What Epiphanius Means When He Speaks of His Marcionite Pamphlet as "συλλελεγμένῳ πονήματι"

[Secret Alias]

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

[Secret Alias]

Such a fucking piece of shit.

[Secret Alias]

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

[Secret Alias]

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

[Secret Alias]

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

[Secret Alias]

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

[Peter Kirby]

And what is Epiphanius gathering anyway? It's like (a) citation (b) demonstration that even Marcion's gospel is orthodox. It's fucking bizarre. It's Irenaeus "I will demonstrate the orthodoxness of the Marcionite gospel from the portions of Luke he retains"

I think I've finally clarified the problem that's been nagging me about this whole issue, and it's like watching a detective show unfold. To believe that Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius were independent witnesses of the same canon, you'd have to accept that three separate developments of the same strategy—arguing against Marcion to prove that his gospel is still orthodox—happened naturally and independently. That this approach was commonplace and nothing out of the ordinary.

I would think that Epiphanius was consulting earlier anti-heretical works when writing Panarion, including his section on Marcionites, and not limited to Irenaeus. I agree that Epiphanius has knowledge of Irenaeus. It's difficult to say if he has knowledge of the Against Marcion of Irenaeus, but it's possible. All of this is to say that influence of earlier anti-heretical tracts on the elenchi, the explanations, does not imply that Epiphanius was copying the scholia, the notes that were made earlier, from anyone else. To have used other work for the elenchi is consistent with what Epiphanius said he was doing.

[Peter Kirby]

were so mentally retarded that they believed Luke [rather, 'the gospel' behind 'the gospels' - PK], without any corruptions, could testify to their entire heretical agenda

Have you ever seen the way religious people argue from holy texts? Just checking.

[Secret Alias]

The forum is progressing. Help the forum get better.

[Peter Kirby]

But what's the point of making the Marcionites faithfully preserve an orthodox gospel? That's the bizarro wrinkle. Could it be it has something to do with Luke not having a testimony of its existence before Irenaeus wrote the treatise? I think so.

If we compare against what (Pseudo-)Hippolytus says and what Origen says, then the idea that the Marcionite gospel has a sole connection to Luke is credibly attributed to Irenaeus instead of fact.

If we compare the other references regarding the start of the Marcionite gospel (which is not limited to those who hammer on the Luke thing), then it's possible to understand this as a false assumption/claim made by Irenaeus from reading the start of the Marcionite gospel, when compared to the chronological synchronism in Luke 3:1.