More Questions About the Reports of 'Gnostics' in the Writings of the Church Fathers

My friend Demetrius from Corinth has asked me to clarify my position on the Gnostics. His basic question boils down to a question regarding my denial of any historical reality to the so-called 'Borborites.' Here's the problem. Clement of Alexandria identifies himself as a gnostic and yet feels comfortable enough to define 'orthodoxy' - both in terms of an Alexandrian orthodoxy AND a worldwide orthodoxy within which the Alexandrian tradition somehow could be reconciled.

Because I - and a great number of other scholars - have found proofs that the writings of Clement 'the gnostic' resembles the heretics identified as following an Egyptian figure named Mark, I have argued on behalf of identifying the Alexandrian tradition with the Marcosians and that 'Marcus' was really St. Mark.

Without getting too far off track with my response Irenaeus and Hippolytus note that the adherents of 'Mark' managed to reconcile themselves with the Church but secretly maintain their original beliefs.

This is where I believe the term 'gnostic' got its bad connotation. Indeed the original title of Irenaeus' work was Detection and Refutation of the False Gnosis. In other words, even for Irenaeus there was something by its very nature which was 'true gnosis' and by implication 'true gnostics.'

I think that over the course of the third century Alexandrians and churches outside of Egypt which 'were in communion' with the Alexandrian See avoided identifying themselves or their tradition as 'gnostic.' We see this most clearly in the writings of Origen.

The problem with this situation then is that the term 'gnostic' from the third century onwards takes on shades of meaning that weren't originally present in the use of the term by people in the second century. To that effect when later authorities speak of 'gnostics' and 'gnosis' the term is essentially interchangeable with heretics and heresy.

To this end when we start seeing new groups being introduced with outlandish names as 'gnostics' one has to wonder whether the term developed from the idea of groups 'in communion' with the Alexandrian See which traditionally identified itself as 'gnostic.'

I guess what I am trying to say is that we can't just take the words of the Church Fathers at face value. My simplified solution to the whole problem of worldwide 'gnostic traditions' is to go to the surviving Alexandrian traditions understanding of a worldwide Church of St. Mark from the very beginning - i.e. a rival ecclesiastical order to the Church of St. Peter at Rome.

The current Pope of the Coptic tradition speaks of this parallel church of St. Mark in the following terms:

With his holiness, all the world benefited. He established The Theological School of Alexandria which enlightened the world with knowledge. The only known continents at that time were limited to Asia, Africa and Europe. St. Mark preached in all of them to spread the Word of God. St. Mark preached in Judea, Lebanon, Syria, Antioch and in Cyprus. He reached Paphos, Pamphylia, Rome, Colossi ... He preached with St. Peter in Judia, Jerusalem, Bethany and other places. He accompanied St. Paul and St. Barnabas on their first trip. They went to Syria, and particularly to Antioch. ; " And took with them John, whose surname was Mark." Thus he handled with them the Word of the Savior to Antioch about 45 AD.This was also mentioned by Josephus the famous historian. [the Evangelist Mark p. 20]

The point of course is that when we follow the reports of the Church Fathers with regards to a church of Marcus or the Marcionite Church we have the same basic pattern forming - i.e. a community centered around an enthroned Mark who was the episcopus from which all bishops took their authority.

I can't help see all of this as fitting with in the traditions of the Coptic Church.

One more thing. As you must know, within the Orthodox Church all Patriarchs hold the same authority theoretically but only the Alexandrian Patriarch holds the title 'Papa' or Pope. There is a reason for this. The Alexandrian Church was originally FORCED into a subordinate role by the Greeks AND we see the Romans set up a rival authority using tradition titles and concepts stolen from Alexandria.

I think Alexandria - and St. Mark - came first and moreover I want to emphasize that the reason why the tradition identified itself as 'gnostic' was because they viewed their bishop (remember until Demetrius there was only one church and one bishop - i.e. at Alexandria) as the living incarnation of God the Father. That's why they called him Father.

They were brought into acquaintance with the living concept that St. Mark alone of all the disciples 'carried on' the holiness associated with Jesus (the Word became flesh) and this authority was passed on to a variation on metempsychosis known to Origen where the Christ-soul passed through the various living representatives of St. Mark.

The readers are directed to Stephen Davis' amazing work on this subject. Anyone who wants to know about how 'gnostic' ideas survived into modern Egyptian tradition have to read this book like two thousand times or more. He 'gets it.'

It was one of many books that changed my life (especially when I knew what the throne of St. Mark was).