stephan huller

I have already noted that the Marcionites thought the man who wrote the Epistles of the Apostolikon also wrote their gospel. There are well established parallels between the Gospel of Mark and Colossians. Yet I have always wondered why so many scholars overlook the fact that Clement repeatedly identifies Paul as being aware of the gospel known to the Alexandrians. In Stromata 3 Clement says that Jesus gave a commandment 'thou shalt not lust' to his disciples. Clement makes clear that Paul was aware of this gospel passage unknown to us. Morton Smith and others have long noted that the addition to Secret Mark is probably behind the apostle's references to being baptized into death, the death of Christ etc. Yet I have always thought that the strongest parallels are found between the Prologue of what is now 'the Gospel of John' and various statements in the Apostolikon.

2 Cor 4.6 in my mind makes reference to a variant reading of John 1.5. And then there is Clement of Alexandria's variant of 1 Cor 1:21 in Stromata 1.18:

in short, Clement records the saying as "in his wisdom, the world knew not him' instead of "in his wisdom, the world knew not God" (as in all known texts). Isn't this however just an echo of John 1:10

I think we could come up with a dozen possible references to the apostle being aware of the wording of the gospel, once again reinforcing the truth of the Marcionite tradition and also demonstrating the inherent reactionary nature and falseness of the Catholic system.

It also makes clear what should long ago have been known - i.e. that the original gospel would appear as a Diatessaron (= parts of what is now 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John' all in one 'super' text).

stephan huller

For those who are interested there is a curious lack of knowledge of the received text among any Church Father save for Marcion (or possibly just Tertullian). In Against Marcion we read Tertullian declare:

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to the light of the knowledge in the face of Christ. [Tertullian Against Marcion 5]

But in Tertullian's On the Resurrection of the Flesh the reference to 'darkness' disappears:

so too in Origen's Against Celsus Book Six:

Unfortunately Tertullian's original citation is in Latin but I wonder whether there was a deliberate effort to avoid reading 2 Cor 4:6 as a clear allusion to John 1:5:

As far as I can see there are no other early allusions to 2 Corinthians 4:6 in the Church Fathers.

stephan huller

The Latin of Tertullian's 2 Cor 4:6 is:

the Dialogues of Adamantius 2,19 read:

The Vulgate by contrast reads:

The Vulgate, the Acta Archelai, Codex Fuldensis all render John 1:5 as:

stephan huller

ss

stephan huller

Of course this is where the lack of imagination of scholars demonstrates itself completely. If the Marcionites say that the apostle who wrote the epistles of the Apostolikon also wrote the original gospel and if those texts were bundled together in their New Testament then it would stand to reason that there must have been some overlap - i.e. the apostle not only says 'according to my gospel' meaning 'this text in the New Testament' but the epistles must have made reference to the content of that work. Yet because Irenaeus says that the Marcionite gospel is Luke and we find only references to Matthew, Mark and John scholars ignore the whole question of the significance of the original Marcionite paradigm. Isn't this the most ridiculous thing? It reminds me of Three's Company. The Ropers and Mr Furley see Jack with a new woman on his arm each week but because they 'know' he's gay they ignore the obvious evidence that he's a player. In the same way, Paul making reference to the gospel prologue found in John (but certainly known to Tatian who used a Diatessaron i.e. another gospel form) somehow doesn't prove the authenticity or make highly likely the core Marcionite paradigm - i.e. that the original author of the gospel also was responsible for the epistles which follow.

All the debates at this forum are so utterly contrived and ill informed until you have this crucial bit of information - i.e. that Marcion was probably the most correct about the original paradigm of Christianity. To this end, the truth of Christianity comes down to figuring out what the Marcionites believed, abandoning almost completely a superficial reading of the Church Fathers because as we have just seen (and Casey and others have long ago noted) that the Marcionite gospel IS NOT simply a corrupt version of Luke.

The believers and atheists actually agree on the same thing - keep the stupid and unworkable paradigm of orthodox Christianity. In other words, to limit the debate to the legends and myths of the apostles and the apostolic era. Thankfully I do see some signs that things are changing in scholarship but not fast enough for my liking.