I am finding this difficult to follow.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:39 am Three Marcionite arguments are mentioned:
(1) John was the man of the demiurge and ignorant of the new deity.
(2) The title mentions a singular gospel: based on the argument, the title was "the gospel" or "the beginning of the gospel of Christ Jesus." The former is a scholarly construct based on all the references, and this reference could be pulled into that. The latter is also possible.
(3) There is no named author, but Mark wrote it. (It's also claimed sometimes that Paul wrote it, particularly in the context of the debates that lie behind De Recta in Deum Fide and Against Marcion.)
Origen is referring to Mark 1:1-3 as they are the very first words of Mark. The very first words of Evangelion are not Mark 1:1-3. Canonical Mark was one of the "many" gospels that were not accepted by them.
The implication here (both in Origen and the Philosophoumena), once Mark 1:1-3 is considered not to be the first words of Evangelion, is that there were two different gospels attributed to Mark. One of them is considered "the" Gospel. The other is rejected and not used by them.
(1) I think I understand you here. Origen, Comm. John 1.82, 'For how could John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose' says the heterodox suppose John was the man of the demiurge and ignorant of the new deity.
(2) As far as I can see, Origen is talking about the first three verses of the canonical Gospel According to Mark in Comm John 1.81 and has not yet mentioned the heterodox or what they believe, which he will do in the following line (1.82).
I don't see a Marcionite or heterodox argument in 1.81. Have you made an argument for this elsewhere?
(3) I think you may be assuming a different sense of gospel or good news than Origen intends (or than I understand Origen to intend). I think he just means the Christian message, the good news of Jesus Christ, very broadly. You seems to be assuming he means a particular written document. It is possible you are correct, but I would want to see an argument for that conclusion.
Best,
Ken