stephan huller

I have always believed that it is indeed possible for us to come to terms with alternative paradigms for Christianity. The problem is quite simple: the two parties that promote 'certainty' - i.e. the atheists and the pious - effectively suck all the air out of the room.

The Marcionite tradition stands out as an understandable tradition because it is so straightforward and sensible. The apostle wrote the gospel. The gospel made Christianity. No one else matters except perhaps as foils to his 'unspeakable' revelation from heaven.

I have never succeeded at learning yoga or Eastern meditation but I am a firm believer that all meaningful knowledge begins with us quieting our inner voices. Stop telling the text what it should say and you'll be amazed at what you'll hear.

The same is true with this very simple and straightforward Marcionite paradigm.

The apostle has an unspeakable revelation. Forget everything you think you know about the 'apostle Paul' and his story in the Catholic scriptures. When you go into a Chinese restaurant you should try to drink tea and use chopsticks.

The unspeakable revelation in 2 Corinthians 12 has to be the original context of the apostle's 'authority' to write the gospel (at least according to the Marcionite paradigm). If the gospel is a holy book - even the second Torah - it can't be grounded in a mundane collection of facts. It had to framed by a revelation. Various statements in the Church Fathers confirm that the Marcionites did just that.

Eznik of Kolb even says that Marcion himself claimed to have had the same revelation as is attributed to 'Paul' in the Catholic scriptures. There's something to think about for a lifetime. Did the Marcionites even have a 'Paul'? Was Marcion the Marcionite apostle? As Irenaeus notes Marcion even claims to have a 'part' (partem) in the gospel. (AH 3.11.9)

In the end it is enough to just spend our time dwelling on the Marcionite construct for the revelation of the gospel. Where did it occur? Under what context could this Marcion have had the revelation of 2 Corinthians chapter 12?

The path out of this wilderness, I suspect, is to follow the thread of logic that Marcion is a diminutive form of Mark. Hilgenfeld seemed to think so and his work is so superior to von Harnack's, it is unfortunate that his views rarely get the attention of modern scholars.

There are any number of reasons why the name Marcus might have been preserved in its diminutive form but the possibility that Mark might also have been Jesus's beloved child disciple is certainly one of them. The vision of 'little Mark' naked but for a sheet in the Passio Petri Sancti is certainly important here. It occurs in the context of Peter's impending martyrdom 'in imitation' of the evangelist in his sacred martyrium in Alexandria, the holiest place in Christian Egypt.

We will have to leave this question unanswered for a moment and move on to the obvious parallels that the idea of the apostle receiving a 'revelation' has with the experience of the prophet Daniel. Daniel was very close to the Marcionites. Ephrem reports the Marcionites compared their devotion to prayer with the example of Daniel. Daniel was a eunuch and Marcionites had either a eunuch priesthood or at the very least a great number of eunuch among their presbytery. The Dialogues of Adamantius demonstrate the Marcionite interest in interpreting the prophesies of Daniel. Theodotian the famous translator of Daniel is said to have been a Marcionite. All strange features of a sect which is often said to have been 'hostile to the Law and the prophets'

But then again Daniel is not counted among the prophets by the Jews ...

What is indeed so very, very unusual also - and mostly overlooked by scholars - is how the description of Daniel's first 'revelation' in Dan 2:19 - 24 seems to bear such an uncanny resemblance to the gospel if not the original gospel revelation. Let's look at the LXX version of the material.

The story goes something like this. The Babylonian king has a dream which all the wise men in his kingdom can't solve. He is about to kill them but then just as suddenly Daniel is privileged to receive a heavenly revelation:

Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night; and Daniel blessed the God of heaven, and said:

May the name of God be blessed from everlasting and to everlasting: for wisdom and understanding are his. And he changes times and seasons; he appoints kings and removes them, giving wisdom to the wise, and prudence to them that have understanding; he reveals deep and secret matters; knowing what is in darkness, and the light is with him. I give thanks to thee, and praise thee, O God of my fathers, for thou hast given me wisdom and power, and hast made known to me the things which we asked of thee.

Δανιηλ καὶ εἶπεν εἴη τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ εὐλογημένον ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος ὅτι ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ σύνεσις αὐτοῦ ἐστιν

καὶ αὐτὸς ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους καθιστᾷ βασιλεῖς καὶ μεθιστᾷ διδοὺς σοφίαν τοῖς σοφοῖς καὶ φρόνησιν τοῖς εἰδόσιν σύνεσιν

αὐτὸς ἀποκαλύπτει βαθέα καὶ ἀπόκρυφα γινώσκων τὰ ἐν τῷ σκότει καὶ τὸ φῶς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν

σοί ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου ἐξομολογοῦμαι καὶ αἰνῶ ὅτι σοφίαν καὶ δύναμιν ἔδωκάς μοι καὶ νῦν ἐγνώρισάς μοι ἃ ἠξιώσαμεν παρὰ σοῦ καὶ τὸ ὅραμα τοῦ βασιλέως ἐγνώρισάς μοι

καὶ ἦλθεν Δανιηλ πρὸς Αριωχ ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀπολέσαι τοὺς σοφοὺς Βαβυλῶνος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ τοὺς σοφοὺς Βαβυλῶνος μὴ ἀπολέσῃς εἰσάγαγε δέ με ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τὴν σύγκρισιν τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀναγγελῶ

As Craig Evans notes this material seems to have inspired the material common to Matthew 11:25:

I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes (v. 25)
Jesus' prayer seems to be a counterpoint to Daniel's prayer: "He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to men of understanding ... To Thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for Thou hast given me wisdom and power; even now Thou hast made known to me what we requested of Thee" (Dan. 2:21, 23). Jesus' prayer parallels these components, but in reverse order (ie, Matt. 11:25 = Dan. 2:23 + 21) and in an opposite sense: Daniel thanks God for giving wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the understanding; Jesus thanks God for withholding wisdom from the wise and understanding, giving it instead to babes [Bible Knowledge p. 235]

Evans also notes that the specific epithet 'Lord of heaven' employed in the gospel here also comes from Daniel (Dan 5:23).

The only new thing that the gospel narrative introduces is the idea that God has revealed this knowledge to 'children' or a 'child.' Who is this child that has received this revelation? Evans follows the standard interpretation that 'babes' represent the unrefined juxtaposed against the sophisticated (here 'the wise'). Yet does this really make any sense? The idea here is clear not that God will give to babes but that God has already given to children or a child. Clearly those who will come after the ministry of Jesus will be likened to children because Jesus has already set up this comparison. Yet it is interesting to note that Origen emphasizes that Jesus wasn't speaking of a generic 'child' or 'children' here and elsewhere but the beloved disciple identified as John in most reports.

Yet clearly if John the author of the gospel is meant the reference cannot be to a revelation which leads to the composition of the second Torah for these words are never included in the canonical gospel of John. But could Mark have been meant? The Alexandrian tradition has always taken Mark and John to be interchangeable names of the same disciple. Of course the seemingly obvious objection to this line of reasoning is that the saying doesn't appear in canonical Mark.

But did it at one time?

I'm sure that many people with think I am engaging in fanciful speculation until they realize that Irenaeus does indeed confirm that in his day the section was indeed undoubtedly found in Mark. For Irenaeus matter of factly notes that:

For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];" and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ. [AH 4.6.1]

Wherever the material borrowed from Daniel 2:22 is cited it is immediately followed by the words identified by Irenaeus in his original copies of the gospel of Mark. The one follows the other in Matthew and - as we shall now demonstrate - also in Luke:

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." [Luke 10:21,22]

The point of course is that there can be no doubt that the whole section was at one time present in copies of Mark in Irenaeus's day but subsequently removed.

It is worth noting also that Irenaeus also references the first part of the section being in a 'gospel of Mark' - i.e. a heretic of the same name various Church Fathers claim to have followers in all parts of the Empire. Could Mark the heretic really be the Alexandrian St. Mark? And could this gospel be a longer version of the canonical text which was also at once the gospel of the so-called Marcionites? It is difficult to prove this all in a single post but it is worth noting that Irenaeus's chapter on the heretical gospel of Mark makes reference not only to this saying supporting the reading just cited but also a ritual baptism ritual at the very same part of the narrative where the Mar Saba adds its infamous initiation.

Again let's stick to our original topic. Irenaeus introduces the heretical gospel of Mark as one which was 'secret' and more significant one which seems to be related to the 'unspeakable' revelation of 2 Corinthians chapter 12. The section begins:

Besides the above, they adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth [AH 1.20.1]

And then after referencing a number of passages from that secret text Irenaeus concludes with the statements that the followers of this heretic Mark:

adduce the following passage as the highest testimony, and, as it were, the very crown of their system:--"I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes. Even so, my Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, or the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." In these words they affirm that He clearly showed that the Father of truth, conjured into existence by them, was known to no one before His advent. And they desire to construe the passage as if teaching that the Maker and Framer [of the world] was always known by all, while the Lord spoke these words concerning the Father unknown to all, whom they now proclaim. [ibid]

This is the very same argument which is used in AH 4.6.1 in relation to the material which immediately follows this reference and which Irenaeus claims originally was found in the gospel of Mark.

The obvious question now is why isn't this section of material now found in the canonical gospel of Mark? Are people ready to admit that even as orthodox a figure as Irenaeus testifies to the fact earlier copies of the Gospel of Mark appeared 'fuller' than what we see now. They once had this narrative and quite possibly others like the ones testified to in the Letter to Theodore.

Indeed we can strengthen the association of this heretical sect associated with Mark and the Alexandrian tradition of Clement of Alexandria a great deal. Philip Schaff and a number of other scholars have noticed that Clement employs the very same Marcosian text condemned by Irenaeus as heretical. If one text associated with heretical Mark or the heretical Markan tradition
can be associated with Clement why not another? Why not the 'hidden and spurious' and ultimately secret Gospel of Mark of Alexandria written through an unspeakable revelation given to the apostle?

There is so much more we could say ...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephen,

Fascinating. Please continue.

Just one thought: (Acts 12:12) "he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark." Could it be Mary whose other name was Mark? Could Mark have originally been Mary?

Please continue.

stephan huller

People really want to hear this? The Coptic tradition holds that St. Mark is John Mark, Mark being the apostle's Gentile name John being his Hebrew name. Apparently Jews used to have this 'double identity.' The Samaritans still maintain it. My friend Benyamim (not Bejamin so the Samaritan Pentateuch viz. 'son of days') has an Arabic name Amin apparently. He claims that this started in the Greek period. Who knows.

It is interesting to look at Acts subordination of John Mark. I have always argued that the association of the text with Luke is unnatural. It more naturally fits with a John Mark authorship. Half the book John Mark is with Peter and for half the book with Paul thus serving as a faux 'witness' that the reference to a fight between the two figures in Galatians was ultimately reconciled at Antioch.

People will say of course that John Mark can't be the author because our copies of Acts have Paul reject John Mark:

Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. [Acts 15:27 - 28]

Irenaeus goes out of his way to point to this passage to prove that Luke was the author of Acts. Actually its better to say that Luke emerges as Irenaeus's proof that the apostle was actually called 'Paul' and had orthodox beliefs. All of which is strange because Irenaeus mentions the Marcionite rejection of anyone named 'Luke' associated with their apostle.

Let's start at the beginning and see how insiduous the introduction of Luke really is by Irenaeus.

Irenaeus begins with an attack against the Marcionite understanding of the apostle in Book Three Chapter Thirteen. The first sentence is:

With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles.

Now let's look at this passage with a critical eye. All Irenaeus is saying ultimately is that the Catholic scriptures convict the Marcionites of falsehoods. The Marcionite texts didn't say anything of the kind. But then if Irenaeus was able to attack the Marcionites with the Catholic scriptures why should the reference to the name 'Paul' be any different? Irenaeus is citing from the Catholic scriptures where the author's name is Paul buit as we will see a few paragraphs later Irenaeus also testifies that the same heretics don't recognize the apostle as 'Paul.'

So Irenaeus goes on to quote again from the Catholic scriptures to prove that 'Paul' was wholly orthodox in his beliefs:

Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul; and Him whom Peter preached as God among those of the circumcision, and likewise the Son of God, did Paul also among the Gentiles.

We know the Marcionites had a different conception of Paul's missionary activity given the fact that Tertullian repeatedly says that they emphasized the apostle's mission to the Jewish proselytes. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Marcionites refrained from preaching among Jewish groups and undoubtedly this is why we see groups with Marcionite beliefs witnessed in the rabbinic literature (never Catholic groups interestingly).

So we go through the rest of chapter 13 seeing more of Irenaeus's argument against the Marcionites. Irenaeus consistently cites material from Acts which we know for certain the Marcionites argued was wholly spurious (Adamantius Dialogues etc.). So the pattern is reinforced yet again that Irenaeus is not even attempting to make a case to convince Marcionites to change their minds about their tradition. Rather he is making an appeal to Catholics to ignore the claims of those who say 'strange things' about the Apostle, disproving these claims with the certainty of the Catholic scriptures.

The last paragraph in chapter 13 actually formally introduces Luke for the first time saying:

But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles." And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.

So here we have Trobisch's identification of the 'editorial concept' of the Catholic New Testament canon fully displayed. The Catholic version of the Letter to the Galatians makes a few historical references. These are 'explained' by Acts which Irenaeus infers was written by Luke. But who is Luke? Irenaeus provides a ready answer in the next chapter of Book Three.

In what immediately follows what we just read Irenaeus feels compelled to introduce Luke to his audience. No one has ever heard of this figure apparently - not even Polycarp - for one would have expected a reference to the authority of the previous generation of Catholic orthodoxy. Instead Irenaeus starts from scratch, introducing Luke to his audience as if for the very first time:

But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas;" and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, "Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us," "immediately," he says, "we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia." And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: "for, sitting down," he says, "we spake unto the women who had assembled;" and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, "But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days." And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there, how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome. As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: "Demas hath forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me." From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you." But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries? [AH 3.14.1]

The point is that it rarely gets mentioned that it is Irenaeus who actually makes explicit the idea that the 'we' passages are connected with Luke. This isn't something that scholars 'theorized' about or 'discovered' on their own. Irenaeus goes out of his way to say (1) the heretics are wrong about the apostle - look at the way 'John Mark' gets rejected and then (2) the 'we' passages not only prove that we Catholics have the true witness to the beliefs of the apostle they also disprove their claims to have learned his 'hidden and unspeakable' mysteries.

So I want to stress again that there is a consistent anti-heretical argument throughout this section but it must be stressed that the heresy is never named yet. It is just directed against those who hold heretical notions about Paul. As we will see shortly there are TWO GROUPS being attacked at the same time - the Valentinians and the Marcionites. Each represent in my opinion the 'orthodoxy' of the previous generation (look at Florinus's closeness to Polycarp). The Valentinians must have used an earlier version of Acts, the Marcionites avoided it completely.

The twofold argument can be connected with the double-name 'John Mark.' The Valentinian tradition seems especially attached to the Johannine tradition. Heracleon wrote a hypomnemata on John. So did many others. The Valentinian tradition may well have accepted Polycarp's claims regarding 'John' perhaps even that he was the beloved disciple and the author of the Pauline gospel (see the Muratorian canon and even certain statements about Polycarp in Irenaeus). I don't think we should think of this as our canonical gospel of John. Trobisch points to the existence of a lost original gospel of this name with synoptic references (like the Transfiguration which is strangely absent from canonical John).

Consider also for a moment the Syrian community of Ephrem (and which dated back presumably to an earlier period). They had a canon with a single Diatessaron gospel and the Acts of the Apostles and the Apostolikon starting with Galatians, 1 Corinthians etc. and more. They couldn't have ascribed Acts to Luke because there was no gospel of Luke. Instead they had a Diatessaron. It is worth noting that the Fuldensis Diatessaron has the introduction of Luke fixed as its preamble but it is not a gospel of Luke nor does it ever reference 'Luke' anywhere as its author. The first words of the text read:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us according as they, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, have delivered them unto us. It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things are made by him: and without him is made nothing that is made. In him was life: and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness could not control

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia ...

The point is that we read these words as a composite of three different narratives but the people who used this textual tradition certainly did not. They called it 'the living gospel.'

I think that this line in particular "all things are made by him: and without him is made nothing that is made" sounds remarkably similar to Heracleon's gospel of Mark cited in Origen. The idea then is that Irenaeus's claims about Luke as a witness to Paul were likely rejected by two different traditions. I can't help but see Johannine - and specifically Polycarpian themes in Luke 1:1 - 4. If you look in the fragments of Irenaeus the language is very similar to Irenaeus's description of Polycarp as a hearer of John the 'witness of the word.' I think Valentinians like Florinus were preserving the original tradition of Polycarp which is why they were so dangerous to Irenaeus and why Book One is explicitly devoted to 'hunting down and killing them' (see the fox hunt metaphor throughout especially the closing words of chapter 31).

In the end we see a situation where the Marcionites undoubtedly said that Mark who was also called John was the apostle. The Valentinians likely argued from an older version of Acts that John Mark was Paul's initimate and that their variant 'gospel of John' (more a Diatessaron than canonical John) and Acts was a unit which John dictated to Polycarp (see the parallel myth of Marcion as the unworthy secretary of John. Eisler's reconstruction of Fortunatian's preface is preserved here (http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...secretary.html) but here is the story of Marcion preserved there:

The Gospel of John was revealed and given
to the Churches by John whilst he was still alive in the body,
as Papias, called the Hieropolitan,
the beloved disciple of John,
has reported in his five books of 'Exegetics'.
But (he who) wrote down the Gospel, John dictating correctly the true (evangel) (was)
Marcion the heretic. Having been disapproved by him for
holding contrary views, he was expelled by John.
He had, however, brought him writings, or letters,
from the brethren who were in the Pontus.

So to make a long story even longer, Irenaeus is battling two traditions at once in chapters 13, 14 and 15 - the Marcionites and the Valentinians. The Marcionites are 'those of Mark.' They understood that Mark received the 'hidden and unspeakable mysteries' and were passed on to them. The Valentinians by contrast posited the existence of Paul (from Acts) and assumed John to be the disciple who wrote out the gospel for him. Irenaeus took the original text of Acts and deliberately inserted the story about the rejection of John Mark so as to insert his addition of Luke in the traditional place of John Mark (i.e. as the secretary of Paul) and manipulated the 'we' section as a kind of 'cryptic code' as part of the overall editorial concept.

Why did 'Paul' need a secretary? Well Irenaeus provides a ready answer for this in what immediately follows in Book Three Chapter 13:

But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew, not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard him, he does himself make manifest. For when the bishops and presbyters who came from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining had assembled in Miletus, since he was himself hastening to Jerusalem to observe Pentecost, after testifying many things to them, and declaring what must happen to him at Jerusalem, he added: "I know that ye shall see my face no more. Therefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." Then, referring to the evil teachers who should arise, he said: "I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves come to you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." "I have not shunned," he says, "to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Thus did the apostles simply, and without respect of persons, deliver to all what they had themselves learned from the Lord. Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word." [AH 3.14.2]

But again Irenaeus is not explaining these details to people who already know that Luke is responsible for the gospel which contains these words in its introduction. These are wholly original ideas. He never so much refers to Polycarp's authority (which one would expect if Polycarp had ever known Luke or a 'Gospel of Luke'). The fourfold canon was being introduced as Irenaeus was writing these words.

To demonstrate with absolutely certainty that my interpretation of these words are true, just look at what immediately follows this section in chapter 14. Irenaeus clearly sets up the last paragraph to tackle head on those who attribute these words to someone else (i.e. John Mark). Of course Irenaeus is wily so he doesn't frame the debate in terms of whether or not there were other claims to these words or whether anyone had ever heard of Luke or not. He frames the question in terms of the illegality (see AH 3.3.1) of 'setting aside' one part of the official 'set' of the gospel:

Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. And in His office of teacher this is what He has said to the rich: "Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation;" and "Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger; and ye who laugh now, for ye shall weep;" and, "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you: for so did your fathers to the false prophets." All things of the following kind we have known through Luke alone (and numerous actions of the Lord we have learned through him, which also all [the Evangelists] notice): the multitude of fishes which Peter's companions enclosed, when at the Lord's command they cast the nets;(7) the woman who had suffered for eighteen years, and was healed on the Sabbath-day;(8) the man who had the dropsy, whom the Lord made whole on the Sabbath, and how He did defend Himself for having performed an act of healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to aspire to the uppermost rooms; how we should invite the poor and feeble, who cannot recompense us; the man who knocked during the night to obtain loaves, and did obtain them, because of the urgency of his importunity; how, when [our Lord] was sitting at meat with a Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment, with what the Lord said to Simon on her behalf concerning the two debtors; also about the parable of that rich man who stored up the goods which had accrued to him, to whom it was also said, "In this night they shall demand thy soul from thee; whose then shall those things be which thou hast prepared?" and similar to this, that of the rich man, who was clothed in purple and who fared sumptuously, and the indigent Lazarus; also the answer which He gave to His disciples when they said, "Increase our faith;" also His conversation with Zaccheus the publican; also about the Pharisee and the publican, who were praying in the temple at the same time; also the ten lepers, whom He cleansed in the way simultaneously; also how He ordered the lame and the blind to be gathered to the wedding from the lanes and streets; also the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow's importunity led to avenge her cause; and about the fig-tree in the vineyard which produced no fruit. There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread..

It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed]. [AH 3.14.3,4]

It is amazing to see Irenaeus in action. He is quite a clever character. He is of such weight and such authority that he is able to pick the battlefield to meet his opponents.

If he were to argue over the question of whether there were any witnesses to this 'Luke' in previous generations - he would lose the debate. If he were to argue whether there were other claims to the authorship of Luke 1:1 - 4, the various stories listed here or in fact that Acts of the Apostles - he would certainly lose that argument is well. For there can be no doubt let's not forget that the Diatessaron, Justin's hypomnemata of the apostles, the Marcionite gospel were all in existence and all contained at least some of these stories and did not attribute them to 'Luke.'

So what does Irenaeus do? He towers over the debate as nothing short of advocate and referee and says effectively 'if you want to use these narratives (just listed) YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT LUKE'S AUTHORITY - or else - "they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed]." There is a clear and unmistakable threat attached - i.e. it is dangerous to your health not to acknowledge the authority of Luke.

I know this sounds like just another conspiracy theory but this statement does not stand alone in the writings of Irenaeus. Book One makes an even more explicit threat saying that the book itself is to be used as a kind of 'hunting aid' to track down and kill heretics. In Book Four he makes explicit that his 'side' is friendly with Caesar and sit in the Imperial court. I don't think that it is at all an exaggeration to say that Irenaeus was writing from Rome and had been given official sanction to define Christianity according to a fourfold canon. I think that Christianity had been brought into the status of an official cultus and that there were criminal charges associated with not joining the 'great Church.' These ideas are supported in Celsus's witness and many others.

stephan huller

To this end we have finished chapter 14 and now come to chapter 15 which clearly continues the original arguments of the last section. The Marcionites and the Valentinians have just been threatened with an ultimatum - either you should repent and accept the Gospel of Luke or find yourselves being 'exposed to dangers.' Why Luke? Well let's remember the Valentinians were coming from a Gospel of John. The Marcionites from a Gospel of Mark (cf. Philosophumena 7.18). A bunch of material used by both sides to frame their 'heretical arguments' has been carved out and attached to a text called 'according to Luke.' The readings have been deliberately manipulated to make their interpretations impossible. Accept these readings or face the consequences, Irenaeus effectively declares.

But now we move on to chapter 15 after the authority of Luke has been established in the two previous chapters and Irenaeus now closes in on the essential Marcionite understanding of the Apostle (you can ignore the chapter title because it is universally acknowledged to have been written by a later editor):

But again, we allege the same against those who do not recognise Paul as an apostle: that they should either reject the other words of the Gospel which we have come to know through Luke alone, and not make use of them; or else, if they do receive all these, they must necessarily admit also that testimony concerning Paul, when he (Luke) tells us that the Lord spoke at first to him from heaven: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? I am Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest; " and then to Ananias, saying regarding him: "Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name among the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him, from this time, how great things he must suffer for My name's sake." Those, therefore, who do not accept of him, who was chosen by God for this purpose, that he might boldly bear His name, as being sent to the forementioned nations, do despise the election of God, and separate themselves from the company of the apostles. For neither can they contend that Paul wasn't an apostle, when he was chosen for this purpose; nor can they prove Luke guilty of falsehood, when he proclaims the truth to us with all diligence. It may be, indeed, that it was with this view that God set forth very many Gospel truths, through Luke's instrumentality, which all should esteem it necessary to use, in order that all persons, following his subsequent testimony, which treats upon the acts and the doctrine of the apostles, and holding the unadulterated rule of truth, may be saved. His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and stedfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private, and another in public.

Ten generations of scholars have completely missed the import of these words. The Marcionites clearly held that the apostle wasn't named Paul. It is the consistent argument developed by Irenaeus against them - they have to accept Luke or else, they have a corrupt version of Luke etc. But now Irenaeus reveals that it isn't just that they have to accept the gospel of Luke, it isn't just that they have to accept Acts (or in the case of the Valentinians a new version of Acts that adds the rejection of John Mark and the we passages) the Marcionites have to stop calling the apostle by his traditional identification in their community and instead accept his Catholic identity as 'Paul.'

More to follow but I have to get back to a busy day ...

spamandham

If so, then Paul (which means small) may be a nickname for Marcion.

Kapyong

Gday,

Hmmm....
Now that IS an interesting idea.
I wonder is there any historical support for such ?

Irenaeus seems to have left little external mark - gee, where have I heard that before :-)


K.

stephan huller

Spam and Ham

It could be. My suspicion is something more mystical in nature, but then again I am biased owing to my presumptions about the messiah Mark of Christianity being one and the same with the messiah Mark of the Samaritan tradition. But we're all guessing.

I think it comes from Deuteronomy 32:4 i.e. (perfect) work of God (tamym po'olo) - הַצּוּר תָּמִים פָּעֳלוֹ

If you read Book Four Chapter Two of the Mimar Marqe (= Mark) you'd see how Pauline the doctrine of Mark really is. Deuteronomy 32 is called 'the Great Song' by the Samaritans (so too Philo http://books.google.com/books?id=-G_...ong%22&f=false) and it is essentially Moses looking into the future and seeing the process of the completion of man finally being brought to conclusion.

I don't know if I can do justice to the subtlies of Marqe's work but the cornerstone of his understanding is that what was created by God in the beginning was God but the divine glory would appear at the end of times to bring what was good to completion. So Deuteronomy 32 in understood to be a vision of Moses looking forward to the realization of the age to come.

In order to connect this to the gospel we have to look at Jesus's statement:

Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:28)

The phrasing is clearly developed from Leviticus 19:2

Ye shall be holy; for I the LORD your God am holy.

This last text has clearly been filtered through Deuteronomy 18:13

Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

The idea of men being "perfect" was probably current: one should note the predilection for the concept in the Qumran literature and its presence in the writings of Philo. To this, it should be suggested adding the exegesis of Tg. Neof . Deut 18:13 - "My people, sons of Israel, be ye perfect in good work as the Lord your God. . . " The second clause has become elliptical, and would logically be completed " ... is perfect in good work."

Also the adjective shlm (= perfect) is completed by the phrase "in good work" as its normal exegesis at Gen 6:9 in Tgs. Neof. and Ps.-J.; at Gen 17:1, 25:27 and 33:17 in Tg. Neof.; and at Gen 34:21 in Tg. Neof. and CTg C. It is not surprising to find the cliche at Tg. Neof. Deut 18:13 also.

Thus the implied understanding for Tg. Neof. Deut 18:13 is "My people, sons of Israel, be ye perfect in good work as the Lord your God (is, whose works are perfect)."
The idea then is an imitatio dei which finds reflection in the Qumran literature especially the Rule of the Community:

... according to the perfection of his ways (1 QS i.13)

... and the perfection of his (i.e. man's) way (1 QS v.24)

... all the men ... who walk perfectly in all his ways (1 QS li.2)

... and hold fast to his holy covenant and walk perfectly (1 QSb i.2)

(three priests) perfect in all that is revealed by the Law and do truth and righteousness and loving kindness and humility in human relations (1 QS viii.1 -2)

And these are the ordinances in which they shall walk - then men of perfect holiness in human relations. Each who comes into the Council of Holiness those who walk in the perfect way which (God) has commanded (1 QS viii 21 - 22)
The same idea is present in Philo although filtered through the LXX version of Gen 2:1 -2 Philo saw creation as God's 'perfect work.' There are numerous citations of this view. But there is an added dimension to this. The perfection of man, as of the world, is achieved by God in His creative Word:

That you may may learn that God prizes the Wise Man as the world, for that same Word by which he made the universe is that by which he draws the perfect man from earthly things to himself. In Philo's explanation of 'I am the Lord' he included not only the absolute attributes of God, but also those titles in which God is related to man - not only "the Perfect, the Imperishable and the truly Good," but also "the Sovereign and King and Master"

So man is perfect in those ways in which he is related to God. For example, Moses, the Perfect One, was described as "a perfect suppliant and servant of God." Besides Moses- other patriarchs were also called "perfect": Abraham, Aaron, Levi in his life of perfect virtue, and Jacob who was perfected in his change of names.

For Philo there was no question that God decided that man should have perfection:

I have made up my mind that happiness is the excerise of perfect virtue in a perfect life

The tone of this citation is Hellenistic, but Philo could also express his idea of man's perfection in a decidedly Hebraic way:

Those who are worthy (he whose name is) inscribed in the way of life according to the laws is 'perfect' ... in matters before God

Finally for Philo 'the perfect man' is the fully instructed man. To such a man "to the perfect man (formed) according to the (Divine) image," exhortations need not be given. The form of perfection is in the cosmos due to the impression and 'the image of the perfect word.' And yet for the human beings who are 'not yet perfected' growth is required; this is one of the main themes of De Plantatione . The growth in perfection was summed up in the idea of the 'path' or the 'way' of God.

I have always been struck how Philo's description of initiation ceremonies for proselytes in Alexandria sound almost identical to the crazy sounding stories associated with Jesus in the Toledoth Yeshu:

In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraved the letters of God's Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten.

Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters

The Toledoth Yeshu is medieval. In the older rabbinic literature this carving of the Divine Name into the flesh is associated with a secondary figure who is not Jesus named 'ben Stada.' The dates for this figure are closer to the destruction of the Temple.

I thought this would be a start to understand why I think the Samaritans applied the words of Deuteronomy 32:4 i.e. the 'perfect work' to a human figure and why this figure is the Apostle called Paul in the Catholic tradition and 'Mark' in the original Alexandrian tradition.

My guess is that the perfect man was the apostle. Mark was the neaniskos initiated or recreated by Jesus in the baptism waters (so LGM 1 in to Theodore) after the image of God the Father (i.e. Jesus). Baptism is a second creation identified as the 'perfect work' (tamym po'olo) in Moses's prophesy in Deut 32:4. I think the Samaritan exegesis of the passage can be connected to Secret Mark because the Samaritan 'Mark' is Alexandrian Chrsitian 'Mark'

For those who are interested in seeing the Philonic parallels in the Mimar Marqe read Broadie's excellent book - A Samaritan Philosophy (or via: amazon.co.uk) http://books.google.com/books?id=zqF...page&q&f=false

I can write some more later but I have to go back to work ...