Origen, the Alexandrian Tradition and Secret Mark

[Secret Alias]

Romans 16:25 + Mark 1:1

"Then the Jew standing by him said to the people who believed that yesterday, and the day before, and whenever we were punishing this man while he was shepherding you, you turned away from the ancestral law, knowing nothing precise in what he said, as we demonstrated. But after this, it seems to me of great importance whether you start from our sacred texts and then disparage them, not having any other principle to say about the doctrine except our own law. Truly, for Christians, the introduction is from the sacred texts of Moses and the prophetic writings; and after this introduction, in the narrative and clarity of them, there is progress for those being introduced, seeking the 'according to revelation' mystery, 'eternally silenced' but now manifested in the prophetic voices and the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. No, as you say, those who progress do not dishonor what is written in the law but rather add greater honor to them by showing, to the extent of the depth of wise and secret words, those texts not considered by Jews, those who encounter them more superficially and mythically. What then is so absurd that the beginning of our doctrine, that is the gospel, should be the law? ... But also one of the evangelists, Mark, says: 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you,"' showing that the beginning of the gospel is linked to the Jewish scriptures. [Contra Celsum 2.4]

The Commentary on John:

"But we have the mind of Christ, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God." 1.4.25 It can be argued from what Paul says about the Gospels being entirely new, when he writes, "According to my gospel"; for in the letters of Paul, we do not have a book commonly called a gospel, but everything that he preached and said was the gospel. And what he preached and said, these things he also wrote; and what he wrote, therefore, was indeed the gospel. 1.4.26 If Paul’s writings were the gospel, it follows to say that Peter’s writings were also the gospel, and universally those that constitute the presence of Christ and build up his coming, instilling it in the souls of those who are willing to receive the one who stands at the door and knocks, wanting to enter into the souls the word of God."

"Concerning those previously mentioned, it should be known about the gospel that it primarily concerns the head of the whole body of the saved, Jesus Christ, as Mark says: 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.' It is also found among the apostles; therefore, Paul says, 'According to my gospel.' 1.13.80 However, the beginning of the gospel—since it indeed has a beginning, and the following parts, middle, and ends—it is either the entire Old Testament, with John being its type, or through the connection of the New with the Old, the ends of the Old being presented through John. 1.13.81 For Mark himself says: 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.'"

"Furthermore, I will add to this demonstration an apostolic saying not understood by those like Marcion, and therefore they reject the gospels. For the apostle says, 'According to my gospel in Christ Jesus,' and they insist, saying not 'gospels' in the plural, that the apostle would not have spoken of 'the gospel' in the singular if there were multiple gospels, not understanding that as there is one who is preached by many, so the gospel written by many is one in power, and truly the four are one gospel. If therefore these arguments can persuade us, what then is the 'one' book and what are the 'many'? Now more than ever, I am concerned not because of the number of writings but because of the power of the meanings, lest I transgress the commandment if I present anything other than the truth as truth, even in one of the writings; for there I will be having written many books. And now, too, with the pretext of knowledge, those of differing opinions stand against the holy church of Christ and bring compilations of many books, proclaiming a narrative of both the gospel and apostolic words. If we remain silent and do not counter them with true and sound doctrines, they will prevail over the feeble souls, who, in lack of salvific nourishment, rush toward the forbidden, truly unclean, and abominable foods."

[Secret Alias]

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, (Rom 1.1)

Origen’s Interpretation:

(5) ‘Set apart,’ he says. ‘for the gospel of God.’ Other passages of Scripture speak of the gospel of Christ, as the evangelist Mark writes, ‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.’ In truth since Christ is the Word, and ‘in the beginning he was with God, and the Word was God,’ (Jn 1.1) then the gospel of God and the gospel of Christ signify one and the same thing. (p66)

Origen believes the gospel according to Mark (gospel of Jesus Christ) and the gospel of God are one and the same.

https://thescripturesays.org/2015/08/14 ... 10-origen/

[Secret Alias]

Harnack:

In chapter 1, verse 7, Marcion added the words 'κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου' (according to my gospel), see Romans 2:16, to the statement that there is no other gospel beside it. He was keen to mark the identity of the gospel with the gospel of Paul at the beginning of the letter, thereby excluding both the 'Judaistic' gospel and a plurality of gospel writings. The correction in the same verse 'θέλοντες (ὑμᾶς) μεταστρέψαι εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ' (wanting to turn you to a different gospel of Christ) for 'θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ' (wanting to turn the gospel of Christ) is on the border between a tendentious correction and a variant."

[Secret Alias]

Even though Marcion and his followers doubtlessly would fulfill his definition of “the heterodox,” Origen occasionally refers to them specifically. In one of these passages, he mentions that Paul’s usage of τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου (“my gospel”) to refer to the contents of his teaching has been misunderstood ὑπὸ τῶν Μαρκίωνος (“by those of Marcion”), who argue that it refers to a single written source.[61] Here, he defines a category of scriptural interpreters simply by their association with Marcion. In another instance, Origen rejects a distinction made by οἱ αἱρέσεις (“the heretics”) between ὁ δίκαιος (“the just one”) and ὁ ἀγαθός (“the good one”)—precisely the distinction for which Marcion was known.[62] The label αἱρέσεις does not serve to add any precision to this case,[63] but its plural form suggests that it is the followers of Marcion who are in view, defined by a teaching they shared with Marcion.[64] Marcion himself is also mentioned as having rejected Christ’s birth from Mary.[65] Origen’s way of referring specifically to Marcion and his followers, rather than to the larger category of “the heterodox” suggests that he found value in specifying precisely whom he was opposing. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... ml?lang=en

[Secret Alias]

Eusebius argues that Paul's "my gospel" refers to the Gospel of Luke:

HE 3.4.7: "And they say how Paul was accustomed to remember the Gospel according to him [Luke] whenever γράφων (graphōn, "writing") as if a certain Gospel is of his own, he says, κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν µου (kata to euangelion mou, "according to my Gospel")." This phrase occurs in Romans 2:16 and Romans 16:25

[Secret Alias]

Most frequently , Paul uses ɛvayyéλov in an absolute and articulated manner , not further defined by a genitive construction ... In the remaining cases, where it is defined by a genitive construct, we find three recurring constructions: (τὸ) εὐαγγέλιον (τοῦ) θεοῦ,464 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ,465 and τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν µου/ἡµῶν.466 This triad is strikingly consistent. In the same manner as Mark uses the first two genitive constructs within a few verses in his prologue,467 Paul likewise seems to use them randomly and without an obvious distinction.

467 Mark 1:1 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

And now the bullshit continues:

How the term εὐαγγέλιον (“gospel”) came to designate a literary genre is a 130 131 subject of debate. Both Hans von Campenhausen and Helmut Koester argue that Marcion of Sinope is the innovator who first applied the label to a written text (von Campenhausen, The Formation of the
Christian Bible [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972], 157–60, 170–77; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels:
Their History and Development [Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990], 35–36). According
to them, Marcion mistook Paul’s phrase “my gospel” (εὐαγγέλιόν µου) in Rom 2:16 as a reference to
Luke and began to use the literary designation in protest against the oral traditions that were
authoritative for his contemporaries (Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 36). James A. Kelhoffer and
Michael F. Bird have each critiqued this position, arguing that εὐαγγέλιον refers to a literary genre in
texts that antedate Marcion (Kelhoffer, “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited: EUANGELION as a Reference
to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the First Half of the Second Century,” ZNW 95 [2004]: 1–34; Bird, The
Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014],
266–69). They both hypothesize that an earlier copyist or bookseller of Matthew misinterpreted
Mark’s incipit as a literary designation and applied it to Matthew (Kelhoffer, “How Soon?” 31; Bird,
Gospel, 258–59). In my opinion, their primary source evidence against von Campenhausen’s and
Koester’s case is strong, but their theory about how “gospel” became a generic appellation is
unconvincing. It is more likely that when Mark transferred the oral gospel tradition into the written
medium, he also widened the semantic range of the term. “Gospel,” in Christian circles, came to
designate the message about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in multiple media forms. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi ... tations_mu

This is enough to make you throw yourself away. This is obviously a fundamental question as every study I have seen so far connects the relationship of Paul and Mark's use of the term gospel to the very origin of the gospel. Whenever Marcion is mentioned explicitly it is to the idea essentially that "this nut thought the original gospel was Luke."

The difference noted earlier between the Gospels and Paul in their treatment of the relation between “all that Jesus did [ποιεῖν]” and “all that Jesus taught [διδάσκειν]” (1:1) is reflected in the dual meaning of the term “gospel" ( εvayyέlov ) . It is used , already in the New Testament itself , either to mean the full account of “ all that Jesus did and taught , ” as the term is used at the opening of the Gospel of Mark , “ the beginning of the gospel of Jesus or to identify the message of salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ , as it appears here in Acts , “ the gospel of the grace of God " ( 20:24 ) , and is used at the opening of the Epistle to the Romans ... A failure to observe that distinction was responsible for the supposition , reported without comment by Jerome , that Paul could have meant Luke's Gospel by the term " my gospel " ( tò evayyélιóv μov ) ( Rom . 16:25 ) , which , as is evident from the linkage with " the preaching of Jesus Christ ” ( tò êýpvyμa'Iŋooũ Xpɩotov ) referred to the message rather than to one of the four books we call " the Gospels " ( probably none of which was in existence yet ) .https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ac ... frontcover

[Secret Alias]

Here is the situation as best I can see it.

1. Paul wrote references to "my gospel" (c. 50 - 70 CE)
2. The Marcionites said that he also wrote the original gospel
3. The Marcionites took the references in the letters of Paul to "my gospel" to refer to the gospel which was part of their canon
4. The canon was called "the Apostolikon" = the Apostolic because both gospel and letters were written by the one apostle
5. The Marcionites never referred to the gospel as "according to Paul" (Tertullian Book Four)
6. The Marcionite gospel was not well known (Tertullian Book Four)
7. The Marcionite gospel is generally identified as "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" or some such variant (Harnack)
8. The earliest reference to Paul's habit of mentioning "my gospel" and its relationship to a gospel is found in Origen
9. Origen served the needs of a former Marcionite Ambrose who commissioned him to write papers on various subjects (Jerome)
10. Origen's identification of Paul's "my gospel" with Mark 1:1 makes sense linguistically IF THE REFERENCE WAS TO A WRITTEN GOSPEL
11. Slightly before Origen Irenaeus introduces the argument that Marcion knew all four canonical gospels and chose Luke as his gospel "to falsify"
12. Marcion's alleged use of Luke does not explain why the Marcionite gospel was called "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" or some such variant
13. The acceptance of Irenaeus's claim that Marcion chose Luke among scholars forces them to twist Origen's workable logic that "my gospel" referred to Mark into an unworkable scenario that Paul meant Luke.
14. There are a surprising number of later writers (= Eusebius) who make the argument that "my gospel" means Luke.
15. If the Marcionites really followed the same logic it would mean that Eusebius borrowed from a Marcionite understanding.
16. It makes more sense to assume for various reasons that the Marcionites gave Origen his identification of Mark as the "my gospel" of the Pauline letters and that Eusebius was correcting Origen's dependence on his master's "Marcionite roots."