An Answer to the Question From Yesterday "Were the Alexandrians Denying that they Had a 'Secret' Version of Mark or was Clement Denying that the Carpocratian Gospel was by Mark?"

This blog's readership should now realize that while I am not a professor in any subject related to the Bible, this site has great connections. Many of the most important figures related to the controversy of Secret Mark read this blog on a weekly basis. Some even come here for news and views on a daily basis.

For whatever reason few people post any comments at my site. I attribute that to the WTF reaction that most of my posts get from the typically narrow-minded people in academia who ignore many crucial parts of the New Testament paradigm all related to Mark (i.e. the Marcionites, Marcosians, Samaritans just to name a few). There is also the possibility that these same scholars are too embarrassed to openly post things because of my reputation as a firebrand.

Whatever the case, I get emails - and plenty of them - each week. In fact I have been getting two or three emails a day over the last week, many from prominent professors in the field.

As I had a recent meltdown with a British couple I am very reluctant to publish these views at my site without the EXPLICIT permission through a separate email giving me permission to post any of these views. But as this latest email is on a very important subject I will publish this professor's views anonymously for the time being so that I can share his insight with my other readers.

I asked yesterday whether Morton Smith's or Scott Brown's translation of the original Greek of To Theodore correct - or - if you will "Were the Alexandrians Denying that they Had a 'Secret' Version of Mark or was Clement Denying that the Carpocratian Gospel was by Mark?"

Here is the answer from the distinguished professor is:

The text seems ambiguous to me.

The question is: is the mystic/secret Gospel in 2.10-11 the text of the Secret Gospel or is it the secret Gospel edited by the Carpocratians?

But if you note what Clement said in 1.8-9 (where it sounds like he is telling all lovers of truth to lie—that they should not to acknowledge what the Carpocratians say is true even if it actually is true).

His point I think is that Brown's translation doesn't fully erase the presence of Clement encouraging people to lie. Those who claim that Smith's original translation puts Clement in conflict with things Clement says elsewhere about 'always telling the truth' have to acknowledge that these words at the beginning of To Theodore STILL demonstrate inconsistency with that opinion:

Such men [the Carpocratians] are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, 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.

Yet I am starting wonder if the ambiguity was deliberate on Clement's part. You know, that Clement was 'veiling' his overall message behind DELIBERATE ambiguity to shield him from being associated with a forbidden position within the greater Church.

As such after thinking about Brown's translation in light of what the distinguished professor has written I am beginning to formulate a radical hypothesis which I hope will initiate a fruitful discussion.

I also have written a couple of posts about the identity of the Carpocratians and noted that whoever or whatever a Carpocratian was their identity came to be defined by a prominent member of the sect known as 'Marcellina' (little Marcia) who came to Rome during the reign of the two sons of Antoninus (c. 160 CE).

Again, even though Clement was writing from Alexandria and made reference to the Carpocratians in a few places in his Stromata, later revisions of Irenaeus' original work Against the Heresies in Five Books presented a much more degenerate portrait of the sect - undoubtedly owing to the influence of Marcia or Marcellina at Rome.

So here is my observation.

We have no idea when Clement wrote To Theodore but if it can be identified as being written from the period after he left Egypt for Cappadocia or Jerusalem (hence the preservation of the letter at Mar Saba rather than at Alexandria) we open the possibility that Clement was writing in a period when the term 'Carpocratians' had developed to mean 'those Romans who fell under the sway of Marcia.' As I have demonstrated in a previous post, 'little Marcia' is only referenced AFTER Hippolytus published the Refutation of All Heresies (which does not mention 'Marcellina').

The point here is that WHEN Clement says:

human opinions [are not to] be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

The natural question arises 'whose faith' is Clement talking about? Is this a universal faith that teaches Theodore about St. Mark's relationship to the Alexandrian Church? Of course not because the Evangelist's relationship with the Egyptian Church is nowhere mentioned in any of the writings of the other Church Fathers outside of Alexandria. Clearly then Clement is telling Theodore about an 'Alexandrian faith' about the relationship between St. Mark, his gospel and his martyrium at Boucolia.

Notice also how Clement the next section:

To them [the Carpocratians], therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For 'not all true things are to be said to all men. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor ...

segues into the story that follows:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings ....

Is there anyway of not seeing Clement as referencing the 'Carpocratian' version of history?

In other words, we have been thinking about the Carpocratians as some heretical 'boogeymen' who were engaged in wild sex and the like - and certainly - the writings of the third century accuse 'little Marcia' and her circle of engaging in ritualized debauchery. But my question now is whether the 'Carpocratians' are really just some group of 'heretical boogeymen' or rather that they are nothing short of an influential 'ex-patriots' of the Alexandrian Church who know the contents of 'Secret Mark' and claim that there are references to homosexuality because they were actively trying to discredit the Alexandrian tradition.

In other words, is Clement cryptically alluding to the idea that the Roman tradition was founded by a Carpocratian named Marcia - and in specific Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias the Christian concubine of Commodus who rescued the future Pope Callixtus from the mines.

Under this scenario what Clement is really opposing is the Roman version of how the Gospel of Mark was created - i.e. that it was written at Rome. Clement knows that he can't deny authority of the Roman text so he develops a scenario where the 'Carpocratians' associated with Marcia (i.e. Irenaeus and Victor whom Marcia conspired to rescue the Christians from the mines in the first place) put forward a story that "contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly." After saying the bit about the salt, Clement immediately proceeds to connect the story of Mark's writing of the gospel at Rome to the Carpocratians and - instead of outright denying the story - develops another scenario which "complete" their partly true, partly false historical narrative.

So we read in what immediately follows that:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what 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.

Again, let's remind ourselves that if Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias was the 'little Marcia' who like Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias came to Rome during the reign of the two Antonines then not only Callixtus but Victor (189 - 199 whom she conspired with to rescue the Christians from the mines in the first place) and Zephyrinus (199 - 217) would be properly identified as 'Carpocratians' because of their connection with her (Callixtus served as deacon to Zephyrinus so the two were clearly connected to the same 'tradition.'

As such my take on Scott Brown's reading is that what Clement is really saying is that only the Alexandrian Church has the true text of Mark. The Carpocratian (i.e. Irenaean) text represented an adulterated version of the Alexandrian original. As such whenever a Roman like Irenaeus spoke about 'the truth about the gospel of Mark' a true believer "must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For 'not all true things are to be said to all men.'"

All of which leads to the next question - were the persecutions of the third century developed from an Imperial policy during the 'Carpocratian period' to force Christians to swear by our existing New Testament canon?

Before my readership laughs consider the Scillitan Martyrs and their apparent punishment in the Commodian period for holding to a Marcionite canon (i.e. 'books of Paul'):

When Praesens, for the second time, and Claudianus were the consuls, on the seventeenth day of July, at Carthage, there were set in the judgment-hall Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Secunda and Vestia.

Saturninus the proconsul said: Ye can win the indulgence of our lord the Emperor, if ye return to a sound mind.

Speratus said: We have never done ill, we have not lent ourselves to wrong, we have never spoken ill, but when ill-treated we have given thanks; because we pay heed to OUR EMPEROR, Saturninus the proconsul said: We too are religious, and our religion is simple, and we swear by the genius of our lord the Emperor, and pray for his welfare, as ye also ought to do.

Speratus said: If thou wilt peaceably lend me thine ears, I can tell thee the mystery of simplicity.

Saturninus said: I will not lend mine ears to thee, when thou beginnest to speak evil things of our sacred rites; but rather swear thou by the genius of our lord the Emperor.

Speratus said: The empire of this world I know not; but rather I serve that God, whom no man hath seen, nor with these eyes can see. I have committed no theft; but if I have bought anything I pay the tax; because I know my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all nations.

Saturninus the proconsul said to the rest: Cease to be of this persuasion.

Speratus said: It is an ill persuasion to do murder, to speak false witness.

Saturninus the proconsul said: Be not partakers of this folly.

Cittinus said: We have none other to fear, save only our Lord God, who is in heaven.

Donata said: Honour to Caesar as Caesar: but fear to God.

Vestia said: I am a Christian.

Secunda said: What I am, that I wish to be.

Saturninus the proconsul said to Speratus: Dost thou persist m being a Christian?

Speratus said: I am a Christian. And with him they all agreed.

Saturninus the proconsul said: Will ye have a space to consider?

Speratus said: In a matter so straightforward there is no considering.

Saturninus the proconsul said: What are the things in your chest?

Speratus said: Books and epistles of Paul, a just man.

Saturninus the proconsul said: Have a delay of thirty days and bethink yourselves.

Speratus said a second time: I am a Christian. And with him they all agreed.

Saturninus the proconsul read out the decree from the tablet: Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Vestia, Secunda and the rest having confessed that they live according to the Christian rite, since after opportunity offered them of returning to the custom of the Romans they have obstinately persisted, it is determined that they be put to the sword.

Speratus said: We give thanks to God.

Nartzalus said: To-day we are martyrs in heaven; thanks be to God.

Saturninus the proconsul ordered it to be declared by the herald: Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Veturius, Felix, Aquilinus, Laetantius, Januaria, Generosa, Vestia, Donata and Secunda, I have ordered to be executed.

They all said: Thanks be to God.

And so they all together were crowned with martyrdom; and they reign with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen.

It only sounds crazy because people haven't thought of it before ...