Proof that Markan Priests were Redeemed by Martyrs Deaths

In Haer. 26 Augustine also passes on information about the Montanists which he had not reported earlier:

They are said to have polluted sacraments [sacramenta funesta], for they are said to prepare their supposed Eucharist from the blood of a one-year-old infant which they extort from its entire body through minute puncture wounds, mixing it with flour and hence making bread. If the child should die, it is considered among them as a martyr; but if it lives as a great priest.

I copied a whole article which dissects the origin of this report. But I am only interested in the last part:

If the child should die, it is considered among them as a martyr; but if it lives as a great priest.

This must be the original Markan formulation. Tabernee traces Augustine's report back to something in Pseudo-Jerome:

The originators of the heresy of the Cataphrygians are Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla. This people-deceiving, most vain deviation esteems Montanus as Paraclete and Prisca and Maximilla as prophetesses. Indeed corrupt [perditionis], unspeakable sacred rites [mysteria] are of this heresy. For annually they sacrifice a one-year old perfect infant and pricking wounds in its little body they catch its blood in flour, thus making bread out of this most polluted meal mixture they partake of a most deadly [feralissimae] Eucharist: a diabolical sacrament. The infant, moreover, if it dies is revered with the esteem accorded a martyr; if it lives it is regarded with the same reverence as a preeminent priest (Haer. 19).

Yet notice that Epiphanius specifically links the tradition with those associated with Quintilla:

in this sect [the Montanists], or in that of its yoke-fellow called the Quintillians, and subsequently therefore among the Pricillians and the Pepouzians, they say some dreadful and wicked action occurs. For at a certain festival [eJorthvn] they pierce a child, an infant to be precise, throughout the whole of its body with copper needles and procure for themselves its blood, presumably in the performance of a sacred rite [qusiva~] (Haer. 48.14.5).

The reason Epiphanius' identification of 'those of Quintilla' is so important is that it means that these practices had nothing to do with the Montanists. Quintilla is actually not a Montanist but the name of a heretic - sometimes identified as being of the 'Cainite' sect - "following a variant reading in ch. 1 originating with the Gelenius edition of 1550."

The point is that Tertullian - a Montanist - can't be attacking his own community. All of the confusion that follows in the later Church Fathers is owing to Epiphanius' predictable stupidity. As I noted before, Epiphanius is the Don Knotts of the Church Fathers.

Before we identify which sect 'Quintilla' belonged to it is important to note that she was not a Montanist. There was a systematic effort to demonize this ancient sect in the fourth and fifth century.

Let us go back to Tabernee's account for the moment and notice what else he says Epiphanius' original report:

While qusiva can mean "a sacrifice" or "an offering" as well as a sacred rite, it is clear from Epiphanius' wording in the repetition of this report in a subsequent section in which he attributes the practice specifically to the Quintillians that he assumes the procuring of blood from an infant to be integral to the Montanist rite of initiation. Utilizing the analogy of a particular kind of viper whose bite causes total hemorrhage and death, he explains:

in the same way the sect of the Quintillians also accomplishes this. For it pricks the body of an uncorrupt child and obtains the blood for consumption, presumably in respect of initiation into the mysteries [mustagwgivan] of the name of Christ, having misled those who have been deceived (48.5.7).

Tabernee writes again that:

The initiatory context presumed by Epiphanius as he related the account he was passing on about the extraction and utilization of the blood of an infant is also apparent from his use of the word eJorthvn in Haer. 48.14.5 which I have simply translated generically as "a festival." By Epiphanius' time, in Christian circles, however, eJorthv almost exclusively designated Easter.(22) It is in this sense that Filastrius understood Epiphanius' use of the word as seen in his dependent version:

They say, in fact, that at Easter [pascha] they mix the blood of an infant in their sacrifice [sacrificium] and that they send it in this manner to their baleful and spurious adherents [satellitibus] (Haer. 49).

Yet if the ritual was connected with Easter specifically it is hard not to imagine a connection to the gospel especially if this was an important ritual in the community - which it certainly was.

Of course the accounts here are garbled but let's move forward anyway. The question which remains is - who was Quintilla and what sect did she belong to? The hints all come from Tertullian's original report which allude to an argument which sounds remarkably similar to a known position within the Marcosian community.

Tertullian writes that Quintilla was a:

female viper from the Cainite sect, who recently spent some time here, carried off a good number with her exceptionally pestilential doctrine, making a particular point of demolishing baptism.

Of course it sounds like an open and shut case - right? I mean Irenaeus mentions the Cainites as a sect in his work and Tertullian read that work and so identifies Quintilla.

However the structure of Against the Heresies is more complex than first meets the eye. Irenaeus' account of 'those of Mark' ends at chapter 21. There is a mention of an opinion within the sect that water baptism is superfluous:

But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the redemption. They, too, are accustomed to anoint with balsam. Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures, nor should that of those [beings] who are inconceivable, and incorporeal, and beyond the reach of sense, [be performed] by such as are the objects of sense, and possessed of a body. These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. [AH i.21.4]

Now chapter 21 ends with the words "But since they differ so widely among themselves both as respects doctrine and tradition, and since those of them who are recognised as being most modern make it their effort daily to invent some new opinion, and to bring out what no one ever before thought of, it is a difficult matter to describe all their opinions." There is a short chapter where Irenaeus attacks both Marcosians and Valentinians and then a new section seems to have been added right here which starts with Simon Magus (AH i.23.1) and ends with this short account of the so-called Cainites:

others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

I have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera. Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth. They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution. Whatever may be the nature of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, "O thou angel, I use thy work; O thou power, I accomplish thy operation !" And they maintain that this is "perfect knowledge," without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name.

The problem with this alleged sect is that it sounds like a recapitulation of things already said about the Marcosians. Before we go there let's just notice that immediately following these words the conclusion of the first book of Against the Heresies begins:

It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator ...

Yet if we go back to the last sentence of what immediately precedes the introduction of that new section that begins with Simon Magus through to the Cainites:

Since, therefore, it is a complex and multiform task to detect and convict all the heretics, and since our design is to reply to them all according to their special characters, we have judged it necessary, first of all, to give an account of their source and root, in order that, by getting a knowledge of their most exalted Bythus, thou mayest understand the nature of the tree which has produced such fruits.

Is it to much to suggest that the original copy of Ireneaus' book against the heresies concluded with the Marcosians and went right though to the conclusion (where Irenaeus justifies violence against the sect)? It would read like this:

Since, therefore, it is a complex and multiform task to detect and convict all the heretics, and since our design is to reply to them all according to their special characters, we have judged it necessary, first of all, to give an account of their source and root, in order that, by getting a knowledge of their most exalted Bythus, thou mayest understand the nature of the tree which has produced such fruits.

It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drown away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. But let them rather, learning to good effect from us the wicked tenets of these men, look with contempt upon their doctrines, while at the same time they pity those who, still cleaving to these miserable and baseless fables, have reached such a pitch of arrogance as to reckon themselves superior to all others on account of such knowledge, or, as it should rather be called, ignorance. They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them etc.

Not sure that I might be on to something? Well here comes checkmate. Irenaeus' student Hippolytus apparently used an older version of Irenaeus Against the Heresies which had not yet incorporated the newly added stuff from Simon Magus to the Cainites. How do we know? Well remember that bit that appears about 'Hystera' in the surviving texts of Irenaeus that are attributed to these 'Cainites':

I have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera. Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth.

Well in Hippolytus' version of AH 'Hysterema' appears through the account of the Valentinians and Marcosians. Hysterema is identified as 'the place of the ninety-nine ... a type of the left hand" (Hippolytus 6.47) and the one separated by Horos from the Pleroma." (ibid 6.27) The text then concludes with a reference to 'Hysterema' albeit now associated with the beliefs of the Valentinians and Marcosians:

And in addition to these (points, they lay down) that the Demiurge of the supernal Ogdoad, desirous of imitating the indefinite, and everlasting, and illimitable (one), and (the one) not subject to the condition of time; and (the Demiurge) not being able to represent the stability and eternity of this (Ogdoad), on account of his being the fruit of the Hysterema, to this end appointed times, and seasons, and numbers, measuring many years in reference to the eternity of this (Ogdoad), thinking by the multitude of times to imitate its indefiniteness. And here they say, when Truth eluded his pursuit, that Falsehood followed close upon him; and that on account of this, when the times were fulfilled, his work underwent dissolution. [ibid 6.49

I think however it is obvious that Irenaeus' original identification of the Marcosian interest in "advocating the abolition of the doings of the uterus" (hystera) is only a reflection of the contents of Secret Mark or as Clement calls it the 'Gospel according to the Egyptians':

Whence it is with reason that after the Word had told about the End, Salome saith: Until when shall men continue to die? (Now, the Scripture speaks of man in two senses, the one that is seen, and the soul: and again, of him that is in a state of salvation, and him that is not: and sin is called the death of the soul) and it is advisedly that the Lord makes an answer: So long as women bear children. [Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 9. 64]

And why do not they who walk by anything rather than the true rule of the Gospel go on to quote the rest of that which was said to Salome: for when she had said, 'I have done well, then, in not bearing children?' (as if childbearing were not the right thing to accept) the Lord answers and says: Every plant eat thou, but that which hath bitterness eat not. [ibid 66]

When Salome inquired when the things concerning which she asked should be known, the Lord said: When ye have trampled on the garment of shame, and when the two become one and the male with the female is neither male nor female. In the first place, then, we have not this saying in the four Gospels that have been delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians. [ibid iii. 13. 92]

The Lord said to Salome when she inquired: How long shall death prevail? 'As long as ye women bera children', not because life is an ill, and the creation evil: but as showing the sequence of nature: for in all cases birth is followed by decay. [iii. 6. 45]

And when the Saviour says to Salome that there shall be death as long as women bear children, he did not say it as abusing birth, for that is necessary for the salvation of believers [Excerpts from Theodotus, 67]

But those who set themselves against God's creation because of continence, which has a fair-sounding name, quote also those words which were spoken to Salome, of which I made mention before. They are contained, I think (or I take it) in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. For they say that 'the Savior himself said: I came to destroy the works of the female'. By female he means lust: by works, birth and decay. [Strom. iii. 9. 63]

I hope I have everyone with me when I identify Secret Mark with the Gospel According to the Egyptians. F F Bruce did it long before me.

Now it is important to note that Hippolytus' text ends a few lines later after he congratulates Irenaeus on providing 'great information' about these heretics. Yet a little earlier he admits that Irenaeus' information about the redemption of those of Mark isn't exactly accurate. So goes about clarifying matters:

And subsequent to the (first) baptism, to these they promise another, which they call Redemption. And by this (other baptism) they wickedly subvert those that remain with them in expectation of redemption, as if persons, after they had once been baptized, could again obtain remission. Now, it is by means of such knavery as this that they seem to retain their hearers. And when they consider that these have been tested, and are able to keep (secret the mysteries) committed unto them, they then admit them to this (baptism). They, however, do not rest satisfied with this alone, but promise (their votaries) some other (boon) for the purpose of confirming them in hope, in order that they may be inseparable (adherents of their sect). For they utter something in an inexpressible (tone of) voice, after having laid hands on him who is receiving the redemption. And they allege that they could not easily declare (to another) what is thus spoken unless one were highly tested, or one were at the hour of death, (when) the bishop comes and whispers into the (expiring one's) ear. And this knavish device (is undertaken) for the purpose of securing the constant attendance upon the bishop of (Marcus') disciples, as individuals eagerly panting to learn what that may be which is spoken at the last, by (the knowledge of) which the learner will be advanced to the rank of those admitted into the higher mysteries. And in regard of these I have maintained a silence for this reason, lest at any time one should suppose that I was guilty of disparaging these (heretics). For this does not come within the scope of our present work, only so far as it may contribute to prove from what source (the heretics) have derived the standing-point from which they have taken occasion to introduce the opinions advanced by them

For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny). For these opinions, however, we consent to pardon Valentinus and his school.

Notice the reference to the ecclesiastic structure in place in this 'Marcosian' church - i.e. the 'bishop' etc. Yet more important than this notice the repeated mention of the 'those of Mark' denying Irenaeus' report about redemption and moreover "they have learned that always they should deny."

Clement of Alexandria similarly echoes "to them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men"

Let's remember that Hippolytus goes out of his way not to include Irenaeus' original reference of Mark x.38 (and the subsequent reference to 'redemption' in x.45). This is just after Secret Mark's reference to a 'redemption ritual' which accompanied Jesus initiation of that little disciple into the deeper mysteries of God. There simply has to be a connection here.

But let's get back to the issue at hand.

Tertullian certainly used the text of Irenaeus that we employ. As such he wrongly identifies Quintilla (or whatever her real name was) as a Cainite when she is really a Marcosian. The text says that she attacks the Catholic water baptism ritual clearly positing its stead a Marcosian 'redemption' ritual.

The point of course is that if these reports of a 'bloodied child' in the gospel narrative are true - and Quintilla is identified with any sect it has to be 'those of Mark.' Is it too much to connect this idea with pseudo-Jerome and Augustine's tradition that within this sect:

If the child should die, it is considered among them as a martyr; but if it lives as a great priest

Perhaps for some people but I think it only makes sense in light of all I have begun to show about the redemption ritual in Markan Christianity. It worked for Mark didn't it? He did become the first Pope of Alexandria, didn't he? And what about Origen? Oh, and you think he was just a 'teacher' from Alexandria. When will you ever learn ...