What we are essentially doing now is fleshing out the related details and first and foremost on that list is the idea that Secret Mark was a precursor for the position of the gospel of John in the Catholic tradition. In other words, it was the 'last word' in evangelical truth, a 'more spiritual' gospel, if you will. Indeed while most of the attention of scholars has been focused on the 'strangeness' of the existence of a 'mystic gospel' scholars have overlooked in my opinion the obvious parallels which exist with the public' gospel referenced in to Theodore and other texts mentioned in the Patristic literature. I have long noted that Irenaeus seems to allude to this twofold division of gospels in the first few chapters of Book Three of Against Heresies. Serapion of Antioch's roughly contemporary reference to a 'gospel of Peter' and the apostles that was expanded to include heretical material is another.
But now I want to suprise my readers once again and demonstrate that Clement of Alexandria seems once again to know about the Marcionite 'public' gospel. Yet in order to get there we are going to have to cite extensively from Tyson's Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. Tyson does a wonderful job examining the arguments supporting the contention that the beginning of the Marcionite gospel was more original than canonical Luke. He starts with the infancy narratives noting that:
Knox wrote: "Marcion would surely not have tolerated this highly 'Jewish' section; but how wonderfully adapted it is to show the nature of Christianity as the true Judaism and thus to answer one of the major contentions of the Marcionites! And one cannot overlook the difficulty involved in the common supposition that Marcion deliberately selected a Gospel which began in so false and obnoxious a way." Quite apart from Marcionite issues there are good reasons to think that the infancy narratives were late additions to an earlier version of Luke's gospel. Raymond E. Brown came to this conclusion in his magisterial study of the birth narratives. He wrote: "Although there have been occasional attempts to join the infancy story to the next two chapters, so that a continuous narrative-unit of the Gospel would extend from 1 :5 to 4: 1 5, the solemn beginning of the ministry in 3: 1-2 could well have served as the original opening of the Lucan Gospel." Joseph A. Fitzmyer agreed. Although he maintained that the Lukan infancy narrative is an integral part of the gospel, he contended that Luke 3:1 was its original beginning and that Luke 1-2 was a late addition. "Recognizing this feature of the beginning of chap. 3 makes it imperative to acknowledge the independent character of the infancy narrative and its telltale quality of a later addition."
Brown and Fitzmyer are not alone in observing that Luke 3:1-2 forms a strikingly suitable beginning to the Lukan narrative. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness (Luke 3.1 - 2). Here we have a chronological statement that contrasts with the much less precise setting in Luke 1:5, which refers only to the days of Herod, king of Judea. The two statements also contrast in terms of the geographical settings involved. In Luke 1:5 only Judea is mentioned, in contrast to the inclusion in 3: 1 of Galilee, Ituraea, Trachonitis, Abilene, and, by virtue of the reference to Tiberius, the entire Roman Empire. Roman officials, Herodians, and priests are brought together in a single statement. Clearly Luke 3:1-2 is intended to describe the setting of the narrative on a world stage without neglecting the more particular Jewish elements.
The case for regarding Luke 3:1 as the original beginning of Luke's gospel was perhaps most persuasively argued by the early proponents of the Proto-Luke hypothesis. This theory, which depends directly on an assumption that the two-document hypothesis is the correct fundamental solution to the Synoptic Problem, states that in its earliest form the Gospel of Luke consisted of the non-Markan sections of sections of canonical Luke, that is, those sections that are usually designated as coming from Q and L. Only at a later point did the author of the Third Gospel discover Mark, and when he did he supplemented his own gospel with those sections of Mark that seemed to be useful. Thus in this theory the Gospel of Luke grew in at least two stages, a Proto-Luke and a second version that included material from Mark. Actually, however, there was a third stage. As Streeter understood it, the later author, who combined Proto-Luke with Mark, also added the preface and the infancy narratives in Luke 1-2. Streeter claimed that Luke originally started with Luke 3: 1. He also noted that the genealogy is appropriate in Luke 3:23-38 only if 3: 1 is the beginning of the gospel.
Vincent Taylor developed many of these Streeterian contentions. He classified Luke 1 :5-2:52 as a non-Markan section that appears to stand apart from everything else in the gospel. He noted that the carefully composed setting of time in Luke 3:1-2 is an appropriate beginning of a historical or biographical account and that John the Baptist is introduced here as if for the first time. Other scholars, who do not accept the Proto-Luke hypothesis, are nevertheless convinced that the Gospel of Luke at one time began at 3: 1 . Brown and others have observed that the requirements for apostleship set forth in Acts 1 :22 appear to designate the beginning of the gospel as the baptism of Jesus. Thus a gospel that begins at Luke 3: 1 is consistent with this view. Further, if there are good reasons to claim that Mark was a source for Luke, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Luke began his gospel as did his predecessor. We must not, however, overlook the fact that yet another gospel began with something like Luke 3: 1 . Marcion's gospel apparently did not have the more elaborate coordination of political leaders that canonical Luke has, but it did begin with the reference to the "fifteenth year of Tiberius." [p. 90 - 91]
As excellent and thorough a summary of previous studies on the problem of the real beginning of the Gospel of Luke Tyson's work is, it seems to escape his notice that Clement of Alexandria provides the witnesses for the exact opening words for the Marcionite gospel he is suggesting here.
Now we have already done our homework and we know that the Clementine paradigm as described in to Theodore exactly matches what the Marcionite canon must have looked like. As such we are able to recognize that at the beginning of his Stromateis Clement is no telegraphing to us his familiarity with the public gospel of the Marcionites. So he writes::
And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. [Stromata 1.21]
It has never been recognized before is that Clement's citation here is not of canonical Luke but certainly the openly curtailed Gospel of the Marcionites. The specific reference to 'Luke' here is uncharacteristic of Clement and may well represent a later copyists gloss. As we have noted many times before, Clement almost always cites scripture generically.
The fact that Clement understands that these words - "He [the Father] hath sent me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" - to have been in the gospel makes absolutely clear this is not Luke but an important variant - viz. the public Marcionite gospel. Clement always displays a pronounced interest in the concept of the Jubilee. So too do most of his successors in Alexandria including Origen who recognizes that the very word 'Gospel' goes back to the concept of the Jubilee.
What Clement has done for us is, is now to spell out the beginning of the Marcionite gospel. It begins with Luke 3:1 it goes on to mention Jesus begin 'almost thirty' and his quest for 'baptism' followed by a declaration (presumably in a synagogue) of his intention to declare the advent of the coming Jubilee. We already know from Clement's Letter to Theodore that the Alexandrian gospel placed Jesus's baptism (the one called 'redemption' by Marcionites and Marcosians) towards the end of the gospel, just before his Passion on the road to Jerusalem. We also know (and von Harnack confirms for us again) that the Marcionite gospel did not contain periscope of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist.
What I am now suggesting is that this variant opening of the gospel of Luke cited by Clement which just so happens to be EXACTLY what all scholars have theorized are the first words of the public Marcionite gospel also bear an uncanny resemblance to what Tertullian tells us immediately followed. Indeed if we look at the order in Luke chapter 4, we now see that Jesus makes two appearances in synagogues in Nazareth and Capernaum back to back. Matthew emphasizes the same idea when introducing the confrontation in the synagogue "leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum" (Matt 3:14).
Now we already know from the witness of Ephrem that the Marcionite gospel never references Nazareth. This city has long been speculated to be a Catholic invention to support their notion that Jesus wasn't the alien to this dimension that the Marcionites suggest. The Catholics give Jesus a mother, a family and a hometown.
One has to strongly wonder whether the announcement of the Jubilee is the missing speech in the Capernaum synagogue that gets erased in our Catholic gospel. In other words, instead of Jeuss appearing in Nazareth and announcing the Jubilee and then immediately walking over to Capernaum and saying something we can no longer hear which seems to shock the congregation, maybe Clement's clue is that the two narratives are actually divided halves of the same original experience - i.e. Jesus coming down from heaven and then walking into the synaogogue on the Sabbath to announce the messianic Jubilee, 'the year of favor.'
All of this becomes a little clearer when we see Tertullian's preservation of what we have argued to be a second century Syriac refutation of the Marcion gospel (with slight ammendments) based on the author possessing a Diatessaron. A Diatessaron ia a 'fuller' gospel which contains all the true stories from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This kind of gospel was the standard gospel throughout the Middle East until the end of the fourth century.
The arguments in favor of this hypothesis are very strong and have been made at this blog numerous times. Both Book Four and Five of Against Marcion make absolutely certain that Tertullian's original source is using a Diatessaron. This means that the original argument must have been that Marcion 'shortened' a long gospel like the Diatessaron which explains why the original auther argues that the heretic took things out of his gospel besides material from Luke.
I think it might be useful for us to first go through the references in Tertullian to the contents of the gospel of Marcion. As such we need only say that the first statement that is said to us is:
Marcion lays it down that there is one Christ who in the time of Tiberius was revealed by a god formerly unknown, for the salvation of all the nations; and another Christ who is destined by God the Creator to come at some time still future for the re-establishment of the Jewish kingdom. Between these he sets up a great and absolute opposition, such as that between justice and kindness [AM 4.6]
This is a very Jewish paradigm at the heart of Marcionitism confirm time and again by Irenaeus (AH 3:25) which understands a two advent formula for the parousia corresponding with the early rabbinic and Philonic of two powers in heaven. According to the Marcionite conception, Jesus the power of love and mercy will announce the coming of the messiah, the manifestation of the power of justice and judgement in the coming messianic Jubilee.
The references to the gospel narrative which immediately follow make clear - as is universally acknowledged - that there was no Jesus baptized by John narrative in the Marcionite gospel. We read instead a quick transposition from heavenly descent to synagogue in Galilee:
Marcion premises that in the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius he came down into Capernaum, a city of Galilee—from the Creator's heaven, of course, into which he had first come down out of his own. [AM 4.7]When everything is taken together it is difficult not to see that Tertullian's original source for this material in Book Four of Against Marcion was someone who used a Diatessaron reading the following passage with slight differences bolded in red:
Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestinedfor him to enter on his preaching? For Isaiah says: Drink this first, do it quickly, province of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, and ye others who .[ibid]the sea-coast and Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you .a It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee
See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? Yet again how can he have obtained admittance into the synagogue, appearing so suddenly, so unknown, no one as yet having certain knowledge of his tribe, of his nation, of his house, or even of Caesar's census, which the Roman registry still has in keeping, a most faithful witness to our Lord's nativity? They remembered, surely, that unless they knew he was circumcised he must not be admitted into the most holy places. Or again, even if there were unlimited access to the synagogue, there was no permission to teach, except for one excellently well known, and tried, and approved, and already either for this occasion or by commendation from elsewhere invested with that function. 'But they were all astonished at his doctrine.' Quite so. Because, it says, his word was with power, not because his teaching was directed against the law and the prophets. [ibid]
On the same occasion the spirit of the demon cries out, What have we to do with thee, Jesus? Thou art come to destroy us. I know who thou art, the Holy One of God. Here I shall not discuss whether even this appellation was at all appropriate to one who had no right even to the name of Christ unless he belonged to the Creator.[ibid]
According to the prophecy, the Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene. [AM 4.8]
That promise in general terms is enough for me at present. Whatever it was that Jesus healed, he is mine. We shall however come to specific instances of healing. Moreover even to deliver from demons is a healing of sickness. And so the wicked spirits, as if following the precedent of the previous instance, bore witness to him as they went out, by crying aloud, Thou art the Son of God. Which God, let it even here be evident. 'But they were rebuked, and ordered to be silent.' [ibid]
and [Jesus] came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea shore, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was said in Isaiah the prophet, who said, The land of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, The way of the sea, the passage of the Jordan, Galilee of the nations: The people sitting in darkness Saw a great light, And those sitting in the region and in the shadow of death, There appeared to them a light. And he taught them on the sabbaths. And they wondered because of his doctrine: for his word was as if it were authoritative. And there was in the synagogue a man with an unclean devil, and he cried out with a loud voice, and said, Let me alone; what have I to do with thee, thou Jesus the Nazarene? art thou come for our destruction? I know thee who thou art, thou Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, and said, Stop up thy mouth, and come out of him. And the demon threw him in the midst and came out of him, having done him no harm. And great amaze- Arabic, ment took hold upon every man. And they talked one with another, and said, What is this word that orders the unclean spirits with power and authority, and they come out? And the news of him spread abroad in all the region which was around them ... And at even they brought to him many that had demons: and he cast out their devils with the word. And all that had sick, their diseases being divers and malignant, brought them unto him. And he laid his hand on them one by one and healed them: that that might be fulfilled which was said in the prophet Isaiah, who said, He taketh our pains and beareth our diseases. And all the city was gathered together unto the door of Jesus. And he cast out devils also from many, as they were crying out and saying, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of God; and he rebuked them. And he suffered not the demons to speak [Diatressaron 6.28 - 50]
I am sorry but Blogger is not co-operating with me at all tonight. It keeps erasing text and refusing to accept my formatting. I will have to stop there before I get so mad I throw my laptop out the window. More tomorrow.
