Who O Lord will dispel this enchantment that Irenaeus cast over the mzungu people? How can they be so blind? How can it be that time and again they stare straight at the evidence and don't see the truth. When O Lord will they acknowledge that the Marcionite gospel was NOT JUST a corrupt version of Luke but a single-long gospel similar in appearance to the textual tradition called 'the Diatessaron' among the Catholics? I am not asking much. I am not asking for world peace. I am not asking for good will towards men. I just want them to see the evidence and actually acknowledge what it naturally suggests instead of them finding any excuse, any diversion - anything at all - to allow them to go back to the comfort of this Church Father?
No crack addict has been as devoted to his dealer as these people.
I ask again - what will it take for these people to see that Irenaeus was CREATING A NEW TRUTH when he said that the right number of gospels was four? I ask you Lord make them see that he couldn't so much as find A SINGLE WITNESS to back up his claims? Not a single Church Father before him believed in this lie.
Lord, I know I will never likely convince so much as a single New Testament scholar that four can't be the original number of gospels in the first Christian community. I will never be able to explain to them that Mark couldn't have known that other evangelists were going to be following him. I will never be able to enlighten them to see that the gospel wasn't conceived as a 'history book.' It was clearly designed as a 'new Torah' for Israel and the Evangelist himself must have deemed himself worthy to write such an account - EVEN IF IT WAS A VISION FROM HEAVEN.
Mark clearly must have thought of himself as the new Moses.
Of course this is all crazy and far-fetched at least according to the mzungus. According to them Jesus was a messiah who didn't need to prove himself a king like David. He didn't have to - because after all - Jesus is now sitting on a throne in heaven! That's solves the whole mystery of the revelation of the messiah. Thanks mzungus. You really discovered the 'great secret' hidden from Moses, the prophets and all the generations of Israel.
Who needs reality? Who needs 'real kings' and 'real messiahs'? Who needs 'real truths' when we can sanction utterly irrational faiths as 'spiritual revelations' of the highest order.
I can excuse ignorant people for not getting to see the truth in this life. They are too busy making ends meet. They are too busy working and have no time to 'see the big picture' or little interest. But how can God excuse those who found a way to devote themselves to the pursuit of truth in religion and ended up just reinforcing the beliefs of mommy and daddy?
Here is a typical example from Geoffrey Mark Hahneman's The Muratorian fragment:
Marcion apparently never handed down his Collection as traditional or 'revealed,' for his editorial work was carried on by other disciples. It is probable that later Marcionites admitted into their scriptures verses from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. Ephraem Syrus said that the Marcionites had not rejected Matthew 23:8 (Song 24.1). John 13:34 and 15:19 are quoted by the Marcionite Marcus in Adamantius' Dialogue (2.16,20). Similarly Adamantius (2.15) accuses the Marcionites of corrupting Matthew 5.17. Origen in his Commentary on Matthew quoted a Marcionite interpretation of Matt. 19.12.
I can't believe that the most 'probable' answer is that later Marcionites 'added' material from these gospels to their 'corrupt' version of Luke. Who are these people?
Are we really supposed to believe that what Hahneman proposes is a 'more probable' than the Marcionite gospel was a Diatessaron-like gospel? Come on. Who is setting up these tables of probability - the Catholic Church?
There is a nearly constant identification of the Marcionite gospel either containing material from other gospels or that the Marcionite gospel itself was a CORRUPT FORM OF ANOTHER CANONICAL GOSPEL BESIDE LUKE.
Yes, it's true - all you have to do is actually acknowledge the evidence.
Hippolytus as I have noted many times here, denies the claim of some that the Marcionite gospel was the 'gospel of Mark.' There is a similar identification of Marcion as the unrighteous secretary of John, the man who corrupted the true text of John. Hahneman doesn't even bother to acknowledge that Origen also connects the Paraclete to the Marcionite tradition which again reinforces common material with John.
Even when we look at Tertullian's attack against the Marcionite gospel, his repeated claim that Marcion took out things from his gospel which never appeared in the Gospel of Luke can only make sense if his original source (Justin? Theophilus?) employed a Diatessaron and compared the 'missing sections' with a 'Marcionite Diatessaron-like gospel.'
It is only Irenaeus - the first guy to report the existence of a 'gospel of Luke' - who formulates the bald lie that the Marcionite gospel has to be a corrupt version of Luke. Hippolytus attacks a tradition that it was the gospel of Mark. Tertullian's source compared it with a Diatessaron and implies that the opening words were Mark 1:1. Origen cites that the Marcionite text had material from Matthew and John.
I can't for the life of see any reason OTHER THAN CHRONIC INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS on the part of scholars (and an inherent fear of going against two thousand years of inherited presuppositions about who and what Marcion was) for Hahneman claiming his explanation of the evidence was more 'probable' than the alternate explanation he never even formulates - viz. the Marcionite gospel was 'Diatessaron-like.'
I tell you people - I have no doubt in my mind the Marcionite gospel was Diatessaron-like based on the evidence. New Testament scholars just don't have the balls to actually challenge their inherited presuppositions.
Yet the day of vengeance and recompense is coming when all the false teachers will be exposed. Have faith my friends. That day is coming soon, I promise ...
