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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Is Epiphanius a credible witness to the text of Marcion's gospel?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.