Strong Evidence that Epiphanius Used the Greek Original of Tertullian's Against Marcion as a Source

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Strong Evidence that Epiphanius Used the Greek Original of Tertullian's Against Marcion as a Source

Post by Secret Alias »

Epiphanius - 48. When the ten lepers met him. Marcion excised a great deal and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests”; and he substituted different words for others and said, “Many lepers were in the day of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman
the Syrian.”

Scholion 48. When the ten lepers met him. Marcion cut a great deal out and wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests,”
and yet he made a substitution and said, “Many lepers were in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.”
Elenchus 48. Here too the Lord calls Elisha a prophet, and says that he himself is accomplishing the things which, equally, had been done before
him by Elisha — in refutation of Marcion and all who make light of God’s prophets.
Tertullian - He therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom, will not have an immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to his fantastic vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution, who had not in fact any material capacity for it; nor, in like manner, as having destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion of his phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. [6] If, however, the Creator's prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone,243 to the exclusion of so many lepers in Israel,245 this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. [Tertullian AM 4.9.5]

Now, although He said in a preceding chapter,1393 that "there were many lepers in lsrael in the days of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian," yet of course the mere number proves nothing towards a difference in the gods, as tending to the abasement1394 of the Creator in curing only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt that many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him who had never healed one before? [7] But His main purpose in this declaration was to strike at the unbelief or the pride of Israel, in that (although there were many lepers amongst them, and a prophet was not wanting to them) not one had been moved even by so conspicuous an example to betake himself to God who was working in His prophets. Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself the veritable1395 High Priest of God the Father, He inspected them according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind. However, what was obviously required by the law He commanded should be done: "Go," said He, "show yourselves to the priests."1396 Yet why this, if He meant to cleanse them first? Was it as a despiser of the law, in order to prove to them that, having been cured already on the road, the law was now nothing to them, nor even the priests? Well, the matter must of course pass as it best may,1397 if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these!1398 But there are certainly better interpretations to be found of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that they were cleansed on this account, because they were obedient, and went as the law required, when they were commanded to go to the priests; and it is not to be believed that persons who observed the law could have found a cure from a god that was destroying the law. Why, however, did He not give such a command to the leper who first returned?1400 Because Elisha did not in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the Creator's agent? This is a sufficient answer. [ibid 4.35.6f]
It is a very strange passage in the current commentary. On the one hand the reference to Naaman now certainly appears early on in Luke. On the other Tertullian does seem to allude to Naaman at the same place in his commentary (Against Marcion) and later on in the same commentary makes allusion to the gospel reference to 'Naaman' as 'already' having taken place in the appropriate section of Luke apparently.

Yet it has to be acknowledged that:

1. the reference to Naaman in the earlier part of Naaman does not read like a 'I'm reading it in Luke' citation. It seems indistinguishable from the usual 'hypothetical scriptural precedents for the gospel' argument that comes up throughout Against Marcion
2. the only explicit reference to Luke 4.27 occurs near the end of the commentary on Luke, in the discussion of the ten lepers healing (Luke 17) where the author says it has already occurred in chapter 4
3. Epiphanius somehow thinks that Luke 17 is where Luke 4.27 is found in the Marcionite gospel.

So (2) and (3) can't both be right. Tertullian or Tertullian's source can't be right when they say 4.27 already appeared back in chapter 4 in his discussion of Luke chapter 17 at the same time Epiphanius says that Luke 4.27 appears in Luke chapter 17. The only reasonable answer is that Epiphanius has read an earlier version, the Greek version of Tertullian's source text where the Namaan the Syrian statement (Luke 4.27) is referenced during Luke 17's ten leper incident (not necessarily in Luke 17 but associated with the wording of Luke 17 i.e. 'ten' lepers, one Samaritan leper etc) where one Samaritan leper turned back. The manner in which Tertullian alludes to this 'turned leper' as someone significant in the heretical universe (by means of describing him as a 'fellow sufferer' 'companion in hate' with Marcion also manifests something special about this passage. There is an unmistakable relationship here between the Against Marcion text of Tertullian and Epiphanius which is evident in other passage but which certainly assumes that Epiphanius culled 'Against Marcion' texts rather than the Marcionite gospel for his list of Marcionite textual variants.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Strong Evidence that Epiphanius Used the Greek Original of Tertullian's Against Marcion as a Source

Post by Secret Alias »

according to Epiphanius (Schol. xlviii.), Marcion had put ver. 27 (referring to the cure of Naaman the Syrian) in another place, viz. in the account of the healing of the ten lepers (ch. xvii. 14). It is usually supposed (by Hahn, p. 189; De Wette, § 71, I), note a) that Tertullian (adv. Marc. iv. 35) read the passage in question in its right place in Marcion's Gospel. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... Ta3e5aK9Bz
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply