The Implication of Eisler's Argument

I am continuing to transcribe the next chapter of Eisler's Enigma of the Fourth Gospel, but before I complete it I want to reinforce where I think the argument naturally leads us. The original gospel of John was a Diatessaron. This was the text which Polycarp cites in his letter. It is out of this John vs Mark(ion) dynamic that all of the controversies in Christianity developed. The hidden secret of course being "John" and "Mark" were two names associated with the same historical person.

Just ask a Copt (or at least read their tradition with a critical eye).

Agrippa was a HISTORICAL Mark also named John, a son of Aristobulos, who was influential in Alexandria around the time the Copts "remember" of John Mark's first visit.

You don't have to buy into my Agrippa thesis. This was developed merely to offer up a rival model to the familiar myths of Acts (which have even less of a basis in historical reality).

Long before I developed my Agrippa thesis I developed a book based on the idea of this John vs Mark(ion) dynamic. David Trobisch wrote the introduction to my book and it was reviewed favorably by a number of other notable scholars.

I never could find a publisher for it.

The basic idea here was that it has to be recognized that Polycarp claimed that he was a witness to the "true beliefs" of this same John (in none of the Alexandrian traditions is it held that John Mark STAYED or RESIDED in Egypt).

In my opinion, Polycarp's attack against Marcion is an attempt to redefine the tradition away from its Alexandrian roots.

I will post the WHOLE book online here at my blog soon ...