Tertullian & Epiphanius Did Not Possess Marcion's Canon

[Secret Alias]

I am not sure that I am saying that his comments should be 'ignored' but like all this Patristic information treated with extreme caution. For instance the example that KK started with regards to the story in Luke about the leper. Epiphanius clearly used Tertullian (or his source). He took the textual variation as an example of Marcionite 'adulteration' when it was just a variant in the author of Adversus Marcionem's canon. To this end it is good to see that he used sources for his list, pity that he lied about having the Marcionite gospel in front of him (or perhaps the reading was shared by both Marcion and the sect member). Here is an updated and polished list of Epiphanius's modern detractors at my blog http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2017/ ... nders.html

[DCHindley]

DCH

Perhaps my methodology is different than people at the forum. I tend to throw ideas out there which - admittedly - start with my observations about a given topic. But then - often as a result of a lack of participation from other members of the forum - I try out how closely I can find academics to agree with the whole or part of what I suspect is true. Hence the citation of the various authors. The question is how close can I get someone to say what I want to say.

Stephen (I mean Secret),

One of the problems with following your discussions is that they can be rather lengthy and crammed with so many individual details that they are hard to follow, plus you post sometimes 5-10 posts in a very short period of time. How can anyone follow that?

You have obviously done a lot of research in many subjects. My recommendation, as a friend (and I do think we have a friendship, although I sometimes poke fun at you as friends might do), is to systematize this stuff mentally before posting so you don't seem to be going this way then that, all willy-nilly.

DCH

[Secret Alias]

I just want to find out the truth. I don't come to the forum to put up an opinion and the defend that opinion just because its my opinion. But yes I do consider you a friend too. Thanks

[Secret Alias]

Another argument which speaks to Epiphanius copying Tertullian and then (in typical fashion) not understanding or not caring about what he just cited:

after saying with Tertullian that Marcion only received ten of St. Paul's Epistles, he enumerates them all as received by him

[Secret Alias]

Lieu on the inconsistencies between Tertullian and Epiphanius:

On the other hand, there are some incidences where the witnesses are obscure or are contradictory; whereas Tertullian claims that Marcion omitted the division Jesus garments, ' because of the prophecy of the psalm' (Luke 23.34b; AM IV.) Epiphanius explicitly mentions this in his characteristically compressed citation, 'And coming to the place named Skull they crucified him and divided his garments and the sun darkened." (Luke 23.33a, 34b, 44).38 Epiphanius then continues with the abrupt remark, 'he excised “Today you will be with me in Paradise”' (Luke 23.43), to which he adds the comment, 'You have taken away from yourself the entry into Paradise for you will not enter neither will you allow those with you' (Pan. 42.11.17, SR72); however, whether that signals the absence of the whole of the preceding account of the penitent thief, which is also ignored by Tertullian which is also ignored by Tertullian or only its climactic promise must remain obscure

More from Lieu:

According to Tertullian, Marcion permitted Moses and Elijah only to be 'standing with' Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and not to be 'speaking with' him, whereas Epiphanius cites the verse, albeit in a form not otherwise attested, as 'And behold two men were speaking with him, Elijah and Moses in glory' (Luke 9.30, 32; Tertullian, AM IV. 22.16; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.11.17, S17)

Epic bullshit

[Secret Alias]

I can only get so far into Roth's curious summary:

In Pan. 42.11.15 Epiphanius begins describing a third part of his scholarship (τρίτον τῆς φιλοκαλίας) where he contends that texts which he and Marcion had in common could be used to prove theological points contrary to Marcion's beliefs. In Pan. 42.11.16 Epiphanius goes on to state,

And here is the brief arrangement of that work of mine, transcribed word for word by myself from copies of Marcion in the form of scholia with exegetical comments, to serve as an outline.20.

In Pan. 42.11.17, Epiphanius adds that in order for the difficult things not to be obscure, he would now explain every entry, offering a reason for why each saying was chosen and transferred here to the Panarion.21 Epiphanius then lists the 118 passages a second time, this time as scholia, each of which is followed by an elenchus.22

Though some scholars previously had given attention to. Epiphanius as a source,23 Zahn appears to have been the first to devote attention to the question of how Pan. 42 came to have this rather unusual structure.24. Zahn's position was that the earlier work against Marcion, a work which previously had not been completed or published, was taken up again and included without alteration (unverändert) in the Panarion.25 The beginning and conclusion of this previous work is, according to Zahn, clearly designated in Pan. 11. however. according to Zahn. the discussion below). Das Evangelium