Could the Marcionite Gospel Have Contained the Secret Mark Fragment? Could It Have Been the Shorter Gospel of Mark?

As I note in my previous post when Epiphanius uses παρέκοψε to describe what Marcion did with a section of text he means he 'cut it out.' In many of the examples he gives it makes sense. However it is unclear what he means in the case of Scholion 52. In the previous scholion he says something obscure about the blind man of Jericho:

Scholion 51. 'And it came to pass that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a blind man cried, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And when he was healed, he said, Thy faith hath saved thee."

It is impossible to know what Epiphanius means to say by this example.  There is no explanation here, just the raw citation of material.  Then in the commentary which follows he adds:

Scholion 51. 'And it came to pass that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a blind man cried, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And when he was healed, he said, Thy faith hath saved thee.'
(a) Elenchus 51. There can be no lie in faith; if there is a lie, it is not faith. Now he says, 'Son of David,' and the man who confessed the name is commended and granted his request. He has not been reproved as a liar, but congratulated as a believer.
(b) Therefore the One who granted sight to the blind for his calling upon the name was not without flesh. His being was real and not apparent, physically born of David's seed, of the holy Virgin Mary and through the Holy Spirit.

There is no clear statement that Marcion erased any of this.  One must imagine that Epiphanius is taking issue with his interpretation of the material as we see Tertullian do before him.  Indeed what he presents as a citation of Luke is not in fact a verbatim citation but an encapsulation or summary of the whole section which reads in full:

As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening.  They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”  He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” “Lord, I want to see,” he replied. Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God. 

So let's all agree that Epiphanius is not citing what appeared in the Marcionite gospel but in fact a reference to an entire section which was wrongly interpreted by the Marcionites.

Now let's move on to the next section which has puzzled us to no end.  The material here as noted, actually appears before the blind man of Jericho - immediately before it in the gospel.  But Epiphanius speaks about not one 'amputation' but two as a matter of emphasis:

Scholion 52. Marcion amputated, (Παρέκοψε τό) 'He took unto him the twelve, and said, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered and killed, and the third day he shall rise again.' He amputated the whole of this (ὅλα ταῦτα παρέκοψε)

In his discussion of the passage in what follows he repeats what he says here without adding much in the way of explanation:

Scholion 52. Marcion amputated, 'He took unto him the twelve and said, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered and killed, and the third day he shall rise again.' He falsified this in its entirety.
 Elenchus 52. To make sure that he would not be upright in anything and, not being upright, would be convicted of tampering in every way. For he concealed the lines to deny what is said of the passion, if you please. But since he later admits that Christ has been crucified, his labour of tampering (with the text) will be labour in vain for him.

As we just noted this makes very little sense.  Marcion 'amputated' the passage because it mentions him getting crucified but then Marcion allows the Passion narrative to stay.  What gives here?

Adding to the confusion is the fact that Epiphanius's citation of the material is inexact.  The whole section of Luke here reads:

Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.  He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him;  they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again." The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

Clearly then Epiphanius means not just up to "on the third day he will rise" but also the section which follows.  This is why he adds "ὅλα ταῦτα παρέκοψεν" = this whole (section) amputated.

So Epiphanius can't literally mean 'this whole section' cited here but 'the section which this starts' because it would make no sense if Marcion left in his gospel:

The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

The passage doesn't make sense standing on its own.  It doesn't go with what came before the section or after for that manner.  Clearly then Epiphanius means to include what followed Luke 18:31 - 33 as well as the passage itself.  Why then doesn't he cite the material?  Could it be that his original source included what followed but Epiphanius chose not to mention it?  Could it be that the Secret Mark fragment is what his source had in mind?

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word: "And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

Remember the original paradigm behind the 'gospel of Marcion' is that it represents a curtailed gospel.  Luke 18:34 also represents 'secret knowledge.'  Epiphanius's source might only have been pointing to something being mutilated which Epiphanius misunderstood or misrepresented.