I Think To Theodore Supports Crossan's Theory About the Primacy of the Gospel of Peter

I didn't realize it at the time but as I was explaining my theory about to Theodore to a regular reader he reminded me that what I am saying supports Crossan's theory about the Gospel of Peter. So let me repeat what I said in AN INCREDIBLY LONG post from yesterday.

I think Clement IS NOT saying that Mark wrote two 'Gospels of Mark' on in Rome and the other in Alexandria.

The Letter to Theodore only says that Mark wrote two gospels - one in Rome for Peter and the other in Alexandria which incorporated some of the bits from that gospel that Mark wrote for Peter, some of his own notes and mystic references to the Lord's doing.

I think it is easy to project what Irenaeus tells us about the canonical Gospel of Mark (i.e. that it is also the gospel that Mark wrote for Peter). The witness of Papias is of no real worth because Eusebius intimates that it came to us through Irenaeus.

I think the evidence suggests that Clement did not write the Hypotyposeis. I have written about this before but not only did Photius deny this reality but internal evidence (i.e. the author of the Hypotyposeis belief that Peter and Cephas were two different people) coupled with the SCHOOL OF PHOTIUS (Photius was apparently not alone in this judgement) negates the testimony of the Hypotyposeis as proving that Clement held that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark for Peter.

To this end, once we are left with only ONE reference to the Gospel of Mark in the writings of Clement (the citation at the beginning of Quis Dives Salvetur) there is no reason to believe that Clement ever thought that the gospel Mark wrote for Peter in Rome was the canonical gospel of Mark.

I think it is idiotic to assume that the Alexandrians had two texts they referred to as 'the Gospel of Mark.' No mother calls two of her children by the same name. As such we have to 'make up stuff' in order to give this Gospel that Mark wrote for Peter at Rome from the Gospel of Mark written in Alexandria.

The point of course is that what is written in To Theodore contradicts the understanding of the Hypotyposeis.

Clement says 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.

Clement never identifies this text as a 'gospel of Mark' and I think this is deliberate. The point of the letter to Theodore is to say there is only true Gospel of Mark. I think that Clement thought that the 'Gospel of Mark' that Theodore had in his hands (the canonical Gospel of Mark) was written by the Carpocratians. The only Carpocratians were hear about in the late second century are at Rome. In other words, the Roman Gospel of Mark was written by the Carpocratians - perhaps Marcia/Marcellina - Clement is intimating that the text that Mark wrote at Rome for Peter was the Gospel of Peter.

The canonical Gospel of Mark is the 'mystic' (i.e. 'of' or 'pertaining to' the Alexandrian mysteries) text of the Gospel of Mark MINUS the mystic sayings that again connect the gospel to the unique mysteries of Alexandria.

I think Clement is developing a scenario which supports Crossan's research. Whether or not it is actually true is another issue (i.e. whether or not the Gospel of Peter was the first gospel). The only thing I can say is that Clement apparently supports Crossan's assertions.

Notice again what Clement says in what follows:

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

I have noted in my previous post that Clement was living in a world where the 'official line' on the Gospel of Mark was being established in Rome. Irenaeus was laying down the rule (benefiting from his contacts in the Imperial court to help back up his ideas) that the Gospel of Peter should be ignored. The canonical Gospel of Mark was the only text that Mark wrote for Peter. Knowing that the 'official understanding' was such, Clement carefully explains the true understanding to Theodore - namely that this other anonymous 'gospel that Mark wrote for Peter at Rome' was something other than the Carpocratian text.

Notice the tripartite division of the 'true gospel' as Clement understands it. He knows the Roman text is just the Alexandrian Gospel of Mark with the 'mystic' statements of the doings of the Lord removed. So, knowing that Theodore uses the canonical gospel of Mark, he breaks up the development of the true Gospel of Mark into three parts:

Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written (in the Gospel of Peter) he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition 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.

Now before my readership jumps on me and says that the Gospel of Peter contains things not found in the canonical Gospel of Mark we should go back to what is said in the lines before, namely:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings (i.e. the Gospel of Peter), not, however, declaring all of them (i.e. what is in the gospel of Mark), nor yet hinting at the secret ones (what is in the 'full' Gospel of Mark in Alexandria as opposed to the canonical text), 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 (the things in the Gospel of Mark not found in the Gospel of Peter) and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge (i.e. he DID NOT transfer all the stories from the Gospel of Peter to the Gospel of Mark but only those which 'make for progress towards knowledge').

Got to pick up my wife now. Have to go but I will look over this and correct it later. I think it is very important. It is always good when you find some person smarter than yourself who echoes the general sense of your ideas ....