A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:54 am I think the issue with Memos's contribution is that he doesn't exhibit a critical apparatus for his arguments. He is an expert. I don't this his thesis makes sense - i.e that Smith took bits and pieces of various handwriting and made it his own. And when is Goranson going to deal with the fact that he and his ilk don't seem to begin with the assumption the text is a forgery and look for evidence later. I bet if I did a Google search I could find him holding up Carlson's core argument as the smoking gun. Fine. But now that this claim has been disproved as at best an overzealous 'mistake' on the part of a young scholar (I won't mention the alternative explanation) it's funny how the hoax theory doesn't miss a beat. There is no change in the certainty that these people have. The arguments for forgery are like costume changes in a magic act. They come on and off without missing beat. Yet the certainty is always there. The rational justification comes later. It's almost like these people have a religious mindset or something where 'faith' in something supersedes any rational thought processes. So how can this ever end? We literally have to wait for the death of a certain religious mindset to end this nonsense.

I'd like to turn around and ask Goranson a question which is part of my justification for accepting the authenticity of the document.

1. do you admit that the Gospel of the Egyptians was likely Clement's Alexandrian community's preferred gospel?
2. do think that the mention of Salome likely points to the Gospel of the Egyptians close relationship with Mark?
3. isn't it at least possible that To Theodore's description of the gospel as one associated which was actually associated with Mark but never so identified (i.e. never 'according to Mark') which Mark "left to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initated into the great mysteries" fits the title Clement uses for the gospel - i.e. 'the Gospel of the Egyptians'

Sure Smith knew these details. I knew these details. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the two descriptions complement one another. That has to be acknowledged. There is a context for the existence of a 'Secret Gospel of Mark.' The question of Smith forging a text based on his knowledge of Clement is another issue entirely. But it is wrong to argue that 'Secret Mark' doesn't make sense, has no historical context or justification. It fits EXACTLY what we would expect from Clement's other writings.
One problem here is that there is no hint anywhere that the Carpocratians made used of the Gospel of the Egyptians. Since this Gospel seems to have advocated Asceticism and celibacy it is prima-facie unlikely that the Carpocratians would have found it congenial. (See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tians.html and for context http://www.ccg.org/weblibs/study-papers/b3.html)

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Ummm I guess it's a 'problem' if you suppose that (a) the Church Fathers give us generally reliable information about anything and (b) if you think that Clement is in the habit of telling us which heretics use which gospel. In the case (a) I do not subscribe to the silly 'Church Fathers as reliable researchers' model that most (religious) scholars put forward. At best they were hearsay experts. They usually say something like 'heresy X' used the Gospel of Matthew. I don't believe that every sect which is claimed to use Matthew actually used Matthew. It was a simple formula which had little value other than sound reliable.

But in the case of Clement in particular he rarely mentions the use of particular gospels among the heresies. In fact I would turn around and say that THE ONE gospel that Clement seems to be in the habit of identifying heretical practitioners for is the Gospel of the Egyptians. In Stromata 3 he starts chapter 5 by saying:
We have no intention of making a closer examination of this topic or mentioning more implausible heresies. We have no intention of being forced to an individual discussion of each of them in all their scandalous nature or prolonging these notes to a vast length. Let us answer them by dividing all the heresies into two groups. Either they teach a way of life which makes no distinction between right and wrong or their hymn is too highly strung and they acclaim asceticism out of a spirit of irreligious quarrelsomeness. I must first expound the former division. If it is legitimate to choose any way of life, then clearly it is legitimate to choose the way that involves asceticism. If there is no way of life which carries danger for the elect, then clearly this is particularly true of the life of virtuous self-discipline. If the Lord of the sabbath has been granted freedom from accountability for a life of licentiousness, the man whose social life is orderly will be far freer from accountability. The Apostle says, “Everything is legitimate for me; not everything is expedient.” If everything is legitimate, that obviously includes self-discipline.
His approach then - apparently - is to justify ascetic behavior by starting with the so-called licentious heretics. In fact he has just dealt with the 'licentious' heretics in the previous section - the Valentinians, Basilideans and Carpocratians - and is proceeding to deal with the ascetic groups in what follows.

He starts off with a mention of Valentinians and then proceeds to a long citation of Basilides's son Isidore:
“So, if you have a quarrelsome wife” (I am quoting Isidore’s Ethics), “be patient with her, to avoid being wrenched violently out of God’s grace; get rid of the fire with your semen; then go to prayer with a good conscience.” 4 (3) “When your prayer of gratitude,” he goes on, “sinks to a petition, and your petition is that in future you may not act wrongly, rather than that you may act rightly – get married. (4) A man may be young or poor or highly sexed and unwilling to follow the Apostle’s advice and get married. He must not be cut off from his Christian brother. He should say, ‘I have entered the temple; there is nothing I can suffer.’ (5) If he has an inkling of what is happening to him, he should say, ‘Brother, lend me a hand to save me from going wrong.’ Then he will receive help, spiritually and physically. He has only to desire to achieve 5 the good, and he will attain it.
3(1) “But sometimes we say with our lips, ‘We do not want to sin,’ but our intention is disposed towards sin. Such a person refrains from doing what he wants to do out of fear of punishment being set to his account. (2) The human condition involves some things which are natural and necessary, others which are merely natural. 6 To wear clothes is natural and necessary; all this business of sexual intercourse is natural but not necessary.” 7
And then explains the quote as follows:
(3) I have passed on these statements to expose those followers of Basilides who do not lead upright lives, claiming that they have the authority actually to commit sin because of their perfection, or that they will in any event be saved by nature, even if they do sin, because of their ingrained election; their predecessors in the sect do not allow anyone to do the same 8 as they are doing. (4) So they should not wear the name of Christ as a cloak, live more licentiously than the most intemperate of the pagans, and bring ill-repute upon the name. [The Scripture text is] “Such men are false apostles, crooked workers” down to “whose doom shall match their acts.” 9 4(1) Self-discipline means disdain of the body, following obedience 10 to God. Self-discipline applies, not just to sexual matters, but to everything else for which the soul lusts improperly, because it is not satisfied with the bare necessities. (2) Self-discipline applies to speech, possessions and their use, desire generally. 11 It is not just that it teaches us self-control. It offers us the gift of self-control, a divine power and grace of God. 12 (3) I must tell you our people’s view of the matter. We bless abstention from sexual intercourse and those to whom it comes as a gift of God. We admire monogamy and respect for one marriage and one only. We say that we ought to share in suffering and “bear one another’s burdens,” 13 for fear that anyone who thinks he is standing firmly should in fact fall. 14 It is about second marriages that the Apostle says, “If you are on fire, get married.” 15
The point made here is very important because it serves as a lead in for his discussion of the Carpocratians in the chapter which follows (and which is in turn followed by the first reference to the Secret Gospel of Mark/Gospel according to the Egyptians. His point is that every heretic agrees that sex is sin, that childbirth is evil, but that the approach of the licentious and the ascetic heretics - the two divisions he mentions in chapter 5 - is different.

The licentious sects acknowledge what the Gospel of the Egyptians says about the evil of childbirth - at least implicitly - only they say that we are capable of sinning because we are perfect. The same is true with the Carpocratians who follow:
The followers of Carpocrates and Epiphanes think that wives should be held in common. 16 It is through them that the greatest ill-repute has accrued to the name of Christ.

Οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Καρποκράτους καὶ Ἐπιφάνους ἀναγόμενοι κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας ἀξιοῦσιν, ἐξ ὧν ἡ μεγίστη κατὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐρρύη βλασφημία. [3.2.5.2]
Clearly the first line is acknowledging that Clement is thinking of the report in Hegesippus which we know from Lawlor is preserved word for word in Epiphanius (and to some degree in Irenaeus). But the highlighted words make absolutely clear that Clement's information about the sect comes from Hegesippus (which explains why Origen is like - I've never actually met a Carpocratian). First Epiphanius:
But they have been prepared by Satan and put forward as a reproach and stumbling-block for God's church. For they have adopted the name of 'Christian,' though Satan has arranged this so thatthe heathen will be scandalized by them and reject the benefit of God's holy church and its real message, because of their wickedness and their intolerable evil deeds— or, again, seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all, who have in fact no fellowship with them, either in doctrine or in morals, or in our daily conduct. But they lead a licentious life, and, to conceal their impious doctrines, they abuse the name, as a means of hiding their wickedness But in the words of scripture, 'Their damnation is just,' as the holy apostle Paul said. Because of their evil deeds the due return will be awarded them.
Irenaeus (only the highlighted line above is different)
These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth; or, again, seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all, who have in fact no fellowship with them, either in doctrine or in morals, or in our daily conduct. But they lead a licentious life, and, to conceal their impious doctrines, they abuse the name [of Christ], as a means of hiding their wickedness; so that their condemnation is just, Romans 3:8 when they receive from God a recompense suited to their works. (Irenaeus)
And then a lengthy citation of a work by Epiphanes whom he presumes to be a Carpocratian (which may or may not be the case given the number of errors in the section). And the concluding paragraph:
These are the doctrines of our noble Carpocratians. They say that these people and some other zealots for the same vicious practices gather for dinner (I could never call their congregation a Christian love-feast), men and women together, and after they have stuffed themselves (“The Cyprian goddess is there when you are full,” they say. 38), they knock over the lamps, put out the light that would expose their fornicating righteousness,” and couple as they will with any woman they fancy. 39 So in this love-feast they practice commonality. Then by daylight they demand any woman they want in obedience – it would be wrong to say to the Law of God – to the law of Carpocrates. I guess that is the sort of legislation Carpocrates must have established for the copulation of dogs, pigs, and goats. (2) I fancy he has, in fact, misunderstood Plato’s dictum in the Republic that wives are to be held in common by everyone. Plato really meant that before marriage they are to be available to any who intend to ask them to marry, just as the theatre is open to all spectators; but that once a woman has married she belongs to the particular man who secured her first and is no longer held in common by everyone. 40 11(1) Xanthus in his book entitled the Works of the Magi says, “The Magi think 4l it right to have sexual union with their mothers, daughters and sisters. The women are held in common by mutual agreement, not forcibly or secretively, when one man wants to marry another’s wife.” 42 (2) I fancy Jude was speaking prophetically of these and similar sects in his letter when he wrote: “So too with these people caught up in their dreams” who do not set upon the truth with their eyes fully open, down to “pompous phrases pour from their mouth.”
The idea then is quite clearly that the Carpocratian section is really filled with a lot of speculation. He has basically sandwiched (a) the original report about the Carpocratians in Hegesippus and (b) a Christian work by Epiphanes whom he presumes to have a Carpocratian provenance and (c) the oft repeated report about Christian love feasts. I think this connection between the Carpocratians and lovefeasts is found elsewhere in Clement. The point is that it derives from a deliberate pattern of obscuring that can also be connected with To Theodore.

In other words, Hegesippus obviously circulated widely. In that text there is the mention of a Marcellina who is identified as a Carpocratian (in Celsus's source a Harpocratian apparently). And this widely known report leads Clement to connect Epiphanes - who advocates Platonic shared women - to Carpocrates and the Christian practice of sexual licentiousness. I am not sure that this is what Epiphanes original meant. But I think this is the pattern which fits back to To Theodore. Theodore hears a report about a 'secret gospel' according to Mark which has 'naked with naked.' Clement disputes this characterization of the Alexandrian (Egyptian) gospel and cites the passage in question to disprove this evil interpretation. The connection with the Carpocratians follows a pattern of 'convenient lie' which extends to the Stromata.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

And you didn't answer my original question Andrew. Why isn't the Gospel of the Egpytians a version of Mark given it's interest in Salome and its provenance? I think that's fairly likely whether or not it is one and the same with Secret Mark. The issue of whether or not Clement - in his five or so references to the gospel used by 'Egyptians' - specifically connects this gospel to the Carpocratians is a relatively minor issue. If I have a conversation about wife-beaters and on one night I mention that might friend Harry beat his wife and another night I happen to discuss domestic violence I fail to mention my friend Harry is a wife-beater it wouldn't cause any reasonable person to imply that I never said that Harry was a wife-beater on a previous occasion. Only someone trying to get Harry off of a charge of wife-beating might bring that up as an 'inconsistency' - and it's a very 'sweaty' argument if I can use some of my son's lingo.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

The point again is that you Andrew believe the Church Fathers are like the forerunners of the modern scholar - diligently and accurately compiling 'facts' about the heretics. I take a much more pessimistic view of the situation. There were reports floating around in the second and third centuries which were less than accurate. Whenever someone had the power to punish or excommunicate the information was generally quite good. But in most cases we are dealing with slander, lies, exaggerations directed against rival Christian groups. To that end we see Clement basically manufacture an account of the Carpocratians in Stromata 3. As noted in the previous post he fuses (a) Hegesippus's statement (shared by both Irenaeus and Epiphanius) that the Carpocratians were blaspheming the name of Christ with their licentiousness on to (b) a treatise of Epiphanes which basically applies Plato's Republic's interest in a communist utopia where among other things women are shared in common. There is an implicit licentiousness in this arrangement. IT COULD have led to guardians all jumping in a pile of naked ladies and having an orgy - at least in theory. But clearly this is not what Epiphanes had in mind. Clement however seems to connect Hegesippus's account of sexual licentiousness among a group called 'the Carpocratians' and says 'here is a Carpocratian' even though the connection is hardly convincing.

To that end, I see this as emblematic of Clement's approach to the Carpocratians. He didn't invent the Carpocratians. To some degree they embodied Alexandrian Christianity to the world. Note that by the 5th chapter of Stromata 5 he introduces Julius Cassianus who is not a Carpocratian but uses the Gospel of the Egyptians. It comes up in a citation from his works and throughout the chapter he keeps going back to the well. The Gospel of the Egyptians of course was not the gospel's name. At best it was a short hand way of referring to 'the gospel that was used by Egyptian heretics.' So it was associated with the Sabellians. But the Carpocratians don't appear again in Stromata 5. They basically pop up in a 'study' if you will of the range of heresies - i.e. the Valentinians who accept the marriage of the aeons, the Basilideans who say sex is inherently sinful but permitted for the perfect to Epiphanes who is falsely identified as a Carpocratian and then he goes the other way - Marcionites and then Julius Cassianus. But the context seems to be Egyptian heresies and no gospel is ever mentioned in relation to any of these groups other than Julius Cassianus who has explicit gospel references unknown outside of Egypt - hence the name of the gospel. But the names of the heretics come from Clement's reading of works like Irenaeus and Justin. He just goes along with the silliness and tries to fit information about groups in Egypt to the names given in these treatises.

So again, you tend to view the Church Fathers are accurate 'researchers' including Clement. I see the Church Fathers as shitty researchers. The kind of people who would write those stupid little comic books that evangelicals used to leave on buses and public places which tell the story of a 'sinner' who by the end of the comic strip ends up on his hands and knees praying to be forgiven and received into heaven and eternal life. They have these sorts of heretical compilations in every monotheistic religion. Abu'l Fath compiled one for the Samaritans in the 14th century. And in all cases it's the same process - a compilation of literary statements about heretics in earlier sources. Very little care was taken to preserve CONTEXT. It's just a way basically of shifting all problems the Church had to outside 'fringe' groups - the way I might blame Giuseppe for the 'trash nature' of periods of activity at this forum. There was very little eyewitness reporting and when there is eyewitness reporting (like Epiphanius's visit to an orgy) it's usually an outright lie. Names were always getting invented, mixed up, whatever. That Clement made up a story about Carpocrates going in and copying out the Egyptian gospel suited the immediate purposes of the letter to Theodore. So he did it. Just as the false identification of Epiphanes as a Carpocratian served Clement's purposes in Stromata 5.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

The Church Fathers if they actually met a member of a heretical community.



All they knew was religious propaganda.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

On the use of the Gospel of Mark among Alexandrian Christians. Basilides might have also used the Gospel of Mark, if Irenaeus' discussion of. Basilides' version of the crucifixion narrative is authentic. So when we return to Book 5 and look at the order of heretics:

chapter 1 - Basilides, long citation of his son Isidore, no gospel referenced
chapter 2 - Epiphanes, claimed to be a Carpocratian, no gospel referenced
chapter 3 - Marcion, lengthy argument that his hatred of child-birth was from Plato and the Greek philosophers unusual gospel citation:
From the heretics we have spoken of Marcion from Pontus who deprecates the use of worldly things because of his antipathy to their creator. The creator is thus actually responsible for his self-control, if you can call it self-control. This giant who battles with God and thinks he can withstand him is an unwilling ascetic who runs down the creation and the formation of human beings. If they quote the Lord’s words addressed to Philip, “Let the dead bury their dead; for your part follow me,” they should also reflect that Philip’s flesh was of the same formation, and he was not endowed with a polluted corpse. Then how could he have a body of flesh without having a corpse? Because when the Lord put his passions to death he rose from the grave and lived to Christ. We have spoken of the lawless communism in women held by Carpocrates.
This is an unknown gospel. Clement does not ever acknowledge Marcion using Luke. The gospel narrative which names Philip as not only the one Jesus said Luke 9:60 but also notice what follows - it is clearly the story in Secret Mark with he "rose from the grave when the Lord put his passions to death and lived to Christ" (ὅτι ἐξανέστη τοῦ μνήματος τοῦ κυρίου τὰ πάθη νεκρώσαντος, ἔζησε δὲ Χριστῷ). I've said over and over again that this could be a reference to the same passage from Secret Mark in the Letter to Theodore. Yes the disciple is not explicitly named Philip. But this maybe something known to the community by oral tradition.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

An answer to Andrew Criddle's claim there is nothing to connect Carpocrates to the Gospel of the Egyptians:
Although some of this literature certainly must be dated subsequent to the year 200, there still belongs to the beginning of the second century that book which Clement of Alexandria, the earliest possible witness for such things, already knows by the title <ts>The Gospel of the Egyptians</ts>.\26/ The construction with kata is here, as in the similarly formed supcrscriptions to the canonical gospels (e.g. to kata Mattaion euaggelion) a good Greek substitute for the genitive. Since there surely never had been a heretical group called "the Egyptians," the designation Gospel of the Egyptians points back to a time in which the Christians of Egypt used this gospel, and only this gospel, as their "life of Jesus." And the pronounced heretical viewpoint of the Gospel of the Egyptians accords well with what we have had to conjecture about the earliest state of Egyptian Christianity. For several of the gnostics enumerated above, the use of the Gospel of the Egyptians is demonstrable on good authority. The Salome with whom the apocryphal gospel depicts Jesus in conversation is also a popular figure in subsequent extra-canonical Egyptian gospel literature. Moreover, the followers of the Egyptian gnostic Carpocrates derived the origin of their teaching from Salome.1

It may seem remarkable that the name Gospel of the Egyptians should arise in Egypt itself and be used by Christians there. They would have had no occasion to speak of their lone gospel as the gospel "of the Egyptians." It would simply be the gospel. The special designation presupposes a plurality of gospels which makes a distinction necessary. Quite right! It is only in this context that the expression "of the Egyptians" can be correctly appreciated. The phrase would be completely incomprehensible if one supposes that only a heretical minority of the Egyptian Christians used this book while, on the contrary, the majority employed the canonical gospel, or at least some of them. The gospel of a minority could never have been called simply the Gospel of the Egyptians. And neither the Gospel of Matthew, nor that of Luke, really constitutes a plausible (i.e. a natural) antithesis to the Gospel of the Egyptians [Bauer p. 50 https://books.google.com/books?id=YDsqA ... UQ6AEIKjAA].

1. So Celsus according to Origen Against Celsus 5.62. Surely it is they who are concealed behind the name Harrpocratianoi that is transmitted in the text.
So we who have been through the circularity of these debates before don't need to hear the response to this. At first Criddle denied there was any connection between Carpocrates and the Gospel of the Egyptians. Now that there is a connection - it only served to demonstrate that Smith read Origen before he forged Secret Mark. You see how it is impossible to win? Really we aren't going against any particular rational argument the other side can put up. They have the Holy Spirit - or at least a remnant of that holy sense of 'divine truth' or truthfulness, however small - that floated around in the early Church - that helped determine what texts were canonical and which were heretical. This is really what we are up against. Any rational argument for the authenticity of the discovery of To Theodore necessarily is countered by the irrational 'sense' that the text is heretical, is spurious, corrupt and deserving of condemnation. Even it were an ancient text, they seem to muse, why would it be good to let a text like this disturb the natural order of things? It still has to be condemned and kept away from the good and holy texts.

This is why rational arguments can't hope to ever quell the impulse to either (a) say the text doesn't fit with the documents of the Church or (b) that if it does it was only because Morton Smith studied the writings of the Church Fathers and managed to create a fantastic forgery which superficially 'fits' in some niche statement in this or that Father. You can't win!
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:46 am And you didn't answer my original question Andrew. Why isn't the Gospel of the Egpytians a version of Mark given it's interest in Salome and its provenance? I think that's fairly likely whether or not it is one and the same with Secret Mark. The issue of whether or not Clement - in his five or so references to the gospel used by 'Egyptians' - specifically connects this gospel to the Carpocratians is a relatively minor issue. If I have a conversation about wife-beaters and on one night I mention that might friend Harry beat his wife and another night I happen to discuss domestic violence I fail to mention my friend Harry is a wife-beater it wouldn't cause any reasonable person to imply that I never said that Harry was a wife-beater on a previous occasion. Only someone trying to get Harry off of a charge of wife-beating might bring that up as an 'inconsistency' - and it's a very 'sweaty' argument if I can use some of my son's lingo.
The Gospel of the Egyptians presumably derives the name Salome from Mark (directly or indirectly). This need not mean it was a version of Mark in the usual sense of version. The Gospel of Thomas has Salome talking with Jesus
(61) Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and the other will live."
Salome said, "Who are you, man, that you ... have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?"
Jesus said to her, "I am he who exists from the undivided. I was given some of the things of my father."
<...> "I am your disciple."
<...> "Therefore I say, if he is destroyed, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."
but the Gospel of Thomas is not meaningfully described as a version of Mark. We know very little about the Gospel of the Egyptians but IMVHO it is more likely to have been a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus than an account of the deeds of Jesus. If so it would not really resemble Mark.

You mentioned provenance, the problem is that the Gospel of Mark seems under-represented in early Egyptian papyri. An origin in 2nd century Egypt does not prima-facie imply strong influence from Mark.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:17 pm An answer to Andrew Criddle's claim there is nothing to connect Carpocrates to the Gospel of the Egyptians:
Although some of this literature certainly must be dated subsequent to the year 200, there still belongs to the beginning of the second century that book which Clement of Alexandria, the earliest possible witness for such things, already knows by the title <ts>The Gospel of the Egyptians</ts>.\26/ The construction with kata is here, as in the similarly formed supcrscriptions to the canonical gospels (e.g. to kata Mattaion euaggelion) a good Greek substitute for the genitive. Since there surely never had been a heretical group called "the Egyptians," the designation Gospel of the Egyptians points back to a time in which the Christians of Egypt used this gospel, and only this gospel, as their "life of Jesus." And the pronounced heretical viewpoint of the Gospel of the Egyptians accords well with what we have had to conjecture about the earliest state of Egyptian Christianity. For several of the gnostics enumerated above, the use of the Gospel of the Egyptians is demonstrable on good authority. The Salome with whom the apocryphal gospel depicts Jesus in conversation is also a popular figure in subsequent extra-canonical Egyptian gospel literature. Moreover, the followers of the Egyptian gnostic Carpocrates derived the origin of their teaching from Salome.1

It may seem remarkable that the name Gospel of the Egyptians should arise in Egypt itself and be used by Christians there. They would have had no occasion to speak of their lone gospel as the gospel "of the Egyptians." It would simply be the gospel. The special designation presupposes a plurality of gospels which makes a distinction necessary. Quite right! It is only in this context that the expression "of the Egyptians" can be correctly appreciated. The phrase would be completely incomprehensible if one supposes that only a heretical minority of the Egyptian Christians used this book while, on the contrary, the majority employed the canonical gospel, or at least some of them. The gospel of a minority could never have been called simply the Gospel of the Egyptians. And neither the Gospel of Matthew, nor that of Luke, really constitutes a plausible (i.e. a natural) antithesis to the Gospel of the Egyptians [Bauer p. 50 https://books.google.com/books?id=YDsqA ... UQ6AEIKjAA].

1. So Celsus according to Origen Against Celsus 5.62. Surely it is they who are concealed behind the name Harrpocratianoi that is transmitted in the text.
So we who have been through the circularity of these debates before don't need to hear the response to this. At first Criddle denied there was any connection between Carpocrates and the Gospel of the Egyptians. Now that there is a connection - it only served to demonstrate that Smith read Origen before he forged Secret Mark. You see how it is impossible to win? Really we aren't going against any particular rational argument the other side can put up. They have the Holy Spirit - or at least a remnant of that holy sense of 'divine truth' or truthfulness, however small - that floated around in the early Church - that helped determine what texts were canonical and which were heretical. This is really what we are up against. Any rational argument for the authenticity of the discovery of To Theodore necessarily is countered by the irrational 'sense' that the text is heretical, is spurious, corrupt and deserving of condemnation. Even it were an ancient text, they seem to muse, why would it be good to let a text like this disturb the natural order of things? It still has to be condemned and kept away from the good and holy texts.

This is why rational arguments can't hope to ever quell the impulse to either (a) say the text doesn't fit with the documents of the Church or (b) that if it does it was only because Morton Smith studied the writings of the Church Fathers and managed to create a fantastic forgery which superficially 'fits' in some niche statement in this or that Father. You can't win!
Bauer may well be right that original Egyptian Christianity was unorthodox by later standards. His idea that earliest Egyptian Christianity mainly used other Gospels than the canonical four is called into question by the evidence of the early papyri.

I agree that the Harpocratians in Contra Celsus are the Carpocratians, however I don't think the claim that the Harpocratians/Carpocratians followed Salome implies that they regarded as authoritative a Gospel in which Salome appears. It is more likely that they claimed to have received oral tradition from Salome.

Compare Hippolytus on the Ophites and Mariamne .
These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne. (book 5)

They affirm that James, the brother of the Lord, delivered these tenets to Mariamne, by such a statement belying both. (book 10)
Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A Suggestion for Revising the Early Writings' Entry for Secret Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

His idea that earliest Egyptian Christianity mainly used other Gospels than the canonical four is called into question by the evidence of the early papyri.
These sorts of arguments inevitably enrage me. If they did THIS with ARIAN documents:

Image

Doesn't that explain why there isn't papyri associated with the heresies in great number. Come on. You really think this is an apples to apples comparison? Imagine I had two sons. Let's call then Son A and Son B. Son A was my favorite. A true genius but died in a car accident at 18. Son B was hard working but otherwise quite boring and lived to one hundred years old and had 18 children. We'd find a lot of evidence of the boring son but no so much of the genius. That doesn't mean that all my sons were boring.

The orthodox burned and destroyed the testimonies of the heresies. As such we shouldn't expect to find a lot of heretical documents! Doesn't mean they weren't there. Just means we are dealing with apples and oranges.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply