So it is that the Apostle's - and indeed ALL the early Fathers reference to gospel in the singular i.e. 'the gospel,' 'my gospel' etc. - led me to start thinking in terms of a single, long gospel.
The truth is that when you start thinking that all the true stories of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were contained in one continuous narrative you start naturally 'seeing things' that are constantly referenced in Middle Eastern Christianity which don't make any sense when you think in terms of four separated gospels.
Whatever the case may be one of the chief reasons for my interest in Secret Mark is because it falls in a very important place in the gospel narrative and one which has particular interest for Diatessaron scholars.
Petersen writes in his treatment of Rev C.A. Phillips a noted student of the gospel harmony tradition from the early twentieth century that:
Phillips noted that the harmonies followed the Parable of the Rich Fool with the Story of the Young Ruler which was then followed by the Parable of Dives and Lazarus. Elements of this combination as well as specific variants from the harmonies, are found in the Gospel 'secundum Hebraeos' as quoted by Origen, Comm in Matt XV.14 (on Matt 19.16ff). Origen's quotation begins "The other of the two rich men said to him ..." implying Origen knew a text which joined the stories of the two rich men. Also in Origen Jesus tells him to "do the Law" a variant found in Ephrem's Commentary, Aphrahat, Syr [c], the Georgian, and at Mark 10.20 in Greek MSSf1 565 1542. [p.257]
The point I am getting at here is that when you actually start looking at Origen's Commentary on Matthew you start to notice that he used a single, long gospel THROUGHOUT the whole narrative. It tells him (and he in turn tells the reader) how to piece together the original gospel narrative by weaving together a patchwork of references spread throughout our four canonical texts.
Now I will take the time to develop this understanding in the days to come but the real question which has to be asked at this point in our study is whether we can continue to believe that Origen just 'decided on his own' to use a single, long gospel to navigate through the New Testament canon of four separated gospels established on the authority of the Roman See.
As I am a student and believer in tradition, I could never just believe that Clement or Origen or Arius represented anything other than a continuous tradition which went back to the beginning of Alexandrian Christianity. This doesn't mean that we have to accept the fables about St. Mark but - if the truth be told - I see no reason to disbelieve them.
In any event, if Origen navigated his way through the gospels with the aid of an Alexandrian single, long gospel how can we account for Clement's reference to a 'Gospel according to the Egyptians' (which F F Bruce tentatively identifies with Secret Mark) in any other way as a preservation of the same practice a generation earlier. Indeed tradition holds that Ammonius Sacca - a pagan philosopher who began life as a Christian - preserved an Alexandrian single, long gospel from an earlier period.
To this end, given that (a) I see no reason to reject the authenticity of To Theodore and (b) there is clearly an Alexandrian traditional reliance on a single long gospel the story that Clement develops about St. Mark depositing his autograph in the principal church in Alexandria would naturally lend one to suppose that this text was the 'super gospel' secretly maintained by the tradition even in the face of consistent persecution from Rome.
In any event, as I have said I am not writing an academic paper here. This blog is entitled 'Stephan Huller's Observations' because it is a forum for me to write down my speculations and have others comment on my ideas.
According to my understanding of Christian history I see Irenaeus' promotion of four separated canonical gospels as something wholly artificial but done with great assistance from his friends in the Imperial court including Marcia the beloved mistress of the wicked Emperor Commodus.
In order to limit the tradition authority of the Alexandrian See the original narrative had to be obscured. To this end by destroying the continuous story about Jesus' preparation of a beloved disciple to sit on the throne of God (and accordingly a line of Popes to follow him as 'kings' of the kingdom of heaven on earth) the argument could be made for the subordination of Mark as a mere servant of Peter and the See of Rome.
For the moment however I want to only draw the readers attention to what Origen's reference to a continual thread going through the story of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13-21) and the Rich Man (cf. Matt. 19:16 - 30, Mark 10:17 - 31, Luke 18:18 - 30) to the Rich Man and Lazarus (cf. Luke 16:19 - 31) means for the study of Secret Mark.
Meyer and a number of scholars have already noted that LGM 1 seems to connect with later 'Mark sightings' (cf. Mark 14:52). When you realize that Clement's successor secretly employs a text which blends together the material which PRECEDES LGM 1 so that in effect we have a 'bad' rich person and 'good' rich person who end up in the underworld the 'sudden' appearance of the resurrection of this rich neaniskos in LGM 1 and the material we have been examining pertaining to the 'redemption' ritual of 'those of Mark' suddenly have a solid context which confirm our interpretation about the gospel being about the seating of one of Jesus' disciples on the throne of God.
McCarthy's translation of Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron has a useful table in the Appendix for what the shape of his text looked like. I want the reader to pay close attention to it:
XV 1 - 11 The Rich Man
XV 12 - 13 The Rich Man and Lazarus
XV 14 - 17 The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard
XV 18 - 19 The Request of James and John
XV 20 - 21 Zacchaeus
XV 22 The Blind Man of Jericho
It is worth noting that Tertullian (or his source) says that 'those of Mark' (the Marcionites) did not preserve the Parable of the Labourers when he compared it to his single, long gospel. If we insert LGM 1 into this basic structure we get:
The Foolish Dives
The Young Dives
Dives and Lazarus (orig. the two Divites in the underworld?)
LGM 1 (the Resurrection of the Young Dives)
The Request of James and John
Zacchaeus (the practical application of the lessons of the previous section; see Clement Quis Dives)
etc.
I think there is a natural order here. I think we can actual prove through a variety of 'single, long gospel' variants (such as the text at the heart of the Acts of John) that it was well known that a resurrection followed the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative. I also have noticed that Clement in his Dives commentary connects Zacchaeus as the conclusion of the story of the Rich Man (Ephrem does the same).
I have just started to develop this argument but I think the discerning reader will recognize what I consider to be the original shape of the gospel. You can also read more about this in my book, including why I identify the Diatessaron specifically as a gospel of Mark. The clue appears right at the front of many Diatessaron manuscripts ...
The point I have been reinforcing here is that given Origen's identification of a common thread throughout the first half of these reference and our development of a plausible thread through the gospel. The real question of course is why more scholars aren't following up on this very old lead ...
If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here
If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here
