We have been trying to solve the two thousand year old problem of why there isn't a single reference to Mark 14:51 - 52 before the late fourth century. Now before I get dismissed as another 'conspiracy theorist' let it be noted that there is evidence of the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark in the late second century (Irenaeus, Clement) and then suddenly the long ending disappears in a number of manuscripts of Mark from the fourth century. While scholars shy away from speculating WHY something occurred and instead feel much more comfortable reporting on only 'the facts' the truth is that a controversy about the long ending is indeed discernible from the early period.
Irenaeus and Clement have two different understandings of what the longer ending meant. I think that Clement and all those who employed a Diatessaron-type text (i.e. who preferred a single, long gospel to the four canonical texts introduced by Irenaeus) ALL developed monarchian interpretations from the longer ending.
Just think about it for a moment. There are essentially two single, longer gospels - the Gospel of the Hebrews (cf Epiphanius' equation of this text with the Diatessaron) and Secret Mark. This is generally recognized ('recognized' of course if you accept the authenticity of To Theodore; 'Secret Mark' is said to be 'hidden' and 'guarded' by the community of Alexandria at the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia ALONE i.e. without other gospels along side it; it is also associated with 'perfection'). What isn't so well recognized is that the two sons of Zebedee are identified by the traditions associated with each single, long gospel as being (a) the elusive neaniskos of the narrative and (b) as having sat on an Episcopal throne.
We needn't think about Mark 14:51 - 52 for the moment (even though the only two disciples who are ever identified with this neaniskos are again James and John Mark). Let's think in terms of the neaniskos with the linen cloth at the end of the gospel narrative. Origen makes clear that James appears in the Gospel according to the Hebrews tradition wearing this distinctive attire.
Now as a Jew first and a scholar of Christianity second I have always wondered about this figure named Jacob (James to you Europeans) who happens to have a relationship with a figure named Yeshu (yod-shin-vav). As I have shown in a previous post there can be no doubt about the form yod-shin-vav. Even Irenaeus testifies to its authenticity. Yet this coupling of Jacob and his 'brother' named yod-shin-vav seems remarkably similar to a pairing in the Torah of a guy named Jacob and his brother named ayin-shin-vav (Esau).
Call me stupid or overly imaginative but given that Christianity has always been called 'the religion of Edom' by my people and given the central significance of this pairing in Judaism, I have always resisted the attempts of people like Eisenman who develop theories about 'James the brother of Jesus' as if he was a real person. Just look at how ends up sitting on 'throne in Jerusalem' just as his brother John Mark ends up enthroned in Alexandria.
Of course most people look at these stories and argue that they are absolutely devoid of any historical truth. But let's deconstruct these myths one step further. If there were two separate single, long gospel traditions where in one text 'Jacob' was identified by the Aramaic speaking community associated with it as the neaniskos of the narrative while in the other 'John' was similarly identified by the community associated with the Greek narrative we have the distinct possibility that the same person was identified in two different ways by two different single, long gospel communities.
Here's another way to look at the problem. The specific name 'Mark' is never identified anywhere in any gospel text ANYWHERE. This does not disprove the idea that Christian communities from the very beginning of Christianity identified 'Mark' as having a part in the gospel. Indeed any community that held this point of view necessarily had to have understood that his identity was veiled behind other names or identities in the gospel.
Now let's turn to Clement's identification of the story of Zacchaeus 'completing' the narrative of his longer gospel of John. If we look carefully we see that he offers up two names for the identity of this figure:
Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, "To-day salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." [Quis dives salvetur 13]
Indeed that Clement is citing from two different gospel traditions (one which identified 'Matthew' as the name of the little disciple who climbed the tree in the Zacchaeus narrative) is confirmed by another statement in Stromata Book 4 where Clement writes:
It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, "Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;" on which the Saviour said, "The Son of man, on coming to-day, has found that which was lost." [Strom iv.6]
Once this is again recognized not only do we have to recognize that Clement employed a variant gospel undoubtedly related to the Diatessaron but more importantly - and far more controversially I'm sure for most people - that many of the names in the gospel were recognized as being part of a 'shell game' designed by its original author Mark to hide his presence in the narrative.
Of course if New Testament scholars HAD ANY - and I mean ANY - knowledge of native Palestinian traditions in the period and Samaritanism in particular the appearance of this name 'Matthew' as another name for 'Zacchaeus' would immediately strike them as quite intriguing. Yes of course 'Matthew' is the name identified as the author of the Gospel according to the Hebrews by Irenaeus and others. This gives 'Matthew' the same status as 'Mark' in that he was identified as an author of a 'stand alone' gospel (Luke for instance only wrote his text after reading or acknowledging texts already in circulation).
But more significant still is the fact that Matthew is developed from the Aramaic equivalent of Dositheus the leader of a prominent Samaritan sect which - interestingly - the author of the Philosophumena identifies as the first Christian heresy! The name Mattanai or Mattai is well attested in rabbinic reports about early Christians but more significantly it is developed from a Hebrew root nathan which is always used in the Torah to describe God 'giving the gift' of the Torah to Moses.
Is it too much of a stretch now to see 'Matthew' as a title of Mark? I don't think so. I see the same thing at work with the name 'John' - i.e. God's grace. This was already suggested by my good friend, Rory Boid, the world's greatest authority on the Samaritans and professor at Monash University in Melbourne who wrote here:
I think the name John either derives from or represents what is said in John I:16-17. So John is a TITLE of Mark. The original Gospel MUST have started “The Gospel of Jesus the Son of God. In the beginning was the Word …..”This is because the essence of the Gospel is in the start of the later John.
Dositheus was called “father” and his followers were called the children of Dositheus. They were empowered to become children of God by Dositheus. “They said the dead would rise soon as children of Dositheus the Prophet of God”. “They said the dead would rise soon as thanks to Dositheus and his sons and daughters”. John I:12 “… he gave POWER TO BECOME children of God”.
All four later gospels are called after the same two persons, the second Moses and his Apostle = Anointed Prince AND THE EVENT OF THE GIVING OF THE SECOND TORAH.
Mark. The book of both Marcus Agrippa and the Second Moses.
John. The second and better Torah.
Matthew. The giving of the second Torah.
Luke (from Latin Lucius). The book of the SHINING ONE. Moses covered his face with a veil because the Israelites could not bear the radiance. Compare the Transfiguration.
So Mark WAS called John, AS A SYMBOLIC NAME.
And Matthew is Mark. Thus the tradition that Matthew is the oldest gospel.
It should be mentioned now that Boid made the connection with Agrippa that Agrippa sat in a throne in BOTH Alexandria and Jerusalem.
I know this will take more arguing to convince people but luckily we have a lot of time to do this ...
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
