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
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.