Putting My Major Discovery of a Clear Allusion to Clement's Letter to Theodore in the Writings of Irenaeus in Some Historical Context

Now let's remember just one thing. I am not exclusively interested in the Letter to Theodore. I have a much larger theory about the development of Christianity from Alexandria until the time of Irenaeus. If I was a partisan I would have simply cited my proof that 'Irenaeus' witnesses the Carpocratians were connected with a rival doctrine of a resurrection of a covered neaniskos which seems to echo ideas found at the heart of Clement's Letter to Theodore.

If I were a partisan it would be enough to show a proof that second and third century witnesses were well aware of the controversies associated with a long Gospel of Mark. Irenaeus for one thinks that certain passages that now DO NOT appear in Mark originally appeared in the Gospel of Mark of his day [AH iv.6.1]. Yet as I have just noted, I am not a partisan. I am not interested in skewing arguments to further a thesis.

Yes, I am certain that Irenaeus AND Hippolytus were aware of the arguments of to Theodore. I think I have demonstrated much of this already in my treatment of Book Three of Against the Heresies (or the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called). My last post made this even clearer.

However because I am more interested in uncovering 'big truths' than merely 'scoring points for one side' of the Secret Mark debate, I have to write a post about a pattern I have noticed in the Five Books Against the Heresies which ultimately complicates attributing the aforementioned witness that the Carpocratians were attached to a doctrine of the resurrection of a covered neaniskos.

I have never been convinced that the second list of heretics which starts with Simon Magus in chapter 23 of Book One and goes down to the Cainites (Chapter 31) was an original part of Irenaeus' treatise. I think that it was added by Hippolytus to square his system which explains all heresies as developing from Simon Magus.

Irenaeus' original treatise in my mind was only interested in attributing all heresies to Valentinus. There is no mention of Simon Magus BEFORE Chapter 23 in Book One. But later in Book Two and Book Three we see Irenaeus seem to exclaim in the first person that he was arguing in Book One that the Valentinians developed from Simon, which is an argument which is clearly NOT there.

So let's discuss the pattern that I notice in Book One and Two. You can clearly see that references to Simon are added AT THE END of each book. For Book One:

Chapter One - Chapter Twenty Two - No mention of Simon all sects derive from Valentinus
Chapter Twenty Three - Chapter Thirty One - Simon referenced fifteen times; head of each heresy
Conclusion of the Book

For Book Two almost the same pattern can be discerned. The discussion of the Carpocratians promoting a doctrine of the resurrection of the dead associated with 'covered boys' is an offshoot of a lengthy re-introduction of the topic of Simon Magus being the head of all the heresies. Before Chapter 31 of Book Two the material again develops around the various Valentinian offshoots SAVE FOR THE INTRODUCTION where the editor of Irenaeus' original material again misrepresents Book One as 'acknowledging' Hippolytus' position that all the heresies come from Simon:

In the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "knowledge falsely so called," I showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole system devised, in many and opposite ways, by those who are of the school of Valentinus, was false and baseless. I also set forth the tenets of their predecessors, proving that they not only differed among themselves, but had long previously swerved from the truth itself. I further explained, with all diligence, the doctrine as well as practice of Marcus the magician, since he, too, belongs to these persons; and I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions. Moreover, I minutely narrated the manner in which, by means of numbers, and by the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly endeavour to establish [what they regard as] truth. I have also related how they think and teach that creation at large was formed after the image of their invisible Pleroma, and what they hold respecting the Demiurge, declaring at the same time the doctrine of Simon Magus of Samaria, their progenitor, and of all those who succeeded him. I mentioned, too, the multitude of those Gnostics who are sprung from him, and noticed the points of difference between them, their several doctrines, and the order of their succession, while I set forth all those heresies which have been originated by them. I showed, moreover, that all these heretics, taking their rise from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this life; and I explained the nature of their "redemption," and their method of initiating those who are rendered "perfect," along with their invocations and their mysteries. I proved also that there is one God, the Creator, and that He is not the fruit of any defect, nor is there anything either above Him, or after Him. [AH Preface.1]

The only other time that Simon is reintroduced in the thirty one chapters which follow is yet another editorial addition which again misrepresents the material which preceded the present volume in Book One:

This God, then, being acknowledged, as I have said, and receiving testimony from all to the fact of His existence, that Father whom they conjure into existence is beyond doubt untenable, and has no witnesses [to his existence]. Simon Magus was the first who said that he himself was God over all, and that the world was formed by his angels. Then those who succeeded him, as I have shown in the first book, by their several opinions, still further depraved [his teaching] through their impious and irreligious doctrines against the Creator. These [heretics now referred to], being the disciples of those mentioned, render such as assent to them worse than the heathen. For the former "serve the creature rather than the Creator," and "those which are not gods," notwithstanding that they ascribe the first place in Deity to that God who was the Maker of this universe. But the latter maintain that He, [i.e., the Creator of this world,] is the fruit of a defect, and describe Him as being of an animal nature, and as not knowing that Power which is above Him, while He also exclaims, "I am God, and besides Me there is no other God." Affirming that He lies, they are themselves liars, attributing all sorts of wickedness to Him; and conceiving of one who is not above this Being as really having an existence, they are thus convicted by their own views of blasphemy against that God who really exists, while they conjure into existence a god who has no existence, to their own condemnation. And thus those who declare themselves "perfect," and as being possessed of the knowledge of all things, are found to be worse than the heathen, and to entertain more blasphemous opinions even against their own Creator.[AH ii.9.2]

Let me reinforce to my readers then the obvious pattern that Books One and Two of Irenaeus' Against All Heresies were originally arguments for the development of all the heresies from a figure called 'Valentinus.' Irenaeus had absolutely no knowledge of a Samaritan heretic named 'Simon' which is noteworthy because the Samaritans themselves originally had no knowledge of such a supposedly influential figure emerging from their tradition.

So if we ignore the two editorial additions in Book Two falsely summarizing the contents of Book One we have the exact same pattern in each book - i.e. lengthy 'additions' reconciling Irenaeus' original understanding of the heresies developing from Valentinus with Hippolytus' claims regarding Simon. In Book One again the pattern is displayed as follows:

Chapter One - Chapter Twenty Two - No mention of Simon; all sects derive from Valentinus
Chapter Twenty Three - Chapter Thirty One - Simon referenced fifteen times; head of the heresies
Conclusion of the Book

In Book Two:

Chapter One - Chapter Thirty - No mention of Simon; all sects derive from Valentinus
Chapter Thirty One - Chapter Thirty Five - further discussion of various Simonian heresies introduced in Chapters Twenty Three - Chapter Thirty One of Book One.
Conclusion of the Book

For those who are interested Book Three begins with yet another misrepresentation of the material that precedes it:

Thou hast indeed enjoined upon me, my very dear friend, that I should bring to light the Valentinian doctrines, concealed, as their votaries imagine; that I should exhibit their diversity, and compose a treatise in refutation of them. therefore have undertaken--showing that they spring from Simon, the father of all heretics--to exhibit both their doctrines and successions, and to set forth arguments against them all. Wherefore, since the conviction of these men and their exposure is in many points but one work, I have sent unto thee [certain] books, of which the first comprises the opinions of all these men, and exhibits their customs, and the character of their behaviour. In the second, again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and, such as they really are, laid bare and open to view. But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood. For the love of God, being rich and ungrudging, confers upon the suppliant more than he can ask from it. Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me."

This is turn is followed by ONLY ONE reference to Simon Magus as the head of all the heresies - two sentences in total - which is clearly an addition by an original editor to an original historical reconstruction THAT IGNORED ANY MENTION OF SIMON AND THE VARIOUS 'SIMONIAN HERETICS' mentioned at the end of Book Two - "But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated." [AH iii.4.3]

There are only two references to Simon Magus in Book Four which can both be judged to be editorial additions, additions from Hippolytus. Simon Magus isn't mentioned in Book Five.

Now this is the briefest outline of various reasons which I think point to the idea that Hippolytus 'corrected' the original anti-Alexandrian polemics of Irenaeus. I say 'polemics' because I think that the five books of Against All Heresies were originally separate treatises brought together by Hippolytus to square his predecessor with his own views.

I have outlined what I believe what the original treatises behind Book Three and Book Four in previous posts. We now have the task of figuring out what Book Two looked like.

The best that I can do however is outline Hippolytus' original 'editorial concept' which I think ties Book One and Book Two together.

It is important to note that Hippolytus basically leaves two complete sections of Irenaeus' original text and is forced to add 'corrections' at the end of Book One and the preface and end of Book Two. I think the preface to Book Two is key to piece everything together.

For it is there in the preface that Hippolytus - after misrepresenting the claims of Irenaeus' first book (viz. all the heretics deriving their origins from Simon) - proceeds to 'correct' Irenaeus' claims about the redemption baptism:

... I showed, moreover, that all these heretics, taking their rise from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this life; and I explained the nature of their "redemption," and their method of initiating those who are rendered "perfect," along with their invocations and their mysteries. [AH Preface.1]

Now anyone who is capable of reading words on a page can clearly see that Irenaeus DOES NOT attribute the redemption baptism to disciples of Simon. Irenaeus says that the followers of Mark (the 'Marcosians') identify a special baptism in the gospel narrative which immediately precedes Mark 10:35 - 45 or if you will - the EXACT place that LGM 1 appears in Secret Mark.

I have noted that several important authorities have already noted that Clement of Alexandria is connected with the tradition of the 'Marcosians.' I would simply say that Marcus is St. Mark of Alexandria but that argument has been dealt with elsewhere.

The important part here is to see that Hippolytus at the beginning of Book Two has already begun the process of transforming Irenaeus' original anti-Alexandrian arguments against 'Mark' into an attack against Carpocrates. We have seen the culmination of this argument at the end of the original material in Book Two. For Chapter Thirty One - the one which I have argued earlier represents the beginning 'additional material' tacked on the end of the original Irenaean argument in Book Two - starts with Hippolytus adding the introduction:

Those, then, who are of the school of Valentinus being overthrown, the whole multitude of heretics are, in fact, also subverted ... [AH ii.31.1]

And then segueing to a long section of text that concentrates on the Carpocratians, arguing that their doctrines are ultimately derived from Simon, and in specific a reference to what I feel is the explicit allusion to LGM 1 ever found in the writings of the Church Fathers:

And if they have in truth accomplished anything by means of magic, they strive deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert power;but, bringing forward covered boys [pureos investes], and deceiving their sight [i.e. the foolish people], while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our Lord, but Simon the magician, too, from the fact that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven, that, inasmuch as these men die, and do not rise again, nor manifest themselves to any, they are proved as possessing souls in no respect similar to that of Jesus. [AH ii.31.2,3;32]

Now, in my last post I only made the case that 'Irenaeus' references arguments from Clement's Letter to Theodore. Although the most obstinate 'hoaxer' will make the case that Morton Smith knew this reference existed and made the Letter to Theodore conform to it, rather than the other way around, I don't have time to waste with such diversions.

I am much more interested in peeling back the layers to the writings of Irenaeus even though I will undoubtedly lose half of my audience so doing.

The more enlightened of my readers will of course ask me - how do we know that Hippolytus was dissatisfied with Irenaeus' account of the redemption baptism - or if you will - the first witness to the existence of a ritual initiation before Mark 10:25 - 35 (as to Scott Brown's objection that no water is mentioned in LGM 1, Irenaeus explicitly references this idea saying that some Marcosians do not employ water for the redemption initiation cf. AH i.21.2)?

There can be no doubt that Hippolytus was dissatisfied with Irenaeus' account of the redemption baptism BECAUSE HE EXPLICITLY SAYS SO IN HIS OWN RECYCLING OF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL from Book One in his Refutation of All Heresies Book Six Chapter Thirty Seven:

For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret baptism just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny). For these opinions, however, we consent to pardon Valentinus and his school. [Ref. Heresies iv.37]

Clearly Hippolytus DOES NOT DENY that the Marcosians have a redemption baptism. He goes out of his way to acknowledge that the Valentinians DO NOT have such a rite.

It might be worth analyzing Hippolytus' account of the Marcosian rite in the sentences that immediately proceed this amazing confession that Irenaeus' original account was inaccurate. We read:

And subsequent to the baptism, to these they promise another, which they call Redemption. And by this (other baptism) they wickedly subvert those that remain with them in expectation of redemption, as if persons, after they had once been baptized, could again obtain remission. Now, it is by means of such knavery as this that they seem to retain their hearers. And when they consider that these have been tested, and are able to keep (secret the mysteries) committed unto them, they then admit them to this (baptism). They, however, do not rest satisfied with this (baptism) alone, but promise some other for the purpose of confirming them in hope, in order that they may be inseparable. For they utter something in an inexpressible (tone of) voice, after having laid hands on him who is receiving the redemption. And they allege that they could not easily declare (to another) what is thus spoken unless one were highly tested, or one were at the hour of death, (when) the bishop comes and whispers into the (expiring one's) ear. And this knavish device (is undertaken) for the purpose of securing the constant attendance upon the bishop of (Marcus') disciples, as individuals eagerly panting to learn what that may be which is spoken at the last, by (the knowledge of) which the learner will be advanced to the rank of those admitted into the higher mysteries. And in regard of these I have maintained a silence for this reason, lest at any time one should suppose that I was guilty of disparaging these (heretics). For this does not come within the scope of our present work, only so far as it may contribute to prove from what source (the heretics) have derived the standing-point from which they have taken occasion to introduce the opinions advanced by them. [Ref. Heresies vi.36]

I have already pointed out to my regular readers that the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism and some of Dionysius the Patriarch of Alexandria reference this same understanding of 'another baptism' in the gospel. The fact that Hippolytus' references a 'bishop' in the Church of 'Mark' clearly confirms again that we are referencing an Alexandrian provenance.

There can be no doubt in my mind that Hippolytus did come into contact with the ideas behind the Letter to Theodore. It is for this reason that - while accepting that the Alexandrian tradition had an 'another baptism' in its gospel narrative - Hippolytus does not accuse the Marcosians of sexual licentiousness. This is very significant. When we go through all the material he has copied out from Irenaeus HE DELIBERATELY AVOIDS THE SEXUALLY CHARGED USE OF DESCENDO TO INFER THAT MARK ENCOURAGED HIS DISCIPLES TO 'PENETRATE' THEIR ADHERENTS AFTER THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS AND CHRIST (i.e. 'Mark' cf. AH i.13.1f).

What has caused Hippolytus to 'correct' Irenaeus' account and systematically remove any allusion to sexual indiscretions in the Church tradition AND AT THE SAME TIME to rework Book Two of Irenaeus' Against All Heresies and add a lengthy section attributing numerous 'lusts,' sexual perversions and that lengthy discussion of fantastic claims about resurrected 'clothed boys' to the followers of Carpocrates?

I think that Hippolytus came into contact with the arguments behind the Letter to Theodore.

When do I think this happened? Well, it is usually accepted that because of its reference to Pope Callixtus, the Refutation of All Heresies was written c. 222 CE. We can surmise that Hippolytus could have 'corrected' Irenaeus' works slightly before this (or even after for all we know).

The most likely influence on Hippolytus to change his mind about his master Irenaeus' hostility toward the Alexandrian tradition was his encounter with Origen c. 211 CE. Origen not only met Pope Zephyrinus but seems to have forged some kind of association with his rival Hippolytus.

Could this one meeting have changed the attitude of Hippolytus toward the Alexandrians? Jerome does indicate a clear 'friendliness' between the anti-Pope and Alexandrian leader-in-exile. He notes that Hippolytus wrote a work called:

On the praise of our Lord and Saviour, in which he indicates that he is speaking in the church in the presence of Origen. Ambrosius, who we have said was converted by Origen from the heresy of Marcion, to the true faith, urged Origen to write, in emulation of Hyppolytus, commentaries on the Scriptures, offering him seven [Jerome De Viris Ill. 61]

Is it possible that during the course of their budding friendship that Origen clarified some of the details regarding the controversy over a variant gospel passage involving a 'clothed neaniskos'? It is worth considering ...