Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

In the end the idea that Tertullian has the Marcionite gospel in front of him depends on Epiphanius. Solely Epiphanius. Bad person to have everything depend on.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:30 am In the end the idea that Tertullian has the Marcionite gospel in front of him depends on Epiphanius. Solely Epiphanius. Bad person to have everything depend on.

I have argued that Tertullian didn't have the Marcionite gospel in front of him.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:20 am Tertullian doesn't say this is the order of the Marcionite canon.

I hadn't considered that interpretation of Tertullian. Does it have merit?

But Epiphanius does say what the order of Marcion's letters of Paul are, by numbering them.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 11:20 am I don't understand this.

I'm saying that Epiphanius believed he had the Marcionite texts when he compiled his quotes.

You're the only person I know who has disagreed, which I understand as idiosyncratic and against the available evidence on the matter.

You can also read the rest of what I wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 10:43 am

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 8:35 am the quotes attributed to Marcion are arranged in an inexplicable order of the Pauline epistles

Not inexplicable.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:57 am As part of the extracts themselves, Epiphanius notes the ordering of each set of extracts, both in his canon and Marcion's.

From the Epistle to the Romans, number four in Marcion’s canon but number one in the Apostolic Canon.

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number five in Marcion’s canon >, but number eight in ours. [with no notes]

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number six in Marcion’s canon >, but number nine in ours. [with no notes]

From the Epistle to Ephesians, number seven < in Marcion’s canon >, but number five in ours. [2 notes]

< From the Epistle > to the Colossians, number eight < in Marcion’s canon >, but number seven in ours.

The Epistle to Philemon, number nine < in Marcion’s canon >, but number thirteen, or even fourteen, in ours. [with no notes]

The Epistle to the Philippians, number ten < in Marcion’s canon >, but number six in ours. [with no notes]

< From the Epistle > to the Laodiceans, number eleven < in Marcion’s canon >. [1 note]

From the Epistle to the Galatians, number one < in Marcion’s canon >, but number four in ours.

< From the > First < Epistle > to the Corinthians, number two in Marcion’s own canon and in ours.

From the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, number three in Marcion’s canon and ours

Two things fully account for this order:

Epiphanius mistakenly put one of his notes under a different name for Ephesians (i.e. Laodiceans), appending it to the end, where otherwise he put them under the name of Ephesians and placed those two notes in the order of Marcion's Laodiceans.

Epiphanius starts with Romans. Other than that (and a single note on Laodiceans), he mechanically follows the Marcionite order. After Romans there is a sequence (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) in the Marcionite order, right up to the end. Then the stray note on Laodiceans. Then another sequence (1, 2, 3) also in the Marcionite order.

And while the Galatians-first order is that which is attributed to Marcion (in Against Marcion and by Epiphanius himself), the presentation of the Marcionite order -- with the twist of taking Romans first and then looping back around -- can best be understood as evidence that Epiphanius himself knew a Romans-first canon and was comparing between two different sets of texts of Paul, which were each arranged differently (his Romans-first, that attributed to Marcion Galatians-first).

This evidence is consistent with what Epiphanius himself writes about reading the Marcionite texts and going through them to compile (a word you've pointed out) the quotes that he takes from the Marcionite texts, quotes that notably are absent as a phenomenon in the rather different text Against Marcion.

I also wrote this:

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:49 am

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:29 amWhat possible reason would he have for giving one order 6 lines earlier and another 6 lines later?

This is the order he gives earlier:

9,4 Here are what he calls Epistles: 1. Galatians. 2. Corinthians. 3. Second Corinthians. 4. Romans. 5. Thessalonians. 6. Second Thessalonians. 7. Ephesians. 8. Colossians. 9. Philemon. 10. Philippians. He also has parts of the so-called Epistle to the Laodiceans.

This is the order that he gives later:

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:57 am

From the Epistle to the Romans, number four in Marcion’s canon but number one in the Apostolic Canon.

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number five in Marcion’s canon >, but number eight in ours. [with no notes]

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number six in Marcion’s canon >, but number nine in ours. [with no notes]

From the Epistle to Ephesians, number seven < in Marcion’s canon >, but number five in ours. [2 notes]

< From the Epistle > to the Colossians, number eight < in Marcion’s canon >, but number seven in ours.

The Epistle to Philemon, number nine < in Marcion’s canon >, but number thirteen, or even fourteen, in ours. [with no notes]

The Epistle to the Philippians, number ten < in Marcion’s canon >, but number six in ours. [with no notes]

< From the Epistle > to the Laodiceans, number eleven < in Marcion’s canon >. [1 note]

From the Epistle to the Galatians, number one < in Marcion’s canon >, but number four in ours.

< From the > First < Epistle > to the Corinthians, number two in Marcion’s own canon and in ours.

From the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, number three in Marcion’s canon and ours

With the second list starting from Romans and then looping back around, they are explicitly the same order.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:57 amWhy start in the middle?

Any answer is speculative. We can, however, note that his own canon started with Romans. He clearly was not trying to match his canon's ordering because he everywhere follows Marcionite ordering, despite starting in the middle. Other than the Romans first thing and being confused by Laodiceans, there is no other apparent connection to his canon. We can see this when we list them in his canon's numbering:

1, 8, 9, 5, 7, 13 or 14, 6, 4, 2, 3 ... no real pattern

There's an obvious pattern with respect to the Marcionite canon:

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 3

I think someone else compiled the pamphlet for him. In the same way Basil and other sources were used throughout the Panarion. Getting back to the relationship between Tertullian and Epiphanius, with respect to Tertullian, we’re expected to believe:

1. He had the Marcionite canon right in front of him.
2. The reason Book 5 follows the order of Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, etc., is because he's adhering to the Marcionite canon.
3. The reason Book 4 literally follows Luke chapter by chapter is because the Marcionite gospel mirrors Luke’s order.
4. And the reason the text follows Matthew at the beginning is anyone's guess.

So, there’s a theory that Book 5’s sequence of Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, etc., is due to Tertullian following the Marcionite canon, and that Book 4’s chapter-by-chapter structure is because the Marcionite gospel mimics Luke’s. That’s all there is to it with Tertullian.

But because Epiphanius claims Marcion's gospel looks like Luke, and the Pauline epistles are in the Galatians-first order, the assumption is that Marcion’s gospel was actually Luke and his canon was the same as our Pauline epistles.

By the time of Tertullian and Epiphanius, though, the Pauline canon didn’t start with Galatians anymore. Back when Palut left Rome in 195 CE and began converting people in Osroene, the New Testament canon looked different. Irenaeus’s New Testament canon also followed that structure, since he was undoubtedly influencing the bishop of Rome just as Palut was about to leave.

So why was it so crucial for Irenaeus to push this narrative that Marcion’s canon was Luke + the orthodox Pauline letters? To prove that Marcion stole the canon from the orthodox church. It’s similar to that claim in Tertullian that the Church of Rome had a “letter” where Marcion confessed to being orthodox before becoming a heretic. Adversus Haereses was built around this setup to argue that the Marcionite canon was “stolen” from the orthodox—just like the Samaritans accused the Jews of stealing their Pentateuch and Joshua, or how Clement accused the Carpocratians of stealing the text of Mark in Alexandria.

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:00 pm So why was it so crucial for Irenaeus to push this narrative that Marcion’s canon was Luke + the orthodox Pauline letters?

I can see that it's possible (but not certain) that Irenaeus knew a Galatians-first canon, mainly because I don't know of anything to the contrary.

Irenaeus had the pastoral letters, and Marcion's canon (according to his enemies) did not.

This paper shows how important the pastoral letters were to Irenaeus:

https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewconten ... =phil_pubs

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:05 pm Once Epiphanius knows either or both of Irenaeus and Tertullian and Tertullian of Irenaeus

Epiphanius knew his predecessors, but he had better access to primary source material than what Tertullian used (according to how you and I have argued about Tertullian).

The concern for quoting the Marcionite texts in Epiphanius shows this better access.