Debunking the Myth of the 'Carpocratians' [Part One]

I have decided to stop arguing on behalf of the authenticity of the Mar Saba document. There simply is no weighty argument in favor of forgery any longer after Roger Viklund's analysis of Stephen Carlson's 'forger's tremor' argument.

In point of fact, I will never develop a better or more comprehensive argument in favor of authenticity than what is presented in Mark's Other Gospel. And now that Scott Brown has just won the Massachusetts Senate race, the whole business of arguing in favor of Secret Mark just seems like yesterday's news.

The one major issue that I had with Scott Brown's analysis is something that drives me crazy about ALL scholarly approaches to the writings of the Church Fathers.

There is very little depth in their studies. At most it is an opportunity to show off how many facts they have memorized.

In my mind the central question with regards to the Mar Saba document is the identity of the so-called 'Carpocratians.' Brown basically regurgitates the various statements which appear in the writings Clement. It is obvious that he assumes - like everyone else - that they were just a group of 'sexual libertines' within Christianity.

Yet has anyone ever stopped to think about this concept for a moment - 'Christian sexual libertines.' The very idea of 'Christian sexual libertines' in antiquity doesn't work on a number of levels.

Here is problem number one - Christianity, the gospel and Jesus in particular are not very sexy. If it wasn't for the fact that we have Church Fathers telling us that there was such a thing as a 'Christian sexual libertine'in antiquity no one would have believed it.

Let's go beyond the fact that whenever someone testifies about the physical appearance of Jesus they say he is ugly. Antinous by contrast was reportedly very attractive (at least to pedophiles). Priapus had a massive male member.

The point is that it makes sense having Antinous and Priapus at the heart of degenerate cults. Having a statue of Jesus at the heart of a 'Christian orgy' makes as much sense as having a statue of Woody Allen at an orgy.

Of course this just scratches the surface here. It is difficult to imagine people getting aroused by a religion whose central image is a crucified man. It is difficult to imagine a religion based around a secret Egyptian gospel which had such palpable hostility toward sex and sexuality could have engaged in 'sex rites.'

Christianity is just so strongly rooted in a rejection of fucking that I don't see how it is possible to have the sort of sects which the Church Fathers claim existed in antiquity.

I am not saying that individual 'horny Christians' existed and continue to exist.

Let's face it - real Christianity (and not the modern American evangelical heresy which no one should take seriously on any level) is an organized form of sexual repression, nay the ritualized expression of sexual extirpation.

I for one happen to believe that Alexandrian Christianity had a castration ritual associated with the baptism of its catechumen. Origen was not an exception as I have shown on a number of occasions here.

How do we explain the Carpocratians of Secret Mark and their Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness?

I think it has been blown out of proportion.

The way that Jeffrey's and others account for Secret Mark is that it was developed out of Morton Smith's perverted imagination without any real historical reality. The problem with that of course is that the claim that certain Christian traditions engaged in degenerate practices predates Morton Smith.

In other words, rejecting the authenticity of the Mar Saba document doesn't make 'horny Christianity' go away. There were reports of a form of Christianity which engaged in disgusting acts - the ritual consumption of semen, menstruation etc. - in short all kinds of depravity you can't even see on the internet today (well at least that I have never seen).

All of which makes me think that none of it has any basis in historical reality.

You see I believe that Christians were sexually repressed from the very beginning. You can't have the idea that sex 'caused' the fall from Paradise as the central pillar in your religion and then end up writing a book on how to give great orgasms to you partner. It seems far more likely to me that there were groups within the Church from the very beginning ying to prove how 'unhorny' they were - and by extension - how 'horny' all the other degenerate sects were beyond their tradition.

By citing proof that your enemies were caught up in sexual depravity you essential proved that you alone of all the traditions claiming to be Christian were pure and immaculate.

And it wasn't just the Christians who engaged in these sorts of arguments. I know of stories from the Samaritan tradition where sectarians were accused of whore mongering. Yet the extent to which Christian sects attacked one another for being 'horny' goes beyond anything in the history of organized religion.

Just look at the way Irenaeus is completely ignorant of the 'horny Marcion' story (the one where Marcion was the son of a bishop but was caught trying to seduce a virgin). The fact that this story only surfaces later makes it clear that it is absolutely unhistorical.

Now if someone as pure as Marcion could be accused of depravity, we should have strong doubts about ANY story of a depraved Christian tradition. This isn't to say that there weren't sexual deviants in Christianity or Marcionitism or any of these other schools. There are sexual deviants in any group at any time in any part of the world.

The point is that there is something inherently unbelievable about the various reports in the Church Fathers. They go into greater detail the more time goes by.

Take Irenaeus for example. He doesn't exactly say that the tradition of Simon Magus was one of licentious per se. All that is referenced is the idea that 'Helen' - his companion - was a redeemed prostitute.

The Helena story is nothing more than a variation on the traditions regarding Mary Magdala. If the presence of this Mary in the orthodox traditions did not lead to ritual depravity there is no reason to think it was present in the tradition associated with 'Simon Magus' (whoever that was).

The same is true for the various 'successors to Simon Magus' - Menander, Saturninus and Basilides.

If we just look at this 'later addition' to Book One of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies - you know the part which begins with Simon and goes through to the Cainites - its only when we get to
the followers of 'Carpocrates' that we find any sexual depravity per se and even then Irenaeus only speaks of their 'crimes' in the most general terms.

Yet before we examine Irenaeus' report let's take a look at the other source for information about the sect - Clement of Alexandria who speaks of "the blasphemous immorality of Carpocrates" not in terms of homosexuality but a radical communism where members share their wives in common. Indeed even when 'orgies' are referenced, heterosexual sex is inferred:

These then are the doctrines of the excellent Carpocratians. These, so they say, and certain other enthusiasts for the same wickednesses, gather together for feasts (I would not call their meeting an Agape), men and women together. After they have sated their appetites ("on repletion Cypris, the goddess of love, enters," as it is said), then they overturn the lamps and so extinguish the light that the shame of their adulterous "righteousness" is hidden, and they have intercourse where they will and with whom they will. After they have practiced community of use in this love-feast, they demand by daylight of whatever women they wish that they will be obedient to the law of Carpocrates-it would not be right to say the law of God. Such, I think, is the law that Carpocrates must have given for the copulations of dogs and pigs and goats. He seems to me to have misunderstood the saying of Plato in the Republic that the women of all are to be common. Plato means that the unmarried are common for those who wish to ask them, as also the theatre is open to the public for all who wish to see, but that when each one has chosen his wife, then the married woman is no longer common to all.

In his book entitled Magica Xanthus says: "The Magi think it permissible to have sexual intercourse with mothers and daughters and sisters, and that wives are to be held in common, not by force and in secret, but both parties may agree when one man wishes to marry another's wife. "Of these and other similar sects Jude, I think, spoke prophetically in his letter- "In the same way also these dreamers" (for they do not seek to find the truth in the light of day) as far as the words "and their mouth speaks arrogant things." [Strom. iii.1,2]

Indeed if we really look carefully at Clement's argument, the term 'Carpocrates' seems to be a general term for 'Alexandrian gnostic who went across the sea to promulgate heresy.' He invokes the name 'Carpocrates' at the beginning of the discussion and then proceeds to cite material from an Alexandrian heretic who settled in Greece named Epiphanes.

So before we go on to to Irenaeus' account of the Carpocratians let me remind my readers that I have already demonstrated that the Marcionites identified the canonical Letter to the Corinthians as 'to the Alexandrians' and that a very similar idea of an Alexandrian heresy who shared wives in common appears there too:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? ... I have already passed judgment on the one who did this ... Do associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world ... "Expel the wicked man from among you." [1 Cor 5:1 - 12]

For the moment at least it seems strange that the Apostle should reference a practice of wife sharing in Alexandria which continues into the second century.

We have already dealt with the fact that there were a number of traditions that the 'heretics' mentioned in this apostolic letter went and spread their doctrines to cities in Greece. Only in the orthodox tradition the original understanding is turned around and 'Apollos' becomes a 'good guy' who leaves owing to his disgust with the sectarians.

The point is that there is a general sense that individuals were coming out of Alexandria from the early period and transplanting doctrines - 'good' and 'bad' - which doesn't get enough attention.

Now let's turn to the report which now appears in the surviving copies of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies Book One about the Carpocratians. The section which deals with their 'perversions' reads as follows:

These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth; or, again, seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all, who have in fact no fellowship with them, either in doctrine or in morals, or in our daily conduct. But they lead a licentious life, and, to conceal their impious doctrines, they abuse the name [of Christ], as a means of hiding their wickedness; so that "their condemnation is just," when they receive from God a recompense suited to their works.

Now there is a lot I want to examine here, but let's start with the clear signs that the last portion of the text was added at a later date.

I have long argued that when Irenaeus peaks of things like 'condemnations from God' and punishments THEY CANNOT BE CONCEIVED as things being executed in the hereafter. Like the discussion of other heresies we have to accept that Irenaeus is speaking of these 'Carpocratians' have received 'condemnation' and 'recompense' IN THE HERE AND NOW.

This isn't the place to rehash these arguments but what is critical is to see that they were added later. Grant helps us under how the text was written by pointing us to the evidence that Against the Heresies was developed as over the course of a number of rewrites during the reign of Commodus.

I have noted that in its original form Book One did not have any of the stuff added on to the end regarding 'Simon Magus' and the various heretics who sprung up from his teaching. This was added likely at the time that Book Two and Three were written.

There can be no doubt about the fact that our existing text of Irenaeus represents a later rewrite of an earlier report. If you look at Hippolytus' Refutation of the Heresies he preserves an older version of Irenaeus' writings which make no mention whatsoever of the followers of Carpocrates receiving 'condemnation' and 'recompense.' All that appears from the section cited above is the following:

(Now these heretics) have themselves been sent forth by Satan, for the purpose of slandering before the Gentiles the divine name of the Church. (And the devil's object is,) that men hearing, now after one fashion and now after another, the doctrines of those (heretics), and thinking that all of us are people of the same stamp, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth, or that they also, looking, (without abjuring,) upon all the tenets of those (heretics), may speak hurtfully of us. [Hippolytus Refutation Heresies vii.20]

In fact, if you look at the EARLIER version of the account of the Carpocratians from Irenaeus THAT IS PRESERVED IN HIPPOLYTUS (when compared with the surviving text of Against the Heresies which suffered from innumerable rewrites) you will be shocked to see that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to 'depraved practices' associated with the sect. At most there is a very Buddhist-sounding doctrine of karma developed through metempsychosis:

(Now these heretics) have themselves been sent forth by Satan, for the purpose of slandering before the Gentiles the divine name of the Church. (And the devil's object is,) that men hearing, now after one fashion and now after another, the doctrines of those (heretics), and thinking that all of us are people of the same stamp, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth, or that they also, looking, (without abjuring,) upon all the tenets of those (heretics), may speak hurtfully of us. (The followers of Carpocrates) allege that the souls are transferred from body to body, so far as that they may fill up (the measure of) all their sins. When, however, not one (of these sins) is left, (the Carpocratians affirm that the soul) is then emancipated, and departs unto that God above of the world-making angels, and that in this way all souls will be saved. If, however, some (souls), during the presence of the soul in the body for one life, may by anticipation become involved in the full measure of transgressions, they, (according to these heretics,) no longer undergo metempsychosis. (Souls of this sort,) however, on paying off at once all trespasses, will, (the Carpocratians say,) be emancipated from dwelling any more in a body. Certain, likewise, of these (heretics) brand their own disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear. And they make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate. [Hippolytus Refut. Heresies vii.20]

Isn't it strange my friends that the more time went on the 'Carpocratians' became MORE LICENTIOUS, MORE DEPRAVED, MORE LIKE A CARICATURE of what a bad wicked 'heresy' should look like?

Here's something else I found strange.

Do you want to know what else got ADDED to Irenaeus' later rewrites? An important story where Irenaeus identifies a famous 'Carpocratian' who was prominent in Rome a while back:

From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under [the episcopate of] Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles. [ibid]

Keep in mind that this stuff about 'Marcellina' WAS NOT in the original version of the narrative which Hippolytus preserved in his account. What possessed Irenaeus to add this detail about a prominent 'Carpocratian' from a previous age?

The reference to 'little Marcia' is strange on a number of levels. Most notably that the reference to her coming to Rome at the time of Anicetus (c. 153 - 168) WOULD HAVE ALREADY HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO IRENAEUS when he wrote the first or second version of Book One of the Against the Heresies.

What caused - or allowed - Irenaeus to identify the 'little Marcia' who came to Rome two generations earlier as a Carpocratian NOW in the third rewrite?

Now I have to admit that there are a number of possible explanations here. But I find it impossible to shake the idea that Marcia or Marcellina's prominence in Rome the previous period 'caused' the change in the description of the Carpocratians.

Maybe the Carpocratians 'became' licentious because of their association with little Marcia ...

I have a suspicion I know who 'Marcellina' is. But my theories would only distract from the present argument.

The point is that if the name 'Carpocratians' were just a general 'type' meaning 'Alexandrian abroad' - and both Epiphanes and Marcia fit that mold - then both Clement and Irenaeus would have reasons for hating someone like 'Marcellina' if indeed she was a licentious individual. However it should be said that they would hate her in two different ways.

For Irenaeus Marcellina would have represented all of what was bad about the heretics. We've already discussed Irenaeus' perspective enough times here. For Clement however the concern would be different.

If you believe in the authenticity of To Theodore, it all comes down to one question which never gets asked in these discussions - why did the Carpocratians 'steal' the Secret Gospel if it wasn't theirs to begin with?

More to follow ...