I know my writing style must be frustrating for some. I don't know if anyone has noticed this yet, but I never think I have it 'figured out.' I go back and forth going over the same material, looking at it upside down, rightside up, backwards, forwards seemingly forever. I have very little interest in the New Testament. My principal focus is the writings of the first commentaries on the earliest writings associated with the Fathers of the Church. I am more interested in what the earliest interpretations of the original sources rather than the original sources themselves.
The reason why I approach matters this way is quite simple - I don't trust myself, or perhaps it would be better to say, that I don't trust my own presuppositions. Maybe I want to interpret a certain text one way, but I'd rather have an early witness tell me it is possible to interpret it that way. That's how the rabbinic sources develop Biblical material. Perhaps I still Jewish for the study of early Christianity. Who knows.
In any event I made an important discovery this week, one which completely transformed my interpretation of the Marcionite gospel. I think that Clement's Letter to Theodore when read alongside 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 7 read the way Marcionites interpreted it implies that the so-called 'Secret Gospel of Mark' was the Gospel of Marcionite community. Indeed the Church Fathers already imply this throughout their attack against the Marcionite tradition - i.e. that their gospel was produced after the 'Catholic original(s).'
Yet there is so much more here. Every day there is so much to consider. Yet for the moment I would like to go back to the place where I got the inspiration for connecting the Letter to Theodore to 1 Corinthians Chapter 2, that is Irenaeus Against Heresies Book Three Chapter Two. I want to demonstrate why it is often a good idea not to listen to the experts. It was because of them that I didn't see a deeper layer to the original reference.
In a previous post I showed that the context of Irenaeus's reference to the unnamed heretics interpretation of 1 Corithians 2.6 was a 'hidden gospel' they reserved for 'the perfect.' Irenaeus criticizes the heretics for claiming that they and their gospel was superior to the revelation given to Peter and the apostles. I showed that Irenaeus's paradigm is the same as what is described in to Theodore only from a hostile point of view - i.e. a 'secret gospel' which is claimed to be superior to a preaching associated with Peter and the Roman tradition.
What I didn't realize at the time is that I wrote this was that Irenaeus actually reports that the heretics pointed to two passages in the writings of Paul to support the authority of their 'secret gospel.' When I looked closer 1 Corinthians Chapter 2 is actually introduced by an allusion to 2 Corinthians Chapter 3. The original passage in Irenaeus:
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of [their] tradition. For that the truth was not delivered by means of letters, but word of mouth (viva voce): wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides [AH 3.2.1]
The reference to 1 Corinthians 2.6 is obvious but because this section of the writings of Irenaeus only survive in Latin the juxtaposition of littera or 'letters' to viva voce which is usually translated as 'living voice.' Yet because Irenaeus originally composed his text in Greek there is a strong possibility here that understanding only the literal meaning of voce might not be correct.
Let's start with the pertinent argument in 2 Corinthians Chapter 3 where the apostle references a "new testament" which is "not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." The Vulgate rendering of the last words is 'littera enim occidit, Spiritus autem vivificat' while Irenaeus speaks of the heretics emphasizing "non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per viva vocem." Yet Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary makes clear that often vox is used not to signify a 'human voice' but that which is uttered by the voice, i. e. a word, saying, speech, sentence, proverb, maxim. I strongly suspect that once again the same 'secret gospel' we have argued is being referenced in 1 Corinthians Chapter Two is also being invoked here.
Notice how 1 Corinthians continually references the idea of the 'secret wisdom' being transmited by mouth to the perfect. This is certainly present in the description of the mysteries associated with the 'secret gospel' in To Theodore. The material in 2 Corinthians similarly describes a transformation of people according to a written text which is also 'spoken' in some ritual context involving the taking away of a veil. The specific terminology 'secret gospel' appears a little later in this section (2 Cor 4 ). The rituals associated with Secret Mark also involve someone 'speaking' or 'reading' the text according to the mysteries associated with it.
Yet before we go too far down this road it is enough that we notice that the 'secret gospel' in To Theodore is at once a 'spiritual' text. The terminology is very specific and it differentiates the gospel from its rivals:
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. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
There has been a lot written on the strange description of the gospel as a 'more spiritual gospel.' I think that Irenaeus's allusion to 2 Corinthians 3 helps us provide some much needed context.
The real question comes down to what the apostle is trying to convey in 2 Corinthians. It would ridiculous to claim that he means here everyone should abandon writing things down. As most scholars agree the underlying contrast here is not between 'writing things down' and 'feeling things' but the “letter” [of the law] and “spirit” (γράμμα and πνεῦμα). This is certainly the Marcionite interpretation of the passage which Tertullian (or his original source) to some degree also acknowledges:
So also the New Testament will belong to none other than him who made that promise: even if the letter is not his, yet the Spirit is: herein lies the newness. Indeed he who had engraved the letter upon tables of stone is the same who also proclaimed, in reference to the Spirit, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon allflesh. And if the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life, both of them belong to him who said, I will kill and I will make alive, I will smite and I will heal. I have long ago established my contention that the Creator's power is twofold, that he is both judge and kind, that by the letter he kills through the law, and by the Spirit he makes alive through the gospel.
So clearly the apostle by everyone's definitiion is contrasting the 'letters' of the Law with a more spiritual or 'spiritual' gospel. The point is now that this reconstruction is a far better explanation of Irenaeus's original introduction of 1 Cor 2.6 than the common assumption among people like Pagels who claim that it is the heretics 'oral tradition' which is being condemned here.
As we have noted many times Irenaeus makes explicit that the heretics are pointing to some writing - even a gospel - which is argued to have been an improvement over what is preserved in Rome and associated with Peter and the apostles. Indeed when we go back to the original reference in Irenaeus there can be no doubt that he is clearly channeling the arguments of 2 Corinthians Chapter 3:
When, however, they are confuted from the [Catholic] Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of [their] tradition. For that the truth was not delivered by means of writings, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to [our] Scripture nor to [our] tradition. [Irenaeus AH 3.2.1,2]
Clearly then Pagels is certainly wrong when it comes interpreting the juxtaposition between 'writings' and 'viva voce' as something to do with a mystical hermeneutic passed from gnostic to gnostic by word of mouth. There can be no doubt that the real context is 2 Corinthians Chapter 3.
Why then would the material in 2 Corinthians be connected with 1 Corinthians 2.6 by the heretics - i.e. "we speak [hidden] wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world"? Well, as we already noted 'wisdom of the world' is a reference to Jewish Law. This clearly a prominent topic in 2 Corinthians Chapter 3. Yet more important than this is the fact that the argument in 2 Corinthians eventually goes on to specifically mention a 'secret gospel':
And even if our gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those who are perishing. The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God [2 Cor 4.3,4]
I defy anyone to look again at Tertullian's analysis of the Marcionite interpretation of this material and deny even for a moment that the sectarians believed that they had a 'secret' and 'more spiritual' gospel in their possession and that these arguments were developed from their interpretation of the Apostolikon (i.e. the so-called 'letters of Paul').
To this end we enter into a radical new interpretation of the Marcionite canon. The Marcionite must have read both the materials in 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians as ultimately supporting the idea that they had a secret and more spiritual gospel which was written after the preaching of the original apostles. In that much the Church Fathers might have been accurate. I even think the remaining portion of 2 Corinthians Chapter Four demonstrates that the opening words of the Marcionite gospel must have resembled the Johannine prolegomena.
Yet these are things for another time. It is enough to merely say for the moment that we shouldn't always believe what the 'experts' tell us. In the case of Irenaeus's 'viva voce' it has helped contribute to the veil of ignorance not being lifted from our appreciation of to Theodore.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Common Marcionite and Alexandrian Interpretation of 1 Corinthians Chapter 2
Scholars are a brilliant bunch sometimes. My question is clearly - do the best and brightest really end up in the study of the New Testament and Patristic literature? Even if you have the ability tob translate a passage from Coptic or some obscure language into English does that make you necessarily the best person to understand that same text? I don't want to go too far down that road (because I start sounding like the fox in the fable about sour grapes) but the point is clearly that I take issue with the way many scholars synthesize the material they study. Here is just one example.
Why is Origen always presented as some sort of 'visionary' who came up with all these imaginative interpretations of the Bible? Why don't we treat him as a representative of a pre-existent Alexandrian exegesis? We know that he studied under Clement (although Origen never mentions his master by name). We also know that the latter day Popes until Arius were all so-called 'Origenists' and 'Origenism' continued to pervade Alexandrian thought into the fifth century. Why isn't 'Origenism' simply identified as a Origen's 'spin' on the Alexandrian Christian tradition?
Whatever the case may be we know Origen was put on the payroll of a prominent, rich (and repentant) heretic named Ambrose. Ambrose's heresy is alternatively identified as Valentinian by Eusebius and Marcionite (twice) by Jerome. Nautin argued that Eusebius's report is the more correct basing most of his argument owing to a small section which survives of Book Five as preserved in the Philocalia. However I would like to start our present analysis by citing from the whole section and arguing that the evidence suggests instead a Marcionite context for Ambrosius. All the reader has to be aware is that Ambrosius commissioned Origen to write a Commentary on John and the following words are addressed to Origen's 'taskmaster':
I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says: “According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus;” he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence. But they fail to see that, as He is one of whom all the evangelists write, so the Gospel, though written by several hands, is, in effect, one. And, in fact, the Gospel, though written by four, is one. From these considerations, then, we learn what the one book is, and what the many books, and what I am now concerned about is, not the quantity I may write, but the effect of what I say, lest, if I fail in this point, and set forth anything against the truth itself, even in one of my writings, I should prove to have transgressed the commandment, and to be a writer of “many books.” Yet I see the heterodox assailing the holy Church of God in these days, under the pretence of higher wisdom, and bringing forward works in many volumes in which they offer expositions of the evangelical and apostolic writings, and I fear that if I should be silent and should not put before our members the saving and true doctrines, these teachers might get a hold of curious souls, which, in the absence of wholesome nourishment, might go after food that is forbidden, and, in fact, unclean and horrible. It appears to me, therefore, to be necessary that one who is able to represent in a genuine manner the doctrine of the Church, and to refute those dealers in knowledge, falsely so-called, should take his stand against historical fictions, and oppose to them the true and lofty evangelical message in which the agreement of the doctrines, found both in the so-called Old Testament and in the so-called New, appears so plainly and fully. You yourself felt at one time the lack of good representatives of the better cause, and were impatient of a faith which was at issue with reason and absurd, and you then, for the love you bore to the Lord, gave yourself to composition from which, however, in the exercise of the judgment with which you are endowed, you afterwards desisted. This is the defence which I think admits of being made for those who have the faculty of speaking and writing. But I am also pleading my own cause, as I now devote myself with what boldness I may to the work of exposition; for it may be that I am not endowed with that habit and disposition which he ought to have who is fitted by God to be a minister of the New Covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit.
While it is true that the section which immediately precedes the highlighted material can be interpreted to be rather generic, it cannot be ignored that it starts with yet another reference to Romans 2:16 - i.e. "according to my gospel." Indeed this time the specific Marcionite interpretation is referenced. It is explicit here alongside explicit referencing of Ambrosius's 'former' beliefs. In my opinion all of this cannot be regarded as coincidental. Origen, as Nautin argues, is indeed providing us with some crucial context for why the work was attempted in the first place.
We have already referenced that it has been noted in the literature that Origen cites verses from 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16 more than fifty times. Now we have to add that the single statement in Romans 2.16 is also repeatedly referenced in the work. I would argue that these two facts are related. Origen's point in citing the material in Corinthians is clearly to explain Ambrosius's identification of another gospel as the 'more spiritual gospel' written after the apostle formerly declared a simple faith of Jesus crucified. It cannot be ignored that even in the Catholic paradigm John is presented as a gospel written 'later' after the other texts were established in the apsotolic age. As such one could make the case that John is being argued to be 'similar' to or a replacement for the Marcionite interest in Secret Mark as Paul's 'secret wisdom' written for the perfect.
This isn't as crazy as it seems. We already noted that Origen when treating Rom 2.16 in a former section does not deny that Paul might have established a written gospel. He merely says that it is not customary (συνεθίζω) to acknowledge this. In other words, it could have been held as a secret belief of a particular community. Now Origen makes explicit reference to the Marcionite interpretation of the same passage - the Apostle did indeed write a gospel. This knowledge was clearly kept from other Christians.
I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says: “According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus;” he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence.
It is important to note what Origen does not say. He does not say that the Marcionites are in error for holding that the Apostle wrote a gospel. Rather there error is in arguing that only one gospel was in existence.
Origen's use of language is very specific. One can't even determine whether he means that the many gospels pertains to the Apostle's gospel writing efforts (i.e. that he wrote more than one gospel) or their refusal to accept other gospels (a point developed by Irenaeus earlier). The point however is that it is impossible to see that the Marcionites and the Alexandrians interpretation 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 as a reference to a gospel writing effort on the part of the apostle. This is very critical and I would argue provides the ultimate proof for the Mar Saba document's authenticity. Morton Smith never realized or connectred Clement's reference to a 'public' and 'secret' gospel to the Marcionite interpretation of the Apostolikon. Now that we see it, it is impossible to ignore the uncanny resemblance between Origen's exegesis of the material in his Commentary on John.
I have even found references in this work to Origen's connection of the Gospel of Mark as the gospel employed by the Apostle called 'Paul' among the Catholics. I would suggest that this is supported by a number of references found in the anti-Marcionite writings of the Church Fathers - i.e. that the Marcionites used a variant (and fuller) version of Mark as the gospel of their community alongside the Apostolkon (the so-called 'letters of Paul'). This was their original New Testament. Among those letters was even one that was called 'to the Alexandrians.' The only difference between them and us was that they argued that the Gospel and the Apostolikon were written by the same person. In other words, there can be no doubt that the Marcionite apostle was responsible for the literary production of their canon. As such that leaves us with one of two possibilities - either someone named 'Paul' wrote the gospel or 'Mark' wrote the letters we attribute to someone named 'Paul.'
I would argue that the name 'Paul' is a deliberate Catholic distraction. It might have been a title originally employed by the Marcionites for Mark. The reason for this is obvious - even the Catholic tradition does not hold that 'Paul' was the apostle's original name. It was an appelation he picked up later after undergoing baptism. To this end the question comes down to whether 'Saul' was really his original name. The fact that (a) the Marcionites rejected Acts as spurious, (b) that they are never identified as identifying him as 'Saul,' (c) that they are even intimated as rejecting this notion, (d) argue for the Gospel of Mark being written by their apostle and (e) happen to be identified by a group identification (i.e. the Marcionites) which can be argued to derive from the Latin name Marcus either in Greek or Aramaic makes the second case more likely.
The Marcionites identified the apostle as being named 'Mark' and it is only our indoctrination in Catholic beliefs that makes the name 'Paul' seem more natural. Indeed when one considers the structure of the Marcionite canon - i.e. a longer and fuller gospel of Mark followed by a series of letters, one of which was directed to the Alexandrians, the idea seems hard to ignore. It would also happen to explain the underlying connection between the Letter to Theodore and Origen's almost fifty references to 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 in the Commentary on John.
Why is Origen always presented as some sort of 'visionary' who came up with all these imaginative interpretations of the Bible? Why don't we treat him as a representative of a pre-existent Alexandrian exegesis? We know that he studied under Clement (although Origen never mentions his master by name). We also know that the latter day Popes until Arius were all so-called 'Origenists' and 'Origenism' continued to pervade Alexandrian thought into the fifth century. Why isn't 'Origenism' simply identified as a Origen's 'spin' on the Alexandrian Christian tradition?
Whatever the case may be we know Origen was put on the payroll of a prominent, rich (and repentant) heretic named Ambrose. Ambrose's heresy is alternatively identified as Valentinian by Eusebius and Marcionite (twice) by Jerome. Nautin argued that Eusebius's report is the more correct basing most of his argument owing to a small section which survives of Book Five as preserved in the Philocalia. However I would like to start our present analysis by citing from the whole section and arguing that the evidence suggests instead a Marcionite context for Ambrosius. All the reader has to be aware is that Ambrosius commissioned Origen to write a Commentary on John and the following words are addressed to Origen's 'taskmaster':
I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says: “According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus;” he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence. But they fail to see that, as He is one of whom all the evangelists write, so the Gospel, though written by several hands, is, in effect, one. And, in fact, the Gospel, though written by four, is one. From these considerations, then, we learn what the one book is, and what the many books, and what I am now concerned about is, not the quantity I may write, but the effect of what I say, lest, if I fail in this point, and set forth anything against the truth itself, even in one of my writings, I should prove to have transgressed the commandment, and to be a writer of “many books.” Yet I see the heterodox assailing the holy Church of God in these days, under the pretence of higher wisdom, and bringing forward works in many volumes in which they offer expositions of the evangelical and apostolic writings, and I fear that if I should be silent and should not put before our members the saving and true doctrines, these teachers might get a hold of curious souls, which, in the absence of wholesome nourishment, might go after food that is forbidden, and, in fact, unclean and horrible. It appears to me, therefore, to be necessary that one who is able to represent in a genuine manner the doctrine of the Church, and to refute those dealers in knowledge, falsely so-called, should take his stand against historical fictions, and oppose to them the true and lofty evangelical message in which the agreement of the doctrines, found both in the so-called Old Testament and in the so-called New, appears so plainly and fully. You yourself felt at one time the lack of good representatives of the better cause, and were impatient of a faith which was at issue with reason and absurd, and you then, for the love you bore to the Lord, gave yourself to composition from which, however, in the exercise of the judgment with which you are endowed, you afterwards desisted. This is the defence which I think admits of being made for those who have the faculty of speaking and writing. But I am also pleading my own cause, as I now devote myself with what boldness I may to the work of exposition; for it may be that I am not endowed with that habit and disposition which he ought to have who is fitted by God to be a minister of the New Covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit.
While it is true that the section which immediately precedes the highlighted material can be interpreted to be rather generic, it cannot be ignored that it starts with yet another reference to Romans 2:16 - i.e. "according to my gospel." Indeed this time the specific Marcionite interpretation is referenced. It is explicit here alongside explicit referencing of Ambrosius's 'former' beliefs. In my opinion all of this cannot be regarded as coincidental. Origen, as Nautin argues, is indeed providing us with some crucial context for why the work was attempted in the first place.
We have already referenced that it has been noted in the literature that Origen cites verses from 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16 more than fifty times. Now we have to add that the single statement in Romans 2.16 is also repeatedly referenced in the work. I would argue that these two facts are related. Origen's point in citing the material in Corinthians is clearly to explain Ambrosius's identification of another gospel as the 'more spiritual gospel' written after the apostle formerly declared a simple faith of Jesus crucified. It cannot be ignored that even in the Catholic paradigm John is presented as a gospel written 'later' after the other texts were established in the apsotolic age. As such one could make the case that John is being argued to be 'similar' to or a replacement for the Marcionite interest in Secret Mark as Paul's 'secret wisdom' written for the perfect.
This isn't as crazy as it seems. We already noted that Origen when treating Rom 2.16 in a former section does not deny that Paul might have established a written gospel. He merely says that it is not customary (συνεθίζω) to acknowledge this. In other words, it could have been held as a secret belief of a particular community. Now Origen makes explicit reference to the Marcionite interpretation of the same passage - the Apostle did indeed write a gospel. This knowledge was clearly kept from other Christians.
I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says: “According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus;” he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence.
It is important to note what Origen does not say. He does not say that the Marcionites are in error for holding that the Apostle wrote a gospel. Rather there error is in arguing that only one gospel was in existence.
Origen's use of language is very specific. One can't even determine whether he means that the many gospels pertains to the Apostle's gospel writing efforts (i.e. that he wrote more than one gospel) or their refusal to accept other gospels (a point developed by Irenaeus earlier). The point however is that it is impossible to see that the Marcionites and the Alexandrians interpretation 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 as a reference to a gospel writing effort on the part of the apostle. This is very critical and I would argue provides the ultimate proof for the Mar Saba document's authenticity. Morton Smith never realized or connectred Clement's reference to a 'public' and 'secret' gospel to the Marcionite interpretation of the Apostolikon. Now that we see it, it is impossible to ignore the uncanny resemblance between Origen's exegesis of the material in his Commentary on John.
I have even found references in this work to Origen's connection of the Gospel of Mark as the gospel employed by the Apostle called 'Paul' among the Catholics. I would suggest that this is supported by a number of references found in the anti-Marcionite writings of the Church Fathers - i.e. that the Marcionites used a variant (and fuller) version of Mark as the gospel of their community alongside the Apostolkon (the so-called 'letters of Paul'). This was their original New Testament. Among those letters was even one that was called 'to the Alexandrians.' The only difference between them and us was that they argued that the Gospel and the Apostolikon were written by the same person. In other words, there can be no doubt that the Marcionite apostle was responsible for the literary production of their canon. As such that leaves us with one of two possibilities - either someone named 'Paul' wrote the gospel or 'Mark' wrote the letters we attribute to someone named 'Paul.'
I would argue that the name 'Paul' is a deliberate Catholic distraction. It might have been a title originally employed by the Marcionites for Mark. The reason for this is obvious - even the Catholic tradition does not hold that 'Paul' was the apostle's original name. It was an appelation he picked up later after undergoing baptism. To this end the question comes down to whether 'Saul' was really his original name. The fact that (a) the Marcionites rejected Acts as spurious, (b) that they are never identified as identifying him as 'Saul,' (c) that they are even intimated as rejecting this notion, (d) argue for the Gospel of Mark being written by their apostle and (e) happen to be identified by a group identification (i.e. the Marcionites) which can be argued to derive from the Latin name Marcus either in Greek or Aramaic makes the second case more likely.
The Marcionites identified the apostle as being named 'Mark' and it is only our indoctrination in Catholic beliefs that makes the name 'Paul' seem more natural. Indeed when one considers the structure of the Marcionite canon - i.e. a longer and fuller gospel of Mark followed by a series of letters, one of which was directed to the Alexandrians, the idea seems hard to ignore. It would also happen to explain the underlying connection between the Letter to Theodore and Origen's almost fifty references to 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 in the Commentary on John.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Origen Leaves Open the Possibility that Paul Wrote a Gospel Commonly Identified by Another Name
I have been demonstrating over a series of posts that Origen's interpretation of 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 paralleled Clement's mention of a 'public' and 'secret' gospel. The difficulity is of course that Clement identifies this text as being 'according to Mark' and Origen begins his analysis referencing Paul's identification in Romans of him having written his own gospel - 'according to my gospel.' But a careful reading of the words in Origen leave open the possibility that what Paul identifies as 'my gospel' may be 'customarily' identified as being written by someone else. The proper sense of the passage just cited below is that the Christian world is not in the possession of a written gospel which is commonly, 'according to custon' or habitually (συνεθίζω) called according to Paul but that doesn't rule out the possibility that in secret or 'according to a hidden tradition' it was so identified. Origen was very good at explaining things to initiated readers without 'spilling the beans' to everyone else. It is undoubtedly for this reason alone why the (former) Marcionite Ambrose put Origen on his payroll.
This is very similar to the Marcionite paradigm referenced in the writings of Tertullian. It is worth noting this for later ...
This is very similar to the Marcionite paradigm referenced in the writings of Tertullian. It is worth noting this for later ...
Bar Hebraeus Says that Mark was the First (and Only) to Call his Work a 'Gospel'
The beginning of the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah. (Mark 1:1)
Note: that baptism is the beginning of the Gospel according to the arrangement of Mark, we know this: that before our Lord was baptized, he did not preach nor announced [something]. But after baptism, and be tempted, he began to say: repent, the kingdom of heaven is approaching. And St. Basil said that Mark used this term first, the Gospel, and we know this [fact] for this: the other three evangelists did not use it. [Bar Hebraeus Commentary]
Note: that baptism is the beginning of the Gospel according to the arrangement of Mark, we know this: that before our Lord was baptized, he did not preach nor announced [something]. But after baptism, and be tempted, he began to say: repent, the kingdom of heaven is approaching. And St. Basil said that Mark used this term first, the Gospel, and we know this [fact] for this: the other three evangelists did not use it. [Bar Hebraeus Commentary]
Friday, October 29, 2010
Origen Knew About the Existence of an Alexandrian 'Secret Gospel'
Now that all the utterly contrived arguments against the authenticity of the so-called Mar Saba document (the letter of Clement written in an eighteenth century handwriting discovered by Morton Smith in 1958) have fallen away, all that the proponents of the 'hoax hypothesis' can do is claim that its distinction between a public and secret gospel of Mark is wholly unprecedented in Patristic literature. Even the most zealous supporter of the authenticity have a difficult time with this argument. How do you prove that an idea which seems to contradict all our inherited notions about the canon was really held by a pseudo-Church Father like Clement of Alexandria?
Of course the answer was there from the beginning. It was very much like that saying of Jesus from the agrapha - "I have often desired to hear it, and I had no one who could utter it." All that was required was for someone to think outside of the box, to ask the right questions. The entire early Alexandrian tradition always seems strangely connected with heretical traditions associated with someone named Mark. Philip Schaff and others noted that Clement of Alexandria frequently witnesses arguments and lines of reasoning identified with the 'those of Mark' (Marcosian) sect from Irenaeus AH 1.13 - 21. Followers of Origen were classified as heretics soon after his death and many of his ideas (and his patron Ambrose) are explicitly identified as Marcionites. Could the original Markan tradition of Alexandria have been covertly outlawed (cf AH 3.2.1) without anyone explicitly referencing the apostle by name?
I have discovered something quite startling in recent days. If you suppose, just for arguments sake, that the general affiliation of the Alexandrian tradition with 'those of Mark' (Aram. marqiyoni) never entirely left the Church but was only buried 'beneath the surface' then the Letter to Theodore suddenly seems to be providing some context for a number of puzzling Pauline passages including 1 Cor 2.1 - 8 and 2 Cor 4.3 - 6. After all these texts make reference to a 'secret' gospel for 'the perfect' and a 'veiled' gospel that the apostle himself wrote by his own hand. Our Catholic tradition attempts to divert our eyes from passages where the apostle references his own gospel writing efforts (viz. 'my gospel' etc.) but there was never any other explanation for these curious passages other than a handful of fragmentary references to the Marcionites which never quite added up to a full explanation.
But the Letter to Theodore changes all that. Clement is forced to reference some great secret that his community has maintained aboutthe original gospel in spite of persecutions and hardship. Clement tells an otherwise unknown 'Theodore' that there were in reality two gospels of Mark - one 'public' and one 'secret' - the latter being zealously guarded by the Church of Alexandria:
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. 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. [To Theodore 1.15 - 18]
The revelation which came to me yesterday while eating a meatball sandwich was that the apostle of the Marcionite community outlines the exact same understanding of a 'public' and 'private' gospel in one of his letters - only scholars have never recognized it as such because they have always assumed that Paul never possessed a written gospel text. They have taken the Catholic claims about the fourfold division of the gospel (and the Gospel of Luke being the 'Gospel of Paul) entirely at face value.
Yet I realized while eating the meatball sandwich the other day - eating and reading Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book Three I should stress - that Origen, Clement's successor in Alexandria, always interprets 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 as if it related to written gospel tetxs. All we have to do is look again at the original text and substitute the word 'gospel' for 'wisdom' in our imaginations:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on the wisdom of man, but on God's power. Yet we do speak a wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. [1 Cor 2.1-7]
There are two dispensations being referenced here by the apostle - viz. what was written the first time he came to them, where his message and preaching were rudimentary and then 'something else' which is for 'the perfect.'
I already demonstrated one passage from Origen in my last post which shows that he references Alexandrian 'mysteries' associated 'those being perfected' through a 'secret gospel.' I now want to take special care to show that Origen always interprets the word 'wisdom' in this section as meaning 'written gospel.' I will cite example after example to prove this starting with a section in the Commentary on John where Origen identifies the gospel with Jesus himself. It is worth noting that in the Commentary on John, Origen cites verses from 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16 more than fifty times. I will highlight the citations from the pertinent parts of 1 Corinthians in red:
He [the apostle] writes in a certain place: “According to my Gospel.” Now we have no written work of Paul which is commonly called a Gospel. But all that he preached and said was the Gospel; and what he preached and said he was also in the habit of writing, and what he wrote was therefore Gospel. But if what Paul wrote was Gospel, it follows that what Peter wrote was also Gospel, and in a word all that was said or written to perpetuate the knowledge of Christ's sojourn on earth, and to prepare for His second coming, or to bring it about as a present reality in those souls which were willing to receive the Word of God as He stood at the door and knocked and sought to come into them.
But it is time we should inquire what is the meaning of the designation “Gospel,” and why these books have this title. Now the Gospel is a discourse containing a promise of things which naturally, and on account of the benefits they bring, rejoice the hearer as soon as the promise is heard and believed. Nor is such a discourse any the less a Gospel that we define it with reference to the position of the hearer. A Gospel is either a word which implies the actual presence to the believer of something that is good, or a word promising the arrival of a good which is expected. Now all these definitions apply to those books which are named Gospels. For each of the Gospels is a collection of announcements which are useful to him who believes them and does not misinterpret them; it brings him a benefit and naturally makes him glad because it tells of the sojourn with men, on account of men, and for their salvation, of the first-born of all creation, Christ Jesus. And again each Gospel tells of the sojourn of the good Father in the Son with those minded to receive Him, as is plain to every believer; and moreover by these books a good is announced which had been formerly expected, as is by no means hard to see.
... Now an objection might be raised to our first definition, because it would embrace books which are not entitled Gospels. For the law and the prophets also are to our eyes books containing the promise of things which, from the benefit they will confer on him, naturally rejoice the hearer as soon as he takes in the message. To this it may be said that before the sojourn of Christ, the law and the prophets, since He had not come who interpreted the mysteries they contained, did not convey such a promise as belongs to our definition of the Gospel; but the Saviour, when He sojourned with men and caused the Gospel to appear in bodily form, by the Gospel caused all things to appear as Gospel. Here I would not think it beside the purpose to quote the example of Him who...[lacuna in text]...and yet all. For when he had taken away the veil which was present in the law and the prophets, and by His divinity had proved the sons of men that the Godhead was at work, He opened the way for all those who desired it to be disciples of His wisdom, and to understand what things were true and real in the law of Moses, of which things those of old worshipped the type and the shadow, and what things were real of the things narrated in the histories which “happened to them in the way of type,” but these things “were written for our sakes, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” With whomsoever, then, Christ has sojourned, he worships God neither at Jerusalem nor on the mountain of the Samaritans; he knows that God is a spirit, and worships Him spiritually, in spirit and in truth; no longer by type does he worship the Father and Maker of all. Before that Gospel, therefore, which came into being by the sojourning of Christ, none of the older works was a Gospel. But the Gospel, which is the new covenant, having delivered us from the oldness of the letter, lights up for us, by the light of knowledge, the newness of the spirit, a thing which never grows old, which has its home in the New Testament, but is also present in all the Scriptures. It was fitting, therefore, that that Gospel, which enables us to find the Gospel present, even in the Old Testament, should itself receive, in a special sense, the name of Gospel.
We must not, however, forget that the sojourning of Christ with men took place before His bodily sojourn, in an intellectual fashion, to those who were more perfect and not children, and were not under pedagogues and governors. In their minds they saw the fullness of the time to be at hand— the patriarchs, and Moses the servant, and the prophets who beheld the glory of Christ. And as before His manifest and bodily coming He came to those who were perfect, so also, after His coming has been announced to all, to those who are still children, since they are under pedagogues and governors and have not yet arrived at the fullness of the time, forerunners of Christ have come to sojourn, discourses (logoi) suited for minds still in their childhood, and rightly, therefore, termed pedagogues. But the Son Himself, the glorified God, the Word, has not yet come; He waits for the preparation which must take place on the part of men of God who are to admit His deity. And this, too, we must bear in mind, that as the law contains a shadow of good things to come, which are indicated by that law which is announced according to truth, so the Gospel also teaches a shadow of the mysteries of Christ, the Gospel which is thought to be capable of being understood by any one. What John calls the eternal Gospel, and what may properly be called the spiritual Gospel, presents clearly to those who have the will to understand, all matters concerning the very Son of God, both the mysteries presented by His discourses and those matters of which His acts were the enigmas. In accordance with this we may conclude that, as it is with Him who is a Jew outwardly and circumcised in the flesh, so it is with the Christian and with baptism. Paul and Peter were, at an earlier period, Jews outwardly and circumcised, but later they received from Christ that they should be so in secret, too; so that outwardly they were Jews for the sake of the salvation of many, and by an economy they not only confessed in words that they were Jews, but showed it by their actions. And the same is to be said about their Christianity. As Paul could not benefit those who were Jews according to the flesh, without, when reason shows it to be necessary, circumcising Timothy, and when it appears the natural course getting himself shaved and making a vow, and, in a word, being to the Jews a Jew that he might gain the Jews— so also it is not possible for one who is responsible for the good of many to operate as he should by means of that Christianity only which is in secret. That will never enable him to improve those who are following the external Christianity, or to lead them on to better and higher things. We must, therefore, be Christians both somatically and spiritually, and where there is a call for the somatic Gospel, in which a man says to those who are carnal that he knows nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, so we must do. But should we find those who are perfected in the spirit, and bear fruit in it, and are enamoured of the heavenly wisdom, these must be made to partake of that Word which, after it was made flesh, rose again to what it was in the beginning, with God.
The foregoing inquiry into the nature of the Gospel cannot be regarded as useless; it has enabled us to see what distinction there is between a sensible Gospel and an intellectual and spiritual one. What we have now to do is to transform the sensible Gospel into a spiritual one.
For what would the narrative of the sensible Gospel amount to if it were not developed to a spiritual one? It would be of little account or none; any one can read it and assure himself of the facts it tells— no more. But our whole energy is now to be directed to the effort to penetrate to the deep things of the meaning of the Gospel and to search out the truth that is in it when divested of types. Now what the Gospels say is to be regarded in the light of promises of good things; and we must say that the good things the Apostles announce in this Gospel are simply Jesus. One good thing which they are said to announce is the resurrection; but the resurrection is in a manner Jesus, for Jesus says: “I am the resurrection.” Jesus preaches to the poor those things which are laid up for the saints, calling them to the divine promises. And the holy Scriptures bear witness to the Gospel announcements made by the Apostles and to that made by our Saviour. David says of the Apostles, perhaps also of the evangelists: “The Lord shall give the word to those that preach with great power; the King of the powers of the beloved;” teaching at the same time that it is not skilfully composed discourse, nor the mode of delivery, nor well practised eloquence that produces conviction, but the communication of divine power. Hence also Paul says: “I will know not the word that is puffed up, but the power; for the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.” And in another passage: “And my word and my preaching were not persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power.” To this power Simon and Cleophas bear witness when they say: “Was not our heart burning within us by the way, as he opened to us the Scriptures?” And the Apostles, since the quantity of the power is great which God supplies to the speakers, had great power, according to the word of David: “The Lord will give the word to the preachers with great power.” Isaiah too says: “How beautiful are the feet of them that proclaim good tidings;” he sees how beautiful and how opportune was the announcement of the Apostles who walked in Him who said, “I am the way,” and praises the feet of those who walk in the intellectual way of Christ Jesus, and through that door go in to God. They announce good tidings, those whose feet are beautiful, namely, Jesus.
Let no one wonder if we have understood Jesus to be announced in the Gospel under a plurality of names of good things. If we look at the things by the names of which the Son of God is called, we shall understand how many good things Jesus is, whom those preach whose feet are beautiful ... And the power of God is the eighth good we enumerate, which is Christ. Nor must we omit to mention the Word, who is God after the Father of all. For this also is a good, less than no other. Happy, then, are those who accept these goods and receive them from those who announce the good tidings of them, those whose feet are beautiful. Indeed even one of the Corinthians to whom Paul declared that he knew nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, should he learn Him who for our sakes became man, and so receive Him, he would become identified with the beginning of the good things we have spoken of; by the man Jesus he would be made a man of God, and by His death he would die to sin. For “Christ, in that He died, died unto sin once.” But from His life, since “in that He lives, He lives unto God,” every one who is conformed to His resurrection receives that living to God.
But who will deny that righteousness, essential righteousness, is a good, and essential sanctification, and essential redemption? And these things those preach who preach Jesus, saying that He is made to be of God righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Hence we shall have writings about Him without number, showing that Jesus is a multitude of goods; for from the things which can scarcely be numbered and which have been written we may make some conjecture of those things which actually exist in Him in whom “it pleased God that the whole fullness of the Godhead should dwell bodily,” and which are not contained in writings. Why should I say, “are not contained in writings”? For John speaks of the whole world in this connection, and says: “I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books which would be written.” Now to say that the Apostles preach the Saviour is to say that they preach these good things. For this is He who received from the good Father that He Himself should be these good things, so that each man receiving from Jesus the thing or things he is capable of receiving may enjoy good things. But the Apostles, whose feet were beautiful, and those imitators of them who sought to preach the good tidings, could not have done so had not Jesus Himself first preached the good tidings to them, as Isaiah says: “I myself that speak am here, as the opportunity on the mountains, as the feet of one preaching tidings of peace, as one preaching good things; for I will make My salvation to be heard, saying, God shall reign over you, O Zion!” For what are the mountains on which the speaker declares that He Himself is present, but those who are less than none of the highest and the greatest of the earth? And these must be sought by the able ministers of the New Covenant, in order that they may observe the injunction which says: Go up into a high mountain, you that preachest good tidings to Zion; you that preachest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with strength! Now it is not wonderful if to those who are to preach good tidings Jesus Himself preaches good tidings of good things, which are no other than Himself; for the Son of God preaches the good tidings of Himself to those who cannot come to know Him through others. And He who goes up into the mountains and preaches good things to them, being Himself instructed by His good Father, who “makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust,” He does not despise those who are poor in soul. To them He preaches good tidings, as He Himself bears witness to us when He takes Isaiah and reads: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor, He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind. For closing the book He handed it to the minister and sat down. And when the eyes of all were fastened upon Him, He said, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.” [Origen Comm. John 1.8 - 11]
I think anyone who bothered to read that whole section will plainly see that Origen not only assumes the apostle's meant 'gospel' by wisdom but that there was a secret gospel behind the public gospel, just as the apostle describes in 1 Cor 2.1 - 7. Does anyone else finds Origen's reference to it not being 'customary' or 'commonly' to identify Paul as having written a gospel? More to follow ...
Of course the answer was there from the beginning. It was very much like that saying of Jesus from the agrapha - "I have often desired to hear it, and I had no one who could utter it." All that was required was for someone to think outside of the box, to ask the right questions. The entire early Alexandrian tradition always seems strangely connected with heretical traditions associated with someone named Mark. Philip Schaff and others noted that Clement of Alexandria frequently witnesses arguments and lines of reasoning identified with the 'those of Mark' (Marcosian) sect from Irenaeus AH 1.13 - 21. Followers of Origen were classified as heretics soon after his death and many of his ideas (and his patron Ambrose) are explicitly identified as Marcionites. Could the original Markan tradition of Alexandria have been covertly outlawed (cf AH 3.2.1) without anyone explicitly referencing the apostle by name?
I have discovered something quite startling in recent days. If you suppose, just for arguments sake, that the general affiliation of the Alexandrian tradition with 'those of Mark' (Aram. marqiyoni) never entirely left the Church but was only buried 'beneath the surface' then the Letter to Theodore suddenly seems to be providing some context for a number of puzzling Pauline passages including 1 Cor 2.1 - 8 and 2 Cor 4.3 - 6. After all these texts make reference to a 'secret' gospel for 'the perfect' and a 'veiled' gospel that the apostle himself wrote by his own hand. Our Catholic tradition attempts to divert our eyes from passages where the apostle references his own gospel writing efforts (viz. 'my gospel' etc.) but there was never any other explanation for these curious passages other than a handful of fragmentary references to the Marcionites which never quite added up to a full explanation.
But the Letter to Theodore changes all that. Clement is forced to reference some great secret that his community has maintained aboutthe original gospel in spite of persecutions and hardship. Clement tells an otherwise unknown 'Theodore' that there were in reality two gospels of Mark - one 'public' and one 'secret' - the latter being zealously guarded by the Church of Alexandria:
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. 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. [To Theodore 1.15 - 18]
The revelation which came to me yesterday while eating a meatball sandwich was that the apostle of the Marcionite community outlines the exact same understanding of a 'public' and 'private' gospel in one of his letters - only scholars have never recognized it as such because they have always assumed that Paul never possessed a written gospel text. They have taken the Catholic claims about the fourfold division of the gospel (and the Gospel of Luke being the 'Gospel of Paul) entirely at face value.
Yet I realized while eating the meatball sandwich the other day - eating and reading Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book Three I should stress - that Origen, Clement's successor in Alexandria, always interprets 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 as if it related to written gospel tetxs. All we have to do is look again at the original text and substitute the word 'gospel' for 'wisdom' in our imaginations:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on the wisdom of man, but on God's power. Yet we do speak a wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. [1 Cor 2.1-7]
There are two dispensations being referenced here by the apostle - viz. what was written the first time he came to them, where his message and preaching were rudimentary and then 'something else' which is for 'the perfect.'
I already demonstrated one passage from Origen in my last post which shows that he references Alexandrian 'mysteries' associated 'those being perfected' through a 'secret gospel.' I now want to take special care to show that Origen always interprets the word 'wisdom' in this section as meaning 'written gospel.' I will cite example after example to prove this starting with a section in the Commentary on John where Origen identifies the gospel with Jesus himself. It is worth noting that in the Commentary on John, Origen cites verses from 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16 more than fifty times. I will highlight the citations from the pertinent parts of 1 Corinthians in red:
He [the apostle] writes in a certain place: “According to my Gospel.” Now we have no written work of Paul which is commonly called a Gospel. But all that he preached and said was the Gospel; and what he preached and said he was also in the habit of writing, and what he wrote was therefore Gospel. But if what Paul wrote was Gospel, it follows that what Peter wrote was also Gospel, and in a word all that was said or written to perpetuate the knowledge of Christ's sojourn on earth, and to prepare for His second coming, or to bring it about as a present reality in those souls which were willing to receive the Word of God as He stood at the door and knocked and sought to come into them.
But it is time we should inquire what is the meaning of the designation “Gospel,” and why these books have this title. Now the Gospel is a discourse containing a promise of things which naturally, and on account of the benefits they bring, rejoice the hearer as soon as the promise is heard and believed. Nor is such a discourse any the less a Gospel that we define it with reference to the position of the hearer. A Gospel is either a word which implies the actual presence to the believer of something that is good, or a word promising the arrival of a good which is expected. Now all these definitions apply to those books which are named Gospels. For each of the Gospels is a collection of announcements which are useful to him who believes them and does not misinterpret them; it brings him a benefit and naturally makes him glad because it tells of the sojourn with men, on account of men, and for their salvation, of the first-born of all creation, Christ Jesus. And again each Gospel tells of the sojourn of the good Father in the Son with those minded to receive Him, as is plain to every believer; and moreover by these books a good is announced which had been formerly expected, as is by no means hard to see.
... Now an objection might be raised to our first definition, because it would embrace books which are not entitled Gospels. For the law and the prophets also are to our eyes books containing the promise of things which, from the benefit they will confer on him, naturally rejoice the hearer as soon as he takes in the message. To this it may be said that before the sojourn of Christ, the law and the prophets, since He had not come who interpreted the mysteries they contained, did not convey such a promise as belongs to our definition of the Gospel; but the Saviour, when He sojourned with men and caused the Gospel to appear in bodily form, by the Gospel caused all things to appear as Gospel. Here I would not think it beside the purpose to quote the example of Him who...[lacuna in text]...and yet all. For when he had taken away the veil which was present in the law and the prophets, and by His divinity had proved the sons of men that the Godhead was at work, He opened the way for all those who desired it to be disciples of His wisdom, and to understand what things were true and real in the law of Moses, of which things those of old worshipped the type and the shadow, and what things were real of the things narrated in the histories which “happened to them in the way of type,” but these things “were written for our sakes, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” With whomsoever, then, Christ has sojourned, he worships God neither at Jerusalem nor on the mountain of the Samaritans; he knows that God is a spirit, and worships Him spiritually, in spirit and in truth; no longer by type does he worship the Father and Maker of all. Before that Gospel, therefore, which came into being by the sojourning of Christ, none of the older works was a Gospel. But the Gospel, which is the new covenant, having delivered us from the oldness of the letter, lights up for us, by the light of knowledge, the newness of the spirit, a thing which never grows old, which has its home in the New Testament, but is also present in all the Scriptures. It was fitting, therefore, that that Gospel, which enables us to find the Gospel present, even in the Old Testament, should itself receive, in a special sense, the name of Gospel.
We must not, however, forget that the sojourning of Christ with men took place before His bodily sojourn, in an intellectual fashion, to those who were more perfect and not children, and were not under pedagogues and governors. In their minds they saw the fullness of the time to be at hand— the patriarchs, and Moses the servant, and the prophets who beheld the glory of Christ. And as before His manifest and bodily coming He came to those who were perfect, so also, after His coming has been announced to all, to those who are still children, since they are under pedagogues and governors and have not yet arrived at the fullness of the time, forerunners of Christ have come to sojourn, discourses (logoi) suited for minds still in their childhood, and rightly, therefore, termed pedagogues. But the Son Himself, the glorified God, the Word, has not yet come; He waits for the preparation which must take place on the part of men of God who are to admit His deity. And this, too, we must bear in mind, that as the law contains a shadow of good things to come, which are indicated by that law which is announced according to truth, so the Gospel also teaches a shadow of the mysteries of Christ, the Gospel which is thought to be capable of being understood by any one. What John calls the eternal Gospel, and what may properly be called the spiritual Gospel, presents clearly to those who have the will to understand, all matters concerning the very Son of God, both the mysteries presented by His discourses and those matters of which His acts were the enigmas. In accordance with this we may conclude that, as it is with Him who is a Jew outwardly and circumcised in the flesh, so it is with the Christian and with baptism. Paul and Peter were, at an earlier period, Jews outwardly and circumcised, but later they received from Christ that they should be so in secret, too; so that outwardly they were Jews for the sake of the salvation of many, and by an economy they not only confessed in words that they were Jews, but showed it by their actions. And the same is to be said about their Christianity. As Paul could not benefit those who were Jews according to the flesh, without, when reason shows it to be necessary, circumcising Timothy, and when it appears the natural course getting himself shaved and making a vow, and, in a word, being to the Jews a Jew that he might gain the Jews— so also it is not possible for one who is responsible for the good of many to operate as he should by means of that Christianity only which is in secret. That will never enable him to improve those who are following the external Christianity, or to lead them on to better and higher things. We must, therefore, be Christians both somatically and spiritually, and where there is a call for the somatic Gospel, in which a man says to those who are carnal that he knows nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, so we must do. But should we find those who are perfected in the spirit, and bear fruit in it, and are enamoured of the heavenly wisdom, these must be made to partake of that Word which, after it was made flesh, rose again to what it was in the beginning, with God.
The foregoing inquiry into the nature of the Gospel cannot be regarded as useless; it has enabled us to see what distinction there is between a sensible Gospel and an intellectual and spiritual one. What we have now to do is to transform the sensible Gospel into a spiritual one.
For what would the narrative of the sensible Gospel amount to if it were not developed to a spiritual one? It would be of little account or none; any one can read it and assure himself of the facts it tells— no more. But our whole energy is now to be directed to the effort to penetrate to the deep things of the meaning of the Gospel and to search out the truth that is in it when divested of types. Now what the Gospels say is to be regarded in the light of promises of good things; and we must say that the good things the Apostles announce in this Gospel are simply Jesus. One good thing which they are said to announce is the resurrection; but the resurrection is in a manner Jesus, for Jesus says: “I am the resurrection.” Jesus preaches to the poor those things which are laid up for the saints, calling them to the divine promises. And the holy Scriptures bear witness to the Gospel announcements made by the Apostles and to that made by our Saviour. David says of the Apostles, perhaps also of the evangelists: “The Lord shall give the word to those that preach with great power; the King of the powers of the beloved;” teaching at the same time that it is not skilfully composed discourse, nor the mode of delivery, nor well practised eloquence that produces conviction, but the communication of divine power. Hence also Paul says: “I will know not the word that is puffed up, but the power; for the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.” And in another passage: “And my word and my preaching were not persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power.” To this power Simon and Cleophas bear witness when they say: “Was not our heart burning within us by the way, as he opened to us the Scriptures?” And the Apostles, since the quantity of the power is great which God supplies to the speakers, had great power, according to the word of David: “The Lord will give the word to the preachers with great power.” Isaiah too says: “How beautiful are the feet of them that proclaim good tidings;” he sees how beautiful and how opportune was the announcement of the Apostles who walked in Him who said, “I am the way,” and praises the feet of those who walk in the intellectual way of Christ Jesus, and through that door go in to God. They announce good tidings, those whose feet are beautiful, namely, Jesus.
Let no one wonder if we have understood Jesus to be announced in the Gospel under a plurality of names of good things. If we look at the things by the names of which the Son of God is called, we shall understand how many good things Jesus is, whom those preach whose feet are beautiful ... And the power of God is the eighth good we enumerate, which is Christ. Nor must we omit to mention the Word, who is God after the Father of all. For this also is a good, less than no other. Happy, then, are those who accept these goods and receive them from those who announce the good tidings of them, those whose feet are beautiful. Indeed even one of the Corinthians to whom Paul declared that he knew nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, should he learn Him who for our sakes became man, and so receive Him, he would become identified with the beginning of the good things we have spoken of; by the man Jesus he would be made a man of God, and by His death he would die to sin. For “Christ, in that He died, died unto sin once.” But from His life, since “in that He lives, He lives unto God,” every one who is conformed to His resurrection receives that living to God.
But who will deny that righteousness, essential righteousness, is a good, and essential sanctification, and essential redemption? And these things those preach who preach Jesus, saying that He is made to be of God righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Hence we shall have writings about Him without number, showing that Jesus is a multitude of goods; for from the things which can scarcely be numbered and which have been written we may make some conjecture of those things which actually exist in Him in whom “it pleased God that the whole fullness of the Godhead should dwell bodily,” and which are not contained in writings. Why should I say, “are not contained in writings”? For John speaks of the whole world in this connection, and says: “I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books which would be written.” Now to say that the Apostles preach the Saviour is to say that they preach these good things. For this is He who received from the good Father that He Himself should be these good things, so that each man receiving from Jesus the thing or things he is capable of receiving may enjoy good things. But the Apostles, whose feet were beautiful, and those imitators of them who sought to preach the good tidings, could not have done so had not Jesus Himself first preached the good tidings to them, as Isaiah says: “I myself that speak am here, as the opportunity on the mountains, as the feet of one preaching tidings of peace, as one preaching good things; for I will make My salvation to be heard, saying, God shall reign over you, O Zion!” For what are the mountains on which the speaker declares that He Himself is present, but those who are less than none of the highest and the greatest of the earth? And these must be sought by the able ministers of the New Covenant, in order that they may observe the injunction which says: Go up into a high mountain, you that preachest good tidings to Zion; you that preachest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with strength! Now it is not wonderful if to those who are to preach good tidings Jesus Himself preaches good tidings of good things, which are no other than Himself; for the Son of God preaches the good tidings of Himself to those who cannot come to know Him through others. And He who goes up into the mountains and preaches good things to them, being Himself instructed by His good Father, who “makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust,” He does not despise those who are poor in soul. To them He preaches good tidings, as He Himself bears witness to us when He takes Isaiah and reads: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor, He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind. For closing the book He handed it to the minister and sat down. And when the eyes of all were fastened upon Him, He said, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.” [Origen Comm. John 1.8 - 11]
I think anyone who bothered to read that whole section will plainly see that Origen not only assumes the apostle's meant 'gospel' by wisdom but that there was a secret gospel behind the public gospel, just as the apostle describes in 1 Cor 2.1 - 7. Does anyone else finds Origen's reference to it not being 'customary' or 'commonly' to identify Paul as having written a gospel? More to follow ...
Evidence the Apostle Knew and Used a Written Gospel
From this original article - In our Epistle to the Romans there are traces of acquaintance with a written Gospel. The phrase in 2:16 ("according to my gospel"; cf. 1:9; 16:25) is most intelligible as referring to a book, and was so understood by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. From expressions not identical with, but recalling those of our canonical Gospels, it may be inferred that occasionally something was taken over from the Gospel spoken of. The following are possibly examples of this procedure: "a guide to the blind" (2:19), cf. Mt 7:1, Lk 6:39; "a light to those in darkness" (2:19), cf. Mt 5:14, Lk 11:35; "the one judging" (2:1), cf. Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37. More especially there may be cited: "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them" (12:14), cf. Mt 5:44, Lk 6:28; love. as the fulfilling of the law (13:8-10, also Gal 5:14), cf. Mt 22:34-40, Mk 12:28-34, Lk 10:25-27; "Each of us shall give account of himself to God" (14:12), cf. Mt 12:36. Perhaps the Gospel used was the one recognized by the Marcionites. The friends of tradition who, following the Fathers mentioned above, would identify it with our third Gospel, are confronted with the necessity of placing the Epistle at least as late as the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, unless they have the courage to accept the third Gospel as a work which Luke the companion of Paul had already completed. In any case, the use of it indicates a later date than that which is traditionally assigned to the Epistle to the Romans.
Origen Connects Paul's Gospel with the Gospel of Mark
In addition to what I have just said, this must be known about the gospel: it belongs primarily to Jesus Christ, the head of the whole body of the saved, as Mark says: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mark 1:1) but that it also belongs to the apostles, for Paul says: “According to my gospel” (Rom. 2:16). [Origen Commentary on John Book One]
GAME OVER - I Have Discovered the ULTIMATE PROOF for the Authenticity of Clement's Letter to Theodore
I was talking to someone today about my discovery. I can finally blow the lid off of the whole 'controversy' about whether the Mar Saba document is a forgery or not. I know for absolutely certain that it is authentic. I finally found the original late second century context in Alexandria which supports the idea of two gospels - one public and one private - by its original apostolic author.
If you haven't read my last post you should do so now. It has all come together. You all remember my theory that:
a) the apostle the Catholics call Paul was originally called 'Mark' by the Alexandrians
b) 1 Corinthians was originally (and still secretly) identified by the Egyptian Church as 'the gospel of the Alexandrians' (cf. Muratorian canon)
Here is my breakthrough - I think Irenaeus actually identifies his Alexandrian heretical opponents' interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 8 as a reference to the existence of a 'public' and 'secret gospel.' While the material in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 doesn't directly reference the word 'gospel' all you have to do is read any informed interpretation of the apostle's use of the word 'wisdom' in this section and you will inevitably hear it explicitly identified with the 'gospel.' In other words, the Apostle is acknowledging that he originally wrote a public gospel which only referenced Jesus crucified and then only later introduced a 'more spiritual gospel for those being perfected.'
All you have to do is read the original material again with an eye on its connection with the Clementine reference to a public and secret gospel in the letter to Theodore. The Apostle writes:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... We do, however, speak a wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. [1 Cor 1.1-7]
Yet I am absolutely certain that this passage was the original context of this statement in Clement's Letter to Theodore:
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. 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. [To Theodore 1.15 - 18]
Indeed I am certain that I can prove to everyone's satisfaction that Alexandrians like Origen continue to interpret 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 in a way which reflects the undestanding of to Theodore (i.e. that sophia = 'gospel' and that there was a public and secret gospel).
Here is one of many examples in Origen's writings referencing the same contemporary Alexandrian initiation rites related to a secret gospel but channeled through the statement just cited in 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 8:
Yet among the perfect we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. It is one thing to lead people to faith and another to reveal the wisdom of God. Therefore, we disclose the wisdom of God not to novices or beginners or those who have not yet demonstrated soundness in their conduct. But when a person has trained his faculties by practice in the appropriate way to distinguish good from evil and becomes capable of hearing wisdom, then we speak wisdom among the mature [Origen Homilies JTS 1908 JTS 238 - 239]
I know it is difficult for people to understand the significance of this discovery, but I am certain that I found the ultimate context for the idea of the secret gospel of to Theodore. Everyone else was checking the writings of Clement, others were looking for explicit references to 'the secret gospel of Mark' in the surviving writings of the Church Fathers, but no one it seems thought of checking what are now the diluted Catholic preservations of the original Marcionite Apostolikon. No one that 'Paul' might witness the twin public and secret gospel traditions. He certainly does, just read my next article for additional context.
More and more to follow over the next few days, months and years. I will track this one down to the ends of the earth if I have to. I have solved the mystery of 'Secret Mark,' and the riddle of the Mar Saba document. As at least a few of you will certainly see, it is unquestionably authentic ...
If you haven't read my last post you should do so now. It has all come together. You all remember my theory that:
a) the apostle the Catholics call Paul was originally called 'Mark' by the Alexandrians
b) 1 Corinthians was originally (and still secretly) identified by the Egyptian Church as 'the gospel of the Alexandrians' (cf. Muratorian canon)
Here is my breakthrough - I think Irenaeus actually identifies his Alexandrian heretical opponents' interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 8 as a reference to the existence of a 'public' and 'secret gospel.' While the material in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 doesn't directly reference the word 'gospel' all you have to do is read any informed interpretation of the apostle's use of the word 'wisdom' in this section and you will inevitably hear it explicitly identified with the 'gospel.' In other words, the Apostle is acknowledging that he originally wrote a public gospel which only referenced Jesus crucified and then only later introduced a 'more spiritual gospel for those being perfected.'
All you have to do is read the original material again with an eye on its connection with the Clementine reference to a public and secret gospel in the letter to Theodore. The Apostle writes:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... We do, however, speak a wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. [1 Cor 1.1-7]
Yet I am absolutely certain that this passage was the original context of this statement in Clement's Letter to Theodore:
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. 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. [To Theodore 1.15 - 18]
Indeed I am certain that I can prove to everyone's satisfaction that Alexandrians like Origen continue to interpret 1 Cor 2.1 - 7 in a way which reflects the undestanding of to Theodore (i.e. that sophia = 'gospel' and that there was a public and secret gospel).
Here is one of many examples in Origen's writings referencing the same contemporary Alexandrian initiation rites related to a secret gospel but channeled through the statement just cited in 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 8:
Yet among the perfect we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. It is one thing to lead people to faith and another to reveal the wisdom of God. Therefore, we disclose the wisdom of God not to novices or beginners or those who have not yet demonstrated soundness in their conduct. But when a person has trained his faculties by practice in the appropriate way to distinguish good from evil and becomes capable of hearing wisdom, then we speak wisdom among the mature [Origen Homilies JTS 1908 JTS 238 - 239]
I know it is difficult for people to understand the significance of this discovery, but I am certain that I found the ultimate context for the idea of the secret gospel of to Theodore. Everyone else was checking the writings of Clement, others were looking for explicit references to 'the secret gospel of Mark' in the surviving writings of the Church Fathers, but no one it seems thought of checking what are now the diluted Catholic preservations of the original Marcionite Apostolikon. No one that 'Paul' might witness the twin public and secret gospel traditions. He certainly does, just read my next article for additional context.
More and more to follow over the next few days, months and years. I will track this one down to the ends of the earth if I have to. I have solved the mystery of 'Secret Mark,' and the riddle of the Mar Saba document. As at least a few of you will certainly see, it is unquestionably authentic ...
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Why the Letter to Theodore Utterly Demolishes Everything We Thought We Knew About Earliest Christianity
If I was to define why I take an interest in early Christianity I would have to say that I am drawn to the role of 'defender of the vanquished.' As I am Jewish, the question of whether or not Jesus was the messiah has already been resolved for me. Jesus never claimed that he was the heir of David so why should I spend my time making arguments for him? In truth, I have very little interest in the gospel and the history associated with it. Someone at some time decided to write an account which attempted to provide some background information to the Passion of Christ. Whether or not that narrative was entirely historically accurate, I assume that the idea that a crucifixion and a resurrection were generally well known in the late first century otherwise one would expect more appeals to witnesses during the course of the narrative that this event actually occurred.
Indeed I have always found the writing style of the original evangelist quite puzzling. He seems so utterly detached from the rest of the world. One would expect some kind of contemporary reference to someone or something that knew about these events in Palestine. The fact that Mark does not feel compelled to point to some authority for his readership so that they can know that 'his words are true' implies to me at least that Mark was a recognized authority. Moreover the claim of Catholics that the gospel of Mark was really written by Mark for Peter seems equally perposterous as there no direct references to Peter being a source for this or that narrative.
I needn't cite the Muratorian Canon's fragmentary reference to Mark only witnessing things for which he was a direct eyewitness. It is enough that the Coptic tradition - and Severus of Al'Ashmunein in particular - confirms that this was an early historical understanding of the context of Mark's gospel writing.
I can't overstate the significance of this notion. Mark thought he had enough authority to write a narrative about the crucifixion of God and his ultimate resurrection. While we take these ideas for granted as cultural touchstones, the idea seems so utterly bizarre that we should pay closer attention to their implications for our knowledge about the person of Mark.
If for instance I was to write a book about my experiences as a father, I certainly wouldn't need to reference proof that I had children. The reader would simply think that anyone has the authority to write about a common experience for men. Yet if I was to argue that my son was God and that he was crucified in a perposterous ceremony where he and another guy were dragged in front of the Jews and they decided who would live and who would die and then not only did I claim that my son was crucified but he rose again from the dead and went on to be enthroned somewhere - perhaps heaven - not only do I think I would it difficult to get a publisher interested in such a book, at the very least one would again expect that I would provide some corroboration for the claims of my narrative.
The interesting thing as we noted earlier is that Mark does not do this. The general supposition is that Mark was merely gathering information from oral traditions. But isn't it curious that if the generally accepted dating of the gospel is correct - i.e. to around 70 CE - that no one before Mark decided to write a story about the circumstances of the Passion until forty years later. Indeed it isn't just the speculation of scholars. The Marcionite representative in the Dialogues of Adamantius makes it absolutely explicit - none of the disciples of Jesus wrote down their experiences with Jesus.
Now it has already been noted that the Marcionites themselves seems to imply that their apostle witnessed the Passion of Christ. I have written extensively that the Marcionite version of history would completely overturn our inherited assumptions about the origins of Christianity. I have also emphasized that I think that Mark was the true apostle of the Marcionites.
Yet I want to leave all this speculation behind us and merely note that almost nothing in the Catholic tradition really contradicts the Marcionite understanding. The only thing that Irenaeus claims is that:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. [AH 3.3.2]
Now Irenaeus does go on to say that John the disciple eventually wrote a gospel. This is why the Marcionite representative goes out of his way to deny that both Matthew and John ever wrote gospels. Yet even if we tenatively accept Irenaeus's outline for the writing of gospels. There were thirty to forty years where no one who had supposedly witnessed the circumstances of Jesus's ministry, crucifixion and resurrection bothered to write a formal account of these things.
It is of course generally assumed by scholars that Mark was the original gospel writer and that the Gospel called 'according to Matthew' was developed from his original narrative. If then we now reject Irenaeus's claims about a gospel writtern by a disciple before Mark's composition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1), we are back to the curious question about how Mark thought he had the authority to do what none of the disciples before him thought themselves worthy to attempt.
Did Mark think himself superior to other disciples? It is impossible to say anything with certainty of course but on some level Mark has to be described as at least adventurous. He clearly did not feel inferior to the (other) witnesses of Jesus's ministry. It would be interesting to be able to get into his head as he held the pen in his hand and put it to paper, but the explanation of Irenaeus that he was only the interpreter of Peter again can be easily dismissed by referencing the fact that Peter's witness is never directly referenced anywhere in the narrative and - as Weeden points out - there is a clear anti-Petrine agenda present throughout.
So if we dismiss Irenaeus's claims about the creation of both the gospels of Matthew and Mark what obstacle is there then to incorporate the claims of To Theodore that:
As for Mark, then, during Peter’s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord’s doings (or 'acts of the Lord'), 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. 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 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 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. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is very securely kept, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries. [To Theodore 1.15 - 2.2]
I have always been fascinated by this account not merely because it provides an interesting counterpoint to Irenaeus's statement cited above. I think one can even begin to see that Irenaeus is actually reacting to the existence of a gospel like that of Secret Mark.
Let's start at the beginning. The position of Clement is actually surprisingly similar to that of the Marcionites. The Marcionite representative in the Dialogues of Adamantius only emphasizes that no other disciple of Jesus wrote a gospel beside the 'true gospel' - the gospel text preserved in their canon. The Marcionite representative is actually open to the idea that witnesses like Peter, Matthew and John may have preached an 'oral gospel.' Yet they stress again that someone else - another disciple who they embraced as the apostle i.e. the only apostle - formulated the original any only gospel.
I noted in another post that not only is interesting that the Marcionite avoids censuring Mark here, the Philosophumena reports that the Marcionites claimed they had the true Gospel of Mark. What is more interesting about Dialogues is that - even in the present corrupt state of the manuscript - there is a clear sense that the debate about the Marcionite gospel sounds eerily familiar to debates about the origin of the Gospel of Mark in Patristic literature. The arbitrator again asks "Is Peter the one who wrote the gospel? How is it then that you claimed that the apostles taught without being recorded?" Of course no one raises any eyebrows today when the Marcionite declares that "Christ, not Peter, wrote the gospel."
Yet it is impossible now not to get the sense that the lost original debate was really delving into the origins of the Gospel of Mark here. As Petty notes "one is reminded here of the statement of Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 130) that Mark was the "interpreter of Peter" (Eusebius, Hist, eccles., 3, 39). In this sense only could Peter be truly said to have written the Gospel." As such the rejection of Matthew and John as spurious texts false written in the name of witnesses to Jesus, is followed by a discussion as to whether the Marcionite gospel has its origins in a text by Peter.
So as I noted originally, the parallels with the formulations of Clement in to Theodore and the Marcionites are particularly strong. Both the Marcionites and Clement agree that at the time Mark wrote his gospel he was not aware of any other texts written by disciples. Now we move on to the parallels between Clement and Irenaeus. Whle it is true that Irenaeus does not directly reference the idea of another gospel written by Mark preserved in Alexandria, there are a number of striking features in both Clement and Irenaeus's account which might allow us to connect both reports to each other and other accounts in the age.
Let's start with the usual translation of Clement's statement that Mark's brought "both his own notes and those of Peter." Marvin Meyer rightly notes that that the Greek original kai ta tou Petrou hypomnemata is actually better translated as "both his own and Peter's notes." A careful reading of what precedes this statement reveals that Clement never claims that the public gospel that Mark wrote while Peter was at Rome was actually 'a gospel of Peter.' Rather Clement is only saying that Clement incorporated something called the hypomnemata of Peter to Mark's public gospel.
Meyer almost gets it right when he notes:
The public Gospel of Mark seems to be identical, or nearly identical, with the present canonical Gospel of Mark. After the martyrdom of Peter, Mark came to Alexandria, taking with him kai tatautou (sic) kai ta tou Petrou hypomnemata ("both his own and Peter's notes"). From those hypomnemata, Clement states, Mark added more Petrine materials to the public Gospel of Mark in order to produce a Secret Gospel.
I think Meyer almost has it right save for the fact that Clement never says that the public gospel was a originally Petrine text. The public gospel of Mark may well be similar to our surviving canonical text (we can't be sure) but it is never said anywhere in Clement's discussion that this gospel was written for Peter. Scholars have projected this from other sources. All that Clement says is that Mark's gospel was written when Peter was preaching in Rome.
Indeed if anyone is wondering out there, the reason that Meyer has added the word 'sic' in brackets in the original text, it is because the original meaning of the statement that Mark 'brought his own' is startling. Meyer and others assume that Clement means that this public gospel is a hypomnemata like the 'hypomnemata of Peter' mentioned immediately after it, but I am not so sure. I think that Clement is actually referencing a well attested text called the 'commentaries' (apomnemoneumata) of Peter or the apomnemoneumata of the apostles. It was from the adding of this document and from Mark's own (something) - but not necessarily a hypomnemata, perhaps his own experience - that the secret gospel guarded in Alexandria was developed by Mark at a later date.
I don't see why people argue that this formulation of the composition of the gospel is so 'unprecedented.' The idea seems to be anticipated - or at least referenced in Papias's famous statement about the relationship between Mark and Matthew. While Eusebius (Church History 2.15) seemed to identify this hypomnemata with the Gospel of Mark itself, Papias, however, regarded the Gospel of Mark as the apomnemoneumata in contrast to the text associated with Matthew. Paratactic and asyndetic style are characteristic of hypomnemata (cf. Theophrastus, Characters), both features of Mark. Papias's assessment of Mark as an apomnemoneumata then, means that he thought of it as unfinished and unpolished. This is also reflected in his claim that Mark is "not in order," a rhetorical term meaning "not artistically arranged."
As Aune notes portions of the historical preface (prooimion) of Papias' lost work survive complete with references to sources and method in accordance with historiographical convention (Eusebius, Church History 3.39.2-4, 15; note the formal parallels with Luke 1:1 - 4). This reveals Papias' familiarity with the rhetorical conventions of Hellenistic historiography. His explicit preference for oral over written tradition (Eusebius, Church History 3.39.3-4) typifies ancient historians from Herodotus to Plutarch (cf. Plutarch Demosthenes 2.1).
What Aune's analysis opens up is the possibility that if we understand that the hypomnemata of Peter was one and the same with the public gospel of Mark (something again not explicitly stated in the text) then we can use Polycarp's identification of this same text as an apomnemoneumata to connect us back to Justin's reference to a work alternatively identified as the apomnemoneumata of Peter or the apomnemoneumata of the apostles. While the name 'Mark' is not explicitly referenced anywhere in Justin's account, the plural form 'apostles' might well account for two people being involved in the production of the text.
Yet there are broader implications than just this. Irenaeus, as we saw makes explicit reference to a text called the production of the gospel of Matthew before the gospel of Mark. While the relationship with a pre-existent hypomnemata or apomnemoneumata written in the name of Peter isn't specified, it would be hard to believe that Irenaeus wasn't already familiar with the account of Papias (when Eusebius mentions Papias he acknowledges that he got his information through Irenaeus). The point then is that we can theoretically conceive of a situation where both Matthew and the public gospel of Mark went back to things said or associated with Peter. Irenaeus can plausibly be identified with accepting Papias's idea that this, the accepted version of Mark's work was an inferior development of a common source used also by Matthew.
Now I have already noted that the Marcionites denied that the historical Matthew ever wrote a gospel. They certainly could not have denied that a text called 'the gospel of Matthew' existed or that people from the second century were claiming that he wrote a text. Rather we must imagine that they would have argued that this text - the Gospel according to the Hebrews - was actually written by someone else who was not a disciple.
Yet it is hard not to see that the way Clement speaks about Mark's eventual polishing of this hypomnemata into a 'perfect work' seems to be already known to Irenaeus by the time he wrote the Third Book of Against Heresies - although the name Mark is never specifically referenced. Indeed if we look to the context of that original statement about the origins of Matthew and Mark in Irenaeus it is important to note what he says about 'other gospels' outside of the four accepted texts:
We have learned from none others [than these apostles] the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. [AH 3.1.1]
There can be no doubt in my opinion that the specific reference to the production of a later gospel which claimed to alone represent 'perfect knowledge' seems to reflect to Theodore's juxtaposition of a Roman gospel for the increasing of 'the faith' versus an Alexandrian gospel of gnostic 'perfection.'
Indeed the specific idea that Mark added 'his own' to the hypomnemata of Peter to make the 'secret' gospel of Mark also seems to be alluded to in what immediately follows in Irenaeus:
When, however, they are confuted from the [Catholic] Scriptures, 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." [ibid 3.2.1]
Now given the parallels between Clement's point of view and the Marcionites, it is worthwhile noting that the Marcionite held that the apostle (here identified by his Catholic name 'Paul') as the author also of the gospel. In short then, we can see yet another parallel with to Theodore which has not been hitherto recognized owing to the general ignorance (or misinformation) about the Marcionite paradigm.
For some reason people can't conceive of the implications of (a) the consistent identification of the Marcionite gospel with the gospel of Mark (b) the fact that in Greek and Aramaic the names 'Marcion' and 'Marcionite' imply that the sect was 'of Mark' and (c) the idea that this same apostle Mark undoubtedly also wrote - according to the Marcionites - the Apostolikon or the letters we ascribe to someone named 'Paul.' If we actually pay close attention to the section of text that Irenaeus draws our attention to in the so-called Letter to the Corinthians and allow ourselves - for just one moment - to at least conceive of the idea that the Marcionite might have called this figure Mark we see the clearest confirmation of the existence of a two gospels - one public and one secret - in contemporary Alexandria. All that the reader needs to be able to do is to substitute the word 'wisdom' (Gk. sophia, Aram. hochmah) in their imaginations for 'gospel.' This is already anticipated by Pagels in her Gnostic Paul given the fact that the same terminology was used by the Jews and Samaritans for the Torah; the gospel being only the 'new Torah' of the Christian community.
Thus if we pay careful attention to the words of the apostle that I have suggested for many years was known by the name 'Mark' among the Marcionites - indeed was their original 'bishop' from which all their later officials were named - it is impossible not to have the veil lifted from one's eyes and to see at last the Clement was indeed a crypto-heretic, a secret adherent to the Mark. We read this 'Mark' now declare to his followers at the very beginning of Christianity:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... We do, however, speak a wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. [1 Cor 1.1-7]
I want to make clear that it is not I who am making the argument that this material relates to a gospel, or a 'perfect gospel.' Irenaeus makes the identification explicit. If the heretical group or groups had similar views to the Marcionites (who are explcitly referenced in Irenaeus) then all of what is suggested by Clement in to Theodore including the secret nature of the gospel is already witnessed by Irenaeus's drawing our attention to their interpretation of this passage.
Indeed I have already made an extensive case for the idea that 1 Corinthians was the Marcionite 'epistle to the Alexandrians' referenced in the Muratorian canon. I will come back to this idea in my next post. For the moment though I want to stress over and over again that EVERYTHING that Irenaeus says about this rival gospel which claimed to be a 'perfection' of the apostle's preaching or the preaching of Peter can be argued to resemble something said in Clement's letter to Theodore only from a hostile point of view.
Take for example Irenaeus's marked emphasis that only the Roman tradition preserved the true witness of the apostles. One could argue that this is a deliberate contrast with Clement's emphasis of Alexandria as the place where the 'perfect' gospel was finally established and guarded. Irenaeus also refers to the underlying idea associated with Alexandria in to Theodore - viz. 'hidden mysteries' for the perfect which is again referenced in to Theodore as that Mark:
composed a more spiritual gospel 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 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. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is very securely kept, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries
I will argue that it is terrible significant that Clement emphasizes that there hidden mysteries were only performed at Alexandria and that the 'perfect gospel' apparently drew people from other places to Egypt to undergo this secret initiation.
It is impossible now not to see that Irenaeus emphasizes another locale - Rome - as preserving a very public and open tradition which is utterly incompatible with the 'secret' and 'perfect' tradition of the heretics. That 'Alexandria' is never named must be deliberate because Irenaeus sees no reason to draw even more attention to the tradition he hates. The Alexandrians themselves clearly weren't going to openly advertise their tradition and Irenaeus above all else wants to marginalize his opponents as having no authority. Butting heads with the tradition of Mark at Alexandria was problematic because it would end up necessitating Mark's authority - something which Irenaeus didn't want to do. He didn't want to alienate the Markan tradition but rather bring it into the fold of Peter, indeed where Mark (and Alexandria for that matter) were ultimately subordinated figures in the Roman pantheon.
So we read in what follow in Irenaeus clear references to the ideas in the Letter to Theodore and more importantly his claims of Roman supremacy over the Alexandrian mystery tradition:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [i.e. in Rome and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth ... [and] that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery.
And again in the section that follows, Irenaeus is even more explicit in apparently juxtaposing Clement's 'hidden mysteries' at Alexandria with the open pronouncement of truth at Rome:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. [AH 3.3.1,2]
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who is familiar with the Patristic literature can claim that there is no evidence for the ideas of the letter to Theodore. I see the exact opposite situation. I would even go so far as to suggest that the evidence supports Schaff's original identification of Clement's affiliation with the followers of Mark (AH i.13 - 21). The bottom line however is that those who want to claim that to Theodore is a forgery do so because of a personal agenda. Anyone interested in the truth can clearly see it fits perfectly within the writings of the age. Indeed one might even argue it is 'the missing link' for us to understand the most important chapter in our common history.
Indeed I have always found the writing style of the original evangelist quite puzzling. He seems so utterly detached from the rest of the world. One would expect some kind of contemporary reference to someone or something that knew about these events in Palestine. The fact that Mark does not feel compelled to point to some authority for his readership so that they can know that 'his words are true' implies to me at least that Mark was a recognized authority. Moreover the claim of Catholics that the gospel of Mark was really written by Mark for Peter seems equally perposterous as there no direct references to Peter being a source for this or that narrative.
I needn't cite the Muratorian Canon's fragmentary reference to Mark only witnessing things for which he was a direct eyewitness. It is enough that the Coptic tradition - and Severus of Al'Ashmunein in particular - confirms that this was an early historical understanding of the context of Mark's gospel writing.
I can't overstate the significance of this notion. Mark thought he had enough authority to write a narrative about the crucifixion of God and his ultimate resurrection. While we take these ideas for granted as cultural touchstones, the idea seems so utterly bizarre that we should pay closer attention to their implications for our knowledge about the person of Mark.
If for instance I was to write a book about my experiences as a father, I certainly wouldn't need to reference proof that I had children. The reader would simply think that anyone has the authority to write about a common experience for men. Yet if I was to argue that my son was God and that he was crucified in a perposterous ceremony where he and another guy were dragged in front of the Jews and they decided who would live and who would die and then not only did I claim that my son was crucified but he rose again from the dead and went on to be enthroned somewhere - perhaps heaven - not only do I think I would it difficult to get a publisher interested in such a book, at the very least one would again expect that I would provide some corroboration for the claims of my narrative.
The interesting thing as we noted earlier is that Mark does not do this. The general supposition is that Mark was merely gathering information from oral traditions. But isn't it curious that if the generally accepted dating of the gospel is correct - i.e. to around 70 CE - that no one before Mark decided to write a story about the circumstances of the Passion until forty years later. Indeed it isn't just the speculation of scholars. The Marcionite representative in the Dialogues of Adamantius makes it absolutely explicit - none of the disciples of Jesus wrote down their experiences with Jesus.
Now it has already been noted that the Marcionites themselves seems to imply that their apostle witnessed the Passion of Christ. I have written extensively that the Marcionite version of history would completely overturn our inherited assumptions about the origins of Christianity. I have also emphasized that I think that Mark was the true apostle of the Marcionites.
Yet I want to leave all this speculation behind us and merely note that almost nothing in the Catholic tradition really contradicts the Marcionite understanding. The only thing that Irenaeus claims is that:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. [AH 3.3.2]
Now Irenaeus does go on to say that John the disciple eventually wrote a gospel. This is why the Marcionite representative goes out of his way to deny that both Matthew and John ever wrote gospels. Yet even if we tenatively accept Irenaeus's outline for the writing of gospels. There were thirty to forty years where no one who had supposedly witnessed the circumstances of Jesus's ministry, crucifixion and resurrection bothered to write a formal account of these things.
It is of course generally assumed by scholars that Mark was the original gospel writer and that the Gospel called 'according to Matthew' was developed from his original narrative. If then we now reject Irenaeus's claims about a gospel writtern by a disciple before Mark's composition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1), we are back to the curious question about how Mark thought he had the authority to do what none of the disciples before him thought themselves worthy to attempt.
Did Mark think himself superior to other disciples? It is impossible to say anything with certainty of course but on some level Mark has to be described as at least adventurous. He clearly did not feel inferior to the (other) witnesses of Jesus's ministry. It would be interesting to be able to get into his head as he held the pen in his hand and put it to paper, but the explanation of Irenaeus that he was only the interpreter of Peter again can be easily dismissed by referencing the fact that Peter's witness is never directly referenced anywhere in the narrative and - as Weeden points out - there is a clear anti-Petrine agenda present throughout.
So if we dismiss Irenaeus's claims about the creation of both the gospels of Matthew and Mark what obstacle is there then to incorporate the claims of To Theodore that:
As for Mark, then, during Peter’s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord’s doings (or 'acts of the Lord'), 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. 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 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 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. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is very securely kept, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries. [To Theodore 1.15 - 2.2]
I have always been fascinated by this account not merely because it provides an interesting counterpoint to Irenaeus's statement cited above. I think one can even begin to see that Irenaeus is actually reacting to the existence of a gospel like that of Secret Mark.
Let's start at the beginning. The position of Clement is actually surprisingly similar to that of the Marcionites. The Marcionite representative in the Dialogues of Adamantius only emphasizes that no other disciple of Jesus wrote a gospel beside the 'true gospel' - the gospel text preserved in their canon. The Marcionite representative is actually open to the idea that witnesses like Peter, Matthew and John may have preached an 'oral gospel.' Yet they stress again that someone else - another disciple who they embraced as the apostle i.e. the only apostle - formulated the original any only gospel.
I noted in another post that not only is interesting that the Marcionite avoids censuring Mark here, the Philosophumena reports that the Marcionites claimed they had the true Gospel of Mark. What is more interesting about Dialogues is that - even in the present corrupt state of the manuscript - there is a clear sense that the debate about the Marcionite gospel sounds eerily familiar to debates about the origin of the Gospel of Mark in Patristic literature. The arbitrator again asks "Is Peter the one who wrote the gospel? How is it then that you claimed that the apostles taught without being recorded?" Of course no one raises any eyebrows today when the Marcionite declares that "Christ, not Peter, wrote the gospel."
Yet it is impossible now not to get the sense that the lost original debate was really delving into the origins of the Gospel of Mark here. As Petty notes "one is reminded here of the statement of Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 130) that Mark was the "interpreter of Peter" (Eusebius, Hist, eccles., 3, 39). In this sense only could Peter be truly said to have written the Gospel." As such the rejection of Matthew and John as spurious texts false written in the name of witnesses to Jesus, is followed by a discussion as to whether the Marcionite gospel has its origins in a text by Peter.
So as I noted originally, the parallels with the formulations of Clement in to Theodore and the Marcionites are particularly strong. Both the Marcionites and Clement agree that at the time Mark wrote his gospel he was not aware of any other texts written by disciples. Now we move on to the parallels between Clement and Irenaeus. Whle it is true that Irenaeus does not directly reference the idea of another gospel written by Mark preserved in Alexandria, there are a number of striking features in both Clement and Irenaeus's account which might allow us to connect both reports to each other and other accounts in the age.
Let's start with the usual translation of Clement's statement that Mark's brought "both his own notes and those of Peter." Marvin Meyer rightly notes that that the Greek original kai ta tou Petrou hypomnemata is actually better translated as "both his own and Peter's notes." A careful reading of what precedes this statement reveals that Clement never claims that the public gospel that Mark wrote while Peter was at Rome was actually 'a gospel of Peter.' Rather Clement is only saying that Clement incorporated something called the hypomnemata of Peter to Mark's public gospel.
Meyer almost gets it right when he notes:
The public Gospel of Mark seems to be identical, or nearly identical, with the present canonical Gospel of Mark. After the martyrdom of Peter, Mark came to Alexandria, taking with him kai tatautou (sic) kai ta tou Petrou hypomnemata ("both his own and Peter's notes")
I think Meyer almost has it right save for the fact that Clement never says that the public gospel was a originally Petrine text. The public gospel of Mark may well be similar to our surviving canonical text (we can't be sure) but it is never said anywhere in Clement's discussion that this gospel was written for Peter. Scholars have projected this from other sources. All that Clement says is that Mark's gospel was written when Peter was preaching in Rome.
Indeed if anyone is wondering out there, the reason that Meyer has added the word 'sic' in brackets in the original text, it is because the original meaning of the statement that Mark 'brought his own' is startling. Meyer and others assume that Clement means that this public gospel is a hypomnemata like the 'hypomnemata of Peter' mentioned immediately after it, but I am not so sure. I think that Clement is actually referencing a well attested text called the 'commentaries' (apomnemoneumata) of Peter or the apomnemoneumata of the apostles. It was from the adding of this document and from Mark's own (something) - but not necessarily a hypomnemata, perhaps his own experience - that the secret gospel guarded in Alexandria was developed by Mark at a later date.
I don't see why people argue that this formulation of the composition of the gospel is so 'unprecedented.' The idea seems to be anticipated - or at least referenced in Papias's famous statement about the relationship between Mark and Matthew. While Eusebius (Church History 2.15) seemed to identify this hypomnemata with the Gospel of Mark itself, Papias, however, regarded the Gospel of Mark as the apomnemoneumata in contrast to the text associated with Matthew. Paratactic and asyndetic style are characteristic of hypomnemata (cf. Theophrastus, Characters), both features of Mark. Papias's assessment of Mark as an apomnemoneumata then, means that he thought of it as unfinished and unpolished. This is also reflected in his claim that Mark is "not in order," a rhetorical term meaning "
As Aune notes portions of the historical preface (prooimion) of Papias' lost work survive complete with references to sources and method in accordance with historiographical convention (Eusebius, Church History 3.39.2-4, 15; note the formal parallels with Luke 1:1 - 4). This reveals Papias' familiarity with the rhetorical conventions of Hellenistic historiography. His explicit preference for oral over written tradition (
What Aune's analysis opens up is the possibility that if we understand that the hypomnemata of Peter was one and the same with the public gospel of Mark (something again not explicitly stated in the text) then we can use Polycarp's identification of this same text as an apomnemoneumata to connect us back to Justin's reference to a work alternatively identified as the apomnemoneumata of Peter or the apomnemoneumata of the apostles. While the name 'Mark' is not explicitly referenced anywhere in Justin's account, the plural form 'apostles' might well account for two people being involved in the production of the text.
Yet there are broader implications than just this. Irenaeus, as we saw makes explicit reference to a text called the production of the gospel of Matthew before the gospel of Mark. While the relationship with a pre-existent hypomnemata or apomnemoneumata written in the name of Peter isn't specified, it would be hard to believe that Irenaeus wasn't already familiar with the account of Papias (when Eusebius mentions Papias he acknowledges that he got his information through Irenaeus). The point then is that we can theoretically conceive of a situation where both Matthew and the public gospel of Mark went back to things said or associated with Peter. Irenaeus can plausibly be identified with accepting Papias's idea that this, the accepted version of Mark's work was an inferior development of a common source used also by Matthew.
Now I have already noted that the Marcionites denied that the historical Matthew ever wrote a gospel. They certainly could not have denied that a text called 'the gospel of Matthew' existed or that people from the second century were claiming that he wrote a text. Rather we must imagine that they would have argued that this text - the Gospel according to the Hebrews - was actually written by someone else who was not a disciple.
Yet it is hard not to see that the way Clement speaks about Mark's eventual polishing of this hypomnemata into a 'perfect work' seems to be already known to Irenaeus by the time he wrote the Third Book of Against Heresies - although the name Mark is never specifically referenced. Indeed if we look to the context of that original statement about the origins of Matthew and Mark in Irenaeus it is important to note what he says about 'other gospels' outside of the four accepted texts:
We have learned from none others [than these apostles] the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. [AH 3.1.1]
There can be no doubt in my opinion that the specific reference to the production of a later gospel which claimed to alone represent 'perfect knowledge' seems to reflect to Theodore's juxtaposition of a Roman gospel for the increasing of 'the faith' versus an Alexandrian gospel of gnostic 'perfection.'
Indeed the specific idea that Mark added 'his own' to the hypomnemata of Peter to make the 'secret' gospel of Mark also seems to be alluded to in what immediately follows in Irenaeus:
When, however, they are confuted from the [Catholic] Scriptures, 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." [ibid 3.2.1]
Now given the parallels between Clement's point of view and the Marcionites, it is worthwhile noting that the Marcionite held that the apostle (here identified by his Catholic name 'Paul') as the author also of the gospel. In short then, we can see yet another parallel with to Theodore which has not been hitherto recognized owing to the general ignorance (or misinformation) about the Marcionite paradigm.
For some reason people can't conceive of the implications of (a) the consistent identification of the Marcionite gospel with the gospel of Mark (b) the fact that in Greek and Aramaic the names 'Marcion' and 'Marcionite' imply that the sect was 'of Mark' and (c) the idea that this same apostle Mark undoubtedly also wrote - according to the Marcionites - the Apostolikon or the letters we ascribe to someone named 'Paul.' If we actually pay close attention to the section of text that Irenaeus draws our attention to in the so-called Letter to the Corinthians and allow ourselves - for just one moment - to at least conceive of the idea that the Marcionite might have called this figure Mark we see the clearest confirmation of the existence of a two gospels - one public and one secret - in contemporary Alexandria. All that the reader needs to be able to do is to substitute the word 'wisdom' (Gk. sophia, Aram. hochmah) in their imaginations for 'gospel.' This is already anticipated by Pagels in her Gnostic Paul given the fact that the same terminology was used by the Jews and Samaritans for the Torah; the gospel being only the 'new Torah' of the Christian community.
Thus if we pay careful attention to the words of the apostle that I have suggested for many years was known by the name 'Mark' among the Marcionites - indeed was their original 'bishop' from which all their later officials were named - it is impossible not to have the veil lifted from one's eyes and to see at last the Clement was indeed a crypto-heretic, a secret adherent to the Mark. We read this 'Mark' now declare to his followers at the very beginning of Christianity:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... We do, however, speak a wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. [1 Cor 1.1-7]
I want to make clear that it is not I who am making the argument that this material relates to a gospel, or a 'perfect gospel.' Irenaeus makes the identification explicit. If the heretical group or groups had similar views to the Marcionites (who are explcitly referenced in Irenaeus) then all of what is suggested by Clement in to Theodore including the secret nature of the gospel is already witnessed by Irenaeus's drawing our attention to their interpretation of this passage.
Indeed I have already made an extensive case for the idea that 1 Corinthians was the Marcionite 'epistle to the Alexandrians' referenced in the Muratorian canon. I will come back to this idea in my next post. For the moment though I want to stress over and over again that EVERYTHING that Irenaeus says about this rival gospel which claimed to be a 'perfection' of the apostle's preaching or the preaching of Peter can be argued to resemble something said in Clement's letter to Theodore only from a hostile point of view.
Take for example Irenaeus's marked emphasis that only the Roman tradition preserved the true witness of the apostles. One could argue that this is a deliberate contrast with Clement's emphasis of Alexandria as the place where the 'perfect' gospel was finally established and guarded. Irenaeus also refers to the underlying idea associated with Alexandria in to Theodore - viz. 'hidden mysteries' for the perfect which is again referenced in to Theodore as that Mark:
composed a more spiritual gospel 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 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. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is very securely kept, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries
I will argue that it is terrible significant that Clement emphasizes that there hidden mysteries were only performed at Alexandria and that the 'perfect gospel' apparently drew people from other places to Egypt to undergo this secret initiation.
It is impossible now not to see that Irenaeus emphasizes another locale - Rome - as preserving a very public and open tradition which is utterly incompatible with the 'secret' and 'perfect' tradition of the heretics. That 'Alexandria' is never named must be deliberate because Irenaeus sees no reason to draw even more attention to the tradition he hates. The Alexandrians themselves clearly weren't going to openly advertise their tradition and Irenaeus above all else wants to marginalize his opponents as having no authority. Butting heads with the tradition of Mark at Alexandria was problematic because it would end up necessitating Mark's authority - something which Irenaeus didn't want to do. He didn't want to alienate the Markan tradition but rather bring it into the fold of Peter, indeed where Mark (and Alexandria for that matter) were ultimately subordinated figures in the Roman pantheon.
So we read in what follow in Irenaeus clear references to the ideas in the Letter to Theodore and more importantly his claims of Roman supremacy over the Alexandrian mystery tradition:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [i.e. in Rome and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth ... [and] that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery.
And again in the section that follows, Irenaeus is even more explicit in apparently juxtaposing Clement's 'hidden mysteries' at Alexandria with the open pronouncement of truth at Rome:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. [AH 3.3.1,2]
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who is familiar with the Patristic literature can claim that there is no evidence for the ideas of the letter to Theodore. I see the exact opposite situation. I would even go so far as to suggest that the evidence supports Schaff's original identification of Clement's affiliation with the followers of Mark (AH i.13 - 21). The bottom line however is that those who want to claim that to Theodore is a forgery do so because of a personal agenda. Anyone interested in the truth can clearly see it fits perfectly within the writings of the age. Indeed one might even argue it is 'the missing link' for us to understand the most important chapter in our common history.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Were There Two Bishops of Rome in the Church Until the End of the Third Century?
I have always found it puzzling that the hypomnemata usually attributed to Hegesippus credits the founding of Rome to Peter and Paul. The claim is recycled by Irenaeus in Book Three of his Against the Heresies as well all the Church Fathers who used the hypomnemata as a source. Yet Irenaeus doesn't just cite the hypomnemata - he develops the original material beyond what was written on the original page.
For Irenaeus, the supposed founding of the church at Rome by Peter and Paul demonstrates an original apostolic unity. Such an original unity provides a powerful slogan of polemics. One can point alsto to Clement of Rome and Ignatius making the same inference - the status accorded to the church at Rome by virtue of its association with both Peter and Paul (particularly as glorious martyrs) is the the basis for appeals to unity in the context of disputes about leadership in local church communities. Irenaeus explicitly cites the letter of Clement to the church at Corinth as an example of Rome's exercise of the authority of Peter and Paul.
Irenaeus has constructed a lineage of apostolic succession in the early church that defines apostolic authority (and thus what is for Irenaeus a standard for Christian doctrinal truth) in terms of the church at Rome founded by Peter and Paul. We have demonstrated here that the original source is clearly the hypomnemata wrongly ascribed to Hegesippus (it was actually written by Polycarp). Yet there has always been something strange about this founding of the Roman See by two apostles. Most of us, think of Rome as the See of St. Peter. Yet this is not what our earliest sources agree upon.
Could it be that the co-founding of the Roman See had more to do with contemporary ecclesiastical controversies at the time of the composition of the original hypomnemata (mid-second century) than any real historical claim that Peter and Paul walked hand in hand throughout the Imperial capitol?
We have to go back to the famous story in the fragments of Irenaeus that Polycarp, an itinerant preacher came to Rome and had a dispute with its bishop Anicetus. Irenaeus merely glosses over the circumstances of that dispute saying only that it had to do with the calculation of Easter. Yet Talley has rightly shown that it went far beyond that to a specifically Jewish character that Polycarp was developing for his Paschal service. Irenaeus says that they 'agreed to disagree' with one another. However we have uncovered a great deal of evidence that a kind of agreement was ultimately reached where both traditions existed side by side one another almost as two separate churches.
Could the symbolism of the founding of Rome by 'Peter and Paul' correspond to these two separate but equal churches within the Roman ecclesiastical establishment? There are a number of intriguing clues which suggest to me at least that in fact there were two bishops of Rome - one of the 'Jews' (or of the 'Judaising' faith of Polycarp) and the other 'of the Gentiles.' Each of these communions in turn should be seen as being under the auspices of Peter and Paul respectively.
Let's start with the evidence for a 'bishop of the Gentiles' at Rome. Photius of Constantinople applies this title to the author of the Labyrinth who he presumes to be Gaius of Rome - "This Gaius, is reported to have been a presbyter of the church in Rome during the pontificate of Victor and Zephyrinus and to have been ordained bishop of the Gentiles." Yet scholars have rightly pointed to the fact that the marginal note which Photius used to identify the text's author as Gaius is certainly wrong. The material was clearly written by Hippolytus. So he, rather than Gaius, must be the 'bishop of the Gentiles.'
Indeed it was at this very same time (i.e. after the reign of Victor and Zephyrinus) that Hippolytus, the disciple of Irenaeus, is said to have set up shop as 'anti-Pope' in Rome. In other words, at the very time Calixtus, the former deacon of Zephyrinus, was made made 'Pope' Hippolytus was off in some other part of Rome (Portus) claiming that he was 'another Pope.' Yet it is interesting to note that in Tertullian's criticism of Hippolytus's rival Calixtus he makes absolutely certain reference to Calixtus's role as the successor to Peter - "As to thy decision, I ask, whence dost thou usurp this right of the Church? If it is because the Lord said to Peter: Upon this rock I will build My Church, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven', or whatsoever though bindest or loosest on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven', that thou presumest that this power of binding and loosing has been handed down to thee also, that is to every Church in communion with Peter's (ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam, i.e. Petri ecclesiae propinquam), who art thou that destroyest and alterest the manifest intention of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally and alone?" (On Pudicity 21) The edict was an order to the whole Church (ib., i): "I hear that an edict has been published, and a peremptory one; the bishop of bishops, which means the Pontifex Maximus, proclaims: I remit the crimes of adultery and fornication to those who have done penance." Doubtless Hippolytus and Tertullian were upholding a supposed custom of earlier times, and the pope in decreeing a relaxation was regarded as enacting a new law.
Yet Calixtus was the very 'successor to the authority of Peter' and Hippolytus 'the bishop to the Gentiles.' Is it now too much to infer that Hippolytus occupied the chair of Paul? It is of course very tempting now to identify Gaius with Calixtus. After all Gaius is clearly the praenomen of someone and Calixtus's praenomen is unknown. Lightfoot actually went in the opposite direction and tried to argue that Gaius was Hippolytus's praenomen. Yet this idea has been dismissed in recent years because of the evidence that Hippolytus wrote a specific work against Gaius and his denial of the authority of the Johannine canon.
Yet some of Lightfoot's argument is interesting for our purposes. He notes:
Caius is simply an interlocutor in a dialogue against the Montanists written by Hippolytus. By this person, who takes the orthodox side in the discussion, Hippolytus may have intended himself, or he may have invented an imaginary character for dramatic purposes. In other words, such a dialogue may really have taken place, or the narrative may be fictitious from beginning to end. In the former case, we may suppose that Caius was his own praenomen ; for then he he would naturally so style himself in the dialogue, just as Cicero appears under the name of Marcus in his own writings.
As such one may tentatively say that the argument that Lightfoot lays out for Caius being the praenomen of Hippolytus could well be applied to Calixtus.
Yet the question which is now before us is whether the existence of two bishops in Rome - one of Peter and another of Paul - already existed at the end of the second century. It is worth noting that Hippolytus's Little Labyrinth makes the eye-opening claim that the truth of the apostles was carried down until Victor but that Zephyrinus ultimately adulterated the original apostolic faith. This sounds very reminiscent of the claims of the Philosophumena (usually attributed to Hippolytus) where Calixtus is similarly charged with a break from apostolic practice.
Yet the strange thing which has always puzzled me is the fact that Irenaeus is always depicted as being in Rome actively mediating between Victor and the rest of the Church. Irenaeus is described as a 'bishop' though we are continually told that his see was in Lyons. Why then does he spend so much time in Rome? Could Irenaeus have sat in the throne of Paul in Rome while Victor resided in the throne of St. Peter? It is at least worth considering.
Dollinger brings up some more interesting points about Hippolytus's references to his master Irenaeus:
Hippolytus repeatedly calls his teacher Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum, the " blessed Presbyteros ; "and in one of the two treatises which Photius would attribute to Caius, the one on the Universe and the other called the Labyrinth, — the author was designated, or probably had designated himself, as Presbyteros at Rome and Bishop of the heathen (ethnon). That at that time there were no Bishops without a fixed See has been already remarked. The author was therefore really Bishop of a definite Church, and the only question is, what is the meaning of the addition ethnon and of the title "Presbyteros" united with that of Bishop?
It has long ago been remarked that the name presbyteros was, at the end of the second century, still used of bishops. Most remarkable is this in Irenaeus, who not only frequently uses the word of Bishops, eg those of Rome, or his own teacher Polycarp, but also speaks of the Presbyters who had the Episcopal Succession from the Apostles the charisma of the truth. He mentions also some who were accounted as Presbyters by many, but, being made arrogant by their position, were treated with less respect by others. Again, in Irenaeus, and in a well-known passage of Papias, the first immediate disciples and contemporaries of the Apostles are called Presbyters. It has been rightly remarked, that here the notion of what is ancient and honourable is associated with the word, and that the name Presbyteros, even when given to a Bishop, was a title of honour ; but unmistakably something further must have been implied in this title, viz. the authority to teach, the Magisterium. Bishops or others are called Presbyters primarily as the holders and teachers of ecclesiastical tradition and knowledge.
The point then is that Irenaeus might actually have been a bishop of Rome. It's worth doing some further investigations.
For Irenaeus, the supposed founding of the church at Rome by Peter and Paul demonstrates an original apostolic unity. Such an original unity provides a powerful slogan of polemics. One can point alsto to Clement of Rome and Ignatius making the same inference - the status accorded to the church at Rome by virtue of its association with both Peter and Paul (particularly as glorious martyrs) is the the basis for appeals to unity in the context of disputes about leadership in local church communities. Irenaeus explicitly cites the letter of Clement to the church at Corinth as an example of Rome's exercise of the authority of Peter and Paul.
Irenaeus has constructed a lineage of apostolic succession in the early church that defines apostolic authority (and thus what is for Irenaeus a standard for Christian doctrinal truth) in terms of the church at Rome founded by Peter and Paul. We have demonstrated here that the original source is clearly the hypomnemata wrongly ascribed to Hegesippus (it was actually written by Polycarp). Yet there has always been something strange about this founding of the Roman See by two apostles. Most of us, think of Rome as the See of St. Peter. Yet this is not what our earliest sources agree upon.
Could it be that the co-founding of the Roman See had more to do with contemporary ecclesiastical controversies at the time of the composition of the original hypomnemata (mid-second century) than any real historical claim that Peter and Paul walked hand in hand throughout the Imperial capitol?
We have to go back to the famous story in the fragments of Irenaeus that Polycarp, an itinerant preacher came to Rome and had a dispute with its bishop Anicetus. Irenaeus merely glosses over the circumstances of that dispute saying only that it had to do with the calculation of Easter. Yet Talley has rightly shown that it went far beyond that to a specifically Jewish character that Polycarp was developing for his Paschal service. Irenaeus says that they 'agreed to disagree' with one another. However we have uncovered a great deal of evidence that a kind of agreement was ultimately reached where both traditions existed side by side one another almost as two separate churches.
Could the symbolism of the founding of Rome by 'Peter and Paul' correspond to these two separate but equal churches within the Roman ecclesiastical establishment? There are a number of intriguing clues which suggest to me at least that in fact there were two bishops of Rome - one of the 'Jews' (or of the 'Judaising' faith of Polycarp) and the other 'of the Gentiles.' Each of these communions in turn should be seen as being under the auspices of Peter and Paul respectively.
Let's start with the evidence for a 'bishop of the Gentiles' at Rome. Photius of Constantinople applies this title to the author of the Labyrinth who he presumes to be Gaius of Rome - "This Gaius, is reported to have been a presbyter of the church in Rome during the pontificate of Victor and Zephyrinus and to have been ordained bishop of the Gentiles." Yet scholars have rightly pointed to the fact that the marginal note which Photius used to identify the text's author as Gaius is certainly wrong. The material was clearly written by Hippolytus. So he, rather than Gaius, must be the 'bishop of the Gentiles.'
Indeed it was at this very same time (i.e. after the reign of Victor and Zephyrinus) that Hippolytus, the disciple of Irenaeus, is said to have set up shop as 'anti-Pope' in Rome. In other words, at the very time Calixtus, the former deacon of Zephyrinus, was made made 'Pope' Hippolytus was off in some other part of Rome (Portus) claiming that he was 'another Pope.' Yet it is interesting to note that in Tertullian's criticism of Hippolytus's rival Calixtus he makes absolutely certain reference to Calixtus's role as the successor to Peter - "As to thy decision, I ask, whence dost thou usurp this right of the Church? If it is because the Lord said to Peter: Upon this rock I will build My Church, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven', or whatsoever though bindest or loosest on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven', that thou presumest that this power of binding and loosing has been handed down to thee also, that is to every Church in communion with Peter's (ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam, i.e. Petri ecclesiae propinquam), who art thou that destroyest and alterest the manifest intention of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally and alone?" (On Pudicity 21) The edict was an order to the whole Church (ib., i): "I hear that an edict has been published, and a peremptory one; the bishop of bishops, which means the Pontifex Maximus, proclaims: I remit the crimes of adultery and fornication to those who have done penance." Doubtless Hippolytus and Tertullian were upholding a supposed custom of earlier times, and the pope in decreeing a relaxation was regarded as enacting a new law.
Yet Calixtus was the very 'successor to the authority of Peter' and Hippolytus 'the bishop to the Gentiles.' Is it now too much to infer that Hippolytus occupied the chair of Paul? It is of course very tempting now to identify Gaius with Calixtus. After all Gaius is clearly the praenomen of someone and Calixtus's praenomen is unknown. Lightfoot actually went in the opposite direction and tried to argue that Gaius was Hippolytus's praenomen. Yet this idea has been dismissed in recent years because of the evidence that Hippolytus wrote a specific work against Gaius and his denial of the authority of the Johannine canon.
Yet some of Lightfoot's argument is interesting for our purposes. He notes:
Caius is simply an interlocutor in a dialogue against the Montanists written by Hippolytus. By this person, who takes the orthodox side in the discussion, Hippolytus may have intended himself, or he may have invented an imaginary character for dramatic purposes. In other words, such a dialogue may really have taken place, or the narrative may be fictitious from beginning to end. In the former case, we may suppose that Caius was his own praenomen ; for then he he would naturally so style himself in the dialogue, just as Cicero appears under the name of Marcus in his own writings.
As such one may tentatively say that the argument that Lightfoot lays out for Caius being the praenomen of Hippolytus could well be applied to Calixtus.
Yet the question which is now before us is whether the existence of two bishops in Rome - one of Peter and another of Paul - already existed at the end of the second century. It is worth noting that Hippolytus's Little Labyrinth makes the eye-opening claim that the truth of the apostles was carried down until Victor but that Zephyrinus ultimately adulterated the original apostolic faith. This sounds very reminiscent of the claims of the Philosophumena (usually attributed to Hippolytus) where Calixtus is similarly charged with a break from apostolic practice.
Yet the strange thing which has always puzzled me is the fact that Irenaeus is always depicted as being in Rome actively mediating between Victor and the rest of the Church. Irenaeus is described as a 'bishop' though we are continually told that his see was in Lyons. Why then does he spend so much time in Rome? Could Irenaeus have sat in the throne of Paul in Rome while Victor resided in the throne of St. Peter? It is at least worth considering.
Dollinger brings up some more interesting points about Hippolytus's references to his master Irenaeus:
Hippolytus repeatedly calls his teacher Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum, the " blessed Presbyteros ; "and in one of the two treatises which Photius would attribute to Caius, the one on the Universe and the other called the Labyrinth, — the author was designated, or probably had designated himself, as Presbyteros at Rome and Bishop of the heathen (ethnon). That at that time there were no Bishops without a fixed See has been already remarked. The author was therefore really Bishop of a definite Church, and the only question is, what is the meaning of the addition ethnon and of the title "Presbyteros" united with that of Bishop?
It has long ago been remarked that the name presbyteros was, at the end of the second century, still used of bishops. Most remarkable is this in Irenaeus, who not only frequently uses the word of Bishops, eg those of Rome, or his own teacher Polycarp, but also speaks of the Presbyters who had the Episcopal Succession from the Apostles the charisma of the truth. He mentions also some who were accounted as Presbyters by many, but, being made arrogant by their position, were treated with less respect by others. Again, in Irenaeus, and in a well-known passage of Papias, the first immediate disciples and contemporaries of the Apostles are called Presbyters. It has been rightly remarked, that here the notion of what is ancient and honourable is associated with the word, and that the name Presbyteros, even when given to a Bishop, was a title of honour ; but unmistakably something further must have been implied in this title, viz. the authority to teach, the Magisterium. Bishops or others are called Presbyters primarily as the holders and teachers of ecclesiastical tradition and knowledge.
The point then is that Irenaeus might actually have been a bishop of Rome. It's worth doing some further investigations.
Thinking About My Next Book
I have to be honest with everyone - blogging has transformed the way I look at the possibility of writing another book. I happen to have a willing publisher. The publisher pays me a small advance and I write a book which essentially leaves me no chance of every making any sort of money above and beyond that small advance. The structure of the deal means that I have to sell over 7500 copies of any book to start collecting royalties.
While many people might question why I place such an emphasis on 'making money,' the reality is that because I have this blog I can essentially write for free and not have a 'boss' breathing down my neck. I don't have to deal with hostile reviews, fact checking, editorial mistakes etc. I can speak directly to sixty or so readers a day and no one gets hurt. If people don't like my writing or find it repetitive or uninteresting, they simply go somewhere else.
When I was an aspiring musician there was no money but there was always the possibility of meeting girls. Being a performer has its advantages, even if you don't end up making much money from it. So without girls, money or fame - why bother end up with nervous exhaustion for a book less than 7500 people are going to read anyway?
Of course some might say - it is important to leave formally publish some of the things I have come up with here at my blog. But let's be honest for a moment. My publisher couldn't give a rat's ass about what I have to say really. They want my book to sell and rightly so. I am sure they would say it's great that you have done all that research, but we need something that will attract as large a readership as possible.
So I end up at the same place that every writer finds themselves at with regards to getting a book published. How far do I sell out? I remember being a producer of corporate events in Toronto. There were of course people who came through the door so to speak because they felt my company was the best suited for the job. Then there was the other fifty percent of my customers who wanted me - I thought I put a good show and was simply more interesting and more amusing than my competitors. Soon you start selling your soul to make the sale and it quickly goes downhill from there.
Indeed I even have to admit, as much as I find the things I write about interesting and apparently a few of you out there too, I have to ask myself - is it best to just leave things the way they are? In other words, develop a hundred or so posts a month here and die with a massive electronic 'diary of a madman' which might indirectly influence the direction of scholarship if future generations decide to develop some of these ideas further.
I have to admit I am starting to think that books are becoming obsolete. I certainly don't buy as many books as I used to. So what's the purpose of expecting someone to purchase something that I probably wouldn't buy? Does it all come down to collecting that small advance? Or can I actually develop a compelling idea for a new book? Well, these are all really good questions and I don't even know if I can answer them with any kind of honesty.
It's not like my publisher is Harper Collins. It's like one step above being self-published. They will inevitably want me to keep my footnotes to a minimum. They aren't interested in a dry, scholarly work. My book would have say something explosively compelling, something that would ignite the imaginations of readers around the globe and if it can be backed up by facts, well ... that would be great too as long as the facts don't get in the way of a great story.
So I have to ask myself - when I look at the 2000 posts that I have written here since my father's death (the time that I happened to start this blog), do I find 'diamonds in the rough' that could be turned into a bestseller without too much prostitution of the soul on my part? Here's what I think I have:
1. I have some new information about Morton Smith and his discovery of Secret Mark.
2. I have a great deal of new information about the Martyrium of St. Mark which is mentioned in the aforementioned Letter to Theodore
3. I might have some new information by April about the Jewish altar at Alexandria
While these three elements naturally fit together, do they really spell 'bestseller' to anyone out there? I don't think so.
I have always wanted to publish all that material about Polycarp but I wonder whether I can write it in such a way that 7500 people would tell their friends what an amazing book they discovered. Is there some kind of a way that a book about Morton Smith's discovery at Mar Saba could introduce the discussion about the hypomnemata of Polycarp? And could such a book be made accessible for a wide audience without losing any chance of being taken seriously by scholars? Again I don't really know.
The only thing that strikes me as a possibility - a remote possibility - is if I could write a book challenging the foundations of Christian history. There have already been enough books written from an atheist POV. I am not interested in attacking the idea of God or questioning whether there was a historical Jesus. These things just don't get me excited. Bart Ehrman has already monopolized the agnostic textual criticism market so what is left?
I don't think a book has ever been written which actually posits another paradigm for Christian history. Sure there are those authors which demonstrate how stupid Christianity is, how it all doesn't make sense. But this never been my gig. I am not into just attacking something. I like to make the effort to argue for what is more likely to be the truth than merely saying that everything is bullshit.
Of course this also explains why my books are never that successful. Arguing for something is necessarily more demanding on one's readership than merely throwing stones at sacred cows.
The question then is whether I could start a book with Morton Smith's discovery of the Mar Saba letter, make a compelling case that the document is authentic and then argue for a historical framework which better explains the development of the Church in the late second century than our inherited model. I would presumably use my Against Polycarp material here in this section - the hypomnemata would clearly be useful in demonstrating To Theodore's authenticity. Yet is this enough to make a bestseller? Is this enough to succeed? I don't really know. I think it all comes down to whether I can present a simple and straightforward argument for why people should believe that the 'Carpocratians' were somehow connected with the emerging 'great Church' of Rome.
I haven't been able to find this argument yet. The question is of course whether I will be able to come up with it in the next six months.
While many people might question why I place such an emphasis on 'making money,' the reality is that because I have this blog I can essentially write for free and not have a 'boss' breathing down my neck. I don't have to deal with hostile reviews, fact checking, editorial mistakes etc. I can speak directly to sixty or so readers a day and no one gets hurt. If people don't like my writing or find it repetitive or uninteresting, they simply go somewhere else.
When I was an aspiring musician there was no money but there was always the possibility of meeting girls. Being a performer has its advantages, even if you don't end up making much money from it. So without girls, money or fame - why bother end up with nervous exhaustion for a book less than 7500 people are going to read anyway?
Of course some might say - it is important to leave formally publish some of the things I have come up with here at my blog. But let's be honest for a moment. My publisher couldn't give a rat's ass about what I have to say really. They want my book to sell and rightly so. I am sure they would say it's great that you have done all that research, but we need something that will attract as large a readership as possible.
So I end up at the same place that every writer finds themselves at with regards to getting a book published. How far do I sell out? I remember being a producer of corporate events in Toronto. There were of course people who came through the door so to speak because they felt my company was the best suited for the job. Then there was the other fifty percent of my customers who wanted me - I thought I put a good show and was simply more interesting and more amusing than my competitors. Soon you start selling your soul to make the sale and it quickly goes downhill from there.
Indeed I even have to admit, as much as I find the things I write about interesting and apparently a few of you out there too, I have to ask myself - is it best to just leave things the way they are? In other words, develop a hundred or so posts a month here and die with a massive electronic 'diary of a madman' which might indirectly influence the direction of scholarship if future generations decide to develop some of these ideas further.
I have to admit I am starting to think that books are becoming obsolete. I certainly don't buy as many books as I used to. So what's the purpose of expecting someone to purchase something that I probably wouldn't buy? Does it all come down to collecting that small advance? Or can I actually develop a compelling idea for a new book? Well, these are all really good questions and I don't even know if I can answer them with any kind of honesty.
It's not like my publisher is Harper Collins. It's like one step above being self-published. They will inevitably want me to keep my footnotes to a minimum. They aren't interested in a dry, scholarly work. My book would have say something explosively compelling, something that would ignite the imaginations of readers around the globe and if it can be backed up by facts, well ... that would be great too as long as the facts don't get in the way of a great story.
So I have to ask myself - when I look at the 2000 posts that I have written here since my father's death (the time that I happened to start this blog), do I find 'diamonds in the rough' that could be turned into a bestseller without too much prostitution of the soul on my part? Here's what I think I have:
1. I have some new information about Morton Smith and his discovery of Secret Mark.
2. I have a great deal of new information about the Martyrium of St. Mark which is mentioned in the aforementioned Letter to Theodore
3. I might have some new information by April about the Jewish altar at Alexandria
While these three elements naturally fit together, do they really spell 'bestseller' to anyone out there? I don't think so.
I have always wanted to publish all that material about Polycarp but I wonder whether I can write it in such a way that 7500 people would tell their friends what an amazing book they discovered. Is there some kind of a way that a book about Morton Smith's discovery at Mar Saba could introduce the discussion about the hypomnemata of Polycarp? And could such a book be made accessible for a wide audience without losing any chance of being taken seriously by scholars? Again I don't really know.
The only thing that strikes me as a possibility - a remote possibility - is if I could write a book challenging the foundations of Christian history. There have already been enough books written from an atheist POV. I am not interested in attacking the idea of God or questioning whether there was a historical Jesus. These things just don't get me excited. Bart Ehrman has already monopolized the agnostic textual criticism market so what is left?
I don't think a book has ever been written which actually posits another paradigm for Christian history. Sure there are those authors which demonstrate how stupid Christianity is, how it all doesn't make sense. But this never been my gig. I am not into just attacking something. I like to make the effort to argue for what is more likely to be the truth than merely saying that everything is bullshit.
Of course this also explains why my books are never that successful. Arguing for something is necessarily more demanding on one's readership than merely throwing stones at sacred cows.
The question then is whether I could start a book with Morton Smith's discovery of the Mar Saba letter, make a compelling case that the document is authentic and then argue for a historical framework which better explains the development of the Church in the late second century than our inherited model. I would presumably use my Against Polycarp material here in this section - the hypomnemata would clearly be useful in demonstrating To Theodore's authenticity. Yet is this enough to make a bestseller? Is this enough to succeed? I don't really know. I think it all comes down to whether I can present a simple and straightforward argument for why people should believe that the 'Carpocratians' were somehow connected with the emerging 'great Church' of Rome.
I haven't been able to find this argument yet. The question is of course whether I will be able to come up with it in the next six months.
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."
