Let's use the example we just cited in our last post from Irenaeus. Irenaeus is attacking the Carpocratian claim that the author of the gospel accepted the idea of gilgul haneshamot (גלגול הנשמות). The reality is of course that there can be no doubt that the original writer accepted the idea that souls from one body could enter another. Just look at Mark 5:1 - 20 narrative where the souls that occupy the body of Legion ask to be transferred to a herd of swine. Why include this stoy? Because it sets up the idea that Jesus can send the soul of one being into another in the section of text we have called 'the Phillips gospel narrative' (see my previous posts).
Just as the bad souls of Legion are sent to the impure bodies of the herd of swine, Jesus will eventually send Eliezar (Gk Λάζαρος). This might not be what the 'orthodox' Fathers taught but it is of no matter. It is certainly how the Marcionites, Carpocratians and other 'heretics' who accepted some kind of 'Christian' metempsychosis (which is never explained adequately by the Fathers) interpreted the Legion narrative.
Indeed the fact that some have argued that the resurrection of the 'rich youth' in Secret Mark seems to be a result of a 'pastiche' of references from other gospel narratives miss the point. It is clearly the other way around. All of the other narratives which resemble LGM 1 (i.e. the first addition to Secret Mark) are in fact reflections or 'confirmations' of this 'Rosetta Stone' buried in the hidden mystic text. As FF Bruce notes:
The statement that ‘the young man looked on him and loved him’ reverses that of Mark 10: 21, where Jesus looked on the rich man and loved him. The young man who is here raised from the tomb was also rich. When he began to beseech Jesus that he might be with him, he followed the example of the cured Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5: 18). [FF Bruce, Secret Gospel of Mark p. 12]
Yet there is another reference in the Phillips gospel narrative that is also being reflected in the passage - the same 'rich youth' of the Dives and Lazarus narrative 'beseeching' the angelic hypostasis Eliezer to 'comfort him.'
In other words, all the narratives of the gospel point to the redemption which is to occur in the 'missing' passage between Jesus's announcment that the 'Son of Man' will be abused, crucified and then three days later he will arise and the request from Salome that her children be granted enthronement and 'immortality.' It is impossible to argue that our existing canonical gospel of Mark makes any sense or provides any context for Salome's request. As we noted in our last post, Irenaeus struggles to make sense of it. The only way any of us can hope to figure out why the idea of enthronement and immortality come into her head is if we accept the notion that the 'rich youth' is somehow related to her and she has become aware of some mystical significance to his resurrection in previous periscope.
There is absolutely nothing in canonical Mark left to explain why Mark 10:35 - 40 (the request for enthronement) immediately follows Mark 10:32 - 34 (the statement that 'the Son of Man' will be raised on the third day). If scholars follow the typical interpretation of the 'orthodox' Fathers they would assume that 'the Son' is Jesus. Why would Jesus's resurrection prompt a request for enthronement? There was no pre-existing Jewish understanding that the messiah would be raised on the third day let alone offer up enthronement to believing disciples. The answer has to lie in the suggestion of to Theodore that the original author of the gospel deliberately 'cut out' mystical bits of his original work and allowed only a 'simple' historical narrative to float out in the public eye.
What did that secret 'mystical' narrative look like? It is obvious from every angle that it resembled a Diatessaron. Let's start with Irenaeus's cited commentary on the material. His first words make clear that he is citing not only Matt 20:20 (rather than the canonical Markan narrative) but specifically citing these words against those who argue that Peter and the disciples lacked complete knowledge (cf. AH 3.1.1) and that a 'secret wisdom' was established for the perfect subsequent to the establishment of this narrative (ibid AH 3.2.1):
"Then drew near unto Him the mother of Zebedee's children, with her sons, worshipping, and seeking a certain thing from Him." [Matthew 20:20] These people are certainly not void of understanding, nor are the words set forth in that passage of no signification: being stated beforehand like a preface, they have some agreement with those points formerly expounded (in the gospel). [Irenaeus Fragment 55]
The heretics in question are clearly related to those who use Clement's 'secret gospel' given the fact that both set forth an idea that the gospel of Peter was improved by someone subsequent to his death.
Yet I want to emphasize again that Irenaeus saying these these words "have some agreement with those points former expounded (in the gospel)" clearly can only be taken to have been uttered against those who say that they were properly connected with some other narrative which preceded them. There can be no doubt of this given his refutation at the start of the heretics who claim that the disciples "certainly are void of (perfect) understanding" and that the canonical gospel "sets forth passages of (less) significance" when compared to the 'secret gospel' established for the perfect.
What are these arguments that Irenaeus rejects from the heretics who put forward a 'perfect' gospel developed after Peter and the disciples put forward something for the 'simple'? Again as we noted in the last post we just need to turn around Irenaeus's argument against the heretics where he states that the true context of the faith of Salome is
not the resurrection, nor the preaching of His name, nor after the establishment of His kingdom but it was in what the Lord said, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes and they shall kill Him, and on the third day He shall rise again.
Yet there is something very strange here that few commentators have noticed. Irenaeus segues from Matthew 20:20 and uses Mark 10:34 instead. This is absolutely remarkable as the parallel passage in Matthew does not make explicit that the 'Son of Man' will actually die "And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again."
The problem I have with most New Testament scholars is that when they are confronted with something so perplexing as Irenaeus's use of the gospel in this passage they tend to just shut off their brain and mutter to themselves something like 'well there just has to be a reason why he does this; there's nothing here just move along.' The reality is that even Clement in to Theodore recognizes that the public gospels of Mark in circulation conflict with this reconstruction of this narrative. So why does Irenaeus develop his arguments from a text that doesn't exist? I would argue that it demonstrates once again that the fourfold canonical gospels were ultimately developed against a heretical text which was already pre-existent.
Scholars never get this. By Irenaeus being able to cite both Matthew, Mark and Luke against the heretical reading of any given passage he in effect has fulfilled the Biblical dictum "in the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Corinthians 13:1; Deuteronomy 17.6.) In other words, the fourfold gospel was ultimately created as a mirror of the original Alexandrian gospel paradigm - i.e. a 'faith' gospel and a 'more spiritual gospel' - only now the 'truth' of the public gospel (i.e. the synoptic texts) is established beyond a shadow of a doubt by three testimonies which agree with one another against the original gospel.
It is absolutely clear however that the Marcionites are witnessed by Tertullian to understand that Jesus denies any appeal to him to be 'the Son' of anything because that title belonged to someone else - i.e. the 'Christ' who is established in the so-called 'Phillips gospel narrative.' In other words, Irenaeus chooses two readings from two conflicting canonical gospels to argue that Salome accepted Jesus's resurrection as the basis to her faith. His point is that was Mark 10:34 - the clear and unequivocal statement that the 'Son of Man' (i.e. Jesus) would die and be resurrected that prompted her request for enthronement and 'immortality' for her sons. Yet as we have noted, this combination exists in absolutely no canonical gospel save for the Arabic Diatessaron.
The Arabic Diatessaron however only represents a Catholic 'correction' of the original reading witnessed by Victor of Capua and others which read only 'crucify (him) with Matthew. Now in the very late Arabic Diatessaron the 'crucify' reference is immediately followed by 'killed' as in Mark:
And while they were going up in the way to Jerusalem, Jesus went in front of them; and they wondered, and followed him fearing. And he took his twelve disciples apart, and began to tell them privately what was about to befall him. And he said unto them, We are going up to Jerusalem, and all the things shall be fulfilled that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of man. He shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and deliver him to the peoples; and they shall treat him shamefully, and scourge him, and spit in his face, and humble him, and crucify him, and slay him: and on the third day he shall rise. But they understood not one thing of this; but this word was hidden from them, and they did not perceive these things that were addressed to them. [Diatessaron 30:40 - 45]
The reason I am so convinced that Irenaeus is reacting against a heretical tradition which employed a Diatessaron is the fact that his statement after citing - what appears immediately after these words in our canonical gospels i.e. "these people are certainly not void of understanding, nor are the words set forth in that passage of no signification" - clearly echo what is present in the Diatessaronic tradition. In other words, the author acknowledges that the disciples misunderstood how to apply the 'Son of Man' being crucified and resurrected. We know however how these men interpreted these words. Peter applies them to Jesus and Jesus rebukes him for saying that he is the Christ. This is indeed another reason why Secret Mark is so invaluable to us.
That Secret Mark is related to the Diatessaron is obvious to anyone who has ever studied the Diatessaronic tradition. For when Clement cites the second addition to the gospel he notes:
And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."While these words do not appear in the surviving copies of the Diatessaronic tradition it is very noteworthy that the Diatessaron inserts the story of Zacchaeus at exactly this break in the narrative:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, there was a man called Zacchaeus who was rich ...I have always asked my readers - what are the odds that a textual variant found in the Letter to Theodore would approximate a strange feature of the Diatessaron? Clement does not tell us what immediately follows the second addition to Secret Mark but it makes great sense that it would read:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them. But there was a man called Zacchaeus, who was rich ...
We should note that in Secret Mark the disciples who do not understand the prediction of the crucifixion and resurrection of the 'Son of Man' are pushed aside by Jesus so that he can be with the sister and the rich youth. Then the mother of the rich youth (presumably) makes a request for enthronement and eternal life and in the next narrative she and the sister are not received so that Jesus can again be alone with the rich youth who is called 'zakai' (pure, cleansed in Aramaic but the usual substitute wherever 'zadik' appears in Hebrew texts).
The point of course is that it is the same 'rich youth' is the thread throughout the whole Phillips narrative. I can demonstrate this by Clement's argument in Can the Rich be Saved (Quis Dives Salvetur) where the Zacchaeus narrative is understood to be the conclusion of the long narrative which begins with Mark 10:17 - 30. Indeed that 'Zacchaeus' was a title or designated a ritual state of 'purity' after cleansing from some sort of baptism is clear from Epiphanius's testimony that the gnostics called themselves 'Zacchaeans' presumably owing to their having been cleansed by this heretical form of baptism (Epiphanius learns to call them 'Borborites' i.e. filthy as a way of ridiculing this claim; it should be noted that another Aramaic term maroq which means 'to cleanse' or 'to purify' would naturally be supposed by Hebrews to be the etymological source of the name Marqus if they were looking for such an explanation).
The fact that the Marcionites also had the request for immortality narrative in their gospel (cf. Epiphanius Panarion 43; Origen Hom Luk 25) - a gospel which Irenaeus deceitfully tries to pass off merely as a 'corrupt' Luke - demonstrates what Casey already notes about the existence of a 'Marcionite Diatessaron' from the writings of Ephrem and Eznik. Indeed von Harnack similarly and repeated goes beyond merely citing Markan textual witnesses in the Marcionite gospel to also find repeated mention of Matthean narratives there too. There is also strong evidence for Johannine gospel passages in a Marcionite gospel including the reference to the coming of 'the Comforter' who is clearly - as we noted - the one who receives the soul of the comforter Lazarus.
The point of all of this is that Irenaeus is clearly reacting against a heretical tradition that employed some sort of Diatessaron for its understanding that Salome is prompted to ask for immortality based on something other than what precedes this narrative in the canonical texts. I would suggest that something like the 'Phillips gospel narrative' (a structure common to all Diatessaronic narratives) has Dives and Lazarus immediately preceeding Jesus statement about the fate of the 'Son of Man' in Jerusalem. In other words, it is only after the rich youth is resurrected that he can go to his family and warn them about their fate in the hereafter hence the request for immortality an 'eternal life' - something which the Law of Moses cannot secure for its adherents.
Of course as we have already noted the missing bridge in all existing Diatessaronic narratives (save for the one referenced in the Acts of John) is the resurrection immediately following the Dives and Lazarus narrative). As noted in a previous post the Acts of John makes explicit that such a narrative did follow some Diatessaronic texts. We would need now only presume that 'Secret Mark' was just another variant of this form evidenced in the Christian apocrypha.
Yet there is yet another wrinkle which we should take seriously - the reference in our last post of Irenaeus condemnation of a heretical doctrine of 'the transmigration of the souls' which involves (a) the Carpocratians (b) a 'young boy' (or literally 'covered boys' in the original) and (c) the Dives and Lazarus narrative. I mentioned it only in passing but it worth taking a second look because it without question connects the Carpocratian gospel to the raising of 'covered youths.' This is absolutely certain and I think perhaps the clearest sign that Irenaeus knew something about the resurrection narrative in Secret Mark. It requires however some familiarity with the Christian apocrypha which isn't always possessed by Patristic scholars.
Most commentators want to read the reference as some sort of reference to ritual pedastry (something certainly at work in the reference to the Carpocratians in the Letter to Theodore). We read:
that they possess souls from the same sphere as Jesus, and that they are like to Him, sometimes even maintaining that they are superior; while produced, like Him, for the performance of works tending to the benefit and establishment of mankind, they are found doing nothing of the same or a like kind, nor what can in any respect be brought into comparison with them. And if they have in truth accomplished anything by means of magic, they strive deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert power; but, bringing forward pureos investes [i.e. young boys], and deceiving their sight of those who believe in them, while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our Lord, but Simon the magician. It is certain, too, from the fact that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven, that, inasmuch as these men die, and do not rise again, nor manifest themselves to any, they are proved as possessing souls in no respect similar to that of Jesus. [ibid AH 2.22.1]As we already noted the reference to 'possessing souls from the same sphere as Jesus' is something which is clearly attributed to the Carpocratians in Book One and the Carpocratians are explicitly mentioned at the start of the section which introduces these ideas, so there can be no doubt that the sect is meant here.
If we look at the original reference in Book One we see Irenaeus write of these same Carpocratians that they say that:
the soul, therefore, which is like that of Christ can despise those rulers who were the creators of the world, and, in like manner, receives power for accomplishing the same results. This idea has raised them to such a pitch of pride, that some of them declare themselves similar to Jesus; while others, still more mighty, maintain that they are superior to his disciples, such as Peter and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, whom they consider to be in no respect inferior to Jesus. For their souls, descending from the same sphere as his, and therefore despising in like manner the creators of the world, are deemed worthy of the same power, and again depart to the same place. But if any one shall have despised the things in this world more than he did, he thus proves himself superior to him." [ibid AH 1.25.2]
It is important to pay attention to the fact that even Irenaeus does not argue that the heretics say that they have received Jesus's soul but rather the one 'Christ' received which is 'similar to (that of) Jesus." The idea here clearly supports our assumptions about 'Christ' (i.e. the rich youth) receiving Lazarus the beggar's soul through the gilgul haneshamot (גלגול הנשמות) of heretical baptism (i.e. a baptism on behalf of the dead to use Marcionite terminology).
The Carpocratians also say of this soul that "it was stedfast and pure, it perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God. On this account, a power penetrated into him from the Father, that by means of it he might escape from the creators of the world; and they say that it, after passing through them all, and remaining in all points free, ascended again to him, and to the powers, which in the same way embraced like things to itself." [ibid 25.1] The Carpocratians are also recorded as saying that though this soul was "educated in the practices of the Jews, regarded these with contempt, and that for this reason he was endowed with faculties, by means of which he destroyed those passions which dwelt in men as a punishment."
The very same idea of an abuse of the concept of 'freedom' is also present in Clement's polemic against the Carpocratian exegesis of Secret Mark. Clement writes that the Carpocratians are those
who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desiresNow of course those who claim that Morton Smith could have 'faked' this reference from what is written in the relatively well known reference to the Carpocratians in Book One of Against Heresies. Yet let's delve a little deeper into the less well known allusion to the Carpocratians in Book Two which I think is even stronger than what appears in the initial mention of the sect.
The real significance of to Theodore is that it goes beyond the superficial reference to the heretics being sinners in the familiar Patristic writings and says instead that the 'second' or 'other baptism' associated with all these traditions (found in numerous sources including Irenaeus) is the source of all their wonderous claims. In other words, it is because of this 'other baptism' - identified as 'redemption' or ἀπολύτρωσις in AH 1.21.1,2 - that the Carpocratians and other sects claim to be 'freed' from the Law, 'pure' from their mortal sin and the like. The fact that the ritual is identified as an ἀπολύτρωσις makes perfect sense as the terminology literally means the price used to purchase a slaves freedom and both Lazarus and the adherence to the Law both find themselves in a servile state before the coming of Christ.
Yet it is important to stress that the Church Fathers themselves never spell out exactly what is going on behind closed doors among the heretics. They provide us with the most superficial of insight into the scriptural basis to their customs and even here it only serves as a set up for their ultimate condemnation. To think that we can use the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Eusebius or Epiphanius on their own to understand 'what was a Carpocratian' or 'what was Marcionite' is simply ludicrous. As I have said many times it is akin to using Mein Kampf as the basis to construct an understanding of Judaism.
While Irenaeus does not directly mention the Carpocratian baptism rite he does mention the fact that their interest in 'young boys' or 'covered boys' to explain the resurrection. This is almost as significant a reference given that the first addition to Secret Mark is only implicitly a baptism reference and explicitly a resurrection narrative. How do we know that Irenaeus's isn't just accusing the Carpocratians of engaging in pedastry? Well let's look at the reference again.
It certainly comes in the context of a Carpocratian ritual where the initiates receive a new soul which "perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God." This indicates the concept of baptism as the sacrament is frequently referenced as 'regeneration.' Yet in the same section that Irenaeus condemns the Carpocratians for bringing forward 'pureos investes' he mentions the docetic belief in Jesus as a 'phantom' which is common to all 'heresies.'
It is however the comparison of the Carpocratians to the practices of Simon Magus which make that their 'young boy' was resurrected. Irenaeus writes again that:
they (the Carpocratians) claim to possess souls from the same sphere as Jesus, and that they are like to Him, sometimes even maintaining that they are superior; while produced, like Him, for the performance of works tending to the benefit and establishment of mankind, they are found doing nothing of the same or a like kind, nor what can in any respect be brought into comparison with them. And if they have in truth accomplished anything by means of magic, they strive deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert power; but, bringing forward pureos investes [i.e. young boys], and deceiving their sight of those who believe in them, while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our Lord, but Simon the magician. It is certain, too, from the fact that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven, that, inasmuch as these men die, and do not rise again, nor manifest themselves to any, they are proved as possessing souls in no respect similar to that of Jesus.Now let's break down this emboldened reference one step further:
- the Carpocratians bringing forward pureos investes [i.e. young boys] ... to prove that they are like Jesus our Lord
- but they are not like Jesus. They are in fact like Simon the magician who brought forward forward pureos investes [i.e. young boys] to prove that he was like Jesus.
- Simon was proved to be unlike Jesus by the fact that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven, but Simon's boy did not rise again, nor could he manifest his boy to anyone.
- so then the Carpocratians who are like Simon Magus inasmuch as these men die, and do not rise again, nor manifest themselves to any
As Alberto Ferreiro explains in his book Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Tradition
A widow whose son had been killed by Simon Magus was restored to life by Peter. The apostle prophesied that he would someday become a deacon and then a bishop. (Acts of Peter 27, 9 - 12) The mother of a Senator begged for the resurrection of her dead son. She received her petition after she repented and converted. In this incident in which Simon Magus was present. Peter challenges him to raise the son. Simon Magus approached the body, which was at a distance, and manipulated it to make it appear to move. Peter recognized the feigned miracle. He ordered Simon Magus to step away to let the dead son move on his own. Once Peter healed the young man, he unwrapped himself from the burial clothes and called for his mother. [Ferreiro, Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Tradition p. 61]
What is of course interesting about Ferreiro is that he traces the development of this narrative in Christian literature to disprove later messianic figures like Mohammed. Yet its use against the Carpocratians by Irenaeus is particularly interesting as it comes from about the time that most scholars date the existing Acts of Peter.
Was this narrative ultimately developed as a satire of the mystic narrative of Secret Mark? In other words, does Peter's attempt to disprove Simon's resurrection of a 'rich youth' (note the youth is related to the Senator class). In the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus we see a similar narrative which bears an even more striking resemblance to Secret Mark. We should mention that in all versions of the resurrection narrative we see an attachment to a figure named 'Marcellus' who is a rich senator. 'Marcellus' of course is the Latin diminutive form of the name Marcus in the same way as 'Marcion' is in Greek. The Acts of Nereus and Achilleus takes the form of a letter from 'Marcellus' ultimately denying the resurrection performed by Simon:
Marcellus, a servant of Christ, to the blessed Confessors of the Faith, Nereus and Achilleus, greeting: The reading of your letter filled me with the greatest joy; for 1 learned from it that you are steadfast in the Faith and in good works, and that you are fearlessly fighting for the truth. Since it was objected to you, as you mention, that Simon the magician was a worthy and inoffensive sort of person. I will expose to view some part of his life, that from the little I say you may form an opinion as to all the rest. It is true that for some time I was one of his followers; but when I found out that he was a wicked and abominable child-murderer. I immediately left his company, and became a disciple to my blessed master Peter, the Apostle.
Now it happened that one day, as Simon was addressing the Roman people, and was trying to incite them against Peter, calling him even a sorcerer, there passed through the place a great crowd of persons, friends and mourners, who were accompanying to the tomb the only son of a widow. Peter, being present, said to the people who stood listening to Simon : "Invite those persons to stop and set down the bier. Whosoever shall restore the dead youth to life shall be acknowledged as a preacher of the truth, and all will believe the words of his doctrine. All the people agreed to this. [Molinari I Never Knew the Man the Coptic Acts of Peter p. 64]
The rest of the narrative follows a familiar pattern in the Acts of Peter literature. However the parallels with Secret Mark are clearly pronounced.
We should notice at once that whereas Secret Mark has Jesus leave the disciples behind so that he can raise the youth (and thus explain why the narrative was not kept as part of Peter's gospel i.e. he was not present as a witness), the letter of 'Marcellus' substitutes 'Simon' as a Jesus-pretender challenged by the true apostle Peter. It is also noteworthy that in the letter Peter instructs the boy goes directly to his house after the resurrection as we see patterned after the youth in Secret Mark.
It should be noted time and again that this that this is a polemical letter designed to discredit that such a resurrection ever took place. So Peter now declares:
If the youth is alive, let him speak, walk, take food, and return to his home. If he cannot do this, then it is evident that Simon is but deluding you with his tricks."
When the youth awakens and confirms Peter as his true reviver it is noteworthy that we hear:
Simon, now exceedingly frightened, by means of his art changed his look into that of a dog, and began to make his escape; but the crowd held him fast, and, dragging him along, were going to burn him alive
I do not think that we can overstate the significance of these parallels and especially that they take the form of a letter which is written in the name of someone who holds the diminutive of the name Mark. All these features point to an underlying connection with the reports about 'Marcion' in the Church Fathers.
Tertullian clearly references a 'letter' written by 'Marcion' which proves that he at one time held the Catholic faith. It is noteworthy also that Irenaeus makes reference to 'Marcion' being a student of Simon Magus. Tertullian also makes mention of Marcellus having made a large donation to the Roman Church before his fall from grace and his subsequent to get it back after falling back into heresy. Tertullian reports that over the course of his association with the Roman Church 'Marcion' gave 200000 sesterces a remarkably massive sum of money. No specific figure is given in the Acts of Peter but the family of 'Marcellus' is clearly capable of that much money.
In one version of the story we hear of successive donations coming from mother and son after their resurrection:
And on the next day after the sabbath she came to Marcellus' house bringing unto Peter two thousand pieces of gold, and saying unto Peter: Divide these among the virgins of Christ which serve him. But the lad that was risen from the dead, when he saw that he had given nothing to any man, went home and opened the press and himself offered four thousand pieces of gold, saying unto Peter: Lo, I also which was raised, offer a double offering, and myself also from this day forward as a speaking sacrifice unto God. [Acts of Peter 28]In another version of the story the mother apparently has a dream where she gives ten thousand pieces of gold to Peter. It is very difficult to argue against some sort of commonality between the two traditions.
Yet I would argue that most striking of all here is the image of 'Marcion' associating with 'dog-like' people as we read in the account of Philosophumena
when, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. [Philosophumena 7.17.1]
The point here of course is that it all comes together with an understanding of Marcion as Mark as Raschke first suggested. The role of 'St. Mark' in Alexandria long provided the Catholic tradition with a difficulty. He necessarily needed to be 'co-opted' by Peter. But what do you do with the lingering traces of things associated with his original (and 'heretical') gospel? You necessarily develop a scenario which allows you to carefully extract Mark from his original relationship with Jesus (still preserved by the Coptic tradition and their identification of their patron saint as the true 'beholder of God' viz. 'theorimos').
How was this ultimately accomplished? Simon Magus became a substitute for the original understanding of Mark's original discipleship to Jesus. Yes, it is becoming clearer through our recognition that Irenaeus and the Acts of Peter tradition are making satirical references to the Secret Gospel of Mark that Marcellus's original adherence only to convert to a faith in Peter served as the original vehicle for our familiar assumptions that Mark merely served a secretary for Peter and that he had no direct knowledge of Jesus's ministry (something apparently disputed as early as the Muratorian Canon). The claim now is that 'Marcion' (or Marcellus) only knew the 'false Jesus' Simon Magus (i.e. the man pretending to be Christ). The core of this understanding of course is clearly that this 'Marcellus' was really the resurrected son of the mother of senatorial class as Marcellus is also identiifed as a person of this rank.
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."