Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

[Secret Alias]

I think that Clement's notion of the mystical bits added by Mark to a gospel written for Peter bears a striking resemblance to the Philosophumena's Marcion added bits of mysticism from Greek philosophy to the Gospel of Mark and Serapion's story about Marcion developing a gospel of Peter because his "mind was secretly cherishing some heresy." Even Papias's thing on Mark supposes the same ideas - Mark corrupted the gospel of Peter by adding things written on his own authority and thus not truly divine despite his claims to the contrary (ie the stuff that came from his authority WAS truly divine). The same problem is referenced in different ways by different writers.

[Ken Olson]

Secret Alias:

But do you really think that they believed that all of their "Platonizing" was completely foreign to the gospel? They really believed the gospel was "primitive" and their "injection" of Platonism was complete bullshit? Even Celsus says the gospel stole from Plato.

I wasn't making a claim about whether they thought what they were doing was foreign to the gospel, and I think that issue is irrelevant to what I was asking. The Letter to Theodore says that, during Peter's stay at Rome, Mark wrote an account of the Lord's doings, and then, after Peter's death, wrote a secret gospel in Alexandria. Do you accept this story that the author of the Secret Gospel was Peter's companion in Rome (and/or wrote the Gospel According to Mark), and, if so, that that Mark was trained in Greek philosophy and particularly in Plato?

[Secret Alias]

Do I accept that Clement was passing along details of how the gospel was written according to the Alexandrian tradition. Sure. As I said it sounds consistent with the aforementioned traditions. I am not sure whether Clement believed Mark was a Platonist or whether he accepted that Plato learned from the Hebrews (as is posited by others). In other words that Plato knew "the divine truth" the mysteries which were previously known to Moses. Probably the latter. But note the Philosophumena:

we ought to say to them (those who use a mystical/philosophical gospel) that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And he despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives.

I think there was a mystic/philosophical gospel which was alternatively explained as someone adding philosophy to the canonical gospels or the Holy Spirit expounded the true philosophy which happened to sound like Plato and the other Greek philosophers.

[Secret Alias]

And let's not forget Book 6 of Contra Celsum is entirely built around this supposition. Chapter 1 begins:

For he has quoted a considerable number of passages, chiefly from Plato, and has placed alongside of these such declarations of holy Scripture as are fitted to impress even the intelligent mind; subjoining the assertion that these things are stated much better among the Greeks (than in the Scriptures), and in a manner which is free from all exaggerations and promises on the part of God, or the Son of God.

And it goes on to cite the Gospel (of Mark?):

In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich men, when He said, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches.

There likely was more than Origen choses to record. Then follows the idea that the Christian mysteries were stolen from the Persian seven heavens.

The Scriptures which are current in the Churches of God do not speak of seven heavens, or of any definite number at all, but they do appear to teach the existence of heavens, whether that means the spheres of those bodies which the Greeks call planets, or something more mysterious. Celsus, too, agreeably to the opinion of Plato, asserts that souls can make their way to and from the earth through the planets; while Moses, our most ancient prophet, says that a divine vision was presented to the view of our prophet Jacob, — a ladder stretching to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon it, and the Lord supported upon its top — obscurely pointing, by this matter of the ladder, either to the same truths which Plato had in view, or to something greater than these. On this subject Philo has composed a treatise which deserves the thoughtful and intelligent investigation of all lovers of truth.

Celsus is speaking about a gospel which mentions seven or seven heavens. It's at least possible that Clement understands there to be seven curtains around the holy of holes which represent the heavenly ascent through the seven planets and which correspond to the number of days the youth waits to be initiated. So Itter.

[Ken Olson]

Is there something that keeps you from answering the question I'm actually asking? I am not asking about how Clement, Origen, or anybody else interpreted Mark. Let me try again:

Is the author of the two brief passages from Secret Mark quoted in the Letter to Theodore a Platonist?

Is he the same person as the author of the Gospel According to Mark?

[Secret Alias]

I can't tell if he is a Platonist from one passage. The passage seems typically Marcan. So it would seem to be the same Mark.

The understanding he was a Platonist is an inference based on the characteristic of the Alexandrian tradition he is said to have founded. It seems to fit. It might also have been subsequent to Mark. Very murky waters. But Clement is unlikely to have founded the Alexandrian Christian interest in Plato.

[Ken Olson]

If it's the same Mark, then you've got an entire gospel on which to base your judgment of whether he's a Platonist or not.

And I think you need the author of Secret Mark to be a Platonist for your Platonic homoerotic reading to work.

[Secret Alias]

That's true. I guess there are other possibilities. For instance a tradition developed a homoerotic interpretation of the secret gospel much like Quinton Tarantino with Top Gun:

[Secret Alias]

Or the Tarantino treatment of the secret gospel was started in modern times ...

But in any case I think we should get away from seeing the story as historical. Does anyone read John 11 as a historical event any more? If it isn't a historical event it does resemble Papias's statements about the kinds of stories Mark added to his gospel which wouldn't be included if we strictly wanted to preserve the correct order of events. And if they weren't historically accurate why did Mark add them on top of the things Peter told him? Something to do with Mark wanting to establish a philosophical/metaphysical/spiritual purpose to the life of this man?

[Ken Olson]

But in any case I think we should get away from seeing the story as historical. Does anyone read John 11 as a historical event any more?

I’m sure there are people that do. I don’t, and I didn’t take you to be doing so either. My question was about whether you take the story given by Clement that Mark wrote a gospel, presumably the canonical gospel of Mark, in Rome, and then another, the Secret Gospel, in Alexandria. I was not addressing whether the contents of either of those gopels are historical.

If it isn't a historical event it does resemble Papias's statements about the kinds of stories Mark added to his gospel which wouldn't be included if we strictly wanted to preserve the correct order of events. And if they weren't historically accurate why did Mark add them on top of the things Peter told him?

I haven’t followed all the discussions of Papias on this forum. Where does he say, or where does an ancient author say he said, that he added stories to his gospel on top of the things Peter told him? I know the passage in Eusebius which discusses that he translated Peter’s teachings, but did not put them in order (presumably proper order, whether historical or literary).

Something to do with Mark wanting to establish a philosophical/metaphysical/spiritual purpose to the life of this man?

I am in no doubt that Mark had a philosophical/spiritual/religious purpose that shaped his portrayal of Jesus. But that formulation is too vague to be useful. Do you have evidence that that the Gospel of Mark exhibits a knowledge of Platonism, or more specifically, Platonic love and that this shaped his portrayal of Jesus?

Best,

Ken