Is it Possible that 'Irenaeus' Might Have been a Name Used to Cover Up His Original Identity As Eclectus, Commodus' Bedroom Chamberlain?

I certainly believe that prominent academics have skills that I don't possess. I am most envious of course of their abilities to translate and understand texts in their original language. Yet I sometimes wonder whether these same scholars inhabit the same planet as the rest of us and whether this familiarity and comfort with the world of academia puts them at a disadvantage when understanding the Church Fathers.

Indeed as any frequent reader of this post already knows - I try to stay clear of a number of things which most New Testament scholars take for granted.

I avoid citing from the gospel. I avoid using the name 'Paul.' I try to stay clear of a host of modern inventions because I am not sure have any actual historical reality.

What I prefer to do instead is grab on to any 'real historical individuals' I can find.

I have no faith that the existing faith knows what a 'Iesous,' a 'Kepha' or a 'Paulos' is - so I avoid them as much as possible. So what I chose instead is the real historical nexus of 'real historical individuals' at the end of the second century.

It is amazing how much clearer the 'television signal' gets when we get to reign of Commodus. If the Acts of the Apostles looks like an episode of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (you can see where my mind is at most days) the interaction between Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons reminds me of two separate stories in a daytime soap opera.

On the one hand, you have one story set in Rome. Irenaeus is a real person (although I am not at sure that 'Irenaeus' was his real name). But if we were to 'stage' what we know about Irenaeus we'd have him sitting writing The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called.

Not so interesting yet but we'd have to 'cut away' to one of two other subplots that we know are going on in Christian Rome at the time - the story of Commodus' Christian mistress Marcellina and her fascinating rise to power to ultimately save the future Pope Callixtus from the mines.

Now we have no DIRECT proof that Irenaeus ever knew Marcia. However there are a number of bits and pieces which combine to suggest that they certainly knew one another.

Irenaeus acknowledges that there were a number of prominent leaders of the Catholic Church were sitting in the court of the Emperor Commodus. It would be reasonable to suppose that Irenaeus was one of those Christians sitting in Commodus' court by the way he becomes so defensive about the accusation of impropriety.

He also mentions that the Emperor was funneling money to the Church. Marcia, Commodus' Christian concubine certainly knew Pope Victor and Irenaeus certainly knew Pope Victor. Marcia's tutor Hypatius certainly knew Victor and likely knew Irenaeus.

All of this has been noted before in my many posts on this subject but here is something new.

Apparently Marcia didn't just make it over to the court of Commodus on her own. Before becoming Commodus' concubine she was the future Emperor's cousin's concubine - viz. Marcus Ummidius Quadratus Annianus.

Here is the story about how Marcia slammed into the Emperor Commodus.

When Marcus Aurelius had died in 180, Quadratus' maternal cousin Commodus succeeded his father. Commodus’ sister Lucilla was not happy living as a quiet, private citizen in Rome and became jealous of her brother and her sister-in-law because of all the attention that they received. Also she became very concerned due to the unstable behavior of her brother.

In 182, Lucilla, her daughter Plautia, her nephew-in-marriage and with the help of Quadratus, his adopted son and Cornificia Faustina had planned to assassinate Commodus and replace him with Lucilla and her second husband, the consul Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus, as the new rulers of Rome. Quadratus, his adopted son and his sister were involved in Lucilla’s plot because they may had a dynastic dispute with Commodus. Another reason that Quadratus was involved in this plot is because Quadratus and Lucilla may have been lovers.

Lucilla’s nephew-in-marriage, Quintianus, burst from his place of hiding with a dagger, trying to stab Commodus. He said to him "Here is the dagger the senate sends to you," giving away his intentions before he had the chance to act. The guards were faster than he was. He was overpowered and disarmed without doing the emperor any harm.

The plot to kill Commodus failed. When the conspiracy was revealed, the emperor ordered the deaths of Quadratus, his adopted son and Quintianus. Commodus may have confiscated Quadratus’ property and fortune. Lucilla, her daughter and Cornificia Faustina were banished to the Italian island of Capri. The Emperor then sent a centurion to Capri to execute the three women later that year.

Eclectus is always described as being Marcia's 'husband' but this seems highly unlikely. First of all she is routinely identified as Quadratus' wife - and even Commodus' wife - when in reality she was only their concubines.

Eclectus was first the chamberlain of Quadratus and then Commodus. But the chamberlain's of high ranking officials were always eunuchs. As Marcia was also in the company of a Christian eunuch named Hypatius the idea isn't at all crazy.

I have already suggested in my book the Real Messiah that a parallel to the emerging 'menage a trois' in the Imperial court during Commodus' time already had a precedent in the relationship between Marcus Agrippa his 'wife' Berenice and her lover, the Emperor Titus.

Joannes Xiphilinus (Greek: Ἰωάννης Η΄ Ξιφιλῖνος) gives this summary of the situation at the end of the second century (lxxii 4) "Marcia, concubine to Quadratus, one of those put to death (in the fourth year of his reign) and Eclectus, first chamberlain to the same, Eclectus became first chamberlain to Commodus and Marcia his concubine and afterwards wife of Eclectus. And even those [?] he was spectator of as they were being put to a violent death. She (Marcia) is related to have been very zealous in favour of the Christians, and to have done them many services, in as much as she was then all-powerful with Commodus" [source]

Notice that the source doesn't say that her role was just limited to the one deed recorded in Hippolytus the rescue of Callixtus (which was reported to discredit Hippolytus' rival).

In any event, as Eclectus MUST HAVE BEEN a eunuch and given the fact that Marcia had one Christian eunuch already in her company, how could Eclectus not have been also a Christian from Alexandria?

Indeed here is where things get interesting, for Eclectus is explicitly identified as being Egyptian (Herodian History xvii).

So now we have two clear paths to connect Marcia to Egypt. Not only was Eclectus Egyptian but the practice of ritual emasculation is certainly Alexandrian.

I think there is good circumstantial evidence to connect Marcia's circle with the 'Carpocratians' that appropriated the esoteric Gospel of Mark from Alexandria.

But before we go any further let's take a look at the manner in which contemporary religious eunuchs - even though they were male - were treated as females within their community. Lucian of Samasota writes that immediately after the Galli of the Syrian goddess emasculated himself "he receives women's raiment and ornaments. Thus they act during their ceremonies of castration." [Syrian Goddess 51] In Apuleius's Golden Ass however these 'men' are depicted as referring to one another as women or 'sisters' when inter pares.

The same idea seems to be present among Christian eunuchs or 'brides of Christ' (see especially 'Marcus' and his brides in Irenaeus AH i.13f).

In any event, it seems EXTRAORDINARILY INTERESTING to note Clement of Alexandria's interpretation of the introduction to the 2 John:

The second Epistle of John, which is written to virgins, is very simple. It was written to a Babylonian, named Electa, but it signifies the further election of the whole Church(scripta vero est ad quandam Babyloniam, nomime Electam, significat autem electionem ecclesiae sanctae).

Indeed as James Orr notes "we should naturally translate [the opening words] "to my lady Electa." Grammatically this is strongly supported by 1 Tim 1,2 and 2 Tim 1, 2 ... and the fact that the name Eklekte has not been discovered, though Eklektos has, offers no grave objection." [source]

The idea that 'Babylon' was already identified as 'Rome' in the period is well established in the canon of the period. As such Eklekte of Babylon was really Eklekte of Rome.

Moreover it should be noted that the actual text of the letter does not claim to be a correspondence between John and Eklekte but rather 'the elder' and Eklekte. Charles Hill has noted that when 'the elder' is used in the writings of Irenaeus it should always taken to be a reference to Polycarp of Smyrna, the man Irenaeus claimed to be his teacher. It should also be noted that countless scholars have noted that in the Harris Fragments of the Martyrdom of Polycarp it often becomes impossible to distinguish between where John's life ends and Polycarp's begins.

In any event, it should be noted that Irenaeus is the first person to ever refer to 2 John. According to Robert M Grant The Formation of the New Testament p. 155, Irenaeus cites 1 John in Adversus Haereses, 3.16.5 and, three paragraphs later, refers back to the same epistle but quotes from 2 John.

I always let my instincts guide my research. I think there is 'something' to the idea that the name 'Irenaeus' might be a screen to hide the original role of Eklektos in the Church. It would solve a lot of the logistics 'behind the scenes' of the Roman Church - i.e. why after one hundred and fifty years of the Church growing 'organically' in every direction, 'Irenaeus' had the authority to reign in everyone and force HIS New Testament canon down everyone's throat.

This certainly calls for more research ...