Yet Grant's level of sophistication with respect to ancient literature far exceeds my own. I had read the many statements in Against Heresies Book 1 and 2 and saw only a vague reflection of the testimony contained in Mar Saba 65. Grant takes that understanding to the next level with his familiarity with the cento poem (referenced in AH 1.8 and 1.9).
The only thing that I have to add to Grant's analysis is the question as to whether it was Irenaeus who actually makes reference to the 'gospel centos.' As I have already demonstrated in a previous post, AH 1.8.1 is unknown to the earlier edition of the report on the Valentinians preserved in Tertullian's Latin translation of Adv. Valentinianos. In other words, the reference to Homeric centos was added not only here - but as I will show shortly - in AH 1.9 as well and indeed follows a pattern of 'fox' references which conforms to the final editing of a number of Irenaean treatises in what is now the Libros quinque adversus Haereses.
What I am suggesting of course is that there can be no doubt that Irenaeus did not mention the cento gospels the first time around in Book One. This follows a pattern that we see in Book Three where Irenaeus certainly knows about the four canonical gospels - and indeed is the first Church Father in history to be familiar with them - but nevertheless he can't decide on the correct order of the texts within the canon.
My working hypothesis now is that given our demonstration from Unger's critical edition of Book One of Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus certainly had the familiarity with the construction of Homeric centos to construct new gospels out of a patchwork of lines from an original examplar. I find it hard to believe Irenaeus's claims that the heretics were the only ones engaging in stitching together new gospels as centos as he is so skilled at the process in AH 1.9. It seems more likely to me that Irenaeus was following a pattern of constructing new gospels from an original likely originally established by his master Polycarp (whom many scholars including myself identify with the historical 'stranger' of Lucian's Passing of Peregrinus).
The idea then that pre-Commodian Christianity was rooted in the Greek philosophical tradition opens the door to the idea that orthodox figures as well as heretical ones might have stitched together cento gospels. Indeed when you really think about it, the most receptive tradition for such 'patchwork gospels' would be our own given the fact that unlike the Marcionites and many other sects, we begin with a plethora of gospels rather than a single text.
On some level when the canonical four were introduced it must have been recognized that more than gospel was acceptable - an absolutely untenable concept for Marcionite Christianity. It is very difficult to reconcile exclusivity with multiplicity. For instance one would expect to find a limit on fornication with one wife rather than a polygamist culture. To the same end, the very people who accepted a number of imperfect gospels would be more open to the concept of cento gospels than those who held steadfast to a single exemplar.
In any event, I have always suspected that the Carpocratian gospel referenced in the Letter to Theodore might well be a text related to our canonical set. One might have to concede that this text no longer exists of course. Yet something like the Diatessaron of Tatian is certainly a distinct possibility. Look again at the original reference in to Theodore where Clement writes:
since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
The Greek here is:
Τοῦ δὲ κράματος τούτου ἐξαντλῆται τὸ τῶν Καρποκρατι 8ανῶν δόγμα
I wonder whether the term κράματος is a reference to cento gospels given the fact that they were a mixture or patchwork of passages.
The objection to this interpretation of course is that a cento is generally thought to be made up of reused lines from various works by a single author. Yet if we stop and think about it, the Diatessaron would roughly correspond to just such a text in terms of a multiplicity of alleged authors. Nevertheless the 'mixture' would be justified (and is justified to this day) on the basis that the same Holy Spirit or God was speaking through the various human vessels.
One more additional note that I have made here before. The term κράματος would be expected to be associated with the mixing of water and wine not a literary text as we see in the LXX:
Your body is like a round goblet, No κρᾶμα is wanting. Your waist is like a heap of wheat, Set about with lilies. [Song 7.2]
Yet one might also argue that the Roman Church began mandating the mixture of water and wine as a broader symbol of ecumenicism. It is worth reminding the reader that the Marcionites only used water in their sacraments and while Clement does express his support against unnamed opponents with respect to the use of κράματος in the Eucharist, one always wonders if Clement is holding back something even here.
Was the κράματος service for the perfect or just those of faith? I suspect that the departure from pure Marcionitism necessitated the hypocrisy exemplified by Clement. It was a matter of survival. One didn't want to be labelled a 'heretic' and be 'exposed to the dangers' of the Commodian age alluded to in Irenaeus' treatises (cf. AH 2.15,16) Clement was above all else a survivor ...
