There are times when I wonder whether the reason I have a difficulties with the standard manner of interpreting the New Testament and related Patristic literature is that I come from a Jewish background. Seriously. As I have said many times before, traditional scholarship doesn't understand Judaism and as such ends up getting Christianity wrong in the process.
The general assumption in scholarship is that in some form the Catholic tradition represents a 'natural' development of the primitive Church described in the Acts of the Apostles. To that end it is our job to 'understand' how we get from Jesus preaching in Galilee to the apostolic Church to Polycarp and then Irenaeus.
I don't buy this progression. I think that every step we take backward from Irenaeus we are essentially dealing with something unnatural. For instance, Irenaeus wasn't faithful to Polycarp. Polycarp wasn't faithful to the apostolic Church. The apostolic Church is a lie because Acts is a false historical document.
You don't have to buy into the manner in which I reconstruct Christian history. Yet I think most non-believers will at least meet me at this halfway point.
I think the principle reason that many skeptics haven't come over to my way of thinking regarding the true story about how the Church really developed is again that the don't really understand Judaism. If we don't accept Irenaeus false construct of a fourfold gospel, we can't simply posit a 'primitive Church' because that too is a lie.
The truth is found in following the 'Alexandrian thread' discovered in the Letter to Theodore of Clement. When we read the canonical First Letter to the Corinthians with Marcionite eyes it becomes apparent that the apostle is saying the exact same thing as Clement. A simple gospel developed as a historical narrative was established for the world beyond the inner sanctum of the Church of Alexandria and a 'secret wisdom' and behind its veils there was a gospel with a mystical keys to unlock its true hidden meaning.
The word the apostle uses to describe his hidden book is 'secret wisdom.' It is only because New Testament scholars are so woefully ignorant of Jewish traditions that they don't immediately recognize this as a fundament concept within the religion from Christianity developed. The hochmat ha-nistar is a well established term meaning the text or tradition which stands behind or reveals the hidden meaning of the revealed Torah.
The great thirteenth century Jewish leader Nahmanides not only embraces the concept but argues that it dates back to the foundation of Israel but that the concept can be disguised even further in the word 'grace' - Aram. hen. According to Nahmanides hen itself is an acrostic for 'secret wisdom' - i.e. by taking the first letters of the phrase hochmat ha-nistar. (Nahmanides, Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, p. 251 (Gen 46.1) as well as his letter 'Terem eeneh ani shogeg, Kovetz, III, f. 9d.). The understanding is developed from Ecclesiastes 9:11's yod`ei hen cited above.
Now when I argue that this interpretation of 'grace' (חן) being an acrostic for 'secret wisdom' has to have been known to the heretics it might sound like a wild and crazy theory. But let's look at some of the other names that Nahmanides uses to describe those who are privy to the 'secret wisdom' of the Torah.
The kabbalists are also called ba'alei ha-yedi'ah "the masters of knowledge" or ha-yode'im "those who know" by Nahmanides which are the equivalents of the Greek 'gnostikoi.' Yet the clearest demonstration of that the traditions of the medieval kabbalists is the common use of the term מַּשְׂכִּלִים from Daniel chapter 12. As Mosheh Ḥalamish notes of the rabbinic usage of the maskilim "this appellation, which originates in the Book of Daniel 12:3 ("And they who are of understanding (מַּשְׂכִּלִים) shall shine like the brightness of the firmament") is interpreted in the Zohar as follows: "It is the wise man who, of himself, looks upon things that cannot be expressed orally."
The Christian gnostics which most closely resemble the medieval kabbalists are certainly 'those of Mark.' These heretics were deeply immersed in kabbalah centuries before any surviving Jewish witnesses, recited their liturgy in Aramaic but preserved their gospel in Greek. Their founder, Mark, is in fact an entirely shadowy figure assigned to no specific period in Christian history but indeed all periods by all Church Fathers who report on him. He most perfectly embodies the heretical 'boogeyman' who is ready to walk through the doors of the Church as a living representative of the Devil.
The followers of Mark not only identified themselves as maskilim but as Irenaeus notes had very similar ideas about grace to the medieval kabbalists. First the reference to their shared use of the terminology from Daniel chapter 12. Irenaeus writes:
They maintain that Daniel also set forth the same thing when he begged of the angels explanations of the parables, as being himself ignorant of them. But the angel, hiding from him the great mystery of Bythus, said unto him, "Go thy way quickly, Daniel, for these sayings are closed up until those who have understanding do understand them, and those who are white be made white." Moreover, they vaunt themselves as being the white and the men of good understanding (maskilim). [AH 1.19.2]
Not a single patristic scholar has ever commented on the parallel use of Daniel, nor the perpetuation of the Marcosian use of the term gnostikoi [AH 1.13.1], nor the common kabbalistic interpretation of scripture and I would finally argue - the same underlying conception in terms of the term 'grace.'
It might be useful to cite Irenaeus' entire opening chapter in order to demonstrate how important the concept of grace was for the followers of Mark. It was conceived as a mystical - and indeed 'unspeakable' - revelation given by God to Mark himself. As Irenaeus notes, this Mark has induced his followers:
to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above.
Mark is compared to Anaxilaus of Larissa, the Pythagorean philosopher of the first century BCE before being connected with the development of a mystical variant of the traditional ge'ullah benediction:
Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that grace, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the grace, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated,) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: "May that grace who is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil." Repeating certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman, he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away after him.
It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his grace themselves to prophesy. He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these: "I am eager to make thee a partaker of my grace, since the Father of all doth continually behold thy angel before His face. Now the place of thy angel is among us: it behoves us to become one. Receive first from me and by me, grace. Adorn thyself as a bride who is expecting her bridegroom, that thou mayest be what I am, and I what thou art. Establish the germ of light in thy nuptial chamber. Receive from me a spouse, and become receptive of him, while thou art received by him. Behold grace has descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy." On the woman replying," I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy;" then engaging, for the second time, in certain invocations, so as to astound his deluded victim, he says to her," Open thy mouth, speak whatsoever occurs to thee, and thou shalt prophesy." She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently [from emotion], reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens. to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit. (Referring to this, one superior to me has observed, that the soul is both audacious and impudent when heated with empty air.) Henceforth she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own grace. She then makes the effort to reward him, not only by the gift of her possessions (in which way he has collected a very large fortune), but also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.
But already some of the most faithful women, possessed of the fear of God, and not being deceived (whom, nevertheless, he did his best to seduce like the rest by bidding them prophesy), abhorring and execrating him, have withdrawn from such a vile company of revellers. This they have done, as being well aware that the gift of prophecy is not conferred on men by Mark, the magician, but that only those to whom God sends His grace from above possess the divinely-bestowed power of prophesying; and then they speak where and when God pleases, and not when Marcus orders them to do so. For that which commands is greater and of higher authority than that which is commanded, inasmuch as the former rules, while the latter is in a state of subjection. If, then, Marcus, or any one else, does command,--as these are accustomed continually at their feasts to play at drawing lots, and [in accordance with the lot] to command one another to prophesy, giving forth as oracles what is in harmony with their own desires,--it will follow that he who commands is greater and of higher authority than the prophetic spirit, though he is but a man, which is impossible. But such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well- compacted faith which they received at first through the Church. [AH 1.13.2 - 5]
The Marcosians clearly understand Mark to have received 'grace' and to have imparted it to his believers. The ritual involving the large cup filling the smaller cup clearly had mystical significance. The important thing is for us to recognize what a central concept this 'grace' was for the followers of Mark. Most important of all is to see that this 'grace' was something which Mark formed or created from a divine revelation.
Indeed the entire narrative develops from this one central concept - i.e. that the grace which comes from Mark gives its hearers spiritual powers. Irenaeus describes communities associated with Mark in various locales. Hippolytus references 'bishops' of this Markan tradition. Mark was someone who established the liturgy of the community as well as its holy writings. There is no evidence to suggest that he was still alive at the time Irenaeus was reporting on the tradition.
The claims of sexual impropriety in the tradition can be dismissed alongside parallel claims of Marcion 'seducing a virgin' in Ephiphanius. Tertullian, who wants to take these claims serious, has to admit there is something utterly implausible about them noting:
They have the rule (adopted for the purpose of honoring the higher pairs) of contemplating and engaging frequently in the sacrament of uniting with a "companion," namely, a woman. They consider a man perverse and a false son of truth if he does not, during his life on earth, love a woman and join himself to her. If so, what do the eunuchs do whom we see among them? [Against the Valentinians 30]
The point is that there were many eunuchs in the early reports of the Marcionites and Alexandrian tradition. The eunuchs themselves must be described as 'women' or 'brides' of Christ (or indeed Mark who is described as the messiah of the community).
To this end the most likely explanation for why the followers of Mark are portrayed as standing around him drinking large amounts of wine being seduced by their master. The original account being employed by Irenaeus is a parody of the heretical interest in the חן of Mark. For the original use in Aramaic denotes physical 'beauty.' If you look at the examples from any Aramaic dictionary you will see the term used to express that quality which makes a man attracted to a woman. It was certainly applied to the Jewish Law owing to a literary genre where the Torah - being feminine - is loved by those who study it.
So when we do brief survey of the earliest use of the term חן it inevitably is used to describe the exegete's devotion to the Law. Abot 6.7 cites the frequently used 'chaplet of grace' text (Prov 1:9; 4:9: חן) in reference to the Law: 'Great is the Law, for it gives life to them that practice it both in this world and in the world to come." Other Tannaitic works from the period AD 200 — 300 widen the Mishnaic perspective on grace. Mekhilta interprets the outpouring of 'favour' upon the Davidic house (Zech 12:10: חן) as a reference to the Holy Spirit. Sifre Deuteronomy applies חן in Prov 4:9 to the study of the Torah. Sifre Numbers, in a commentary on the Aaronic blessing, relates several חן texts to conventional items such as answered prayer (Exod 33:19), favour in the view of others (Esth 2:15; Prov 3:4), and the study of the Torah (Prov 1:9; 4:9). The same pattern is found in the Midrashim too.
The point then is that the report that Irenaeus employs is a parody of something related to the heretical tradition's devoting to Mark and his חן. The same pattern is evidenced in that other report to the tradition in Irenaeus Book One but here the idea that we are dealing with a 'hidden Torah' or indeed a 'hidden gospel' is clearer. Irenaeus writes:
Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the "most perfect" among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that "they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." For instance, they make no scruple about eating meats offered in sacrifice to idols, imagining that they can in this way contract no defilement. Then, again, at every heathen festival celebrated in honour of the idols, these men are the first to assemble; and to such a pitch do they go, that some of them do not even keep away from that bloody spectacle hateful both to God and men, in which gladiators either fight with wild beasts, or singly encounter one another. Others of them yield themselves up to the lusts of the flesh with the utmost greediness, maintaining that carnal things should be allowed to the carnal nature, while spiritual things are provided for the spiritual [1 Cor 2.13]. Some of them, moreover, are in the habit of defiling those women to whom they have taught the above doctrine, as has frequently been confessed by those women who have been led astray by certain of them, on their returning to the Church of God, and acknowledging this along with the rest of their errors. Others of them, too, openly and without a blush, having become passionately attached to certain women, seduce them away from their husbands, and contract marriages of their own with them. Others of them, again, who pretend at first. to live in all modesty with them as with sisters, have in course of time been revealed in their true colours, when the sister has been found with child by her [pretended] brother.
And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable conjunction; and on this account more will be given them. They maintain, therefore, that in every way it is always necessary for them to practise the mystery of conjunction. [ibid 1.6.3,4]
Not only does the report feature many of the same kinds of statements directed against the Marcosians but it interesting does not appear in Tertullian's parallel translation of the Valentinian material in Against Heresies Book One. In my estimation this most likely reflects the reality that Against Heresies was a compendium of things Irenaeus had written against the heresies being compiled by a third century editor. This report properly belongs to an account of the Marcosians rather than the Valentinians.
The question that that stands before us is whether the Markan devotion to חן parody in the narrative of Irenaeus really has something to do with a hochmat ha-nistar described in 1 Corinthians 2.6,7. Did the self-described maskilim share the mystical understanding of חן as an acrostic for 'secret wisdom' or better yet 'secret gospel'? The argument is stronger than you might think. Irenaeus for instance goes out of his way to attack the opinion of those who argue for a special meaning to the word 'grace' in the Pauline writings. These unnamed heretics not only divide 'Christ' and 'Jesus' into two different people (like those who 'prefer' the gospel of Mark in AH 3.11.7) they also consistently juxtapose 'grace' against 'the Law' of the Jews:
And when he shall have divested his mind of such error, and of that blasphemy against God which it implies, he will of himself find reason to acknowledge that both the Mosaic law and the grace of the new covenant, as both fitted for the times [at which they were given], were bestowed by one and the same God for the benefit of the human race. [Irenaeus AH 3.12.11]
Irenaeus of course acknowledges the consistent juxtaposition of 'grace' and 'Torah' in the Apostolikon and the opening lines of the gospel but he has already trained his followers to interpret grace as meaning something other than a written text which replaced the sanctity formerly associated with the Law. But could the followers of Mark (whether called 'Marcosians' or 'Marcionites') have held this same view?
I find this impossible to believe.
The hallmark of the Marcionite understanding was that the apostle already had the gospel when he was making his pronouncements in the Apostolikon. Everywhere in the anti-Marcionite writings we hear of their absolute conviction that 'gospel' and 'Law' were ultimately antithetical principles in the writings of the apostle but instead of an explicit reference to 'gospel' we inevitably get references to 'grace.' So we read:
you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks (Gk charis) God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. [Rom. 6.13 - 17]
There is no way that the Marcionites could not have interpreted this passage as referencing the superiority of the gospel over the Law. Yet the word here that is used by the apostle is 'grace.' Could these followers of Mark have interpreted חן as the same acrostic for 'secret wisdom' and thus gospel that we saw in Nahmanides and other kabbalists? I don't see how this can be ignored as a possibility given the underlying parallels already demonstrated between the two traditions.
There are so many more examples of the way 'grace' is used in the Apostolikon is use to mean 'gospel' it is suggestion that is impossible not to take seriously. In Galatians alone the interpretation is obvious:
Gal 1.6 - I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel
Ga 2:21 - I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Ga 5:4 - Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
There is much more to be said about this possibility but first let me finish our study of Clement's witness of the secret gospel in Stromateis Book Five ...
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."