The Ignored Hypothesis

Origen tells us that the Marcionites thought that the Apostle who wrote the seven letters of our canon was the Paraclete announced by Jesus. I hope I don't need to explain how this one testimony by our most reliable Patristic witness effectively throws out the window the standard understanding that the Marcionites used a corrupt version of Luke (the Paraclete only appears in 'John').

Of course the reality is that scholars will do whatever they can to avoid thinking about the implications of what Origen tells us. Yet this is only the start. When Origen's testimony is coupled by what Tertullian's source in Book Four of Against Marcion originally witnessed - namely that the Marcionites used a gospel which by its very nature went 'beyond' Luke (notice the endless references to things 'cut out' of the Marcionite gospel that only appear in Matthew) we can finally confirm the IMPLICATIONS of what Origen tells us.

The Marcionites used a variant Diatessaron - or if you prefer - a single, long gospel which began with Mark 1:1 but contained elements of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

I have talked about this understanding for months here. I don't know if I changed so much as one mind in scholarship. I doubt it. The truth is that scholars begin by kissing the ass of some old academic and then spend the rest of their lives ensuring that a steady stream of ass-kissers come their way to perpetuate the species.

In any event it is enough to say that because 'scholarship' as such has always ignored the Marcionite paradigm no one is going to do what it is necessary to bring that tradition 'in from out of the cold' - unless of course we count the idiotic Protestant development of Marcion as an ancient 'Martin Luther'! Only Germans could take their stupidity so seriously.

Scholars don't want to consider the 'whole Marcionite paradigm' because taking the Marcionites seriously necessarily means overturning all our inherited assumptions. They prefer instead to think in terms of Irenaeus' claims - viz. the 'anti-Jewish' Marcionite 'corruptions' of the gospel because it means that they can essentially 'write off' this most ancient of traditions as an 'aberration.'

Yet I have always struggled to make any logical sense of the existing paradigm. It just doesn't make sense on a basic level. Just take the example of the conflict which arises when we compare the date for the composition of the earliest gospel - c. 70 CE - with the ministry of 'Paul' - i.e. 50 - 69 CE.

So how are we to explain that Paul repeatedly identifies himself as ALREADY HAVING 'the gospel' before it was written by Mark, Matthew or Luke?

Well this is where any pretense of 'science' falls away from most of the research. In cleverly devised arguments we are told - in an utterly roundabout way - that Paul can't have used the 'gospel' as we know it because it would compromise the certainty of our inherited beliefs (although it is never worded so honestly).

Of course at the same time as we ignore the apostle's repeated announcement that he already has the gospel at an early date we all 'know' that 'Paul' used Luke - or at least the descendants of Irenaeus tell us so and as such it must be true.

Yet again, the dishonesty of these men is beyond compare. They somehow ignore the fact that Irenaeus also tells us that there were adherents of the apostle who neither called him 'Paul' (Irenaeus AH iii.15) nor accepted that someone named 'Luke' was ever associated with him (ibid iii.14) let alone the name of the gospel he used.

It is all too much to incorporate into any one model for Christian origins so it is effectively ignored so as to ensure the integrity of the original system isn't compromised (although again no one is honest enough to put it out there so bluntly).

But let's ask the unutterable again - how can Paul already have 'the gospel' in the period leading up to its creation?

Ah, my friends, this is why the Marcionites are so important. This is why the handful of us 'amateur' scholars study their tradition (amateur because the system couldn't make us 'professional' even if we tried).

Knowledge of the Marcionite tradition won't allow the cleverness of these men to go unnoticed. It exposes their waffle, their half-baked assumptions. For it is all too evident that these hypocrites want to pretend that when 'Paul' says 'my gospel' he really only means a vague 'oral tradition' preserving the words of Jesus.

Bullshit!

The reality is that the Marcionites knew the truth but also that the Apostle's original uncorrupted testimony made clear that:

(1) the Acts of the Apostles was a lie
(2) the Apostle had a real text of the gospel because
(3) he was the original author of the text

Now this is almost all the information that the Church Fathers give us about the Marcionite paradigm. It would be nice to have more, but let it be said that it is enough to reveal a wonderful revelation about this alternative model for Christianity.

You see, since the Marcionite gospel was still a synoptic text. Whether or not Irenaeus says it was Luke or Hippolytus says it was Mark the 'results' of a century of research into the date for the first gospel still applies to the Marcionite text.

In other words, even the Marcionite text must have been written a period no earlier than the Jewish revolt (c. 70 CE).

Now if scholars weren't so afraid of what they might find in Marcionite they'd have to acknowledge that the Marcionite understanding of the ministry of the Apostle necessarily began AFTER the date of the gospel.

How could he have claimed to be the Paraclete without the gospel narrative to frame that understanding? How could he have referred to 'my gospel' without having an actual gospel?

The reason scholars don't want to hear these truths - or at least this ALTERNATIVE TRADITION - is that it necessarily casts doubt over our existing system. It means that we don't just have to close our eyes and kiss the frog that is the inherited Catholic understanding. There is another possibility.

The Marcionite understanding however just makes better intuitive sense. I mean, wouldn't we expect that someone like 'Paul' would end up promoting a new religious understanding for people formerly under the Law in the period after 70 CE now that the temple which used to be the center of their lives was gone?

Of course it does. So how do we account for the Catholics presenting this absurd notion that immediately after this messiah that never was - this figure who never PROVED that he was the awaited son of David - Christianity began being promoted?

Isn't it obvious?

Everything about the Catholic tradition was reactionary. Just read Tertullian who repeatedly argues that the Catholic tradition was earlier than the Marcionite system BECAUSE THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES SAYS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH APPEARED IN THE PERIOD (40 - 70 CE)!!!

In other words, the Marcionites had an understanding that the Apostle promoted his gospel and engaged in his missionary activity AFTER the destruction of the temple so the Catholics developed a 'rational fable' (to borrow a phrase from Robert Price) that supported the idea that there was this other tradition 'preserved' by Polycarp in the early second century that actually came BEFORE the Marcionites.

Just because they say it happened doesn't mean it was true. Indeed how come the Marcionites had the first canon if the Catholic Church was already formed before its advent?

The answer is that the Catholics managed to overturn the traditional Marcionite claim to being the original faith because as Irenaeus acknowledges (AH iii.30.1) they were sitting in the court of the Emperor Commodus and as such had 'friends in high places' who 'encouraged' the acceptance of the false history.

Don't just take my word for it. The entire Islamic historical reckoning is based on this very notion of Imperial corruption of the gospel.

More on the details of the Marcionite tradition in what will follow ...