The collection at NewEpicurean.com is here.
I will work on expanding the list at the EpicureanFriends Wiki here.
To carry forward the point of the significance of Nietzsche just a little, here i think is the root of N's problem with Epicurus, in Antichrist Section 30:
"The instinctive hatred of reality: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation—so great that merely to be "touched" becomes unendurable, for every sensation is too profound.
The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, all hostility, all bounds and distances in feeling: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility to pain and irritation—so great that it senses all resistance, all compulsion to resistance, as unbearable anguish (—that is to say, as harmful, as prohibited by the instinct of self-preservation), and regards blessedness (joy) as possible only when it is no longer necessary to offer resistance to anybody or anything, however evil or dangerous—love, as the only, as the ultimate possibility of life…
These are the two physiological realities upon and out of which the doctrine of salvation has sprung. I call them a sublime super-development of hedonism upon a thoroughly unsalubrious soil. What stands most closely related to them, though with a large admixture of Greek vitality and nerve-force, is epicureanism, the theory of salvation of paganism. Epicurus was a typical decadent: I was the first to recognize him.—The fear of pain, even of infinitely slight pain—the end of this can be nothing save a religion of love… "
The last paragraph of course being the most clear. What I will suggest is that Nietzsche is simply incorrect as to his interpretation of Epicurus, and that Epicurus did NOT "fear pain, even infinitely slight pain." If this were true, I too would have nothing to do with Epicurus, but I do not think a fair reading of the texts establishes that it is true.
I can't say why Nietszche did not reach the same conclusions that Norman Dewitt did, but I admit that 95% of the people who learn about Epicurus in school or at Wikipedia are going to be taught that Nietzsche was right in his view, based on the "absence of pain" issue.
If you study the full texts for yourself, with a guide like Norman DeWitt instead of a neo-Stoic or an Academic, I think you'll the grounds for the argument that Nietzsche's assessment on this part of Epicurus is incorrect.