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. [AH iii.11.14]
Apatheia is among the most consistent attributes of 'Christ' in Clement's writings. However Irenaeus tells us that this community which 'prefers the gospel of Mark' appears in all other respects orthodox but SECRETLY holds a doctrine where Jesus and Christ were two separate people. We read:
These men do, in fact, set the Spirit aside altogether; they understand that Christ was one and Jesus another; and they teach that there was not one Christ, but many. And if they speak of them as united, they do again separate them: for they show that one did indeed undergo sufferings, but that the other remained impassible; that the one truly did ascend to the Pleroma, but the other remained in the intermediate place; that the one does truly feast and revel in places invisible and above all name, but that the other is seated with the Demiurge, emptying him of power. It will therefore be incumbent upon thee, and all others who give their attention to this writing, and are anxious about their own salvation, not readily to express acquiescence when they hear abroad the speeches of these men: for, speaking things resembling the [doctrine of the] faithful, as I have already observed, not only do they hold opinions which are different, but absolutely contrary, and in all points full of blasphemies, by which they destroy those persons who, by reason of the resemblance of the words, imbibe a poison which disagrees with their constitution, just as if one, giving lime mixed with water for milk, should mislead by the similitude of the colour; as a man" superior to me has said, concerning all that in any way corrupt the things of God and adulterate the truth, "Lime is wickedly mixed with the milk of God. [AH iii.17.4]
I have already noted at another blog that this lime adulterating milk is quite similar to the adulteration of salt in To Theodore. Yet for the moment I would just like to emphasize those who secretly 'prefer the Gospel of Mark' are consistently referenced by Irenaeus as having THE SAME hetero-orthodox view throughout Book III.
In chapter 10 of the same book he goes to great length to emphasize WHAT THE RIGHT BEGINNING AND ENDING to the gospel of Mark teaches. After demonstrating that the opening words reflect a common teaching with the Jewish prophets, Irenaeus goes on to write:
I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. 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: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus 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. [ibid AH iii.10.5]
Of course James Snapp has recently demonstrated from the Latin text of Cassiodorus that Clement had a similar longer ending to Irenaeus:
Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if He was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power. But powers mean the holy angels. Further, when He says "at the right hand of God," He means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand; that is, that He rests in pre-eminent honour. In the other Gospels, however, He is said not to have replied to the high priest ...
I needn't get into all of the intricate details of Snapp's argument. They are spelled out in clear detail at his site.
The bottom line is that Irenaeus emphasizes that 'the right hand of God' means God the Father:
Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same
Yet Clement comes to a very different conclusion saying that the one who sits on the throne IS the Father and the beings called 'God' or 'power' are angels:
But powers mean the holy angels. Further, when He says "at the right hand of God," He means the self-same, by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand; that is, that He rests in pre-eminent honour.
I have demonstrated in previous posts that there is good reason to suspect that Clement and the Alexandrian tradition was monarchian - i.e. that they believed that Jesus was the presence of the Father and that the Son was the other being mentioned by Irenaeus - viz. 'Christ.' This group is often maligned as the 'Patripassian' sect because it was argued that they put forward that the Father suffered.
It should be noted that Irenaeus in the course of attacking 'those who prefer the gospel of Mark' in the passage above [AH iii.10.5] also noted that after 'divding Jesus and Christ' they say that each ends up in a different place after the Resurrection:
one does truly feast and revel in places invisible and above all name, but that the other is seated with the Demiurge, emptying him of power.
Could the different wording in Clement's gospel and the Diatessaron have encouraged the 'heresy' cited by Irenaeus - viz. the Son of Man being seated 'at the right hand of power' while the other figure ended up 'at the right hand of God'? It is difficult to say but notice that with Aphrahat's Diatessaron there is a clear sense of two Christ's in two different places:
I am with you till the world shall end. For Christ sits at the right hand of His Father, and Christ dwells among men. [Aphrahat Demonstrations 6]
The ending might well be deliberately ambiguous so as to make it unclear who ends up where.
I can't help but think that 'those of Mark' (a group which necessarily included Clement of Alexandria) knew that one of the disciples ended up sitting on an earthly throne while Jesus ascended to heaven 'truly feast and revel in places invisible and above all name.' This disciple - John Mark - would necessarily be the 'first bishop' of the Christian church, its first Pope.
+(1).jpg)
I just wonder whether the title demiourgos was ever applied to the bishop of Alexandria. After demiurge = Gk. demiourgos, lit. "public or skilled worker" (from demos "common people" + ergos "work"). The title of a magistrate in some Gk. city-states and the Achæan League; taken in Platonic philosophy as a name for the maker of the world.I think of course that the Diatessaron was developed from a deliberate alteration of Secret Mark (one which 'corrected' its original monarchian tendencies tied to the Episcopacy). I also can't help but think that the Alexandrian Patriarch who is already called 'judge of the world' would also be identified as 'maker of the world' too. That would certainly explain the reference in Irenaeus ...
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
