Origen, Secret Mark and the 'Shadow Canon' of Second, Third and Fourth Century Alexandria

I have been developing lines of proof for my thesis that our canonical Letter to the Corinthians was originally identified as 'the Epistle to the Alexandrians' especially among the so-called 'Marcionites.' After stumbling across a reference to fragments of Origen's Commentary on 1 Corinthians on the internet (I had no idea such a work ever existed!) I started to wonder whether it was too much of a stretch to assume that as a notable Alexandrian and one who had a patron who was a Marcionite that Origen might preserve for us some of the original Alexandrian interpretation of that letter.

The first thing I did was to notice that Trigg goes out of his way to acknowledge how important 1 Corinthians was to Origen's theology (I'd say 'Alexandrian' theology but I just happen to think that Origen was part of a pre-existent tradition). Then I stumble R E Heine's article Origen on the Foolishness of God in Studia Patristica Vol. XLI. There are a lot of references to the Commentary on 1 Corinthians there and interestingly a great deal of it frames the argument as if it were directed against the Alexandrians - or at least - 'the Egyptians.'

For example, Heine notes that Origen's use of the early parts of 1 Corinthians is such that it reinforces the idea that Jesus' 'physical nature' is the foolishness mentioned so often in Chapter 1. As we read:

This form of the Word, Origen says, 'is the foolish proclamation of the Christ, when we proclaim Christ born and crucified' (1 Cor. 1:21; 2:2). The second advent however occurs among the perfect of whom Paul says, 'But we speak a wisdom among the perfect' (1 Cor 2:6) ... Origen has here interiorized the earlier Christian apologetic answer to the charge that Jesus of Nazareth did not fulfil the prophecies of the powerful Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. The apologists had answered that the Messiah comes twice, first in weakness and then a second time in power (see Tert., lud 14; Justin, Dial 49.2). Origen says, in effect, that Christ is first perceived as foolishness, but, if one progresses, he is then perceived as wisdom, which he truly is.

1 Cor. 1:18 and 1 : 23 are the focal points of this understanding of the phrase. The perceptual aspect of Origen 's understanding of 1 Cor 1:18 and 23 is quite clear in a homily on Exodus where he uses the imagery of the rod of Moses which became a serpent and devoured the serpents of the Egyptian magicians. He takes Moses' rod to be a symbol of the cross, and, because the serpent symbolizes wisdom in the bible (Gen. 3:1; Matt. 10:16), he connects this incident with Paul's discussion of the cross in 1 Corinthians 1. Blending the two passages, Origen says that once the cross of Christ, whose proclamation appeared to be 'foolishness', had been 'cast forth in the earth', it then became 'such a great wisdom that it devoured all the wisdom of the Egyptians,' meaning the wisdom of this world (Hom Exod 4:6).

I will pass over the manner in which Origen's testimony fits within the paradigm I worked out in my Real Messiah - namely that Jesus was originally understood by the Alexandrians to be the glory of God while the messiah only appears after the crucifixion.

It is enough to say that a careful reading of Origen's Homily on Exodus - especially in this section closely parallels the order of 1 Corinthians. While 1 Corinthians chapters one and two are connected with the ten plagues and the Passover, Origen goes on to later sections of 1 Corinthians - chapter ten in particular - because of its explicit mention of the Crossing of the Sea which of course follows in the Exodus narrative. The question now is whether the original Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians was originally conceived in this very same manner - i.e. whether it more closely resembled a Commentary on Exodus. This question cannot be answered at this time.

It is enough for us to note that Heine draws our attention to an important series of passages in Origen's writings where the 'foolishness' of God is identified by Origen as the familiar understanding of Jesus crucified. He notes that:

Origen delights in the Pauline phrase in 1 Cor 1:24 that Christ is 'the wisdom of God.' When Origen discusses the epinoiai Christou or 'aspects of Christ,' 'wisdom' is always at the head of the list. Wisdom is the most basic and most definitive of the epinoiai Christou. Origen argues that Christ as wisdom has existed eternally with God (P. Arch 1.2 1-3). When Origen speaks of Christ as wisdom, he does not mean the incarnate or kenotic Christ, but the pre-Incarnate Christ who has existed eternally with God. When one advances to the point that one knows Christ as wisdom, it is this eternal wisdom of God that one comes to know. The incarnate Christ for Origen, the Christ of Philippians 2, the Christ anticipated in Isaiah 53, is the centerpiece of the 'foolishness of God' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:25.

In a Homily on 1 Corinthians Origen quotes 1 Corinthians 1:21, 'in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom' and says 'the wisdom of God is the law and prophets.' He immediately identifies this 'wisdom' in the law and the prophets as Christ. It was because the world failed to know Christ 'in the law and the prophets,' that God, Origen says, 'sent Jesus Christ who was to be crucified on behalf of the human race, that those who have believed in Jesus Christ crucified might believe in the foolishness of the proclamation (of the New Testament canon). [Cor Cat viii, JThSt 9 (1908) 237 13 - 18; cf. Cels. 1.13]

One application Origen makes of the concept of divine foolishness relates to the message that simple believers understand. Here his focus is 1 Cor 1:21. 'For since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom it pleased God through the foolishness of the message proclaimed save those who believe.' In two of three passages where Origen applies 1.21 to simple believers he uses 2 Cor 5.16 'Although we have known Christ according to the flesh, from now on we know him no longer in this way,' as justification for his understanding. Origen understands the latter verse to mean that Christian faith begins with knowing Jesus as he is described in the Gospels, but that it should progress beyond this to a spiritual understanding of Christ. Not all, however, progress beyond that initial stage. It is to such people that Paul writes in 1 Cor 2:2, 'I decided to know nothing else among you other than Christ Jesus and him crucified.' These, Origen says, "were not able to know Christ insofar as he is 'wisdom,' but only insofar as he was 'crucified' (Hom Ex 12:4).

... Origen recognizes that the majority of believers never advanced in their understanding beyond the preaching of salvation through the death of Christ on the cross. He saw this act of God in Christ and its proclamation in preaching to be salvific. And this was true not only for simple believers but also for those who advanced in their understanding like Origen himself. He closes his eighth homily on Jeremiah by saying,

My Savior and Lord has assumed all opposites, that he might destroy the opposites by their opposites, and we might be made strong from the weakness of Jesus, and we might be made wise from the foolishness of God and, once we have been introduced by these opposites, we might be able to ascend to the wisdom and strength of God, which is Christ Jesus, to whom belongs the glory and power for ever. Amen. (Hom Jer. 8:9)

But I would take the argument one step further than Heine. Origen isn't just distinguishing between an abstract concept of heavenly wisdom which comes through heavenly revelation and the written word of the Catholic New Testament canon. In my mind he is secretly referring to the existence of a 'shadow canon' - a secret collection of scriptures - in the name of Mark of which Secret Mark was only the first to be discovered owing to Morton Smith's discovery of the Mar Saba document.

Let's go back to Irenaeus mention of the New Testament canon of the Marcosians who I have already identified as being one and the same as that of the Alexandrian Church in Clement's day:

adduce an unspeakable (αρρητος) number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth

I have already argued that Irenaeus is here imitating the language of the Marcionites who identified the revelation of αρρητος (unspeakable) words as the beginning of the New Testament canon. It is not difficult to see that Clement does the same with respect to the 'Secret Mark' and - by implication - a parallel shadow 'scriptures' which we can connect with the report on the 'Marcosians' (i.e. those of Mark) in Irenaeus.

Clement makes reference to two versions of the gospel of Mark in his To Theodore. The first, accordingly, is the 'carnal' version of the text:

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.

This sounds remarkably similar to what Origen says in a general sense about the doctrine of Christ crucified. It is the similarly described as essentially 'useful' for leading the elect to the ultimate truth of Jesus' heavenly nature.

Indeed Clement writes in the exact manner of Origen that:

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.

Origen says the same thing without explicitly referring to a 'secret gospel of Mark.' Nevertheless he is more explicit about what lies beyond the 'simple' notion of Christ crucified - viz. a thoroughly Marcionite (or Alexandrian) emphasis of Jesus the divine hypostasis.

Whereas Clement writes that Mark:

composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.

Origen, framing matters in terms of the canon of apostolic writings says:

The second advent however occurs among the perfect of whom Paul says, 'But we speak a wisdom among the perfect'

Indeed I want to stress that when Irenaeus makes reference to a heretical version of the Gospel of Mark he actually speaks of it in terms that sound more reminiscent of Origen's words saying:

those who prefer the Gospel by Mark separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered [Irenaeus AH iii.11.7]

Clement is careful never to explicitly tell us what is going on between the neaniskos and Jesus (I believe it is the preparation for him being established as Christ), Origen is explicit about the teaching but avoids making specific reference to a 'Secret Gospel of Mark.'

Nevertheless if we take a careful look at the context of Origen's statements in Homilies on Jeremiah it becomes impossible NOT to see that his depreciation of the 'accepted writings' of New Testament canon of the Catholic Church included a hint of a heavenly canon in the possession of the Alexandrian Church.

Again, we have to acknowledge that Clement only mentions the existence of a Secret Gospel of Mark which was

left to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

Yet can anyone really believe that this 'autograph' copy of the 'secret' Gospel of Mark was kept on its own in the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria? In other words, is it possible to even conceive of a gospel being preserved in Alexandria WITHOUT the accompaniment of the letters of the Apostle or other texts to explain its contents?

I think I have shown (thanks to Heine's paper) that Origen's interpretation of 1 Corinthians helped justify the so-called 'allegorical' method of Alexandrian exegetes. The fact that this text was originally known as 'to the Alexandrians' makes it very difficult to believe that the Alexandrian Church did not keep it and the apostolic letters of the canon which followed as part of one and the same canon in the manner of the Marcionites.

I have to acknowledge of course that this is never mentioned in to Theodore but I wonder whether some of this might be gleaned from a fuller citation of Origen's Eighth Homily on Jeremiah. If we keep in mind that Irenaeus says that the followers of Mark in Egypt have:

an unspeakable (αρρητος) number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.

it is impossible not to see that we not only have a reference to a 'shadow canon' of scriptures (notice the juxtaposition against the 'Scriptures of truth' which were clearly canonized) but Irenaeus mocking the original claim of these Alexandrians that their writings weren't produced by men but through that 'unspeakable' (αρρητος) revelation which the Apostle says came to him in 2 Corinthians 12:4.

Now let's do a better job than Heine did in framing a context for Origen's depreciation of the standard writings of the New Testament canon (identified as the products of mere 'men') when compared with the 'wisdom that comes from God.'

We read Origen say in the Eighth Homily that:

Every man has become foolish from knowledge.*' If every man has become foolish from knowledge, and Paul is a man, Paul has become foolish from knowledge because he knows in part, prophesies in part, has become foolish from knowledge because he sees through a mirror, sees dimly, sees and comprehends matters in a small part and - if one can say - an infinitely tiny part. And seen from the opposite, you will understand that every man has become foolish from knowledge ... The knowledge which is in Paul, with respect to that knowledge which is in the heavens, is as foolishness compared to the mature knowledge. Hence, every man was made foolish by knowledge.

... The Word intends to be somewhat daring in saying that he emptied himself to sojourn in this life in order that in his emptying the world might be filled. But if that one who sojourned emptied himself in this life, the empty vessel was wisdom itself, for the foolishness of God is wiser than men. If I spoke of the foolishness of God, how the faultfinders would misquote me! How can things supposed good by them be said a thousand times, but when what they suppose is not good is said, I would be denounced, since I said, since I said the foolishness of God!

But Paul as one wise and one who has apostolic stature has now dared to say that every wisdom on earth, the wisdom in him and in Peter and in the Apostles every kind of wisdom which dwells in the world is the foolishness of God. For as with that wisdom which no place on earth contains, as with that wisdom which is supra-heavenly, supra-worldly, this wisdom which dwells among us is the foolishness of God.

Now I can't believe that anyone out there doesn't see that Origen's bizarre depreciation of the New Testament canon can only be a reflection of the existence of a "supra-natural, supra-heavenly" CANON of writings which deliberately maintained the form of the supernal ogdoad (i.e. one gospel + seven letters) like the Marcionite canon.

We see this kind of language that Origen employs here inevitably appear whenever the Marcionites reference their canon. While Megethius depreciates the 'deceitful codex' of Scriptures of the Catholic canon he speaks of his own gospel as having an entirely supernatural origin. This idea is emphasized also in Tertullian's discussion as well as the words:

O wonder beyond wonders, rapture, power, and amazement is it, that one can say nothing at all nor even conceive of it, nor even compare it to anything (Harnack 1960 2:256)

The point of course is that Origen's depreciation of the Catholic canon of 'Paul,' 'Peter' and 'the apostles' sounds remarkably Marcionite. It is worth noting that the name 'Mark' is never connected with this 'human' revelation which is deemed 'foolishness of God.' It is also worth noting that Clement also picks up on the 'fools' and 'foolishness' theme when juxtaposing the Alexandrian Secret Gospel of Mark (and accompanying canon?) as we read:

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

I am absolutely certain that there are important parallels here that have went undetected by previous generations of scholars.

I have to go to sleep ...