stephan huller

I'm just saying why would you invent a Church Father that is so intimately associated with the Montanist sect? That's my problem with your theory. The Acts of the Apostles presents virgin pure heads of the Church. That's suspicious. But why, if I was writing in the late third century (remember Eusebius knows Tertullian), why would I want to invent a Montanist with all sorts of crazy beliefs about the Holy Spirit? That's the question you have to answer. The same is true with Clement and Origen. Why invent FLAWED Church Fathers?

aa5874

You have CORRUPTED my post in order to promote YOUR BOOGEYMAN called MARK.

I wrote : You wrote: I surely did not write that the writings of Tertullian were worth nothing.

You show a pattern where you CORRUPT or DISTORT what is written to support YOUR BOOGEYMAN MARK.

stephan huller

THEN WHAT ON EARTH IS YOUR PERPLEXING POSITION? I have argued that Marcion is a distortion or corruption of a figure called Mark who MIGHT go back to the apostle Mark. That's my position. It's not a position that many people have thought about. It isn't held by anyone outside myself so I am not ridiculing you for holding an unpopular or unknown position.

The only thing I could glean from your posts is that YOU DON'T AGREE with Irenaeus, Tertullian and other 'corrupt' writers SO WHAT THEY SAY can be dismissed. Is that your position?

An example, you rightly point to Irenaeus saying that Jesus was almost fifty. This is a fiction. Are you saying that IT IS A FICTION that Jesus was almost fifty or that Irenaeus said Jesus was almost fifty?

Lastly to either of you - why does it matter ultimately if Tertullian's testimony was reworked a generation or two after his death. It still represents a third century Christian testimony. Or are you suggesting that some people were inventing testimonies in a fourth century 'factory' somewhere out of nothing? It would still be a fourth century testimony making it very valuable.

I truly don't understand either your position or Avi's (perhaps they are the same position? Is there a school of thought I don't know about which posits the Church Fathers were wholly invented?)

I am NOT saying that someone completely MADE UP the tradition associated with 'Marcion' or 'the Marcionites.' I am saying instead it is a distortion of the original Markan position held (secretly) and intentionally diluted to accommodate it with the Roman tradition by Clement, Origen, Ambrose and the rest of the line of Alexandrian Patriarchs to Arius.

stephan huller

And to keep the conversation moving forward , let's talk about ANOTHER examples of secret tradition associated with Mark in Alexandria - there is Clement of Alexandria. No I am not talking about the Mar Saba document right now. I am talking about ANOTHER source for Clement's SECRET ASSOCIATION with a tradition of Mark

Indeed while recent work at the BAR doesn't PROVE that the Mar Saba document is authentic, it does make the argument for authenticity appear a little stronger.

Oh but show, me an example of a 'secret tradition of Mark' associated with Clement of Alexandria.'

Lo and behold the position that Clement was secretly associated with someone named 'Mark' was established LONG BEFORE Morton Smith's discovery of the Letter to Theodore:

"Irenaeus gives an account of Marcus and the Marcosians in 1.13 - 21 ... Hippolytus and Epiphanius (Haer 34) copy their accounts from Irenaeus, and probably had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus or of his sect. Clement of Alexandria, however, knew and used his writings." [Philip Schaff note on Eusebius Church History iv.11.4]

" ... for on comparison of the sections just cited from Clement and from Irenaeus [regarding the Marcosians] the coincidences are found to be such as to put it beyond doubt that Clement in his account of the number six makes an unacknowledged use of the same [Marcosian] writing as were employed by Irenaeus." [William Smith A Dictionary of Christian Biography p. 161]

"Clement of Alexandria, himself infected with Gnosticism, actually uses Marcus number system though without acknowledgement (Strom, VI, xvi)." [Arendzen JP. Marcus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX]

I bet most of you weren't aware of Clement's SECRET association with a guy named Mark. That's why I call it 'the SECOND secret Mark' of Clement.

stephan huller

Let me also say that if we go back to the acknowledgement of experts of far greater weight than myself that - in effect - IF Clement was indeed a crypto-Marcosian:

"Irenaeus gives an account of Marcus and the Marcosians in 1.13 - 21 ... Hippolytus and Epiphanius (Haer 34) copy their accounts from Irenaeus, and probably had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus or of his sect. Clement of Alexandria, however, knew and used his writings." [Philip Schaff note on Eusebius Church History iv.11.4]

" ... for on comparison of the sections just cited from Clement and from Irenaeus [regarding the Marcosians] the coincidences are found to be such as to put it beyond doubt that Clement in his account of the number six makes an unacknowledged use of the same [Marcosian] writing as were employed by Irenaeus." [William Smith A Dictionary of Christian Biography p. 161]

"Clement of Alexandria, himself infected with Gnosticism, actually uses Marcus number system though without acknowledgement (Strom, VI, xvi)." [Arendzen JP. Marcus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX]

THEN it follows that 'Marcus the Egyptian' as Jerome calls him can only be St. Mark. If I am asked I will develop this further but the surprising thing about this connection between Mark the Evangelist and Mark the gnostic is that it actually provides us with the FIRST DIRECT EVIDENCE that the Christian tradition was already known by witnesses in the first century.

Indeed even if people haven't recognized is that the 'Marcosian heresy' was already present at the time Philo was writing I will now demonstrate it to them. As we noted in our last post, all we need to do is work backwards from Irenaeus's original statement about 'those of Mark' who

express themselves in this manner: that the letter Eta along with the remarkable one constitutes all ogdoad, as it is situated in the eighth place from Alpha. Then, again, computing the number of these elements without the remarkable (letter), and adding them together up to Eta, they exhibit the number thirty. For any one beginning from the Alpha to the Eta will, after subtracting the remarkable (letter i.e. episemon) ... they subtract twelve, and reckon it at eleven. And in like manner, (they subtract) ten and make it nine. [Hippolytus AH 6:42]

We should then note that Clement of Alexandria makes the same argument as in the name of the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark:

six is reckoned in the order of numbers, but the succession of the letters acknowledges the character which is not written. In this case, in the numbers themselves, each unit is preserved in its order up to seven and eight. But in the number of the characters, Zeta becomes six and Eta seven. And the character having somehow slipped into writing, should we follow it out thus, the seven became six, and the eight seven.[Stromata 6:16]

Yet this understanding can be traced all the way back to Philo, a member of a leading priestly family in the Jewish community of Alexandria who notes that there is a closely related Jewish sect which promotes a highly contagious kabbalistic apocalyptic doctrine. It is important to note that Philo's description EXACTLY matches the things said by second century 'Marcosians' like Clement of Alexandria namely that:

some of those persons who have (in the past) fancied that the world is everlasting, inventing a variety of new arguments, employ also such a system of reasoning as this to establish their point: they affirm that there are four principal manners in which corruption is brought about, addition, taking away, transposition, and alteration; accordingly, the number two is by the addition of the unit corrupted so as to become the number three, and no longer remains the number two; and the number four by the taking away of the unit is corrupted so as to become the number three; again, by transposition the letter Zeta becomes the letter Eta when the parallel lines which were previously horizontal (3/43/4) are placed perpendicularly (1/2 1/2), and when the line which did before pass upwards, so as to connect the two is now made horizontal, and still extended between them so as to join them. And by alteration the word oinos, wine, becomes oxos, vinegar.

But of the manner of corruption thus mentioned there is not one which is in the least degree whatever applicable to the world, since otherwise what could we say? Could we affirm that anything is added to the world so as to cause its destruction? But there is nothing whatever outside of the world which is not a portion of it as the whole, for everything is surrounded, and contained, and mastered by it. Again, can we say that anything is taken from the world so as to have that effect? In the first place that which would be taken away would again be a world of smaller dimensions than the existing one, and in the second place it is impossible that any body could be separated from the composite fabric of the whole world so as to be completely dispersed. Again, are we to say that the constituent parts of the world are transposed? But at all events they remain in their original positions without any change of place, for never at any time shall the whole earth be raised up above the water, nor the water above the air, nor the air above the fire. But those things which are by nature heavy, namely the earth and the water, will have the middle place, the earth supporting everything like a solid foundation, and the water being above it; and the air and the fire, which are by nature light, will have the higher position, but not equally, for the air is the vehicle of the fire; and that which is carried by anything is of necessity above that which carries it. Once more: we must not imagine that the world is destroyed by alteration, for the change of any elements is equipollent, and that which is equipollent is the cause of unvarying steadiness, and of untroubled durability, inasmuch as it neither seeks any advantage itself, and is not subject to the inroads of other things which seek advantages at its expense; so that this retribution and compensation of these powers is equalized by the rules of proportion, being the produce of health and endless preservation, by all which considerations the world is demonstrated to be eternal. [On the Eternity of the World XXII:113]

Philo isn't just able to demonstrate that the kabbalah of 'those of Mark' was INTRODUCED IN THE FIRST CENTURY but that Philo's comments necessarily mean that the tradition of Mark was initially opposed by the Jewish priesthood in Alexandria.

Further more I would even like to argue that an argument of Eusebius's can be turned around to argue for the fact that the Gospel of Mark was the gospel of these Marcosians and that it was deliberately changed to make their kabbalistic arguments seen 'stupid.'

One of these days I will provide a detailed examination of the first principles of this original Markan kabbalah. For the moment it is enough to say that it is based on the idea - shared by modern Jewish and Samaritan mystical traditions - that the number six represents the generative power of the world. The followers of Mark promoted the idea that owing to the crucifixion of this letter vav, it was imperative that the population of the world undergo the apolutrosis baptism which effectively 'redeemed' them to the power of the Ogdoad.

I think that the baptism referenced in Secret Mark is the basis to this Marcosian ritual. It is no coincidence then that it is said that the neaniskos waited 'six days' to undergo the sacrament. Irenaeus notes that it was according to this principle of the 'sixth' that baptism was established "and for this reason did Moses declare that man was formed on the sixth day; and then, again, according to arrangement, it was on the sixth day, which is the preparation, that the last man appeared, for the regeneration of the first [i.e. in baptism], and of this arrangement, both the beginning and the end were formed at that sixth hour, at which He was nailed to the tree. [AH i.14.6]

Yet as we all know the passage which referenced the secret baptism which occurred after 'six days' was removed from the copies of the Gospel of Mark which circulated outside of Alexandria. But this isn't the only anomaly. The surviving copies of the Gospel of Mark no longer say that the crucifixion occurred in the 'sixth hour.' We read instead that "and it was the third hour, and they crucified him." [Mark 15:25]

I have repeatedly pointed out that there are countless examples which demonstrate WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that the canonical gospel of Mark was developed in Rome with a specific anti-Alexandrian agenda. Yet the clearest of all requires that we accept the link between the heretical boogeyman Mark the gnostic and St. Mark.

For Severus of Antioch, in the context of discussing editorial changes to the gospel produces Eusebius's Letter to Marinum which now - if read with a critical eye - confirms our theory about changes to the original Gospel of Mark. For Severus writes:

But Eusebius of Caesarea, who is called 'Pamphili', whom we mentioned a little above, when writing to a man called Marinus about questions concerning the passions of our Saviour and about his Resurrection, showed us nothing whatever about the said addition, as being unknown and having no place in the books of the gospel. But in the same letters to Marinus, who had asked him for an interpretation on the subject of our Saviour's passions and his Resurrection, he inserted the following exposition also in his letters, that the divine Mark the Evangelist said that it was the 3rd hour at the time when Christ who is God and our Saviour was crucified, but the divine John (he said) wrote that it was at the 6th hour that Pilate sat upon his judgment-seat at the place called 'the pavement', and judged Christ. And therefore Eusebius said that this is an error of a scribe, who was inattentive when writing the Gospel. For it is the letter gamal that denotes 3 hours, while the letter which is called in Greek episemon denotes the number of 6 hours, and these letters are like one another in Greek, and, the scribe wishing to write '3' quickly, and having turned the letter a little backwards, it was thereby found to be '6', because, since the letter had been turned backwards, it was supposed to be the letter that denotes '6'. Since therefore the three other evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke stated alike as with one mouth that from the 6th hour to the 9th there was darkness over all the land, it is plain that our Lord and God Jesus Christ was crucified before the 6th hour, at which the darkness took place, that is from the 3rd hour, as the blessed John himself wrote. Similarly we say that it is the 3rd hour, because those who wrote before, as we have said, changed the letter. We must insert also in this our letter upon this matter a part of what Eusebius himself stated at length; and his words are as follows: «We agree not with any chance man, but with the evangelist who gave this testimony, Mark. For it happened that there was an error on the part of the scribe so that he changed the letter by adding length to it, and it was thought that the letter which represents '3' was '6', on account of the likeness of the two letters [of that which denotes '3' and that which denotes '6'. If the refore it is stated by John that it was the preparation of the day of unlevened bread, and it was about the 6th hour, and Pilate said to the Jews «Behold! your king», and so on, let there be read instead of '6th' '3rd', since the beginning of his trial took place at that time, and in the middle of the hour or after it had been completed they crucified him, so that the result is that they judged and crucified him at the same hour»; If you look for and find the volume addressed to Marinus about the interpretation of these things, you will find the accuracy of the writer as regards these matters. For our part we do not wish to write much on these subjects in this our letter. May the industry of your holiness be preserved for us meditating on these things and occupied with these things in priestly fashion, and rousing up the gloom of our silence and urging it to speak [Severus of Antioch Letter CVIII]

The fact that Eusebius says that the correct reading is 'the third hour' is not our concern. Clearly we have in the Marcosians a group connected with Mark which would have argued that in fact the corruption developed in the other direction - viz. that the episemon was exchanged for a gamma. Indeed their 'gospel of Mark' (i.e. I would argue that it is clear that whoever 'Mark' was he as "one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above" [AH i.13.1] would have written a gospel even if his association with 'the Evangelist' is denied) has the 'sixth hour' reading.

I would argue that they had a much more authentic gospel of Mark - undoubtedly identical with the Alexandrian 'secret' Gospel referenced by Clement [cf. AH i.19.1 with regards to 'secret' scriptures]. Moreover I am certain that it was OUR gospels which were changed to disassociate them with the 'heresy' of the aforementioned Marcosians and indeed assist in Irenaeus's characterization of their arguments as 'laughable' [AH i.16.1] and the adherents themselves 'mad.' [ibis i.13.1]

stephan huller

In my last post at my blog (http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...itnessing.html) I cited extensively from Pier Franco Beatrice's relatively recent article (The treasures of the Egyptians. Studia Patristica XXXIX, 159-183) on the tradition of the plundering of Egyptian treasure during the Exodus. In that article he noted that there is a consistent understanding which goes back to the time of Philo which attacks the ancestors of the Jews for stealing the property of the nation of Egypt. I would like to use that article (and A van den Hoek's work on Clement's use of Philo in the Stromateis cited in Beatrice's article) to demonstrate a possible SECOND witness of the tradition of Mark already present in Alexandria in the first century.

As Beatrice notes, we only hear about this tradition from sources that are hostile to it but he rightly identifies the Marcionites as at least perpetuating a traditional attack of the Egyptian people:

Both Philo and Clement reveal that strong accusations were brought against the Hebrews for covetousness and unjust behaviour. But, while Philo only uses a fairly general expression to indicate a possible objection ('as someone might say in accusation'), Clement argues against unidentified people who actually support that accusation ('as the accusers claim'). One wonders who these accusers were. One wonders who these accusers were. As far as Philo is concerned, if he is writing about real people, they can only be Egyptian pagans who did not look favourably on the wealth of the Jews, considering it the perverse result of their covetousness of others' goods. But the accusers rejected by Clement, like the anonymous opponent mentioned by Isidore of Pelusium in his letter to Panellenius, seem rather to belong to a Christian school of thought. Rudolf Riedinger had the indubitable merit of drawing attention to the question, identifying the 'accusers' mentioned by Clement as the followers of Marcion's dualistic heresy. I am inclined to welcome this suggestion, since many texts confirm that the theft of the treasures of the Egyptians was one of the favourite arguments advanced by the Marcionites against the Demiurge, that is, the God of the Old Testament. The history of the Christian interpretation of the spoils of the Egyptians begins with Marcion and his critics. [p. 164]

While the idea would certainly seem ridiculous to Beatrice and others before him, we already demonstrated at my blog that Philo cites a heretical kabbalah associated with the followers of Mark (see below) and (b) that the Marcosians are undoubtedly one and the same with the Marcionites who are now identified as at least 'perpetuating' this attack which was originally developed in Egyptian 'pagan' circles according to Beatrice.

Yet could it be that Philo was ONCE AGAIN responding to propaganda associated with 'those of Mark'? In other words, there is no specific evidence that these sources were Egyptian pagans. Beatrice just assumes that because it makes sense as the kind of argument that would appeal to the native Egyptians.

Yet as we have already identified ONE example of Philo coming into contact with the followers of Mark, couldn't this be a second example?

Let's not forget that Clement - against the claims of the tradition of Rome - DOES NOT identify Marcion as a second century heretic but rather a figure who was converted in the apostolic era as we read "For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him (i.e. Marcion) Simon (Magus) heard for a little the preaching of Peter." [Strom. vii.17]

So let's start with a fresh slate as we reconsider the possibility that Philo might have a second example of Philo witnessing the tradition of Mark in Alexandria in the first century.

Our first example, as we noted above, begins with connecting the Marcosians of Irenaeus to those of Alexandrian See of St. Mark which is quite easy to do when we actually take a second look at the evidence. Irenaeus says that the heretical followers of Mark:

express themselves in this manner: that the letter Eta along with the remarkable one constitutes all ogdoad, as it is situated in the eighth place from Alpha. Then, again, computing the number of these elements without the remarkable (letter), and adding them together up to Eta, they exhibit the number thirty. For any one beginning from the Alpha to the Eta will, after subtracting the remarkable (letter i.e. episemon) ... they subtract twelve, and reckon it at eleven. And in like manner, (they subtract) ten and make it nine. [Hippolytus AH 6:42]

We should then note that Clement of Alexandria makes the same argument as in the name of the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark:

six is reckoned in the order of numbers, but the succession of the letters acknowledges the character which is not written. In this case, in the numbers themselves, each unit is preserved in its order up to seven and eight. But in the number of the characters, Zeta becomes six and Eta seven. And the character having somehow slipped into writing, should we follow it out thus, the seven became six, and the eight seven.[Stromata 6:16]

Yet this understanding can be traced all the way back to Philo, a member of a leading priestly family in the Jewish community of Alexandria who notes that there is a closely related Jewish sect which promotes a highly contagious kabbalistic apocalyptic doctrine. It is important to note that Philo's description EXACTLY matches the things said by second century 'Marcosians' like Clement of Alexandria namely that:

some of those persons who have (in the past) fancied that the world is everlasting, inventing a variety of new arguments, employ also such a system of reasoning as this to establish their point: they affirm that there are four principal manners in which corruption is brought about, addition, taking away, transposition, and alteration;accordingly, the number two is by the addition of the unit corrupted so as to become the number three, and no longer remains the number two; and the number four by the taking away of the unit is corrupted so as to become the number three; again, by transposition the letter Zeta becomes the letter Eta when the parallel lines which were previously horizontal (3/43/4) are placed perpendicularly (1/2 1/2), and when the line which did before pass upwards, so as to connect the two is now made horizontal, and still extended between them so as to join them. And by alteration the word oinos, wine, becomes oxos, vinegar.

But of the manner of corruption thus mentioned there is not one which is in the least degree whatever applicable to the world, since otherwise what could we say? Could we affirm that anything is added to the world so as to cause its destruction? But there is nothing whatever outside of the world which is not a portion of it as the whole, for everything is surrounded, and contained, and mastered by it. Again, can we say that anything is taken from the world so as to have that effect? In the first place that which would be taken away would again be a world of smaller dimensions than the existing one, and in the second place it is impossible that any body could be separated from the composite fabric of the whole world so as to be completely dispersed. Again, are we to say that the constituent parts of the world are transposed? But at all events they remain in their original positions without any change of place, for never at any time shall the whole earth be raised up above the water, nor the water above the air, nor the air above the fire. But those things which are by nature heavy, namely the earth and the water, will have the middle place, the earth supporting everything like a solid foundation, and the water being above it; and the air and the fire, which are by nature light, will have the higher position, but not equally, for the air is the vehicle of the fire; and that which is carried by anything is of necessity above that which carries it. Once more: we must not imagine that the world is destroyed by alteration, for the change of any elements is equipollent, and that which is equipollent is the cause of unvarying steadiness, and of untroubled durability, inasmuch as it neither seeks any advantage itself, and is not subject to the inroads of other things which seek advantages at its expense; so that this retribution and compensation of these powers is equalized by the rules of proportion, being the produce of health and endless preservation, by all which considerations the world is demonstrated to be eternal. [On the Eternity of the World XXII:113]

I noted in my original post that cited this evidence that the identification of the Marcosians of Egypt (cf. Jerome) as the followers of Mark in Alexandria helps explain curious changes that were made to the Gospel of Mark. In short, the orthodox editors in Rome were always trying to show how 'crazy' and 'unfounded' the kabbalah of the Marcosians was. By changing specific references to the number six in the Gospel of Mark - i.e. the hour in which Jesus was crucified - one could disprove the central claims of the tradition.

For the moment however I want to go back to Beatrice's original point that there is a TRADITION that questions the goodness of the God of the Israelites that goes back to Philo. Beatrice eventually follows Hill's identification of the unnamed 'presbyter' and his unnamed heretical opponents in Irenaeus Book Four as Polycarp and the Marcionites respectively (although he does not credit Hill anywhere).

I don't think that we need to accept his suggestion that Philo is responding to Egyptian pagans while Polycarp was attacking Marcionites. We have already noted that Hilgenfeld identifies the name Marcion as a diminutive of Marcus. We have developed our own explanation of the relationship between these names arguing that the Syriac term for Marcionites in the sixth century Life of Aba shows that Marcion was developed from a back formation of a Semitic gentilic collective plural which means 'those of Mark.'

I think that Philo was once again coming into Marqiyone (i.e. those of Mark) in Alexandria who were actively converting native Egyptians with an argument that the Exodus was just a 'type' for the ἀπολύτρωσις baptism mentioned in Irenaeus Book One chapter 21. I will show in my next post that the basis for this formulation can be shown to develop from the Alexandrian Jewish tradition as witnessed in the writings of Philo. The basic idea was that the new initiates from the Egyptians were being baptized on behalf of the dead Egyptians who drowned in the sea on the eighth day of Passover.

For the moment let's just note according to my theory Clement actually belonged to the tradition which Philo appears to attack in the Life of Moses. Indeed before my readers assume that because van den Hoek has found evidence of Clement citing Philo's words in the Life of Moses he must have completely supported his arguments, let us remind ourselves that van den Hoek notes that Clement goes out of his way to modify Philo's original comments.

Van den Hoek writes, citing first from the original text of Clement drawing our attention to the parallels in Philo:

Str. I 157,2-4 - VM I 141f. I 157,2 " ... and the Hebrews going away thereafter, departed carrying off much spoil from the Egyptians not in avarice as their accusors say (for God did not persuade them to covet other people's property),

I 157, 3 but, first of all, they took a just wage for all the time they had served the Egyptians, and then in a way, they vexed the Egyptians in return, avaricious as they were, afflicting them by removing the booty, as they had afflicted the Hebrews by enslaving them.

1 157, 4 One should say that this happened either as if in war, claiming under the law of victors their enemies' property, as the stronger do from the weaker (and the cause of the war was justified; because of famine, the Hebrews came as suppliants to the Egyptians, but they, reducing their guests to slavery, compelled them to serve them as captives, giving them no recompense), or as if in peace taking the spoils as wages against the will of those, who for a long period had given them no recompense, but rather had robbed them.

As a whole, VM I 141ff is apparently present as a source for Clement. Many words are taken over in the same declension or conjugation, but also new forms appear. The order is changed a few times ... some words are inserted in a different position ... also the meaning of the last sentence is altered.

Philo argues that the Hebrews take the spoils as compensation in spite of the fact that a real compensation is not possible for slavery and torture. Material damage and suffering, as Philo says, are quantities that cannot be compared to one another; they are of different natures. Connected with this, he stresses the idea of the justified and legitimate action of the Hebrews. These arguments do not reappear in Clement in the same form. The passage states baldly that the Hebrews take the spoils as compensation. As has been remarked above, Philo argues with more nuance and with more psychological sense. His observation, for example, that the Hebrews defended themselves not with weapons but with the shield of the Just cannot be found in Clement ... In contrast with the previous borrowings (from Philo), this entire passage (from Clement) gives an untidy impression ... From the point of view of both narrative technique and content, the passage seems confused. [p. 56 - 57]

There is something about this whole section which seems puzzling to van den Hoek. Clement was going along citing Philo's work pretty much verbatim and then in this section particular he suddenly starts reworking the material when this material just happens to be employed by members of the 'those of Mark' sect of which he has been demonstrated to have been a 'secret' member.

So what gives?

My assumption as always, is that Clement is very aware of Irenaeus's position - which has by now been established as the official orthodoxy of the Church. As such he has to avoid coming into direct conflict with what is written against the unnamed (Markan) heretics in the Fourth Book of Against All Heresies which declares:

Those, again, who cavil and find fault because the people did, by God's command, upon the eve of their departure, take vessels of all kinds and raiment from the Egyptians," and so went away, from which [spoils], too, the tabernacle was constructed in the wilderness, prove themselves ignorant of the righteous dealings of God, and of His dispensations; as also the presbyter remarked: For if God had not accorded this in the typical exodus, no one could now be saved in our true exodus ... The Egyptians were debtors to the [Jewish] people, not alone as to property, but as their very lives, because of the kindness of the patriarch Joseph in former times; but in what way are the heathen debtors to us, from whom we receive both gain and profit? Whatsoever they amass with labour, these things do we make use of without labour, although we are in the faith.

Up to that time the people served the Egyptians in the most abject slavery, as saith the Scripture: "And the Egyptians exercised their power rigorously upon the children of Israel; and they made life bitter to them by severe labours, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field which they did, by all the works in which they oppressed them with rigour." And with immense labour they built for them fenced cities, increasing the substance of these men throughout a long course of years, and by means of every species of slavery; while these [masters] were not only ungrateful towards them, but had in contemplation their utter annihilation.

In what way, then, did [the Israelites] act unjustly, if out of many things they took a few, they who might have possessed much property had they not served them, and might have gone forth wealthy, while, in fact, by receiving only a very insignificant recompense for their heavy servitude, they went away poor? It is just as if any free man, being forcibly carried away by another, and serving him for many years, and increasing his substance, should be thought, when he ultimately obtains some support, to possess some small portion of his [master's] property, but should in reality depart, having obtained only a little as the result of his own great labours, and out of vast possessions which have been acquired, and this should be made by any one a subject of accusation against him, as if he had not acted properly. He (the accuser) will rather appear as an unjust judge against him who had been forcibly carried away into slavery.

Of this kind, then, are these men also, who charge the people with blame, because they appropriated a few things out of many, but who bring no charge against those who did not render them the recompense due to their fathers' services; nay, but even reducing them to the most irksome slavery, obtained the highest profit from them. And [these objectors] allege that [the Israelites] acted dishonestly, because, for-sooth, they took away for the recompense of their labours, as I have observed, unstamped gold and silver in a few vessels; while they say that they themselves (for lot truth be spoken, although to some it may seem ridiculous) do act honestly, when they carry away in their girdles from the labours of others, coined gold, and silver, and brass, with Caesar's inscription and image upon it.

... As a matter of course, therefore, these things were done beforehand in a type, and from them was the tabernacle of God constructed; those persons justly receiving them, as I have shown, while we were pointed out beforehand in them,--[we] who should afterwards serve God by the things of others. For the whole exodus of the people out of Egypt, which took place under divine guidance, was a type and image of the exodus of the Church which should take place from among the Gentiles; and for this cause He leads it out at last from this world into His own inheritance, which Moses the servant of God did not [bestow], but which Jesus the Son of God shall give for an inheritance. And if any one will devote a dose attention to those things which are stated by the prophets with regard to the [time of the] end, and those which John the disciple of the Lord saw in the Apocalypse, he will find that the nations [are to] receive the same plagues universally, as Egypt then did particularly.[Irenaeus AH.iv.30.1 - 4]

I had to remove of course THE CONTEXT of Irenaeus's statement in order to make the passage digestible for my readership. The criticism that Irenaeus is tackling is specifically arguing that the Church of Rome is in the pocket of Caesar, using the gold and silver to establish idolatrous practices like those associated with the Golden Calf.

This is a VERY COMPLICATED information matrix as Beatrice notes where a debate over the proper interpretation of the Exodus has been going back and forth for centuries by the time Irenaeus comments upon it. I can demonstrate that in fact the same debate was taking place in Jewish circles where one particular school - the debe Jannai - laments the plundering of gold because it was ultimately used to construct an idol (cf. Sanhedrin 102a, Berakhoth 32a etc.). This is clearly the context of the debate between Irenaeus and the Marcionites. It is ONLY IN THE COURSE OF THAT DEBATE that Irenaeus draws from Philo's general argument about the rights of the ancient Israelites to be repaid for their lost wages.

My guess then is that Clement goes out of his way to avoid echoing the heretical beliefs of his Markan tradition slammed by Irenaeus throughout Book Four of Against All Heresies. As the Alexandrian Christian tradition was developed from an original appeal to Egyptian proselytes where they told that they were baptized into the death (and sins) of their ancestors, Clement avoids echoing the strongest language of Philo which identifies God as specifically shielding the Israelites at the expense of the Egyptians. Yes, the Egyptians represented sin and death, but I will argue that this was applied as a typology for the conversion of the Egyptian people (as we see elsewhere in Irenaeus's debate with his Marcionite opponents).

The point then is that the debate between Polycarp and Irenaeus on the one side and the Marqyone on the other IS ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT than the original debate between Philo and the followers of Mark. Irenaeus cites Polycarp as establishing the proper typology of the Exodus - i.e. that it sets the stage for the ἀπολύτρωσις guided by the Emperor in Rome (read chapter 30 carefully you will see the idea leap off the page). The Alexandrian tradition by contrast argued that the ἀπολύτρωσις occurred immediately after Jesus's crucifixion through a baptism into death established in the Gospel of Mark (i.e. LGM 1).

The debate between Philo and the followers of Mark in the first century was essentially over whether the proselytes were meant to adopt the existing system of Judaism that had operated in Alexandria for centuries or - as the opponents of Philo claimed - that something 'better' had come along which was superior to the idolatry established through the gold plundered from the Egyptians.

I want to stress that this specific idea is NOT referenced in the Life of Moses BUT IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN THERE. Philo is only dealing with ONE PART of the exegesis of his opponents. It is time scholars stopped living in mere caricatures because it is self-serving. I can demonstrate that the argument was present in his detractors polemic by citing the Life of Moses. For the moment though, as I bring this post to a close, I will merely cite the particular passage cited by Beatrice and van den Hoek in order to allow the reader to compare the words of Clement and Irenaeus with those of Philo:

So they, being now driven out of the land and pursued, coming at last to a proper notion of their own nobility and worth, ventured upon a deed of daring such as became the free to dare, as men who were not forgetful of the iniquitous plots that had been laid against them; for they carried off abundant booty, which they themselves collected, by means of the hatred in which they were held, and some of it they carried themselves, submitting to heavy burdens, and some they placed upon their beasts of burden, not in order to gratify any love of money, or, as any usurer might say, because they coveted their neighbours' goods. (How should they do so?) But, first of all, because they were thus receiving the necessary wages from those whom they had served for so long a time; and, secondly, because they had a right to afflict those at whose hands they had suffered wrong with afflictions slighter than, and by no means equal to, what they had endured. For how can the deprivation of money and treasures be equivalent to the loss of liberty? on behalf of which those who are in possession of their senses dare not only to cast away all their property, but even to venture their lives? So they now prospered in both particulars: whether in that they received wages as it in price, which they now exacted from unwilling paymasters, who for a long period had not paid them at all; and, also, as if they were at war, they looked upon it as fitting to carry off the treasures of the enemy, according to the laws of conquerors; for it was the Egyptians who had set the example of acts of injustice, having, as I said before, enslaved foreigners and suppliants, as if they had been prisoners taken in war. And so they now, when an opportunity offered, avenged themselves without any preparation of arms, justice itself holding a shield over them, and stretching forth its hand to help them.[Life of Moses I 140 - 143]

charles

Hi I am new to the forum and read stephan huller's discussion of the ending of Mark and thought that this thread might clarify a few things for me. Unfortunately, I am even more in the dark than where I began. Why do you, stephan huller, keep saying that the Gospel of Mark is by Marcion when Irenaeus says

driver8

Charles, I am also unable to fully understand this thread, but that is mostly due to my own failings. I applaud Stephan's efforts, however, in providing new and interesting content, and hope to see him engaged in a more productive manner.

My take on your Irenaeus quote is that it can be read to fully support exactly what Stephan is saying. The subject he, being Marcion?, is essentially being accused of re-writing Luke to create a new and different gospel, i.e. Mark, which according to Irenaeus is lacking certain of the content of Luke relating to the Lord's teaching and divinity.

stephan huller

Hi guys

I am currently working on something else which is quite complicated (the Alexandrian use of the Jewish concept of the Jubilee year) so my brain is somewhere else right now. I will try to give this a full answer tomorrow (or whenever I get through this other project) but now that this post no longer has hornets buzzing around distracting the original discussion let's go right back to the beginning.

When we as moderns (or 'post-moderns' as the imbeciles in universities like to describe us) approach the problem of Marcion we come at the tail end of a debate that was effectively closed by the triumphant Catholic Church.

We are told that Marcion's gospel was a corrupt version of Luke - but as anyone who has ever studied this problem IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES will tell you - it can't be that simple.

The Marcionites deny the existence and the author of Luke. They reject both Luke and Acts. Yet when pressed with the question 'who wrote your gospel' they put forward the essentially Islamic argument that 'Christ wrote it' (i.e. it was a revelation from heaven).

I argue that the launching point for this idea is Mark 1:1. In other words, the Marcionites were simply pointing to the first words of their text to prove its identity i.e. 'the Gospel of Jesus Christ' or some such opening line. The Jews identify their texts in this manner. All the books of Moses are given the names of the first words which appear in their narrative. It was also common in other ancient books.

The real problem when dealing with the Marcionites is that our authorities have had the fourfaced gospel concept so firmly etched in their minds that they can't function when some example of a single gospel which blurs the traditional distinctions between the four comes along.

Look at the gospel citations of Justin. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr has noted that there is an unmistakable fusion of synoptic references. I have pointed that the same thing exists in the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (and by extension the so-called First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians).

The underlying truth which none of these men can accept (owing to their inherent adoption of an acceptance of the fourfaced paradigm) is that BEFORE Irenaeus's citation of four texts as one gospel, there was a pre-Tatian Diatessaron which was split into four (or a basic form split into four with possible added elements).

I don't want to get into the details because these people inevitably hit you with 'why does John look so different from the synoptics' and the answer is Polycarp and that takes us away from the current discussion. It is enough to say that Bellinzoni and others (especially Petersen) toy with the idea of this pre-Diatessaronic witness as being minus any references to Johannine material (but I don't think the answer is as simple as that).

What is significant is that the Diatessaron ALSO begins with Mark 1:1 and the acrostic which introduces the text in many versions cryptically alludes to Mark being the Diatessaron's original author.

While the evidence for a single, long super-gospel is admittedly fragmentary the one massive piece of evidence that is impossible to get around is the fact that in Jesus' homeland - Palestine or later 'the province of Syria' - the use of the fourfold gospel never caught on until the fifth century. The form of the gospel that Jesus's people only knew was the single-long super gospel whether that be the Diatessaron, the gospel of Marcion or the Gospel of the Hebrews or some other text.

How can Europeans ignore this fact? The first kingdom to convert to Christianity was that of Osrhoene. The residents spoke Aramaic and ALL the debates which rage through the ages continue this Palestinian 'single gospel' paradigm.

The Europeans have to in some sense hold to the idea that the original Semitic Christian tradition had a sudden collective case of mental impairment and accepted a fusion of the four true gospels owing to their intellectual incapacitation. Now traditionally white people felt very comfortable doing this. While Hitler is only the most EXAGGERATED example of the white supremacy doctrine, the British, French and others have always had LATENT tendencies to think of themselves and Europeans generally as better arbiters of the truth owing to their racial superiority.

As such the issue of Semitic people maintaining a completely different paradigm of Christianity was unconsciously resolved by the fact that THESE PEOPLE WERE INFERIOR. What does it matter what subhuman forms MISTOOK for the truth preserved in the capitals of Europe?

Nevertheless as we now live in age of decline for the West, the central question of why Mohammed, Mani and Marcion thought they were the awaited Paraclete announced by Jesus can now finally be addressed on a more equal playing field.

The fourfold gospel is NECESSARILY SECONDARY to the single, long gospel form. It really requires very little in the way of argumentation. As Trobisch has aptly demonstrated the original manner in which the four were introduced necessarily meant taking ALL FOUR AS ONE GOSPEL. In other words, 'the gospel' wasn't complete until John wrote the last text assembled into the four. Such a position is stupid. It requires the belief in a Holy Spirit speaking to four different people at four different times for one message.

None of us believes the rabbinic tradition when it tells us that a bat kol (a voice from heaven) decided divisive doctrinal issues. We say that this is a disguise for human authorities settling the issue. It should be no different when we hear silly claims about a gospel of four. As Trobisch notes, the four gospels of our canon necessarily represent altered versions of original texts now lost to us. The last words of John (which Trobisch applies to the whole set) confess this quite explicitly.

This is a general understanding of what I am saying. Sorry I couldn't be more specific about Irenaeus. I will do so tomorrow.

charles

stephan huller

I am not sure that you answered my original question. Could you please explain how you dismiss Irenaeus's clear testimony about the existence of Marcion? There is also Polycarp too. Haven't really heard an answer to my original question.