The Gospel According to the Hebrews and Secret Mark

Life is all about possibilities.  I find it difficult to believe that prominent religious scholars can accuse one of their own of actually inventing a lost letter of a prominent Church Father he claims he found in a Greek orthodox monastery near Bethlehem when there is so little evidence to support such a charge.  One should expect that such distinguished men would only allow themselves to reach such a conclusion because the facts demanded that they 'assume the unthinkable.'  In other words, that forgery was the only possibility.  The reality however is far different. 

One particularly wicked individual - on his way to becoming a religious scholar but not quite there - went out of his way to martial a case against the authenticity of the discovery developed mostly from innuendo and what can only be described as a willful misrepresentation of the physical evidence.  He even constructed a bizarre 'motivation' for this crime - a wonton libido so embittered against the 'true beliefs' of the Church that it helped forge this false letter of Clement of Alexandria. 

The reason that Stephen Carlson ultimately succeeded at winning over so many converts to the ridiculous claims of his 2005 book the Gospel Hoax was that very same religious scholars won over to his theory for the most part embodied the very tortured personna of Morton Smith the forger developed in the book.  Ugly, both in the face and in the soul, they essentially made a career for themselves stealing and reworking the ideas of others into ever new works of obfuscation.  Indeed the Gospel Hoax is in many ways little more than a confessional exercise at how corrupt and falsified two hundred years of Biblical scholarship had become. 

The discovery of the Mar Saba letter challenged ten generations of efforts to avoid challenging our inherited notions about the sacredness of the fourfold gospel.  This is the real 'crime' that has led to Morton Smith's condemnation by contemporary religious scholarship.  In the minds of most conservative scholars the field is divided into those who edify the sacred clams of our religious inheritance and those who attempt to subvert them.  Because Morton Smith actively promoted a thesis aligned with the cause of subverting Christianity (viz. 'the Jesus the magician' argument) and used his discovery, the Mar Saba docment to further that agenda, the Letter to Theodore is condemned as a product of Morton Smith's 'Satanic' agenda. 

Yet any one who has ever bothered to read Smith's 1973 book can see how implausible his attempts to connect Clement's letter with his thesis really are.  The text makes no explicit reference to any 'magic' being practiced by Jesus.  It is of course true that Irenaeus accuses the Carpocratians of practising "also magical arts and incantations; philters, also, and love-potions; and have recourse to familiar spirits, dream-sending demons, and other abominations" (AH 1.25.3) and the Letter to Theodore does acknowledge that Carpocrates used magic to ensnare a presbyter in Alexandria into revealing the contents of its 'secret gospel.'  However the real focus of the document is discussing the shared gospel of the Carpocratian and Alexandrian communities. 

Irenaeus gives us no information whatsoever about which gospel the Carpocratians employed.  The closest that he comes to saying anything about this is what is found in the description of the Ebionites which follows "Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only" (AH 1.26.2)  Does the 'they' here include the Carpocratians?  Epiphanius certainly seems to think so.  Lawlor demonstrates quite effectively that Epiphanius did not use Irenaeus as his source for the Carpocratians but in fact Irenaeus's ultimate source of information - a text identified by Eusebius as 'the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus' a history of the Church which focused on Jerusalem and Rome and written in the year 147 CE and which was subsequently revised in a later period. 

Whether or not Hegesippus was Epiphanius's source for the idea that the Ebionites and the Carpocratains used an older form of the canonical gospel of Matthew - the so-called Gospel according to the Hebews - is anyone's guess.  Epiphanius in his Panarion makes reference to the Ebionites (ch. 30) and goes on to discuss their relation with the Cerinthians (ch. 29).40 Epiphanius writes that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to Matthew and he continues: "For they use only this like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus"41 (30 3 7). Later he even writes that the Ebionites, Cerinthians and Carpocratians used the same Gospel (30 14 2). The statement might well be taken to represent little more than a reworking of Irenaeus if it were not for Lawlor's conclusive research to indicate that Epiphanius used an earlier source. 

I find it particularly interesting the statement in the description of the Ebionites in Epiphanius where he says:

See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, crooked, and not right anywhere! For by supposedly using their same Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew's Gospel and make its opening, as I said, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan” and so on.  This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects— and been united with him. [Panarion 30.14.2]

The reason this testimony is so valuable is because Irenaeus also reports much the same thing about the Carpocratians and Cerinthians using the same gospel - i.e. the one said to be 'the original Matthew' albeit with one important distinction.  The Ebionites and the Cerinthians apparently emphasize that Christianity is supposed to continue at least some of the rituals of Judaism.  The Carpocratians want to utterly abandon all the old commandments.

Indeed it has to be noted that it is only Irenaeus who conditions all those who follow him to identify this Gospel according to the Hebrews as 'Matthew.'  A careful examination of the rest of Epiphanius's testimony makes clear that he is correct in also reporting it as the precursor to the Diatessaron: 

Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing “Hebrew”!—the following passage is found: “There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age, who chose us. And coming to Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said, Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot. Thee too, Matthew, seated at the receipt of custom, did I call,  I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles for a testimony to Israel.” [ibid 30.13]

It should be noted that only our canonical Luke has the reference to Jesus being 'about thirty,' that John heads the list of apostles and that Matthew concludes it.  The point is that whoever developed this gospel did so with Matthew having a special place in its narrative.  I think there are numerous signs that Clement knew of this gospel and associated with his heretical opponents, the Carpocratians.

Let's start with the fact that on top of the fact that Clement identifies the Zacchaeus narrative as 'completing' or explaining the original question brought up by the rich youth (Mark 10:17 - 31) Clement repeatedly intimates that in some gospels Zacchaeus is named 'Matthew':

It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, "Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;" on which the Saviour said, "The Son of man, on coming to-day, has found that which was lost." [Stromata 4.6]

Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, "To-day salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." [Quis Dives Salvetur 13]

The point then is that this is undoubtedly the same gospel as that associated with the Ebionites, Cerinthians and perhaps the Carpocratians given that Matthew is given such prominence and that the text is always connected with the Diatessaron. 

It is also worth noting that the tradition just cited has been noted to have some connection to the Preaching of Peter.  Compare the conclusion of Epiphanius's opening citation:

 I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles for a testimony to Israel.”

with what appears in Clement's Stromata Book Six

Accordingly, in the Preaching of Peter, the Lord says to the disciples after the resurrection, "I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me," whom the Lord wished to be apostles, having judged them faithful, sending them into the world to the men on the earth [Strom 6.6]

There is also an Epistle to the Apostles which dates from the mid-second century which survivies in Coptic and Ethiopian and which may well also be related to the same gospel tradition.  Note the similarities again between one of its passages and what appears in the writings of Clement.  In the Ethiopic version another writing, a prophecy of our Lord concerning the signs of the end, is prefixed to the Epistle. Parts of the this recur in the Syriac Testament of the Lord and part is repeated in the Epistle itself. It is noteworthy that this prophecy ends with a passage which is identical with one quoted by Clement of Alexandria from a source he does not name he does not name - only calling it 'the Scripture':

And the righteous, that have walked in the way of righteousness, shall inherit the glory of God; and the power shall be given to them which no eye hath seen and no ear heard; and they shall rejoice in my kingdom. [Protrept. 103]

But the saints of the Lord shall inherit the glory of God, and his power. Tell me what glory, O blessed one. That which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it come upon the heart of man; and they shall rejoice at the kingdom of their Lord for ever. Amen. [Testament 11]

The point of course is that it cannot be at all doubted that Clement of Alexandria had in his possession one or all of the various texts related to the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  It would also seem highly likely that Clement was reacting to a group in the possession of one of these texts in Quis Dives Salvetur.

I have already noted that Quis Dives Salvetur is framed by a citation of Mark 10:24/Matt 9:24 that first appears in the Gospel according to the Hebrews cited by his successor and student Origen.  This is very significant for our attempt to understand whether to Theodore is a forgery as there is very good reason to believe that Clement's opponents in Quis Dives Salvetur are the Carpocratians given the similarity of arguments with Stromata 3:1 - 12 where the heretics promoting these views are so identified.  The Carpocratians are identified as Clement's adversaries in to Theodore and he cites 'the gospel according to Mark' against their views - a method Clement employs against the Carpocratians in Quis Dives Salvetur.  Moreover takes pains to note that in some gospels the Zacchaeus narrative is attributed to Matthew; giving Matthew a heightened profile is a feature apparently of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' in the hands of the heretics.

With all of this said, I want to again emphasize that it is only Irenaeus argues that canonical Matthew is the 'successor' to this 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' of the heretics.  The fact that the figure of Matthew appeared prominently in at least some of these manuscripts should not prejudice us against the view that in fact that the Gospel according to the Hebrews might have actually been related to another canonical gospel - possibly even Mark.  The question has to be asked - why would Clement cite canonical Mark to clarify the points raised by the heretics about the Question of the Rich Man pericope if canonical Matthew was the true ancestor of the text?

In the Letter to Theodore for instance, the claim is made that Mark wrote both a public and private gospel so it was only natural to compare the two texts in order to refute the point made by the Carpocratians that canonical Mark was not divinely inspired.  In Quis Dives Salvetur and related sections of the Instructor and the Stromateis the heretical argument seems to have been that it is impossible for a rich man to get into kingdom of heaven.  Clement's point is ultimately that the story atributed to a certain Zacchaeus - and in the gospel of the heretics 'Matthew' - makes clear that Christianity does not demand an abandonment of riches for its members but rather works of charity:

How could one give food to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and shelter the houseless, for not doing which He threatens with fire and the outer darkness, if each man first divested himself of all these things? Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, "To-day salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." He so praises the use of property as to enjoin, along with this addition, the giving a share of it, to give drink to the thirsty, bread to the hungry, to take the houseless in, and clothe the naked. But if it is not possible to supply those needs without substance, and He bids people abandon their substance, what else would the Lord be doing than exhorting to give and not to give the same things, to feed and not to feed, to take in and to shut out, to share and not to share? which were the most irrational of all things ... we must hear the Saviour speaking thus, "Come, follow Me." For to the pure in heart He now becomes the way. But into the impure soul the grace of God finds no entrance. And that (soul) is unclean which is rich in lusts, and is in the throes of many worldly affections. For he who holds possessions, and gold, and silver, and houses, as the gifts of God; and ministers from them to the God who gives them for the salvation of men; and knows that he possesses them more for the sake of the brethren than his own; and is superior to the possession of them, not the slave of the things he possesses; and does not carry them about in his soul, nor bind and circumscribe his life within them, but is ever labouring at some good and divine work, even should he be necessarily some time or other deprived of them, is able with cheerful mind to bear their removal equally with their abundance. This is he who is blessed by the Lord, and cared poor in spirit, a meet heir of the kingdom of heaven, not one who could not live rich.  [Quis Dives Salvetur 13,16]

Notice again how Clement not only cites gospel narratives which conclude this section with a figure named alternative 'Zacchaeus' or 'Matthew' but moreover one which originally reference 'the kingdom of heaven' in Mark 10:24/Matt 9:24.

It is worth following Clement's use of the terms 'kingdom of heaven' and 'heaven' in what follows in order to gain some insight into the original heretical argument he was answering.  In no uncertain terms we learn near the end that the heretics were concerned about what leads to entrance into heaven:

For let not this be left to despondency and despair by you, if you learn who the rich man is that has not a place in heaven, and what way he uses his property. [ibid 38]

Clearly then 'kingdom of heaven' is interpreted as meaning 'the next world.'  What then is the point of Clement's original citation of the public gospel of Mark which has the reading 'kingdom of God' in its place in Mark 10:24/Matthew 9:24?  Clearly Clement - like all gnostics - understands that there are different places assigned to different natures.  To the psychics there is the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ which is improperly rendered by the term 'kingdom of God.' A translation with “kingship,” "kingly rule," “reign”, “queen”, or “sovereignty” should be preferred (a point even recognized by the Catholic Church).

This is why Clement cites the Gospel according to Mark. It is only in canonical gospels that we get any context for this distinction between the place of 'the kingdom of God' and the 'kingdom of heaven.' Let us not forget that in 'secret Mark' the neaniskos who asks Jesus the question about riches, dies and returns from the underworld to receive the 'mystery of the kingdom of God.' This is established in practice a few lines later by the example of 'Zacchaeus' (the righteous) or Matthew (the gift of God) both clandestine titles for the same rich youth.

How then can Clement explain that the distinction in the 'mystic gospel' held in common with the heretics without revealing its secrets? Well, the reference to Zacchaeus is clearly made to the heretics themselves (i.e. those who had the original formulation of the Diatessaron-like gospel). However he explains the meaning of 'kingdom of God' without referencing LGM 1 by bringing forward another passage from the canonical gospels:

But if one is able in the midst of wealth to turn from its power, and to entertain moderate sentiments, and to exercise self-command, and to seek God alone, and to breathe God and walk with God, such a poor man submits to the commandments, being free, unsubdued, free of disease, unwounded by wealth. But if not, "sooner shall a camel enter through a needle's eye, than such a rich man reach the kingdom of God."

Let then the camel, going through a narrow and strait way before the rich man, signify something loftier; which mystery of the Saviour is to be learned in the "Exposition of first Principles and of Theology."

Well, first let the point of the parable, which is evident, and the reason why it is spoken, be presented. Let it teach the prosperous that they are not to neglect their own salvation, as if they had been already fore-doomed, nor, on the other hand, to cast wealth into the sea, or condemn it as a traitor and an enemy to life, but learn in what way and how to use wealth and obtain life. For since neither does one perish by any means by fearing because he is rich, nor is by any means saved by trusting and believing that he shall be saved, come let them look what hope the Saviour assigns them, and how what is unexpected may become ratified, and what is hoped for may come into possession.

The Master accordingly, when asked, "Which is the greatest of the commandments?" says, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy strength;" that no commandment is greater than this (He says), and with exceeding good reason; for it gives command respecting the First and the Greatest, God Himself, our Father, by whom all things were brought into being, and exist, and to whom what is saved returns again. By Him, then, being loved beforehand, and having received existence, it is impious for us to regard ought else older or more excellent; rendering only this small tribute of gratitude for the greatest benefits; and being unable to imagine anything else whatever by way of recompense to God, who needs nothing and is perfect; and gaining immortality by the very exercise of loving the Father to the extent of one's might and power. For the more one loves God, the more he enters within God.

The second in order, and not any less than this, He says, is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," consequently God above thyself. And on His interlocutor inquiring, "Who is my neighbour?" He did not, in the same way with the Jews, specify the blood-relation, or the fellow-citizen, or the proselyte, or him that had been similarly circumcised, or the man who uses one and the same law. But He introduces one on his way down from the upland region from Jerusalem to Jericho, and represents him stabbed by robbers, cast half-dead on the way, passed by the priest, looked sideways at by the Levite, but pitied by the vili-fied and excommunicated Samaritan; who did not, like those, pass casually, but came provided with such things as the man in danger required, such as oil, bandages, a beast of burden, money for the inn-keeper, part given now, and part promised. "Which," said He, "of them was neighbour to him that suffered these things?" and on his answering, "He that showed mercy to him," (replied), Go thou also, therefore, and do likewise, since love buds into well-doing.

In both the commandments, then, He introduces love; but in order distinguishes it. And in the one He assigns to God the first part of love, and allots the second to our neighbour. Who else can it be but the Saviour Himself? or who more than He has pitied us, who by the rulers of darkness were all but put to death with many wounds, fears, lusts, passions, pains, deceits, pleasures?. Of these wounds the only physician is Jesus, who cuts out the passions thoroughly by the root, -- not as the law does the bare effects, the fruits of evil plants, but applies His axe to the roots of wickedness. He it is that poured wine on our wounded souls (the blood of David's vine), that brought the oil which flows from the compassions of the Father? and bestowed it copiously. He it is that produced the ligatures of health and of salvation that cannot be undone, -- Love, Faith, Hope. He it is that subjected angels, and principalities, and powers, for a great reward to serve us. For they also shall be delivered from the vanity of the world through the revelation of the glory of the sons of God. We are therefore to love Him equally with God. And he loves Christ Jesus who does His will and keeps His commandments. "For not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father." And "Why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" "And blessed are ye who see and hear what neither righteous men nor prophets" (have seen or heard), if ye do what I say.

He then is first who loves Christ; and second, he who loves and cares for those who have believed on Him. For whatever is done to a disciple, the Lord accepts as done to Himself, and reckons the whole as His. "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me to drink: and I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: I was naked and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came to Me. Then shall the righteous answer, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee hungry, and fed Thee? or thirsty, and gave Thee drink? And when saw we Thee a stranger, and took Thee in? or naked, and clothed Thee? Or when saw we Thee sick, and visited Thee? or in prison, and came to Thee? And the King answering, shall say to them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me." [Quis Dives Salvetur 26 - 30]

Oh these wicked imbeciles pretending to be men of learning! It is insufferable to hear them talk about 'forgery' when it is clear they do not even know how distinguish the truth in the existing writings of Clement.

I have always argued that when the rich youth receives his initiation after being resurrected in the passage from secret Mark, 'the mysteries of the kingdom of God' should be taken as the mysteries of his messianic rule. After all Irenaeus already tells us of a group of heretics who 'prefer' what is called 'the Gospel according to Mark' and separate Chrsit from Jesus saying that the latter suffered and the former watched impassably. With Secret Mark we finally know why Jesus isn't identified as the Christ. These heretics, aligned more closely to the traditional beliefs of Judaism knew that Jesus wasn't the messiah. He was instead God establishing another into the mysteries of the kingship of God.

But that is another story completely, and one which I will have to explain at another time ...