Yet I have developed what I think is a reasonable model for integrating the document into what we know of the period. The Alexandrian tradition is generally understood to have developed from the work of St. Mark. Whether or not people take these reports to be legendary, a lot of our knowledge of Egyptian Christianity is evolving. It used to be commonplace to assume that Christianity only emerged in Egypt with our first reports of Catholic writers there. Then scholars like Walter Bauer noted that the reason there is so little information about native Christian cultures emerging from of Alexandria is because they were inevitably associated with the very forms of believe that were actively persecuted by the Roman Church and the Imperial government (Eusebius, H. E. 5.21; the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism cf. Irenaeus AH 1.20.1,2)
Indeed even very recent archaeological evidence emerging from researches at BYU argue for a late first century introduction of Christianity into Egypt. The question then is not whether or not the legendary stories of St. Mark's evangelical work in Alexandria are based on at least some fragment of historical truth but rather why later Alexandrian writers were so intent on keeping them secret. The answer, as we have noted time and again, necessarily has to have something to do with the Alexandrian tradition as a whole - and its various sectarian groups individually - being associated with a Satanically inspired 'heresy' to misrepresent the 'truth' of Christian doctrine.
Whether it be Philip Schaff's work in identifying Clement's association with the heretic identified as 'Mark' in the writings of Irenaeus, Ambrose the third century deacon of Alexandria's 'former' life as a Marcionite or later followers of Origen such as Jerome going out of their way to deny their association with the same heresies, the idea that idea that Alexandrian Christianity was founded on a heretical association with a gnostikos named 'Mark' is almost undeniable. The difficulty lay only in accepting the idea that the 'confessions' of communion with the Catholic Church in the writings of Clement, Origen and other Alexandrian Fathers were done hypocritically or with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
We are suggesting then that Alexandrians swore oaths acknowledging things at their rebaptism by Roman authorities (Eusebius H.E. 7.9) which they didn't really accept but were imposed on them by force of Imperial decree. This hypocrisy is quite commonplace in the history of monotheism. We see crypto-Jews emerge in the rabbinic writings of the same period and under different circumstances in almost every period of later European history. We also see crypto-Jews and crypto-Christians emerge in Greece and Asia Minor under Islamic rule. Why is it so difficult to imagine that Clement and Origen are not crypto-Christians of Alexandria's original heretical Markan faith? Perhaps it is because our spiritual ancestors become their historical persecutors.
In any event, the Letter to Theodore makes specific reference to a campaign of shielding of St. Mark's influence over the tradition. It also makes explicit for the first time that there were two gospels written by the same evangelist. The two concepts went hand in hand in Alexandria. Mark wrote a public gospel"during Peter's stay in Rome ... 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" and another 'mystic' development of the same text which was shielded from the view of outsiders. Most of the attention of scholarship has been focused on the implications of the second gospel. Indeed I have done a lot of work over the last month finding allusions to this 'mystic' text in the writings of Clement and Origen.
Yet my new interest is in fleshing out the details of this 'faith' gospel which seems to have been publicly circulating in the meeting halls in community with the Alexandrian church (we must remember that there were no other 'churches' in Egypt aside from the church of St. Mark in Alexandria until the late third century). Scholars have generally assumed that this text must have been our familiar 'canonical gospel' of Mark merely because the reference in to Theodore generally fits what appears near the end of Mark chapter 10. However I am not so sure about that.
Clement never gives this public text a name. There can be no doubt that he acknowledges that this gospel was written by Mark, but the same thing is apparently true with regards to the 'mystic' gospel too. Of course there is here a specific prohibition - no one "should concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath." The same thing certainly isn't specifically said about the public gospel. Yet at the same time it can't be denied there is a strange ambiguity about this text which can't be easily explained.
Clement makes specific reference to Mark composing the public gospel while Peter was in Rome. The 'mystic gospel' is said to have incorporated the 'hypomnemata' of Peter. Yet it is strange that Clement never goes so far as to explicitly acknowledge the relationship between Mark and Peter or either of Mark's compositions and Peter's 'notes.' The fact that Clement cites material from a publicly disseminating gospel which superficially resembles our canonical Mark which was known to his addressee Theodore in no way closes the book on the identification of this gospel.
Serapion of Antioch, writing at the same time as Clement, makes reference to a 'heresy of Marcion' (αἱρέσεως ὁ Μαρκιανός) which he claims had an original "gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter" and which apparently was 'orthodox' (i.e. reflecting the established beliefs of Peter and the disciples) the first time Serapion saw it, but which had heretical things 'added to it' subsequently. (Eusebius H.E. 6.12) Irenaeus writing in the same period makes reference to a similar expansion of the original apostolic beliefs of Peter and the disciples by 'the perfect.' (A.H. 3.2.1). We are told that "after the departure" of "Peter and Paul in Rome" "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter" but that some "unlawfully assert that they [Peter and Paul] preached before they possessed 'perfect knowledge,' as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the [doctrine of the] apostles." (ibid).
How can it be argued then that the basic formula refenced in to Theodore of two gospels written by Mark at two different periods in history is without precedent in contemporary Patristic literature? Someone clearly expanded the original 'gospel of Peter' here. The only thing that is lacking in the testimony of Irenaeus is that these 'improvers of the apostles' did their work 'in the name of Mark.' Yet there is some sense of this in the contemporary reference from Serapion.
Moreover as we have demonstrated repeatedly here while Clement does not ever explicitly reference a 'mystic gospel' in addition to our familiar gospel of Mark. There is only explicit reference to Mark in all the writings which have survived intact down to us (Quis Dives Salvetur) and repeated embracing of the very idea vilified by Serapion and Irenaeus - i.e. the 'building on' of gnostic truth on top of the mere 'faith' of the original apostles (Str. 5.4). Moreover the very concept of a hidden 'mystic' key which unlocks all the secret meaning of scripture is one of the hallmarks of not only Clement's writings but those of Origen, his successor at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria.
It is enough to say then that rather than being 'out of place' with what we know of the Patristic writings at the turn of the third century, the Letter to Theodore perfectly embodies the very thing opposed by those associated with the Roman tradition. The 'gnostic building on' of the faith of Peter is the cornerstone of the Alexandrian Church. Scholars don't see this simply because it means they missed something when they were developing their own models for the early Church. It is without question an 'inconvenient truth.'
The traditional way of developing a sense of historical perspective for early Christianity is basically to take over what Irenaeus and Eusebius tell us about its orientation. Alexandria isn't even so much as mentioned in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius can only temporarily salvage the reputation of Origen. Nevertheless we should be very cautious in continuing to simply recycle what Irenaeus claims is the truth about the place of Mark in the Church, the existence of heretical assemblies in his name and their sacred scripture. Irenaeus is above all else a biased witness for Roman primacy, an authority developed from the twin thrones of Peter and Paul.
When Irenaeus tells us for instance that the Marcion had an openly curtailed version of an original Evangelium and 'others' associated with him had a gospel of Mark with heretical additions (AH 3.11.7, 9; cf. Philosophumena 7.18) we needn't slavishly accept his explanation that the shortened gospel was developed from the canonical gospel of Luke. In the same way, when Clement in the Letter to Theodore says that Mark wrote a gospel when Peter was in Rome we needn't assume that this 'shorter' version of the gospel of Mark in Alexandria was itself openly identified as 'according to Mark.'
Are there really options out there beyond the slavish devotion to Irenaean New Testament paradigm? Clearly the Marcionite paradigm should at least be seriously considered as a possible source for Clement's two gospels. The Marcionite understanding of 'the gospel' necessarily developed from the Apostolikon, the collection of letters the Catholic tradition ascribes to an individual who changed his name ultimately to 'Paul' (Acts 13.9). The Marcionites rejected Acts and all its claims, so the original Marcionite identification of 'Paul' before the change is now lost.
Yet the one thing we know for certain is the fact that the Marcionites developed their history solely from the contents of their Apostolikon. So it is that when the apostle declares 'my gospel' (Rom. 2.16) it is an explicit acknowledgement of his having been taken up to the supernal realms and received a heavenly revelation that became established as a written text by the apostle's own hand (cf. 2 Cor 12.3f). While accounts of the Marcionites are unfortunately highly polemic in nature, a number of witnesses confirm that this revelation was given to a figure named 'Mark' (Irenaeus AH 1.13.1, 19.1) or 'Marcion' (Eznik 1.324; al-Nadim Fihrist) or at least a figure besides Paul whose name the Church Fathers refuse to reveal (cf. Tertullian Prescr. 24; Irenaeus AH 3.14,15).
Indeed scholars are so caught up on the Church Fathers interest in the 'openly curtailed' gospel that they necessarily lose sight of the fact that a 'secret gospel' was necessarily bundled along with that text simply owing to the slavish devotion of the Marcionites to the framework of the Apostolikon. Not only does the apostle declare that he established a 'secret wisdom' in addition to a curtailed historical text which only referenced Jesus 'and him crucified' (1 Cor 2.2) but the very implications of the 'unspeakable revelation' made to the evangelist necessarily mandate a 'secret gospel.'
So it is that not only does Eznik report "the apostle, he says they are unutterable stirrings the words he heard, and Marcion, said: "Me, I heard them!" he goes on to say that the Marcionites are continuing to contradict the expressed command to keep this understanding silent. Similarly Tertullian a long time before the Armenian Father points to a similar paradox - "although Paul was caught up as far as the third heaven, and when brought into paradise heard certain things there, yet these revelations cannot be thought to be such as would render him more qualified to teach another doctrine, since their very nature was such that they could not be communicated to any human being. But if that unknown revelation did leak out and become known to some one, and if any heresy affirms that it is a follower of that revelation, then either Paul is guilty of having betrayed his secret, or some one else must be shewn to have been subsequently caught up into paradise to whom permission was given to speak out what Paul was not allowed to whisper."
Of course Tertullian is only assuming that the apostle has to be named Paul. Yet he repeatedly acknowledges in his anti-Marcionite writings that these heretics received his canon 'under a different stamp' (AM 5.2) - i.e. in association with a different name for the same apostle. This is affirmed time and not only in Tertullian's other writings but also in his ultimate source Irenaeus. Irenaeus makes it absolutely explicit - the Marcionites and Valentinians did not accept 'Paul' as the name of their apostle (AH 3.14,15).
The place where all roads lead is Eznik's (and Tertullian's) suggestion that the heretics identified Marcion or 'Mark' as the name of their apostle (Hilgenfeld already recognizing Marcion as a diminutive of Marcus). Marcion was not, though, a subsequent figure who claimed to have received the 'same' revelation as Paul but that 'Paul' was an artificially established abstraction to obscure the Alexandrian origins of Christianity.
The point of all of this again, is to say that the very idea that Mark received an 'unspeakable revelation' (2 Cor 12.3) which became the established in written form as a 'mystic' or secret gospel is already intimated by - guess who - Clement of Alexandria. For Clement explains 2 Corinthians 12.3 by way of 1 Cor 2.6,7, the secret addition of a 'secret wisdom' text in addition to the simply gospel of the faith in 'Jesus crucified' (1 Cor 2.2). Clement writes:
To these statements [regarding the highest God being utterly unknowable] the apostle will testify: "I know a man in Christ, caught up into the third heaven, and thence into Paradise, who heard αρρητος words which it is not lawful for a man to speak," -- intimating thus the impossibility of expressing God, and indicating that what is divine is unutterable by human power; if, indeed, he begins to speak above the third heaven, as it is lawful to initiate the elect souls in the mysteries there ... And was it not this which the prophet meant, when he ordered unleavened cakes to be made, intimating that the truly sacred mystic law (μύστην λόγον) respecting the unbegotten (God) and His powers, ought to be concealed? In confirmation of these things, in the Epistle to the Corinthians the apostle plainly says: "Howbeit we speak wisdom among those who are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, or of the princes of this world, that come to nought. But we speak the secret wisdom of God in a mystery." And again in another place he says: "To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God in Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." These things the Saviour Himself seals when He says: "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." And again the Gospel says that the Saviour spake to the apostles the word in a mystery. For prophecy says of Him: "He will open His mouth in parables, and will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world." And now, by the parable of the leaven, the Lord shows concealment; for He says, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." For the tripartite soul is saved by obedience, through the spiritual power hidden in it by faith; or because the power of the word which is given to us, being strong and powerful, draws to itself secretly and invisibly every one who receives it, and keeps it within himself, and brings his whole system into unity [Strom. v.80.3]
Many have noted that this formulation has some underlying resemblance to the Letter to Theodore because of their lack of understanding of the Marcionite tradition and its different understanding of the identity of their Apostle, they have failed to grasp the deeper parallel - Clement does not call the apostle here (and rarely anywhere else) because he is shielding the fact that he and his Alexandrian tradition are crypto-Marcionite. The obscuring of Mark writing the 'secret gospel' or 'mystic word'
Scott Brown for instance only sees only tangential confirmation of the contents of the Letter to Theodore. He explains that:
the first of these proof texts, “the mystery of the kingdom of the heavens” (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν; a conflation of Mark 4:11 and Matt 13:11), is of particular interest to us, for it shows how Clement would have understood the very mystery that Jesus teaches the young man in the letter’s Gospel excerpt: “and when it was evening the young man comes to him donning a linen [sheet] upon his naked body, and he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the kingdom of God” (Letter to Theodore 3.7–10). The plural mystēria in Matt 13:11 and Luke 8:10 probably facilitated Clement’s association of “the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens” with the great mysteries, yet Clement uses the singular, mystērion, which in this expression is unique to canonical Mark 4:11 and the young man’s instruction in longer Mark."
But what obviously eludes Brown of course is the obvious trail that we have just noted back from Clement to the Marcionite tradition. Clement is not merely referencing some vague mystical sense about the godhead but a 'mystic word' - even a 'mystic law' (cf. Democr.53; Heraclit.72) a possibility strengthened by the 'secret wisdom of God' reference in 1 Cor 2.6,7.
Yet it all comes down to what Philo meant by the term λόγον. Why so? Because the core of the aforementioned passage including the μύστην λόγον reference comes from the earlier Alexandrian witness. There are numerous examples of this term meaning 'Jewish law' including his statement during his description of the Essenes that:
in the past there have been those who surpassed their contemporaries in virtue, who took God for their sole guide and lived according to a law of nature's right reason [kata nomon ton orthon phuseos logon] not only free themselves, but communicating to their neighbours the spirit of freedom: also in our own time there are still men (i.e. the Essenes) formed as it were images of the original picture supplied by the high excellence of sages (QOPL 62)
Clearly Philo is referencing a divine mystery where at its heart initiates to the Jewish religion were being reshaped after the image of the Most High God. As Engberg-Pedersen notes "all of this, Philo implies, will come about if one lets oneself be guided by the will of the Jewish God as expressed in the Jewish law.
Indeed Clement has one specific passage in mind when he references the Marcionite conception of a divine apostle being taken into highest heaven to receive an 'unspeakable revelation' which will become the secret gospel, the new law of Israel. Clement is universally acknowledged to have channeled this reference in Philo's Sacrifices of Cain and Abel:
Now it is very good that these three measures should, as it were, be kneaded together in the soul, and mixed up together, in order that so the soul, being persuaded that the supreme being is God, who has raised his head above all his powers, and who is beheld independently of them, and who makes himself visible in them, may receive the characters of his power and beneficence, and becoming initiated into the perfect mysteries, may not be too ready to divulge the divine secrets to any one, but may treasure them up in herself, and keeping a check over her speech, may conceal them in silence; for the words of the scripture are, "To make secret cakes;" because the sacred mystic word about the one uncreated Being, and about his powers, ought to be kept secret (καὶ τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ μύστην λόγον, ἐπεὶ θείων παρακαταθήκην ὀργίων οὐ παντός ἐστι φυλάξαι) since it does not belong to every one to keep the deposit of divine mysteries properly. [the Birth of Abel 59]
It is impossible to make the argument that Philo is alluding to something general. He is referencing the Law of Moses which is protected from outsiders by a 'two stage' education process which is identical with the mystery surrounding the gospel in to Theodore.
The first thing the reader has to realize is the cakes mentioned here - ἐγκρυφίας - is bread baked under ashes and so 'hidden' by something else rather plain looking. As Goodenough explains "the cakes are interpreted as being two stages of a single education, the first the sweetness of learning, the second the flash of illumination." The ultimate revelation of Philo's undertanding of Exodus as a mystical initiation is the giving of the Law to Israel by God which as Philo notes a little later in the section "he, as well knowing that there is no dependence to be placed on reformation extorted by necessity, does not apply his law to every one of them, but only to those in whose case it appears good and suitable." (ibid 69) So too did Clement learn from his Alexandrian tradition to frame its secret gospel - its μύστην λόγον - in similar terms.
Perhaps it is only now that the reader is sufficiently prepared with an understanding of the Marcionite interpretation of the gospel, its necessarily reflection in the writings of the Apostolikon to see that Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics - undoubtedly originating with some lost text from Irenaeus - clearly witnesses the existence of a text like the 'secret Mark' of to Theodore. We read again from our last citation:
But although Paul was caught up as far as the third heaven, and when brought into paradise heard certain things there, yet these revelations cannot be thought to be such as would render him more qualified to teach another doctrine, since their very nature was such that they could not be communicated to any human being. But if that unknown revelation did leak out and become known to some one, and if any heresy affirms that it is a follower of that revelation, then either Paul is guilty of having betrayed his secret, or some one else must be shewn to have been subsequently caught up into paradise to whom permission was given to speak out what Paul was not allowed to whisper.
But, as we have said, the same madness is seen when they allow indeed that the Apostles were not ignorant of anything nor preached different doctrines (cf. Irenaeus AH 3.1.1) yet will have it that they did not reveal all things to all persons, but committed some things openly to all, and others secretly to a few ... nevertheless, it may be said, it was natural for the Apostle, when he committed to any one the administration of the Gospel, which was to be ministered neither indiscriminately nor rashly, to add the injunction in accordance with the Lord's saying that "a pearl should not be cast before swine nor that which is holy to the dogs." The Lord spake openly without any indication of some hidden mystery. Himself had commanded that what they had heard in darkness and in secret they were to preach in light and on the housetops. Himself had prefigured in a parable that they were not to keep even one pound, that is, one word of His, fruitless in a hidden place. Himself used to teach that a lamp is not wont to be thrust away under a measure, but placed on a lampstand that it may give light to all that are in the house. These instructions the Apostles either neglected or by no means understood if they failed to fulfil them, and concealed any portion of the light, that is, of the Word of God and mystery of Christ. I am fully assured they had no fear of any one, neither of the violence of the Jews nor of the Gentiles : how much more, then, would these men preach freely in the Church who were not silent in synagogues and public places! Nay, they could have converted neither Jews nor Gentiles unless they had set forth in order what they wished them to believe! Much less would they have kept back anything from Churches already believing to commit it to a few other persons privately!
And even if they used to discuss some things in their private circles (so to speak), yet it is incredible that these things would be of such a nature as to introduce another Rule of Faith, different from and contrary to that which they were setting forth openly to all; so that they should be speaking of one GOD in the Church and of another in their private houses; and describing one substance of Christ in public and another in private; and proclaiming one hope of the resurrection before all and another before the few; at the time when they themselves were beseeching in their own Epistles that all would speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the Church, because they themselves, whether it were Paul or others, were preaching the same thing. Moreover they remembered, "Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; or what is more than this is of evil" : words spoken to prevent them from treating the (one) Gospel in different ways [ne euangelium in diuersitate tractarent]
If, then, it is incredible either that the Apostles were ignorant of the full scope of their message, or that they did not publish to all the whole plan of the Rule of Faith, let us see whether, perchance, whilst the Apostles indeed preached simply and fully, the Churches through their own fault received it otherwise than as the Apostles used to set it forth. All these incitements to hesitancy you will find thrust forward by heretics.
They hold up instances of Churches reproved by the Apostle. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you ?" and "Ye were running so well: who hath hindered you?" and at the very beginning of his letter, "I wonder that ye have been thus so soon removed from Him Who called you in grace to another Gospel." Likewise the words written to the Corinthians because they were still "carnal," and had to be fed on milk, not yet being able to take meat; who thought they knew something when not yet did they know anything as they ought to know it.
Now when they instance these reproved Churches let them be sure that they were corrected. Moreover, let them recognize those Churches for whose "faith and knowledge and manner of life" the Apostle "rejoices and gives thanks to God, Churches which to-day unite with those reproved ones in the privileges of the selfsame instruction.
But come now, suppose that all have erred: grant that the Apostle was deceived in bearing his testimony, and that the Holy Spirit regarded no Church so as to lead it into the Truth, although sent for this purpose by Christ, asked from the Father that He might be the Teacher of truth; grant that the Steward of GOD) and Vicar of Christ neglected His office and permitted Churches for a time to understand differently what He Himself was preaching through the Apostles; yet is it at all likely that so many and such important Churches should all have "erred" into one and the same faith? No uniform issue results from many chances. Error of doctrine on the part of the Churches was bound to have assumed various forms. But when one and the same tenet is found amongst many, that is not error, but tradition. Will any one then dare to affirm that the authors of the tradition were in error?
However the "error" came, it reigned for just so long, of course, as there were no heresies. Truth waited for the Marcionites and the Valentinians to set her free. In the meantime the Gospel was wrongly preached, men wrongly believed, so many countless thousands were wrongly baptized, so many works of faith were wrongly wrought, so many spiritual powers and gifts were wrongly put into operation, so many priesthoods, so many ministries were wrongly performed, so many martyrdoms were wrongly crowned! Or if not wrongly and uselessly, how can you characterize the fact that the things of God were running their course before it was known to which GOD they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found ? heresy before true doctrine? Unquestionably in every case Truth precedes its copy: the counterfeit comes afterwards. But it is absurd enough that heresy should be mistaken for the earlier teaching; especially since it is that very earlier teaching which foretold that heresies would come and would have to be guarded against it.
To a Church possessing this teaching it was written, nay, the teaching itself writes to the Church : "Though an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel than that we have preached, let him be anathema." [Tertullian Prescr. 24 - 30]
The question is no longer whether we will ever have all scholars agreeing that Morton Smith did not forge the Mar Saba document but in fact whether any proponents of authenticity will ever uncover the many references in the Patristic writings to a secret 'heretical' gospel.
