In any event I plan to spend some time on this text from Athanasius because I think it is so very important for the study of Secret Mark. Secret Mark you say? Well let's think about it for a moment. This isn't as crazy as you might think. Ignoring all the claims about the Mar Saba document being a forgery (which I think have been effectively dispelled) we are left with both Athanasius and Clement referencing a hidden gospel (at least according to Smith's interpretation) or hidden texts in the same Church of St. Mark of Alexandria.
If you don't understand that there was only one church in all of Alexandria at the time Clement was writing scroll to the bottom of the page ...
Anyway, back to my friend, David Brakke. Brakke points out that Athanasius draws our attention to the Arian and Meletian interest in 'apocryphal literature.' Yet let's not assume too much with the term. It literally only means 'things hidden away.'
I think that Brake is basically right about everything he claims is the context of the letter. Athanasius is certainly writing against 'human teachers' who are correctly identified by Brakke as the Catechetical tradition which stretched from Clement to Arius. He is also right when he points to that tradition using 'apocryphal books' or as he writes:
The last portion of the fragment, paragraph 26, confirms my earlier guess that Egyptian Christians cited 1 Corinthians 2:9 - "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived" - in support of their use of apocryphal books. We can now see a special edge to Athanasius's earlier question about Jesus the true Teacher: "Who can convince those whom he teaches about 'things that eye has not seen nor hear heard nor have arisen upon the human heart' echept he who alone knows the Father and has established for us the way to enter the kindgom of heaven?" Mos likely both Athanasius and his opponents knew a version of the Ascension of Isaiah, in which the words that Paul cites appear.
... How does Athanasius respond to the citation of 1 Corinthians 2:9 in support of apocryphal books? ... Athanasius's point seems clear enough. He has to deal with Paul's citation as somehow biblical because Paul introduces it with the phrase "as it is written." So Athanasius argues that Paul does not support or commend his arguments with simply any words; rather, he does so with words from the Scriptures. According to Athanasius, Paul, however does not always quote the relevant biblical text exactly, but instead paraphrases, giving its meaning. And in this case Athanasius claims that Paul has paraphrased a portion of Isaiah 29, which refers to blind and deaf people and people without hope. (p. 50)
I read these words in Brakke's argument and started thinking - doesn't the Gospel of Mark similarly ascribe words to Isaiah which don't appear in our accepted text of the writings of Isaiah? Couldn't the tradition of the Church of St. Mark have been making an argument defending scriptures which DIFFERED from what the Empire was promoting in the fourth century?
Because here is what also caught my eye about Athanasius' argument it seems to reference EVERY canonical gospel EXCEPT for Mark. After emphasizing, as Brakke correctly notes, that Jesus ALONE is the true teacher, Athanasius cites Paul's acknowledgement of these principles and adds:
It is he whom his disciples asked to teach them how to pray, and he who taught daily in the temple in the temple, as Luke said (11.1; 19:47). It is he whom his disciples asked, "Teacher, when will these things happen, and what is the sign that all these things are going to be fulfilled?" (Luke 21:7) When his disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to prepare to eat the Passover?" he answered and said to them, "Behold, when you enters his city a man will meet you carrying a jar. Follow him into the house that he enters and say to the master to the house, "It is the Teacher who says to you, "Where is my guest room where I will eat the Passover with my disciples?" (Luke 22:9 - 11)
On the surface it is 'just' a long reference to Luke's witness in support of the proposition that Athanasius proposes (i.e. that Jesus is the only Teacher) but once you become aware of the Coptic interpretation of the last passage especially you start to become aware that Mark is lurking beneath the surface in the material from every Evangelist cited by Athanasius.
For Brakke should have been aware that as Severus of Al'Ashmunein makes absolutely explicit "it was he (i.e. Mark) who carried the jar of water into the house of Simon the Cyrenian, at the time of the sacramental Supper."
Severus is only reporting what must have been the original tradition of the Church of St. Mark - the building for which Arius presided over as a presbyter. It can't be coincidental that Athanasius attacks the Arian and Meletian tradition - the traditions which appointed Patriarchs to the throne of St. Mark BEFORE the coming of Peter I as I demonstrated in my Journal of Coptic Studies article with references from each of the 'other three' Evangelists which can be subtly understood to attack the standing of St. Mark among the members of his original tradition.
The citation from Matthew which follows can be similarly interpreted. We read in the paragraph which follows Athanasius write:
Well indeed he [Jesus] spoke this this for the name of Wisdom is fitting for him because it is he alone who is the true Teacher. For who is to be trusted to teach human beings about the Father, except he who is always in his bosom? Thus, who can convince those whom he teaches about "things that eye has not seen nor ear heard nor have arisen upon the human heart," except he who alone knows the Father and has established for us the way to enter the kingdom of heaven? Therefore he charged his disciples, just as Matthew said "Let none of you be called 'Rabbi,' for your teacher is one, and you are all brothers and sisters. And do not call for yourselves 'Father' on earth, for your Father in heaven is one. And do not be called 'Teacher' for your teacher, Christ is one. And the great one among you will be your servant." (Matt 23:8 - 11)
I have always read this passage in Matthew as a rejection of the Papacy built around the concept of an 'earthly father.' The title Papa as I have mentioned a thousand times at this blog comes from Alexandria and the idea that the Patriarchs of Alexandria represented earthly fathers who derive their origin from 'father Mark' - i.e. St. Mark - is referenced in almost every page of ancient texts like the Passio Petri Sancti.
In that document for instance Peter references his predecessors as "the most holy fathers and high priests of the divine law, Heraclius and Demetrius.' And St Mark is similarly witnessed as the 'head of a line of fathers' when Peter encounters him at his church:
O father most honourable, thou evangelist of the only-begotten Savior, thou witness of His passion, thee did Christ choose, who is the Deliverer of us all, to be the first pontiff and pillar of this see; to thee did He commit the task of proclaiming the faith throughout the whole of Egypt and its boundaries ... Thy successor was Anianus, and the rest in descending series down to the most blessed Theonas, who disciplined my infancy, and deigned to educate my heart ... I commend also to thy glorious patronage the flock of Christ's worshippers which was committed to my pastoral care; to thee, I say, I with prayers commend it, who are approved as the author and guardian of all preceding and subsequent occupiers of this pontifical chair, and who, holding its first honours, are the successor not of man, but of the God-man, Christ Jesus.
The point again is that Brakke and all the other 'experts' who examine a text like this inevitably miss the important GEOGRAPHICAL context that Athanasius could not venture beyond the walls of Alexandria to the sacred cultic center of Egyptian Christianity - the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia.
As I have noted in my paper, there are countless references in his writings where he mentions now 'two thrones of St. Mark' in Egypt owing to the fact that the Arians and Meletians still controlled the Church of St. Mark in his day. His attacks here and elsewhere are not just limited to 'apocryphal literature' but a specific understanding that St. Mark himself referenced a different version of Isaiah when at the beginning of his gospel:
It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'"
I have long argued that it was the Catholics who invented the concept of an apostle whose given name was 'Paulos.' The reason why most early writers simply referenced him as 'the apostle' was because the Alexandrians knew that poolo was an Aramaic title of Mark as the tamym poolo (Deut 32:4) but that is another argument for another time.
The point is that Brakke has missed the understanding that Athanasius is specifically attacking the 'academic tradition' in the Boucolia's reliance on St. Mark as the fountainhead of their tradition. Athanasius raises up Jesus the Son resting in the bosom of his heavenly Father for the parallel tradition that little Mark who was also called John who rested in the bosom of Jesus who was the earthly hypostasis of the Father.
The point is that - without getting into all this speculation - that Athanasius is continually attacking the Boucolian tradition's reliance on St. Mark as teacher and father of their unbroken line of Patriarchs as we saw referenced in the Passio Petri Sancti. In the next paragraph it is the tradition's reliance on Mark rather than Jesus as the foundation of its authority and goes on to emphasize again:
it is written in the gospel that the Lord commanded that we not be called 'Rabbi' and that no one be called 'Teacher' except the Lord alone. While I was examining these (passages), a thought occurred to me that requires your scrutiny. What I thought is this: the task of the teacher is to teach, they are still called 'disciples,' for it is not they who are the originators of what they proclaim; rather they are at the service of the words of the true Teacher. For our Lord and our God Jesus Christ, because he wanted to inform us of this, said to his disciples, "What I say to you in the darkness, say in the light, and what you hear with your ears, proclaim upon the rooftops." (Matt 10:27) For the words that the disciples proclaim do not belong to them; they are what they heard from the Savior. Therefore even if it is Paul who teaches, it is nevertheless Christ who speaks in him. And even if he says that the Lord has appointed teachers in the churches, (cf. 1 Cor 12:28) he nevertheless first teaches them and then sends them out.
Brakke I think misses the whole context of these statements and instead exclusively focuses on the issue of 'apocryphal texts' versus canonical scriptures. This is what 'safe scholars' do. Yet how is it possible to ignore the fact that Arius was the presbyter of the Church of St. Mark before being expelled from the church by Athanasius' predecessor Alexander? The Arians and Meletians clung to the sanctity of this church and clearly - even if the connection between the Evangelist and the tradition is never made EXPLICIT in any of the surviving orthodox polemics against them, it should be absolutely clear that Athanasius is here attacking not only the Markan tradition's employment of apocryphal texts but specifically St. Mark's association with an apocryphal or 'hidden' gospel.
For the description that Athanasius gives above of the evangelists having no ownership of the words they lay out in their gospel - "for it is not they who are the originators of what they proclaim; rather they are at the service of the words of the true Teacher. For our Lord and our God Jesus Christ, because he wanted to inform us of this, said to his disciples, "What I say to you in the darkness, say in the light, and what you hear with your ears, proclaim upon the rooftops" - can be argued to be a reaction AGAINST the kind of argument that Clement lays out in the letter to Theodore where Mark is portrayed as a mystagogue arranging the material in a way which assumes he had great artistic license and ultimately 'ownership' of the final product.
Compare what Athanasius says with what is written in the Mar Saba document:
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. 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 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.
Of course I can't prove that the mystic or secret Gospel according to Mark which Clement knew was hidden away in the Church that Arius later presided over still existed in the fourth century, but I can't see a reason why it didn't. The words of Athanasius certainly aren't limited to the question of whether the 'teachers' in St. Mark's Church had the authority to properly interpret 1 Cor 2:9. The actual context of the letter is actually more far reaching. It is a polemic against the 'apocryphal canon' of the Church of St. Mark which I have written about extensively at this blog.
Not only have I already argued that 1 Corinthians was the Marcionite Letter to the Alexandrians and that it was placed first in the canon of the Alexandrians, I have noted that the heretics identified as 'those of Mark' (the Marcosians) are already identified by Irenaeus as possessing an 'apocryphal canon.' We read c. 180 CE that:
Besides the above misrepresentations [those of Mark] adduce an unspeakable 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. [Irenaeus AH i.20.1]
The language that Irenaeus uses against 'those of Mark' in 180 CE is clearly referenced by Athanasius later in the Festal Letter that those 'we have the divine Scriptures for salvation' he is afraid that:
a few of the simple folk might be led astray from the sincerity and purity through human deceit and might then begin to read other books, the so-called apocrypha, deceived by their having the same names as the genuine books.
The point again is that Brakke's arguments are too narrowly focused on 1 Cor 2:9. Indeed he introduces the idea that the heretics might be introducing a text called the Ascensions of Isaiah when it is clear that Athanasius says here that he is speaking about TEXTS 'having the same names as the genuine books.' In other words, if Isaiah was being referenced the text would have been a parallel collection of Isaiah's prophesies. Yet, as we have seen clearly a 'gospel' is also being referenced too. In the same way interesting Irenaeus references the Marcosian interest in apocryphal texts both Old Testament and a gospel presumably in the name of 'Mark' their teacher.
I won't go into too much detail that a number of scholars have already noted that Clement was a Marcosian or used so-called Marcosian texts. It is more important to see final confirm that Athanasius is in fact attacking a rival canon of 'apocryphal scriptures' which I believe confirms my repeated argument here that not just a 'secret Gospel according to Mark' was hidden in the Church of the evangelist but rather an 'apocryphal canon' - i.e. a longer Gospel according to Mark followed by the Pauline letters mirroring the order of what appears in the Muratorian canon (because the order was stolen from Alexandria).
Athanasius goes out of his way to point exactly this out in what immediately follows:
I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as certain people have set in order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set forth in order the books that are canonized, transmitted, and believed to be divine, so that those who have been deceived might condemn the persons who led them astray, and those who have remained pure might rejoice to be reminded (of these things).
I have deliberately mixed Brakke's translation of certain sections of the text with what appears in the Schaff edition because I think that Brakke again misses what is the whole purpose of the letter. The tradition of St. Mark in the Boucolia which was identified with the Arians and Melitians throughout the period retained a variant canon with texts with similar names to those of the Catholic tradition but which had a great number of variant passages.
Instead of employing a book called the Ascensions of Isaiah as Brakke speculates, I think they had a copy of the Book of Isaiah with variant material. Similarly they had a single gospel attributed to Mark against which Athanasius posits the four familiar canonical gospels in what follows. Yet notice also that Athanasius isn't just arguing about individual apocryphal texts with similar names and slightly different material. He is also talking about the order of the texts as they appear in the canon. This is why he meticulously goes through the correct order of the each text relative to one another in the true canon.
More to follow ...
