Marcus the Heretic and St. Mark of Alexandria

The scholars who study the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers have no imagination. Many of them wear this as a badge of distinction. Apparently, there are these things called 'facts' which appear in the writings of the Church Fathers and all we have to do as scholars is recite them without 'doing too much' in the way of interpreting them.

So when Irenaeus says over and over again that the reason there are all these 'other Christians' with a single, gospel who pass on a 'secret tradition' or 'secret traditions' from Jesus and his beloved apostles is because the Devil has established these men as 'tests' for the true community the 'good scholar' is supposed to ...

What?

Ignore the testimony? No, apparently the right answer is to smile and say 'Irenaeus had the right idea - his tradition is indeed the 'good' tradition or the 'correct belief' but ... he shouldn't have said those things about the Devil. It's not politically correct to do so.

Of course from the way I look at it only the desperate have to introduce bogeymen and devils. If history or human reason could prove these heretics wrong Irenaeus would have only employed those arguments instead of resorting to the 'break glass in case of emergency' argument - the Devil did it!

So what do scholars say to that? Well, they generally throw their hands up in the air and ask 'what are we supposed to do? We have to accept the testimony of Irenaeus and his minions, it's all we have.

Well, that's not exactly true. The truth is only that - that's all you have if you are intellectually lazy. There are other traditions. There are other lines of transmission. You just have to look for them.

For instance there is Tatian's implicit claim to have received a 'super gospel' - a single, long text from Justin. No one disputes that Justin used a so-called 'gospel harmony' (God I hate that term). No one disputes that Tatian used one too. Indeed no one disputes that Tatian THOUGHT or claimed that he was passing on the tradition of Justin but because third century Church Fathers - not even Irenaeus but later authorities who never met any of these figures - 'throw up doubt' about Tatian's claims, the scholars hesitate.

Again where is my aluminum bat ...

So we can't accept the obvious that Justin and Tatian and Tatian's disciples represented a line of transmission because the Church Fathers (figures who had a vested interest in attacking that 'other tradition' won't accept the idea.

Then there is the alternative line of transmission from John through Polycarp to the Valentinian community. I have spoken about this elsewhere. Florinus lived at the time of Irenaeus, was a 'Valentinian' (or was so identified; Tertullian notes that Valentinians never so identified themselves) and argued against Irenaeus' interpretation of Polycarp's teachings (and thus put forward necessarily that his 'heretical beliefs' were associated with his master Polycarp).

There were countless Johannine heretics who seemed to be associated with a single, long gospel (the Diatessaron) and 'heresy.' Lucius Charinus is one name but there were others. This is another tradition which reinforces my belief that Polycarp used a single, long gospel that was developed from the Marcionite 'heavenly gospel.'

There is even a claim developed by Eisler that Marcion was accused of corrupting the gospel of John - i.e. Polycarp's original gospel. Given that a number of studies have noted 'Marcionitisms' in Polycarp's letter I would turn this around and say that Polycarp likely corrupted the original Marcionite text, but that's just me ...

The third discernible tradition is that associated with Mark. I think this was the original Christian tradition. I think it was based in Alexandria. I think it spread from Alexandria across the world. I think Mark was identified as 'Marcion' by the Church Fathers and his identification as being 'of Pontus' or 'of Sinope' have everything to do with the Emperor Hadrian's likening of Alexandrian and Egyptian Christians to the followers of Sarapis (Sarapis according to the most prevalent report was shipped from this province by the Black Sea to Ptolemy at the start of his reign.

Yet for the moment let me identify why I KNOW - notice I didn't say 'suspect' - that the community of 'followers of Mark' (Aram 'Marqione) in the Rhone valley necessarily represented an early branch of the Alexandrian church spread (already at that time) in every corner of the Empire.

I can demonstrate that these 'followers of Mark' in the south of France held the same beliefs and cited the same 'secret texts' as Clement of the Markan see of Alexandria.

I don't need to explain Clement's silence or possible 'denial' of his affiliation with the evangelist. I already discussed this in my second to last post.

It is enough to say that by all appearances, Clement demonstrates himself to be as orthodox as any other member of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, one statement in his controversial letter To Theodore tips us off to his “secret beliefs” in regards to Mark. It is here that Clement openly acknowledges that members of his tradition frequently “deny” their association to a secret Markan tradition for reasons he never quite explains to us.

Whoever the followers of “Carpocrates” or “Harpocrates” really may have been, Clement tells Theodore that good Christians

must never give way [to them]; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.

The specific details of their attachment to Mark are to be kept hidden because, according to Clement, “not all true things are to be said to all men.” The text is remarkable for several reasons, not least because it acknowledges the manner in which the “secret Mark faith” continued to survive despite “Roman Catholic pressure” in Alexandria and other cities. The tradition was driven underground with members being forced to join the officially tolerated Christian community during the reign of Commodus - the assembly of Irenaeus - and were forced to publicly deny their affiliation with Mark and could only acknowledge his authority in private.

It would be easy to get bogged down with the many controversies which have come to dominate the Clementine letter to Theodore and its notorious gospel quote. Luckily, we find a near-contemporary report from Irenaeus’ student Hippolytus which alerts us to something missed by seven generations of scholars and which serves to clarify who the Alexandrian Mark really is. Hippolytus reproduces his master Irenaeus’s report about the “heretical Mark” faith which flourished near Lyons.

Most of us skip over this “copy” and prefer to work with Irenaeus’ original work. Yet when we do this we overlook the important fact that, in the process of recycling the Against the False Gnostics material, he adds a marginal note which, if read properly, completely transforms our understanding of the whole “secret Markan faith.”

The third century Roman presbyter confirms what any careful reader of Irenaeus report would have seen anyway - namely that the heretical “Markan community” Irenaeus originally wrote about a generation or too earlier was not some group of heretics which gathered independently of the Church but was a group of hypocrites within the Catholic Church.

Now scholars who ignore Irenaeus' statements about his close 'working relationship' with the wicked Emperor Commodus ask at this point - why would the followers of Mark need or want to embrace a canon they didn't believe in or join a church whose principles they denied.

The answer is to look at the statements of Irenaeus which confirm that a violent Imperial campaign was being directed against all Christians who didn't embrace the officially tolerated faith he designed.

In short, the reason Clement and Origen were so desperate to accept Catholic ordination was that it was the difference between life and death in Alexandria.

So it is that we should not be surprised to hear Hippolytus say that these 'followers of Mark' who Irenaeus reports have 'heretical beliefs' they hide from their (Imperially appointed) overseers take issue with much of Irenaeus' report.

He tells us that, after Against the Heresies circulated among the presbytery, “it appears that some of them on meeting with it deny that they have so received [the tradition he claims for them] but they have learned that always they should deny.” What Hippolytus reports about the “secret Mark faith” is identical with the advice which Clement gives to Theodore to “never give way… one should never concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.”

While some might contend that Clement is talking about a “secret gospel” and Irenaeus a “secret tradition” relating to Mark, there is negligible difference, as it is easy to show. All one need do is put the writings of Clement and Irenaeus side by side and demonstrate that Against the False Gnostics is actually quoting a text utilized by Clement. To this end I shall cite original sections from chapter six of the sixth book of Clement’s Stromata and then identify the parts of Irenaeus’ report which draw from that account. The underlying Alexandrian kabbalistic theology is quite complex. I will not even attempt to explain what each of the passages actually means. My purpose is only to demonstrate that the wording of Irenaeus is identical to that of Clement’s original:

TABLE ONE:
DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSFIGURATION NARRATIVE

CLEMENT STROMATA 6:6 -Thus [with] the Lord, who ascended the mountain, the fourth becomes the sixth, and is illuminated all round with spiritual light, by laying bare the power proceeding from Him, as far as those selected to see were able to behold it]

HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST THE HERESIES 6:42 - as the result of this computation and that proportion, that in the similitude of an image He appeared who after the six days Himself ascended the mountain a fourth person, and became the sixth. And (he asserts) that He (likewise) descended and was detained by the Hebdomad, and thus became an illustrious Ogdoad.[AH 6:42]

TABLE TWO:
AN ALLUSION TO GENESIS 1:4

CLEMENT STROMATA 6:6 - man is said to have been made on the sixth day, who became faithful to Him who is the sign (episemo), so as straightway to receive the rest of the Lord's inheritance. Some such thing also is indicated by the sixth hour in the scheme of salvation, in which man was perfected. Further, of the eight, the intermediates are seven; and of the seven, the intervals are shown to be six. [Stromata 6:16]


HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST THE HERESIES 6:42 - (Marcus maintains) that Moses says that man was created on the sixth day. And (he asserts) that the dispensation of suffering (took place) on the sixth day, which is the preparation; (and so it was) that on this (day) appeared the last man for the regeneration of the first man. And that the beginning and end of this dispensation is the sixth hour, at which He was nailed to the (accursed) tree.

TABLE THREE:
SUPPORTING KABBALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS

CLEMENT STROMATA 6:6 For six is reckoned in the order of numbers, but the succession of the letters acknowledges the character which is not written. In this case, in the numbers themselves, each unit is preserved in its order up to seven and eight. But in the number of the characters, Zeta becomes six and Eta seven. And the character having somehow slipped into writing, should we follow it out thus, the seven became six, and the eight seven.

HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST THE HERESIES 6:42 - And in regard of another number they express themselves in this manner: that the letter Eta along with the remarkable one constitutes all ogdoad, as it is situated in the eighth place from Alpha. Then, again, computing the number of these elements without the remarkable (letter), and adding them together up to Eta, they exhibit the number thirty. For any one beginning from the Alpha to the Eta will, after subtracting the remarkable (letter i.e., episimon) ... they subtract twelve, and reckon it at eleven. And in like manner, (they subtract) ten and make it nine.

TABLE FOUR:
SUPPORTING SCRIPTURAL CITATIONS

CLEMENT STROMATA 6:6 (A) - For that is another ground, in which seven glorifies eight, and "the heavens declare to the heavens the glory of God."

HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST THE HERESIES 6:42 (A) - he (Mark) says, the seven powers glorify the Logos, so also does the sorrowing soul in babes (magnify Him). And on account of this, he says, David likewise has declared, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise." And again, "The heavens declare the glory of God."

CLEMENT STROMATA 6:6 (B) - The sensible types of these, then, are the sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," "by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made."

HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST THE HERESIES 6:42 (B) -Thus the ineffable name in Christ consists, they allege, of thirty letters. And they assert that for this reason He utters the words, "I am Alpha and Omega,"

This is only a small sampling of the parallels which exist between Irenaeus' report of heretical gnostics in the south of France who acknowledge the authority of 'Mark' and Clement of Alexandrian see of St. Mark who openly calls himself a gnostic.

It is interesting that I have come across a handful of scholars in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who noticed the same parallels but these imbeciles somehow failed to make the connection that both parties were somehow connected to a common Markan tradition!!!! (apparently Clement of the Alexandrian See of St. Mark just happened to share a gnostic tradition with a group of gnostics inspired by another guy named Mark).

The point is of course that - as Robert McQueen notes - 'Mark' of the Marcosians is not identified as actually having been present among the congregation devoted to his authority in the Rhone Valley. There are also reports of his community also being present in Asia Minor and in Rome - the exact places that Coptic tradition identifies a world-wide network of 'churches of St. Mark' which took as their episcopal seat of authority, the Alexandrian throne of the same apostle.

I can demonstrate that Clement makes mention of the throne of St. Mark in the letter to Theodore. I will do so in a subsequent post. For the moment I would just like to note one thing.

The only reasonable explanation for the parallels between Clement's writings and those of the Markan community in the south of France is that they were part of a worldwide network of church - something which is paralleled in statements regarding the Marcionite Church. I have already demonstrated that the word 'Marcione' is Aramaic for 'those of Mark.' The exact phrase comes up in Syriac documents which deal with the 'Marcionite community.'

As such I strongly suspect that each of these three communities - the Alexandrian church of St. Mark, the worldwide Marcionite orthodoxy and the particular community of Mark in the south of France which Irenaeus reports embraced Catholic doctrine (as Clement did also) but secret kept their gnostic Markan roots.

Some may argue that Marcionites were not gnostics but this is an unproven argument. While it is true that Church Fathers seem obsessed with attacking the community for its 'corruption' of the gospel and its supposed 'antinomian' beliefs one wonders if any of these Church Fathers ever actually came across a real 'Marcionite' or was just recycling documents written about the Marcionites from a previous period (especially Tertullian).

One can be certain that Clement and Origen knew Marcionites. Origen's patron Ambrose was interestingly again a 'reformed' Marcionite but what does that really mean? Isn't it possible that both he and Origen were really only hypocrites - like those in the south of France who hadn't ever had their continued adherence to hersy exposed.

Oh wait a minute ... Origen's heresy was indeed exposed. Why isn't he considered a Marcionite. He never castrated himself as the Marcionite priesthood did, right? Oh, but he did this on his own.

And he didn't hold the crazy Marcionite belief in metempsychosis, right? Oh he did ...

But he can't be accused of secretly holding on to a single, long gospel while only hypocritically employing the four canonical texts introduced by Irenaeus.

What, he can? The citation of gospel passages in his Commentary on Matthew actually follows the Diatessaron almost line by line?

Well, even though Origen was condemned by the Catholic Church as a heretic, and can be seen as associating with Marcionites and holding many of their beliefs we can't for a minute allow ourselves to believe that this in any way reflects the existence of a Markan tradition driven into hypocrisy to adopt a position they never believed in.

All of Christian history might actually start making sense! My God ...what use then would we have for the faith that was beat into skulls of our ancestors on the threat of torture and death? And what's worse, we could just open the Church Fathers as we would a package of Kraft dinner in order to understand the history of that tradition.

What will all those lazy, intellectually dishonest academics do next? Actually think about the reports they read?

Oh, but all the certainty will be gone, the certainty that comes from just believing what Irenaeus and the Church Fathers tell us is the truth about the Christian Church.

Oh the horror, the horror of it all ...