Another Monastery, Another Ancient Manuscript Copied into the Blank Pages of a Modern Book

In my previous post I mentioned coming across Roger Pearse's report of a Facebook posting of scholar who discovered an ancient manuscript copied into a modern calendar book at a Syrian monastery. Owing to its obvious implications for the study of the lost Mar Saba document I just wrote an email to the scholar with some questions about his discovery and will post his answers if he gives me permission. Here is the original email I just sent:

Hi Adam McCollum:

I happened to have stumbled across your report of discovering an ancient manuscript in the empty lines of a Turkish-English-German calendar book. I couldn't help but think that there was an uncanny resemblance to the Mar Saba document discovered by Morton Smith. As you may be aware the document has been the source of some controversy most of which stems from people believing that it is unlikely that monks would preserve an otherwise unknown letter of Clement of Alexandria in the blank pages of Voss's 1646 edition of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. I don't mean to ask you to step directly into this controversy but I have some questions about your discovery which might allow a lay person like myself to understand some things about the preservation of manuscripts in monasteries. My questions are:

1. have you ever come across other ancient manuscripts being preserved in the blank pages of modern books?
2. why do you think the copyist would have chosen to preserve the MS in this Turkish-English-German calendar book? Why not use blank paper?
3. is the manuscript that was copied into the Turkish-English-German calendar book known through other sources?
4. do you think the monks were influenced by Morton Smith's discovery of the Letter to Theodore copied in the blank pages of the Voss book? Do you think they are even aware of the discovery?
5. what do you think happened to the original manuscript that was copied into the Turkish-English-German calendar book? Does it still exist?
6. do you know who the copyist is/was? Can we contact him?

I really appreciate you taking the time to read this email. I know you must be very busy. Any help that you could give to answer some of the questions I have asked would be most appreciated.

Sincerely

Stephan Huller

And Remember How All the Critics of Morton Smith's Discovery Point to the 'Strangeness' of an Ancient MS Being Preserved in a Modern Book ...

I was reading Roger Pearse's blog again today (as is my habit almost everyday) and came across this story about the discovery of an ancient manuscript in a Syrian monastery:

Yesterday I came across a Syriac manuscript written in 1992—yes, just 18 years ago—that was copied from an 1184/5 manuscript, i.e. a leap of eight centuries!

It’s a hagiographic ms containing the stories of Jacob of Nisibis, Ephrem, and Awgen. In addition to the 12th c. ms, it was compared (according to the colophon) with a ms. “apparently of the 15th generation of the Lord”.

It was copied at Dayr Al-Za’faran, where it remains, and the older copies were there, it seems, in 1992, but are so no longer.

Finally, believe it or not, the manuscript is written on the empty lines of a Turkish-English-German calendar book!

The ms date is given in the colophon in AD (and the calendar book itself is for 1992), and the date of the early exemplar is also given there as 1496 AG (= 1184/5 AD).

Pearse is one of those first people to champion Stephen Carlson's efforts to disprove the Mar Saba document.  Just the mention of homosexuals drives Pearse to distraction.  At the top of almost every conspiracy which argues that the Mar Saba 'must' be a fake is the fact that the manuscript was preserved in a relatively modern book.  We come across this in Carlson's work and more recently in Tselikas's report to BAR.
 
'Why wouldn't the copyist have preserved the document on a fresh piece of paper?'  Surely paper was no scarcer at this monastery than at Mar Saba.  What then is the reason that two monastic copyists would have preserved an ancient MS in a modern book?  I don't know but my inability to explain things never leads me to conclude that the phenomenon in question must be artificially contrived.  I don't walk around with false assumptions about the infallibility of my own intellect. 
 
I am always prepared to admit I don't understand things when I first come across them.  I am not God.  I am just a guy from Scarborough, Ontario with a lot of spare time.  Of course it seemed strange at first that an ancient manuscript might have been preserved inside of a relatively modern book.  Yet here we have another example and yet another reason NOT to believe that the Mar Saba document was a forgery ...

I Am Very Close to Proving Once and For All That Secret Mark is Authentic [Part 2]

It has been a terribly exciting week for me.  I really think I am zeroing in on a viable doctroral thesis about the Letter to Theodore witnessing the origins of late second Alexandrian Christianity from Marcionitism.  The difficulty of course is that I will likely never get an opportunity to publish it.  That train left the station a long time ago for me.  My beautiful wife Lisa was the only useful thing that I ever got out of York University in Toronto.

As it stands we have uncovered what is certainly a historical context for Clement's seemingly 'unprecedented' statements about a 'mystic gospel' of Mark in the Letter to Theodore.  As we noted in our last post in this series the Letter to Theodore's claims about a contemporary struggle over the proper interpretation of an Alexandrian gospel are witnessed in Clement's other writings.  No one else seems to have noticed that this struggle seems focused on one chapter in this Alexandrian gospel - viz. the equivalent of Mark chapter 10. 

We just demonstrated in the first part of this series that the first eleven chapters of his Stromata Book Three focus on a line from an Alexandrian version of Mark 10:17 - 30 - a strange textual variant which he repeatedly cites as 'But I say, Thou shalt not lust' and on one occasion the full sentence is cited 'But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.'  I also noted in our previous post that Clement's writings make absolutely certain that this line derives its origins from a variant text of Mark 10:18.  The closest parallel is actually found in Aphraates Demonstrations XX where he quotes the following from the opening words of the same section in his Diatessaron "And again, regarding that rich [man] who came before our Lord, and said to him, 'What shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?'. Our Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery.'"

Yet we went beyond this observation and noted that C A Phillips showed that many ancient writers witness an ancient gospel related to the Diatessaron which actually blend together three or four seemingly separate narratives in our four canonical gospels into a tightly woven 'secret' narrative.  When we reconcile the order of narratives in this section of the Diatessaron (i.e. from Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron) with Epiphanius's report that the Marcionite omitted the Parable of the Vineyard (Panarion Scholia 55; Tertullian fails to reference the saying in Against Marcion 4.38), we end up with the following:

1. The Rich Fool
2. The Rich Youth
3. The Rich Man's Discussion with Abraham in the Underworld
4. The Resurrection of the Rich Youth (LGM 1)
5. Salome's Request for the Enthronement of her Children
6. Zacchaeus
7. Blind Man of Jericho

Every single narrative on this list is connected with the Marcionites, save of course for LGM 1.  Yet von Harnack always draws our attention to the complete absence of any known baptism narrative in the Marcionite gospel (given the fact that it certainly did not reference Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist). 

It is very difficult I think for people to even consider that this section of the gospel might have been the most important in the whole narrative.  Our focus usually is in thinking of Jesus's crucifixion as its climax.  Nevertheless it is without question that Clement and the Carpocratians were locked in a bitter struggle over the implications of this material.  For those who do not accept the authenticity of to Theodore there are still two important treatises to consider - viz. Stromata Book Three which deals displays the interconnectedness of (1) and (2) and Quis Dives Salvetur which connects (2) and (6) to establish the central doctrine of the Alexandrian Church.

I want to leave aside a detailed examination of Quis Dives Salvetur for the moment.  I have said many times now that I don't want to overwhelm the reader with information.  Instead I want to focus our attention on another writer, Aphrahat the Persian and see how his exegesis of the interconnectedness of the aforementioned material in Demonstration XX. 

Of course I remind my readers that Phillips has already laid out the case for the interrelatedness of the material in Aphrahat's writings.  Nevertheless it is sometimes useful to confirm the observations of others on our own.  Shemunkasho for instances notes that Aphrahat connects (1) and (3):

"Aphrahat refers to the episode of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) to explain the parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:13 - 31)" [Aho Shemunkasho Healing in the Writings of Ephrem p.75]

While Murray notes a much more startling interpretation which seems to connect (3) and (4) when he references:

the unique example in Aphrahat of an allegorical interpretation of a parable of Jesus namely 'Dives and Lazarus', which comes in strangely in the Demonstration'' On Almsgiving' Dives stands for 'the nation which ate and grew fat, kicked and forgot the Lord (Deut 32:15); one might expect Lazarus to stand for the Gentiles, but no: "the poor man who lay at his gate is a similitude of our Saviour.  He longed and sighed to get some fruit from them and receive it for him that had sent him ; but no man gave to him. And where he said the dogs came and licked his sores, the dogs that came are the Gentiles who lick the wounds of our Saviour - his Body which they receive and place on their eyes." (Dem. 20.905.13 - 19)

As Murray goes on to note that "Aphrahat seems to have specially liked the figure of 'licking Christ's wounds' for this practice, for he brings it in in a totally different context in vn, 349.8-1 1 ; cf. ix, 432. 16-19. On similar references in Ephrem, see E. Beck, Die Eucharistic,' p. 65, n. 73."

The reason I suggest a connection between this interpretation and the idea of the rich youth resurrected in LGM 1 is because it naturally follows from Marcionite theology.  The Marcionites always emphasized that Jesus wasn't the messiah of the Old Testament; that was apparently 'someone else.'  They took special interest in the question posed to Jesus 'are you the one to come or do we look for 'someone else'? (Matt 11.2 - 6) Irenaeus says explicitly that those who preferred another Gospel of Mark "separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered."  It should be clear that for Clement being 'impassable' is the purpose of the Alexandrian mysteries.

The identification of Lazarus as the Lord makes absolutely no sense in our conventional understanding of the passage.  It makes far more sense, I would argue, that he is the same Eliezar who appears as an angelic hypostasis in the Genesis narrativewhere Abraham took “318 men” to pursue the four kings (Gen 14:14); 318 of course is the numerical value of the name of Eliezer.  A knowledge of the identification Eliezer = 318 is found according to the Genesis Rabba 42, and is ascribed to Resh Laqish in the name of Bar Kappara in b Nedarim 32a.

Yet this line of interpretation is also already found in the Epistle of Barnabas and most importantly in a section of the writings of Clement of Alexandria which Schaff has demonstrated draw from the heretical tradition of the so-called 'Marcosians' i.e. those of Mark' (cf. Irenaeius AH 1.14.5).  Clement writes:

As then in astronomy we have Abraham as an instance, so also in arithmetic we have the same Abraham. “For, hearing that Lot was taken captive, and having numbered his own servants, born in his house, 318 (τιη),” he defeats a very great number of the enemy. They say, then, that the character representing 300 is, as to shape, the type of the Lord’s sign, and that the Iota and the Eta indicate the Saviour’s name; that it was indicated, accordingly, that Abraham’s domestics were in salvation, who having fled to the Sign and the Name became lords of the captives, and of the very many unbelieving nations that followed them. [Clement Stromata 6.11]

I don't think anyone would object to the identification of the Greek name Lazarus (Λαζάρου) as a form of the Hebrew Eliezar.  To argue against this would be utterly reckless.

At the same time it has to be recognized that Eliezar the servant could easily be developed into a prototype of the Paraclete.  The first mention of "captive" in the Bible is where Abraham, hearing that "his brother, Lot, was taken captive," arms "Eliezer" (as Jewish tradition interprets the passage) — the symbol of the Help of God— and brings back the captives.  This is the traditional function of the messianic 'comforter' or manachem (i.e. Greek Parakletos) in Jewish literature. 

There is certainly a lot in the Lazarus and Dives narrative which would suggest that Lazarus prefigured the coming of the 'Comforter.'  The rich man calls to Abraham to send Lazarus to comfort him.  The word for "comfort" is parakaleo.  It is akin to parakletos the one who is to come after Jesus is crucified and identified by the Marcionites with the apostle called 'Paul' by the Catholic tradition. Lazarus is said to have been called near to Abraham's side.  Lying at one's bosom or chest suggests comfort, care and intimacy. It is a desired position at the heavenly banquet (see 13:28–29; Jn 13:22). Three times the rich man begs Father Abraham to send Lazarus for help: first for a bit of of water, then to warn his brothers, and finally to plea again that his brothers might repent (16:24, 27, 30).

Of course since scholars ignore the underlying Marcionite identfiication of Paul as the awaited Paraclete (implicit in Origen Hom. Luc 23, and explicit in the throughout Acts of Archelaus).  Eznik of Kolb spells it out in the following terms "Jesus, having left the Lord of creatures, took Paul and delights, and he found redemption, and sent him to preach (and advertise) that: "We are redeemed (by redemption), and whoever believes in Jesus has been sold by the right (being good)." [Eznik Ref. 4.1]  The connection between the apostle and 'redemption' is particularly striking given the fact that this is the term used to describe 'another baptism' associated with Mark 10:38 even though no reference to anything resembling such a rite survives in our existing canonical gospels (cf. Irenaeus AH 1.21.2; Epiphanius Pan. 42.3.9)
 
I have argued on a number of ocassions that all the Patristic references to the 'redemption' baptism of the followers of Mark (whether called 'Marcosians' or 'Marcionites') in this section are clearly allusions to the resurrection of the rich youth in 'Secret Mark.'  The manner in which this 'lines up' with the Lazarus narrative which immediately precedes it should be quite obvious to those who have a little familiarity with the Marcionite tradition. 
 
The Marcionites are always identified as identifying their ritual as a baptism on behalf of the dead.  That this cannot possibly be reconciled with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is so obvious it requires no explanation.  Yet the fact that the Marcionite gospel did not preserve this narrative necessitates the existence of a narrative which could support this practice. 
 
If we go back to our original ordering of narratives in the Diatessaron-related gospel traditions from C A Phillips it is immediately obvious that the rich youth who has a discussion with Jesus about riches is the same figure who ends up in the underworld and ultimately is the one resurrected in Secret Mark.  Yet it is important to note that a Marcionite baptism would necessarily assume that he took on a soul as he came out of the water - a soul appropriated from the underworld. 
 
Tertullian tells us that the Marcionites practiced a form of vicarious baptism. With his customary vigor, Tertullian refutes the notion that Paul advocated vicarious baptism in 1 Cor. 15:29 as ridiculous and heretical (Adv. Marc. 5.10). Chrysostom explains in detail his understanding of the Marcionite practice of vicarious baptism: "when a catechumen died among them, a living person having been hidden underneath the bed of the deceased, they approach the dead person, speak to him and ask him if he would like to receive Baptism. Since he does not answer, the one who is hidden underneath speaks for him, saying that he does wish to be baptized. And so they baptize him for the sake of the one who has just died, just as if he were acting on a stage." (Chrysostom Hom in 1 Corinthians)
 
Now there can be no doubt that the Marcionites and the Catholics were in agreement that individual actually undergoing the water immersion was also identified to be in a ritualized 'state of death.'  Tertullian makes this explicit in his discussion of 1 Cor 15:29 and it stands to reason in the case of the Marcionites given their strict adherence to the Apostolikon (the Pauline texts being replete with references to an understanding of baptism being an imitation and participation in the death of Christ).  Of course in the heretical community as we have already seen Jesus is not the Christ.  The Christ was the one who ultimately 'impassably' witnessed his crucifixion on the 'tree' (tree in Aramaic being a literal rendering of the number 318 = שיח).. Who then is this other Christ?  He is clearly the 'rich youth' of the narrative we are examining.
 
We should notice the description of this 'death baptism' in Irenaeus's account of the redemption baptism of the followers of Mark who are said to:

redeem persons even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water, or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time the above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body were left among created things in this world, while their soul is sent forward to the Demiurge ... But he goes into his own place, having thrown [off] his chain, that is, his animal nature. These, then, are the particulars which have reached us respecting "redemption." (Irenaeus AH 1.21.2,3)

There is clearly an exchange of souls taking place here.  The old soul of the person is returned to the Demiurge in exchange for a new perfect 'inner man' which is 'ascending' upwards from below.  But can we prove once and for all that the Marcionite understood this to have taken place with regards to the Dives and Lazarus narrative?   Irenaeus surprisingly makes this absolutely explicit in his discussion of the passage in Book Two Chapter Thirty Four of Against Heresies during the course of an attack against the heretical belief that baptism will make one equal to Christ (AH 2.32) through metempsychosis (AH 2.33) he brings in the story of Dives and Lazarus. 

Unfortunately this accursed Blogger program routinely doesn't save everything you type.  It literally cut off everything else I had after this point so I will have to retype everything tomorrow.  Sorry about that ...

Thank God For Ulrich Schmid

I couldn't believe my eyes.  Less than an hour after I sent a blind request to the great New Testament scholar Dr. Ulrich Schmid of the Universität Münster to help me track down a copy of Hermann Raschke's Werkstatt des Markus-Evangelisten, I actually received a received a response. I was standing in an H & M store shopping with my wife stunned to read this response on my Blackberry:

I might be able to chase up the copy at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung which I have used back in the early 90ies. If I remember correctly, it was a fairly modest sized publication. Would you be happy with a scan? I might be able to persuade a student to make the scans. Or do you need to have a hard copy?

I should also say that when school reopens next week I will post online John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma's English translation of the section in von Harnack's Marcion and the Alien God explaining the Philosophumena's report about a 'curtailed' Mark as attributable to Hippolytus's 'confusion' over Marcion's curtailing of Luke.

Feels like I am going back to school ...I might have talked with him once on the phone a few years back. This was too good to be true. He said in a subsequent email that it might take two weeks to get all this done. When I get it I will pay to have it translated into English and post it at my blog for everyone to use. It will a very important resource for anyone trying to argue that the Mar Saba document is authentic as Raschke is most famous for his observation that the Marcionite gospel must have been the gospel of Mark. It stands to reason then that the reports of Marcion 'openly curtailing' his gospel (Irenaeus AH 1.27.2) as well as the Philosophumena's 'mix up' with Mark's cut fingers and Marcion's cut gospel (von Harnack's observation not mine) all comes from the same 'grund' as Clement's report about Secret Mark in the Letter to Theodore.

Looking for a Copy of Hermann Raschke's Werkstatt des Markus-Evangelisten

I have been seaching high and low for a copy of Raschke's Werkstatt des Markus-Evangelisten.  I know thatr I am going to like this book.  It would necessarily become an important part of any book that I decided to write on this subject matter.  The problem of course is that it is out of print, Amazon doesn't have it, nor indeed is available in any North American library that I can see from Worldcat and the only libraries that have it are in Germany.  I know that Hermann Detering must have a copy.  But I don't want to bother him right now.  In any event, I keep reading about Raschke's formulations and they seem very similar to my own theories.  I happened to have found a Scottish 'freethinker' from the last century who summarizes Raschke's thought.  It is available only as a 'snippet view' from Google where I live but I managed to piece this much together:

And now arises the question, If that gospel was current as canonical in Tertullian's and Irenaeus's day, how came they to speak of Marcion's elision of the Birth Stories without noting that they are elided in Mark, to comment on the brevity of Marcion's gospel when Mark's was less than half as long as Luke's, or to denounce Marcion for leaving out much of the Lucan record of the Lord's teaching when Mark did the same? Herr Raschke argues (p. 34) that Irenaeus was so completely under the fixed idea of a mutilation of Luke that he could not see the identity of Marcion's gospel with the canonical Mark.  This is a difficult conception.  As a matter of fact, Irenaeus (III, xi, 8), putting his mystical thesis that the gospels must be four, neither more nor less, cites Mark as beginning in the manner of our text, and making " a compendious and cursory narrative."  That is in effect what he denounces Marcion for doing. The question thus insistently arises whether the existing text of Irenaeus, a Latin translation made at the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century, represents what Irenaeus wrote in the second.  If it does, Raschke's solution must stand, for the inconsistency of the attitude in the existing treatise is gross. That Marcion had before him a primitive compilation of miracle stories, ascribed to Mark, is quite conceivable; but our Mark is not the disorderly thing described by Papias; and apart from the passage cited there is nothing, I think, in Irenaeus to show any familiarity with our text. If he had a copy before him, how could he endorse it while denouncing Marcion? The same question arises in regard to the whole polemic of Tertullian against Marcion [John M Robertson Jesus and Judas p 226]

Herr Raschke comments, that description just fits Mark. When we come to the specific charges of mutilation, the surmise is confirmed. Epiphanius, for instance, complains that Marcion's gospel mutilates the text about Jonah, saying merely that " no sign will be given," and lacks the mention of Nineveh and the Queen of the South and Solomon. But all this applies to our gospel of Mark! As Herr Raschke puts it, Epiphanius was commenting on the text of Mark. When yet other patristic charges of mutilation against Marcion are found to impinge on Mark, and further charges of adding to Luke are likewise found applicable to Mark, the inference, Marcion's gospel = Mark, becomes so urgent that only a new body of evidence, accounting for these strange coincidences, can repel it. [ibid 229]

Arthur Drews on Hermann Raschke

In 1924 H. Raschke published his great book about Mark's gospel. Raschke emphasized the non-existence of the modern historical consciousness in ancient times. Rather, everything was understood magically and speculatively. The Gospels are written in the ancient consciousness. Any rationalization of the Gospel tales is thus worthless. Raschke notes that Aramaic was the popular language of most eastern Mediterranean peoples, and tales in the Aramaic language prevailed. Aramaic language, due to the lack of fixed vowels, is rife with puns and ambiguities.

This is already evident in the Tanakh. For example:

• Israelites could not drink the water in a town named Mara (bitter waters).
• Miriam became a leper in the town of Hazaroth (leprosy).

The same happens in the gospels, especially Mark's:

• Judah Ischarioth = Isachar (hireling)
• Multiplication of food in Beth Saida (camp of feeding)
• Martha does the dirty work in Bethany (camp of the miserable)
• The daughter of Iairus (awaken) wakes up from the dead.
•  Divorce is discussed in the land of the Geraseni (gerusin, divorce)

These puns allow a very detailed examination of Mark's tales. The Marcionites are seen as the original community behind Mark's gospel. Jesus advices his disciples to follow a man carrying a clay jar (mrkws Mark) with water. The Greek term for clay jar is keramion, which alludes to Marcion.

The hidden docetic background of Mark's gospel has been revealed already earlier by other scholars.

Thus doubtlessly the Christian god-son is a construct loaned from Gnostic circles and turned into a flesh-and-bone-construct due to the vulgarization of the religion.

• The Christ of the Gospels is a historified Christ of Paul's epistles
• The Christ of Paul's is a catholically tuned Gnostic Christ
• The Gnostic Christ is, in turn, just a metaphysical force.

Only the modern incapacity for metaphysical thinking makes people claim the historicity of Jesus.

I am Very Close to Actually Proving Once and For All that the Letter to Theodore is Authentic [Part One]

So let's just continue with what we established in our last post. If you simply read the references to the Carpocratians in Clement's writings it is impossible not to get the sense that Clement is using Carpocrates as some kind of 'boogeyman' in order to protect his Alexandrian tradition from the charge of heresy.  In order to hold this view, we needn't think only in terms of what Clement says about Carpocrates and the Carpocratians in the Letter to Theodore.  It is even more interesting to examine what Clement says about the 'Carpocratian' interpretation of the gospel narrative about Jesus's discussion with a 'rich youth' (Mark 10.17 - 30). 

Clement's Can the Rich Man Be Saved (Quis Dives Salvetur) is basically a homily on the 'rich youth' narrative.  Clement goes so far as to quote entire passage verbatim to make his point that it is wrong to interpret the material as supporting 'religious communism.'  While no specific group is named which espouses such a 'radical' interpretation of Mark's narrative we learn from the Book Three of the Stromata that the group in question is the 'Carpocratians.' 

Why doesn't Clement say that he is arguing against the 'Carpocratians' in Quis Dives Salvetur?   My guess is that he brought out the boogeyman 'Carpocrates' whenever someone argued that the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark was inherently heretical.  Yet more interestingly why does Clement cite the material from the public gospel of Mark 10:17 - 30 rather than the 'secret gospel' if such a text actually existed?  Many reading this post may wonder why it is that I am so sure that Clement is not citing from the 'secret' gospel.  The answer comes from what appears in Stromata Book Three.

Here we see yet another argument against the 'Carpocratians' and as always it is their alleged 'carnal' interpretation of Mark chapter 10 - this time it is the story of the rich youth (fifteen lines before the maerial cited in to Theodore).  As always is always the case, Clement is citing from the 'secret' gospel of Mark. 

Who are these Carpocratians?  Clearly they are members of the Alexandrian tradition who claim to witness the true beliefs of St. Mark.  If Irenaeus or some other Church Father had encountered these heretics they would undoubtedly identify them as 'Marcosians' or Marcionites.  Clement wants to avoid those terms because they are directly related to the name Mark (i.e. St. Mark) so the report in Hegesippus's hypomnemata about 'Carpocratians' turned out to be quite useful for him (there is no real difference between a 'Marcosian' and a 'Carpocratian' as the descriptions appear in Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book One). 

The material that appeared in the 'secret gospel' of Mark chapter 10 seems to have served as the basis for the most fundamental Christian concepts in Alexandria.  If the Mar Saba document is to be believed the story about the resurrected neaniskos (Mark 10:34.1 - 13) must have been the basis to its baptismal rites   The story of the rich neaniskos which precedes it (Mark 10:17 - 30) was clearly the basis to its underlying conception of ἐκκλησία or 'church.' 

It can't be stressed often enough how utterly fundamental Mark chapter 10 must have been to Alexandrian Christianity.  We can see that clearly from the consistent attack that Clement develops against what he claims to be rival interpretation of the material.  It is only in Stromata Book Three that this rival interpretation is explicitly referenced as 'Carpocratian.'  We must remember that this book begins with an attack against the Carpocratians and their claims that Jesus wanted Christians to share all their property in common.  For some reason Clement refuses to initially cite the passage in question but instead keeps quoting a single line from the passage over and over again in different forms - most often as 'But I say, Thou shalt not lust' but on one occasion the full sentence is cited 'But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.'

As I have noted previously this is not a variant of Matthew 5:28.  We know this because Clement actually cites Matthew 5:28 alongside this strange agrapha.  It is in fact a variant of Mark 10:18 as we see a little later in Chapter Six of the same work.  Clement begins Book Three with a citation of a work called Concerning Righteousness written by an Alexandrian named Epiphanes who is said to be a follower of Carpocrates.  The Carpocratian argues there that when the Creator said 'Thou shalt not lust' it was only said to forbid coveting one's neighbors property and thus to encourage and even sanction the encouragement of private property.  The Carpocratian argues that Jesus came to abolish private property and to establish a divine communism on earth.  The only narrative in all of the gospels which could be used to support this argument is Mark 10:17 - 30 or its equivalent in other gospels.

Yet the focus of the tug of war between Clement and the Carpocratians is focused on a single line which does not appear in our canonical gospels - 'But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.'  As I have already noted the closest surviving match to this material is Aphraates the Persian sage's citation of the 'rich youth' narrative.  Yet I would go one step further and argue that the ultimate context was Marcionite.  This must have been Jesus's response to the statement which Epiphanius preserves of the request of the rich youth ""Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments - Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. All these have I have observed from my youth up."

The Carpocratians apparently understood Jesus's subsequent command that the rich youth “go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" as nothing short of a blueprint for a communist utopia - or perhaps more correctly the monastic communal ideal.  As I noted earlier I am not even certain that Epiphanes really was a Carpocratian.  I tend to think of him as a contemporary Alexandrian Christian who gained some notoriety explaining core concepts of the tradition of St. Mark.  It is Clement - or perhaps critics of this 'communist propaganda' - who have chosen to exaggerate the effects of this new vision of social order to include ritual orgies. So Clement closes Chapter Two with the claim that "they overturn the lamps and so extinguish the light that the shame of their adulterous "righteousness" is hidden, and they have intercourse where they will and with whom they will."

I needn't tell readers that the same claims are made in To Theodore about another group of Carpocratians or individuals who Clement claims again are followers of Carpocrates.  One may even consider the possibility that Epiphanes is the source of Theodore's information.  Whatever the case may be it is in Chapter Six of the same book that we see context of the agrapha - 'But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust' - is certainly the rich youth narrative.

Clement begins by again referencing the "the 'righteousness' of Carpocrates" referring to it again as an "immoral communion" and then he writes:

Just as the world is composed of opposites, of heat and cold, dry and wet, so also is it made up of givers and receivers. Again when he says, "If you would be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor," he convicts the man who boasts that he has kept all the commandments~ from his youth up. For he had not fulfilled "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Only then was he taught by the Lord who wished to make him perfect, to give for love's sake. Accordingly he has not forbidden us to be rich in the right way, but only a wrongful and insatiable grasping of money. For "property gained unlawfully is diminished." "There are some who sow much and gain the more, and those who hoard become impoverished." Of them it is written: "He distributed, he gave to the poor, his righteousness endures for ever." For he who sows and gathers more is the man who by giving away his earthly and temporal goods has obtained a heavenly and eternal prize; the other is he who gives to no one, but vainly "lays up treasure on earth where moth and rust corrupt"; of him it is written: "In gathering motley, he has gathered it into a condemned cell." Of his land the Lord says in the gospel that it produced plentifully; then wishing to store the fruits he built larger store-houses, saying to himself in the words dramatically put into his mouth "You have many good things laid up for many years to come, eat, drink, and be merry. You fool," says the Lord, "this night your soul shall be required of you. Whose then shall be the things you have prepared?"  [Clement Strom 3:6,7]

Clement then closes the discussion by going back to the words of the agrapha - "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.' - by stressing that "the human ideal of continence, I mean that which is set forth by Greek philosophers, teaches that one should fight lust and not be subservient to it so as to bring it to practical effect. But our ideal is not to experience lust at all."

It is very difficult for most people reading this post I think to accept what I am about to tell them but I will say it anyway.  With this passage we are standing on holy ground.  These are not just some random selection of passages that Clement has strung together to make some 'theological point.'  What we are really watching is something akin to a married couple having a public spat.  Most of the outsiders who don't know the details of their private life can't possibly make sense of the accusations and references that are literally flying through the air in rapid succession.  However the participants - and a few close friends certainly - undoubtedly do know the context of many if not all of the references. 

The first thing that we have to accept is that Clement and the Carpocratians are certainly arguing over a non-canonical version of Mark Chapter 10.  Not only does the agrapha necessarily fit in the middle of the 'rich youth' narrative but look at what else is cited here to close the discussion  - Luke 12:16 20:

Of his land the Lord says in the gospel that it produced plentifully; then wishing to store the fruits he built larger store-houses, saying to himself in the words dramatically put into his mouth "You have many good things laid up for many years to come, eat, drink, and be merry. You fool," says the Lord, "this night your soul shall be required of you. Whose then shall be the things you have prepared?"

Now for most of us who are used to think in terms of passages being divided among four different gospels there is no great significance to having a narrative from Luke Chapter 12 close a discussion from Mark Chapter 10.  However for those of us who have acquainted ourselves with gospels from other traditions the appearance of these two passages in a section which condemns the Carpocratian interpretation of a non-canonical gospel couldn't be more significant.

For in Christian communities across Syria, Egypt and the Middle East there was a single, long gospel referenced by outsiders as 'the Diatessaron' which happened to have this narrative of the 'Rich Fool' (Luke 12:13 - 21) immediately precede the narrative of the 'Rich Youth' (Mark 10:17 - 30).  C A Phillips was the first person to notice the reference in the writings of Clement's student Origen for which William Petersen provides us with a useful summary of his original observation that:

that the harmonies followed the Parable of the Rich Fool with the Story of the Young Ruler which was then followed by the Parable of Dives and Lazarus. Elements of this combination as well as specific variants from the harmonies, are found in the Gospel 'secundum Hebraeos' as quoted by Origen, Comm in Matt XV.14 (on Matt 19.16ff). Origen's quotation begins "The other of the two rich men said to him ..." implying Origen knew a text which joined the stories of the two rich men. Also in Origen Jesus tells him to "do the Law" a variant found in Ephrem's Commentary, Aphrahat, Syr [c], the Georgian, and at Mark 10.20 in Greek MSSf1 565 1542.[Petersen Diatessaron p. 257]

However Phillips only scratched the surface of the number of references to this phenomenon.  Phillips did not see the reference in Stromata Book Three that we just cited and there are a great many more. 

I do not want to get too distracted from our original purpose but I thought it might be useful to cite just a sampling of the references to this 'extra canonical gospel' tradition starting with the reference in Origen Commentary on Matthew which Phillips first noted:

The other of the two rich men said to him: Master, what good thing must I do that I may live? He said to him: Man, fulfil the law and the prophets. He answered him: That have I done. He said to him: Go and sell all that thou possessest and distribute it among the poor, and then come and follow me. But hte rich man then began to scratch his head and it (the saying) pleased him not. And the Lord said to him: How canst though say, I have fulfilled the law and the prophets? For it stands written in the law: Love thy neighbor as thyself; and behold, many of the brethren, sons of Abraham, are begrimed with dirt and die of hunger - and thy house is full of many good things and nothing at all comes forth from it to them! And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Jona, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [Origen Comm. Matt. 15.4]

But now we must endeavor to ascertain what he says, "you are storing up a treasure of wrath for yourself." It is called a "treasure" where wealth and riches of various kinds are collected. We read of three meanings of this term in the Scriptures. In the Gospel it is said that there is a certain treasure on earth where the Lord forbids treasures to be stored up; there is another treasure in heaven where he commands all the faithful to lay up their wealth,' and now here the Apostle speaks of treasures of wrath. Therefore all men collect into one treasure out of these three through the things they do in this world. For it is the unbeliever who, being wicked and by the hardness of his heart and his impenitent heart, lays up his own deeds in the treasure of wrath. Or he may be earthly and think of the earth and speak of the earth. And when his field has brought forth an abundant yield for him, he tears down his barns and builds bigger ones and stores up treasure on earth.(Luke 12:16 - 18) The first man is designated as hard, but here the second as foolish. For it is said to him, "You fool! This very night they will demand your soul from you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?" (Luke 12:20) There is also the person who is wise and rich in relation to God, and who, though he lives on earth, has his citizenship in heaven. Everything he does is worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Such a person lays up the treasures of his riches in heaven. (Mark 10:21) The possessor and compiler of each treasure can be designated first as someone fleshly, but the second as a soul- ish man, and the third as spiritual. (1 Cor 2.14, 15; 3.1) [Origen Commentary on Romans Book 2, Chapter 4]


Hence God declared guilty the rich fool as he was regarding his worldly hoard and rejoicing in the richness of his abundant harvests. "You fool, your soul will be demanded of you tonight. Whose then will be the things you have provided? (Luke 12.20) The fool, rejoicing in his harvests, was to die that night and was thinking of his plentiful provisions even as his life was running out. By contrast, the Lord teaches us that the one who is perfect and complete sells all he has and gives it up for the poor," so providing himself with a treasury in heaven (Mark 10.21). He says that the one who is unencumbered and tightly girt and not ensnared by the traps of property is able to follow him and imitate the glory of the Lord's passion. Released and set free he accompanies his own possessions that he had on to the Lord. [Cyprian of Carthage On the Lord's Prayer 20]

Now there is no doubt that it is entirely possible that none of these references actually proves the existence of 'Secret Mark.'  One might even argue that Clement and the 'Carpocratians' are arguing over another extra-canonical gospel which has some relation to the Diatessaron.  Nevertheless it is important to note that THE IDEA of an extra-canonical gospel which Clement says was known to him and certain 'Carpocratians' is now all but confirmed.  This is an important first step.

Now I happen to think that Phillips suggestion that the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative originally followed the 'Rich Youth' passage is extremely helpful to provide a context for Clement's introduction of a resurrected youth in Mark 10:38.1 - 13.  Philipps emphasizes that the extra-canonical gospel(s) blended what now appear as three separate narratives into a continuous story.  In other words, the two wealthy individuals eventually end up in the underworld.  In such a scenario the eventual appearance of a 'resurrected youth' in 'Secret Mark' would seem utterly natural.  It is only our habit of thinking of 'Secret Mark' as just canonical Mark with some additions which has stood in our way. 

It is important to note that I didn't want to get too carried too far away from our original discussion of the passage in Stromata 3.6.  It is important for us to have found a citation where Clement argues with the Carpocratian over the correct interpretation of a non-canonical gospels development of material from Mark 10:17 - 30.  This at least establishes the context for the basic framework of what appears in the Letter to Theodore.  Yet if we look carefully at the argument which Clement develops from this extra-canonical interpretation of Mark 10:17 - 30, it cannot be denied that it is exactly the same thesis that is developed in much greater detail in Can the Rich Man be Saved (Quis Dives Salvetur).  The only difference being that the Carpocratians are explicitly referenced only in Stromata 3.6.

I don't want to overwhelm my readers with too much information so I will stop here.  We have certainly established an important framework for understanding the historical context out of which 'Secret Mark' must have developed.  In our next post we will take matters one step further by bringing forward Clement's argument in Quis Dives Salvetur - an core argument which only makes sense if Clement was again employing a Diatessaron-like gospel which resembled Secret Mark.  Every which way you look at it, it will become impossible to deny that the 'secret gospel of Mark' mentioned in the Letter to Theodore 'fits' the contemporary Alexandrian milieu in ways that Morton Smith could not possibly have imagined. 

It is why I firmly believe the document is authentic and is in fact an astonishing key to make sense of the beliefs, practices and traditions of earliest Christianity - a Christianity that just so happens to have been established first in Alexandria.

Did Clement Use 'Carpocrates' to Shield his Alexandrian Tradition From the Accusation of Heresy?

I can't believe that I have just exceeded 500 views of the page with the interview with Agamemnon Tselikas. I guess I am not surprised that people are interested in what he has to say. I just find it interesting that the arguments for authenticity rarely get that much attention here at my blog. Perhaps it is because I am the one developing them. Be that as it may, I am the only person in the world who develops arguments in favor of the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter (i.e. rather than merely attacking the arguments for forgery). This blog is the only forum in which these arguments reach an audience.

In our last series of posts we clearly discovered something important - Clement of Alexandria unquestionably makes reference to a gospel, held in common with the Carpocratians and actually goes so far as to cite a single line from that extra-canonical gospel. Jesus declares "Ego autem dico, non concupisces" (but I say unto you, do not lust.) I believe that I have also identified the actual context from which this statement was originally delivered - Mark 10:17 - 30 or the 'Rich Youth' narrative.

We have argued that this is yet another example of Clement citing from the lost 'Marcionite New Testament' - a collection of apostolic writings that was in the hands of those who followed St. Mark since the first century or 'Μαρκίων' (Marcion) as he was identified in the Alexandrian liturgy (i.e. in the diminutive form of the name Marcus which expresses affection or endearment.

This isn't the first time that we noted Clement cites from writings of this Christian tradition that was later deemed heretical. Indeed we have made the case that the strange sounding idea that emerges from Clement's recently discovered 'Letter to Theodore' in the Mar Saba monastery near Bethlehem that the Alexandrian Church actually used two separate gospels of Mark - a short, public text and a mystic, private gospel is actually the original paradigm of the Marcionite tradition. Scholars haven't recognized it before because they hadn't realized the implications of the clues that we get from the Catholic Church Fathers about this alternative (and now long dead) Christian tradition.

I have noted from time to time various other examples of Clement citing from the Marcionite New Testament. He cites for instance what Joseph Tyson identifies as the original opening words of the short, public gospel of the Marcionite tradition in Strom . All of this fits within Philip Schaff's observation that Clement was attached to a heretical tradition associated with a certain 'Mark' who - as we have noted - is one and the same as the historical St. Mark.

For whatever reason by the late second century the Roman Church had turned on the tradition of St. Mark in Alexandria. One needn't see this as a 'conspiracy' (although I certainly do). The underlying reality is that whatever ancient Christian tradition had been established in Alexandria by the time of Clement, its connection with the apostolic past was rendered 'unutterable' owing to changing political fortunes. The tradition of St. Mark was clearly declared unlawful and the evangelist himself was ultimately subordinated to both St. Peter and St. Paul, the twin thrones of the contemporary Christian tradition in Rome.

The Letter to Theodore was discovered by Morton Smith in 1958 in the Mar Saba monastery. It makes clear that Clement's Alexandrian Church was just as devoted to the authority of St. Mark as modern Coptic Christians are. The episcopal authority of St. Mark continues to this day from its original home in Alexandria and what we are now suggesting is that Morton Smith's discovery makes clear is that the 'missing years' which stretch from the apostolic era to the time Clement was writing, Alexandrian Christianity was 'Marcionite' only slowly transforming itself into something roughly resembling the prevailing Roman orthodoxy over the one hundred and fifty years that separated Clement's earliest writings and the Council of Nicaea.

The Mar Saba document witnesses an important link to the Alexandrian Church's Marcionite past. The Marcionites held that Christianity was originally founded by a single man who wrote not one but two gospels. One gospel which was meant to circulate openly as a kind of historical narrative about the various things that Jesus did in his 'ministry' down to his crucifixion and another which was held secretly - either solely by the Alexandrian Church (as the Letter to Theodore claims) or 'held safely' by the various churches of the 'Marcionite' tradition which assumes of course that Clement wasn't being completely honest in the letter.

Why wouldn't Clement have been telling the truth when he claimed that there was only one copy of the 'secret gospel'? I think he was so intent on trying to deny whatever report that Theodore heard that claiming that there was only one copy of the text furthered that goal. The reality is that there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence not merely the arguments which emerge in Tertullian's recopying of Against Marcion Book Four and Five but also Casey's discussion in the Armenian Marcionites and the Diatessaron) that the Marcionites continued to use a 'fuller' version of the gospel which seems to have resembled the Diatessaron (i.e. a single work in which the familiar stories of our four gospels were apparently 'blended together').

I can't prove why Clement might have said something or other any more than anyone else. We are all left scratching our heads and trying to piece together what exactly was going on in the mind of a man living almost two thousand years ago. Clement was certainly an enigmatic individual. The Christian writings which emerge from the same period are equally enigmatic however what makes them seem to be more familiar is that we all 'buy into' the system that Irenaeus, Hippolytus and others lay down for us. As long as you go along with the classification of orthodoxy and heresy that appears first appears in Irenaeus's Against Heresies you can pretend to make sense of the early history of Christianity using this text alongside the familiar New Testament canon of the Roman Church.

Clement certainly seems to go along with this system throughout most of his writings and even to Theodore. Nevertheless there is always something necessarily unconvincing about Clement's act. Clement was certainly aware of Irenaeus's 'system' and also his classification of various 'heresies' - i.e. 'Valentinians,' 'Marcosians,' 'Marcionites,' Carpocratians' etc. He likely knew about other reports from Irenaeus and other contemporary authors which we no longer have available to us.

It is difficult not to get the sense however that Irenaeus's seemingly authoritative reports about the various heresies are ultimately very inaccurate. The Marcionites and the Marcosians seem to have been confused by later Church Fathers The report about the Carpocratians also seems to be related to the original tradition that is misrepresented in Irenaeus's work. Indeed'Carpocrates' the supposed head of the 'Carpocratians' can only be thought to be a corruption of 'Harpocrates' the young Horus of the mysteries of Serapis. The whole report which now appears in Irenaeus's Against Heresies about the sect derives from a lost history of the Roman Church (the so-called 'hypomnemata' of Hegesippus) which mentions a 'Marcellina' who is identified as a member of the 'Harpocratian of Salome' tradition (so Celsus) and Jerome says this same 'Marcellina' was a Marcionite (developed undoubtedly from yet another ancient source that is now lost to us).

The thing which seems to emerge from a critical evaluation of the Letter to Theodore is that Clement has received an inquiry from a certain Theodore about the existence of a secret gospel associated with St. Mark. The context seems roughly similar with Serapion of Antioch's near contemporary letter cited in Eusebius's Church History regarding a 'gospel' in the name of Peter which was expanded to include heretical information. Theodore has decided to track down the origin of this 'secret gospel' back to its source following a lead originating with adherents to the text.

Clement's 'way out' of the dilemma is to separate himself and his Alexandrian tradition from Theodore's source. They are not members of the Alexandrian Church but 'Carpocratians' - i.e. devotees of the Carpocrates, the heretical sect first mentioned in Hegesippus's hypomnemata. He acknowledges that such a text exists only as a means of disproving the claims that Theodore has put before him. Yet I am now beginning to wonder whether all of the attacks against the Carpocratians in the writings of Clement have a similar origin.

Did Hegesippus accuse Marcellina of being a 'Harpocratian' because she was from Alexandria? Was she a notorious harlot and so the tradition as a whole became stained with her sins? When the name 'Harpocratian' became corrupted into 'Carpocratian' two generations later did Clement just go along with the description of 'Alexandrian heretics' as a convenient way of disposing of reports about Alexandrian beliefs and practices which developed from Mark chapter 10 in a parallel Alexandrian 'gospel of Mark'? Yes, I certainly think all of this explains the historical context of the surviving references including the Letter to Theodore.

Drawing a Line in the Sand With Regards to the Authenticity of Secret Mark

As the regular readers of my blog already know I have developed a number of arguments in favor of the authenticity of the Mar Saba document.  Yet it remains a difficult task to prove the authenticity of something that is no longer with us, especially when that something cast doubts on the cherished assumptions of scholars. I propose that the question of whether there ever was a 'secret gospel' in Alexandria which resembles the 'mystikon evangelion' of to Theodore comes down to whether it can be acknowledged that there are in actuality an ongoing battle between Clement and the 'Carpocratians' over the proper interpretation of Mark chapter 10.  In other words, that the Letter to Theodore fits within a pre-existent pattern in Clement's writings where the sectarian group is accused of having a 'carnal' interpretation of this material. 

I have very few gifts as a thinker but one of my strengths is certainly that I certainly envision problems in new and original ways.  It is certainly true that Clement never makes explicit mention of the 'Lazarus narrative' in Secret Mark (or 'LGM 1' = i.e. 'the first additional of the Longer Gospel of Mark) in any of his writings.  Yet it is equally true that Clement has a habit of attacking the Carpocratians for their 'heretical' interpretation of the material which immediately precedes this narrative. 

I have made brief mention of the material in Stromata Book Three in my most recent posts.  The Carpocratians clearly took an interest in Mark 10:17 - 30 (the 'rich youth' narrative) in order to justify their belief that Jesus wanted to establish a form of 'religious communism' on earth.  Clement's arguments in Stromata Book Three only make sense if the two traditions are in fact arguing over the correct interpretation of this periscope.  Yet there are a number of other references in his writings which show a similar pattern.

The point of all of this is that I think it is too restrictive to limit the discussion down to the question of whether Clement actually explicitly references the existence of a 'secret gospel of Mark' and what is known of its contents from to Theodore.  I think it suits our purposes much better if we ask whether Clement and Carpocratians were battling over the proper interpretation of Mark chapter 10 which included LGM 1 and then see where this path leads us.  I suspect it will ultimately lead to the confirmation of the authenticity of the Mar Saba document but I have the benefit of knowing the contents of the next few articles I will post online over the next few days.

Where the Non-Canonical Gospel Held in Common By Clement and the Carpocrates Certainly Placed the Agrapha 'You Have Heard that the Law Commanded, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. But I Say, Thou Shalt Not Lust'

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments - Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. All these have I have observed from my youth up." But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust, If you will be perfect, sell all your possessions, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."  And when he heard these things, he became exceeding sorrowful: for he was very rich.

This reconstruction of course is based on the assumption that the gospel was one and the same with the Marcionite gospel which is supported by the various references to the saying cited in the posts below.

Is the Non-Canonical Saying Shared by the Carpocratians and Clement of Alexandria (Str. 3.2,11) a Variant of Mark 10:17,18?

Let's recap what I discovered yesterday.  Clement and the Carpocratians shared a non-canonical gospel with Jesus announcing the words "Ego autem dico, non concupisces" (but I say unto you, do not lust...) The editors of the English translation of the Stromata seem to think that it is a variant of Matt 5:28 but this can't be because Clement cites the material correctly in Str. 3.2

And how can this man still be reckoned among our number when he openly abolishes both law and gospel by these words. The one says: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The other says: "Everyone who looks lustfully has already committed adultery." The saying in the law, "Thou shalt not covet," lt shows that one God is proclaimed by law, prophets, and gospel; for it says: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."

Later in the same chapter Clement gets around to citing the saying from the shared non-canonical gospel:

If the adulteress and he who committed fornication with her are punished with death, clearly the command which says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" speaks of the Gentiles, in order that anyone who, as the law directs, abstains from his neighbour's wife and from his sister may hear clearly from the Lord, "But I say unto you, Thou shalt not lust." The addition of the word "I," however, shows the stricter force of the commandment, and that Carpocrates fights against God, and Epiphanes likewise.

And then later in Chapter Four of the same book:

The Lord has said: "But I say unto you, you shall not lust." How then can he live according to God's will who surrenders himself to every desire? And is a man to decide of his own free will that he can sin, and lay it down as a principle that one may commit adultery and revel in sin and break up other men's marriages, when we even take pity on others if they fall into sin against their will?

And then yet later again in Chapter Eleven of the same book:

Right from the beginning the law, as we have already said, lays down the command, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife," long before the Lord's closely similar utterance in the New Testament, -- where the same idea is expressed in his own mouth: "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust."

I am increasingly certain that disputed saying is actually a citation of Mark 10:17,18 which is rendered in the Diatessaron witnessed by Aphrahat the Persian Sage as:

"And again, regarding that rich [man] who came before our Lord, and said to him, 'What shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?'. Our Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery ...'"

The parallels in the structure of the sayings are quite striking:

Aphrahates - "Our Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery."

Clement - "from the Lord, 'But I say unto you, You shall not lust.'"

Another Sign From the Writings of Clement that the Letter to Theodore is Authentic

It is only because the principles involved in the debate about the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore have little intimate knowledge of the writings of Clement of Alexandria that this nonsense continues. Here is another example from the Stromateis Book Three which clearly shows a parallel context to what is described in the Clementine letter found at Mar Saba.

The Third Book of the Stromateis begins with an attack against the 'libertine' tradition associated with Epiphanes the Carpocratian, the Carpocratians being same sect condemned in the Letter to Theodore.  In to Theodore it is acknowledged that the Carpocratians share a 'mystic gospel' with the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark which the heretics have apparently corrupted.  In the Stromata the argument develops a little differently.  The Carpocratians are accused of 'abolishing the Law and the gospel' (cum legem et Evangelium perhæc aperte destruat) with their understanding that the Creator encouraged lust in all living things (cf. Strom. 3.2)

Clement goes on to ask:

And how can this man still be reckoned among our number when he openly abolishes both law and gospel by these words. The one says: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Ex. 20:13) The other says: "Everyone who looks lustfully has already committed adultery." (Quicunque respicit ad concupiscentiam, jam mœchatus est cf. Matt 5:28) The saying in the law, "Thou shalt not covet,"  (Non concupisces) lt shows that one God is proclaimed by law, prophets, and gospel; for it says: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife." (Ex. 20:17)  [Strom. 3.2]

It would seem a very straightforward argument on Clement's part - both the Law and the gospel set limits on lust.  Yet Epiphanes point cannot be completely rejected either - whereas Creator puts forward 'being fruitful and multiplying' as a blessing, the Christian god promotes ritual celibacy. 

The fact that Clement can't apparently see this obvious difference is eye-opening enough (it is as if he is playing stupid).  Yet his repeated citation of ascetic gospels like the Gospel according to the Egyptians confirms that he is holding something back. Indeed the whole purpose of Book Three of the Stromateis is to go back to two words which both Clement and Epiphanes the Carpocratian understand to be in the gospel - 'Non concupisces.'  Clement's only objection to the Carpocratians is that the same words appear in Exodus 20:13 (see above).

So a little later in the same chapter Clement actually goes on to cite the gospel where Epiphanes the Carpocratian cites the words 'Non concupisces' (οὐ μοιχεύσεις).  We read:

If the adulteress and he who committed fornication with her are punished with death, clearly the command which says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" speaks of the Gentiles, in order that anyone who, as the law directs, abstains from his neighbour's wife and from his sister may hear clearly from the Lord, "But I say unto you, Thou shalt not lust." (Ego autem dico, non concupisces) The addition of the word "I," however, shows the stricter force of the commandment, and that Carpocrates fights against God, and Epiphanes likewise. [ibid]

It is amazing that with all this debate about 'the question of authenticity of Secret Mark' that this material is never cited!  It is as if people want to be heard without having becoming properly familiar with the material. 

Indeed as we already noted the controversy over what the meaning of Jesus proclamation 'Ego autem dico, non concupisces' shared by both Clement's Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark and the Carpocratians continues much deeper into the Third Book of the Stromateis.  Clement even goes so far as to claim that 'the apostle' read these words and incorporated them into his Epistle to the Romans:

While on this point I think I must not commit mention of the fact that the apostle declares that the same God is the God of the law, the prophets, and the gospel. In the Epistle to the Romans he quotes the gospel saying "Thou shalt not lust" (non concupisces) as if it were from the law, knowing that it is the one Father who is preached by the law and the prophets. For he says: "What shall we say? Is the law sin? God forbid. I had not known sin except through the law; and I had not known lust unless the law had said, Thou shalt not lust." [ibid 3.12]

I don't know how it was the 'debate' over the authenticity has never taken into account this reference to a 'shared gospel' between the Alexandrian tradition and the Carpocratians which contains saying not found in the canonical gospel.  Yet it is equally clear that yet another group also shared the same gospel - the Marcionites.  The idea that the apostle already had the written gospel while writing the Apostolikon is strictly Marcionite.

We have been saying for some time that the Clementine paradigm in to Theodore sounded Marcionite. Now we have explicit confirmation of that.  Indeed Clement's references to the Marcionites in the same book implied that they too shared this text. We read him say that:

They (the Marcionites) say they have received the gospel of the knowledge of the Strange God; yet at least they ought to acknowledge gratitude to the. Lord of the world because they receive this gospel on this earth [ibid 3:12]

Apparently this was a compromise that Clement was willing to make to accomodate his Alexandrian tradition to the Roman Church.  Over and over again he makes clear that while his Alexandrian tradition extolled celibacy every bit as much as the heretical traditions, their refusal to compromise to the new authority of the Roman Church was a sign of their haughtiness.

Another Example from Early in the Common Era Where the Name 'Mark' is Only Preserved in a 'Subform'

We have been thinking about the possibility raised by von Harnack, Hilgenfeld, Schenke and others that the name 'Marcion' was a curious 'subform' (Nebenform) of Marcus or 'Mark.' It is easy for scholars to point out that 'Marcion' is a diminutive of Mark, but what does that mean in the real world? Was the founder of the so-called 'Marcionites' named Marcion or Mark?

It has long puzzled scholars that the Latin names 'Marcus' and 'Titus' are preserved in Samaritan Aramaic as Marqe and Tûte (Titus). Moshe Florentin, Professor of Hebrew and head of the section of Hebrew studies in the Department of Hebrew Culture at Tel Aviv University makes the suggestion that the reason that names from Greek and Latin have the suffix [e] in Samaritan Aramaic as in Marqe Tûte and others is that the they were taken over in the form of the vocative case.

It might be difficult for many to make sense of the significance of this explanation so I should take it step by step for my readers.

No one can know for certain when this 'Marcus' fellow lived, nor his father 'Titus,' but estimates range from the late first to the fourth century. For some reason, however the Samaritans always spell his name MRQH (using the English letter equivalents to the Hebrew). The 'H' or he (ה) is puzzling because it isn't what you would expect to replace the Greek -os and Latin -us in the nominative singular.

For instance the Latin name Vespanianus is preserved as 'Aspasyanos' in Soṭah 9.14. Elsewhere we see Titus preserved as 'Titos,' Severus rendered as 'Asverus' - the bottom line being that there is so reason for the Samaritans to consistently add the 'he' (ה) to the foreign names 'Marcus' and 'Titus.'

The vocative is the case of direct address. It is used when one person is speaking to another, calling out or saying their name, or generally addressing them. With many nouns, the case form of the vocative is the same as the nominative, but the context and function leave no question as to whether the person is being addressed or, alternatively, spoken about. (One should note that, obviously, the vocative is used most often in conjunction with the "second person" form of the verb).

For example: "... Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59). Here Stephen is directly addressing the Lord, so the form of "Lord Jesus" is in the vocative case. (Note that the verb "receive" is also in the second person, as would be expected).

It should be noted that while there are at least 128 uses of lord in the vocative in the Greek New Testament, there is no vocative case in Aramaic. What Florentin is suggesting - and it is pretty eye-opening even to consider how this might have occured - the names 'Marcus' and 'Titus' were preserved as Marqe and Tûte in Samaritan from the Samaritan people addressing these figures in the Latin or Greek vocative form. We must again emphasize that this case would only be used in an oral address.

Whatever the case, the important thing to see here is that 'Marqe' especially had a towering influence in Samaritanism - second only to Moses - and his name is preserved in a 'subform.' The idea that Irenaeus might have done the same with respect to 'Μαρκίων' - i.e. a figure named 'Marcus' who happens to end up having his name preserved in a 'subform' (albeit this time a Greek diminutive) - suddenly doesn't seem so strange.

How Marcion Might Have Been Used as a Diminutive of Mark in the Baptism Rituals of Ancient Alexandria

It has now been established by the greatest minds in religious scholarship that Μαρκίων (Marcion) must have been a 'subform' - if not a Greek diminutive - of the name Marcus or 'Mark' in English.  What implications does this have for our theory?  Well obviously if I can prove that 'Marcion' wasn't the actual name of the head of the 'Marcionites' but only a preservation of how Marcionites addressed their founder - i.e. a 'sound bite' of what was recited during the Marcionite liturgy 'twisted' into the name of the founder of the sect we have found our way home and can finally reconcile 'Marcionitism' with Alexandrianism. 

Yet we are a long way from that right now.  We still have to figure out whether people or things were addressed in the diminutive in the ancient Christian liturgy.  The most common misunderstanding of course is the word abba which is preserved in the gospel of Mark and the Apostolikon.  The ordinary word for "father" in Aramaic and Hebrew is ab. Abba has been argued to be an intimate diminutive, similar perhaps to "Dad" or "Daddy" in English.  Jeremias thought that Abba might represent Aramaic 'baby talk' but I am not sure.  I think it might rather be a ritual expression of intimacy between 'the brides' and their Christ. 

When we read Origen's discussion of Romans 8:15 he goes out of his way to deny that those adopted at Christians at baptism in Alexandria were infants.  Instead they appear to have been neaniskos, or youths old enough to leave the care of a pedagogue:

And for children especially, fear is a pedagogue. This is why the Apostle also says of such a child, "As long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave, though he is the lord of everything; but he is under tutors and guardians until the date established beforehand by the father. So with us, while we were children we were under the elements of this world, being enslaved." (Gal 4:1 - 3) You see how Paul here, in accordance with the wisdom bestowed upon him by God, could designate the spirits of slavery that are given in fear as children's tutors and guardians, which keep each one of us, while a child according to the inner man, in fear, until we come to the age when we merit receiving the Spirit of adoption of sons and become now a son and lord of everything. For he says, "All things are yours," (1 Cor 3:22) and he has given all things to us with Christ. What Paul is teaching, therefore, is this: After we have died together with Christ, and his Spirit has come into us, we do not receive once again a spirit of slavery unto fear. That is to say, we have not become children and beginners again, but as those who are perfect we now receive the Spirit of adoption once again a spirit of slavery unto fear. That is to say, we have not become children and beginners again, but as those who are perfect we now receive the Spirit of adoption once and for all, "by which" Spirit "we cry: Abba, Father!" For no one but a son cries out to a father. But what he has added, "Abba," has repeated the same word from his mother tongue. It is as if he said, Father, Father.

So then, the Spirit of adoption himself, through whom someone is adopted as a son, bears witness and assures our spirit that we should be sons of God after we have gone from the spirit of slavery to the Spirit of adoption, when we no longer do anything out of fear, that is, out of fear of punishment, but instead, perfect everything on account of love. He has admirably said that the Spirit of God bears witness not with the soul but with the spirit, which is the human being's better part. It can be considered, in addition, in order to distinguish those who are being led by a spirit of slavery unto fear and those [who are led) by the Spirit of sons, that Abraham indeed gave his inheritance to Isaac; but to the sons of slave women or concubines, it is said that he had given not an inheritance, but gifts and presents." Doubtless, what was being foreshadowed in this is that those who go on serving God out of fear will not be entirely rejected, but there are gifts for them and there are presents; it is, however, to those who merit to receive the Spirit of adoption that the inheritance belongs, through which they are glorified together through Christ. [Origen Commentary on Romans 7.2,3]

There is no doubt in my mind that the transference from 'fear' to 'love' was understood by the Alexandrian tradition in a Marcionite sense (i.e. from Law to gospel).  Yet there is also something of the context of the Letter to Theodore as well. 

I can't possibly see how anyone understands the whole death baptism concept from the familiar 'curtailed gospel.'  Yes of course there was overlap between the two Alexandrian gospel texts.  The curtailed gospel undoubtedly like the Gospel of Peter had Mary discover the risen Christ on the eighth day from Jesus's death in the same way as the youth of the mystic gospel 'dies' and undergoes baptism:

went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."  [Clement, To Theodore II.26 - III.10]

I find it very intriguing to see that both Origen's 'baptism of the perfect' and the baptism narrative from the gospel Clement describes as 'for the perfect' assume the ritual context of the adoption of a young man.  The only thing that stands in our way of course is our tradition understanding of Jesus as 'the Son.'  I think that for the early Alexandrian tradition he was the Father.  Those who hold this position were called 'Patripassians' or Sabellians and Sabellius - whoever or whatever 'Sabellius' was, was intimately connected with Alexandria.

I know all contemporary research into the Letter to Theodore has tried to distance itself from Morton Smith's interpretation of the material, nevertheless isn't it strange that Origen also understands the ritual interest in the 'love' of a neaniskos for his 'Father' to be at the heart of the Alexandrian mysteries.  I still don't think this any of this was 'homosexual' but it could certainly have been misinterpreted as such. 
 
Someone hearing the uttering of 'Μαρκίων!' - an expression of intimacy from various 'youths' to their father St. Mark - all hoping to 'love' St Mark and be adopted in the manner in which he was adopted by Jesus 'the Father' would have certainly fueled this confusion.

Rare 1860 Photo of Mar Saba Monastery from My Friend Harry Tzalas

A Xmas Present for Me - The Great German Scholars of Marcionitism ALL Identify 'Marcion' as a Diminutive of Mark

I don't know why the whole of Adolph von Harnack's Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott hasn't been translated into English.  I doubt very much that many of the English speaking 'authorities' on Marcion have actually read what the most important Marcionite scholar in history has had to say about the lman from Pontus.'  So why should any of us take what they say seriously?  

German was actually my mother tongue and I find von Harnack challenging.  I can only imagine how even someone who learned German at school would struggle with this 800+ page tome. 

In any event, I have been re-reading the material again and have just discovered that von Harnack confirms what I have suspected all along - that Marcion is a well established Greek diminutive of Mark.  Here is the pertinent section of his work which comes after a citation of the term  in Justin's Apology  .  First the original German:

Die Μαρκιανοί sind höchstwahrscheinlich Marcioniten; denn bei Hegesipp, der von Justin nicht unabhängig sein wird, liest man 1. c. Μαρκιανισταί. Daß aber diese (die Codd. TcERB, Euseb. Lat., Euseb. Syr. Μαρκίωνισταί) Marcioniten sind, ergibt sich aus Euseb. V, 16, 21: οί ἀπό Μαρκίωνος αιρέσίως Μαρκιανισταί (so Schwatz mit AT(1)D). Korrekt ist Μαρκιανισταί für die Messalianer (Euchiten), genannt nach dem Wechsler Marcianus; s. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos I S. 425; II S. 340 f. Die Marcianisten im Theodos. Codex XVI, 5.65 (Gesetz v. 30. Mai 428 = Justinian. 1,5,5 ) zwischen Phrygern und Borborianern sind wohl Anhänger des Gnostikers Marcus. Aber auch Marcions Anhänger konnten "Marcianisten" und " Marcianer" heißen da "Marcion" lediglich eine Nebenform zu "Marcus" ist; diese Nebenform ist nicht häufig; doch s. den christkatholischen Bruder " Marcion" im Mart.Polye. 20 und die Inschrift auf der Basis Capitolina [von Harnack Marcion II.9]

And now for my quick 'it's one o'clock in the morning' Xmas Eve translation:


Yet it is Wolfgang Schenk in his Die Jesus-Rezeption des Markion als theologisches Problem (in Von Jesus zum Christus: christologische Studien:Festgabe für Paul Hoffmann (1989) p. 509) who clarifies von Harnack's argument by specifically noting that "Marcion is just a Greek diminutive subform to the Latin Marcus" (da 'Markion' ja nur eine diminutive griechische Nebenfom zum lateinischen 'Marcus' ist).  This confirms Hilgenfeld's (“Häreseologische Berichtigungen”, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie,(1888), XXIII, 478—483) original argument cited here a few months ago:

Dass Μαρκίων ein Deminutivum von Μαρκος ist, schliesse ich auch aus dem Verhaltniss von Εὐρυτίων zu Εὔρυτος (vgl. Phil. Griech. Gramm. 21. Aufl. S. 119, Anm. 12), κοδράτίων (bei Philostratus vit. sophist. II, 6 p. 250) zu κοδράτος (vgl. W. H. Waddington, Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aristide, 1867, p. 32). So möchte ich auch an den von dem Verfasser der Philosophumena so angefeindeten κάλλιστος, romanischen Bishof 217 - 222, denken, wenn Rhodon bei Eusebius KG, V, 13, 8 κάλλιστίωνι προσφωνων genanne wird. Um so mehr werden die Μαρκιανοί welche Justinus Dial. c. Tr. c. 35 p. 253 vor Valentinianern, Basilidianern, Satornillianern, u.s.w. erwahnt, Marcioniten sein. Ebenso wird man in dem Muratorianum Z 82 - 84 zu lesen haben: quia etiam novum psalmorum librum Marciani (= Marcionitae) conscripserunt.

That Μαρκίων is a diminutive of Μαρκος, I conclude also from the relation of Εὔρυτος to Εὐρυτίων, (vgl. Phil. Griech. Gramm. 21. Aufl. S. 119, Anm. 12), κοδράτίων (from Philostratus vit. sophist. II, 6 p. 250) to κοδράτος (vgl. W. H. Waddington, Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aristide, 1867, p. 32). So also I think κάλλιστος, the Roman Bishop (217 - 222) against whom the author of the Philosophumena shows such hostility, is behind Rhodon's reference to κάλλιστίωνι προσφωνων (Eusebius, Church History V, 13, 8). Stronger still is the case for the Μαρκιανοί - which Justin Dial c. Tr. c. 35 p. 253 mentions before the Valentinians, Basilideans, Satornillians, etc - being a reference to Marcionites. Similarly, one will have to read the Muratorianum Z 82-84: quia etiam librum novum psalmorum Marciani (= Marcionitae conscripserunt).

We now have a number of German scholars who support the idea that Marcion is a diminutive of Mark and my guess is that we can add a few more including Hermann Raschke when his books finally arrive here.

The Μαρκιανοί are most likely Marcionites, because that which appears in Justin will not be independent from Hegesippus where we read first the term Μαρκιανισταί. But that these others - i.e. the MSS. TcERB, Eusebius. Lat., Eusebius. Syr. Μαρκίωνισταί are Marcionites is demonstrable from Eusebius. V, 16, 21: οί ἀπό Μαρκίωνος αιρέσίως Μαρκιανισταί (so chat with AT (1) D).  It is correct to use Μαρκιανισταί for Messalians (Euchites) named after the moneychanger Marcianus; see Anrich, Aghios Nikolaos I, p. 425; II, p. 340 in f. The Marcianisten in Theodosius. Codex XVI, 5.65 (Act of May 30 428 = Justinian. 1,5,5) are placed between the Phrygians and the Borborites and are certainly  followers of the Gnostic Marcus. But Marcion's followers could be called "Marcianisten" and "Marcian" as "Marcion" is only a subform of 'Marcus,' this subform is not common, but see in the Christian Catholic Brother "Marcion" Mart.Polyc. 20 and the inscription on the Capitoline Base