Simon Peter and the Cheshire Cat: Was Peter in the "Original" Gospel of John?

Cheshire Cat fading to smile

... All right,' said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.

`Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin,' thought Alice; `but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!'

The Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland has the remarkable ability to appear and disappear at will. At one moment he is conversing pleasantly, imparting information Alice already knows, and the next vanishing from sight. Simon Peter performs this very trick before our eyes in the Gospel of John.

Matthew, the Perverted Gospel of Galatians

Christ and Peter walk on water, 
Fresovo taken from Matthew 14:28-31 
Dura-Europos (mid 3rd century?)

Most scholars when they hear Marcionite priority assume this means that the first Gospel was Marcion's and all other are dependent upon it. But Paul is still regarded generally as before the Gospels. Both assumptions are wrong. Marcionite priority merely means the first publicly circulating Gospel was the Marcionite. The letters of Paul are in earlier form in Marcion's collection, but their relationship to the Gospel is less clear, as we shall see with Galatians. [1]

The entire purpose of the first Gospel was to spread the word of Christ throughout the Roman Empire. And not surprising it was sectarian, the Marcionite Gospel. Other main sect, the proto-Orthodox, quickly found themselves at a disadvantage in this new game of evangelism, where itinerant teachers (Apostles).

Galatians letter presents a picture if a divided movement. One where Paul finds his authority challenged, with rivals dismiss his teachings, and present a completely different version of Christ. This letter, even more clearly in Marcionite form, presents a scenario where the first teachings of Paul have been overturned. What then is this new Christianity Paul confronts?  How is it that this new and different message has become such a threat that it required such strong a response?

The Gospel of John: Context of Authorship

John, Book of Kells (800 CE)

The Gospel of John is very different from the Synoptic Gospels in composition and content. But it is also very different in theology, and it is my aim to demonstrate it's dependence and opposition to the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew and Mark, and the Catholic theology they espouse. Although I am treading on ground already covered by Joseph Turmel some ninety years ago, and more recently by Roger Parvus,  [1] there is still much to be learned by a comparison between John and the Synoptic  Gospels in Catholic form. To that end I will survey some of the most obvious passages without attempting to splice the layers, with the hope of demonstrating the allegorical meaning the original author intended.

In surveying the content of the Gospel of John today with knowledge of the second century controversies, I am struck by the consistent and blunt repudiation of the Jewish God as the father of Christ, and more generally its opposition against every Jewish Christian theological point we find presented in the rest of the New Testament. It is truly a wonder this book, even with redaction, ever made it into canon.

The Post-Marcionite Creeds (aka “the pre-Pauline creeds”)

No fallacy is more glaring than the 'consensus of most scholars'[1] that pre-Pauline creedal material is present the New Testament. And by being pre-Pauline, which assumes Paul is more than a literary character, and in fact is a contemporary of Jesus, his blinding conversion separated by less than a decade from his mission, these creeds therefore appear to be incorruptible evidence, coming within only months (a few years at most) of the crucifixion, and so demonstrate first beliefs of Christianity, and arguably the surety of its historical roots. This evidence seems to have been enough that Bart Erhman declared Adoptionism was likely the first form of Christianity, a conclusion that derives directly from the very nature of these creeds.

There are so many problems with this position that it’s can be confusing which weak point to attack first.

Matthew and the Antithesis

I have not been very good in updating this blog sight, but today I promise to be better.

One of the most puzzling features of Marcion's antithesis is its seeming use of Matthew. We can see this in Dialogue Adamantius as in these two cases where verses in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount appear to show up in the Antithesis arguments of Megathius, the Marcionite champion:

// The third antithesis found in Dialogue Adamantius 1.12 / 8.12d
Megethius: The Lord brought to view in the Law say, ‘You shall love him who loves you and you shall hate your enemy.” (Leviticus 19:18 LXX with τὸν ἀγαπῶντά σε for τὸν πλησίον σου, Matthew 5:43) But our Lord, because He is good, says “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44; see also Luke 6:27-28)

Ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῷ κύριος λέγει·  

ἀγαπήσεὶς σεις τὸν ἀγαπῶντά σε, καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου·
ὁ δὲ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀγαθὸς ὤν, λέγει·  
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωχόντων ὑμᾶς.

In lege deus dicit: Diliges diligentem te, et odio habebis inimicum tuum. Noster autem bonus dominis dicit: Diligite inimicos uestros, et orate pro eis qui persecuntur uos.