You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations ... [f]or, priding themselves in knowledge ... and boasting that they are free ... [they] are to be opposed in all ways and altogether ... [owing to] the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark.
Clearly the 'boast' that they are 'free' is related to their claim to 'have acquired knowledge' from the grand gnostikos himself - viz. Mark (see Plato's use of this term for a clarification of the way it is being used here). This preliminary understanding only opens the door to a central tenet of their 'unspeakable teaching' which is not explicitly referenced in the letter.
The contents of To Theodore then can only be viewed as 'damage control' developed by Clement on behalf of the Alexandrian community as a whole. Why would Clement take this responsibility upon his shoulders? One clue might be the Coptic historian Severus Al'Ashmunein's identification of Clement as a 'governor' of the Christian community - (Severus, History of the Coptic Church I. iv.4, ib., VI. 6).
Clement's 'damage control' which immediately follows is a reaction against the main thrust of their contemporary teachings which have made their way to Rome (see below). As such we should note that Clement begins his response by echoing Irenaeus' position on the composition of Mark while leaving 'wiggle room' for the authenticity of the Alexandrian autograph:
some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor. As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings ... [which] he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes (and those of Peter), from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.
Clearly those identified as 'Carpocratians' identify their knowledge as having come from Mark and his 'Secret Gospel' which they say is the only true version of the gospel written by the evangelist. Clement is attempting to mediate traditional Alexandrian pride in their preferred text with a desire not to upset the authorities in Rome.
Nevertheless we continue a little further in the text to see what these 'hierophantic teachings' are which Clement again goes to great pains to say are not explicitly expressed in the text:
to the stories already written [in the familiar gospel of Mark claimed to have been written in Rome] he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
I don't think this reference to an actual physical 'Church of St. Mark' in Alexandria, an inner most adyton, a 'truth' hidden by seven veils, the 'initiation' of initiates into the mystery of the Christian religion and an autograph copy of the Gospel of Mark in the innermost sanctuary are at all coincidental. They fit within a pattern which suggest - at least to me - that the hidden context of the letter is political.
Let's begin with some indisputable facts. There really was a 'Church of St. Mark' located in Boucolia just outside of the eastern walls of the city of Alexandria. This was a real building which is well reported throughout antiquity and whose location has been rediscovered by my friend Harry Tzalas.
As I demonstrate in my soon to be released scholarly article in the Journal of Coptic Studies in all reports about this building there are three basic 'facts' which emerge about this church - (1) the throne of St. Mark, (2) the body of St. Mark and (3) the autographed copy of the Gospel of St. Mark. All three objects were stolen by Venetian sailors in 828 CE and brought back to Italy. This isn't idle speculation; it is documented fact (albeit ignored by all scholars who have written on this subject).
We have references to at least two of the three items in this report by Clement. The autograph of St. Mark is explicit; the throne of St. Mark is implicit based on the reference to the 'truth hidden by seven veils.' My argument for this is located here.
I think I have rediscovered the original episcopal throne of Alexandria. But for the moment I would like to explain why the word adyton is used by Clement here. It all comes down to the physical layout of Coptic Church which from the very beginning had an adyton (Lat adytum) an area which separated the catechumen from the rest of the congregation.
I can explain the physical layout of a Coptic church by referring to an online description of a Greek orthodox building here. The oldest Coptic Churches always have the bishop's throne on the easternmost wall. This is what gives the name adyton added significance when you look at pictures of what I argue was the original episcopal throne of Alexandria.
As I see it, the person sitting in the throne represented a living embodiment of the anatole - viz. the 'dayspring' - which is a well established codeword for 'Christ' in Jewish writings. However this mystery is only 'understood' by those who have 'penetrated the veil' - i.e. the catechumen who have underwent the initiation into the sacred mysteries. This would be unknown to those who were members of the congregation who remained on the 'other side' of the veil, those 'believers' who had not underwent initiation into the sacred mysteries.
I can't believe that with all the TEXTUAL CRITICISM that has been undertaken to prove or disprove the authenticity of the letter to Theodore that not a single person before me has carried out a CONTEXTUAL ASSESSMENT of the document within the existing framework of Alexandrian Christianity.
The point as I have stressed time and time again is that while we can't know for certain what the 'Carpocratians' were saying to prompt Clement to write this response but whatever it is scholars have not gotten it right yet. I would argue that the 'truth hidden by seven veils' - viz. the Episcopal throne of St. Mark - was referenced by the original Carpocratian testimony either indirectly (i.e. a statement like 'only the Alexandrian tradition has the true gospel of St. Mark) or directly.
I think the former proposition is far more likely. This is why Clement has to reassure Theodore that the Alexandrian claims about 'Secret Mark' do not contradict the 'accepted understanding' developed in Irenaeus about Mark being written in Rome as 'Peter' gospel' (notice however how vague Clement's language is when it comes to making an explicit confirmation that indeed even the canonical gospel of Mark is belongs to Peter as Irenaeus would claim).
I have argued at length that when you really look at Irenaeus' statements about the Carpocratians in Against the Heresies you will notice
(a) they appear subsequent to the original work (i.e. chapters 1 - 21 were written first and then Irenaeus (or someone else) added the famous bit that details the heresies from Simon Magus to the Cainites.
(b) the information about the Carpocratians associates them with a 'little Marcia' who came to Rome in the middle of the second century and was well known to the Roman Christian community at the time of the rewrite. My guess is that this figure is Marcia Cedonia Demetrias the mistress of Commodus and the information was written in a period after the Commodian age.
(c) I find it impossible to distinguish between the 'Marcosians' in the original version of AH chapter 1 and the Carpocratians that were added later.
(d) I am also struck by the similarity between the name of the little boy at the heart of the mysteries of Serapis - Harpocrates - and the name of this supposed Christian sect. The 'Marcosians' are repeated connected with the concept of 'silence' which is central to the cult of Harpocrates.
(e) Hadrian's original report (among others) which identifies a connection between Alexandrian Christianity and the cult of Serapis which included the aforementioned Harpocrates.
When sorting through all this evidence my best guess is that:
(i) Irenaeus when he initially attacked the Marcosians sect he discovered in the Rhone Valley in the south of France in the first draft of Against the Heresies did not recognize its connection with the Church of Alexandria - viz. that 'Marcus' was in fact the St. Mark of Alexandria preserved outside the borders of Egypt. The evidence for the connection between St. Mark and the gnostic Marcus is preserved here.
In that report about the Marcosians (a) information about a Markan 'gospel harmony' is revealed as well as (b) a Markan interest in a rite of 'preparation' which Jesus supposedly initiated John-Mark into as per Mark 10.38 - 45
(ii) At some point after his initial reports about the 'Marcosians' members of the Alexandrian were question in Rome (or somewhere else under the authority of the Roman Church) and more information about 'Alexandrian heresies' came forward, Irenaeus began to get suspicious about a connection between the Alexandrian church of St. Mark and the 'Marcosians' of the south of France, Rome and Asia Minor.
It was in response to this incident that Clement (or perhaps another Alexandrian) developed the claims about a separate 'Carpocratian' sect which was spread around the world. One might even be tempted to say that the information which prompted the letter to Theodore came from Marcia Cedonia Demetrias herself. Clement explained away her false information by saying that she was really a member of a semi-pagan sect which blended Greek philosophy and Christianity. This information was added in a subsequent rewrite of Against the Heresies.
(iii) now we come to the most important layer in the history of the inter-relationship between Irenaeus' Against the Heresies and To Theodore (and the writings of Clement). Hippolytus strangely acknowledges after Irenaeus and Clement have both died that:
(a) Irenaeus' initial report about the Marcosians was flawed and
(b) that the tradition he initially reported on was within the Great Church and was responsible for a lot of the misinformation which made its way into Irenaeus' works.
Let's take a moment to examine Hippolytus' strangely cautious recounting of his master Irenaeus' original report about the Marcosians.
Hippolytus begins his first chapter (ch 34) with a more or less verbatim appropriation of the material from Irenaeus viz. Marcus is the anti-Christ etc. However we should notice that towards the end of the chapter Hippolytus introduces the idea that he is reporting on a report of Irenaeus that was widely read by all members of the presbytery:
... they make dupes of many, and thoroughly ruin them. And if it should prove agreeable to them to apply their attention with greater accuracy to the statement made by us, they will become aware of the deceit of Marcus.
In chapter 37 Hippolytus references these 'dupes' again saying:
And so it was that he was magnified by his dupes, and sometimes he was supposed to utter predictions ... Hoodwinking therefore multitudes, he led on many (dupes) of this description who had become his disciples, by teaching them that they were prone, no doubt, to sin, but beyond the reach of danger, from the fact of their belonging to the perfect power, and of their being participators in the inconceivable potency.
Irenaeus makes clear that in the contemporary context of the time he was writing, this applied to Imperial persecutions - viz. that members of the sect thought that this 'special gnostic' baptism could protect them from the authorities. Nevertheless as Hippolytus and Irenaeus imply this is nonsense as many followers of Mark were indeed persecuted in the period.
Nevertheless if the reader looks carefully Hippolytus has actually corrected what appears in Irenaeus although most scholars haven't noticed this because people rarely bother to read Hippolytus' recycling of Against the Heresies. Anyway, Hippolytus makes clear that there were two parts to the Markan ritual - baptism and then 'redemption' as he notes in what immediately follows:
and subsequent to the baptism, to these they promise another (ritual), which they call Redemption. And by this 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 committed unto them, they then admit them to this (ritual). They, however, do not rest satisfied with this alone, but promise (their votaries) some other for the purpose of confirming them in hope, in order that they may be inseparable. For they utter something in an inexpressible 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.
As I have noted elsewhere I am certain that this baptism and 'redemption' ritual is connected with the rite which Jesus is described as initiating his beloved disciple (John-Mark) in Secret Mark.
Nevertheless for the present moment I want only to draw the readers attention to the fact that Hippolytus has been reworking Irenaeus' original testimony. The reason for this is that something has resurfaced since the publication of the various rewrites of Against Heresies that has caused some to question the authority (and accuracy) of his description of the sect.
Hippolytus immediately notes that:
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.
This is a rather startling admission on the part of Irenaeus' chief disciple. Why has Hippolytus qualified his acceptance of the description of the ritual? The answer is clear from the very next line:
(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 (ritual), which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny).
It is important to take note of what is actually being said here. Hippolytus has to acknowledge that Irenaeus' report about the Marcosians was inaccurate. It's not just that the heretics refuted his arguments, Hippolytus and others in Rome have to come to learn that the baptism and the redemption are two distinct rituals. This wasn't clear in Irenaeus' report.
Yet what is the source of this new information? Could it be Clement's Letter to Theodore? It is difficult to say with any degree of certainly but let's look again at the two 'parts' of the initiation:
(a) and straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich.
(b) And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.
It is difficult for me to say anything that countless better qualified scholars before me haven't noticed about this passage. One would expect a baptism to come after the reference to the naked youth. Yet water immersion could only take a short period of time. There had to be something else which filled up the long duration of time which is specified in what follows - "he remained with him that night." We don't know what the Carpocratians were claiming to prompt the letter to Theodore but by citing the material in question Clement WOULD HAVE made clear that Irenaeus report about a mere baptism ritual called 'redemption' was entirely false.
Just reading Irenaeus' claims in the original material in Against the Heresies you'd think that it was this was a 'second baptism' ritual. Yet Hippolytus goes out of his way to say that he has learned from 'those of Mark' that Irenaeus' report was inaccurate. There were in fact two parts to the ritual - water immersion and then something else called 'redemption' - which Hippolytus goes out of his way to say did not really protect the members of the sect.
Why would the Marcosians have thought that the ritual described in Secret Mark would protect them from inquisitions? Well if you think in terms of the gospel narrative that follows the beloved disciple - John Mark - does indeed escape the authorities, either in Mark 14:52 or in another version known to the Alexandrians, he makes it all the way to see and participate in the Passion of Christ without having any harm occur against his person.
Now I have already developed some speculation regarding a connection between this ritual and the Marcosian baptism often described as a 'baptism on behalf of the dead' or 'baptism of the dead.' Notice the beloved disciples original state before his regeneration.
Also notice how Clement goes out of his way to deny what appears to be the original 'Carpocratian' claim regarding what took place after the baptism - i.e. 'the Redemption.' Clement goes out of his way to say that:
after these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
We will never likely know what the so-called 'Carpocratians' said that prompted the letter but if I am correct about the association with Marcionitism we know damn well what took place in the ten or twelve hours which followed the immersion in the waters - ritual castration. This is why the ritual is called 'redemption.'
For those who would like to follow up on the idea that Marcia Cedonia Demetrias was the original 'Carpocratian' we should note (a) that she was a sinful 'whore' hence connecting her with the tradition admonished in Jude and (b) her close associate Hyacinthus was a Christian castrati ...
Now for those who say that there is no direct connection between the testimony of Hippolytus and that of To Theodore aside from a discussion of the same section of Mark (Irenaeus specifically cites Mark x.38 to introduce the concept of 'redemption') I should draw the readers attention to how Hippolytus characterized the response of these unnamed 'followers of Mark' to Irenaeus' original testimony:
(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
Compare this with what Clement says his Alexandrian community of St. Mark do when people cite the claims of these Carpocratians against them and the autograph copy of the gospel in their most sacred church:
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". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind.
I think this is a dead match and the connection with those who respond to false information about the heretical beliefs of the Markan tradition is a tantalizing clue as to the context for the authorship of To Theodore - the only clue that we have available to us.
One more thing which also should be said.
Very attention is given to the last lines of To Theodore because so much attention is given to determining whether or not 'Secret Mark' is a real text or something Morton Smith invented out of his 'gay' hostility against the Church.
Yet notice the reference to the 'truth' mentioned earlier being hidden by 'seven veils' later being connected by Clement in To Theodore to the rising sun or 'dayspring.' He identifies Alexandrian orthodoxy as:
teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high"
Now I ask my readers to look at the throne of St. Mark in Venice:
.jpg)
The truth hidden by seven veils and the truth which enlightens the initiates to the 'dayspring on high' is to the episcopal throne of the Church of Mark in Alexandria. I have sought to identify this with the throne of St. Mark which was stolen by Venetian sailors from the same Church in 828 CE. It is clearly meant to represent the solar chariot of the anatole - or 'dayspring' - which can be demonstrated by the reference to 'the ninth vision' of Zechariah which is referenced in the symbolism on the backrest.
It all comes down to understanding the mystical significance of the throne I discovered in Venice and the symbolism of the Pope sitting on that chair.
+(1).jpg)
In order to understand how this symbolism PROVES that the man who sat on this Episcopal throne was taken to be the living 'dayspring' or anatole you'll have to read my book the Real Messiah
Why not try and acquaint yourselves with some new ideas today?
My mother is coming from Canada so the number of posts I will put up at this site will drop considerably over the next week. Nevertheless I have develop a great volume of information this month already. Go back in chronological order and see many of the ideas develop to the point we're at now.
I should mention that my next project will be to demonstrate my suspicion that Secret Mark is developed as a 'super gospel' - viz. a parallel text to the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Diatessaron. I will do so by citing extensively from Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron. Anyway that's what's up next ...
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
