The Alexandrian Patriarch, the 'Living Voice' of St. Mark and the Secret Gospel of Alexandria

I have been arguing that Irenaeus and Clement stand on opposite sides of the issue of a contemporary concept in the late second/early third century called 'the living voice' which I think was connected with the tradition of 'Secret Mark.'

As I noted in my last post Clement of Alexandria says that "writing and living voice are only different ways of preaching the Word" [Stromata i.11] while Irenaeus writes that "when, however, they [the heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but living voice: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." [AH iii.2]

I argued further in that post that if we read the Letter to Theodore carefully it is apparent that - against the familiar model established by Irenaeus - that Clement viewed the account 'of the Lord's doings' as the original written testimony of Christ but then he argues that the Gospel according to Mark known to his Alexandrian community had the added power of the knowledge or voice of Mark himself.

Now I have to admit that Clement does not explicitly reference the concept of 'the living voice' in the Letter to Theodore. Yet it is undeniable that the idea of 'Mark's voice' IS at the heart of the most important part of the Letter to Theodore. Clement tells us that when:

Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his knowledge and the things he remembered from Peter he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

Mark's gospel - the text which has his personal 'voice' added to his original book - is ultimately 'read' or spoken aloud by those being initiated by the Patriarch of Alexandria, the man who sits in the throne of St. Mark and rules over the aforementioned 'church of Alexandria.' Clearly then Mark's 'living voice' is implicitly present in the text.

Now let's move forward about a hundred years and see the Patriarch of Alexandria, Peter I, not only have a personal encounter with St. Mark where the Evangelist identifies Peter I as his 'living representative' in the age but Peter I himself implicitly speaks with the 'living voice' of St. Mark while referencing the same Episcopal succession in Alexandria:

Wherefore take heed unto yourselves, and the whole flock over which the Holy Ghost has appointed you as overseers in succession—thee Achillas in the first place, and next to thee Alexander. Behold with living voice I protest to you, that after my death men will arise in the Church speaking perverse things, and will again divide it

The context of course is the claim that Arius, like Meletius represents a break in the true succession from St. Mark. However that the Patriarch is said to speak with a 'living voice' is very significant for our understanding of the context of Clement's statement that the gospel that was written with Mark's soul injected into it never has its contents uttered in public. Rather its contents are only read in the 'guarded' setting of the initiation ceremonies of the Alexandrian Church.

The reader need only look at the surviving Divine Liturgy of St. Mark to see how the Gospel of Mark is ritually associated with his living representative ...

Now let's go back to the original formulation that Clement gives us of the development of the Gospel according to Mark once again. Clement says that two books were written by Mark, one for Peter which was merely for instruction and then another text implicitly, as we have just noted, with the 'living voice' of the Evangelist himself.

For some reason the hoaxers think that Morton Smith invented this whole letter out of his head or argue that none of it has any support from the surviving writings of Alexandrians at the time of Clement. Yet look at this discussion which comes from Origen's Philocalia.

Origen begins by noting that:

As man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so too does Scripture which has been granted by God for the salvation of men. And thus we explain that passage in The Shepherd,----a book which some treat with contempt, ----in which Hermas is commanded to write two books, and then read to the elders of the Church what he has learned from the Spirit. "Thou shalt write two books, and give one to Clement and one to Grapte. And Grapte shall admonish the widows and orphans, Clement shall send to the cities abroad, and thou shalt read to the elders of the Church."[Philocalia 11]

Clement of course has nothing to do with 'Clement of Alexandria.' Origen goes on to describe the relationship between the two letters Hermas is commanded to write in strikingly similar terms to Clement's two gospels written by Mark. Origen says:

Grapte, who admonishes the widows and orphans, is the bare letter of Scripture; it admonishes those readers whose souls are in the stage of childhood, and who cannot yet call God their Father, and are therefore styled "orphans"; it moreover admonishes souls, no longer consorting with the unlawful bridegroom, but remaining in a widowed state because not yet worthy of the true Bridegroom. Clement, the reader who has got beyond the letter, is said to send what is said to the cities abroad, that is to say, the souls which have escaped from the bodily desires and lower aims. And next the writing is forsaken, and the disciple himself of the Spirit is bidden "read" to the wise and hoary-headed elders of the whole Church of God with the living voice.[Philocalia 12]

Sounds remarkably similar to the formulation of Clement of Alexandria don't you think? I keep telling you guys, the letter is authentic.