves anything in his
          book.

          Dennis Dean Carpenter
          Dahlonega, Ga.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David @ Comcast
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroup <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> s.com ;
          gpg@yahoogroups. <mailto:gpg%40yahoogroups.com> com
          Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:13 PM
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] Is Epiphanius a credible witness to the text of
          Marcion's gospel?

          Marcion wrote his gospel around 140 AD, and our two major sources for his
          text are Tertullian: 'Against Marcion' (207-208 AD), and Epiphanius:
          'Panarion, section 42' (c. 375 AD). Purely given the elapsed time periods,
          we should expect that Tertullian (65-70 years after Marcion) would be a
          better witness than Epiphanius (around 235 years after Marcion). However,
          because Tertullian is very long-winded and Epiphanius is short and to the
          point, it seems that most commentators rely more on Epiphanius than
          Tertullian when determining Marcion's text.

          Now, Tertullian and Epiphanius do not always agree, and some of the places
          where they disagree look like Epiphanius is misinterpreting Tertullian. So,
          how much trust should we put in Epiphanius? Should we treat Tertullian as
          the primary source and Epiphanius only secondary, or can we treat Epiphanius
          and Tertullian as equals? Do we even know whether Epiphanius read Marcion's
          gospel rather than Tertullian's comments on Marcion?

          David Inglis

          Lafayette, CA, 94549

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.43/2281 - Release Date: 08/09/09
          08:08:00




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Peter M. Head
          I think it is rather strange to say that Tertullian is long-winded in comparison with Epiphanius. That has never been my impression. The actual problem is that
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 11, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I think it is rather strange to say that Tertullian is long-winded in
            comparison with Epiphanius. That has never been my impression. The
            actual problem is that Tertullian responds to Marcion in a running
            commentary style (in Latin), whereas Epiphanius gives substantial
            block quotes (78, in Greek) with comments after each. So Epiphanius
            is more obviously quoting from a document, so I would certainly start
            with the assumption that Epiphanius is quoting from something he
            thought was Marcion's text (albeit obviously a Marcionite text from
            two hundred years later). The difference in genre (and content)
            precludes the idea that Epiphanius is only dependent on Tertullian -
            so I wouldn't attribute differences (not sure which ones you are
            thinking of here?) to Epiphanius misinterpreting Tertullian (I'm not
            even sure off hand whether Epiphanius read Tertullian, remember that
            loads of other works, now lost, were written against Marcion). I
            would say that Epiphanius is a very credible witness to a later copy
            of the Marcionite Gospel.


            Peter
            At 02:13 10/08/2009, you wrote:
            >Marcion wrote his gospel around 140 AD, and our two major sources for his
            >text are Tertullian: 'Against Marcion' (207-208 AD), and Epiphanius:
            >'Panarion, section 42' (c. 375 AD). Purely given the elapsed time periods,
            >we should expect that Tertullian (65-70 years after Marcion) would be a
            >better witness than Epiphanius (around 235 years after Marcion). However,
            >because Tertullian is very long-winded and Epiphanius is short and to the
            >point, it seems that most commentators rely more on Epiphanius than
            >Tertullian when determining Marcion's text.
            >
            >
            >
            >Now, Tertullian and Epiphanius do not always agree, and some of the places
            >where they disagree look like Epiphanius is misinterpreting Tertullian. So,
            >how much trust should we put in Epiphanius? Should we treat Tertullian as
            >the primary source and Epiphanius only secondary, or can we treat Epiphanius
            >and Tertullian as equals? Do we even know whether Epiphanius read Marcion's
            >gospel rather than Tertullian's comments on Marcion?
            >
            >
            >
            >David Inglis
            >
            >Lafayette, CA, 94549
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------
            >
            >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            Peter M. Head, PhD
            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens
            Cambridge CB3 9BA
            01223 566601
          • David @ Comcast
            Tertullian s commentary could (in my opinion) be at least 50% shorter, and would have more impact as a result. As it stands, anyone reading Adv Marcion has to
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 11, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Tertullian's commentary could (in my opinion) be at least 50% shorter, and
              would have more impact as a result. As it stands, anyone reading Adv Marcion
              has to wade through text that rambles all over the place. Of course, it
              could be that I simply don't appreciate Tertullian's brilliant arguments.



              However, for specifics where Epiphanius appears to depend on Tertullian, I
              would use Luke 4:27 (And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus
              the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian) as an
              example. Regarding Marcion's version of Luke 17:11-19, Epiphanius states
              that: "Marcion excised a great deal and wrote, "He sent them away, saying,
              Show yourselves unto the priests;" and yet he made a substitution and said,
              "Many lepers were in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed,
              saving Naaman the Syrian."



              In contrast, Tertullian specifically states that this text: (many lepers .
              Naaman the Syrian) was included in a previous chapter, not that it was
              inserted into chapter 17. If (as Tertullian states), 4:27 was not inserted,
              then anyone reading Marcion's text directly would have no reason to even
              refer to 4:27 (because it would be unremarkable). So, if Epiphanius referred
              to it, then it follows that he read or saw 'special' to do with 4:27:



              1. Tertullian was wrong, and 4:27 WAS inserted into chapter 17; or

              2. Epiphanius read Tertullian (or something else based on Tertullian)
              and was misled into thinking that 4:27 was inserted into chapter 17; or

              3. Tertullian and Epiphanius had different versions of Marcion's
              gospel, with 4:27 in chapter 17 only in Epiphanius' copy.



              Of the three possibilities, I would have to go with Tertullian being correct
              and Epiphanius being wrong (or misled).



              David Inglis

              Lafayette, CA, 94549



              _____

              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of Peter M. Head
              Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:42 AM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Is Epiphanius a credible witness to the text of
              Marcion's gospel?





              I think it is rather strange to say that Tertullian is long-winded in
              comparison with Epiphanius. That has never been my impression. The
              actual problem is that Tertullian responds to Marcion in a running
              commentary style (in Latin), whereas Epiphanius gives substantial
              block quotes (78, in Greek) with comments after each. So Epiphanius
              is more obviously quoting from a document, so I would certainly start
              with the assumption that Epiphanius is quoting from something he
              thought was Marcion's text (albeit obviously a Marcionite text from
              two hundred years later). The difference in genre (and content)
              precludes the idea that Epiphanius is only dependent on Tertullian -
              so I wouldn't attribute differences (not sure which ones you are
              thinking of here?) to Epiphanius misinterpreting Tertullian (I'm not
              even sure off hand whether Epiphanius read Tertullian, remember that
              loads of other works, now lost, were written against Marcion). I
              would say that Epiphanius is a very credible witness to a later copy
              of the Marcionite Gospel.

              Peter
              At 02:13 10/08/2009, you wrote:
              >Marcion wrote his gospel around 140 AD, and our two major sources for his
              >text are Tertullian: 'Against Marcion' (207-208 AD), and Epiphanius:
              >'Panarion, section 42' (c. 375 AD). Purely given the elapsed time periods,
              >we should expect that Tertullian (65-70 years after Marcion) would be a
              >better witness than Epiphanius (around 235 years after Marcion). However,
              >because Tertullian is very long-winded and Epiphanius is short and to the
              >point, it seems that most commentators rely more on Epiphanius than
              >Tertullian when determining Marcion's text.
              >
              >
              >
              >Now, Tertullian and Epiphanius do not always agree, and some of the places
              >where they disagree look like Epiphanius is misinterpreting Tertullian. So,
              >how much trust should we put in Epiphanius? Should we treat Tertullian as
              >the primary source and Epiphanius only secondary, or can we treat
              Epiphanius
              >and Tertullian as equals? Do we even know whether Epiphanius read Marcion's
              >gospel rather than Tertullian's comments on Marcion?
              >
              >
              >
              >David Inglis
              >
              >Lafayette, CA, 94549
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >------------------------------------
              >
              >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.
              <http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo> com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              Peter M. Head, PhD
              Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              Tyndale House
              36 Selwyn Gardens
              Cambridge CB3 9BA
              01223 566601
              <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15623871/grpspId=1705074057/msgI
              d=2369/stime=1249983726/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>



              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.43/2281 - Release Date: 08/10/09
              06:10:00




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.