Quotes from Marcion's gospel in Epiphanius
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2024 10:56 am
We learn that Tertullian read Marcion's work called the Antitheses:Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:32 am Where does Epiphanius get the idea that Marcion "yaps" about this or that?
Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own. Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve: although it is perfectly easy to take action against them by counter-claim, even accepting them as admissible, accounting them valid, and alleging that they support my argument, that so they may be put to shame for the blindness of their author, having now become my antitheses against Marcion.
Book 4, without knowing Marcion's gospel directly (as I've suggested), speculates about the consequences of whether the word "appear" is in it somewhere:
It is no matter if somewhere the word 'appeared' is used. 'Appear' suggests a sudden and unexpected sight, <by one> who at some instant has cast his eyes on a thing which has at that instant appeared.
In book 1, regarding Marcion:
Now although, in the view of your heresy, Christ did not clothe himself with the verity of flesh, yet he did vouchsafe to take upon him the appearance of it.
In Panarion, Cerdo is said to have taught:
Christ is not born of Mary and has not appeared in flesh, but since he exists in appearance he has also been manifest in appearance, and done everything in appearance
A "Son of Man" quote is given by Epiphanius to argue against it:
Scholion 2. “But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power
to forgive sins upon earth.”
Elenchus 2. If he calls himself “Son of Man,” the Only-begotten does
not deny his humanity, and there is no use in your yapping about his being
manifest in appearance. And if he has authority on earth, the earth is not
foreign to his creations and his Father’s
to forgive sins upon earth.”
Elenchus 2. If he calls himself “Son of Man,” the Only-begotten does
not deny his humanity, and there is no use in your yapping about his being
manifest in appearance. And if he has authority on earth, the earth is not
foreign to his creations and his Father’s
Likewise:
Scholion 11. And again, “She hath washed my feet with her tears, and
wiped and kissed them.”
Elenchus 11. Lest you think, Marcion, that the sinful woman’s washing,
anointing and kissing of the Savior’s feet was merely people’s supposition,
the Savior himself confi rms it and teaches that it did not take place in
appearance but in reality—confi dently affi rming, for the Pharisee’s refutation and your own, Marcion, and the refutation of people like yourself,
“She hath washed my feet and kissed them.” But which feet, other than
feet made of fl esh, bones and the rest?
wiped and kissed them.”
Elenchus 11. Lest you think, Marcion, that the sinful woman’s washing,
anointing and kissing of the Savior’s feet was merely people’s supposition,
the Savior himself confi rms it and teaches that it did not take place in
appearance but in reality—confi dently affi rming, for the Pharisee’s refutation and your own, Marcion, and the refutation of people like yourself,
“She hath washed my feet and kissed them.” But which feet, other than
feet made of fl esh, bones and the rest?
And:
Elenchus 62. The Savior sat down, Marcion, and the twelve apostles
sat down with him. If he “sat down” and they “sat down” with him, one
expression cannot have two different meanings, even if it can be differentiated in its dignity and manner. For you must either admit that the twelve
apostles have also sat down in appearance, or that he has really sat down
because he really has fl esh.
sat down with him. If he “sat down” and they “sat down” with him, one
expression cannot have two different meanings, even if it can be differentiated in its dignity and manner. For you must either admit that the twelve
apostles have also sat down in appearance, or that he has really sat down
because he really has fl esh.
Again:
Scholion 77. He falsifi ed what Christ said to Cleopas and the other
disciples when he met them, “O fools, and slow to believe all that the
prophets have spoken. Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And
instead of “what the prophets have spoken,” he put, “what I have said unto
you.” But he is exposed, since “When he broke the bread their eyes were
opened and they knew him.”
Elenchus 77. Tell me, Marcion, how was the breaking of the bread
done? In appearance, or with a solid body actually at work? For when he
arose from the dead he truly arose in his sacred body itself; < therefore
he truly broke the bread >.
disciples when he met them, “O fools, and slow to believe all that the
prophets have spoken. Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And
instead of “what the prophets have spoken,” he put, “what I have said unto
you.” But he is exposed, since “When he broke the bread their eyes were
opened and they knew him.”
Elenchus 77. Tell me, Marcion, how was the breaking of the bread
done? In appearance, or with a solid body actually at work? For when he
arose from the dead he truly arose in his sacred body itself; < therefore
he truly broke the bread >.
Again:
Scholion 5 and 13. “For even Christ our Passover is sacrifi ced.”
(a) Elenchus 5 and 13. If the apostle acknowledges a Passover and does
not deny that Christ was sacrifi ced, the Passover is not foreign to Christ,
who truly, not in appearance, sacrifi ces a lamb for a Passover, as the Law
prescribes. Of this lamb Christ, who was not sacrifi ced (only) in appearance and did not suffer without fl esh, is a type. (b) For how could a spirit
be sacrifi ced? It is plain < that >that it could not.
(a) Elenchus 5 and 13. If the apostle acknowledges a Passover and does
not deny that Christ was sacrifi ced, the Passover is not foreign to Christ,
who truly, not in appearance, sacrifi ces a lamb for a Passover, as the Law
prescribes. Of this lamb Christ, who was not sacrifi ced (only) in appearance and did not suffer without fl esh, is a type. (b) For how could a spirit
be sacrifi ced? It is plain < that >that it could not.
Because Tertullian and Epiphanius wrote after Irenaeus and were aware of Irenaeus at least, it is just barely possible - but not necessary - to suppose that their only source of knowledge for this Marcionite doctrine was earlier anti-heretical work.
More plausible is that there would have been multiple available sources - and multiple which actually were an influence on the authors - for such a key and controversial doctrine, including:
(1) Contemporary arguments with Marcionites
(2) Marcion's Antitheses
(3) Texts from other Marcionite (or allegedly "Marcionite") "heretics"
(4) Irenaeus
(5) Other anti-heretical authors (Justin? Theophilus? etc)
What isn't plausible is that Marcionites, which were one of the most formidable so-called heresies in the second century and into the fourth century, were such a complete cipher that their opinions could be accessed only by making things up or repeating what others made up.
And the odds that much of this information is not just "Marcionite" but also goes back to Marcion is increased by the fact that Marcion left behind a literary work, Antitheses.
The use of these specific quotes by Epiphanius from Marcion's gospel to refute the idea found in the Marcionite doctrine is understandable.