stephan huller

A short post for a change. Here's the argument in a nutshell. All the Church Fathers say that when the earliest witnesses referenced the εὐαγγέλιον this was an oral preservation of the teachings of Jesus (this is always how Paul's use of the term is explained away). Justin - an educated philosopher - references the texts created out of this original oral teaching as υπομνηματα which when employed by such erudite philosophers as Justin meant 'commentaries' rather than memoirs (http://books.google.com/books?id=ldM...omnema&f=false).

There is an educated philosophical tradition where individuals who presumably 'know' the true teachings of Jesus (undoubtedly conveyed still through some 'oral teaching' cf Irenaeus AH iii.3.2) continued to write υπομνηματα on the original εὐαγγέλιον (Pantaenus, Heracleon, Clement etc.).

Clement's use is interesting. We call his work the Stromateis but he himself always identifies it as the υπομνηματα - the υπομνηματα on the 'true philosophy' of Christ. My question is did Clement think that his υπομνηματα was of subordinate authority to the apostles.

I don't think so. This is the point of Irenaeus's criticism of the gnostics - i.e. they thought themselves the equals of the apostles. I think this goes back to Justin's identification of our 'gospels' as υπομνηματα. Remember his student Tatian employed a single 'gospel' which was called 'ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ' (Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê) meaning 'Gospel of the Mixed.' We, with our inherited presuppositions immediately think the thing made from a mixture of older witnesses must be inferior to the original material so we ignore the tradition.

Yet, does Justin's use of the term υπομνηματα parallel To Theodore use of the term? Yes, I think so. Could Justin and Tatian have viewed their late gospel production as superior to the υπομνηματα of the apostles that came before it. Yes, of course they did.

Then why is Clement's formulation so 'bizarre' as all the opponents of To Theodore like to claim? Indeed LGM 2 is identical in structure to the parallel passage in the Diatessaron. The tradition associated with the Diatessaron also assumes an Alexandrian text paralleled or identical with Tatian's MS.

Indeed the SAME basic formulation is made about the Marcionite gospel by Tertullian (i.e. it was introduced only after the writings of the apostles were established). Moreover, Marcion himself is criticized for coming as a savior figure long after the historical Passion. In the Near East there was always this expectation of a Christ-like figure who people could accept appearing long after Jesus (Mani, Mohammed). The figure was always called the 'Paraclete' (the Marcionites applied this term to the secondary figure of Paul) who always wrote a gospel LONG AFTER Jesus.

I think it's just 'we' (the Europeans) who have the problem with this formulation.

In short there is nothing 'strange' about the idea in To Theodore that Mark wrote a gospel AFTER the υπομνηματα of the apostles. Even Irenaeus knows this formulation (AH iii.3.2) and repeatedly criticizes it as implying that the apostles didn't have perfect knowledge.

Moreover who says that Tatian actually combined the υπομνηματα of the apostles into four. The Church Fathers always subordinated traditions associated with their enemies to recent origins. Did Tatian think he was preserving Justin's original gospel? I think so. Is Justin responsible for the creation of this text? Maybe but there is no reason to think that it couldn't have went back to an earlier source.

One more thing, the introduction of Luke ALSO implies the imperfection of the original υπομνηματα of the apostles (a point never lost on Muslim commentators).

Again, 'secret Mark' isn't as bizarre as people like to claim. It is a well attested paradigm for the production of the true εὐαγγέλιον. Just as the Paraclete would make an appearance subsequent to the Passion (in some cases REALLY subsequent viz. Islam) so too the 'true gospel.'

stephan huller

Oh, I just realized that many people aren't as familiar with what To Theodore says about the production of the 'secret' Gospel of Mark:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own υπομνηματα and those of Peter, from which 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.[To Theodore 1.15 - 22]

Scott Brown takes υπομνηματα to mean 'notes' throughout his Mark's Other Gospel. But I think this understanding is unnecessarily vague. Justin's identification of υπομνηματα in the name of the apostles is key to make sense of the Christian use of the term. Jesus had spoken long ago in cryptic sayings and parables and now the υπομνηματα of his hearers were used to reconstruct what it was that the Lord said, what he meant.

A parallel use of υπομνηματα at the time of Alexander is worth noting. The fate of the Empire of Alexander the Great's kingdom was decided from the reading of his υπομνηματα:

Craterus had written instructions which the king had given him to carry out, but after Alexander's death the Successors decided against putting these plans into effect. For in the υπομνηματα of the king, Perdiccas found orders for the completion of Hephaestion's pyre, which called for heavy expenditure, and for all his other designs, which, numerous and grandiose, required an inordinate outlay of money. He therefore decided it was expedient to leave them unfulfilled. But not to appear to have diminished Alexander's prestige on his own authority, he brought the proposal concerning these matters before the common council of the Macedonians. The greatest and most significant projects in the υπομνηματα were the following. There was the construction of a thousand warships, larger than triremes, in Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia and Cyprus. These were for a campaign against the Carthaginians and the other peoples living along the coast of Libya and Iberia and the area next to these along the coast as far as Sicily. (Diodorus Siculus 18.4.1 - 6)

I think there is an important parallel between the use of υπομνηματα after the death of Alexander and the death of Jesus. In each case an attempt was made to understand 'what the wishes' were of each man. So it is that Foucault emphatically rejects the idea that the term υπομνηματα ever meant anything like 'personal notes' or 'diary' but "to make of the recollection of the fragmentary logos transmitted by teaching, listening, or reading a means to establish as adequate and as perfect a relationship of oneself to oneself as possible." (From an Interview with Michel Foucault in The Foucault Reader (or via: amazon.co.uk); Paul Rabinow, editor (New York) Pantheon, 1984, p 365)

Toto

It would be clearer if you indentified "To Theodore" as the basis of Secret Mark, the letter from Clement of Alexandria to Theodore, which Morton Smith claimed to have found in the library at Mar Saba.

stephan huller

Yes, you're right. I should have mentioned that.

Actually when I was driving home from Target today I was thinking that in fact EVERY Christian tradition doesn't start at 'ground zero.' Yes the Catholic tradition PRETENDS that their four gospels are like 'relics' from the earliest period but that's just bullshit.

Knox and Trobisch point to the fact that the 'gospel in four' necessarily HAD TO involve 'shorter' gospels. Trobisch points to John as a shortened gospel. To Theodore makes canonical Mark seem short by comparison with Alexandrian (or 'secret') Mark.

So in essence you have Irenaeus arriving on the scene saying 'the gospel is four-faced' at the end of the second century and his master Polycarp and one of his principle sources Hegesippus (HE iv.22.2) use a Gospel according to the Hebrews. Even Justin fits in the 'don't know/don't use the canonical four' category.

In short Irenaeus by implication is acknowledging by his actions the idea that Christian truth was constantly evolving.

But what popped into my head is the fact that the Montanists are also a variation of this 'the truth is evolving' formulation. Yes, they accepted the fourfold gospel but the reality is that it was an innovation. Then on top of this they are arguing the Holy Spirit is still speaking to people in the third century inventing 'new rules' etc.

My point is that NO GROUP ever had a witness from the apostolic period. The Catholics accused the Marcionites of having a 'late' gospel but so did the Catholics. The 'gospel in four' concept is necessarily later than the Marcionite gospel.

Yet no one thinks about things this way. No one thinks that ALL the gospels were late productions.

Under this lite the formulation in To Theodore is surprisingly honest and plausible.

stephan huller

υπομνηματα were a genre of commentary - not 'notes' - which in a Christian context inevitably involved the explanation of the divine logos. In any event, let's begin by starting a list of early Christians identified as having written a υπομνηματα

1. the apostles (Justin I Apol. 66.3)
2. Peter (Justin Dial. 103; Clement Theod. 1.19)
3. Mark (Clement Theod. 1.19; Papias HE 3.39.15-16 = apomnemoneumata)
4. Hegesippus (Eusebius HE 4.22.4)
5. Polycarp (According to Eusebius, HE 5, 8, 8, Irenaeus quotes from the 'apomnemoneumata of a certain apostolic presbyter whose name he passes by in silence and gives his exposition of Sacred Scripture' cf. Adv.Haer. 4, 23, if., cf. 4, 28, 1; 30, 1; 31, 1; 32, 1), without giving the name; Eusebius, Dem. evang. 3, 6, 2). Hill identifies the unnamed presbyter as Polycarp.
6. Symmachus (Eusebius, HE 6.17)
7. Pantaenus (Ecl. Prop. 56.2; Eusebius HE 5.10.4)
8. Heracleon (Origen Com. Jn. 6.92)
9. Clement of Alexandria(Strom. 1.1)
10. Ambrose, patron of Origen (so Cureton Spicilegium Syriacum p. xii) = Ps-Justin Oratio

And now the citation of Symmachus's υπομνηματα:

As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself. [Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, chapter 54]

The υπομνηματα clearly represent a genre in Christianity not merely 'notes' or 'memoirs.' When are people going to wake up?

Solo

Hi Stephan,
what are the earliest documents attesting to Mark's career in Alexandria ? I have lived all this time in the belief that Clement (outside of the disputed document) and Origen told us nothing nothing about Mark as a leader in Alexandria. Did they ? Was there anyone before Eusebius whom I have overlooked ?

Much obliged.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

Jiri

I am supposed to be on vacation but no - you are quite right, no mention of Mark's special role until Eusebius. The martyrdom claims of Mark start to surface in the late fourth century. The Passio Petri Sancti report on events from the martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria but are much later compositions (Mark is here the head of the Papal line here).

Clement does cite from a variant text of Mark and Mark specifically to make the point rich men can be saved.

The other question is if not Mark who was the apostle associated with Alexandria? Every city had one it seems.

Solo

Thanks, Stephan. So IIUC what you are saying is that you know of no supporting evidence to the Mar Saba letter that would testify to Clement's guarding some secret tradition dating back to Mark's apostolic reign in Alexandria.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

No not Mark's in particular no I can't say that. I can say however that Quis Dives Salvetur only works if Clement's gospel of Mark had the story of the rich youth followed by the Zacchaeus narrative. This is what Clement says explains the 'set up' of the questions from the rich youth. It is how the Diatessaron reads and IMO the second addition to secret Mark resembles the Diatessaron structure enough to suggest there was a likelihood Zacchaeus followed here too.

Read Clement's argument again. It makes no sense why he would cite Mark specifically and at painstaking length as if to say.'Let's see what Mark says about how the rich man can be saved' and then conclude that the lesson of Zacchaeus answers the youth's question UNLESS he possessed a variant copy of Mark where such an argument made sense.

In any event, the thread isn't about whether or not Smith's discovery is authentic. I am noting a parallel with the Diatessaron which could theoretically be used to argue that Smith got his idea from Tatian.

I don't think that of course but I believe there are many back alleys related to the text which have yet to be explored.

Cheers
Stephan

Solo

I am sorry, Stephan, you have lost me in this 'back alley'.

Why do you feel the presumed 'larger secret Mark' is necessary at all for Clement to make his points in Liber Quis Dives Salvetur ? I am content in observing that both the stories Clement references there are found in the canon (ie Mark 10:17-22, Lk 19:1-10). Consequently, I am totally at a loss to grasp why one would need to postulate some textual harmonization a la Tatian, nota bene one featuring the young rich man from the Secret Mark. Luke's Zaccheus is a self-contained story which appears to argue with the radicalism of Mark whose Jesus required the rich to "give it all up" to reach the kingdom. The tax collector in Luke OTOH offers Jesus a voluntary 50% surtax for the poor on his income. And Luke's Jesus obviously understands that this is a terrific and doable proposition and blesses the deal. Evidently, the thoughtful Clement found a way to harmonize the two approaches. Not at all clear that he needed either the Diatessaron or the Secret Mark to weld the two disparate gospel views of social responsibility of the riches into a theology that he hoped looked Platonic.

Best,
Jiri