stephan huller

I found a most interesting translation of a most interesting passage in a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria that I think betrays deep parallels with the Letter of Theodore. English translators have struggled with the original Greek:

Ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, καταλαβόμενοι ὁποίας ἦν αἱρέσεως ὁ Μαρκιανός, ὃς καὶ ἑαυτῶι ἐναντιοῦτο, μὴ νοῶν ἃ ἐλάλει, ἃ μαθήσεσθε ἐξ ὧν ὑμῖν ἐγράφη, ἐδυνήθημεν γὰρ παρ' ἄλλων τῶν ἀσκησάντων αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τοῦτ' ἐστὶν παρὰ τῶν διαδόχων τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ, οὓς Δοκητὰς καλοῦμεν τὰ γὰρ πλείονα φρονήματα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, χρησάμενοι παρ' αὐτῶν διελθεῖν καὶ εὑρεῖν τὰ μὲν πλείονα τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου τοῦ σωτῆρος, τινὰ δὲ προσδιεσταλμένα, ἃ καὶ ὑπετάξαμεν ὑμῖν

Thanks to Google I found a recent German translation which reviewed ALL previous translations and noted that they were wrong. Whereas all previous translators spoke about a succession of Docetics, the German translator recognized that it was about a succession of authors of the gospel who added things to the gospel of Peter which made it heretical (or so I understand):

Das Verb καταρξαμένων hat Schwierigkeiten bereitet. Swete erklärt, das EvPetr sei laut Serapion "emanated from the Docetic party"; Junod, Eusebe, 10 n. 22: "ä savoir grace aux successeurs de ceux qui furent ä ses debuts". Anders Vaganay, Evangile, 3 n. 1: "c'est-ä-dire par les successeurs de ceux qui l'ont intronisé.

Here is the original book http://books.google.com/books?id=Jhh...ise%22&f=false. The difficulty is that my German was stunted to the level I spoke when I was five years old but here is his translation:

Wir kennen, Brüder, die Häresie des Marcian. Er widersprach sich selbst und wusste nicht, was er sagte. Ihr könnt dies aus dem, was euch geschrieben ist, ersehen. Durch andere, die eben dies Evangelium benützten, das heißt durch die Nachfolger seiner Urheber, die wir Doketen nennen, da ja seine Ideen größtenteils dieser Richtung angehören, kamen wir in die Lage, dasselbe zu erhalten und durchzulesen und zu finden, daß zwar das meiste mit der wahren Lehre unseres Erlösers übereinstimmt, manches aber auch davon abweicht, was wir unten für euch anfügen

Schaff notes the very same difficulties with the Greek saying that "the interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with difficulty. The Greek reads τουτέστι παρὰ τῶν διαδόχων τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ, οὓς Δοκητὰς καλοῦμεν, (τὰ γὰρ φρονήματα τὰ πλείονα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας), κ.τ.λ. The words τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ are usually translated “who preceded him,” or “who led the way before him”; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this interpretation, and moreover the αὐτοῦ seems to refer not to Marcianus, whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel which has just been mentioned. There is a difficulty also in regard to the reference of the ἐκείνων, which is commonly connected with the words τῆς διδασκαλίας, but which seems to belong rather with the φρονήματα and to refer to the διαδοχῶν τῶν καταρξαμένων. It thus seems necessary to define the τῆς διδασκαλίας more closely, and we therefore venture, with Closs, to insert the words “of that school,” referring to the Docetæ just mentioned." Yet I think the German translation is more correct just based on the problems recognized here.

Here is Schaff's English translation:

But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetæ (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on.

Before I attempt to translate the German translation (I am asking some friends who are much better translators than I am) here is the rough translation from google:

We know, brothers, the heresy of Marcian. He contradicted himself and did not know what he said. You can do this from what you wrote is, see. called by others who used just this gospel by the successors of its authors, which we call docetic, since his ideas largely belong to this direction, we were in a position to receive it, and read and find that although in most of the true doctrine of Christ agrees, some but also deviates from what we attach below for you.

My request is for any German speakers here to tell me if I am right in seeing that the German translation is suggesting a modification or a series of modifications of the original Gospel of Peter which are 'docetic' and this explains why Serapion admits that he originally approved of the text. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

If you are suggesting that Serapion believed that the Gospel of Peter, used by the church at Rhossus, was an originally orthodox text to which heretical additions had been made, then I think you may well be right.

If you mean that Serapion actually knew of a text of the Gospel of Peter lacking the offensive passages found in the version at Rhossus then I am much more doubtful.

(Serapion seems to have been too hasty in originally approving the Gospel of Peter and is trying to backtrack.)

(I am assuming that when Serapion speaks of the Gospel of Peter he means something similar to the text of which a large fragment was discovered in 1886. I am not sure whether you would agree.)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Hi Andrew

A couple of preliminary notes:

1. Do the early Church Fathers ever distinguish between what they 'believe' and what they 'know' about the heresies? I don't mean this as an attack against the Church Fathers. I just mean I have never seen them say anything about Marcion for instance that ever distinguishes between firsthand knowledge and third hand inferences.

2. Is the Marcian here mentioned Marcion? I think so but it is hard to say definitively.

3. If it is Marcion then the gospel can't be a text called 'the gospel of Peter.' This would suggest to me at least something like what Clement alludes to in to Theodore.

4. The gospel also can't be canonical Mark or Serapion would have recgonized it as such.

My guess is that it is the 'openly curtailed' gospel of Marcion referenced in Irenaeus Book Three so many times. I have problems with the Catholic identification of the Marcionite gospel as a corrupt version of Luke.

The Marcionite gospel is a very complicated business that I don't think people have adequately fleshed out. Of course if Marcian is assumed to be someone other than Marcion then we are back at square one.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

What I meant was that the Church Fathers often have firsthand knowledge of varying forms of text. Eg Tertullian knows the text of Marcion's Gospel and knows the text of what he considers the canonical Gospels. Tertullian's claim that Marcion edited his Gospel by deleting parts of the canonical Gospel may be inference rather than direct knowledge but he knows about the differing texts.

In the case of Serapion, he may regard the Gospel of Peter in use at Rhossus as being an originally orthodox text expanded by heretics, but I can see no evidence that he knows of a version of the Gospel of Peter which lacks the passages that Serapion objects to.
According to the Loeb Eusebius, the Armenian version of the History renders Marcianus as Marcion which supports your suggestion. However the idea that Serapion by Marcianus means the famous/notorious Marcion doesn't seem to make sense in context. Marcion was accused of deleting orthodox material not adding heretical material.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

But the original paradigm by Irenaeus about the Marcionites has to be inaccurate. There are just too many references relating Marcion to Matthew, Mark and John to avoid concluding that the idea that Marcion simply 'curtailed' Luke was IMPOSED into the discussion. Here we have Serapion witnessing that the Marcionites somehow had a short gospel originally related to Peter which later had heretical additions made to it. This can't be a reference to the 'gospel of Peter' but the same kind of debate that we see going on in the Dialogues of Adamantius where the Marcionite representative rejects the idea that his 'Gospel of Christ' was written by Peter.

There has to be a short and long gospel of Mark lurking beneath all these references especially when we scrutinize Irenaeus's statements about the followers of Marcion. Irenaeus never uses the term 'Marcionite' except in one instance in 4.2.2. Unfortunately we only have the Latin for this section and it reads Marcionitae. It is clear from the reference that Irenaeus is actually talking about the Marcosians. Clearly Μαρκιανισταί has been taken for Μαρκιωνισταί as we see countless other times (i.e. manuscripts of Justin, Celsus, Eusebius).

The really curious thing is that Irenaeus actually avoids using anything resembling Μαρκιωνισταί or anything that might identify Marcionites as a firm sect and instead uses the loosest of possible terms - he consistently speaks of 'those who are of Marcion' (eos qui sunt a Marcione) in the rest of Against Heresies (AH ii.1.4, ii.31.1, iii.4.3, iii.12.12, iii.14.4, iv.8.1, iv.13.1, iv.34.1). AH v.26.1 makes reference to 'disciples of Marcion' or quemadmodum qui a Marcion sunt but the point remains the same.

I think this choice of terminology is deliberately vague so that he can in fact argue for two Marcionite groups - one representing the lay Marcionites and the other its presbytery. These two groups were separated by two different gospels, the 'curtailed gospel' (sometimes explicitly identified as a shortened Luke) and a 'pro-evangelium' referenced as a gospel of Mark in Irenaeus's writings.

The place all of this comes together is if we look at Against Heresies Book Three Chapter Eleven and avoid 'cherry picking' the information. It was von Harnack who first alerted me to this context. I would never have seen it on my own.

Chapter Eleven begins with a surprising statement that Marcion and other Marcionites rejected the Gospel of John:

John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not." But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another" (Adv. haer. 3.11.2]

This pairing continues throughout the chapter. Most people don't see it because they are only interested in seeing where the Catholic quaternion appears in history for the first time. Yet it is noteworthy that it is done on the back of a parallel Marcionite conception of a 'curtailed gospel' and a fuller gospel of Mark:

But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those (qui autem) who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. [AH 3.11.7]

For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel. Others (alli) truly, in order that they might set frustrate the gift of the spirit which in recent times has been poured out upon humankind by the good pleasure of the father, do not admit that aspect [of the fourfold gospel] which is according to the gospel of John [AH 3.11.9]
The point is that Harvey is out to lunch when he claims that not only the 'others' in AH 3.11.7 and 3.11.9 are separate groups from Marcion but even two different groups from each other. The way the natural order of the gospels are invented (Matthew, Luke, Mark and then John instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke and then John) make it clear that something important is going on here.

The chapter begins with the statement that Marcion and other Marcionites rejected John and concludes with the idea that these 'other' Marcionites continue to voice their objection to John, preferring instead their fuller Mark. I think it is impossible to mistake the idea that the Marcionites originally presented an 'openly' curtailed gospel and its original 'the fuller' Mark known only to their presbytery. Irenaeus turned this around by establishing Luke as the gospel he alleged was the original gospel to the public Marcionite gospel (undoubtedly by establishing the gospel citations used in the Antitheses as the basis to his new 'Lukan' gospel).

The Marcionite reading of 1 Cor 2.1 - 3.10 would necessitate two gospels one public and which only referenced Jesus crucified (like the short ending of Mark) as well as a 'secret gospel' for the perfect. Clement presents the same interpretation in Strom. 5.4.

I think Serapion is a further mistaking the statement that Clement makes in to Theodore "Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed"

And then there is the confirmation that the Marcionites used a gospel of Mark in Philosophumena 7.18