THE GOSPEL OF ME - FOUND AGAIN!

They have created three or four “knock off” [gospels] – cf Origen Against Celsus “Certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.”

“just to believe” – ibid “They say to each of their hearers:—Believe, first of all, that he whom I introduce to thee is the son of God, although he was shamefully bound, and disgracefully punished, and very recently was most contumeliously treated before the eyes of all men. Believe it even the more, on that account. If these bring forward this person, and others, again, a different individual, while the common and ready cry of all parties is, ‘Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or else begone,’ what shall those do who are in earnest about their salvation? Shall they cast the dice, in order to divine whither they may betake themselves, and whom they shall join?

I was sick, weak and unattractive -

the least – see next chapter but on the title “least” or “little one” of God. Lazarus is only a deliberate corruption of the important Marqionite cultic term of zeura – i.e. “little [one]” or the “least.” There can be no doubt about this once the reader looks at the evidence and when he does he will see that it opens the door to the original subtext of the gospel as a whole. All we need to know is that one of the forms of root “zeura” which appears in the Peshitta as a result of standard rules of Aramaic is lazeura. We shall get to this shortly but for the moment we should remind ourselves that we don’t know what a Palestinian Aramaic gospel would look – we have only the closely related Syriac texts which have nevertheless certainly been “corrected” by a Catholic editor – even a series of editors. Nevertheless we can say that for all intents and purposes “zeura” and “lazeura” mean essentially the same thing – viz. “the little one” or the “least” and we see one of te most significant in the following: Matthew 11:11 “Art thou He that cometh, or are we to expect Another?” … Jesus said what went you forth to see? a prophet? I tell you, Yes; and more than a prophet. For this is he concerning whom it is written, Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to prepare the way before thee. Amen I announce for you that there hath not arisen among them born of women [one] who [is] greater than John the Baptizer but the little one [zeura] [of] the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [literally “great he from” (maneh)]. Tertullian and Ephraim make clear that the Marqionites read this passage in a different manner from our traditional understanding of John as the messenger who cleared the way for Jesus. John is merely the greatest of those born of women, Jesus is the angel who clears the way for “another” – i.e. Mark, lazeura who is to come as “another.” Once this understanding of the significance of lazeura is manifest – i.e. a codeword for “little Mark” who appears throughout the gospel it is very easy to make sense of the various passages where he appears. All we have to do is accept the fact that someone – just as we saw with the material which now appears in our gospel of Mark earlier – deliberately “corrected” the original text. In order to demonstrate this point I have assembled a collection of zeura references from the gospels which I think certainly point to “little Mark” being this very little one. The problem is that Syriac text reads in some cases “these” – i.e. HLYN – instead of what I believe was originally “this one” – i.e. HAYN – or indeed “this” HNY. If I am allowed this liberty let me at once demonstrate what I see as the original readings of many of these “zeura” references just spoken of including: Luke 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall takes this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receieve me receiveth him that sent me: for zeura (of) all these [i.e. the disciples] shall be (the) greatest. Matthew 18:6 All offended from this one little one [Zeura] who trusts in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:10 See that ye do not neglect this one [Zeura] for I say unto you, that his angels in heaven always are beholding the face of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that this little one [Zeura] should perish. Matthew 10:42 All drink a cold cup from this little one [Zeura] … he shall in no wise lose his reward. Matthew 13:32 Which indeed is Zeura of all seeds [zarea]: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Luke, 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as Zeura; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve Matthew 9:37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the worker is Zeura I hope that someone out there can see what is now being suggested through all of this – each one of these passages “sliced and diced” out of its original context in the now lost “super gospel” reflected back to an original mystery about the little child whom Jesus picked up and put forward as essentially his “beloved disciple” preferable to Peter and the Twelve. The key now is to see that the “little one” can only be “little Mark” himself. Can everyone begin to see why identifying “Mark” as the original apostle behind our invented Catholic figure of “Paul” is so important? Indeed we should see that “little Mark” is the “apostle” we call “Paul” when he announces: 2 Cor 15:9 For I am Zeurhon of the apostles 1Corinthians 12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given greater glory to that member which is Zeuro: Ephesians 3:8 Unto me, who am Zeura of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ [in Syriac Li (that) D'aZEuORaA (little) Ana (I) D'K,uLHuON (all) QaD'iYSHeA (holy) AeT,YaHB'aT (give) TaYB'uOT,aA (grace, favour). Indeed it is in 1Thessalonians 5:14, Luke 12:26 and other passages in the surviving Syriac New Testament that we see the specific term Lazauray which I propose to be the original source for our invented figure of “Lazarus” (compare Syriac Lazar = “Lazarus”).

most gladly revel - 2 Cor 11:9

the man who wrote the gospel was also the apostle who wrote the holy epistles – implicit in the Marcionite beliefs (despite the difficulties with our Catholic Church Fathers). The Marcionites say that (a) the apostle wrote the gospel while at the same time (b) they deny the existence of a gospel of Paul. The answer is that “Paul” is an invented name of the Catholics (see the story in Acts which recognizes “another name” for the apostle coupled with the report in Irenaeus that the Marcionites don’t recognize the name “Paul.” This is all brought together with the persistent tradition which remains among the Copts that Mark was the author of the first gospel. When you realize that “little Mark” is consistently identified as overlapping with the apostle he is supposedly a defender the answer becomes clear – the figure of “Paul” was developed to obscure the fact that “little Mark” was both our “Paul” and our “Mark.”

up to the third heaven – Eznik openly acknowledges that Marcion claimed this revelation for himself.

those eight which make up my canon – see von Campenhausen the Formation of the New Testamant.

the little lad who stood under the cross and had a revelation from heaven – see the Coptic tradition of Mark as the beholder of Christ and certain statements made in Adamantius’ (i.e. Origen’s) Dialogue.

had such a weak and useless figure at the head - cf 1 Cor 12:24 “God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the littlest parts.”

At the head of this messianic body – see the apostle’s frequent use of this image in

Moses wasn’t any different than me – despite what the Church Fathers have led generations of scholars to believe the Marcionites did not simply dismiss Moses. There are numerous intimations in what we know of their tradition that prove quite clearly that “even they” saw a connection between the old apostle and the new most especially the fact that they retained citations of the Law in the writings of the apostle. The oversimplification of the argument that Mark himself represented someone who rendered Moses and the old revelation “useless” is easy to spot and the proper understanding of the Marcionite position appears in the Acts of Archelaus and similar traditions.

now the man Moses - Numbers 12:3

a glorious being from heaven transforming – Jesus is thus the column of glory from the Exodus narrative. On Jesus as the “kavod” see 2 Cor 3:1f. On the Samaritan Mark’s interest in the kavod as a transformative angel like Jesus see

“in part” - cf

spokesman of a superior God – see where the apostle calls himself “I am that I am” Rom

not a mere “hand” – Moses had two revelations the first where he and the elders of Israel saw God with their eyes through “eating and drinking” the second clearly inferior vision was only a lower power identified as the “hand of God.”

the first and last kings of Israel – On Moses as a king see Philo Vita Moses. On Marcus Julius Agrippa as the last king of Israel whose life appears to be a conscious reflection of Moses’ see the summary of the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias in Photius’ Biblioteca.

Deeds of the Apostles – i.e. Acts of the Apostles

Pretenders – i.e. Peter and the rest of the twelve cf 2 Cor 11:1f; Gal 1:1f

Aaron and Miriam - Num 12:10f

It was because they claimed to be apostles - The same argument is made in the Clementine Literature on behalf of Peter.

“Father Mark”- cf Shenouda

do not have many fathers –

I am the Father of my new people – cf Acts of Archelaus conscious comparison between “little Mark” and Abraham.

and try to pass off the old god of the Jews as the power of my better revelation – cf Tertullian Against Marcion

the better thing came along the old was left useless and necessarily discarded – cf

it is what was demanded by Moses himself in the beginning – cf Memar Marqeh’s treatment of Deut 32

“Mark,” “John,” “Luke” and “Paul” are all just “repackaged” –

the placing of my historical enemy Simon called “Peter” – cf Shenouda’s treatment of Peter

The man was a complete failure – cf Origen Commentary on Matthew

deny the messiah as Simon did –