The Ultimate Proof that the Carpocratians were Really a Circle of Imperial Courtiers in the Late Second, Early Third Centuries Who Controlled the Roman Church in the Period

I have always been fascinated by the so-called 'Carpocratians' but the same reasons as the hoaxers. I do not believe they were sexual libertines. I suspect instead that they were connected with the 'licentious' circle of Christians in Commodus' court - and that specifically the 'little Marcia' that came during the reign of Anicetus was Commodus' concubine of the same name.

As readers of this post have already surmised - I don't approach problems in the same way as other scholars. I don't interpret statements in the Church Fathers in terms of whether they are 'true' or 'false' but rather - what is behind the report that COULD ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE to think that it MIGHT BE TRUE.

Here is a typical example. In Irenaeus' Against the Heresies his report ends with this curious statement:

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.

Epiphanius preserves the same report as follows:

They possess paintings - moreover, have images made of gold, silver and other materials — and say that such things are portraits in relief of Jesus, and made by Pontius Pilate! That is the reliefs are portraits of the actual Jesus during his sojourn among men! They possess images like these in secret, and of certain philosophers besides - Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and the rest - and also place other reliefs of Jesus with these philosophers. And having erected them, they worship them and celebrate heathen mysteries. For once they have set these images up, they then follow the customs of heathen; yet what are the customs of the heathen but sacrifices and the rest? They say that salvation is of the soul only, and not the bodies. [Panarion Book I, Section II 7.1]

Of course scholars love to just dive in and develop silly theories which take these ideas at face value. They want to use Irenaeus report to prove not only that these heretics were sexual deviants but that they had some kind of interest in Greek philosophy.

The reality is however that what appears now in our surviving copies of Irenaeus represents an expansion from what was in the original copies of Irenaeus' work in the hands of Hippolytus who copies only one line being present in the original report, namely that:

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.

I know the truth makes the reality of the report about the Carpocratians more uninteresting but I can't help that. There were no orgies and no pagan mysteries devoted to the Greek philosophers!

So why did the earlier version of Irenaeus' report which Hippolytus passed on to hearers have a reference to a sacred image of Jesus which was later expanded to a statement that this image of Jesus stood alongside images of pagan philosophers and indeed that was developed to Gentile mystery worship? Oh, what is wrong with this current generation of scholars?

Who was the ruler during the time that Hippolytus was active? Well let's begin with the fact that Hippolytus was active over the course of the beginning of the third century. What happened to poor Hippolytus? He got shut out of the Imperial gravy train that was first established by Irenaeus under Commodus.

The facts of his life as well as his writing were soon forgotten in the West, perhaps by reason of his schismatic activities and because he wrote in Greek. Pope Damasus I dedicated to him one of his famous epigrams, making him, however, a priest of the Novatianist schism, a view later accepted by Prudentius in the fifth century in his "Passion of St Hippolytus". In the Passionals of the seventh and eighth centuries he is represented as a soldier converted by Saint Lawrence, a legend that long survived in the Roman Breviary.

Hippolytus refused to accept the teaching of Pope Zephyrinus, whose successor, Pope Callixtus I (217-222), he accused of favouring the Monarchians, and, further, of subverting the discipline of the Church by his lax action in receiving back into the Church those guilty of gross offences. At this time he seems to have allowed himself to be elected as a rival Bishop of Rome, and continued to attack Pope Urban I (222-230) and Pope Pontian (230-235).

We have already seen that Hippolytus connects Callixtus with the disgraced Commodian circle of Marcia, Carpophorus and the like. It was during Callixtus' rule then that Hippolytus cites the report about an 'image of Christ' being present among the circle of the Carpocratians that were established in Rome.

What are the odds then that we see parallel details emerging in the period associated with the new Emperor Alexander Severus (11 March 222–235). Not only Severus' court filled with Christians but he is reported to have learned the golden rule, "Do unto others as thou wouldst have them do unto thee" and he adopted it as his motto, inculcating it upon his subjects whenever they were about to inflict a wrong on any one (ibid. Ælius Lampridius, li.). He caused this maxim to be inscribed also upon his palace and upon public buildings (ibid.). In his private chapel (lararium), where he was accustomed to pray every morning, he had, besides the images of Apollonius, Orpheus, and Jesus, also an effigy of Abraham (ibid. chap. xxix.).

Come on people! Wake up. It wasn't like Alexander Severus would have just told some artist to make up a picture of Jesus. There had to be some sort of 'mystery' associated with it - hence the bullshit about Pilate making the portrait. The picture must have been in existence before his reign. As such it was passed on through generations of Imperial sanctioned Christians probably dating from the time of Marcia the original Carpocratian down through the subsequent rulers he detested so because they did not keep a place for him at the Imperial trough.

One other implication of this argument of course is that our surviving copies of Irenaeus do not represent his original work but rather a subsequent reworking of his original arguments by later editors. I have always suspected this is the case in Book Five which is noticeably more hostile toward the Imperial government. I think like Tertullian's work against Marcion and ALL PATRISTIC TEXTS we fool ourselves if we think we are reading the original material. These were all reworked to keep the ancient writers 'in tune' which changing notions of orthodoxy as Christianity developed.

That's also why so little Christian material from the second and third centuries survives - it was too much work to keep 'updating' their works. Only a handful of 'selected works' bothered to receive this sort of attention.

Indeed I still think that the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism is a reworked original text from Irenaeus' hand. I just can't prove it ... YET.

UPDATE 1: So I have this crazy theory - a theory that Mark was Marcus Julius Agrippa the last king of Israel and Christianity is a development of a system he devised for Jewish proselytes after the destruction of the Jewish temple.

If everyone is okay with that (or at least acknowledges that I have this crazy theory) I can't help but see a precedent for what I am suggesting happened a hundred years later when the Roman government was trying to reform Christianity.

Most of you are probably saying - but Stephan how can the idea of the Roman government reforming Christianity in the late second century have anything to do with the idea that Christianity was the invention of a philosophically inclined first century client king of Israel working on behalf of the Roman government.

Well, believe it or not - it's the role I see women played in the development of both traditions of Christianity.

Now in order to read this post and understand the arguments expressed here you have to, have to, have to read the blog post which precedes this present one. Just click on the link and read what I wrote a few hours ago and then come back to this one.

In any event, I don't think that Marcus Julius Agrippa would have gotten anywhere without his sister (or his mother for that matter). All of his success - and by implication - the whole development of Christianity was attributable to powerful, sexy women.

The point now is that when we return to the reform efforts DIRECTED AGAINST that same original ALEXANDRIAN tradition a hundred years later (the one with a guy named Mark sitting on a throne at its center) it can't be coincidence that we also have a powerful, sexy and ambitious woman named Marcia directing the effort who happened to be sitting at the right hand of the Emperor of that period.

Let's break it down for my readers - Berenice + Titus (70 CE) = Marcia + Commodus 180 CE.

Whatever the case let's follow what I wrote in my last post. The Carpocratians were a circle attached to some sexy lady named Marcia who lived at Rome who introduced or was connected to the introduction of a picture of Jesus purportedly painted by Pilate.

I find it impossible not to connect this story with Berenice (that's because of course I read ALL of the literature of early Catholic Christianity, the obviously stupid stories along with the not-so-obviously-stupid stories) in texts such as the Vengeance of the Savior and the like.

I can't help shake the memory that there is a vast Roman literature which speaks of Pilate's attachment to a portrait of Jesus. And guess who the lady is who is always identified as holding this stupid picture? Yes, you got it - Berenice, the equivalent of Marcia only a hundred years earlier.

When you read these stupid Church stories you can't mistake Berenice for anyone other than Berenice the wife and sister of Marcus Agrippa. She's portrayed as walking around with the future Emperor Titus holding a picture of Christ.

The point here of course is that Berenice provides a very close historical parallel to Marcia. Marcia happens to be the influential Carpocratian in Rome who happened to be connected to a portrait of Jesus that came from the time of Berenice.

Coincidence? I don't know, but let's follow some other parallels.

Both were unmarried women who attached themselves to the Emperors of their day to assist - as I see it - reshape Christianity into something it wasn't before their creative lovemaking.

I know I get bashed for being sexist but the reality is that few traditional scholars would ever accord 'women' with having such an important role within early Christianity. I firmly believe that if it wasn't for Berenice there would be no Gospel of Mark. At the same time I believe that if there wasn't for Marcia, none of the reforms of Irenaeus would ever have taken place either.

Jerome anticipates at least part of the significance of women in the Marcionite tradition when he says that the Marcionite message was brought to Rome through a woman. I think it is sexist to ignore all the evidence. Furthermore I think it is rather limiting to assume that women - or a woman - could only have had an important role in 'the other church' - i.e. the heresies outside of the great Petrine institution in Rome.

I think Marcia founded the Roman Church [PERIOD!]. That she ended up being treated like a cheap whore being tossed from the carriage while the horses were still moving is hardly surprising. Men have a strange destructive obsession to cut the umbilical cord connecting creation to its original source.

UPDATE 2: I just thought of another thing. The Carpocratians in Rome are supposed to have promoted a picture of Jesus that was drawn by Pilate. Yes, it's a stupid story but let's think about it for a second. Pilate MUST HAVE BEEN considered to be an okay guy if these idiots thought that he sat around painting images of Jesus.

It is well known that the Coptic tradition made Pilate into a saint. This would suggest an Alexandrian origin for the tradition but it is also worth noting that the only gospel text which could have supported this understanding of Pilate is the Gospel of Peter which we know was used by Origen the Alexandrian ...