Have I Cracked the Secret Mark Code?

I wish I was more certain. Night and day, day and night looking at Greek text, English translations, scholarly interpretation all on top of a normal married life, children, work - a spoiled dog. It might strain the brain, even for someone with a head as large as mine. So I write this with some caution but ...

Remember how I wrote a few days ago that I thought there was something strange about the use of ἀκολουθοῦντες (Greek 'following') in the last section of the Stromateis? I noted that the word appears twice in Stromata 7.16 and a couple of other times in the Stromateis in a whole. I noted that at the beginning of the section Clement was definitely citing Mark 10.32 and 8.34:

... some, following (ἀκολουθοῦντες) the Word speaking (λόγῳ ποιοῦνται), take up for themselves trust (αἱροῦντι τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures (ἡδοναῖς), wrest, in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scriptures.

I noted then that Clement is clearly connecting Mark 8.34 with Mark 10.32 because they essentially explain what is going to happen at the end of the gospel viz.:

Mark 8:34 He called the multitude to himself with his disciples, and said to them, "Whoever wants to come after me ... and take up his cross (καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ), and follow me (καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι)."

Mark 10:32 They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going in front of them, and they were amazed; and those who followed (ἀκολουθοῦντες) were afraid. He again took the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were going to happen to him.

As I noted then, the αἱροῦντι reference in Stromata 7.16 is an allusion to the ἀράτω in Mark 8.34 (they are both forms of the verb αἴρω 'to take up' or ' to lift'). Clement retains the original Markan term ἀκολουθοῦντες and takes it to point to something mystical. Jesus is interpreted by Clement as ritually preparing someone from among the disciples for his 'end.'

Now the reader has to remember that Mark 10.32 - from the perspective of 'secret Mark' at least - introduces the 'hidden' initiation narrative which was unknown to those who only used canonical Mark:

And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed (ἀκολουθοῦντες) were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there ...

From the new material begins with Jesus eventually initiating one of his disciples into 'the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.'

Now we can begin to see that Clement is always using Mark 10.32 as the basis for the mystical instruction of initiates. This becomes clear in the next use of ἀκολουθοῦντες which happens a few paragraphs later. Speaking now about the heretics who fall away from Jesus's commands he notes:

Not laying as foundations the necessary first principles of things (ἀρχὰς πραγμάτων); and influenced by human opinions (καταβαλλόμενοι δόξαις τε ἀνθρωπίναις κεκινημένοι), by compulsion then, following (ἀκολουθοῦν) the end (τέλος) which suits them; on account of being confuted, they spar with those who are engaged in the prosecution of the true philosophy (τοὺς τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν)

I will demonstrate shortly that the terminology throughout Stromata 7.16 bears an uncanny resemblance to the Letter to Theodore. The unnamed heretics throughout the section are clearly Carpocratians owing to their celebration of 'the agape' (see previous post). I think Clement is here referencing himself as being the one combatting these wicked heretics who have strayed from Jesus's commands.

Yet it was only today that I stumbled upon yet another allusion to the specifically Markan terminology ἀκολουθοῦντες and it appears a few lines after the last citation (I don't know why I didn't see it before). It appears immediately following Clement's identification of the Carpocratians as homosexuals:

As, then, in war the soldier (τῷ στρατιώτῃ) must not abandon (λειπτέον) the arrangement (τάξιν = 'post') which the commander has arranged (ἔταξεν), so neither must we desert that given by the Word (ὁ λόγος), whom we have received as the guide of knowledge (ἄρχοντα εἰλήφαμεν γνώσεώς) and of life. But the most (οἱ πολλοὶ) have not even inquired, if there is one who should direct us (ἐξητάκασιν), and who this is, and how he is to be followed (ἀκολουθητέον). For as is the Word (ὁ λόγος), such also must the believer's life be (ὁ βίος εἶναι τῷ πιστῷ), so as to be able "to follow God" (ὡς ἕπεσθαι δύνασθαι τῷ θεῷ), who brings all things to end from the beginning "by the right course." (ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πάντα εὐθεῖαν περαίνοντι).

Now I have already noted that if the reader looks carefully he will see familiar ideas in the Letter to Theodore resurface in this passage (the homosexuality of the Carpocratians, their 'blindness,' their 'invention' and 'lies' added to a common gospel text which Clement confirms they did not alter in any way). Yet specific use of the word 'following' (or here 'followed' ἀκολουθητέον) takes us right to the heart of Secret Mark.

The reason I assert this of course is because ἀκολουθοῦντες - aside from being a Markan gospel terminology - was a term always used in conjunction with commanders and soldiers. The Lidell entry for the verb ἀκολουθέω reads:

follow one, go after or with him, freq. of soldiers and slaves:—mostly c. dat. pers., Ar.Pl.19, etc.; “ἀ. τῷ ἡγουμένῳ” Pl.R. 474c; with Preps., “ἀ. μετά τινος” Th.7.57, Pl.La.187e, Lys.2.27, etc.; “τοῖς σώμασι μετ᾽ ἐκείνων ἠκολούθουν, ταῖς δ᾽ εὐνοίαις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἦσαν” Isoc.14.15; “ἀ. σύν τινι” X.An.7.5.3; “κατόπιν τινός” Ar.Pl.13: rarely c. acc., Men.558: abs., Pl.Plt.277e, Thphr.Char.18.8, etc.; ἀ. ἐφ᾽ ἁρπαγήν, of soldiers, Th.2.98; ἀκολουθῶν, ὁ, as Subst., = ἀκόλουθος 1, Men.Adul.Fr.1.

So on the surface of it, it wouldn't seem at all strange that Clement would use the verb ἀκολουθέω in conjunction with a description of soldiers. But the difficulty is that Clement hasn't been speaking about the military up until now. He has been talking about the heretical mis-interpretation of the true gospel and the rejection of scripture. The military reference comes out of nowhere and is only used to introduce Christ as one who acts like a commander making 'arrangements' (τάξεως).

Now what got me intrigued even more about this passage is that Clement goes out of his way to tag on an explicit citation of Marcus Aurelius's Meditations immediately after the 'Christ the commander' reference:

For as is the Word (ὁ λόγος), such also must the believer's life be (ὁ βίος εἶναι τῷ πιστῷ), so as to be able "to follow God" (ὡς ἕπεσθαι δύνασθαι τῷ θεῷ), who brings all things to end from the beginning "by the right course." (ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πάντα εὐθεῖαν περαίνοντι).

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.11 = "καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο βούλεται ἢ εὐθεῖαν περαίνειν διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ εὐθεῖαν περαίνοντι ἕπεσθαι τῷ θεῷ."

Clement was writing immediately following the death of Marcus Aurelius's son Commodus. Commodus was killed by a conspiracy involving his Christian mistress Marcia and the next Emperor Septimius Severus so venerated Marcus Aurelius and his father Antoninus Pius, that he and the line of rulers which sprange from him are now called 'the Severan Emperors.'

My point is that Clement throws in the reference to Marcus Aurelius to re-assure those contemporaries - like Celsus - who saw Alexandrian Christian devotion to the 'commander' Jesus as something with ominous implications for the Empire. The loyalty of Christians was questioned because of the use of this kind of terminology, and because of it we see in the early third century, a conscious effort to reformulate baptism rituals as oath swearing ceremonies linked to the Roman military.

So where is Clement getting his inspiration for the idea of 'Christ the commander' anyway?  Let's take a second look at the passage from Stromata 7.16 again:

As, then, in war the soldier (τῷ στρατιώτῃ) must not abandon (λειπτέον) the arrangement (τάξιν = 'post') which the commander has arranged (ἔταξεν), so neither must we desert that given by the Word (ὁ λόγος), whom we have received as the guide of knowledge (ἄρχοντα εἰλήφαμεν γνώσεώς) and of life. But the most (οἱ πολλοὶ) have not even inquired, if there is one who should direct us (ἐξητάκασιν), and who this is, and how he is to be followed (ἀκολουθητέον).

The terms for 'arranging' and 'arrangement' that keeps coming up is developed from the noun τάξις which as Lidell notes has a specific military application:

1. drawing up in rank and file, order or disposition of an army, Th.5.68 (init.), 7.5, etc.; τὰ ἀμφὶ τάξεις rules for it, tactics, X.An.2.1.7; “τ. καὶ ἀντίταξις” Phld.Piet.12.
2. battle array, order of battle, “κατὰ τάξιν” Hdt.8.86; “ἐν τάξει” Th.4.72, etc.; ἐς τάξιν καθίστασθαι, ἀνάγειν, ib.93, Ar.Av.400 (anap.); ἵνα μὴ διασπασθείη ἡ τ. Th.5.70; of ships, “ἀποπλῶσαι ἐκ τῆς τάξιος” Hdt.6.14.
3. a single rank or line of soldiers, ἐπὶ τάξιας ὀλίγας γίγνεσθαι to be drawn up a few lines deep, ib.111, cf. 9.31; “ἐλύθησαν αἱ τ. τῶν Περσῶν” Pl.La.191c.
4. body of soldiers, A.Pers.298, S.OC1311; esp. at Athens, the quota of infantry furnished by each φυλή (cf. “ταξίαρχος” 11), Lys.16.16; but freq. of smaller bodies, company, X.An. 1.2.16, 6.5.11, etc.; ἱππέων τ. ib.1.8.21; so of ships, squadron, A.Pers.380: generally, band, company, φιλία γὰρ ἥδε τ., of the chorus, Id.Pr.128 (lyr.); “ἐμφανίσας μοι ἐν ᾗ ἔσομαι τάξει” PCair.Zen. 409.6 (iii B.C.).
b. esp. a contingent of 128 men, Ascl.Tact.2.8, Arr.Tact.10.2, Ael.Tact.9.3.
c. in late Gr., membership of the militia palatina (cf. ταξεώτης), Lib.Or.27.17.
5. post or place in the line of battle, ἀξιεύμεθα ταύτης τῆς τ. Hdt.9.26, cf. 27; “ἐν τῇ τ. εἶχε ἑωυτόν” Id.1.82; μένειν ἐν τῇ ἑωυτοῦ τ. Id.3.158; “τ. φυλάξων” E.Rh. 664; “ἡ τ. φυλακτέα” X.Cyr.5.3.43; “ᾗ ἕκαστος τὴν τ. εἶχεν” Id.An. 4.3.29; “τῆς πρώτης τ. τεταγμένος” Lys.14.11, cf. Th.5.68 (fin.); ἐκλιπόντας τὴν τ. Hdt.5.75, cf. 9.21; λείπειν τὴν τ. And.1.74, Pl.Ap. 29a, D.13.34, 15.32, Aeschin.3.159, etc.; “παραχωρεῖν τῆς τάξεως” D.3.36, etc.; but ἡγεμὼν ἔξω τάξεων officer on the unattached list, Arch.Pap.3.188, cf. Sammelb.599, OGI69 (Coptos); so οἱ ἔξω τάξεως staff-officers, aides-de-camp, D.S.19.22.

But more signficantly again the verb επέταξεν which develops from the common verbal root - τάσσω - is very important Markan gospel terminology.

The term επέταξεν appears the discussion of Jesus's power over the spirits:

What is this? A new teaching--and with authority! He even gives orders (επέταξεν) to evil spirits and they obey him (Mark 1.27)

and when:

Jesus commanded (επέταξεν) them all to sit down in groups on the green grass. (Mark 6.39)

and in another healing narrative:

"You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you (επέταξεν), come out of him and never enter him again." (Mark 9.25)

But none of these uses of επέταξεν can possibly explain the context of what appears near the end of Stromata 7.16. This especially owing to its conjunction ἀκολουθητέον after a series of references which link that term to Mark 10.32:

1. ... some, following (ἀκολουθοῦντες) the Word speaking (λόγῳ ποιοῦνται), take up for themselves trust (αἱροῦντι τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures (ἡδοναῖς), wrest, in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scriptures ...
2. ... not laying as foundations the necessary first principles of things (ἀρχὰς πραγμάτων); and influenced by human opinions (καταβαλλόμενοι δόξαις τε ἀνθρωπίναις κεκινημένοι), by compulsion then, following (ἀκολουθοῦν) the end (τέλος) which suits them; on account of being confuted, they spar with those who are engaged in the prosecution of the true philosophy (τοὺς τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν)
3. ... as, then, in war the soldier (τῷ στρατιώτῃ) must not abandon (λειπτέον) the arrangement (τάξιν = 'post') which the commander has arranged (ἔταξεν), so neither must we desert that given by the Word (ὁ λόγος), whom we have received as the guide of knowledge (ἄρχοντα εἰλήφαμεν γνώσεώς) and of life. But the most (οἱ πολλοὶ) have not even inquired, if there is one who should direct us (ἐξητάκασιν), and who this is, and how he is to be followed (ἀκολουθητέον).

Given the underlying context of how all these references unfold in Stromata 7.16 and given the undeniable similarity in terminology, imagery and context between this material and to Theodore, I have to conclude that Clement is making a reference - not to a passage in the canonical gospel of Mark but rather that of secret Mark.

For given all the evidence just cited, I cannot help but think that Clement is in fact referencing to Theod. III.3:

And after six days Jesus gave charge to him (επέταξεν); and when it was evening the young man comes to him donning a linen sheet upon his naked body, and he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the kingdom of God.

When you look at what Clement is saying in Stromata 7.16, he is clearly envisioning Jesus the commander having arranged (ἔταξεν) a teaching which is received as the guide of knowledge (ἄρχοντα εἰλήφαμεν γνώσεώς).  No passage from any gospel fits this description.  Indeed when I take a second look at the passage from secret Mark that many detractors seem so convinced is a homosexual reference - with the help from the conclusion of the Stromateis - I can see it for what about it made it so controversial, and why Clement had to add that little bit from the Emperor Marcus Aurelius's Meditations.

It was seen to be a sacramentum.  Yes, of course, Christianity eventually took over this Latin term for baptism but even this strange given that Latin already had borrowed mysterium from Greek long ago.  It was long established that baptism was somehow resembled military oath taking.  Perhaps this is why Epiphanius mentions heretical initiates into baptism being called stratiotics = 'soldiers.' (Panarion 26)

I am going to call it a night but it should be obvious when you start to think about all that Celsus says about Christianity and then look at what we know about the original Roman military sacramentum.  It all starts to make sense.