The Dialogue of Adamantius (De recta in deum fide) is a valid and often reliable witness for reconstructing the Evangelicon. Read with sober controls and in conversation with Tertullian, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Origen, Irenaeus, and allied sources, Adamantius helps confirm that the Evangelicon contained material not found in canonical Luke alone but also paralleled in Matthew, Mark, and John. This cumulative pattern overturns the claim that the Evangelicon is merely a shortened or “redacted Luke.” Our reconstruction follows a maximalist methodology for both Evangelicon and Apostolicon, aiming to restore the complete form and narrative continuity of the Marcionite canon. Silence in patristic authors, for example, no mention by Tertullian or Epiphanius, is not treated as evidence of nonexistence.
What Adamantius Is and Why It Matters
Adamantius is a late-antique Greek dialogue that stages debates with Marcionites and others. In adversarial disputations, recognizable quotations of an opponent’s text are expected; otherwise, the dramatic exchange collapses. The work repeatedly signals when it is reading or paraphrasing the Marcionite Gospel text, and at several key points, the wording it presents aligns with independent witnesses. Used carefully, Adamantius provides primary data for the Evangelicon.
A Clear Test Case: the Law Saying in the Evangelicon (14:16)
Adamantius preserves the Marcionite stance that Christ abolishes the Law rather than “fulfilling” it, precisely what one expects given the Evangelicon’s own wording at 14:16:
“Think not that I am come to fulfil the law, or the prophets: I am not come to fulfil, but to destroy.”
Isidore of Pelusium independently reports this inversion, and Tertullian’s polemic treats the Law-saying as programmatic in disputes with Marcionites. The convergence of Adamantius, Isidore, and the Evangelicon text confirms that this reading sat near the Evangelicon’s core.
Beyond Luke: A Multi-Source Evangelicon
Across the patristic record, the Evangelicon cannot be explained as a trimmed copy of Luke. Tertullian and Epiphanius preserve readings whose best analogues are in Matthew or Mark, and Ephrem and Adamantius meet them at these points. Indeed, both Tertullian and Epiphanius sometimes accuse Marcion of cutting passages that are not found in Luke at all, an inadvertent admission that their target text was broader than Luke. Examples often cited include Matthew 5:17, Mark 6:41–49, and John 17:25. The cumulative picture is an Evangelicon with overlap with Luke but also material now found in Matthew, Mark, and John that Luke lacks, while many canonical passages are missing, abbreviated, or theologically refined in the Evangelicon. This pattern is consistent with the earliest gospel tradition from which later canonical strata drew and expanded.
Not a Harmony, Not a Patchwork
The Evangelicon is not a gospel harmony like Tatian’s Diatessaron, which presupposes the fourfold canon and stitches it into a single narrative. Harmony presupposes four gospels; our data show a single prior gospel stream that later ramifies into Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John. The Evangelicon is earlier than the fourfold canon and stands as the foundational proclamation. Its close relationship to much of Luke reflects dependence in the other direction. Where the Evangelicon departs from Luke and aligns with Matthew, Mark, or John, these are witness points of the Evangelicon’s own stream, not borrowings from a later canonical set.
Methodological Posture: Maximalist Reconstruction
Our reconstruction adheres to a maximalist methodology for the Evangelicon and, mutatis mutandis, the Apostolicon. We aim for comprehensive recovery of complete form and narrative continuity. Because patristic writers are selective and often rhetorical, the absence of mention is not evidence of absence. Arguments from silence carry little weight against converging textual indications.
How We Use Adamantius
To keep the use of Adamantius disciplined and to avoid double-counting, we operate with two complementary principles:
- Parallel Preference, when Luke has a counterpart.
If Adamantius presents a non-Lukan verse or form that nevertheless has a clear Lukan parallel conveying the same sense, we privilege the Lukan parallel in reconstruction and do not duplicate the non-Lukan form from Adamantius. - Unique Admission, when Luke lacks it.
If Luke lacks the material entirely and Adamantius preserves it with explicit citation signals, or cross-attestation, for example, agreement with Tertullian or Epiphanius or Ephrem, or a stable Marcionite idiom consistent with other witnessed readings, for example, “abolish the Law” and the primacy of God the Father, then we treat it as potential Evangelicon content.
Supporting controls apply to both principles. Explicit signaling in Adamantius raises evidentiary weight. Convergence with other primary witnesses raises confidence. Theology functions as a control, not a substitute. Marcionite theology explains patterns but never replaces textual evidence.
Ephrem as a Witness: Non-Lukan Evangelicon Material
Ephrem cites or alludes to gospel incidents absent from Luke but present in Matthew, Mark, or John, for example Herod’s banquet and the soldier of the guard in Mark 6:27, a beatitude form like “Blessed are the meek in their spirit,” a Matthew 5:5 plus 5:3 conflation, “Blessed is he, except he be offended in me” aligning with the Curetonian Matthew 11:6, and calling John a “Light-bringer” recalling John 5:35. These show that, in the Marcionite and Catholic debate Ephrem reports, the Evangelicon’s scope extended beyond Luke to material now found across the other gospels.
Three Brief Case Studies
1) Law Saying
- Canonical (Matthew 5:17):
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” - Evangelicon (14:16):
“Think not that I am come to fulfil the law, or the prophets: I am not come to fulfil, but to destroy.”
Who corroborates: Adamantius, Isidore of Pelusium, Tertullian.
2) Rich Ruler
- Canonical (Luke 18:18–20):
“Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments….” - Evangelicon (16:19):
“And Jesus said unto him, Call not thou me good. One is good, God the Father.”
Who corroborates: Adamantius, Epiphanius.
3) Confession Saying
- Canonical (Luke 12:8–9):
“Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.” - Evangelicon (11:7):
“Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall I also confess before God.”
Who corroborates: Patristic dossiers reporting the Marcionite form, aligned with Adamantius’ theological profile.
Addressing Common Objections
“Adamantius is late and polemical.” So are most witnesses. Polemic requires recognizable quotation, and Adamantius’ explicit citation cues and repeated engagement with Marcionite wording keep him within evidentiary bounds.
“This makes the Evangelicon a harmony.” The pattern is the opposite. The Evangelicon shows independent forms later echoed in different shapes across Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John. Dependence runs from the Evangelicon to the canonical gospels, not vice versa.
“Patristic reports contradict one another.” They do. That is precisely why points of convergence matter. When Adamantius, Tertullian, and Epiphanius meet at the same distinctive reading, or when Ephrem’s explicitly Marcionite lines match Adamantius’ content, the overlap has probative force that isolated claims do not.
Why This Matters
If the Evangelicon is neither a redacted Luke nor a harmony, it stands in its own right as the earliest gospel, the proclamation Paul’s churches heard. The latter fourfold canon emerged as a theological and institutional response to this singular witness. Multiplying gospels under Catholic authority counterbalanced the clarity and authority of the Evangelicon, which needed no supplementation to preach Christ.
Conclusion
Adamantius is a good source for reconstructing the Evangelicon. The Law saying at Evangelicon 14:16, reinforced by Isidore of Pelusium, and the broader pattern of non-Lukan material with Matthew, Mark, and Johannine parallels, confirm that the Evangelicon cannot be reduced to “Luke minus.” With a maximalist yet disciplined method, privileging Lukan parallels where they exist, admitting unique non-Lukan items where they are well attested, and refusing to mistake patristic silence for nonexistence, Adamantius, with Ephrem properly weighted, helps recover the Evangelicon’s voice. The result is not a harmony or a patchwork, but the earliest, original gospel proclamation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
