What got me think about this was the post by Stephen Carlson - I mean 'the_cave' - at his faux blog 'Synopic Solutions' (and who interestingly has stopped making any new posts for a month now after I questioned whether Carlson and cave were really one and the same person).
The owner of Synopic Solutions points to there being great difficulty reconciling Clement's encouragement to deny the truth when he says (in Smith's translation of the original Greek):
to them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.
Yet the owner of Synopic Solutons ignores that Scott Brown gives an equally plausible translation of this same passage as:
To them, therefore as I said above, one must never give way, nor when they put forward their falsifications should one concede that it (i.e. the Carpocratian gospel) is Mark's mystical gospel, but should even deny it on oath.
It is difficult to imagine that the owner of Synopic Solutions isn't aware that Scott Brown's translation is out there. Nevertheless he notes that To Theodore II.10 - 13:
is the most difficult wording of To Theodore to explain. For, in Strom. 7.51, of course, Clement rather explicitly explains how the Christian "gnostic" is to behave with respect to oaths, and he makes it clear that no deception is permissible. "He will neither lie nor commit perjury so as to wrong the Deity....The Gnostic swears truly..." Indeed, the Gnostic is not to swear at all, or to lie, even on pain of death: "And so he swears not even when asked for his oath; nor does he ever deny, so as to speak falsehood, though he should die by tortures."
Of course the idea that Clement is encouraging people to lie about the EXISTENCE of 'Secret Mark' disappears with Brown's equally plausible translation of the original material.
I have noted before that Clement's 'denial' sounds remarkably similar to the PRACTICE of the Marcionites with regards to their gospel (I think the Marcionites and the Alexandrians were one and the same tradition). The Marcionites said that their gospel had no human author but Hippolytus explicitly identifies a secret tradition that the actual author of their gospel was Mark.
So I am quite happy pointing to Scott Brown's translation of To Theodore in order to get around the 'crisis' that causes the owner of Synopic Solutions to rethink his ALLEGED support of the authenticity of to Theodore. But let's go beyond such childishness and ask a better question - why doesn't Scott Brown ever explain WHY Clement expects those who KNOW the truth about the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark should expect to endure 'oaths' to affirm that the rival -but false - Carpocratian gospel is the true Gospel of Mark?
If you can't explain this historical scenario, how can you affirm that the Letter to Theodore is authentic?
Well, let's consider a couple of things before we throw in the towel like 'the_cave.' Clement clearly connects what is said here to the words in the opening paragraph:
even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.
The point is that when Clement later says
To them, therefore as I said above, one must never give way, nor when they put forward their falsifications ...
only Brown's translation makes any sense here. When Smith concludes the sentence with:
... should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.
This doesn't make fit the statement at the beginning of the same letter. Clearly what bothers Clement is the fact that the Carpocratians claim to possess the Gospel of Mark. Clement by contrast argues that what they have instead is a 'mixed gospel,' a mingling of parts of the original Alexandrian text with things added (or possibly subtracted) by a later editor perhaps 'Carpocrates' himself.
Scott Brown's translation makes better sense than Smith's in light of what is said earlier. Yet as I just noted, he never explains how and why Clement should envision a historical situation where an Alexandrian would be faced with a copy of the Carpocratian Gospel of Mark and then be asked to 'deny it even on oath.'
How could a native Alexandrian Christian be forced to 'swear' that the Carpocratian gospel is 'really' by Mark?
I went through Scott Brown's book and never found an answer to this question. Instead he spends most of his time attacking Smith's translation saying 'the existence of a mystikon euangelion is taken for granted in these debates with the Carpocratians, for the Carpocratians have it. They are the ones who told Theodore about it in the first place!' (p. 30).
The issue of why Clement would speak about 'denying' that the Carpocratian gospel EVEN ON OATH is never addressed. Perhaps Clement is being dramatic. I don't think so. I think that thing which is being referenced is the Catholic baptism rituals which run counter to the Alexandrian tradition.
Of course this is a big thing to prove. I have had limited personal correspondence with Brown where I discovered that he thinks my ideas about the Roman tradition is being identified by Clement as 'the Carpocratians' are incorrect. But then, what is the alternative? At least allow me to connect the idea of 'oaths' to the baptism that was used to 'confirm' heretics into the true fold.
As Kelly (Early Christian Creeds notes about Tertullian:
whenever he has occasion to refer to the Christian's affirmation of his faith at baptism ... several times he employs the metaphor of a soldier of the imperial army taking a military oath. There must have been a close parallelism between the procedures involved, and since the soldier's oath was generally rehearsed in his hearing while he simply indicated his assent, the obvious deduction is that much the same must have happened at baptism. There is a well-known sentence in his treatise De Spectaculis which points to the same conclusion: 'when we entered the water and affirmed the Christian faith in answer to the words proscribed by its law, we testified with our lips that we had renounced the devil, his pomp and his angels.' The passage from the De Corona which has already been referred to is similar in its bearing: 'then we are three times immersed making a somewhat fuller reply than the Lord laid down in the gospel.' (pp. 46, 47)
Clearly Tertullian's baptism involved an interrogation where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were confirmed. We see this sort of thing represented in Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition.
Yet these types of rituals were directed at believers who wanted to adopt the faith without any previous Christian affiliation. There is a whole other body of literature that has survived about the tradition associated with a sect called 'the Marcosians' (i.e. 'those of Mark') and a special penitence ritual developed as a 'second baptism.'
The text I have in mind is the so-called 'Anonymous Treatise on Baptism' wrongly dated in my opinion to the mid-third century. It was clearly developed with Irenaeus' description of the Marcosians whose rituals, he claims were borrowed from Anaxilaus of Larissa, the famed physician, Pythagorean philosopher and magician.
I have noted many times that both this treatise and Irenaeus reference a 'secret baptism' in Mark chapter 10 that is one and the same with LGM 1, the first addition to the 'mystic' gospel of Mark in Alexandrian. For the moment though I just want to establish for the reader that the anonymous author references the heretics - once they are ready to 'repent' from their former beliefs - must 'swear an oath' like a soldier changing from one side to another:
But since the first part of this argument seems to be unfolded, we ought to touch on its subsequent part, on account of the heretics; because it is very necessary not to pass over that discussion which once falls into our hands, lest perchance some heretic should dare, of his subtlety, to assail those of our brethren who are more simple. For because John said that we must be baptized [by Jesus] in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness ... And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be— of Anaxilaus— whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. Just as, if a soldier after taking an oath should desert his camp, and in the very different camp of the enemy should wish to take an oath of a far other kind, it is plain that in this way he is discharged from his old oath.
Moreover, if a man of this sort should again return to you, you will assuredly hesitate whether he may have baptism or no; and yet it will behoove you, in whatever way you can, to aid even this man if he repent. [Anonymous Treatise 16,17]
I have already developed a number of posts demonstrating that the Anonymous Treatise was connected with the writings of Irenaeus. What I will go on to suggest in future posts is that Clement and the Alexandrian tradition was already under assault from the beginning of the Commodian period. I would even connect the persecution with the failed revolts in Alexandria (172 - 175 CE) which had the region around the Church of St. Mark in Boucolia as their epicenter.
Of course I can't prove any of these allegations yet. They are at the best suppositions which need further arguments and debate in order to develop them into a 'proof' of my assertions. Nevertheless it is enough to remind my readers that it is at least possible that the Carpocratian gospel is one and the same with our canonical Gospel of Mark or an earlier predecessor.
Yet this is not all. I think that we can make a more direct connection between the 'oath' referenced in To Theodore and contemporary re-baptisms of Alexandrian 'heretics.' As Kelly again notes:
one need only cite the pathetic story related by Dionysius of Alexandria in a letter to Pope Xystus about the man who came to see him in great distress: he had himself been baptized in heretical circles, and had just witnessed a Catholic baptism and heard "the questions and answers" and it dawned upon him that there was nothing like this in his own baptismal initiation. (p. 47)
Of course Kelly's summary of the letter is not quite accurate. The individual in question in actually described as a long standing member of the Alexandrian congregation:
For truly, brother, I am in need of counsel, and I ask your judgment concerning a certain matter which has come to me, fearing that I may be in error.
For one of the brethren that assemble, who has long been considered a believer, and who, before my ordination, and I think before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas, was a member of the congregation, was present with those who were recently baptized. And when he heard the questions and answers, he came to me weeping, and bewailing himself; and falling at my feet he acknowledged and protested that the baptism with which he had been baptized among the heretics was not of this character, nor in any respect like this, because it was full of impiety and blasphemy.
And he said that his soul was now pierced with sorrow, and that he had not confidence to lift his eyes to God, because he had set out from those impious words and deeds. And on this account he besought that he might receive this most perfect purification, and reception and grace.
But I did not dare to do this; and said that his long communion was sufficient for this. For I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the Amen; who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and who had received it, and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I exhorted him to be of good courage, and to approach the partaking of the saints with firm faith and good hope.
But he does not cease lamenting, and he shudders to approach the table, and scarcely, though entreated, does he dare to be present at the prayers.[Eusebius Church History 7:9]
I am sorry my friends, there is something peculiar going on here. It seems strange to me at least that Dionysius should be showing such deference to Xystus when he was only one who held this name at the time (Roman bishops only began being called 'Pope' in the fifth century).
I see EXACT parallels with the discussion in Clement's Letter to Theodore. We have an 'oath' were a member of the Alexandrian community is being called 'a heretic' (presumably so identified owing to something he had written which displeased Xystus). When Origen was expelled from Alexandria, it explicitly says that this was done owing to the dictates of the Roman government. I can't believe that Xystus' authority came from the same source.
Maybe that's why Dionysius ended up throwing his support behind Zenobia when she conquered Egypt and finally granted the Alexandrian Church liberation from its oppressor ...
