Nevertheless, with all of that said I did indeed find a way to reconcile Christianity with traditions more closely aligned with Judaism. I assumed that Christianity was developed out of Alexandria. I gave tacit acceptance to the idea that the story of St. Mark coming to Alexandria might not be complete bullshit. I also started giving serious thought to the whole 'gospel secret' concept in the Gospel of Mark wondering whether or not Mark's 'secret' might have something to do with the 'secret' identification of Mark in the Evangelium by members of his Alexandrian tradition down through the ages and to this very day.
Why would Mark 'hide himself' in his own gospel? Perhaps he was hiding more than just his presence as a witness to the 'doings of the Lord.' Maybe the 'gospel secret' was that Mark was really the messiah, the second Moses and Jesus was originally conceived by the Alexandrians as the angel of glory which accompanied the real Moses during the original Exodus.
That's my formulation. I can't claim with absolute certainty that I am right about everything that I suppose but this formulation does make Christianity 'work' with respect to the original expectations of Jews and Samaritans regarding 'the one to come.'
My assumption of course was that in the Commodian period Irenaeus reorganized the canon to dilute or diminish the original 'gospel secret' formula which was a part of a longer, Alexandrian gospel - the one referenced in the Letter to Theodore.
I for one do not believe that Clement says that Mark wrote for Peter regarding 'the Lord's doings' is our canonical 'according to Mark.' I think scholars can be accused of sloppiness in their reasoning here. There is nothing in to Theodore that prevents us from identifying this text as the Gospel of Peter or the keryma Petrou referenced many times in Clement's other writings. The fact that Irenaeus and his sources reinforce that Mark wrote the canonical 'according to Mark' as the interpreter of Peter cannot be viewed as decisive in any way. I have showed over and over again that the existing New Testament was arranged by Irenaeus in such a way that is entirely hostile to the Markan tradition.
To this end I would like to go back to the long citation of the beginning of Book Three of Irenaeus' Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So-Called and see how it was that the canon was arranged to ultimately subordinate St. Mark and the Alexandrian tradition generally. I have pointed this out in numerous other posts from other portions of Irenaeus' writings.
For the moment however let me go back to that long citation from the beginning of Book Three and start developing the necessary commentary on the twenty sections I highlighted earlier. I will take material paragraph by paragraph in order to show that not only (a) Irenaeus operated in the very manner of the 'final editor' alluded to in Trobisch's Final Edition of the New Testament canon but that (b) his purpose was again to subordinate St. Mark, his gospel and the Alexandrian tradition generally.
Irenaeus begin by declaring that:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles (1).
(1) I cannot help but see that this is a rejection of the two part composition effort of St. Mark referenced in to Theodore namely that "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. 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." The concept of 'perfect knowledge' alluded in Irenaeus is clearly present in Clement's identification of a Gospel according to Mark which in essence was an 'improvement' of something formerly written by the same evangelist 'for Peter.'
It is Irenaeus however who is the one who has caused us now to think that that 'former text' was indeed a 'gospel of Mark.' If you look carefully at Chapter Three and what is said there of the 'incorrect assumptions' about the Gospel prevalent among the heretics, it is repeatedly reference to an 'imperfect' revelation to the apostles which came first, and then, only in some later period, a gospel according to 'perfect knowledge' manifested itself.
Sound familiar?
As such, given that Peter is taken for granted to have been the head of the apostles, Clement's reference to a kerygma Petrou 'according to the faith' and then a Gospel written SECRETLY 'according to Mark' and according to perfect knowledge seems an uncanny 'match' to what Irenaeus is describing.
Knowing then that SOMEONE is claiming a twofold dispensation of the gospel LIKE TO THEODORE, Irenaeus continues with HIS UNDERSTANDING of a continuous revelation of perfect knowledge over the same period of time (i.e. before and after the martyrdom of Peter) which in my opinion again, very much resembles the original 'heretical' understanding just mentioned.
I think Irenaeus can be accused again of modifying and adapting the original Alexandrian understanding. But let's put what he says first under a microscope.
We read in what immediately follows:
For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter (2), did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia(3).
(2) If we compare Clement's model in to Theodore with Irenaeus' in the Refutation there are a number of important agreements. First of all, there is an acknowledged period where 'the gospel' was just a 'preaching' or kerygma. Then at some point, this oral tradition became written down. Irenaeus and Clement both agree that Mark wrote something down for Peter AROUND THE TIME of Peter's martyrdom in Rome. The major points of disagreement between Irenaeus and Clement are again (a) that Irenaeus says that the apostles had 'perfect knowledge' from the beginning which Clement explicitly contradicts (b) that Irenaeus injects the Gospel of the Hebrews as a separate tradition, strongly aligned with the traditional revelation of the Jews, which came BEFORE any writing on the part of Mark (c) that while Clement claims that Mark wrote another 'more spiritual gospel' after this text written for Peter, Irenaeus claims that Mark wrote only gospel (i.e. that Mark's gospel for Peter IS the canonical 'according to Mark) and that 'according to John' was the spiritual gospel which closed the evangelical dispensation.
(3) It is not at all hard to see that Irenaeus' tradition is not entirely independent of Clement's model. Indeed if we assume as I do that Clement's reference to 'Carpocrates' was a hidden reference to the Asian Church of Polycarp, Irenaeus' effort to replace the more spiritual gospel Mark wrote in Alexandria with some form of the original 'Gospel of John' represents the triumph of the 'mixed gospel' tradition referenced in To Theodore over the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark.
So it is that when Irenaeus concludes this section by writing that 'afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia' there can be no doubt that (a) that the gospel of Polycarp and 'Carpocrates' were both connected with the 'Asian Church' and (b) as we shall see by the end of this section of text, the Asian Church originally saw John as writing the 'gospel of Paul' rather than Luke. 'Luke' is a new invention of Irenaeus to 'correct' some of the Valentinian 'errors' associated with the original tradition of Polycarp as witnessed by Florinus.
In any event, if we continue with our original discussion of the section in the Refutation Irenaeus immediately continues from where we left off by saying:
These [witnesses] have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics(4).
(4) It is worth noting again that when Irenaeus lists the various parts of the fourfold gospel the only text which is not identified as going back to a 'gospel' per se is the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Matthew is connected with the Gospel of the Hebrews, Luke wrote the 'Gospel' preached by Paul and John moroever 'himself published a Gospel' which, interestingly implies that he had the most direct role in the dissemination of his literary text.
So it is that when Irenaeus starts speaking now about heretics employing a gospel which goes beyond the traditions of the Jewish god, we should immediately suspect that Irenaeus is attacking the Gospel behind the canonical 'according to Mark' (which as we just noted isn't even referenced as a 'Gospel' when Irenaeus lays out the unfolding of the evangelic revelation - perhaps alluding to the loose reference in to Theodore of a keryma Petrou rather a gospel per se?).
Indeed when Irenaeus later references the 'Gospel by Mark' in chapter eleven of this same book it is portrayed as an utterly heretical text 'preferred' by certain followers of Mark who not only use it to emphasize a docetic Jesus but moreover in the extended section which follows - denied the Law and the prophets foretold the revelation of its message.
In no uncertain terms then do I think that the description of the fourfold unfolding of the Gospel in Irenaeus' Refutation is a reaction against the twofold revelation in To Theodore. I would further characterize it as IMPLICITLY anti-Markan and anti-Alexandrian.
In any event, Irenaeus continues by writing:
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (5)
(5) This is yet another example of the discussion of Irenaeus representing a perfect match with what is said in Clement's To Theodore. To begin with, when Clement says that two texts were written by Mark, he doesn't just infer that the first one - written on behalf of the head of the apostles (i.e. Peter) - was 'less perfect' than the Gospel according to Mark, he also makes clear that what is written in the Alexandrian gospel of Mark requires an accompanying 'oral tradition' to unlock the secrets of its 'perfect knowledge.' We read that Mark '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.'
I cannot believe that anyone could reasonably argue that Morton Smith or any 'forger' from the time of Clement could have so perfectly 'developed' a heretical Gospel of Mark which so closely resembles the claims made by Irenaeus about such a text in his Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called. Even the 'experts' in these matters have not realized the way this text fits into what is described in Chapter Three like the last piece in a long, lost puzzle.
Irenaeus continues by saying:
wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth(6), is not ashamed to preach himself.
(6) I have noted in a comprehensive discussion of the lost Alexandrian canon that the Letter to the Corinthians was undoubtedly originally identified as 'to the Alexandrians' and that this section of text and those like it ARE ALWAYS employed by Clement, Origen and the Marcionites in the manner in which Irenaeus describes here. To this end there can be no doubt that the heresy or heresies that Irenaeus is attacking are specifically Alexandrian. This is significant for our identification of the understanding of To Theodore lurking in the shadows of Irenaeus' text.
There can be no doubt that the orthodoxy which grew out of Alexandria had a canon which began with a single Evangelium (secretly attributed to Mark) which was followed by an Apostolicon which began with the so-called Letter to the Corinthians. The letter was used to reinforce the existence of a 'gospel secret' or kabbalah if you will (the Aramaic term taken in the most literal sense of 'tradition' but APPLIED by the heretics to include aeons, gematria and other things Irenaeus discloses in his treatise).
Against this formula we see Irenaeus employ a very 'Trobischean' (if I can coin a term) concept for the opposing orthodox New Testament - he calls it a 'system of truth.' The reason why I am so drawn to this term is that it perfectly embodies the functionality that Trobisch sees in the canon. It is a 'system' which when read together establishes the 'truth of the apostolic preaching' and moreover - as we have noted - the identities and 'character' of the eight principle 'agents' of that apostolic message.
So we see Irenaeus immediately go on to identify this 'system of truth' with 'the tradition of the apostles' as we read:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles (7), [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.
(7) I know that what I am about to say might seem obvious to regular readers of my post but I am directing this discussion at anyone who might stumble upon it on the web. As Trobisch limits himself to discuss the evidence for the 'final redaction' of the New Testament in the late second century to surviving manuscripts of that same collection from later periods, he leaves out what accompanies Irenaeus' reference to 'the system of truth' of 'the tradition of the apostles' which is what he claims to be an 'adulterated succession' of bishops from the apostolic period.
Of course while Irenaeus might theoretically have accepted any number of apostolic claims he really as only two - maybe three - in mind i.e. Rome, Ephesus (which are referenced directly in the book) and Antioch which is inescapable owing to the structure of the Acts of the Apostles (which is clearly developed with an Antioch in mind). It is worth noting that after demonstrating a profound hostility to the Markan gospel tradition, Irenaeus' omission in the Refutation to reference Mark's Alexandrian See only strengthens that argument. Indeed we see in the opening lines of the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching UNMISTAKABLE hostility directed against the Alexandrian See and its throne which should serve to reinforce in any objective observer's suspicions of the aforementioned anti-Markan agenda.
For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour (8); and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner!
(8) Most commentators would miss entirely what it is at the heart of Irenaeus' comments here because - quite frankly - they are unfamiliar with the mystical basis of Judaism and how Christianity originally distinguished itself from that 'system.' We shouldn't so much think in terms of the heretics rejecting ALL passages from the Law and the prophets (which even Tertullian can't deny were present in the Marcionite canon) but rather than Judaism was understood to be a manifestation of a hebdomad while Christianity proceeded from the ogdoad (i.e. a 'pleroma' one better than the seven heavens of the Jews).
So we read in Irenaeus other surviving work (i.e. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching) his CLEAR identification of the 'orthodoxy' of the hebdomad:
Now this world is encompassed by seven heavens, in which dwell powers and angels and archangels, doing service to God, the Almighty and Maker of all things: not as though He was in need, but that they may not be idle and unprofitable and ineffectual. Wherefore also the Spirit of God is manifold in (His) indwelling,and in seven forms of service is He reckoned by the prophet Isaiah, as resting on the Son of God, that is the Word, in His coming as man. The Spirit of God, he says, shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, (the Spirit of knowledge) and of godliness; the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him. Now the heaven which is first from above, and encompasses the rest, is (that of) wisdom; and the second from it, of understanding; and the third, of counsel; and the fourth, reckoned from above, (is that) of might; and the fifth, of knowledge; and the sixth, of godliness; and the seventh, this firmament of ours, is full of the fear of that Spirit which gives light to the heavens. For, as the pattern (of this), Moses received the seven-branched candlestick, that shined continually in the holy place; for as a pattern of the heavens he received this service, according to that which the Word spake unto him: Thou shalt make according to all the pattern of the things which thou hast seen in the mount [Proof of the Apost. 9]
While Irenaeus work against the Ogdoad does not survive there can be no doubt that the reference here to the 'pleroma' is part of his general attack on the Alexandrian interest in the holy number eight being 'one better' than the Jewish system based on the number seven. I have demonstrated in previous posts how the additional material cited from the longer Alexandrian Gospel of Mark in to Theodore can be used to reconstruct a ritual context for the ogdoad being at the heart of Christianity there but also developing directly from traditional Jewish messianic expectations.
Just to say it one more time, the system of Irenaeus only superficially flatters the original revelation of Moses BY LIMITING CHRISTIANS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE RULER OF THE WORLD (i.e. Caesar). This is completely contrary to the original expectations of the mystical traditions of Israel which awaited the coming of the 'one better than seven' taken both in terms of the eight and the related Jubilee concept of 50 (i.e. 7 x 7 + 1).
It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if perchance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it (9).
(9) Irenaeus is not talking about some abstract understanding of the heretics coming to accept 'the Law and the prophets' or the god of Christianity as the Lord and Creator of the Jews but rather again - the 'system of truth' described by Trobisch so well in the Final Edition of the New Testament. We should see that what makes Trobisch's scholarship so successful is that he limits himself to the functionality of the canon in terms of 'identifying' the various characters in the founding of the Church. Yet the 'system of truth' does more than this. As Irenaeus notes it goes from identifying WHO the disciples were to WHAT the wholly orthodox beliefs they held in common were. This is of course done in a circular manner - i.e. that because everything about the canon agrees therefore the disciples themselves must have been in agreement about every aspect of orthodoxy. Nevertheless it is important that we develop this in greater length when we come to our study of the beliefs and character of Irenaeus' alleged teacher (and chief witness for the person of 'John') i.e. Polycarp.
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves (10). For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
(10) Irenaeus begins his proof of the 'system of truth' (i.e. the identification of WHO the disciples were and WHAT the orthodox beliefs they held in common were) by reinforcing that the Roman Church represents a living witness to the things testified to in the manuscripts of the Catholic tradition. We will get to a full discussion of this idea in the next section. For the moment however it is important again to note that Irenaeus goes back to the whole 'secret Mark' paradigm referenced in to Theodore, essentially questioning how it could be possible that the Alexandrians could claim that Mark not only "did not divulge the things not to be uttered" hiding a secret teaching "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" but moreover 'hiding' his composition in secrecy with "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."
What Irenaeus objects to is exactly what modern critics like Hurtado and Jeffrey reject - i.e. the idea that there could have been a gospel which wasn't openly disseminated throughout the world like the Catholic canon.
Irenaeus immediately continues with an explanation why it is that he can only bring forward ONE episcopal succession on which to prove that the Catholic Church is as old and united as he says it is. He apologizes to his readers by saying that he doesn't want to bore them with all the details of all the churches and the proof that they were really always united:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul (11); as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
(11) I know scholars think that they 'already understand' these words. This is the whole basis to the rejection of the authenticity of To Theodore by people like Hurtado and Jeffrey - i.e. 'we know what the truth is, it is in Irenaeus and other early Fathers, and this text contradicts this truth.' However I see matters in the exact opposite sense - I think the arguments of Clement's To Theodore PERFECTLY FIT within the Refutation. All that it makes certain is that Clement was secretly on the other side, that he was a Marcosian as I have demonstrated at great length in a series of posts from last year.
To this end, I think that by looking again at Irenaeus' words IN LIGHT OF WHAT CLEMENT WRITES IN TO THEODORE we are allowed to see the natural progression from the twofold gospel canon of Alexandria (where initiates move from 'faith' to 'perfect knowledge') to the gospel in four of the Roman Church.
To this end what is critical to see where it is that Clement and Irenaeus IMPLICITLY AGREE - i.e. that Mark wrote a 'gospel' (or a preservation of the kerygma Petrou) BEFORE Peter's martyrdom at Rome. This is absolutely critical because Irenaeus explicitly references the "tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul." So it is that when Irenaeus initially developed his claims about the original dispensation of the gospel, it becomes unmistakable again that he is countering the pre-existent claims of Alexandria and that only their traditions were 'according to perfection.'
Look again my friends as Clement says that Mark wrote an account of the Lord's doings for Peter at Rome BEFORE Peter's martyrdom. Clement clearly must have thought that this was the 'real' expression of Petrine tradition which - as we have already noted was a SUBORDINATE revelation to that which Mark wrote 'according to perfection' at Alexandria and which formed the basis to the Alexandrian liturgy.
We must imagine that when speaking inter pares the members of the Alexandrian not only confirmed what Irenaeus says they said about the Petrine tradition (or 'the tradition of the apostles' according to Irenaeus' self-serving terminology) but said in effect 'only we know the truth.' Indeed all the times that Irenaeus refers to Alexandrian heretics who 'go beyond' not only the 'tradition of the apostles' but 'the Lord himself' are clearly reflecting the historical fact that ALL the heretical teachings were ultimately attributable to St. Mark.
This is also accounts for why he was effectively buried in the Acts of the Apostles or ALWAYS referenced by his Hebrew name 'John.' There was no way that anyone could get around that the real Mark of history was a heretic - or if you will - promoted the messianic concept of the 'ogdoad.' I have already written many posts that the concept of the ogdoad, its relation to the crossing of the Sea (on the eighth day) and the power of 888 guiding the Israelites were all present in the writings of Mark's Samaritan writings.
All I am suggesting is that antiquity the connection between this 'Dosithean' Mark and St. Mark the founder of Christianity would have been much easier to discern.
In any event, we should see that Irenaeus' whole purpose is now to deny that the 'account of the Lord's doings' attributed by the Alexandrian tradition as written by Mark for Peter. This because it is this text which was always taken to represent something less than perfection. You can't have an immaculate Roman Catholic tradition and use an imperfect gospel. So it is that he goes out of his way to deny that the gospel that Mark wrote for Peter in Rome was composed BEFORE Peter's martyrdom. He says instead at the beginning of this section that there was instead:
a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter
Everyone should now see that the canonical Gospel of Mark has been removed from any DIRECT association with 'the original tradition of the apostolic age.' Irenaeus clearly has in mind Papias 'doubts' about the accuracy of the Markan revelation. Now the Gospel of the Hebrews EFFECTIVELY BECOMES THE BASIS TO THE ROMAN TRADITION (even if it was written somewhere else). The Gospel of Mark now being subordinated NOT ONLY by making Mark a mere 'interpreter' of Peter but moreover ACCEPTING THE IMPLICIT UNDERSTANDING IN TO THEODORE that Peter never actually saw or held the Gospel of Mark in his hands.
Irenaeus continues with a statement of the sanctity of the Roman Church which sprang from Peter. Yet most scholars have failed to recognize that this Petrine tradition is not directly tied to the Petrine gospel (i.e. 'according to Mark') which is very strange in itself. The proof of the apostolic preaching is principally established in the episcopal succession through Linus:
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [i.e. the Roman Church], on account of its preeminent authority (13), that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy (14). To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians (15), exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood (15), and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
(12) The last two paragraphs of this section are so utterly important and the arguments so intertwined within these sections that I cannot help but cite them mostly in their entirety and develop a series of points out of each unit. The first point here is a continuation of our last point which is often ignored by Patristic writers owing to its perplexing character. Even though 'according to Mark' is identified as the text wrote for Peter (it is never identified as a gospel in its own right) it is incorrect to ascribe 'according to Mark' as the gospel of the Roman or 'apostolic tradition.' In a curious and most perplexing way, this Roman tradition is clearly based on the Gospel of the Hebrews. Irenaeus describes it as the 'foundation' of this Roman apostolic Church.
Is there any clearer evidence that the Gospel of Mark was something of a problem for Irenaeus. He is trying to make a tradition 'according to Mark' fit within a framework where it ultimately could not and did not belong. To this end, whereas Clement will explicitly acknowledge to Theodore that not only was 'the Gospel according to Mark' composed in Alexandria for the Alexandrian Church and formed the beating heart of its religion all that Irenaeus can say about the canonical 'according to Mark' is that it was written at Rome after the death of Peter (and Paul).
Sound familiar?
In other words, Irenaeus does not EXPLICITLY contradict the idea that the original Gospel of Mark might be at Alexandria. He strangely does not identify where the original manuscripts OF ANY of the four texts that make up the 'Gospel' are. Indeed given the power that basis arguments on physical manuscripts are for Trobisch's thesis it becomes entirely puzzling that Irenaeus did not say something akin to the statement that appears in To Theodore namely "he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded." This would certainly have ended the debate right there about which tradition was first.
Indeed when we look again at the way Irenaeus' argument unfolds it sounds ever the more curious the more you hear it. At the beginning of this section he declares that:
all do indeed equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.
'All' clearly meaning all the churches of God which again can be read in a backhanded reference (in light of his absence to point to physical manuscripts) to the fact that Roman Church was not in the possession of the original manuscripts of any of the texts.
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome
Okay, but this sounds already like Irenaeus is discounting the fact that the Roman Church didn't have this manuscript. 'It was written somewhere in Judea,' he seems to be saying. 'I don't know where, how, when exactly or where the original is now.'
This text however is 'the foundation of the Church' even though the Church of Rome can not produce an autograph.
As we move on to the second gospel we see another strangely inexact reference. If the Gospel of the Hebrews was written 'sometime in the lead up to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul' while both were at Rome, 'sometime after their deaths' Mark wrote this gospel for Peter. Again, no reference as to where the text is now. If Irenaeus thought that his Roman Church had the autograph he would certainly have said so.
The most inexact reference of all is reserved for Luke where absolutely no information is given. The clearest information that Irenaeus gives out is with regards to "John's gospel" where it is said that it was "published" by the apostle "himself" at Ephesus.
(13) Irenaeus uses a reference in the disputed Epistle to Timothy to connect the Roman Church to the New Testament. This is an example of Trobisch's 'editorial concept' at work.
(14) Irenaeus uses another canonical letter - 1 Clement (canonical in Codex Alexandrianus and "Canon 85" of the Canons of the Apostles) - to further connect the Roman Church to the New Testament.
(15) Although Irenaeus uses the canonical 1 Clement letter to prove that "the apostolical tradition of the Church ... is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood" I have argued that the letters associated with Clement were undoubtedly of Alexandrian origin and rebaptized with the name Clement for the very purpose Irenaeus uses in his narrative - i.e. to establish the antiquity of the Roman See.
Before we move on to the conclusion we should not that Irenaeus has spent the last section edifying the antiquity of the Roman tradition without referencing a gospel. Instead, he vaguely alludes to the First Gospel being written WHILE the two heads of the Church (Peter and Paul) were away in Rome and then puts forward TWO ESSENTIALLY DISPUTED CANONICAL TEXTS - the Letter to Timothy and 1 Clement - to 'prove' Roman primacy (strange that Irenaeus didn't reference the Pauline Epistle to the Romans).
Now in the last paragraph of the section Irenaeus goes on to essentially defend the 'orthodoxy' of Polycarp and the church of Asia:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth (16), for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church (17). There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth (18); as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles (19).
(16) Irenaeus purpose now is to accomplish the impossible - namely to connect the 'heretical' tradition of Polycarp (heretical clearly at least according to some) with the orthodoxy just established for the Church of Rome. How could a tradition in Rome founded on the principles which went into the Gospel of the Hebrews be identified as 'the same as' a loose, spiritual and undisciplined school like that associated with Polycarp? This is Irenaeus' challenge and the cause of his disputes with someone like Gaius on one end of the spectrum and Florinus on the other.
The first step in his effort is to transform to give the unnamed 'stranger' of Asia Minor with a new name - 'Polycarp' undoubtedly developed from the name of his church - viz. Maphrian. In the rest of the pages of Irenaeus work his identified much closer to the impression that Lucian of Samosata gives us of him as an 'unnamed Stranger,' Irenaeus according to Charles Hill identifies him as the (unnamed) 'Elder' for most of the rest of the book.
It is worth mentioning that there is a parallel between the unnamed Elder being called 'Polycarp' or Ephraim from the name of his church. The name 'Marcion' has been similarly identified by Boid as deriving for the Aramaic term 'those of Mark' (i.e. marqiyone).
(17) There is a clear sense in the writing that despite all the Irenaeus claims about 'the Roman tradition' that the reality of the historical situation was that Polycarp did not come to a friendly place when he "came to Rome in the time of Anicetus." I can't believe that I am the first person to notice this. Of course, I sometimes get the feeling that most scholars who study the Pstristic writings play the part of referees attempting to influence the result of the thing they are supposed to be studying with some objectivity.
Irenaeus spends the previous chapter arguing on behalf of the idea that there is this Roman tradition which grew out of the 'foundation' of the Gospel of the Hebrews. He cites two disputed works to 'prove' that the Roman tradition was older than any other - the deutero-Pauline Epistle to Timothy and 1 Clement. There is no mention of the Gospel of John in any of this, which, as we have already seen was a flower of the Church which is in Asia.
Now we see that the Asian tradition - embodied in Polycarp - and the Roman tradition finally collide during Polycarp's visit to Rome just after the middle of the second century ... and it wasn't an agreeable meeting. As Irenaeus says elsewhere - at best they agreed to disagree. Here the brief glimpse into the contemporary Roman landscape seems far less hospitable. All that Irenaeus will say about it is that Polycarp "caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church."
But how can this be? How can there be on the one hand a unified Christian Church headquartered at Rome from the very beginning and then this claim that whatever was at Rome needed to be instructed by the head of the Asian Church as to the 'true beliefs' of the Church?
When taken together there can only be one inference from all of this - the 'unity' of various traditions based in Rome and embodied by the fourfold gospel are only as old as Irenaeus' reforms. Irenaeus is the first person in history to witness a fourfold gospel. As we shall see in subsequent posts, Polycarp used a Diatessaron-like gospel shared by the author of 1 Clement. The most convincing piece of evidence here is that when Irenaeus references the 'gospel in four' he does say 'this is what Polycarp believed' or even 'this is what some tradition somewhere before me believed' or even 'a tradition ANYWHERE at ANY TIME before believed.'
If Irenaeus could have said it, he would have said it, but he can't because it stretches the bounds of credibility.
Instead what he alludes to is the fact that a 'collision' occurred when Polycarp came to Rome - much like the proverbial meeting of chocolate and peanut butter in the Reeses Peanut Butter Cups of old. It might not have been intended, but what followed from that meeting was indeed the beginning of a reconciliation between Rome and the Churches of Asia embodied in the power and authority of at least two disciples of Polycarp having risen to the top of the Roman Church in the Commodian period (Irenaeus and Florinus).
The reconciliation of the Alexandrian Church into this mix did not occur until the time of Constantine and the conspiracy of Hosius of Cordoba and Alexander of Alexandria. All of which leaves open the question - where is Alexandria in the formulations of Irenaeus? The answer is obvious - 'Alexandria' is witnessed by the 'multi-fold' 'heretical' traditions AGAINST which Irenaeus wrote and most notably (as I have shown before) 'those of Mark' (AH i.13 - 21).
(18) The two stories that Irenaeus cites as coming from Polycarp represent nothing short of another layer to the 'editorial concept' identified by Trobisch. For when you think about it, the obvious purpose of these stories is to distinguish Polycarp's John from 'Cerinthus' and 'Marcion' (i.e. Mark). Aristotle having established that two things cannot occupy the same space. As such if Polycarp is witnessed to have spoken against two prominent heretics who are otherwise connected with the 'Johannine tradition' or the Asian Church by its detractors, the inference would be that John is someone wholly separate.
So it is that when Irenaeus writes that "those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within" those hearing the story walk away with the sense that Gaius and the Alexandrian tradition must be wrong when they claim that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse were written by 'the Corinthian,' Cerinthos' or some such name.
Similarly the fact that Irenaeus says that Polycarp met with Marcion 'somewhere' and refused to recognize his authority and accused him of being a snake (the first born of Satan) the purpose of the meeting was to recast the Alexandrian claim that the (unnamed) Elder was a schismatic of the tradition of St. Mark. The arguments for identifying Polycarp as 'Carpocrates' are developed here. The only point we need to consider now is that at the same time that St. Mark is diminished in the tradition of Irenaeus to a 'mere hanger-on' of Peter and Paul, Polycarp's rejection of 'Marcion' (a name developed from the Aramaic Marqiyone in the same way that Polycarp is transformed from Maphrian) turns upside down the tradition order.
No longer a merely 'sectarian' breaking away from the well established order of St. Mark's See. Now it is Polycarp - a man living in the second century - whose 'horror' (rather than 'schism,' the word the Markan tradition would have used) which 'perfectly embodies' the spirit of "the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth."
(19) I will develop the true history of Polycarp over the next few days. All that I am asking my readership is to at least ENTERTAIN or 'consider' the idea that the real Polycarp of history might not have been one and the same as the Polycarp of Irenaeus. I think I have started to chip away at this traditional 'assumption' (which is so asinine I can't even say anything more about it) but consider also that locked in the final statement in this section is a clear sense of THE ORIGINAL FORMULATION of the Maphrain tradition - "the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." I am about to make the case that before Irenaeus' formulation that Luke wrote the 'gospel of Paul' the Asian tradition saw the Evangelium written by John as the 'gospel of Paul.'
Irenaeus introduced Luke to bring about 'peace' in the Church (i.e. from those who disputed the Maphrain as 'heretics').
