Of course the one 'holy grail' that neither he nor anyone seems to want to touch is the sanctity of the existence of four gospel traditions associated with 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John.' As someone who was born into a non-Christian household I subscribe to the Islamic interpretation of the gospel. When I look at all the evidence I cannot help but see that there had to have been one original single, long gospel written in Hebrew (how could the new Torah been written in any other language than the language of God?) but possibly only in Aramaic.
I see no reason to doubt that this text could have been written by Mark (there are no other candidates for author of the original text are there?). While we are engaging in speculation I see no reason why Mark would have been incapable of translating his own work into Greek and establishing one of the two texts (or both) in Alexandria.
I needn't expound my theory on the origins of John - viz. Polycarp of Smyrna. I think the text was Diatessaron-like, a version of the text in the hands of Justin and Tatian only with 'Johannine' material added by Polycarp's own hand (undoubtedly under the power of the Holy Spirit.
I think Irenaeus is responsible for breaking up the texts into four - 'the one who smelt it dealt it' as we say in Canada.
I have months and years to formulate my single, long gospel theory to explain the origin of the New Testament canon but the important thing is that we can use Scott Brown to demonstrate that the Secret Mark is authentically Markan and avoid all the moronic explanation for how it relates to the four canonical gospels which - by their very nature (i.e. being first introduced by Irenaeus c. 180 CE) were subsequent to this Alexandrian autograph.
If you want proof that Irenaeus' texts were subsequent to Johannine single, long gospel just consider that:
(a) Polycarp's citation of gospel material in his letter to the Philippians clearly reflects a non-canonical gospel very similar in form to what appears in the 1 and 2 Clement. As such Irenaeus claims to have preserved the 'true teachings' (and by implication, the original gospel) of Polycarp are dubious.
(b) The fact that Florinus was a so-called 'Valentinian' but challenged Irenaeus' version of the 'orthodoxy' of Polycarp should raise further doubts about the 'Johannine tradition' Irenaeus claims to have received via Polycarp. I think a convincing case can be made that Valentinians used a Diatessaron-like single, long Johannine gospel such as the one employed by the author of the Acts of John.
(c) The fact that Gaius of Rome's understanding of what was in the Gospel of John no longer matches what appears in our canonical texts but more closely resembles the Diatessaron also points to a reconstruction of the shape of this gospel and others in the Commodian age
(d) The fact that the Syriac Church remembers that it used to be identified by the name ‘Maphriyono’ (Maphrian) the 'fruitful' Church or the Church of 'many fruits' when that community used a single, long gospel into the fifth century. As I have shown elsewhere Irenaeus avoids using the name 'Polycarp' in his writings whenever possible preferring instead to identify him as 'the Elder.' I have demonstrated elsewhere that 'Polycarp' didn't use a personal name. He was known by his contemporaries as 'the Stranger' or a multitude of names.
If we actually bother to scrutinize Irenaeus' methodology it becomes immediately apparent that 'Polycarp' is yet another name created through a back-formation. The spiritual church that called itself 'Maphriyono' must have had a spiritual leader who Irenaeus identified as 'Polycarp' through its Aramaic equivalent 'Ephraim.' In the same way we have identified at this site time and time again (with the help of one of the leading Semitic scholars in the world, Rory Boid) that the name 'Marcion' was similarly formed through a back formation from the Aramaic term 'those of Mark' - viz. Marqiyone.
The list of these Irenaean 'invented personalities' includes the 'Ebion' of the 'Ebionites' and perhaps (it is difficult to know who first coined this term) Elxi of the Elchasites.
The point is that when we turn to our recent rediscovery of the existence of the Alexandrian autograph of the Gospel of Mark it is impossible not to see that the 'Marqiyone' and the 'Marcosians' were ultimately related to the Alexandrian See of St. Mark where Clement held the status of 'governor' (so Severus Al'Ashemunein).
The Marcionites used a Diatessaron like gospel which inevitably agreed with western readings of the Mark. The business about them employing a bastard copy of Luke was an invention of Irenaeus. The only difference was that it did not have a 'John the Baptist baptism' narrative at its beginning. Tertullian makes this explicit when he notes that the mention of 'John' in Luke 5:27 - 39 is the first mention of a person of this name anywhere in the Marcionite gospel:
From what direction does John make his appearance? Christ unexpected: John also unexpected. With Marcion all things are like that: with the Creator they have their own compact order. The rest about John later, since it is best to answer each separate point as it arises. At present I shall make it my purpose to show both that John is in accord with Christ and Christ in accord with John, the Creator's Christ with the Creator's prophet, that so the heretic may be put to shame at having to no
advantage made John's work of no advantage. [Tertullian Against Marcion iv:11]
Of course most scholars pay little attention to Marcion and the Marcionite hoping that these guys will go away and allow them to perpetuate their 'perfect little world' of four gospels, Paul, Peter and all the other invented personalities they have learned to accept.
Yet if we dare to ask dangerous questions - we have to consider how the Marcionites could have engaged in a 'redemptive baptism' with John appearance in Luke 5:33 "They said to him, "John's disciples often fast and pray ..."
The only answer my friends was that the Marcionites had Jesus baptism somewhere later in their Diatessaron-like gospel, somewhere after the words "I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!" [Luke 12:50]
If we want to get back to the topic of the Gospel of Mark we should consider for a moment that Hippolytus makes explicit that some in his day at least identified Marcion with both the invented Catholic personalities of Mark, the subordinated servant of Peter and Paul:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.
We will henceforth abandon the invented Irenaean backformation of 'Marcion' and simply call the leader of the Marqiyone, Mark for this is what the Aramaic necessarily implies.
Mark's community (the Marqiyone) had interestingly a letter to the Alexandrians taking us one step closer to the pre-Irenaean Alexandrian New Testament canon. Yet I think we can go beyond this tentative understanding.
Of course if we allow ourselves to be cynical with Irenaeus' methodology - IF indeed 'Marcion' of the Marcionites wasn't just some heretic who had an opinion about 'Paul' (even the earliest) but indeed was the actual apostle who wrote the original letters of the canon as a commentary on the gospel that he received from heaven THEN it would follow that Irenaeus had to invented 'Paul' as a means of wresting the canon out from under the authority of Mark.
To be honest with you I have never understood where the apostle Paul is understood to have had the authority by Catholics to write authoritatively on Jesus when he is said to have never actually seen the Lord.
In any event I will develop an appreciation of the Marcionite canon in the posts that will follow. It is enough to say that castration was employed in the Marcionite baptism ritual - this in order to transform the individual catechumen into angels.
With this background for one 'community of Mark' let's turn to that other 'community of Mark' that Irenaeus reports on in the Rhone valley. I have literally been thinking about much of the evidence I have assembled in this blog as I was driving around Seattle today and I think we have a glimpse into the formation of the canonical Mark right before our eyes.
Yet let's start at the beginning. The Marcosians are said by Irenaeus to have a baptism ritual connected with Mark x.38. Morton Smith identifies LGM 1 as a baptism ritual (a 'second baptism' ritual if you count the 'John the Baptism baptism ritual' as the first). Yet Irenaeus - always the objective pursuer of truth goes out of his way to both report on this sect and direct our understanding of what the truth should be when he says:
They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Fullness, since this [regeneration] it is which leads them down into the depths of Depth. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it." Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?" Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.
Now the thought that was buzzing around in my head all day is why scholars think that Irenaeus is only telling us what the Marcosians believe. It is apparent from his methodology in this book and in other books in the series that Irenaeus real purpose is not to conduct an objective assessment of what the heresies themselves believed but what the heresies said and in turn what we should believe in light of their claims.
To this end it is important to note that Irenaeus seems to repeat himself as he reports the beliefs of the Marcosians:
For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection.
Yet if we really look carefully this last line:
the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection.
This should NOT be seen as something that the heresies believed; it was normative Christian belief in Irenaeus' day. It is the line before which represents the heretical formulation:
For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual.
Now I am not going to spend the time explaining WHAT the heretical idea was. Rather it is only important that Irenaeus doesn't just 'report the facts' he emphasizes what the 'real truth' or 'true belief' is after citing the 'error' of the heresies.
So let's label these two different ideas (a) and (b):
(a) is the claims of 'those of Mark' - "the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection."
(b) is the 'correct belief' of Irenaeus - "the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection."
Now let's return to the argument which immediately follows. Irenaeus writes:
And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it."
The obvious question that never gets asked by anyone is whether this line is representative of an argument put forward by the Marcosians to support (a) - i.e. their beliefs about 'Jesus' and 'Christ' having separate experience at their mutual baptism or a continuation of (b) Irenaeus expounding what 'correct belief' is for the Catholic Church.
The natural reading of the text is that is a continuation of (b) so we should read:
And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it."
as if this is Irenaeus speaking directly to his audience correcting the Marcosian understanding of Mark x.38 being related to a 'different baptism' than the 'John the Baptism' narrative that we are used to.
Now let's go on to the next line which immediately follows:
Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?" Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.
This is critical. There can be no doubt that Irenaeus begins by reporting what the beliefs of the Marcosians are:
Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee
Yet does it stand that what follows represents what the Marcosians believed or is it Irenaeus disproving or distracting us from the implications of what they believed or what they held the gospel said in the line which immediately followed:
when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?"
I think I have the answer to the question by looking to the line which follows this one:
Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms
If you look at this final line in the paragraph it follows the pattern we saw in the first sentence. Irenaeus begins by reporting what the Marcosians believed and then immediately follows it with what knows to be the truth:
(a) Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus
(b) and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.
So really you have a series of compound arguments where Irenaeus first reports and then corrects the subject of his investigation:
Argument 1:
(a) The Marcosians believe "the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection."
(b) But we believe "the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection." And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it."
Argument 2
(a) "Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom"
(b) notice the Lord "saying, 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?'
Argument 3
(a) "Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"
(b) "and this [redemption] was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms."
The argument of course which interests me is Argument 2 - was what is expressed here in (b) a reflection of what was in the gospel of the community of Mark or what Irenaeus told them what the truth of the gospel was?
The way to answer the question of course is to determine what the shape of the Marcosian gospel was. I have already noted that they employed a single, long gospel - i.e. a Diatessaron like text - which I think was 'according to Mark.'
Now I have an easy solution to Clement's words to To Theodore that 'After these words' - "After three days he shall arise" - "follows the text, 'And James and John come to him', and all that section." Clement has already read Irenaeus' Against the Heresies and knows that the great Roman heresiarch has identified a heretical practice associated with a text of the Gospel of St. Mark which had the mother of the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus to allow them to sit to his right and left. Clement is deliberately feeding disinformation acknowledging that these two additions were in the text but the other things Irenaeus was writing about were not present.
Indeed Hippolytus ends up acknowledging that his master Irenaeus 'got it wrong' when he re-introduces the information about the redemption ritual.
Now that we have answered that question let's turn around one of our own. What gospel do scholars think Irenaeus citing is when he reports argument 2:
"Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?"
Is it (1) Mark with the addition of the reference to the mother of the sons of Zebedee (2) Matthew with the addition of 'can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?' or (3) a Diatessaron-like text which happens to cite 'can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?' which we know was not present in Ephraim's text?
Origen already witnesses in this period that Mark had this addition and Matthew did not.
I happen to think Irenaeus is citing AND correcting a heretical gospel of Mark as we see him do over and over in later books of Against the Heresies. Look at Book III chapter 10:
(i) Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord ... For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same
(ii) Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet ... [that] God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.
(iii) Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.
The point is that in each example of Irenaeus' treatment of the gospel of Mark Irenaeus tacitly acknowledges that there IS a heretical interpretation of each of these narratives which somehow involved two 'secret powers' but Irenaeus only informs us what the heretics believed in order to open the door for him to inform us what the correct doctrine is.
To this end I think that when Irenaeus reports:
(a) "Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom"
he quickly introduces what HE SAYS Mark wrote viz.
(b) the Lord "saying, 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?'"
as a way of disproving the heretical claims about a baptism narrative like LGM 1 which immediately preceded Mark x.38.
As I noted earlier by the time Irenaeus (?) wrote the Anonymous Treatise on (Heretical) Baptism or one of his associates the 'corrected reading' of Mark x.38
But "I have another baptism to be baptized with." [Luke 12:50] Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: "Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" [Mark 10:38]
Yet doesn't this 'organic' develop to the original argument about the Gospel of Mark leave open the possibility that ADDED 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?' to Mark x.38 as a way of rejecting the Marcosian argument that the baptism had already occurred?
Consider that Origen explicitly says that his (Alexandrian) tradition did not interpret the baptism that Jesus refers to in Luke 12.50 was a martyrdom reference. Instead as he understands the passage it has to do with 'angels ... desiring to be with those who have prepared themselves [and] been cleansed by Jesus.'
I think the answer is obvious folks - Irenaeus re-engineered the gospel of Mark to hide the redemption ritual of the original community of Mark.
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
