It's seem Irenaeus's word is enough for them to go off on their endless flights of fancy.
I see things rather very differently of course. It is impossible for me to ignore that there was this place called Alexandria where everyone thought that the Evangelium and the Apostolikon echoed Platonic and Pythagorean doctrine. What you've never considered that there might be something to this? That Mark, the original evangelist might have been a Platonist? Oh well, you must have been spending too much time with these accursed New Testament scholars I just mentioned.
I don't understand how it is that they do this but they don't seem to think that Clement and Alexandria matter at all in the big scheme of things. Instead it is enough to dwell on what Irenaeus formulated out of his own imagination about 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John.' That they had some independent life of their own until they settled down on Irenaeus's nightstand like something out of a Disney cartoon.
Every witness we have from before the time of Irenaeus refers to these texts (or texts like them) as hypomnemata and these people know this but refuse to see the difficulty reconciling these original reports with Irenaeus's formulation. Hypomnemata are imperfect things, mnemonic aids which help remember something true but are not 'the truth' in themselves. Listening to modern scholars examine and develop 'all encompassing' theories about Christianity from these hypomnemata, is so stupid I sometimes feel like I am watching the Three Stooges (although the Stooges have more developed thoughts).
But then again I have to confess that I am Jewish. I don't belong in this 'faith.' I cannot ignore what the Torah was and is - even for the earliest Christians. And to see these four pathetic hypomnemata put up alongside Ezra's Meisterwerk and have everyone pretend that was completed in the other is just absurd. It is like claiming that a mudpie is the perfection of creme brule.
Something like Secret Mark must have existed in antiquity to convince people to join this nascent mystery religion. And we know that this must have been so because we have intimations about the existence of the Diatessaron or 'Gospel of Concord' as Ephrem seems to refer to it. There were other attempts to take these 'mental notes' and develop them into more perfect narratives and these finished products were ultimately preferred by the people that mattered (i.e. the Semites who came from Jesus's 'part of the world').
Yet I don't want to go down that road. I don't want to repeat arguments I have already made too many times at this blog. I am more interested in sticking with the Alexandrian tradition and understanding how it was that Clement and Origen and their predecessors could have taken lofty Platonic ideals and thought they were present in a gospel which now survives as things written on toilet paper.
Philo of course began this process of 'Platonizing' scripture but could carry this out because he had the Law - a much grander and more eloquent masterpiece. Yet the Alexandrian Church that grew up around his efforts and embraced 'the gospel.' What gospel was this? The fourfaced gospel of Irenaeus. It is impossible to demonstrate that this was the closest gospel to Clement's heart because it simply isn't true. It is just habit that makes it seem to be true.
Can anyone really claim that Clement 'embraced' the fourfold gospels as the grand revelation which justified his efforts to demonstrate that the principles of Christianity were in keeping with Platonism? No of course not. New Testament scholars just don't care enough about Clement to distract them from their worthless undertakings.
It is apparent that Clement thinks that the Carpocratians and the Marcionites thought that Plato was in their gospel. While we don't know what that or those gospels looked like, it is patently obvious that whatever they had it couldn't have been as uninspiring as 'the gospel in four.' But what is the alternative? The answer was made clear by Morton Smith's discovery of Mar Saba 65 a lost letter of Clement of Alexandria which makes reference to his communities most sacred possession the so-called 'secret' or mystic Gospel of Mark.
Now what really stands against the acceptance of this document? Habit? Intellectual atrophy? I don't know what it is but perhaps I have the advantage here of not having strongly rooted pre-suppositions about 'what must be true' about earliest Christianity. My take on the gospel is that it was the text which Celsus criticized for having 'stolen everything from Plato' (Contra Celsum 6.16). But then, it should have been obvious to everyone a long time ago that the gospel of Mark is already described in Platonic terms in the original Latin text of Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book Three, in the sections which justifies why the gospel should be four-faced.
The problem is that New Testament scholars just don't get out much I guess. They don't read a lot of other books that people like Clement and members of his Alexandrian tradition dating back to Philo were reading. If they did they would have immediately recognized that the description of Mark's gospel here is taken from Plato's Phaedrus 249c:
For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"--an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"--pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (kaqolikai) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom(quartum vero quod renovat hominem et recapitulat in se omnia, quod est per evangelium, elevans et pennigerans homines in coeleste regnum).[Irenaeus AH 3.11.8]
I know how people like to read this passage - Irenaeus was just embellishing upon the idea that the four gospels are represented by the four hayyot of Ezekiel or Revelations. But the last reference especially seems to be taken word for word from the description of the redemption of humanity in the Phaedrus, I don't know how it is that no one mentioned it before.
The chariot vision of the Phaedrus envisions a situation where the souls that have been sufficiently purified from their sojourn on the earth grow wings and fly up to the celestial realm. If it wasn't strange enough that Mark gets alotted the flying hayyot - i.e. the nesher (NSR) which is a cipher for the name Mark (MRQ) in Aramaic or Hebrew, by just moving the letters one place - I find it utterly suspicious that the surviving Greek text has utterly removed all the original references to 'wings':
Επειδη τεσσαρα κλιματα του κοσμου εν ω εσμεν εισι, και τεσσαρα καθολικα πνευματα, κατεσπαρται δε η εκκλησια επι πασης της γης, στυλος δε και στηριγμα εκκλησιας το ευαγγελιον, και πνευμα ζωης· εικοτως τεσσαρας εχειν αυτην στυλους, πανταχοθεν πνεοντας την αφθαρσιαν, και αναζωπυρουντας τους ανθρωπους. εξ ων φανερον οτι ο των απαντων τεχνιτης λογος, ο καθημενος επι των χερουβιμ και συνεχων τα παντα, φανερωθεις τοις ανθρωποις, εδωκεν ημιν τετραμορφον το ευαγγελιον, ενι δε πνευματι συνεχομενον. κυθως ο Δαβιδ αιτουμενος αυτου την παρουσιαν φησιν· Ο καθημενος επι των Χερουβιμ, εμφανηθι. και γαρ τα χερουβιμ τετραπροσωπα· και τα προσωπα αυτων εικονες της πραγματειας του υιου του θεου. το μεν γαρ πρωτον ζωον, φησιν, ομοιον λεοντι· το εμπρακτον αυτου και ηγεμονικον και βασιλικον χαρακτηριζον· το δε δευτερον ομοιον μοσχω, την ιερουργικην και ιερατικην ταξιν εμφαινον· το δε τριτον εχον προσωπον ανθρωπου, την κατα ανθρωπον αυτου παρουσιαν φανερωτατα διαγραφον· το δε τεταρτον ομοιον αετω πετωμενω, την του πνευματος επι την εκκλησιαν εφιπταμενου δοσιν σαφηνιζον. και τα ευαγγελια ουν τουτοις συμφωνα, εν οις εγκαθεζεται Χριστος. το μεν γαρ κατα Ιωαννην την απο του πατρος ηγεμονικην αυτου και ενδοξον γενεαν διηγειται, λεγον· Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και παντα δι αυτου εγενετο· και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν. το δε κατα Λουκαν, ατε ιερατικου χαρακτηρος υπαρχον, απο του Ζαχαριου του ιερεως θυμιωντος τω θεω ηρξατο. ηδη γαρ ο σιτευτος ητοιμαζετο μοσχος, υπερ της ανευρεσεως το νεωτερου παιδος μελλων θυεσθαι. Ματθαιος δε την κατα ανθρωπον αυτου γεννησιν κηρυττει, λεγων· Βιβλος γενεσεως Ιησου Χριστου, υιου Δαβιδ, υιου Αβρααμ, και του δε Ιησου Χριστου η γεννησις ουτως ην· ανθρωπομορφον ουν το ευαγγελιον τουτο. Μαρκος δε απο του προφητικου πνευματος, του εξ υψους επιοντος τοις ανθρωποις, την αρχην εποιησατο, λεγων· Αρχη του ευαγγελιου Ιησου Χριστου, ως γεγραπται εν Ησαια τω προφητη· την πτερωτικην εικονα του ευαγγελιου δεικνυων· δια τουτο δε και συντομον και παρατρεχουσαν την καταγγελιαν πεποιηται· προφητικος γαρ ο χαρακτηρ ουτος. και αυτος δε ο λογος του θεου, τοις μεν προ Μωυσεως πατριαρχαις, κατα το θεικον και ενδοξαν ωμιλει· τοις δε εν τω νομω, ιερατικην ταξιν απενειμεν· μετα δε ταυτα ανθρωπος γενομενος, την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος εις πασαν εξεπεμψε την γην, σκεπαζων ημας ταις εαυτου πτερυξιν. οποια ουν η πραγματεια του υιου του θεου, τοιαυτη και των ζωων η μορφη· και οποια η των ζωων μορφη τοιουτος και ο χαρακτηρ του ευαγγελιου. τετραμορφα γαρ τα ζωα, τετραμορφον και το ευαγγελιον και η πραγματεια του κυριου. και δια τουτο τεσσαρες εδοθησαν καθολικαι διαθηκαι τη ανθρωποτητι, μια μεν του κατακλυσμου του Νωε επι του τοξου, δευτερα δε του Αβρααμ επι του σημειου της περιτομης, τριτη δε η νομοθεσια επι του Μωυσεως, τεταρτη δε η του ευαγγελιου, δια του κυριου ημων Ιησου Χριστου.Indeed it seems utterly intriguing that the order of the gospels here completely contradicts what appears elsewhere in the chapter, the book and indeed the standard ordering of the gospels in all known New Testament canons. I think Irenaeus is clearly adapting a pre-existent association of Mark's gospel with the Platonic hope of attaining 'wings' after sufficient purification in the mysteries. I don't think most New Testament scholars can even 'think outside the box.' Irenaeus says that the gospel should be four - well, that means it must be four. But why assign Mark the 'eagle' when you'd expect the lion? Why assign him the final slot which completes the 'set'? I think it is because this Irenaeus was originally appealing his message to those who knew something of Secret Mark.
Now of course there are some who will wonder what 'Secret Mark' has to do with this whole discussion. Well, I think it was widely recognized to be the 'Platonic gospel' from which the Alexandrian tradition developed all its mysteries and its mystical interpretations. I highly recommend Itter's book as a demonstration of the manner in which Clement's Stromateis is developed from the very same section of text which references the wings that are associated with Mark's gospel - Phaedrus 249c-250c:
For just this reason it is fair that only a philosopher’s mind grows wings, since its memory always keeps it as close as possible to those realities by being close to which the gods are divine. A man who uses reminders (ὑπομνήμασιν) of these things correctly is always at the highest, most perfect level of initiation, and he is the only one who is perfect as perfect can be (τελέους ἀεὶ τελετὰς τελούμενος τέλεος ὄντως μόνος γίγνεται). He stands outside human concerns and draws close to the divine; ordinary people think he is disturbed and rebuke him for this, unaware that he is possessed by god. Now this takes me to the fourth kind of madness – that which someone shows when he sees the beauty we have down here and is reminded of true beauty; then he takes wing and flutters in his eagerness to rise up, but is unable to do so; and he gazes aloft, like a bird, paying no attention to what is down below – and that is what brings on him the charge that he has gone mad. This is the best and noblest of all the forms that possession of the god can take for anyone who has it or is connected to it, and when someone who loves beautiful boys is touched by this madness he is called a lover. As I said, nature requires that the soul of every human being has seen reality, otherwise, no soul could have entered this sort of living thing. But not every soul is easily reminded of the reality there by what it finds here – not souls that got only a brief glance at the reality there, not souls who have had such bad luck when they fell down here that they were twisted by bad company into lives of injustice so that they forgot the sacred objects they had seen before. Only a few remain whose memory is good enough; and they are startled when they see an image of what they saw up there. Then they are beside themselves, and their experience is beyond their comprehension because they cannot fully grasp what it is that they are seeing.
Justice and self-control do not shine out through their images down here, and neither do the other objects of the soul’s admiration; the senses are so murky that only a few people are able to make out, with difficulty, the original of the likenesses that they encounter here. But beauty was radiant to see at the time when the souls, along with the glorious chorus…saw that blessed and spectacular vision and were ushered into the mystery that we may rightly call the most blessed of all. And we who celebrated it were wholly perfect and free of all the troubles that awaited us in time to come, and we gazed in rapture at sacred revealed objects that were perfect, simple, and unshakeable and blissful. That was the ultimate vision, and we saw it in pure light because we were pure ourselves, not buried in the thing we are carrying around now, which we call a body, locked in it like an oyster in its shell.
Itter rightly points to the fact that the Stromateis come to be closely associated with the Platonic theory of recollection through its extended title: The Miscellany of Gnostic Notes in Accordance with True Philosophy.(Str. 1.29.182.3; 3.18.110.3; 5.14.141.4; 6.1.1.1) The Greek word for 'notes' (ὑπομνήματα) carries with it the sense of memoranda jotted down for the purposes of remembering.
When Plato says that "if a man uses such reminders correctly, by being always initiated in perfect teletai, he alone becomes truly perfect" he is basically explaining the arrangement of the very Stromateis, noting that:
Clement's use of the Phaedrus is [also] explicit when he makes the ironic allusion: “my notes are stored up against old age, as a cure against forgetfulness”.36 It is a play on Socrates' belief that writing is not a cure for memory, but only for reminding. A cure for memory would mean that the wings the soul lost in its fall to earth would be fully replaced. Quite clearly, writing is incapable of achieving this and so Clement comforts himself with his notes as pale reminders of those discourses. Moreover, he also professes that his notes will not interpret secret things sufficiently, but only to recall them to memory. [p. 119]
There is something hidden beneath the surface in the Alexandrian tradition and the reports which emerge from it which lead us back, not only to the unspeakable mystery of that Church but its 'secret' gospel.
But again, the point I want to drive home again is that if we accept Clement's almost total dependance on Plato and his Phaedrus, how can the idea that something like LGM 1 (= 'the first addition to the longer gospel of Mark' as witnessed by the Letter to Theodore i.e. the resurrection and initiation of the rich youth) - which was apparently 'mistaken' for a s sanctioning of ritualized pedastry or homosexuality - would be at the core of this Platonic text. Remember we are not like the rest who argue the question whether Mark could have written such a text but rather could the Platonizing Alexandrians of Clement's age have been devoted to such a text - even if it was mistaken for depicting pederasty.
These are two separate questions which scholarship until now has not fully recognized.
I would actually turn around this line of inquiry and ask - if indeed the Alexandrians possessed a gospel which wholly or partly developed many of its themes from Plato - how is a gospel with allusions or intimations of mysteries developed from pedastry in this tradition at all surprising?
