Eric Osborn's Terrible Book On Clement of Alexandria

I have to admit, I have always thought that Osborn's Clement of Alexandria is one of the worst books on Clement ever written.  It embodies all the superficiality of Patristic scholarship that I abhor.  Here is one of the typical stupidities of the book that get me so irritated.  On the very first page of the book, Osborn outlines the life of Clement by saying:

He remained in Alexandria until in 202 persecution drove him to Palestine, where he died.[1]

This is so often repeated in books on the subject of Clement you'd imagine that there is some solid evidence in the footnote for these assertions. Instead we get this:

[1] Two letters of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem (Eusebius HE 6.11.6 and 6.14.9), point to his death between 211 and 215.

Of course everyone just assumes that because Osborn has that PhD that these references will pan out. But just look at them and tell where the hell he gets these assertions. First HE 6.11.6:

He indicates that he sent this epistle by Clement, writing toward its close as follows: "My honored brethren, I have sent this letter to you by Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom you yourselves also know and will recognize. Being here, in the providence and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the Church of the Lord."

All this proves is that Clement went to Antioch after the death of Serapion sometime around the death of the Emperor Severus (c. 211 CE). How the heck this is used to prove that Clement died between 211 and 215 CE is beyond me.

Now we move on to the second reference mentioned by Osborn which does indeed reference Clement's death but in a letter from Alexander to Origen which could have been written any time before Alexander's death in 251 CE:

For we know well those blessed fathers who have trodden the way before us, with whom we shall soon be; Pantænus, the truly blessed man and master, and the holy Clement, my master and benefactor, and if there is any other like them, through whom I became acquainted with you, the best in everything, my master and brother. [HE 6.14.9]

I can't believe that all this 'certainty' about the date of Clement's death in 215 CE is based on this single reference. It's utterly shameful and it is one of the reasons why I almost never use Osborn's book. Nietzsche once argued that the unbridled need for certainty is the sign of a small mind. Osborn clearly has a small mind if this argument holds water.

Why does all of this matter? Why take such an interest in the date of Clement's death? I am starting to think that 'Theodore' of the Letter to Theodore fame might well have been Gregory the Wonderworker whose real name was 'Theodore.' Gregory came to Palestine when he was fourteen years old (c. 224 CE) to become initiated into the Alexandrian mysteries, ultimately latching on to Origen. If Clement's death took place at a date which allows for him to have corresponded with this Theodore a whole new window of possibilities opens up with respect to the context of the letter. Yet all of this can only be established when we ignore the stupid things written by people like Osborn.

The Mystery Surrounding the Person of Clement of Alexandria

I have been criticized by at least some 'bibliobloggers' with regards to the some of my published works. According to these people I engage in 'myth making' which compromises my ultimately efforts to get to the bottom of the person of St. Mark.

In coming days, I will review Thomas C Oden's new book about St. Mark which I am sure these people will find vastly superior to my Real Messiah. Nevertheless, it is hard not to concede that we are both dealing with material which is for the most part legendary and of little value. The question is always 'where is the truth to be found in all of these myths?' Oden's approach is to take the most 'historical sounding' details - i.e. that Mark was born in such a such a town and went to such and a place - and reconstruct a 'historical sounding' narrative. Mine, by contrast, was to assume that even these details are probably spurious, like a confusion arising from blending details of Sabellius or Arius or some other representative of St. Mark with the evangelist himself (I have demonstrated how this happened with Peter I in my Journal of Coptic Studies article).

In any event, my point isn't to review Oden's book just yet but rather to point to something I was noticing last night with respect to 'the historical sounding' story of Clement of Alexandria that every scholar repeats almost without thinking. You know, the story about him being originally from Alexandria, he left after the persecution of Severus and ultimately ended up in Jerusalem with Alexander of Jerusalem.  Even Jerome only repeats verbatim the account of Eusebius.  I started wondering to myself how much reliability there is with respect to even this historical narrative.

I can't help but feel that this story is almost as problematic as the inherited narrative of St. Mark. The reason is again that this particular narrative is developed almost exclusively from the arrangement of Eusebius's Church History and Eusebius's use of Clement is very, very strange. I don't think has been noticed before and I think it points to the shortcomings of scholarly journals and books and blogging as in fact a superior forum for investigating the lives of the Church Fathers.

You see whenever you write a book your publisher wants it to have a point. At bottom, it has to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Publishers generally don't like books which emphasize how unreliable and uncertain things are. They want to publish 'definitive statements' about topics. So it is that whether it is Eric Osborn or John Ferguson, a book about Clement is basically going to assume that Eusebius knows what he is talking about and actual go beyond what is written in the Church History about this elusive figure. Yet when we turn to Eusebius's treatment of Clement there is an obvious problem that few scholars ever mention and which I will address shortly.

Let's start with Eusebius's first attempt to give a general historical sense of when Clement was active. This occurs in Book Five of the Church History almost immediately following a reference to the reign of Commodus, Eusebius notes:

At this time Clement, being trained with him in the divine Scriptures at Alexandria, became well known. He had the same name as the one who anciently was at the head of the Roman church, and who was a disciple of the apostles. In his Hypotyposes he speaks of Pantænus by name as his teacher. It seems to me that he alludes to the same person also in the first book of his Stromata, when, referring to the more conspicuous of the successors of the apostles whom he had met, he says:

This work is not a writing artfully constructed for display; but my notes are stored up for old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness; an image without art, and a rough sketch of those powerful and animated words which it was my privilege to hear, as well as of blessed and truly remarkable men. Of these the one— the Ionian — was in Greece, the other in Magna Græcia; the one of them was from Cœle-Syria, the other from Egypt. There were others in the East, one of them an Assyrian, the other a Hebrew in Palestine. But when I met with the last, — in ability truly he was first—having hunted him out in his concealment in Egypt, I found rest. These men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed doctrine, directly from the holy apostles, Peter and James and John and Paul, the son receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), have come by God's will even to us to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. [Church History 5.11]

Any informed reader can immediately see that Eusebius begins with the words of Julius Africanus in his Chronographiai. Eusebius has a habit of using copious extracts in compiling the early episcopal lists. The quotation from the beginning of the Stromata is important because it sets up a later statement in the Church History identifying Clement as a 'successor to the apostles.'

In any event, the important thing for us to see right now is that Eusebius is certainly aware that Africanus places Clement as becoming known during the Commodian period (180 - 192 CE). Yet what is so curious about Eusebius's treatment of Clement is despite this fact, a fuller treatment of Clement only occurs later on as a kind of appendage to the narrative about Origen in Book Six. I will argue that it is this bizarre arrangement of material which has misled scholars to place undue emphasis on Clement as principally a third century figure.

Indeed Eusebius's first statement about Clement is quite ambiguous saying:

Clement having succeeded Pantænus, had charge at that time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen also, while still a boy, was one of his pupils. In the first book of the work called Stromata, which Clement wrote, he gives a chronological table, bringing events down to the death of Commodus. So it is evident that that work was written during the reign of Severus, whose times we are now recording. [Church History 6.6]

Now the truth is that because Africanus says that Clement 'began to become known' during the reign of Commodus and Origen was his student while a boy, almost everyone works backwards and assumes that Origen was born around 184 or 185 CE (i.e. the last possible date for Origen being a 'boy' student of Clement in the Commodian period and the statement elsewhere that he wanted to join his father as a martyr during the persecutions of 202 CE). Yet none of this helps give a date for Clement's activities in Alexandria.

It is worth noting that Origen never mentions Clement in his writings and that Eusebius can only connect the two men through a letter written by Alexander of Jerusalem. I would argue that the evidence would actually suggest that Origen was not a student of Clement for very long. This might well argue for Clement being forced to flee Alexandria long before the persecutions of 202 CE otherwise one would expect to find some statement linking Leonides's death and Clement's flight to this historical event. Instead all Eusebius says at the beginning of Book Six is that among the martyrs of Severus's persecution "these was Leonides, who was called the father of Origen, and who was beheaded while his son was still young." Yet notice even here that Leonides's identification as Origen's father is rather tentative. One could make the case that Leonides rather than Clement was Origen's real instructor and that Clement had left Alexandria long before the persecutions.

The next historical marker that we come across in the Sixth Book which helps with our historical knowledge of Clement is a reference to Origen being received by the same Alexander of Jerusalem. Eusebius makes reference to Origen being raised to the 'chair' of catechetical instruction in Alexandria and ritually castrating himself:

At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence. For he took the words, There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Saviour's word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal,— for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men,— he carried out in action the word of the Saviour.

He thought that this would not be known by many of his acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechetical instruction.

Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. Thereupon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom. But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly, and dared to include with him in these accusations those who had raised him to the presbyterate.

These things, however, took place a little later. But at this time Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him; devoting his entire leisure without cessation to divine studies and to his pupils. Severus, having held the government for eighteen years, was succeeded by his son, Antoninus. Among those who had endured courageously the persecution of that time, and had been preserved by the Providence of God through the conflicts of confession, was Alexander, of whom we have spoken already as bishop of the church in Jerusalem. On account of his pre-eminence in the confession of Christ he was thought worthy of that bishopric, while Narcissus, his predecessor, was still living. [Church History 6.8]

The interesting point here is that Eusebius has previously identified Narcissus as the Bishop of Jerusalem during the rule of Commodus. Yet interestingly the allusion to Narcissus immediately follows the reference to Clement in Julius Africanus from Book Five. The reason of course that this is so interesting is that when Clement is reintroduced again in Book Six as an appendage to the greater discussion with respect to Origen, the same figure of Narcissus is also reintroduced.

Even though Narcissus is said to be the bishop of Jerusalem, Eusebius introduces a story about him suffering 'slander' at the hands of many men and ultimately Narcissus has to run into hiding. We read:

But he could not in any wise endure the wickedness of these men; and as he had followed a philosophic life for a long time, he fled from the whole body of the Church, and hid himself in desert and secret places, and remained there many years. [Church History 6.9]

Now we have to remember that Narcissus has already been identified as Bishop of Jerusalem during the Commodian period around the same time Clement was last active in Alexandria. Now Eusebius is attempting to 'fill in the dots' to explain Origen's flight to Alexander of Jerusalem by developing a curious history of this Narcissus. Indeed we only return to the subject of Clement once again by means of this 'disappearing' figure of Narcissus. As we read in what follows in Church History:

Narcissus having departed, and no one knowing where he was, those presiding over the neighboring churches thought it best to ordain another bishop. His name was Dius. He presided but a short time, and Germanio succeeded him. He was followed by Gordius, in whose time Narcissus appeared again, as if raised from the dead. And immediately the brethren besought him to take the episcopate, as all admired him the more on account of his retirement and philosophy, and especially because of the punishment with which God had avenged him.

But as on account of his great age Narcissus was no longer able to perform his official duties, the Providence of God called to the office with him, by a revelation given him in a night vision, the above-mentioned Alexander, who was then bishop of another parish. Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he journeyed from the land of Cappadocia, where he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in consequence of a vow and for the sake of information in regard to its places. They received him there with great cordiality, and would not permit him to return, because of another revelation seen by them at night, which uttered the clearest message to the most zealous among them. For it made known that if they would go outside the gates, they would receive the bishop foreordained for them by God. And having done this, with the unanimous consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches, they constrained him to remain.

Alexander, himself, in private letters to the Antinoites, which are still preserved among us, mentions the joint episcopate of Narcissus and himself, writing in these words at the end of the epistle:

Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate here before me, and is now associated with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen years of age; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be of one mind.

These things took place in this manner. But, on the death of Serapion, Asclepiades, who had been himself distinguished among the confessors during the persecution, succeeded to the episcopate of the church at Antioch. Alexander alludes to his appointment, writing thus to the church at Antioch:

Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed church of Antioch, greeting in the Lord. The Lord has made my bonds during the time of my imprisonment light and easy, since I learned that, by the Divine Providence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the bishopric of your holy church at Antioch.

He indicates that he sent this epistle by Clement, writing toward its close as follows:

My honored brethren, I have sent this letter to you by Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom you yourselves also know and will recognize. Being here, in the providence and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the Church of the Lord. [Church History 6.10,11]

So now this already curious tale about a 'disappearing' and 'resurrecting' Narcissus gets even more curious owing to the re-introduction of 'Clement of Alexandria' delivering Alexander's letter to the Antiochenes at the death of Serapion (c. 211 CE). If we take the material at face value we would have Clement and Narcissus - the two figures linked as being active in the age of Commodus now both residing near Alexander of Jerusalem around the death of Severus.

We must keep in mind that all of these dates are necessarily quite vague as Eusebius generally only connects the lives of Church Fathers to the reign of Emperors. Nevertheless, it is curious at the very least that only after the death of Severus Clement of Alexandria decides to make a journey to Antioch. Both he and Narcissus appear as 'occultated' figures in Jerusalem. Absolutely nothing is said about the life of Clement before the trip to Antioch other than repeating Africanus's statement about his activity in the period and citing some absolutely vague biographical information from the opening lines of the Stromata.

Indeed in what immediately follows these lines we get our only comprehensive treatment of Clement in the Church History and it interestingly comes after a lengthy reference to 'Marcianus' in a section which tells a little about Serapion of Antioch (the bishop of Antioch whose death leads to Clement 'coming out' of his historical 'hole.' We read:

It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion's literary industry, but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter.

He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He writes as follows:

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.

When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.

For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetæ; (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on.

So much in regard to Serapion.[Church History 6.12]

I have long noted that 'Marcianus' here is a connected with the Aramaic term marqiyone which means 'those of Mark.' Already we see our first reference to a possible connection between Clement, the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark and the heresies associated with 'Mark' in the Patristic literature. Yet it can't be coincidental that Eusebius only includes a letter about this particular subject after mentioning Clement made a visit to Antioch at the death of Serapion. There must have been a well-known controversy associating Clement and various Alexandrian ex-pats living in and around Jerusalem with vestiges of the original Semitic Church of the Roman province of Syria (which included Jerusalem).

I will make the case to my readers that there is something in this description of a controversy between a 'gospel of Peter' which is at once related to a gospel 'of those of Mark' which bears a striking resemblance to the discussion in the Letter to Theodore. Perhaps Asclepiades was also known as Theodore? We shall likely never know for certain but it is remarkable that Clement should only resurface - or indeed 'come completely out of the water' as it were - at this historical juncture so late in his life in the Church History. Immediately after these words Eusebius introduces his most extensive statement about the person of Clement saying:

All the eight Stromata of Clement are preserved among us, and have been given by him the following title: Titus Flavius Clement's Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Philosophy. The books entitled Hypotyposes are of the same number. In them he mentions Pantænus by name as his teacher, and gives his opinions and traditions. Besides these there is his Hortatory Discourse addressed to the Greeks; three books of a work entitled the Instructor; another with the title What Rich Man is Saved? the work on the Passover; discussions on Fasting and on Evil Speaking; the Hortatory Discourse on Patience, or To Those Recently Baptized; and the one bearing the title Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against the Judaizers, which he dedicated to Alexander, the bishop mentioned above.

In the Stromata, he has not only treated extensively of the Divine Scripture, but he also quotes from the Greek writers whenever anything that they have said seems to him profitable. He elucidates the opinions of many, both Greeks and barbarians. He also refutes the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides this, reviews a large portion of history, giving us specimens of very various learning; with all the rest he mingles the views of philosophers. It is likely that on this account he gave his work the appropriate title of Stromata. He makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, and of Jesus, the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of Barnabas, and Clement and Jude. He mentions also Tatian's Discourse to the Greeks, and speaks of Cassianus as the author of a chronological work. He refers to the Jewish authors Philo, Aristobulus, Josephus, Demetrius, and Eupolemus, as showing, all of them, in their works, that Moses and the Jewish race existed before the earliest origin of the Greeks.

These books abound also in much other learning. In the first of them the author speaks of himself as next after the successors of the apostles. [Church History 6.13.1 - 8]

I have to interrupt the continuous narrative from Eusbius to draw attention to this very important statement for it connects back to something we noticed in the introduction in Book Five to Eusebius's citation of the opening lines of the Stromata i.e.:

It seems to me that he alludes to the same person [Pantaenus] also in the first book of his Stromata, when, referring to the more conspicuous of the successors of the apostles whom he had met [Church History 5:11]

Most people ignore these statements but I can't help but see that these references make a strong case for identifying Clement as Pantaenus who similarly is identified as being born in a period where he met the 'successors to the apostles.'  When Alexander says that Narcissus was 116 years old during the reign of Severus (d. 211) most commentators use this to date the bishop to the last generation of the first century.  This bears an uncanny resemblance to Clement's statements - and Eusebius's inferences - that Clement was also old enough to have met the successors to the apostles.

Indeed this idea that Clement had met the 'successors of the apostles' appears over and over again in Eusebius's narrative.  He says a little later in the same section on Clement Eusebius says that:

In his book on the Passover he acknowledges that he had been urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters [Church History 6.13.9]

And again:

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels [Church History 6.14.7]

Now I would be the last person to deny that Eusebius's account of Clement is confused.  Nevertheless it is important to acknowledge that there are strong circumstantial reasons for accepting that Clement somehow went into hiding in Jerusalem and assumed the name 'Narcissus' or at least that he went by another name to escape detection.  This becomes especially significant at the end of the section on Clement where almost every commentator since Eusebius has taken a 'wrong turn' at his mention of the name 'Adamantius' as we read:

Again the above-mentioned Alexander, in a certain letter to Origen, refers to Clement, and at the same time to Pantænus, as being among his familiar acquaintances. He writes as follows:

For this, as you know, was the will of God, that the ancestral friendship existing between us should remain unshaken; nay, rather should be warmer and stronger.

For we know well those blessed fathers who have trodden the way before us, with whom we shall soon be; Pantænus, the truly blessed man and master, and the holy Clement, my master and benefactor, and if there is any other like them, through whom I became acquainted with you, the best in everything, my master and brother.

So much for these matters. But Adamantius, — for this also was a name of Origen—when Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, visited Rome, desiring, as he himself somewhere says, to see the most ancient church of Rome.  After a short stay there he returned to Alexandria. And he performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great zeal; Demetrius, who was bishop there at that time, urging and even entreating him to work diligently for the benefit of the brethren. [Church History 6.14.10 - 11]

Almost everyone has taken Eusebius's allusion to the fact that Origen 'was also named Adamantius' to mean that Eusebius is here referring to Origen going to Rome during the episcopacy of Zephyrinus (undoubtedly Photius is the source of the confusion) and then to Alexandria.  Yet this completely contradicts the statement made at the beginning of Book Six that Demetrius was furious with Alexander for making Origen a presbyter. Scholars have to argue that somehow Demetrius 'forgave Origen' - something that Eusebius never says.

Indeed I would argue that we should note what the passage actually says.  Eusebius has taken a reference to Adamatius visiting Rome at this time (c. 199 - 217 CE) and inserted as the closing words of what is clearly an account of Clement's activities.  The term 'Adamantius' is clearly related to Ezekiel 28 (i.e. that Adam before the Fall was 'Adamantine' and so those who have regain the purity of that state are too) and must have been a title of 'the perfect' in Alexandria.  The idea that 'Adamatius' here refers to Origen simply doesn't make sense here.  The Adamantine individual returning to Alexandria at this time has to be Clement.  The inference being of course that the teacher who began his career in Alexandria and who fled to Jerusalem during the reign of Commodus (possibly being renamed 'Narcissus' to avoid capture) went to Antioch after the death of Severus and then Rome before returning to Alexandria having reconciled himself with the Imperial authorities.

Answering Professor Markus Vinzent's Query About the Underlying 'Jewishness' of Marcionitism

The sole reason I started this blog was to allow me to engage in stimulating discussions about topics that interest me. Unlike my wife, who only seems to care about movies and celebrities, I happen to have interest in the origins of Christianity. I don't have a clue how and why this developed. On some level, I think God is responsible for my obsessive interest in a subject that I have quite literally no obvious qualifications for. Nevertheless I have been posting some idea or line or line of inquiry just about every day since the passing of my father (a man who had absolutely no interest in religion and who constantly belittled my interests as brotlose Kunst).

The amazing thing I have noticed in the last couple of days is that this blog is actually making a difference. I know this sounds bizarre but while I have published any thing in my own name since my Journal of Coptic Studies article a few years back, ideas developed at this blog will be referenced in a number of articles written by really reputable people). For instance, I will be credited with inspiring a new article by one of my heroes Tjitze Baarda. I can't even tell you about the other two articles because I am sworn to secrecy. Nevertheless it is amazing how influential a 'breadless art' such as blogging about the origins of Christianity has become.

I mean we're all going to die so why is money the end all and be all anyway? My father spent all of his time worrying about things, which is perfectly understandable having gone through the terrors of World War II and concentration camps and the like. I respect him. I just don't know how he ended up being my father. I mean, I'm the bull that's not going to be stopped without having a bullet put in its head. My tenacity can fairly be described as 'off the chain.' I actually find it frightening some times. The only person who has managed to subdue me is my wife and I think that's owing to an inherited English reserve bu that's another story.

In any event, here I am with this blog and my having made contact with another of my favorite scholars - Markus Vinzent. Why do I like him so much? Well it's not just because we share an interest in Marcion. That's not fair. The truth is that Marcion represents the ultimate question in early Christianity. There are all these petty distractions - you know, the writings of the Church Fathers, their beliefs, their interpretations of the canonical gospels - and then there is the Holy Grail, which is Marcion and his Church.

Why is this so? I don't know really - it's hard to put into words. But the core Marcion logic just makes sense on a level that the rest of surviving writings in early Christianity don't. I mean that sincerely.

Indeed if we 'cut the crap' as they say over here in America, there isn't much in the way of sense and sensibility in the early writers of Christianity. The gospel as it stands now feels more like a story that is preserved third or fourth hand. I remember reading that there is an epic related to the last Emperor Heraclius preserved in Swahili among some Kenyan tribes to this very day. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have a similar feeling of distance from their original source.

The writings of Paul are rendered senseless now, having been reworked too many times by someone trying at the once attempting to inject new ideas into the text and obscure original themes. The whole state of the received New Testament is so dreary and dismal that even the idea of Marcion appears as something of a hero figure. You know, a literary Alexander, who can solve the Gordian knot in a flash. The difficulty - as always - is that our Patristic sources don't preserve the original material about Marcion as well as we would like. Very few people recognize that. They are all too busy engaging in the business of scholarship - i.e. publishing their hot air to help further their career.

The starting point to understand Marcion is that our principal source - Tertullian's Against Marcion in Five Books - cannot be the writing of one person. Book Three stands out like a sore thumb. It has been copied from some lost original source (probably a work by Justin Martyr) which has been simultaneously adapted into this work and Tertullian's Against the Jews (or more commonly known as 'An Answer to the Jews' for the sake of political correctness). Book Three is the key to everything - it and the opening 'confession' at the beginning of Book One which acknowledges that three different versions (some by different authors) were floating around in the third and fourth centuries.

Once you realize that the original source material behind Book Three could be simultaneously turned into a treatise against Marcion and the Jews you know something is up. All of our inherited notions about the Marcionites and the so-called 'anti-Jewish agenda' is complete bullshit. It all comes down to too many scholars who don't have a clue what Judaism is all about and who are too eager to accept the nonsense developed by generations of similarly clueless academics perpetuating an idiotic view of Marcionitism.

With this long and completely unnecessary introduction I can now bring forward Professor Markus Vinzent's inquiry at the comments page of one of my previous posts. It reads:

Here is a text which I had written a few days ago which will be part of a summary of the commentary on Marcion's Gospel - and which ties in so much with your own thoughts

Marcion’s Gospel provides us with a paradoxical phenomenon. It is in many ways a Jewish, even a pharisaic, but also sadduceic and samaritan response with the goal to reject a particular form of judgemental, law-abiding and limiting interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, while establishing a new Christian anti-law and testament. Marcion’s Gospel as part of his New Testament is this new edict with its core, the Beatitudes, set as contrast to the Mosaic Ten Commandments. This Gospel is the indiscriminately and unambiguously good angelic news contrasting the mixture of salvation and condemnation of the old prophecies. But as with all antitheseis, the positive carries all the traces of its negative counter-part. Insofar, his critiques were also admirers of his project and even those who did not accept the sharp antithetical character of his work and theology did not entirely miss Marcion’s point. Like nobody else before him, Marcion, through the antithetical nature of his Christian message had secured the Jewish tradition a lasting place within Christianity. Taken to the extreme of positioning Judaism as antithesis of Christianity, Marcion did neither neglect, nor reject, nor deflect the Jewish background of Christianity, but made it the necessary and even essential portfolio that provided the counter-messages without which Marcion’s own theology cannot be understood. His idea of the unknown was not based on revelatory idiosyncracies, but rested on an in-sightful and rational reading of the Jewish traditions through a radicalized and sharp-ened Pauline lense. In a certain way he is a very special product of the after-135/6 Bar Kochbar scenery, where the Hasmonaeans and Sadducees had lost their centre, the Temple, where the Pharisees had seen the land of Israel been given to the Romans and where the Christians had not supported the political fight against the oppressors. Marcion delivers the core principles for a non-violent position that even grants salvation to enemies, persecutors, to the ignorant and cynic: The incomparable, wonderful, delight-ful, powerful and astonishing love, love which endures, suffers, pays, but does not pay back, an anti-business economy of salvation, a peaceful and all-forgiving revelation

Vinzent is such a perceptive scholar I don't even feel qualified to add anything to this wonderful and concise summary of a subject that quite literally consumes the fire in my soul.  Nevertheless as he has asked me to add my comments, I will do so reminding my readership that I am completely unqualified to do so.

The historical beginnings for understanding Marcionitism as a Jewish messianic phenomena is to remind ourselves of something at the core of Abraham Heschel's Heavenly Torah - namely only the Ten Commandments were divine.  All the other words of the Torah were deemed to rest on the all too human authority of Moses.  The Samaritan writings of Marqe still preserve this distinction and Heschel demonstrates that the logic is at the core of the gospel teaching on divorce (i.e. God said one thing and Moses taught another).

Once we come to terms with the clear fact that the normative Jewish interpretation of the Pentateuch in the period before Marcion distinguished between 'heavenly' and 'man-made' Torah much of the Pauline interest in separating things 'according to God' and 'according to man' take on a new meaning. The person of Moses - and indeed other Jewish gnostic (used in the original Platonic sense i.e. a mediator between man and God) figures such as Solomon - becomes the focus of the Marcionite invective. For instance the Marcionites clearly questioned whether all the things initiated by Moses were divinely inspired as we read Tertullian write:

In the same way, when he forbids the making of the likeness of any of the things in heaven and in earth and in the waters, he explains also the reasons for it—reasons which keep in check that upon which idolatry is based—for he adds, Ye shall not worship them nor serve them. But the image of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, had no reference to the clause concerning idolatry, but to the healing of those who were plagued with serpents [Against Marcion 2.22]

Clearly Tertullian is going out of his way to answer the Marcionite objection to the narrative in Numbers 21. Yet it is difficult to believe that the Marcionites were simply 'writing off' the accuracy of the whole Pentateuch owing to the apparently inconsistency here with Exodus 20. The Marcionites did not simply 'expunge' all references to the Jewish scriptures in their New Testament. Many - if not most - of these scriptural references 'remained' and the Marcionites were apparently still interested enough in the Jewish writings to have had Theodotian translate the text into Greek.

Anyone who has bothered to read all of the surviving anti-Marcionite material can't help but see that the Marcionites developed interpretations of Jewish scriptural material. The Pentateuch, Isaiah and most especially Daniel are mentioned. I would argue that the original juxtaposition between Exodus 20 and Numbers 21 which Tertullian references but does not provide us with the specific Marcionite interpretation has something to do with the original distinction between 'divine Torah' (= ten commandments) and 'human Torah' (= the stuff written on the authority of Moses). Its difficult to know how the Marcionites specifically explained what happened in Numbers 21 but my guess is that they would argue that Moses was acting on the authority of a lower hypostasis, i.e. angels or even demons.

The clearest sign that the Marcionites were invoking the whole 'authority of God' versus 'authority of Moses' paradigm from contemporary Judaism is the fact that a few chapters later we see it come to the surface when Tertullian writes:

On that other occasion also God made himself little even in the midst of his fierce anger, when in his wrath against the people because of the consecration of the (golden) calf he demanded of his servant Moses, Let me alone, and I will wax hot in wrath and destroy them, and I will make thee into a great nation. On this you are in the habit of insisting that Moses was a better person than his own God—deprecating, yes and even forbidding, his wrath: for he says, Thou shalt not do this: or else destroy me along with them. Greatly to be pitied are you, as well as the Israelites, for not realizing that in the person of Moses there is a prefiguring of Christ, who intercedes with the Father, and offers his own soul for the saving of the people. [Against Tertullian 2.27]

I don't see how anyone can argue against the idea that Tertullian is consistently witnessing that Marcionitism developed from the traditional Jewish interest in distinguishing between 'things written on the authority of God' and 'things written on the authority of Moses.'

Again I am not sure that the Marcionites were really saying that the God who gave the Ten Commandments was the same as the hypostasis who is depicted as interacting with Moses 'on the ground' so to speak. The point is clearly that the Marcionites believed that there was a God who was higher or superior to the God who is revered in the Mosaic narrative. The Marcionites called this God 'the Father.' Nevertheless, we know so very little about the actual beliefs and practices of the Marcionites other than the fact that they distinguished between the 'Good God' the 'Just God' and the Devil.

I have always been inclined to believe that the Marcionites somehow envisioned the descent of Jesus as embodying the repentance of the Just God. In other words, that at the end of time the God who established the covenant with Moses repented of his creation and perhaps his original covenant. One must suppose that the whole need for God to offer himself on the Cross for the sake of 'saving all of humanity' must have developed as an expression of repentance. But to be honest, I haven't worked this thing out in my head completely.

The one thing that we can be certain of is that the Marcionites and the early Christians generally saw the temple-based religion of Judaism as deeply offensive and contrary to even what was laid out in the Pentateuch. My guess is that the first step in bringing forward the 'perfect religion' - the doctrine which completes or fulfills what was first established among the Israelites in the desert - is the destruction of the offensive building in Jerusalem. The Jews have went off to venerate demons and have become ignorant of the hypostasis who tabernacled with Moses in the wilderness - i.e. the Logos = Jesus. Yet on some level the self-abnegation of the Creator also clears the way for the revelation of the Good God.

It is difficult to make sense of the Patristic evidence with respect to the Marcionite division between 'Just' and 'Good' gods but it is found already in the early writings of Irenaeus and of course the second book of Tertullian.

I do think however that the core to making sense of Marcionitism is accepting the term 'gospel' as being rooted in the surviving Samaritan conception of besorah (= the announcement of the Jubilee). The Jubilee is declared on the Day of Atonement of the 49th year, announced in all countries over a period of just under six months (six months less nine days, because the Day of Atonement is on the 10th of the 7th of year 49), and then it runs from the first to the last day of year 50, which is also year 1 of the next seven years.

The Arabic bashîrah means annunciation, and is the normal Arabic word for Gospel. It is obviously the equivalent of the Hebrew bassorah (or besorah). Mubashshir (= Hebrew mevasser) means the person that carries a message; it also means Evangelist. Bashîr is a title applied to John the Baptist. It means herald.

The word Besorah, and from this the Greek Euangelion, comes from the numerous instances of the verb (always in the pi’el) and the derived pi’el participle mevasser מבשר in Isaiah and then the innovation of the use of the noun Besorah for the new literary form. The specific Marcionite application of this terminology clearly has to do with the underlying connection between the Jubilee and the abolishing of the ordinances of the Law. The presumed understanding must have been that with the coming of the one better than Moses the ordinances established by Moses were now useless and were no longer binding.

Is There Any Internal Evidence From Any of the Works of Clement that He was Actually Writing From Alexandria?

I have to admit I have always been puzzled by the complete lack of - 'hey, I am in Alexandria' - allusions in the writings of Clement. Even Origen gives us - 'hey, I just left Alexandria' - references. I wonder if there are any references I might have missed which allude to where Clement was writing from. Could it be that the missing opening lines of the Stromata do exactly this?

I also wonder whether Clement's reference to coming across the 'truth' about Christ in Egypt implies that he was no longer there when writing these words (dated to the beginning of the reign of Severus c. 195 CE):

Of these the one, in Greece, an Ionic; the other in Magna Græcia: the first of these from Cœle-Syria, the second from Egypt, and others in the East. The one was born in the land of Assyria, and the other a Hebrew in Palestine. When I came upon the last (he was the first in power), having tracked him out concealed in Egypt, I found rest. He, the true, the Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, engendered in the souls of his hearers a deathless element of knowledge. [Strom 1.1]

I also think the description of 'Pantaenus' (who or whatever he/it was) is related to the heretic Cerinthos (which literally means 'bees bread' in Greek. Now we confront the age old question - how is Clement's 'citation' of Marcosian teachings in Stromata Book 6 related to Irenaeus's verbatim citation of the same ideas in AH 1.13 - 21? In other words, is Clement citing Irenaeus or vice versa?

The obvious answer is that Irenaeus is citing Clement. Yet scholars just want to have Clement 'use' a 'Marcosian text' known to Irenaeus. I wonder whether the original report in Irenaeus is in fact a citation of the Stromata or knowledge that was passed on throughout generations of Alexandrian teachers from the time of Philo.

Why Sunday Was Never Originally Conceived as 'the Christian Sabbath'

A quick note. I remember growing up in Canada where quite literally the entire state would shut down on Sunday. No stores open, no liquor sales, no bars etc. Things have all changed in the last generation of course. Yet I was musing to myself that the justification for this practice had something to do with the eighth day being 'the Christian Sabbath.'

Nothing could be further from the original conception of Christianity.

The reason the new Law of Christianity is called 'the gospel' is because it develops from the messianic expectation traditionally associated with the Jubilee. The Jubilee is itself the year after seven Sabbatical years (so 7 x 7 + 1). The idea of course is that Jesus came after one year after a complete cycle of Sabbatical years and would usher in the fulfillment of the redemption foretold in Isaiah 61 and related scriptures.

At some point in the history of the religion, ignorant Europeans turned the eighth day into 'the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath.' The original idea was of course that the eighth day was 'one better' than the seventh - it was associated with freedom and freedom from the Law rather than traditional rules limiting movement, activity and work.

The reports about a 'libertine' doctrine associated with the Carpocratians is closer to the original understanding (albeit entirely exaggerated by the hostile Fathers) than European and North American ideas about 'the Christian Sabbath.'

When we hear about Marcionite 'antinomian' conceptions we are getting closer to the original truth. These too unfortunately come through a hostile Patristic lens. Nevertheless we are getting warmer ...

Help Me With This - Please Help Convince Me That This Christian Sarcophagus Image is Depicting John Chapter 11 Rather than Narrative From Secret Mark

As a blogger I often look for images to 'bring to life' my posts. The process is pretty standardized. Go to Google images type the subject of the post and look at the results and chose a picture for the article. In my last post I chose an image from the Lessing Photo Archive which is explained as:

The resurrection of Lazarus. Relief (3rd CE) on an early Christian sarcophagus. Cat. 41 Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome, Italy

But as I starting looking at the image I couldn't help but notice some details which might suggest that it is rather a depiction of the resurrection of the youth in Secret Mark.

The first thing that strikes me is that the tomb here is clearly a garden tomb like that in Secret Mark. Notice the columns and the rest of the details. Then there is the woman apparently praying that Jesus resurrect her brother. Yet compare the words of the woman in each story. First John:

When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there. When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

and now Secret Mark:

And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, 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.

Maybe I am not seeing things correctly here but why is the depiction more Lazarus than Secret Mark?

Ismo Dunderberg on the Baptism Ritual Among the Followers of Mark in Which Initiates Start in a 'Death-Like' State

Irenaeus takes special note of Valentinian rituals because he can call upon them as proof for his case that Valentinians were different from "ordinary" Christians. Above all, he recounts a number of Valentinian views about "redemption" (apolutrosis). His account shows that the performance of redemption as a ritual was confined to some Valentinian groups. Their identity is debated, but I am inclined to believe that these groups belonged to the followers of Marcus.

I follow the view that the entire second main part of book 1 of Irenaeus's Against Heresies (chapters 13-21) describes the views and practices of Marcus (13-16) and those of his followers (17-21). For this understanding of Irenaeus Heresies (chapters 13-21) describes the views and practices of Marcus (13-16) and those of his followers (17-21). For this understanding of Irenaeus Her. 13-21, see, eg, the translation by Unger and Dillon; Fredrik Wisse, "The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists," VigChr 25 (1971): 205-223, esp. 212; Nicola Denzey, "Apolytrosis as Ritual and Sacrament: Determining a Ritual Context for Death in Second-Century Valentinianism," forthcoming in JECS. 119. . 120.

Irenaeus calls this group a cult society (thiasos),(Irenaeus Her. 1.13.4) while he employs school terminology in connection with other Valentinians. Hippolytus alleges that a Marcosian bishop performed ritual of redemption, (Hippolytus Ref. 6.42.1) which shows that the ritual of redemption was from early on conceived of as a Marcosian rite.(The fact that a bishop is not mentioned in an earlier description of this ritual by Irenaeus (Her. 1.21.5) indicates that Marcosian groups gradually developed into a more organized church movement at the turn of the third century, after Irenaeus but prior to Hippolytus; cf. Forster, Marcus Magus, 155. 123) The Marcosian Valentinians performed the rite of redemption as a deathbed ritual, in which the dying were anointed with oil (or a mixture of oil and water) and supplied with an instruction of what they should say to the otherwordly gatekeepers [Ismo Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism p. 242 - 243]

I cite this section in Dunderberg's book - not because I think it is particularly insightful (it is not) - but because the author makes clear again that the Marcosian ritual began with the initiate in a 'death-like' state. Why is it these people ignore the obvious parallels with Secret Mark and the Alexandrian ritual described in to Theodore? It is enough to make you fall into fits of rage!

Clement cites directly from the Marcosian material in Irenaeus as if it is Alexandrian orthodoxy in his day. Schaff characterizes this parallel as Clement merely 'borrowing' material from the Marcosians. What the hell is the matter with these people? Marcus is St. Mark. Clement is secretly a follower of Mark. We know that from to Theodore. It's like banging your head against a wall with these people ...

Scholars Who Have Made the Connection Between Clement of Alexandria and the Marcosians

Returning now to the use of Matt 18:10 in the Ps.-Clementine Homilies, it is quite clear that the exegesis of this passage is not very different from that of Irenaeus' Marcosians. Even though the theological frameworks of the texts ... both view the “Face of God” in Matt 18:10 as the enthroned “form” or “body” of God, which they identify with Christ. The fact that the same exegesis of Matt 18:10 occurs in Clement of Alexandria is very significant, because Clement has read all the material discussed so far: Irenaeus' account of the Marcosians, the writings of the Oriental branch of Valentinianism, as well as the source used by the Pseudo-Clementine Homily 17. According to Colin Roberts (Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt [London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1979], 53), Adversus Haereses was circulating in Egypt “not long after the ink was dry on the author's manuscript" [Bogdan Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology p. 68 - 69]

No, Professor Bucur. The solution is that Clement was a Marcosian, or better yet - that Irenaeus's report on the 'those of Mark' (= the Marcosians) is a caricature from an Aramaic speaking author which has made its way into Irenaeus's Against Heresies.

A Quick Note to Readers

I just want to make it clear to my readers that I think the possibility might have existed whereby the double throne of Peter and Paul in Rome might have corresponded to TWO episcopal figures in the Church. We all know that the bishop of Rome is identified as the heir of St. Peter. Yet I now wondering if the office of the 'bishop of the nations' was developed during the reign of Victor to govern the whole Church and not merely the region around the city of Rome and Italy. Under this scenario Gaius was clearly the first 'bishop of the nations' and it was he who actually carried out Victor's policies of 'cutting off' the churches of Asia Minor. Hippolytus was one of Gaius's successors. But I wonder if early in the reign of Zephyrinus, Irenaeus also held that post for a few years. Just speculation right now, but it is strange how much authority Irenaeus seems to wield in his writings alongside a sitting bishop of Rome ...

The Tomb of the Apostle Philip Unearthed in Turkey

(Original Story) An Italian professor has announced the apparent discovery of the tomb of St. Philip, one of Jesus Christ’s apostles, at the ancient city of Hierapolis in the Aegean province of Denizli.

The discovery of the grave of the biblical saint, who was killed by the Romans 2,000 years ago, will attract immense attention around the world, said Francesco D’Andria. St. Philip, one of the 12 apostles, came to Hierapolis 2,000 years ago to spread the Christianity before being killed by the Romans, the professor said.

D’Andria has been leading archeological excavations at the ancient city for 32 years.

“Until recently, we thought the grave of St. Philip was on Martyrs’ Hill, but we discovered no traces of him in the geophysical research conducted in that area. A month ago, we discovered the remnants of an unknown church, 40 meters away from the St. Philip Church on Martyrs’ Hill. And in that church we discovered the grave of St. Philip,” said D’Andria.

D’Andria and his team have not opened the grave but are planning to do so soon.

“St. Philip is considered a martyr. In fact, the church built in his name on the Martyrs’ Hill is, for this reason, also called Martyrion, despite the fact there were no traces of the grave of St. Philip. As we were cleaning out the new church we discovered a month ago, we finally found the grave. With close examination, we determined that the grave had been moved from its previous location in the St. Philip Church to this new church in the fifth century, during the Byzantine era. We are extremely happy and proud to have discovered the grave of a saint whose name appears in the bible – this surely is an important discovery for religious tourism, archaeology and Christendom,” the professor said.

Lightfoot on Both Hippolytus and Gaius Holding the Same Office of 'Bishop of the Nations' in the Same City in the Same Age

They both flourish during the same pontificates ; they are both styled 'presbyters' and both live in Rome; they both receive only thirteen Epistles as written by St Paul, excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews; they both are men of great learning, though the Roman Church for some generations before and after this time was singularly devoid of literary eminence. And lastly, we have here an explanation of the otherwise not very intelligible statement, that Caius was appointed 'bishop of the Gentiles;' for Hippolytus in the Refutation speaks of himself as holding the episcopal office and addresses the Gentiles more than once as though they were his special charge1. If the designation 'bishop of the Gentiles' is not strictly correct, it was at least a very easy inference from his language in this work it was at least a very easy inference from his language in this work ; and probably he expressed himself similarly elsewhere, when the occasion demanded, as for instance in the treatise on the Universe addressed to the Greeks. [Lightfoot, Gaius or Hippolytus p. 104]

There are simply too many bishops co-existing in the same Roman See.  My guess again is that 'bishop of the nation' was something more than a bishop of a particular city.  I suspect it designated an office like the modern 'Pope.'  Yet more work is needed to sort things all out ...

Did Hippolytus Succeed Gaius to the Office 'Bishop of the Nations'?

On the whole the evidence seems to preponderate in favour of the view taken by Dr. Dbllinger that Hippolytus was the first of the Antipopes, and if only the Greek part of the Romish Church owned his jurisdiction, this may account for his being called 'the bishop of the nations.' (See Philosoph. x. 31, 32, 34, where he alludes to Gentiles as being under his special care) [Frederic William Farrar, Lives of the Fathers p. 89]

Another Wrinkle in the Complexity of the Roman Church at the Beginning of the Third Century

Photius Bibliotheca 48 makes a very explicit statement that has confused scholars ever since saying that Gaius of Rome not only was the contemporary of these two pontiffs but also was as a presbyter ordained by them "bishop of the nations." The citation of Photius reads:

τουτον τον Γαιον πρεσβυτερον φασι γεγενησθαι της κατα Ρωμην εκκλησιας επι Ουικτορος και Ζεφυρινου των αρχιερεων, χειροτονηθηναι δε αυτον και εθνων επισκοπον

This Gaius is said to have been a presbyter of the church at Rome during the episcopate of Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been ordained bishop of the nations.

While it has puzzled scholars for generations I cannot help but think that this is a reference to some sort special office akin to the later Papacy - a bishop of bishops - an office which was quickly taken away. At the very least, it demonstrates how confusing and complex the real history of the period really was.

Clips of My Hero Abraham Heschel

I Am Becoming a Big Fan of the Writings of Arnold Ehrhardt

Just a quick note to my readers. I had never read much of Arnold Ehrhardt's work before but going through the Framework of New Testament Stories I am quickly becoming a big fan. He really knows his source material and his inferences are usually quite reasonable. His story is interesting too being evicted from his chair of Roman Law in Germany in the 1930s and coming to teach New Testament Studies at the University of Manchester.

I don't know how many times I have said this lately but - is there any doubt that all best scholars are either located in Europe or connected with that continent in some deep way? What's wrong with North Americans. The truth is that as I was reading the book I just assumed he might be American because of his surname resembled a famous NASCAR driver. But as I got into the book I had stop and check his background because quite simply - he was too smart to be American. This was profoundly moving scholarship.

Does everyone know what I mean by that? This means that we have all read the same books, the same handful of primary source material but along comes someone who commands the individual passages and can connect it to other texts in a way that displays the ability of a virtuouso. I had the experience when I used to play guitar.

Anyone can learn a song, strumming a few chords to an easy rhythm. But then comes a great player who seems to do things which go beyond the seeming limitations of the physicality of the instrument. This Ehrhardt is like that and I think it is because of his command of the original language of the material (Latin, Greek etc.).

I highly recommend his book.  Yet Ehrhardt's obscurity is exemplified by my inability to provide you with a link from Amazon.  Truly a great find!

My Interpretation of the Muratorian Canon's Reference to St Mark as a Disciple of Jesus Was Apparently 'the Dominant View' (At Least Up Until 1964)

Thus the words 'quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit' refer to St. Mark. What is their meaning? The dominant view, introduced by Th. Zahn, (Harnack, ZNW, 24, 1925, p.9, n.3) suggests the reading 'ali-/quibus\ assuming that St. Mark had been present at some events of Jesus' earthly ministry and faithfully recorded them. This I find hard to believe. There is no reputable tradition that St. Mark had been a personal disciple of Jesus. In fact, the fairly frequent change of the position of the Gospel according to St. John was due to our Second and Third Gospels not being Apostolic in the strictest sense [Arnold Ehrhardt The Framework of the New Testament Stories p. 12]

Of course I strongly disagree with Ehrhardt's claim that there is no 'reputable tradition' that supports this contention. The Coptic tradition of Alexandria comes immediately to mind and the implicit inference of the Letter to Theodore too. But then again finding out that my reading of the material (which I thought was marginal at best) turns out to be the 'dominant position' back when scholarship still was something is interesting.

Arnold Ehrhardt on Irenaeus's Activity During the Episcopate of Zephyrinus

Ehrhardt (1964: 18, 11), who dates the [Muratorian] fragment probably to the episcopacy of Zephyrinus, 197-217CE, and who considers Irenaeus to have been one of the authorities behind the fragment, suggests that the fragment's treatment of the Apocalypse of Peter as a canonical book offers a terminus ad quem of 240 CE. [The Reception of Luke and Acts, Andrew Gregory p. 41]

And then the original reference in Ehrhardt's the Framework of the New Testament Stories:

If my analysis is correct, the Muratorian Fragment will appear as a product of the Catholic Church at Rome, probably under Pope Zephyrinus (ad 197- 217), the successor of Victor I. Regarding the first it will appear as a milestone on the way to the formation of the canon of the New Testament marking the occasion when the four Gospel canon was established in the Church at Rome. [p. 11, 12]

Why Dating Irenaeus to the Reign of Zephyrinus Begins to Solve the Mar Saba Mystery

After my last post on Irenaeus it should be obvious that no definitive statement can be made about the dates for Irenaeus's activities. All we can say with certainty is:

1. Irenaeus was 'young' when Polycarp's was active at 'the royal court' (whatever that meant)
2. He wrote Against Heresies after the Roman apostolic succession list in 3.3.3 was copied out from some source (likely the appendix added to the Hypomnemata ascribed to Hegesippus)
3. He must have written Against Heresies before Hippolytus wrote his Syntagma and all the other parallel copying efforts were established in the first century (i.e. the Philosophumena, Pseudo-Tertullian)
4. He was active when there were a number of Christians at the Imperial court AH 4.30.1

All of this evidence fits the material that becomes assembled into Against Heresies in the early third century date as easily as it does the traditional dating of the reign of Commodus (180 - 192 CE).  I would argue in fact for some of the material being established during the Commodian period but ultimately being assembled into a five volume collection by a later editor in the third century.  

The point here is that Clement of Alexandria's testimony regarding the heresies must be older than Irenaeus's. There are so many signs which confirm that Clement wasn't aware of Irenaeus's anti-heretical writings.  Here are a few:

1. Clement's 'innocent' use of the term gnostikos - i.e. he has no shame in identifying himself or his tradition as 'gnostic.' 
2. Clement's 'innocent' use of other gnostic terminology - i..e. identifying himself and his tradition as 'the perfect,' the 'spiritual class,' others as 'sarkic,'  'secret teachings,' 'depth' etc.  
3. Clement's familiarity and use of apocryphal gospels and texts. 
4. Clement's intimacy with heretical books and authors (and especially his citation of Marcosian material condemned by Irenaeus in AH 1.13 - 21 in Book Six of the Stromata)
5. the historical understanding of the how the gospel canon develops in the Letter to Theodore

I think Clement was clearly aware of the Roman Church and the books that it considered holy and went out of his way to embrace those texts and traditions.  Yet how much of this was part of an effort to extend his influence?  The obvious modern example is the effort of Jewish religious leaders to avoid the rabbinic legacy of anti-Christian and hostile Jesus references for the sake of the modern secular state of Israel.  

Eusebius cites letters of Alexander of Jerusalem which make clear that Clement was actively engaging not only Christians in and around Jerusalem but also paid a visit to Antioch.  It would impossible for Clement to have any influence among the Antiochenes without accepting the authority of the Acts of the Apostles.  The same can be said about influencing Roman Christians and the writings which reinforced that city's apostolic legacy (i.e. the Shepherd, Clement of Rome, the claims of Peter to have written or dictated a gospel there etc.).  

When we look at the writings of Clement there are no clear signs that Irenaeus's claims of a worldwide Church centered in Rome had already been developed.  It is also difficult to believe that these claims could have already existed before Victor's war against the Quartodecimanists.  Indeed the whole question of Irenaeus's position on the Quartodeciman controversy is perhaps the most difficult to make any sense of.  For at best Irenaeus seems to argue for a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on the date of Easter.  But this seems to be at odds with Victor's 'Sunday only' policy from the end of the second century (Victor dates as leader of the Roman Church are usually assigned to 189 - 199 CE).  

Indeed most interpretations of the controversy here are so utterly uncritical it is difficult to read them without wanting to run out of the Rome.  Yes to be sure Victor wanted to cut off those who did not accept the celebration of Easter Sunday (or whatever we want to make of Eusebius's testimony).  But Eusebius makes clear that the churches of Judea pointed to a pre-existent Alexandrian position on Easter Sunday that basically ignored or did not know of any 'authority of the Roman tradition' whatsoever.  

It is difficult to believe that if the Roman tradition had any long history of celebrating Easter Sunday that Irenaeus could turn around and argue for a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on the question.  Indeed it is unmistakable that Irenaeus cites the reconciliation of Polycarp and Anicetus - 'agreeing to disagree' - in response to Victor's intolerance of any position but what was - for all intents and purposes - the Alexandrian position on Easter.  

To this end, I see further evidence here of Irenaeus writing in the third century for it is difficult to imagine that Irenaeus could have contradicted a sitting bishop of Rome on such a sensitive question.  Indeed the fact that Against Heresies again manages to avoid the whole question of the proper dating of Easter is again quite interesting.  One may argue of course that whatever Irenaeus wrote originally might have been redacted in a later period.  Nevertheless the one reference to Polycarp is quite interesting as it again emphasizes his appearance in Rome and the compatibility of his teaching with the Roman tradition.  Could such a view have been promulgated at Rome during Victor's reign?  It seems unlikely as Polycarp was a known Quartodecimanist and Victor was actively 'cutting off' such people from the Church.  

One might argue that Irenaeus was writing from Lyons or somewhere outside of Rome.  Of course given the fact that the work was written over many years, the individual segments or parts could have been written anywhere.  But why the emphasis on Rome and Polycarp's compatibility with Roman teachings if:

1. Polycarp had in fact very little in the way of ties to Rome
2. Roman hostility to his position on the dating of Easter could have developed into such full fledged hatred as Victor embodied
3. The hostility of Gaius of Rome to the Johannine tradition further emphasizes Polycarp's ultimate incompatibility with Roman tradition

I would argue instead that any attempt to reconcile Polycarp to the Roman tradition could only have happened after Victor's attempts to marginalize the Quartodecimanists in the closing years of the second century.  In other words, Irenaeus's writings better fit the reign of Zephyrinus (199 - 217 CE).  This is of course not to say that Irenaeus couldn't or didn't write during the previous period.  But the most sensible way of reading the material is that after Victor's ultimately unsuccessful attempts to subdue the Quartodecimanists, Irenaeus encouraged a policy of toleration towards their tradition.

Under this scenario we can also begin to comprehend Hippolytus's antipathy towards Callixtus a little better too.  In the Philosophumena for example Callixtus's tenure as deacon (or 'second in command') during Zephyrinus's reign is completely ignored and instead the narrative focuses on 'hanky panky' that took place during the reign of Victor with the Imperial government.  Victor was instrumental in a 'deal' between Commodus's concubine Marcia and an influential Christian from Rome Carpophorus to free Callixtus from the mines.  If Irenaeus had influence with Zephyrinus and then Callixtus was picked over Hippolytus for the throne of the episcopate, the Philosophumena's dredging up 'questionable associations' during Victor's tenure can be viewed as an effort to smear Callixtus.

It is also worth noting that Hippolytus also becomes a 'champion' at tackling Gaius of Rome's attack against the Johannine writings.  Irenaeus also makes reference to such hostility but the most important thing to take notice of is Irenaeus deliberate attempt to avoid directly linking Polycarp to John in Against Heresies. Few people have ever noticed that the two ships seem to sail past one another with any direct reference or association (other than their appearing in the same paragraph together):

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

What makes this so interesting is that it is utterly cryptic. If you know ahead of time that Polycarp was John's devoted student then you 'see' the connection but if you read these references without such knowledge you'd think we have to ultimately unrelated figures in the history of the Church being juxtaposed against the heresies.

The point here of course is that the way the paragraph is arranged here speaks to the difficulty that the Quartodeciman position traditionally had in Rome even down to the time Irenaeus was writing.  Unlike the Philosophumena, the Quartodecimanists are not listed as 'heresies' in Book One.  The Gospel of John is clearly the gospel which upheld the Quartodeciman dating of Easter.  Polycarp was again a noted Quartodecimanist.  Yet Irenaeus does his best to avoid the whole question of the dating of Easter in Against Heresies and in fact goes so far to avoid linking Polycarp and the 'Asiatic churches' to John.

Indeed instead of referencing John's legacy as an old man and the influence he had over the churches there, Polycarp and his legacy as an old man becomes the "things all the Asiatic Churches testify as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time."  This is clearly an attempt to sidestep the Quartodeciman question and the legacy of John.  Why so?  Because it must have already been established that John's teaching was incompatible with the truths accepted by the previous bishop of Rome - i.e. Victor.

Leaving aside the question of whether 'Gaius of Rome' and 'Victor' were in fact one and the same person (i.e. Hippolytus's attacks against the sitting bishop Callixtus were coupled by a similar assault on a previous occupant of the chair) what this brings to light is the absolutely unlikelihood that Against Heresies could have been written at the end of the second century.  How could Victor have accepted the Gospel of John as canonical when it supported the Quartodeciman dating of Easter?  The more likely scenario is of course that:

1. Irenaeus wrote most of Against Heresies during the time Zephyrinus sat on the episcopal throne
2. that the Imperial court referenced as having many Christians is in fact that of Severus Septimius (193 - 211 CE).  On the great number of Christians in Severus's court consider the wet nurse of Severus's eldest son Caracalla (Tertullian, Ad Scap. 4: "lacte Christiano educatus." Cf. on this, Hist. Aug. Car. 1: The little Caracalla played with a Jewish boy. Jews and Christians could still be confused by pagans), Severus's alleged healing by Proculus (Tert. Ad Scap. 4), the graffito of Alexamenos, as well as a number of studies which confirm this presence through burial inscriptions at Rome
3. the canonical gospel being divided into four was an attempt an ecumenism (i.e. to reconcile the Quartodeciman and pro-Alexandrian factions)
4. that Rome became chosen as the new home for this reconciled Church (and thus instantly drew the support of the Asian and Syrian churches who resented the growing influence of Alexandria in the region)
5. the Alexandrian tradition had traditionally been referenced among Syriac speaking Christians as marqiyone (= 'Markan') and seperate reports became assembled into Irenaeus's anti-heretical compendium as 'Marcosian' and 'Marcionite' 
6. Clement of Alexandria's 'mystic' gospel of Mark was one and the same with the gospel of both the Marcosians and the Marcionites.  

I think this is a very workable solution to the manner in which the New Testament canon was ultimately introduced to the contemporary world in the third century.  We must remember that nothing in the writings of Clement suggest that he had any knowledge of the sanctity of a gospel divided into four.  It is with Origen that this reality is established and that this means that it was only a generation earlier that the canon was established.  Tertullian too was only reflecting a recent development.

I have discovered that while not explicitly confirming a third century dating of Irenaeus, Arnold Ehrhardt helps provide some context for making this a distinct possibility.  More on that later ...

Parallels Between Academic Discussions of Clement's Letter to Theodore and Justin's Lost Treatise on the Resurrection (Save Only for the Lack of Character Assassination and the Accusations of Forgery With Respect to Justin's Lost Text)

We have to regret the loss of a work which Justin wrote against all the heretical sects of his day, and of his book against Marcion. Whether the fragment of a work on the resurrection, which John of Damascus in the eighth century published under Justin's name, really belongs to him, is extremely doubtful : Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius, knew nothing of any such work. Their silence, however, is no proof that it was not his. [General history of the Christian religion and church, Volume 1, August Neander, Joseph Torrey, Karl Ferdinand, Theodor Schneider p. 670]

Rethinking Irenaeus

Everyone assumes that Irenaeus lived and wrote during the Commodian period. But what is the evidence in support of this? I have always thought the evidence for any connection with Lyons is unconvincing. Irenaeus says that he say Polycarp 'in the royal court' when he was young so that could mean that as recently as the middle of the second century Irenaeus was still a boy. Does the Moscow manuscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp really hold any weight - i.e. where it is said that Irenaeus was in Rome when Polycarp died? He could have been young in Rome.

There are very few autobiographical references in Against Heresies. In Book Four he declares that there were many Christians in the Imperial court. Yet only the Antonine period (161 - 177 CE) would exclude that possibility.

I guess the one piece of evidence on which the whole dating of Irenaeus hangs is the famous catalogue of the Roman bishops given by Irenaeus in AH 3.3.3, Eleutherius is the last one mentioned. It is generally assumed that because Irenaeus does not mention Victor that Against Heresies was written during the Commodian period (owing to the fact that Eleutherius's reign is said to have been either 174 - 189 (or 171 or 177 - 185 or 193 according to Vatican sources).

Yet there are other possibilities. Many others beside me have wondered whether Irenaeus is actually citing the words of the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus here. In other words, the 'now' associated with Eleutherius is a reference to the list which appears as a kind of appendix of the original work written during the reign of Antoninus Pius:

From this document [i.e. the Hypomnemata], whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.

To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,(1) departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. [AH 3.3.3-4]

I have always read this material as if Polycarp was the author of the appendix to the Hegesippus and that Eleutherius's reign might well have started as early as 164 CE. Nevertheless the idea that Clement is only citing something from an earlier writer who lived during the reign of Eleutherius is a distinct possibility.

The reason this is so important for me is that I can't help but wonder if the fourfold gospel which Irenaeus witnesses for the first time in Book Three might well have been written closer to the turn of the third century. Is it also possible that Irenaeus's information about the Marcosians is actually from hostile 'Ebionites' or Jewish Christians coming into contact with Alexandrian Christians in Palestine? In other words the prayers preserved in Aramaic (Hebrew) throughout are only so because the original witnesses spoke (and wrote) in Aramaic. The Marcosians were actually Greek speaking (as seems to be indicated by the other statements of Irenaeus).

Under this scenario, the Ebionites made references to people like Clement of Alexandria as marqiyone and these original reports developed in two ways - (a) as Irenaeus's testimony regarding the 'Marcosians' (owing to his efforts to translate the original material and then (b) Clement of Alexandria's increasingly frequent allusions to 'those of Marcion' (starting in Book Two of the Stromata but more frequently in Book Three where they are almost a caricature of Clement himself - i.e. Platonizing ascetics). Gregory Nazianzus and many other educated fourth and fifth century writers realize that the two reports go back to one original sect and fuse them together.

The main idea here would be that Clement of Alexandria fled Alexandria to Jerusalem during the Commodian period, writing throughout the reign of the son of Marcus Aurelius and that Irenaeus only began writing the material which would become Against Heresies in the latter half of the rule of Commodus but imperfect knowledge of the two terminologies.

Understanding Clement's Secret Teachings In Light of Plato's

'We need not fear any secret teachings: Plato did not consider his thinking on the principles as secret (aporreta), but as not prematurely communicable (aprorretra) (cf. Phaedr. 275de, Laws 968e)." [Thomas Alexander Szlezák, Reading Plato p. 112]

Could Clement of Alexandria's Role in Jerusalem Have Included Establishing the Alexandrian Liturgy There?

Here is what Alexander of Jerusalem says about his role in Jerusalem in a letter to the Antiochene Church about his impending visit in the Syrian capitol:

By the providence of God he [Clement] hath been with us [the Jerusalem Patriarchate], and hath much established and augmented the Church. [HE 6.11]

What else can 'establishing' the Jerusalem Church imply other than having a role in establishing, modifying or introducing its liturgy?

World's Earliest Use of a Question Mark Discovered in a Fifth Century Syriac Manuscript

(Original Story PhysOrg.com) -- Cambridge University manuscript specialist, Dr. Chip Coakley has identified what may be the world’s earliest example of a question mark. The symbol in question is two dots, one above the other, similar in appearance to a colon, rather than the familiar squiggle of the modern question mark. The double dot symbol appears in Syriac manuscripts of the Bible dating back to the fifth century.

Syriac is a language of the Middle East with a large Christian literature and its golden age was in the centuries before the rise of Islam. Syriac studies are blessed by the survival of a collection of very early manuscripts, the remnants of one derelict monastery library. In the 1840s, the British Museum stumped up almost £5000 to buy them, and scholars have lived off this purchase ever since.

Manuscripts of the Bible are not even the majority of the collection now in the British Library, but they have their special points of interest. One of these is the way that the graceful and flowing Syriac script is peppered with dots. Some of these dots are well understood, but some are not – some, indeed, probably not even by the scribes, who did not copy them consistently. All this made for a confusing picture, and it needed a patient scholar to start to make sense of it.

One step at least has been taken by Dr. Coakley, a manuscript specialist at Cambridge University Library who teaches Syriac to students in the Divinity and Middle Eastern Studies faculties. “When you are sitting round a table reading a Syriac text with students, they ask all kinds of questions – like what the heck does this or that dot mean – and you want to be able to answer them,” said Dr. Coakley. “In addition, as I’ve got older I’ve got fascinated by smaller and smaller things like punctuation marks.”

The double dot mark, known to later grammarians as zawga elaya, is written above a word near the start of a sentence to tell the reader that it is a question. It doesn’t appear on all questions: ones with a wh- word don’t need it, just as in English ‘Who is it’ can only be a question (although we use a question mark anyway). But a question like ‘You’re going away?’ needs the question mark to be understood; and in Syriac, zawga elaya marks just these otherwise ambiguous expressions.

“Reading aloud, the same function is served by a rising tone of voice – or at least it is in English – and it is interesting to ponder whether zawga elaya really marks the grammar of the question, or whether it is a direction to someone reading the Bible aloud to modulate their voice,” said Dr. Coakley.

Question marks in Greek and Latin script emerged later than in Syriac, with the earliest examples dating from the eighth century. It is likely that these symbols developed independently from each other and from Syriac. Hebrew and Arabic, close neighbours of Syriac, have nothing comparable. Armenian, another neighbour, has a similar mark, but it seems to be later.

Last month Dr. Coakley presented his theory that the question mark is a Syriac invention “rather nervously” at a conference in the United States. But so far none of his fellow scholars has come up with an earlier question mark in any other ancient language.

Dr. Coakley is quietly thrilled by his finding. “I’d describe it as a significant footnote in the history of writing,” he said. “And it’s satisfying to have made sense of some of those weird dots.”

Provided by University of Cambridge

Clement's First Reference to 'the Marcionites'

It occurs as a kind of 'throw away' reference in Book Two of the Stromata in the midst of a discussion of the beliefs of Valentinus and Basilides:

To these, then, and certain others, especially the Marcionites, the Scripture cries, though they listen not, "He that heareth Me shall rest with confidence in peace, and shall be tranquil, fearless of all evil."

Τούτοις τε οὖν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἑτέροις τισί, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος ἐμβοᾷ οὐκ ἐπαΐουσιν ἡ γραφή·
«Ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων ἀναπαήσεται ἐπ´ εἰρήνης πεποιθώς, καὶ ἡσυχάσει ἀφόβως ἀπὸ παντὸς κακοῦ.» [Strom 2.9]

It is a strange reference in many respects as Clement has never before referenced this sect before (nowhere in Book One and in no place in the Paedogogue) yet the name is thrown into a discussion of Valentinus and Basilides. It is as if he was acknowledging the existence of those of Marcion (τοῖς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος) but refuses to explain who or what they are - other than they are somehow 'heretics' like those of Valentinus and Basilides.

The scripture cited here is a variant of the LXX which is now preserved as - ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων κατασκηνώσει ἐπ' ἐλπίδι καὶ ἡσυχάσει ἀφόβως ἀπὸ παντὸς κακοῦ. The context is of course 'those who refuse to hear the call of Wisdom' but Clement interprets these very same words in a highly mystical - and indeed, one may argue heretical - sense where he writes a little later in the same book:

[we may say] similarly with Paul “the All-virtuous Wisdom” says, “He that heareth me shall dwell trusting in hope.” For the restoration of hope is called by the same term “hope.” To the expression “will dwell” it has most beautifully added “trusting,” showing that such an one has obtained rest, having received the hope for which he hoped. Wherefore also it is added, “and shall be quiet, without fear of any evil.” And openly and expressly the apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians says, “Be ye followers of me, as also I am of Christ,” [1 Cor. 11.1]. in order that that may take place. If ye are of me, and I am of Christ, then ye are imitators of Christ, and Christ of God. Assimilation to God, then, so that as far as possible a man becomes righteous and holy with wisdom he lays down as the aim of faith, and the end to be that restitution of the promise which is effected by faith. From these doctrines gush the fountains, which we specified above, of those who have dogmatized about “the end.” But of these enough. [ibid 2.22]

The point then is not that the heretics like Valentinus and Basilides are wrong for having radical 'gnostic' beliefs about God or the divine spirit dwelling in the 'perfect' but rather that these man were rejected by 'Wisdom' who chose instead other gnostics in whom she/it would tabernacle and transform into Christs.

I suspect that the 'Marcionite' reference is either a throwaway (i.e. an attempt on Clement's part to distance himself and his Alexandrian tradition from the marqiyone) or was a later addition of a scribe. One wonders if the Stromata were written at Alexandria at all.

Julius Africanus's Testimony About Clement of Alexandria Being Active During the Reign of Commodus (177 - 192 CE) and Having Fled Alexandria by the Beginning of the Third Century CE

Commodus, son of Marcus, reigned for 12 years, 5 months [...] As the most learned Africanus says: During his reign, Clement, author of the Stromata, was becoming known in Alexandria. Origen became a pupil of Clement. Montanus, the heresiarch, was also living at that time. He claimed that he himself was [the] Paraclete [ Symeon Logothetes (cod. Vat. gr. 163, f. 20r = Leo Grammaticus [71,2-11 Bekker] = Theodosius Melitenus [54,6-14 Tafel]) et ps. Symeon f. 79v-80r = Georgius Cedrenus (441,3-12 Bekker)]

What makes this testimony all the more irrefutable was that - unlike almost all of our other sources on the dates for Clement or Origen - Julius Africanus was there on the ground at the beginning of the third century:

From the same Africanus, there has also come to us the Chronographiae, five books in number, a project that was pursued with painstaking accuracy. In this work, he States that he himself set out on a journey to Alexandria because of the great fame of Heraclas. As we stated, Heraclas, very well-known for his discourses in philosophy and other branches of Greek learning, was entrusted with the oversight of the church there. [Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6,31,2 (586,2-7 Schwartz)]

It seems difficult to avoid accepting that Julius Africanus's testimony contradicts our inherited assumption regarding the date of Clement and Heraclas given that the Chronology is said to have been written during the reign of Caracalla (211 - 217). This would place Africanus in Alexandria conversing with Heraclas and Clement already gone by the beginning of the third century.