Re: Marcionite agreements with Matthew against Luke?
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:49 pm
Hakeem, you (for once) actually bring up an important point, which is the state of the text in Epiphanius and Adamantius compared to that of Tertullian. How much has the text been corrupted over time?
There are five factors to consider when examining the text of each passage
1) is the author actually quoting from the Marcionite books or from the Catholic text as it stood in his particular library?
// for Dialogue Adamantius it is my view that only when the heretical champions are speaking can we be sure the text is actually Marcionite
// Tertullian can be unreliable at time because he switches back and forth between the Catholic and Marcionite texts. he often uses the Catholic text to make a counter argument.
2) was the source of the passage quoted from the actual Marcionite bible (Paul and the Gospel) or was it from the Antithesis?
// For Dialogue Adamantius this is critical, as part 1 and part 2 seem to only have the Marcionite champions quote from the antithesis
3) is the author paraphrasing the text to fit his point, either altering the text to fit his voice or to show a point of emphasis?
// Tertullian has especially been demonstrated to do that
4) is a particular reading the result of a local text, with a variant that may merely reflect a copyist error, or has it been adjusted to conform to the Catholic reading by a later editor
// Epiphanius and Adamantius both show signs of Catholic adjustments by copyists at points
// local variants are an important clue pointing toward the Marcionites having been part of the main church and breaking away at some point taking the text with them as it stood at the point of the split.
5) Additionally for Tertullian, does the Latin accurately reflect the Greek, or has it suffered some loss in translation?
// Rufinus' Latin in DA appears to be more reliable than the Greek text for the most part
// Tertullian's passages sometimes reflects Latinisms due to direct translation.
It should be noted that Tertullian wrote before the Decian persecution, when some manuscripts were destroyed, and of course before the Diocletian persecution when there was a a wholesale burning of Christian works. (Note, I think this is why we have distinct text types). Epiphanius was written after the Diocletian persecution and appears to us in a edited form from probably the early 5th century. This almost certainly means that Epiphanius was working from some prior work(s).
Analysis of the text has to work within those known parameters. This is why one has to work at an atomic level with the sources.
There are five factors to consider when examining the text of each passage
1) is the author actually quoting from the Marcionite books or from the Catholic text as it stood in his particular library?
// for Dialogue Adamantius it is my view that only when the heretical champions are speaking can we be sure the text is actually Marcionite
// Tertullian can be unreliable at time because he switches back and forth between the Catholic and Marcionite texts. he often uses the Catholic text to make a counter argument.
2) was the source of the passage quoted from the actual Marcionite bible (Paul and the Gospel) or was it from the Antithesis?
// For Dialogue Adamantius this is critical, as part 1 and part 2 seem to only have the Marcionite champions quote from the antithesis
3) is the author paraphrasing the text to fit his point, either altering the text to fit his voice or to show a point of emphasis?
// Tertullian has especially been demonstrated to do that
4) is a particular reading the result of a local text, with a variant that may merely reflect a copyist error, or has it been adjusted to conform to the Catholic reading by a later editor
// Epiphanius and Adamantius both show signs of Catholic adjustments by copyists at points
// local variants are an important clue pointing toward the Marcionites having been part of the main church and breaking away at some point taking the text with them as it stood at the point of the split.
5) Additionally for Tertullian, does the Latin accurately reflect the Greek, or has it suffered some loss in translation?
// Rufinus' Latin in DA appears to be more reliable than the Greek text for the most part
// Tertullian's passages sometimes reflects Latinisms due to direct translation.
It should be noted that Tertullian wrote before the Decian persecution, when some manuscripts were destroyed, and of course before the Diocletian persecution when there was a a wholesale burning of Christian works. (Note, I think this is why we have distinct text types). Epiphanius was written after the Diocletian persecution and appears to us in a edited form from probably the early 5th century. This almost certainly means that Epiphanius was working from some prior work(s).
Analysis of the text has to work within those known parameters. This is why one has to work at an atomic level with the sources.