I am trying to watch the Grammy's with my wife but I wanted to go beyond my iron clad proof that the Hypotyposes were not authentically Clementine. Our whole understanding of who or what 'Titus Flavius Clemens' of Alexandria represents is not nearly as firmly founded as many of us have been led to believe.
Let's start our discussion with one of my crazy theories. I have never been convinced that 'Titus Flavius Clemens' is the real name of the author of the Clementine material. I have written about this before. The 'real Titus Flavius Clemens' was a senator put to death by Domitian allegedly for becoming a Jewish proselyte. A wide body of Alexandrian material was re-baptized under the name 'Titus Flavius Clemens' and transformed into a witness for an early and influential Roman Church in the first century.
I am not just thinking of the First and Second Epistles of (Titus Flavius) Clement to the Corinthians but also his treatise on Virginity as well as the Pseudo-Clementine Literature.
I can't explain who the original author of much of this material was other than that he was undoubtedly an early Alexandrian Patriarch. It is worth noting that there is no internal evidence from either Clementine Epistle identifying the author as actually being named 'Clement.'
Not only was 1 Clement bound as part of the Codex Alexandrianus, appearing immediately after the familiar texts of the New Testament, there is a clear Alexandrian character to the so-called Pseudo-Clementine literature. Not only is the material universally regarded as being developed in Egypt, something else struck as noteworthy about Eusebius' testimony regarding this tradition in his Church History: "It must not be overlooked that there is a second epistle said to be from Clement's pen, but I have no reason to suppose that it was well known like the first one, since I am not aware that the early fathers made any use of it. A year or two ago other long and wordy treatises were put forward as Clement's work. They contain alleged dialogues with Peter and Apion, but there is no mention whatever of them by early writers, nor do they preserve in its purity the stamp of apostolic orthodoxy." (Historia Ecclesiastica III 38)
Apion is identified in the Pseudo-Clementine literature and elsewhere as being a native Alexandrian. Here is what is written in the Jewish Encyclopedia:
A Greek grammarian and sophist of Alexandria, noted for his bitter hatred of the Jews; born in the Great Oasis of Egypt between 20 and 30 B.C., died probably at Rome between 45 and 48. As Joel ("Angriffe des Heidenthums," etc., p. 8) points out, his name, derived from the Egyptian bull-god Apis, indicates his Egyptian origin. He was surnamed also Pleistonikides, or son of Pleistonikes (Suidas, and in his epitaph in "Corpus Inscript. Græc." iii., addenda 4742b), "the man of many victories"; also Mochthos ("the industrious one"). Apion himself claimed to have been born in Alexandria (see Willrich, "Juden und Griechen vor d. Makkabäischen Erhebung," p. 172), but it seems that he was only brought thither when very young, and educated in the house of Didymus the Great, the grammarian (born 63 B.C., died about 1). He was a pupil of the centenarian Euphranor, while Apollonius, son of Archibius, was his pupil rather than his teacher. When Theon, head of the Homeric grammar school at Alexandria, died, Apion succeeded him in that position
It is difficult to know where 'Clement' could have been identified as 'combating' Apion other than Alexandria. I tend to view Josephus' Against Apion as pseudepigraphal. As such the tradition behind the work of 'Josephus' against Apion might be related to those passing under the name of 'Clement' in Eusebius' time. Whoever the original author was he was undoubtedly Alexandrian as was the original author(s) of the two Epistles of 'Clement.'
So much then for the first or second century Alexandrian figure now identified as 'Titus Flavius Clemens OF ROME.
When we turn to the preservation of specifically Alexandrian material under the same name 'Titus Flavius Clemens' we see a very similar difficulty. There is a wide variety of material written by more than one historical individual all ascribed to one person who happens to share the name of the legendary senator that became a proselyte to Jerusalem.
Let's begin with the text we are about to examine Quis Dives Salvetur. I am not in any way disputing that the same person who wrote this work wrote the Stromateis. Nevertheless it is worth noting what Barnard says about the two sole surviving manuscript:
The manuscripts in which this homily is preserved afford no evidence of the authorship. They are only two in number, one of the eleventh century preserved in the Escurial Library (Class-mark 'omega' III.19) in Spain and a copy of it made in the sixteenth century, and preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome (Vat. Gr. 623). In both MSS this writing follows the nineteen homilies of Origen on Jeremiah of which however the author's name is not given; in the former it is headed simply 'Omilia "A Homily"; in the latter, by natural error "Twentieth Homily" [Barnard A Homily of Clement of Alexandria p. 6]
The point is that the reason why we identify this text as being written by someone named 'Clement' is because of the witness of fourth century Church Fathers starting with Eusebius. It is amazing however how little - if any - manuscript evidence actually exists to confirm this claim.
Let's start with the Stromateis. I bet few people outside of experts in the field of the study of 'Clement' realize that:
There is but one MS of the Stromateis, Laur, v 3 of the eleventh century, preserved at Florence, Paris B N Suppl. Graec. 250 (saec. xvi) is merely a copy of L. It is unfortunate that owing to a leaf at the beginning of the MS, we do not now possess the opening paragraphs of the work [p. 139]
So much then for identifying 'Titus Flavius Clement' as the name of the author of the Stromateis from the earliest manuscript. The same strange situation is also evidenced by the other earliest manuscripts of other works.
It is generally acknowledged that the surviving texts of the Stromateis, Protrepticus and the Paedagogus derive from the efforts of Bishop Arethas of Caesarea in Cappadocia. It generally goes unreported that Arethas in turn was a student of Photius of Constantinople. As such it is rarely mentioned that the reason why the Hypotyposeis were not included in this collection is because Photius deemed it not to have been written by Clement.
Now there can be no doubt that the earliest surviving manuscript of the Protrepticus does witness the author as 'Clementos Stromateos.' Yet Cosaert's overview of the low quality of the manuscript is very enlightening:
While there are a number of extant fragments of Clement's writings, only a handful of relatively late continuous texts manuscripts exist today. The oldest surviving manuscript is the tenth century Arethas Codex dated located in the Biblioteque Nationale at Paris (Parisinus gr. 451 = P). The manuscript claims to be copied for the Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia between September 913 and August 914. The codex originally contained all of the Protrepticus as well as the three volumes of Clement's Paedagogus. The codex is badly mutilated however, and no longer preserves the first ten chapters of Paed 1 and the opening lines of chapter 11. In addition to its condition, Marcovich notes that the manuscript appears to derive from an "exemplar full of textual corruptions, lacunae, interpolations and dislocations." The primary witness for the missing part of the Paedagogus is the eleventh century manuscript Mutinensis, gr. 126 (= M). This manuscript contains all of the Protrepticus and Paedagogus. The nearly identical nature of M and P have led scholars to conclude that M was copied from P.
Cosaert also notes that the same situation is to be found with the other surviving manuscripts:
The text of the Stromateis, Excerpta ex Theodoto and the Eclogae propheticae is also primarily dependent upon one late manuscript. In the case of these writings, the manuscript is the Laurentianus V 3 (= L) located in Florence. It has been thought that the manuscript might also have belonged to Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea. As with the case with P, L is full of textual corruptions, errors in names, numbers, omissions, misplaced sentences, as well as insertion of marginalia into the text. The textual corruptions of L do not appear to be due to the frailty of the scribe who copied it. Commenting on Hort's extensive examination of the textual corruptions in the Stromateis, Frederic Kenyon concluded that the extensive nature and character of the textual corruptions pointed to a damaged ancestor - probably going all the way back to a poorly copied papyrus archetype.
In his conclusion Cosaert notes:
The fact that the sole authority for each of Clement's extant writings is ultimately dependent on a single manuscript is far from ideal. For text-critical purposes, one would prefer to have several independent manuscripts for each of Clement's writings. This would make it possible to determine if his New Testament citations had been carefully preserved or altered through transcription. Unfortunately this is not possible. [p. 13 - 14]
I should mention also that while Eusebius tells us that the Stromateis were eight books in length the eighth book is subject to much dispute among scholars.
Book eight of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria has been preserved in two manuscripts, the eleventh century Laurentianus V 3 and the sixteenth century Parisinus Suppl. Graec. 250; the latter is a copy of the former. In both manuscripts the seven books of the Stromateis are followed by material titled as an eighth book. The material falls into three main parts: a section on logic, the Excerpta ex Theodoto and the Eclogae propheticae. The first section is neither a coherent whole nor a collection: a discussion of logical demonstration (apodeisis; 1 - 15.1) is followed by an argument against the skeptics (15.2 - 24.9) which in turn is followed by part of a treatise on different kinds of causes (25.1 - 33.9). Then follows a section entitled Epitomes from Theodotus and from what is Called the Eastern Teaching from the Time of Valentinus; then a section entitled Prophetic Extracts. While the Stromateis make a virtue of loose connections and seemingly random juxtaposition, these materials do not form anything so coherent as an eighth book of that work [p. 100]
This my friends, is the proper introduction to the PROBLEM that is Clement of Alexandria. It is not a matter of 'accepting' that everything is 'perfectly alright' with our knowledge of who or what the Alexandrian author represented. We have a troubling mix of true and spurious works and a collection of scholars who have not been sufficiently critical to make sense of all the ambiguous information.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Clement's Variant Gospel of Mark As Witnessed by Quis Dives Salvetur [Part One]
If you follow this blog you know I don't see things the way the other people in this field see things. I was always an outsider looking into Christianity. I was never baptized. I didn't even know what a 'Jesus Christ' was until I was like thirty five (lol). But the point is that I come at everything with a fresh set of eyes. I am not for the truth or Christianity, I am not against the truth of Christianity.
I am not even sure that anyone today knows what the truth of Christianity is. That's why I joined the atheist blogroll in the first place. They promoted themselves as a group of bloggers who blog from the atheist or agnostic perspective.
Well, I thought to myself, I am convinced that I don't know nor does anyone know what the truth of Christianity is. I guess that makes me 'agnostic.' Little did I know that on this continent 'agnostic' is supposed to mean 'atheist light.'
It was like a day later that I started noticing I was getting harassed by all these people who make it their life's work 'to disprove the evils associated with atheism.'
In any event the point is that I don't think my ignorance is a bad thing. It certainly separates me from all the 'experts' who think that they can just slot people like Clement of Alexandria into convenient pre-fabricated terminology.
The reason I am spending so much time on Clement is that I think that he defies easy categorization this because he is not being truthful about his own beliefs. There is something inherently ambiguous about his self-identity. If you discount the Letter to Theodore he never so much as once makes a positive reference to his native Alexandrian episcopate.
This is all the more unusual when we see Clement described as a leader or 'governor' of the Christians of the city. Can you imagine the mayor of New York openly cheering on the Boston Red Sox? But this is exactly what scholars like to pretend was going on with Clement.
The Marcionites had a canon with a Letter to the Alexandrians and Clement is understood to hold up his hand and say 'I don't want anything to do with this.' If some people thought the Apostle took an interest in Alexandria how could the story of St. Mark coming to Alexandria be far behind?
An apostolic narrative doesn't have to be true to be heavily promoted. It's like arguing that a music company has to believe in the talent of its artists to promote them to radio stations.
Now I happen to believe that an important apostle named Mark did indeed visit Alexandria a little over a year after the Passion but that's not the point.
It is in my mind impossible to believe that Clement didn't subscribe to some 'native myth' connecting Alexandria to the inner circle of Jesus. The fact that Clement doesn't openly acknowledge WHAT THAT MYTH WAS (outside of To Theodore) is immaterial. Christianity could not have survived in Alexandria without some sort of fable - a parallel to the Acts of the Apostles which effectively allowed the religion to spread to the Greece and Asia Minor.
If the story of St. Mark didn't already exist it would have been made up in the late second century.
In any event, the fact that Clement does indeed develop a homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 (Quis Dives Salvetur) referencing only the Gospel of Mark in my mind speaks in favor of the importance of Mark in the city already in the late second century. As I have noted before the way Clement employs Mark implies that the text already had a special significance to the Alexandrian community. If this is so why aren't the Alexandrian Church Fathers themselves more explicit about their attachment to the apostle in the way, let's say, that the Roman Church was explicit about its attachment to Peter?
I have already answered this question in previous posts and don't want those arguments to distract anyone from what I trying to accomplish with this present discussion.
The point is that when we look at that Quis Dives Salvetur there is something inherently suspect about the way most scholars approach the material. They say on that it is a homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 but at the same time they notice that 'something is wrong' with his quotations from the gospel. As such this has to be explained in some way that doesn't contradict our inherited assumptions about the universality of our existing New Testament canon.
So it is that Barnard writes "by comparing the quotations with the Revised Version it is possible to see how far Clement differs from the text now usually adopted. It is necessary, however, to bear in mind that appears to have often quoted loosely from memory (of course!!!) and also that his quotations may to some extent have been altered by the transcribers, though these changes would tend rather to the suppression than to the insertion of unusual reading.
The evidence which even this short homily affords of the unique position of the four gospels at the beginning of the third century will strike every reader." [p. 11, 12]
All I have to say of course is 'Mr. Barnard please don't include me in this list! I do not see how Clement's specific choice of Mark's version of the 'Young Rich Man' speaks to the "unique position of the four gospels at the beginning of the third century." While the text that follows is described as a 'homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 this is technically incorrect as we shall see. It is instead a homily of a section of text paralleled in our canonical gospel of Mark chapter 10 which appears in a form which more closely resembles the earliest copies of the Diatessaron.
Indeed as I will demonstrate over the course of this next week, Clement's EXPLICIT point is that that section of text (identified in our gospel as Mark 10:17 - 31) brings up a problem which is only resolved with the introduction of a figure identified as 'Zacchaeus' (Luke 19:1 - 10) or 'Matthew.' There are no known canonical gospel variants where 'Matthew' is substituted for 'Zacchaeus.'
The point of course is that it defies logic to suggest that Clement is thinking in terms of our any of our canonical gospels when none of our canonical gospels begins with what appears in Mark 10:17 - 31 and then proceeds after a small interval to arrive at the equivalent of Luke 19:1 - 10 as its 'conclusion.'
No text that is save for texts of the Diatessaron circulating in the East as early as the third and fourth centuries.
The question we have to ask ourselves here is why would Clement go out of his way to first raise the question of how the rich man can be saved, then proceed to cite a large portion from the Alexandrian 'Gospel of Mark' in order to argue that the solution to the original question is 'in that text' and then go on to say THAT CITATION leads to the solution of how the rich man is saved 'by the time Zacchaeus appears.'
I know we have all learned to read the gospels in an absurd 'Protestant' manner but Clement wasn't a Protestant. As I will demonstrate all this week, the only LOGICAL solution to the puzzle of his argument in this homily is that text that Clement identified as 'the Gospel of Mark' of the Alexandrian tradition contained extra material and ultimately resembled the Diatessaron.
Not only has the path been cleared for this understanding by Scott Brown's translation of Clement's Letter to Theodore (as we have shown all this last week) but countless other lines of proof including the parallel manner in which the last known portion of Secret/Mystic Mark appears in to Theodore parallels the Diatessaron's introduction of the Zacchaeus narrative.
Here is the end of Clement's witness of his 'authorized' copy of the Gospel of Mark (not 'Secret' Mark but where mystic is just an adjective like we find ascribed the true text in Quis Dives Salvetur viz Jesus 'teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom' i.e. the gospel):
And he comes into Jericho, and the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them ...
The Diatessaron 'inserts' the story of Zacchaeus in the exact same place:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, there was a man named Zacchaeus, rich, and chief of the publicans. And he desired to see Jesus who he was; and he was not able for the pressure of the crowd, because Zacchaeus was little of stature. Arabic, And he hastened, and went before Jesus, and went up into an unripe fig tree to see Jesus: for he was to pass thus. And when Jesus came to that place, he saw him, and said unto him, Make haste, and come down, Zacchaeus: to-day I must be in thy house. And he hastened, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they all saw, they murmured, and said, He hath gone in and lodged with a man that is a sinner. So Zacchaeus stood, and said unto Jesus, My Lord, now half of my possessions I give to the poor, and what I have unjustly taken from every man I give him fourfold. Jesus said unto him, To-day is salva- tion come to this house, because this man also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and save the thing that was lost. And when Jesus went out of Jericho, he and his disciples[Diatesaron 31:15 - 25]
If Scott Brown's translation is correct Clement is just citing the generally accepted Alexandrian reading of Mark. If To Theodore is authentic, then we would expect to find Zacchaeus rather than Mark 10:46b follow what is cited at the end of the text. Clement does not cite this because the presence of Zacchaeus has nothing to do with his original argument.
Trust me friends, when I introduce the Clement and Origen showing how different the Alexadnrian gospel(s) where here, it will blow people's minds. We are now going beyond the question of whether to Theodore is authentic to - everything we have been told about the New Testament is a lie.
Toodles, should be fun ...
I am not even sure that anyone today knows what the truth of Christianity is. That's why I joined the atheist blogroll in the first place. They promoted themselves as a group of bloggers who blog from the atheist or agnostic perspective.
Well, I thought to myself, I am convinced that I don't know nor does anyone know what the truth of Christianity is. I guess that makes me 'agnostic.' Little did I know that on this continent 'agnostic' is supposed to mean 'atheist light.'
It was like a day later that I started noticing I was getting harassed by all these people who make it their life's work 'to disprove the evils associated with atheism.'
In any event the point is that I don't think my ignorance is a bad thing. It certainly separates me from all the 'experts' who think that they can just slot people like Clement of Alexandria into convenient pre-fabricated terminology.
The reason I am spending so much time on Clement is that I think that he defies easy categorization this because he is not being truthful about his own beliefs. There is something inherently ambiguous about his self-identity. If you discount the Letter to Theodore he never so much as once makes a positive reference to his native Alexandrian episcopate.
This is all the more unusual when we see Clement described as a leader or 'governor' of the Christians of the city. Can you imagine the mayor of New York openly cheering on the Boston Red Sox? But this is exactly what scholars like to pretend was going on with Clement.
The Marcionites had a canon with a Letter to the Alexandrians and Clement is understood to hold up his hand and say 'I don't want anything to do with this.' If some people thought the Apostle took an interest in Alexandria how could the story of St. Mark coming to Alexandria be far behind?
An apostolic narrative doesn't have to be true to be heavily promoted. It's like arguing that a music company has to believe in the talent of its artists to promote them to radio stations.
Now I happen to believe that an important apostle named Mark did indeed visit Alexandria a little over a year after the Passion but that's not the point.
It is in my mind impossible to believe that Clement didn't subscribe to some 'native myth' connecting Alexandria to the inner circle of Jesus. The fact that Clement doesn't openly acknowledge WHAT THAT MYTH WAS (outside of To Theodore) is immaterial. Christianity could not have survived in Alexandria without some sort of fable - a parallel to the Acts of the Apostles which effectively allowed the religion to spread to the Greece and Asia Minor.
If the story of St. Mark didn't already exist it would have been made up in the late second century.
In any event, the fact that Clement does indeed develop a homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 (Quis Dives Salvetur) referencing only the Gospel of Mark in my mind speaks in favor of the importance of Mark in the city already in the late second century. As I have noted before the way Clement employs Mark implies that the text already had a special significance to the Alexandrian community. If this is so why aren't the Alexandrian Church Fathers themselves more explicit about their attachment to the apostle in the way, let's say, that the Roman Church was explicit about its attachment to Peter?
I have already answered this question in previous posts and don't want those arguments to distract anyone from what I trying to accomplish with this present discussion.
The point is that when we look at that Quis Dives Salvetur there is something inherently suspect about the way most scholars approach the material. They say on that it is a homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 but at the same time they notice that 'something is wrong' with his quotations from the gospel. As such this has to be explained in some way that doesn't contradict our inherited assumptions about the universality of our existing New Testament canon.
So it is that Barnard writes "by comparing the quotations with the Revised Version it is possible to see how far Clement differs from the text now usually adopted. It is necessary, however, to bear in mind that appears to have often quoted loosely from memory (of course!!!) and also that his quotations may to some extent have been altered by the transcribers, though these changes would tend rather to the suppression than to the insertion of unusual reading.
The evidence which even this short homily affords of the unique position of the four gospels at the beginning of the third century will strike every reader." [p. 11, 12]
All I have to say of course is 'Mr. Barnard please don't include me in this list! I do not see how Clement's specific choice of Mark's version of the 'Young Rich Man' speaks to the "unique position of the four gospels at the beginning of the third century." While the text that follows is described as a 'homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 this is technically incorrect as we shall see. It is instead a homily of a section of text paralleled in our canonical gospel of Mark chapter 10 which appears in a form which more closely resembles the earliest copies of the Diatessaron.
Indeed as I will demonstrate over the course of this next week, Clement's EXPLICIT point is that that section of text (identified in our gospel as Mark 10:17 - 31) brings up a problem which is only resolved with the introduction of a figure identified as 'Zacchaeus' (Luke 19:1 - 10) or 'Matthew.' There are no known canonical gospel variants where 'Matthew' is substituted for 'Zacchaeus.'
The point of course is that it defies logic to suggest that Clement is thinking in terms of our any of our canonical gospels when none of our canonical gospels begins with what appears in Mark 10:17 - 31 and then proceeds after a small interval to arrive at the equivalent of Luke 19:1 - 10 as its 'conclusion.'
No text that is save for texts of the Diatessaron circulating in the East as early as the third and fourth centuries.
The question we have to ask ourselves here is why would Clement go out of his way to first raise the question of how the rich man can be saved, then proceed to cite a large portion from the Alexandrian 'Gospel of Mark' in order to argue that the solution to the original question is 'in that text' and then go on to say THAT CITATION leads to the solution of how the rich man is saved 'by the time Zacchaeus appears.'
I know we have all learned to read the gospels in an absurd 'Protestant' manner but Clement wasn't a Protestant. As I will demonstrate all this week, the only LOGICAL solution to the puzzle of his argument in this homily is that text that Clement identified as 'the Gospel of Mark' of the Alexandrian tradition contained extra material and ultimately resembled the Diatessaron.
Not only has the path been cleared for this understanding by Scott Brown's translation of Clement's Letter to Theodore (as we have shown all this last week) but countless other lines of proof including the parallel manner in which the last known portion of Secret/Mystic Mark appears in to Theodore parallels the Diatessaron's introduction of the Zacchaeus narrative.
Here is the end of Clement's witness of his 'authorized' copy of the Gospel of Mark (not 'Secret' Mark but where mystic is just an adjective like we find ascribed the true text in Quis Dives Salvetur viz Jesus 'teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom' i.e. the gospel):
And he comes into Jericho, and the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them ...
The Diatessaron 'inserts' the story of Zacchaeus in the exact same place:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, there was a man named Zacchaeus, rich, and chief of the publicans. And he desired to see Jesus who he was; and he was not able for the pressure of the crowd, because Zacchaeus was little of stature. Arabic, And he hastened, and went before Jesus, and went up into an unripe fig tree to see Jesus: for he was to pass thus. And when Jesus came to that place, he saw him, and said unto him, Make haste, and come down, Zacchaeus: to-day I must be in thy house. And he hastened, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they all saw, they murmured, and said, He hath gone in and lodged with a man that is a sinner. So Zacchaeus stood, and said unto Jesus, My Lord, now half of my possessions I give to the poor, and what I have unjustly taken from every man I give him fourfold. Jesus said unto him, To-day is salva- tion come to this house, because this man also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and save the thing that was lost. And when Jesus went out of Jericho, he and his disciples[Diatesaron 31:15 - 25]
If Scott Brown's translation is correct Clement is just citing the generally accepted Alexandrian reading of Mark. If To Theodore is authentic, then we would expect to find Zacchaeus rather than Mark 10:46b follow what is cited at the end of the text. Clement does not cite this because the presence of Zacchaeus has nothing to do with his original argument.
Trust me friends, when I introduce the Clement and Origen showing how different the Alexadnrian gospel(s) where here, it will blow people's minds. We are now going beyond the question of whether to Theodore is authentic to - everything we have been told about the New Testament is a lie.
Toodles, should be fun ...
The Blog That People Are Too Embarassed to Admit they Read is Now Ranked 76th and Counting ...
And who thought there would be a place for a Jewish heretic blogging about Christianity? Apparently this site's cracking the top 100 Biblioblogs in the world wasn't a fluke. We're number 76 this month and heading toward the Top 50.
Do I really care? No, not really. But the unfortunate reality is that I would have likely stopped blogging all together if no one was reading what I was writing.
As I have noted many times before I blog to prevent me from cheating on my wife. You'd be worried too if you had this waiting for you in Florida.
Thank God, I live as far as possible from Orlando. You know what Nietzsche says, many people think they are good because they have no claws. Grazie al cazzo ...
But seriously folks, I don't know why I do this. At one time i thought it would help sell my book but you know the parable mother's tell their daughters - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Anyway here is my ranking relative to bloggers who 'do what I do' - i.e. early Christian origins, gnosticism etc.
27 Neil Godfrey -------Vridar --------------------------------656407
76 Stephan Huller’s Observations ----------------1751602
78 Stephen C. Carlson Hypotyposeis ---------------------1778048
86 R. Joseph Hoffmann, Hys Blogge ---------------------- 2017666
90 James Tabor ------- Tabor Blog ------------------------2181178
132 April DeConick Forbidden Gospels Blog --------------3734360
n/a Timo Paananen Salainen evankelista
It's wonderful that we should have so many readers over here. Let's see if we can drive some traffic over to Timo's wonderful site. He always has interesting things about Secret Mark up that are well worth reading ...
Do I really care? No, not really. But the unfortunate reality is that I would have likely stopped blogging all together if no one was reading what I was writing.
As I have noted many times before I blog to prevent me from cheating on my wife. You'd be worried too if you had this waiting for you in Florida.
Thank God, I live as far as possible from Orlando. You know what Nietzsche says, many people think they are good because they have no claws. Grazie al cazzo ...But seriously folks, I don't know why I do this. At one time i thought it would help sell my book but you know the parable mother's tell their daughters - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Anyway here is my ranking relative to bloggers who 'do what I do' - i.e. early Christian origins, gnosticism etc.
27 Neil Godfrey -------Vridar --------------------------------656407
76 Stephan Huller’s Observations ----------------1751602
78 Stephen C. Carlson Hypotyposeis ---------------------1778048
86 R. Joseph Hoffmann, Hys Blogge ---------------------- 2017666
90 James Tabor ------- Tabor Blog ------------------------2181178
132 April DeConick Forbidden Gospels Blog --------------3734360
n/a Timo Paananen Salainen evankelista
It's wonderful that we should have so many readers over here. Let's see if we can drive some traffic over to Timo's wonderful site. He always has interesting things about Secret Mark up that are well worth reading ...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Did Clement Ever Accept Our Canonical Gospel of Mark as Authentically Markan?
I know the nature of human beings all too well. What is familiar is 'right' and what is alien is 'evil.' As such we - as a species - have both a tendency to think along predictable lines and an inherent knack to avoid asking questions which might challenge our established beliefs and presuppositions.
In my last post I noted that Clement's Letter to Theodore references the familiar story of Mark as the hermeneutês of Peter. We have learned to translate hermeneutês as 'interpreter' thanks to the influence of Irenaeus. Yet Mark's relationship might originally been meant to be that of a translator which makes sense given the importance of Peter in the church.
To understand 'the gospel of Mark' to be the text for which Mark acted as Peter's hermeneutês obviously sets up the question - why didn't Peter write a gospel? If one realizes that indeed there was a 'gospel of Peter' in antiquity and which happened to have a great influence over the Alexandrian liturgy it becomes impossible NOT to think that the text Clement references Mark establishing for Peter as the 'Gospel of Peter.'
But that's the point isn't it? We always want to reference the Christianity WE KNOW. We always want to turn away from the Christian traditions that require too much work for us to figure out.
So let me restart my last post by emphasizing the most important argument presented there - the Alexandrian community at the time of Clement certainly celebrated a liturgy based on the Gospel of Peter.
Here's how I introduced that argument.
In 1886, the Gospel of Peter was first recovered by a French archaeologist, Urbain Bouriant, from an 8th or 9th-century manuscript that had been respectfully buried with an Egyptian monk, the fragmentary Gospel of Peter (now in the Cairo Museum) was the first non-canonical gospel to have been rediscovered, preserved in the dry sand of Egypt. Publication, delayed by Bouriant until 1892, occasioned intense interest.
There is a clear docetic character to the text which reflects the original heretical beliefs of the Alexandrian community. F F Bruce also notes that "Pilate is here well on the way to the goal of canonisation which he was to attain in the Coptic Church." I can't help but think that this text is one and the same with the one mentioned in Serapion of Antioch's treatise cited by Eusebius and attributed to Marcion. Origen apparently cites the text with approval likely representing the current Alexandrian attitude to the work.
I also take exception to those who read what Origen says in a simple-minded way. Clement's successor says that:
(They of Nazareth thought that Jesus) was the son of Joseph and Mary: but the brothers of Jesus some (founding on a tradition of the Gospel entitled according to Peter or of the Book of James) say were sons of Joseph by a former wife who had lived with him before Mary. [Origen on Matthew, x. 17]
Whenever the Orthodox tradition references the idea of a 'wife of Joseph before Mary' the wife's name is Salome. This is important of course for the connecting the Gospel of Peter to the Markan tradition as Mark is the only canonical gospel to mention Salome by name.
Is Clement then referring to Secret/Mystic Mark whenever mentioning 'the Gospel of the Egyptians'? Scott Brown's translation frees us from assuming that the text was 'hidden' in Alexandria. Yet why didn't Clement then explicit say that the Gospel of the Egyptians was Mystic Mark? As I noted before, we should consider the possibility that the text was DELIBERATELY ambiguous because both meanings were intended, one the 'exterior' meaning, the other the 'interior' meaning as Pagel's has suggested about the gnostic hermeneutic generally.
The important thing to consider our new wrinkle - that Origen is actually saying that Salome appeared in the Gospel of Peter - opens the possibility that the text as a whole might have appeared more 'Markan' than what we see in the surviving portion. All though we should compare the ending of the earliest texts of Mark:
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they [i.e. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. [Mark 16:2 - 8]
With what appears in the Gospel of Peter:
Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed ... [and they said amongst themselves] "But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes."
And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' Then the women fled frightened. [Gospel of Peter 50, 53 - 57]
I am sorry, I don't care what objections people want to throw up against this thesis there certainly IS a relationship between the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mark with regards to the discovery of the empty tomb on Sunday.
The fact that even Irenaeus contends with a heretical group that contends with a heretical tradition associated with the Gospel of Mark that (a) thought that Christ and Jesus were two separate figures [AH iii.11.7] and (b) that there was variant ending of Mark which the heretics thought proved "from [the Law]and] prophets that Christ came to "announce another God ... the Father." [AH iii.10.5]
If our analogy holds the Gospel of Peter's preservation of some significant event when the disciples were standing on water on the eighth day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread has to be that 'event' that Irenaeus is attacking. It must have been present not only in the Gospel of Peter but also the text Alexandrians identified as the true gospel of Mark - i.e. Secret/Mystic Mark.
The Ogdoad is always connected with the Father above the god of the Jews because tradition identified the menorah with the seven heavens. The 'eighth' was one above the Jewish godhead.
I have already argued that the Gospel of Peter confirms the Alexandrian practice that we hear confirmed in the Liber Pontificalis and the writings of Origen - i.e. the baptizing of the catechumen on the day after the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So we read:
Now it was the last day of unleavened bread, and many were coming forth of the city and returning unto their own homes because the feast was at an end. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, were weeping and were in sorrow, and each one being grieved for that which had befallen departed unto his own house. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went unto the sea: and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord [Gospel of Peter]
The writings of Origen are filled with the idea that Christians in Alexandrian continued to venerate a 'Christian Feast of Unleavened Bread.' Yet as Buchlinger (2005) notes "Origen interprets the bitter herb allegorically as an attitude of grief and sorrow (2 Cor 2:9f)." What hasn't been recognized yet is that the source for this view must clearly be the description of the disciples in the Gospel of Peter during the eight days of the feast:
Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful ...
It seems to me to be absolutely impossible to believe that the Gospel of Peter IS NOT the context which provides the basis for Origen's understanding that 'grief and sorrow' is appropriate on the Alexandrian Christian celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Notice also that the disciples happen to be on water for the eighth day of the Chag HaMatzot.
The point of course is that it is at least possible to read Irenaeus alluding to a variant ending which was interpreted as supporting the idea that Jesus was superior to the god of the Jews. Having the disciples witness the enthronement in heaven on the eighth day (the ogdoad) would do exactly that.
In any event the real question which now stands before us is why it makes more sense to assume that our inherited idea that "Mark wrote a gospel for Peter that was called the 'Gospel of Mark" makes more sense than the idea that the Alexandrian tradition put forward the idea that Mark acted as hermeneutês for the Gospel of Peter - undoubtedly taking the original Aramaic composition of the Galilean disciple and preserving it in Greek.
In my mind it is only our inherited MIS-understanding of the existing tradition that stands in the way.
Let's go back to the idea that Eusebius must have received a corrupt text of Papias through the school of Irenaeus. Irenaeus as I have noted many times before is the ultimate conduit for all the early texts of Christianity. The simple idea that Mark acted as hermeneutês for Peter's gospel became augmented by Irenaeus into the idea that 'the gospel of Mark' was Peter's gospel 'interpreted' by Mark.
It is Irenaeus - and not Papias - who is the first to explicitly identify the text that Mark 'interpreted' for Peter as the canonical gospel of Mark. In the context of giving the pedigree of the four canonical gospels, Irenaeus writes that "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." What immediately precedes this statement makes clear that composition was done at Rome. Irenaeus' claims were recycled by Tertullian and many later Church Fathers word for word "while that [gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was." (Adv. Marc. 4.5).
The idea of "Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter" and author of the Gospel of Mark which is at once 'Peter's gospel' resurfaces in his discussion of the opening words of the text - "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Now if you ask me the opening lines of the Gospel of Mark make absolutely clear that this is NOT a gospel of Peter or any other person. They argue instead for the idea that what follows is a divine revelation - the Gospel of Jesus - made to a human vessel who wants to disappear in the profundity of his experience.
So in Judaism there is always a debate about how much of the Torah is God's and how much Moses'. Not only are the opening words of Mark NOT exclusive to the canonical gospel of Mark (they happen to be the opening words of the Diatessaron too and clearly from Tertullian's testimony - the Gospel of the Marcionites (a term which as I have noted many times at this site means 'those of Mark' in Aramaic).
Not only does this explain Hippolytus' perplexing statement about who the Marcionites claim is the author of their gospel:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives.[Hippolytus Ref. Heresies vii.18]
The last I checked Sicily was part of Italy, which makes the variation of what is preserved in Hippolytus in the so-called anti-Marcionite prologue to the Gospel of Mark all the more intriguing:
Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.
There is clearly some kind of overlap between (a) a radical group who says that the Marcionite 'gospel of the Lord' is by Mark and (b) another group who say no, it is really a Gospel of Peter written by Mark in Italy.
These two traditions come to a head in Adamantius' Dialogue when the statement by Peter, “you are the Christ” is raised. Eutropius the pagan arbitrator asks whether Peter wrote the gospel. The Marcionite Marcus replies “Christ, not Peter, wrote the gospel.”
Pretty: “What right has Marcus to say that Christ wrote the gospel. The Gospel writer did not refer to himself; he refers to him who he is proclaiming – Jesus Christ.”
Rufinus: “Deinde quomodo dicit Christum scripsisse euangelium? Non enim tanquam de se scribens loquitur scriptor euangelii, sed tanquam alium et qui extra se sit praedicans Christum.”
Greek: “πῶς δὲ λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν γεγραφηκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον? οὐ γὰρ ὡς περὶ αὑτοῦ ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐσήμανε, σημαίνει ὃν κηρύσσει Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,…”
An attempt from Greek: “But how does he say that the Christ has written the gospel? For he who wrote the gospel did not indicate himself, he indicates the one he is proclaiming – Christ Jesus.”
The question of course is clearly raised in the context of the debate over the identity of the Gospel of Mark that we have been raising here. The Marcionites - in a manner that seems uncannily similar to Morton Smith's translation of To Theodore - deny that Mark or any human is the author of the text. The text is properly identified as 'the Gospel of the Lord.'
Nevertheless it must be acknowledged on some level Marcionites also acknowledged that the Apostle (whose title was 'Paul' and real name was something else) acted as the vessel for that revelation from Jesus.
I have to believe that the Alexandrian community must have safeguarded the 'true text' of Mark and had another shorter text which it identified as 'Peter's gospel' with Mark as the text's hermeneutês. How was it that two texts were created of differing lengths out of the same narrative is anyone's guess. The traditional defenders of the authenticity of To Theodore can't explain how to versions of a 'gospel of Mark' were established in two different locations. Why should I be able to do likewise with an idea I just got 48 hours ago?
I can't deny that there is the near universal reading of the material where Clement is supposed to be witnessing one Gospel of Mark of two differing lengths. The idea that Clement might be arguing AGAINST Irenaeus' Roman tradition or that Irenaeus was railing against the 'Mark' of the Alexandrian Church.
Yet I have already demonstrated that Irenaeus was indeed a 'Marcosian' and supported that assertion with over fifty proofs. Irenaeus speaks of the Marcosians "adducing an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men." I have noted on more than one occasion that these Marcosians identify a gnostic baptism ritual with what appears to be a parallel gospel text to Mark chapter 10.
Does anyone believe that the gospel text of the Marcosians was 'canonical Mark' or 'Secret/Mystic Mark? Of course not. People are willing to just let it stand as 'just some apocryphal gospel.'
Similarly when Athansius, writing from Alexandria a century and half later makes reference to the continued existence of these apocryphal texts in his thirty ninth Festal Letter borrowing almost word for word what appears in Irenaeus:
some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books
no one jumps up and says that Athanasius is referencing the Gospel of Mark or Secret/Mystic Mark.
Why then is it when Clement seems to allude to three gospel - (a) Secret/Mystic Mark (b) a false Carpocratian gospel claimed to be 'according to Mark' and (c) a 'carnal' text said by tradition to have been 'Peter's gospel' written for Peter by Mark that canonical Mark has to be (c) rather than (b)?
The answer is simple of course scholars chose Eusebius' identification of the Hypotyposes as a genuine work of Clement over Photius denial that it was falsely ascribed to the same author. I have provided irrefutable proof that the Hypotyposeis were not written by Clement - the real Clement thought Peter and Cephas were one and the same person; the author of the Hypotyposeis thinks they are two different disciples. This when combined with Photius' testimony makes it utterly irrelevant what the author of this text thinks about Jesus baptizing only Peter or the Gospel of Mark being the 'Gospel of Peter.' It was by another Alexandrian writer - and undoubtedly Theognostus who wrote a work of the same name.
We can also dismiss the sixth century Italian monk Cassiodorus' bringing forward a commentary on the various scriptures supposedly in Clement's name as Cassiodorus always emphasizes that the same person was also the author of the Hypotyposeis. There are a number of reasons for rejecting these commentaries ranging from the style of the writing to the fact that Eusebius never mentions these works.
At the end of the day we have now demonstrated that there is absolutely NO REASON from the Patristic sources themselves to assume that Clement of Alexandria has to be favorably disposed toward the canonical Mark which Irenaeus promoted as 'orthodox.' One can argue that it is likely that Clement accepted canonical Mark.
The only place that the 'Gospel of Mark' is referenced in Clement's writings OUTSIDE of To Theodore is in Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved and it seems to suggest (to me at least) that Clement believed in Markan primacy:
These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning. But well knowing that the Saviour teaches nothing in a merely human way, but teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom, we must not listen to His utterances carnally; but with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the meaning hidden in them [v]
The use of the concept 'mystic wisdom' here along with the explicit reference to the Gospel of Mark seems to imply to me at least that the two translations of Brown and Smith can be reconciled with the idea that Clement referenced the idea that Alexandrians used a version of Mark but never made explicit how its narrative deviated from Roman Mark.
My guess however is that to Theodore is doing exactly that. In other words, Clement is aware that the 'Carpocratians' of Rome (i.e. those of the circle of Marcia the concubine of Commodus) are promoting what they claim is the 'only true' version of Mark. They were undoubtedly also blaspheming all other 'apocryphal' texts which claimed to be 'according to Mark.'
At some point 'the Carpocratians' - i.e. those associated with Irenaeus - were claiming the Alexandrian text had a reference to Jesus engaged in sodomy with his beloved neaniskos. Clement eventually writes back and before addressing how Alexandrian Mark differed from Roman Mark explained how the Roman text was 'sort of like' the Alexandrian original except with lies mixed in with truth.
Notice how when Clement decided to compare Secret/Mystic Mark with the known version of Mark (which Clement has just denied is actually by Mark but is instead truth mixed with lies) it immediately follows a discussion of the Carpocratian gospel:
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.
Some things about this material which stand out - (a) the text which Clement compares Secret/Mystic Mark is never identified as canonical Mark. Also (b) notice contrasts how Clement will act toward the Carpocratians - i.e. "to them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel." But then to a friend like Theodore Clement can indeed speak about the canonical text AS IF it were 'Markan' - i.e. for the point of making his illustration viz. "to you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ..."
The point then is that Clement must have been confronting a growing challenge on the Alexandrian tradition associated with St. Mark. He must have publicly denied the authority of Roman Mark (could this have led to his flight from Alexandria?) but has just received a question from Theodore about how the accepted 'Roman' canonical Mark differs from the Alexandrian Secret/Mystic Mark. For the sake of illustration he will demonstrate how what has been added. However it should be noted that the same illustration would have applied to Ephrem's Diatessaron and I believe the Gospel of Peter.
As I have noted time and time again - everything comes down to context. If Theodore asked him 'how does canonical Mark differ from Secret/Mystic Mark' (i) Clement's opening statement about Mark penning ONLY a Gospel of Peter could have been a refutation of the Roman claims about a shorter Gospel of Mark and (ii) he would have had no choice but to frame his question in such a way that referenced canonical Mark because of the original question. It does not mean that Clement endorsed the Roman text.
As a way of closing this rather long discussion here is a list of ALL EXPLICIT mentions of 'Markos' in To Theodore making explicit reference to the translator. It is meant to underscore that it is only intellectual laziness or 'habit' which makes us think that Clement accepted our shorter canonical Gospel of Mark:
1) To Theodore 1:11 - 13
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. [tr. Morton Smith]
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. [tr. Scott Brown]
2) To Theodore 1:15 - 17
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote 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. [tr. Morton Smith]
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the mystic ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. [tr. Scott Brown]
3) To Theodore 1:18 - 26
But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. [tr. Morton Smith]
Then, when Peter was martyred, Mark went to Alexandria, bringing both his knowledge and the things he remembered hearing from Peter. From what he brought, he supplemented his first book with the appropriate items about knowledge for those who are making progress. He arranged a more spiritual gospel for the use of those being perfected. Nevertheless, he did not reveal the things which are not to be discussed. He did not write out the hierophantic instruction of the Lord, but added other deeds to the ones he had already written. Then, he added certain sayings, the interpretation of which he knew would initiate the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of the truth which has been hidden seven times. [tr. Andrew Bernhard]
But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book, the things suitable to those studies which make for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teachings of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and moreover, brought in certain traditions of which he knew the interpretation, would, as a mystagogue lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. [tr. Scott Brown]
4) To Theodore II:10 - 12
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. [tr. Morton Smith]
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men [tr. Scott Brown]
As I already noted the assumption here is the "account of the Lord's doing" written "during Peter's stay in Rome" by Mark was identified by Clement as "the gospel of Mark" is not at all proven. There is no way to actually know whether the name of the historical text that Mark purported wrote or translated in Rome was called the 'Gospel of Peter' or the canonical 'Gospel of Mark.'
Indeed it is impossible to prove that Clement ever accepted our familiar version of the Gospel of Mark. His acceptance was likely only assumed because the issue was never questioned.
While we cannot prove that Clement ever DENIED the authenticity of Irenaeus' Gospel of Mark it is worth noting that when Hippolytus closes his discussion of the followers of 'Marcus' of Egypt he makes clear that they did indeed 'deny' other aspects of Irenaeus report. After copying almost verbatim the report first written by Irenaeus against members of Clement's tradition, Hippolytus adds at the very end this cryptic statement:
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 word 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). [Hippolytus Ref. Heresies vi.37]
I think it is enough to tip the scales in favor of my proposition but of course I am biased ...
In my last post I noted that Clement's Letter to Theodore references the familiar story of Mark as the hermeneutês of Peter. We have learned to translate hermeneutês as 'interpreter' thanks to the influence of Irenaeus. Yet Mark's relationship might originally been meant to be that of a translator which makes sense given the importance of Peter in the church.
To understand 'the gospel of Mark' to be the text for which Mark acted as Peter's hermeneutês obviously sets up the question - why didn't Peter write a gospel? If one realizes that indeed there was a 'gospel of Peter' in antiquity and which happened to have a great influence over the Alexandrian liturgy it becomes impossible NOT to think that the text Clement references Mark establishing for Peter as the 'Gospel of Peter.'
But that's the point isn't it? We always want to reference the Christianity WE KNOW. We always want to turn away from the Christian traditions that require too much work for us to figure out.
So let me restart my last post by emphasizing the most important argument presented there - the Alexandrian community at the time of Clement certainly celebrated a liturgy based on the Gospel of Peter.
Here's how I introduced that argument.
In 1886, the Gospel of Peter was first recovered by a French archaeologist, Urbain Bouriant, from an 8th or 9th-century manuscript that had been respectfully buried with an Egyptian monk, the fragmentary Gospel of Peter (now in the Cairo Museum) was the first non-canonical gospel to have been rediscovered, preserved in the dry sand of Egypt. Publication, delayed by Bouriant until 1892, occasioned intense interest.
There is a clear docetic character to the text which reflects the original heretical beliefs of the Alexandrian community. F F Bruce also notes that "Pilate is here well on the way to the goal of canonisation which he was to attain in the Coptic Church." I can't help but think that this text is one and the same with the one mentioned in Serapion of Antioch's treatise cited by Eusebius and attributed to Marcion. Origen apparently cites the text with approval likely representing the current Alexandrian attitude to the work.
I also take exception to those who read what Origen says in a simple-minded way. Clement's successor says that:
(They of Nazareth thought that Jesus) was the son of Joseph and Mary: but the brothers of Jesus some (founding on a tradition of the Gospel entitled according to Peter or of the Book of James) say were sons of Joseph by a former wife who had lived with him before Mary. [Origen on Matthew, x. 17]
Whenever the Orthodox tradition references the idea of a 'wife of Joseph before Mary' the wife's name is Salome. This is important of course for the connecting the Gospel of Peter to the Markan tradition as Mark is the only canonical gospel to mention Salome by name.
Is Clement then referring to Secret/Mystic Mark whenever mentioning 'the Gospel of the Egyptians'? Scott Brown's translation frees us from assuming that the text was 'hidden' in Alexandria. Yet why didn't Clement then explicit say that the Gospel of the Egyptians was Mystic Mark? As I noted before, we should consider the possibility that the text was DELIBERATELY ambiguous because both meanings were intended, one the 'exterior' meaning, the other the 'interior' meaning as Pagel's has suggested about the gnostic hermeneutic generally.
The important thing to consider our new wrinkle - that Origen is actually saying that Salome appeared in the Gospel of Peter - opens the possibility that the text as a whole might have appeared more 'Markan' than what we see in the surviving portion. All though we should compare the ending of the earliest texts of Mark:
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they [i.e. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. [Mark 16:2 - 8]
With what appears in the Gospel of Peter:
Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed ... [and they said amongst themselves] "But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes."
And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' Then the women fled frightened. [Gospel of Peter 50, 53 - 57]
I am sorry, I don't care what objections people want to throw up against this thesis there certainly IS a relationship between the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mark with regards to the discovery of the empty tomb on Sunday.
The fact that even Irenaeus contends with a heretical group that contends with a heretical tradition associated with the Gospel of Mark that (a) thought that Christ and Jesus were two separate figures [AH iii.11.7] and (b) that there was variant ending of Mark which the heretics thought proved "from [the Law]and] prophets that Christ came to "announce another God ... the Father." [AH iii.10.5]
If our analogy holds the Gospel of Peter's preservation of some significant event when the disciples were standing on water on the eighth day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread has to be that 'event' that Irenaeus is attacking. It must have been present not only in the Gospel of Peter but also the text Alexandrians identified as the true gospel of Mark - i.e. Secret/Mystic Mark.
The Ogdoad is always connected with the Father above the god of the Jews because tradition identified the menorah with the seven heavens. The 'eighth' was one above the Jewish godhead.
I have already argued that the Gospel of Peter confirms the Alexandrian practice that we hear confirmed in the Liber Pontificalis and the writings of Origen - i.e. the baptizing of the catechumen on the day after the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So we read:
Now it was the last day of unleavened bread, and many were coming forth of the city and returning unto their own homes because the feast was at an end. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, were weeping and were in sorrow, and each one being grieved for that which had befallen departed unto his own house. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went unto the sea: and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord [Gospel of Peter]
The writings of Origen are filled with the idea that Christians in Alexandrian continued to venerate a 'Christian Feast of Unleavened Bread.' Yet as Buchlinger (2005) notes "Origen interprets the bitter herb allegorically as an attitude of grief and sorrow (2 Cor 2:9f)." What hasn't been recognized yet is that the source for this view must clearly be the description of the disciples in the Gospel of Peter during the eight days of the feast:
Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful ...
It seems to me to be absolutely impossible to believe that the Gospel of Peter IS NOT the context which provides the basis for Origen's understanding that 'grief and sorrow' is appropriate on the Alexandrian Christian celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Notice also that the disciples happen to be on water for the eighth day of the Chag HaMatzot.
The point of course is that it is at least possible to read Irenaeus alluding to a variant ending which was interpreted as supporting the idea that Jesus was superior to the god of the Jews. Having the disciples witness the enthronement in heaven on the eighth day (the ogdoad) would do exactly that.
In any event the real question which now stands before us is why it makes more sense to assume that our inherited idea that "Mark wrote a gospel for Peter that was called the 'Gospel of Mark" makes more sense than the idea that the Alexandrian tradition put forward the idea that Mark acted as hermeneutês for the Gospel of Peter - undoubtedly taking the original Aramaic composition of the Galilean disciple and preserving it in Greek.
In my mind it is only our inherited MIS-understanding of the existing tradition that stands in the way.
Let's go back to the idea that Eusebius must have received a corrupt text of Papias through the school of Irenaeus. Irenaeus as I have noted many times before is the ultimate conduit for all the early texts of Christianity. The simple idea that Mark acted as hermeneutês for Peter's gospel became augmented by Irenaeus into the idea that 'the gospel of Mark' was Peter's gospel 'interpreted' by Mark.
It is Irenaeus - and not Papias - who is the first to explicitly identify the text that Mark 'interpreted' for Peter as the canonical gospel of Mark. In the context of giving the pedigree of the four canonical gospels, Irenaeus writes that "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." What immediately precedes this statement makes clear that composition was done at Rome. Irenaeus' claims were recycled by Tertullian and many later Church Fathers word for word "while that [gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was." (Adv. Marc. 4.5).
The idea of "Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter" and author of the Gospel of Mark which is at once 'Peter's gospel' resurfaces in his discussion of the opening words of the text - "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Now if you ask me the opening lines of the Gospel of Mark make absolutely clear that this is NOT a gospel of Peter or any other person. They argue instead for the idea that what follows is a divine revelation - the Gospel of Jesus - made to a human vessel who wants to disappear in the profundity of his experience.
So in Judaism there is always a debate about how much of the Torah is God's and how much Moses'. Not only are the opening words of Mark NOT exclusive to the canonical gospel of Mark (they happen to be the opening words of the Diatessaron too and clearly from Tertullian's testimony - the Gospel of the Marcionites (a term which as I have noted many times at this site means 'those of Mark' in Aramaic).
Not only does this explain Hippolytus' perplexing statement about who the Marcionites claim is the author of their gospel:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives.[Hippolytus Ref. Heresies vii.18]
The last I checked Sicily was part of Italy, which makes the variation of what is preserved in Hippolytus in the so-called anti-Marcionite prologue to the Gospel of Mark all the more intriguing:
Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.
There is clearly some kind of overlap between (a) a radical group who says that the Marcionite 'gospel of the Lord' is by Mark and (b) another group who say no, it is really a Gospel of Peter written by Mark in Italy.
These two traditions come to a head in Adamantius' Dialogue when the statement by Peter, “you are the Christ” is raised. Eutropius the pagan arbitrator asks whether Peter wrote the gospel. The Marcionite Marcus replies “Christ, not Peter, wrote the gospel.”
Pretty: “What right has Marcus to say that Christ wrote the gospel. The Gospel writer did not refer to himself; he refers to him who he is proclaiming – Jesus Christ.”
Rufinus: “Deinde quomodo dicit Christum scripsisse euangelium? Non enim tanquam de se scribens loquitur scriptor euangelii, sed tanquam alium et qui extra se sit praedicans Christum.”
Greek: “πῶς δὲ λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν γεγραφηκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον? οὐ γὰρ ὡς περὶ αὑτοῦ ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐσήμανε, σημαίνει ὃν κηρύσσει Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,…”
An attempt from Greek: “But how does he say that the Christ has written the gospel? For he who wrote the gospel did not indicate himself, he indicates the one he is proclaiming – Christ Jesus.”
The question of course is clearly raised in the context of the debate over the identity of the Gospel of Mark that we have been raising here. The Marcionites - in a manner that seems uncannily similar to Morton Smith's translation of To Theodore - deny that Mark or any human is the author of the text. The text is properly identified as 'the Gospel of the Lord.'
Nevertheless it must be acknowledged on some level Marcionites also acknowledged that the Apostle (whose title was 'Paul' and real name was something else) acted as the vessel for that revelation from Jesus.
I have to believe that the Alexandrian community must have safeguarded the 'true text' of Mark and had another shorter text which it identified as 'Peter's gospel' with Mark as the text's hermeneutês. How was it that two texts were created of differing lengths out of the same narrative is anyone's guess. The traditional defenders of the authenticity of To Theodore can't explain how to versions of a 'gospel of Mark' were established in two different locations. Why should I be able to do likewise with an idea I just got 48 hours ago?
I can't deny that there is the near universal reading of the material where Clement is supposed to be witnessing one Gospel of Mark of two differing lengths. The idea that Clement might be arguing AGAINST Irenaeus' Roman tradition or that Irenaeus was railing against the 'Mark' of the Alexandrian Church.
Yet I have already demonstrated that Irenaeus was indeed a 'Marcosian' and supported that assertion with over fifty proofs. Irenaeus speaks of the Marcosians "adducing an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men." I have noted on more than one occasion that these Marcosians identify a gnostic baptism ritual with what appears to be a parallel gospel text to Mark chapter 10.
Does anyone believe that the gospel text of the Marcosians was 'canonical Mark' or 'Secret/Mystic Mark? Of course not. People are willing to just let it stand as 'just some apocryphal gospel.'
Similarly when Athansius, writing from Alexandria a century and half later makes reference to the continued existence of these apocryphal texts in his thirty ninth Festal Letter borrowing almost word for word what appears in Irenaeus:
some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books
no one jumps up and says that Athanasius is referencing the Gospel of Mark or Secret/Mystic Mark.
Why then is it when Clement seems to allude to three gospel - (a) Secret/Mystic Mark (b) a false Carpocratian gospel claimed to be 'according to Mark' and (c) a 'carnal' text said by tradition to have been 'Peter's gospel' written for Peter by Mark that canonical Mark has to be (c) rather than (b)?
The answer is simple of course scholars chose Eusebius' identification of the Hypotyposes as a genuine work of Clement over Photius denial that it was falsely ascribed to the same author. I have provided irrefutable proof that the Hypotyposeis were not written by Clement - the real Clement thought Peter and Cephas were one and the same person; the author of the Hypotyposeis thinks they are two different disciples. This when combined with Photius' testimony makes it utterly irrelevant what the author of this text thinks about Jesus baptizing only Peter or the Gospel of Mark being the 'Gospel of Peter.' It was by another Alexandrian writer - and undoubtedly Theognostus who wrote a work of the same name.
We can also dismiss the sixth century Italian monk Cassiodorus' bringing forward a commentary on the various scriptures supposedly in Clement's name as Cassiodorus always emphasizes that the same person was also the author of the Hypotyposeis. There are a number of reasons for rejecting these commentaries ranging from the style of the writing to the fact that Eusebius never mentions these works.
At the end of the day we have now demonstrated that there is absolutely NO REASON from the Patristic sources themselves to assume that Clement of Alexandria has to be favorably disposed toward the canonical Mark which Irenaeus promoted as 'orthodox.' One can argue that it is likely that Clement accepted canonical Mark.
The only place that the 'Gospel of Mark' is referenced in Clement's writings OUTSIDE of To Theodore is in Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved and it seems to suggest (to me at least) that Clement believed in Markan primacy:
These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning. But well knowing that the Saviour teaches nothing in a merely human way, but teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom, we must not listen to His utterances carnally; but with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the meaning hidden in them [v]
The use of the concept 'mystic wisdom' here along with the explicit reference to the Gospel of Mark seems to imply to me at least that the two translations of Brown and Smith can be reconciled with the idea that Clement referenced the idea that Alexandrians used a version of Mark but never made explicit how its narrative deviated from Roman Mark.
My guess however is that to Theodore is doing exactly that. In other words, Clement is aware that the 'Carpocratians' of Rome (i.e. those of the circle of Marcia the concubine of Commodus) are promoting what they claim is the 'only true' version of Mark. They were undoubtedly also blaspheming all other 'apocryphal' texts which claimed to be 'according to Mark.'
At some point 'the Carpocratians' - i.e. those associated with Irenaeus - were claiming the Alexandrian text had a reference to Jesus engaged in sodomy with his beloved neaniskos. Clement eventually writes back and before addressing how Alexandrian Mark differed from Roman Mark explained how the Roman text was 'sort of like' the Alexandrian original except with lies mixed in with truth.
Notice how when Clement decided to compare Secret/Mystic Mark with the known version of Mark (which Clement has just denied is actually by Mark but is instead truth mixed with lies) it immediately follows a discussion of the Carpocratian gospel:
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.
Some things about this material which stand out - (a) the text which Clement compares Secret/Mystic Mark is never identified as canonical Mark. Also (b) notice contrasts how Clement will act toward the Carpocratians - i.e. "to them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel." But then to a friend like Theodore Clement can indeed speak about the canonical text AS IF it were 'Markan' - i.e. for the point of making his illustration viz. "to you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ..."
The point then is that Clement must have been confronting a growing challenge on the Alexandrian tradition associated with St. Mark. He must have publicly denied the authority of Roman Mark (could this have led to his flight from Alexandria?) but has just received a question from Theodore about how the accepted 'Roman' canonical Mark differs from the Alexandrian Secret/Mystic Mark. For the sake of illustration he will demonstrate how what has been added. However it should be noted that the same illustration would have applied to Ephrem's Diatessaron and I believe the Gospel of Peter.
As I have noted time and time again - everything comes down to context. If Theodore asked him 'how does canonical Mark differ from Secret/Mystic Mark' (i) Clement's opening statement about Mark penning ONLY a Gospel of Peter could have been a refutation of the Roman claims about a shorter Gospel of Mark and (ii) he would have had no choice but to frame his question in such a way that referenced canonical Mark because of the original question. It does not mean that Clement endorsed the Roman text.
As a way of closing this rather long discussion here is a list of ALL EXPLICIT mentions of 'Markos' in To Theodore making explicit reference to the translator. It is meant to underscore that it is only intellectual laziness or 'habit' which makes us think that Clement accepted our shorter canonical Gospel of Mark:
1) To Theodore 1:11 - 13
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. [tr. Morton Smith]
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. [tr. Scott Brown]
2) To Theodore 1:15 - 17
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote 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. [tr. Morton Smith]
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the mystic ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. [tr. Scott Brown]
3) To Theodore 1:18 - 26
But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. [tr. Morton Smith]
Then, when Peter was martyred, Mark went to Alexandria, bringing both his knowledge and the things he remembered hearing from Peter. From what he brought, he supplemented his first book with the appropriate items about knowledge for those who are making progress. He arranged a more spiritual gospel for the use of those being perfected. Nevertheless, he did not reveal the things which are not to be discussed. He did not write out the hierophantic instruction of the Lord, but added other deeds to the ones he had already written. Then, he added certain sayings, the interpretation of which he knew would initiate the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of the truth which has been hidden seven times. [tr. Andrew Bernhard]
But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book, the things suitable to those studies which make for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teachings of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and moreover, brought in certain traditions of which he knew the interpretation, would, as a mystagogue lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. [tr. Scott Brown]
4) To Theodore II:10 - 12
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. [tr. Morton Smith]
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men [tr. Scott Brown]
As I already noted the assumption here is the "account of the Lord's doing" written "during Peter's stay in Rome" by Mark was identified by Clement as "the gospel of Mark" is not at all proven. There is no way to actually know whether the name of the historical text that Mark purported wrote or translated in Rome was called the 'Gospel of Peter' or the canonical 'Gospel of Mark.'
Indeed it is impossible to prove that Clement ever accepted our familiar version of the Gospel of Mark. His acceptance was likely only assumed because the issue was never questioned.
While we cannot prove that Clement ever DENIED the authenticity of Irenaeus' Gospel of Mark it is worth noting that when Hippolytus closes his discussion of the followers of 'Marcus' of Egypt he makes clear that they did indeed 'deny' other aspects of Irenaeus report. After copying almost verbatim the report first written by Irenaeus against members of Clement's tradition, Hippolytus adds at the very end this cryptic statement:
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 word 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). [Hippolytus Ref. Heresies vi.37]
I think it is enough to tip the scales in favor of my proposition but of course I am biased ...
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Development of My Theory that 'to the Corinthians' was Called 'to the Alexandrians' by the Marcionites
Sorry, that I might be seen as repeating myself here. It's just that I am trying to promote this idea at another site on the internet. I sometimes think that I post so much material on the internet that some of the best ideas I come up get lost in stories of debauchery and general silliness.
In any event I think my theory that our canon letter to the Corinthians was originally identified as 'to the Alexandrians' but the Marcionites is the greatest thing I have ever come up with (but that's the nature of my personality). I used to go to have dinner at the houses of my mother-in-law and my two sister-in-laws and told each of them in front of the others that 'this was the best meal I ever had.' Every time I go on vacation I think it is the best vacation I ever had. I every time I have sex with a woman I think I am in love.
In any event, here are the posts that led to the article I am writing right now for a prominent journal:
1. Danny Mahar Observation that the First Letter to the Corinthians Appears to Function 'Antithetically'
2. Why I Believe Our Canonical Epistle to the Corinthians was Originally Identified as 'to the Alexandrians' Before the Reforms of Irenaeus
3. The Letter to the Galatians Was NOT the First Epistle in the Marcionite Canon - Scholars Just Never Read Tertullian Thoroughly Enough
4. And I Think I Can Answer the Objection that the So-Called 'Old Syriac Canon' and Ephrem Had Galatains at the Head of Their List of Pauline Epistles
5. Some More Speculation About the Early Canons
6. The Ultimate Proof that the Letter to the Corinthians was Originaly Named ''to the Alexandrians'
7. Apelles, Apollos and the Controversy in the Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians
8. Origen, Secret Mark and the 'Shadow Canon' of Second, Third and Fourth Century Alexandria
In any event I think my theory that our canon letter to the Corinthians was originally identified as 'to the Alexandrians' but the Marcionites is the greatest thing I have ever come up with (but that's the nature of my personality). I used to go to have dinner at the houses of my mother-in-law and my two sister-in-laws and told each of them in front of the others that 'this was the best meal I ever had.' Every time I go on vacation I think it is the best vacation I ever had. I every time I have sex with a woman I think I am in love.
In any event, here are the posts that led to the article I am writing right now for a prominent journal:
1. Danny Mahar Observation that the First Letter to the Corinthians Appears to Function 'Antithetically'
2. Why I Believe Our Canonical Epistle to the Corinthians was Originally Identified as 'to the Alexandrians' Before the Reforms of Irenaeus
3. The Letter to the Galatians Was NOT the First Epistle in the Marcionite Canon - Scholars Just Never Read Tertullian Thoroughly Enough
4. And I Think I Can Answer the Objection that the So-Called 'Old Syriac Canon' and Ephrem Had Galatains at the Head of Their List of Pauline Epistles
5. Some More Speculation About the Early Canons
6. The Ultimate Proof that the Letter to the Corinthians was Originaly Named ''to the Alexandrians'
7. Apelles, Apollos and the Controversy in the Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians
8. Origen, Secret Mark and the 'Shadow Canon' of Second, Third and Fourth Century Alexandria
When Scholars Tell Me that 'There is No Evidence' that Material Was Ever Taken Out of Canonical Mark I Say 'LEARN TO READ IRENAEUS BETTER!'
I am not referring to Irenaeus' identification of an enthronement ending to Mark (which was subsequently removed). I am not talking about the ridiculous opening of the gospel which is more befitting a ten year old rather than representing the 'handwriting of God' (I think what is now the opening words of John was the opening lines of ALL ancient gospels). Nor am I referring to Irenaeus acknowledgement that there was a contemporary community in his day which 'preferred' the Gospel of Mark to all other texts and understand that Jesus appeared crucified while Christ stood by watching him suffering impassably.I am talking about THIS statement in Irenaeus:
For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same [emphasis mine]; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];" and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.[AH iv.6]
In case anyone out there doesn't know it already - THIS SAYING DOES NOT APPEAR IN SURVIVING MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK.
Of course, the defenders of the status quo have a ready excuse here. Irenaeus just 'slipped up.' But I certainly don't think this is possible. Notice the preciseness of his language. He is the first to cite all four gospels of our canon as an 'edition' (to borrow Trobisch's language). He says the saying is recorded IN THIS PARTICULAR FORM in this, that and the other gospel BUT NOT JOHN against the heretical reading of Marcion.
This in my mind eliminates the possibility that Irenaeus was 'mistaken.' He is very cognizant of which gospels this saying appeared AND IN WHAT FORMS THE SAYING TOOK.
I'd say this is THE STRONGEST PROOF that subsequent generations NOT ONLY REMOVED THE LONGER ENDING but also MATERIAL FROM WITHIN THE TEXT - including quite possibly - the material 'added' to Clement's Secret Gospel ...
Oh, and one more thing. Not only is THE ENDING of Irenaeus' Gospel of Mark different than ours and the middle too but even the VERY FIRST LINE of the gospel isn't the same. Scholars have always puzzled why our canonical Gospel of Mark says:
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'
This is bizarre because about half of the quote isn't even found in Isaiah. Surely Mark would have known this.
Nevertheless Irenaeus cites the first words NOT ONCE BUT TWICE in Book Three of his Against the Heresies as:
The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord [Irenaeus AH iii.10.5]
The point again is that somewhere between the time Irenaeus was writing and the fourth century THE BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END of the canonical gospel of Mark was changed.
Let me 'score it' for sports fans out there. There are no EXPLICIT citations of Mark in Book One of Against the Heresies. There are no EXPLICIT citations in Book Two. There are THREE citations from the gospel of Mark THAT IRENAEUS USED in Book Three AND ALL THREE WITNESS SOME FORM OF TEXTUAL VARIATION from our existing MSS. There is only ONE citation from the Gospel of Mark in Book Four and it happens to be the one just cited above where Irenaeus says that the saying 'No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal' was in his copy of the Gospel of Mark. There are no explicit citations of Mark in Book Five.
I'm sorry folks. There REALLY IS something to this Secret Mark. Let the haters hate. The Gospel of Mark of the second century WAS NOT the Gospel of Mark of the fourth century and even pointing to a 'crazy old fag' discovering the Letter to Theodore can't change any of this ...
And a New Mystery Figure Has Commented on the Inscription I Discovered on the Throne of St. Mark in Venice ...
I received this in the email just now. Maybe I should start a game of twenty questions at this site.
Thank you for sending me the link [to the photos of the Throne of St. Mark]. The Aramaic inscription looks extremely old. Perhaps I'll do some work on it (unless you or someone else has already done that?).
Some of the letter forms, especially the Gamal and the Shin look Herodian in character and others, like the Aleph are similar to Estrangela (Syrian). At first I wondered if the first word on the far right is a Greek loan, 'Hagios' as found in the Trisagion, but it is difficult to read from the images provided.
Thinking some more about the picture carved above the seat, it may not be a Christian object at all. For example, if it is a Jewish object, e.g. a chair taken from a synagogue, the letter forms in the inscription would be easier to explain, (if so, the language of the inscription could be either Hebrew or Aramaic). Venice is a treasure-house full of antiquities looted by the Venetians from many parts of the Middle East, so it would be wise to consider various possible origins and contexts for this chair.
Venice is a place we love to visit. Perhaps if we go there again, I will ask to study and photograph this inscription. Probably I will not be allowed, but I will ask.
I should say that EVERY professor I have ever sent photos of the throne has been fascinated by it. I have said it ten thousand times by now. If it had remained buried in the Church of St Mark and rediscovered by archaeologists it would have been the most important find in the history of Christian archaeology. As it is, no one wants to look at it because it was 'plundered.'
But isn't archaeology just an organized plundering of relics. Just look at the controversies that the Egyptian Antiquities Authority is getting into with France, Germany and other countries. I guess it all depends on how successful my career gets. Maybe they should put me on their payroll ...
In any event, here is my usual rundown of the mysteries and ciphers I identify associated with the throne:
It has already been well established in the literature (Dorigo 1989 being only the most recent) that the top piece was added much later to the rest of the throne. There is a clear break between the two parts of the existing object. There is the throne itself cut out of one solid piece of alabaster in the first century CE and then a separate 'crown' or corona which represents either a whole distinct piece or one which was cut off and re-sculpted some time later.
The Samaritan letters alef shin lamed which spells out eshel or the tamarisk in Hebrew (Aramaic). Notice the damage in the stone surface itself at the top of the third letter - the lamed. There is now an unmistakable 'chip' which has cut off the top of the letter. The word appears in 'reverse order' (it would be natural to read Hebrew right to left and not left to right as here). However as we shall demonstrate the message of the throne reveals itself as one giant cipher.
The tamarisk tree where a cryptic code is present. Count the number of fruit on each branch. There are 8, 7, 6, 5 and 9 counting right to left. The equivalent Hebrew letters are Chet Zayin Vav He and Tet. This spells out 'the ninth vision' in Aramaic and refers to the ninth vision of the book of Zechariah where Jesus the high priest sits beside the royal messiah of Israel on the divine throne. Notice also the ram in the foreground and the four rivers of Paradise seeming to run down an incline so as to represent a mountain or hilltop.
The full inscription as 'mirror writing' in Hebrew reading right to left is 'the Sitting of Mark Evangelist of Alexandria.' The implication being that St. Mark sat on this throne at a particular time while in Alexandria.
The bull image on the left side of the throne. Notice the absence of any palm trees in the corners.
The man image on the right side of the throne. Notice the palm trees buried under the 'ground' in the corners of the plate. The 'ground' is represented by the diamond patters as is clear in the next image.
The back of the throne. Notice the lion image has the two palm trees fulls erect in the corners of the panel. They are 'above the ground' using the diamond pattern as a reference. The Hebrew word for palm tree (tamar) has the equivalent numerological value for the word for Sun (shemesh) i.e. 640.
The top back of the throne. Notice the eagle image is pushing the solar disk upwards to signify the rising of daybreak. There is a book with a cross in one claw representing the gospel. The Hebrew NShR (eagle) is a cipher for MRQ (Mark).
Thank you for sending me the link [to the photos of the Throne of St. Mark]. The Aramaic inscription looks extremely old. Perhaps I'll do some work on it (unless you or someone else has already done that?).
Some of the letter forms, especially the Gamal and the Shin look Herodian in character and others, like the Aleph are similar to Estrangela (Syrian). At first I wondered if the first word on the far right is a Greek loan, 'Hagios' as found in the Trisagion, but it is difficult to read from the images provided.
Thinking some more about the picture carved above the seat, it may not be a Christian object at all. For example, if it is a Jewish object, e.g. a chair taken from a synagogue, the letter forms in the inscription would be easier to explain, (if so, the language of the inscription could be either Hebrew or Aramaic). Venice is a treasure-house full of antiquities looted by the Venetians from many parts of the Middle East, so it would be wise to consider various possible origins and contexts for this chair.
Venice is a place we love to visit. Perhaps if we go there again, I will ask to study and photograph this inscription. Probably I will not be allowed, but I will ask.
I should say that EVERY professor I have ever sent photos of the throne has been fascinated by it. I have said it ten thousand times by now. If it had remained buried in the Church of St Mark and rediscovered by archaeologists it would have been the most important find in the history of Christian archaeology. As it is, no one wants to look at it because it was 'plundered.'
But isn't archaeology just an organized plundering of relics. Just look at the controversies that the Egyptian Antiquities Authority is getting into with France, Germany and other countries. I guess it all depends on how successful my career gets. Maybe they should put me on their payroll ...
In any event, here is my usual rundown of the mysteries and ciphers I identify associated with the throne:
It has already been well established in the literature (Dorigo 1989 being only the most recent) that the top piece was added much later to the rest of the throne. There is a clear break between the two parts of the existing object. There is the throne itself cut out of one solid piece of alabaster in the first century CE and then a separate 'crown' or corona which represents either a whole distinct piece or one which was cut off and re-sculpted some time later.
The Samaritan letters alef shin lamed which spells out eshel or the tamarisk in Hebrew (Aramaic). Notice the damage in the stone surface itself at the top of the third letter - the lamed. There is now an unmistakable 'chip' which has cut off the top of the letter. The word appears in 'reverse order' (it would be natural to read Hebrew right to left and not left to right as here). However as we shall demonstrate the message of the throne reveals itself as one giant cipher.
The tamarisk tree where a cryptic code is present. Count the number of fruit on each branch. There are 8, 7, 6, 5 and 9 counting right to left. The equivalent Hebrew letters are Chet Zayin Vav He and Tet. This spells out 'the ninth vision' in Aramaic and refers to the ninth vision of the book of Zechariah where Jesus the high priest sits beside the royal messiah of Israel on the divine throne. Notice also the ram in the foreground and the four rivers of Paradise seeming to run down an incline so as to represent a mountain or hilltop.
The full inscription as 'mirror writing' in Hebrew reading right to left is 'the Sitting of Mark Evangelist of Alexandria.' The implication being that St. Mark sat on this throne at a particular time while in Alexandria.
The bull image on the left side of the throne. Notice the absence of any palm trees in the corners.
The man image on the right side of the throne. Notice the palm trees buried under the 'ground' in the corners of the plate. The 'ground' is represented by the diamond patters as is clear in the next image.
The back of the throne. Notice the lion image has the two palm trees fulls erect in the corners of the panel. They are 'above the ground' using the diamond pattern as a reference. The Hebrew word for palm tree (tamar) has the equivalent numerological value for the word for Sun (shemesh) i.e. 640.
The top back of the throne. Notice the eagle image is pushing the solar disk upwards to signify the rising of daybreak. There is a book with a cross in one claw representing the gospel. The Hebrew NShR (eagle) is a cipher for MRQ (Mark).
I Finally Got Permission to Name the Mystery Professor Who Gave His Opinion on the Ambiguous Line From Secret Mark and His Name is ...
Professor Charles Hedrick, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Missouri State University. He does want me to correct his email to read:
The text seems ambiguous to me. The question is: does Clement only have in mind the falsifications (2:11) which the Carpocratians interpolate into the mystic/secret Gospel (2.10-13) or does he also have in mind the text (SGM/MGM) into which they have interpolated them, which is the mystic/secret gospel?
Note what Clement said in 1.8-11 (where it sounds like he is telling all lovers of truth to lie—when he says that they should not acknowledge what the Carpocratians say is true—even if it actually is true).
I think that the most logical solution is that Clement was DELIBERATELY ambiguous here. Why send a letter which was supposed to instruct Theodore about the Carpocratian claims about Secret/Mystic Mark this way? God knows what Theodore must have thought - unless of course, as I have noted he was initiated into Clement's 'gnostic manner' of speech and could 'read between the lines' in the manner of a World War II spy ...
Otherwise the text is nonsensical. Imagine the Pope writing a position on something that could be taken two ways by two different groups of people. How could that be accidental?
The text seems ambiguous to me. The question is: does Clement only have in mind the falsifications (2:11) which the Carpocratians interpolate into the mystic/secret Gospel (2.10-13) or does he also have in mind the text (SGM/MGM) into which they have interpolated them, which is the mystic/secret gospel?
Note what Clement said in 1.8-11 (where it sounds like he is telling all lovers of truth to lie—when he says that they should not acknowledge what the Carpocratians say is true—even if it actually is true).
I think that the most logical solution is that Clement was DELIBERATELY ambiguous here. Why send a letter which was supposed to instruct Theodore about the Carpocratian claims about Secret/Mystic Mark this way? God knows what Theodore must have thought - unless of course, as I have noted he was initiated into Clement's 'gnostic manner' of speech and could 'read between the lines' in the manner of a World War II spy ...
Otherwise the text is nonsensical. Imagine the Pope writing a position on something that could be taken two ways by two different groups of people. How could that be accidental?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Shlomo Moussaieff - My Kind of Jew
I have been developing a lot of posts on the subject of the Mar Saba document over the last few months. I think part of the reason for that is that I was also working on a documentary at the end of last year (which is now in hiatus). In any event, I think I am going to make a radical 360 degree departure next week and start blogging about seductive women.
I am just joking of course. But the truth is that I will be shifting the focus of the blog next week. I found a new love, a new interest - the most beautiful Jewish woman in history (and you know when you say 'beautiful Jewish women' you're not dealing with a long list).
Any way I got the latest issue of BAR last week. The first thing I noticed was that April DeConick had a column or her face beside an article on the Gospel of Thomas - congrats to April! She's always interesting to read.
The truth is that I've been trying to get an article on my Throne of St. Mark in that trashy journal forever it seems. It's never going to happen because I tried one too many times to get something published that had no chance of getting published.
In any event the article which knocked my socks off this month though was the one which appeared after April's piece - the about Berenice the last Queen of Israel. It was like a revelation. Finally someone who 'gets' how the last Herodians are under appreciated by historians.
You see Berenice and Marcus Julius Agrippa were real Jews, not idealized works of fiction like King David and Moses. Reality's such a hard thing to take.
After reading this interesting article about Berenice being responsible for getting the Emperor Titus to repeal the Jew tax that Vespasian set up after the war of 70 CE I thought to myself - I guess God was talking to someone other than me (that because my book - the Real Messiah is based on the exact same revelation).
So I when I finished the short article the first question that popped into my head was - who the f--- is this guy? I knew that a woman hadn't written the article. He just 'knew the ways of women' in the way only a man can understand women.
So I started wondering - there is no way that this guy is an academic. This guy has obviously 'been around.' He knows women and he knows the way the world works.
Sorry folks it's true. Academics only meet one kind of woman. The kind of woman no one wants and the kind who are left bitter owing to the 'unsexing' of themselves.
Say what you want about me - I have lived life and I know that a hot, sexy, well connected, intelligent woman can move mountains. I've seen it, lived it, and whatever else there is to do with 'it.'
A beautiful, intelligent woman can do anything she wants. If I was going to develop a spy agency I would just hire this type of woman to do all my espionage. She is like the story of the capture of Troy except Helen in this case is the wooden horse.
I know what happens when God puts too much woman in a woman. The ultimate woman - the kind that can bring a powerful man to his knees - is a historical type and this guy who wrote the article had been around. I just knew it.
So I am looking at the guys name - Shlomo Moussaieff - and I am thinking Sephardic Jew. I still don't know who he is. So I looked him up on Wikipedia and I thought - he's my kind of Jew (which means of course he's 'Jewish like me'):
Shlomo Moussaieff (born 1922) is an Israeli billionaire of Bukharian Jewish descent who has lived in London since the early 1960s. He is the son of Rehavia Moussaieff, and grandson of Shlomo Moussaieff of Bukhara. He made most of his fortune by selling precious jewelry to international royalty and high society, especially Saudis and Persian Gulf Arab States. He speaks Arabic fluently. The average price of a necklace in his store, located in the Hilton hotel in London's Mayfair district, is over a million dollars.[citation needed]
At the age of 11 Moussaieff’s father, Rehavia threw him out of the house because Moussaieff refused to pray. The young rebellious Moussaieff didn’t believe in God. In the years he spent in the ancient caves of Sanhedria he started his collection of Jewish antiquity. He was caught robbing an ancient grave and was put in a school for delinquent youth. There he learned the Arabic language and culture from his Arab comrades, which later saved his life and contributed to his abilities as a merchant.
During World War II, when he was 17 years old Moussaieff was drafted into the British army. After the fighting ceased, he found many Kabbalah books in the treasuries of deserted synagogues in Italy. These books were to follow him for the rest of his life.
In 1948 Shlomo fought in the old city of Jerusalem. When the city fell into the hands of the Jordanian Legion, he was taken captive and was imprisoned for a year.
Shlomo’s greatest affection is to the Bible and its hidden wisdom. His passion for the Bible led him over the last half-century to purchase the richest collection of Biblical archaeology.
Some notable family members include:
Dorrit Moussaieff is the daughter of Shlomo Moussaieff of London. She is the First Lady of Iceland and is married to the current President of Iceland, Mr Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.
Any way this guy has set up a million societies related to kabbalah, Jewish history and secrets of the Bible. So not wanting to miss out on the gravy train I sent out a copy of my book with prominent mention of my lineage when I tracked him down to his exclusive beach front residence in Israel.
I am sure he's going to tell me to f--- off but that's half the fun of life - and women. You just never know ...
I am just joking of course. But the truth is that I will be shifting the focus of the blog next week. I found a new love, a new interest - the most beautiful Jewish woman in history (and you know when you say 'beautiful Jewish women' you're not dealing with a long list).
Any way I got the latest issue of BAR last week. The first thing I noticed was that April DeConick had a column or her face beside an article on the Gospel of Thomas - congrats to April! She's always interesting to read.
The truth is that I've been trying to get an article on my Throne of St. Mark in that trashy journal forever it seems. It's never going to happen because I tried one too many times to get something published that had no chance of getting published.
In any event the article which knocked my socks off this month though was the one which appeared after April's piece - the about Berenice the last Queen of Israel. It was like a revelation. Finally someone who 'gets' how the last Herodians are under appreciated by historians.
You see Berenice and Marcus Julius Agrippa were real Jews, not idealized works of fiction like King David and Moses. Reality's such a hard thing to take.
After reading this interesting article about Berenice being responsible for getting the Emperor Titus to repeal the Jew tax that Vespasian set up after the war of 70 CE I thought to myself - I guess God was talking to someone other than me (that because my book - the Real Messiah is based on the exact same revelation).
So I when I finished the short article the first question that popped into my head was - who the f--- is this guy? I knew that a woman hadn't written the article. He just 'knew the ways of women' in the way only a man can understand women.
So I started wondering - there is no way that this guy is an academic. This guy has obviously 'been around.' He knows women and he knows the way the world works.
Sorry folks it's true. Academics only meet one kind of woman. The kind of woman no one wants and the kind who are left bitter owing to the 'unsexing' of themselves.
Say what you want about me - I have lived life and I know that a hot, sexy, well connected, intelligent woman can move mountains. I've seen it, lived it, and whatever else there is to do with 'it.'
A beautiful, intelligent woman can do anything she wants. If I was going to develop a spy agency I would just hire this type of woman to do all my espionage. She is like the story of the capture of Troy except Helen in this case is the wooden horse.
I know what happens when God puts too much woman in a woman. The ultimate woman - the kind that can bring a powerful man to his knees - is a historical type and this guy who wrote the article had been around. I just knew it.
So I am looking at the guys name - Shlomo Moussaieff - and I am thinking Sephardic Jew. I still don't know who he is. So I looked him up on Wikipedia and I thought - he's my kind of Jew (which means of course he's 'Jewish like me'):
Shlomo Moussaieff (born 1922) is an Israeli billionaire of Bukharian Jewish descent who has lived in London since the early 1960s. He is the son of Rehavia Moussaieff, and grandson of Shlomo Moussaieff of Bukhara. He made most of his fortune by selling precious jewelry to international royalty and high society, especially Saudis and Persian Gulf Arab States. He speaks Arabic fluently. The average price of a necklace in his store, located in the Hilton hotel in London's Mayfair district, is over a million dollars.[citation needed]
At the age of 11 Moussaieff’s father, Rehavia threw him out of the house because Moussaieff refused to pray. The young rebellious Moussaieff didn’t believe in God. In the years he spent in the ancient caves of Sanhedria he started his collection of Jewish antiquity. He was caught robbing an ancient grave and was put in a school for delinquent youth. There he learned the Arabic language and culture from his Arab comrades, which later saved his life and contributed to his abilities as a merchant.
During World War II, when he was 17 years old Moussaieff was drafted into the British army. After the fighting ceased, he found many Kabbalah books in the treasuries of deserted synagogues in Italy. These books were to follow him for the rest of his life.
In 1948 Shlomo fought in the old city of Jerusalem. When the city fell into the hands of the Jordanian Legion, he was taken captive and was imprisoned for a year.
Shlomo’s greatest affection is to the Bible and its hidden wisdom. His passion for the Bible led him over the last half-century to purchase the richest collection of Biblical archaeology.
Some notable family members include:
Dorrit Moussaieff is the daughter of Shlomo Moussaieff of London. She is the First Lady of Iceland and is married to the current President of Iceland, Mr Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.
Any way this guy has set up a million societies related to kabbalah, Jewish history and secrets of the Bible. So not wanting to miss out on the gravy train I sent out a copy of my book with prominent mention of my lineage when I tracked him down to his exclusive beach front residence in Israel.
I am sure he's going to tell me to f--- off but that's half the fun of life - and women. You just never know ...
Was Clement Being DELIBERATELY Ambiguous When He Wrote That Line in To Theodore That Can Be Interpreted In Two Different Ways?
Morton Smith translates the line:
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. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men"
Scott Brown translates the same words:
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men"
The two different translations inevitably lead to two different interpretations. That is - were the Alexandrians denying that they had a 'secret' version of Mark or was Clement denying that the 'heretical' Carpocratian gospel was by Mark?
A distinguished professor explained to be that there is no clear cut answer for as he notes:
The text seems ambiguous to me.
The question is: is the mystic/secret Gospel in 2.10-11 the text of the Secret Gospel or is it the secret Gospel edited by the Carpocratians?
But if you note what Clement said in 1.8-9 (where it sounds like he is telling all lovers of truth to lie—that they should not to acknowledge what the Carpocratians say is true even if it actually is true).
This question has been around ever since Scott Brown wrote his Mark's Other Gospel five years ago. Because we now stand almost two thousand years from the time Clement wrote these words another difficult now creeps into the discussion.
Even the most authoritative expert may know all the rules of Greek but he is certain not a 'native' speaker. So the question that arose in my mind was whether this ambiguity was deliberate on Clement's part. In other words, was one of the two meanings an 'exterior' meaning and the 'other' the real 'interior' meaning?
For Pagel correctly notes that Irenaeus identifies the gnostics of speaking this way among themselves saying that:
they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." [Irenaeus AH iii.2.1]
Yet notice of course that the Letter to Theodore similarly appeals to this 'wisdom' concept when at the end of what remains Clement notes, after rejecting the Carpocratian claims that:
Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophia (love of wisdom) ...
It is at this point that the original text would have explained what the love of Wisdom (i.e. Jesus) teaches (as oppose to the Carpocratian claims about a homosexual encounter between Jesus and his beloved neaniskos. What those instructions would have been is anyone's guess but it would certainly have been built around the concept of viva voce (i.e. kabbala) that Irenaeus attributes to 'the gnostics' (a term Clement proudly applied to himself and his Alexandrian tradition).
The reader can see the manner in which philosophia is employed in Clement's other writings especially Book Six Chapter Seven. The idea is exactly what I am describing here. Clement must have initially only CAUTIOUSLY referenced what it was the Alexandrian Church was to deny even on oath. It must have been referenced again after the discussion of the true love of Wisdom.
The reader should note Irenaeus' report of the gnostic distinction of two wisdoms - one of God and one of men. Clement similarly speaks of the Carpocratians as ' true according to human opinions' against the backdrop of 'the true love of Wisdom.'
In any event, Clement repeatedly acknowledges that he believes that the apostles hid a 'secret wisdom' from the world and he apparently perpetuated this 'gnostic manner' of speech in his writings:
And the gnosis itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles. Hence, then, knowledge or wisdom ought to be exercised up to the eternal and unchangeable habit of contemplation. [Stromata vi.7,8]
Notice a similar idea emerges in his discussion in the later portion of the same Stomateis where he says that the only way to avoid ambiguity in speaking of spiritual matters is by ensuring that those who receive hidden truths are prepared with 'pre-existent knowledge' of how to interpret what they are hearing:
For every question is solved from pre-existing knowledge. And the knowledge pre-existing of each object of investigation is sometimes merely of the essence, while its functions are unknown (as of stones, and plants, and animals, of whose operations we are ignorant), or of the properties, or powers, or (so to speak) of the qualities inherent in the objects. And sometimes we may know some one or more of those powers or properties, -- as, for example, the desires and affections of the soul, -- and be ignorant of the essence, and make it the object of investigation. But in many instances, our understanding having assumed all these, the question is, in which of the essences do they thus inhere; for it is after forming conceptions of both -- that is, both of essence and operation -- in our mind, that we proceed to the question. And there are also some objects, whose operations, along with their essences, we know, but are ignorant of their modifications.
Such, then, is the method of the discovery [of truth]. For we must begin with the knowledge of the questions to be discussed. For often the form of the expression deceives and confuses and disturbs the mind, so that it is not easy to discover to what class the thing is to be referred [Stromata viii. 4]
In short, ladies and gentleman I can see a scenario where indeed Clement DELIBERATELY wrote a sentence in To Theodore which only referenced the question of multiple copies of the Gospel of Mark in an ambiguous manner in order to avoid to hide the implications of one of the two meanings of that sentence OR BOTH.
The question now for is whether the Alexandrians were denying that they had a 'secret' version of Mark was the real 'interior' meaning or alternatively that Clement was really denying that a copy of the gospel circulating among 'the Carpocratians' was really by Mark.
Perhaps it was a little of both. Perhaps Clement had mastered the art of speaking like a politician - i.e. being so ambiguous that it was difficult to pin down exactly what he was saying. Who knows. I for one certainly don't possess the skill to pull back the layers of a Greek text.
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. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men"
Scott Brown translates the same words:
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men"
The two different translations inevitably lead to two different interpretations. That is - were the Alexandrians denying that they had a 'secret' version of Mark or was Clement denying that the 'heretical' Carpocratian gospel was by Mark?
A distinguished professor explained to be that there is no clear cut answer for as he notes:
The text seems ambiguous to me.
The question is: is the mystic/secret Gospel in 2.10-11 the text of the Secret Gospel or is it the secret Gospel edited by the Carpocratians?
But if you note what Clement said in 1.8-9 (where it sounds like he is telling all lovers of truth to lie—that they should not to acknowledge what the Carpocratians say is true even if it actually is true).
This question has been around ever since Scott Brown wrote his Mark's Other Gospel five years ago. Because we now stand almost two thousand years from the time Clement wrote these words another difficult now creeps into the discussion.
Even the most authoritative expert may know all the rules of Greek but he is certain not a 'native' speaker. So the question that arose in my mind was whether this ambiguity was deliberate on Clement's part. In other words, was one of the two meanings an 'exterior' meaning and the 'other' the real 'interior' meaning?
For Pagel correctly notes that Irenaeus identifies the gnostics of speaking this way among themselves saying that:
they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." [Irenaeus AH iii.2.1]
Yet notice of course that the Letter to Theodore similarly appeals to this 'wisdom' concept when at the end of what remains Clement notes, after rejecting the Carpocratian claims that:
Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophia (love of wisdom) ...
It is at this point that the original text would have explained what the love of Wisdom (i.e. Jesus) teaches (as oppose to the Carpocratian claims about a homosexual encounter between Jesus and his beloved neaniskos. What those instructions would have been is anyone's guess but it would certainly have been built around the concept of viva voce (i.e. kabbala) that Irenaeus attributes to 'the gnostics' (a term Clement proudly applied to himself and his Alexandrian tradition).
The reader can see the manner in which philosophia is employed in Clement's other writings especially Book Six Chapter Seven. The idea is exactly what I am describing here. Clement must have initially only CAUTIOUSLY referenced what it was the Alexandrian Church was to deny even on oath. It must have been referenced again after the discussion of the true love of Wisdom.
The reader should note Irenaeus' report of the gnostic distinction of two wisdoms - one of God and one of men. Clement similarly speaks of the Carpocratians as ' true according to human opinions' against the backdrop of 'the true love of Wisdom.'
In any event, Clement repeatedly acknowledges that he believes that the apostles hid a 'secret wisdom' from the world and he apparently perpetuated this 'gnostic manner' of speech in his writings:
And the gnosis itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles. Hence, then, knowledge or wisdom ought to be exercised up to the eternal and unchangeable habit of contemplation. [Stromata vi.7,8]
Notice a similar idea emerges in his discussion in the later portion of the same Stomateis where he says that the only way to avoid ambiguity in speaking of spiritual matters is by ensuring that those who receive hidden truths are prepared with 'pre-existent knowledge' of how to interpret what they are hearing:
For every question is solved from pre-existing knowledge. And the knowledge pre-existing of each object of investigation is sometimes merely of the essence, while its functions are unknown (as of stones, and plants, and animals, of whose operations we are ignorant), or of the properties, or powers, or (so to speak) of the qualities inherent in the objects. And sometimes we may know some one or more of those powers or properties, -- as, for example, the desires and affections of the soul, -- and be ignorant of the essence, and make it the object of investigation. But in many instances, our understanding having assumed all these, the question is, in which of the essences do they thus inhere; for it is after forming conceptions of both -- that is, both of essence and operation -- in our mind, that we proceed to the question. And there are also some objects, whose operations, along with their essences, we know, but are ignorant of their modifications.
Such, then, is the method of the discovery [of truth]. For we must begin with the knowledge of the questions to be discussed. For often the form of the expression deceives and confuses and disturbs the mind, so that it is not easy to discover to what class the thing is to be referred [Stromata viii. 4]
In short, ladies and gentleman I can see a scenario where indeed Clement DELIBERATELY wrote a sentence in To Theodore which only referenced the question of multiple copies of the Gospel of Mark in an ambiguous manner in order to avoid to hide the implications of one of the two meanings of that sentence OR BOTH.
The question now for is whether the Alexandrians were denying that they had a 'secret' version of Mark was the real 'interior' meaning or alternatively that Clement was really denying that a copy of the gospel circulating among 'the Carpocratians' was really by Mark.
Perhaps it was a little of both. Perhaps Clement had mastered the art of speaking like a politician - i.e. being so ambiguous that it was difficult to pin down exactly what he was saying. Who knows. I for one certainly don't possess the skill to pull back the layers of a Greek text.
Have You Taken a Good Look at the Neighborhood the Late Second Century Roman Church was 'Making Its Home' in at the Time of Irenaeus? My God! It Could Have Been Called 'the Church of Park Avenue' ...
I am sorry there is something strange when you actually start thinking about (a) Irenaeus' acknowledgement that the Roman Church was being financed by the wicked Emperor Commodus (AH iv.30.1) (b) Commodus' rule being associated with the first 'age of peace' for the Church and (c) Hippolytus' story of the Catholic Church's 'katholoki' being located here.
It is impossible to reconcile these indisputable facts with the traditional story of Irenaeus as someone who preserved the original truth of the apostles.
Even I'd like to live in this neighborhood.
And listen again to the first words of Irenaeus' acknowledgment that the heads of the Church were sitting in the court of Commodus and receiving large amounts of money from this evil man:
For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus; that is, in the faith in which we have been established, and by which we have been brought forth from among the number of the Gentiles. For in some cases there follows us a small, and in others a large amount of property, which we have acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness [AH iv 30.1]
The reference to 'exodus' implies that the Church came to the promised land of the Piscina Publica, a veritable 'land of milk and honey.' But doesn't it also imply that the place that it came FROM was somewhere other than Rome?
I certainly think so and I believe Irenaeus is also implying that Egypt was the true home of the Church - or in his terminology - the place from which it turned its back. Again, I can't prove it but it is worth doing some further investigations.
It is impossible to reconcile these indisputable facts with the traditional story of Irenaeus as someone who preserved the original truth of the apostles.
Even I'd like to live in this neighborhood.
And listen again to the first words of Irenaeus' acknowledgment that the heads of the Church were sitting in the court of Commodus and receiving large amounts of money from this evil man:
For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus; that is, in the faith in which we have been established, and by which we have been brought forth from among the number of the Gentiles. For in some cases there follows us a small, and in others a large amount of property, which we have acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness [AH iv 30.1]
The reference to 'exodus' implies that the Church came to the promised land of the Piscina Publica, a veritable 'land of milk and honey.' But doesn't it also imply that the place that it came FROM was somewhere other than Rome?
I certainly think so and I believe Irenaeus is also implying that Egypt was the true home of the Church - or in his terminology - the place from which it turned its back. Again, I can't prove it but it is worth doing some further investigations.
The Irony Inherent in the Fact that the Blog Run By Stephen Carlson, the Author of the Gospel Hoax, is Named After a Work of Clement of Alexandria Which Can be Proved to be a Fifth Century Forgery
Life is full of strange twists and turns. Contrary to popular opinion, I do believe in a God and I believe he has a sense of humor. As such, I don't take myself too seriously, nor should anyone else out there. I just happen to like to 'play around' with the paradigm of earliest Christianity. I think that detachment gives me an advantage over 'professional scholars.' A professional isn't always preferable to amateur. A prostitute, for instance might be more skilled at the technical aspects of love-making but - by analogy - it is difficult to find love 'professionally.' Indeed some would say it is impossible.
While there are undoubtedly a number of readers of this blog asking themselves how can one connect prostitution to academic research, I think they have failed to understand Clement of Alexandria's reference to 'the true philosophy' at the end of To Theodore. The Alexandrian tradition treated sophia and philosophia as Platonic concepts. Clement notes in Chapter Seven of Book Six of the Stromata many of his opponents (the Carpocratians of Rome?) were saying that wisdom was a firmly established principles. Against this dogmatic approach, Clement set forth the 'philosophia' of the Alexandrian tradition, i.e. that truth could only be established by 'loving' the wisdom of God - i.e. the gospel - through inquiries into its mysteries.
Interestingly there is a long history of this kind of 'philosophia' in Alexandria. The Pistis Sophia is one such tradition where Mary was originally portrayed as asking Jesus (i.e. the Wisdom of God) to solve the riddles of the many cryptic sayings in the gospel.
Again, the point is that we have lived under the domination of one approach - what I would call 'the Carpocratian approach' to Christian wisdom - which basically says 'here is the truth, now just accept it as true.' The Alexandrians didn't see things that way. The gospel was set up as a mystery hidden behind a veil. It was necessary to acquire the secret oral tradition to make sense of what the 'truth' of the tradition was.
I have already explained that because of my research I believe that 'the truth hidden by seven veils' was a reference to the Episcopal chair of Alexandria - i.e. the throne of St. Mark - which literally was hidden in the inner sanctum of the church of St. Mark in the Boucalia behind seven curtains.
You have to understand what the physical layout was of ancient churches to understand this concept. There were two churches in antiquity. The baptized had one ritual going on hidden behind the veil standing before the Patriarch - called Papa - sitting in this representation of the divine throne. The unbaptized could only see shadows flickering on the back of the curtain - a representation of the highest heaven - which enticed them to become baptized and join the elect.
In any event, Stephen Carlson - and Scott Brown - for that matter have unwittingly accepted a late tradition developed in the name of Clement of Alexandria, that seems to indicate that he accepted that Jesus only baptized Peter. This tradition comes from a text called the Hypotyposeis and it is clearly a fraud. I think it was developed to counter the original tradition of the Alexandrian Church that Jesus only baptized John Mark, but that is another story for another time.
At the present moment let me demonstrate that the Hypotyposeis is a document forged in Clement's name. Now remember, Stephen Carlson was unable to prove that any internal contradictions exist between the beliefs and opinions associated with Clement's 'accepted' writings and that which appears in the recently discovered Letter to Theodore.
As such what I am about to show you CLEARLY makes the case against the authenticity of the Hypotyposeis STRONGER than Stephen Carlson's case against the authenticity of To Theodore.
The Hypotyposeis claim that Clement of Alexandria believed that “Cephas” was different from “Peter”. This information comes to us from Eusebius (Eccles Hist, 1.12.2).Here is the text:
They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.”
Does anyone REALLY believe that Clement thought that Cephas and Peter were two different people? How then do we accept ANYTHING from this text given that Photius - a man who actually SAW the text in its entirety - thought it was NOT by Clement of Alexandria?
I have written about this before. I also had a long running dispute with Andrew Criddle on this very subject. I just never noticed the reference cited above by Roger. This only confirms my suspicions about this text. Indeed if we look carefully at Clement's AUTHENTIC writings we see that REAL Clement of Alexandria clearly accepted that Peter WAS Cephas.
In Book Four of the Stromata he writes "It is a different matter, then, which is expressed by the apostle: "Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as the rest of the apostles, as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? But we have not used this power." [Strom. iv.15]
Then in Book Three he makes explicit that he thought that Peter and Philip were the only married disciples of Jesus - "or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?" But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives."[Stromata iii.52,53]
My friends, Photius was clearly right when he says that Clement did not write the Hypotyposeis. Photius actually says in his summary of the Stromata that it "is in some parts unsound, but not like the Outlines, some of whose statements it refutes." In my mind I have just found one of those contradictions to which Photius' alludes. Photius' language suggests there must have been many more. We just don't have access to the original text of this disputed text.
Clement believed that when Paul pointed to Cephas as a married apostle he meant Peter. And this is exactly the way any sane person would read the reference. As I have shown elsewhere, the Hypotyposeis is likely a Clementine forgery.
I can't believe that Carlson will doubt the authenticity of To Theodore when what I have just cited demonstrates - coupled with Photius' testimony - that the Hypotyposeis was a fraud.
I guess the 'deciding issue' was for Carlson that the Hypotyposeis weren't discovered by some 'crazy fag' ...
Perhaps I am being too harsh. Yet isn't it strange that any doubts about To Theodore never rise to this level of proof I just cited against the Hypotyposeis. Of course Carlson might be partial to the text because that Hypotyposeis is the name of his blog ...
I've said it time and again - the whole case against To Theodore is ridiculous. The authenticity of the text should stand until someone can provide a piece of evidence which rises to what I just cited against the Hypotyposeis.
Of course I can tell my readership that they should have serious doubts about the INSTINCTS of Carlson and Jeffrey for this reason alone. If they don't suspect that the Hypotyposeis is ALSO an ancient forgery, why should any of us take their word about To Theodore? As Frank Sinatra once noted about similar geniuses in his day - "these guys couldn't hit a bull's fanny with a bag of rice."
Yet Carlson and Jeffrey will develop a whole case against an ancient text owing to its discoverer's alleged ability to do just that with something more than a bag of rice ...
It's all been a witch hunt from the start. Someone should write a book using the Morton Smith 'controversy' as proof that we should take a wrecking ball to the whole study of early Christianity.
I implore each one of you read EVERYTHING Photius says about Clement of Alexandria. Photius explicitly says that the Hypotyposeis was not by Clement of Alexandria. This, coupled with the statement just cited - that Peter and Cephas were two different people - effectively torpedoes the 'contradiction' cited by Carlson and Brown against those who suggest the neaniskos in Secret Mark might have been Mark himself.
Any chance I have to get people to read Roger's site is worth it. His is really the best site on the net. I've said it time and again.
