Was Jesus Really Called 'Teacher'?

What makes the use of 'good teacher' (Mark 10:17) so odd is that there are no attestations in Second Temple Judaism of referring to a teacher in this fashion.  Of course I think something more is at work here.  But first the evidence for magister in the synoptics:

Mark 2:16 videntes Pharisaei dicebant discipulis eius quare cum publicanis et peccatoribus manducat magister vester

Matt 9:11 et scribae et Pharisaei videntes quia manducaret cum peccatoribus et publicanis dicebant discipulis eius quare cum publicanis et peccatoribus manducat et bibit magister (διδάσκαλος) vesteret

Mark 4:38 et erat ipse in puppi supra cervical dormiens et excitant eum et dicunt ei magister (διδάσκαλε) non ad te pertinet quia perimus

Mark 5:35 adhuc eo loquente veniunt ab archisynagogo dicentes quia filia tua mortua est quid ultra vexas magistrum (διδάσκαλον)

Mark 9:16 et respondens unus de turba dixit magister (Διδάσκαλε) adtuli filium meum ad te habentem spiritum mutum

Mark 9:37 respondit illi Iohannes dicens magister (Διδάσκαλε) vidimus quendam in nomine tuo eicientem daemonia qui non sequitur nos et prohibuimus eum

Mark 10:17 et cum egressus esset in viam procurrens quidam genu flexo ante eum rogabat eum magister (Διδάσκαλε)  bone quid faciam ut vitam aeternam percipiam

Matthew 19:16 et ecce unus accedens ait illi magister (Διδάσκαλε) bone quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam

Luke 18:18 et interrogavit eum quidam princeps dicens magister (Διδάσκαλε) bone quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo

Mark 10:22 et ille respondens ait illi magister (Διδάσκαλε) omnia haec conservavi a iuventute mea (not in Clement)

Mark 10:35 et accedunt ad illum Iacobus et Iohannes filii Zebedaei dicentes magister (Διδάσκαλε) volumus ut quodcumque petierimus facias nobis

Mark 12:14 qui venientes dicunt ei magister (Διδάσκαλε) scimus quoniam verax es et non curas quemquam nec enim vides in faciem hominis sed in veritate viam Dei doces licet dari tributum Caesari an non dabimus

Matthew 17:24 et cum venissent Capharnaum accesserunt qui didragma accipiebant ad Petrum et dixerunt magister (διδάσκαλος) vester non solvit didragma

Matthew 22:16 et mittunt ei discipulos suos cum Herodianis dicentes magister (Διδάσκαλε) scimus quia verax es et viam Dei in veritate doces et non est tibi cura de aliquo non enim respicis personam hominum

Luke 20:21 et interrogaverunt illum dicentes magister (Διδάσκαλε) scimus quia recte dicis et doces et non accipis personam sed in veritate viam Dei doces

Mark 12:19 magister (Διδάσκαλε) Moses nobis scripsit ut si cuius frater mortuus fuerit et dimiserit uxorem et filios non reliquerit accipiat frater eius uxorem ipsius et resuscitet semen fratri suo

Matthew 22:24 dicentes magister (Διδάσκαλε) Moses dixit si quis mortuus fuerit non habens filium ut ducat frater eius uxorem illius et suscitet semen fratri suo

Luke 20:28 dicentes magister (Διδάσκαλε) Moses scripsit nobis si frater alicuius mortuus fuerit habens uxorem et hic sine filiis fuerit ut accipiat eam frater eius uxorem et suscitet semen fratri suo

Mark 12:32 et ait illi scriba bene magister (διδασκαλε) in veritate dixisti quia unus est et non est alius praeter eum

Mark 13:1 et cum egrederetur de templo ait illi unus ex discipulis suis magister (Διδάσκαλε) aspice quales lapides et quales structurae

Mark 14:14 et quocumque introierit dicite domino domus quia magister (διδάσκαλος) dicit ubi est refectio mea ubi pascha cum discipulis meis manducem

Matthew 26:18 at Iesus dixit ite in civitatem ad quendam et dicite ei magister (διδάσκαλος) dicit tempus meum prope est apud te facio pascha cum discipulis meis

Matthew 8:19 et accedens unus scriba ait illi magister (Διδάσκαλε) sequar te quocumque ieris

Matthew 10:24 - 25 non est discipulus super magistrum (διδάσκαλον) nec servus super dominum suum sufficit discipulo ut sit sicut magister (διδάσκαλος) eius et servus sicut dominus eius si patrem familias Beelzebub vocaverunt quanto magis domesticos eius

Luke 6:40 non est discipulus super magistrum perfectus autem omnis erit sicut magister (διδάσκαλον) eius

Matthew 12:38 tunc responderunt ei quidam de scribis et Pharisaeis dicentes magister (Διδάσκαλε) volumus a te signum videre

Matthew 22:36 magister (Διδάσκαλε) quod est mandatum magnum in lege

Luke 10:26 et ecce quidam legis peritus surrexit temptans illum et dicens magister (Διδάσκαλε) quid faciendo vitam aeternam possidebo

Matthew 23:7 - 10 et salutationes in foro et vocari ab hominibus rabbi vos autem nolite vocari rabbi unus enim est magister (διδάσκαλος) vester omnes autem vos fratres estis et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram unus enim est Pater vester qui in caelis est nec vocemini magistri (καθηγηταί) quia magister (καθηγητὴς) vester unus est Christus

Luke 3:12 venerunt autem et publicani ut baptizarentur et dixerunt ad illum magister (Διδάσκαλε) quid faciemus

Luke 9:38 et ecce vir de turba exclamavit dicens magister (Διδάσκαλε) obsecro te respice in filium meum quia unicus est mihi

Luke 7:40 et respondens Iesus dixit ad illum Simon habeo tibi aliquid dicere at ille ait magister (Διδάσκαλε) dic

Luke 11:45 respondens autem quidam ex legis peritis ait illi magister (Διδάσκαλε) haec dicens etiam nobis contumeliam facis

Luke 12:13 ait autem quidam ei de turba magister (Διδάσκαλε) dic fratri meo ut dividat mecum hereditatem

Luke 19:39 et quidam Pharisaeorum de turbis dixerunt ad illum magister (Διδάσκαλε) increpa discipulos tuos

Luke 20:39 respondentes autem quidam scribarum dixerunt magister (Διδάσκαλε) bene dixisti

Perhaps most interesting of all is the fact that Tertullian's Latin text of Against Marcion Book Four (where specific readings of the Marcionite gospel are referenced) not a single reference to the term save for the obvious Lukan addition - atque adeo scribae, Magister, inquiunt, bene dixisti.

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Nine]

In a subsequent paper we can tentatively demonstrate an underlying association this ἀπολύτρωσις tradition with the Dosithean sect of Samaritanism.[1]  For the moment however it is enough to close our present investigation by strengthening the connection between the Marcites and Clement on the one hand and Philo of Alexandria on the other.  It is tempting to suggest that Jacob's visionary experience associated with 'sleep' at Bethel was reinterpreted as metaphor for ritualized 'death' and resurrection by Clement's Alexandrian Christian community.  It is impossible to prove this assertion of course.  But there are some good reasons for tenatively accepting this understanding. 

While Philo never specifically equates sleep with death he does at one point come pretty close.  The Legum Allegoriae interprets sleep as the state in which the mind is effectively unshackled from the body.  Philo says "when the mind is awake the outward sense is extinguished" and again "the external sense then comes forward when the mind is asleep."  Indeed Philo goes one step further and states that "Moses, being alarmed lest some day or other the mind might not merely go to sleep, but might become absolutely dead."[2] 

We can even go one step further.  We read that in a lost work of Philo's which survived in the Mar Saba library until the eighth century Philo again defines sleep as the quieting of the mind "in consequence cut off from any energy because they are separated from the objects which are perceptible to them, are dissolved in a state of motionless inactivity" but then goes one step fruther defining "sleep as a thing to teach us to meditate upon death, and a shadow and outline of the resurrection which is hereafter to follow, for it bears in itself visible images of both conditions, for it removes the same man from his state of perfection and brings him back to it."[3]  Is it really that much of a leap of logic to equate this 'separated' state with death? 

Philo appears steadfast in his interpretation that Ex 33:21 - 23 means man cannot see God directly in the flesh.  One may imagine that a Christian tradition influenced by his writings understood that the full apprehension of God required a new divine soul - something that Jesus was understood to have established through the divine mysteries.[4]  It is fascinating to look back at the clearest portrait we have of the Marcian ἀπολύτρωσις rite from the writings of Irenaeus and see the echo of the tradition associated with Jacob's dream at Bethel.  The description of the ἀπολύτρωσις as a 'dream' (ἐνύπνιον) where intitiate sees the 'companion of God' in the company of angels (Μεγέθη) that continually behold the face of the Father (πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός), draw up their forms (ἀνασπῶσιν ἄνω τὰς αὐτῶν μορφάς) transform initiates into their images (εἰκόνας).[5] 

There is a well established mystical tradition where God and Jacob are understood to mirror images of one another.  In some traditions the angels direct Jacob to see the one whose "image is fixed (engraved) in the Throne of Glory and whom you have desired to see."[6] In others Jacob himself is on the throne.[7]  In some there is a combination of the two understandings - i.e. Jacob-Yisra’el was the earthly reflection of the Angel of the Presence.  Where the mystical tradition explains itself it usually set forth in the observation that it does not say the angels were going up and coming down. It says the angels were going down and coming up. This means they came down , saw Jacob-Yisra’el’s face (the word translated “presence” is literally “face”), recognised it, and went back up to compare it with the original.[8]

The point then is that the Marcian mystical understanding as preserved by Irenaeus clearly understands that Jesus is the Angel of the Presence or the Philonic power 'God' who transformed Mark into a heavenly being.   Irenaeus describes Mark as declaring that he alone was the only-begotten and that he "induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above." [9]  It must be presumed that after being transformed into an image of the divinity - i.e. the Father - Mark promised to do the same to his followers.  One may even imagine that it may be related to familiar identification of the Christian priestly class as 'fathers.'[10]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]  Targ. Ps.-J. to Gen 28.12 

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Eight]

While Clement does not directly tie the specific term ἀπολύτρωσις with the Secret Mark narrative it is important to note that λύτρον is connected with the scene that immediately precedes it - the Question of the Rich Man (Mark 10:17 - 21). That the two narratives are related has been noted many times.[1] As Edward Renaugh Smith summarizes in the story of the rich man's question, it is Jesus who looks upon the rich man and loves him (Mark 10:21). In the raising narrative is the young man who looks upon Jesus and loves him. Is he now returning Jesus' love, in gratitude for being rescued from the grave? The clearest hint that the young man Jesus raised is the same rich man occurs in Secret Mark, where the where the young man is described as “the young man whom Jesus loved” (Letter to Theodore III.15). What young man did Jesus love? A reader who looks back through Mark's narrative will find only the rich man of Mark 10."[2]

Yet it is interesting to note that Clement also twice references this same section as being about 'ransoming.'  In the third book of the Stromata Clement cites Proverbs 13:8 “the ransom (λύτρον) of a man's soul his riches are adjudged” before introducing the Question of the Rich Man:

So as the universe is compounded of opposites, hot and cold, dry and wet, so too it is compounded of those who give and those who receive.  Again when he says, "If you want to be perfect, sell your property and give the proceeds to the poor," he is showing up the man who boasts of "having kept all the commandments from his youth." He had not fulfilled "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." At that moment the Lord wanted to bring him to perfection and was teaching him to share out of love.

Interesting Clement repeated identifies 'the neighbor' - i.e. the one who is near - with Jesus.  As such what is really being referenced here is the 'see your brother, see your God' agraphon.  In other words, a recapitulation of the mystery rite we have already examined. 

It should not be surprising that Clement again uses an Old Testament scripture to veil a heretical doctrine.  It is important to note that Proverbs 13:8 is consistently used to veil the Marcian ἀπολύτρωσις rite.  At the end of the Instructor Clement similarly explained but he also makes explicit the great secret at the heart of the mystery rite - Jesus is 'added' to the individual, i.e. 'the two become one':

For the Scripture avouches, "that the true riches of the soul are a man's ransom," (Prov. 13.8) that is, if he is rich, he will be saved by distributing it. For as gushing wells, when pumped out, rise again to their former measure, so giving away, being the benignant spring of love, by communicating of its drink to the thirsty, again increases and is replenished, just as the milk is wont to flow into the breasts that are sucked or milked. For he who has the almighty God, the Word, is in want of nothing, and never is in straits for what he needs. For the Word is a possession that wants nothing, and is the cause of all abundance. If one say that he has often seen the righteous man in need of food, this is rare, and happens only where there is not another righteous man. Notwithstanding let him read what follows: "For the righteous man shall not live by bread alone, but by the word of the Lord," who is the true bread, the bread of the heavens. The good man (ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἀνὴρ), then, can never be in difficulties so long as he keeps intact his confession towards God (πρὸς θεὸν ὁμολογίαν). For it appertains to him to ask and to receive whatever he requires from the Father of all; and to enjoy what is his own, if he keep the Son. And this also appertains to him, to feel no want. This Word, who trains us, confers on us the true riches. Nor is the growing rich an object of envy to those who possess through Him the privilege of wanting nothing. He that has this wealth shall inherit the kingdom of God (ὁ τοῦτον ἔχων τὸν πλοῦτον βασιλείαν κληρονομήσει θεοῦ). [Paed. 3.7.39 - 43]
 

The understanding behind all of this of course is that Jesus has given the man a new soul, one not made of psychic matter but spiritual glory.  He has exchanged his life for another - i.e. that of the Lord and so in order to fully comprehend how all things go back to the prayer of Jacob at Bethel, we need to pay close attention to the use of 'Lord' and 'God' in this narrative. 

Yet before we get there we should dispense with the main subject of controversy in the letter - the 'naked with naked' reference.  After citing the first section from Secret Mark he makes reference to something Theodore originally asked him in the lost correspondance which immediately preceded this one - "but 'naked man with naked man,' and the other things about which you wrote, are not found (III.14)  Modern evangelicals and other prudes have seized upon this reference as a homosexual reference which is Morton Smith's 'real agenda' with the letter - i.e. to subvert Christianity.  Nevertheless as Le Boulluec and other saner minds have noted Clement's interpretation of 'nakedness' is pretty consistent throughout his writings - i.e. a state of purity and divinity.[3]

Nevertheless there is a deeper level of significance too which connects the ἀπολύτρωσις rite back to its Marcian roots.  The initiate receives a new soul in order to escape from the judge. Irenaeus not only reports that the Marcians "affirm that because of the ἀπολύτρωσις it has come to pass that they can neither be apprehended, nor even seen by the judge."[4]  As Turner notes this is all part of an interest in heavenly ascent.[5]  Yet we can't allow ourselves to ignore the fact that the context of the judgment is heavily influenced by Greek culture (= 'Homeric helmet of Hades').  As such, as Michael Trapp notes Clement was a knowledgeable reader of Plato and it is very likely that he "knew Plato Gorgias 523d – the idea that for effective Last Judgement the encounter must be post mortem, of naked soul judging naked soul."[6]  Indeed Clement specifically references that very passage at least once in his writings.[7]

In other words, while we many of us can only seem to interpret two men naked in each other's company in the context of a homosexual relationship, it certainly wasn't so in antiquity.  As Socrates is recorded as saying by Plato:

they shall be entirely stripped before they are judged, for they shall be judged when they are dead; and the judge too shall be naked, that is to say, dead--he with his naked soul shall pierce into the other naked souls; and they shall die suddenly and be deprived of all their kindred, and leave their brave attire strewn upon the earth--conducted in this manner, the judgment will be just.
 

Of course there is no specificity in Hebrew writings how the judgment of the dead will actually take place.  In this particular scheme then, the initiate is understood to have 'died' and then been 'released' from what we may presume to be the author of the Lord and passed over to the God the Father by means of receiving the soul of Christ. Indeed this must have been the basis for receiving the Christian sacraments.[8]

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Seven]

In summer of 1958 a most interesting man made an incredible discovery. The man was Morton Smith, a first year Associate Professor of Ancient History at Columbia University. The discovery was the Letter to Theodore, a letter from Clement of Alexandria, the earliest Egyptian Church Father for whom we have any reliable information. We haven't the foggiest idea who was this ‘Theodore’ to whom the correspondence was addressed. All that is certain is that an original Greek manuscript was copied out into the blank pages of a seventeenth century book at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in the last three centuries.  

The document has been the subject of controversy for some time the arguments themselves amount to a series of ad hominems against its discoverer, Morton Smith.  Since the Letter to Theodore is included in collections of the writings of Clement and seems thoroughly 'Clementine' there is little need for us to seriously doubt the authenticity of the text.  It is accepted as authentic by most authorities on Clement of Alexandria including perhaps the world's leading authority on the Church Father, Alain Le Boulluec.[1] Le Boullec went so far as to argue for Clement's knowledge of the story of the young man in Secret Mark and Clement's association of this young man with the rich young man in Mark 10:17–22.[2]  It is worth noting that Bucur is a prominent hold out against authenticity though as we already noted, he goes to great lengths to challenge Clement's association with the Marcians.[3]

It should not be a great challenge to note the obvious parallel between Secret Mark's 'six days' of preparation before the ritual initiation of the disciple by Jesus.  Marvin Meyer points to this "as symbolizing an appropriate time of preparation and purification before an experience of meeting the divine (e.g., Exod 24:16)."[4]  However given the other affinities between Clement and the Marcians it undoubtedly goes back even further to the understanding of the rite as a recreation of man.[5]  Meyer does connect it to the Transfiguration which was used by both Clement and the Marcians to underscore the significance of the episemon and the number six.  Indeed the re-creation of man is clearly the ultimate context here as Irenaeus notes of the Marcians "it was on the sixth day, which is the preparation, that the last man appeared, for the regeneration of the first."[5]  Given our parallels between Clement and the Marcians it is not difficult to see the second baptismal rite of Secret Mark as the ἀπολύτρωσις.



[1]
[2]
[3] "I am not even convinced it is not a forgery"
[4]
[5]

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Six]

Before we introduce the Letter to Theodore it is enough for the moment to see the how Irenaeus and later Ephrem established a literary context for their understanding that Jesus's words to the brothers Zebedee.  As Irenaeus's notes in a surviving fragment we should take note of "the time at which she uttered these words ... it was when the Lord said, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall kill Him, and on the third day He shall rise again.”[1]  According to him again these words "predicted His passion ... the Saviour was foretelling death; and she asked for the glory of immortality."[2]  It is also important to note that Irenaeus does not intimate that martyrdom should be called 'redemption' only Ephrem does that, going on to speak of Jesus's coming "to acquit the debt of everyone, [a debt] which the prophets and martyrs could not pay with their death."[3]

The source of this understanding seems to be Matthew's addition "even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (λύτρον) for many.”  Nevertheless this is not likely the source for the Marcian tradition. The Anonymous Treatise specifically references Mark's version of the narrative which does not contain these words.  Of course the other possibility is that they - like Ephrem - used a different gospel than the canonical four.  Their Mark might have borrowed features from other gospels like a Diatessaron.  Their reliance on Mark and Luke in the context of a 'second baptism' seems to suggest that point.[4]  Indeed their relationship with Clement of Alexandria seems to reinforce this point.

While Clement never comments directly on the request to Jesus to sit at his right and left hand outside of the Letter to Theodore he does reference Matt 20:28 in the context of Jesus being a shepherd to sheep.  The language recalls the Marcian interpretation of the 'lost sheep' and its relation to redemption.  The passage begins with:

Feed us, the children, as sheep. Yea, Master, fill us with righteousness, Thine own pasture; yea, O Instructor, feed us on Thy holy mountain the Church, which towers aloft, which is above the clouds, which touches heaven. "And I will be," He says, "their Shepherd," and will be near them, as the garment to their skin. He wishes to save (σῶσαι) my flesh by enveloping it in the robe of immortality (χιτῶνα τῆς ἀφθαρσίας), and He hath anointed my body (τὸν χρῶτά μου κέχρικεν). "They shall call Me," He says, "and I will say, Here am I." (cf. Is 58:9) Thou didst hear sooner than I expected, Master (δέσποτα) "And if they pass over, they shall not fall," (cf. Isa 43:2) saith the Lord. For we who are passing over to immortality (διαβαίνοντες εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν) shall not fall into corruption, for He shall sustain us. For so He has said, and so He has willed.

To the casual observer it does not seem that any of this relates to a heretical baptism of any sort.  But such an analysis misses the entire point of Clement's discussion.  Where as Isaiah speaks of 'crossing through the waters' Clement himself speaks of 'crossing over to immorality.' 

Clement begins with Jesus acting as the Shepherd leading the sheep to receive perfection.  He goes on to speak about 'saving my flesh by enveloping it in the robe of immortality' and anointing the body - both acts associated with ritual baptism.  To see where the reference is to water immersion is, one has to understand how Clement employs scripture to reference ideas he is unwilling to explicitly approve.  In this case, as Staehlin notes he is referencing Isa 43:2:

Fear not: for I have redeemed (ἐλυτρωσάμην) thee, I have called thee [by] thy name; thou art mine. And if thou pass through water, I am with thee; and the rivers shall not overflow thee: and if thou go through fire, thou shalt not be burned; the flame shall not burn thee.

This text is consistently referenced with baptism - the same 'baptism by fire' references associated with the Marcians in Irenaeus and other sources.  But as we see it also continues in Alexandria through Clement, Origen and even Methodius.[5]

Once we acknowledge that Clement is indeed making a reference to the Marcian second baptism rite because he was part of the same tradition then we can properly understand the second part of citation.  We read:

Such is our Instructor, righteously good.
"I came not," He says, "to be ministered unto, but to minister."
For that reason He is represented in the Gospel as afflicted,
for He is afflicted on our account and undertakes 'to give His life (ψυχὴν) as a redemption for many.'
He alone, He asserts, is the Good Shepherd.
He is generous indeed who gives us the greatest thing He has, His own life,
and liberal and kind (φιλάνθρωπος), because He willed to be man's brother, (αδελφός) though He could have been His Lord;
so good that He even died for our sake.

J Christopher Edwards in his study of all the appearances of the 'ransom logion' of Mark 10:45 notes that this is a chiasm.  He also makes reference to the fact that Isaiah 43 often accompanies this saying.  But Edwards strangely drops the most important term in the entire section - the αδελφός - in order strengthen his thesis of an underlying connection with Phil 2:6 - 8.[6]

But the 'brother' allusion is critical to understand the material within the greater context of Clement's other writings.  Baptism is a second creation where, according to Clement and writings used by him, the initiate is recreated after his living image.[7]  The reason he embraces the term gnostic so much in his writings is that it is imperative we 'come into acquaintance' with his image - "ignorance of Him is death; but the knowledge and appropriation of Him, and love and likeness to Him, are the only life."[8]  Moreover, commenting on the saying "the first will be last, and the last first," Clement explains it importantly in terms of the first glimmers of a Christian brother-making rite "for the Lord, having been born "the First-begotten of the dead," and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die Jesus is the firstborn and thus the ‘first’ and we the latest generation born after Adam are the ‘last.’"[9]

We are now only steps away from Athanasius’s interpretation of ‘the firstborn of many brethren’ as adelphopoesis.[10] Clement however consistently filters his understanding of this Pauline material through a lost agrapha - "Having seen thy brother, thou hast seen thy God.":

The divine apostle writes accordingly respecting us: "For now we see as through a glass;" knowing ourselves in it by reflection, and simultaneously contemplating, as we can, the cause of active power of manufacture (i.e. Jesus), from that, which, in us, is divine. For it is said, "Having seen thy brother, thou hast seen thy God " methinks that now the Saviour God is declared to us. But after the laying aside of the flesh, "person to person" (πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον) -- then definitely and comprehensively, when the heart becomes pure. And by reflection and direct vision, those among the Greeks who have philosophized accurately, see God. For such, through our weakness, are our true views, as images are seen in the water, and as we see things through pellucid and transparent bodies [Stromata 1.19]

Clement is giving us a very cryptic reference to the original brother making ritual in ancient Alexandria. Yet we should notice the reference to baptismal water in the material.  According to Clement, Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 is referencing a mystical marriage with Jesus, i.e. a rite where the two souls - Jesus 'pure soul' and ours established from Creation - become one.[11]

The critical thing to see here is the idea that God - i.e. Jesus - is understood to be manifest by Clement's Alexandrian community in our brother.  This is explicitly understood to be a 'mystical' saying one in which Jesus in the very gospel predicted that he or 'his soul' would continue to wander the earth as a savior to set up such 'exchanges' through baptism:

Respecting liberality (μεταδόσεως) He said: "Come to me, ye blessed, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger (ξένος), and ye assembled me; naked, and ye clothed Me; sick, and ye visited Me; in prison, and ye came unto Me (καὶ ἤλθετε πρός με)." And when have we done any of these things to the Lord? The Instructor Himself will say it is a well-making lovingly done to the brother as Himself (τὴν εὐποιίαν καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀγαπητικῶς εἰς ἑαυτὸν μετατρέπων καὶ λέγων), "Inasmuch as ye have done it to these little ones (ἐποιήσατε τοῖς μικροῖς τούτοις), ye have done it to Me (ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε). And these shall go away into everlasting life (Καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οἱ τοιοῦτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον)." [Instructor 3.12.93.4 - 94.1]

Scholars have long speculated whether the title 'little ones' had some cultic significance in early Christianity.  Here we are suggesting that they in fact represented a class of individual with whom the initiates entered the baptismal waters and 'took on' the image of God.  They are called 'brothers' because the 'little ones' bring the image of the Father which pass on the 'sonship' in which the two now stand.[12]

The important thing for us to see now is that there are two parts to the mystical baptism rites of the Marcians and both are witnessed in the writings of Clement and later Alexandrians.  The first as we already noted is the idea of 'passing through water and fire.'  This is attributed in the Anonymous Treatise to yet another 'trick' that the heretics have learned from Anaxilaus.[13]  The second important element is the act of ritual brother-making.  This is reinforced in Irenaeus's report about the Marcians where Mark himself represents himself as Christ and has drawn away "a great number of men, and not a few women" and "induced them to join themselves to him."[14]  The repeated emphasis of sexuality in the Marcian rites is rooted in the central wedding metaphor in their baptism rites.  This also undoubtedly further clarifies the understanding of the ritual as ἀπολύτρωσις.[15]

While it is certainly true that the rite as a whole was understood as the 'loosening' or 'release' of the intitiate from the authority of 'the Lord' to 'God,' the context of this devotion was likened to a marriage.  To this extent then, those formerly married to the Law, married to Yahweh have now come over through the water and the fire to another.  At its most basic, one unties one's former association with the female Law and takes on the single yoke of the gospel.[16]  The important thing to remember is that the act as a whole was understood as ἀπολύτρωσις.  The Marcians understood that it is to this concept - the ritual 'baptism of fire' - which the brothers Zebedee were being made aware of.  For the Catholics it was something else entirely - redemption was here understood to be simply martyrdom.  Both concepts are rooted in the order of their respective gospels, both involve the concept of 'death' being introduced into the narrative, only that the Catholic interpretation is much more forced.[17]

It is extremely significant nevertheless to reinforce that Irenaeus tells us that to understand this narrative you have to look at the words which immediately precede it.  The material related to the Marcians also does the same.  We see this with respect to their repeated emphasis on Luke 12:50 as reflected in Irenaeus's commentary.  The idea here being that after Jesus was baptized by John he declared that there was a second baptism - 'another baptism' (i.e. the text of Luke was modified)[18] -and that this baptism that he was instituting that was superior to John's immersion in the Jordan. the same variant reading is witnessed by both Irenaeus and the Anonymous Treatise.  Indeed the latter source specifically refutes the understanding that Jesus here means "a second baptism as if there were two baptisms, but he shows that baptism of the one kind or the other (alterius speciei) is given to us for salvation."[19]


[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] The most interesting part of the chiasm is Β and Β1. Β contains M//Ma—b (Ουκ ήλθον, φησί, διακονηθήναι, αλλά διακονήσαι). This is mirrored in Β1 with a reference to the voluntary incarnation of the Lord as a human (εξόν εΓναι κύριον, αδελφός είναι βεβούληται). The contrast in Β between the position Jesus held in his pre-existent Lordship with his voluntary desire to humble himself as a human is probably influenced by Phil. 2:6-7, where the pre-existent person of Jesus voluntarily undergoes his κένωσις and becomes a human.

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Five]

The most intriguing thing about the Marcian ἀπολύτρωσις rite is that it is so specifically connected with a particular scriptural passage at the heart of a controversy related to Clement of Alexandria.  Irenaeus specifically references the fact that the heretics "affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?"[1]  The Anonymous Treatise on Baptism repeats the same scripture and identifies it as coming from the Gospel According to Mark.[2]  Both texts connect the citation with Luke 12:50 in order to prove that Jesus heralded a second baptism. 

Yet it is interesting to note that you don't have to be a heretic to make the connection between Mark 10:38 and 'redemption.'  Ephrem the Syrian does the very same thing in his Commentary, he writes

When two [of the apostles] came in order to choose places for themselves, as though first among their companions, our Lord said to them, Are you able to drink the chalice that I am about to drink? [He said this] to show that [such places] must indeed be bought at a price. 'Like me.'  Wherefore God has also elevated and exalted him. [Phil 2:9] There is no one who has humbled himself more, according to his nature, than our Lord, for he was of divine origin.

Ephrem's interpretation follows Irenaeus's own[3] - the disciples "they learned that such a place could only be bought through deeds" - that is martyrdom.  For the Marcians the redemption was something quite different - it was a mystical or ritual death associated with baptism. 

According to the Anonymous Treatise - developed undoubtedly from material associated with Irenaeus - the heresies developed from Simon Magus and they contend that "they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water."  When the author references that the fire is one of "several tricks of this kind affirmed to be from Anaxilaus" the magician, they are echoing arguments in Against Heresies account of the Marcians.[4]  The idea of fire appearing on the water of baptism also appears in many early gospel traditions.[5]

It is also interesting to note that the author of the Anonymous Treatise clearly identifies this redemption rite as a death ritual.  He describes it as a "murderous baptism" which perfects its initiates.[6]  The author of the Philosophumena puts it this way:

And subsequent to the (first) baptism, to these they promise another, which they call Redemption. And by this (other baptism) they wickedly subvert those that remain with them in expectation of redemption, as if persons, after they had once been baptized, could again obtain remission. Now, it is by means of such knavery as this that they seem to retain their hearers. And when they consider that these have been tested, and are able to keep (secret the mysteries) committed unto them, they then admit them to this (baptism). They, however, do not rest satisfied with this alone, but promise (their votaries) some other (boon) for the purpose of confirming them in hope, in order that they may be inseparable.  For they utter something in an inexpressible (tone of) voice, after having laid hands on him who is receiving the redemption. And they allege that they could not easily declare (to another) what is thus spoken unless one were highly tested, or one were at the hour of death, (when) the bishop comes and whispers into the (expiring one's) ear. And this knavish device (is undertaken) for the purpose of securing the constant attendance upon the bishop of (Mark') disciples, as individuals eagerly panting to learn what that may be which is spoken at the last, by (the knowledge of) which the learner will be advanced to the rank of those admitted into the higher mysteries.

Once again it is important to reinforce that this death baptism which represents 'the higher mysteries' is otherwise unknown in early Christianity.  The only other example that we have of the practice of this type of this mystic rite is found in the writings of Clement. 

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Four]

It may not be immediately clear what Clement's borrowing from Philo's understanding of Jacob 'changing' divine powers at Bethel has to do with Clement's connection with Marcian gnosis.  It is only when we remember that Irenaeus's description of the kabbalistic system of the Marcians cultimates in a 'mystical' understanding of the parable of the lost sheep involving the transfer from left to right hand.[1]  Irenaeus speaks of an 'error' occuring in heaven symbolised by 'the sheep frisking off and going astray (Lk 15:4 - 7).  Jesus's mission apparently is to restore order to the cosmos by 'redeeming' the lost sheep. 

In Matthew chapter 15 the apostles ask Jesus to release (ἀπόλυσον) the daughter of the Canaanite woman sick and possessed by demons, (κακῶς δαιμονίζεται) and Jesus responds by saying that he was 'sent to the lost sheep' (τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα) of Israel.  The release from demons may well have been ultimately connected with the heretical ἀπολύτρωσις rite.  Indeed Simon Magus is recorded in the Philosophumena as seeking out Helen as this lost sheep and his work of redemption (λύτρωσις).[2]  Irenaeus's Latin text speaks of Simon as having "pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world."[3]

Of course many have been so well trained in the Sabellianism of the early Fathers that most of us can only think in terms of 'the god of the Jews' as a monolithic conception.  Nevertheless the evidence would seem to suggest that the early heretics could well have imagined two powers in heaven and 'redemption' to have meant going from one to the other.  If we go back to Irenaeus's account of Marcian gnosis he records that they speak of Jesus the episemon being added back to the world, and with it the proper balance in the cosmos being restored - indeed the 'fullness' in heaven now being complete.[6]  As a result of this addition the Eta goes from having a value of seven to eight or Zeta, and the divine fullness goes back to the perfect number of thirty.[7]

Yet for our purposes it is Irenaeus's reference to the sheep being mystically passed from the left to the right hand which really captures our interest.  The promise of being 'in the right hand' is rooted in Deuteronomy 33:2.  While the Hebrew text has מימינו or 'from his right arm' the LXX has 'right hand.' Jastrow postulates the existence of a root ימנ which interestingly has a numerological value of a hundred, the same value as 'the right hand' in Marcian gnosis.[8]  We read that the followers of Mark:

by means of their "knowledge," avoid the place of ninety-nine, that is, the defection--a type of the left hand,--but endeavour to secure one more, which, when added to the ninety and nine, has the effect of changing their reckoning to the right hand.

This is further explained in the Gospel of Truth found at Nag Hammadi as:

He is the shepherd who left behind the ninety-nine sheep which had not strayed and went in search of that one which was lost. He rejoiced when he had found it. For ninety-nine is a number of the left hand, which holds it. The moment he finds the one, however, the whole number is transferred to the right hand. Thus it is with him who lacks the one, that is, the entire right hand which attracts that in which it is deficient, seizes it from the left side and transfers it to the right. In this way, then, the number becomes one hundred. This number signifies the Father.

The Gospel of Truth turns around the original idea of being 'at the right hand' into now manifesting 'redemption' - the transfer from one divine power to the other -  i.e. "the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father."

It is also worth knowing that the actual meaning of the term ἀπολωλότα is 'destroyed utterly' or 'killed.'  Mary is identified in the heretical tradition as both this 'destroyed' sheep and Wisdom - "ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν."[9]  Yet there is an overarching sense of salvation through death in the gospel and Pauline tradition.  The gospel says  ὁ ἀπολέσας τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ and it is no small thing that the term 'soul' appears here.[10]  This is the thing created by the Lord for Adam in the beginning.  Clement explains this saying by saying it means:

either by eagerly being handed over to another (ἐπιδιδούς) for the Savior, as He did for us, or loosing (ἀπολύσας) it from fellowship with its common life. For if you would loose (ἀπολῦσαι), and withdraw, and separate - for this is what the cross signifies (σημαίνει) - your soul (ψυχὴν) from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope. And this would be the exercise of death, if we would be content with those desires which are measured according to nature alone

The point then is that death - ritual or actual - stands at the heart of early Christian mysticism.  Not every Christian could have been literally crucified or to have 'died for Christ.'  This Catholic obsession with making it an actual death may have been a way of obscuring the original significance of the  rite. 

The connection with baptism here is clear in the next book of the Stromata where he speaks of Jesus "abolishing (ἀπολούσας) washing after intercourse as unnecessary as he has cleansed believers by one single baptism and taken in the many washings prescribed by Moses by one single baptism.  Not surprisingly at the heart of this new ritual we find both death and the ἀπολύτρωσις metaphor.  Clement goes on cite the words of Paul - "But we have died to the Law through Christ’s body with a view to belonging to another, the one who was raised from the dead," the one who was prophesied by the Law, "so that we may bear fruit for God." This bath is understood by Clement to be at the heart of Jesus's dictum on marriage and the resurrection too. 

It is in the context of this baptism of the dead that Clement sees as the dividing line for individuals within the Christian community.  Those who have undergone this rite have been 'loosed' from the Law and are no longer subject to the passions, no longer required to take a life as they have died and been 'restanded' in new flesh:

Those who he words "The children of this age" were not spoken in contrast with the children of some other age. It is like saying, "Those born in this generation," who are children by force of birth, being born and engendering themselves, since without the process of birth no one will pass into this life. But this process of birth is balanced by a process of decay, and is no longer in store for the person who has once been separated (κεχωρισμένον) from life here ... In this way he wants us to turn back and become like children again, children who have come to know their real Father, come to a new birth by means of water, a method of birth quite different from that in the material creation

There can be no doubt that Clement understood his community's 'death baptism' to be an ἀπολύτρωσις rite.  Indeed given all that we have seen there is little reason to doubt that his was one and the same with the Marcian rite referenced in the writings of Irenaeus. 

According to Irenaeus this ἀπολύτρωσις is nothing short of a plot of Satan for the "denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith."[11]  But Irenaeus is always overly dramatic with his reporting.  Death is an intimate part of these rites too as Irenaeus speaks of some:

there are who continue to redeem persons even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water, or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time the above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body were left among created things in this world, while their soul is sent forward to the Demiurge.

While the Lord which made the soul of man is said to become greatly agitated as this light being ascends upwards out of his grasp, the Marcians describe such an individual as going "into his own place, having thrown off his chain, that is, his animal nature" - that is his animal soul. 


[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] We should disregard what Jastrow says about the root ימנ or perhaps it would be better to say take notice of what he says the way he meant it. Jastrow’s root entries are not always real words. They are the root, which can’t stand in isolation. Even when he gives what looks like the past tense of the Qal, it is often just an abstraction. Quite often the meaning assigned to the root is not any attested meaning, only a reasonable assumption about the history of the meaning before its use in written records. So his root ימנ certainly exists, but what looks like an actual form, the first word of the second column of p. 580, with the vowels of the past tense Qal, is not a real verb. What is really used is the pi’el, cited straight after this. The examples he gives, even of the pi’el, only the passive participal (i.e. the pu’al participle) is actually used, and even that bears a meaning not the same as Jastrow's assumed meaning. The meaning “skilful” is dubious. The meaning “the one actually meant if some other is not actually specified” or “the one naturally thought of, because the most eminent holder of the title” fits every cited instance. If the verb is to mean “to go to the right” it must be in the hif’il. That means past tense hemin, future tense yemin, participle memin (מימינ). The corresponding Aramaic word must be in the Af’el. The nif’al participle ne’eman means faithful (said of a person). This word is applied to Moses in Numbers XII. The hif’il means to believe. None of these are connected with the Biblical Hebrew hif’il forms meaning to go to the right.
[9]

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Three]

Förster rejects the idea that Clement's belonged to a neo-Marcian tradition based arguing instead for Clement simply copying out the text of Against Heresies.[1]  There are a lot of problems with this thesis none more so than Irenaeus's testimony is virulently hostile.  Why would Clement have just decided to throw in a kabbalistic interpretation of the Transfiguration condemned by Irenaeus as heretical into a long section dealing with numerology?  Moreover Förster's assumes that this is the only parallel between the two sources.  Bucur however demonstrates yet another - undermining Förster main thesis - yet Bucur still endorses Förster's overall suggestion.

Bucur, writing after bringing forward a few more parallels between Clement and Marcus concludes that "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 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 17." [2]  In light of Förster's overlooking of many more parallels between Clement and Marcus than he originally realized (even Bucur only scratches the surface) there seems to be an effort now to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the milieu of influence on Clement - save for more natural and more obvious suggestion that Clement either used a Marcian text or belonged to the heretical tradition of Mark.

The idea that Clement saw a list of ideas condemned in Irenaeus and raided his heretical closet and pretended they were orthodox is simply absurd.  It only serves as a convenient way of avoiding the alternative possibility - that Clement was a crypto-Marcosian.[3]  While it is true that Eusebius does mention Clement's familiarity with Irenaeus's writings,[4] it also has to be noted that the same thing is said of a Marcosian bishop in the Philosophumena - a third century modification of Against Heresies.  During a discussion of the second baptism practices of the sect, the author (Hippolytus?) defends the shortcomings of the original work noting "for also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption."[4]

Clearly then Clement's eventual familiarity with Irenaeus (the two authors were roughly contemporary) in no way suggests direct borrowing of heretical concepts and passing them off as orthodoxy.  Indeed if Clement already had a copy of Against Heresies we would expect him to have done the exact opposite - i.e. to have avoided appropriating condemned material.  We are much better served to assume the two men were two ships passing in the night here until at some future date they became aware of one another or that Irenaeus is specifically condemning Clement's Alexandrian tradition.[5]  It is also worth noting that neither Förster nor Bucur seem to aware of the Mysteries of the Letters of the Alphabet or Sabas's direct reference to 'the blessed Clement' of Alexandria in the Greek manuscript of the text - apparently as a source or an inspiration for the ideas contained in the manuscript.[6]

There is also another possibility that no one else has considered so far - Clement or even the Marcians themselves - might have gotten their ultimate inspiration from Philo of Alexandria.  For there is a strange parallel between Irenaeus's testimony about the Marcians, Clement and Philo which deserves more scrutiny. In De Aeternitate Mundi Philo outlines a number of contemporary arguments for the eternity of the world.  But the work itself is something of a mystery.  Much of the work is missing and it is difficult to make sense of all of the arguments which are retained in the text.

One of most perplexing part of the surviving portion of the manuscript (113 - 116) now begins with Philo making the argument 'made by those persons who have fancied that the world is everlasting.'  The argument that follows however has to with their belief in the eventual destruction of the world - a seeming contradiction.  Alesse interprets Philo as saying that none of the recognised types of destruction applies to the world where his opponents acknowledge that there are four types of corruptions - addition, subtraction, transposition, alteration.  Where the first two categories are specifically related to mathematics, all are ultimately related to letters of the alphabet - pointing to a Semitic origin for the argument.

This understanding is further reinforced when in the case of the third category 'transposition' Philo indeed illustrates “transposition” by the example of rotation of letters which is similar - but not identical with - the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus by Aristotle, Met. 4.985b18.  The question of Philo's source for the many, often contradictory, arguments that appear in the text is an extremely complex one which no one until now has satisfactorily explain.  As Alesse notes it is impossible that a single source was used given that the present argument is contradicted by the second 'thesis' earlier in the text.[7]

To this end, if we are dealing with many different arguments developed by many different sources in De Aeternitate Mundi it is hard not to think that the most likely candidate for section 113 - 116 was either very archaic or specifically Semitic.[8]  For as Philo notes:

they affirm that there are four principal manners in which corruption is brought about, addition, taking away, transposition, and alteration; accordingly, the number two is by the addition of the unit corrupted so as to become the number three, and no longer remains the number two; and the number four by the taking away of the unit is corrupted so as to become the number three; again, by transposition the letter Zeta becomes the letter Eta when the parallel lines which were previously horizontal are placed perpendicularly, and when the line which did before pass upwards, so as to connect the two is now made horizontal, and still extended between them so as to join them. And by alteration the word oinos, wine, becomes oxos, vinegar. But of the manner of corruption thus mentioned there is not one which is in the least degree whatever applicable to the world, since otherwise what could we say? Could we affirm that anything is added to the world so as to cause its destruction?

The only way that a Zeta can be turned around in this way is into an Eta is if the source text was referencing the Phoenician letter Zan. The grapheme entered Greek as the letter-name san and continued to be so identified in some local Greek alphabets (see Hdt. 1.139 on the Dorian practice of calling the letter san) and in poetry (see McCarter 1975: 100–01; Woodard 1997a: 185 - 86, 188).

It might well be argued that Philo is using a very ancient Pythagorean source text which used an archaic alphabet.  However it is difficult to avoid seeing an uncanny resemblance to the common Marcian source text and its interest in the equally archaic episimon. The Greek wau (or digamma, so called after a shape suggestive of gamma) takes its morphology from that of the symbol that precedes it in the alphabetic order, namely Greek epsilon, . The non-Phoenician shape of Greek wau can be seen in the very earliest examples of Greek writing: one would thus suspect that the form of wau is the consequence of intentional morphological deformation on the part of the adapters rather than the outcome of some evolutionary process.[9]

To this end, Philo's arguments likely derive from an extremely early Pythagorean source which commented on the archaic letters of the alphabet where 'morphological deformation' appeared.  To this end what isn't said in the argument that follows - i.e. the transformation of 'wine' to 'vinegar' by letter substitution - is the fact that Οινος (Oinos) - Wine, and Οξος (Oxos) - Vinegar both have a shared numerological value of 400.   In other words, primitive gematria would have been used to reinforce that the underlying 'substance' was not subject to change.[10]  Philo's comments in what follow reinforce this understanding - i.e. that nothing in this example suggests that "anything is added to the world so as to cause its destruction."[11]

What is clear however is that the Marcian system shared by Clement is unquestionably related to this system given that it is rooted in the presence of the archaic episemon being 'added' back to the alphabet to restore order.[12]  Clement speaks of Jesus as the 'invisible' episemon in the Transfiguration narrative with the Marcian tradition reported by Irenaeus.  But his direct retelling of the tradition - as opposed to Irenaeus's malicious efforts - stand much closer to what we see preserved in Philo.  As he notes Jesus was:

indicated by the sixth (ἐπίσημος) conspicuously marked (φανῇ), becoming the eighth, might appear to be God in a body of flesh, by displaying His power, being numbered indeed as a man, but being concealed as to who He was. For six (ὁ ἕξ)  is reckoned in the order of numbers, but the succession of the letters acknowledges the character which is not written (τῶν στοιχείων ἀκολουθία ἐπίσημον γνωρίζει τὸ μὴ γραφόμενον). In this case, in the numbers themselves, each unit is preserved in its order up to seven and eight. But in the number of the characters, Zeta (τὸ ζῆτα) becomes six and Eta (τὸ η) seven. And the character having somehow slipped into writing, should we follow it out thus, the seven became six (τῶν στοιχείων ἀριθμὸν ἕκτον γίνεται), and the eight seven. Wherefore also man is said to have been made on the sixth day, who became faithful to Him who is the sign (τῷ ἐπισήμῳ), so as straightway to receive the rest of the Lord's inheritance. Some such thing also is indicated by the sixth hour in the scheme of salvation, in which man was perfected. Further, of the eight, the intermediates are seven; and of the seven, the intervals are shown to be six. For that is another ground, in which seven glorifies eight, and "the heavens declare to the heavens the glory of God." [6.16.140.3 - 141.4]

In both the examples of Clement and Philo there is a clear interest in letter deformation which effects the specific letters Zeta and Eta.  The evidence is murkier in the testimony of Irenaeus - but this may be deliberate on his part.[12]  The underlying point however is that we are dealing with a common literary tradition known at the time of Philo but which went back to the most archaic period of Greek culture - perhaps deliberately - as a means of connecting it to Israel.[13]

[1] Niclas Förster, Marcus Magus: Kult, Lehre und Gemeindeleben einer valentinianischen Gnostikergruppe: Sammlung der Quellen und Kommentar (WUNT 114; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). "Clemens, der sich sonst mit der Lehre des Markus nicht beschäftigte, dürfte an dieser Stelle Anregungen aus Adv. haer. verarbeitet haben."
[2]
[7] if Philo himself lists arguments in a poorly organised way, so too could his source.
[9] Woodard, R. G. (2010) 'Phoinikeia Grammata: an alphabet for the Greek language',
[11]  - "there is nothing whatever outside of the world which is not a portion of it as the whole, for everything is surrounded, and contained, and mastered by it. Again, can we say that anything is taken from the world so as to have that effect? In the first place that which would be taken away would again be a world of smaller dimensions than the existing one, and in the second place it is impossible that any body could be separated from the composite fabric of the whole world so as to be completely dispersed. Again, are we to say that the constituent parts of the world are transposed? But at all events they remain in their original positions without any change of place, for never at any time shall the whole earth be raised up above the water, nor the water above the air, nor the air above the fire. But those things which are by nature heavy, namely the earth and the water, will have the middle place, the earth supporting everything like a solid foundation, and the water being above it; and the air and the fire, which are by nature light, will have the higher position, but not equally, for the air is the vehicle of the fire; and that which is carried by anything is of necessity above that which carries it. Once more: we must not imagine that the world is destroyed by alteration, for the change of any elements is equipollent, and that which is equipollent is the cause of unvarying steadiness, and of untroubled durability, inasmuch as it neither seeks any advantage itself, and is not subject to the inroads of other things which seek advantages at its expense; so that this retribution and compensation of these powers is equalized by the rules of proportion, being the produce of health and endless preservation, by all which considerations the world is demonstrated to be eternal. [On the Eternity of the World XXII]
[12]  express themselves in this manner: that the letter Eta along with the remarkable one constitutes all ogdoad, as it is situated in the eighth place from Alpha. Then, again, computing the number of these elements without the remarkable (letter), and adding them together up to Eta, they exhibit the number thirty. For any one beginning from the Alpha to the Eta will, after subtracting the remarkable (letter i.e. episemon) ... they subtract twelve, and reckon it at eleven. And in like manner, (they subtract) ten and make it nine. [Hippolytus AH 6:42]

A Source Claims Samaritans Themselves Identify Marqe as Living in the First Century Before the Christian Era

I was trying to find an obscure French book and went to Persee (where else!) and stumbled upon this curious reference in a related article here.

Son auteur (= Marqe) vivait au 1er siècle avant l'ère chrétienne, selon l'opinion des Samaritains. 

The footnote is to this source is M Heidenheim, der Kommentar Marqas, des Samaritaners, Weimar, 1896, Biblioteca Samaritana, III, p. viii.  A very rare book it would seem.  There are others who have intimated such a date for Marqe - Brodie in A Samaritan Philosophy. But I am curious whether Heidenheim actually met Samaritans who told him this information or whether he is speaking about Samaritan written sources. I don't know of any which say this. All of which makes it quite intriguing.

The Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part Two]

It is usually assumed that all Jewish sectarian groups were Yahwehists - that is, that they maintained a strict adherence to 'the Lord.'  Most interpretations of Philo's writings somehow still assume that despite what we have just witnessed "God is, in fact, Yahweh, and Yahweh is God."[1] In other words, in spite of the fact that Philo explicitly speaks of Jacob leaving 'the Lord' and making 'God' his Lord, he is still an avowed Yahwehist. The only noted author who bucks this dogmatic 'faith' it would seem is Margaret Barker there existed in ancient Israel the belief that God, called Yahweh, was in fact an archangel, the chief of the sons of El. He was the second deity, and was believed to have been the human figure in the Hebrew Bible.[2] Indeed in spite of Alan Segal's Two Powers in Heaven, no one has suggested that there was an ancient Jewish effort to liberate themselves from Yahweh.[3]

If we move forward to Clement of Alexandria's adoption of Philo's conception, there is little difficulty finding Christian groups that might have held this understanding.  The Marcionites not only are identified as devoting themselves to  ὁ χρηστὸς θεὸς but also to have promoted a rite or a doctrine of 'redemption' from the Jewish Lord.[4]  There were other groups that might have held similar conceptions including the second century followers of a certain Marcus and their ἀπολύτρωσις ritual described in the pages of Irenaeus and shared with the community criticized in the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism.[5]

The difficulty for scholars of early Christianity is to accept that Clement and his community would have shared a seemingly blasphemous doctrine with known heretical groups.  It has long been established however that Clement does indeed cite verbatim passages from the Marcosian text criticized in Irenaeus's Against Heresies.[6] Clement not only "uses Marcus number system though without acknowledgement"[7] but we can, with Smith go one step further and acknowledge that "on comparison of the sections just cited from Clement and from Irenaeus the coincidences are found to be such as to put it beyond doubt that Clement in his account of the number six makes an unacknowledged use of the same writing as were employed by Irenaeus."[8]

This "gnosticism" seems to have continued with neo-Alexandrian monastic communities at least until the sixth century.  A text called 'Mysteries of the Greek Alphabet' preserved in the name of the founder of the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem has recently been identified as perpetuating this same Marcian gnosis.[9]  The text survives in Greek and Coptic and likely dates to the fifth or sixth century.  There is a common interest in the mystical significance of letters and specifically the letter representing the number six - the episemon - which binds Mark, Clement and Sabas. Noting that Clement "untermauert sie mit einigen der oben erwähnten Argumente des Gnostikers Markos" Brandt feels the citation goes beyond merely copying out something written in the writings of Clement which Sabas demonstrates he had access too elsewhere in the same work.  It is more likely in her opinion that the three works represent independent attestations of a common tradition.[10]

[1]
[2]
[3] Segal writers of Philo "But not only can Philo refer to YHWH as the logos, he can also interpret other occurrences of YHWH in scripture to indicate the presence of an angel, not God. For instance, the Lord (YHWH) standing on top of Jacob's ladder (Gen. 28:13) is identified as the archangel, the logos. Such ideas are facilitated by (and, in fact, probably mean to explain) a certain amount of confusion in the biblical narratives as to whether God himself or angel appears." (Two Powers, p. 170)
[4]
[5]
[6] Arendzen
[7]
[8]
[9] Brandt, in her critical edition of her German translation points to "Verwandtschaft zwischen dem vorliegenden Text und dem geistigen Hintergrund"
[10] "Es ist nicht auszuschließen, daß Ps.-Sabas auf die Stellung der Sechs außerhalb des Alphabets durch die gerade genannte oder eine andere, nicht erhaltene Quelle aufmerksam geworden ist. Immerhin gibt er an anderer Stelle an, Clemens konsultiert zu haben (vgl. 158,16). Andererseits ist seine Erklärung dieser Eigenart des Episemon lediglich innerhalb des Gedankengebäudes seines eigenen Werkes schlüssig und daher vermutlich von früheren Traditionen unabhängig."

On the Samaritan Origins of Christianity [Part One]

There is an unusually cryptic reference at the end of the first book of the Stromata, written c. 193 CE, by Clement of Alexandria.  No reasonable person could possibly guess that it would lead us back to the Samaritan origins of Christianity.  It is simply an unusual statement - one of many in the writings of this Church Father.  We read:

δεῖ δὴ τὴν διοικοῦσαν πρόνοιαν κυρίαν τε εἶναι καὶ ἀγαθήν. ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ἡ δύναμις οἰκονομεῖ σωτηρίαν, ἣ μὲν κολάσει σωφρονίζουσα ὡς κυρία, ἣ δὲ δι' εὐποιίας χρηστευομένη ὡς εὐεργέτις. ἔξεστι δὲ μὴ εἶναι ἀπειθείας υἱόν, ἀλλὰ μεταβαίνειν ἐκ τοῦ σκότους εἰς ζωὴν καὶ παραθέντα τῇ σοφίᾳ τὴν ἀκοὴν νόμιμον εἶναι θεοῦ δοῦλον μὲν τὰ πρῶτα, ἔπειτα δὲ πιστὸν γενέσθαι θεράποντα, φοβούμενον κύριον τὸν θεόν, εἰ δέ τις ἐπαναβαίη, τοῖς υἱοῖς ἐγκαταλέγεσθαι, ἐπὰν δὲ ἀγάπη καλύψῃ πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, μακαρίας ἐλπίδος τελείωσιν αὐξηθέντα ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐκδέχεσθαι τοῦτον ἐγκαταταγέντα τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ υἱοθεσίᾳ τῇ φίλῃ κεκλημένῃ τοῦ θεοῦ, ᾄδοντα ἤδη τὴν εὐχὴν καὶ λέγοντα· γενέσθω μοι κύριος εἰς θεόν.

It is essential, certainly, that the providence which manages all, be both supreme and good. For it is the power of both that dispenses salvation -- the one correcting by punishment, as supreme, the other showing kindness in the exercise of beneficence, as a benefactor. It is in your power not to be a son of disobedience, but to pass from darkness to life, and lending your ear to wisdom, to be the legal slave of God, in the first instance, and then to become a faithful servant, fearing the Lord God. And if one ascend higher, he is enrolled among the sons. But when "charity covers the multitude of sins," by the consummation of the blessed hope, then may we welcome him as one who has been enriched in love, and received into the elect adoption, which is called the beloved of God, while he chants the prayer, saying, "Let the Lord be my God." [Clement Stromata 1.27.173]

There are so many ideas contained in this short section of text, it is difficult to make out exactly what Clement is driving at.  Nevertheless by the end of our analysis we will find ourselves facing the mount Gerizim, the holiest place on earth for Samaritans and many Jews at the turn of the Common Era.[1]

We should immediately recognize passage is rooted in the traditional Alexandrian Jewish conception of the godhead.  We learn from Philo God made himself known to the world through two principal heavenly powers.  The first ὁ κύριος, the Greek translation of the Hebrew יהוה, the power who is understood to dispense 'chastisements' (σωφρονίζουσα) upon humanity.  The other is θεὸς, identified specifically as ὁ χρηστὸς θεὸς 'the kind God' in the writings of Philo, the power associated with 'beneficence' (εὐποιία).[2]  The names appear in early Alexandrian writings but also at the Marcionite inscription discovered in Deir Ali, Syria, one of the oldest remains of Christian gathering house.[3]

Yet Clement has in mind the 'prayer' (εὐχὴν) of Jacob in Gen 28:21 LXX which scholars have puzzled over for centuries. After experiencing his vision of angels and the ladder from heaven, Jacob names the place 'Bethel' and proceeds to make a most unusual vow:

If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God. and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that you give me, I will give the tenth to you.

The natural reading of the material would suggest that Clement is interested in the passage because of Jacob's vow to make Yahweh his god.  Yet anyone making this assumption would be sorely mistaken.  Clement's is certainly channeling Philo's exegesis of the material which - strangely - understands Jacob to have turned away from ὁ κύριος and vowed to devote himself to θεὸς.

The first reference to the passage in the writings of Philo appear in De Plantatione where after citing citing the appearance of the two divine names together in Gen 21:33 LXX - ἐπεκαλέσατο τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου θεὸς αἰώνιος - explains:

the appellations already mentioned reveal the powers existing in the living God; for one title is that of Lord, according to which he governs; and the other is God, according to which he is beneficent. For which reason also, in the account of the creation of the world, according to the most holy Moses, the name of God is always assumed by him: for it was fitting that the power according to which the Creator, when he was bringing his creatures into the world, arranged and adorned them, should be invoked also by that creation. Inasmuch, therefore, as he is a ruler, he has both powers, that, namely, of doing good, and that of doing harm; regulating his conduct on the principle of requiting him who has done anything. But inasmuch as he is a benefactor, he is inclined only to one of these two courses, namely, to do good. And it would be the greatest possible advantage to the soul no longer to feel any doubt about the power of the King for both purposes, but steadily to emancipate itself from the fear, which is suspended over it, on account of the vastness of his authority, and to kindle and keep alive a most firm hope of the acquisition and enjoyment of blessings arising from his being beneficent by deliberate intention. Now the expression, "everlasting God," is equivalent to, God who bestows gifts, not sometimes giving and sometimes not, but always and incessantly; it is equivalent to, God who does good uninterruptedly; to God who, without intermission, is connecting a flow of benefits, coming one after the other; God, who pours forth blessings upon blessings, who is made up of mercies connected and united; God, who never omits any single opportunity of doing good; God, who is also the Lord, so that he is able to injure.

This also Jacob, the practiser of virtue, asked at the end of his most holy prayers. For he said, "And the Lord shall be to me as God." Which is equivalent to: He will no longer display towards me the despotic power of his absolute authority, but rather the beneficent influence of his universally propitious and saving power, utterly removing the fear with which he is regarded as a master, and filling the soul with affection and benevolence as felt towards a benefactor. What soul could ever conceive thus that the master and ruler of the universe, without changing anything of his own nature, but remaining in the condition in which he always was, is continually kind and uninterruptedly bounteous? owing to which he is, to those who are happy, the most perfect cause of unlimited and overflowing blessings. And to trust in a king who is not by reason of the magnitude of his authority elated so as to do injury to his subjects, but who, through his love to mankind, prefers that every one should enjoy happiness without fear, is the greatest possible bulwark of prosperity and security. [De Plantatione 88 - 93]

Here Philo refers to the vow in Gen 28:21 with the same terminology employed by Clement - εὐῶν - and the same idea of two powers in heaven appears.  It is difficult to argue that Clement is appropriating his ideas from the Jewish Alexandrian master.

Yet isn't it heretical to suggest that Jacob outgrew 'the Lord' and embraced another being - God - instead?The very same idea is reinforced by another passage from Philo's De Somniis only now we see a tripartite division of humanity which lines up with Clement's grades of 'fear of God,' 'being enrolled among the sons' and 'elect adoption' (ἐκλεκτῇ υἱοθεσίᾳ) which is called beloved of God (τῇ φίλῃ κεκλημένῃ τοῦ θεοῦ).  Philo intimates earlier that Jacob represents the individual who rises from the lowest ranks (fear) and proceeds to the two next steps to perfection embodied by Abraham and Isaac:

But do not fancy that it is an accidental thing here for him to be called in this place the God and Lord of Abraham, but only the God of Isaac; for this latter is the symbol of the knowledge which exists by nature, which hears itself, and teaches itself, and learns of itself; but Abraham is the symbol of that which is derived from the teaching of others; and the one again is an indigenous and native inhabitant of his country, but the other is only a settler and a foreigner; for having forsaken the language of those who indulge in sublime conversations about astronomy, a language imitating that of the Chaldaeans, foreign and barbarous, he was brought over to that which was suited to a rational being, namely, to the service of the great Cause of all things. Now this disposition stands in need of two powers to take care of it, the power that is of authority, and that of conferring benefits, in order that in accordance with the authority of the governor, it may obey the admonitions which it receives, and also that it may be greatly benefited by his beneficence. But the other disposition stands in need of the power of beneficence only; for it has not derived any improvement from the authority which admonishes it, inasmuch as it naturally claims virtue as its own, but by reason of the bounty which is showered upon it from above, it was good and perfect from the beginning; therefore God is the name of the beneficent power, and Lord is the title of the royal power. What then can any one call a more ancient and important good, than to be thought worthy to meet with unmixed and unalloyed beneficence? And what can be less valuable than to receive a mixture of authority and liberality? And it appears to me that it was because the practiser of virtue saw that he uttered that most admirable prayer that, "the Lord might be to him as God;" (Gen 28:21) for he desired no longer to stand in awe of him as a governor, but to honour and love him as a benefactor. Now is it not fitting that even blind men should become sharpsighted in their minds to these and similar things, being endowed with the power of sight by the most sacred oracles, so as to be able to contemplate the glories of nature, and not to be limited to the mere understanding of the words? But even if we voluntarily close the eye of our soul and take no care to understand such mysteries, or if we are unable to look up to them, the hierophant himself stands by and prompts us. And do not thou ever cease through weariness to anoint thy eyes until you have introduced those who are duly initiated to the secret light of the sacred scriptures, and have displayed to them the hidden things therein contained, and their reality, which is invisible to those who are uninitiated. It is becoming then for you to act thus; but as for ye, O souls, who have once tasted of divine love, as if you had even awakened from deep sleep, dissipate the mist that is before you; and hasten forward to that beautiful spectacle, putting aside slow and hesitating fear, in order to comprehend all the beautiful sounds and sights which the president of the games has prepared for your advantage. [De Somniis 1.161 - 165]

Abraham is a figure of knowledge gained by instruction (διδασκoμεvης). Abraham needs both powers, punishing and kindly powers, called Lord and God, whereas Isaac needs only the kind power that is called God (Somn 1:162). The previous interpretations of ladder and mediators are thus echoed. To a new understanding, to understanding divinity as God (κυριoς εις θεov) man is exhorted in Somn 1:163, and the text quoted the prayer of Jacob in Gen 28:21.