Really? There Wasn't a Marcionite Version of the Letters Which Personified Chrestos? Really?

[Secret Alias]

What claims? How were they confirmed about the Marcionites?

[Secret Alias]

Why would he have dictated conforming to the order of Epistles in Adversus Marcionem and then attached a pamphlet subsequently with a Romans Ephesians Colossians Galatians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians ordering and then established headers correcting the pamphlet (please read the Panarion). Either he does not know the Marcionite ordering or he didn't know it while dictating or he wrote a pamphlet based on second hand information and then corrected it when dictating Irenaeus. Bottom line there was a time where he was working on the Panarion and he claimed to know the Marcionite canon and did not.

[Secret Alias]

The pamphlet has the greatest possibility of first hand knowledge. Epiphanius explicitly cites it as proof that he knew the canon. But the disconnect is the citation of a completely different ordering foe the Epistles AND then the subsequent correction of his "first hand source" by the contrary ordering of Irenaeus/Tertullian. Why allow Adversus Marcionem at the table? Epiphanius had a high level of respect for Irenaeus. Does it make sense that he would allow Irenaeus's account of a different ordering for the Epistles to trump his alleged "first hand" witness? Epiphanius didn't see the Marcionite canon. The pamphlet is also based on second and third hand witnesses perhaps compiled. It is however hard to account for the unusual ordering. Also the gematria is number of citations = Amen.

I will likely not be able to unravel the Romans Ephesians Colossians Galatians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians ordering in the pamphlet. It has no connection to anything I can discern.

[StephenGoranson]

Aline Pourkier is reediting Panarion. Maybe worth a look.

[Secret Alias]

Thanks for the note. I think Epiphanius is a fascinating author. I wonder whether someone sent him the pamphlet. I can't reconcile (a) having the canon in front of you (b) making exactly 113 or whatever number of extracts so that it corresponds to Amen and then (c) ignoring the ordering you see in front of you to make what you see before conform with what you read in Adversus Marcionem? This last point can be changed to "the work you were reading from when dictating to your secretary." Okay. But there are enough verbal clues to connect Irenaeus to this source. I think even the editor mentions Irenaeus. But again, why if your pamphlet is an eyewitness testimony and that source arranges the citations Romans Ephesians Colossians Galatians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians do you say essentially "this is not the order of the Marcionite canon, the order of the Marcionite canon agrees with Adversus Marcionem." I can't square these two facts without assuming Epiphanius doesn't have the canon in front of him. Also is Epiphanius the kind of person who believed in gematria? Maybe, and this is the only way I can reconcile things, maybe Basil or someone sent him the pamphlet.

[StephenGoranson]

If I recall correctly, the results of the long studies by Aline Pourkier differ from yours, if you wish to consult them.

[Secret Alias]

Sure by all means.

[Secret Alias]

The subject of this thread is properly whether or not Romans 2:4 as preserved in the orthodox canon was deliberately watered down to avoid readers hearing Paul provide the grounding for the Marcionite understanding that there were two powers, one of mercy (= Chrestos) the other judgment.

Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed" (Romans 2:4-5).

We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness (τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ) and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God (τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Whenever I see the idea of "two powers" - one of judgement and the other of kindness - and when I know that everyone from Irenaeus onward identifies the dualism of the Marcionites as being of the "power of judgement" and "power of kindness" variety, how is it possible that "chrestos" here originally (remember as a student of Marcionism I don't necessarily accept the authority of the surviving canon) and indeed the entire section was rooted in Jesus being one of two powers in heaven? Just an almost rhetorical question. Of course the Marcionites had a version of this material which posited Jesus as Chrestos the "other" of the two powers in heaven. The other is "the power of judgement."

The assumption among those who blindly follow convention is that "we have the epistles of Paul" and that the Marcionite canon was "just like ours" because Irenaeus and then Tertullian developed this stupid argument that they would tell their audience that a select bunch of passages were shared by both canons (without providing any proof). The original (Marcionite) Romans 2:4 was almost certainly different what what we have in our canon.