Daniel Mahar on the Gospel of John

Hi guys,

just some aside references touching on some points throughout the discussion. On the theory that “John” was a Marcionite corrective to the gospels, Joseph Turmel proposed similarly in “La Quatrieme Evangel”, which was covered further in “Enigma of the Fourth Gospel” by Eisler. The notion that “Mark” is the Marcionite gospel, Hermann Raschke (Die Werkstatt des Markusevangelsten”). Hyppolytus is very interesting indeed. Besides referring to Mark’s Gospel as Mark-ion’s, he throws a wrench into the usual propaganda that positions Marcion at a later date. Placing Marcion even “before”
Simon Magnus on his heretic hit-list.

Boid responds:

Thanks for the references. I had already found out about the book by Turmel from your website and managed to get it a few days ago. I will have to delay reading the book by Raschke till some existing commitments are out of the way. Thanks for reminding me of its significance: otherwise I might easily have delayed for months. I will really have to read Hippolytus with great care. Have a look at what Hippolytus says right at the end of the book about knowing and being known. This is the Targum’s interpretation of the words at the end of Deuteronomy where it says of Moses “… whom God knew….” and it is this passage Paul has in mind when he says “Then we shall know as we are known”. I have never come across a correct understanding of these words of Paul’s in any other ancient or modern author. Hippolytus does not quote Paul, but what he says shows that he knew what Paul meant and saw the connection with the verse in Deuteronomy.

Do you know anything at all about André Siouville? I ask this because I have become aware of his work all of a sudden. When I started to read his translation of Hippolytus I was struck by his insight. Then when I started looking round I discovered he had translated the Clementine Homelies and the Golden Verses of Pythogoras, and had written a book called Le Prince de ce Monde et le Péché Originel. I have bought all these. No more buying of books till after Christmas.

I still say there really was a Samaritan called Simon, or more exactly a real person and a set of composites and fictions. I agree with Stephan that the name Simon in the documents often refers to Peter. Nevertheless, the following words were not a typing mistake: “…. the founder was himself the visible siman, sign, of the siman…..”. This is how I understand the firstchapter of John. This is why I think that some of the traits ascribed to someone called Simon can’t apply to Peter: they are the traits of someone claiming to be the greater Moses, and in some places the traits of Jesus combined with the traits of this other person.