Diatessaron As Marcion's Evangelion; Book of Elchasai As Proto-Revelations

[yakovzutolmai]

As preface, this notion would take much work to even prove its plausibility, and very little work to disprove. Thus, I won't belabor the point.

Let us assume that Tatian's Diatessaron is misidentified by later church fathers as "Marcion's Gospel", the nature of the text completely misinterpreted by them. We're leaning generously on the fog of history here, but there would be a specific reason for this misidentification to arise, which is the point of this hypothesis.

In essence, misconstrued rumors about the Diatessaron become a self-propelled narrative about Marcion's Evangelion. The reason why this would occur being related to a very important phenomenon with broad explanatory power. You have the boundary of the Roman Empire with Parthia, with Christianity evolving primarily among Jewish Christians on both sides of the border. This creates confusion.

I have been working with the idea that the West which arose out of the Hellenized, Alexandrian Jews and the Mediterranean diaspora was always Gnostic, and the gospels themselves were written within the Gnostic, Pauline perspective. Later Gnostic gospels emerging up to a century later.

Meanwhile, in the East, Jewish Christianity remains eschatological and works-based. Both the Book of Elchasai and the Pauline literature (at least the later epistles) emerging more or less in reaction to the Kitos War.

If the West is more Gnostic, the East more eschatological, then the explanatory key to early Christian history would be that an inversion occurs. Essentially, catholicization emerges from the East against the Western influence. However, this anti-Gnostic perspective gains its own legs in the West to the point where, after Orthodoxy, pseudo-Gnostic cults and the Gnostic influence predominantly characterize the East. The primarily Jewish nature of Eastern Christianity means that after Bar Kokhba, Jewish Christians begin to walk away from Christian ideas, and so the Eastern anti-Gnostics begin to convert to rabbinical Judaism leaving only the pseudo-Gnostics behind. Including our medieval "Marcionite" sects.

This inversion helps offer possible clarity to a few subjects.

If Tatian's Diatessaron brings with it the Gnostic influence, then Marcionitism-as-Gnosticism is an idea that emerges among Eastern Jewish Christians reacting to the influence from the West. Here begin rumors about the nature of Marcionism and Marcion's Gospel.

On the other hand, Tatian's approach to philosophy and religion relied heavily on the epistemological value of good history. This concept alone represents a compelling seed for the catholicization impulse, which turns toward gospel texts and away from philosophical speculation, representing a shift from Middle Platonic (Pythagorean mysticism) to Neo-Platonic (Syrian formalism) use of philosophy. This fits the dichotomy between East and West, where the Neo-Platonic interpretation of Christianity is Eastern in origin.

You would have multiple reactions to the Diatessaron. Some find it to carry the taint of the Gnostic West. Others use it to combat the philosophical speculation of the West. Tatian's historical approach creates catholicization, which spreads into the West and becomes popular. Then, when catholicization rebounds into the East, it picks up Eastern attitudes about Gnosticism which primarily blame Marcion for it.

The inversion occurs because catholicization starts East to West, but then its second wave is West to East. When this process is complete, the Eastern Jewish Christians either become catholic or join the rabbinical school. Thus, only the Gnostic Marcionites are left of the original "Elchasaite" Jewish Christians. Of course, we are also including the Mandaeans, Quqites, other eclectics. Some of whom form the core of later Islam.

As I have maintained, the only place where the truly original Christian religion of the first century survives is in the royal house of Hatra (Maren/Barmaren).

The church fathers who condemn Marcion are referring to their knowledge post-second wave (West to East) of catholicization. The newly catholic Easterners are telling them of this Marcion who presumed to compile his own unified gospel, and of his strange and incorrect doctrines. Since the first wave of catholicization began in the East, even Western catholics begin to categorize the less specifically Valentinian Gnostics as "Marcionite". One might even speculate whether Marcion is derived from a shorthand of the Tetraevangelion.

The value of this hypothesis would be its simplicity in utilizing a well attested document and event outside of Roman Catholic history as the basis for the considerably important Marcion. It's nice when history doesn't hide from us.

Textually, having search this forum, I'm aware that the Evangelion of Marcion, Diatessaron, and Gospel of Thomas correspond. Of course, this may only mean that they share a proto-Luke. Still, it's interesting. On the other hand, as I said this is easily disproven. If an ancient can attest independently of the Diatessaron and Evangelion (not as a second hand source, but direct contact), that would disprove it. If there's some obvious reason for this to be wrong, say nativity elements in the Diatessaron that unequivocally disqualify it from being the Evangelion, that would also suffice. On the other hand, we would have to distinguish between accounts of the Evangelion (even from authors who quote it) versus hands-on knowledge of it.

The hypothesis requires that the double-back waves of catholicization create a confusing inversion, which by way of rumor creates a synthetic account of Marcion and his gospel (the substance of which would then be drawn from the Diatessaron).

ELCHASAI AND REVELATIONS

Returning to the concept that prior to catholicization, western early Christianity was Gnostic, and eastern was eschatological, the value of the Revelations to John is hard to appreciate outside of the Eastern context.

Indeed, in our accounts of the Book of Elchasai and the nature of its value to Jewish Christians, it appears to serve a similar function to Revelations. We know all about this division in the literary universe of the New Testament, codified in Acts, between Paul and James. The living Christ relevant to today, versus the conquering Christ of the final days relevant to the Old Testament and the Book of Revelations. Faith versus works.

The content of Revelations is Babylonian/Syriac. Seven headed dragons, the Queen of Heaven, demon seals and plagues. You could extract the Jewish elements and almost have the same exact text but as some Neo-Assyrian fever dream. If we are speculating about an East/West divide in Christianity, why would this stuff be relevant to the Western side?

I continue to feel strongly that the Antioch of Acts was Nisibis, the "Antioch Mygdonia" as this was the capital of the Anileus/Asineus kingdom and essential to the Babylonian Jews and to even the Mishnaic tradition. Being cheeky, I have wondered if the Hierapolis (Manbij) close to Nisibis might have been the actual home of Papias, who attests of John.

It looked into this and I don't think it's too wild of an assumption. Papias's successor Abercius was also bishop of Hierapolis, but there is some confusion about which. I'm aware of an epigraph, though do we know it's not post-Eusebian? In any event, Abercius is noted for a ministry into Syria and Mesopotamia. I think there's cause to wonder if both Papias and Abercius were not from Manbij, and that the center of influence for their beliefs was not Nisibis. This goes along with the general theme that catholicization began in the East, spread West, then doubled back East, creating an inversion.

Because of the inversion, the author of Luke-Acts, and later Eusebius, have to create an apostolic tradition in Asia. Thus Nisibis becomes Antioch-on-Orontes, Manbij moves to the Meander, etc.

The Book of Revelations from Elxai becomes the Revelations to John.

Tertullian does metaphorically compare Marcionism to the Antonine Plague. This outbreak was the result of military movement in the Roman conquest of Upper Mesopotamia, and coincides with Nisibis joining the Roman political sphere. I have wondered if this catalyst, 165 AD, saw eastern catholicization "John, Papias, Ignatius, Abercius" come into Asia, and that is where western catholicization begins, before spreading to Egypt, Rome and Gaul.

The eastern view of the West as "Marcionite" taking root in Asia, the new western catholics looking around them - Pontus first - and seeing "Marcionites" everywhere.

[yakovzutolmai]

Summary:

Tatian's Diatessaron creates two independent ideas among Eastern Jewish Christians. First, it inaugurates the notion of "Marcionitism" which is simply what the easterners call western Christianity. Second, it creates a notion of catholicization where textuality trumps syncretism or mystical speculation.

Those eastern Jews who do not revert to rabbinical Judaism, become the first "catholics" relying on the gospel texts. Among those who reject western Christian "Marcionism", or avoid the syncretic pressures seen with the eclectics. Eastern Jewish Christianity does not particularly survive.

The "catholic" easterners bring their budding Neo-Platonic interpretation to Asia around 165, and then this core not only goes on to combat all the rest of western "Marcionite" and Valentinian Gnosticism, but blows back into the East.

Thus where "Marcionite" once meant only "western Christian", the eastern catholics develop a strong enough independent tradition that upon transplanting into Asia, ends up causing westerners to categorize western Christianity as "Marcionite".

[Leucius Charinus]

The "catholic" easterners bring their budding Neo-Platonic interpretation to Asia around 165, and then this core not only goes on to combat all the rest of western "Marcionite" and Valentinian Gnosticism, but blows back into the East.

Neo-Platonic influences are no earlier than Plotinus in the late 3rd century. The writings of Plotinus were not in circulation any earlier that Porphyry. These influences permeate the 4th century Arian controversy and the texts in the Nag Hammadi Library. The Sethian tracts in the NHL (which some scholars identify as incorporating the influence of the writings of Porphyry) take extra-ordinary steps to present and paint the LXX god as the demi-urge. This is the second god of the Platonists not the first god. This is effectively the same summary position of Marcion and the Marcionites. It is a Platonic position. Two gods. Two creations.

Are the Ante Nicene heresiologists' claims that the Sethians and the Marcionites are historically existent 2nd century sects supported by any evidence? Not to my knowledge.

Are these heresiological sources fraudulently retro-scripting the same 4th century controversy (of the First and Second God of Plato) into multiple sects - Sethians and Marcionites - of the 2nd century? While the archeologists can find no trace of any Christians modern scholarship insists on the existence of dozens of Christian related sects. This pattern of interpretation of the evidence is not sustainable.

[Secret Alias]

You're so vulgar.

[Leucius Charinus]

PKB

[yakovzutolmai]

The "catholic" easterners bring their budding Neo-Platonic interpretation to Asia around 165, and then this core not only goes on to combat all the rest of western "Marcionite" and Valentinian Gnosticism, but blows back into the East.

Neo-Platonic influences are no earlier than Plotinus in the late 3rd century. The writings of Plotinus were not in circulation any earlier that Porphyry. These influences permeate the 4th century Arian controversy and the texts in the Nag Hammadi Library. The Sethian tracts in the NHL (which some scholars identify as incorporating the influence of the writings of Porphyry) take extra-ordinary steps to present and paint the LXX god as the demi-urge. This is the second god of the Platonists not the first god. This is effectively the same summary position of Marcion and the Marcionites. It is a Platonic position. Two gods. Two creations.

It looks to me like Neo-Platonism, which is not a unified philosophy, partly results from a dialogue between East and West as the Assyrian/Babylonian philosophies, which look down on the Greeks as vulgar vandals, asserts itself against 1st and 2d century Roman developments. Christianity is right in the middle of this dialogue.

Forgive my lack of precision in making this point. The cultural wave that brings Neo-Platonism is also bringing eastern Christianity. Both are reacting to late Middle Platonism.

There was an Assyrian renaissance from the 2d century BC to the 2d AD (ended by the rise of Christianity). One supposes that the religious toleration of the Parthians, a consequence of the collapse of Macedonian rule, allows for this. This decently attested, minimally studied phenomenon is a large part of my overall hypothesis. One of the great mysteries of Christianity is where it might have come from, and yet this major cultural phenomenon in Assyria is ignored.

Are the Ante Nicene heresiologists' claims that the Sethians and the Marcionites are historically existent 2nd century sects supported by any evidence? Not to my knowledge.

Are these heresiological sources fraudulently retro-scripting the same 4th century controversy (of the First and Second God of Plato) into multiple sects - Sethians and Marcionites - of the 2nd century? While the archeologists can find no trace of any Christians modern scholarship insists on the existence of dozens of Christian related sects. This pattern of interpretation of the evidence is not sustainable.

The premise of this hypothesis is that western, Roman Christianity was quintessentially Marcionite until a wave of eastern, catholicizing influence blew in toward the latter half of the second century.

Third and fourth century literature obfuscates what western Roman Christianity was, by mixing in novel developments as the anti-catholic and anti-Roman sects go in a novel direction. The inversion I mention would involve leaving "Marcionite" sects orphaned in the East and near East, and later medieval Marcionite sect no doubt become heavily influenced by Far Eastern philosophy.

I like your concept of the heresiological literature being late. In other words, after the establishment of imperial orthodoxy, the orphaned - formerly western, Roman - Christian sects regroup. Thus the Gnostic literature is embellishing ante-catholic, quintessentially western, Roman Christianity. There's even the possibility that some of the embellishment includes elements of Eastern paganism. Who knows, I've read a half dozen scholarly articles that place the Gospel of Thomas in Egypt, Syria or Asia. ?? It doesn't really matter to me.

[Leucius Charinus]

It looks to me like Neo-Platonism, which is not a unified philosophy,

It is unified in the sense that it restricts itself to commentary and interpretation of Plato.

partly results from a dialogue between East and West as the Assyrian/Babylonian philosophies, which look down on the Greeks as vulgar vandals, asserts itself against 1st and 2d century Roman developments. Christianity is right in the middle of this dialogue.

Forgive my lack of precision in making this point. The cultural wave that brings Neo-Platonism is also bringing eastern Christianity. Both are reacting to late Middle Platonism.

I differentiate between the cultural waves of Christianity and Neo-Platonism. The latter emerges in Alexandria in the 3rd century and is received in Rome. As its flagship text it has the Enneads of Plotinus. For the cultural wave of Christianity we are reliant upon the many details, documents and church fathers cited in Eusebius' "Church History". As its flagship it has the New testament canonical books supposedly preserved from the 1st or 2nd century, with or without the meddling of Marcion.

There was an Assyrian renaissance from the 2d century BC to the 2d AD (ended by the rise of Christianity). One supposes that the religious toleration of the Parthians, a consequence of the collapse of Macedonian rule, allows for this. This decently attested, minimally studied phenomenon is a large part of my overall hypothesis.

Sassanid Persia became subject to a centralised monotheist cult based on a "holy writ" [The Avesta} c.222 CE as a result of Ardashir (king of kings) becoming the supreme military commander by winning a civil war. This was 100 years before Constantine did the same thing. My notes here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_009.htm

I like your concept of the heresiological literature being late. In other words, after the establishment of imperial orthodoxy, the orphaned - formerly western, Roman - Christian sects regroup.

Sketch of 4th century political history

Imperial Christianity is first implemented in the eastern empire following Constantine's military supremacy. This is the inaugural Nicene orthodoxy of 325 CE.

However IMO it was met in the east (particularly Alexandria) with a massive social and literary controversy. It is at this juncture that IMO the books which are now known as "gnostic" were authored and circulated. EG: The texts of the NHL and the NT apocryphal texts. This was dissidence. Political dissidence. The Constantinian orthodoxy was aghast that anyone would ever consider to author "Other Jesus Story Books" and thereby challenge the authority of the One True Canonical Jesus Story Book that the emperor had just circulated. As a result the authors, preservers and circulators were viewed as heretics. Arius of Alexandria (whom I identify as a Neoplatonist not a Christian) belongs to this epoch.

Rowan Williams and Kannengiesser consider that "Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing Plotinic logic within biblical creationism," In the texts of the NHL there is a similar pattern. Plotinic and Platonic cosmology and the doctrine of the soul is acclimatized within biblical creationism.


The Revised Nicene orthodoxy of 381 CE

The Christian orthodoxy consolidated under Constantine (325-337 CE) and then Constantius (337-360 CE). Then there was a brief moment of 3 years where the last pagan emperor Julian thought he might turn the tide. After Julian's death the Nicene Church industry savagely rushed back to fill the vacuum of power particularly in Rome. Damasus and Jerome in the imperial library of Rome and the Cappadocian "fathers" in the imperial library of Constantinople collaborate with Theodosius to cement the revised Nicene Creed of 381 CE as Roman law. Book burning continues. Lists of prohibited books flourish. Emperor Julian's three books "Against the Christians" is added to the list.

Also at this same juncture (363-381 CE) we have the East and West collaborating on the production of Christian hagiography, on martyrological literature, on the cult of the Saints and Martyrs and most importantly for the business model of the Nicene Church industry for a thousand years, the flaming "Holy Relic Trade".


These people were utterly corrupt.

This same mob of writers also (IMO) invented Ante Nicene heresiological pseud-history by fabricating sources such as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian. This heresiological literature is not all created at that stage in the 4th century. A kernel may have been. The seven or eight literary sources we are dealing with here were later made "Doctors of the Church". Some of the Latin church, some of the Greek church. The church industry controlled its own historical accounts. And it has controlled the tertiary education industry relating to these sources to the present day. In 2022 the Pope made Irenaeus a "Doctor of the Church".

Rather it was added forgery by forgery, source by source, century after century by the Church industry in the back-office. The PHILOSOPHUMENA (discovered in the 19th century) and now attributed to Hippolytus ("The Refutor") may belong in this class.

That's a sketch of how I see the 4th century playing out. It is not a pretty picture.

Thus the Gnostic literature is embellishing ante-catholic, quintessentially western, Roman Christianity. There's even the possibility that some of the embellishment includes elements of Eastern paganism.

I think the Gnostic literature is a pagan reaction to Constantine's Holy Codex and heresiological literature of the Ante Nicene epoch has been fabricated to cover over the extremely embarrassing controversy. The gnostic authors are 4th C Alexandrian pagans - who were chiefly Neoplatonists. They used Plato's Timaeus to retell the LXX creation accounts. In the NHL the Sethian tracts are doing precisely the same thing.

The pagans are horrified at their new "Holy Writ". Why are the Romans killing Plato's god? So what do they do? They start writing their own stories. Some of them go back to the beginning and ditch Adam and then start the Jesus Story with Seth.

"In the Book of Thomas, the teaching of Jesus has become Platonised,
while Plato's teaching has become Christianised."

John D. Turner, The Book of Thomas and the Platonic Jesus, pp.606-607 as cited by Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (2013), p.414