Page 1


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND A SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND A SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK

Morton

Smith

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS I

973


Š Copyright 1973 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-148938 SBN 674-13490-7 Printed in the United States of America


This book was written for Arthur Darby Nock and is dedicated to his memory


Contents PREFACE

ix

ONE. T H E M A N U S C R I P T

I

TWO. T H E L E T T E R

5

THREE. T H E SECRET GOSPEL

87

FOUR. T H E BACKGROUND

195

F I V E . T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E T E X T

279

APPENDICES

A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

Palaeographic Peculiarities The Evidence Concerning Carpocrates Clausulae Clement's Quotations from Mark Gospel Phrases and Their Parallels Clement's Quotation of Mark 1 0 . 1 7 - 3 1 Type, Frequency, and Distribution of Parallels

293 295 351 353 357 368 370

INDICES

I. II. III. IV. V.

The Vocabulary of the Text Quotations and Reminiscences in the Letter Ancient Works and Passages Discussed Greek Words and Phrases Discussed Notabilia varia

380 390 392 409 412

A B B R E V I A T I O N S AND W O R K S C I T E D

423

T H E F R A G M E N T : P L A T E S , T R A N S L A T I O N , T R A N S C R I P T I O N , AND P H O T O G R A P H S

445

vii


Preface The Monastery of Mar Saba is located in the Judean desert, a few miles southeast of Jerusalem. In its tower library there are a number of Greek manuscripts and early printed books containing manuscript supplements. When I visited Jerusalem in the summer of 1958 His Beatitude Benedict, Patriarch of Jerusalem, kindly gave me permission to spend a fortnight at the monastery, study this material, and publish it. Let me begin this book with my sincere thanks to His Beatitude, to Archimandrite Seraphim, the Hegoumenos of Mar Saba, and to the brothers of the monastery. M y greatest debt of thanks, to the late Custodian of the Holy Sepulchre, Archimandrite Kyriakos, is one which can no longer be paid. The manuscripts of Mar Saba proved, on examination, to be mostly modern. This was no surprise, since it was well known that the rich collection of ancient manuscripts, for which the monastery was famous in the early nineteenth century, had been transferred to Jerusalem for safekeeping in the eighteen-sixties. Little seems to have been left behind at that time except scraps and printed books. But in subsequent years there has been a gradual accumulation of other manuscript material, both new and old. During my stay I was able to examine, label, and describe some seventy items. Besides these there were some twenty distinct manuscripts and two large folders full of scraps which I did not have time to study. M y notes on the collection h a v e been printed in an article, "'Ελληνικά

χειρόγραφα

eV τ-rj Movfj του αγίου

Σάββα,"

translated by Archimandrite Constantine Michaelides, in the periodical of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, ME Α ΣΙΩΝ 52 (i960) 11 off, 245fr. To this article readers must be referred for a description of the manuscript material as a whole. Among the items examined was one, number 65 in my published notes, of which the manuscript element consisted of two and a half pages of writing at the back of an old printed book. The writing begins with the cross which Greek monastic scribes commonly set down first of all. Then comes a heading, " F r o m the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis; to Theodore." Then comes the text of part of a letter, certainly not complete, since it breaks off in the middle of a sentence. The content of this text is so surprising that if Clement (who wrote at the end of the second century) really was its author the consequences for the history of the early Christian Church and for New Testament criticism are revolutionary. The present book is an attempt to describe this document and to set forth the major ix


χ

PREFACE

elements which must be considered in judging it. The first chapter describes the manuscript. The second studies the relation of the letter to the commonly acknowledged works of Clement. T h e similarities and differences are examined in a word-by-word commentary; then the results thus attained are summed up and other, general, considerations added. This examination leads to the conclusion that the letter is correctly attributed to Clement, and this conclusion is made the point of departure for the third chapter, which studies the letter's quotations from a secret Gospel it attributes to Mark. After considering the external evidence relevant to this Gospel, the study proceeds, by way of a detailed commentary on the quoted texts, to establish, first, their stylistic, then, their structural relations to the canonical Gospels. The fourth chapter deals with the historical value of both letter and Gospel, especially with their importance as evidence concerning the secret side of early Christianity. A final chapter presents what little evidence can be found concerning the history of the text of both Gospel and letter, and indicates some of the hypotheses with which this evidence may plausibly be filled out. Important bodies of evidence, too large for presentation in the text, have been added in a series of appendices. Appendix B, in particular, contains the complete dossier of Carpocrates and his followers, who played an important role in the history of the new Gospel material. For convenience of reference, the photographs of the manuscript, with facing transcriptions and translations, have been placed at the very end of the volume. M y thanks are due to the Columbia University Council for Research in the Social Sciences and to the Department of History of Columbia University for grants which helped me in the preparation of the present work. Mr. Stanley Isser verified the references throughout the first four hundred pages of the manuscript, Mr. Levon Avdoyan gave me much help in the preparation of the indices, and Professor Jacob Neusner of Brown University read the entire text and made many corrections; I sincerely thank them all. M a n y different scholars have helped me in different aspects of the work; my indebtedness to them is recorded and my thanks are offered at the beginnings of the chapters with which they have been concerned. I thank Mrs. Elisabeth J. Munck, Professor Zeph Stewart, and Mrs. Mailice Wifstrand for permission to publish quotations from the letters of the late Professors Johannes Munck, A. D. Nock, and Albert Wifstrand. I am grateful to the Akademie Verlag, the British Museum, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and Usines Brepols for permissions to reprint sections of their publications. Finally, I am indebted to the Harvard University Press for its consent to publish and care in publishing this difficult manuscript. I shall of course want to follow the discussion of this text; I therefore hope that scholars who write about it will be so kind as to send copies of their publications to me at the Department of History, Columbia University, N . Y . 10027, U . S . A . Morton Smith New York,

1970


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND A SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK


ONE

The Manuscript T h e pages on w h i c h the text is written are reproduced in actual size on Plates I—III. T h e book in w h i c h they are found is an exemplar of Isaac Voss's edition of the Epistulae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris ( A m s t e r d a m : J . Blaeu, 1646). Its front cover a n d title page have been lost, but Voss's name is given at the end of the dedication; I was able to identify the edition by photographing the first preserved page (p. 2) and the last numbered page (p. 318) and comparing these photographs with the corresponding pages of complete copies. T h e manuscript was written over both sides of the last page (which was blank) of the original book and over half the recto of a sheet of binder's paper. T h e binding was of that heavy, white paperboard so often found on books bound in V e n i c e during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. F r o m the remains of it, I should guess that it was approximately contemporary w i t h the book itself. Therefore the date of the book, plus about fifteen or twenty years (1660 or 1665), m a y be taken as the date after w h i c h the manuscript insertion was p r o b a b l y made. A s for the date at w h i c h it was probably made, that can be settled only by dating the hand. For assistance in this m y thanks are due to A . A n g e l o u and C . D i m a r a s of the Greek National Foundation, the late A . Delatte of the University of Liege, G . Kournoutos of the Ministry of Education of Greece, M . Manousakas of the Archives of the A c a d e m y of Athens, the late A . D . N o c k of H a r v a r d University, M . R i c h a r d of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, V . Scouvaras of the G y m n a s i u m of Volos, G . Soulis of the D u m b a r t o n O a k s L i b r a r y , and P. T o p p i n g of the University of Cincinnati. A l l these scholars were so kind as to examine photographs of the manuscript and give me independent opinions about the date of the hand. T h e i r opinions varied from the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century (Kournoutos and Manousakas) to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth (Delatte, Scouvaras, T o p p i n g ) , but all w o u l d agree on an eighteenth-century date as possible. Delatte and Scouvaras, while thinking it possible that the writer m a y have written in the nineteenth century as an old man, think it certain that the hand was formed in the eighteenth century. Kournoutos and Manousakas think it all but impossible that the writing was done in the nineteenth century. T h e consensus, therefore, w o u l d date the h a n d about 1750, plus or minus about fifty years. T h e hand is generally agreed to be that of an experienced writer a n d a scholar. T h e Κ


THE MANUSCRIPT

small size of the letters together w i t h the r a p i d i t y at w h i c h they w e r e e v i d e n t l y w r i t t e n , the r e m o d e l i n g of the letters to fit the flow of the h a n d , their u n u s u a l l y e v e n a l i g n m e n t a n d the tasteful, b u t e c o n o m i c a l , p l a c i n g of the text on the p a g e , all testify to the writer's experience. H e shows considerable skill in o b s e r v a n c e of a r i g h t - h a n d m a r g i n a n d , like m a n y writers of the eighteenth c e n t u r y , fills out his short lines w i t h t w o dots ( : ) to k e e p the m a r g i n straight. H i s tiny w r i t i n g , too, is a n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y trait a n d one closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h scholarship. T h a t c e n t u r y p r o d u c e d i n n u m e r a b l e manuscripts of classical G r e e k texts w i t h interlinear translations into m o d e r n G r e e k or w i t h scholia in h a n d s so m i n u t e t h a t it is impossible to r e a d t h e m w i t h o u t a glass. T h a t the writer w a s a scholar is also s h o w n b y his spelling. A l t h o u g h confusion of the various vowels sounded as e w a s c o m m o n in his time, he has only o n c e fallen into it (ΐξαντλήται,

for εξαντλείται,

I I . 9 , 1 unless iξήντληται

is to be r e a d ) . H e a l w a y s

writes iota subscript a n d writes it as subscript. H e usually writes the coronis. H e f r e q u e n t l y distinguishes g r a v e f r o m acute accents, a n d does so c o r r e c t l y ; there is o n l y one misplaced a c c e n t in the w h o l e text (βλασφημόν for βλάσφημον,

II.7), and

this is p r o b a b l y d u e to haste r a t h e r t h a n i g n o r a n c e , as is his use of 6 for ο in the p r e c e d i n g line a n d his omission of the a c c e n t of και at the ends of lines (1.2,7 I I I . 1 1 ) . T h a t he consistently accentuates Μάρκος

r a t h e r t h a n Μάρκος

anc^

reflects the

usage c o m m o n in the seventeenth a n d e i g h t e e n t h centuries. H i s most f r e q u e n t fault is one to w h i c h m o d e r n G r e e k s are especially l i a b l e — f a i l u r e to notice r o u g h b r e a t h ings. H e has w r i t t e n w h a t are p r o b a b l y smooth breathings in four places w h e r e r o u g h breathings should h a v e a p p e a r e d (1.23,26, I I . 2 1 , 2 2 ) , a n d he o n c e has ούκ instead of ονχ before a r o u g h b r e a t h i n g ( I I I . 1 3 ) . T h e s e errors do not p r o v e t h a t the m a n u s c r i p t he c o p i e d w a s i n c o r r e c t in these p o i n t s ; nor does the usual correctness of his spelling p r o v e t h a t it w a s g e n e r a l l y correct. H e p r o b a b l y c o p i e d b y r e a d i n g the phrases a n d then r e p e a t i n g t h e m as he w r o t e t h e m d o w n . T h e r e f o r e it is n o t surprising that w h a t he w r o t e should sometimes reflect either his k n o w l e d g e or his p r o n u n c i a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n the r e a d i n g of the text he w ä s c o p y i n g . T h a t he was a scholar is s h o w n also b y the shapes o f his letters. T h e w h o l e style of the h a n d shows the i n f l u e n c e of the G r e e k t y p o g r a p h y of western E u r o p e . I a m i n d e b t e d to A . A n g e l o u for the observation t h a t the shape of the nu, in p a r t i c u l a r , is characteristically western. W e s t e r n i n f l u e n c e , h o w e v e r , is n o p r o o f of western origin, a n d here the basic h a n d , on w h i c h the i n f l u e n c e has b e e n exercised, seems to be n a t i v e G r e e k . M o s t of the larger a n d m a n y o f the smaller G r e e k monasteries stocked their libraries, d u r i n g the seventeenth a n d eighteenth centuries, w i t h western editions of the C h u r c h fathers, a n d the t y p e used in these editions

perceptibly

i n f l u e n c e d monastic hands. Professor S c o u v a r a s has p r o d u c e d a n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y ecclesiastical d o c u m e n t in a n a t i v e G r e e k h a n d strikingly similar to t h a t of o u r manuscript.

(See Plate I V . ) A n u m b e r of the nus, in p a r t i c u l a r , a r e p r a c t i c a l l y

identical. Since S c o u v a r a s ' d o c u m e n t is a n a u t o g r a p h c o d e x o f the O e c u m e n i c a l P a t r i a r c h C a l l i n i c u s I I I a n d w a s w r i t t e n a b o u t 1760 in the P h a n a r i o t h a n d w h i c h ι. References in this form are to the plates at the end of the volume and to the lines of the text as shown on the plates.

2


THE MANUSCRIPT

had been formed in Constantinople shortly before that time, we may suppose with some probability that the writer of the present letter had been trained in the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople. Further proof of the writer's scholarship is his familiarity with many of the older Greek manuscript abbreviations and ligatures. A list of all his abbreviations and a number of his more drastic ligatures will be found in Appendix A ; it contains perhaps slightly more of these forms than would normally be found in a manuscript of the mid-eighteenth century. T h e writer's usage of these special forms is universally correct, though sometimes ambiguous. T h e use of a flourish to indicate both the smooth breathing and the circumflex reduces both -οΰ and ού to f or JT; the circumflex combined with the rough breathing is sometimes no more florid than without (

\ ou= οΰ or -οΰ). In general, the hand is remarkably cursive. As the manuscript progresses the cursive character of the hand becomes more marked. T h e writer was evidently in a hurry. It may be that lack of time forced him to break off, as he did, in the midst of a page and of a sentence; on the other hand, the text he was copying may itself have been a fragment and have broken off at this point. T h e copyist's haste appears unmistakably in the greater size and sweep of the letters at the end of his text, by comparison with those at the beginning. It is shown also by a number of minor mistakes of writing besides those already mentioned. ταταυτον, probably for τά αΰτοϋ, in 1.19 may reflect uncertainty rather than haste, and αποθνήσκων written over αποθανών (?) in 1.28 may be a deliberate correction of the reading of the manuscript he was copying. But in II.20 των seems to have been omitted by haplography after αύτών (though such omission of the article is not uncommon in later Greek prose), and on I I I the curious vs ligature at the end of the first word probably results from correction of a minor slip of the pen, immediately after it was made; the π of ö u in III.8 shows another slip of the pen, uncorrected, and the V of ίστιν in III. 17 shows yet another, caught and corrected at once. For the most part, however, the text is amazingly correct, especially considering the small size and obvious speed of the writing. These characteristics prove it to be a copy of some earlier manuscript. T h a t anyone in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries should have written such Greek at such speed as an original composition is incredible. From all these observations taken together it would seem that our text was copied probably in the eighteenth century, by a monk (he began his work with a cross) who pronounced his words in modern Greek fashion but had an excellent knowledge of patristic Greek. His handwriting had been influenced by his study of patristic texts in western editions which were presumably available to him in his monastery and had probably come by way of Venice. He was interested not only in patristics, but also in the beginnings of western critical scholarship, for the book into which he copied our text—Voss's edition of the genuine epistles of Ignatius—was no mere reprint of a standard author, but one of the most advanced works of scholarly criticism of its time. Since the copyist was a scholar, it is impossible to decide how far his copy owes its amazing orthographic correctness to him. For the same reason it is difficult to

3


T H E MANUSCRIPT

say whether the avoidance of hiatus by elision, when it is thus avoided, is due to the copyist or to the original. Admittedly the copyist was in a hurry while he copied, but he might previously have studied the text and inserted minor corrections. For the time being we shall assume that his corrections, if any, were minor. With this assumption we proceed to the primary test for authenticity—examination of the wording.


T W O

The Letter I. II.

Text and commentary, 5 Synthesis of Findings, 67 A. Linguistic and stylistic data, 67 1. Vocabulary, 67 2. Verbal association, 67 3. Comparisons and metaphors, 71 4. Forms of reference, 72 5. Formulas beginning sentences, 73 6. Prepositions, 73 7. Syntax, 75 8. Euphony, 75 9. Clausulae, 75 B. Conclusions from the linguistic and stylistic data, 76 C. Content, 77 1. Knowledge and use of Scripture, 77 2. Knowledge of the classics, 79 3. Knowledge, faith, and gnosis, 80 4. The secret tradition, 81 5. Attitude toward the Carpocratians, 82 6. Differences, real or apparent, 82

I.

TEXT

AND

COMMENTARY

The following commentary illustrates the relationship between the style of the letter and that of the generally accepted works of Clement of Alexandria. However, it does not present the parallels to extremely common expressions, which could be paralleled from any good Greek author of the period; these seemed insignificant for the question of authenticity. Similarly, when Clement has provided plentiful parallels, the usage of other authors has not been cited. The discussion of points of content, likewise, has been limited as far as possible to the presentation of evidence relevant 5


Ι.ι

THE LETTER

to the question of authenticity. T h e work for this chapter was completed in 1961, at w h i c h time I turned from C l e m e n t to study the Gospel fragment. Since that time I have m a d e only minor changes in the text a n d have not attempted to take account of recent publications on C l e m e n t , of w h i c h I should mention as particularly valuable A . M e h a t ' s Etude. I have not been persuaded b y P. N a u t i n ' s a t t e m p t to redate the events of Clement's later life (Lettres, 13Qf) though the traditional dates are certainly dubious (Barnes, Origen, 3 1 4 f.) T h e first draft of the following commentary on the text of the letter was read b y E . Bickerman, C o l u m b i a University; W . M . C a l d e r I I I , C o l u m b i a ; H . C h a d w i c k , O x f o r d ; B. Einarson, C h i c a g o ; L . Früchtel, A n s b a c h ; R . Grant, C h i c a g o ; M . Hadas, C o l u m b i a ; W . Jaeger, H a r v a r d ; G . L a m p e , C a m b r i d g e ; C . Mondesert, L y o n ; J . M u n c k , A a r h u s ; A . D . Nock, H a r v a r d ; J . R e u m a n n , L u t h e r a n T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary, Philadelphia; M . R i c h a r d , Paris; C . Richardson, U n i o n T h e o l o g i c a l Seminary, N e w Y o r k ; R . Schippers, A m s t e r d a m ; W . V ö l k e r , M a i n z ; a n d A . Wifstrand, L u n d . I a m indebted not only for their kindness in e x a m i n i n g the text and expressing their opinions on its authenticity, b u t also for a great m a n y corrections a n d suggestions in matters of detail. I sincerely thank them for the help they h a v e given me. M y thanks are due also to a n u m b e r of scholars w h o h a v e commented on particular passages a n d whose help is, at those passages, acknowledged. A l l substantial comments are included in square brackets a n d followed b y the initials of the commentator; the initials are explained in the list of abbreviations at the end of the volume. Bracketed comments are not exact quotations except w h e n set within quotation marks; I h a v e often taken the liberty to summarize or to translate, the m o r e so because the untimely deaths of a n u m b e r of the commentators have m a d e it impossible for them to a p p r o v e small rectifications in the w o r d i n g of their statements. Moreover, besides the bracketed comments, m a n y minor corrections have been accepted a n d incorporated in grateful silence.

I.i1 +

e/c των

επιστολών

εκ των επιστολών. Citations from Clement's letters appear in the Sacra Parallela attributed, perhaps rightly, to J o h n of Damascus, w h o worked at M a r S a b a from a b o u t 7 1 5 to 750 (Beck, 477, 482). A m o n g the l e m m a t a to them given b y Stählin, I I I . 2 2 3 f , a r e Κλήμεντος

Στρωματίως

εκ της κα επιστολής

a n d Κλήμεντος

Στ ρω ματ έως

επιστολή. Ishodad of M e r v reportedly refers to a writing, possibly a letter, against heretics w h o rejected marriage, and such were the Carpocratians; but Stählin, I I L l x f f , thinks the reference merely an inference based on Eusebius, HE III.30, where the passages cited come from the Stromateis. i. Numerals refer to plate and line. T h e dot between the two numbers is located over the point at which the new line begins.

6


1.1-2

THE LETTER

1.2 τοΰ

άγιωτάτου

Κλήμεντος

τοΰ

στρώμα

τέως·

Θζοδώρω.

καλώς

έποίησας

έπιστομίσας

Clement is cited as τοΰ άγιωτάτου in collections of patristic material attributed to Maximus the Confessor, fl. 620-650 (Beck, 437); citations, III.2i9f. 2 For Maximus he is also μακαριώτατος (III.220; cf. Osborn, Philosophy, 190, 191 n i ) ; for Anastasius of Sinai, Upos και αποστολικός (ibid.); and for the Chronicon Paschale, όσιώτατος ( I l l . a i 6 ) . Already, in his own lifetime, Alexander of Jerusalem called him μακάριος and Upos (Eus., HE V I . 11.6; 14.9). T h e use of άγιώτατος for ecclesiastical personages appears in Athanasius (Müller, Lexicon s.v.) as a development from the earlier Christian usage of the absolute (Williger, 84fr). τον άγιωτάτον.

See above, on {πιστόλων. Also used by Maximus (III.220.5,12; 224.15), John Moschus (III.196.21), codex Laura 184 Β (III.218.15), and Palladius, HL 60; also (according to Cedrednus) by Sextus Julius Africanus (about A.D. 225). Africanus, although a friend of Origen, placed Clement's activity in the time of Commodus, 180-192 (Routh, II.307). τοΰ στρώματεως.

Θεοδώρω. Unknown ? T h e name was common in Jewish and thence in Christian circles and could easily have been that of a correspondent in Palestine. Clement, before coming to Alexandria, had studied in Palestine under a teacher of Jewish ancestry (II.8.23) whom he listed among those who had received the Christian tradition by straight descent from Peter, James, John, and Paul (Eus., HE V . i 1.5). Clement was also a friend of a subsequent bishop of Jerusalem (Eus., HE V I . 1 1 . 6 ; 13.3; 14.9), to whom he dedicated a book against Judaizing heretics or Jews (Photius, 111). He may have had other connections in the city. καλώς εποίησας. As the beginning of a letter, with the following aorist participle, Libanius, Epistulae (ed. R . Foerster, Leipzig, 1903-1927, vols. Χ , Χ Ι ) 51,679, etc. Baur, I.584, lists 8 instances, including one from Athanasius and two from Basil. [This is, of course, a common formula in papyrus letters of the period. C . H . R . ]

1.187.8, τους χρωμενονς avrfj <(αισχρολογία)· έττιστομιστίον; again 1.192.22. This is perhaps a reminiscence of Titus 1.11 where pseudo-Paul declares that Jewish libertine teachers should be shut up (ovs Set ΐπιστομίζζιν). Clement cited Titus 1.10 (II.27.14^, in an attack on libertine heretics, and Titus 1.12 (II.37. 25fr) in an attack on Hellenizers. επιστομίζω normally has for its object a person or an animal—so always in Clement—but it is used with an inanimate object often in Philo, of the passions, and in Josephus, AJ X V I I . 2 5 1 : την 'Ιουδαίων ν€ωτ€ροποιίαν έπιστοίπιστομ ίσας.

μιοΰντες. 2. Hereafter, numerals thus given refer to the Stählin edition of Clement by volume, page, and, if a third number is given, line.

7


1.2-3

T H E

LETTER

λ

ras

Λ/

άρρητους

oevTes

WS

/

δ ι δ α σ κ α λ ί α ? των

αστβρες

άρρητους. 1.17-5'

\

λ

//

1.3

Καρποκρατιανων.

ούτοι

γαρ

οί

προφητευ-

πλανηται,

the Eleusinian mysteries, emphasizing their sexual symbolism.

1 . 1 7 · 2 Ι , o f t h e w o r s h i p e r s o f D i o n y s u s , μόρια άρρητα ώς αληθώς υπ αισχύνης

άναισχύι>τως

σέβουσιν.

διδασκαλίας.

Ι · 4 7 · 3 > αΰται των

συμπορνευόντων

ΰμΐν Θεών

αί

διδαακαλίαι.

των Καρποκρατιανών. Referred to as a sect (αΐρεσις), I I . 197.27; 200.5. (For C a r p o crates and the question whether he or Epiphanes founded the sect, see below, 1 1 . 3 - 4 ; for testimonia and literature, A p p e n d i x B.) T h e letter agrees with C l e m e n t not only in its general moral j u d g m e n t of the Carpocratians, but also in identifying them as the heretics attacked in the Epistle of J u d e and in associating t h e m — p r o b a b l y — with the Nicolaütans; see the commentary on the following lines. T h e letter also agrees with Irenaeus' report (Harvey, 1.20.3 = Stieren, 1.25.5) that the Carpocratians claimed to be the possessors of a secret apostolic tradition w h i c h justified their libertine p r a c t i c e s , τον Ίησοΰν

λέγοντες

iv μυστηρίω

τοις μαθηταΐς

αντον και άποστόλοις

κατ'

ιδίαν

λελαληκεναι, etc. Liboron, 46f, conjectured that this claim was based on M k . 4 . 1 1 ; the present letter confirms at least the conjectured relationship of the sect to M a r k .

ούτοι γάρ.

I I . 1 9 5 . 1 0 , ούτοι, φασίν, είσϊν ol εκ γενετής

ευνούχοι

(initial, as in the letter);

I I .178.141 οΰτοι γάρ οί (initial). οί προφητευθεντες. I I . 135·24> Christ is 6 ύπο νόμου προφητευθείς; cf. 1.249-23· άστερες πλανηται. J u d e 13. J u d e is cited b y C l e m e n t (1.262.19fr; II.200. 25fr) w h e r e i t is said to refer to the Carpocratians, as it does in this letter. A similar interpretation of this passage of the epistle, referring it to libertine heretics, is probably condensed from Clement, III.2o6ff, esp. 208. I n a different connection Riedinger, 165, has remarked on h o w consistently Clement's exegesis follows a certain line of thought w h e n directed against certain opponents, a n d h o w each line of thought is regularly associated w i t h certain biblical passages. T h a t C l e m e n t used J u d e in the Stromateis and the Hypotyposes is remarked b y Eus., HE V I . i 3 f . C l e m e n t also compares sinners to planets in 1.51.2 i f f (believers in astrology) a n d probably 177.5 (gluttons, lechers, a n d drunkards); similarly, Theophilus of A n t i o c h , To Autolycus I I . 1 5 end. [ C u m o n t , Egypte 168 n i , notes the use of πλανήτης for victims of demoniacal possession. C . H . R . T h i s passage recalls Plutarch, De genio Socratis 5 9 i d - f , where stars disappearing into a chasm represent souls completely plunged into the body. C o u l d άστερες πλανηται possibly refer to shooting stars ? B . E . ]

8


1.3-4

THE LETTER 1.4 ο ι άττο της

άπό.

στενής

των

Εντολών

όδοΰ

εις

C l e m e n t does not use άπό w i t h πλανάσθαι,

b u t he m i g h t w e l l h a v e d o n e so in

the fashion of this letter, since the usage here is p a r t of a reminiscence o f W i s d o m 5.6, w h e r e the w i c k e d say άρα επλανήθημεν άπό όδοΰ αληθείας, καϊ τό της δικαιοσύνης φως ούκ ελαμφεν ήμΐν. T h i s in t u r n is based o n D t . 11.28 ( L X X ) . T h e r e are reminiscences of W i s . 5.6 in J a m e s 5 . 1 9 a n d I I Peter 2 . 1 5 . C l e m e n t cites W i s . 5 . 3 - 5 in I I . 2 8 7 . 4 - 8 a n d echoes 5.6 in 1 . 1 4 5 . ΙΟ: φωτίζει τοις πλανωμενοις

την άλήθειαν. [ W . M . C . notes πλανάσθαι

άπό τον λόγου; P l a t o , Politicus 263a.] των εντολών.

Inserted a d j e c t i v a l genitives a r e f r e q u e n t in C l e m e n t : e.g., I I . 4 2 3 . 1 0 f .

T h e r o a d " o f the c o m m a n d m e n t s " here is p a r a l l e l e d b y t h a t " a c c o r d i n g to the c o m m a n d m e n t s " in II.346.6, a reminiscence of D t . 1 1 . 2 8 (see the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h ) w h e r e the r o a d is t h a t of the c o m m a n d m e n t s . [Expressions o f this t y p e , a m e t a p h o r w i t h a n a d j e c t i v e attribute a n d a n e x p l i c a t i v e genitive, are for the most p a r t C h r i s t i a n . I n p r e - C h r i s t i a n prose there are n o instances save in Philo, w h e r e the u s a g e begins. T h e y arise easily out of allegorical exegesis. I n the N e w T e s t a m e n t there a r e a f e w — e . g . , I Peter 5.4. C l e m e n t has t h e m s o m e t i m e s ; e.g., 1 . 5 . 5 : τον πραον φιλάνθρωπον

της

θεοσεβείas . . . ζνγόν,

Gospels, as a b o v e w i t h της στενής . . . όδοΰ; a g a i n 1 . 1 9 7 . 1 , τω σωφροσύνης χρίσματι.

και

this in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a phrase f r o m the άμβροσίω

I n later C h r i s t i a n G r e e k t h e y b e c o m e m o r e c o m m o n , a n d instances a p p e a r

also in the later neoplatonists. A . W . ] όδοΰ.

T h e στενή όδός comes f r o m M t . 7 . 1 3 ^ T h e simile w a s a favorite w i t h C l e m e n t ;

see Stählin's Citaienregister to M t . 7 - i 3 f a n d i n d e x s.v. όδός. I n I I I . 6 7 . 6 heretics a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n d e m n e d for h a v i n g left the r i g h t (όρθη) r o a d , w h i c h is, for C l e m e n t , t h e r o a d o f the c o m m a n d m e n t s — h e is p a r t i c u l a r l y hostile to a n t i n o m i a n s

(Buri,

Clemens 36). T h e b r o a d r o a d of c a r n a l sins a n d p r i d e a p p e a r s in I I . 263.12fr; 346.6. T h e letter m a y also h a v e b e e n i n t e n d e d to recall P r o v . 2 . 1 3 - 1 4 ( L X X ) , ω ol ol εύφραινόμενοι

εγκατα-

λείποντες

οδούς ευθείας τοΰ πορεύεσθαι εν όδοΐς σκότους,

επί κακοΐς καϊ

χαίροντες

επί διαστροφή κακή. Proverbs w a s one o f C l e m e n t ' s favorite O l d T e s t a m e n t

b o o k s ; he cited it m o r e often t h a n a n y others save Psalms a n d p e r h a p s Genesis. H e cites 2 . 3 - 7 i n I I . 1 7 . 2 0 f r , a n d 2 . 2 i f i n II.169.6fr. εις.

C l e m e n t ' s r e g u l a r u s a g e ; M o s s b a c h e r , 56. W i t h πλανάσθαι:

την δεΰρο γενεσιν,

ΙΙ.239·Ι2.

9

πεπλανημενα

. . .εις


I.4-5

THE

άπίρατον

άβυσσον

πλανώμενοι

τών

letter σαρκικών

και

ενσωμάτων

Αμαρτιών.

Ι·5 7τζφυσιωμένοι

άπέρατον.

γαρ

els

γνώσιν,

D u b i o u s w h e t h e r άπέρατος,"impassable,"

or άπέράτος,"limitless."

T h e latter

a p p e a r s in the scholion o n A r i s t o p h a n e s JVubes 3, a n d in p e r h a p s t w o passages o f Philo, De fuga 57 a n d Quis rerum 212. [But see the note o f F . C o l s o n a n d G . W h i t a k e r o n the latter passage, w h e r e t h e y w o u l d r e a d απέραντος,

in their e d i t i o n of P h i l o

( L o e b L i b r a r y ) IV.572. A . D . N . ] Philo g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d C l e m e n t . C l e m e n t uses απέραντος

of G o d

Ευλογημένος λέγει,

(II.380.14); b u t in I I I . 1 3 7 . 1 5 he explains D a n . 3.55

εΐ ο βλέπων

όμοδοζων

άπεράτωτον

τω Ένωχ

αβύσσους, καθήμενος τω είρηκότι

κατά τήν Ιδίαν ύπόστασιν,

"και

έπι Χερουβίμ,

εΐδον τάς ΰλας πάσας,"

περαιούμενόν

Δανιήλ

άβυσσος γαρ το

δε rfj δυνάμει τοΰ Θεοΰ. αί τοίνυν

ούσίαι ύλικαί, άφ'ών τά έπι μέρους γένη και τα τούτων εΐδη γίνεται, άπεράτωτον

(LXX),

w i t h the w o r d s ό

άβι>σσοι εΐρηνται.

Here

almost c e r t a i n l y m e a n s " q u i t e w i t h o u t l i m i t " (as it does in P l u t a r c h a n d

D a m a s c i u s , LSJ

s.v.) a n d περαιοΰμενον

m e a n s " b e i n g l i m i t e d " or " b o u n d e d , " the

process of l i m i t a t i o n b e i n g that b y w h i c h p a r t i c u l a r g e n e r a are s e p a r a t e d f r o m u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d m a t t e r . F o r this m e a n i n g o f περαιόω see LSJ s.v., I I . [ I n the letter the m e a n i n g " l i m i t l e s s " seems i n d i c a t e d by the contrast w i t h στενή. Β . Ε . I n a n y e v e n t , the t w o senses are v e r y close in C l e m e n t , P h i l o , a n d elsewhere, as in this text, w h e r e t h e y a r e almost e q u i v a l e n t . C . M . ]

άβυσσον.

T h e abyss into w h i c h the errant stars a r e cast for p u n i s h m e n t a p p e a r s

i n Enoch 21.2; cf. the use o f Enoch in the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h . Enoch is referred to in J u d e 14, a n d J u d e 13 has b e e n q u o t e d j u s t a b o v e . C l e m e n t b y i m p l i c a t i o n c o m p a r e s drunkenness to a n abyss in I.206.21, b u t this is h a r d l y a parallel. πλανώμενοι.

Many

instances

of metaphorical

use

i n d u l g e n c e , IV.649-650. See b e l o w , o n τον ζόφον τοΰ σαρκικών και ενσωμάτων. ενσωμάτου

connection

with

sensual

I I . 3 i 8 . i 7 f > της αμαρτίας και απείθειας σαρκικής τε οΰσης και

καΐ νεκρας και δια τούτο

πεφυσιωμένοι.

in

σκότους.

βδελυκτής.

Ι.ΙΟ4.28, ο'ι εις γνώσιν πεφυσιωμένοι",

cf. 1 . 1 2 1 . 9 ^ σφας τελείους τίνες

τολμώσι καλεΐν και γνωστικούς . . . φυσιούμενοί τε και φρυαττόμενοι.

A l l three passages

c o m e f r o m I C o r . 8.1, ή γνώσις φυσιοΐ. F o r the t y p e of sentence incipit ( n o m i n a t i v e p a r t i c i p l e + γάρ + d e p e n d e n t s of participle + v e r b ) , see, e.g., II.204.9fr; this w a s a structure C l e m e n t f a v o r e d .

10


1.5-6

THE LETTER

1.6 ώς

Xeyovatv,

" τ ω ν βαθέων

τοΰ

Σατανά,"

λανθάνουσιν

els

" τ ο ν ζόφον

τον

σκότους," ώς . . . Σατανά.

A p o c . 2.24, έγνωσαν

τά βαθεα τον Σατανά,

ώς λεγονσιν,

o f heretics

w h o s e doctrines l e a d t h e m to c o m m i t a d u l t e r y a n d eat things sacrificed to idols. T h e s e are the followers of a prophetess w h o m the a u t h o r o f the A p o c a l y p s e calls J e z e b e l (2.20). H e elsewhere attacks a p a r t y called the Nicola'itans a n d accuses t h e m of t e a c h i n g the same practices ( 2 . i 4 f ) . T h e r e f o r e the N i c o l a i tans a n d the followers o f J e z e b e l h a v e often b e e n identified. C l e m e n t k n o w s the Nicola'itans,

attributes

to t h e m similar practices, a n d therefore associates t h e m , as this letter p r o b a b l y d i d , w i t h the C a r p o c r a t i a n s , w h o m he accuses o f p r a c t i c i n g c o m m u n i t y o f wives ( I I . 1 7 7 . 2 f f ; 2 0 7 . 1 7 - 2 0 8 . 9 ) . H i s a t t e m p t to rescue the r e p u t a t i o n o f N i c h o l a s is p r o b a b l y a sign of e m b a r r a s s m e n t t h a t his o p p o n e n t s should be a b l e to cite a n a u t h o r i t y so n e a r the apostles. C l e m e n t k n o w s the A p o c a l y p s e a n d quotes it o f t e n ; S t ä h l i n , Citatenregister s.v. T h e c l a i m to k n o w the d e e p things of S a t a n is a k i n to P a u l ' s c l a i m to k n o w the d e e p things of G o d , I C o r . 2.10, w h i c h is t a k e n u p b y C l e m e n t ( I I . 116. 25f; 5 1 7 . 2 6 f ) , p r o b a b l y in deliberate contrast to gnostic claims (cf. b e l o w , I I . 1 4 , the conclusion o f the note o n άποκρίνου a n d the note o n πρός). P e r h a p s the contrast w a s not so g r e a t as the t e r m i n o l o g y suggests [τοΰ Σατανά w a s p r e s u m a b l y a n a b u s i v e c o m m e n t b y the C h r i s t i a n a u t h o r — A . D . N . ] . A n d in I I . 3 6 3 . 1 - 1 2 C l e m e n t w a r n s that το βάθος τής γνώσεως

is not to be r e v e a l e d to those w h o m it m i g h t scandalize

(a t h e m e w h i c h recurs in I I . 4 9 5 . 2 i f ; e v i d e n t l y this secret doctrine was likely to b e misunderstood). H i p p o l y t u s , Philosophumena V . 6 , says the n a m e " g n o s t i c s " w a s t a k e n b y those φάσκοντές μόνοι τά βάθη γινώσκειν;

and Irenaeus (Harvey II.32.6

Stieren, I I . 2 2 . 1 ) attacks the V a l e n t i n i a n s for their c l a i m " a d i n v e n i s s e

=

profunda

B y t h i " (cf. T e r t u l l i a n , Adversus Valentinianos 1.4). T h e Nicola'itans w h o a p p e a r in the M i d d l e A g e s — Ι · 3 3 3 · 3 ο , scholion o n 1 . 2 2 4 . 2 7 — a r e p r o b a b l y irrelevant to the present discussion. λανθάνουσι. els.

1 . 1 9 5 . 2 5 ; 2 5 1 . 1 6 ; etc., w i t h participle as here.

See b e l o w , o n

απορρίπτοντες.

τον ζόφον τοΰ σκότους. πλανήται.

C o n t i n u e s the q u o t a t i o n o f J u d e 1 3 ; see a b o v e , o n

T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f πλανηται

άστερες

a n d σκότος m a d e a p p r o p r i a t e the i n t e r v e n i n g

reminiscence of W i s . 5 . 6 ; see a b o v e , o n από. T h e m e t a p h o r w a s a favorite w i t h C l e m e n t : e.g., 1 . 6 3 . 1 7 ^ τοΰ σκότους . . . τους

πεπλανημένους

διανίστησιν.

"εγείρε"

φησίν, " ο καθεύ8ων . . . και επιφαύσει

σοι ό Χριστός,"

to B o o k I I I of the Stromateis—the

b o o k w h i c h deals p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h

heretics a n d n o t a b l y the C a r p o c r a t i a n s : "μη ειδωλολάτραι μησουσιν," άσελγειαν,

πλανάσθαι"

οΰτε μοιχοί οΰτε μαλακοί οΰτε άρσενοκοΐται καΐ "ημείς"

μεν " άπελουσάμεθα"

σκότος όδοιπορίαν επανηρημενοι II

φησίν, "ούτε

. . . βασιλείαν

. . . ol δε, εις ταΰτην

εκ σωφροσύνης είς πορνείαν βαπτίζουσι

την είς το εξώτερον

a n d especially the conclusion libertine

πόρνοι

οΰτε

Θεοΰ ού κληρονοάπολοΰοντες

. . . ψευδώνυμου γνώσεως

την

προσηγορία

( I I . 246-247) > cf· I I I . 6 5 . 2 i f f .


1.6-7

THE LETTER

του φευ8ους, εαυτούς απορρίπτοντες-

καϊ κανχιομενοι

ιΊ

ελευθέρους

είναι,

του φεΰδους. This looks like a gloss, but m a y possibly be original. T h e r e is a similar instance of abrubt explanation in Clement's Paedagogus 1.129.1 i f f : καθυλομανεΐ γαρ μη κλαδευομένη η άμπελος,

οΰτως δε καϊ ό άνθρωπος, καθαιρεί δε αύτοΰ τας

παραφυάδας ό λόγος, η μάχαιρα,

καρποφορεΐν . . . άναγκάσας.

εζυβριζούσας

T h e e q u a t i o n of darkness

with falsity is a commonplace and is therefore common in Clement's works: I . 4 . 1 1 ; 20.24-f (with πλανασθΐ, from the Sibylline Oracles)·, 81.20; 106.22; etc. [Perhaps τοΰ φεΰδους is not an appositive explanation of τοΰ σκότους, put in the same case and to be included in commas. It could be an explicative genitive to the metaphor σκότους, so that here τό σκότος τοΰ φεΰδους is put in the genitive through the connection with τον ζόφον. Cf. το τής αγνοίας σκότος, I.20Ö.I2. For two genitives in succession, the one dependent on the other, cf. Blass-Debrunner, no. 168; also Dio Cassius, L . I 2 . 7 , προ τοΰ στόματος τοΰ κόλπου τοΰ Άμπρακικοΰ. For a single word, like τοΰ φεΰδους here, adhering to a quotation as an explanation and grammatically connected with the words of the quotation, cf. Clement, 1.57.20, μητραγΰρτης. A . W . However, the two genitives ζόφον τοΰ σκότους τοΰ φεΰδους sound too clumsy for this elaborate style. If not a gloss, τοΰ φεΰδους m a y perhaps be a variant to σκότους. Either gloss or variant seems likely. W . J . O n the other hand, τοΰ φεΰδους seems necessary to provide a contrast to γνώσιν. Β.Ε.] εαυτούς απορρίπτοντες. εκδεδωκότες

ΙΙ·454·9^' °'L

Άιδου

καταταγέντες

καθάπερ εκ τίνος νεως είς θάλασσαν έκόντες

και είς άπώλειαν

εαυτούς

άπορρίφαντες.

καυχώμενοι. II.218.25, a s here, the participle with a dependent infinitive. Used of heretics who deny marriage. Clement rather favored the word for abusing heretics (IV.508, eight references). This is a Pauline trait. ελευθέρους. 1.269.31, etc. [ T h e accusative in this construction is frequent in Greek of this period; see Radermacher, 181, and Schmid, I I . 5 7 ; I I I . 8 1 ; IV.83,620. εαυτούς m a y be supplied. A . D . N . Nevertheless, the construction in this letter is difficult. T h e parallels in Radermacher and Schmid have for the most part expressed subjects of the infinitives and are not so hard as this instance, where the nominative participle is immediately followed by the accusative. Similarly Thucydides, I.12.1 and IV.84.2, where predicate adjectives of the infinitive are put into the accusative, are easier than that of this letter. If the text here is right, I can understand it only as influenced by the εαυτούς of the preceding line. A . W . ] Cf. A p o c . 3.9: των λεγόντων εαυτούς 'Ιουδαίους etvai. In the preceding phrase, the writer had been thinking of A p o c . 2.24. [If the text is corrupt, a possible emendation would be έλευθεροΰσθαι. C . H . R . ] T h e content of the letter here is paralleled in II.216.24, where gnostic libertines are described as XEYOPTWV EVOCPLAV TTJV VITO 7jSovij$ BOVXCIAV. 12


THE LETTER

1.7-8 1.8

δοΰλοι

γεγόνασιν

άνδραποδώδων

πάντγι r e και πάντως,

et γαρ και τι

επιθυμιών,

τούτοις

ονν

άντιστατβον

αληθές

δοΰλοι. Slaves of the passions (also with the perfect οϊγίγνομαΐ), 1.26.12; cf. II.216.24 in the preceding paragraph. II. 14.20, of the Greeks w h o seek after wisdom. Frequent; see Tsermoulas, 58. γεγόνασιν.

γεγόναμεν,

I I I . 15. ι ο.

εϊναι, δοΰλοι γεγόνασιν. [The style is antithetic throughout, but not in the naive, early rhetorical w a y of Attic prose. T h e antitheses are calculated to contrast words and reality, or different meanings of a word, apparent and real meaning, and so on. E.g., I.8f: he contrasts άληθέα with αλήθεια in a deeper sense and summarizes the contrast by saying (1.9) ού γαρ πάντα τάληθή αλήθεια. W e might compare the truth of certain facts of science with that of which the Christian gospel says, " I am the truth." A n d going even beyond that, he can contrast the seeming truth of human δόξαι and the true truth (αληθής αλήθεια) which is based on faith. This sophisticated rhetoric should therefore not surprise us by its repetition of the same word, which indeed is not Clement's usual manner, but should be valued as a genuine play on the various meanings of one and the same word (άληθής-άλήθεια). W . J . ] ελευθέρους

άνδραποδώδων. 1.176.21 (of belchings). επιθυμιών.

II.237.27,

έπιθυμίαις

δεδουλω μένους.

Frequent.

τούτοις οΰν. Initial, 1.27.1, etc. A g a i n below, II.10. Frequent (II.212.19; 2 1 3 . 1 7 ; 240.18) in argument with the gnostics. T h e form does not appear in Stählin's index, but Clement was fond of these verbal adjectives (see below, on προκριτέον in 1.10). Here the use of the verb is perhaps a reminiscence of I Pet. 5.9, (τω διαβάλω) άντίστητε. Clement quotes I Peter often, 5.7 in II.52.16 and 5.10 in III.206.16. T h e directive to oppose the Carpocratians with might and main is repeated below, I I . 1 0 ; it appears also in Epiphanius' attack on the sect, Panarion X X V I I . 7 , δει τοίνυν τούτους άνατρέπειν παντι σθενει. Evidently it was a rule accepted in the Church. άντιστατέον.

πάντ·η τε και πάντως.

Verbatim, II.5iI.24.

εΐ γαρ καί. . . ουκ άν. Both with optatives, as here, in a " f u t u r e less v i v i d " construction, II.420.20f. εί γαρ καί concessive and initial, with indicative, 1.48.22; 49.24; 57.8; etc. αληθές τι, III.89.21; τι followed by an adjective, 1.254.2 (τι βελτιον); is frequent in Clement, though not indexed by Stählin. T h e w a y the letter in the following lines harps on αληθές and its cognates is unlike Clement's usual concern for variation of terms (Tengblad, 4ff), but Clement sometimes uses repetition for emphasis (Tengblad, 4,22fr). Cf. the note on αλήθεια in the following line and Jaeger's note on ελευθέρους είναι, δοΰλοι γεγόνασιν, above. τι

αληθές,

τό αληθές

13


I.8-io

T H E LETTER

L9

Xeyoiev

ονδ'οντω

σύμφωνοιη

α ν αντοΐς

6 της

αληθείας

εραστής,

ουδέ

γαρ

Ι.ιο πάντα

τάληθή

αλήθεια,

ονδε

την

κατά

Xeyotev. Clement uses λεγω in the present active optative nine times, according to Scham, 13. The use of the optative here in a "future less vivid" conditional clause is classically correct and is paralleled in II.30.13. This is a general consideration. When the text comes to the particular case, in lines 12-13 below, it will use the indicative, περιέχει. ονδ'οντω. Neither ονδε' nor οντω is fully indexed by Stählin, Ast, or Leisegang, but the combination with this sense is classical (Thuc. II.76.3; Lysias, 1.14). σνμφωνοίη av. With the dative, II.233.20. The use of av is normal. (Clement's use of av is studied in Hort and Mayor in their Appendix B.) <5 της αληθείας εραστής. III.67.3, τω της αληθείας εραστή, in polemic against those who force Scripture to suit their own ends, without being orthodox. [The phrase is an echo of Plato, Republic VI.50id. W.M.C.] The notion that ό γνωστικός δε αληθείας εpa (II.252.8f) is fundamental to Clement's thought and is developed at length in the Stromateis, especially in Book IV. ονδέ γάρ . . . ονδε.

Neither . . . nor, I.45.1 if (initial, as here), etc.

τάληθή. II.517.14; III.162.11, with crasis; II.465.14; III.66.5, without crasis; these irregularities in the use of crasis are probably scribal, but Stählin notes them also in the other MSS of Clement, IV.223 s.v. αλλά. Αληθή without the article, as a substantive, III.39.14, where Clement explains that the true Christian will sometimes lie, as might a doctor, for therapeutic purposes—a principle he justifies by appeal to the example of St. Paul (Acts 16.3; I Cor. 9.i9f). [Cf. Philo, Questions . . . on Genesis IV.204. J.R.] It is characteristic of Clement to talk most of truth when recommending falsity. αλήθεια. For t h e contrast, τάληθή αλήθεια, cf. II.509.22fr, ονκονν ποτέ τάς επί μερονς αληθείας, καθ'ων ή αλήθεια κατηγορείται, αυτήν δί την άληθειαν πολνπραγμονητεον'. that

is to say, one should study theology and not the subordinate sciences. This sort of play on words is a favorite of Clement's; Tengblad, 80, goes so far as to restore it by analogy when it is lacking; cf. Jaeger's note on ελενθέρονς είναι, above in 1.7. (On the various meanings of άλήθεια in early Christian usage, Bultmann, αλήθεια, 242if. The contrast here is evidently between his meanings [3] '' wirkliche Tatbestand'' and [5] "die rechte Lehre, der rechte Glaube" or [6] "göttliche Wirklichkeit, Offenbarung.") κατά.

Mossbacher, 66: numerous examples of this use. 14


THE LETTER

I.IO-II I.i ι

τάς

άνθρωπίνας

θΐίας

της

κατά

8όζας την

άνθρωπίνας δόξας.

φαινόμενη

πίστιν.

ν άλήθααν

των

ττροκριτίον

της

αληθούς

άλη-

τοίνυν

I I . 3 6 5 . 1 5 j to describe the secret doctrines o f the m y s t e r y cults.

(As these a r e h i d d e n f r o m the i g n o r a n t , h o w m u c h m o r e should the h o l y science o f C h r i s t i a n i t y be h i d d e n ! ) I I I . 6 9 . 1 5 , heretics w h o h a v e not l e a r n e d the mysteries o f C h r i s t i a n gnosis, a n d a r e not a b l e to g r a s p the greatness της αληθείας, are m o t i v a t e d by

άνθρωπίναις

δόξαις

( c f . 6 7 . 1 3 f r , αιρέσεων

ανθρωπίνων).

Δόξα

o p p o s e d to

αλήθεια,

I I I . 4 6 . 3 1 . [ C H , E x t r . I I A . 7 — t h e w h o l e o f E x t r . I I A illustrates this contrast b e t w e e n t r u t h a n d h u m a n opinion. A . D . N . ] κατα τας άνθρωπίνας δόξας.

[ T h e same phrase, b u t in the singular, P l a t o , Sophista

229a. T h i s is skillful i r o n y . P l a t o contrasted doxa w i t h philosophia;

Clement

now

identifies P l a t o ' s philosophia as doxa. W . M . C . ] φαινομενην

άλήθειαν.

II.473.15,

φιλοσοφίαν εμφαινομενης

μερικής

οΰν τυγχανούσης

της

κατά

την

Έλληνικήν

αληθείας, η τω όντι αλήθεια ( d i f f e r s f r o m i t ) . C f . I I . 6 3 . 2 ,

χωρίζεται

δε η 'Ελληνική άλήθεια της καθ' ημάς, a n d ours, of course, is truer. I I I . 6 4 . 2 7 f f , o n e m u s t distinguish τήν τω όντι άλήθειαν f r o m the t e a c h i n g o f the heretics as true f r o m wax

fruit,

and

as

τό

αληθές

από

τον

φαινομένου,

φαινόμενος

meaning

"seeming,"

i.e. " f a l s e , " is f r e q u e n t i n C l e m e n t ; contrast classical usage, w h e r e δοκεΐν is u s u a l l y " s e e m a n d be n o t , " φαίνομαι usually " a p p e a r to b e a n d b e . " [ I n I I . 4 7 3 . 1 5 there is t r u t h in the εμφαινομενη αλήθεια; its fault lies in b e i n g p a r t i c u l a r . H e r e , h o w e v e r , φαινόμενη is " a p p a r e n t " as opposed to " r e a l . " C l e m e n t p e r h a p s d i d not here say δοκοΰσαν because that m i g h t h a v e i n t r o d u c e d a certain c a c o p h o n y — δ ό ξ α ς δοκοΰσαν. B u t the v e r y w o r d δόξας seems to h a v e suggested to h i m the opposition of a p p a r e n t to real. B . E . ] προκριτέον.

C l e m e n t is f o n d of these v e r b a l a d j e c t i v e s in -τεος a n d -τεον, e.g.,

I I . 3 . i f f ; I I I . 6 4 . 2 5 f r (7 in 13 lines). T h i s p a r t i c u l a r v e r b in this f o r m , w i t h genitive a n d accusative, as here, occurs in 1.223.19. [For the a b l a t i v a l genitive, cf. P l a t o , Apology 35b, a n d K ü h n e r - G e r t h , 1.393. W . M . C . ] της αληθούς αληθείας.

T h e p l a y o n w o r d s is reminiscent o f Plato, Theaetetus 162a,

1 7 1 c . See a b o v e , o n άλήθεια. C l e m e n t cites P l a t o m o r e often t h a n a n y other a u t h o r outside S c r i p t u r e ; of his citations, those w h i c h stand nearest Theaetetus 1 6 2 - 1 7 1 a r e 155ε in I I . 3 4 8 . 4 f f ; 173c in I I . 3 9 1 . 7 f f . της

κατά τήν πίστιν.

1 1 . 6 4 - 3 ) V κατά τήν πίστιν

άλήθεια

is c o n t r a s t e d t o t h e i n f e r i o r

truth attained b y Greek philosophy. των.

Initial των w i t h p a r t i c i p l e f o l l o w e d b y τά μεν. . . τά δε, I I I . 9 4 . 2 1 f f ; cf. 24!";

95-4f> I öff J 27f. F u r t h e r e x a m p l e s in T e n g b l a d , 47. τοίνυν.

T h u s i n 1.9.24; 10.20; etc. F r e q u e n t .

15


1 . 1 1 —12

THE LETTER

1.12 θρύλοιιμένων

rrepl τοΰ

OeoTrvevarov

κατά

Μαρκον

evayyeXiov,

θρυλουμένων.

F r e q u e n t l y c o n t e m p t u o u s , as h e r e ; e.g., I I . 13.5, τά θρυλοΰμενα

πρός

τίνων άμαθως φοφοδεων, 213-28, etc. περί.

M o s s b a c h e r , 69: m a n y examples, περί w i t h the genitive is used thus w i t h

θρυλεΐν in E p i c u r u s ( H . U s e n e r , Epicurea frag. 423). Aristotle, Historiae

animalium

I.36, 620b. I o f (τά . . . θρυλοΰμενα περί τον βάτραχον . . . εστίν αληθή) is interesting as p r o o f t h a t o u r a u t h o r sometimes d i d not use accusatives for w h i c h there w e r e precedents. θεοπνεύστου.

I I I . 7 3 . 5 f f , a n a t t a c k o n those w h o τά προσφυή τοΐς θΐοπνΐΰστοις

ύπό των μακαρίων αποστόλων έτερων παρεγχειρήσεων, αΐρεσιν

συστησασθαι.

λόγοις

re και διδασκάλων παραδιδόμενα εκόντες είναι σοφίζονται

ανθρωπεία is διδασκαλίαις

δι'

ενιστάμενοι θεία παραδόσει υπέρ τοΰ την

E x p l i c i t l y o f Scripture, w i t h q u o t a t i o n of I I T i m . 3-i6f, in

I.65.ηΐ. A g a i n , I I I . 7 1 . 2 3 . κατά Μαρκον ευαγγελίου.

V e r b a t i m , I I I . 163.13. N o t h i n g is said in the r e c o g n i z e d

works o f C l e m e n t , or a n y w h e r e else in the heresiologists, a b o u t special use b y the C a r p o c r a t i a n s of a p e c u l i a r G o s p e l a t t r i b u t e d to M a r k . H i p p o l y t u s , Philosophumena V I I . 3 0 . i , speaks o f r e f u t i n g M a r c i o n i t e s b y p o i n t i n g out t h a t the G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g to M a r k does n o t c o n t a i n m a t e r i a l t h e y h a d e v i d e n t l y c l a i m e d to find in i t — b u t p r o b a b l y h a d f o u n d b y exegesis. T h e m a t e r i a l w a s hostile to the d e m i u r g e εκ της αντιπαραθέσεως

άγαθοΰ

και καλοΰ.

T h i s phrase m i g h t c o n c e i v a b l y reflect m a t e r i a l

f r o m the C a r p o c r a t i a n tradition q u o t e d b e l o w ( 1 1 . 3 - 4 , at the e n d of the note o n C a r p o c r a t e s ) , " o p p o s i n g " things truly g o o d to things c o m m o n l y b e l i e v e d to b e so; b u t it m i g h t e q u a l l y w e l l reflect M a r c i o n i t e doctrine, m o r e or less misunderstood (especially if κακοΰ

b e r e a d for καλοΰ).

Irenaeus

(Harvey,

I I I . 1 1 . 1 0 = Stieren,

I I I . 1 2 . 7 ) speaks o f those qui autem Iesum separant α Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Chnstum, passum vero Iesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est praeferentes evangelium. T h i s could h a v e c o m e f r o m c a n o n i c a l M a r k , 1 . 1 0 + 15.34 [but it is not likely t h a t I r e n a e u s r e a d M a r k in this w a y — A . D . N . ] . Irenaeus could h a v e h a d the C a r p o c r a tians in m i n d , b u t he adds cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt, a n d this is n o t like the things he said elsewhere a b o u t the C a r p o c r a t i a n s ; see

Irenaeus

( H a r v e y , 1.20.2 = Stieren, 1.25.3), ad velamen malitiae ipsorum nomine abutuntur. O n the other h a n d , I r e n a e u s is n o t a l w a y s consistent. It is interesting t h a t

Harvey,

in his note o n this passage, w a s led to postulate the existence in E g y p t of a secret G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g to M a r k — a c o n j e c t u r e w h i c h the present text confirms. B u t , alt h o u g h no special c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the C a r p o c r a t i a n s is r e p o r t e d , the Gospel a c c o r d i n g to M a r k w a s the most p o p u l a r of the c a n o n i c a l Gospels w i t h the gnostics in g e n e r a l ( w h i c h m a y a c c o u n t for its c o m p a r a t i v e n e g l e c t b y the o r t h o d o x ) . S w e t e , x x x i , remarks o n this a n d cites e v i d e n c e of its use by H e r a c l e o n a n d other V a l e n t i n i a n s , certain docetists, the Gospel of Peter, a n d the Clementine Homilies, esp. X I X . 2 0 . 1 : εΐπεν " τ ά μυστήρια

έμοί και τοΐς υίοΐς τοΰ οίκου μου φυλάξατε."

κατ' Ιδίαν έπέλυε"

της των ουρανών βασιλείας τά μυστήρια.

16

διο και "τοΐς

αύτοΰ

ήμΐν

μαθηταΐς

T h i s p r o b a b l y uses M k . 4 . 1 1


THE LETTER

τά μεν αληθώς

φενδεται παντελώς, παραδίδοται,

τά δε, εΐ και

αληθή

I.I2-I3

τίνα

I-I3 περιέχει,

ούδ'

οϋτως

and 4·34 a s proof of secret teaching by Jesus (Sanday, Gospels 17gf), and it quotes the preceding agraphon as if it came from the same Gospel. Now Clement of Alexandria quotes, from some unknown author, a quotation of the same agraphon (in the εναγγελίω form μυστήριον ΐμον εμοί καϊ τοΐς νίοΐς τον οίκον μου) as written ev τινι (II.368.27. Ropes, Sprüche 94f, is mistaken in thinking the quotation continued from the preceding sentence, which comes from Barnabas 6.10. His attempt to explain rot? viols τον οίκον μον as derived from a mistranslation of Λ" "ΊΧ is ludicrous.) Resch 1 correctly noted the Semitism, which suggests translation from a Hebrew original (167fr). Taken over from Clement or the Clementina (?) and hellenized— τοΐς εμοϊς—the agraphon spread through Christian tradition, is preserved in Hilary Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John of Damascus and in a contamination of some M S S of Symmachus and Theodotion on Is. 24.16—where a literal mistranslation of the Hebrew had yielded τό μυστήριόν μον εμοί; Field, II.470 n24; Resch 1 , 167fr, i03f, 282. ψεύδεται. Clement uses the verb in III.40.6, as here; 1.22.25; etc. The usage is classical, LSJ s.v. Α. II. παντελώς.

Final, following verb, as here, 1.274.16; II.31.6.

el και. In a concessive, inserted clause, with the indicative, as here, II.201.7. In both instances what is conceded is probably no more than the facts of the particular case, el γάρ . . . ού δή, both with indicative, 1.221.9-12. αληθή τινα. περιέχει.

II.55.10, ev δε τοΐς φΐΰδεσιν

καϊ αληθή τινα ελεγον ol

φευδοπροφήται.

Of books, II.13.1; 70.7; 71.23; 235.23; etc.

ονδ' οϋτως. With the indicative following εΐ και, II.305.31-306.1; classical examples plentiful, LSJ s.v. ούτω?. αληθώς. III.43.29, etc. Frequent. The use here was determined by the concern to play on αλήθεια. παραδίδοται. traditions he handed down of a sect, the tradition.

The same form of the verb, III.41.11. Clement uses the verb for believes true, but he must have been aware that the heretics also their teachings. Like θρνλονμένων, which is also used for the doctrines word here suggests not commonly known, but specifically sectarian, 17


THE L E T T E R

Ι· 13-15 1.14 γαρ τ αληθή τοις

συγκ€κραμίνα

δη το λβγόμενον—"

ν,

V5

πλάσμασι

καΐ το άλας

παραχαράσσεται

ώστε—τοΰτο

μωρανθήναι."

συγκΐκραμενα. The perfect middle participle (singular), III. 125.12 (Extracts from Theodotus). For the structure, see above, 1.5, πεφυσιωμενοι γάρ. Cf. Clement's usage, III.70.7, where the gnostics πάμπολλα συγκαττνουσι which are evidently synonymous. In the present instance the choice of πλάσμασι was probably determined by the desire not to repeat too often forms cognate with φεύδομαι. Tengblad, 4ff, collects examples of Clement's use of such deliberate variation. [Further, the word πλάσματα had been used for religious fictions throughout pagan Greek theological language. Xenophanes of Colophon (Diels, frag. 1.22) calls impious myths about the immorality of the Homeric and Hesiodic gods πλάσματα των προτέρων. For the way in which Critias imagined such πλάσματα to have been introduced into religious thought, see the great fragments taken from his satyr play, Sisyphus (Diels, frag. 25), and the comments in Jaeger, Theology i86ff. W.J.] πλάσμασι. φεύσματα

και πλάσματα,

ΙΙ.2θ8. igff,

παραχαράσσεται. κοινωνοί,

οι της λαγνείας

οί παραχαράσσοντας τρισάθλιοι

την (τε)

και των τοΰ κυρίου φωνών

διαφεΰδονται

ol της

άσελγείας

αδελφοί, όνειδος ού φιλοσοφίας μόνον, άλλα καΐ παντός τοΰ

την άληθειαν

μάλλον

δε κατασκάπτοντες

σαρκικην και (-rrjvy συνουσιαστικην

ώς οΐόν τε αΰτοΐς-

βίου,

οί

κοινωνίαν Ιεροφαντοΰσι καϊ

γάρ

ταύτην

αυτούς άνάγειν τοΰ Θεοΰ. Both the metaphor expressed by and this verb to express it were favorites with Clement. Stählin cites nine uses of the verb (Register, s.v.). οιονται

είς την βασιλείαν

παραχαράσσεται

ώστε. Stählin (IV.827 s.v.) remarks Clement's frequent use of ώστε with a following infinitive. δη τό λεγόμενον. Verbatim. Interjected, as here, to introduce a following conventional expression, 1.8.9; 5 Ι · Ι 3 ·

τοΰτο

και τό άλας μωρανθήναι.

M t . 5 . 1 3 , εάν δέ τό άλας μωρανθη,

εν τίνι άλισθήσεται

j =

Lk.

14.34· The text here is closer to Lk., which differs from Mt. by beginning εάν δε και. Behind the choice of this proverb probably lies not only recollection of the context of these Gospel passages (and Mk. 9.50), which declare corrupted Christians fit only to be cast out, but also recollection of Jeremiah 28.17 (LXX) ( = 10.14 Heb.) εμωράνθη

πας

άνθρωπος

άπό γνώσεως

. . . ότι

φευδη εχώνευσαν,

ουκ εστίν

πνεύμα

εν

(and fF), which made the verse particularly appropriate for use against gnostics who had corrupted the Scriptures. This sort of multiple biblical allusion αΰτοΐς

18


THE LETTER

6 γοΰν Μάρκος

is typical of Clement and would be very difficult for a forger to imitate. In III. 183.23fr Clement identifies as " t h e salt of the e a r t h " those " m o r e elect than the elect," " w h o hide away, in the depth of thought, the mysteries not to be uttered." The passage is clearly a description of orthodox gnostics, and the application to the Carpocratians of the saying about corruption of the salt suggests that Clement saw the Carpocratian secret society as a perverted parallel of similar secret groups within the Church. T h e same suggestion is brought to mind by 1.281.25fr, where Clement argues that " w e are the salt of the earth" (see below, II. 17, " w e are the children of light") and therefore should not follow the libertines in their abuse of the Christian liberty of kissing. In quoting the phrase from the N T , Clement, like this letter, uses άλας, elsewhere αλί. Greek proverbs frequently begin with και; e.g. Strömberg, Proverbs 38, 60, 67, 73; Leutsch-Schneidewin, Corpus 1.505; II.809-810. It is possible that the Gospel saying reflected a popular proverb. Talmud Babli (hereinafter B), Bekorot 8b, has, in a trial of wits, the question

.xrvmrn xnVOa inV ,nV 'nVa xno Ό xriV^ .no ή Hn^m ,κηπίΰ1? nd^d la's -wi " { T h e y asked R . Joshua ben Hananya, ca. A.D. 90:) ' W h e n salt has lost its savor, with what can it be salted?' He said to them, ' W i t h the after-birth of a female mule.' <They said,) ' But does any female mule have an after-birth ?' <He said) 'And does salt lose its s a v o r ? ' " Billerbeck, on Mt. 5.13b, saw a slur on the story of the virgin birth in the reference to a she-mule's giving birth (a possibility which is also dismissed as absurd in the sentence just preceding the quotation). This may be correct, but even so the exchanges quoted may reflect either the popular saying, or polemic against the Christian one, or both. (The literature in Bauer, Wb. s.v. άλας, to which add Bauer, Sal, and Nauck, Salt, does not suffice to decide the question.) Note the five successive long syllables in the clausula; Clement often uses this ending, as it is used here, for emphasis.

ο γοΰν. Initial, 1.201.19; II.188.27; 190.23; III.165.15. Clement often used it thus for introducing proof.

Μάρκος. W e have three reports that Clement gave this account of the origin of the second Gospel. T w o come from Eusebius (HE II. 15 and V I . 14.5-7), a n d one from the Latin Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in Epistolas Canonicas, a translation and adaptation of parts of Clement's Hypotyposes, made in the early sixth century ( I I I . X L ) . These three are arranged on the two following pages in parallel columns with Eusebius' report of the same account as given by Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor in the early second century.

19


THE LETTER

Ι·ΐ5

Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in Epistolas

Eus., HE I I . 1 5

Canonicas ( I I I . 2 0 6 . 1 7 f r )

Οΰτω δη οΰν επιδημησαντος αυτοί? τοΰ θείον λόγου η μεν τοΰ Σίμωνος άπέσβη καί παραχρήμα συν καί τω άνδρι καταλέλυτο δύναμις. Τοσούτον δ'επέλαμφεν ταΐς των ακροατών τοΰ Πέτρου διανοίαις εύσεβείας φέγγος, ώς μη τη εις άπαζ Ικανως εχειν άρκεΐσθαι ακοή, μηδέ τη άγράφω τοΰ θείου κηρύγματος διδασκαλία, παρακλήσεσιν δε παντοίοι? Μάρκον, ου το εύαγγελιον φέρεται, άκόλουθον όντα Πέτρου, λιπαρήσαι ώς αν και δια γραφής υπόμνημα της δια λόγου παραδοθείσης αύτοΐς καταλείφοι διδασκαλίας, μη πρότερόν τε ανεϊναι η κατεργασασθαι

Marcus, Petri sectator praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus, et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis, ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare,

scripsit ex

his, quae a Petro dicta sunt,

τον άνδρα, και ταύτη αιτίους γενέσθαι της τοΰ λεγομένου κατα Μάρκον ευαγγελίου γραφής, γνόντα δε τό πραχθέν φασι τον άπόστολον άποκαλύφαντος αύτω τοΰ πνεύματος, ησθήναι τη των ανδρών προθυμία κυρωσαί τε την γραφην εις έντευξιν της εκκλησίας. Κλημης εν εκτω των Ύποτυπώσεων παρατέθειται την Ιστορίαν, συνεπιμαρτυρεί δε αύτω και ο Ίεραπολίτης επίσκοπος ονόματι Παπίας. τοΰ δε Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τον Πέτρον εν τη πρότερα επιστολή, ην καί συντάζαι φασϊν έπ' αύτης 'Ρώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοΰτ αυτόν, την πάλιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλώνα προσειπόντα δια τούτων, ασπάζεται υμάς η εν Βαβυλώνα συνεκλεκτη καί Μάρκος ό υιός μου.

evangelium quod secundum M a r c u m vocitatur; sicut Lucas quoque Actus Apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur, et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam.

20


THE LETTER

Eus., HE V I . 14.5-7

1.15

Eus., HE III.39.15 (Papias)

Αύθις . . . περι της τάξεως των ευαγγελίων παράδοσιν των ανέκαθεν πρεσβύτερων τέθειται, τοΰτον έχουσαν τον τρόπον, προγεγράφθαι έλεγεν των ευαγγελίων τα περιέχοντα τάς γενεαλογίας, τό δε κατά Μάρκον ταύτην εσχηκέναι την οίκονομίαν. Τοΰ Πέτρου δημοσία εν 'Ρώμη κηρΰζαντος τον λόγον και πνεΰματι τό εύαγγέλιον έξειπόντος, τους παρόντας, πολλούς όντας, παρακαλέσαι τον Μάρκον, ώς

και τούτο ο πρεσβύτερος

έλεγε·

Μάρκος μεν έρμηνευτης Πέτρου γενόμενος, όσα εμνημόνευσεν ακριβώς εγραφεν ού μέντοι τάζει, τα υπό τοΰ Χρίστου η λεχθέντα η πραχθέντα. ούτε γαρ ηκουσε τοΰ κυρίου, ούτε παρηκολοΰθησεν αύτω, ύστερον δέ, ώς έφην, Πέτρω, os προς τας χρείας εποιεϊτο τάς διδασκαλίας αλλ' ούχ ώσπερ σύνταζιν τών κυριακών ποιούμενος λογίων, ώστε ούδεν ημαρτε Μάρκος ούτως ένια γράφας ώς άπεμνημόνευσεν. ενός γαρ έποιησατο πρόνοιαν, τοΰ μηδέν ών ηκουσε παραλιπεΐν η φεύσασθαί τι εν αύτοΐς. Ταΰτα μεν οΰν ίστόρηται τω Παπία περι τοΰ Μάρκου. Περι δε τοΰ Ματθαίου ταΰτ είρηται. Ματθαίος μεν οΰν Έβραίδι διαλέκτω τά λόγια συνεγράφατο, ηρμηνευσε δ' αυτά ώς fjv δυνατός έκαστος. Κέχρηται δ' αύτός μαρτυρίαις από της 'Ιωάννου προτέρας επιστολής και άπό της Πέτρου όμοίως.

αν άκολουθησαντα αύτω πόρρωθεν καΐ μεμνημένον των λεχθέντων, άναγράφαι τα είρημένα. ποίησαντα δε, τό εύαγγέλιον

μεταδοΰναι τοις δεομένοις αϋτοΰ. όπερ έπιγνόντα τον Πετρον προτρεπτικώς μητε κωλΰσαι μητε προτρεφασθαι.

21


THE LETTER

Eusebius r e m a r k e d the similarity of C l e m e n t ' s a c c o u n t to t h a t o f Papias. T h e parallels b e t w e e n the passages m a k e it seem t h a t C l e m e n t relied o n P a p i a s for his statement

about

Mark

and

for the p r o o f of it f r o m I Pet.

5.13, which

may

h a v e b e e n the source of the w h o l e story ( t h o u g h P a p i a s a t t r i b u t e d it to one J o h n of Ephesus,

a presbyter

and

a " d i s c i p l e of the L o r d , " albeit n o t a n a p o s t l e ;

Eus., HE I I I . 3 9 . 4 , 1 5 ) . B u t C l e m e n t h a d other sources, w h i c h he preferred to P a p i a s , for his statements a b o u t M a t t h e w a n d L u k e , A c t s a n d H e b r e w s . M o r e o v e r , e v e n in respect to M a r k he d i d n o t follow P a p i a s closely. P a p i a s w a n t e d to defend M a r k f r o m charges of confusion, misrepresentation, a n d omission (charges w h i c h b e c o m e sign i f i c a n t in the light o f the present letter). C l e m e n t w a n t s to excuse h i m f r o m w r i t i n g d o w n oral tradition a n d so m a k i n g it potentially p u b l i c — a c h a r g e against w h i c h h e h a d to d e f e n d himself t o o ; Stromateis I . 1 - 1 7 . H e therefore develops the basic story, g i v e n b y Papias, in his o w n fashion. H i s a c c o u n t has b e e n f u r t h e r r e w r i t t e n b y Eusebius, especially in I I . 15 (note the rhetorical l a r d i n g a n d the c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f the report o f Peter's reaction g i v e n in V I . 14.7). H a r n a c k , it is true, denied t h a t Eusebius' a c c o u n t in HE I I . 15 c a m e mostly f r o m C l e m e n t a n d Papias. H e m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the r e p e a t e d φασίν in the text there must refer to a s e c o n d a r y tradition. T h e o n e solid piece of e v i d e n c e in his a r g u m e n t w a s the statement (Pseudopapianisches 160 n 2 ) : " F o r C l e m e n t , Babylon m e a n s the real B a b y l o n . " F o r this statement, h o w e v e r , I c a n find no justification. O n the c o n t r a r y , the passage f r o m the Adumbrationes c i t e d a b o v e ( I I I . 2 0 6 . 1 7 f r ) is a c o m m e n t on I Pet. 5 . 1 3 a n d clearly supposes that the " B a b y l o n " m e n t i o n e d in that text is R o m e . T h i s disposes of H a r n a c k ' s denial t h a t t h e r e p e a t e d φασίν in Eusebius (HE I l . i s f ) refers to C l e m e n t a n d Papias. I t is not, o f course, necessary to suppose t h a t b o t h witnesses said e v e r y t h i n g there r e p o r t e d ; Eusebius is w r i t i n g a s u m m a r y b a s e d o n b o t h their reports. [ " I n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the older descriptions of the i m p o r t a n c e of P e t e r for the Gospel o f M a r k , the letter stresses w h a t Mark has d o n e . . . H e r e n o t h i n g is said of Peter as the source of the G o s p e l of M a r k . A f t e r Peter's d e a t h M a r k goes to A l e x a n d r i a w i t h his o w n a n d Peter's hypomnemata—a

r e m a r k a b l e c h a n g e in the situation of the hermeneutes o f

P e t e r — a n d there he composes his second, m o r e spiritual, G o s p e l ; cf. the C a n o n M u r a t o r i , quibus tarnen interfuit et ita posuit, i f these w o r d s a r e to be understood as m e a n i n g t h a t M a r k h a d b e e n a n eyewitness to some o f the doings o f the L o r d . I n this w a y M a r k is c o n n e c t e d w i t h A l e x a n d r i a , a n d M a r k , n o t Peter, is the a u t h o r i t y b e h i n d his Gospel. A s the g e n e r a l t r e n d of patristic t h o u g h t is to stress the p a r t of Peter in the composition o f the G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g to M a r k , this letter seems to be a n A l e x a n d r i a n s t a t e m e n t . " J . M . ] See b e l o w , C h a p t e r F i v e , section I .

22


I.I5-16

THE LETTER

κατά ρίου,

την

κατά.

του Πέτρου

ev 'Ρώμη

διατρφήν,

For synchronism, 1.42.15; 107.3;

etc-j

I.l6 ανέγραψε

τάς πράξεις

τοΰ

Κυ-

Mossbacher, 65.

τοΰ Πέτρου έν 'Ρώμτ). III. 197.21 in Eusebius' summary of Clement's account, HE VI. 14.6. Use of iv, I.35.23, etc.; Mossbacher, 60. διατριβήν.

In this sense, 1.242.11.

ανέγραψε. In Eusebius' summary, HE VI. 14.6, the Christians of Rome beseech Mark άναγράψαι τά είρημένα. Clement uses the verb often, IV.232-233. See further the comment by J . M . on πνευματικώτερον εΰαγγέλιον below, in 1.21-22. πράξεις. Perhaps by analogy from τάς πράξεις των αποστόλων, which Clement often cites by title, IV.668 s.v. πραξις end. However, the usage here may reflect the influence of Papias, whose account of the origin of Mark's Gospel, we saw, probably influenced Clement. [Papias said Mark wrote τά ύπό τοΰ Χρίστου λεχθέντα η πραχθέντα (Eus., HE 111.39.15)1 with which compare Acts 1.1, τον μεν πρώτον λόγον έποιησάμην περι πάντων . . . ών ηρξατο 6 Ίησοΰς ποιειν τε και 8ι8άσκειν. A.D.N.] Another source of influence may have been Roman imperial usage. The Res gestae divi Augusti, for instance, became in translation πράξεις . . . Σεβαστοΰ θεοΰ; Bauer, Wb. s.v. [πράξεις were an established literary form, which the author of our πράξεις αποστόλων followed as his example. In retrospect, referring to both pagan and early Christian πράξεις, the author of this letter here calls the Gospel πράξεις, and perhaps he is right in assuming that the Christian Gospel form developed under the influence of such earlier types of writing. W . J . ] τοΰ Κυρίου. Κύριος for Jesus; Stählin has over six columns of references to particular instances, IV.529-533, nos. 3, 6, 10, 11.

23


1.16-17

ού μίντοι

THE LETTER

πάσας

έζαγγβλλων,

ού μεντοι πάσας (ζαγγέλλων.

ov8e

μην

τ ας

μνστικάς

[ " O r i g e n in his c o m m e n t a r y o n M t . (GCS,

Origenes,

vol io, 1.2, p. 4 4 1 ) by his treatment of the parable, M t . 20.1-16, showed himself convinced that M a t t h e w knew the secrets (or mysteries) of this parable as well as those of the parables of the sower and of the tares, but kept silent about them. H e did not make known everything which was revealed because he was aware of the danger." J . M . , comparing Origen's defense of M a t t h e w to the praise of M a r k in this letter.] ού μεντοι.

" N o t , however," 1.208.28; see also II.329.28.

ΐξαγγέλλων. Clement uses this only once, II.43.9, for a prophet's declaring the decree of the goddess Lachesis (Fate), Plato, Republic 61 yd. T h e use here is probably determined by the word's connotation, " b e t r a y a secret" (LSJ s.v.). It is used elsewhere with this sense concerning the mystery cults; e.g., Epictetus (Arrian), 111.21.16, where, having assimilated the teachings of philosophy to the secrets of the Eleusinian mysteries, the philosopher complains, συ S έξαγγίλλεις παρα τόπον, ävev θυμάτων,

αυτά και έξορχη παρά καιρόν,

άνευ άγνείας· ουκ εσθητα έχεις ην δει τον Ιεροφάντην, etc.

ουδέ μήν. " N o r y e t . " Frequent. Following ού, 1.45.6; 50.2iff; 206.5; etc. ού μεντοι. οι/δε μήν I have not found in Clement. μυστικάς. Clement uses this often, both in the "pertaining to the mysteries"; it is impossible Clement uses it in II.496.17 of Jesus' teaching: through the prophets in order to prove that all τοΰ κυρίου παρουσίαν

. .

sense of " s e c r e t " and in that of to prove which is intended here. T h e Holy Spirit spoke obscurely gentile sages ignored την εσομενην

κα'ι την ΰπ' αύτοΰ παραδοθησομενην

μυστικην

διδασκαλία^. B u t

this probably refers to all his teaching, as hidden from former ages, while the reference in the letter is to certain actions as symbolic or secret or connected with a mystery, by contrast with others which were not. [Most likely, as having symbolic meaning, but the use with πράξεις is surprising. A . D . N . C . M . also thinks that the sense of μυστικάς is " h a v i n g symbolic m e a n i n g " ; Clement considers the person and the actions of Jesus himself as being par excellence the μυστηριον εμφανίς.] [If the letter is by Clement, it m a y be that an original re και λέξεις following πράξεις—as in Acts 1 . 1 — h a s dropped out. A . D . N . ] T h e combination of πράξεις και λεξεις not only is found in Acts and Papias (who was ignorant of Luke-Acts), but also is adumbrated in M k . 6.2,30. C a d b u r y (Making 50) thinks it m a y be older than Lk. Although Clement does not use μυστική with the general term πράξις he does use it with terms indicating particular actions, things, or rituals: μυστικόν φίλημα, 1.281.9; το μυστικόν τοΰ άρτου, 1.117.29. Julius Pollux lists as usual usage έργων μυστικών

( 1 . 1 7 ) a n d τέλη μυστικά

(1.36).

24


1.17-18

THE LETTER

I.l8 ύποσημαίνων

ά λ λ ' Ικ\€γόμ€νος

ύποσημαίνων.

Clement uses the verb to mean "indicate," with no connotation of

o b s c u r i t y , I I . 2 5 0 . 1 — r o t s όδόν

äs

χρησιμωτάτας

άπιοΰσιν

ενόμισε

ην ουκ ΐσασιν

αρκεί

προς

ανζησιν

την φορούσαν

ύποσημήναι

μόνον. (Here the context shows the meaning is "merely indicate," as opposed to " d e s c r i b e in detail.")

I I I . 162.5,

(ν)

εσχάτη

σάλπιγξ

ύποσημήνη

. . . της

I . l 0 l . 8 f , τοΰτό τ οι {an extremely dubious significance of νηπιος/

εξόδου;

ο μακάριος

Παύλος

ύπεσημηνατο

εντεύθεν

σαφέστατα

{ I T h e s s . 2."J). I n spite of the σαφέστατα

ειπών

Paul

did not say it explicitly, but perhaps implied it. The implicit contrast with έξαγγέλλων in the preceding phrase of the letter probably determines the meaning here as the classical one, "indicate obscurely" or "hint a t " ; so LS J. Clement also uses ύποσημείωσις—although in a different sense—in a context where the general thought and vocabulary are so close to this letter as to deserve quotation at length (II.9.4ff): Άλλ'

oi μεν την αληθή της μακαρίας

σώζοντες

. . . ηκον δη συν Θεώ καΐ εις ημάς σπέρματα· κατά

ΰποσημείωσιν

άδιάδραστον

δε τών

δυναμένοις γράμματι

. . . τά

υπομνημάτων

αντίκα

ηπίστατο

. . . τά

μυστήρια

οϋ

μυστηρίων

μυστικώς

γραφή . . . επαγγέλλεται

τη

γάρ τοΰ

παράδοσιν

ό

. . . οΰχ

ώστε

. . . μόνη

Θεός,

. . . Ή

μεν

λόγω οΰν

έρμηνεΰσαι

τά

τη

σαββατίζειν,

άγιου

ά μη πολλών

δε

παράδοσιν

άγαθοΰ

τοΰ

ό

Πέτρου

καταθησόμενοι

μακαρίαν

από

εκείνου

καθάπερ

παραδίδοται

την

κύριος

άπεκάλυφεν

απόρρητα,

ησθέντες

φυχής

φωτός

ευθύς από

και αποστολικά

εκφράσει

οΐμαι

κεκώλυκεν καϊ

ου πολλοίς δέ

εκείνα

ούχΐ

ποθούσης

• . • fi και θειων

συγκεχώρηκεν'

προσηκειν

άγαλλιάσονται,

τηρησει.

φυλάττειν

μεταδιδόναι οις

εΰ οιδ' ότι

και

την

διδασκαλίας

τα προγονικά

τοις

ην,

χωρεΐν

ολίγοις

δέ,

πιστεύεται, τώνδέ

ού

μοι

απόρρητα

τών Ικανώς,

πολλοΰ γε καϊ δει, μόνον δέ τό ΰπομνήσαι. [It should be noted that in the letter the explicit

contrast is b e t w e e n both έξαγγέλλων

a n d ύποσημαίνων

o n the one h a n d a n d

εκλεγόμενος on the other. A.D.N.]

άλλ'.

For emphasis after a string of negatives, I I . 1 1 7 . 1 8 f ; 241.20; 465.13fr; etc.

εκλεγόμενος. τό έξ άπάσης

Frequent in middle with accusative, I V . 3 7 3 . With χρήσιμον, I I . 114.29, παιδείας

χρησιμον

έκλεγομένους

ήμας

έχειν;

see Ι Ι . 2 Ι · 7 ·

χρησιμωτάτας. The superlative, I I . 1 1 3 . 1 5 ; with πρός, 1.264.21; I I . 1 7 . 3 2 ; Mossbacher, 73-74. ένόμισε. αΰξησιν. διττην

J u d g e to be, consider, 1 . 1 7 . 2 5 ; I I . 12.20. F r e q u e n t i n C l e m e n t . W i t h πίστις, καταγγέλλων

πίστιν,

μάλλον

δέ μίαν,

I I . 3 2 7 . 8 f f , φαίνεται

αύζησιν

και τελείωσιν

οΰν ό

απόστολος

έπιδεχομένην.

context declares, as does the text here, that faith can be increased by learning. 25

The


1.18 της

THE LETTER

των

κατηχουμενων

κατηχουμενων.

πίστεως,

του δε Πέτρου

μαρτυρησαντος,

U s e d thus as a technical t e r m for persons r e c e i v i n g instruction pre-

p a r a t o r y to admission to the sacraments, I I . 1 3 . 2 5 ; 4 7 6 . 1 9 . T h e m o t i v a t i o n ascribed to M a r k here, b y the letter, is strikingly similar to that C l e m e n t claims for himself, I I . 4 7 6 . 1 8 f , τω δ'άπανθιζομενω

το χρειώδες

εις ωφελείαν των κατηχονμενων.

In II.494·

ι ι f C l e m e n t , a r g u i n g f r o m the e x a m p l e of St. P a u l , implies, as does this letter, t h a t c a t e c h u m e n s m a y be left w i t h o u t full i n f o r m a t i o n — n o t to say o r d e r to protect their f a i t h : αντίκα

6 Παύλος

'Ιουδαίων πιστώνοντας, ίνα μη, καταλνοντος μένα, άποστώσι δίκαιοι'

της πίστεως

"να πάντας κερδηση.

sense of κατηχοΰμενοι

misinformed—in

περιετεμεν

δια τους

αντον τα εκ τον νόμον ααρκικώτερον

ol εκ νόμου κατηχοΰμενοι,

τοις ττάσι γαρ πάντα γίγνεσθαι

των δογμάτων,

τον Τιμόθεον

ώμολόγει,

είδώς ακριβώς

κατά σνμπεριφοράν

ότι περιτομη σώζων

εξ

προειλημού

τα κύρια

(Cf. A c t s 1 6 . 3 ; G a l . 5-2ff; I C o r . 9.19—22.) [ T h e

in I I . 4 9 4 . 1 1 f f seems, h o w e v e r , to be g e n e r a l r a t h e r

than

t e c h n i c a l , a n d it is the g e n e r a l sense w h i c h the t e r m in the letter p r o b a b l y has, i f the letter is b y C l e m e n t . A . D . N . So, too, C . M . O n the other h a n d , W . J . w r o t e , in s u b s t a n c e : I t is interesting to see h o w C l e m e n t ' s classification o f e a r l y C h r i s t i a n literature takes for g r a n t e d , as a criterion, the suitability o f e a c h b o o k for the classes o f A l e x a n d r i a n religious instruction, κατηχοΰμενοι

a n d τελειούμενοι

(inf., 1. 22). S u c h

classification p e r h a p s p r o d u c e d the c o n c e p t of a secret G o s p e l , w h i c h M a r k

did

n o t disclose to the simpliciores. T h i s c o n c e p t , in turn, m a y h a v e caused i m a g i n a t i v e p e o p l e to interpolate the c a n o n i c a l Gospel of M a r k a n d a d d to it their p a r t i c u l a r k i n d of gnosis, like t h a t of the C a r p o c r a t i a n s . C l e m e n t himself believes in a secret G o s p e l ; he objects only to the C a r p o c r a t i a n " m i x t u r e " b y interpolation.

Such

C h r i s t i a n fictions of secret or esoteric versions of their a c c e p t e d h o l y books seem t o follow the trend of G r e e k philosophers in Hellenistic times, to distinguish a n exoteric f r o m a n esoteric k i n d of P y t h a g o r e a n i s m a n d Platonism, a n d , finally, to forge s u c h a pseudoliterature as w e still h a v e u n d e r a l l e g e d l y a n c i e n t P y t h a g o r e a n names. A l s o , the misinterpretation of Aristotle's λόγοι εξωτερικοί

( d i a l o g u e s ) — a s opposed to the

esoteric writings (treatises) w h i c h w e r e " h y p o m n e m a t a " — m u s t b e u n d e r s t o o d as a consequence of this later t r e n d . ]

τον δέ Πέτρου.

W i t h the article, I . i 1 6 . 1 1 ; 2 7 7 . 5 ; 283.5; etc. τον Πέτρον in genitive

absolute, b e g i n n i n g a sentence, I I I . 1 9 7 . 2 1 (Eusebius' s u m m a r y of C l e m e n t ) . G e n i t i v e absolute in the b e g i n n i n g of a narrative to i n d i c a t e the t i m e after w h i c h the events o c c u r r e d , I I I . 1 8 8 . 3 , 1 2 . T h e repetition of p r o p e r names, f o u n d here a n d a g a i n b e l o w (ό Μάρκος) is a m a r k e d characteristic of b o t h the E u s e b i a n s u m m a r i e s ( a b o v e , 1 . 1 5 ) .

μαρτνρησαντος. has κοιμάω,

T h e o n l y reference to Peter's d e a t h in C l e m e n t ' s r e c o g n i z e d w o r k s

I I I . 106.24, b u t the c o n t e x t there w o u l d m a k e a reference to the m a r t y r -

d o m intrusive. C l e m e n t r e g u l a r l y uses μαρτυρεΐν

as a t e c h n i c a l t e r m w i t h the sense

it has h e r e — t o u n d e r g o m a r t y r d o m , I I . 2 5 4 . 2 7 ; 2 8 5 . 1 4 ; etc. [ T h e earliest use in 26


I.18-I9

T H E LETTER

Ι·ΐ9 παρήλθαν

els

}

'AXetjavSpeiav

ό Μάρκος,

κομίζων

και

τά

[ τ ] αύτοΰ

καΐ

this technical sense seems to be not in the N T , but in Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 5.4; therefore this appearance in Clement of Alexandria is interesting. W.J.] Swete, xxv, remarks that Clement of Alexandria differs from the Asiatic tradition about Mk. (Irenaeus—Harvey, III.1.2 = Stieren, III.1.1, etc.) by representing the Gospel as composed before Peter's death. T h e present letter shares this Clementine peculiarity. [This is an important argument for authenticity. E.B.] παρήλθεv. II.96.13; cf. LSJ s.v. I l l , "pass on and come to a place," which is the sense here. els. Regularly used with παρέρχομαι; paragraphs a n d Mossbacher, 55. Άλεξάν&ρειαν.

see the passages cited in the preceding

Without the article after els, 1.37.17; after εν, II.86.8; 92.12.

Μάρκος. T h e tradition that Mark came to Alexandria does not appear in the preserved works of Clement, but Clement and Papias were probably the sources from which it was drawn by Eusebius (HE II. 16). T h e φασίν which now stands in the first sentence of II. 16, if not used impersonally, should refer to Clement and Papias, who were named as the sources of information in the preceding sentence. [C.M. thinks this suggestion concerning the subject of φασίν plausible. J . Μ . , however, argued that because, " w e have no tradition . . . about Mark's connection with Alexandria before Eusebius (HE I I . 16)," therefore this letter depends on Eusebius.] κομίζων. I n Clement this verb usually means " p r o v i d e " ; but the sense it has here, " c a r r y away so as to preserve, carry, convey, b r i n g " (LSJ s.v. II), is common in classical authors and perhaps appears in metaphor in II.29.16f, <5 δε προς τον βίον αναφερών έκαστα τον ορθόν, εκ τε των κομίζων, πολύπειρος ούτος της αληθείας

'Ελληνικών ίχνεντής",

και των βαρβαρικών cf. I I . 2 5 6 . 9 ^ σοφίσματα

υποδείγματα είς μέσον

κομίζοντες. [The verb is often used of introducing and, in that sense, " b r i n g i n g " a doctrine; Bonitz, Index 402 b 23ff. Here it seems to mean simply " b r i n g " from one place to another, but the extension of this meaning to the former is well illustrated by the passage. W.J.] Jerome, De viris inlustribus 8, writes of Mark, " a d s u m p t o itaque evangelio quod ipse confecerat perrexit Aegyptum." Swete, xix n i , thinks this an inference from Eus., HE II.16. και. . . τ' . . . και. [If one reads και τά τ' αύτοΰ και τά τον Πέτρου, which I find preferable to τά ε'αντοΰ, the και. . . και cannot mean " b o t h . . . a n d , " because a re cannot be combined with a και in this manner, but the last και must be connected with the τε and the first και is connected closely with κομίζων and stands for " a l s o . " H e carried with himself also his own and Peter's hypomnemata. A.W.] 27


1.19-20

THE LETTER

1.20

τ ά τον Πέτρου

υπομνήματα

τά αύτοΰ. M S , ταταυτοΰ. [ A . D . Ν . would read τά τ' αύτοΰ, on the supposition that the copyist did not understand the letters he found in his M S and so reproduced them en bloc.~\ This would suggest that he m a y have had before him a M S without accents and breathings. [But had that been the case, there would have been m a n y more instances of omitted accents and of false divisions. I suspect that an ancestor had τ ά αύτοΰ, which became τ α κ τ ο ύ . This can represent either τ ά αύτοΰ, or τον αύτοΰ. T o show that it represented τά αύτοΰ someone superscribed τά—hence ταταυτοΰ. και τά τ' αύτοΰ και is odd Greek; I should expect και τά αύτοΰ or (omitting και) τά re αύτοΰ. Β.Ε.] Stählin, I . X X X V I f , remarks on the frequency with which his manuscript used αύτοΰ, etc., after articles, in place of the reflexive forms, and omitted the coronis in crasis. However, I think the error here must be given an explanation which will accord with the amazing correctness of the rest of the M S . I should suppose, therefore, that the writer found a folio of an uncial M S with few or no explanatory signs or word divisions. Therefore he studied it carefully, correcting the spelling, marking the divisions, adding accents, breathings, and the like. A l o n g with his other changes he indicated by a superscribed τά, as B.E. suggests, that Τ Α Υ Τ Ο Υ , which stood in his text, was to be understood as τά αύτοΰ. T h e n he copied his corrected text into his book. H e was pressed for time when he copied, and therefore made a number of minor mistakes, of which ταταυτοΰ was one. ύπομνήματα. Clement uses this often for his own writings, occasionally for those of others; e.g., II.73.25. He apparently uses it to mean " n o t e s " or " p a p e r s , " as it probably does here [and this is the regular u s a g e — W . J . ] . Eusebius, in his summary of Clement, HE II. 15, describes the cononical Gospel according to M a r k as a ύπόμνημα. [The word is normally used in the singular to mean simply " b o o k . " W . J . J . M . thought it derived from Eusebius; see his comment on πνευματικώτςρον ΐύαγγελιον below, 1.21-22.] For the customary use of υπομνήματα to describe either private notebooks or works composed without attention to arrangement of material, or not in finished form, Lazzati, 24; Lieberman, Hellenism 87; Munck, Untersuchungen 39; Jaeger, Studien 135; Hyldahl, 75fr. T h e term could also mean, generally, " d o c u m e n t s " ; e.g., Eus., HE V I . 1 2 . i . Justin M a r t y r knew απομνημονεύματα " o f Peter," Dialogue 106.3 [and " o f the apostles," First Apology 6 7 . 3 — W . V . ] and quoted from them material now to be found only in M k . 3.16f. Clement quotes as statements of Peter material from M t . , M k . , Acts, I T i m . (! 1.233.10fr), I Pet., the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter·, but he also had a good deal of information about Peter from a source or sources now lost, and he seems to have made use of this information in those of his own works which have also been lost—or suppressed: I.220.15; 453.1 i f f ; 3 I I I . 4 6 . 1 f f ; 1 9 6 . i 2 ( ? ) ; 22ff; 197.17fr; 32ff; ig8.2off; 199.21fr 3. P r o b a b l y not f r o m the Preaching·, it differs in type of content f r o m the Preaching material w h i c h precedes it in this passage of C l e m e n t , and it circulated separately (Eus., HE V . 18.14, w h e r e it is reported as α»? eV 7ταραδόσςως).

28


1.20

THE LETTER

ών

μεταφέρων

(cf. I I . 4 6 6 . 9 ) ; 206.17fr; 2 3 o . 2 f f ( ? ) . O f these 11 passages, the last 8 c o m e f r o m works of C l e m e n t n o w lost, a n d at least 1 is o f t y p i c a l l y gnostic c o n t e n t — I I I . 1 9 9 . 2 i f , f r o m Eus., HE I I . i . 4 f , w h i c h reports t h a t C l e m e n t said Ίακώβω καί Πίτραι

μετά

την άνάστασιν

παρεδωκεν

την γνώσιν

τ ω δι καίω καί 'Ιωάννη

ό κύριος. It is precisely f r o m

these apostles a n d P a u l that C l e m e n t claims his teachers h a d r e c e i v e d , e v i d e n t l y b y p r i v a t e tradition, a n d h a n d e d o n to h i m the essential teachings of the L o r d . T h u s I I . 9 . 4 f f : Ol μεν την αληθή της μα καμίας σώζοντες άπο Πέτρου

τε και Ιακώβου,

πατρός εκδεχόμενος καταθησόμενοι

'Ιωάννου

διδασκαλίας

παράδοσιν

τε και Παύλου των άγιων αποστόλων

. . . ήκον δη συν Θεω και εις ημάς τά προγονικά εκείνα και

σπέρματα.

παις

ευθύς παρά

αποστολικά

T h i s is not m e r e l y the p u b l i c C h r i s t i a n tradition. See the

c o n t e x t of the passage (it has b e e n q u o t e d a b o v e , o n ύποσημαίνων,

1 . 1 7 ) . I t definitely

refers to a b o d y of secret doctrine. O t h e r gnostics also c l a i m e d to h a v e secret traditions d e r i v e d f r o m P e t e r ; C l e m e n t mentions p a r t i c u l a r l y the followers of Basilides, w h o s e teacher, G l a u c i a s , h a d b e e n Peter's " i n t e r p r e t e r " ( I I I . 7 5 . 1 6 ) , a n d those o f V a l e n t i n u s , w h o s e teacher h a d been T h e o d a s , a n a c q u a i n t a n c e of Paul's. T h e books a c c e p t e d as a u t h o r i t a t i v e b y C l e m e n t a n d his f r i e n d s — t h o s e books of w h i c h some e v e n t u a l l y b e c a m e " T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t " — s e e m to h a v e said n o t h i n g of G l a u c i a s a n d T h e o d a s , b u t some books a c c e p t e d as a u t h o r i t a t i v e b y Basilides a n d his friends similarly said n o t h i n g of Peter's " i n t e r p r e t e r , " M a r k (Eus., HE

I I I . 3 9 . 1 5 ) or o f

P a u l ' s a c q u a i n t a n c e , L u k e ( u n k n o w n e v e n to Papias), f r o m w h o m the p a r t y C l e m e n t represents c l a i m e d to h a v e g o t t e n their traditions. A n d Basilides (fl. ca. 135) w a s c o n s i d e r a b l y earlier t h a n C l e m e n t (fl. 1 7 5 - 2 0 0 ) . T h e c l a i m to h a v e apostolic t r a d i tions w a s c o m m o n in the a n c i e n t c h u r c h a n d , since n e w apostolic traditions w e r e discovered to settle n e w disputes as t h e y arose, it must h a v e b e e n b e l i e v e d t h a t the traditions h a d been secret before the times of their f o r t u n a t e discovery. T h e r e f o r e , this c o m m o n m e t h o d of doctrinal a r g u m e n t presupposes

a general

belief in

a

considerable b o d y of secret apostolic traditions to w h i c h privileged m e m b e r s o f the c l e r g y [and p e r h a p s other p r i v i l e g e d persons—-J.R.] h a d access. F o r e x a m p l e , see the m a t e r i a l q u o t e d f r o m Eusebius b y H o l l , 175, o n the c l a i m of a secret tradition a b o u t the d a t e of the P a s c h a [and cf. Eus., HE V . 2 5 — A . D . N . ] . T h e system b y w h i c h the dates o f the festivals w e r e set w a s a most i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t of the secret d o c t r i n e o f the S a m a r i t a n s , a n d p r o b a b l y also o f the Q u m r a n sect ( B o w m a n , Calendar 24,27), as o f r a b b i n i c J u d a i s m . O n the p u b l i c tradition a b o u t secret traditions, see A . D . N o c k in Gnomon 29 (1957) 5 2 7 - 5 2 8 .

εξ ων μεταφερων.

Έκ

is used to refer to t a k i n g m a t e r i a l f r o m a b o o k or books,

in I I . 4 3 5 . 3 ; a g a i n , w i t h μετάφερε ιν, as here (II.442.20f) Αριστοφάνης πρώταις

Θεσμοφοριαζούσαις

τά εκ των Κρατίνου

Έμπιπραμένων

μετηνεγκεν

. . . iv

ταΐς

επη.

The

c o n t e x t is c o n c e r n e d w i t h e x a m p l e s of p l a g i a r i s m , so the v e r b almost certainly m e a n s " t o o k o v e r , " not " r e m o d e l e d " ; cf. line 10 of the s a m e p a g e , Εΰροις δ' αν . . . "Ομηρον . . . κατά λεζιν μετενηνοχότα

παρ' Όρφεως

εκ τοΰ Διονύσου

29

αφανισμού.


I.20-2I

THE LETTER

1.2 I els το πρώτον

αυτού βφλίον

τα τοις προκόπτουσι

πβρί την

γνώσιν

εις. Clement uses with μεταφερειν, but metaphorically, III. 171.31. The literal use is, of course, well established; e.g., Plato, Timaeus 73ε. πρώτον. For πρότερον; so II.442.20ff, quoted above; also III.118.4; noted by Stählin, IV.691. [Cf. Acts 1.1. W . M . C . ] βφλίον.

Frequent in this sense in Clement; II.51.3, etc.

προκόπτουσι τόντων

περί.

II.473.9ff,

περί τ ας μαθήσεις

άπολειφθησεται

τ ας εγκυκλίους

και την

τοίνυν <(ό γνωστικός)> Ελληνικην

φιλοσοφίαν.

των

προκοπ-

Parallels to

the use of περί, Mossbacher, 7of. [That προκόπτουσι is to be understood here in accord with this usage of Clement's, as meaning "whatever things make for headway" rather than " t h e persons advancing" toward gnosis, is proved by the concluding phrase of the sentence, where των τελείουμενων makes the antithesis to των κατηχουμενων above. Were not the sense of προκόπτουσι that indicated by the Clementine parallel, the antithesis would be spoiled by its intrusion and the last phrase would be tautologous. Parallels are found in Thuc., IV.60.2, and Sextus Emp., Pyrroneion Hypotyposeon II.240. A.D.N. C.H.R. comments, " προκόπτω appears with τά εργα as its subject in a third century papyrus quoted in F. Preisigke, Papyruswörterbuch·, but I find it very hard to take it here otherwise than in a personal sense." A.W. is of the opinion that τοις προκόπτουσι "must" stand for "the persons advancing." He observes that the προκοπτόντων in Thuc. IV.60.2 has a personal subject, while in Sextus Emp. Pyr. Hyp. II.240 the subject is τον λόγον. W . V . is of the same opinion, remarking that if τοις προκόπτουσι refers to the persons we have an orderly progression, των κατηχουμενων—τοις προκόπτουσι—των τελειουμενων, in which this second term is a necessary connective between the first and the third.] But if so, how are we to explain that by adding to his text things suitable for τοΐ? προκόπτουσι he produced a gospel for the use of των τελειουμενων? This difficulty seems to me to require either the unlikely equation of rots- προκόπτουσι with των τελειουμενων or the translation proposed by A.D.N, and confirmed by the striking parallel in Clement. [But why, then, κατάλληλα?

W o u l d n ' t τά προκύπτοντα

περι την γνώσιν

b e e n o u g h ? Β . Ε . ] N o , the

meaning is not the same. Clement's point is that Mark did not write down the essentials of the secret doctrine, but merely things suitable to lead the initiates toward these essentials. It would seem, therefore, that Clement's wording here is precise (and precisely answers the objection that the letter cannot be by him because he thought the gnostic tradition unwritten; see below, on συνεταξε). γνώσιν.

I I I . 3 6 . 2 9 ; 142.3, εκ πίστεως

και φόβου προκόφας

εις γνώσιν

άνθρωπος.

This

phrase expresses those conceptions of faith as inferior to knowledge, and of the believer's advance from faith to knowledge, which are also implied by the letter and by many other passages in Clement's works: e.g., III.41-42; II.187.33f.

30


THE LETTER

1.21

κατάλληλα συνέταξε κατάλληλα. 268.2; etc.

Frequent with the dative, and of spiritual suitability: e.g., 1.149.25;

συνίταξΐ. C l e m e n t regularly uses this for the composition of books, I V . 734 (13 instances). A tradition that M a r k wrote in E g y p t is preserved b y Chrysostom and certain N T M S S ; Swete. xxxix. [In this account of M a r k ' s writing a second, " m o r e spiritual," Gospel W . V . finds the principal theological motive of the letter and the conclusive proof that it is not b y Clement. C l e m e n t knows a gnostic tradition within the C h u r c h , but for him the characteristic of this tradition is that it is unwritten; cf. V ö l k e r , 363^ Gnosis is that κατά διαδοχά? els όλίγους eV των αποστόλων άγράφως παρα8οθεΐσα (II.462.28f). Accordingly, C l e m e n t says explicitly ουκ ίγραφον 8e oi npeaßvrepoi ( I I I . 144.26), and only this fact explains w h y the Stromateis begin w i t h Clement's self-defense for h a v i n g broken with this custom and written down the tradition. Consequently I I I . 1 4 5 . 5 - 1 5 cannot m e a n that the gnostics within the C h u r c h had secret books; the reference must be merely to written confirmatory evidence of the oral tradition, in the sense of Stromateis I . i ( = I I . 1 . i f f ) . Consequently, too, the present letter is not b y Clement. Further evidence for this conclusion is found in the fact that the letter reflects a C h u r c h more highly institutionalized than that known to C l e m e n t — o n e w h i c h inherits property and of w h i c h presbyters are ecclesiastical officials rather than spiritual teachers (see below, on 1.28 and I I . 5 ) . T h e date of the letter is to be determined b y two considerations: on the one h a n d , the gnostic controversy is still a living issue; on the other h a n d , the ecclesiastical organization has become fixed a n d established in the ways mentioned.] H o w e v e r , it must be pointed out that: (1) This letter does not say that M a r k , in his second Gospel, wrote down the gnostic tradition. O n the contrary, it is careful to deny that he did so (1.22-24). H e merely a d d e d to his former Gospel material he knew w o u l d serve as points of departure to those instructed more fully (see above, end of the p a r a g r a p h on τοις προκόπτουσή. (2) M a r k was not a presbyter, and there is no doubt that C l e m e n t thought M a r k did write, so Clement's statement that the presbyters did not write is no evidence as to w h a t C l e m e n t thought M a r k wrote. (3) Stromateis I . i is not an apology for breaking w i t h the tradition that instruction should be oral only. C l e m e n t never in this chapter mentions a n y such tradition; on the contrary, he repeatedly takes for granted that Christian instruction is already both oral and written (11.4.24^ 6 . 1 2 ; 8.3). H e could hardly do otherwise, since he goes on in the Stromateis to quote a great deal of written Christian literature. M o r e o v e r , H a r n a c k agreed with M e r c a t i that even some of the passages C l e m e n t reports as " t r a d i t i o n s " were before h i m in written form (Fragment 903). W h e t h e r or not C l e m e n t thought any secret Christian material was in writing he does not explicitly say in this c h a p t e r ; but his concession that it is impossible that secret material, if written d o w n , should not fall into the w r o n g hands ( I I . i i-4f) w o u l d be more understandable if he h a d k n o w n of some material w h i c h had done s o — f o r instance, M a r k ' s second Gospel, w h i c h the Carpocratians h a d got hold of. Further, C l e m e n t

31


1.21-22

THE LETTER

1.22 πνεύματικώτερον

εύαγγελιον

does not, in Stromateis I . i , d e f e n d himself for w r i t i n g d o w n the gnostic tradition. Instead, he is at pains to say t h a t he d i d not w r i t e d o w n this tradition, a n d he says so in w o r d s strikingly similar to those used in this letter to say the same t h i n g a b o u t M a r k ( c o m p a r e C l e m e n t I I . 1 0 . 1 7 - 1 1 . 1 1 w i t h the letter 1 . 2 2 - 2 4

d 27). C l e m e n t ' s

an

defense in Stromateis I . i is against the c h a r g e of p r e s u m p t i o n , w h i c h m i g h t be b r o u g h t for his w r i t i n g at all, the c h a r g e of indiscretion, for m a k i n g the truth a v a i l a b l e to the w r o n g p e o p l e , a n d the c h a r g e of frivolity, for d e c k i n g out C h r i s t i a n doctrine with

philosophic

communis opinio

argumentation.

(recently

Volker's

repeated

by

misunderstanding

Osborn,

Teaching

is

340);

admittedly but

I

the

can

find

n o t h i n g in the text to j u s t i f y it, n o t h i n g w h i c h says or e v e n implies that C l e m e n t ' s u n d e r t a k i n g w a s a r a d i c a l l y n e w d e p a r t u r e or that there w e r e no previous C h r i s t i a n writings of the same sort. (Since there c e r t a i n l y w e r e , a n d C l e m e n t k n e w

them

a n d h a d m a d e excerpts f r o m t h e m , it is n o t surprising t h a t he does not d e n y their existence.) ol

(4)

πρεσβύτεροι

III.144.26-145.15 μήτε

φροντίδα . . . μηδέ

deserves q u o t a t i o n a t l e n g t h : Ουκ

άπασχολεΐν

μην

βουλόμενοι

τον . . . καιρόν

της αυτής φύσεως κατόρθωμα

την

διδασκαλικήν

καταναλίσκοντας

το συντακτικόν

εις

τοΐς εις τοΰτο πεφυκόσι συνεχώρουν. το μέν γαρ άκωλύτως τοΰ λέγοντος . . . το δέ υπό των εξετάσεως

τυγχάνον,

διδασκαλίας

βεβαίωσις,

έντυγχανόντων

άκρας καΐ της επιμελείας

παρακαταθήκη

χρήται τω γράφοντι προς την παράδοσιν γνωστικού,

παραδοΰναι, αλλ'

καΐ

τάχα

βασανιζόμενον,

ακριβούς

και έστιν οίον ειπείν

έσθ' οτε και άναζίω

ΰπό πολλής

λιπαρώς

την επίμονη ν τοΰ δεομένου μελετώντας

διά τής γραφής

(els σωτηρίavy

διά τοΰτο γάρ και ζητεί κινδυνεύει

πότερον

τής

δεομένω

άναζίω

ού μόνον

κοινωνησειν,

ουδέ

της

έγγραφος

παραπεμπομένης λαλούσα

των εντευζομένων

χείρον,

αγάπης

δέ

πεπεισμένοι

και μετά ρύμης φέρεται ρεΰμα

εκάστοτε άξιοΰται,

δέ

παραδόσεως

είδος εΐναι

και εις τους όφιγόνους οΰτως διά της συντάξεως

της φωνής, ή γάρ των πρεσβυτέρων άπείη

γραφην.

καΐ διδασκαλικόν

έγραφον

τής

υπουργώ

. . . φθόνος δέ

δουναι ή άζίω

παντι

τω

μη

προσήκοντι,

ού διά την δέησιν . . . άλλα διά

είς πίστιν διά πολλής τής δεήσεως. T h i s seems to m e

r e a s o n a b l y p l a i n a n d c o m p l e t e justification for m y statement

below

(II.5)

that

C l e m e n t t h o u g h t the t e a c h i n g of the presbyters " h a d b e e n oral, b u t n o w , w r i t t e n d o w n , f o r m e d part of the b o d y of secret C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n — a n d w a s sometimes indiscretely c o m m u n i c a t e d to the u n w o r t h y . " H o w V ö l k e r k n o w s t h a t this c a n n o t m e a n t h a t the gnostics in the C h u r c h possessed secret books, I d o not u n d e r s t a n d . Accordingly,

his basic reason for supposing the letter n o t b y C l e m e n t fails to

c o n v i n c e m e . O n the other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s — t h e C h u r c h ' s i n h e r i t a n c e of p r o p e r t y , the use o f " p r e s b y t e r " to refer to a c h u r c h o f f i c i a l — s e e b e l o w , o n 1.28 (κατέλιπε) II.5

and

(πρεσβύτερον).

πνευματικώτερον θεοφορηθέντα

εύα γγέλιον.

πνευματικόν

I I I . i g 7 . 2 7 f f , τον μέντοι

ποιήσαι

εύαγγέλιον.

Ίωάννην

έσχατο ν . . .

πνεύματι

T h i s is Eusebius' report ( H E V I . 14.7)

o f w h a t C l e m e n t said in the lost Hypotyposes; it is c o n f i r m e d b y the L a t i n version o f C l e m e n t ' s Adumbrationes on I J o h n ( I I I . 2 0 9 . 2 5 f ) , Consequenter evangelio secundum Iohannem

32


THE LETTER

els την των τζλειονμβνων

1.22

χρησιν

et convenienter etiam haec epistola principium spiritale continet. Clement uses the comparative form of the adjective in II.465.34fr: στοιχειωτική τις έστιν η μερική αυτή φιλοσοφία, της τίλΐίας όντως επιστήμης επόκεινα κόσμου ττίρι τα νοητά και ΐτι τούτων τά nvevματικώτίρα αναστρςφομένης. ττνευματικώτερον as an adverb, to describe an understanding of the hidden sense of Christian teachings, II.370.i8f. Here it is used to describe Mark's second Gospel as " m o r e spiritual" than his first because it contained or indicated more of the hidden sense of Jesus' teachings and actions. [Contrast, however, the opinion o f J . M . : " T h e central feature of the letter . . . is the importance ascribed to . . . Mark in Alexandria and his authority as a writer of gospel literature . . . W e have no tradition, as far as I know, about his connection with Alexandria before Eusebius (HE II. 16). Some details could be used to argue in favor of the dependence of the author of the letter on Eusebius: W h e n Eusebius tells about the spiritual Gospel of J o h n (HE V I . 14.5-7 · · ·) after speaking of the Gospel of Mark, a later author identifying M a r k with J o h n ('John, called Mark,' Acts 12.25; 1 5-37) could understand this text as meaning that Mark, after writing his canonical Gospel, h a d composed another more spiritual Gospel. As smaller items I should like to mention the use of αναγράφω in HE VI.14.6 and in the letter 1.16, and Eusebius' use of the word υπόμνημα about the Gospel of M a r k (HE I I . 15.1) and the use of the word in the plural in the letter I.igf. It is possible that the letter tries to combine the two traditions about M a r k — t h a t he wrote his Gospel before the death of Peter (Clement) and after it (Irenaeus)—by stating that M a r k wrote one Gospel before and another one after the death of Peter (both opinions are mentioned by Eusebius)."] et'? . . . χρησιν. III.36.2, ΐίς την τούτων χρησιν . . . τά πάντα γέγονεν. Clement regularly uses εις to indicate objectives; Mossbacher, 56f. των τΐλαουμενων. These might be baptized persons, as opposed to the catechumens above. Thus 1.105.20fr lists the immediate consequences of baptism: βαπτιζόμενοι φωτιζόμΐθα, φωτιζόμενοι υίοποιούμεθα, υίοποιούμενοι τελειούμεθα, τΐλειούμενοι άπαθανατιζόμΐθα. [But if τΐλειουμένων referred to baptism it would mean either persons in the process of being baptized or those on the road to it, who would be identical with the catechumens. A.D.N. But C.F.D.M. suggests that the participles in this passage are " f r e q u e n t a t i v e " ; κατηχουμόνων = " a n y who (from time to time) become c a t e c h u m e n s " ; προκάπτουσι = " a n y who (at any given time) are advancing," a n d so τΐλειουμενων and μυουμίνους, cf. Gal 6.13.] Richardson's discovery that Mk. 10.13-45 was probably a lection for a baptismal service makes it not unlikely that τελείου μένων here means "persons in the process of being b a p t i z e d " and that Clement thought the additions were made to adapt the Gospel for catechetic a n d liturgical use in the Christian initiation. However, the questions raised by Richardson's discovery require more discussion than can be undertaken in this commentary; they will be dealt with in section I I I of Chapter Three. Here it is enough to say that Clement's notion of τΐλείωσις is very h a r d to define and certainly 33


THE LETTER

1.22

makes possible the interpretation of τελειουμένων

as referring either to baptism or to some initiatory ceremony other than baptism or to a long process of perfection in gnosis. T h e last of these possibilities is clearly indicated by the discussion in I . 1 0 5 121, following the passage quoted above. There Clement explains that the consequences he has listed are present only potentially (106.30^ ούδε'πω . . . άπείληφεν την τελείαν δωρεάν) a n d that even P a u l h a d to say (121.1 o f f ) '' ούχ ότι ήδη ελαβον ή ήδη τετελείωμαι,

διώκω δε ει και καταλάβω " . . . καϊ τέλειον μεν εαυτόν ηγείται, οτι

τοΰ προτέρου βίου, έχεται δέ τοΰ κρείττονος,

άπήλλακται

ούχ ώς εν γνώσει τέλειος, αλλ' ώς τοΰ τελείου

εφιέμενος. D e v e l o p i n g the thought of this passage, C l e m e n t conceives of τελείωσις as a process which m a y affect only one or another aspect of a Christian's l i f e — one may be perfected in piety or endurance or prophecy, and so on (II.305.19ff; 307. i8fif)—but when he writes of " p e r f e c t i o n " without further specification he means perfection in gnosis (Völker, 30if). H e sharply distinguishes the gnostic from the mere believer (II.298.23frand often, esp. 485, 487; I I I . 3 7 . i f f ; 42.8; 60.2; etc.) and thinks of the gnostic's being perfected as a process normally continuing throughout the Christian's earthly life (cf. V ö l k e r , 151, esp. n2). E . g . , II.307.4fr, σπευστεον άπανδροΰσθαι γνωστικώς τελείας

καΐ τελειοΰσθαι

ενθενδε όμοφροσύνης

άποκατάστασιν

της τω

ώς οτι μάλιστα

μελετήσαντας

δντι τελείας

ετι εν σαρκΐ

συνδραμεΐν

ευγενείας

τω

καταμενοντας,

θελήματι

τε και συγγενείας

εκ

της

τοΰ Θεοΰ είς

την

είς το πλήρωμα

τοΰ

Χριστοΰ. But he thinks its goal can be anticipated by the gnostic already in this life, I I I . 3 0 . 3 0 f f , ο γνωστικός Θεω,

καταλελοιπέναι

παρά όλον εύχεται τον βίον, δι'εύχής

δε, συνελόντι

αν ενθενδε ήδη την τελείωσιν

ειπείν,

άπειληφώς

πάντα

σννεΐναι μεν

δσα μη χρησιμεύει

γενομένω

τοΰ κατά άγάπην (ήν^δρωμένου

σπεύδων εκεΐ,

ώς

( a c c e p t i n g the

emendations of Tengblad, 96, and of Stählin, against Lazzati, 92). T h e achievement is never absolutely complete on earth (II.330.13), but is made almost complete (II.467.15ff; 468-469; 485fr) by the gift of gnosis. Both Clement and this letter conceive the gift of gnosis as a process of instruction in elements of the Christian tradition, including the Lord's teaching (III.42.5)—instruction given only to chosen candidates after considerable probation and leading eventually to deification (II. 367.3; 460.20; 462.24). So, esp., I I I . 4 0 . 2 i f f - 4 i . 2 5 : "Εστίν γαρ... ή γνώσις τελείωσίς

τις ανθρώπου ώς ανθρώπου,

τε τον τρόπον θείω λόγω. τε

άρχή

διαδιδομένη

διά ταύτης και

τό

γάρ τελειοΰται

τέλος,'

πίστις

λέγω

σύμφωνος

εγχειρίζεται

δείοις καϊ εγκρίτοις

εαυτή

και

ή

επίτασιν

παρασκευής

καϊ εις καταστολήν προεληλυθέναι"

άγάπη,

ή γνώσις

δε εκ

τών

άλλων

τω

καΐ προγυμνασίας

παρεχομενοις

τοις είς τοΰτο δεΐσθαι

αΰτη προς τέλος

άγει τό άτελεύτητον

Θεών,

τών

ΰπό τω

. . . Θεοί την

σωτήρι

πρώτων

η

παραδόσεως οίον έττιτη-

και προς τό

βίου και είς τό επί πλέον τής κατά νόμον

προδιδάσκουσα τήν εσομενην ήμιν κατά τον Θεόν μετά Θεώνδίαιταν οί σύνθρονοι

κατά

τε και

ή πίστις . . . και τά μεν άκρα ου διδάσκεται,

. . . δθεν επί τελεί ή γνώσις παραδίδοται

διά τό πλείονος

άκουειν τών λεγόμενων

κεκληνται,

συμπληρουμενη

και ομόλογος

κατά χάριν Θεοΰ τοις άξιους σφάς αυτούς τής διδασκαλίας

παρακαταθήκη

σύνης κατ'

διά της των θείων επιστήμης

και τον βίον και τον λόγον,

και

δικαιοτελείον,

προσηγοριαν τεταγμένων,

γενησόμενοι. For further discussion of the problem see, besides Völker, especially the articles of Butterworth, Lebreton, Moingt, and Wytzes. Particularly important is M e h a t , Ordres, which shows that Clement distinguished three classes of " philosophic a l , " that is, Christian, material: the protreptic, for complete outsiders; the pedagogic 34


1.22

THE LETTER

ούδεπω

(paraenetic), for c a t e c h u m e n s and o r d i n a r y C h r i s t i a n s ; the didascalic, for the a d v a n c e d students, the gnostics. M e h a t

concludes that this classification of philosophical

m a t e r i a l reflects the system of instruction used in C l e m e n t ' s c h u r c h . H e c o m m e n t s , P· 3 5 7 : " I t is surprising to see t h a t (within this system) the c a t e c h u m e n a t e does not constitute a p e c u l i a r phase. O n the other h a n d , the distinction b e t w e e n the neophytes, still subject to e l e m e n t a r y instruction, a n d the m o r e a d v a n c e d Christians w h o are initiated into the true doctrine, o u g h t to be g i v e n m o r e attention t h a n it has hitherto received. F o r m y p a r t , I think the origin of this distinction lies in a c o m m o n p r a c t i c e of the C h u r c h , established long before C l e m e n t ' s time, a n d g o i n g m u c h further b a c k t h a n is g e n e r a l l y s u p p o s e d . "

ονδίπω.

Initial, I I . 3 8 5 . 2 1 ; m e a n i n g " n o t y e t , " i.e., " h e d i d not g o so far as t o , "

I I . 4 6 0 . 2 9 ; 469.23; 483.19. [So A . W . a n d B . E . C . F . D . M . here o b s e r v e d : " I t seems to m e that a case c a n be m a d e ( t h o u g h I c o u l d not m a k e it w i t h d e e p conviction) for C l e m e n t ' s i n t e n d i n g three d o c u m e n t s : (1) τό πρώτον βιβλίον

(i.e. c a n o n i c a l M k . )

c o m p i l e d at R o m e d u r i n g Peter's lifetime a n d c o n t a i n i n g select p r a x e i s ; (2) the πνευματικώτερον

εύαγγέλιον,

a n e n l a r g e d edition of (1) a m p l i f i e d b y such m a t e r i a l

f r o m Peter's a n d M a r k ' s hypomnemata as M a r k t h o u g h t a p p r o p r i a t e for a n y

who

m a d e progress in k n o w l e d g e a n d w e r e initiates, or c a n d i d a t e s for initiation; (3) a mystic gospel, a n e n l a r g e m e n t of (2) b y a d d i t i o n a l praxeis a n d logia of a m y s t i c a l sort. T h e a r g u m e n t s t h a t m i g h t b e used for distinguishing (3) are as f o l l o w s : (a) ούδεπω

όμως

seems n a t u r a l l y to i m p l y not less t h a n t w o p r e c e d i n g stages,

not e v e n n o w ' . . .; (b) m y no. 2 is called πνευματικώτερον

a n d related to ol

'yet,

τελειοΰμενοι,

w h e r e a s there a r e other a n d m o r e ' m y s t i c ' terms w h i c h o n l y b e g i n to a p p e a r at m y Stage (3), viz. τά απόρρητα, ή Ιεροφαντικη διδασκαλία, o f t h a t phrase), αύτοί μόνοι OL μυούμενοι

τα μεγάλα

μυσταγωγεΐν

μυστήρια,

(and the w h o l e

το μυστικόν

εύαγγίλιον,

(c) to a c h i e v e a reference to o n l y t w o , one has to m a k e several r a t h e r difficult assumptions, viz. (1) ούδίπω

m e a n s ' n o t yet (and i n d e e d n e v e r ) ' ;

(2) the

αλλά

clause w h i c h follows ( i n c l u d i n g the ετι phrase in it) has to be t a k e n in a ' b u t o n l y ' sense a n d treated as a m e r e a m p l i f i c a t i o n of w h a t has a l r e a d y been described in r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t t e r m s — t e r m s relating o n l y to ol τελειούμενοι

a n d to praxeis w i t h o u t

l o g i a ; (3) since, b y assumption no. 1, αυτά τά απόρρητα never w e r e written d o w n b y M a r k a n d τό αύτοΰ σύγγραμμα

does not represent t h e m , the rest of the C l e m e n t

f r a g m e n t must be a b o u t s o m e t h i n g less than the most esoteric m a t e r i a l . " interpretation, h o w e v e r , M o u l e a b a n d o n e d after discussion w i t h M a u r i c e w h o a r g u e d to the c o n t r a r y that in C l e m e n t ' s v i e w τά απόρρητα written d o w n

(Stromateis 1 . 1 3 . 2 ; V I . 6 1 . 3 ) ,

This Wiles,

o u g h t not to be

that C l e m e n t ' s m e n t i o n of t h e m

was

i n t e n d e d to assure T h e o d o r e that a l t h o u g h the C a r p o c r a t i a n s h a d g o t h o l d of the secret G o s p e l they h a d not learned the highest secrets, a n d that the use of ούδεπω r a t h e r t h a n ουδέποτε,

a l t h o u g h surprising, was not a serious objection.] T o the best

of m y recollection, o n l y one other reader of the letter, R i c h a r d s o n , t h o u g h t it m i g h t possibly refer to three versions of the G o s p e l , a n d he also g a v e u p the notion.

35


THE LETTER

1.22-23

1.23 ομως

αυτά

τ ά απόρρητα

ζζωρχησατο,

ovSe

κατέγραψε

όμως. Postpositive, with the sense it has here, 1.283.21, where, as here, it follows a vowel. τά απόρρητα. Τά δε απόρρητα . . . λόγω πιστεύεται, ού γράμματι (this ofJ e s u s ' teaching). I I . 1 0 . 3 ; 1 0 . 1 7 f r , η μεν οΰν τώνδε' μοι των υπομνημάτων γραφή . . . επαγγέλλεται . . . ούχ ώ σ τ ε ερμηνεΰσαι

τ ά άπόρρητα

ικανώς,

πολλοΰ γε καί Set, μόνον δε τ ο ύπομνησαι.

This

use of τά άπόρρητα for the mysteries of Christian teaching is frequent in Clement. εξωρχησατο.

I I . 1 4 . 1 3 f r , μέγας

ό κίνδυνος τον άπόρρητον

ώς αληθώς

της όντως

φιλοσο-

φίας λόγον ΐξορχήσασθαι. This was a common word for revealing the rites of mystery cults (Lucian, De saltatione 15), and Clement uses it of them as well as of Christian mysteries, 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 . [See Nilsson, I 2 .656. A.D.N. For the content, see Origen's statement on Mt. 2 0 . 1 - 1 6 that Matthew knew, but withheld, the secret interpretations of the parables, GCS, Origenes, vol. 10, 1.2, p. 441. J . M . ] κατέγραφε. In this sense, II.302.15; used of formally written records, Plato, Laws 741c. Clement believed that in Christian tradition ην γάρ τίνα άγράφως παραδιδόμενα, ΙΙ.368.2; and he insisted that it was this unwritten tradition which was most important for the instruction of the gnostic, II.462.24fr; 4 9 8 . 1 5 f r . In this the letter and Clement agree. Clement's claim to a secret tradition has been emphasized by Lebreton, 4 9 3 f r , and is recognized even by Lazzati, 69; Bardy, Origenes 73; and Mondesert, Clement 47-62, n o and Symbolisme 161, 176-180; etc. The most penetrating study of the problem is that of Mondesert, who begins (51-55) by pointing out that many supposed instances of this claim are really examples of propaedeutic method or reflections of the Platonic tradition and of the allegorical theory of exegesis; but he goes on to recognize that beside these explanations one must admit that Clement claimed there was a secret body of doctrine, revealed by Christ to Peter, James, and John, and handed down orally to Clement's own time (56-57). This secret doctrine is not the ordinary ecclesiastical tradition ( n o ) , but is linked with a special Christian initiation by which it is communicated, not to all Christians, but to a chosen few. It thus constitutes a "second gnosis," distinct from the philosophical gnosis of which Clement usually wrote (161, 176, 180). Mondesert points out that this notion is contradictory not only to the philosophical system, but also " t o the profound thought and even to the mentality of Clement"—his sympathy for all men, his belief in God's universal self-revelation, etc. (57). Mondesert also remarks that this notion is absolutely contrary to the Christian concept of tradition as the living magistracy of the entire Church (58), a concept beginning to prevail in the Alexandrian Christianity οΓ Clement's time (though it may not have been so important earlier). These observations are acute and from them it follows that Clement did not himself invent this secret doctrine and its claims; nor did he derive it from

36


THE LETTER

1.23

the contemporary tendencies of the church of A l e x a n d r i a . W h e n c e , then, did he get it ? A n d w h y did he feel that he h a d to accept it in spite of its contradiction of his o w n temperament a n d theories? Presumably it was there and he believed its claims. Mondesert's suppositions that it was merely pretense, " a n esoteric a t t i t u d e , " or that C l e m e n t thought he h a d a secret doctrine although he actually did not (61) are implausible in the face of his o w n observation of the fact: in Clement's theory the secret doctrine is an alien a n d intrusive element. T h i s fact c a n be understood in the light of the present letter. [ C o m m e n t i n g on this p a r a g r a p h , C . M . w r o t e : " J e suis d ' a c c o r d avec tout votre commentaire dans son ensemble et m e m e pour votre rem a r q u e sur la page 61 de m o n l i v r e . " See also W . J . ' s remarks in the following p a r a g r a p h . J . M . , on the other hand, w r o t e : " T h e most important objection against ascribing the letter to C l e m e n t is that he knew only the apostolic writings, e.g., the Gospel of M a r k , and the oral tradition from the apostles w h i c h he had obtained through his teachers, the presbyters (Stromateis I . n . i f f ) . E v e r y link in this transmission of the tradition was, in his words, ' a son receiving it from his father.' T h e great change in the transmission is effected b y C l e m e n t himself b y his writings where he publishes the tradition from the apostles w h i c h his teachers h a d given him. I find it impossible to believe that C l e m e n t could write that Peter a n d M a r k left υπομνήματα. I n that case his words on the transmission of the apostolic tradition in the Stromateis w o u l d be completely un-understandable. T h e author of the letter has divided the Christian tradition into three parts, the first being represented b y the Gospel of M a r k where some of the acts (πράξεις) of the L o r d have been written down, not all, a n d not the mystical acts, but those w h i c h were most useful to help the faith of the catechumens. T h e second w a y of expressing the Christian tradition is found in the mystical Gospel of M a r k . H e r e M a r k introduced material from his o w n a n d Peter's ' n o t e s ' . . . a n d in this w a y he brought together a more spiritual gospel to be used for those w h o are being initiated . . . T h e third kind of tradition is characterized b y the subjects w h i c h M a r k did not include in his more spiritual gospel (1.23). I do not think C l e m e n t w o u l d consent to a threefold division of the Christian tradition b y w h i c h the oral tradition was divided u p in an already written tradition from those w h o had been eyewitnesses to the acts of the L o r d (Peter and M a r k ) and then the tradition w h i c h was transmitted only orally. But this threefold division might be more natural at a later time in the history of the C h u r c h . " ] W h e n ? After C l e m e n t the determination of the canon goes forward steadily. Consequently C l e m e n t , of all early Christian writers w h o can pretend to orthodoxy, is the one most receptive of " n o n c a n o n i c a l " writings claiming apostolic authorship. A b o u t Peter he undoubtedly believed that, besides his canonical Epistle, the apostle had left his Apocalypse, his Preaching, a n d considerable other material, some of w h i c h he thought preserved in written f o r m ; see above, 1.19-20, on υπομνήματα. Consequently I see no justification for M u n c k ' s confidence that C l e m e n t cannot have believed that Peter left " p a p e r s " and that material d r a w n from these was incorporated into a second edition of M a r k ' s Gospel. As for the c o m m o n misunderstanding of the beginning of the Stromateis, see item (3) of m y comments on Völker's remarks, in the p a r a g r a p h on συνέταξε above, 1.21. 37


1.23 την

THE LETTER

Ιςροφαντικην

Ιΐροφανπκήν.

διδασκαλίαν

Ι . Ι 6 · 3 , of p a g a n mysteries; cf. 1.84.25, ίΐροφαντΐΐ

Se ό κύριος,

of

Christian mysteries. [ O n this W . J . wrote, in substance: T h e letter seems to contradict those w h o have a tendency to interpret a w a y or attenuate the existence in C l e m e n t of a theory of a n esoteric Christian doctrine, because they feel that it is not consistent w i t h his belief in the Christian religion as a universal message to all. I w o u l d not dare to expect in C l e m e n t a n y t h i n g like logical or philosophical consistency; a n d Christianity w o u l d remain a message to all, b y the w a y , even if it h a d room for some kind of esoteric knowledge. T h e truth, as all the fathers of the C h u r c h believed, is not c o m m u n i c a b l e to all m e n in the same w a y a n d b y the same means, a n d the capacity of the h u m a n m i n d to understand these things is v e r y limited at best. W h o e v e r assumes different levels of interpretation must differentiate also between those w h o can see only the literal m e a n i n g a n d others w h o can penetrate deeper. W e should refrain from letting our m o d e r n ideas or preferences influence our historical j u d g m e n t . T h e r e was a strong tendency at Clement's time, a n d in him most of all, to construe Christianity as a philosophy; a n d , as I h a v e said before, c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophical schools insisted on finding a n esoteric a n d a n exoteric form of teaching in almost every system. T h i s must h a v e influenced the w a y Christians looked for their o w n " p h i l o s o p h y " from the beginning, a n d every new, private interpretation given b y individual Christians or gnostics could be justified only b y saying that it was not to be f o u n d in the previous tradition of the C h u r c h because it h a d been kept secret. T h e letter makes clear that C l e m e n t does believe in a n esoteric Christian tradition a n d thinks that the gnostics h a v e something to do w i t h it, but h a v e got their k n o w l edge of it in a n illegal w a y a n d h a v e corrupted its content. M o s t striking is the consistent use throughout the letter of terminology derived from the mysteries; this is f o u n d in C l e m e n t ' s other works as well, but is more concentrated in this letter t h a n elsewhere because the letter deals w i t h this question, a n d the words are not merely a stylistic device. I h a v e always felt a n d t a u g h t that Clement's polemic against p a g a n religion is most violent w h e n he impugns the mystery religions. It is obvious that they were to h i m the only serious competition for Christianity, since they were still living religion, involving a personal relation of the individual believer to G o d . But this letter proves that the competition of Christianity w i t h the mysteries has influenced the form of the Christian religion itself most strongly, so that a G r e g o r y of Nyssa could say that in the Christian religion the mystery is far more i m p o r t a n t than the d o g m a . H e saw it in the Christian worship, w h i c h he interpreted a l w a y s in this sense. So he solved the p r o b l e m of the " f e w " a n d the " m a n y . " I n C l e m e n t they were still sharply divided.] See also Jaeger's published remarks, Christianity 56f a n d n22.

δίδασκα λίαν.

T h i s is Clement's favorite w o r d for " t e a c h i n g " ; he rarely uses διδαχή,

the c o m m o n early Christian term. H e often uses διδασκαλία with τοΰ Κυρίου, I V . 3 4 0 ( ί ο references).

38


1.23-25

THE LETTER

1.24 τον

Κυρίου,

αλλά

ταΐς

προγεγραμμέναις

πράζζσιν

έπιθΐίς

και

αλλας,

£τι

Ι·25/ προσεπ~ηγαγ€ αλλά.

λόγια

τίνα

ων

ηπιστατο

A favorite conjunction of Clement's, used probably, on an average, more than

once a p a g e ; so 1 . 3 . 1 5 ; 4.4 a n d 18; 5.3 a n d 19; 7.10 a n d 14; 8 . 1 ; 9.4; etc. •προγεγραμμίναις. N o t in Clement's preserved works, but twice in Eusebius' reports of his lost statements, I I I . 1 9 7 . 1 9 ; 201.22. [ C . H . R . observes that προγεγραμμίνος, equivalent to the English " a f o r e s a i d , " is so c o m m o n from the fourth century o n w a r d in documents of all kinds that he w o u l d lay no weight on its occurrence here. W . M . C . remarks on the frequency of forms of the perfect tense in this letter, b y contrast w i t h their comparative rarity in classical Greek, for w h i c h see C l o u d . ] This frequency is paralleled in the recognized works of Clement. It is probably an atticizing trait; see Kilpatrick, Atticism 136. T h e letter, apart from the quotations from the secret Gospel, has 12 perfects in about 560 words (or 13, if έξήντληται is read in I I . 9 ) ; the first two pages sampled in S t ä h l i n — 1 1 . 6 4 - 6 5 — y i e l d e d 11 perfects in approximately 450 words. πράξΐσιν.

Cf. above, on 1.16.

eViöet'y. T h e same form is used, as here, of literary addition, with accusative, II.305.6. [However, in II.305.6 the e'möei? occurs as phrase έπιθεΐναι τον κολοφώνα. A p a r t from this phrase, emöeii>αί τι τοις is not very c o m m o n in Clement's time; the ordinary w o r d w o u l d be cf. A p o c . 22.18. A . W . ] άλλα?.

the dative a n d part of the set προγεγραμμίνοις προσθίΐναι; but

" O t h e r s of same k i n d , " e.g., 1.3.6 and 8, etc.

e n . T h e sentence structure (participle, I n , main verb), I I I . 169.17 (also in negative form, I I . 2 3 3 . 2 i f ) . προσίπήγαγε.

T h e same form, as here, of literary addition, 1.265.10.

λόγια. C l e m e n t has τά λόγια τον κυρίου in I I I . 1 6 1 . 1 4 and probably 1.225.4^ H e r e he might have felt the specifying genitive was adequately replaced b y the context; he evidently did so in 1.289.27, where τά λόγια are the sayings of Jesus. ών.

T h e relative pronoun in the genitive as a connective, 1.256.21

(also w i t h

επίσταμαι and infinitive). ήπίστατο.

T h e same form, also with infinitive, in a strikingly similar context,

I I . 10.if, αντίκα

ού πολλοίς

άπΐκάλνφίν

<(ό Ίησοΰς)

α μη πολλών ήν, ολίγοις δε, ots

προσήκΐΐν ήπίστατο, TOIS oiois re εκδεξασθαι και τυπωθηναι προς αυτά.

39


1.25-26

THE LETTER

I.26 την

εζήγησιν

εζήγησιν.

μυσταγωγήσαν

τους

O f τα λόγια τοΰ κυρίου,

άκροατάς

els

τ ο αδυτον της

έπτάκις

III.l6l.I4·

μυσταγωγήσειν. Also in I I I . 1 6 1 . 1 8 where, as here, it refers to advanced instruction evidently effected by " e x e g e s i s " of " t h e Lord's sayings." Again, with the same sense, in II.320.7, where the mystery imagery is further developed with emphasis on the άρρητα. Gnostic teachers are described as μυσταγωγοί in III.75.7. T h a t Clement conceived of documents, especially the books of Scripture, and their interpretation as means of gnostic initiation is shown by Völker, 354fr. T h e method which the letter ascribes to Mark is that followed in the earliest period of rabbinic mystical speculation but already being abandoned in the time of Clement. Scholem writes, Gnosticism 31: " T a n n a i t i c tradition has it that a pupil who is found worthy to begin a study of mystical lore is given . . . only . . . 'beginnings of chapters,' whose function is only to point to the subject matter to be dealt with and leaves to the student the task of proving his understanding." For this Scholem finds evidence in the Talmud Terushalmi (hereinafter J'.) Hagigah II. 1 (77a), and he concludes that texts giving full accounts of secret doctrine are post-Tanna'itic (third century or later) " e v e n though much of the material itself may belong to the Tannaitic period—which, of course, was, at the same time, the flowering season of Gnosticism." άκροατάς.

Frequent (and, as here, without technical sense), IV.219.

είς. Not used with μυσταγωγεΐν in Clement's preserved works, but the usage was probably standard. Photius (Lexicon s.v.) gives as a meaning of μυσταγωγεϊ, "els μυστήρια

άγει."

το αδυτον. Clement was fond of άδυτα, IV.207 (g references). T h e same complex of ideas—τό αδυτον της αληθείας with the veil(s) concealing it from most, even, of the chosen people—is found in II.338.27fr, της επικρΰφεως τον τρόπον, θΐϊον όντα ως άληθως

και άναγκαιότατον

άτΐχνως

λόγον, Αιγύπτιοι

τοΰ παραπετάσματος

ημιν

<(διά τον/ ev τ ω άδυτοι της αληθείας άποκείμενον

μεν δια των παρ' αύτοΐς άδυτων καλουμένων,

ηνίξαντο,

<(δι' ου) μόνοις εξην επιβαίνειν αυτών τοις

'Εβραίοι

ιερόν δε δια

ίερωμενοις.

έπτάκις. ΙΙ.505.2. According to Β. Ketubot 106a, inf., there were seven veils at the seven gates of the Temple in Jerusalem. Goodenough has seen a reference to them in the seven walls of the Temple represented in the Dura synagogue (panel W B 3 , Jewish Symbols X I pi. X I ) , and these were probably the seven περίβολοι of the Temple which Clement knew from Jewish tradition and interpreted as symbolic of the ways in which the truth at the heart of Scripture is concealed: II.347.3flf, αΰτίκα ομολογεί την επίκρυφιν η περι τον νεών τον παλαιόν των επτά περιβόλων

πρός τι αναφορά

παρ'

Έβραίοις ίστορουμενη. (This passage is part of a long list of examples, assembled from pagan and Jewish tradition, to prove that wise men always keep their essential 40


I.26-27

THE LETTER

1.27 κεκαλυμμένης

αληθείας,

όντως

οΰν

προπαρεσκενασεν,

ού

φθονερώς

ονδ*

teachings secret; the list began with the passage cited in the preceding paragraph, II.338.27fr.) [With επτάκις compare A p o c . 5 . i f — t h e book sealed with seven seals— and also Clement, II.349.13. C . M . ] κεκαλυμμένης αληθείας. C l e m e n t uses κάλυμμα for the outer veil of the T e m p l e ' s adyton in II.347.7, the immediate sequel of the passage referred to above. In II.347.19 a n d 348.i3f he explains the veil as a means of keeping the unworthy from knowledge of the divine secrets (κάλυμμα κώλυμα λαϊκής απιστίας). In II.34O.28 the style of Greek poetry (?—ποιητική φυχαγωγία) is a curtain which concealed the theology of the poets from the vulgar. In II.13.26f the manuscript of the Stromateis r e a d s αξιόπιστος

. . . ή τοιαύτη

φυχαγωγία,

δι'ής κακουμένην

οί φιλομαθείς

παραδέχονται

την άλήθειαν. W i l a m o w i t z emended κακουμένην to κεκαλυμμένην; Stählin and M o n desert, Stromateis I, accepted the emendation; it is now confirmed by the reading of the new text. ούτως οΰν.

Initial, II.237.26; 282.2.

προπαρεσκεύασεν. II.422.17. Since LSJ s.v. reports the absolute use only of the middle forms of the verb, some object ( " t h e t e x t " ? " m a t t e r s " ? ) is probably to be understood here. [ A n object is similarly understood in Aristotle, Historia animalium 61334. Cf. the use with οπως and a verb in the future, Plato, Gorgias 503a, 51 od. A.D.Ν.] ού . . . ουδέ.

With adverbs, II.289.31; with participles, II.244.25.

φθονερως. Clement also defends from the accusation of envy his own practice of teaching only in part, I I . 1 0 . 3 2 - 1 1 . 3 : ταΰτα δε άναζωπυρών ΰπομνημασι, τα μεν εκών παραπέμπομαι

εκλέγων

επιστημόνως,

φοβούμενος

γράφειν ά και λέγειν έφυλαζάμην,

που φθόνων (ού γαρ θέμις), δεδιώς δε άρα περί των έντυγχανόντων,

μη πτ) έτέρως

etc. [ A n d in the same connection he lays d o w n the principle φθόνος δέ άπείη δια τοΰτο γαρ και ζητεί πότερον χείρον, άναζίω

δοΰναι η άξίω μη παραδοΰναι.

ού τί

σφαλεΐεν,

γνωστικού,

I I I . 145·

IQf·

A . D . N . ] . H e also quotes Barnabas to the same purpose, in defense of the secret teaching

of Jesus:

ίχνος παρατιθέμενος

Μ Αλά και

Βαρνάβας . . . ήδη

λέγει . . . " εύλογητός

σαφέστερον

(ό) κύριος ημών,

θέμενος εν ήμΐν τών κρυφίων αυτού, λέγει γαρ ό προφήτης ειμή

σοφός' . . ." έπει ολίγων

ο κύριος"

εν τινι

εύαγγελίω,

εστί ταΰτα χωρήσαι. " μυστήριον

εμόν

γνωστικής

αδελφοί,

'παραβολήν

"ού γαρ φθόνων," έμοι

και τοις

παραδόσεως

ό σοφίαν καΐ νοΰν κυρίου τις φησί,

υΐοΐς

τοΰ

νοήσει,

"παρήγγειλεν οίκου

μου"

(II.368.12-28). Clement has the adjective φθονερός (in similar context, II.116.29) but not the adverb φθονερώς, which, however, appears in Plato (Phaedrus 243c) and other classical authors (LSJ s.v.). T h e tradition goes back to Odyssey XI.38of. By contrast, Clement accuses the gnostics of secretive jealousy; Osborn, Teaching 336. 41


THE LETTER

1 . 2 7 - Π . ι

1.28 άπροφυλάκτως,

ώς

εγώ

οΐμαι.

καϊ

αποθνήσκων

καreXtve

το

αντον

II.ι σύγγραμμα

r f j εκκλησία

r f j iv Άλεξανδρεία

δπου

εισετι

νυν

άπροφυλάκτωί. Not in Clement. LSJ cites Dio Cassius, X X X V I I I . 4 1 , and Achilles Tatius, V I I I . 1. In the latter it has the same meaning as here, "incautiously." ws εγώ οΐμαι. Verbatim, I.26.10; etc., but the simple οΐμαι, inserted without reference to the construction, is much more frequent in Clement's works (IV.592). αποθνήσκων. Frequent. Stählin, IV.262, cites 11 examples and marks his entry as incomplete. Here the writer of the M S seems to have written first αποθανών and then, over ανων, νήσκ. T h e form αποθνήσκων, therefore, may represent a deliberate correction by the writer of what he found in his text. κατίλιπΐ.

I I . 3 . 5 , πότΐρον

δ' οϋδ'ολως

η τισι καταλειπτέον

συγγράμματα;

with the dative

as here. [κατέλιπε in the letter is an unmistakable claim to legitimate, testatory inheritance, no doubt by implicit contrast to the gnostics. A . D . N . That a particular church at this time should be heir to such a secret document, and should entrust its presbyters—in the sense of church officials—with the custody of it, is altogether contradictory to the practices of the period and, at about the year 200, quite unthinkable. W . V . ] Völker gives no evidence to support his comment, and I do not know of any. Long before Clement's time, the letters of Paul had been sent to particular churches and presumably preserved by them (Goodspeed, Introduction 215ff, who remarks that the practice of Paul in directing letters to individual churches was followed by Ignatius and the author of the Apocalypse). σύγγραμμα. T h e singular, meaning "composition," " w o r k , " II.59.22; 404.8. T h e συγγράμματα of the apostles, II.307.28. Cf. below, II.4, on Καρποκράτης. εκκλησία. For single communities, IV.371, sec. 2b. T h e five passages referred to by Stählin all refer to churches, in the plural, but the usage here is exactly paralleled by many passages in the N T , e.g. I Cor. 1.2; II Cor. 1.1; Col. 4.16; I Thess. 1.1. r f j iv Άλΐζανδρεία.

δπον.

I I . g 2 . I 2 , την iv 'AXe^avSpeia

. . .

βιβλιοθήκην.

IV.6oo. Frequent.

ΐίαίτι νυν. 1.8.4; 10.3; 15-26—postpositive and used with the present, as here. This claim on behalf of the church of Alexandria is not unparalleled: the church of Ephesus claimed to have the original manuscript of the canonical Gospel according to John (Chronicon Paschale,

M i g n e , PG 9 2 . 7 7 C , μέχρι

42

τοΰ νΰν πεφΰλακται).

Sometime in the


II. 1-2

THE LETTER

II.2 ασφαλώς

ev μάλα

τηρίΐται,

άναγινωσκόμίνον

προς αυτούς

μόνους

τους

μυου μένους

480s the body of the apostle Barnabas was found in Cyprus, with a copy of the Gospel according to M a t t h e w which Barnabas himself had m a d e ; this copy was taken to Constantinople (Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten II.2.292). Cf. also Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum X X X V I . 1. As late as the end of the eighteenth century a library in Prague claimed to possess a fragment of Mark's original M S (actually a good sixth- or seventh-century copy of the V u l g a t e ; Metzger, Survey 4 ) ; the history of this fragment is given in Acta Sanctorum Aprilis III.348f. ασφαλώς. O n l y (according to Stählin) in II.30.5, where it means " i n e r r a n t l y . " Clement uses ασφάλεια and ασφαλής in the senses of " s e c u r i t y " and " s a f e " (1.269.23; II. 100.29), and he could have found ασφαλώς in the corresponding s e n s e — " s e c u r e l y " — i n M k . 14.44; Acts 16.23; o r T o b i t 6.4. [ O r in many classical authors, e.g., Sophocles, Oedipus tyrannus 613. W . M . C . ] ευ μάλα.

Frequent. T o strengthen an adverb, as here, 1.280.34; II.105.8; III.46.3.

τηρείται. O f keeping secrets safe, II.332.20; 1.123.32; etc.; objects, 1.83.29; 178.2. T h a t the orthodox Christian " g n o s t i c s " of Alexandria had certain books which they were supposed to keep secret from the unworthy, and that sometimes one or another, yielding to entreaties, " l e a k e d " one of these books to some unworthy person, is indicated by Clement in his Eclogaepropheticae 27 (III.145.6-15), quoted above, at the end of the paragraph on συνέταξε, 1.21. άναγινωσκόμενον. IV.231 ( i 2 references, and the entry is incomplete). T h e present passive participle used of reading Scripture, III.145.20. Regular usage with verbs of speaking, saying, etc.; see Mossbacher, 73. W i t h άναγινώσκειν, I Esdr. 9.48; Jer. 3.12; Aristophanes, Ranae 53.

77730s.

μόνους.

Frequent. Declined, e.g. II.455.20, where, as here, it means " a l o n e . "

τους μυουμένους.

I I . 4 9 7 . l 6 f f , τώ δε μη πάντων

:προφητεία) πολυτρόπως, άλήθειαν, άγιος

το φώς ανατέλλουσα.

γίνομαι

μυούμενος,

εΐναι την άλήθειαν

μόνοις τοις εις γνώσιν μεμυημενοις, Cf. 1.84.23ff, ω των άγιων

Ιεροφαντεΐ

δε ό κύριος.

επικρΰπτεται

τοις δι'άγάπην ώς άληθώς

ζητοΰσι

την

μυστήριων

. . .

I t n e e d not b e supposed t h a t the

participle μυουμένους refers to a very short period of time. Compare the provisions in Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X : at unspecified dates, persons w h o have made sufficient progress in the catechumenate are chosen and set apart to receive baptism. A t this time their behavior while catechumens is to be examined. If it proves to have

43


II.2

THE LETTER

τα μ€γάλα

μυστήρια.

been m o r a l l y satisfactory, " then let t h e m h e a r the G o s p e l " ( X X . 2 , m y italics). W h a t G o s p e l it w a s t h a t the c a t e c h u m e n s m i g h t not hear before this time neither D i x n o r Botte declares. A f t e r h e a r i n g the Gospel they w e r e exorcised a n d h a n d s w e r e laid o n t h e m d a i l y for a t least a w e e k before b a p t i s m . D u r i n g all this time t h e y w e r e presumably

μυοΰμενοι.

τα μεγάλα

μυστήρια.

11.249-8,

τα μικρά

προ των μεγάλων

μυηθεντες

μυστηρίων

(of

instruction b y degrees in the secrets of C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e ; a reminiscence of P l a t o , Gorgias 4 9 7 c ) . C l e m e n t ' s use of μυστήριον

has b e e n studied b y M a r s h , w h o concludes

(66) t h a t for C l e m e n t " t h e r e w e r e t w o types of C h r i s t i a n μυστήρια,

the one r e s e r v e d "

for the true gnostics, " t h e other r e v e a l e d " to all believers. T h i s seems to M a r s h clear f r o m I I . 3 6 7 . i g f f , a n d b y m e a n s o f this he explains (68) the passages in w h i c h C l e m e n t distinguishes b e t w e e n μικρά a n d μεγάλα μυστήρια, II.373.23-374.4, καθάρσια,

άπεικότως

καθάπερ και (των

παρά)

μετά ταύτα 8'εστΙ τά μικρά μυστήρια των μελλόντων, εποπτεύειν

τά δε μεγάλα

δε και περινοεΐν

e.g. t h a t cited a b o v e a n d especially

άρα και των μυστηρίων τοις βαρβάροις διδασκαλίας

των παρ' "Ελλησιν

τινά ΰπόθεσιν έχοντα καΐ

περί των συμπάντων

άρχει μεν τά

<(i.e., the Christians^ το οΰ μανθάνειν

τήν τε φνσιν και τά πράγματα.

(ουκ)έτι

λουτρόν.

προπαρασκευής υπολείπεται,

T h i s distinction seems to

M a r s h (69) to e x p l a i n the fact t h a t w h i l e C l e m e n t usually " e m p h a s i z e s . . . t h a t the μυστήρια

are to be c o n c e a l e d f r o m all save the p r i v i l e g e d few, e v e n a m o n g the

m e m b e r s of the C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h itself," he nevertheless in the Protrepticus " s e e m s to invite his h e a t h e n hearers to a r e v e l a t i o n of the μυστήρια,"

without indicating that

some m i g h t still b e h i d d e n f r o m those w h o h a d passed t h r o u g h the C h r i s t i a n initiatory rites. T h e e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t C l e m e n t took for g r a n t e d a m o n g the h e a t h e n the e x p e c t a t i o n of a series of g r a d e d initiations a n d , further, t h a t he c o n c e a l e d f r o m " t h o s e w i t h o u t " e v e n the existence of the h i g h e r " m y s t e r i e s . " M a r s h then c o n c l u d e s (80), " t h e r e is n o t h i n g to suggest that in C l e m e n t ' s works the t e r m (_μυστήριον)> w a s e v e r a p p l i e d to either B a p t i s m or the E u c h a r i s t as a description p e c u l i a r to t h e m a n d distinct f r o m the other uses of μυστήριον."

I n this c o n n e c t i o n the passage q u o t e d a b o v e

is p a r t i c u l a r l y v a l u a b l e since it clearly shows b a p t i s m (το λουτρό ν) interpreted as p a r t o f a series of " m y s t e r i e s , " b u t as the p r e p a r a t o r y cleansing r a t h e r t h a n itself o n e o f the initiations [cf. the p r e l i m i n a r y rites at E l e u s i s — A . D . N . ] . Belief in a n d p r a c t i c e o f mysteries a l l e g e d l y greater t h a n b a p t i s m a n d the eucharist w e r e , of course, f r e q u e n t in gnostic circles; see Pistis Sophia, passim (especially chs. 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 ) a n d , for a s u r v e y , F e n d t . Discussion of the m y s t e r y t e r m i n o l o g y in C l e m e n t a n d P h i l o has too o f t e n b e g u n f r o m the presupposition t h a t either this t e r m i n o l o g y refers to a series of secret rites or it is m e r e l y allegorical description o f the stages o f philosophical instruction. T h e r e f o r e it has b e e n taken for g r a n t e d t h a t if the philosophical significance c o u l d b e d e m o n s t r a t e d , the possibility of the series of rites w o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d . B u t the alternative is n o t j u s t i f i e d : philosophical instruction a n d secret rites c o u l d be c o m b i n e d . Philo has described such a c o m b i n a t i o n in his treatise On the Contemplative Life.

44


THE LETTER

,

Π

·3

II.2-3

^

των 8e μιαρων δαιμόνων ολεθρον τω των ανθρώπων yevet πάντοτε νώντων,

μηχα-

Clement hints at something similar in the passage quoted above, a n d something of the sort seems to be supposed by the text of our letter. [ C . M . agrees with this note in general, a n d in particular with the above conclusion, b u t adds t h a t one should speak not only of "philosophical i n s t r u c t i o n " b u t also a n d especially of "religious"—his i t a l i c s — " a n d theological instruction."] A brief a n d brilliant survey of p a g a n , Jewish, a n d Christian usage of mystery terminology is given in Nock, Mysteries. Unfortunately, the conclusions Nock reaches are open to a n u m b e r of objections, one of which is particularly relevant here: even if the authenticity of this letter be denied, the parallels between it a n d the recognized works of Clement suffice to show t h a t Clement's adoption (or inheritance) of mystery terminology to describe Christianity h a d been considerably more t h a n " s l i g h t " (Nock, Mysteries 202). W i t h Nock's conclusions contrast the remarks of J a e g e r , above, on I.23. των . . . μηχανωντων. Initial genitive absolute indicating cause or prior condition ( " s i n c e " ) , I.go.2f. Genitive absolutes are rare in Clement, b u t occasionally he uses a n u m b e r in quick succession, e.g. I I . 2 1 2 . 2 9 - 2 1 3 . 4 (5 in 8 lines). T h e y a p p e a r in his narrative style, as here, in I I I . 188.3 a n d i2ff. μιαρών δαιμόνων. 1.30.16, el γαρ ovv δαίμονες, λίχνοι re και μιαροί. Clement often refers to demons (IV.382, almost a full column of references) a n d , though he nowhere says explicitly t h a t they always plot the destruction of men, he describes t h e m as hostile to m e n (1.31.17, μισάνθρωποι-, so 33.3, etc.), destructive (ολέθριους), a n d plotting (ibid). Presumably he was familiar with this theory, which h a d been the leitmotif of Justin's First Apology, e.g., ch. 26, where the demons were represented as h a v i n g instigated Simon Magnus, M e n a n d e r , a n d Marcion, as they do here Carpocrates. For f u r t h e r parallels in the apologists see Wey. ολεθρον.

1.253.19, e * c · Always without article, as here.

τω των ανθρώπων γίνει. V e r b a t i m , ΙΙ.277·4· Clement often spoke of " t h e race of m e n " : IV.307 s.v. γένος, i i references, listing not complete. πάντοτε.

M e a n i n g " a t every m o m e n t , " 1.255.28.

μχηανώντων. Clement uses the middle in 1.261.25, with dative (ήμΐν understood) a n d accusative, as here. T h e active appears only in poetry, άτάσθαλα μηχανόωντας (Odyssey X V I I I . 143), which was echoed by Apollonius Rhodius, III.583, a n d of which the phrasing of the letter m a y be reminiscent. [Cf. the echo of Sophocles, below, I I . 1 4 - 1 5 ; the active of μηχανάω appears also in Sophocles, Inachus 21 (SP

45


II.3-4

THE LETTER

II.4 6

Καρποκράτης

III.24) and Ajax 1037. O n the latter passage Kamerbeek, Ajax, remarks, " I t would seem that the rare active use here raises the verb above the all-too-human sphere . . . Note also the sinister associations of ambush and guile inherent in the verb μηχανάν." T h e uses of the passive in Sophocles, Trachiniae 586 and elsewhere, also imply the existence of an active. W . M . C . ] Clement frequently quoted and paraphrased Homer ( I V . 4 i f , four columns of references, including a quotation of Odyssey X V I I I . 1 3 0 in II.202.7), and his prose contains many words described in LSJ as primarily poetical and appearing in prose only in the work of " l a t e " writers, that is, writers of about Clement's time. Besides these words, Clement uses in prose a considerable number of words cited in LSJ only from poetry. O f these latter, inspection of Stählin's index f r o m α-αμ alone has y i e l d e d άΐΐκίζω, 1.40.6; άθυρόγλωσσος, I . 2 5 3 . 1 3 , e t c . ; άλίτρίβανος,

I.155.20; and Αμβρόσιος, 1.197. ι. Therefore this use of a poetical form is not atypical of Clements' style. [On this point I am particularly happy to record the agreement of C . M . , who has had so much experience in edition and translation of Clement's Greek.] 6 Καρποκράτης. II.197.16 and 19; 199.29 (with article, as here); 200.15; 207.18; 221.6. (For testimonia and literature, see ch. 4, sec. X I I I . ) In the first three of these references (pp. 197-199) Clement agrees with the present letter to the extent of representing Carpocrates as an Alexandrian (citizen?)—the letter shows him working in Alexandria—from whom the sect of the Carpocratians derived at least its name; further, he describes the Carpocratian doctrine of free love as expounded by Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, and he declares that Epiphanes was the founder of the

sect

( l 9 7 . 2 Ö f , καθηγησατο

8e της

μοναδικής

γνώσεως,

άφ'οΰ και η των

Καρπο-

κρατιανών αΐρεσις) or at least the c o f o u n d e r ( 1 9 7 . 1 6 , oi 8e άπό Καρποκράτους καΐ

'Επιφανούς αναγόμενοι). In the later references (pp. 200-221) he says nothing of Epiphanes and speaks of Carpocrates as the founder and lawgiver of the sect (200.15, νομοθΐτεΐν . . . ίδΐΐ implies t h a t he d i d g i v e other laws, as do, also, κατά Καρποκράτην,

207.18, and ή 8e Καρποκράτους δικαιοσύνη, 221.6). Since Clement says Epiphanes died at seventeen, it would be plausible to explain this contradiction by supposing that the father and son cooperated in founding the sect and, after the son's death, the father carried it on so long and conspicuously that it came to be known by his name. A t all events, the letter says nothing of Epiphanes, and the recognized works of Clement say nothing of Carpocrates' use of a secret Gospel by Mark. (Given the embarrassment which the author of the letter felt in writing privately on this subject—below, II. 10-19—it is hardly to be expected that he would mention it in his published works.) Irenaeus, however (Harvey, 1.20.3 = Stieren, 1.25.5), speaks of Carpocratian d o c u m e n t s r e p r e s e n t i n g τον Ίησοΰν . . . ev μνστηρίω κατ'ιδίαν

λΐλαληκεναι,

παραδιδόναι.

δια πίστεως

και

αύτονς

άξιωσαι

. . . και αγάπης

τοις

σώζΐσθαι. φ

τοις μαθηταΐς άξίοις

και

τοις

αύτοΰ και

άποστόλοις

πειθομενοις

ταΰτα

τα δέ λοιπά αδιάφορα οι·τα. κατά την


THE LETTER

υπ

αυτών

δ ι δ α χ θ ε ί ? /cat άπατηλοΐς

τβχναις

II.4-5

χρησάμ,ενος,

δό£αν των ανθρώπων, πη μεν αγαθά, πη δέ κακά νομίζεσθαι,

οΰτω

πρεσβντερόν

ονδενός φνσει κακόν

υπάρχοντος.

O n C l e m e n t ' s thoughts a b o u t heretics in g e n e r a l , see R ü t h e r , Kirche. [ " T h e description of the C a r p o c r a t i a n s in the letter is c o m p l e t e l y different f r o m w h a t C l e m e n t writes a b o u t t h e m in Stromateis I I I .

It is possible w i t h de

Faye

(Gnostiques 4 1 4 ^ to d o u b t that C a r p o c r a t e s a n d his son E p i p h a n e s h a d a n y t h i n g to do w i t h the C a r p o c r a t i a n s k n o w n t h r o u g h other sources. T h e o n l y t h i n g in C l e m e n t . . . o f interest for the letter is that C a r p o c r a t e s was a n A l e x a n d r i a n ( I I . 197.20). I n the letter the expressions used a b o u t the C a r p o c r a t i a n s are v a g u e a n d uncharacteristic. A n y b o d y c o u l d be ' c o r r u p t e d b y the D e v i l ' (cf. Eus., HE I V . 7 . 1 0 ) , c o u l d get a c o p y o f a secret gospel t h r o u g h a n ' e n s l a v e d ' presbyter a n d h a v e a ' b l a s p h e m o u s ' doctrine (ibid.)

a n d so on. I h a v e taken some parallels f r o m Eusebius' description of the

C a r p o c r a t i a n s , b u t I do not find the expressions so characteristic <(as to suggest) t h a t the a u t h o r of the letter must h a v e k n o w n Eusebius. A n y b o d y c o u l d use l a n g u a g e of t h a t k i n d a b o u t the h e r e t i c s . " J . M . ] ΰπ' αύτων διδαχθείς.

T h e aorist passive participle, 1 . 2 6 1 . 8 ; sensu malo,

1.248.35-

2 4 9 . 1 ; the passive w i t h υπό, I I . 2 2 2 . 2 4 ; 3 6 3 . 1 ; e t c . ; elision o f the ο of υπό,

Moss-

b a c h e r , 46. D e m o n s l e a d m e n astray, 1 . 3 3 . 1 0 ; 48.27fr. T h a t m a g i c a l arts in p a r t i c u l a r w e r e t a u g h t b y demons is e x p l a i n e d in Enoch 8f, a n d the theory was a d o p t e d b y C l e m e n t , I I . 3 3 2 . 1 6 f r (and e x t e n d e d to i n c l u d e philosophy, I I . 5 3 . 5 f r ) . άπατηλοΐς

τεχναις.

1.47.28, άπατηλόν

τεχνην,

of art used to m a k e images. H e r e too

the a d j e c t i v e is of the second declension. I n the letter it p r o b a b l y refers to m a g i c a l practices [ t h o u g h A . D . N , thinks this reference not certain], C l e m e n t uses it w i t h this reference in 1.4.23, etc. T h e C a r p o c r a t i a n s w e r e w i d e l y a c c u s e d of m a g i c a l practices, Irenaeus

( H a r v e y , 1.20.2 = Stieren, 1 . 2 5 . 3 ) ; H i p p o l y t u s , Philosophumena

E p i p h a n i u s , Panarion X X V I I . 3 ;

VII.32;

etc. C l e m e n t in his r e c o g n i z e d works does

not

m e n t i o n the accusation, b u t he h a d n o occasion to do so. χρησάμενος.

F r e q u e n t in C l e m e n t , I V . 8 1 2 ( a b o u t 60 references).

οΰτω . . . ώστε. πρεσβντερον.

I I I . 1 6 8 . 1 4 f , w i t h b o t h verbs in the i n d i c a t i v e , as here. II.485.10,

πρεσβύτερος

. . . της

εκκλησίας.

In

this passage

Clement

allegorizes the title, b u t the fact that he does so proves that he k n e w it as a title, as it is used here. H e often refers to presbyters as ecclesiastical officials (IV.669C, 9 references). H e also speaks of presbyters in a m o r e g e n e r a l sense as elder leaders o f the C h u r c h , p a r t i c u l a r l y those of earlier generations, whose t e a c h i n g h a d been oral, b u t n o w , w r i t t e n d o w n , f o r m e d p a r t of the b o d y o f secret C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n — a n d w a s sometimes indiscreetly c o m m u n i c a t e d to the u n w o r t h y , I I I . 1 4 4 . 2 6 - 1 4 5 . 1 5 . I t is 47


11-5-6

THE LETTER

II.6 τίνα της

iv ' Αλζζανδρίία

εκκλησίας

κατεδουλωσεν ώ σ τ ε παρ'

α ντου

e'/co-

/χισεν not surprising that the official presbyters should have been, as the letter represents them, custodians of the books in which the traditions of the earlier presbyters were recorded. The term πρ€σβύτ€ροι is found frequently in second-century papyri, regularly as a title of pagan priests—particularly those in charge of financial matters, who often furnished to the Roman authorities lists of personnel and of temple property evidently under their supervision (Hauschildt, 237, 239; cf. 241). According to Eus., HE V I . 13.9, Clement in his published works referred to presbyters especially as custodians of oral traditions; see below, II.19, on ουκ όκνησω end, and III.139.20; 144.26fr (Harnack, Geschichte 1.291fr). Irenaeus similarly quoted presbyters as sources of unpublished apostolic traditions (Harvey, IV.42.2; 49.1 = Stieren, IV.27.1; 32.1). Papias similarly specifies presbyters, evidently in some technical sense, as the source of his oral traditions about Jesus; Eus., HE III.39.3ff ( o n which see Munck, Presbyters). The role of presbyters in Clement's works as bearers of secret tradition is noted by Lazzati, 34f; Zahn, 158; Lebreton, 495; etc. Hornschuh's denial of it {Anfänge 359fr) is based on implausible arguments from silence. O n the evidence of II.485.ioff it has sometimes been supposed (e.g. by Wytzes, 230) that Clement's gnostic group had its own presbyters, as opposed to those of the main church of Alexandria. Some presbyters, probably of a church in Alexandria, showed Celsus βιβλία βάρβαρα δαιμόνων ονόματα έχοντα και reparelas, Origen, Contra Celsum VI.40; this about A.D. 175. της ev Άλΐξανδρεία εκκλησίας. II.92.12, την iv Άλεξανδρΐία . . . βιβλιοθηκην. On εκκλησία see above, 1.28. The repeated specification of Alexandria (instead of the use of " h e r e " ) is perhaps for solemnity. O r perhaps the letter was not written from that city; cf. δπου, above, II. 1. It may date from the period following Clement's flight (ca. 202?). κατεδούλωσΐν. Twice, in the middle, of evil spirits enslaving men, 1.8.3; III.5.14. The active (II Cor. 11.20; Gal. 2.4) is classical ( L S J s.v.); more important, it is used in PGM I X , line 4, as here, for enslaving the soul by magical means. A presbyter " d e c e i v e d " (not "enslaved") by a demon acting through a would-be heresiarch appears in Cyprian, Epistulae L X X V . 1 0 . •παρ'. Use, construction, and elision are all paralleled in Clement; Mossbacher, 45f, Ö7f. With κομίζΐΐν, III.141.7f. £κόμιζΐ v. Meaning " g e t , " II.29.17; of writings—as it happens, those of Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates—II. 197.i8f, where it means " b e in circulation, be preserved." A similar story (without the magical motif) seems to lie behind the textual confusion of the Πράξεις Παύλου και θίκλης, I. Against Vouaux, 147 n7, the Latin versions are to 48


THE LETTER

άπόγραφον

του

μυστικόν

evaγγελίον,

ο

II.6

και

be preferred: Paul did not suspect the hypocrisy of Demas and Hermogenes which made them unworthy of his secret doctrine (as opposed to his public preaching). Therefore he taught them things they should not have been permitted to learn. [W.V. objects that the gnostics had their own chains of tradition and therefore did not need to borrow from the Church.] However, that in Clement's time some gnostics did claim the same apostolic authorities as the " o r t h o d o x " is proved by Clement's grudging report of Basilidean appeal to Peter, and Valentinian to Paul, III.75.15ff. T h e Carpocratians known to Irenaeus (Harvey, 1.20.2 = Stieren, I.25.4) would seem to have used Mt. 5-25f or Lk. i2-58f. Moreover, even if we suppose the letter to be by Clement, we need not suppose its statements about Carpocrates entirely true. Clement was faced with the problem which now faces us: How did the Carpocratians come by a Gospel strikingly similar to a secret Gospel accepted by the church in Alexandria and by it attributed to M a r k ? Clement's statement tells us only the answer his party gave when forced to give an answer.

άπόγραφον. Not in Clement—who has, however, άπογράφασθαι, meaning " t o copy," II.471.7. άπόγραφον meaning " c o p y " or " i m i t a t i o n " is used by Cicero, Ad Atticum X I I . 5 2 end (overlooked by Oksala, 158); άπόγραφος with the same meaning appears in Dionysius Hal., Usener-Raderm., Isaeus 11. In Diogenes Laertius, VI.84, άπόγραφος is taken by R . Hicks, in the Loeb translation, to mean " a n imitator" [but more likely it means " a c o p y " — B . E . ] . άπόγραφον is, in the preserved literature, a rare word; one can hardly believe that an imitator would have chosen it instead of the common άντίγραφον. [But the rarity of άπόγραφον is no argument against Clement's possible use of it. A great many words which must have been common in ancient everyday usage are extremely rare in the preserved literature; see the numerous examples in the vocabulary of Krauss, Lehnwörter. A . D . N . Moreover, άπόγραφον (-os) has a contemptuous sense not found in άντίγραφον. Thus in Cicero, Diogenes, and perhaps Dionysius άπόγραφον is dyslogistic. B.E. With this opinion, however, A . D . N , disagrees, contending that Cicero was only "apologizing whimsically for his philosophical works," and that " w h e n you speak of a man as being a copy, you imply inferiority; it is not so with a book."] But the usage in this letter seems to support the opinion of B.E.

μυστικόν.

ευαγγελίου.

Above, 1.17·

Above, 1.12, 21-22.

ο και. This stringing together of sentences by relative pronouns is not uncommon in Clement, e.g. 11.7.24^ fjs oCSe . . . άλλά; 17.24, ην; 2θ.ΐ2; 21.2; 27.13; etc.

49


II.7—9

T H E

LETTER

II.7

II.8 έζηγησατο

€ μ, iave, ταΐς

κατά

την βλάσφημον

άχράντοις

και άγίαις

και σαρκικην λεζεσιν

αντοΰ

άναμιγνύς

δόζαν,

έ'τι δε καϊ

π;9

αναιδέστατα

ίξηγήσατο. Frequent with the sense "interpret," IV.397, over 20 examples, listing incomplete. Aorist, II.232.18, etc.; reference to a specific document, II.308.4; 280.10; 168.3; e t c · Irenaeus (Harvey, 1.20.3 = Stieren, 1.25.5) speaks of the Carpocratian doctrine concerning the secret teaching of Jesus as something which iv rots συγγράμμασιν

αυτών

ούτως

άναγεγραπται

καί αυτοί οΰτως

εξηγούνται.

κατά. Usage regular; Mossbacher, 66. Used as here to indicate the principle of interpretation, II.495.4. βλάσφημον.

II.113.23; III.72.29 (of the utterances of libertine heretics); etc.

Frequent, IV.697, 30 references. Not used directly of teachings, but cf. II.151.1 if, σαρκικώς νοοΰντες τάς γραφάς.

σαρκικήν.

δόξαν. Frequent of heretical or false philosophical teachings, IV.35of (20 examples, listing incomplete). The φενδεΐς δόξας of libertine heretics, who misrepresent the Scriptures to make them accord with their own desires and doctrines, are attacked in III.72.28-73.8.

καί...

en δε και. II.189.17-18, etc.

εμίανε. IV.568, 6 times (4 refer to defilement of holy things). None in the aorist active, but the identical form appears in Philo, De virtutibus 199 end. καί άγίαις. 1.44.3^ το άχραντον εκείνο και το άγιον (these are divine attributes). Elsewhere άχραντος is used of Jesus, the soul, marriage, etc., and άγιος of Scripture, as here (I.289.19, ταΐς βίβλοις ταΐς άγίαις). The sayings in the sermon on the mount are άγιοι λόγοι, I.77.20; cf. 289.24. άχράντοις

λεξεσιν. O f Scripture, 1.125.22; II.385.15 (meaning " s a y i n g " ) ; 498.29 (probably meaning " w o r d s " ) ; III.3.11 and 16. άναμιγνυς. 1.278.7, άναμίγνυσθαι (sic). LSJ s.v. gives άναμίγνυμι as the prevailing later form (see under άναμείγνυμι). Clement uses the active in 1.37.52; he uses the verb of literary composition in II. 13.1, περιεξουσι δέ οί Στρωματεΐς άναμεμιγμενην την άληθειαν τοις φιλοσοφίας δόγμασι. He also complains of heretical interpolations in Christian material; see above on θεοπνεΰοτου, I . i i .

5 uses of αναιδής in the absolute and 2 in the comparative, IV.234. The superlative was used by Plato, Laws 729C. αναιδέστατα.

50


II.9-IO

THE LETTER

II.10 φζύσματα.

τοΰ δε κράματος

δόγμα, τούτοις

τούτου

ε ξ α ν τ λ ε ί τ α ι τ ο των

οΰν, καθώς και προείρηκα,

Καρποκρατιανών

ουδέποτε

φάσματα. ΙΙΙ.70.7, of heretics who make up false stories in order to reject the prophecies: άμΐλΐΐ πάμττολλα σνγκαττνουσι ψΐΰσματα καΐ πλάσματα. κράματος. IV.520 (7 references). Genitive singular, 1.177-24· O f literary or doctrinal mixture, as here, 1 . 1 7 4 · τ ° κράμα τον νόμου τοΰ παλαιοΰ καϊ τοΰ λόγου τοΰ νεου. τούτον. Similar use of a postpositive demonstrative at the beginning of a sentence, to express contempt, I I . 197.18, 'Επιφανής οΰτος (referring to the son of Carpocrates). For this function, the position after the noun is customary; Palm, Funktion I2f. Similar sentence structure, II.493.6, etc. εξαντλείται. T h e M S reads εξαντλήται, or perhaps εξψτλήται. T h e latter is paleographically much less likely, but if it should be the correct reading then εξήντληται could be read by mere change of accent. A n d Clement's fondness for perfects is an argument for εξήντληται, see above, 1.24, on προγεγραμμεναις. But I prefer to follow the more likely reading. Clement uses the verb in II.9.12, τα φρέατα εξαντλούμενα διειδεστερον νδωρ άναδίδωσι. This fits the meaning " d r a i n , draw o f f " given b y LSJ and suggested by the pejorative context of the letter, where the verb m a y be a sarcastic reminiscence of Jn. 2.8, αντλήσατε νΰν, in the miracle of C a n a . [The letter's metaphoric use of εξαντλεω is rare, but cf. Gregory of Nyssa, In Canticum Canticorum p. 457, line 7, Langerbeck (col. 1108 Migne). A . W . Also Cicero, Academicorum II.34 (108). W . M . C . ] Καρποκρατιανων.

A b o v e , 1.2.

8όγμa. I V . 349, 16 times with reference to teachings of philosophers, 6 times to teachings of the Church, 17 times to teachings of heretics, as here. T h e singular is used, as in the letter, to refer to the whole dogmatic system of a heretical school, in III.68.34f. τούτοις οΰν.

A b o v e , 1.7.

καθώς και προείρηκα. 1.1 ΙΟ.24, καθώς προειρήκαμεν; the letter's use of the singular is less formal. For the addition of καί, 1.237.3, καθώς και ο Πανλος μαρτυρεί. W i t h or without καί, καθώς is a regular form of cross-refernce in Clement, II.75.24; 79.1; 91.6 (all three without); 241.1 (with); etc. ονδεποτε.

I I . 5 1 6 . 1 2 ; III.52.26; etc.

51


II.IO-I2

THE L E T T E R

II.II eiKreov,

ουδέ

προτζίνουσιν

αύτοΐς

τά

κατΐφ^υσμίνα

συγχωρητέον

του

11.12 Μάρκου

et ναι τ ο

μυστικόν

IV.365 lists 5 usages of εΐκω, none of this verbal adjective, but—as remarked above (1.10, on προκριτεον)—Clement was very fond of the form. είκτέον.

. . . ουδέ. This I have not found in Clement. [But it is perfectly good Greek and Clement might well have used it. A.D.N.]

ούδίποτΐ

προτΐίνουσιν.

Meaning

"allege,"

II.329.5

(cf.

130.29). T h e

form

προτΐίνουσι

II.173.27f. κατΐφΐυσμίνα. Clement uses the verb once, 1.267.6, in the present participle. T h e perfect participle, used by the letter, is frequent in Philo (13 references in Leisegang s.v.). T h e meaning common to Philo and Clement—something false, an imitation— has here been extended to include something falsified; or perhaps the reference is especially to the passages peculiar to the Carpocratian Gospel, and the writer wished to indicate that those were imitations of the true text. [One should consider the possibility of τά κατεφευσμένα belonging, as sometimes happens in Greek, both to προτείνουσα and to the infinitive clause dependent on συγχωρητέον. If it does so, one should perhaps translate as follows: " ä ces gens-la, il ne faut done, comme j e l'ai dejä dit, jamais ceder ni, quand ils presentent eux-memes leurs falsifications, accorder que e'est la Γ 'Evangile mystique' de M a r c : au contraire, il faut meme le nier avec serment." This is followed by a string of scriptural texts which recall the ideas of spiritual pedagogy so dear to Clement and which are cited, in Clement's way, without introduction or words of transition. The reason for the above translation is the text's report that Mark made, at Alexandria, a second, more "spiritual," redaction of his Gospel; and that, besides these two redactions, there was also the secret oral tradition. C . M . See also the comment of C . R . , below, on μεθ' όρκου.]

Meaning " c o n c e d e , " II.173.20; III.90.24; III.72.31 (sarcastically). In II.173.20 it has, as here, the indirect object αύτοΐς and the direct elvat without τό. T h e form found in the letter appears in 1.204.9. συγχωρητέον.

Μάρκου. A b o v e , 1 . 1 5 . είναι.

With genitive, o f a work's being " b y " its author, II.81.2,

τ ά els 'Ορφέα φερόμενα ποιήματα

μυστικόν.

λέγεται

εΐναι.

Above, Ι.17.

52

Όνομάκριτος

. . . ου


II.12

THE LETTER

εύαγγβλιον,

€ναγγ4λιον. αλλά καί.

άλλα

και μεθ'

ορκου

A b o v e , 1.21—22. " B u t m o r e o v e r , " 1 . 1 2 1 . 2 4 ; 11.197-4;

etc·

μΐθ' ορκου. This I have not found in Clement. μετά. πολλών όρκων occurs in Plato, Phaedrus 240ε; μεθ' όρκων in II M a c c . 4.34 and 14.32; μ(θ' ορκου in M t . 14.7. [Preisigke, Papyruswörterbuch, notes an instance in an official document of the third century B.C. C . H . R . ] Clement's use of μετά is n o r m a l ; Mossbacher, 67. Linguistically, therefore, the phrase presents no difficulty. But in I I I . 3 7 . 1 9 - 3 8 . 2 7 C l e m e n t says the true gnostic will never (or hardly ever) swear, and certainly never swear falsely. I n I.279.26-27 he forbids the ordinary Christian to use oaths in buying, selling, and similar transactions; and in I I . 3 9 1 . 1 9 - 3 9 2 . 6 he finds the Judeo-Christian tradition to be the source from w h i c h Plato derived his prohibition of oaths. O n the other h a n d , Christians, of course, did swear (see Nock, Sacramentum), and in I I I . 1 9 0 . 1 2 C l e m e n t represents the apostle J o h n as swearing; in 11.494.1 i f f he approves deception practiced for a good purpose (citing Paul's claim to have been all things to all m e n ) ; a n d in I I I . 3 9 . 1 2 - 4 0 . 1 0 (the sequel of the first passage cited above) he modifies his previous statements to the extent of teaching that the true gnostic will tell the truth " e x c e p t sometimes, w h e n it is a matter of helping (someone), he m a y , as does a doctor . . . lie, or, <to distinguish) as the sophists <do>, 'say w h a t is f a l s e . ' " T h i s exception he again justifies by the same example of Paul, and finally he insists that the true gnostic always tells the truth. (See further the paragraphs on the following quotations). T h i s ambiguous attitude toward truth becomes even more ambiguous w h e n we recall that the true gnostic is partially an ideal figure, and the account of his achievements in the Stromateis describes a perfection w h i c h C l e m e n t himself probably did not hope to realize fully in this life. A c c o r d i n g l y , the contradiction between Clement's principles as expressed in his published works and the practical advice given in this evidently private letter should not be exaggerated, especially since the practical advice was in accord with m u c h philosophical teaching (Düring, Chion 20). C o m p a r e the reports concerning the Essenes, that there is no swearing a m o n g them (Josephus, BJ I I . 135; Hippolytus, Philosophumena I V . 2 2 ) and that they bind their initiates with hair-raising oaths {BJ I I . 1 3 9 - 1 4 3 ; Philosophumena I V . 2 3 - 2 4 ) . [ " T o u t ä fait d'accord avec votre conclusion: il ne faut pas exagerer la portee de certaines contradictions chez C l e m e n t . " C . M . " S u r e l y , however, C l e m e n t is too devious to advocate unnecessary and downright perjury. O n e could legitimately (as the Sophists say!) take an oath to the effect that precisely w h a t the Carpocratians h a v e is not Mark's secret gospel. I find it hard to suppose that Clement's oath is a denial that Mark's is the C h u r c h ' s secret gospel, with the consequent admission that the C h u r c h has a secret gospel, but it is b y someone else." C . R . ; compare the similar suggestion b y C . M . , above, on κατεφευσμίνα.] I think the denial is intended to give the impression that M a r k did not write any secret Gospel, and that consequently the one w h i c h the Carpocratians h a v e is a fake. T h e one the C h u r c h has should not be mentioned, 53


II.12-13

αρνητίον.

THE LETTER

II.I3 j " ov γαρ απασι πάντα άληθη

Ae/cre'ov."

since the C h u r c h has kept its existence a secret even from the lower grades of Christians; thus T h e o d o r e did not know of it heretofore. H o w e v e r , I agree that C l e m e n t w o u l d have wished to avoid perjury. Therefore I think the suggestions of C . M . and C . R . correct in pointing out the deliberate ambiguity of the Greek. [ J . R . comments: " I assume the oath to be an example of the ' e c o n o m i c b e h a v i o r ' (κατ' οίκονομίαν) emerging in the A l e x a n d r i a n fathers as an ethical stance, developing in part from p a g a n b a c k g r o u n d s . " See his article Οίκονομία, 370fr.] άρνητίον. M e a n i n g " d e n y , " I V . 2 7 5 (13 references, listing incomplete). T h e piling u p of forms in reov here (ΐίκτεον, συγχωρητεον, άρνητέον, λΐκτΐον) is typical of C l e m e n t ; see above, on προκριτίον, I . i o , and the passages cited there. ov γάρ.

A favorite formula of Clement's for beginning sentences, e.g., I I . 2 2 1 . 2 6 ;

222.24,29; 223.1; 224.12. ov γάρ . . . XeKreov. This saying appeared in Philo, Questions . . . on Genesis I V . 6 7 , from w h i c h it was quoted b y Procopius in his commentary on Genesis in the form ov πάντα άληθη λΐκτίον άπασιν. Philo's text, according to the preserved A r m e n i a n translation, went on to elaborate the principle and to teach (in I V . 6 9 ) that " t h e wise m a n requires a versatile art from w h i c h he m a y profit in imitating those mockers w h o say one thing and do another in order to save whom they can" (my italics). T h i s text strikingly parallels Paul's claim in I Cor. g.22, " I b e c a m e all things to all men that I might by all means save some." Since influence of Philo on Paul or of Paul on Philo is almost out of the question, it w o u l d seem likely that these two passages derive from a single source. T h e common-sense idea behind them had long been familiar in ancient philosophy. Diogenes Laertius, V I I I . 15, quotes from Aristoxenus, as a saying of certain Pythagoreans, μη elvai προς πάντας πάντα ρητά·, for further examples see R e u m a n n , Οικονομία. F r o m philosophy and c o m m o n sense alike it was taken over b y early Christianity, where the example of the A p o s t l e s — a n d especially that of P a u l — i s often cited to justify the use of deception for good ends (Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit, 4 i f ; cf. above, on μίθ* ορκου). Clement, as remarked above, shared this early Christian belief, which he summed up with the words τω μη πάντων etvai την άλήθααν (II.497-'6) and understood as a principle even of divine revelation; cf. Sibylline Oracles X I I ( X ) . 2 9 0 f , τό δ' ούχ άμα πάντες ϊσασιν. ού γάρ πάντων πάντα. C l e m e n t was deeply indebted to Philo ( I V . 4 7 f f , 7 columns of citations—more than any other non-Christian author except Plato, w h o has 10). Both his similarity to Philo and his borrowing from h i m have resulted in considerable confusion in medieval M S S , where m a n y passages now found only in Philo are attributed to C l e m e n t ( I I I . L X X I - L X X X I I ) . A m o n g these are at least two from Questions. . . on Genesis ( I I I . L X X I V , no. 5 1 1 . 1 5 ; L X X X , no. 339). Moreover, C l e m e n t himself appropriated

54


II.I3-I4

THE LETTER

II.I4 δ ι α τοΰτο η σοφία τον Θζον δια Σολομώντος μωρω

εκ της μωρίας

παραγγέλλει,

" άττοκρίνου τ ω

αύτοΰ"

without acknowledgment two considerable sections of (Questions. . . on Genesis (II.474.1-20; 474.23-475.11). Therefore this saying m a y have come into the letter from Philo; cf. Reumann's note on τάληθή above, on 1.10. O n the other hand, it m a y have been a popular proverb (though it does not appear in the Corpus paroemiographorum). For further parallels to the idea see Nock, review of Goodenough V - V I , 527fr and, for the relation of Paul to Philo, Chadwick, St. Paul and Philo. O n 297f C h a d w i c k discusses the question of veracity; he has an additional parallel to the present passage (Cherubim 15).

δια τοΰτο . . . παραγγέλλει.

1 . 1 4 6 . g f (also f o l l o w i n g a q u o t a t i o n ) , δια τοΰτο φυλάττεσθαι

rots νηπίοις δια Σολομώντος παραγγέλλει followed by Prov. 1.1 off as here by Prov. 26.5; cf. also Lk. 11.49, quoted in the following paragraph. For the structure of this w h o l e s e n t e n c e ( δ ι α τοΰτο . . . διδάσκουσα)

ή σοφία

τοΰ

θεοΰ.

1.1yQ.13f,

ή θεία

s e e b e l o w , o n δεΐν . . .

σοφία.

. .-παραγγέλλει,

διδάσκουσα.

followed

as h e r e

by

a

quotation from Prov. (23-2of); cf. II.294.5, ή θεία σοφία . . . λέγει, followed by Wis. 3.2ff. ή σοφία τοΰ θεοΰ probably comes from Lk. 11.49, δια τοΰτο και ή σοφία τοΰ θεοΰ είπεν, followed by a quotation from some lost sacred book. [The Christians of Clement's time often quote Proverbs as " W i s d o m " and also share Clement's fondness for Psalms; see m y remarks on " Traditio," AJP 67 (1946) 365fr. A . D . Ν . ]

δια Σολομώντος

παραγγέλλει.

S e e t h e t w o p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h s a n d 1 . 1 3 8 . 4 , ταΰττ]

τ οι και δια Σολομώντος παραγγέλλεται, followed by Prov. 23.14 i n a form differing considerably from L X X . A g a i n 1.142.28, προτροπτ} ό παιδαγωγός δια Σολομώντος, with Prov. 8.4,6, also in a variant form. T h e δια Σολομώντος formula is f r e q u e n t — especially, as here, to introduce quotations from Proverbs.

άποκρίνου . . . αύτοΰ. Prov. 26.5. Clement was particularly fond of Proverbs (IV.6f, three and a half columns of citations, which ties it with Genesis for second place among the books of the O T ; Psalms comes first with over 4 columns, and Isaiah third with 3). In II.338.8f Clement quotes this same verse (26.5) in this same form, which differs widely from that of L X X (άποκρίνου αφρονι κατά την άφροσΰνην αύτοΰ). [This is of capital importance. A n imitator would be likely to know Proverbs and unlikely to give Clement's form of the text. E.B.] In II.338.8f the exegesis is also basically the same as in the letter—like is to be given to like; this implies deception of the wicked, and again the justification, besides this verse of Proverbs, is the example of Paul w h o was all things to all men. See the preceding paragraphs on μεθ' όρκου and ου γάρ . . .

55


THE LETTER

II.14-15 II.I5 προς τους τυφλούς

τον νουν

λεκτέον for C l e m e n t ' s other uses of I C o r . 9.22b to excuse d e c e p t i o n . I n II.338.8f, h o w e v e r , the other consequences o f the same principle are the m o r e fully d e v e l o p e d . S i n c e like is to be g i v e n to like, truth is to be presented to those w h o desire it in w h a t e v e r f o r m their t r a i n i n g a n d tradition m a k e most a c c e p t a b l e . B u t there c a n b e n o question t h a t t o w a r d hostile or heretical outsiders C l e m e n t a d v o c a t e d the same p o l i c y of secrecy as does this letter. H e m a k e s that p l a i n in a n o t h e r passage w h i c h leads to a q u o t a t i o n f r o m P r o v e r b s : I I . 116. 25fr, οί μεν τό αγιον πνεύμα έρευνώσι

"τά

βάθη

τοΰ

θεοΰ"

<(cf. a b o v e ,

1 . 5 ) τουτέστι

της

κεκτημένοι

περί τάς

προφητείας

επικρύφεως επήβολοι γίνονται, των δε άγιων μεταδιδόναι τοΐς κνσιν απαγορεύεται,

έστ'αν μένη

θηρία, ού γάρ ποτε εγκιρνάναι προσήκει φθονεροΐς καΐ τεταραγμένοις, els ύλακήν ζητήσεως ύπερεκχείσθω

άπίστοις τε έτι

ήθεσιν,

άναιδέσι, τοΰ θείου και καθαρού νάματος, τοΰ ζώντος ύδατος. " μη δη

σοι ϋδατα έξω πηγής

σου, εις δε σας πλατείας

διαπορευέσθω σα

ύδατα."

P r o v . 5· 16. E v e n in his dealings w i t h fellow Christians C l e m e n t a d v o c a t e d a n d c l a i m e d to h a v e f o l l o w e d the p o l i c y of c o n c e a l i n g certain aspects of C h r i s t i a n doctrine or practice. H e declares in the Stromateis t h a t he has no intention of w r i t i n g w h a t he w o u l d hesitate e v e n to say ( I I . 1 i . i f ) , a n d in his m a j o r justification of the p r a c t i c e of secrecy in religious t e a c h i n g (Stromateis V . I V - X = I I . 3 3 8 - 3 7 0 ) he m a k e s clear t h a t one of the reasons for secrecy within C h r i s t i a n i t y is the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n " c o m m o n f a i t h " a n d " g n o s t i c p e r f e c t i o n , " II.342.2ff. T h e latter is not for e v e r y

believer,

I I . 3 6 7 . 2 4 ; 3 7 0 . 1 0 - 1 6 ; i n d e e d , i g n o r a n t believers m a y be d e c e i v e d b y the gnostic for their o w n g o o d , I I . 4 9 4 . u - 1 6 . H o r t a n d M a y o r , l v i - l v i i , r e m a r k t h a t this a t t i t u d e flourished

πρός.

especially in A l e x a n d r i a . (See a b o v e I I . 2 , o n

W i t h έπικρύπτεσθαι,

μυστήρια.)

of c o n c e a l i n g t r u t h f r o m the u n w o r t h y , I I . 3 6 3 . 5 . T h e

passage is a n exegesis of E x . 2 1 . 3 3 ^ " I f a n y m a n o p e n a p i t . . . a n d d o not c o v e r it, a n d a n o x or d o n k e y fall into it, the o w n e r o f the pit shall p a y . " "να οΰν μή τις <(those w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g ) γενόμενος της αληθείας,

εις την ύπό σοΰ διδασκομένην

παρακούση τε και παραπέση,

γνώσιν

τούτων

άκρζο?}ατής

ασφαλής, φησί, περι την χρήσιν τοΰ

λόγου γίνου, και προς μεν τους άλόγως προσιόντ ας απόκλειε την ζωσαν εν βάθει πηγή ν, ποτόν δέ ορεγε τοΐς της αληθείας δεδιφηκόσιν. παραδέξασθαι το "βάθος της γνωσεως"

έπικρυπτόμενος

δ'οΰν προς τους ούχ οίους τε οντάς

•(see a b o v e , 1 . 5 ) κατακάλυπτε

τόνλάκκον.

(ακροατής

for ακρατής is Heyse's e m e n d a t i o n , a c c e p t e d b y S t ä h l i n b u t not b y Friichtel.) T h e connections w i t h the passage q u o t e d in the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h a r e striking.

τους τυφλούς τον νοΰν.

I.J^.12,

τυφλοί μεν τον νοΰν, κωφοί δέ την σύνεσιν of idolaters,

j u s t previously called Sodomites. T h e m e t a p h o r of m e n t a l blindness w a s one C l e m e n t often u s e d : 1 . 6 7 . 1 6 ; 1 6 4 . 1 0 ; I I I . 7 0 . 4 ; 182.20; etc. [ H e r e it m a y be a reminiscence of Sophocles, Oedipus tyrannus 3 7 1 ; such reminiscences o f classical authors are f r e q u e n t in Clement. W . M . C . ]

56


II.I5-16

THE LETTER

II.16 τό φως της αληθείας ο \

\ »

de μη έχοντος

5 Λ /

αρσησεται,

τό φως της αληθείας. δόγμασιν

δεΐν έπικρυπτεσθαι

διδάσκουσα,

αντίκα

φησί,

"του

//

V e r b a t i m , Ι Ι . 5 0 2 . 4 ; I I I . 7 0 . 2 , η φνχη τοις παρά φνσιν

ούχ οία τε το φως της αληθείας

διϊδεΐν ακριβώς,

θολωθεΐσα

etc. T h e f r e q u e n c y of the

metaphor in Clement's works is noted by Tsermoulas, 2gf. δεΐν . . . διδάσκουσα.

II.189.8ff, a sentence of almost exactly the same structure as

t h a t in the letter: οθεν 6 'Αβραάμ

. . . φησίν . . . { G e n . 2 0 . 1 2 ) . . . τ ά ϊ όμομητρίους

μη

Seiv άγεσθαι προς γάμον διδάσκων. Another sentence of the same type, and also similar in content to that of the letter, is found in II.490.15fr, αντίκα 6 Δαβίδ . . . γράφει <Ps. 1 7 - 1 2 f y . . . επικεκρυμμενους

τους άγιους λόγους είναι διδάσκων.

B o t h δεΐν a n d

διδάσκειν

are, of course, frequent in Clement's vocabulary. επικρΰπτεσθαι. A favorite verb of Clement's, I V . 4 1 1 (17 references, listing incomplete ; all but 2 in middle or passive). Some of the passages in which it is used fit the teaching of this letter exactly, e.g. II.35.15 επει δε μη κοινή η παράδοσις καϊ πάνδημος . . . επικρυτττεον οΰν "την

εν μυστηρίω

λαλουμενην

σοφίαν" ην εδίδαζεν 6 υιός

του Θεοΰ. I I . 497· Ι 7> TV ^ Μ1? πάντων είναι την άληθειαν επικρύπτεται τοις είς γνώσιν μεμυημένοις,

πολυτρόπως,

τοις δι άγάπην ζητοΰσι την άληθειαν, τό φώς

μόνοις

άνατελλουσα.

αύτίκα φησί. V e r b a t i m and, as here, intial, to introduce a Gospel saying, II. 138.28. T h e phrase is used thus very often, and Clement's use of αύτίκα both with and without φησί is so frequent and so peculiar that it was discussed by M a y o r in appendix A ( β δ ι ί ϊ ) of his edition of Stromateis V I I . O f the peculiarly Clementine uses of αύτίκα distinguished there, this is evidently that which should be translated " f u r t h e r " or " a g a i n " (363-364). τον . . . άρθησεται. M t . 25.29 ||Lk. 19.26. T h e text is considerably shorter than that now found in the Gospels. This might be the result of deliberate abbreviation. However, Clement's text of this verse probably differed in much the same w a y from that preserved. H e quotes the first half twice (II.10.21 and III.41.7), both times in the form τω εχοντι προστεθήσεται, which differs from the preserved forms of the first half as the text of the letter does from those of the second. Moreover, Clement's text and that of the letter, put together, yield a simple, epigrammatic, rythmically balanced version of the verse; the Matthaean and L u c a n forms are unbalanced and cluttered. This does not prove the simple form the original form. [Simplicity is often the result of r e v i s i o n — A . D . N . ] But it strongly suggests that the letter, since it contains the second half of the simple form, comes from Clement, in whose works we find the (parallel) first half of the simple form. (II.100. i f f and 263.25, which Stählin took as references to this passage, are probably from an extracanonical logion, combined in 263.25 with M t . 6.33 || Lk. 12.31. T h e tradition of the saying is extremely complex; see Lindeskog. Logiastudien.) 57


THE LETTER

II.iö—17

II. 17 και

μωρός

iv σκότα

πορξ,υίσθω."

ημείς

δε

καί. As sole connection of two quotations from different sources, II. 10.21; 125.1; 221.16,20; etc. But καί πάλιν is much more common. The use of a group of quotations, after a long stretch relatively free of them, is typical of Clement; for example, Stromateis I I : Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.

I, 3 quotations I I , 25 quotations I l l , no quotations IV, lines 1-50, 8 quotations IV, lines 51-80, 1 quotation IV, lines 81-120, 9 quotations V, 23 quotations

Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.

V I , lines 1-6, 3 quotations V I , lines 7-64, 2 quotations VI, lines 65-87, 8 quotations V I , lines 88-117, 1 quotation V I I , lines 1-34, 3 quotations V I I , lines 35-55, 10 quotations

These figures are approximate. <5 μωρός . . . πορενεσθω. Ecclesiastes 2.14. Clement quotes Eccles. in II.37.3fr ( i . i 6 f f ) and 8f (7.12), and in II.385.18ff (1.2), each time in texts almost identical with L X X . The text in the letter differs from L X X by substituting μωρός for άφρων (as did the above quotation from Prov. 26.5) and πορενεσθω for πορεύετα 1. The Hebrew text has holek (πορεΰετα 1) and no variants are noted, so this latter difference may be interpretive. [It may also have been motivated at least in part by stylistic considerations. The imperative is more vigorous Greek. A writer with atticizing traits, like Clement, would prefer it. Similarly, De sublimitate IX.9 has γενεσθω φως . . . γενεσθω γη, where L X X has γει>ηθήτω. W.M.C.] Clement's willingness to alter scriptual quotations to suit his purposes is noted by Kutter, 22; Tollington, II. 178; and others. [It may well have been subconscious, since he quoted from memory. A.D.N.] His use of an O T quotation, as here, to follow and clinch a N T one, is f o u n d in I I . 1 3 1 . 2 0 - 2 9 (the " N T " o n e is f r o m Barnabas)

; 135.23—31; 1 4 1 . 2 2 - 2 4 ; etc.

•ημείς δε. In Christian self-congratulation, as here, to contrast a preceding unfavorable O T quotation with a following favorable N T one, I.i I2.i2ff, "μη καυχάσθω ό σοφός εν r f j σοφία αύτοΰ"

(etc.,

J e r . g . 2 2 f ) ήμεις

δε " θεοδίδακτοι"

<1 T h e s s . 4.9). W i t h

slightly different form, contrasting two verses of Paul, II.246.23ff, "μη πλανασθε . . . οΰτε

πόρνοι . . . βασιλείαν

θεον ον κληρονομήσονσιν"

<(Ι C o r . 6.9— Ιθ)> και ημείς

μεν

" άπελονσάμεθα" <1 Cor. 6.11). This comes at the conclusion of Stromateis I I I , Clement's major attack on libertine gnostics, in which he gives most attention to the Carpocratians. There may be an echo of this letter in Apostolic Constitutions VI.10 e n d 11, where the author concludes a list of the abominable teachings of the heretics with an unmistakable reference to those of the Carpocratians, then declares, ούτοι δέ πάντες τον διαβόλου όργανα τυγχάνουσι

και υιοί οργής. ήμεΐς Se τέκνα θεοΰ και νιοι ειρήνης

οντες,

τον ιερόν και εϋθή λόγον κηρύσσοντες . . . and follows this up with a declaration of the mysteries of Christian doctrine which is really an expanded baptismal creed. 58


11.17-18

T H E LETTER

" viol

ΙΙ.ι8 τον

φωτός"

Ισμεν,

πεφωτισμένοι

τί}

νψονς

άνατολί)

τον

πνεύματος

Κνρίου.

υιοί φωτός. This, with the preceding ήμεΐς and the following εαμέν, is an adaptation of I. Thess. 5.5, ύμεΐς viol φωτός εστε (in contrast to the sinners of the preceding verses, cf. the preceding note). I Thess. 5.5 is quoted by Clement, 1.206.13. He uses the metaphor viol φωτός again, I.2o6.24f, deriving it from Jn. 12.36, and he also uses τέκνα φωτός from Eph. 5.8 (1.68.13). The quotation there is introduced exactly as here, without any reference or identification either before or after it. Kutter, 35, comments on this manner of quotation as typical of Clement. The metaphor was commonplace in the early Church; e.g., the fragments of Hippolytus' work against Gaius argue that believers are "children of light" who do not "walk in darkness" and should therefore not be treated as unbelievers (Harnack, Gwynn'sehen 122). However, it seems to have been particularly popular in semignostic circles in Egypt; Sophia JC, 126; Epistula Apostolorum 28(39); 39(5°) > e t c · Hornschuh, Anfänge 87, 238fr, suggests an Essene background. [So does J.R.] πεφωτισμένοι. I.2o6.6, in the context of Clement's quotation of I Thess. 5.5 (above), ό πεφωτισμένος describes the initiated Christian gnostic. Clement uses the verb often (IV.806, 26 references). For the thought and the connection with sonship, 1.105.20^ βαπτιζόμενοι

φωτιζόμεθα,

φωτιζόμενοι

υίοποιούμεθα,

cf. a b o v e , o n τελείουμένων i n 1.22.

Illumination by the spirit, as here, II.295.23; 502.5; etc. Trj εξ ΰφονς ανατολή.

T h e s a m e m e t a p h o r , I I . 3 6 . I l f , φωτός δ', οΐμαι, ανατολή

πάντα

φωτίζεται, of the Logos as the source of all wisdom. Here it is reminiscent of Lk. 1.78, which Clement echoes in I.8o.i6ff and refers to in II.84.20f. Clement's fondness for metaphors using the sun and light is noted by Tsermoulas, 2gf. Christ as illuminator is compared to the rising sun in I.63.17fF; 78.19fr; 81.2iff; etc. τον πνεύματος τοΰ Kvplov. This interprets Lk. 1.78 as a prophecy of illumination by the gift of the spirit, normally in baptism, for which see above, on πεφωτισμένοι, εξ ΰφους was no doubt justified by Mk. 1.10 a n d parallels (τό πνεΰμα . . . καταβαΐνον sc. εξ ουρανών),

a n d Acts 2.2ff (εκ τον ούρανοΰ ήχος . . . πνεύματος

άγιου) ; cf. Acts 8 . 1 6 ;

10.44; ΙΙ·Ι5 (επέπεσεν τό πνεΰμα); etc. Clement regularly interpreted Lk. 1.78 as a prophecy of the illumination of Christians (see the passages listed in the previous paragraph), and he regularly conceived of the spirit as illuminating and as coming from without and from above (Frangoulis, 16, citing I.io6.22ff). Clement uses πνεΰμα

κνρίον

in I I . 5 0 2 . 4 ^ τό γαρ

φως της

αληθείας

φως

αληθές,

άσκιον,

άμερως

μεριζόμενον πνεΰμα κυρίου. In II.295.22 he quotes Prov. 20.27 a s reading πνεΰμα κυρίου λύχνος, and develops the idea, but it was one for which he evidently had no special fondness. Its use here is dictated by the following quotation of II Cor. 3.17, of which the first half (not quoted) identifies the Lord with the spirit (ό δε Κύριος τό πνεΰμά έστιν). This makes it possible to reconstruct the sequence of the writer's 59


I I . 18—19 \\ τ ο χ ου

THE LETTER

*

~ 77"

Λ

de τ ο πνεύμα

" καθαρά

τοις

του

'

Κυρίου,

ff

j

/

φησι,ν

\\ 1

Λ

η

e/cet ελευυερια,

/ // \\

/ παντα

//

% γαρ

καθαροΐς

thought: Dangerous facts should be concealed from the heretics—let the fool walk in darkness—but w e are children of l i g h t — i l l u m i n a t e d by the dayspring (from on h i g h ) — t h e dayspring is Jesus—Jesus is the L o r d — t h e L o r d is the spirit (from on h i g h ) — t h e r e f o r e w e are illuminated by the dayspring of the s p i r i t — b u t where the spirit is, (there) is liberty. This sort of exegetic stringing together of texts is typical of Clement. T h e close relation, approaching interchangeability, of πνεύμα a n d λόγος in the thought of C l e m e n t is noted by Frangoulis, 14f. οΰ 8e . . . ελευθερία. I I Cor. 3 . 1 7 b . εκεί is read by the koine, G a n d most Greek manuscripts, the V u l g a t e and some O l d L a t i n texts, and the Heraclean Syriac. H e r e it m a y be a sign of affinity with the " w e s t e r n " text or a " c o r r e c t i o n " b y the copyist. T h e (unsupported?) τοΰ is probably a copyist's blunder. C l e m e n t often quotes I I C o r . , but never this particular verse. [ H . C . comments: Its use here, like that of the following Titus 1.15, is a piece of self-justification for revealing the secret. W h e n a secret gospel has been corrupted b y heretics, the true gnostic, being enlightened b y supernatural gifts, is able to distinguish the authentic from the false and, in virtue of the ελευθερία conferred by his pneumatic state, can be freer with such dangerous material than a Christian of inferior status, to w h o m the a p o c r y p h o n w o u l d be impure and a pollution to read. T h e like opinion is found in O r i g e n , Commentariorum Series in Matt. 28, middle, a n d Prologus in Canticum, end, and something similar persists even to the time of Isidore of Seville (cf. C h a d w i c k , Sextus 123). Therefore in describing Clement's motivation here it is not enough merely to emphasize his concern to justify concealment of truth from the nonelect. T h i s m a y be too simple a n account of his implied reasoning. O f course he believed in reserve in the communication of religious knowledge, a n d it is a short step from keeping silence on certain topics to saying w h a t one does not oneself w h o l l y believe because it is pastorally expedient for the audience addressed. But he is also seeking to justify his o w n status as a true gnostic w h o is therefore free to handle the secret gospel, and besides this he wants to make clear to his correspondent, Theodore, that he too must regard the ensuing quotations as confidential matter. H . C . also calls attention to I I I . 183.16fr: πάντες οΰν ol πιστοί καλοί καΐ θεοπρεπεΐς . . . ού μην αλλ' εισϊν ήδη rives και των εκλεκτών εκλεκτότεροι. A l l the faithful are elect, but some are more elect than others.] φησίν. This use, interrupting a quotation, is frequent in Clement, e.g., I I . 1 1 5 . 2 4 ; 1 1 6 . 1 6 ; 121.28; 124.20; etc. •πάντα . . . καθαροΐς. T h i s stringing together of quotations without connectives appears often in Clement's works, e.g., 1 . 2 0 6 . 3 - 1 7 ; I I . 1 0 8 . 1 6 f f ; 1 5 0 . 2 6 - 1 5 1 . 6 ; 216.4fr; 382.20; etc. H e r e the quotation is Titus 1.15, quoted by C l e m e n t in II.246.20 60


II. 19-20

THE LETTER

II.20 σοι τοίνυν

ουκ

όκνήσω

τά

ηρωτημ^να

άποκρίνασθαι,

δι' αυτών

<τών>

where it is used as here, in polemic against libertine gnostics, including the Carpocratians. The same purpose as here—to justify concealment of truth from the nonelect and revelation of it to the chosen few—is served by a similar scriptual quotation in II.495.2f, " ά π α ν τ α όρθά ενώπιον τών συνιέντων"

φησιν η γραφή (Prov. 8.9). T h i s

justifies Jesus' teaching outsiders only in parables, which he explained to his disciples. σοι. Sentences beginning with σοι in epistolary style, e.g., Epistolographi Graeci, Alciphron, 1.39, Anacharsis, 6; Libanius, Epistulae, 570, 668, 988. τοίνυν.

Thus used in 1.10.20; 59.7; 95.26; 119.8; etc.

ουκ όκνήσω. Another epistolary cliche; Libanius, Epistulae 56,251, etc. Frequent also in Clement, IV.593, fifteen references. The future with a dependent aorsit infinitive, as here, II. 11.22; Libanius, Epistulae 251. An exact parallel in content to the present passage appears in Epistula Apostolorum 8(19), "Behold, therefore"—because of the false teachings of Simon Magus and Cerinthus—"we have not scrupled to write you concerning the testimony of our saviour, Christ, that which he did." This also leads to the revelation of allegedly secret tradition. The same form was used in a similar connection by Papias, as quoted by Eus., HE III.39.3, ουκ όκνήσω δέ σοι και όσα ποτέ παρά των πρεσβυτέρων

καλώς εμαθον . . . σνντάξαι ταΐς έρμηνείαις,

διαβΐβαιοΰμενος

ύπερ αυτών άλήθειαν. ού γαρ τοις τα πολλά λέγουσιν έχαιρον . . . άλλα τοΐς τάληθτ) διδάσκουσιν,

etc. Further, Eusebius (HE V I . 13.9) reports that Clement used a similar form, καΐ εν τω λόγω δε αύτοΰ τ ω περι τοΰ πασχα έκβιασθήναι έτυχε

παρά τών

αρχαίων

πρεσβύτερων

άκηκοώς

ομολογεί

παραδόσεις

προς τών εταίρων ας

γραφή

τοις

μετά

ταύτα

παραδοϋναι. The general tradition (with φθονέω instead of όκνέω) goes back to Odyssey XI-38of; see the use of φθονερώς above, 1.27. τά ήρωτημενα. Clement uses the verb often (Stählin does not index it fully) and has the perfect middle passive in III.163.32. The perfect participle meaning, as here, " t h e questions which have been asked" is found in Plato, Laws 662ε. άποκρίνασθαι. Thus used in II.32.11. Frequent in Clement; not indexed by Stählin. The question to be answered is regularly indicated by the accusative, Plato, I Alcibiades i i 4 d (τά ερωτώμενα),

etc.

δι' αυτών. . . ελέγχων. S t r i k i n g l y p a r a l l e l e d b y I I . 2 4 8 . 2 5 - 2 4 9 . 3 , πολλαι δε ή μας έτεροδόξους αντιρρήσεις εκδεχονται πειρωμένους

τά τε ύπ' αυτών προκομιζόμενα

διαλύεσθαι, πείθειν τε αυτούς και άκοντας, δι αυτών ελέγχοντας

αίπροςτούς εγγράφως

τών γραφών.

<τώι>>. Possibly omitted by the copyist through homoioteleuton; cf. II.495.4. [A.W. thinks its insertion necessary, especially if one thinks the letter written by Clement. B.E. also suggests it. A.D.N, disagrees.] 61


11.20-22

THE LETTER

11.21 του

ευαγγελίου

ρι

ϊ

de

εν

τρεις

λεζεων

^ tf « rrj

οοω

ημέρας

)

τα

κατεφευσμενα

η '

»

αναραινοντες

εις

άναστησεται,"

ελεγχων.

/\

ιεροσολυμα,

αμελεί

//

\ και

μετά.

11.22

\

τα

εςης

το,

w εως,

"

ήσαν

\ μετα

ώδε

τοΰ ευαγγελίου. Above, 1.21-22. λέξεων.

A b o v e , ΙΙ.8.

τ ά κατεφευσμενα.

Above, II.

II.

ελέγχων. Above, on hi αυτών. Clement uses the verb often, IV.379 (40 references, listing incomplete). The present active participle, 1.141.22; 240.13; etc.; with accusative, ibid, and often (IV.379)I with Sia and genitive, see above.

αμελεί. Meaning " f o r instance." Clement uses it frequently in this sense, often to introduce quotations, e.g. 1.191.24; 455.22; II.39.1 (?); 150.18. A closely related meaning, which it often has in Clement and which is also possible here, is " t h u s " or "similarly," e.g. I.6.23; 99.18; 115.3; 194.6.

μετά

. . . επιφέρει.

II.332.7; 408.20; 497.2; etc.

τό. Before citations, as here, 1.110.19; 120.22; II.461.10; 463.26; etc. T h e accentuation before quotations (whether to or το') is dubious here and in III. 11 and 14; I have followed the appearances, but they may be deceptive. ήσαν... 'Ιεροσόλυμα. Mk. ι ο. 32. Identical with Nestle's text, which records no variants for these words. [R.S. remarks that the only variants recorded by von Soden are omission by Κ 1038.] Clement quotes 10.31 in III.176.27. αναβάινειν et'?, I I I . 36.16. και τα έξης εως. Verbatim and frequent, I I . 1 1 5 . 1 2 ; 119.14; 135.14; 150.5; etc. Mondesert, 68, mentions this sort of citation with this formula as characteristic of Clement. μετά . . . άναστησεται. Mk. 10.34 end. μετά τρεις ημέρας is read by the principal representatives of both the " w e s t e r n " and the " A l e x a n d r i a n " texts; the koine has τij τρίτη

ημέρα.

ώδε. Frequent for the introduction of quotations. ώδε έχει κατά λέξιν to introduce one from the N T , II.263.17. Other examples: II.43.12; 65.7; 331.13; 359.4; 366.15; 62


THE LETTER

II.32-III.I3

επιφέρει κατά λεξιν, II.23-III.11 Quotation from the secret Gospel [III. 11 continued] III. 12 επι μεν τούτοις επεται το, " και προσπορενονται αύτω 'Ιάκωβος III.13 'Ιωάννης/' και πασα ή περικοπή, το δε

και

405.14; etc. With ΐπιφερζι, II.303.25f. ΙΙ.Ι99-3 1 all but verbatim, ωδΐ πως επιφέρει κατά. λεξιν, and introduces a quotation from the works of Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates. ΐπιφΐρΐΐ and κατά Μξιν. See above, on <58e. Both are very frequent, IV.421, 539. The κατά λεξιν formula or an equivalent was used by Clement particularly when quoting heretics; with the passage in the preceding note compare his quotations of Isidore, the son ofBasilides, and of Valentinus, II. 174.23 (κατά λεξιν); 174.30 (αύται? λε'ξεσι), and again of Isidore, 196.1 (κατά Μξιν), and again of Epiphanes, 199.10 (ταύτα ειπών κατά λεξιν, πάλιν ομοίως αϋταΐς ταΐς λεξεσιν επιφερει); Gassianus, 238. iof (κατά λ4ξιν); Valentinus, 458· 12 (κατά λεξιν); and again Isidore, 458-20. επί . . . τούτοις. Of literary sequence and, as here, initial, II.248.15, e'm τούτοις . . . ΐξιστορητΐον. The phrase is fairly common in the terminal expression, και τά επι τούτοις, I.26.29; 6i.4; ι43· 2 3! 2 77·8; etc. μεν . . . δε. Frequent, II.251.16f; 2 5 5 · 3 0 _ 2 5 ® · 5 (loosely connected, as here); 236.16 (the 8ε never appears); 264.6; etc. επεται. Frequent (IV.422, 36 references). Of literary sequence, II.119.20, τά τούτοις επόμενα (i.e., the rest of the passage). Regularly with επί, LS J s.v. τό.

Above, II.21.

και προσπορεύονται . . . 'Ιωάννης. Mk. 10.35· No variants. και πασα ή περικοπή. Verbatim and used in exactly the same way, II. 154.8-9. Stählin cites 8 other uses of περικοπή (IV.639). τό. Above, II.21. δε. Above, III.11. 63


III.X3

THE LETTER

"γυμνός γυμνός

γυμνω" γυμνω.

A e l i a n , De natura animalium

εν τ ω δεκάτω δεινούς Λίβυς

εΐναι

των Περι το δήγμα,

τον Συρακοΰσιον

16.28, i n FGrHist,

Άγαθοκλέα

άναιρεΐν γαρ καΐ

ζώα

λόγων

άλογα

και

no. 564F3,

ανθρώπους,

ανηρ, Ψύλλος ων το γένος. ούτος γοΰν εάν τε κλητός άφίκηται

τύχην Kai θεάσηται πράως ετι άλγοΰντα,

την πληγην

Καλλίας

φησι τους κεράστας

όφεις

ει μη

παρείη

εάν τε και παρη

κατά

(η το δήγμα) μόνον προσπτύσας,

εΐτα

μέντοι την όδΰνην έπράυνε, και κατεγοήτευσε

το δεινόν τ ω σιάλω. εάν δε εΰρη

δυσανασχε-

τοΰντα

σπάσας

χρησάμενος

καΐ άτλήτως

αύτώ τοΰ στόματος εάν δε περαιτέρω

φέροντα, κλΰσματι,

ΰδωρ

άθρόον

εϊσω

των

εΐτα τοΰτο ες κύλικα εμβολών

και τοΰδε τοΰ φαρμάκου κατισχύη

οδόντων και

δίδωσι ροφήσαι τω

το κακόν, ό δε τω νοσοΰντι

γυμνω γυμνός, και τοΰ χρωτός ol τοΰ Ιδίου προσανατρίφας

τρωθέντι-

παρακλίνεται

την ισχύν την συμφυή, εΐτα

μέντοι

τοΰ κακοΰ πεποίηκε τον άνθρωπον έξάντη. T h e practice is attested also b y some verses

of Nicander's, which Aelian goes on to quote. See Kings 1.17.21; 11.4.34^ Lucian, De syria dea 5 5 ; S u l p i c i u s S e v e r u s , Vila s. Martini

(CSEL

I) 7 . 3 ; 8 . 2 ; Vita secunda s.

Samsonis (AnBoll VI.97) i6ff, and Daiches, 492f. This type of miracle has been discussed by Bieler, esp. 237-243, and by Weinreich. T h e above references, except that to Lucian, appear in Bieler. Weinreich, 247fr, adds that the method is implied in Plutarch, De Iside 17 (357D), and the underlying idea in Plato, Symposium I75c-e: τον οΰν Αγάθωνα—τυγχάνειν παρ' έμε κατάκεισο,

γαρ έσχατον κατακείμενον

ίνα και τοΰ σοφοΰ άπτόμενός

μόνον—Λεΰρ',

σου απολαύσω,

έφη φάναι,

προθύροις.

δήλον γάρ δτι ηύρες αυτό και έχεις· ού γάρ αν προαπέστης.

καθίζεσθαι

και ειπείν ότι Ευ αν έχοι, φάναι, ώ Άγάθων,

τοΰ πληρεστέρου κύλιξιν

εις το κενώτερον

καλής

σοφίας

πληρωθησεσθαι.

ει τοιούτον

εάν άπτώμεθα

ΰδωρ τό διά τοΰ έρίου ρέον έκ της πληρεστέρας

εχει και η σοφία, πολλοΰ τιμώμαι και

ρεΐν ημών,

την παρά σοι κατάκλισιν P l u t a r c h , De Iside

Σώκρατες,

ο σοι προσέστη Και τον

εν τοις Σωκράτη

ειη η σοφία ώστ

άλληλων,

εις την κενωτέραν.

εί γάρ

οΐμαι γάρ με παρά σοΰ 17

(357^)

εκ

ώσπερ τό έν ταΐς

and

19

οΰτως πολλής

(358E),

reflects the story that Isis, after recovering the body of Osiris, lay upon it and revived it to such an extent that she conceived from it the child Harpocrates. T h e story is related to a number of magical and erotic passages, e.g.: PGM vol. I, p. 71, n7; also no. I V , lines i i g f f , 400fT; no. X X X V I , lines 288ff; DMP,

col. X V ,

lines

14-20;

Anthologia

Palatina

V . 128;

Anthologia

Latina

430

(Riese); Kerenyi, 39fr. All this material accords with what was said about the Carpocratians, both by Clement (II.197.16-200.15) and by Irenaeus (Harvey, I.20.2 = Stieren, 1.25.3-4). A n d the Carpocratians are said to have interpreted resurrection allegorically as initiation into their sect, Irenaeus, (Harvey, II.48.2 = Stieren, II.31.2). It is not unlikely, therefore, that the Carpocratian text here had an account of a resurrection effected by Elisha's somewhat indiscreet method, but used to justify liturgical or extraliturgical practices of their own. [H.C. refers to the attempt to strip a dead body in a tomb, reported in Acta Ioannis 70-80.] This is an account of an attempted assault prompted by necrophilia, but it stands in contrast to the subsequent raising of the body by the apostle; and the raising follows the model in this letter, not that in John—the apostle enters the tomb and takes the hand of the dead. It is possible, therefore, that the story of the assault may be polemic against the 64


III.13-14

THE LETTER

III.I4 και τάλλα tτ / // Ιεριχώ,

vepl

ων

εγραφας

ούχ

ευρίσκεται,

μ ε τ ά δ ε τό,

" και

έρχεται

εις

Carpocratians and their ritual. A n d since De Iside 17 reports the occasion of the conception of Harpocrates, was it merely by a scribal error that Origen made Celsus refer to the sect of the "Harpocratians" (Contra Celsum V . 6 2 ) — o r was this polemic? Clement often uses γυμνός metaphorically of the state in which the soul must approach God, IV.321 (some 15 references); he also uses it in its liturgical sense, I.255.15, etc. [The metaphorical use is often part of the theme of the restoration of the original condition of humanity in paradise, as is the notion of the disappearance of the difference of the sexes. A.D.N.] T h e metaphorical use is relevant to the requirement of actual nudity in Christian and Jewish proselyte baptism (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X I . 5 and 11, ed. Dix; Werblowsky, Rite ggf). T h e same conjunction of metaphorical and literal meaning appears in the Egyptian youth's account of his j o i n i n g the g y m n o s o p h i s t s , Philostratus, Vita Apollonii μεν πατρώα τοις βουλομενοις

V I . 1 6 : μειράκιον

άφήκα, γυμνός δε Γυμνοΐς επεφοίτησα

τούτοις,

ώς

γινόμενος

τά

μαθησόμενος

(sc. their secret doctrine). In this respect Carpocratian practice seems to have been similar to that of Hippolytus' church, which required that both the initiate and the baptizing piresbyter be nude ( X X I . 11). See below, pp. 175-177, and the discussions of Mk. i4-5if and of Clement, Excerpta 66 referred to in the Index of Passages Discussed. ταλλα. For Clement's usage (or that of the copyists of his works) as regards contractions, see above, 1.9, on τ αληθή. περί ων ίγραφας.

I C o r . J.ia., w h i c h , h o w e v e r , h a s Ιγράφατε.

N o v a r i a n t s . ( 7 . 1 b is

quoted by Clement, II.240.12f.) εγραφας is an epistolary commonplace; Weichert, 8f. περί τίνος γράφειν, in Clement II.222.6f; 341.iof; 402.7; etc. ούχ.

T h e copyist wrote ουκ.

ευρίσκεται, εύροις αν of finding in Scripture is rather frequent in Clement, II. 187.20; 442.8; 448.19 (εΰροιμεν S'av); etc. T h e form ευρίσκεται is used, not of Scripture, in II.316.8 and 466.14; it is used of things being found written εν τη εκκλησία τοΰ θεοΰ, which here practically means " i n Scripture," in a quotation from Valentinus, II.458.14. [Both ευρίσκεται and ούχ ευρίσκεται with this meaning are common in grammarians and scholiasts. A . W . ] μετά δε τό. Above, II.20-21. Initial, II.507.23 (without τό). μετά with επάγειν in citation, II.406.5f. και...'Ιεριχώ. Mk. 10.46. ερχεται is read by the " w e s t e r n " text (D, Sinaitic Syriac [R.S. adds 788—of the Ferrar group—and some Old Latin: a b ff2 r2 ?]);

65


III.I4-18 επάγει III.17

THE LETTER

μόνον, I I I . 1 4 - I I I . 1 6 : quotation from the secret Gospel

τα δε άλλα τά πολλά α €γραφας φεύσματα και φαίν€ται και ΙΙΙ.ιβ ή μεν ουν αληθής και κατά την αληθή φιλοσοφίαν εξήγησις

εστίν.

by the rest of the tradition. Clement quotes 10.45 i*1 1.139.30fr and 10.48 (perhaps) in II.498.33.

έρχονται,

Very frequent in citations, IV.401 (28 references).

επάγει. μόνον.

Frequent, IV.571, not fully indexed.

τά δε άλλα.

Not found as the beginning of a sentence in Stromateis I V - V I inclusive. άλλα, II.281.3; τά μεν οΰν άλλα, 303.12; τά δ' ομοια (following citations, to indicate further literary material), 333.5; 339-3; 409.4 (no δε); τά δ' εξής, 384-15All these are beginnings of sentences. The absence of elision is noteworthy; cf. the earlier usage of the letter (1.8,9,27; II.4,6,12; etc.). Does this indicate that the earlier cases were due to the manuscript, not the copyist? και τά μεν

ίγραφας.

Above, III. 13; further examples, 1.22.22, etc.

ψεύσατα.

Above, 1 1 . 9 .

For the contrast, III.64.32fr, διακριτεον δε . . . το αληθές άπο See above, 1.10. The expression here might be an ironic reminiscence of Plato, Hippias Major 294a-c, esp. c, και είναι και φαίνεσθαι. [However, φαίνεται και εστίν is so common that it need not have come from the Hippias. Could its usage here be due to this: Clement's correspondent had said, "These seem (φαίνεται) to be falsifications," and Clement now answers, "They not only seem to be so, they

και φαίνεται και εστίν. τοΰ φαινομένου.

are"?

B.E.]

II.249.11, ή γονν κατά τον της αλήθειας κανόνα γνωστικής (also the beginning of a sentence).

ή . . . εξήγησις. φυσιολογία

παραδόσεως

μεν ουν. At the beginning of a sentence, following an article, II.347.18, etc. αληθής.

Above, I.9.

την αληθή φιλοσοφίαν. Verbatim, II.3.2; 112.5; 247.15; 421.15f; 422.3f. Clement's standard description of his own theories.

κατά

εξήγησις. II.495.5 (with κατά); 498.12 (των γράφων—and so the preceding instance); 361.1 (of profane writings); 9 other references, IV.397.

66


THE LETTER

II.

SYNTHESIS

OF

FINDINGS

O f the scholars to whom the preceding commentary was submitted, most concluded that the manuscript's attribution of the text to Clement was probably correct—so Bickerman, Calder, Chadwick, Einarson, Früchtel, Grant, Hadas, Jaeger, Lampe, Mondesert, Reumann, Richard, Richardson, Schippers, and Wifstrand. Nock was inclined to deny this attribution, though basing his opinion only on "instinct," and Munck and Völker denied it emphatically, for the reasons discussed in the commentary. T o me, the evidence in the commentary seems, if judged by the standards customarily used in questions ofliterary authenticity, to justify attribution to Clement. Moreover, there is further evidence which points in the same direction.

A.

Linguistic and Stylistic Data

T h e similarity of the letter to the recognized works of Clement in many details of language and style has been illustrated frequently in the commentary. These details must now be summarized and general considerations added.

I.

VOCABULARY

Index I lists the words of the text and indicates whether or not they occur in the works of Clement and of Athanasius. (A comparison with Philo was attempted, but Leisegang's index omits too many words.) T h e " l e t t e r " (that is, everything except the heading and the quotations from the secret Gospel) has a vocabulary of 258 different words, of which 7 are not in Clement, 28 not in Athanasius; by contrast, the quotations from the secret Gospel have a vocabulary of only 82 different words, but of these 4 are not in Clement and only 3 not in Athanasius. 4 It appears, therefore, that the vocabulary of the letter is somewhat closer to Clement than is that of the secret Gospel, and is much closer to Clement than it is to Athanasius. This is shown by the following table (see next page).

4. The different figures given in the preliminary report were based on a different division of the material.

67


T H E LETTER

Not in Clement Heading

Letter αναιδέστατος άπέρατος άπόγραφον άπροφυλάκτως

Not in Athanasius Secret Gospel άποκυλ ίω Βηθανία ΐμβλΐπω

Heading Κλημης στρώματευς

όψία

Letter αναιδέστατο?

Secret Gospl

άναμίγνυμι

άποκυλίω οφία

άνδραποδώδης

Σαλώμη

απατηλοί αϊτέρατος άπόγραφον

μηχανάω (act.) προσπορεύομαι φθονερώς

άπροφυλάκτως έζαντλέω εξήγησις επτάκις εραστής ζόφος Ιεροφαντικός Καρποκρατιανός καταδονλόω κράμα

μηχανάω (act.) μυίω παραχαράσσω πλανήτης πνευματικώτερος προπαρασκευάζω προσεπάγω προσπορΐΰομαι ύποσημαινω φθονερως φιλοσοφία χρη σιμώτατος

The results above are confirmed by consideration of the words in the text which occur less than five times in either Clement or Athanasius. Here it seems worthwhile to report also those usages recorded in the index to Philo. This has yielded the table on the opposite page, where P, C, and A stand for Philo, Clement, and Athanasius. T h e plus signs indicate incomplete entries in Stählin's index.

In sum, the letter, of its 258 words, has 63 (a quarter) which are rare in either Clement or Athanasius. But of these words 6 8 0 + uses are recorded in Clement, 376 in Leisegang's incomplete index to Philo, and only 142 in Athanasius. By contrast, 68


T H E LETTER

άβυσσος αδυτον

Ρ

C

3 28

6

From the letter Α Καρποκρατιανός 3

άλας

-

9 2

2 2

αναιδέστατο?

-

-

-

άναμίγνυμι

-

4 I ΙΟ

-

καταφεΰδομαι κράμα

-

μηχανάω

-

-

-

-

άνδρα ποδώδης απατηλός άπερατος άπόγραφον απόρρητος

-

4 3 -

-

ι

5

I

-

!5

4

-

-

17

απορρίπτω άπροφυλάκτως άσφαλως

-

-

Ρ

C -

καταγράφω

-

καταδουλοω

3 !9 II

-

14

13 4 4 I

-

5 2

πάντοτε

-

παραχαράσσω

4

7 5 6

3 4 I

πλανητης πνενματικώτερος

37 I I I 12

4 2 2

3 3 I 12 2

2 I

σνμφωνεω

-

ΰποσημαινω

-

ΰφος

-

φθονερώς

13 I

-

4 I 6 I 6

Ρ

C

-

2

-

-

-

-

5

-

επιτάσσω

-

ι +

επιτιμάω

5

4

-

διατριβή εΐκω ΐΐσΐτι

-

εκλεγώ

-

ενσώματος ΐζαγγελλω εζαντλεω εξήγησις ΐζορχΐομαι επιστ

9

ομίζω

επτάκις εραστής ζόφος θεόπνενστος 'Ιεριχώ 'Ιεροσόλυμα ίεροφαντικός Καρποκράτης

απέρχομαι άπο κυλίω Βηθανία εμβλεπω

I -

-

I -

!5 I 47 7 -

7 -

-

4 -

I I 2 IO

-

9 7 I 2

προσεπάγω

-

προσπορευομαι

-

-

φιλοσοφία

-

-

6

ι

3 7 23 -

C.IOO

φυσιοω χρησιμώτατος

-

2

φεΰσμα

From the secret Gospel A

-

-

3 15 + 6 +

5 I

2

6o

-

προγράφω προπαρασκευαζω

Σατανάς στενός συγκεράννυμ

κήπος μνημεΐον νεανίσκος όφία Σαλώμη σινδών

-

-

I ΙΟΟ

αντίκα

21

-

3 3ΐ

όλεθρος πάντη

3 I

-

7

3 I

μωραίνω μωρία

2

-

(act.)

μυεω μυσταγωγεω

Α

2 2

3

I I 2 3 3 6 + -

-

23

-

5 -

-

-

7 10 3 8 -

3 -

-

C

-

-

3 I 2

Ρ

-

3 3

-

68ο+

12 I

5 8

c.300

376

-

-

2 I

I 2

I 2 142

Α

4

2 11 2

-

-

6 I 21 +

-

I 9°


THE L E T T E R

the secret Gospel, of its 82 words, has 12 (only a seventh) w h i c h are rare in either C l e m e n t or Athanasius, a n d of these words there are only 21 + uses in C l e m e n t a n d 23 in Philo, but 90 in Athanasius. T h i s shows that the letter is m u c h closer to the peculiar language of C l e m e n t and Philo than it is to the later A l e x a n d r i a n tradition as represented b y Athanasius. (Indeed, from the above figures the letter w o u l d seem closer to C l e m e n t than to Philo, but the figures for Philo cannot be pressed.) It further appears that the quotations from the secret Gospel use a v o c a b u lary of w h i c h the affiliations are quite different from those of the letter. This suggests that the different vocabularies c a m e from different authors, but it is not conclusive, for the difference of v o c a b u l a r y might be explained as a result of content and of imitation of M a r k . T h e rare words in the letter have been discussed in the c o m m e n t a r y ; the more significant cases m a y be recalled here, απίρατος meaning " b o u n d l e s s " (1.4) p r o b a b l y appears in Philo, whose influence on C l e m e n t is well k n o w n ; the superlative άπεράτωτον seems to be used in the same sense b y Clement, άπόγραφον m e a n i n g ' ' c o p y ' ' (II.6) a n d άπροφνλάκτως (1.27) are rare in the preserved literature a n d not found in Clement's preserved works; they w o u l d probably not have been used b y a n imitator anxious to avoid questionable traits, but they are evidenced b y contemporary usage and C l e m e n t himself could well have used them, αντίκα (II. 15) appears in one of the senses distinguished b y M a y o r as peculiar to Clement, w h o was abnormally fond of this word, μηχανάω in the active (II.3) is extremely rare (in prose otherwise u n k n o w n ?); that it should have been used by an imitator is almost incredible, but C l e m e n t himself might have used it as a deliberate echo of H o m e r — h e was very fond of H o m e r and often uses poetic verb forms in his prose. T h e three remaining words not in C l e m e n t , Philo, or Athanasius are προσπορεύομat ( I I I . 12) quoted from M k . 10.35, a n c * αναιδέστατο? (II.8) a n d φθονερως (1.27), both in Plato, w h o was the chief p a g a n influence on Clement. T h e words in the letter and Clement, but not in Philo or Athanasius, are άναμίγνυμι (II.8), άνδραποδώδης (1.7), εξαντλεα) ( I l . g ) , a n d προπαρασκευάζω (I.27), ' n Plato; ίεροφαντικός (1.23) in I a m b l i c h u s ; προσεπάγω (1.24) in Polybius; and Καρποκρατιανός (1.2) and πνεύματικώτερος (1.21) from the Christian vocabulary, πλανήτης, Philo πλανήτες, scarcely belongs in the list, especially since the letter uses it in a quotation from J u d e . B y contrast, the words peculiar to the secret Gospel, άποκνλίω ( I I I . i ) and οφία (III.7), are both in L X X ; but neither is in Plato. T h e r e is only one w o r d shared b y the secret Gospel a n d C l e m e n t , but not listed for Philo or Athanasius: the name Σαλώμη ( Ι Ι Ι . ι β ) — a n a m e particularly important in the gnostic side of E g y p t i a n Christianity with w h i c h C l e m e n t was involved. It will be discussed below in the commentary on the secret Gospel. [ J . R . here remarks: " T h o u g h I find myself convinced b y the cumulative arguments for the authenticity of the letter . . . I fear the statistics here might only point to a date for the document in the centuries between Philo and Athanasius. A comparison w i t h O r i g e n , if a n index verborum existed, w o u l d be more significant."] W i t h this I agree, but, as things are, the comparisons with Philo a n d Athanasius seemed the most relevant that could easily be made. 70


THE LETTER

2.

VERBAL ASSOCIATION

Not only do the letter and Clement use the same words, but they associate them in the same ways: σαρκικών

και ενσωμάτων,

πεφυσιωμενοι

εις γνώσιν

o f sins ( 1 . 4 ) (Ι·5)

καυχάομαι, of libertines who boast of their freedom (1.6) πάντη r e και πάντως 6 της αληθείας άνθρωπίνας

δόξας

την πίστιν αΰξησις

(1.8)

εραστής

(I.g)

a n d φαινομένην

άλήθειαν

( Ι . ΐ ο ) as o p p o s e d t o Trj αλήθεια

τη

κατά

(I.Ii)

πίστεως

(1.17-18)

τα προκύπτοντα περί (τινα) = those things which make for (I.2of) πνΐυματικ(ώτΐρ)ον

εύαγγελιον

αυτούς μόνους τους μυουμενους

(1.2 i f ) τά μεγάλα

μυστήρια

(ΙΙ.2)

μιαρός, of demons (II.2-3) απατηλός, of the black art (11.4) τω τών ανθρώπων άχραντος

καΐ άγιος

γενεί

(II.3)

(II.8)

κατά την άληθη φιλοσοφίαν, as a description of the writer's opinions (III. 18) Associations of words similar to all of these, but not usually identical and usually in different contexts, are to be found in Clement and are cited in the commentary. This letter has, also, many of Clement's stock phrases—ώς εγώ οΐμαι (1.27), εϊσετι νΰν ( I I . ι ) , εΰ μάλα ( I I . ι ) , etc.—which belong rather to vocabulary than to verbal association. Against these similarities, I have found in Clement no parallels for the following associations in the letter: παραδιδόναι, of the traditions of heretics (1.13); εξαγγελλειν, of an evangelist's publication of Jesus' teachings (1.16); μυστικάς, of Jesus' πράξεις ( 1 . 1 6 - 1 7 ) ; επιτίθημι, of addition to a literary work (1.24). It is to be expected that any work of any author will show some peculiar traits, and these seem within the range of Clement's possible usage. 3.

COMPARISONS AND METAPHORS

T h e following are found both in the letter and in Clement's preserved works: sinners to planets (1.3) the road of the commandments (I.3, a favorite of Clement's) wandering into sensual indulgence (1.4) depths of knowledge (1.5) casting oneself into damnation (1.6) the darkness of falsity (1.6) slaves of the passions (1.7) counterfeiting the truth (1.14) salt, as a symbol of goodness (1.15, N T ) dancing out mysteries which are not to be spoken (1.23) Jesus a hierophant (1.23)

71


THE LETTER

instruction acts as a mystagogue (1.25) the veiled adyton of the truth (1.26; confirming Wilamowitz' conjecture) unbelief is mental blindness (II. 14!*, a favorite of Clement's) the light of the truth (II.15, another favorite; Tsermoulas, 29Q the evil walk in darkness (II. 16, O T ) right believers are children of light (II. 17, N T ) the coming of the spirit of Christ is sunrise (II. 17f) moral purity (II.i8f, N T ) Clement's works do not speak of drawing off a doctrine from a book (letter, II.9), nor (clearly) of the abyss of sin (letter, 1.4). T h a t men are enslaved by magic or b y evil spirits (letter, II.5; Clement, 1.8.3; III.5.14) m a y not be metaphorical. T h e frequency with which the letter uses metaphors and similes and its failure to develop t h e m — t h e w a y they are merely suggested by a word or two and then abandoned—have both been remarked as typical of Clement's style (Tsermoulas, 108; M u r p h y , xif). A l o n g with metaphor may be mentioned two other characteristics of Clement's style: his fondness for plays on words, conspicuously illustrated in the letter by the play on αλήθεια (1.7-13, see the note on 1.9), and his deliberate variation of nouns when referring repeatedly to the same thing, illustrated in the letter by the change from φεΰδος to πλάσμα (1.12-14). 4.

FORMS OF

REFERENCE

T h e following forms used in the letter are either closely or exactly paralleled in Clement: ούτοι γαρ oi προφητευθέντες, identifying figures of Clement's world as those referred to by a cryptic phase of Scripture (1.3) το κατά Μαρκον εύαγγίλιον (1.12) τοΰτο δη το λεγόμενον, as an interjection to introduce a conventional expression (I.14) τον . . . τούτου, for contemptuous reference to an object previously indicated (II.9) καθώς και προείρηκα

( I I . I ο)

ή σοφία τοΰ Θεοί . . . παραγγέλλει, to introduce a quotation from Proverbs (II. 13) δια τοΰτο . . . δίά Σολομώντος παραγγέλλει, to introduce a quotation from Proverbs (Π.13) αντίκα φησί, to introduce a quotation from a Gospel (II. 15) φησίν interrupting a quotation of Scripture (II. 18, very frequent in Clement) δι' αυτών (των

γραφών)

λέξεων . . . ελέγχων,

refute heretics (II.20) μετά τό . . . ωδε επιφέρει (II.2 1 - 2 2 )

και τα έζής έως ( I I . 2 l f ) κατά λέξιν

(11.22)

επί τούτοις a n d επεται ( Ι Ι Ι . Ι ΐ) και πάσα ή περικοπή

( I I I . 12)

το δε' (III. 13) μετά δε τό a n d επάγει

( I I I . 14)

72

i n t r o d u c i n g scriptural quotations to


T H E LETTER

Besides these there are 4 instances in the letter (1.6 a n d I I . 16,17,18) in which Scripture is q u o t e d without a n y introduction, or with only και or γάρ to connect it to w h a t precedes; this way of quoting Scripture is frequent in Clement's works (see II.18). Like Clement, the letter quotes Philo without mentioning him (II.12). T h e letter's only form of reference not paralleled in Clement is the epistolary c o m m o n p l a c e περι ων εγραφας 5.

( I I I . 13).

FORMULAS BEGINNING SENTENCES

O f 26 such formulas, 17 are found v e r b a t i m in C l e m e n t : οΰτοι γάρ ol (1.3)

οι) γάρ (II.12)

τούτοις οΰν (1.7; II.10)

δια τοΰτο ( I I . 13) αύτίκα φτησί ( I I . 15)

el γάρ και, C.Opt. (1.8) ουδέ γάρ (1.9)

ήμεΐς 8e (II. 16-17) αμελεί ( Ι Ι . 2 0 - 2 Ι ) επί (μεν) τούτοις ( Ι Ι Ι . Ι ΐ )

ό γοΰν (1.15) ούδεπω (όμως) (1.22) ούτως οΰν (1.26)

μετάδέ

τοΰ δε . . . τούτου (ΙΙ-9)

ή / το μεν οΰν ( I I I . 17-18)

( I I I . 14)

O f the remaining 9, 5 are exactly paralleled in structure, t h o u g h the words used are different; these are beginnings with initial participles or with nouns in the genitive, 1.5,11,13,18; II.2. T w o are epistolary cliches not found in Clement's preserved works (which contain only brief fragments of two letters) b u t frequent in the imperial epistolography (καλώς εποίησας, 1.2; σοl τοίνυν, I I . i g ) . O n e is a quotation of I I Cor. 3.17 (in II.18). T h e one u n a c c o u n t e d for is τά δε άλλα (III.17). O f t h o s e found in Clement, άμίλει a n d αντίκα φησί are so often used by him as to be characteristics of his style. 6.

PREPOSITIONS

T h e uses of prepositions are customarily classified by cases a n d meanings; by those criteria, all the uses found in the letter are found also in Clement. O f the 25 uses of prepositions with verbs—1.3,4,56«,jo, 1 i,ig,2obis,2i,26; 11.2,4,6,16,20 21 (μετά), 21 (e iy); I I I . ι ι,ΐβ,ιφϊε—Clement has, for at least the 17 italicized, the same preposition in the same sense with the same verb. T h e rest are all to be f o u n d either in L X X a n d N T or in s t a n d a r d Hellenistic a n d classical authors. T h e prepositional phrases in 1.15,22, II.i2,i3,2i(eV),22bis were excluded from the above list because they are s t a n d a r d adverbial constructions, practically i n d e p e n d e n t of the verbs with which they are used. Of these constructions, those in 1.15,22, I I . 1 3 a n d κατά λεξιν in 11.22 are all found in Clement, while εν r f j όδω ( I l . a i ) a n d μετά τρεις ήμερας (11.22) are quoted from the N T ; only μεθ' ορκου ( I I . I 2 ) remains, a n d it is f o u n d in M t . T h u s the individual uses of prepositions in the letter are always in accord with Clement's general usage a n d often exactly paralleled in his works. But the situation is complicated by the question of the relative frequency with which particular prepositions a n d cases are used. This was studied for Clement's works by 73


THE LETTER

Mossbacher, who listed 18 prepositions in order of frequency, with estimated totals for the uses of each (p. 7). The first 12 items of his list appear in column M , below; column L lists the prepositions used in the letter (excluding the heading and the secret Gospel) and column C the prepositions in a sample passage from Clement, of approximately the same length as the letter (II.243-246). In the L and C columns the totals are broken down to indicate the number of uses with each case, the cases being indicated by the initals A (accusative), D (dative), and G (genitive).

L

A

els

9A

κατά

ηΚ

C

κατά !995 Βιά I95 6

ev

5D

μετά

3A

iG

ev els

διά

2G

ΐττί

ττρόί 3Α

προς

εκ

ßG

ΐκ

ττΐρί

2G

παρά

iG

παρά

από > '

iG π

από

£7τι

IL)

μετά

υπό

iG

ύπό

ιΑ

I I G 6D 24Α

περί

/

1743 1589 1239 I0 59 933 730 565 447 404 402

13A i G 7D €77*1 3A 2D κατα 4A 4A els

διά >

ev

πpόs

zA

άπο

avev

iG iG iG iG

5G

9D 26A

ύπό αντί

It will be seen that the 12 prepositions which occur in the letter are precisely the same as the 12 Mossbacher found Clement used most often, and that the relative frequency of their uses in the letter is roughly in accord with Mossbacher's report of their relative frequency throughout Clement's works. In both these respects the letter agrees with Mossbacher's table much better than does the passage of Clement chosen for comparison-an atypical passage chosen deliberately to show that the letter is well inside the range of variations from which Mossbacher's averages were compiled. On the other hand, according to Mossbacher (p. 9) the average frequency of cases throughout Clement's works, is 1.8 genitives and 2.7 accusatives for every 1 dative. The letter has 1 . 8 + genitives and 4 accusatives for every dative, and Clement, II.243-246, has .55 of a genitive and almost 2.9 accusatives for every dative. Since the use of the accusative increased sharply in the centuries after Clement's work, and that of the dative declined even more sharply, the high relative frequency of accusatives in the letter would be a trait almost certain to be found in a later imitation; it seems to me the chief ground for doubting the letter's authenticity. On the other hand, the uses of els, κατά, and μΐτά which account for this are almost all determined by content and individually paralleled from Clement's undoubted works, and isolated passages of Clement would be expected to show considerable deviation from averages based on the whole. In particular one might expect to find a private letter

74


THE LETTER

s o m e w h a t f u r t h e r a l o n g the line of linguistic c h a n g e t h a n its a u t h o r ' s p u b l i s h e d works. I t is also possible t h a t some of the letter's accusatives w e r e i n t r o d u c e d b y m e d i e v a l c o p y i n g ; see b e l o w , o n τον Ίησοΰν, 7.

in I I . 2 4 .

SYNTAX

T h e sentence structures o f the letter c a n all be p a r a l l e l e d f r o m C l e m e n t a n d , g e n e r a l l y , f r o m m a n y G r e e k writers of the i m p e r i a l p e r i o d ; so c a n the letter's use o f m o o d s a n d tenses. F o r the most p a r t these present n o t h i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y .

The

e x a c t p a r a l l e l in C l e m e n t — w i t h q u i t e different w o r d s a n d c o n t e x t — t o the r a t h e r o d d sentence f o r m in 11.13—15

(δια τοΰτο . . . παραγγέλλει

deserves notice. S o does the g r a m m a t i c a l slip, καυχώμενοι

. . . δεΐν . . . διδάσκουσα) ελευθέρους etvai, in 1 . 6 - 7 ,

w h i c h c o u l d h a r d l y h a v e b e e n m a d e b y a careful i m i t a t o r c a p a b l e of w r i t i n g the rest of the text, b u t is m o r e u n d e r s t a n d a b l e in a p r i v a t e letter. Besides these details, the most conspicuous g r a m m a t i c a l characteristics of the letter are the fondness for the perfect (1.24) a n d for v e r b a l adjectives in -re'os a n d -τέον (1.10), b o t h c h a r a c teristics o f C l e m e n t .

8.

EUPHONY

T h e letter's practices a r e c o m m o n to C l e m e n t a n d to later G r e e k g e n e r a l l y , b u t m a y be d u e to the copyists r a t h e r t h a n the writer. T h u s , a l t h o u g h the letter agrees w i t h C l e m e n t ( M o s s b a c h e r , 4 5 - 4 7 ) in n e g l e c t i n g hiatus before prepositions

and

a v o i d i n g it after t h e m (11.4,6,12,20), no i m p o r t a n c e c a n be a t t r i b u t e d to this; so does the secret Gospel ( I I . 2 6 ; I I I . 5 , 6 ) .

9.

CLAUSULAE

A p p e n d i x C shows the results of a study of the q u a n t i t a t i v e r h y t h m s at the ends of the sentences of the letter a n d of Stromateis I I I (chosen because it is closest in content

to the letter).

Quotations,

sentences i n t r o d u c i n g

quotations,

rhetorical

questions of less t h a n f o u r syllables, a n d passages t e x t u a l l y c o r r u p t h a v e b e e n e x c l u d e d . O f the r e m a i n i n g 3 1 4 sentences of Stromateis I I I , the quantities of the last five syllables h a v e b e e n t a b u l a t e d . F i v e syllables c a n display o n l y 32 patterns of longs a n d shorts. I f these 32 patterns o c c u r r e d at r a n d o m in the 3 1 4 sentence endings, e a c h p a t t e r n s h o u l d o c c u r a b o u t 9 or 10 times. A c t u a l l y , h o w e v e r , there a r e 6 patterns w h i c h a c c o u n t for m o r e t h a n a third of the endings, a n d 9 patterns w h i c h together m a k e u p o n l y a ninth. T h i s looks like the result of deliberate preference a n d a v o i d a n c e . N o w the letter contains 21 i n d u b i t a b l e sentence endings (apart f r o m those in q u o t a tions or i n t r o d u c i n g quotations) a n d to these m a y b e a d d e d , for the sake of c o m p l e t e ness, the endings διδασκαλίαν

του κυρίου (I.23f) a n d ουδέποτε είκτέον

(II.io), which

m a y perhaps c o n c l u d e sentences, a n d άληθή λεκτέον ( I I . 13), the e n d of a n u n a c k n o w l e d g e d q u o t a t i o n f r o m P h i l o w h i c h this a u t h o r has p r o b a b l y rephrased.

O f the

resultant 24 units, 10 c o m e f r o m C l e m e n t ' s 6 f a v o r e d patterns, 11 f r o m C l e m e n t ' s 17 neutral patterns, a n d o n l y 3 f r o m C l e m e n t ' s 9 a v o i d e d patterns. A l l his f a v o r e d

75


THE LETTER

patterns are represented in the letter, but only two of his avoided patterns appear there. T h e 6 favored patterns account for slightly more than four-twelfths of the endings in Stromateis I I I and five-twelfths of those in the letter, while the 9 avoided ones m a k e up only a ninth of the endings in Stromateis I I I a n d an eighth of those in the letter. T h u s the clausulae of the letter are those we should expect in a composition written b y the author of Stromateis I I I .

B.

Conclusions from the linguistic and stylistic data

W h e n taken together, the above similarities between the letter and the works of C l e m e n t virtually prove that the letter is either genuine or a deliberate and careful imitation. T h e r e can be no question here of accidental misattribution to C l e m e n t of a nameless document w h i c h some scribe assigned to a familiar author b y a plausible guess. For that, the similarities are too great. N o r is there a n y evidence to justify the notion that w e h a v e here a genuine letter expanded b y interpolation: the text is uniform a n d closely knit throughout. So the letter is either entirely genuine or a deliberate imitation of Clement's style. But if it be an imitation, its freedom is no less a m a z i n g than its accuracy. T h e r e is no passage of Clement's extant works from w h i c h it could have been derived by adaptation. N o r could it have been m a d e u p as a cento b y putting together snippets of sentences taken from Clement. E x c e p t for a few fixed phrases and a considerable n u m b e r of syntactic expressions w h i c h C l e m e n t used over and over, it almost never uses Clement's exact words, though it constantly uses his v o c a b u l a r y , his phraseology, and his metaphors. T h u s the relation of the letter to the undoubted works of C l e m e n t is one of close similarity without either quotation or paraphrase. N o w this is quite different from the relation of the letter's passages of the secret Gospel to the text of the canonical Gospel according to M a r k . T h e secret Gospel passages are largely m a d e u p of phrases w h i c h coincide almost w o r d for w o r d with phrases of M k . I f an imitation, it is an imitation of the simplest and most childish sort. But this difference of relation is the opposite of w h a t w e should expect. M k . is written in simple Greek with m a n y striking peculiarities; it should be easy to imitate freely. O n the other h a n d , Clement's style is often difficult, but has few striking peculiarities w h i c h an imitator could exploit. W i t h o u t profound study it could not be imitated w i t h assurance of a c c u r a c y except b y taking whole phrases a n d piecing them together or by taking a whole section a n d m a k i n g minor changes in it. So if one imitator h a d written the whole document, w e should expect his imitation of C l e m e n t to be a cento or an adaptation, and w e should not be surprised if his imitation of M a r k were considerably freer. T h a t w e find the reverse of this means that if the letter is an imitation, then the letter and the Gospel fragments were not composed by the same man. N o m a n w h o could write such a free and skillful imitation of so difficult an author as C l e m e n t w o u l d then write such a slavish imitation of so easy an author as M a r k . 76


THE LETTER

But w h a t if the letter should be g e n u i n e ? T h e n , too, it w o u l d follow that the letter and the Gospel fragments were by different hands. For Clement's works m a k e clear that he w o u l d never have invented these Gospel quotations. N o doubt he was of less than perfect honesty—see above, on I I . 1 2 — b u t neither his conscience nor his feeling for Greek style w o u l d have permitted him to forge fragments of the sacred Scriptures. Therefore if the letter is genuine, the letter and the Gospel fragments were not composed by the same man. N o w as remarked above, w e must suppose either that the letter is genuine or that it is a n imitation. Since both these suppositions have led to the conclusion that the letter a n d the Gospel fragments are not b y the same m a n , w e are justified in discussing them as separate compositions. W e can therefore deal here with the letter b y itself a n d reserve consideration of the secret Gospel for the following chapter. R e t u r n i n g to the question of the letter's authenticity, w e first remark its title: " F r o m the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis, to T h e o d o r e . " I f the letter is not genuine, this title must be the result either of deliberate falsification or of a mistaken guess—some copyist found an unidentified letter " t o T h e o d o r e " a n d attributed it to C l e m e n t on the grounds of content and style. But it has already been shown that the mistaken-guess theory is unlikely because the style of the letter is so close to Clement's that the work must either be his or a deliberate imitation, a n d if it were a n imitation the imitator w o u l d h a v e provided the title. Moreover, the words " f r o m the letters" suggest (but do not absolutely require) that the letter at some time came from a collection of letters b y Clement, a n d a collection is less likely to h a v e been misattributed than a short, isolated text. O n the other h a n d , " t o T h e o d o r e " argues against falsification, for no T h e o d o r e is k n o w n to have been associated with C l e m e n t ; nor was there a n y eminent T h e o d o r e w h o lived a b o u t his time a n d w i t h w h o m he might plausibly be supposed to have corresponded. T h e n a m e , especially because of its acceptability to Christians of Jewish background, fits very well with the content and finding-place of the letter; but a forger w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e attempted something more s p e c t a c u l a r — w o u l d h a v e m a d e C l e m e n t instruct his reported pupil O r i g e n or his u n d o u b t e d friend Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem. O f T h e o d o r e one c a n say, as L e b o n said of Dositheus (Fragments 17 n58), " T h i s n a m e is neither rare nor illustrious at this period; there is nothing a b o u t it w h i c h w o u l d have tempted a f o r g e r . "

C. I.

K N O W L E D G E AND USE OF

Content

SCRIPTURE

T h e letter refers to the canonical Gospels as θΐόπvevarot (1.11) a n d άγια (II.8); so did Clement. It uses, besides the four Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Pastorals, I Peter, J u d e , a n d the Apocalypse. 5 A l l these were accepted b y Clement. A m o n g the letter's quotations of the N T are a n u m b e r C l e m e n t also used (1.3,5; I I . 16, 5· See Index II for the quotations and reminiscences in the letter.

77


THE LETTER iybis,ig),

a n d its q u o t a t i o n s s h o w points of c o n t a c t w i t h the western text ( I I . 18,22;

I I I . 1 4 ) , as d i d C l e m e n t ' s ( B a r n a r d ) . 6 Its q u o t a t i o n o f M t . 25.29 || L k . 19.26 suggests t h a t its a u t h o r h a d the same p e c u l i a r f o r m for the first h a l f o f the verse as d i d C l e m e n t ( I I . 16). O f the N T , it uses M k . 4 t i m e s ; I a n d I I C o r . t o g e t h e r 3 ; L k . 3 ; M t . , T i t u s , a n d J u d e 2 e a c h ; J n . , I T h e s s . , I Pet., a n d A p o c . 1 e a c h . T h e p r o m i n e n c e o f M a r k a n d J u d e in this list is d e t e r m i n e d b y the subject m a t t e r w i t h w h i c h the a u t h o r h a d to deal. C l e m e n t ' s order o f preference ( b y c o l u m n s of references in Stählin's i n d e x ) is: M t . 9 cols.; I a n d I I C o r . together 7 ; L k . 5 . 5 ; J n . a n d R o m . 4 e a c h ; M k . 2.5. (Stählin's i n d e x is n o t a l w a y s a c c u r a t e in its assignment o f m a t e r i a l to the v a r i o u s biblical books—cf. A p p e n d i x D.) O f the O T

(and A p o c r y p h a ) the letter uses P r o v . three times a n d J e r . , W i s . ,

a n d Eccles. o n c e e a c h . C l e m e n t ' s favorites w e r e Pss., 4.5 cols.; P r o v . a n d

Gen.,

3.5 e a c h ; Is., 3 ; b u t there is m o r e t h a n a c o l u m n of J e r . , a n d W i s . a n d Eccles. a r e b o t h represented. T h e letter quotes P r o v . 26.5 in a f o r m in w h i c h it is q u o t e d b y n o w r i t e r save C l e m e n t , a n d interprets it as C l e m e n t d i d ( I I . 1 4 ) . I t has w h a t m a y b e a reminiscence of o n e passage of Enoch; the p a r t i c u l a r detail recalled is one for w h i c h C l e m e n t e x p l i c i t l y referred to Enoch (1.4). Besides Enoch, the letter accepts as S c r i p t u r e the secret G o s p e l ; C l e m e n t is outs t a n d i n g a m o n g C h r i s t i a n writers for his a c c e p t a n c e o f O T a n d N T p s e u d e p i g r a p h a . Z a h n w r o t e of h i m , " H i s a m a z i n g l y u n c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e to a p o c r y p h a l

literature

exceeds a n y t h i n g to b e f o u n d in other C h u r c h f a t h e r s " (Forschungen I I I . 156). T h i s j u d g m e n t is d o c u m e n t e d i n v o l u n t a r i l y e v e n b y the m i n i m i z i n g a n d

incomplete

studies o f K u t t e r , 50fr, a n d R u w e t , Clement 4o6f (neither o f w h o m n o t i c e d , for exa m p l e , that C l e m e n t r e p o r t e d l y said L u k e c o m p o s e d the Dialogue

of Jason

and

Papiscus: so M a x i m u s the Confessor o n D i o n y s i u s A r e o p a g i t e s , Μυστικής Θεολογίας ι e n d ) . O f all i m p o r t a n t e a r l y C h r i s t i a n writers, C l e m e n t w a s the one most likely to h a v e a c c e p t e d a secret G o s p e l . H i s o b j e c t i o n to a s a y i n g used b y the heretic C a s s i a n u s , Πρώτον

μεν ουν εν τοις παραδεδομενοις

ήμΐν τετταρσιν

εύαγγελίοις

ονχ

εχομεν

το ρητόν, άλλ* εν τ ω κατ' Αιγυπτίους ( I I . 2 3 8 . 2 7 f ) , does not p r e c l u d e his a c c e p t a n c e o f a further, secret d o c u m e n t to w h i c h he w o u l d not refer in p u b l i c dispute. C o m p a r e his statement that the story of the rich y o u n g ruler is f o u n d in all the r e c o g n i z e d (άνωμολογημενοις) Gospels, w h i c h w o u l d e x c l u d e J n . ( I I I . 163.13fr; cf. M o n d e s e r t , Clement 1 1 8 n2). T h e attitude s h o w n b y the a u t h o r o f the letter is c r e d i b l e of C l e m e n t ; it w o u l d be i n c r e d i b l e of A t h a n a s i u s , a c e n t u r y a n d a h a l f later. T h e letter not o n l y has the same sacred literature as C l e m e n t , b u t also uses it in the same connections, for the same purposes (see the passages cited a b o v e , esp. 6. Barnard's conclusions must now be modified by the findings of Swanson, Text, who has argued that in the Stromateis Clement's use of a text of western type is demonstrable only in his quotations from Lk. In quoting Mt. and Jn. he demonstrably used a text closest to the Egyptian type (represented best by X). His quotations from Mk. have points of contact with the western text, but are not sufficient to permit determination of the type of text used. The long quotation of Mk. in QDS seems to have come from a mixed text (pp. 97-102, 167fr). These, at least, are the conclusions set forth by Swanson. I have not attempted to check his work in detail, but a number of its aspects—especially the choice of evidence (see the notes to Appendix D)—do not incline me to be confident that these conclusions are conclusive. Nevertheless, my thanks are due to Professor Metzger for calling my attention to Swanson's work.

78


THE LETTER

I I . 1 4 and 18), a n d interprets it in the same ways. Its peculiar interpretation of Prov. 26.5 has been mentioned. It also shares with C l e m e n t the habit of using an O T quotation to follow and clinch one from the N T (II. 16). Further, it agrees w i t h C l e m e n t in interpreting J u d e as referring to the Carpocratians (1.3fr) and in associating the Carpocratians with Nicolai'tans of the Apocalypse (1.5). T h e beginning of its peculiar tradition a b o u t M a r k agrees with that w h i c h Eusebius found in Papias a n d C l e m e n t ; moreover, in m a k i n g M a r k write during Peter's lifetime it agrees w i t h C l e m e n t against Papias (1.15). I t is in C l e m e n t , also ( I I I . 1 6 2 . 1 9 - 1 6 3 . 1 2 ) , that w e find the quotation of a long, uninterrupted section of M k . , like the letter's quotation of the secret Gospel. M o r e o v e r , the section of M k . ( 1 0 . 1 7 - 3 1 ) quoted b y C l e m e n t is adjacent to 10.34 4-6> where the letter locates in M a r k the pericopae it quotes from the secret Gospel. A n d yet m o r e : T h i s was the one part of M a r k in w h i c h Clement, for some reason, was especially interested. Stählin's list of Clement's quotations from M a r k is not reliable; it includes passages probably quoted from the other synoptics or from extracanonical sources. A revision of it will be found in A p p e n d i x D . T h e revised list shows no certain quotation of a n y verse prior to 8.38 (the last verse of ch. 8). T h e certain quotations are of 8.38; 9 . 7 ; 9.29 ( ? ) ; 1 0 . 1 7 - 3 1 and i 4 . 6 i f . O f the possible quotations listed b y Stählin there are 13 prior to 8.38, 25 from chs. 9 a n d 10, a n d 14 from 11.1 to the end. A l l o w i n g for the fact that 11 of the 25 occur in the exegesis of 1 0 . 1 7 - 3 1 in QDS, it remains clear that C l e m e n t was extraordinarily interested in M k . 9 - 1 0 , particularly in 10, the chapter from w h i c h this letter quotes the additions in the secret Gospel. ( T h e reason for this interest in M k . 9 - 1 0 will be discussed later.) Both the letter and C l e m e n t are m u c h fonder of allusions and reminiscences than of direct quotations, a n d even w h e n they quote directly they often do not specify the source. Stählin recognized 79 quotations of M k . as against 100 reminiscences (and about 25 of his " q u o t a t i o n s " belong in the reminiscence c a t e g o r y — s e e A p p e n dix D ) . O f his 79 quotations only 2 carry with them explicit references to M k . T h e letter has 18 quotations as against 19 reminiscences, and only one of the quotations is a c c o m p a n i e d b y a reference to the author (though, of course, the 4 quotations of M k . used to locate the sections of the secret Gospel are themselves specific references). T h e reason for the higher percentage of quotation and specific reference in the letter is its polemic content; in polemic passages Clement, too, makes more use of specific reference and allegedly precise quotation (1.22). T h e less precise practice of reminiscence had an advantage w h i c h recommended it both to C l e m e n t and to the author of the letter: it m a d e possible their favorite practice of multiple reference, of combining a n u m b e r of O T and N T passages so as to suggest that each should be interpreted in the light of the rest and that all should be applied as the writer applied them ( 1 . 3 ^ 6 , 1 4 - 1 5 ; I I . 1 3 - 1 9 ; further examples and comment in R u w e t , Clement 253). 2.

KNOWLEDGE

OF T H E

CLASSICS

Besides scriptural learning, the letter shows considerable knowledge of the classics; for this C l e m e n t was praised by Eusebius, Jerome, C y r i l , Socrates, Anastasius of

79


THE LETTER

Sinai, a n d Photius (Stählin, I . I X - X V I ) . T h e letter has three or four reminiscences of Plato (see I n d e x I I ) , one or two of Philo (1.2,4; H · 1 I > 1 2 _ I 3 ) i a n d one each of H o m e r a n d Sophocles. Clement's favorite authors were Plato (10 columns of references in Stählin), Philo (7), Plutarch (5.5), Chrysippus (5), a n d Aristotle a n d H o m e r (4 each), b u t Sophocles has more t h a n half a column. As already remarked, Clement usually quotes Philo as the letter does—without acknowledgment. O f all the works to which the letter p r o b a b l y refers, there is only one (apart from the secret Gospel) to which Clement does not refer: Plato's Hippias Major. Because they were learned in classical as well as Christian literature, b o t h Clement a n d the a u t h o r of this letter h a d to face the problem of contradictions between faith a n d worldly knowledge ( M a r r o u , Humanisme), a n d both m e t it by distinguishing two kinds of t r u t h — t h e inferior being that recognized by h u m a n opinion, the superior " t h e t r u t h according to the f a i t h , " a phrase they b o t h use (I.9-11; cf. O s b o r n , Philosophy 113). As possessors of this higher t r u t h the Christians are a privileged group, illuminated, as both writers say, by the spirit (II. 17). Both writers call themselves a n d their fellow Christians " c h i l d r e n of l i g h t " a n d like to follow unfavorable comments on outsiders with favorable ones on Christians introduced by the complacent words, " B u t we . . . " ( I I . i 6 f ) . 3.

KNOWLEDGE, FAITH, AND GNOSIS

Even within the Christian community, however, both writers distinguish higher a n d lower degrees. Both speak of Jesus as a " h i e r o p h a n t , " a teacher of mysteries (1.23), a n d the Christianity of b o t h has not only mysteries b u t " g r e a t mysteries," p r o b a b l y by contrast with the preliminary ones (II.2). Both connect admission to the great mysteries with progress in " g n o s i s " (1.21; I I . 2 ; Stählin, II.249.8ff; 367.19fr; 373-374). Both, moreover, think that progress in this gnosis is effected by instruction, inter alia instruction as to Christian tradition, having as its point of d e p a r t u r e exegesis of stories a b o u t Jesus (1.25). This μυσταγωγία, as both call such exegesis, is not given to all Christians, b u t only to suitable candidates (1.22; I I . 2 ) . [ J a c o b T a u b e s remarks t h a t one striking similarity between Clement a n d the a u t h o r of the letter is the ambivalence of their attitude toward gnosticism; b o t h combine violent abuse of gnostics with claims to enjoy the true gnosis a n d possess the true secret doctrine; a m o n g the fathers of the C h u r c h this a m b i v a l e n t a t t i t u d e is most typical of Clement a n d is better suited to Clement's time t h a n to any later period.] Clement himself was almost certainly attacked, in his day, as a gnostic, a n d not without some reason (Buri, Clemens 16, io6ff). For the letter's use of γνώοις in both good a n d b a d contexts, compare 1.5 a n d I . 2 1 ; for Clement's, the citations there a n d II.247.12, etc. H . C . suggests t h a t the author's purpose in his catena of texts (II. 17-19) was partly to m a k e clear t h a t he, as a true gnostic, was free to h a n d l e the secret Gospel. Clement's demi-vierge position in the gnostic controversy can be seen by comparing his private excerpts from T h e o d o t u s with his attacks on the Valentinians in the Stromateis; see also the remarks of Photius (in Stählin I . X I V f , on which Casey, Clement, a n d the suspicious scholion 1.317.36^ a n d such passages as 80


THE LETTER

I I I . 183.24, where Clement adopts the V a l e n t i n i a n concept, σπίρμα (further examples in Buri, Clemens 33, 3gf, 61, 73, etc.). Such ambiguities became rare after the work of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. A f t e r the middle of the third century, moreover, this whole complex of concerns—the inner circle of higher initiates, the secret apostolic tradition, the opposition of gnosis to mere faith, and so o n — i s overshadowed b y questions of church discipline and organization. L a t e r still it almost disappears as interest turns to the trinitarian controversy. T h e letter's conception of Christianity and its main concerns are more like those of C l e m e n t than of a n y other Christian writer I know.

4.

THE SECRET

TRADITION

I n the battle over gnosticism w h i c h raged throughout the second century a n d reached its climax at Clement's time, private letters played an important role. M a n y were written; a few are preserved. References to the preserved examples are collected in Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit 177fr. T h i s was also, as remarked above, the great age of secret Gospels (Bauer, i 8 i f f ) . So the literary forms no less than the content of these documents are appropriate to the time to w h i c h the heading attributes them. Neither C l e m e n t nor the author of the letter identifies the true gnosis (sc. his) with a purely philosophic position. This was already demonstrated for C l e m e n t b y D a e h n e (60-67), w h o also pointed out w h a t has since been generally recognized: that C l e m e n t claimed as the source of his gnosis a secret, oral tradition derived from Jesus through the principle apostles (11.9.4fr; 462.28fr; I I I . 1 9 9 . 2 i f f ; further passages collected in Camelot, Foi 90fr). Exactly such a tradition is supposed b y this letter (1.22). As pointed out ifi the commentary (1.23), Mondesert saw this claim was alien to Clement's inclinations and to the structure of his thought. Therefore the claim cannot be explained as Clement's invention; he must have accepted it because he found it established in the church in A l e x a n d r i a . T h e letter implies that it was. Both the letter a n d C l e m e n t think this secret oral tradition contains the highest truth, w h i c h can be revealed only to the gnostic (see the passages cited above a n d I.26). Both agree that this tradition and other important elements of Christianity should be hidden, not only from outsiders, but even from catechumens and u n w o r t h y Christians: it is a Christian's duty to conceal the truth (1.18,22,27; H - 2 , 1 3 - 1 5 ) . C l e m e n t makes clear that he has no intention of writing down the innermost secrets ( I I . 1 1 . i f f ) and in his published works will exercise such discretion that only the careful student will be able to make out the significance even of w h a t he does s a y — a promise he kept too well (II.1 i . g f ) . T h i s policy he describes and defends in words strikingly similar to the letter's description and defense of M a r k ' s actions ( 1 . 1 6 - 1 8 ) . However, both from Clement's writings and from the letter it appears that some works containing at least important hints about this secret doctrine had been written, and some of these written works had fallen into the hands of the u n w o r t h y ( I . 2 1 ; II.6). T h e least worthy are the heretics, the worst heretics are the gnostics, a n d the worst gnostics are the libertines—on these points C l e m e n t is explicit (Stromateis 81


THE LETTER

I I I ) , a n d the same j u d g m e n t s are implied b y the letter in its initial sentences. T h e letter agrees with Clement that the knowledge claimed by these gnostics is false a n d their alleged freedom is slavery to the passions (1.5fr). Both the letter a n d Clement accuse the gnostics of corrupting the Christian tradition by interpretation a n d by interpolations (1.11 a n d 14; Buri, Clemens 21-23), a n d both profess to refute the gnostics by quoting the exact words of genuine documents (II.20 a n d 22). 5.

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE

CARPOCRATIANS

O f all libertine gnostics, the particular sect of most concern to the letter a n d to Clement, b u t to no other known Christian writer, are the Carpocratians. Clement, in his m a j o r attack on all gnostics in Stromateis I I I , took the C a r p o c r a t i a n sect as the outstanding example of libertine gnosticism (cf. Buri, Clemens 19). I t is therefore plausible to suppose t h a t they are referred to by m a n y of his slurs elsewhere at unspecified libertines; sometimes they certainly are (III.143.20). I n the works of Irenaeus they are less i m p o r t a n t t h a n the Valentinians. I n Tertullian a n d later heresiologists they are of quite minor importance. I n Alexandria itself they seem to have been almost annihilated by the great persecution which drove Clement f r o m the city (about 2 0 2 ? ) . Origen, a generation later t h a n Clement, said he h a d never been able to meet a C a r p o c r a t i a n in spite of his efforts (Contra Celsum V . 6 2 ) . T h e letter is entirely concerned with them. Clement a n d the a u t h o r of the letter are at one in referring to t h e m the abusive passages of J u d e (1.3), in associating t h e m with the Nicolai'tans attacked in the Apocalypse (I.5), a n d in declaring that they have cast themselves into darkness (1.6). I t appears from both Clement a n d the letter t h a t Carpocrates worked in Alexandria a n d the sect arose thence (II.3). 6.

DIFFERENCES,

R E A L OR

APPARENT

So far we have seen that the letter has Clement's knowledge both of the Scriptures (including the pseudepigrapha) a n d of the classics, uses t h e m as Clement does, a n d adjusts t h e m to each other as Clement does. I t also has Clement's notion t h a t within Christianity there is a secret tradition reserved for the few true gnostics (among w h o m the author, like Clement, includes himself), a n d it consequently shares Clement's hostility to the competing gnostic groups, particularly the C a r p o cratians. Now we must consider the differences to be f o u n d between it a n d Clement's works. O f course there is m u c h material found in Clement b u t not in the letter; a d o c u m e n t of three pages is not likely to reflect all the content of a corpus of three volumes. O f the material found in the letter a n d not in Clement, the most surprising p a r t is the information a b o u t M a r k ' s secret Gospel a n d the Carpocratian's corruption of it. T h e letter presents this as confidential a n d even directs t h a t M a r k a n authorship of the secret Gospel (or, at least, of the C a r p o c r a t i a n secret Gospel) is to be denied on o a t h ( I I . 1 2 ; see also the comments on κατΐφΐυσμίνα, I I . 11). Therefore, if Clement were the a u t h o r of the letter we should not find this information in his published works. T o m a i n t a i n t h a t because it is not in his published works it could not have 82


T H E LETTER

been in his private letters, one would have to maintain that Clement was extraordinarily outspoken and veracious. But we have seen that he was not (commentary on II.12). O n the contrary, he thought the concealment of truth to be part of his Christian duty—a part he said he intended to perform (Stählin, I I . n ) . Among the texts Clement used to justify this opinion were some which the author of this letter used for the same purpose—1.18,22,27; Ι Ι · 8 > Ι 3 _ Ι 5 · Accordingly, it is consistent with Clement's character that we should find in one of his private letters material at which his published works barely hint. Moreover, the material found in the letter sometimes does seem to be hinted at by passages which are, or once were, in Clement's published works, and on other occasions it is supported by historical facts and by statements in the heresiologists. (This does not imply that the heresiologists ever saw the letter, but does show that the letter's information about the Carpocratians has some claim to reliability, as Clement's certainly would—Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity 26ff). In the first place, there is reason for thinking the Hypotyposes contained the letter's statement that Mark went from Rome to Alexandria (1.19). That Peter died a martyr would be common "knowledge." That the canonical Gospel according to Mark was designed for the use of catechumens (1.17-18) looks like good tradition (Weiss, Christianity 690). That canonical Mk. omits or barely hints at important elements of Christian teaching, which Christians attributed to Jesus even before it was written, is clear from a comparison of Mk. with Paul and Q (this question will be discussed in the following chapters). That a secret Gospel according to Mark was circulating in Egypt, and that the Carpocratians appealed to Mk. for their claim to have the secret teaching of Jesus, were conjectures made by Harvey and Liboron from the statements of Irenaeus (I.a and 12). These conjectures are now confirmed. T h a t the Carpocratians practiced magic is asserted by Irenaeus and others (II.4). Clement says that most of those who appealed to Jesus for help addressed him as "son of D a v i d " (II.498. 32fr); this form of address is rare in the preserved Gospels, but the portion of the secret Gospel quoted in the letter adds another case. Clement says ov γαρ φθόνων (compare I.27) φησί, τταρήγγειλεν 6 κύριος εν τινι εύαγγελίω, μυστήριον εμον εμοι και τοις υΐοΐς τοΰ οίκον μου (see above, on 1.12) and the Clementine Homilies quote the logion together with material from Mk. (19.20.1). Clement speaks of the rich young ruler as ΰπό τοΰ κυρίου συντελειούμενος and says εδώάσκετο hi άγάττην μεταδώόναι (11.221.27); the secret Gospel represents him as loving Jesus, receiving him in his house, and then being initiated by him. Trying to prove the Catholic Church older than the heresies, Clement says that, after Marcion, Simon Magus was for a short while an auditor of Peter's (III.75.18-76.1). Since this is clearly false the passage has to be emended, and a number of scholars have conjectured that Μαρκίων should be corrected to Μάρκος; cf. Stählin, ad loc., who rejects this emendation but marks the text as corrupt. It may be that a phrase has fallen out after συνεγενετο. Perhaps Μάρκος δε τω Πετρω και τω Παΰλω ώς νεώτερος συνεγενετο. The letter goes to confirm a conjecture of this sort: it shows why Clement, when the secret, "gnostic" tradition of the Church was in question, appealed to the authority of Mark—not Matthew or even John. Finally, the Carpocratian version of the secret Gospel had an account 83


THE LETTER

of Jesus' teaching a favored a n d γυμνός γυμνώ. Clement, stand in the true text of the he was reading the gnostic (δίδασκΐν, τα δε τρίτα

τ ά μεν πρώτα σαφώς

disciple the mystery of the kingdom of G o d privately though he wrote to T h e o d o r e that this phrase did not secret Gospel, nevertheless chose to note down, w h e n Theodotus, the statement Ό σωτήρ τους αποστόλους

τυπικώς

και γυμνώς

και μυστικώς, κατά

μάνας

τα δε υστέρα

παραβολικώς

και

γ/νιγμενως,

(III.i28.24ff). D i d he note with a p p r o v a l ?

A s remarked above (on I I I . 13), his usage of γυμνός was usually metaphorical. These are trivialities to none of which, taken alone, one w o u l d attach importance. But given the document w h i c h confronts us, and taken together, they m a y be thought significant. M o r e significant are the obvious differences w h i c h at first sight look like contradictions between statements in the letter and statements in Clement's published works. C l e m e n t says the true Christian will never swear; the letter recommends use of an oath to deceive. But we have seen that Clement's statement is so hedged b y modifications as to be compatible with the letter's recommendation (II. 12). C l e m e n t says the founder of the C a r p o c r a t i a n sect was Carpocrates' son Epiphanes, w h o died at the age of seventeen after having written a blasphemous book from w h i c h the Carpocratians derived their doctrine (II.197.26ff). T h e letter says the doctrines of the Carpocratians are derived from the secret Gospel of M a r k , w h i c h Carpocrates got from a presbyter of the church in A l e x a n d r i a and corrupted b y his o w n interpolations ( I I . 3 - 1 0 ) ; there is no mention of Epiphanes. Obviously the account in the letter admits that the position of the Carpocratians is considerably stronger than it w o u l d appear from the account in the published work. 7 T h e i r teachings come not from the philosophizings of an adolescent, but from that same secret Gospel reserved b y the church of A l e x a n d r i a for those being initiated into its " g r e a t mysteries." O f course the Carpocratians are said to have corrupted this Gospel; but even so the admission is obviously embarrassing. W e should need no explanation of its nonappearance in the published work, even if the letter did not order that it be kept secret (an order which, as w e have seen, is in accord w i t h Clement's character a n d teaching). M o r e o v e r , as shown in the commentary (II.3), it appears from Irenaeus that the Carpocratians did claim to derive at least some of their doctrines from secret apostolic teaching. W h y did not C l e m e n t discuss this claim in his published w o r k ? W a s he ignorant of it ? O r was it too embarrassing ? W e also saw that Clement, after disposing of Epiphanes, spoke of Carpocrates as the lawgiver, if not the founder, of the sect. It should be remembered that Photius said the Hypotyposes contradicted the Stromateis in m a n y points (Stählin, I . X V inf.; cf. Casey, Clement). T h e letter supposes Carpocrates had doctrines of his own b y w h i c h he interpreted and corrupted the Gospel to produce the mixture from w h i c h it then says the C a r p o c r a t i a n doctrines are d r a w n ( I I . 9 ) ; it cannot be carefully worded. So the statements in the letter a n d the statements in the Stromateis could have come from the same m a n . T h e most important thing a b o u t the apparent contradictions between the letter a n d the Stromateis is that they are a p p a r e n t — a t first glance they w o u l d cause a reader 7. T h e Stromateis was not an esoteric document—Molland, 9; Völker, 3 1 ; to the contrary, Lazzati, 35.

84


THE LETTER

f a m i l i a r w i t h the Stromateis to d o u b t the a t t r i b u t i o n of the letter to C l e m e n t . T h e r e f o r e n o i m i t a t o r w h o i n t e n d e d to pass his letter o f f as C l e m e n t ' s w o u l d h a v e i n c l u d e d these contradictions unless he w e r e i g n o r a n t o f w h a t the Stromateis said o n these subjects, or unless the points m a d e b y the c o n t r a d i c t o r y elements w e r e his m a i n concern. B u t the letter is so close to C l e m e n t in style a n d content t h a t i g n o r a n c e c a n n o t be supposed (especially since it is closest o f all to Stromateis I I I , w h e r e the m a t e r i a l o n E p i p h a n e s a n d C a r p o c r a t e s is f o u n d ) . A n d the contradictions a r e p a r t l y o n w h a t seem to b e side issues. A n i m i t a t o r c o u l d h a v e substituted E p i p h a n e s for C a r p o c r a t e s or c o u l d h a v e a v o i d e d the a p p a r e n t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of p e r j u r y w i t h o u t altering the m a i n i m p o r t o f the text. 8 T h e r e f o r e it seems most likely t h a t the letter is n o t a n i m i t a t i o n : it resembles C l e m e n t ' s w o r k in m a n y trivial details w h i c h a n i m i t a t o r m i g h t n e g l e c t ; it differs in conspicuous points o f c o n t e n t w h i c h a n i m i t a t o r w o u l d never

have

n e g l e c t e d ; a n d all of its differences c a n easily be e x p l a i n e d â&#x20AC;&#x201D; i f it is g e n u i n e â&#x20AC;&#x201D; b y its p r i v a t e c h a r a c t e r a n d stated purpose, b u t t h e y w o u l d be difficult to e x p l a i n as consequences of a n y purposes w h i c h c o u l d p l a u s i b l y b e a t t r i b u t e d to a n i m i t a t o r . W h o c o u l d such a n i m i t a t o r h a v e b e e n ? A n d w h y w o u l d such a n i m i t a t i o n h a v e b e e n p r o d u c e d ? M u n c k ' s suggestion, t h a t the text w a s p r o d u c e d to g l o r i f y the c h u r c h of A l e x a n d r i a as possessor of the true secret G o s p e l w r i t t e n b y its f o u n d e r M a r k ( c o m m e n t a r y o n 1 . 1 5 ) , w o u l d be c r e d i b l e o n l y if the c h u r c h of A l e x a n d r i a ever h a d c l a i m e d to possess such ä Gospel. ( O t h e r w i s e the c h u r c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n f a c e d w i t h the c h a r g e o f h a v i n g lost this i n v a l u a b l e d o c u m e n t . ) B u t so far as I k n o w , the c h u r c h of A l e x a n d r i a never m a d e a n y s u c h c l a i m . T h e r e f o r e , g i v e n the a b s e n c e o f a n y plausible e x p l a n a t i o n as to w h y this d o c u m e n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n forged, a n d the a b s e n c e of a n y strong e v i d e n c e in the d o c u m e n t itself to i n d i c a t e forgery, a n d the m a n y strong reasons r e v i e w e d a b o v e for t h i n k i n g it g e n u i n e , w e c a n p r o c e e d o n the assumption t h a t the m a n u s c r i p t ' s a t t r i b u t i o n of the letter to C l e m e n t is correct. 9 8. Contrast, in this respect and in the matter of obvious contradictions, the forgeries of Pfaff (Harnack, Pfaff'sehen). Learned forgery was not rare in the eighteenth century, but was customarily edifying and tendentious; this text is neither. 9. This conclusion is further supported by the character of the Gospel fragment which the letter quotes. T o this I have not referred above because a reference would have anticipated the argument of the following chapter. However, I quote here the comments of Stendahl, to whom I submitted only the chapter on the Gospel fragment: " N o t having seen your part on the Clement problem as such, let me volunteer the impression that I cannot imagine a late forgery (of the Clement letter) containing this type of Gospel text. Nor could such a text originate in a time when Mark was definitely canonized. So, indirectly, all I have seen strengthens my trust in the letter. If this material be related to baptism it may well be an Alexandrian piece which was so related and believed by Clement to be properly Markan. Whether Mark had been in Alexandria is another question to reconsider."

85


THREE

The Secret Gospel During the academic year 1962-1963 this chapter was discussed in several meetings of the Columbia University Seminar for the Study of the N T ; my thanks are due to the members of the Seminar for their consideration of the material and for helpful suggestions. Professors Pierson Parker, Cyril Richardson, and John Reumann were especially generous in giving my work close study; it has been much improved by their advice. A. D. Nock read the first section of the chapter; the whole was read by Professors H. J . Cadbury, W. M. Calder I I I , H. Koester, C. Moule, R . Schippers, and K . Stendahl, and by Dr. T. Baarda. I thank them not only for the major observations hereinafter bracketed and initialed, but also for many small corrections. I. II.

Date, form, and affiliations, 88 Stylistic comparison with- the canonical Gospels, 97 A. Text and commentary, 97 B.

Synthesis of findings, 1 2 2 1.

Influence on the western text, 1 2 2

2.

Vocabulary, phraseology, and g r a m m a r , 1 2 3 a. Vocabulary, 1 2 5 b.

3.

III.

Phraseology, 1 3 0

c. Grammar, 1 3 3 T h e major parallels to the canonical Gospels, 1 3 5

4. T h e frequency of parallels to the canonical Gospels, 1 3 8 5. Conclusions from the stylistic evidence, 144 Structural relations to sections of the canonical Gospels, 146 A. B.

Other miracle stories of the same type, 146 The Lazarus story, 148

C. D.

The order of events in Mk. and Jn., 158 Relation of the new material to the structure of Mk., 1. Position in the "historical outline," 164 2. 3.

164

Parallels to the transfiguration and passion stories, 165 Relation to the baptismal concern of M k . 1 0 . 1 3 - 4 5 , 167 a. Clement's statement as to the purpose of the longer text, 168 b.

Clement's preoccupation with Mk. g and 10, 168

c. d. e.

Clement's association of the longer text with baptismal formulas, 168 The longer text stands in Mk. where baptism does in the paschal liturgy, 168 an< Details and order in Mk. 10.13-34 ^ ^e longer text reflect the baptismal service, 169

87


THE SECRET GOSPEL i.

T h e blessing o f t h e c h i l d r e n ( c a n d i d a t e s ) , 169

ii.

T h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r b a p t i s m ( m o n o t h e i s m , ten c o m m a n d m e n t s ,

iii.

T h e m n e m o n i c ού&ΐίς

iv.

T h e ten c o m m a n d m e n t s ,

171

εμβλεφας

αυτόν,

r e n u n c i a t i o n ) , 169

v.

άυτω

αγαθός

ηγάπησεν

el μη els ό θΐός,

170

171

T h e a b a n d o n m e n t of property, 172

vi. vii.

T h e c r e e d p r o p h e c i e d ( p r o p h e c y o f t h e passion a n d

Olli.

T h e c r e e d e x e m p l i f i e d (the r e s u r r e c t i o n s t o r y ) , 1 7 3

resurrection), 173 T h e b a p t i s m (the n o c t u r n a l i n i t i a t i o n ) , 1 7 4

ix.

A f t e r six d a y s , 1 7 5 Nocturnal, 175 T h e sheet o v e r the n a k e d b o d y , 1 7 5 T h e mystery of the k i n g d o m of G o d , 178

4. E.

f.

The omission from canonical Mk.

g.

The Carpocratian peculiarities,

h.

The concluding sermon, 186

of the secret text, 1 8 4

185

E v i d e n c e for a b b r e v i a t i o n a t M k . 10.46, 188

Conclusions,

192

I.

DATE,

FORM,

AND

AFFILIATIONS

T h e assumption that the letter was written by Clement entails the consequence, remarked upon above (commentary on I.23), that the secret Gospel was not written by Clement, 1 but was accepted by him—rather against his personal inclinations— I. In his last long letter to me, dated September 20, 1962, A . D . Nock wrote: " I don't think that anyone could suggest that Clement had written the secret Gospel. T h e alternatives are either your view or the hypothesis of a later person's writing the whole thing. If that is the case, I a m inclined to think that it might be a j o b done with no specific tendency, but mystification for the sake of mystification. A curious instance is P. Oxy. 412, where the learned Julius was either duped or faking for faking's sake. . . . Another possible point of comparison is the work of the people responsible for the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. I think that they had no tendency, like the author or authors of the Grundschrift, and at the same time they were not seeking personal fame like Euhemerus." P. Oxy. 412 contains the conclusion of the eighteenth book of the Kestoi of Julius Africanus, including a quotation of Odyssey X I . 3 4 - 4 3 and 48-51 expanded b y insertion of a transitional passage and a magical incantation; the incantation is re-edited with commentary as PGM X X I I I . Julius says the whole of the inserted material (29 verses) was to be found in M S S in Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina) and at Nysa in Caria, and the first 13 verses of it in a M S in R o m e , in the library at the Pantheon. Such a brief interpolation in the text of H o m e r is obviously something quite different from the sophisticated composition which confronts us if the letter and its quotations are taken as the work of a single forger. T h e Clementine Homilies afford a better comparison, but the comparison tells against the argument, for they make no effort to imitate the style of the genuine Epistle of Clement·, nor do they set their pretendedly early material in a speciously later frame. T h e most serious objection, however, against any such argument is that it is unnecessary. Almost any work of ancient literature can be supposed a forgery (cf. L . Wiener, Tacitus' Germania and Other Forgeries [Philadelphia, 1920], a work of great learning, or the attacks on Aristotle's Constitution of Athens referred to b y von Fritz and K n a p p , p. 4, to say nothing of the

88


THE SECRET GOSPEL

because he found it already accepted b y that church in A l e x a n d r i a to w h i c h he attached himself w h e n he came to the city, probably about the year 175. (Julius Africanus said that C l e m e n t was already a prominent figure in A l e x a n d r i a during the reign of C o m m o d u s , 180-192; R o u t h , II.307. Clement's canon was contrasted with that of the A l e x a n d r i a n church b y H a r n a c k , Origin n o . ) It w o u l d seem likely that the church's acceptance of the secret Gospel antedated Clement's arrival b y some considerable t i m e ; the composition of the secret Gospel of course antedated its acceptance. T o allow twenty-five years for these two intervals and so put the composition back to 150 w o u l d not be implausible. B u t Clement's letter indicates an earlier date. It says the secret Gospel was first written b y M a r k , then stolen and corrupted by Carpocrates. Christians of Clement's party were always accusing their opponents of corrupting a n d misinterpreting the Scriptures (Williams, Alterations 3 1 ; Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit 186). Presumably their opponents brought the same charges against them, and the charges of both sides were occasionally justified: all parties a m o n g the early Christians revised the texts of their Scriptures to meet their doctrinal needs—omitting embarrassing details and inserting words they thought d e s i r a b l e — a n d imposed on these texts interpretations w h i c h were often false (against Bludau, Schriftfälschungen, see Williams, Alterations 2 5 - 5 3 ; Bauer, Leben 492-504 and passim; for Clement's o w n practice, Buri, Clemens i o 8 f f ) . Consequently, there is no reason to doubt Clement's statement that Carpocrates " c o r r u p t e d " the text of the secret Gospel. N o r is there a n y reason to doubt that Clement's o w n text of the Gospels had b e e n — i n the j a r g o n of modern c r i t i c i s m — " a d a p t e d to the needs of the growing C h u r c h . " W e saw above that the letter contradicts the published writings of C l e m e n t b y admitting that the Carpocratians derived their doctrines from the secret Gospel. T h i s is a d a m a g i n g concession b y the writer and therefore most likely true. T h e specious contradiction between the letter's two statements, that Carpocrates misinterpreted the Gospel according to his doctrine and that the Carpocratians drew their doctrine from the Gospel, is merely a consequence of Clement's shifting from his o w n account of w h a t happened to a sarcastic paraphrase of the Carpocratians' claims. His account was that Carpocrates corrupted a n d misinterpreted the Gospel according to his o w n doctrine. T h e Carpocratians' claim w a s : " O u r doctrine is derived from this source." C l e m e n t paraphrases the claim, without bothering to deny it, because he has just declared the source polluted. T h a t the Carpocratians did claim to derive their doctrine from the secret M a r k is suggested b y Celsus' reference to " t h e Harpocratians w h o follow S a l o m e " (Origen, Contra Celsum V . 6 2 , with C h a d wick's note, ad loc.). " T h e H a r p o c r a t i a n s " are pretty certainly the Carpocratians (the assault on the D e a d Sea documents by which S. Zeitlin has more recently made himself more ridiculous). But the supposition of forgery must be justified by demonstration either that the style or content of the work contains elements not likely to have come from the alleged author, or that some known historical circumstances would have furnished a likely occasion for the forgery. In the case of the letter, no such demonstration seems possible, and the supposition therefore rests on nothing more than the feeling that this just cannot be genuine. T h a t feeling m a y be correct—given Nock's knowledge of Greek and his a m a z i n g intuition, one hesitates even to doubt i t — b u t it is not, by itself, conclusive.

89


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

god Harpocrates also appears as " C a r p o c r a t e s " ; Nock, review of H a r d e r 221) and M a r k is the only one of the canonical Gospels in w h i c h Salome appears. She appears again in the fragments of the secret Gospel quoted by Clement, and the C a r p o c r a t i a n text seems to have given her a considerably larger role than Clement's did ( I I I . 1 4 - 1 7 ) . H o w e v e r , she also appeared in the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and Celsus m a y h a v e been referring to C a r p o c r a t i a n use of that text or some other now unknown to us. O n the other hand, the story of how Carpocrates got the secret Gospel (inspired b y demons and using magic, he so enslaved a presbyter of the church in A l e x a n d r i a , etc.) is evidently of the cock-and-bull species. N o doubt the Carpocratians were elsewhere accused of practicing magic (commentary on II.4) and did practice i t — t h e practice and the accusation seem to have been almost equally c o m m o n in ancient Christian circles. But the story reports that the magic was efficacious. A n d if this be excused as Clement's notion of w h a t had happened, yet the basic facts reported are polemic: Carpocrates got the secret Gospel from a presbyter " o f the c h u r c h , " i.e., of Clement's party. This claim is intended to prove Clement's party the original possessor. Therefore, though not incredible, it is suspect, being so strongly motivated that, even if it cannot be proved false, it cannot be accepted as true without further confirmation. Nevertheless, it is important because of w h a t it does not say. I t does not say that the secret Gospel was introduced into the C a r p o c r a t i a n sect at some recent date. This is a charge C l e m e n t w o u l d have been h a p p y to m a k e had he k n o w n a n y excuse for it and might have m a d e without excuse had he thought it w o u l d be believed. But his words in II.7 (εξηγήσατο) suggest there was a c o m m e n t a r y supposedly b y Carpocrates on the secret Gospel, w h i c h w o u l d be further evidence that the sect had possessed it ever since Carpocrates' time. (In Irenaeus' time the Carpocratians did have an interpretation of writings w h i c h reported secret teachings of Jesus [Harvey, 1.20.3 = Stieren, 1.25.5, εξηγούνται], Basilides, w h o m Eusebius thought a contemporary of Carpocrates, wrote twerrty-four books of έξηγητικά " o n the G o s p e l " ; and Papias, p r o b a b l y an older contemporary, wrote five books of εξηγήσεις of " d o m i n i c a l s a y i n g s " : Eus. HE I I I . 3 9 . 1 ; I V . 7 . 7 and 9; Stählin II.284.5, etc.) A t all events, the important fact is Clement's admission that the Carpocratians have had the secret Gospel ever since the time of Carpocrates himself. T h e date of Carpocrates will be discussed below in C h a p t e r Four. H e evidently worked in or before the time of H a d r i a n ( 1 1 7 - 1 3 8 ) . Moreover, if he a d a p t e d the secret Gospel to his o w n purposes and represented it as the basis for his teachings, w h i c h C l e m e n t indicates he did, he must have got hold of it at an early stage in his c a r e e r — a t the latest, one w o u l d guess, before 125. M o r e o v e r , unless w e suppose Clement's church took its secret Gospel, for use in its " g r e a t mysteries," from the Carpocratians, w e must suppose either that Carpocrates got it from Clement's c h u r c h — a s C l e m e n t says he d i d — o r that both Carpocrates and Clement's church got it from some c o m m o n source. In either event w e shall have to suppose the secret Gospel somewhat older than Carpocrates' adoption of it. T h u s acceptance of the letter as Clement's entails admission of a probability that the secret Gospel described b y the letter was in existence well before 125. 90


THE SECRET GOSPEL

Besides indicating this terminus ante quern for the secret Gospel, the letter gives us some notion of w h a t this Gospel was like. First, it was a Gospel " a c c o r d i n g to M a r k " — t h i s was the claim of both the Carpocratians ( I . n f ) and of C l e m e n t ( I . 2 i f f ) . It certainly included at least parts of the present canonical Gospel according to M a r k : to such parts C l e m e n t gives precise references (II.21,22; I I I . 1 if,14). It p r o b a b l y contained all of canonical M k . — C l e m e n t says it was composed b y additions to the canonical Gospel, but says nothing of omissions (I.2of,24ff). T h e additions, C l e m e n t says, were m a d e by M a r k himself, of material from his " n o t e s " (υπομνήματα, I . i g f ) and those of Peter. T h e new material did not exhaust these notes, but was chosen from them. It consisted of " t h i n g s suitable to those studies w h i c h m a k e for progress toward k n o w l e d g e " (τα τοις π ροκόπτουσι nepl την γνώσιν κατάλληλα, I.20f), both of stories (πράξεις, 1.24) like those in the canonical Gospel and sayings (λόγιά τινα, I.25) of w h i c h the exegesis w o u l d lead the hearers to the hidden truth (1.26). It did not contain τά απόρρητα (I.22f), nor " t h e hierophantic teaching of the L o r d " ( I . 2 3 24, probably identical with τά απόρρητα). T h e expanded text constituted a " m o r e spiritual G o s p e l " [πνεύματικώτΐρον ΐύαγγίλιον, 1 . 2 i f ) , w h i c h was intended to be useful to those w h o were being " p e r f e c t e d " or " i n i t i a t e d " (τΐλειοΰμενοι, 1.22). T h i s text was kept secret b y Clement's church in A l e x a n d r i a and read only " t o those being initiated (μυοΰμενοι) into the great mysteries" (II.2). It was in the custody of the presbyters of the church, or they had had access to it, so that one of them h a d been able to secure an inferior(?) copy (απόγραφαν) for Carpocrates ( I I . 5 - 6 ) . Clement himself either had a copy or knew the text by heart or had access to it; he could quote it verbatim to Theodore. T h e Carpocratians also had a text, but it differed from that of Clement's church. C l e m e n t perhaps ascribed some of the differences to errors of the original copy (this m a y be implied b y pejorative connotations of άπόγραφον, II.6), but his words give the impression that he thought the more important differences due to additions he described as " m o s t shameless l i e s " (αναιδέστατα φΐύσματα, I I . 8 - g ) . T h e adjective m a y be intended to characterize them as obviously false, or obscene, or both; γυμνός γυμνω in I I I . 13 suggests obscenity, but the obscenity m a y have originated in Clement's interpretation. W h a t would a hostile interpreter have m a d e of the rubric in Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition ( X X I . 1 1 ) : " A n d let them (the initiate and the presbyter w h o is baptizing him) stand in the water n a k e d " ? [ A . D . N , thought " f a l s e " was right, not " o b s c e n e . " ] A t a n y rate, the C a r p o c r a t i a n text was longer than Clement's in at least two instances ( I I I . 13 and 17) and in the latter of these two it contained a good deal of additional material (τά δέ άλλα τά πολλά, I I I . 17—unless this refers to a number of unspecified citations, w h i c h is unlikely in view of the parallel to I I I . 1 3 where τάλλα refers to additional material in the passage discussed). I mentioned above Irenaeus' report that the Carpocratians had writings allegedly containing the secret teachings of Jesus, w h i c h they interpreted (Harvey, 1.20.3 = Stieren, 1.25.5). Irenaeus says nothing of these works' being secret and writes as if he had seen them. However, he seems to have seen a good m a n y " s e c r e t " books of his adversaries, so his knowledge of these does not disprove their secrecy, which, given his description of the C a r p o c r a t i a n sect, is a priori likely. H o w it h a p p e n e d that some

91


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

Carpocratians used their Gospel according to M a r k in their argument with T h e o d o r e w e do not know. C o m p a r e Clement's accusation είσι δ'οί λέγοντας είναι γνωστικοί τοις οίκΐίοις φθονοΰσι μάλλον η τοΐς εκτός (III. 145· · This use of φθονεΐν for those w h o keep things secret appears also in the letter, 1.27. Irenaeus (Harvey, 1.20.4 = Stieren, I.25.6), followed b y Epiphanius (Panarion X X V I I . 6 ) , identifies those w h o call themselves " g n o s t i c s " as the Carpocratians, but elsewhere other identifications are given [ A . D . N , suggests that this passage in C l e m e n t m a y refer to " p e o p l e w h o say they are gnostic in Clement's ideal sense"]. M o s t important in the information afforded b y the letter is the fact that the Carpocratian text of the secret Gospel and the text of it used by Clement's church were basically the same. This was the most embarrassing fact the letter had to explain; therefore it is the least dubitable of the data. Moreover, Clement's admission is c o n f i r m e d — t h e two texts differed from canonical M k . at the same places a n d a b o u t the same things. Therefore, in spite of their differences, the two must have h a d — a s C l e m e n t said they h a d — a c o m m o n original. Accordingly, the question of their differences from this c o m m o n original and of its differences from the text of canonical M k . is a question of the history of the text of the N T . T h e letter's evidence shows that in Clement's time there were at least three forms of the text of M k . : a short form (preserved in our canonical text) and at least two longer forms (one the possession of Clement's church, another, of the Carpocratians). T h e longer forms differed considerably from each other, but were both developments of a single, original, longer text w h i c h itself had differed considerably from the short one. T h e r e is reason to think that this longer text was in existence well before 125. H o w , then, did it come into existence and w h a t was its relation to the short text w h i c h has survived? W a s the longer text produced b y expansion, or was the short text an abbreviation, or were both derived by different changes from some c o m m o n original ? These questions C l e m e n t has answered in his letter. H e says the longer text was an expansion, produced in A l e x a n d r i a , of the short text w h i c h had first been written in R o m e . Both the expansion and the short text were the work of M a r k , and so on, as stated above. T h e incredible element in this story is the claim that both texts were written b y M a r k . T h i s claim is almost certainly false for the short t e x t — i . e . , the canonical Gospel—therefore it can hardly be true for the long one (Bultmann, Geschichte 1 - 4 , 362-376; against T a y l o r cf. m y Comments and N i n e h a m , Eyewitness). Clement's credulity about apostolic authorship has already been noticed (above, 1.19 etc.). T h e statements that M a r k came to A l e x a n d r i a and wrote the longer text there m a y be guesses to explain w h y the longer text was preserved (or, k n o w n to Clement) only in A l e x a n d r i a . However, M a r k ' s j o u r n e y to A l e x a n d r i a m a y have been reported b y Papias (above, on 1.15). T h e statement that the longer text was produced by M a r k ' s expansion of the short one m a y , again, be a guess; or it m a y reflect local tradition, w h i c h merely imposed a famous n a m e on an essentially correct report. A p a r t from the reference to M a r k , the story is not implausible. A l l Christian Scriptures at this time seem to have been kept secret from non-Christians (Tertullian, De testimonio animae 1.4), and the m o m e n t in the training of the catechumens w h e n

92


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

they were first (?) permitted to hear the Gospel was evidently an impressive one (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X . 2 ) . Therefore if Clement's church had further " g r e a t mysteries" b e y o n d the p r i m a r y initiation (1.22; I I . 2 ; cf. O r i g e n , Contra Celsum III.59) it might have developed a special Gospel to be used in them. A n d M k . w o u l d have lent itself to such development because of its well-known esoteric traits (Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis 146fr; cf. W i k g r e n , ΑΡΧΗ). Accordingly, there is nothing improbable in Clement's report that the longer text of M k . originated in A l e x a n d r i a , b y addition of material hinting at secret doctrines, and that Carpocrates then got hold of it and adapted it to his own purposes. But there is nothing improbable, either, in the notion that Clement's church should have m a d e up the story of M a r k a n expansion to cover its ignorance of the actual origin of the longer text, just as the story of M a r k a n authorship was m a d e up to cover ignorance of the actual origin of the short text. W e have already noted the polemic motivation for the story that Carpocrates got his Gospel from Clement's church. Invention of such stories is usually observant of probabilities; therefore only the credulous will find in these probable stories more than a possibility of truth. T o one w h o looks for objective evidence the preservation of the longer text in A l e x a n d r i a will seem an argument for its A l e x a n d r i a n origin, but the weight given this a r g u m e n t will depend on a study of the relation of the longer text to the short one. This relation is not unique. O f O T books, Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, and EzraN e h e m i a h ; of uncanonical pseudepigrapha, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs a n d II Enoch; of early Christian literature, the Ignatian epistles and the Didascalia Apostolorum: these are only a few of the m a n y texts w h i c h have survived in several redactions. E v e n more are proved b y internal evidence to be either abbreviations or expansions of texts now lost. T h e literary procedures w h i c h produced these phenomena are a d m i r a b l y analyzed in Bickerman's Esther. O f N T books, the text of Acts is preserved in two forms so different that m a n y critics have thought one a deliberate revision of the other (Hatch, Text i o f f ) . O n the analogy of Acts, Blass suggested that the differences between the " A l e x a n d r i a n " a n d the " w e s t e r n " texts of M k . might indicate that there had been two editions of M k . (Acta 33). O t h e r scholars have come to the same conclusion from study of the synoptic problem (recently Brown, Revision). But even if this conclusion were accepted it would not be directly relevant to the problem facing us, for the differences between the two editions thus postulated w o u l d be small, while the differences between the two texts of M k . known to C l e m e n t were so great that his church treated the longer text as a different Gospel. T h e two texts must, therefore, have differed at least as m u c h as w o u l d the two editions of J o h n , for w h i c h evidence has been found in the preserved Gospel (Parker, Two Editions). D u r i n g the past century it was often thought that the present text of M k . h a d been produced b y extensive expansion of a shorter Gospel. T h e most famous presentation of this theory was p r o b a b l y W e n d l i n g ' s Ur-Marcus; the most recent k n o w n to me is T r o c m e ' s Formation ( i ö g f f ) . T r o c m e ' s book appeared in 1963, w h e n this chapter of the present work h a d been substantially completed; the agreements observable hereinafter are the results of independent consideration of the evidence a n d

93


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

as such m a y have some evidential value. Fortunately, however, we need not rely on analysis of the present text of M k . for evidence that the Gospel texts were often extensively revised. T w o longer texts of M k . , generally believed to have been produced b y expansion of the canonical text but differing so greatly that they are c o m m o n l y treated as different Gospels, have been p r e s e r v e d — t h e y are the canonical Gospels according to M a t t h e w and L u k e . These are generally supposed to date from the last quarter of the first century or the opening years of the second (Leipoldt, Geschichte 1.108; Jülicher-Fascher, 286-319). It is a likely guess that they owed their preservation primarily to their acceptance by particular c h u r c h e s — L k . perhaps in Greece, M t . in Syria (Harnack, Origin 68ff). T h e longer text of M k . produced in A l e x a n d r i a was not preserved, no doubt because of its intimate connection with the esoteric interpretation of Christianity w h i c h seems to have dominated the churches of E g y p t during most of the second century (Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit 5 i f f ; cf. Hornschuh, Anfänge 320fr). Esoteric practice limited this longer text to an inner circle and so prevented its attaining even in E g y p t the sort of regional pre-eminence to w h i c h M t . and L k . m a y have owed their ultimate acceptance by the whole C h u r c h . Since M t . and L k . are generally supposed to have been produced by an expansion of canonical M k . , Clement's account of the origin of the longer A l e x a n d r i a n text is supported by analogy, and further analogies might be found in the yet further exp a n d e d texts produced by T a t i a n and Theophilus of Antioch. T h e process had not stopped in Clement's d a y ; he knew some " w h o alter the G o s p e l s " and quoted with a p p r o v a l some of their alterations, w h i c h were expansions (II.266.25ff). Moreover, the same process has been thought to have produced canonical M k . itself, w h i c h D o d d , Framework, has represented as the expansion of a primitive outline by addition of various p e r i c o p a e — a theory still plausible in spite of the attacks on it b y N i n e h a m , Order·, Robinson, Quest 48fr; a n d T r o c m e , Formation 23fr. But analogy is not conclusive evidence. In textual history abbreviations are no less c o m m o n than expansions. T h e Ignatian epistles, for instance, underwent both. So did the text of M k . : even the e x p a n d e d forms produced b y M a t t h e w and L u k e show abbreviation; M a t t h e w often condenses the M a r k a n stories and omits some; Luke omits a large section of the text ( M k . 6.44-8.26). T h e expanded form produced by L u k e was abridged by M a r c i o n a n d the abridgment was represented as the original t e x t — a claim w h i c h still finds occasional defenders ( K n o x , Marcion). T h e expanded form produced by M a t t h e w seems to have been abbreviated by the Ebionites (Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 100). A n o t h e r abbreviation is probably represented by the so-called " F a y y u m f r a g m e n t " (ibid., 74). T h e canonical text of M k . itself is often supposed to have been abbreviated at the end, if not elsewhere (Williams, Alterations 44f; T a y l o r , 610). Dionysius of Corinth, about 170, complained that his o w n letters in his o w n lifetime had suffered both deletion and interpolation; hence, he said, there was no reason to wonder that even the Scriptures of the L o r d had been tampered with (Eus., HE I V . 2 3 . 1 2 ) . Accordingly, the question whether the longer, A l e x a n d r i a n text was an expansion, or the shorter, now canonical, text an abbreviation, will have to be considered carefully. A t this point all to be said is that Clement's account of an expansion (except for its claim of M a r k a n authorship) is consistent with the probabilities of the situation

94


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

in A l e x a n d r i a , with the history of early Christian literature in general, and in particular with the history of the canonical M a r k a n text as indicated b y the other synoptics. Additional evidence in support of Clement's account could be brought from the fragments of the apocryphal Gospels, of w h i c h some show further modifications of the basic texts of the synoptics, although others m a y be (like the canonical Gospel according to J o h n ?) wholly or partially independent compilations from cognate oral traditions ( M a y e d a , Leben-Jesu-Fragment, in spite of Benoit's review; D o d d , Historical Tradition 328 n2; Hornschuh, Anfänge 17ff; Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 34, 47fr, 57fr, 104). Fortunately, however, there is no need to rely on this material of w h i c h the interpretation is so uncertain. T h e Gospel described b y Clement's letter was unquestionably a variant form of M k . In structure its closest analogues would seem to have been the other synoptic Gospels. By vocabulary, style, and content it is obviously connected with the synoptics rather than the apocryphal Gospels. Accordingly, the importance of the apocryphal Gospels to the following discussion is chiefly as evidence that from 75 to 125 the production of Gospels was not limited to the canonical four, and traditional material about Jesus was not limited to the m a n y Gospels produced. O n the contrary, all the Gospels, canonical and apocryphal alike, are but partial representatives of an oral tradition w h i c h still outranked them in the time of Papias (ca. 125; Eus, HE III.39.4) a n d lived on at least in isolated figures to the end of the second century. (Irenaeus, in Eus., HE V . 2 0 . 5 - 7 , was still " c h e w i n g " this " c u d . " See also K l i j n , Survey 164-165.) This background of oral tradition is reflected not only by the apocryphal Gospels, but also b y the a g r a p h a in the apostolic fathers, of w h i c h Köster's study has led him to the conclusion that: " T h e source of the synoptic tradition . . . is . . . the community, w h i c h from its practical needs not only hands down and uses the synoptic material, but also recasts, transforms, and increases the material already available. A c t u a l l y , moreover, this whole development is still far from completion at the time w h e n our Gospels are composed, i.e., toward the end of the first century. It continues, indeed, not only on the basis of the now developed Gospel texts, but also alongside t h e m " (Überlieferung 257). A c c e p t a n c e of this thesis by reviewers so different as M o u l e and M a r t i n is significant. Substantially the same thesis was a d v a n c e d b y D o d d as an explanation of Johannine parallels to the synoptics (Herrnworte 75). T h e same conclusion was reached by D u p l a c y , from his survey of recent work on the history of the N T text: " M o r e and more, today, the redaction of the Gospels and of Acts appears as one stage, albeit essential, of written fixation in the course of a tradition partly written, partly oral, w h i c h preceded these works, contained more than they, and did not disappear after their redaction. T h e same tradition w h i c h moulded the sources of these works, and impregnated the minds of their authors, continued to act on the transmission of their text; the sources themselves did not disappear overnight, a n d they, too, can have influenced the t e x t " (Ou en est II.274). See also the remarks of Robinson, ΛΟΓΟΙ ΣΟΦΩΝ 88f, on the multiplicity of sources available to the apostolic fathers. This background, then, of o r a l — a n d in part, as D u p l a c y observes, w r i t t e n — t r a d i t i o n is of fundamental importance for the following study. In the first place, it prohibits

95


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

hasty conclusions as to literary relation on the basis of occasional identities in wording. V e r b a l reminiscences of the sort w h i c h in classical literature are indications of sources m a y here be evidence of nothing more than the common tradition of the community or the contamination of the manuscript. In the second place, as Köster pointed out in his crushing critique of Jeremias (Herrenworte 222 f), the question of priority is reduced to comparative unimportance. O n c e it is admitted that all Gospels alike are abstracts from the traditions of the early churches, then the fact that one was written d o w n ten or fifteen years before or after another does not m a k e m u c h differe n c e ; the later document can easily contain the more important tradition—as C l e m e n t said the later text of M a r k did. So w e have two questions before us, the literary and the historical. T h e y are at least partially independent. W e n o w turn to the former.

Postscript, ig6$: T h e above argument, written in 1962, can now be strengthened b y the authority of D o d d and by his demonstration in Historical Tradition that the fourth Gospel is not directly dependent on the synoptics, but derives from another, similar, body of material. Particularly important are his remarks on oral tradition (pp. 7 f f ) : " I t is important to realize that we are not dealing with a primitive period of oral tradition superseded at a given date by a second period of literary authorship, but that oral tradition continued to be an important factor right through the N e w T e s t a m e n t period a n d beyond. Papias, in the first half of the second century, still preferred oral tradition, where it was available, and Irenaeus, towards the close of that century, could cite with great respect that w h i c h he had ' heard from a certain presbyter w h o had heard it from those w h o had seen the apostles'. . . . T h e early C h u r c h was not such a bookish community as it has been represented. It did its business primarily through the m e d i u m of the living voice, in worship, teaching and missionary preaching, and out of these three forms of a c t i v i t y — l i t u r g y , didache, kerygma—a tradition was built up, and this tradition lies behind all literary production of the early period, including our written gospels. T h e presumption, therefore, w h i c h lay behind m u c h of the earlier criticism—that similarity of form and content between two documents points to the dependence of the later of these documents on the earlier — n o longer holds good, since there is an alternative explanation of m a n y such similarities, and one w h i c h corresponds to the conditions under w h i c h gospel writing began, so far as we can learn t h e m : namely, the influence of a c o m m o n tradition. T o establish literary dependence something more is n e e d e d — s o m e striking similarity in the use of words (especially if the words are somewhat unusual) extending over m o r e than a phrase or two, or an unexpected and unexplained identity of sequence, or the like." Also of great importance for w h a t will follow here is the a r g u m e n t D o d d uses again and a g a i n : " I t is impossible to treat a n y one of the Synoptics as the primary source of the Johannine version . . . since he (sic) is sometimes closer to one and sometimes to another of the three . . . T h e hypothesis of literary conflation of documentary sources seems less probable than that of variation within a n oral t r a d i t i o n " (p. 79).

96


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

O f greater i m p o r t a n c e for the present w o r k t h a n for D o d d ' s o w n are his passing remarks o n the p r o b a b i l i t y that elements from established G o s p e l texts as interpolations

floating

oral tradition entered the

(e.g., p. 355 n2, w i t h reference to the

insertions at L k . 6.5 a n d 9.56, t h o u g h the great e x a m p l e is, o f course, J n . 7 . 5 3 - 8 . 1 1 ) . F u r t h e r points, o n p a r t i c u l a r questions, will be noted hereinafter. T h e extent of a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n D o d d ' s a n d m y o w n estimates of the history of the composition of the Gospels is not o n l y a source of gratification to m e , b u t also, since the estimates w e r e i n d e p e n d e n t , a piece of historical e v i d e n c e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , I h a v e in g e n e r a l left the present text j u s t as it w a s before m y r e a d i n g o f D o d d ' s b o o k , c h a n g i n g it o n l y b y insertion of references to his w o r k a n d b y correction of a f e w errors. T h e reader will see t h a t in spite of the large a g r e e m e n t there is considera b l e difference. I n p a r t i c u l a r , the n e w m a t e r i a l seems to m e to i n d i c a t e l i t e r a r y relation as w e l l as d e p e n d e n c e on similar oral traditions. H o w far m y conclusions should be m o d i f i e d in the light of D o d d ' s study o f the J o h a n n i n e e v i d e n c e , or D o d d ' s in the light of the n e w m a t e r i a l , are questions for others to discuss.

II.

STYLISTIC

COMPARISON

A.

WITH

THE

CANONICAL

GOSPELS

Text and commentary

T h e literary p r o b l e m before us is: T o d e t e r m i n e the relation of the shorter, n o w c a n o n i c a l , text of M k . to the longer text w h i c h C l e m e n t referred to as " t h e secret G o s p e l " a n d of w h i c h C l e m e n t ' s c h u r c h a n d the C a r p o c r a t i a n s possessed s o m e w h a t different forms. T h i s question c a n n o t b e stated as one of " a u t h e n t i c i t y . "

Contrast

the previous question a b o u t the letter. T o ask w h e t h e r or not the letter is " a u t h e n t i c " is to ask w h e t h e r or not it was written b y a k n o w n i n d i v i d u a l , C l e m e n t , f r o m w h o m w e h a v e a large b o d y of original compositions w h i c h p r o v i d e criteria for a u t h e n t i c i t y a n d m a k e the term " a u t h e n t i c " m e a n i n g f u l w h e n used of works a t t r i b u t e d to h i m . B u t " M a r k , " the h y p o t h e c a t e d writer of the c a n o n i c a l text of the second G o s p e l , is not a k n o w n i n d i v i d u a l , w e h a v e n o w o r k of his save this one text, a n d this text is far f r o m a w h o l l y original composition. I t combines m a n y different kinds of m a t e r i a l w r i t t e n in c o n s i d e r a b l y different styles ( W o h l e b , Beobachtungen·, G u y , Sayings; etc.). T h e c o m b i n a t i o n p r o b a b l y arose b y stages ( B u l t m a n n , Geschichte, passim; G u y , Origin I 2 2 f f ; Schille, Formgeschichte 1 i f ) ; a n d the present text m a y be t h o u g h t as m u c h the w o r k of a " s c h o o l " (a p r e a c h i n g or t e a c h i n g tradition) as of a n i n d i v i d u a l e d i t o r — S t e n d a h l , School, has s h o w n t h a t even the c o m p a r a t i v e l y w e l l - o r d e r e d M t . has such a tradition b e h i n d it. P e r h a p s the strongest a r g u m e n t for this estimate o f M k . is a f f o r d e d b y recent efforts to m a i n t a i n the c o n t r a r y : M a r x s e n , Evangelist,

Farrer,

St. Mt., C a r r i n g t o n , Mark, are p r i n c i p a l l y interesting as e x a m p l e s of the e x t r a v a g a n c e of exegetic f a n t a s y n e e d e d to transform " M a r k " f r o m a n e d i t o r — o r a series of editors -—to a n a u t h o r . T h e r e f o r e (as i n d i c a t e d in the conclusion of the p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r ) the question before us is not to decide the " a u t h e n t i c i t y " of the n e w m a t e r i a l , b u t

97


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

to determine its relationship to the evidently long process of writing a n d editing w h i c h produced the present text of the second Gospel. L e t us begin by comparing the v o c a b u l a r y and style of canonical M k . with those of the letter's quotations from the longer text. D a t a for the comparison are collected in A p p e n d i x E, of w h i c h the figures are based on M o u l t o n - G e d e n a n d Y o d e r a n d have been checked, w h e n possible, against Morgenthaler. I n the event of differences (which were frequent) Morgenthaler's figures were preferred. It is m y impression that the differences are not sufficient to affect the substance of the conclusions. I hope this will be true also of the errors which, in spite of checking, have doubtless crept in. Collection of statistics about c o m m o n phrases is difficult not only because of its monotony, w h i c h induces error, but also because of the frequency with w h i c h such phrases have been introduced into some M S S by scribal corruption. In the following pages and in A p p e n d i x Ε the notes on textual variants are from Nestle-Kilpatrick a n d (somewhat abridged) from Legg's editions of M t . and M k . I was not ignorant of the crticisms m a d e of Legg's editions—e.g., Massaux, Etat ηο^ϊ—but had nothing better to use. I was ignorant of the criticisms of the Nestle-Kilpatrick, but those I have heard to date do not seem to justify such reworking of the following figures as w o u l d be required b y the change of a basic text. T h e data collected in A p p e n d i x Ε are discussed seriatim in the following commentary. T h e y include material for comparisons with M t . and L k . as well as M k . Since the style of the longer text of M k . is v e r y close to that of the synoptics, but has only tangential connections with that of J n . , data on Johannine usage are not included in A p p e n d i x Ε but are given in the following commentary w h e n they deserve notice. Before proceeding, one observation must be m a d e : we know the longer text only in an eighteenth-century copy of Clement's quotations of it. N o w one of the commonest phenomena in M S S of the Gospels is harmonization of the text of one Gospel with that of the others (Williams, Alterations i f f ; D o d d , Historical Tradition 77 n4, 165^ etc.; T r o c m e , Formation 169 n i ) ; and the peculiar readings of M k . , because M k . was the least familiar of the Gospels, suffered particularly from harmonization (cf. Hills, Caesarean Text). Further, w h e n C l e m e n t quoted M k . he usually contaminated his quotations w i t h reminiscences of M t . and L k . This is shown clearly b y the notes in A p p e n d i x D on Clement's quotations from M k . , and even more clearly by the comparison in A p p e n d i x F between Clement's text of M k . 10.17-31 ( I I I . 1 6 2 . 1 9 - 1 6 3 . 1 2 ) and NestleKilpatrick's. It is also interesting to see how in I I I . 162fr, after h a v i n g quoted the M a r k a n text correctly in his m a i n quotation, C l e m e n t carelessly slips into the M a t thaean text w h e n he comments phrase b y phrase (see especially III.166.24). A c c o r d i n g l y — i n spite of the κατά λίξιν in I I . 2 2 — w e should expect Clement's quotation of the longer text to show signs of similar contamination deriving from C l e m e n t himself, and w e should expect our single M S of Clement's quotations to show traces of the harmonizations of the longer text of M k . to more familiar texts, not only of M k . , but also of the more familiar Gospels. A n d , last of all, it must be remembered that even the text of Clement's Stromateis rests almost entirely on one eleventh-century M S ; therefore, as Swanson observed, " i t is impossible . . . to determine . . . to w h a t extent the N e w T e s t a m e n t passages cited b y our author h a v e been altered, accidentally or intentionally, b y the c o p y i s t s " (Text 2).

98


11.23

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

II.23 καί

βρχονται

καί έρχονται

els.

els Βηθανίαν,

καϊ

ην €Κ€Ϊ

μία

M k . has και έρχονται 4 times (2 at the b e g i n n i n g of a p e r i c o p e —

3.31 a n d 12.18) a n d και έρχονται εις 6 or 7 times (5 or 6 times at the b e g i n n i n g of a p e r i c o p e ) . N e i t h e r M t . nor L k . uses the expression at all. T h i s M a r k a n f o r m u l a c a n n o t be taken as p r o o f of b o r r o w i n g from a n y p a r t i c u l a r passage (cf. T u r n e r ,

Usage

26.225fr). T h a t the subject (Jesus a n d the people f o l l o w i n g him) must be understood f r o m the g e n e r a l pattern of G o s p e l stories a n d not f r o m the i m m e d i a t e context is t y p i c a l o f M k . (cf. D o u d n a , Greek 5fr). A n o t h e r e x a m p l e occurs b e l o w in I I I . 6 , ήλθον. Βη&ανίαν.

Nesbitt, Bethany, has not succeeded in s h o w i n g that the B e t h a n y stories

in the Gospels are based on a special b o d y of traditions, b u t the notion is not certainly false. M k . uses the n a m e 4 times, M t . 2, L k . 2. B o t h of the M a t t h a e a n a n d one o f the L u c a n usages are in parallels to M k . I t w o u l d seem that the n a m e w a s m o r e p r o m i n e n t in the M a r k a n m a t e r i a l . J n . has it 3 times in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h L a z a r u s ( 1 1 . 1 , 1 8 ; 1 2 . ι ; p e r h a p s 1 . 2 8 — t h e text is dubious). Besides these usages, D a n d

it.—

m a j o r witnesses to the " w e s t e r n t e x t " — a t M k . 8.22 h a v e καϊ έρχονται ε'ις Βη&ανίαν, the phrase f o u n d in the longer text. B u t the r e a d i n g of D a n d it. is w r o n g ; the p l a c e n a m e , as g i v e n b y all other witnesses, should b e B e t h S a i d a . Y e t there is n o t h i n g at 8.22 to suggest B e t h a n y . W h y , then, d i d the scribe of the a r c h e t y p e of D a n d it. m a k e such a b l u n d e r ? W a s it because he k n e w the longer t e x t ? D is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y c o n t a m i n a t i o n of texts f r o m similar passages ( H a t c h , Text 1 2 ; W i l l i a m s , Alterations 1). και ην εκεί.

V e r b a t i m in M k . 3.1, as the b e g i n n i n g o f the second sentence of a story

f o l l o w i n g a n initial statement of place, as here. T h e same words, b u t w i t h a d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g ( " a n d he stayed t h e r e " ) o c c u r in M t . 2.15. M o r e r e l e v a n t is the o c c u r r e n c e in all three synoptics of ήν/ήσαν Se εκεΐ as a narrative f o r m u l a : M t . 2 7 . 5 5 , 6 1 ; M k . 5 . 1 1 [| L k . 8.32. M a t t h e w has i n t r o d u c e d the f o r m u l a w h e r e M k . d i d not h a v e it. I t is a f o r m u l a , not a sign of literary d e p e n d e n c e . [ W . M . C . questions this conclusion, r e m a r k i n g that M k . 3.1 also has the same sentence structure as this phrase of the longer t e x t : c o p u l a , v e r b , a d v e r b , subject, attribute.] B u t substantially the same sentence structure is also f o u n d in M t . 27.55,61 a n d L k . 8.32. E v i d e n t l y it w e n t w i t h the f o r m u l a . μία.

M k . has this a d j e c t i v a l use o f els for TIS in 12.42, ελθονσα μία χήρα

πτωχή,

b u t it is m o r e c o m m o n in M t . (4 instances, w i t h a fifth in the western text, D

de

g y c.s. A r m . ) . H a w k i n s (Horae 4, 3of) lists it as a M a t t h a e a n trait, b u t it is p r o b a b l y a S e m i t i s m (no instances in L k . ) , not a sign of literary d e p e n d e n c e . ( T h e r e a r e occasional occurrences in classical G r e e k — c f . Aristophanes, Aves

1292, a n d

van

L e e u w e n ' s n o t e — b u t the Semitic usage was so c o m m o n that its influence is p r o b a b l y to be supposed.) είς for TIS in other constructions (els των προφητών,

εις εκ τον

δχλον,

etc.) is c o m m o n in all the Gospels, as in the p a p y r i . Since the decision as to the n u m b e r of instances d e p e n d s o n the subjective j u d g m e n t , w h e t h e r or n o t the a u t h o r

99


Π.23 γυνη

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

fjs ο ά8ελφος

αυτής

intended to emphasize the singleness of the object referred to, there will be differences of opinion about the lists in A p p e n d i x E, w h i c h give 14 or 15 instances in M k . , 14 or 18 in M t . and 13 or 15 in L k . Cf. M o u l e , Idiom-Book 125 and 176; BlassDebrunner-Funk, no. 247.2; D o u d n a , Greek 33f. γυνη. W o m e n come to Jesus in M k . 5.27 (the w o m a n with an issue); 7.25 (the Syrophoenician); 14.3 (the anointing in B e t h a n y ) ; 16.2 (the resurrection). T o these M t . adds 20.20 (the mother of James and J o h n ) ; L k . adds 7-37f (the L u c a n anointing — t h a t the w o m a n came is implied if not stated); 10.40 (Martha's complaint); 23.27 (the w o m e n of Jerusalem); J n . : 11.20 ( M a r t h a , in the raising of L a z a r u s ) ; 11.32 ( M a r y , in the same); 20.1 (the Johannine resurrection). Besides these the adulteress is brought to Jesus (Jn. 8.3) and there are a number of meetings with w o m e n or mentions of them in Jesus' entourage. Evidently they played a large part in early Christian tradition. T h e multiplicity of these stories makes it impossible to be sure that the story in the longer text of M k . was d r a w n from a n y one of them.

ης . . . αύτης. R e d u n d a n t αυτός following os in the oblique cases is found twice in M k . , once in M t . , and twice in L k . (one M a r k a n ) , always in the genitive, fjs . . . αυτής appears only in M k . 7.25. T h e same construction appears again in I I I . 15, below, in the accusative. It is probably a Semitism rather than a sign of literary dependence; there are 10 instances, in all three oblique cases, in A p o c . (These figures do not include the peculiar readings of codex B e z a e ; Y o d e r ' s concordance has not indicated the peculiar usages of αυτός.) Both the instances in the longer text, and all those in canonical M k . , have in c o m m o n a trait w h i c h D o u d n a was not able to find in the papyri, " n a m e l y , the fact that the redundant possessive pronoun follows its noun i m m e d i a t e l y " {Greek, 38). See also the note on I I I . 15, ov ήγάπα αυτόν.

γυνη η ς . . . αυτής . . . ΐλθονσα.

This verbal sequence appears also in M k . 7.25 (the Syrophoenician). H o w e v e r , it w o u l d be hasty to conclude that either passage is dependent on the other, because: (1) γυνή . . . ΐλθοΰσα appears again in M k . 5.25^ (2) ΐλθοΰσα in our text is not part of the same sentence as γυνή ης .. . αυτής but is part of the formula 4λθοΰσα προσΐκΰνησΐν, of w h i c h there are 7 variants in M t . (see b e l o w ) ; (3) α ϋ τ η ί ΐ η M k . 7.25 is omitted by X D W J © Pap. 4 5 , / a m . i , f a m . 1 3 ( ^ . 1 2 4 ) , 28.225.237.253.475**.565.569.7oo.a/.^a«c.z'i.vg.Cop. s a b o , Geo. (so L e g g ) . N o w if w e suppose the longer text of M k . to have been compiled from texts of the types known to us, we should suppose the compiler to have used a text akin to the archetype of D and it., since only from such a text could he have gotten καϊ έρχονται εις βηθανίαν (above). But the archetype of D and it. evidently did not have the redundant αυτής in M k . 7.25. So there is some difficulty in supposing that both similarities resulted from imitation. 100


II.23-24

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

II.24 αττίθανεν

και

ελθοΰσα

προσ€κυνησε

άττίθανεν. T h e form: 2 in M t . , 6 in M k . , 5 in Lk. This perfective meaning for the aorist ( " h a d d i e d " or " w a s d e a d " ) appears in Lk. 8.53 and possibly in M k . 9.26 and 15.44 (in spite of the fine distinction made by Swete and accepted by T a y l o r ; the emendations—τίθνηκεν W 0 472.1342 and τεθνήκΐΐ D,/253—show how the copyists understood the Greek). It is regular in L X X : Ex. 16.3; N u m . 14.2; 20.3; Judges 8-33b; 9-55(?); I I Sam. 13.39; e t c · T h e sentence structure here, with the verb at the end, is thought typically M a r k a n by Turner, Usage 29.352fr. και + participle of έρχομαι in the nominative + finite verb: 5 in M k . , 12 in M t . (only one Markan) and 5 in Lk. (none Markan). These figures would be larger if account were taken of the instances with δε instead of και or with compounds of ΐρχομαι (els-, προσ-, £ξ-). This standard construction cannot be taken as evidence of dependence on any particular passage. For the same construction with other verbs see below, on και όργισθΐίς (II.25). T h e use of redundant participles, especially ΐλθων and άναστάς ( I I I . i o ) , is studied by D o u d n a (Greek, 55fr and 117ff) as characteristic of Mk.'s style. προσεκΰνησΐ και Xeyei. [ W . M . C . notes the connection—by και—of an aorist with a historical present and remarks that, though unusual, it does appear in T h u c . , V I . 4 . i . ] In M k . it is common, particularly so with Ae'ytt (1.37,41,43^ etc.), as here in the longer text. In III.7, below, it recurs with έρχεται, as in M k . 6.1. [For a study of earlier examples W . M . C . refers to von Fritz, Present esp. 195f.] ττροσΐκΰνησε.

προσκυνεΐν

after ΐρχομαι:

7 or 8 in M t . , never in M k . or L k . I n 5

of the 7 instances it follows a participle. O n e instance (15.25) is particularly close to the above: η δε ΐλθοΰσα προσΐκΰνει αύται (προσΐκΰνησΐ L K X / 1 Φ o i i g V 157·5®5·α^· pler.it.pc.vg.pler.Sy.Cop.b0,Aeth.Or.; αυτόν J i 7 4 - I 5 I 5 ) · This again is the story of the Syrophoenician woman. If the longer text of M k . was compiled from the canonical texts, the compiler took his first sentence from M k . 7.25 and his second from M t . ,15.25, which he revised by substitution of initial και for δε'—not a likely procedure. Matthew's interest in proskynesis is remarkable; but the verb cannot be taken as proof of dependence on M t . , especially since it here governs the accusative, which it never does in M t . except when he is quoting the O T . M a r k also represents suppliants as approaching Jesus with proskynesis (5.6, governing the accusative) and might have used the και ΐλθών formula to introduce them [R.S. calls attention to M t . 20.20, τότε προσήλθΐν

αύται ή μήτηρ των υιών Ζΐβεδαίου

μετά των υιών αυτής

προσκυνούσα

και αΐτοΰσά τι. This introduces a proskynesis by a woman into the story ( = M k . 10.35-45) which, according to Clement, immediately followed the present quotation from the longer text. Moreover, the woman introduced—the mother of the sons of Zebedee—replaces Salome in Mt.'s parallel to Mk.'s list of the women w h o witnessed the crucifixion (Mt. 27.56 || M k . 15.40). Her request, in M t . 20.20, was 101


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

11.24

τον

Ίησονν

refused. Salome is one of the women w h o appears in the next section of the longer text (immediately following the pericope introduced by M t . 20.QO) ; there she comes to see Jesus and is refused.] This suggests that Matthew incorporated in 20.20 traces of the preceding and following stories of the longer text of M k . His introduction of the mother of the sons of Zebedee is commonly explained as a consequence of reverence for the apostles: where M k . reported their ambition and rebuke, M a t t h e w reported their mother's ambition on their behalf (so, for example, McNeile). But M a t t h e w associated the sons with their mother's request, and the rebuke is still addressed to them (Mt. 20.22ff). A n d it is Matthew's way, when abbreviating M k . , to use the introduction of an omitted story at the beginning of the next story; for example, he retains M k . 5.18a ( = M t . 9.1a), omits 5.i8b-20, and uses 5.18a to introduce M k . 2.1 ( = M t . 9. i b ) . He also takes details from omitted episodes and uses them elsewhere: thus M k . 1.21-22 in M t . 7.28b(f); M k . 1.24, ήλθες, in M t . 8.29; M k . 1.28 in M t . 4.24a; etc. Therefore it is noteworthy that, besides introducing in 20.20 his substitute for S a l o m e — m a k i n g proskynesis—he has also introduced into the story of the Syrophoenician woman the appeal not found there in M k . : ελίησόν με, κύριε, mos AaveiS (Mt. 15.22). T h e story of the Syrophoenician was that of which the beginning most closely resembled that of the story in the longer text where the appeal is found. These two pieces of evidence (20.20 and 15.22) fit together and suggest that M a t t h e w knew the longer text of M k . Somewhat similar conclusions have been reached on other grounds by several scholars (Parker, Gospel; V a g a n a y , Absence; etc.). Further evidence suggesting that M a t t h e w m a y have known the longer text of M k . appears below, on άπεκΰλισε (III. i f ) .

τον Ίησονν. T h e accusative after προσκυνεΐν was the classical Greek construction (Blass-Debrunner-Funk, no. 151.2) and appears in M k . 5.6, where, however, there is minority support for the dative. In M t . and Lk. it is found only in quotation of Dt. 6.13 (Mt. 4.10 = Lk. 4.8, κύριον τον θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις). However, besides the variants noted in Appendix E, most relevant passages have one or two minuscule variants replacing the dative by the accusative; this was the tendency of later Greek. In studying the letter we saw that its chief difference from Clement's usage lay in the preponderance of accusatives after prepositions. If some accusatives there and the one here were introduced by a medieval copyist, they would hardly have been eliminated by a later corrector. [T.B. remarks that " i n M k . 5.6 it is especially the Alexandrian group that testifies for the accusative: B C L J ! F 892,1241. Beside these M S S we find additional testimony in the I-group of von Soden: A,047,179,230,273, 482,495,544,659,700,1346,1574,1588,1606, of which A , at least, testifies to the Alexandrian reading. This would be an indication for the Alexandrian source of the secret gospel."] O r of classicism in the Alexandrian revision? But see below, on καϊ ΐύθΰς (III. ι), where the agreement with the Alexandrians is in a detail contrary to classical usage. 102


II.24-25

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

Π.25 και

A e y e t αύτω

καϊ λεγει αύτω.

vie Δαβίδ

ελίησόν

μ€. οι δ ε

μαθηταΙ

8 in M k . ; in M t . 6 or 7 (only 2 M a r k a n ) ; never in L k . N o t e v i d e n c e

o f d e p e n d e n c e on a n y specific passage, λεγω is often used in the Synoptics to i n t r o d u c e ελέησον

(but almost a l w a y s w i t h some other v e r b of utterance, usually

κράζειν—a

f a c t to w h i c h m y attention was called b y T . B . ) . I n M t . 1 7 . 1 5 , h o w e v e r , it stands alone, as here. T h e parallelism p r o b a b l y results, not from d e p e n d e n c e , b u t f r o m the presence in both instances of a n o t h e r v e r b f o r m ( i n d i c a t i n g m o t i o n ) .

Three

v e r b s together are c u m b e r s o m e . vie . . . με.

T h i s form of a p p e a l is f o u n d in M k . 10.47,48 |] L k . 18.38,39. I n M t .

9 . 2 7 ; 15.22; 20.30,31 ( a l t h o u g h 20.30,31 are M a r k a n a n d 9.27 m a y be) the w o r d i n g has been c h a n g e d , p r o b a b l y u n d e r the influence of the liturgical use o f κύριε ελεησον (also used in appeals to p a g a n deities, Epictetus, Dissertationes I I . 7 . 1 2 ) . O n see a b o v e , s.v. προσεκύνησε

to be m a d e a v a i l a b l e to everyone, says, αμελεί και των επιβοωμενων οι μεν πολλοί "υίε Δαβίδ, ελεησόν με" ελεγον, ολίγοι δέ υΐόν έγίγνωσκον ό Πέτρος,

ον και εμακάρισεν.

15.22

end. C l e m e n t , II.498.32fr, a r g u i n g that gnosis is not τον κύριον αυτόν τον θεον, καθάπερ

T h i s is surprising because the c a n o n i c a l Gospels contain

m a n y instances of Jesus' b e i n g r e c o g n i z e d as son of G o d ( M k . 3 . 1 1 ; 5.7 a n d parallels; 15.39

an

d parallels; L k . 4 . 4 1 ; M t . 14.33; etc.), w h i l e the a p p e a l to the son of D a v i d

a p p e a r s o n l y in M k . i o . 4 7 f a n d parallels, M t . 9.27 a n d 15.22. P e r h a p s C l e m e n t m a y h a v e h a d in m i n d also M t . 2 1 . 9 a n d

1 5 — s e e his v a g u e exegesis in

1.97.10-13.

Nevertheless, his mistake is surprising in one w h o k n e w the Gospels so well. Surprising, too, is his choice of the M a r k a n f o r m of the a p p e a l rather t h a n the m o r e f r e q u e n t f o r m in M t . , his favorite Gospel. A r e b o t h these surprising details to be e x p l a i n e d b y his k n o w l e d g e of a d d i t i o n a l M a r k a n m a t e r i a l , i n c l u d i n g the selection q u o t e d in the letter, in w h i c h other speakers beside B a r t i m a e u s a p p e a l e d to Jesus as " s o n of D a v i d " ?

[ W . M . C . : T h e omission of ω before the v o c a t i v e w o u l d , in classical

G r e e k , h a v e been impolite a n d i n d e e d insulting.] I n the Gospels ω w i t h the v o c a t i v e has b e c o m e a sign of e m o t i o n ( B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r - F u n k , no. 146). I n M k . it a p p e a r s o n l y in ω γενεά άπιστος,

9.19. N o n e of the eight c a n o n i c a l a p p e a l s to the son of

D a v i d (listed a b o v e ) has ω.

οί δε μαθηταί.

Initial, w i t h a n i m m e d i a t e l y following v e r b , in M k . 10.13 a n d 24.

M a r k has a h a b i t of using the same construction several times in q u i c k succession: see the distribution of ευθύς in his text. I f the quotations f r o m the longer text stood w h e r e the letter says they d i d , their usage of οί δε μαθηταί w o u l d form a third m e m b e r of the a b o v e g r o u p . M t . 19.13 is M a r k a n , b u t M t . has the construction i n d e p e n d e n t l y in 12. ι ( w h e n c e it has been taken into M k . 2.23 b y a few M S S ) a n d in 28.16 ( +

ενδεκα)

a n d , m o d i f i e d , in 14.26. Ό θ ύ . h a v e it in M k . 14.4, w h e r e it m a y be o r i g i n a l — c e n s o r ship (altering passages discreditable to the H o l y Apostles) w o u l d e x p l a i n the c o m m o n text. N e v e r in L k . ; in M t . a n d M k . evidently a s t a n d a r d locution. 103


11.25

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

έπίτίμησαν

avrrj·

και

όργισθεις

επετίμησαν.

T h e v e r b , 9 times in M L , 6 or 7 in M t . (all M a r k a n ) , a n d 12 in L k .

(5 n o n - M a r k a n ) . I n M k . a n d M t . rebukes are c o n n e c t e d w i t h the d a n g e r o f r e v e a l i n g secrets. T h e d e m o n s are r e b u k e d that they should not m a k e h i m k n o w n , M k . 3.12 a n d parallels; the disciples are r e b u k e d that they should not declare w h a t Peter has said, M k . 8.30 a n d parallels; Peter rebukes Jesus for t e a c h i n g o p e n l y that the S o n of M a n must die, M k . 8.32 a n d parallels (note the r e a d i n g in c a n d k, ne cut haecfilla diceret); E b e l i n g , Messiasgeheimnis

136^ thinks the followers of Jesus r e b u k e d Barti-

m a e u s for d e c l a r i n g Jesus the son of D a v i d , M k .

10.48 a n d parallels. T h a t

the

disciples should h a v e r e b u k e d L a z a r u s ' sister for b l u r t i n g out the same title is therefore in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h M a r k a n practice. ol 8e μαθηται

επιτίμησαν.

V e r b a t i m in M t . 19.13 a n d m a n y M S S of M k .

10.13—-

c o m b i n a t i o n of a c o m m o n v e r b w i t h a s t a n d a r d locution for a c u s t o m a r y purpose. καί + n o m i n a t i v e

participle +

finite

verb.

One

of the most c o m m o n

sentence

structures in the Gospels. M a t t h e w was fond of it w i t h participles of έρχομαι

(see

a b o v e , o n και Ιλθοΰσα,

Mk.

I I . 2 4 ) , b u t a check of occurrences w i t h all v e r b s — i n

1 - 3 a n d 10, M t . 4, 8, 9, 19, a n d 20, a n d L k . 4, 5, 6 . 1 - 1 1 , a n d 18—suggests that it is most c o m m o n in M k . I n these chapters M k . has 33 instances, against 22 in M t . (10 M a r k a n ) a n d 20 in L k . (8 M a r k a n ) . καί, participle, ό 'Ιησούς,

verb, without

interruption, occurs in these chapters 3 or 4 times in M k . , 2 in M t . , a n d 2 in L k . ; b u t b o t h L u c a n instances are the cliche καί αποκριθείς όργισθείς.

ό 'Ιησούς

εΐπεν.

[ M a r k d i d not eliminate emotions of Jesus, as the other evangelists d i d :

cf. M k . 1 . 4 1 , 4 3 ; 7.34; 8 . 1 2 ; 10.14,16,21 w i t h the parallels. R . S . ] H a w k i n s , Horae 1 1 9 , notes that e x c e p t for the western r e a d i n g in M k . 1.41, οργή is n o w h e r e in the Gospels ascribed to Jesus save in M k . 3.5. T h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h M t . uses the v e r b οργίζω 3 times a n d L k . 2, their usage is p r o b a b l y irrelevant to the use here in connection w i t h Jesus. T h e aorist passive participle occurs in M t . 18.34 (καί όργισθεις

6

κύριος αύτον παρεδωκεν)

ό

οικοδεσπότης

a n d in L k . 14.21 in a similar c o n s t r u c t i o n : τότε όργισθείς

εΐπεν. I t is used of Jesus in the D text of M k . 1.41 : και οργ ισθεις

εκτείνας

την χείρα αύτοΰ ηψατο αύτον, w i t h support f r o m it., T a t i a n , a n d E p h r a e m . H o w e v e r , όργισθείς in M k . 1.41 is h a r d to e x p l a i n (Eitrem, Demonology 42), w h e r e a s

σπλαγχνισθείς,

the r e a d i n g of all other M S S , fits the context ( w h i c h contains n o trace of opposition). I n the letter's longer text of M k . , h o w e v e r , όργισθείς is easily e x p l i c a b l e : Jesus c o u l d h a v e been a n g e r e d either b y the use of his secret title or b y the disciples' r e b u k e o f the suppliant (cf. M k . I 0 . I 3 f ) . και προσεφερον αύτω παιδία μαθηται

επετίμησαν

αυτοί?, ίδων δέ ό Ίησοΰς

ηγανάκτησεν.

text is of the raising of L a z a r u s , its όργισθείς

ίνα αυτών άφηται" οί δε

I f the Story in the l o n g e r

corresponds to ενεβριμήσατο

in J n .

1 1 . 3 3 . A n d εμβριμησάμενος

occurs in M k . 1.43. P e r h a p s the a r c h e t y p e o f D i t . intro-

d u c e d όργισθείς

1.41 i n a d v e r t e n t l y , b y reminiscence o f the longer text

into M k .

104


II.25-26

THE SECRET GOSPEL

11.26 6 Ίησοΰς

άπήλθ€ν μετ'αύτής

et? τον κήπον οττον ην το

μνημεΐον.

and anticipation of εμβριμησάμενος. The reminiscence would be facilitated by the fact that the following words in Mk.—εκτείνας την χείρα αύτοΰ ήψατο αύτοΰ—are soon p a r a l l e l e d in the l o n g e r t e x t : εζετεινεν

την χείρα και ήγειρεν αυτόν. Βηθανίαν i n I I . 2 3

suggested that the archetype of Dz/. in Mk. 8.22 was corrupted by a reminiscnece of the longer text. Since Dit. are representatives of the western text, which was used by Clement, and since Clement knew the longer text, these suppositions are not unlikely. It is interesting that Westcott and Hort, II.appendix.23, supposed όργισθείς in Mk. i.41 "perhaps suggested by verse 43, perhaps derived from an extraneous source." Can it be that we now have the source? [ C . F . D . M . thinks more likely a suggestion he heard from W. Howard: that όργισθείς in Mk. 1.41 originated as a marginal gloss on εμβριμησάμενος.] άπήλθεν. This form, 9 in Mk., 7 in Mt. (2 Markan), and 6 in Lk. (2 Markan). It is followed by μετά with the genitive only in Mk. 5.24. There, as here, Jesus goes off with a suppliant (Jai'rus) to raise a dead relative. However, the construction is normal and can hardly be taken as evidence of literary dependence. L X X : I I Sam. 1 6 . 1 7 ; To. 1 4 . 1 2 ; Siracides 14.19. Άπελθεΐν εις is common. κήπος. σινάπεως,

I n the synoptics o n l y i n L k . 1 3 . 1 9 , όμοια εστίν (ή βασιλεία τοΰ θεου)

κόκκω

ον λαβών άνθρωπος εβαλεν εις κήπον εαυτού. T h i s m a y b e a n a d a p t a t i o n

of the mustard-seed parable to the story of Jesus' burial in and resurrection from a κήπος, J n . i g . ^ l f F . fjv 8ε εν τω τόπω όπου εσταυρωθη κήπος, καΐ εν τω κήπω

μνημεΐον

καινόν, κ.τ.λ. Interpretation of the Lazarus story as foreshadowing Jesus' resurrection may have led to the location of Lazarus' tomb, too, in a κήπος. Tombs in gardens near Jerusalem are mentioned in Josephus, AJ I X . 2 2 7 and X.46. [Burial in gardens was common in the Greco-Roman world and was reflected by the Greek words, κηποτάφιον a n d κηπόταφος o r κηπόταφον, a n d the L a t i n cepotaphium, LSJ δπου ήν.

s.w. A.D.N.]

όπου, 1 5 times i n M k . , 1 3 i n M t . , 5 i n L k . όπου ψ occurs i n M k . 5 . 4 0 (as

here, of Jesus' going to raise the dead), in Mk. 2.4, and twice in the D text of Lk. (4.16 and 5.19—the second Markan). 6 uses in J n . One is in the Lazarus story ( 1 1 . 3 2 ) , one in a reference to Bethany όπου fjv Λάζαρος ( i 2 . i ) , and one in a reference to the κήπος where Jesus was arrested (18.1). It is difficult to be confident that the expression in the longer text of Mk. was taken from any one of these possibly relevant passages. το μνημεΐον. 6 in Mk., 7 in Mt., and 7 in Lk. (Morgenthaler); Yoder adds 3 in M k . and 3 in Lk., from D. The only reference to Jesus' having raised a dead man from a tomb is in the Lazarus story, where μνημεΐον occurs 3 times (Jn. 1 1 . 1 7 , 3 1 , 3 8 ) and is subsequently mentioned in the popular report of the miracle ( 1 2 . 1 7 ) .

105


11.26-111. ι

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

III. I και €υθύς ήκοΰσθη

Ικ τον

μνημείου

και εύθυς. As the beginning of a sentence or i n d e p e n d e n t clause, 25 in Mk., 2 in M t . (both instances M a r k a n ) , never in the best supported text of Lk. Of the instances in Mk., D has only 1.30, 4.5, a n d 11.3. D omits both the well supported instances in M t . , b u t is u n i q u e (?) in reading και ευθύς in M t . 13.5 (also M a r k a n ) a n d almost u n i q u e in reading it in Lk. 5.6. Otherwise it consistently substitutes ευθέως, or omits. T h e longer text's repeated use of ευθύς, therefore, links it not only with Mk., but with a small M S tradition of the M a r k a n text—once again t h a t of the Alexandrian M S S . See A p p e n d i x E, a n d T.B.'s r e m a r k on τον Ίησοΰν above, on II.24. Since the longer text is right, against D , in this characteristic, it seems more likely t h a t the corruptions of the D text noted above (Βηθανίαν a n d όργισθείς, cf. I I . 2 3 a n d 25) were derived from the influence of the longer text, t h a n t h a t the latter derived these details (which, in it, do not seem to be corruptions) f r o m the archetype of D , to which they were peculiar, και ευθύς immediately followed by a finite verb, 1 in M t . , 9 in M k . T h e entry in M o u l t o n - G e d e n for M k . 7.35 is contradicted by the readings in Legg. I n the present usage in the longer text, ευθύς seems to be a connective r a t h e r t h a n a n a d v e r b of t i m e ; so it is in M k . (Kilpatrick, Notes 4 f ) . ήκούσθη. T h e form occurs in M k . 2.1 a n d in M t . 2.18, where the subject is, as here φωνή—(φωνή εν 'Ραμά ήκούσθη, L X X J e r . 38*15)—probably coincidental. [T.B remarks that in some " w e s t e r n " texts ήκούσθη is a d d e d where the n o r m a l Greek texts read only φωνή: so M t . 3.17 (Sy. s ) ; 17.5 (Sy.° ) ; M k . 1.11 (O.pauc.); Lk. 3.21 (Sy. 3 ).] Influence? άκουω follows ευθύς in M k . 7.25, άλλ' ευθύς άκούσασα γυνή περί αύτοΰ (RBL.J 33·579·^9 2 ; ενθεως Dit.] άκούσασα γάρ rell.), in the story of the Syrophoenician w o m a n , which paralleled the letter's Gospel above in I I . 2 3 - 2 4 . However, given the difference of the constructions a n d the frequency of both ευθύς a n d ακούω in M k . , this similarity, too, is p r o b a b l y coincidental.

και ευθύς ήκούσθη. T h e following story shows m a n y traits in c o m m o n with resurrection stories—voice, youth, stone, etc. O n these see the c o m m e n t below on ό νεανίσκος, 111. β. εκ τοΰ μνημείου. T h e local sense of εκ after ακούω does not occur in the Gospels. (Cf., however, J n . 12.34.) B u t the construction is c o m m o n : Apoc. 10.4.8; 11.12; etc. O n μνημεΐον see above, on II.26. εκ τοΰ μνημείου does not a p p e a r in the synoptics (though M t . a n d M k . have εκ των μνημείων), b u t is used 3 times in J n . Note J n . 1 2 . 1 7 , τον Λαζαρον εφώνησεν εκ τοΰ μνημείου, a n d 5· 2 8f, πάντες οι εν τοις μνημείοις άκούσουσιν της φωνής αύτοΰ και εκπορεύσονται. These verses reflect the J o h a n n i n e version of the story, in which Jesus cries o u t ; in the longer text of M k . the voice comes from the tomb. This contentual relationship will be discussed later. 106


III.I-2

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

III.2 φωνή

μεγάλη,

και προσελθών

6 Ίησοΰς

άπεκυλισε

τον

λίθον

φωνή μεγάλη. 4 i n M k . , 2 or 3 in M t . , 6 in L k . (one is omitted b y D , but another is added). O f the 3 M a t t h a e a n usages, the 2 certain ones are M a r k a n ; of the 5 certain L u c a n usages, 3 are M a r k a n . A l l the uses in the synoptics are in oblique cases. T h e phrase is used in J n . only once, in 11.43: <f>u>vfj μεγάλη εκραΰγασεν <o 'Ιησούς), Λάζαρε, δεΰρο εξω. Since the phrase was not a c o m m o n element in John's v o c a b u l a r y but was in M a r k ' s , J o h n is more likely to have derived it from a M a r k a n story of the raising of Lazarus than M a r k from a Johannine one. ( T h e rarity of the phrase in J n . is the more remarkable because of his fondness for φωνή in other constructions, noted by D o d d , Historical Tradition 282.) και προσελθών. Initial, 1 or perhaps 2 in M k . , in M t . 5 or 6 + 1 in D , in L k . 2. O f these instances the dubious one in M k . corresponds to the dubious one in M t . ; the rest are i n d e p e n d e n t — e v i d e n t l y the locution was standard. In L k . 7.14 (the y o u n g m a n of Nain) the actor is Jesus and the following action is a raising from the d e a d , as here; but there is no other contentual similarity, so these are probably irrelevant. In M k . 1.31 the following words are ήγειρεν αυτήν (Peter's wife's mother), but she was raised only from a sickbed. B y requiring exact parallel in form and position, the above figures obscure M a t t h e w ' s characteristic preference for προσέρχομαι. M o u l t o n - G e d e n list 52 uses in M t . , 6 in M k . , a n d 11 in L k . ; Morgenthaler lists 52 uses, 5 a n d 10, respectively. καΐ προσελθών ο Ίησοΰς. V e r b a t i m , as the beginning of a sentence, in M t . 28.18. Followed by the charge to make converts of all nations. Here also w e have καΐ προσελθών + explicit subject + verb, without interruption, as in M t . 4.3 a n d 8.19 a n d the longer text of M k . και προσελθών άπεκυλισε τον λίθον.

F o u n d in the middle of a verse, in M t . 28.2 (the angel at the resurrection), καί is omitted by m a n y M S S , including D . O n e form or another of άποκυλίειν + τον λίθον appears once or twice in both M k . and L k . , the usages in L k . being M a r k a n . T h e λίθος closing the entrance of the μνημεΐον appears also in Jn.'s raising of Lazarus (11.38fr) a n d there, too, is removed. M t . 28.2 is not a parallel to M k . , but m a y be an attempt to explain w h a t M k . reports. M t . ' s angel of the L o r d coming to raise Jesus is m u c h like Jesus coming to raise Lazarus. W h e r e did M a t t h e w get the i d e a ? Not from the M a r k a n resurrection of Jesus; nor from the Johannine story of Lazarus. Perhaps from the longer text of M k . ? T h a t he did not copy thence άπό της θύρας τοΰ μνημείου is not surprising. H e did not copy it from M k . 16.3, either; his w a y was to abbreviate. T h e details of the Style in the longer text suggest M k . , άπεκυλισε . . . άπό, μνημεΐον . . . μνημεΐον . . . μνημεΐον. C o m p a r e the examples at the end of the note on κρατήσας της χειρός, below, on I I I . 3 - 4 . 107


ΠΙ.2-3

THE SECRET GOSPEL

ΠΙ.3 άπο της θύρας του μνημείου και είσελθών

ευθύς δπου ην

Verbatim, M k . 16.3 CüW@Wfam.l^(exc.l2^).^4:3- l 57* with ab, it.vg.; h< ΧΑΒΣ,ΧΓΑΠΣ1? minusc. pier. T h e reading άπο', native to M k . , crept by contamination into M t . 28.2. T h e contaminated reading is exactly that of the longer text with άπό, not εκ. T h e stages of the contamination are shown in Appendix E. W h e n complete it produced και προσελθων άπεκύλισε τον λίθον άπο της θύρας τοΰ μνημείου, word for word parallel to the longer text, except for the absence of 6 'Ιησούς. But this complete form appears only in the later versions and uncials, and in minuscules. Therefore—unless it be one of the rare examples of early readings found only in late M S S (Williams, Alterations 32)—it cannot have influenced the longer text, already known to Clement, nor can it reflect the influence of the longer text, almost unknown after Clement's time. T h u s one of the most striking parallels between the longer text and a canonical Gospel cannot be explained by direct dependence on either side. A m o n g the m a n y possible explanations are (1) that the author of canonical M k . also wrote the longer text and repeated himself—as he often did in canonical M k . ; (2) that the longer text was produced by the same process of conflation which later produced the contaminated text of M t . ; (3) that the longer text was conformed to that of M t . by some medieval copyist. [ H . K . remarks that Lk. 24.2 also has άπο τοΰ μνημείου.] Therefore, it is likely that M t . and Lk. reflect a text of M k . which had άπο rather than εκ, but the phrase is so commonplace that no secure conclusion is possible. άπο της θύρας τον μνημείου.

(cor.**).i4-47 2 -5 I 7-Eus. d e m 'Greg.Nyss.,

(etc.). Initial, 5 or 6 in M k . + ι in D and Sy. 3 ·; 1 in M t . ; 4 in Lk. (1 Markan) + 1 in D . A standard introductory phrase most favored by M a r k ; hardly useful as a sign of authorship and not evidence of borrowing from any particular passage. This conclusion is confirmed by the frequency of είσερχομαι in all forms: M t . 36, M k . 30, Lk. 50 (Morgenthaler). και είσελθοΰσα ευθύς, initial, appears in M k . 6.25, but the passage (Salome's approach to Herod) has no contentual similarity to the text here. Therefore, given the frequency of both είσερχομαι and ευθύς, the coincidence is probably accidental, είσελθών, without και and not initial, introduces in M t . 9.18 the raising of Jai'rus' d a u g h t e r — w h i c h has a number of verbal parallels to the present passage, probably because of similarity of content. See below, on κρατησας. και είσελθών/ουσα

See above, on II.26. M k . 2.4 and 5.40. T h e second occurs in the raising of Jai'rus' daughter, where it follows είσπορεύεται and precedes, as here, κρατησας της χειρός. T h e conjunction of these conventional phrases in the same sequence is explained by the common content of the passages. [ W . M . C . remarks that in είσελθών . . . δπου the εις is pleonastic, ελθών would suffice.] However, as already stated, M k . 5.40 has the same construction with είσπορεύεται; and similar pleonastic constructions with είσπορεύομαι and είσερχομαι preceded by δπου occur in M k . 6.10,56, and 14.14 but not in the other Gospels. This seems to be a M a r k a n trait. δπου f)v.

108


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

ό νεανίσκος

i£ereivev

την χείρα

και ηγειρεν

III.4 αυτόν, κρατησας της

ΙΠ.3-4

χειρός.

ό νεανίσκος. 2 in Mk., 2 in Mt., ι in Lk. All of these νεανίσκοι have traits which relate them to the present story. The one in Mk. 14.51, wearing a sheet over his naked body, was (almost) caught with Jesus late at night; the one in Mk. 16.5, wearing a white garment, was found in Jesus' tomb and announced his resurrection; the one in Mt. ig.2off was loved by Jesus (Mk. 10.21, εμβλεψας αύτω ήγάπησεν αυτόν) and was rich (Lk. 18.23, fy Ύ°·Ρ πλούσιος); the one in Lk. 7.14 was raised from the dead, and the story contains the verbal sequence και προσελθών ήφατο . . . veaviσκε . . . εγερθητι (but this is probably mere chance). Another νεανίσκος was raised or saved from death in the D text of Acts 20.12. Yet none appears in a story so close to the present one as the story of Lazarus, and in the canonical Gospels Lazarus is not called a νεανίσκος. This multiplicity of partial parallels suggests narration in traditional patterns with traditional vocabulary, rather than compilation from written sources. [H.K. agrees, remarking that a similar variety of parallels— voice, youth, stone, etc.—appears also in the earliest apocryphal Gospels, especially Peter, and probably for this same reason. For a study of these parallels he refers to L. Brun, Die Auferstehung Christi (1925), which I have not seen.]

την χείρα. εκτείνειν + χειρ, 3 or 4 in Mk. (one with χείρα merely implicit), 6 in Mt. (3 Markan, χείρα once implicit), and 5 in Lk. (2 Markan, 2 from D). The exact combination εξετεivev την χείρα seems to have stood in the achetype of Sy. and some M S S of it. at Mt. 12.13. The story there (the man with the withered arm) has no similarity to the present one, so the identity of wording was probably coincidental. More striking are the western variants to Mk. 1.31, the only place where εκτείνω precedes εγείρω. On these see below, on κρατήσας. Taking the hand and raising the dead is frequent in Acta Ioannis·. 1 1 , 47, 79, 83, 1 1 2 . There are many pagan parallels (emperors raising the afflicted, gods welcoming the deified dead, etc.); see Schrade, Ikonographie iogff. εξετεινεν

ήγειρεν. εγείρω Mk. 19; Mt. 36; Lk. 18. ηγειρεν appears only in an O T reminiscence in Lk. 1.69 and in Mk. 1.31 and 9.27 (ηγειρεν αυτόν); on these see the following note. και προσελθόντες ήγειραν αυτόν in Mt. 8.25 (stilling the storm) is a coincidence, as is κρατήσει αυτό και εγερεΐ in Mt. 1 2 . 1 1 (the man with the withered arm) and νεανίσκε, σοι λεγω, εγερθητι in Lk. 7.14 (the young man of Nain). της χειρός. Verbatim, 2 or 3 in Mk., I in Lk. (Markan). κρατεω, Mk. 15, Mt. 12, Lk. 2. χειρ as an instrument of supernatural help, 10 or 1 1 in Mk. ( + 1 in the long ending), 7 in Mt. (5 Markan), 5 in Lk. (2 Markan + 1 in Dii.). άτττω in the same use, Mk. 1 1 , Mt. 9, Lk. 10. Neither χειρ nor άτττω ever has this use in J n . The exact phrase κρατήσας της χειρός is always used in the Gospels in connection with εγείρω". κρατήσας

log


ΙΠ.3-4

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

Mk. ι.31 (Peter's mother-in-law) || Mt. 8.15; Lk. not similar. X B L και προσέλθω ν ήγειρεν αυτήν κρατήσας τ η ς χειρός. D κ α ϊ προσελθών εκτείνας τ ή ν χ ε ί ρ α κρατήσας ί^Υ^ρεν αυτήν. W κ α ι προσΐλθων έκτίνας (sic) τ ή ν χ ε ί ρ α και επιλαβόμενος ήγειρεν αυτήν, bq ille autem venit et extendens manum adprehendit earn et levavit. r1 et Verdens externa manu adpraehensam elevavit eam. M t . 8.15 κ α ι έλθών . . . ήφατο τ η ς χ ε ι ρ ό ς αυτής . . . καί ήγέρθη. Mk. 5.40/ {Janus' daughter) || Mt. g.25 || Lk. 8.54. XB, etc. κ α ί είσπορεΰεται όπου ην το παιδίον και κρατήσας τ η ς χ ε ι ρ ό ς τοΰ παιδιού λέγει . . . εγείρε. Dit. κ α ι είσπορεΰετο 6πθΌ ή ν το παιδίον καί κρατήσας τήν χείρα τοΰ παιδιού (eius, it.) λεγει . . . εγείρε. M t . 9.25 NB, etc. ε ί σ ε λ θ ώ ν έκράτησεν τ η ς χ ε ι ρ ό ς αυτής και ήγέρθη το D έλθων εκράτησεν τήν χείρα αυτής και ήγέρθη το κοράσιον. it.vg. intravit et tenuit manum eius et dixit puella surge.

κοράσιον.

L k . 8.54 αυτός δε κρατήσας τ η ς χ ε ι ρ ό ς αυτής έφώνησεν λέγων, ή παΐς, έγειρε. Mk. g.2j (the demoniac boy). Mt. and Lk. not similar. XBDLJ0y / /am.r./a/72.i3(«A:c.i24).28.53.543.565.892.ii.^.Sy. W e r · C o p . s a b 0 G e o r . A r m . ο δέ Ίησοΰς κρατήσας τ η ς χ ε ι ρ ό ς αντον ήγειρεν αύτόν. A C N X Υ Γ Π Σ Φ 1 ? 22.124.33· 1 57-579-7 0 0 · Ι 0 7 1 .a/./>/«'.Sy.s-pesh-h1· A e t h . ό δέ Ίησοΰς κρατήσας αύτον τ η ς χ ε ι ρ ό ς ( + αΰτοΰ C * S y . s e t c Aeth.) ήγειρεν αύτόν.

( O n M k . ι .31 see C o u c h o u d , L'Evangile 174. Pernot, Pretendu 50, supposes D influenced by M k . 1.41, but this is unlikely: the verses are not sufficiently similar. C o u c h o u d ' s reply, Marc latin 294.) Here the words in boldface type appear in the same forms in the longer text of M k . T o attribute this fact to deliberate compilation from the multiplicity of written texts is implausible. Evidently the similarity of the longer to the shorter text of M k . , like the similarity of the different passages of the shorter text to one another, is the product of free composition in a standard form and with a standard v o c a b u l a r y . It is hard to believe that a n y compiler w o u l d have produced the a w k w a r d repetition χείρα . . . χειρός. T h e Dit. text of M k . 1.31 might be a deliberate revision of this, a n d the W text a further revision of D . C a n it be that here, again, m e m o r y of the longer text contaminated the archetype of D and produced a text reading εκτείνας τήν χείρα κρατήσας τής χειρός ήγειρεν αυτήν, of w h i c h various corrections n o w a p p e a r in D W i t ? Pleonasm is a well k n o w n trait of M a r k a n style (Hawkins, Horae 139fr); so is verbal repetition (above, on μνημεϊον, in I I I . 2 ) . Both the later synoptists and the later M S tradition tended to eliminate these traits b y choosing one or the other half of M a r k ' s redundant expressions. For e x a m p l e : M k . 1.22 I.26 I.29 1.34

διδαχή . . . διδάσκων, om. διδάσκων, L k . φωνήσαν φωνή, om. L k . ; κράξαν/ας A C D Γ Α Θ Π Σ Φ ^ ?

fam.l.al.pler.

εκ . . . εξελθόντες, om. M t . L k . ; έλθόντες 73. δαιμόνια . . . δαιμόνια, om. second δαιμόνια Lk.@Dli.D£.Sy. s , Aeth. no


THE SECRET GOSPEL

ό δε νεανίσκος

ΙμβΧέφας

αύτώ ήγάπησεν

III.4

αυτόν

Ι ·35

εξηλθεν και άπηλθεν, ΟΤΠ. άπήλθεν Lk.B28*a/.; ΟΤΠ. εξηλθεν και Wfit.Vg. 1.43 αύτώ . . . αυτόν, om. Mt., Lk., Wb.c; om. αύτώ 349.51 ja.e.vg.; om. αυτόν 255Sy.8· 2.9-12 apovjapas τον κράββατον ter, om. first Mt., Lk., W 544.692.it.; om. third Mt. 2.15 πολλοί . . . ήσαν γαρ πολλοί, om. ήσαν γαρ πολλοί Mt., Lk. 2.15-16 τελώναι καϊ αμαρτωλοί ter, om. second Mt., Lk., W ; τελωνών tant. 69al. 2.18—19 νηστεΰοντεί . . . νηστεΰουσιν . . . νηστεΰουσιν . . . νηστεύειν . . ,νηστεΰειν, om. νηστεύοντας Mt., Lk.; om. second νηστεΰουσιν Lk. 543 Pauc· > om. first νηστενειν Mt.; om. second νηστΐΰίΐν Mt., Lk. DUW fam. 1 {exc. 131) 33.7oo.ii.»^.Sy. pesh Geor. 2 Further examples in Hawkins, Horae 139fr. For the tendency of the later synoptists and the M S tradition to make the same or similar corrections of Mk., see Turner, Usage, passim. 6 δε. Morgenthaler counts 160 instances of δε in Mk., 1078 of και. In the quotations from the longer text there are 3 uses of δε and 18 of και. Thus the proportions of δε to και are 1:6.7 in canonical Mk. and 1:6 in the longer text. This coincidence in proportion can scarcely be considered significant, since the quotations of the longer text are so short. However, its και. . . και. . . και, with an occasional δε' thrown in, is paralleled in many Markan stories: for example, that of Bartimaeus (Mk. 10.46-52), which, according to Clement, immediately followed the second quotation. (See Hawkins, Horae 150fr. on Mk.'s characteristic preference of και to δε'.) νεανίσκος. 29-349)·

See above, on III.3. Mark was fond of diminutives (Turner,

Usage

έμβλΐφας αύτω ήγάπησεν αύτόν. εμβλεφας/α at the beginning of a sentence, with a following finite verb: 3 in Mk., 3 in Mt. (1 Markan), and 1 Lk. In Mk. the sequence is twice έμβλεφας/α + verb. Two of the Markan usages (10.21,27) come close together, immediately before the place where the letter locates this usage (following 10.34). This accords with Mark's habit of using the same construction several times in quick sequence. (See above, on κρατήσας της χειρός, and, in Appendix E, the distribution of και ενθΰς. [But other writers also have this habit, notably Paul and Luke. H . J . C . ] άγαπάω is frequent in the Gospels, Mk. 5 ( + iD), Mt. 8 (2 Markan), Lk. 13 (none Markan, 2 omitted by Dit.). Therefore, on stylistic grounds the fact that the clause εμβλεφας αύτώ ήγάπησεν αύτόν occurs in Mk. 10.21 is no reason to deny that Mark might have repeated it after 10.34. The question of the significance of the repetition must be postponed to the discussion of the content of the quotations from the longer text. Ill


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

III.4-5 ΠΙ.5 και

ηρξατο

παρακαAetv

ηρξατο/ηρξαντο.

αύτον

ι ν α μ€τ

αυτόν

rj

W i t h f o l l o w i n g infinitive: 26 in M k . (Dit. o m i t 3 b u t a d d 3 others),

9 in M t . (6 M a r k a n ) , 19 in L k . (2 or 3 M a r k a n ) + 4 (2 M a r k a n ) in the D text o f L k . T u r n e r (Usage 28.352fr) a n d H u n k i n (άρχομαι) r e m a r k t h a t the use of

ηρξατο/ντο

w i t h the present infinitive as a substitute for the i m p e r f e c t is t y p i c a l l y

Markan.

και ηρξατο

as the b e g i n n i n g o f a sentence is p a r t i c u l a r l y so: 10 in M k . , 3 in L k . ,

n e v e r in M t . or J n . (For comparisons w i t h classical G r e e k a n d L X X see D o u d n a , Greek 5iflf a n d 11 i f f . ) παρακαλεΐν.

M e a n i n g " e n t r e a t , " 9 in M k . , 6 in M t . (4 M a r k a n ) + 1 D i t . , 5 in

L k . (3 M a r k a n ) of w h i c h 1 is o m i t t e d b y XDa/., b u t Di<. also a d d a n instance. παρακαλεϊν

r e g u l a r l y governs the accusative. F o l l o w e d b y a Iva clause a n d

s u b j u n c t i v e : 5 or 6 in M k . , 1 in M t . ( M a r k a n ) , 2 in L k . (both M a r k a n ) . LSJ

the cites

the construction f r o m Aristeas, A r r i a n , a n d others; in the Gospels it seems a M a r k a n trait. T u r n e r t h o u g h t M k . c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y fondness for Iva a n d use o f it w i t h other t h a n " i t s p r o p e r sense of p u r p o s e " ; he i n c l u d e d the uses after παρακαλεΐν

in his

l o n g list of e x a m p l e s (Usage 29.356). αυτόν . . . αντοΰ.

T h e repetition is p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t i c e a b l e since it follows ούτω . . .

αυτόν in the p r e c e d i n g line. D o u d n a , Greek 36, r e m a r k s : " O n e of the o u t s t a n d i n g features of the G r e e k o f the gospels is the f r e q u e n c y of the o b l i q u e cases of the personal p r o n o u n s ; M a r k shares this to a slight d e g r e e " — a n d so, as he shows, do the p a p y r i . K i l p a t r i c k , Atticism 136, takes the f r e q u e n c y of αυτός as one sign of a well-preserved, p r i m i t i v e text. ινα μετ

αντοΰ fj.

M k . r e g u l a r l y speaks o f Jesus as a c t i n g μετά. των

δώδεκα (3·7> 8 . ι ο ; ι ι . ι ι ; 14· Ι4> 1 7) • o f the disciples as ol μετ

μαθητων/των

there seem traces o f a tradition w h i c h spoke

αύτοΰ. T h u s the t w e l v e are " m a d e " ίνα ώσιν μετ'

( 3 . 1 4 ) ; the G e r a s e n e d e m o n i a c beseeches Jesus ίνα μετ

αντοΰ

αύτοΰ fj ( 5 . 1 8 ) ; w h e n Jesus

goes in to raise Jai'rus' d a u g h t e r he takes w i t h h i m o n l y her parents a n d τους αύτοΰ (5.40); w h e n he leaves C a p e r n a u m he is p u r s u e d b y S i m o n a n d ol μετ'

μετ' αύτοΰ

(1.36, a l t h o u g h , as H . J . C . notes, the reference here is n o t c e r t a i n ; L o h m e y e r , ad loc., p l a u s i b l y c o m p a r e s 16.7, τοις μαθηταΐς

αύτοΰ και Πέτρω).

Cf. also 2 . 1 9 ; 9-3^;

14.67. [ O f the p r e c e d i n g passages, in 1.36; 3 . 1 4 ; 5 . 1 8 ; 5.40; 8.10, a n d 1 1 . 1 1 , M k . ' s μετά is not p a r a l l e l e d in M t . or L k . R . S . is therefore justified in seeing here a M a r k a n trait.] T h e phrase μετ (cf.

6.66)

and

αύτοΰ w i t h this sense a p p e a r s also in M k . 16.10 a n d J n . 9.40

perhaps

Lk.

22.59 (cf. J n .

usage m a y p e r h a p s be seen in M t .

18.26).

F u r t h e r traces o f the

12.30 a n d p a r a l l e l s ; 2 6 . 5 1 , 6 9 , 7 1 ;

same

28.2o(?);

L k . 22.21,28,33; 23.43; J n . 13.8,33; 14.9; 1 5 . 2 7 ; 16.4; 17.12,24. T h e r e f o r e , t h a t ίνα per αύτοΰ fj should a p p e a r b o t h in M k . 5 . 1 8 a n d in the longer text is n o t surprising. M o r e o v e r , w e h a v e here a n o t h e r n e a r - c o i n c i d e n c e w i t h a false r e a d i n g of D a n d its allies. I n M k . 5 . 1 7 f the g r e a t m a j o r i t y of texts r e a d και ηρξαντο 112

(sc. the Gerasenes)


111.5-6

T H E S E C R E T GOSPEL

III.6 και

εξελθόντες

παρακαλεΐν

εκ τοΰ

μνημείου

ηλθον

είς την

αυτόν άπελθεΐν . . . και . . . παρεκάλει

οίκίαν

του

νεανίσκου·

αυτόν ό δαιμονισθείς

ίνα μΐτ'

αύτοΰ η.

But D (with considerable support) reads παρεκάλουν αυτόν ίνα άπελθη . . . και. . . 'ηρξατο παρακαλεΐν

αυτόν 6 δαιμονισθείς

ινα f j μετ'

αύτοΰ. T h i s shift in the position o f

the ηρξα(ν)το construction could hardly have been motivated by considerations of style or meaning; it m a y reflect a memory of the longer text. M a n y D variants indicate that the D text of M t . and Lk. was corrupted by the scribe's memories of canonical M k . (e.g., those at Lk. 5.14 and 6 . 1 ; cf. below, on και εξελθόντες, H I . 5 ; μεθ' ή μέρας, I I I . 6 - 7 ; etc.); similar corruption by memories of the longer text is therefore possible. [H.J.C., however, comments: " M e m o r i e s of short M k . affected scribes of M t . and Lk., yes, but perhaps oftener memories of M t . and Lk. affected scribes of short M k . " ] καΐ εξελθόντες. Initial, with a following finite v e r b : 7 or 8 in M k . (in 3 Dit. have δε); 7 in M t . + 1 in D , 1 in X B C L 0 , etc. Both these additional instances are M a r k a n , but only one of the 7 secure readings is so; more contamination—see the preceding note. O n l y 2 in Lk., and of these 22.62 m a y be a gloss taken from M t . O f the 8 in M k . , 3 are followed by εκ and 2 of these by έρχομαι. O f the certain instances in M t . , 3 (and in Βal. a fourth) are followed by εκ or its compounds, and one by εισέρχομαι. L k . has εξω after εξελθών in 22.62. και εξελθόντες εκ τοΰ μνημείου ηλθον. Not found verbatim in the Gospels, but in M t . 28.8 all uncials except XBCL©, and most minuscules, have και εξελθοΰσαι από τοΰ μνημείου;

a n d M k . 16.8 has και εξελθοΰσαι

εφυγον από τοΰ μνημείου

(of t h e w o m e n

after their Easter morning visit), while M t . 27.53 has καΐ εξελθόντες εκ των μνημείων . . . είσηλθον (of the dead raised along with Jesus). [P.B. compares also M k . 1.29, w h e r e — a f t e r the cure of a d e m o n i a c — t h e text goes on, καΐ ευθύς εκ της συναγωγής εξελθόντες ήλθον είς την οίκίαν Σίμωνος.] In view of these multiple parallels it seems plausible to explain the text as free composition in conventional style rather than direct borrowing from any one passage, or word-by-word compilation from several. [T.B. points out that the western text of M t . 27.53, especially in the Syriac, is very close to the longer text of M k . Sy. pa1 · omits μετά. την εγερσιν αύτοΰ, D S y . p a L s Lat. {partim) have ήλθον instead of είσηλθον, and the Syriac K ' i t a t ye canbe understood as a singular. Perhaps the western variants m a y reflect some recollection of the longer text.] O n εξελθόντες. .. ήλθον as a M a r k a n usage see Turner, Commentary 155. O n the subject of ηλθον, see above, on II.23, και έρχονται.

είς την οίκίαν.

οικία, M k . 18, M t . 25, L k . 25. οίκος, M k . 12, M t . 10, L k . 33. A g a i n

the longer text goes with M t . and M k . against Lk. References to particular houses which might be called " h i s t o r i c a l " (by contrast to those in parables or sayings) with οικία: 6 in M k . ( + 2 in D ) , 9 or 10 in M t . (only 3 M a r k a n ) , 9 or 10 in L k . "3


III.6 rjv γάρ

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

πλούσιος.

( + ι in D ; only 2 Markan). Often these follow forms of (els)έρχομαι with εις: 2 in Mk. + 2 in D, 5 in Mt. (1 Markan), 3 in Lk. (1 Markan.) This reference to going into a house often connects two scenes, as it does here: Mk. 1.29; 2 . 1 5 ; 9 . 3 3 ; Mt. 9 . 2 3 ; 9 . 2 8 ; 1 3 . 3 6 ; 17.25. There is no reason to suppose this transition borrowed from any one of its many parallels. Kilpatrick, Notes 5ff, kindly put at my disposal an unpublished study in which he concludes that in Mk. οίκος corresponds to " h o m e , " οικία to "house." He observes, however, that the two are sometimes interchangeable, as " h o m e " and " h o u s e " in English. This would seem to be the case here.

ήν γαρ πλούσιος. ήν/ήσαν γαρ, as introduction of an appended explanation; 9 or 1 0 in Mk. (1 omitted by Dit., etc., 1 by XB, etc.), 5 in Mt. (all Markan), 4 in Lk. ( + ι in D, only 1 Markan). It is a Markan trait (Turner, Usage 2 6 . 1 4 5 f r ; Zerwick, Untersuchungen i3off; Bird, γάρ) and Mk. might have used it with πλούσιος as a predicate adjective. The canonical text of Mk. uses πλούσιος twice (a third use appears in a variant). However, πλούσιος is typical of Lk. (11 uses, against 2 in Mk. and 3 in Mt.), and fy γάρ πλούσιος σφόδρα [Sy.°· omits σφόδρα—R.S.] appears in Lk. 1 8 . 2 3 , where Mk. and Mt. have ην γαρ ίχων κτήματα πολλά. This is the young man in Mk. 1 0 . 2 2 of whom Mk. uses the phrase εμβλεφας αύτω ήγάπησεν αυτόν, also found in the longer text, above. Mk. 10.22 preceded by little the present passage of the longer text, which stood after 1 0 . 3 4 . Given Mark's habit of repeating himself after short intervals, he probably would have repeated εχων κτήματα πολλά, rather than have summarized it with πλούσιος. The longer text here may have been corrupted by a copyist's memory of Lk. or by a gloss. Perhaps the latter is more likely, since the rest of the text shows no knowledge of Lk. (except in the concluding clause of the second quotation, which is probably spurious; see below, on I I I . 1 6 ) . Yet another possibility is that Clement misquoted; for the contamination of his quotations of Mk. by his memories of Mt. and Lk., see Appendix F. O n the other hand, the dangling phrase is in Mark's manner and makes sense: They went to the young man's house, for he was wealthy (and therefore able to receive the company which traveled with Jesus). Cf. Zacchaeus, Lk. 1 9 . i f f . [W.M.C. remarks that the subjects of εξελθόντες . . . ήλθον είς τήν οΐκίαν are, strictly, only Jesus and the youth.] However, as Turner noted (Usage 2 6 . 2 3 1 ) , Markan reports of the movements of Jesus, even when the verb is in the singular, are normally to be understood as implying that his followers went with him. See the note on και έρχονται, in II.23, above. The notion that πλούσιος is a copyist's corruption can be supported by the fact that a similar corruption has introduced πλούσιος into Mk. 1 0 . 1 7 A K M W 0 7 7 , many minuscules, and some MSS of the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian translations. [My attention was called to the variant by R.S.] Turner, Readings 6, thought the κτήματα in Mk. 1 0 . 2 2 a corruption introduced from Mt. 1 9 . 2 2 and maintained that the correct reading was χρήματα, preserved by the western text and Clement and repeated—as usual—by Mk. (in the following verse, 1 0 . 2 3 ) . 114


111.6-7

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

ΠΙ.7 και

μΐθ'

ημέρας

ΐπεταξζν

αντω

6 Ίησοΰς·

καϊ

όφίας

γενομένης

έρχεται

και μεθ' ήμερας εξ. M k . is characterized by its separation of events from eath other by precise numbers of days, intervals it indicates by μετά with the accusative: 5 instances. M t . has only 3 (2 M a r k a n and 27.63—probably an echo of M k . ) ; Lk. has only 2 (and 9.28 seems a deliberate correction of M k . ) . D it. have 2 more instances in M t . and one more in Lk. (another example of the corruption of their archetype by the influence of M k . ; see above, on μετ αύτοΰ). Per contra, the Matthaean usage (with the dative) has corrupted the later uncials of M k . If Lk. 9.28 is a deliberate correction of M k . 9.2 (so Rengstorf on Lk. ad loc.), there was some tradition about these intervals and some importance attached to them. Therefore the specification of the interval m a y be a datum of tradition, not an echo of M k . 9.2, where the same words occur. O n Mark's fondness for giving specific numbers, Turner, Usage 26.337fr. επεταξεν. T h e verb: 4 in M k . , never in M t . , 4 in Lk. (1 Markan) + 1 in D . T h e person commanded is always in the dative. T h e form επεταξεν occurs twice in M k . and in the D variant to Lk. (8.55). επεταξεν ο Ίησοΰς αύτοΐς is found in Dit. to M k . 6.39 (where other witnesses lack ό Ίησοΰς). These parallels demonstrate merely that the word was used normally by M k . and Lk. T h e peculiarity here is the failure to specify the content of Jesus' c o m m a n d ; that is understood from the context, as in M k . 1.27; Lk. 4.36; 8.25. [ C . F . D . M . , however, remarks that επεταξεν αντω without direct object is odd, and the parallels adduced here are not quite similar for in all of them the content of the verb is perfectly clear. Moreover, w h y did the young man have to come to Jesus and stay with him, if Jesus was at his house ?] T h e direct object m a y have been part of the secret oral teaching. It will be argued later that the young man came to Jesus to receive baptism, conceived as a magically efficacious rite. If so, he had to come to Jesus becauses Jesus had to prepare (purify ? exorcise ?) the area and the materials for the rite. T h e story suggests a large house, perhaps a villa. T h e young man was rich. Jesus and his followers m a y have been given a w i n g for themselves. καϊ όφίας γενόμενης,

όφίας γενόμενης

as a g e n i t i v e a b s o l u t e a t the b e g i n n i n g o f a

sentence: 4 in M k . (3 introduced by καϊ), 6 or 7 in M t . (6 with 8ε, never with και), never in Lk. or Jn. It is followed by ερχεται in M k . 14.17 (the introduction to the last s u p p e r — a secret ceremony, like the one here, but this m a y be chance), by ήλθεν in M t . 27.57 (Joseph of Arimathea), ελθών in M k . i5-42f (also Joseph of Arimathea), and προσήλθαν in M t . 14.15 (the introduction to the feeding of the five thousand). By contrast with these stylistic affiliations, the content of this story resembles Jn. 3: Nicodemus ήλθεν προς αυτόν νυκτός and received instruction on baptism as necessary for those who would enter the K i n g d o m of God. έρχεται. As a historical present: 10 in M k . ( + 1 in X * A , etc., and 2 in Dit., etc.), 4 in M t . (2 Markan), 1 in Lk. || έρχονται, historical present, in M k . ) . Recognized as a distinctively M a r k a n trait by Hawkins (Horae 143). It is so frequent that its conjunction with the also frequent και όφίας γενόμενης is no evidence for dependence on M k . 14.17. "5


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

ΠΙ.7-9 III.8

Ill.g

0 veaviσκος συν

αύτω

προς

την

α υ τ ό ν TTepißeßXyμένος

σινδόνα

eiτι

γυμνοΰ

και

epeive

νύκτα

ο νεανίσκος. See above, on 111.3. This is the fourth occurrence of the word in 6 lines. More Markan repetition. προς αυτόν,

ττρός after ίρχομαι:

i 2 i n M k . ( + ι in ΏΘύ.);

12 in M t . ( + ι d u b i o u s ) ;

9 in Lk. Only 2 of the Matthaean and 2 of the Lucan constructions are Markan. Therefore it would at first sight seem pure chance that προς αυτόν after ίρχομαι occurs 7 or 8 times in Mk., once in Lk., and never in Mt. But προσέρχομαι was used 52 times by Mt., 5 by Mk., and 10 by Lk. περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ε'πι γυμνοΰ. Verbatim in Mk. 14.51 (except that W jam. i.c.A.Sy.s Cop. sa · have discreetly omitted επί γυμνοΰ, while Θ jam.i$[exc. 124].543, 565.Sy. p Eth. have accidentally replaced it by the γυμνός of the following verse). In 14.51, too, the subject is νεανίσκος τις—the young man in a sheet who was with Jesus at the time of his arrest and who, on being seized, fled naked (an episode both Mt. and Lk. chose to omit). All the words in the phrase (except επί) are comparatively rare in the synoptics: περιβάλλειν, Mk. 2, Mt. 5, Lk. 2; σινδών, Mk. 4, Mt. 1, Lk. 1; γυμνός, Mk. 2, Mt. 4, Lk. o. Consequently, the occurrence of the phrase both in the longer and in the canonical texts of Mk. can hardly be explained as an accident of free composition. Either the phrase was a fixed formula in the life of some early church (a baptismal rubric?) or its presence in both texts is evidence of some historical connection. έμεινε.

2 in Mk., 3 in Mt., 7 in Lk., 40 in J n . Of the 3 in Mt., 2 are Markan;

of t h e 7 i n L k . , 1. εμεινεν δε . . συν αύτη ώς μήνας τρεις, i n L k . 1.56 ( t h e v i s i t a t i o n ) , και παρ' αύτω έμειναν την ήμέραν εκείνην, i n J n . 1.39 (the first disciples), καΐ εμεινεν

εκεί δυο ημέρας, in J n . 4-4° (Jesus in S a m a r i a ; cf. 10.40; 11.6), a n d κάκεΐ

εμεινεν

μετά. των μαθητών in J n . 11.54 (after the raising of Lazarus) testify to common usage rather than literary dependence. (Some historical fact ofJesus' practice may underlie the similarity with the story of the first disciples; or the basis may be some early church usage, or mere chance.) μένω was affected by J n . because of its theological connotations (e.g., 15.4fr), which probably had some connection with baptism and might be relevant here; but the word is too common to justify speculation. συν. To indicate the person accompanying or accompanied: 5 in Mk., 2 in Mt., 23 in Lk. Cf. προς αύτόν in the preceding line. Another instance of Mt.'s preference for compound verbs. νύκτα. 4 in Mk., 9 in Mt., 7 in Lk. + 1 Dit. (11.30). In the accusative of extent of time: 3 in Mt. and Lk. 11.30. Cf. also the adverbial accusatives νύκτα και ημέραν ιι6


III.9-IO

THE SECRET GOSPEL

ΙΙΙ,ΙΟ €K€LVTjV. ζδίδασκε

γαρ

αυτόν

ο 'Ιησούς

το

μνστήριον

της

βασιλείας

του

θεοΰ.

in M k . 4*27 and Lk. 2.37, and τάς δε νύκτας in Lk. 21.37. These parallels are insignificant; the longer text probably derived its phrase from common usage, not from a literary source. ΐκΐίνψ.

T h e position after the noun is normal in M k . , as shown by Kilpatrick,

iκείνος.

«'δίδασκε γαρ αυτόν, διδάσκειν: M k . 17, M t . 14, Lk. 17. T h e form εδίδασκεν used of Jesus: 6 in M k . , 2 in M t . (neither Markan), 2 ( + 1 D) in Lk. (none M a r k a n ) . In M k . 9.31 it is followed by γάρ and refers to the secret teaching of the passion. This follows the stories of the transfiguration and the raising of the demoniac boy, both of which have similarities to the story in the letter's Gospel. Note especially the sequence 9.27 ο δε Ίησοΰς κρατήσας της χειρός αύτοΰ ήγΐίρεν αυτόν . . . (30), κάκΐϊθΐν ίζελθόντες

. . . ουκ rjOeXev ίνα τις γνοΐ ( 3 1 ) , εδίδασκεν γαρ τους μαθητας

αύτοΰ, e t c .

Mk.

9 . 2 7 - 3 1 precedes by little the place (10.34) where the letter locates its Gospel fragment, and the recurrence of similar constructions after short intervals is typical of M a r k a n style. As to content, on the other hand, the synoptics never represent Jesus as teaching a single person; but accounts of his having done so are prominent in Jn. (3, Nicodemus; 4, the w o m a n of Samaria; etc.). Kilpatrick, Mission 149fr, points out that M k . frequently uses verbs to begin sentences. [ W . M . C . here finds " t h e interlaced word order (verb—outer object—subject—inner object) . . . contrived."] It is not precisely paralleled in M k . in sentences of which Jesus is the subject, but M k . often has the similar order: verb—indirect object—subject—direct o b j e c t — 1 . 2 5 ; 2.19; 6.4; 12.24; Ι 4 · 2 7 ; 3 ° · In all these, as in the longer text, the verbs imply speaking, the first object is the person spoken to, Jesus is the speaker, and the second object is the thing said.

το μυστήριον της βασιλείας τοΰ θίοΰ. μυστήριον is used only once in each of the synoptics, and in both M t . and Lk. its use is a parallel to M k . 4.11, ύμΐν το μυστηριον

δε'δοται της βασιλείας τοΰ θεοΰ (+

γνωναι, C 2 D Δ Θ Σ Φ * ? [ exc. Κ ]

fam.l.22.fam.I^.^4:3·

2 8-33- I 57-565-597-7 0 0 - I 0 7 I - a '-/ > ' e r - i i -°5-Sy- p e s h ' h l 'Cop. b o a ! i 9

G e o . A e t h . A r m . ; τά μυστήρια:, GZ<P /am.1.67.106.115.201.235-258-5 I 7-569-Sy- h l 'Arm.). Cf. M t . 13.11, ύμΐν δεδοται γνωναι τα μυστήρια της βασιλείας των ουρανών (mysterium a.c.d.f.

[3

MSS.]Sy.°- t p e s h

Geo.Aug.serm·165;

jf2.g1.l.q.aur.vg.

sacramentum k); Lk. 8.10, ύμΐν δεδοται γνωναι

μυστήρια της βασιλείας τοΰ θΐοΰ (γνωναι transp. post θΐοΰ D , ΟΤΠ. α\ το μυστήριον

τά

Cit.vg.

Sy.Clem.Iren.). T h e uses of το μυστήριον in M S S of M t . are further examples of the early corruption of the western text by reminiscences of M k . Matthew's interpretation of the M a r k a n phrase, by changing τό μυστήριον to τά μυστήρια and adding γνωναι, ii7


ΙΙΙ.ιο—11

THE SECRET GOSPEL

III. I I εκεΐθβν

δε άναστάς

inearpeipev

els τ ο ττίραν

τον

Ίορδάνου.

got into Lk. (where the secondary character of γνώναι is indicated by the difference as to its position) and almost got into Mk. The use of τό μυστήριον in the longer text of Mk. is either a Markan trait or evidence that το μυστήριον της βασιλείας τον θεοΰ was a fixed phrase in some circles of early Christianity. Its significance will be discussed below, in the section on content. [W.M.C. remarks that we never hear what happened to the youth's sister.] Such disappearance of minor characters is typical of Markan narratives: so Simon, Andrew, James, and John in ι ./(.off; the men who brought the paralytic in 2.3fr; Levi in 2.15fr; etc. έκεϊθεv.

5 in M k . (and κάκεΐθεν,

in 9.30), 12 in M t . , 3 in Lk. (and κάκεΐθεν,

in 11.53).

With a participle, as the beginning of a sentence, 3 in Mk. ( + 2 more in D), 5 in Mt. (only 1 Markan), 1 in Lk. In Mt. the participle always precedes and is never άναστάς. In two of the well attested uses in Mk. (7.24 and 10.1) the participle is άναστάς and follows εκείθεν, as διαπεράσαντες in the western text (Dz7.) of Mk. 6.53, and εξελθόντες after κάκεΐθεν in 9.30. The usage here is characteristically Markan. T h e exact phrase εκείθεν δε άναστάς

appears in M k . 7.24; 10.1 has και εκείθεν

[and R.S. remarks that it is followed by ερχεται εις .. . πέραν τοΰ

άναστάς

Ιορδανού].

άναστάς. The participle used pleonastically, imitating the L X X translation of Dip, with a following finite verb (Blass-Debrunner-Funk, no. 419.2); 4 or 6 in Mk., 2 in Mt. (both Markan), 11 or 12 in Lk. (only 1 Markan). Certainly not a Matthaean usage. See above, on II.24, καί + participle. έπέστρεφεν. The verb: 4 in Mk. (1 with είς, 13.16), 4 in Mt. + 2 D, 7 in Lk. + 1 D (with εις, 2.39; 17.31 || Mk. 13.16). The usage is normal. εις τό πέραν τοΰ 'Ιορδανού. Not found in the synoptics. M k . 5.1 has εις το πέραν της θαλάσσης; Lk. 8.22, εις τό πέραν της λίμνης; the Alexandrian text of M k . Ι Ο. Ι, δια τοΰ

πέραν τοΰ Ίορδάνον. Otherwise the usage is either τό πέραν with no following genitive (Mk. 4.35; 5.21; 6.45; 8.13 and parallels), or πέραν τοΰ Ίορδάνου without the article (Mk. 3.8; 10. ι—see variants in Appendix E). These seem to represent the normal Markan usage, and the expression is predominantly Markan: Lk. has it only once, where he takes it from Mk. and modifies it; Mt. has 7 uses, all Markan except 4.15, a quotation from L X X Is. 8.23. Accordingly it might be argued that the words τοΰ Ίορδάνου in the letter's Gospel are an epexegetic gloss. But all the Markan uses of το πέραν alone refer to the opposite side of the Sea of Galilee and are explained by the context, while in the letter's Gospel the determinant τοΰ Ίορδάνου is required by the context. Mk. 5.1 is a parallel case. 118


III.I4-I5

THE SECRET GOSPEL

W i t h the above words the first of the letter's quotations from the secret Gospel concludes. T h e r e follow the comments: έπι μεν τούτοις έπεται τό, "και προσπορευονται KaL αύτω Ιάκωβος και Ιωάννης," <(Mk. ΙΟ.35!) πάσα ή περικοπή, τό δέ "γυμνός γνμνώ" και τάλλα περι ων έγραφας ούχ ευρίσκεται- μετά δε τό, "και 'έρχεται εις Ιεριχώ" <(Mk. 10.46a) επάγει μόνον ( Ι Ι Ι . 1 1 - 1 4 ) . These have been discussed in the commentary on the letter in Chapter T w o , above. T h e letter's second quotation from the secret Gospel reads as follows: I I L l 5

καl ήσαν e'/cet η αδελφή τοΰ νεανίσκου ον ήγάπα

αυτόν ο

Ίησοΰς

καΐ ήσαν εκεί. See above, on και ήν εκεί, in II.23· For the plural the closest parallels are M k . 2.6, ήσαν δέ τίνες των γραμματέων εκεί, where Sy. p e s h h1' perhaps read εκεί aaP κ before τίνες, and M t . 27.55 V * *<· γνναΐκες where Sy.^Aeth.Geor. 1 put the conjunction at the beginning. Such phrases are narrative cliches and can hardly serve as evidence of dependence. [T.B. queries: Is it coincidence that in M t . 27.55 the phrase also introduces a group of women, and that this group also—to j u d g e from the parallel i n ' M k . 15.40—once contained Salome?] It is not impossible that M a t t h e w m a y have used the longer text of M k . Cf. the remarks on προσεκύνησε, above, 11.24. •ή αδελφή τοΰ νεανίσκου. Unparalleled. Sisters of a specific brother (other than Jesus) appear only in Jn. 1 1 — t h e Lazarus s t o r y — a n d νεανίσκος only in the synoptics; see above. ον ήγάπα αυτόν ό Ίησοΰς. See above, on έμβλέφας, in III.4. Although all the Gospels use αγαπάω frequently, the synoptics only once speak of Jesus' loving a n y b o d y — t h e man who questioned him in M k . 10.21: ό δε Ίησοΰς έμβλέφας αύτω ήγάπησεν αυτόν. Jn. says Jesus loved (ήγάπα) M a r t h a and her sister and Lazarus (11.5) and his disciples (13.1,34; 15.9,12) and the Father (14.31) and an unnamed disciple ον ήγάπα ό Ίησοΰς, thus referred to 4 times: 13.23 (in the last supper); 19.26 (at the cross); 21.7,20 (the resurrection appearances at the Sea of Galilee). Cf. the άλλος μαθητής of i 8 . i 5 f and 20.2ff. It has often been argued from Johannine evidence that the unnamed " b e l o v e d disciple" was Lazarus (e.g., recently, Eckhardt, Tod 11-20). T h e longer text strengthens the argument by first telling a version of the Lazarus story in which the dead youth's sister plays an important role and the youth is said to have loved Jesus, and then locating shortly after this a reference to the disciple w h o m Jesus loved and his sister. So the M a r k a n and the Johannine traditions here, as often, are remotely similar. Therefore it is not surprising that the same traditional formulas should occur in both, ον ήγάπα ό Ίησοΰς is a fixed periphrasis in Jn. and the reader will immediately suppose that the longer text got it from Jn. But then the reader will have to explain w h y the longer text shows no other trace of John's peculiar phraseology. Matters of plot are not in question here; they will be dealt with in the "9


111.15-16

T H E SECRET GOSPEL

III.16 και η μήτηρ

α ντον

καί Σαλώμη,

καί ουκ

άπεδε£ατο

αυτά? ο

Ίησονς.

next chapter. T h e present question is: W h e n an isolated J o h a n n i n e phrase occurs in a text which otherwise shows no i m p o r t a n t traces of J o h a n n i n e phraseology, is the isolated phrase to be taken as proof of dependence, or is the absence of other traits to be taken as proof of independence ? Are we to prove the dependence of ζ) on J n . by M t . n . 2 5 f II Lk. i o . 2 i f ? [ H . J . C . compares also the J o h a n n i n e ουδέ 6 υιός, el μη ό πατήρ, in M k . 13.32 a n d the parallel between J n . 3 . 3 - 5 a n d Justin, First Apology 6 1 . 4 - 5 . ] Notice also the similarities to J o h n in the phraseology of the D e a d Sea documents (Brown, Schrolls), a n d the phrases of canonical M k . which a p p e a r in section I V of A p p e n d i x G with parallels only from J n . Evidently, a n u m b e r of phrases best k n o w n to us as " J o h a n n i n e " were taken by J o h n from his Christian a n d Jewish environment. O n e of these phrases seems to have been the periphrasis ov ήγάπα ό Ίησοΰς, which a p p a r e n t l y was a fixed formula in at least two strains of early Christian tradition, like (ό) e f j των δώδεκα as a designation of J u d a s : M k . 14.10,20,43; M t . 26.14,47; Lk. 22.47; J n · 6.71 ( + eV; cf., however, 20.24, where the same formula refers to T h o m a s ) . A n early date for the periphrasis is suggested by its anonymity. (Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte 72, 256^ etc. T u r n e r ' s a r g u m e n t to the contrary—Usage 26.338—from the practice of rhetoricians is irrelevant. T h e Gospels were not written by rhetoricians a n d their content shows the authors did multiply names.) F u r t h e r evidence t h a t the longer text did not get its formula from J n . appears in the pleonastic αυτόν, to which the uses in J n . afford no parallel, a n d which a writer familiar with Greek would h a r d l y have a d d e d ; it is p r o b a b l y a Semitism—cf. ής . . . αυτής in II.23, above, a n d the note there. [P.B. would distinguish the examples of this construction in the longer text a n d in M t . , where he thinks t h e m Semitisms, from those in canonical Mk., where he thinks t h e m emphatic, a n d would find in this distinction evidence t h a t the letter's Gospel is not by M a r k . ] T h e distinction seems to me so fine as to be subjective; it escaped Moule, Idiom-Book 176, a n d Blass-Debrunner-Funk no. 297. ή μήτηρ αύτοΰ. V e r b a t i m in M k . 3.31; M t . i 3 . 3 5 ; L k . 1,60; 2.48,51; 8.19 (XDii.Sy.); J n . 2.5,12; 19.25. T h e phrase is s t a n d a r d a n d cannot be referred with confidence to a n y single source. Σαλώμη. Salome appears in the N T only in M k . 15.40 a n d 16.1, in both as the final figure in a list of female witnesses of a n i m p o r t a n t occasion (15.40, the crucifixion; 16.i, the discovery of the empty tomb). I n 15.40: Μαρία ή Μαγδαληνή καί Μαρία ή 'Ιάκωβου

τοΰ μικροΰ και Ίωσήτος

μήτηρ

και Σαλώμη.

I n 16.Ι : Μαρία ή Μα-

γδαληνή καί Μαρία ή 'Ιακώβου καί Σαλώμη. (There is considerable difference between M S S as to the spelling of the second M a r y ' s n a m e a n d her connection with J a m e s a n d Joses.) T h e list in the longer text of M k . is of the same type as the other two, a n d m a y be of the same women. Luke (23.55; 2 4 - 0 has omitted b o t h the lists preserved in canonical M k . ; M a t t h e w has deleted the n a m e of Salome f r o m the first list 120


THE SECRET GOSPEL

III.16

(27.56) a n d deleted her altogether from the second (27.61; 28.1); J o h n (19.25) has replaced her by " t h e sister of his (Jesus') m o t h e r " (or?) " M a r y of Klopas." [ R . S . remarks that i f we suppose the lists to be of the same women, and if we suppose the beloved νεανίσκος here to be the same as the loving νεανίσκος in the former fragment, and i f we therefore suppose him to be Lazarus, then his sister here would be the M a r y M a g d a l e n e of the other M a r k a n lists. And since M a r y , Lazarus' sister, anointed Jesus in Bethany in J n . 12.iff (cf. M k . 14.3; M t . 26.27), and a woman who was a sinner anointed Jesus in Lk. 7.36, it would follow that M a r y Magdalene, Lazarus' sister, was the sinner {from whom also seven devils were driven out, Lk. 8.2—she had a n eventful life.) Again, M a r y , the mother of J a m e s and Joses, of the other M a r k a n lists, would be " h i s m o t h e r " in the list in the longer text, and " h i s " would be Jesus', since J a m e s and Joses were his brothers: M k . 6.3, ούχ οδτός εστίν ό τ έκτων 6 υιός της Μαρίας και αδελφός 'Ιακώβου και Ίωσητος και 'Ιούδα και Σίμωνυς.] If this latter identification be not accepted, M k . did not mention the mother of Jesus among those· who witnessed his passion and burial and discovered his resurrection. On the other hand, by similar reasoning Salome would be both " t h e mother of the sons of Zebedee," who replaces her in M t . 27.56, and " t h e sister of (Jesus') m o t h e r " (or?) " M a r y of Klopas," who replaces her in J n . 19.25. [In favor of at least the former of these identifications, R . S . points out that " t h e mother of the sons of Z e b e d e e " appears in M t . 20.20, where she m a y again be a M a t t h a e a n substitute for Salome, who played a similar role in the following story of the longer M a r k a n text. See above, on II.24.] T h e role of Salome in early Christian polemics will be discussed later in this chapter (section III. D.4, "EVIDENCE FOR ABBREVIATION AT MK. 1 0 . 4 6 " ) . άπεδΐξατο. In the NT, αποδέχομαι is found only in Lk.-Acts. Lk. 8.40 (άπεδεξατο), of the crowd's giving a good reception to Jesus; 9.11, of Jesus' receiving the crowd kindly. 5 uses in Acts, of which 3 (18.27; 2 I > i 7J' 28.30) have the same sense (receive a person kindly) and the same construction (an immediately following accusative of the person received). [With the whole phrase here, C . F . D . M . compares Lk. 9.53, και ουκ εδεξαντο αυτόν, of the Samaritans' refusal to receive Jesus.] This clearly L u c a n trait contrasts as such with the preceding text, which is almost entirely free of L u c a n traits (the only very probable one being πλούσιος, above, III.6). Clement uses the verb often in the cognate sense, " a p p r o v e o f " a person—that is, of what he says or does—1.178.27; 186.8; 223.10; 265.3; 11-3-8; 4.13; 235.25; 237.21. A number of these citations, particularly the last two, show the disciplinary connotation—almost " a c c e p t as communicants"—which the word has in Clement's usage. It is this connotation which the word is meant to carry in the above text of the letter's quotation, a n d which is necessary to give force to the otherwise trivial ending. T h e story, as Clement quotes it, is quite unlike any other NT story because it has no apparently significant content. There is no miracle, no saying, nothing but Jesus' refusal to receive, on one occasion, three women. Therefore the story, as it stands, can have been invented and preserved only as polemic against these women or their followers or persons who appealed to their authority (as the Carpocratians did to that of Salome: Origen, Contra Celsum V.62). But that such a bare polemic notice was w h a t 121


III. 16

THE SECRET GOSPEL

originally stood in the longer text is almost i n c r e d i b l e : it is too little like the patterns of Gospel stories. T h e original text must h a v e g o n e on to report some action or saying o f Jesus. A c c o r d i n g l y , this final phrase w i t h its sudden c h a n g e o f v o c a b u l a r y a n d its anachronistic c h u r c h discipline is to be attributed to C l e m e n t or some editor o f almost C l e m e n t ' s time a n d v o c a b u l a r y w h o deleted the original e n d i n g of the story as it stood in the longer text of M k . a n d substituted this L u c a n phrase (with its second-century m e a n i n g ) for w h a t he h a d deleted. W h a t he h a d deleted w e can only guess from the p r e c e d i n g context a n d from the f o l l o w i n g — a n d last p r e s e r v e d — sentence o f the letter: τα δε άλλα τά πολλά α ίγραφας φεΰσματα και φαίνεται και εστίν. M o s t likely it w a s a conversation w i t h S a l o m e (again see b e l o w , in section I I I ) .

B. I.

INFLUENCE ON T H E WESTERN

Synthesis of findings TEXT

Perhaps the most surprising of the facts revealed b y the a b o v e c o m m e n t a r y is the e v i d e n c e for the influence of the longer text of M k . on the western text of the c a n o n i c a l Gospels (or, in K l i j n ' s terminology—Survey, 4 — t h e " w e s t e r n r e a d i n g s " of the fathers a n d the Gospel M S S ) . T h e relationship o f the two texts w a s i n d e p e n d e n t l y discovered b y Prof. R . Schippers a n d myself. T h e r e are three cases in w h i c h a n a p p a r e n t l y w r o n g r e a d i n g in the western text affords the closest parallel to a n a p p a r e n t l y correct r e a d i n g in the longer text of M k : και έρχονται els Βηθανίαν I I . 2 3 ; και όργισθείς a n d και ηρξατο παρακαλεΐν

11.25;

αυτόν "να μετ' αντου η I I I . 4 - 5 · Y e t other cases a p p e a r in

I I I . 4 εξέτεινεν την χείρα και ηγειρεν αυτόν a n d I I I . 7 επεταξεν

αύτω 6 Ίησοΰς,

b u t in

I I I . 4 the parallels are so loose a n d in I I I . 7 the w o r d i n g is so b a n a l that neither constitutes evidence. B y contrast, the error o f Βηθανίαν in M k . 8.22 a n d the difficulty of όργισθείς

in 1.41 d e m a n d e x p l a n a t i o n , w h i l e the extent o f the paralleled phrase

in I I I . 4 - 5 makes the supposition of influence not»unlikely

(but does not prove

i t ; see a b o v e on I I I . 1 - 2 ) . T h e c o n j u n c t i o n of the t h r e e — n o t to say

five—cases

is

impressive. A s to the question, W h i c h influenced w h i c h ? — i t is surely m o r e p r o b a b l e that the b a d readings o f the western text were p r o d u c e d b y c o n t a m i n a t i o n from the longer text, t h a n that the g o o d readings of the longer text were p r o d u c e d b y a selection of the errors peculiar to the western. A s a l r e a d y r e m a r k e d , c o n t a m i n a t i o n is characteristic o f the western text (Williams, Alterations i f ; Glasson, Mt.

i8of), and

c o n t a m i n a t i o n of M S S of the c a n o n i c a l Gospels b y u n c a n o n i c a l m a t e r i a l has often been demonstrated (Black, Aramaic 204 a n d 2 1 4 ; W i l l i a m s , Alterations 7, i 2 f f , 23). Q u i s p e l (Thomas 198; Hebräerevangelium 142), has a r g u e d that the western text w a s influenced b y the Gospel according to the Hebrews·, a fortiori, it m i g h t h a v e been influenced

b y the longer text of M k . Further, the longer text shows a n u m b e r of readings

w h i c h are n o n w e s t e r n : γυνή ης .. . αυτής . . . ελθοΰσα (II.23), ηγειρεν αυτόν

κρατησας

της χειρός ( I I I . 3 - 4 ) ; και ευθύς ( 1 1 . 2 6 - 1 1 1 . ι ; I I I . 2 ) . I f the longer text be supposed to derive from the western, these nonwestern readings c a n h a r d l y b e a c c o u n t e d for. T h e r e f o r e the m o r e p r o b a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of the facts w o u l d seem to b e that the 122


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

archetype of the western text was contaminated by the scribe's recollections of the longer one. [But the influence m a y h a v e been more contemporary than " recollections " implies. H . J . G . ] This explanation accords with the fact that C l e m e n t both quoted the longer text and used the western (Barnard; K l i j n , P. Bodmer II, 327, 332, 334). [Moreover, as Pierson Parker pointed out to me, if C l e m e n t did not use the western text of M k . — a possibility w h i c h Swanson, Text 102, leaves o p e n — t h e n the western readings in the longer text cannot be corruptions due to Clement, but must come from an earlier tradition.] T h e theory that the western text was shaped by the longer text of M k . also accords with the date reached above for the longer text (before 125) and with the current dating of the western text, w h i c h is now thought to have originated in E g y p t about A.D. 150 (Duplacy, Ou en est I.43of). It also suggests both that the scribe w h o produced the archetype of the western text regarded the longer text of M k . m u c h as he did the canonical Gospels, of w h i c h he also conflated the readings, and that the sections of the longer text quoted b y C l e m e n t had some important role in the life of the scribe's church, since so m a n y recollections of them turn up in his text. T h e importance of the sections quoted b y C l e m e n t might h a v e been inferred also from the facts that they played a leading part in the argument between T h e o d o r e and the Carpocratians and that C l e m e n t chose to reassure T h e o dore particularly a b o u t them. T o the question of w h a t their importance was w e shall return later.

Postscript: Further evidence for these conclusions is now afforded b y the addition to the L a t i n translation of Origen's commentary on M t . , to w h i c h K l i j n , Question, has called attention. It quotes from a Gospel according to the Hebrews a text closely related to M t . i g . i ö f f but deviating from it in details w h i c h agree w i t h or approximate the western text (Sy. and Diatessaron). K l i j n (154Q thinks these details would indicate its priority to the Diatessaron, but he then rejects this conclusion as " i n c o n c e i v a b l e . " N o w M t . 19.16fr is the synoptic parallel to M k . 10.17fr—the story of the " r i c h y o u n g r u l e r " w h i c h stood shortly before Clement's quotation from the longer text and was closely connected with it, as will be shown below. It is just possible, therefore, that this fragment m a y be another scrap (more or less rewritten) of the longer text. T h e close relation to M t . and the attribution to the Gospel according to the Hebrews both fit.

2.

VOCABULARY,

PHRASEOLOGY,

AND

GRAMMAR

T h i s establishment of the dependence of the western text on the longer text of M k . enables us to rule out further consideration of the parallels peculiar to the western text. T u r n i n g now to the relation between the longer text of M k . and the Nestle-Kilpatrick text of the canonical Gospels, we observe that the parallels pointed out in the above commentary are of two sorts: O n the one hand there are m a n y brief parallels of words or phrases, like και ΐρχονται els, και ην eVf ΐ, and so on, w h i c h are most frequent in one or another of the synoptics—usually M k . , occasionally M t . , very rarely L k . or J n . — b u t w h i c h are so c o m m o n p l a c e that they cannot be used as evidence of dependence on any particular 123


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

passage. P e r h a p s it is not strictly impossible t h a t a c o m p i l e r should h a v e p i c k e d t h e m out f r o m r e m o t e parts of different Gospels a n d pieced t h e m together in a mosaic (where, nevertheless, there are n o a b n o r m a l joints, no irrelevant words, n o clear signs of mosaic c o m p o s i t i o n ! ) . B u t it is m o r e plausible to suppose t h e m the result o f free composition b y a n a u t h o r to w h o m the formulas of M a r k a n style c a m e as easily as they d i d to " M a r k " himself. (Cf. the similar j u d g m e n t s of D o d d , Historical

Tradi-

tion, passim.) O n the other h a n d there are several e x a c t parallels of considerable phrases. C o n spicuous e x a m p l e s are vie Δαβίδ ελίησόν με, περιβεβλημένος

σινδόνα επί γυμνοΰ. T h e s e

c a n n o t be e x p l a i n e d as a c c i d e n t a l results of free composition in a v o c a b u l a r y full of fixed formulas. E i t h e r they m u s t be e v i d e n c e of literary relationship to the passages w h e r e they stand in the c a n o n i c a l Gospels, or they must c o m e f r o m the technical t e r m i n o l o g y a n d fixed tradition of early Christianity. I n either case they h a v e some special theological significance. C o n s e q u e n t l y , their relation to their parallels in the c a n o n i c a l Gospels must be t h o u g h t m e a n i n g f u l . ( C o n t r a s t the cliches like καΐ έρχονται

els, o f w h i c h the use in o n e or a n o t h e r story is a m e r e m a t t e r of c h a n c e ,

signifying nothing.) U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the d i v i d i n g line b e t w e e n these t w o groups is not clear, αντώ ηγάπησεν

αυτόν almost certainly belongs to the latter, απεκύλισεν

από τής θύρας τοΰ μνημείου

εμβλεφας

τον λίθον a n d

doubtless result f r o m assimilation of the L a z a r u s story to

the Easter story, or v i c e versa, b u t j u s t w h e n the assimilation took p l a c e is h a r d to say. ην γαρ πλούσιος m a y be a n y t h i n g f r o m a n c i e n t a c c i d e n t to m e d i e v a l c o r r u p t i o n . T h e γυνη -ης .. . αυτής . . . ελθοΰσα προσεκύνησε sequence is p r o b a b l y a m e r e collection of cliches of w h i c h the a r r a n g e m e n t was d e t e r m i n e d b y content. A n d other cases suggest y e t other relationships. C o n s e q u e n t l y , w e shall first collect the e v i d e n c e a f f o r d e d b y the v o c a b u l a r y , the phraseology, a n d those g r a m m a t i c a l traits w h i c h h a v e b e e n p i c k e d out as c h a r a c teristic of one or a n o t h e r of the evangelists. T h i s sort of e v i d e n c e is the most objective, it will i n c l u d e the shorter parallels, a n d it m a y y i e l d some results w h i c h will b e helpful in the m o r e difficult questions raised b y the longer parallels. T h e bulk of the v o c a b u l a r y is m a d e u p of c o m m o n words, a n d the different n u m bers of their o c c u r r e n c e s in the several Gospels usually reflect the different sizes of the Gospels. T h e fragments of the longer text are so short that a r g u m e n t s f r o m the n u m b e r s of times it uses w o r d s a r e mostly worthless (ευθύς a n d p e r h a p s και a n d δε m a y be e x c e p t i o n s : see a b o v e , o n I I I . i

a n d 4). T h e distribution of νεανίσκος

is

r e m a r k a b l e b u t a c c o r d s w i t h M a r k ' s h a b i t of r a p i d r e p e t i t i o n ; cf. the distribution o f διαστέλλομαι κεντυρίων

(4 f r o m M k . 7 . 3 6 - 9 . 1 , ι in M k . 5.43, 1 in M t . , none in L k . o r j n . ) ,

(3 f r o m M k . 1 5 . 3 9 - 4 5 ,

n o n e

elsewhere), κράββατος

(4 in M k . 2 . 4 - 1 2 , I in

M k . 6.55, none in M t . or L k . , 4 in J n . ) , a n d so on. T h a t 12 w o r d s f r o m the longer text are not in J n . , as against 3 not in M k . , 4 not in M t . a n d 3 not in L k . , is further evidence of the remoteness o f the longer text f r o m J n . M k . io.26b~34 ( w h i c h , henceforth, w e shall call CS—canonical sample) has 4 not f o u n d elsewhere in M k . (αδύνατο?, εκατόνταπλασίων,

μαστιγόω,

a n d συμβαίνω),

not in M t . , 3 not in L k . , a n d 14 not in J n . ; the similarity of these t w o sets of 124

3

figures


a.

Vocabulary* SG

αγαπάω αδελφή αδελφός άκουα) άνίστημι απέρχομαι από άποδέχομ αι αποθνήσκω άποκυλίω άρχω αυτός βασιλεία Βηθανια γάρ γίγνομαι γυμνός γυνή Ααβίδ δέ διδάσκω εγείρω 1 / εγω 1 / ειμι εις εις, μία, εν εισέρχομαι > εκ εκεί εκείθεν εκείνος εκτείνω έλεέω έμβλέπω

% εξέρχομαι επί επιστρέφω επιτάσσω επιτιμάω έρχομαι

2 I I I I I I I I I I ι6 I I I It I I I I I

Mk. 5 5 20 44 17 23 47

I I I I I I I I I I I 4

Jn. 36 6 14

65 26

58 8

19 127 2 10 I

21 40

13 31 906 1074 46 55 2 2 124 97

I

3 39 63 4 35 113 -

9 I

5 I

27 758 20 4 64 55 2 16 7 160 17 19 104 192 37 30 67 11 5 23 3 3 4 I 39 73 4 4 9 86

Lk. 13 3 24

-

167 I I

Mt. 8

75 4 29 17 491 14 36 210 288 216 66 36 82 28 12

129 -

41 13 548 17 18 215 361 223 44 50 87 16

54 6 8 2 I

3 33 3 4 2 2

43 120

44 160

4

7 4 12 100

-

6 III

SG εύθΰς adv. ήμερα Θεός θύρα Ίησοΰς ίνα 'Ιορδάνης και κήπος κρατέω λέγω λίθος

-

28 -

750 5 4 64

μαθητής μέγας μένω μετά μήττηρ μνημειον μυστήριον νεανίσκος νυξ t ( / 0, η, το

51 I 17 2 196 9 13 465 442 182 39 15 165 22 2 70 I -

2 3 29 33 I -

156

* Figures from canonical Gospels from Morgen thaler; •f Two more uses of γυμνός appeared in the Carpocrati; 125

2 I I I

Mk.

Mt.

42

7 45 51

27 48 6 81

4 150

I 65 41 I 6 4 ι8 1078 1169 I I 12 15 I 202 289 I 8 II I 46 73 I 20 !5 I 2 3 70 55 I 17 27 6 7 I I I 2 I

2

Lk. I 83 122 4 89 46 2 !455

I 2 217 14 37 26 7 63 17 7 I I

Jn3 31 83 7 237 147 3 818 4 2 266 6 78 5 40 55 II 16 -

6 4 9 7 32 1504 2777 2629 2144 οικία I ι8 25 25 5 ι 07του 30 13 5 5 οργίζω I 2 3 δς, ή, ό 85 122 182 152 ου I ι ΐ 7 204 174 286 όφία I 2 7 5 παρακαλέω I 9 9 7 πέραν I I 8 7 7 περιβάλλω I I 2 2 5 πλούσιος I II 2 3 πρός I 41 165 101 63 I προσέρχομαι 10 I 52 5 προσκυνέω I 2 11 2 13 Σαλωμη I 2 σινΒών I I I 4 συν I 6 4 23 3 r/ υιος I 34 89 77 55 φωνή I 7 14 7 15 26 2 25 24 15 longer text of Mk. see Index I, s.v. Secret Gospel (SG). version (γυμνός γνμνω).


V o c a b u l a r y (figures from Morgenthaler) of the 1 7 5 words of canonical M k . preceding the first quotation from the longer text (i.e., M k . i o . 2 6 b - 3 4 ) . Mk. αγρός

-

θεός

2

3

6

ιδού

2

24 I

14

I

39 I

7 10

4

8

7

!3

και

3 18

6

4

17

καιρός

25

17 35 6

19 101

16

9

2

5 20

3

2

αδύνατος

I

I

αιώνιος

I

άκολουθίω

2

αλλά

I

43

37

άμην

I

13

31

9 56

9 112

17 II 22

αναβαίνω

2

άνθρωπος

2

άνίστημι

I

άποκτείνω

I

άρχίΐρΐΰς

I

αρχω

2

αυτός

10

άφίημι

2

27 758

I

γραμματεύς

I

Mk.

Jn.

48

9

αδελφός

γάρ

Lk.

2f

αδελφή

αιών

Mt.

'Ιεροσόλυμα Ίησοΰς

-

3 I

κατακρίνω ι

9

16

μαστιγόω μέλλω

4

95 26

60

13

12

12

μη

25

15

21

μήτηρ

13 31 906 1 0 7 4

I

34 64 21

47 124 22

160

3

1

750

14

97 14

64

548

196

-

-

I

λαμβάνω λέγω

202 I

2

2 I 2

νυν όδόί

ig 2

ff

ΟΤΙ

I

I

33 230

237

17 18

3

43

29

33

31 16

17 6

!5

67 ι8

128

!52

63

64 23 50 6

56 ι8

137

19

5ΐ I

J

10

5

224

ΐ5ΐ

I

-

ουδείς

I

5

3

οΰτος

I

δώδεκα > / Iτ eav

I

!5

13 66

4 12

-

6

πάλιν

I

78 28

29

59

παρά

3

ι6

210

215

465

παραδίδομι

15 288

13 361

5 442

παραλαμβάνω

167 I

216

223

182

πατήρ

-

I

I

4

2

2

2

πολύς

I

3

5 2

5 I

-

προάγω

ι

3

-

πρώτος

2

137

291

354

220

5 86

7 III

5 100

156

6

7

192

είς 2 εκατονταπλασίων εμβλέπω εμπαίζω εμπτύω eV

I

3

ένεκα (ένεκεν) έρχομαι

I

έσχατος

2

ευαγγέλιο ν ζωη η

ι

I

6

ήμεΐς ημέρα

2

ι

I I

θάνατος

I

σύ

I

συμβαίνω σώζω

I

36 12

49

69

48

ύμεΐς

I

31

φημί

I

3 6

5

45

83

-

-

7

7

-

I

15

2

9

I

τρεις υιός

5 10

I

τέκνον τις

2

89

45

-

6

57

ι

7 67

-

21 I

I

4

4

2

I

10

27

θαμβεω

-

ιΐ7 26

πάς, πάσα, παν

5 8 33 24

I

ι

Πέτρος

I ι

φοβέομαι

55 117 11

19 147

36

4

63 142

174

26

ειμί

12

204

27

I

I

I

12

1

33

έθνος

46 266

141

I

I

3 10

22 217 I

3 -

5 52 271 286

I

/

53 289

237 818

25 182

δυνατός

>

4 12

25 122

85 ΙΟΙ

δύναμαι

εγω

4

79

2

35 104 6

11

70

I

ού/ούκ

57

129

491 I

δε 3 διωγμός

83

62

55

18

« ν

122

27 17 28 14 3 4 1504 2777 2629 2 1 4 4 16 20 22 4

Ι

οικία

Jn.

51

17

I

ό, ή, τό

w

I

I

0?, ή, ο

-

20

4

μετά

Lk.

81 150 89 1078 1169 1455 10 5 13 2 3 4

22

50

8

2

Mt.

5 207 -

15 ι4

7

90 12

34

89

75 6

247

12

8

f The numerals following each word indicate the number of its occurrences in Mk.io.a6b-34·

ΐ7 ι8

73

Γ

52

3

34 36 -

17

6

Η ιΐ4 ΙΟ

79

3 4

77 220

255

8

3

23

5

55


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

is striking. T h e occurrence in the longer text of a good number of John's favorite words should not be made an argument for relationship. John is notorious for the frequency with which he uses his favorite words, of which the longer text of M k . contains, αγαπάω, αποθνήσκω,

εγώ, ειμί, εκ, εκείνος, 'έρχομαι, Ίησοΰς,

ίνα, μαθητής,

μένω,

μνημεΐον, όπου, ού, and προσκυνέω. It would be absurd to suppose that the uses of these common words in the other Gospels were signs of Johannine influence. C S has the 5 u n d e r l i n e d a b o v e , plus αΙώνιος, αλλά, αμήν, ζωή, λαμβάνω,

νυν, ότι, ουδείς, πάλιν,

πατήρ,

and Πέτρος. Similar collections can be made for Lk. (Longer text, γίγνομαι, ημέρα, θεός, δς, πλούσιος,

προς, σύν, φωνή", C S , ήμεΐς, -ημέρα, θεός, νΰν, δς, ούτος) a n d M t . ( L o n g e r

text, γάρ, εγείρω,

εκείθεν, εκείνος, Ίησοΰς,

Ίησοΰς,

παραλαμβάνω,

λαμβάνω,

προσέρχομαι,

προσκυνεΐν,

C S , αμήν, γάρ, η,

φημί) a n d are e q u a l l y insignificant.

O f Mk.'s favorite words (as listed by Morgenthaler, 181, on grounds of frequency only) the longer text contains ευθύς, ίνα, κρατέω, and οπου; C S , αλλά, δύναμαι, δώδεκα, πάλιν, and πολύς. T h e brevity of these lists, by comparison with those from the other Gospels, is explained by the small number of "favorite w o r d s " to be found in M k . M k . has the largest vocabulary in proportion to its size of any of the Gospels: 1,345 words in 11,200. M t . has 1,691 in 18,300, Lk. has 2,055 i n i9»400, and Jn. has only 1,011 in 15,400: (Morgenthaler, 164). Therefore M k . uses most words least often, Jn. least words most often. Accordingly, the list of Jn.'s favorite words contains 75 items, and any N T text is sure to show a substantial " J o h a n n i n e " vocabulary. L k . has 62 favorites, M t . 37, and M k . only 18 (so Morgenthaler, i 8 i f ) . T h u s the 15 " J o h a n n i n e " words in the longer text (or the 16 in CS) are a fifth of the 75; the 8 " L u c a n " words are about an eighth of the 62 (the 6 in C S are a tenth); the 7 " M a t t h a e a n " (7 also in CS) are about a fifth of the 37, and the 4 " M a r k a n " (5 in CS) are about a quarter of the 18. Here again, the similarity between the figures for the longer text and those for C S is obvious; and the longer text, like CS, contains a slightly higher percentage of the list of Mk.'s favorite words than it does of the list of any other Gospel's. This, however, m a y be no more significant than the other data concerning these frequencies. Morgenthaler's 18 M a r k a n favorites occur 444 times in M k . , that is, about once every 25.22 words. O f the longer text we have just 175 words (181 less the final interpolation και ουκ άπεδέξατο αύτάς 6 Ίησοΰς, on which see the commentary). A n average 175 words of canonical M k . should contain 6 or 7 uses of Mk.'s favorite terms. T h e 175 words of the longer text contain 6 (2 of ευθύς, ι of ίνα, ι of κρατέω, and 2 of οπου); the 175 words of C S contain 5 (one each of αλλά, δύναμαι, δώδεκα, πάλιν, and πολύς). This, again, is perhaps insignificant, not only because of the banal character of most of the "favorites," but also because so small a sample might be expected to diverge widely from the average. Consequently, its agreement with the average m a y also be mere chance. Parker, Gospel, has made a careful study of the vocabulary characteristic of both M k . and M t . and has condensed the results into four tables (pp. 41, 245-250) listing with considerable duplication some 119 expressions. O f these, 11 appear j n the longer text (απέρχομαι, εκείθεν, εκτείνω, καλέω,

πέραν,

a n d υιε Δαβίδ),

επιτιμάω,

ευθύςj-έως,

Ιορδάνης,

κρατέω,

w h i l e o n l y 8 a p p e a r i n C S (αγρός,

127

δφία,

άρχιερεύς,

παραάρχω,


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

γραμματεύς,

εμπαίζω,

εν rrj όδω, εϋαγγέλιον,

a n d προάγω).

T h u s the l o n g e r text, w i t h

o n l y a sixty-fourth of M k . ' s 11,200 words, contains a b o u t a tenth of the M a t t h a e a n M a r k a n expressions in Parker's list, w h i l e C S contains o n l y a fifteenth. T h i s m a y possibly be significant in v i e w of the e v i d e n c e seen a b o v e (on προσεκΰνησε, for supposing t h a t M t . k n e w the longer text. A g a i n , h o w e v e r , the

in I I . 2 4 )

commonplace

c h a r a c t e r of most of the w o r d s a n d the b r e v i t y of the quotations f r o m the longer text m a k e it impossible to b u i l d o n these d a t a . T h e studies of H a w k i n s (Horae) a n d T u r n e r (Usage)

h a v e b e e n most v a l u a b l e

because t h e y take into a c c o u n t not only relative frequencies of usage, b u t also the w a y s in w h i c h w o r d s w e r e u s e d — q u e s t i o n s of s y n t a x a n d style. F o r the same reason, h o w e v e r , their d a t a a r e m o r e difficult to classify, since some b e l o n g p r o p e r l y in the sections o n p h r a s e o l o g y a n d g r a m m a r . Nevertheless, since H a w k i n s ' classification of his m a t e r i a l w a s p r i m a r i l y lexical, his results m a y be stated here. H e listed 95 " w o r d s a n d phrases characteristic o f " M t . (pp. 4 - 8 ) . O f these, 5 (γυμνός, εις for τις, in n a r r a t i v e , προσέρχομαι,

a n d προσκυνέω)

εκείθεν

a p p e a r in the l o n g e r text of M k . (none

a p p e a r s in C S ) . A m o n g these, H a w k i n s t h o u g h t προσέρχομαι

a " m o s t distinctive a n d

i m p o r t a n t " trait (p. 7 — h e d i d not e x p l a i n h o w it h a p p e n e d to o c c u r 10 times in L k . ) a n d γυμνός " l e s s i m p o r t a n t t h a n the rest, because m a i n l y or entirely a c c o u n t e d for b y the subject m a t t e r " (p. 4). F o r M k . he listed 41 characteristics, of w h i c h 3 (έρχεται/-ονται

historic present, ευθύς, a n d κρατέω)

C S (εν rfj όδω, εύαγγέλιον,

θαμβέω,

a n d πάλιν).

a p p e a r in the l o n g e r text, 4 in

H e t h o u g h t εύθΰς a n d ερχεται

"most

d i s t i n c t i v e , " κρατεω " l e s s i m p o r t a n t . " F i v e is one-nineteenth of 95, 3 one-fourteenth (and 4, one-tenth) of 4 1 ; so these figures show C S m a r k e d l y , a n d the longer text slightly, m o r e M a r k a n t h a n M a t t h a e a n . T h e 41 M a r k a n characteristics a p p e a r e d in M k . 357 times, a b o u t o n c e e v e r y 3 1 . 5 words. I n b o t h the l o n g e r text a n d C S t h e y s h o u l d therefore h a v e a p p e a r e d b e t w e e n 5 a n d 6 times. T h e y a c t u a l l y a p p e a r 5 times in the longer text (2 έρχομαι in historical present, 2 εύθΰς, ι κρατεω), 4 in C S (one e a c h of the traits listed a b o v e ) . H a w k i n s listed 151 characteristics o f L k . (pp. 1 6 - 2 3 ) ; of these o n l y 3 ( r e d u n d a n t άναστάς,

πλούσιος,

a n d συν) a p p e a r in the l o n g e r text o f

M k . a n d o n l y 1 (νΰν) i n C S . T h i s seems to g o b e y o n d c h a n c e a n d to i n d i c a t e c l e a r l y t h a t , like C S , the l o n g e r text has little or n o c o n n e c t i o n w i t h L k . Besides his lists, H a w k i n s d e v o t e d a c h a p t e r to m i n o r M a r k a n peculiarities. O n e of these (p. 1 1 9 ) is the f a c t t h a t οργή is a t t r i b u t e d to Jesus n o w h e r e in the Gospels save M k . 3.5 a n d the western r e a d i n g in 1.41. T h e latter n o w seems to h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d f r o m the l o n g e r text. A n o t h e r p e c u l i a r i t y H a w k i n s noted w a s M a r k ' s preference for και as against δε a t the b e g i n n i n g s of sentences. I t w a s s h o w n a b o v e (on 6 δέ, in I I I . 4 ) that the p r o p o r t i o n o f καί to δε' in the longer text is almost the same as in c a n o n i c a l M k . T u r n e r , Usage, c o n c e r n e d himself chiefly w i t h g r a m m a r , b u t i n c l u d e d a n u m b e r o f lexical o b s e r v a t i o n s ; he n o t e d M a r k ' s fondness for n u m e r a l s (26.337), his use o f ηρξατοΙ-ντο

as a substitute for the i m p e r f e c t (28.352), his preference for εκ as against

άπό ( M a t t h e w a n d L u k e prefer the latter, 29.281), his use of έκ after εξέρχομαι his fondness for diminutives (29.349fr—cf. νεανίσκος), " i m p r o p e r " use of it after παρακαλέω

(ibid.),

a n d his fondness for Iva a n d

(29.356). A l l these a r e f o u n d in the l o n g e r text

of M k . 128


THE SECRET GOSPEL

T o these observations a few may be added, αγαπάω, of Jesus' loving another man, is found in the synoptics only in M k . άποκυλίω is a rather rare word which Matthew and Luke seem to have derived from Mk. Βηθανία, as noted in the commentary, was more prominent in Mk. than in the later synoptics. Mk. uses εμβλεπω twice as often as any other evangelist, and 3 out of 4 times in the έμβλεψας αύτω/-οΐς construction used in the longer text, μυστήριον is another word which Mt. and Lk. use only when they parallel M k . ; in the longer text the use of the singular is specifically Markan. Σαλωμη is peculiar to Mk., the later synoptists chose to omit her name, σινδών is 4 times as frequent in Mk. as in Mt. or Lk. (Moulton-Geden omits the first instance in 15.46). Whenever Mark mentions the word he repeats it; in any other author this would be thought emphatic. χειρ as an instrument of supernatural help is typical of M k . : 10 or 11 times, 7 in Mt. (5 Markan), 4 in Lk. (2 Markan). Combining the above observations with the lists of Morgenthaler, Parker, Hawkins, and Turner, we have: αγαπάω (of Jesus) *

Ιορδάνης

και (initial, vs. δε)

απέρχομαι άποκυλίω

*κρατεω

άρχω (for imperfect)

μυστήριον

Βηθανία

νεανίσκος (qua diminutive)

εκ (vs. από)

οπ ου

οργίζω (of Jesus)

*ΐΚ£Ϊθΐν * εκτείνω εμβλεφας

*όφία (αύτω)

εξ (qua numeral) έζερχομαι *

*7ταρακαλέω *περαν

εκ

σινδων

επιτιμάω

ερχεταιΙ-ονται (historic present)

(τό)

Σαλώμη *υίέ

Δαβίδ

χειρ (with supernatural power)

ευθύς

Listed by Parker as characteristic of both Mk. and Mt.

In all, 29 of the 82 words listed can claim to be, at least in one construction or another, characteristically Markan. Here it may be objected that to consider special constructions confuses the data on vocabulary with those on phraseology and grammar, and has resulted in some overlapping of the above list with those in the preceding and following sections. The objection is justified. However, it seemed impossible to exclude consideration of special constructions from an account of the vocabulary, since vocabularies differ not only by the words used, but also by the special meanings given them. If this be granted, it follows that the vocabulary of the longer text is preponderantly Markan. Indeed, it is so preponderantly Markan that it must be explained as the result either of the same stream of tradition which produced Mk., or of deliberate imitation 129


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

Phraseology*

b.

Mk. και έρχονται Kai

fjV

6/7t I I 5

εις

£K€L

(ήν/ήσαν δε eVei§ και + p a r t i c i p l e of 'έρχομαι + v e r b και λέγει

'έρχομαι + αύτω

ol Be μαθηταί 07T0V

προσκυνείν

-

8

initial + v e r b

2/3 2

ην

Lk.

Mt.

Jn.

-

-

-

0t)

-

-

0 5

2

12

7/8 6/7

3/4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

6

-

-

-

3

και ευθύς i n i t i a l ΐκ τον μνημείου

25

2

-

-

φωνή μεγάλη και προσελθών

4 1/2 6/8

2/3

6

4/6

2

-

I

4

-

4

-

-

-

-

5 I

I

I

-

9

19/23

-

initial

και είσελθών i n i t i a l εισέρχομαι/-πορεύομαι

δπου

έκτείνειν την χείρα. κρατήσας της χειρός

3/4

2/3 3

έμβλέφας + v e r b ήρξατο/-αντο + infinitive

26

6

10

-

4

3

μετ αύτοΰ, of J e s u s ' f o l l o w e r s και εξελθόντες i n i t i a l

-

7/8

7/9

i(?) 2

ήν/ησαν γάρ e x p l i c a t i v e (και) μετά . . . ημέρας + n u m e r a l όφίας γενομένης i n i t i a l και όφίας γενομένης i n i t i a l

9/io

5

5 4

3

έρχομαι

12/13

και ήρζατο/-αντο

initial

3

+ πρός

έρχομαι + προς (προσέρχομαι

7/8

αύτόν

6/7

-

-

-

-

-

9 I

-

11/12 -

52 -

10) 2

-

-

-

-

-

I

έδίδασκεν, of J e s u s η βασιλεία τοΰ Θεοΰ

6 14

2

2/3

το

5

μετά

1/2 -

5

(μένειν

-

4/5 I

-

μένειν συν (μένειν παρά

I

-

-

-

4) 0 I

2 4 32 I εκείθεν + p a r t i c i p l e , i n i t i a l 5 3/5 ( I n M t . t h e p a r t i c i p l e a l w a y s p r e c e d e s , i n M k . a n d i n t h e l o n g e r t e x t it follows.) πέραν

2 I

πέραν τοΰ Ίορδάνου ή μητηρ αύτοΰ

3 I

* For details see Appendix Ε . f 6/7 means " 6 or 7 , " and so hereafter. T h e uncertainty reflects textual variants. i In a different sense. § T h e indented expressions in this list are not found in the longer text of M k .

130

I

4

-

-

-

3/4

-


THE SECRET GOSPEL

o f M k . ( C o m p o s i t i o n as a cento seems u n l i k e l y ; the parallels c o m e f r o m too m a n y places, are c o m b i n e d a n d m o d i f i e d too freely, a n d fit together too well.) I f imitation, it was imitation of a v e r y simple sort. T h e imitator must h a v e k n o w n M k . almost b y h e a r t a n d deliberately told his story as m u c h as possible in the w o r d s a n d phrases of the original. T h e r e f o r e w e should e x p e c t his w o r k to show almost n o other w o r d s or phrases. O n the other h a n d , if the longer text w e r e a free p r o d u c t o f the same stream o f tradition, w e should e x p e c t it to differ f r o m c a n o n i c a l M k . at least as far as c a n o n i c a l M k . , in its various parts, differs from itself. N o w the quotations f r o m the longer text c o n t a i n o n l y 3 words not in M k . , a n d of these three αποδέχομαι

w a s p i c k e d out in

the c o m m e n t a r y on I I I . 16 as p a r t o f a later a d d i t i o n , κήπος a n d οργίζω

remain. But

M k . uses some 634 w o r d s once o n l y ( M o r g e n t h a l e r , 1 6 6 ) — a p p r o x i m a t e l y one w o r d in e v e r y 17.8. T h e quotations f r o m the longer text ( e x c l u d i n g the a d d i t i o n c o n t a i n i n g αποδέχομαι)

h a v e 175 w o r d s a n d should therefore h a v e a b o u t 10 not f o u n d in M k .

T h a t t h e y a c t u a l l y h a v e only 2 n o n - M a r k a n w o r d s suggests that t h e y were p r o d u c e d b y i m i t a t i o n of c a n o n i c a l M k . , not b y i n d e p e n d e n t composition. B u t this e v i d e n c e , a g a i n , is not conclusive: C S has o n l y 4 w o r d s not f o u n d elsewhere in M k . T h e percentile originality of M k . ' s v o c a b u l a r y w o u l d p r o b a b l y decline as the a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l i n c r e a s e d ; the c o n t e n t u a l similarity of the m a i n story in the longer text to the other stories of cures a n d resurrections w o u l d m a k e for the use o f m a n y of the same w o r d s ; a n d , a b o v e all, the distribution of h a p a x l e g o m e n a is u n e v e n a n d the q u o t a t i o n s f r o m the l o n g e r text are so short t h a t their v a r i a t i o n f r o m the a v e r a g e m i g h t be m e r e c h a n c e . C o m p a r e J n . , o f w h i c h P a r k e r states that " t h e n u m b e r of w o r d s o c c u r r i n g in o n l y one c h a p t e r . . . ranges f r o m 2 in c h a p . 17 to 47 in c h a p . 1 9 " (Two Editions 306 n g ) . T h e e v i d e n c e y i e l d e d b y this list is clear, especially since M k . contains only a b o u t 11,200 w o r d s , M t . a b o u t 18,300, L k . a b o u t 19,400 ( M o r g e n t h a l e r , 164), a n d the figures for M t . a n d L k . s h o u l d therefore n o r m a l l y e x c e e d those for M k . b y 7/11 a n d 8/11 respectively. I n the a b o v e list, of the 33 entries w h i c h represent usages f o u n d in the longer text of M k . there are 18 in w h i c h the n u m b e r of parallels from c a n o n i c a l M k . is greater t h a n t h a t f r o m either M t . or L k . , a n d 9 m o r e in w h i c h it runs so close to the largest n u m b e r f r o m either M t . or L k . t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e is insignificant: ol δε μαθηταί,

οπου ην, εκ τον μνημείου, φωνη μεγάλη, εκτείνειν την χείρα, καϊ

όφίας γενομένης,

εξελθόντες,

εκείθεν + participle, a n d πέραν τοΰ 'Ιορδανού.

O f the 6 r e m a i n i n g , 3 are most f r e q u e n t in L k . : μένειν συν, ή βασιλεία τοΰ θεοΰ, a n d η μήτηρ αύτοΰ. T h e differences in f r e q u e n c y of these are d e t e r m i n e d b y content, n o t style, a n d are insignificant for the question of the w r i t t e n sources of the longer text o f M k . — w h i c h should not be supposed to h a v e d e r i v e d its references to ή

βασιλεία

τοΰ θεοΰ or η μητηρ αύτοΰ f r o m L k . simply because L k . uses these phrases most often. μένειν συν, too, is o r d i n a r y G r e e k a n d n e e d not be t h o u g h t to h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d f r o m L k . T h e list clearly shows the distance of L k . f r o m the style of the longer text of M k . O f the 33 items, 11 are not represented at all in L k . , 6 others a p p e a r in L k . less often t h a n in either M k . or M t . , a n d for 2 others L k . is tied w i t h the l o w e r of its competitors. M t . is m u c h closer t h a n L k . to the longer text of M k . (as it is to c a n o n i c a l M k . , P a r k e r , Gospel 3 2 - 4 3 ) . A n d the traits to w h i c h most parallels a p p e a r in M t . a r e usually 131


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

traits of style, not content (/cat + participle of έρχομαι + verb, και προσελθών initial, και εξελθόντες initial, όψίας γενομένης initial, εκείθεν + participle, initial). T o a number of these data Parker called attention in his preliminary report to the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis at its New Y o r k meeting in December, i 9 6 0 — a n unpublished report to which this study is often indebted. However, in comparison with the full list, the Matthaean traits are insignificant. M t . leads in only 9 out of 33 instances. I n 6 o f these 9 (ot Se μαθηταί,

εκτείνειν

την χείρα,

και εξελθόντες,

όψίας

γενόμενης, εκείθεν + participle, πέραν τον Ιορδανού) there are so many M a r k a n instances that the trait cannot be considered typically Matthaean. In two, indeed, there are minor peculiarities which distinguish the M a r k a n from the Matthaean usage, and the longer text has M a r k a n form (/cat όψίας, not όψίας δε; εκείθεν before the participle). Therefore, as truly Matthaean traits we have only the sentence structure /cat + participle of έρχομαι + verb, έρχομαι followed by προσκννεΐν, and initial και προσελθών. O f these, however, canonical M k . uses the first 5 times and the last 1 or 2, so they are not alien to M a r k a n style. T h e only Matthaean trait found in the longer text, but not in canonical M k . , is the use of έρχομαι to introduce προσκννεΐν. Since M k . 5 times uses έρχομαι to introduce other verbs, and once uses προσκννεΐν of a petitioner coming to Jesus, it is not improbable that a M a r k a n text should have combined these constructions. T h a t the longer text is M a r k a n rather than Matthaean even in this detail is suggested by the fact that in it προσκννεΐν governs the accusative, as it does in M k . 5.6, but never in Mt.'s 13 uses except once, when he is quoting the O T . This argument is not conclusive, because the accusative in the longer text, and also in M k . 5.6, m a y be corrupt. However, against the one Matthaean trait of έρχομαι + προσκννεΐν must be set the list of non-Matthaean traits (και έρχονται εις, και ενθνς, και εισελθών,

είσερχομαι

οπον, κρατησας της χειρός, ηρξατο

+ inf., και

ηρξατο

initial, οί μετ αντοΰ of Jesus' followers, βασιλεία τον θεοϋ), most of which are typically Markan. In Hawkins' list of expressions characteristic of M t . (Horae 4fr) there are 27 of which one example each appears in canonical M k . ; it should be expected, therefore, that a longer text of M k . would contain additional examples of such isolated M a r k a n usages of expressions common in M t . T h e letter's occasional contacts with John are clearly insignificant for the question of its style (as opposed to content). εκ τον μνημείου and η μητηρ αντοΰ are determined •by content and have no stylistic peculiarity; δπον ην, while more frequent in Jn., is also found in canonical M k . and is ordinary Greek. Those w h o would see in such occasional parallels proofs of dependence should look at section I V of Appendix G , where it appears that πέραν της θαλάσσης of M k . 5.1 has 3 parallels in Jn., none elsew h e r e ; so does νπηντησεν

αντω o f M k . 5 . 2 ; ονδεις εδννατο in M k . 5.3 has 5 p a r a l l e l s

in Jn., ι in M t . , and none elsewhere; τι εμοι και σοι in M k . 5.7 has a verbatim parallel only in Jn. 2.4. Y e t no one would take these as proof that M a r k used Jn. or John, M k . See also the Johannine parallels to the material from M t . 9, in section V of A p p e n d i x G , and the remarks above in the commentary on 111.15. Finally, it has not seemed worthwhile to undertake a detailed comparison between the quotations from the longer text and the " a p o c r y p h a l " Gospels. O f the latter, Thomas, being in Coptic, does not admit of close verbal comparison. T h e earliest 132


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

m a t e r i a l in G r e e k — t h e fragments of Thomas, the pericope De adultera, P. Egerton 2, the Gospel of Peter, e t c . — a r e obviously m u c h m o r e r e m o t e f r o m c a n o n i c a l M k . t h a n is the longer text. T h e r e f o r e close c o m p a r i s o n of their v o c a b u l a r i e s a n d p h r a s e o l o g y is unnecessary.

c.

Grammar M a n y of the g r a m m a t i c a l peculiarities of the text h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d :

u n d e r phraseology, several types of sentence s t r u c t u r e ; u n d e r v o c a b u l a r y , the use of ήρξατο

w i t h the present infinitive as a substitute for the imperfect, the pleonasms

(εξέρχομαι

έκ, cf. άποκυλίω

από), the use of the historical present (έρχεται,

λέγει),

of

ίνα w i t h the s u b j u n c t i v e after ·παρακαλέω, a n d of initial και. T o these c a n be a d d e d the use of the accusative after προσκυνεΐν (unless it be a later c o r r u p t i o n of the d a t i v e used b y the other evangelists—see the c o m m e n t a r y , I I . 2 4 ) . A l l these h a v e b e e n noted as M a r k a n traits. I n his p r e l i m i n a r y report, P a r k e r used the relative rarity of historical presents as a n a r g u m e n t against assigning the longer text to the M a r k a n tradition. D i s r e g a r d i n g verbs in subordinate clauses a n d quotations, the text has 3 historical presents (all in formulas, και έρχονται,

και λέγει αύτω, έρχεται),

3 imperfects, a n d 16 aorists. A g a i n

d i s r e g a r d i n g verbs in s u b o r d i n a t e clauses a n d quotations, the story of the rich y o u n g ruler, w i t h w h i c h the longer text is closely linked b y location a n d content, has 3 historical presents (all λέγει),

3 imperfects, a n d 7 aorists; the p r o p h e c y of the passion,

w h i c h f o l l o w e d it a n d i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e d the first q u o t a t i o n f r o m the longer text, has no present, 4 imperfects a n d 1 aorist; the story of the sons of Z e b e d e e , w h i c h stood b e t w e e n the t w o quotations, has 2 presents (προσπορεΰονται a n d λέγει)

and 6

aorists; M k . 10.46a, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e d the second q u o t a t i o n , has a historical present (και έρχονται);

the story of B a r t i m a e u s , w h i c h f o l l o w e d the second q u o t a t i o n , has 1

historical present (φωνοΰσιν), 4 imperfects, a n d 7 aorists. I t a p p e a r s t h a t in this section of his G o s p e l M a r k w a s using historical presents almost exclusively in formulas έρχονται,

(λέγει,

etc.) a n d using the i m p e r f e c t a n d aorist " c o r r e c t l y " in the b o d y of his

narratives. T h a t is j u s t w h a t w e find in the q u o t a t i o n s f r o m the longer text a n d is also characteristic of most passages of M k . ; see the study of Z e r w i c k , Untersuchungen 49fr. It m a y be, h o w e v e r , t h a t the small n u m b e r of historical presents argues against the supposition t h a t the longer text w a s a deliberate i m i t a t i o n of M k . , for the freq u e n c y of historical presents in m a n y sections of M k . is j u s t the sort o f t h i n g — a t o n c e o b v i o u s a n d e a s y — w h i c h a n i m i t a t o r w o u l d affect. T h a t in this respect the quotations should a c c o r d w i t h the sections of M k . a d j a c e n t to t h e m , a n d n o t w i t h the p o p u l a r notion of M k . ' s style, suggests they w e r e not imitations b u t p r o d u c t s of the same tradition. A s other g r a m m a t i c a l peculiarites of the longer text m a y be m e n t i o n e d three Semfitisms: the use o f μια for τιs in I I . 2 3 , f o u n d in M k . , b u t most f r e q u e n t in M t . a n d r e c k o n e d b y H a w k i n s (Horae 5 a n d 30) as a M a t t h a e a n t r a i t ; r e d u n d a n t αυτός in II.23

an

d I I I . 1 5 , almost e v e n l y distributed t h r o u g h the synoptics; r e d u n d a n t άναστάς

in I I I . 10, w h i c h H a w k i n s (16) considered a L u c a n trait, t h o u g h there are 5 or 6

133


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

instances in M k . O n all these see the c o m m e n t a r y , ad locc. T h i s f r e q u e n c y of Semitisms in the longer text m i g h t be a sign either of early material or of late i m i t a t i o n — Semitisms c a t c h the eye a n d a r e easy to c o p y . Less conspicuous are a n u m b e r of g r a m m a t i c a l details noted b y T u r n e r , Usage, as M a r k a n traits: ( ι ) T h e f r e q u e n c y of parenthetical e x p l a n a t o r y clauses, especially of γάρ clauses like those in the longer text, 1 1 1 . 6 ην γαρ πλούσιος γαρ αυτόν ό 'Ιησούς,

a n d I l l . g f εδίδα σκεν

etc. (26.145)· ( 2 ) T h e use of the p l u r a l , usually of 'έρχομαι, to

denote the m o v e m e n t s of Jesus w i t h his disciples a n d the c r o w d (26.225). ( T h e later synoptists a n d M S tradition, c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n the M a s t e r , r e g u l a r l y r e p l a c e this w i t h the singular.) T h e r e are 3 e x a m p l e s in the longer text, I I . 2 3 καΐ έρχονται, καϊ εξελθόντες,

I I I . 6 ηλθον.

III.5

(3) T h e use of the singular, referring to m o v e m e n t s o f

Jesus, i m m e d i a t e l y followed b y a reference to the disciples or the c r o w d (the reference is usually e l i m i n a t e d b y the later t r a d i t i o n — 2 6 . 2 3 1 ) . O f this the longer text as it stands does not p r o v i d e a n e x a m p l e , b u t the conclusion of the first q u o t a t i o n , I I I . 11 και άναστάς επεστρεφεν, w a s i m m e d i a t e l y followed b y και προσπορεΰονται και 'Ιωάννης;

αϋτψ

'Ιάκωβος

this is p a r a l l e l e d b y T u r n e r ' s e x a m p l e s f r o m M k . i . 3 5 f ; 2.23; 6.1. (4)

L o c a t i o n of the v e r b at the e n d of the sentence (29.352). I n the longer text, I I . 2 3 ης ό αδελφός αύτης άπεθανεν. O n this T u r n e r ' s c o m m e n t s : " I t is not suggested t h a t these instances are t y p i c a l of M a r k in the sense t h a t this order of w o r d s is his n o r m a l u s a g e : b u t they are not inconsiderable in n u m b e r " (29.355). K i l p a t r i c k , Mission

I49f,

f o u n d t h a t " f o r M k . 13, the n o r m a l position for the v e r b is the initial o n e , " b u t he reports a c o u n t of verbs in five pages of M k . w h i c h y i e l d e d 40 initial, 66 m e d i a l , 24 terminal. I n M k . 1 0 . 1 7 - 5 2 ^ - t h e i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t of the quotations f r o m the longer t e x t — 5 2 verbs in i n d e p e n d e n t clauses are p r e c e d e d b y expressed subjects or objects, 18 h a v e no expressed subject or object, a n d 23 are f o l l o w e d b y expressed subjects or objects (these figures do n o t i n c l u d e the O T q u o t a t i o n in verse 19). E v i d e n t l y M k . ' s usage in this respect differs greatly f r o m one pericope to another. See further Z e r w i c k , Untersuchungen 75fr, w h o s e careful critique of T u r n e r leads h i m to c o n c l u d e t h a t in this question it is not possible to d e t e r m i n e a n y characteristically

Markan

practice. T h i s concludes o u r survey of the e v i d e n c e f r o m v o c a b u l a r y , p h r a s e o l o g y ,

and

g r a m m a r . I think it has s h o w n that the longer text is related to c a n o n i c a l M k . not o n l y b y a few conspicuous parallels, b u t also b y a m u l t i t u d e of small details w h i c h are m o r e like the details of M k . t h a n of a n y other evangelist. T h e v o c a b u l a r y shows a distribution of M a r k a n a n d n o n - M a r k a n w o r d s almost identical w i t h t h a t in a n a d j a c e n t section of e q u a l length f r o m c a n o n i c a l M k . M o r e t h a n a third of the w o r d s listed are themselves characteristically M a r k a n or a p p e a r in characteristically M a r k a n constructions. T h e p h r a s e o l o g y is y e t m o r e clearly M a r k a n : 18 items most f r e q u e n t in M k . , 9 in M t . , 4 in L k . , a n d 2 in J n . — a n d these gross figures require modifications w h i c h incline the b a l a n c e even further to the M a r k a n side. T h e g r a m m a r t h r o u g h o u t a c c o r d s w i t h M a r k a n usage a n d shows h a l f a d o z e n t y p i c a l l y M a r k a n constructions. A b o v e all, there is n o t h i n g in the text (except the terminal interpolation) w h i c h on stylistic grounds requires us to suppose k n o w l e d g e of a n y Gospel save M k . T h e text

134


THE SECRET GOSPEL

could not have been written by anyone who was not familiar with the tradition represented in Mk., b u t someone familiar with the M a r k a n tradition could have written it—so far as the style is concerned—without knowing M t . , Lk., or J n . This, I think, is as far as the stylistic evidence will take us. Accordingly, we now t u r n to the m a j o r parallels. 3.

T H E M A J O R P A R A L L E L S TO T H E C A N O N I C A L

GOSPELS

T h e m a j o r parallels differ from those already discussed either by size, being so long t h a t it is difficult to explain t h e m as chance collections of cliches, or by peculiarity of content, containing some unusual element which requires explanation. Since these distinctions are matters of degree, there will be differences of opinion as to which parallels should be discussed here. T o begin with, there are those parallels to the western text which seemed evidence for its dependence on the longer text of M k . : και έρχονται είς Βηθανίαν (II.23), και όργισθΐίς ( I I . 2 5 ) , και ηρξατο παρακαλεΐν αυτόν "να μετ' αύτοΰ fj (III.4—5)) a n d possibly εξετεινεν την χείρα και ηγειρεν αύτόν κρατησας της χειρός ( I I I . 4 ) a n d επεταξεν

αύτω ό Ίησοΰς (III.7). If these are evidence of the influence of the longer text of Mk., they throw no light on its origin, save to locate it before t h a t of the western text (in other words, before 150 ?) a n d p r o b a b l y in the same area where the western text arose (Egypt?). Next there are the similar (but reverse) cases where the present text of Clement's quotations seems to have been corrupted by the influence of the texts of the canonical Gospels: ην γαρ πλούσιος in I I I . 6 is the most likely example, και προσελθών . . . άπεκύλισε τον λίθον από της θύρας τοΰ μνημείου in I I I . 1 - 2 m a y be a n o t h e r , b u t και προσελθών

is a cliche a n d the rest of the parallel is so fixed by content (and appears so late a n d so sparsely in the history of the canonical text) that no confidence as to the origin of the parallelism can be justified. I n any event, such corruptions from the texts of the canonical Gospels are similar to those found in Clement's quotations from canonical Mk., as shown in A p p e n d i x F, a n d therefore yield no evidence as to the origin of the longer text, into which they were p r o b a b l y introduced by Clement himself or some later copyist (see above, section I I . A , end). Elimination of these leaves the following: II.25 III.4 111.5-6 III.8 III.10

ν>ί

* Δαβίδ ελεησόν με (2 in M k . , 2 in L k . , 4 in M t . ) εμβλεφας αύτω ηγάπησεν αύτόν ( M k . 10.21) «rat μεθ' ημέρας εξ ( M k . 9.2) περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα επί γυμνού ( M k . Ι 4 - 5 1 ) τό μυστήριον της βασιλείας τοΰ θεοΰ ( M k . 4 · 1 ΐ )

III.15

ον ήγάπα αύτόν ό Ίησοΰς (4 i n J n . )

T o these m i g h t be a d d e d I I I . 3 - 4 και ηγειρεν αύτόν κρατήσας της χειρός ( M k . Ι.31) a n d και εξελθόντες εκ τοΰ μνημείου ( M k . 16.8), b u t t h e parallels to these a r e o n l y

approximate, that to the former is f o u n d only in p a r t of the textual tradition (XBL,

135


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

etc.), a n d all the elements of both are cliches, except for ηγειρεν αυτόν a n d τοΰ μνημείου, which are determined by content; accordingly these are not of the same class as the six l i s t e d a b o v e . O f t h o s e six, υιέ Δαυίδ

έλέησόν

με, το μυστηριον

της βασιλείας

τοΰ

θεοΰ,

a n d öV ηγάπα αυτόν 6 Ίησοΰς p r o b a b l y were fixed phrases of early Christian tradition. ( T h a t the third did not come from J o h n is indicated both by the general absence of J o h a n n i n e traits f r o m the longer text a n d by the fact t h a t the form in the longer text preserves a Semitism, αυτόν, which the J o h a n n i n e form has eliminated.) T h e a p p e a r ance of these fixed phrases in the longer text is no more evidence of imitation t h a n it is of o r i g i n a l i t y . B u t t h e o t h e r t h r e e , εμβλέφας

αύτω

ηγάπησεν

αυτόν,

και μεθ'

ημέρας

έξ, a n d περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα επί γυμνοΰ, are phrases of M a r k a n narrative a n d their recurrence requires special explanations. Explanations are suggested both by M a r k ' s practice of self-repetition a n d by repetitions of M a r k a n material in the earliest of the expanded texts of M k . which are still preserved (that is, in M t . a n d Lk.). As shown above, M a r k frequently repeats individual words, narrative phrases, a n d basic sentence patterns. H e also tells stories so m u c h alike that they are generally thought different accounts of the same event (the feedings, the prophecies of the passion), b u t in these different accounts he does not usually duplicate exactly m u c h of the wording. H e often tells several stories of the same type a n d w h e n he does so he is apt to use the same phrases for similar situations (see above, on εξέτεινεν την χείρα a n d κρατησας της χειρός). Within individual stories he is fond of repeating phrases or even clauses ( 2 . 5 , 9 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 5 , 1 6 , etc.; note in A p pendix G, section I V , the parallels to M k . 5 from M k . 5 a n d 6 ) . Finally, in different stories he will repeat striking phrases or entire sayings to indicate some connection b e t w e e n t h e d i f f e r e n t e v e n t s : M k . i ^ i i || 9 . 7 φωνή

έγένετο

. . . ό υιός μου ό

αγαπητός

a t baptism a n d transfiguration; 1.24 | | 5 . 7 τί ήμΐν και σοι, Ίησοΰ, the demons' confession; 4-9 II 4 · 2 3 II έχει ώτα άκοΰειν, άκουέτω, to indicate that something has b e e n w i t h h e l d ; 5 . 3 1 I I 10.52 ή πίστις . . . ίνα μηδείς/μηδενί; . . . εις των προφητών; Ίωάννην

σου σέσωκέν

6 . 1 5 | | 8 . 2 8 'Ιωάννης

ό βαπτίζων

9·2 || 14-33 παραλαμβάνει

(cf. 5-37) > 9 - 3 5 II ΙΟ.44

'

τίς

σε; 5 - 4 3 II 8 . 3 6

θέλει

διεστείλατο

. . . άλλοι . . . 'Ηλείας

. . . τον Πέτρον πρώτος

καί

είναι

αύτοΐς

. . . άλλοι

και τον Ίάκωβον

έσται

πάντων

. . .

δέ

καί τον διάκονος.

I n most of these the M S tradition shows a tendency to eliminate differences between the parallels. A similar tendency m a y be supposed to have been at work in the transmission of the letter's quotations from the longer text. [However, as H . K . observes, the longer text was not copied so often as the canonical text a n d was not subject to the same theological, liturgical, a n d political pressures. I t was therefore less exposed to contamination.] O f these sorts of M a r k a n repetition, the last is closest to w h a t appears in αύτω

ήγάπησεν

αυτόν

a n d περιβεβλημένος

σινδόνα

έπι γυμνοΰ.

έμβλέφας

P a r t i c u l a r l y close t o t h e

latter is M a r k ' s repetition of a n O T formula in order to identify the Baptist as Elijah without stating the identification directly: M k . 1.6 ένδεδυμένος . . . ζώνην δερματίνην περί

την

όσφύν

αύτοΰ;

I I K g S . 1.8 ζώνην

αϋτοΰ.2 If the περιβεβλημένος

δερματίνην

περιεζωσμένος

περί

την

όσφύν

phrase be a formula connected with baptism (a question to

2. The omission of the Markan phrase by Dit. does not seem to me to warrant the conclusion that it is an interpolation.

136


THE SECRET GOSPEL

b e discussed hereafter, in the section o n content), then this m e t h o d o f i d e n t i f y i n g the t w o y o u t h s b y their c l o t h i n g as baptizandi,

w i t h o u t stating the fact directly, is in

M a r k ' s m a n n e r . So w o u l d b e the repetition of the t e m p o r a l specification μεθ' -ημέρας ίξ, to e q u a t e the secret r e v e l a t i o n g i v e n b y the transfiguration w i t h the t e a c h i n g of the m y s t e r y o f the k i n g d o m of G o d ( M k . 9 . 2 f r || I I I . 7 - 1 0 ) ; b u t h e r e the parallelism m a y be d u e to some S a b b a t a r i a n interest. S u c h repetitions b o t h presuppose a n d e x p e c t exegesis of the sort k n o w n in the Hellenistic w o r l d as σΰγκρισις

προς 'ίσον a n d in the

m i d r a s h i m as gezerah shawah (on w h i c h see L i e b e r m a n , Hellenism 58fr), a t e c h n i q u e w h i c h takes e v e n m i n o r identites of w o r d i n g as indications of relations b e t w e e n the c o n t e n t of the passages c o n c e r n e d . S u c h use of repetition in M k . is therefore i m p o r t a n t as a n i n d i c a t i o n that the G o s p e l w a s e x p e c t e d to be a text for t e a c h i n g a n d t h a t (as C l e m e n t said in his letter, 1.25) some t h i n g s — i n this case, the significance o f the r e p e t i t i o n s — w e r e deliberately left to b e e x p l a i n e d b y the teacher. O n the other h a n d , the repetition o f έμβλίφας

αντω ήγάπησεν

αυτόν remains some-

w h a t p e c u l i a r , because the a c t i o n is a t t r i b u t e d in M k . 10.21 to Jesus a n d in the l o n g e r text to the y o u t h in the t o m b , w h e r e a s , of the a b o v e e x a m p l e s of M a r k a n selfrepetition, all a r e a t t r i b u t e d to the s a m e person e x c e p t that in 6 . 1 5 (to the people) || 8 . 2 8 (to the d i s c i p l e s — w h o , h o w e v e r , a r e r e p o r t i n g w h a t the p e o p l e say). H e r e the relation b e t w e e n M k . a n d the longer text is m o r e like t h a t b e t w e e n M k . a n d the later synoptics, f r o m w h i c h H a w k i n s m a d e a l a r g e collection of such " w o r d s differently a p p l i e d " (Horae 67fr; cf. D o d d , Historical

Tradition 3 3 1 ) w h i c h he considered

e v i d e n c e for oral, as against written, tradition. O f his e x a m p l e s , the closest is the p a r a l l e l of M k . 1 0 . 2 1 , w h e r e Jesus says to the rich m a n ( w h o m he loved) ev ae υστερεί, w i t h M t . 1 9 . 2 0 , w h e r e the same m a n asks Jesus τ ί ετι υστερώ;

( t h o u g h here the c h a n g e

is p r o b a b l y d u e to d e l i b e r a t e correction rather t h a n oral tradition). I n A c t s w e find stories, a l r e a d y told a b o u t Jesus in the Gospels, retold a b o u t Peter (Acts 9.33fr || M k . 2 . 3 f r ; 9 . 3 6 f r II M k . 5 . 2 1 f r ) , a n d e v e n o n e o f Jesus' m i r a c u l o u s c o m m a n d s p u t in the m o u t h of P e t e r (τα λιθα κουμι M k . 5 . 4 1 || Ταβειθα άνάστηθ ι A c t s 9-4°)· T h u s the c h a n g e o f speaker in the repetition of εμβλέφας

αύτω ήγάπησεν

αυτόν suggests a relation b e -

t w e e n M k . a n d the l o n g e r text similar to t h a t b e t w e e n M k . a n d M t . or A c t s . O n the other h a n d , the use o f ήγάπησεν

αυτόν recalls J o h n , for in J n . Jesus' love o f in-

d i v i d u a l s a n d theirs of h i m is often m e n t i o n e d ; b u t in the synoptics, a l t h o u g h

αγαπάω

is c o m m o n , o n l y 4 of its 2 7 uses refer to specific persons a n d o n l y 2 o f these m a y refer to Jesus ( M k . 1 0 . 2 1 a n d perhaps L k . 7.47). H o w e v e r , neither the parallel to J n . n o r that to the relationship b e t w e e n M k . a n d the later synoptics a n d A c t s c a n b e considered decisive. W e must l e a v e the p r o b l e m o p e n for the present, r e m a r k i n g o n l y t h a t , since αγαπάω is used o f Jesus' personal relations in the synoptics, the usage c a n not c o n f i d e n t l y b e a t t r i b u t e d to J o h a n n i n e influence. M o r e o v e r , as r e m a r k e d a b o v e , the εμβλεφας

f o r m u l a is a c o m m o n M a r k a n i n t r o d u c t i o n . H o w m u c h t h e o r y c a n

safely be b u i l t o n its r e c u r r e n c e w i t h the t w o w o r d s ήγάπησεν

αυτόν?

I n sum, then, the m a j o r parallels b e t w e e n the longer text a n d c a n o n i c a l

Mk.

seem mostly d u e to textual c o n t a m i n a t i o n , either o f the western text of M k . b y the i n f l u e n c e o f the longer text ( 5 possible instances) or of the longer text b y the i n f l u e n c e o f L k . a n d p e r h a p s M t . ( 2 possible instances). O f the 6 r e m a i n i n g m a j o r parallels,

137


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

4 (vie AaßlS ΐλΐησόν /Lie, το μυστηριον της βασιλείας τον θεοΰ, ον ηγάπα αυτόν 6 Ίησοΰς, and περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα επι γνμνοΰ) are probably phrases fixed in the usage of certain early Christian circles. Their repetition by the original author is no less likely than their use by an imitator; indeed, it can fairly be said that the repetition of such fixed phrases is a M a r k a n trait. O n the other hand, μεθ' -ημέρας εξ is probably derived from a recurrent theological pattern and εμβλεψας αύτω ηγάπησεν αυτόν remains a problem. Thus the evidence from the major parallels confirms that from the minor stylistic traits: it points almost always to Mk. as the source of the material, shows no strong reason to suppose knowledge of any other Gospel, and leaves the alternatives still open—either a free composition by the same school of tradition which produced canonical Mk., or an early imitation of material now found in the canonical Gospel. Again, too, the evidence slightly—but not decisively—inclines to the side of early imitation.

THE FREQUENCY

OF PARALLELS TO T H E

CANONICAL

GOSPELS

It remains to consider the frequency of parallels and their distribution in the material. This is an important question, for one of the commonest results of imitation is a product too much like the genuine article. Thus, among the strongest reasons for thinking the Epistle to the Ephesians a forgery are the facts that it parallels Colossians far more closely a n d in different places than any undoubtedly Pauline epistle parallels any other. Cognate questions are raised by the other cases of N T parallelism: the relationship of J u d e to I I Peter, of the transfiguration in I I Peter and the last supper in I Cor. to those in the Gospels, and so on. These, together with the synoptics and their parallelism to J n . have provided evidence for many different hypotheses. T h e hypothesis of deliberate imitation can appeal to the example of Ephesians a n d the clumsier Pastorals; M t . and Lk. show several more or less faithful sorts of copying combined with omission of occasional passages and addition of material apparently from other traditions (though Parker, Gospel, has made a strong case for a close relationship of some of the Matthaean material to the tradition which produced M k . ) ; J n . was variously interpreted as reworking of synoptic material or independent development of cognate traditions until Dodd, Historical Tradition, practically settled the question in favor of independent development. Reworking is seen again in I I Peter's use of J u d e , a n d independent development in the various stories of the transfiguration and last supper. T o choose between these hypotheses—and others also possible—it is necessary to determine the frequency, type, and distribution of the parallels between the longer text of Mk. and the canonical Gospels, a n d to compare these with the frequency, type, and distribution of the parallels between a similar passage of canonical Mk. and the canonical Gospels. Evidence on these points is given in Appendix G. Unfortunately, Mk. does not afford an exact parallel even for the miracle story 138


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

in the l o n g e r text. M a r k a n m i r a c l e stories are of several kinds, b u t none, in p o i n t o f style, is e x a c t l y similar. M i r a c l e s told in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h stories o f legal a r g u m e n t s or o f sayings are o b v i o u s l y irrelevant here, as a r e miracles of w h i c h Jesus is himself the subject (baptism, transfiguration) a n d miracles told o n l y g e n e r a l l y , in s u m m a r y a c c o u n t s of Jesus' w o r k . T h e r e s t — t h e true m i r a c l e stories—fall into t w o g r o u p s distinguished b y their style. T h o s e of the one g r o u p are told verbosely, w i t h m u c h realistic detail, repetition of phrases, a n d so o n ; those of the other, briefly, almost in outline, w i t h little m o r e t h a n the necessary d a t a - o c c a s i o n , parties c o n c e r n e d , trouble, a n d m e a n s of relief (Dibelius, Structure 1 5 8 - 1 6 3 ; D o d d , Appearances 9 - 1 0 ) . O f the first of these t w o groups, the story of the G e r a s e n e d e m o n i a c has b e e n chosen for c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the longer text because o f the m a n y similarities b e t w e e n the t w o — s i m i l a r i t i e s p o i n t e d out in Parker's p r e l i m i n a r y report. O f the second g r o u p the story of Peter's wife's m o t h e r has b e e n chosen, also because o f its p a r a l l e l s : 4 k . . . έξίλθόντΐς

ήλθον els την οΐκίαν . . . και ΐύθύς . . . και προσΐλθων

ήγειρεν αυτήν

κρατήσas

της χ€ΐρός. C o m p a r i s o n o f the w a y s in w h i c h these t w o stories a r e p a r a l l e l e d b y the rest o f the m a t e r i a l in the Gospels w i t h the w a y s in w h i c h the longer text is so p a r a l l e l e d r e v e a l s : (1) T h e r e are m o r e parallels to the longer text t h a n to the c a n o n i c a l texts. (2) C o n versely, the l o n g e r text has less of the p e c u l i a r details w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l i z e the c a n o n i c a l stories. (3) T h e elements p a r a l l e l e d in the longer text are usually longer a n d m o r e significant; m a n y of the parallels to the c a n o n i c a l text are little m o r e t h a n elements of v o c a b u l a r y (δια τό w i t h infinitive, ύπ αύτοΰ, δια παντός, etc.), w h i l e in the l o n g e r text w h o l e phrases are paralleled. (4) I n the c a n o n i c a l texts the parallels are c h i e f l y to transitional formulas, elements o f f r a m e w o r k at the b e g i n n i n g s a n d ends, t e c h n i c a l phrases (πνεύμα άκάθαρτον,

the f o r m u l a for exorcism, etc.), a n d a n occasional

s a y i n g like τί ίμοι και σοι, Ίησοΰ,

fixed

w h i c h e v i d e n t l y c i r c u l a t e d in the tradition since

variants of it t u r n u p in various stories. I n the longer text n o t o n l y the transitional formulas a n d f r a m e w o r k , b u t also the m a i n narrative elements are mostly p a r a l l e l e d ; the parallels c o n t i n u e

throughout

the stories, a n d

length of the p a r a l l e l e d t e c h n i c a l expressions a n d

the n u m b e r a n d fixed

sayings is

individual

conspicuously

higher. T h e s e differences must not b e e x a g g e r a t e d . C a n o n i c a l M k . sometimes does, briefly, parallel itself v e r y closely. C o n s i d e r , for instance, M k . 8 . 2 2 - 2 4 : και φερουσιν αύτω τυφλόν

και παρακαλοΰσιν

αυτόν

ίνα αύτοΰ άφηται

και

ΐπίλαβόμΐνος

της

χειρός

τοΰ

τυφλοΰ εζηνεγκεν αυτόν ίζω της κώμης και πτΰσας els τα όμματα αύτοΰ, επιθεις τάς χείρας αύτω, επηρώτα αυτόν, ei τί βλέπεις", και άναβλίφας

ελεγεν. H e r e the u n d e r l i n e d w o r d s

a r e p a r a l l e l e d (solid, v e r b a t i m ; dotted, a p p r o x i m a t e l y ) in M k . 7 . 3 2 - 3 4 , the c u r e o f the d e a f m u t e . Nevertheless, e v e n in these stories there a r e p e c u l i a r the m e n as trees w a l k i n g , the use of εφφαθα—which

details—

i n d i v i d u a l i z e the episode, as

the cure of Peter's wife's m o t h e r is i n d i v i d u a l i z e d b y the specification of the parties c o n c e r n e d . I n the m o r e verbose M a r k a n stories, like t h a t of the G e r a s e n e d e m o n i a c , such p e c u l i a r material is conspicuous. ( T h e r e f o r e o n l y the first sixteen verses o f t h a t story h a v e been presented in A p p e n d i x G ; t h e y suffice to show the difference.)

139


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

T h e lifelike details a n d realistic verbosity of M a r k a n narrative are c o m m o n l y supposed to be primitive traits, and primitive they certainly are vis-ä-vis M t . and L k . , w h o frequently eliminated them. It is not sure, however, that they were primitive in relation to oral tradition. T h e i r realistic details can no longer be taken as evidence of eyewitness tradition and are suspiciously like the developments in later apocryphal Gospels (Nineham, Eyewitness 22). Dibelius, Structure 161, 165^ has maintained on literary grounds that the full M a r k a n miracle stories are secondary expansions of earlier, brief ones. [In this he m a y be mistaken, H . K . remarks; it is possible that the full a n d the schematic stories represent equally old traditions from different circles of narrators.] H o w e v e r , if Dibelius were right, w e should expect that the formulas of the earlier, schematic accounts w o u l d turn u p again and again in the framework of the later expansions. N o w , as already noted, it is the framework of the M a r k a n stories for w h i c h there is a plethora of parallels, like that found for the longer text. A c c o r d ingly, the multiple parallels to the longer text can be explained in at least two w a y s : either this is material earlier than canonical M k . , simpler a n d more s c h e m a t i c — perhaps a text connected with some important ritual and therefore widely echoed; or this is later than canonical M k . and shows the M a r k a n phraseology still being used, but in formulaic fashion, as w e find it especially in M t . — t h e fixed formulas are preserved and the story is told almost entirely in these, the individualistic details h a v i n g disappeared. O f these two explanations the first is supported b y Clement's statement that the longer text was used in " t h e great mysteries," a n d also by the evidence that it has frequently influenced the western text. H o w e v e r , the second explanation is supported by Clement's statement that the longer text was p r o d u c e d by expansion of canonical M k . , and also by the analogy of the existing synoptic Gospels w h i c h were so produced. T h e analogy is particularly close for certain sections of M t . , w h i c h show the same sort of formulaic narration, and have the same plethora of parallels, as does the longer text of M k . M o s t conspicuous of these M a t t h a e a n passages is 9.27-34, presented in section V of A p p e n d i x G , w h i c h shows all the secondary traits pointed out above as characteristic of the longer text: It has almost no individualizing details, •the elements paralleled are often of considerable length, the parallels are not limited to transitional elements, but continue throughout, a n d they contain not a few fixed sayings like Άίτησον ημάς, vios Δαυί8. Nevertheless, D o d d has m a d e a strong case (in Historical Tradition i 7 o f ) for supposing 9.27-31 an original composition, independent of its M a r k a n parallels a n d based on a variant form of oral tradition. O t h e r passages in M t . w h i c h present similar problems are 12.22-24 a n d 2 1 . 1 4 - 1 6 . Richardson points out the sending of the seventy in L k . 1 0 . 1 - 2 0 — a striking example, but one not included in A p p e n d i x G because it draws principally on material from the sayings tradition, whereas Clement's quotations from the longer text are entirely narrative (though he says that the longer text also contained sayings—λόγιά τίνα, 1.25). G i v e n this similarity of type between M t . 9.27-34 and the longer text of M k . , it is important to notice that most of the parallels to the M t . passage are found in M t . , most of the parallels to the longer text are found in M k . T h e figures are as follows: 140


THE SECRET GOSPEL

T o Mt. 9.27-34: T o the longer text: 3

Mt. 74, Mt. 84,

Mk. 25, Mk. 143,

Lk. 21, Lk. 68,

Jn. 38. Jn. 33.

This evidence is even more impressive when the different sizes of the Gospels are recalled (Mt. 18,300 words; Mk. 11,200; Lk. 19,400; Jn. 15,400). Given these figures there can be no doubt of the peculiarly close relation of the longer text to the Markan tradition. The longer text, without the final interpolation (to which, by the way, there are no verbatim Gospel parallels), contains 175 words, for which Appendix G shows 328 parallels. Mt. 9.27-34 contains 112 words, for which there are 158 parallels. Thus the extent of parallelism to the longer text is substantially higher. This may be insignificant, since 99 of the parallels to the longer text are afforded by the three phrases και ΐϋθυς (27), καΐ ΐλθοΰσα (22), and της βασιλείας τοΰ θίοΰ (50), whereas Mt. 9.27-34 has only one phrase for which the figure is above the teens (Ae'yei αύτοΐς 6 Ίησονς, 42). T h e high frequency of parallels in the longer text affords support for a special theory of imitation which has been suggested independently by P. Benoit and R . Grant, viz.: The longer text is. a cento produced from the texts of the canonical Gospels. Grant supports this theory by reference to Irenaeus (Harvey, 1.1.15-20 = Stieren, 1.8.1-9.5). Irenaeus is there attacking the Valentinians. He says that, since they have a theory which neither the prophets proclaimed nor the Lord taught nor the apostles handed down, but which they read out of άγραφα (that is, uncanonical works, Harvey), they try to twist dominical, prophetic, or apostolic sayings to fit their teachings, so as to have some evidence for what they say, and to this end they neglect the order and context of the scriptural passages they use and also distort them. He compares their treatment of Scripture to the breaking up of a mosaic in order to make a different picture with the same tessarae. The examples he gives to illustrate this, however, are examples of allegorical or esoteric exegesis of individual sayings or passages of the canonical Scriptures and afford no evidence for the composition of new, pseudo-Scriptural centos. However, he goes on to say (Harvey, 1.1.20, middle = Stieren, 1.9.4): " T h e n , collecting scattered expressions and terms, they transfer them, as we said, from the (sense they have) in reality to an unreal (sense) much as do those who set themselves any handy themes and then try to treat them in lines from the Homeric poems, so that less experienced readers might think Homer had composed the verses about the themes treated ex tempore." This he illustrates by an example of a Homeric cento, excusing himself by saying, " T h e r e is no reason not to cite even such verses, since both (the composer of the cento and the Valentinians) are attempting a similar and, indeed, identical feat." And he concludes that, as the man acquainted with Homer will recognize the verses, but not the theme, and by referring the verses to their proper contexts will show the theme to be spurious, thus 3. When alternate numbers of parallels to phrases in the longer text are given in Appendix G, the lower ones have been counted, since the higher reflect readings with weaker M S support and these are not commonly reported by Moulton-Geden, from which the numbers of parallels to the Matthaean passage have been derived for comparison.

141


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

the true Christian " w i l l recognize the terms from the scriptures and the expressions a n d the parables, but will not recognize this blasphemous t h e m e . " H e will acknowledge the tessarae, but not the picture w h i c h has been m a d e of them, " a n d , referring each of the things said to its proper place and fitting it into the body of the truth, he will expose their fiction and show it to be unsubstantial." O n the strength of this passage, G r a n t has suggested that the longer text m a y be a gnostic work of the sort attacked by Irenaeus. H o w e v e r , the longer text has no connection with the Valentinians, and though it was used by the Carpocratians it was also used b y Clement's church, w h i c h is c o m m o n l y supposed to have been orthodox. C l e m e n t expressly asserts that the Carpocratians got it from the orthodox (that is, from his church), and nothing in the text is clearly gnostic. Therefore there is no reason to associate the text with the Valentinian centos, unless it can be shown to be a cento, w h i c h is the point in question. Further, the text of Irenaeus does not precisely say that the Valentinians made centos. Irenaeus m a y have intended to give that impression. [But in the opinion of E.B. he actually had in mind compositions like the Q u m r a n hymns, w h i c h are full of O T echoes but are not true centos. H e introduced the bit of cento merely to give his Greek readers the best example he could of the sort of thing he had in mind.] A t all events he does not explicitly state that the Valentinians m a d e centos, a n d â&#x20AC;&#x201D; w h a t is most i m p o r t a n t â&#x20AC;&#x201D; h e does not produce and demolish any V a l e n t i n i a n cento. This suggests that either he had no such document and was merely using the comparison as a reductio ad absurdum of their neglect of context in exegesis, or he had a V a l e n t i n i a n Gospel w h i c h paralleled the canonical Gospels in m a n y places and w h i c h he wished to discredit, so he charged that it was a cento but did not give an example from it for fear of discrediting his charge. O n the other hand Irenaeus (Harvey I.20.2 = Stieren, 1.25.4) quotes a Carpocratian version of the counsel to be reconciled quickly with one's adversary, w h i c h alternately parallels M t . 5.25 and L k . 12.58 in a w a y that can be interpreted as deliberate choice of elements suited for Carpocratian exegesis (Grant-Freedman, 95). A n d D o d d , New Gospel 24fr, has practically proved that the text on fragment 1 verso of P. Egerton 2 is a cento of J n . 5.39,45 and 9.29. T h e cento form goes back in Greek tradition at least to Aristophanes, Pax 1090-1094, and appears in the O T with the psalms in Chronicles and Jonah. So the possibility that the longer text was produced as a cento is undeniable. A n d there is no necessity of connecting the cento form with the gnostics: Paul used it in R o m . 3 . 1 1 - 1 8 ; Tatian's Diatessaron, the most famous example of the form, was not a gnostic w o r k ; and even M t . and L k . could be considered, loosely, as centos compiled from M k . , Îś ) , and other sources. So the question of form and method of composition need not be confused by introducing the question of doctrinal affiliation. In favor of the cento theory is the high frequency of parallelism and particularly the frequency of the long parallels discussed above. Against it, however, are the following facts: (1) Some elements of the longer text are not paralleled from the canonical Gospels, w h i c h w o u l d be impossible were it a true cento of the canonical texts. (2) T h e great majority of the parallels are brief formulas, most of them used 142


THE SECRET GOSPEL

m a n y times in the canonical Gospels a n d more likely to have been put together freely b y an imitator than to have been picked out laboriously from here and there by the compiler of a cento. (3) T h e text cannot be m a d e u p by drawing elements from only two or three stories; to suppose it a cento, one must also suppose that the author derived his scraps from practically every chapter of M k . , to say nothing of the other G o s p e l s — n o t a likely procedure, especially in antiquity, w h e n most writers, even in citing explicitly, cited from memory. 4 (4) M a n y details in the text do not look as if they had been produced by the compiler of a cento; see, for examples, the notes on ηροσεκύνησε in I I . 2 4 ; νεανίσκος, I I I . 3 j κρατησas της χειρός, III.3—4, a n d και εξελθόντες εκ τοΰ μνημείου, Ι Ι Ι . 6 . (5) T h e text is too well constructed and economical to be a cento: there are no irrelevant details, every word comes naturally in its place, the narration moves without delays or jumps. Possibly some leisured litterateur might h a v e succeeded in piecing together such a text from the phrases available in the canonical Gospels, but the easier explanation is to suppose it a free composition. (6) T h e hypothesis that the text is a cento requires the supposition that someone w e n t to great pains to imitate the style of M k . as closely as possible, since making a cento is the most laborious, but the closest, kind of imitation. But the longer text is datable, b y external evidence, before 125 (see above, section I of this chapter) and at this date M k . ' s prestige was not high enough to motivate this sort of imitation. M a t t h e w a n d Luke, in their expansions of M k . , m a d e no attempt to imitate his style. J n . and the earlier a p o c r y p h a l gospels (Hebrews, Thomas, Egyptians, Peter) show no considerable effort to imitate synoptic style. [E.B. remarks that almost none of the early apocryphal Gospels are even attributed to canonical authors.] So to suppose the longer text a cento w o u l d be to suppose it a work unparalleled and unlikely in its time. (7) Finally, it is worth recalling the considerations w h i c h led D o d d (New Gospel 35fr), after he had proved that one fragment of P. Egerton 2 was a cento, to conclude that the rest was not (a conclusion he has now reasserted more strongly in Historical Tradition 328 n2). H e observed that the attempt to explain all variations of early Christian traditions as editorial rehandling of written sources h a d been discredited by form criticism, w h i c h h a d demonstrated the oral prehistory of the written material and the possibility that variations might have arisen in the oral period. H e found evidence of the realization of this possibility in the story of the centurion's servant in M t . a n d L k . a n d the nobleman's son in J n . — u n d o u b t e d l y the same story, yet in forms so different that literary dependence seemed to him unlikely. In the unparalleled elements of P. Egerton 2 he found evidence that the author was using sources other than the canonical Gospels; he therefore concluded that the divergent forms of canonical

4. C o m p a r e the remarks of J . Pouilloux in Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique, X, Archiloque, Vandoeuvres-Geneve, 1963, 172f, on the use of Homeric formulas b y Archilochus and the imitation of H o m e r by Apollonius Rhodius. Apollonius never draws on the whole of the Homeric poems at once, but imitates one passage at a time, whereas the poems of Archilochus are m a d e u p almost entirely of Homeric formulas and variations of Homeric formulas, but the formulas come from all parts of the poems and no one passage is imitated. Archilochus was composing freely in the Homeric tradition, as D. Page showed in the paper (Archilochus and the Oral Tradition, i i g f f ) which Pouilloux was discussing. T h e longer text is related to M k . as Archilochus to Homer, not as Apollonius.

143


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

stories w h i c h P. Egerton 2 contained were p r o b a b l y also derived from noncanonical sources. A n d he remarked in conclusion that " a s the n u m b e r of apocryphal Gospel documents increases, it becomes less and less plausible to suppose that they all originated in expansions of material derived from the canonical G o s p e l s " (p. 48). These arguments D o d d has now, in Historical Tradition, greatly developed and applied at length to the study of the Johannine problem. M u c h of his reasoning therein is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the present case. If, for the reasons just given, w e reject the cento theory, w e are left with the alternative previously proposed between free imitation and independent composition in style fixed by the M a r k a n t r a d i t i o n — t h a t tradition of which, by this hypothesis, different elements w o u l d appear in the stories of both the canonical and the longer texts. Perhaps, however, the alternative between " i m i t a t i o n " and " c o m p o s i t i o n in traditional s t y l e " is false. A s remarked above, at this early date " i m i t a t i o n " can hardly have been deliberate f a k i n g — M k . ' s prestige was not yet so high as to motivate a forger. " Imitation," therefore, w o u l d have been a conscious effort to perpetuate the style of the M a r k a n tradition to w h i c h the writer was evidently attached, to express in the traditional phraseology the material now being written down, a n d to attach it to already written stories by the established M a r k a n technique of repeating phrases as cross references. But this w o u l d be practically the same thing as " c o m p o s i t i o n in traditional style." A similar problem is posed by the remains of early Greek oral poetry which, like the synoptics, was largely written in fixed formulas. T h e relations of poetic compositions of this sort and the history of their gradual reduction to writing have been elucidated by Parry (Studies), L o r d (Singer), and Notopoulos (Homer·, Hymns). Parry's formulaic analysis of the beginning of the Iliad is given at the end of A p p e n d i x G ; its similarity to the preceding analyses of Gospel material is obvious. Notopoulos, Hymns 343-347, is particularly interesting for the question of transition from free developm e n t to exact memorization and written preservation. 5.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE STYLISTIC

EVIDENCE

W i t h the phenomena of oral literature in m i n d , w e c a n see the literary problem before us as that of placing the longer text in relation to the other remains of a tradition w h i c h was only gradually being fixed in writing. For this purpose, let us review the evidence presented by the preceding stylistic study: (1) T h e longer text contains nothing w h i c h M a r k could not have w r i t t e n — n o t h i n g incompatible with the canonical Gospel or without analogy t h e r e — e x c e p t for the final clause of the second quotation, a clause w h i c h seems a later addition. (2) Its v o c a b u l a r y is largely n e u t r a l — m a d e u p of words used b y all the evangelists—but insofar as it inclines toward the v o c a b u l a r y of any of the Gospels it is M a r k a n (29 words in a list of 82). (3) Its phraseology is predominantly M a r k a n (18 items out of a list of 33, in w h i c h 9 of the remaining 15 are neutral). (4) Its grammatical peculiarities, in relation to Gospel usage, are few and mostly M a r k a n . (5) It is connected with the canonical text of M k . b y 6 m a j o r parallels, of w h i c h 4 are peculiar to M k . O n the contrary, of the m a j o r parallels w h i c h m i g h t seem to connect it with other Gospels, none affords convincing evidence. (6) 144


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

It has far more parallels to M k . than to any other Gospel. (7) I t contains nothing w h i c h necessitates a supposition that the author knew a n y canonical Gospel other than M k . O n the other h a n d : (8) It uses only 3 n o n - M a r k a n words, whereas an equally long section of canonical M k . might be expected to use 10 (though the section actually tested used only 4). (9) It contains more M a r k a n clauses found in other sections of M k . than w o u l d an equally long section of canonical M k . (10) Besides these long clauses, it has m a n y more minor parallels to phrases of the canonical Gospels than w o u l d an equal section of canonical M k . , and these parallels are individually longer and are distributed more evenly throughout the text than they w o u l d be in a section of canonical M k . (11) In these last three characteristics (8, 9, a n d 10) it resembles M t . , and particularly M t . 9.27-34. (12) But there are a few small pieces of evidence (commentary on προσεκΰνησΐν, II.24, on και προσέλθω ν άπςκύλ iae, I I I . ι a n d on και ήσαν eVet, I I I . 15) w h i c h s u g g e s t — b u t do not suffice to p r o v e — t h a t it was k n o w n to M t . O f the points above, 8 - 1 1 all are aspects of one essential fact, the plethora of parallelism. T h i s has been said to a d m i t of two explanations—either that the piece was early a n d widely imitated, or that it was late and highly imitative. Point 11, the similarity to M t . , is prima facie evidence for a late date; point 12, the evidence suggesting it was known to M t . , for an early one. Both possibilities remain open, though the later date has the strong support of the tradition reported by C l e m e n t — that the longer text was an e x p a n s i o n — a n d the analogy to the other synoptics. T h e longer text w o u l d then be a n expansion of M k . by addition of further material from the M a r k a n tradition, as M t . and L k . were expansions of M k . by addition of further material from the Q_ tradition and other traditions accessible to their respective editors. As for the date of the longer text: there seems to be no stylistic evidence indicating a n y date later than that of M t . A date somewhere between canonical M k . and M t . is suggested not only by the evidence for M t . ' s use of it, but also by the consideration that an expansion of M k . with material from the M a r k a n tradition might be expected to have preceded expansions with alien material. But this consideration has little more than rhetorical plausibility to recommend it. A m u c h stronger reason for an early date is the absence of any clear evidence of knowledge of any Gospel save M k . M t . and L k . seem to h a v e eclipsed M k . early (to j u d g e from the indices locorum of the apostolic fathers and the apologists), so it is unlikely that an author writing long after their composition should have d r a w n chiefly on M k . , and it is almost incredible that, had he k n o w n M t . and L k . , he should not have left in his phraseology m a n y unmistakable traces of his knowledge. But the only strong argument for supposing knowledge of L k . (apart from the terminal interpolation) is ήν γαρ πλούσιος, and its isolation makes it easier to explain as a corruption of the text than as an original element. (If original, w h y isolated ?) T h e r e is no strong argument for supposing knowledge of M t . Nor is there any valid stylistic evidence to indicate knowledge of J n . (and it will be shown below that the similarities of content do not indicate such knowledge). Finally, to this stylistic study of the longer text must be a d d e d the statement that the above conclusions are b y no means conclusive. T h e quoted fragments are so

145


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

short t h a t it w o u l d be f o o l h a r d y to take t h e m as fairly representative of the lost m a t e rial, or to b u i l d on the stylistic d a t a w h i c h they a f f o r d a n y considerable theory. M e t z g e r , Reconsideration, a n d C a d b u r y , Dilemma,

h a v e a r g u e d t h a t the

evidence

a f f o r d e d b y the P a u l i n e corpus is i n a d e q u a t e to settle the p r o b l e m of the a u t h e n t i c i t y of Ephesians. A f o r t i o r i . . . . P e r h a p s even m o r e in p o i n t is the case o f the pericope adulterae, o f w h i c h C a d b u r y ' s discussion (Case) leads to results so pertinent for the present investigation that I s u m m a r i z e the article h e r e : L k . " h a s the most distinctive v o c a b u l a r y of a n y N e w T e s t a m e n t writer, a n d a style so i n d i v i d u a l as to b e recogn i z a b l e in n e a r l y e v e r y v e r s e . " A n d in thζ pericope adulterae " t h e r e a r e a few u n q u e s tioned words that a r e really characteristic of L u k e , " as απο τοΰ νΰν, άρχομαι επιμένω,

εΐπίν

από,

Se, ώς ( = w h e n ) . A n d besides these there are a n u m b e r of L u c a n

expressions attested b y some, b u t not all, M S S , a n d of expressions t h o u g h t to b e L u c a n , b u t perhaps limited to L u k e - A c t s b y m e r e a c c i d e n t . E r g o , " i t c a n safely be a f f i r m e d that the passage in its oldest f o r m c o n t a i n e d as m u c h distinctively L u c a n l a n g u a g e as the a v e r a g e passage of e q u a l b r e v i t y a n d simplicity in L u k e ' s a c k n o w l e d g e d w o r k s . " H o w e v e r , the best M S S o m i t the passage altogether, a n d w h e n it is f o u n d it is almost a l w a y s located in J n . 8 or at the e n d of J n . T h e F e r r a r g r o u p a l o n e places it after L k . 21.38. T h e r e f o r e : " E i t h e r (1) the pericope adulterae is a n o r i g i n a l p a r t of L u k e ' s G o s p e l a n d was o m i t t e d w i t h o u t l e a v i n g a n y a p p r e c i a b l e trace in the M S tradition of that G o s p e l , or (2) it is w r i t t e n b y a n o t h e r t h a n the third evangelist in a style that c o m p l e t e l y m a t c h e s his o w n . . . I f the first solution is the correct one, then w e must believe that in spite of their a g e , m u l t i p l i c i t y a n d a g r e e m e n t , our authorities for the N e w T e s t a m e n t text do not p r e c l u d e such r a d i c a l d i v e r g e n c e f r o m the a u t o g r a p h s as the c o m p l e t e omission of a considerable section f r o m one of the f o u r G o s p e l s . . . H e r e , . . . w e should h a v e a

flagrant

case of p r i m i t i v e t a m p e r i n g ,

for the omission c o u l d o n l y be intentional . . . If, on the other h a n d , the passage is not f r o m the p e n of the auctor ad Theophilum, then some one . . . w r o t e a style t h a t is indistinguishable f r o m the most distinctive of N e w T e s t a m e n t styles. I n this case style proves to be a most unreliable criterion, a n d all critical a r g u m e n t s d r a w n f r o m identity of s t y l e — s u c h as the c o m m o n a u t h o r s h i p o f J o h n a n d I J o h n , o f L u k e a n d A c t s , of the P a u l i n e letters, a n d e v e n of the separate parts of a single w o r k — l o s e some of their w e i g h t . " S i n c e stylistic a r g u m e n t s a r e thus inconclusive, w e t u r n to questions of content.

III.

STRUCTURAL

RELATIONS TO SECTIONS OF

CANONICAL

A.

THE

GOSPELS

Other miracle stories of the same type

I n discussing the v e r b a l parallels to the longer text w e h a v e a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d its similarity in c o n t e n t to the stories of the G e r a s e n e d e m o n i a c a n d of Peter's wife's m o t h e r . Parker, in his p r e l i m i n a r y report, called p a r t i c u l a r attention to the f o r m e r a n d p o i n t e d o u t a series of details in w h i c h it resembled the story in the longer text. 146


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

T o estimate the significance of these similarities, we must consider the extent to which the stories in the canonical Gospels are also similar to each other. Fortunately, not all of the stories need be considered, since the resurrection reported in the longer text belongs to a readily recognizable class—that of miracles performed in response to intercession. O n e of the historical traits of the Gospels is their account of the revelation of divine power in Jesus as spatially limited; later legend m a y represent it as bursting on distant strangers (the shepherds, the magi) or producing a general resurrection of the deserving dead (Mt. 2 7 . 5 2 ) ; but in the stories which approach historicity, miracles happen when the patients are somehow brought to Jesus' attention or touch his person. Therefore either the patient must bring himself to Jesus' person or attention, or an intercessor must act on his behalf. Accordingly, most of the miracle stories fall into these two classes (the chief exceptions being miracles in which Jesus himself is the patient—the baptism, transfiguration, resurrection, etc.). T h e class of miracles in response to intercession comprises the following stories and their parallels: M k . 1.30fr (Peter's wife's mother); 4-35ff (stilling the storm); 5 . 2 2 f r (Jairus' daughter); 7 . 2 5 f r (the Syrophoenician's daughter); 9 . 1 4 f f (the demoniac b o y ) ; Lk. 7 . 2 f r (the centurion's slave); Jn. 2 . i f f (the miracle at C a n a ) ; 4 . 4 6 f r (the nobleman's son); 1 i . i f f (Lazarus). T h e intercession m a y be more or less explicit: Jn. 2 . i f f is a borderline case; also marginal are Lk. 7 . i 8 f T ; M k . 6 . 3 5 f r — c o n t r a s t 8 . i f f and Jn. 6 . 5 f r — a n d M k . 9 . i f f . A l l these stories necessarily follow a single basic pattern: situation, intercession, response, miracle. T h e pattern is found elsewhere, t o o — w i t h M k . 7.25fr and 9.14fr cf. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii III.38. It is obviously useful for resurrections of the dead, though not necessary—one corpse came to meet Jesus (Lk. 7 . 1 1 f r ) as another met Apollonius (IV.45). Accordingly, among the nine stories listed above there are two resurrections (Jairus' daughter, Lazarus) and two hairbreadth escapes (the centurion's slave, the nobleman's son). Most of these stories begin with the intercessor's coming to Jesus, and in three of them the intercessor is a woman (the Syrophoenician, the miracle at Cana, Lazarus). Often, moreover, the similarities go far beyond these basic structural elements. For instance, consider the parallels between the M a r k a n story of Jairus' daughter and the Johannine story of Lazarus: T h e patient is not dead, at first, but only sick. The intercessors arrive and beseech Jesus. Jesus' coming is delayed; the patient meanwhile dies. Jesus declares the dead asleep but is misunderstood. H e reassures the relatives and demands that they believe. The intercessor falls at his feet. H e sees the mourners weeping and is angry or puts them out. T h e mourners do not believe he will be able to raise the dead. He then goes to the body. He calls the dead by name or title and orders him or her to arise or come forth. In response to his command the dead arises and walks. Jesus gives directions for further treatment. 147


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

Of all these parallels between the Lazarus story and that of Jai'rus' daughter, only the ones underlined are also found clearly stated in the longer text of Mk. By way of contrast with these it is worthwhile to list the similarities of the resurrection story in the longer text of Mk. to the stories of the Gerasene demoniac and Jai'rus' daughter: Gerasene demoniac Jesus arrives is met man from the tomb προσκυνΐΐν with accusative

Janus' daughter intercessor falls at his feet beseeches him

tf>wvfj μίγάλτ)

trouble with disciples Jesus comes to house is angered (?) goes in to corpse

άπηλθεν

nudity (?), clothing return to house παρΐκάλΐΐ ίνα μετ'

αυτόν

κρατήσας

αύτον rj

μ€τ

της

αύτοΰ

χΐΐρός

raises the dead Neither of these lists of parallels is so full as the list of those between the raising of Jai'rus' daughter and the Lazarus story. Consequently there is no need to think that the story in the longer text has any closer relation to that of the Gerasene demoniac or of Jai'rus' daughter than the latter does to the Lazarus story. Since all these stories (and the others of the same type, listed above) so often parallel both the longer text and each other, it is both unnecessary and unlikely to suppose the longer text modeled on any one of them. They are all examples of a familiar type of ancient miracle story and their similarities of content and structure (and sometimes even of phrasing) are to be explained as consequences of their common type, not as traces of literary dependence.

B.

The Lazarus story

However, within this type, the resurrection story in the longer text is particularly close to that of Lazarus. Admittedly there are important differences between them, as Parker pointed out in his report: one sister instead of two, nameless characters, the cry from the tomb, Jesus' rolling away the stone and himself raising the youth. But similar differences are to be found, for instance, even between such synoptic parallels as the healing of blind Bartimaeus in Mk. 10.46 and the healings of two nameless blind men in Mt. 9.27fr and 20.29fr. And besides synoptic parallels, the Gospels are remarkable for the frequency with which the stories they contain seem to be different versions of the same story. First there are the unmistakable Johannine parallels to synoptic accounts—the cleansing of the temple, the feeding of the multitude, the walking on the waves, the anointing and the passion story. Whether these result from literary dependence or from common tradition is a matter of well-known 148


THE SECRET GOSPEL

and unending dispute, but literary dependence has come to seem the less likely explanation (Haenchen, Probleme, and now D o d d , Historical Tradition). Next, there are m a n y more remote, but unmistakable, parallels which can best be explained as divergent forms of the same tradition: the call of the first four disciples in Lk. and that in M k . - M t . ; the miraculous draft of fishes in Lk. and in J n . ; the rejection at Nazareth in Lk. and in M k . - M t . ; the centurion's slave in M t . - L k . and the nobleman's son in J n . ; the anointing in Lk. and in M k . - M t . ; Peter's confession i n j n . and the synoptics; the parables of the pounds and talents in M t . and L k . ; the feedings of the multitude in M k . (where two different versions are found in a single Gospel); the sendings of the twelve and the seventy (here the two different versions are both in L k . ) ; the gift of the power to bind and loose, in Jn. and M t . (here two versions in M t . ) ; the demand for a sign and the Beelzebub charge (also two versions in M t . ) ; the passion stories in Lk. and in M k . - M t . H o w far this variation m a y go, it is hard to say. Richardson, for instance, thinks the ten lepers of Lk. 1 7 . 1 1 f r a gentile development o f t h a t story of which an earlier version appears in M k . 1.40fr. T h e transfiguration has often been thought a version of some resurrection story (recently by Carlston, Transfiguration, but cf. Burkill, Revelation i6of and n i 7 ; D o d d , Appearances 25 and Close, passim·, Bultmann, Geschichte 65; etc.; an interesting classification of the material is found in Strömsholm,· Examination 255f). Even m o r e — a n d yet more remote—examples will be found in D o d d , Historical Tradition, especially in part I I , ch. 1, pp. 315-334. W e shall come back later to the question of more remote relations, when w e consider the parallels between the Lazarus story and the stories of Jesus' resurrection. Here it is enough to have established that this sort of relation is typical of Gospel material and is found within each of the synoptics, and between any two of the synoptics, and between each of the synoptics and Jn. Indeed, related stories are so numerous that a more cautious and convincing type of form criticism might have resulted from the study, not of types of stories, but of these cases, in which comparison might make it possible to determine rather precisely the developments. See, for example, how the following analysis of the Johannine Lazarus story, as indicated b y the longer text, differs from the analyses proposed by Bultmann, Johannes, ad loc., and by Wilkens, Erweckung. Comparison of the Lazarus story in Jn. with that in the longer text of M k . must begin with the observation already made b y Parker, that both occur at the same place in Jesus' career. Jesus has gone up from Galilee to Judea, and thence to Transjordan. Therefore it is worthwhile to begin with the parallel between Jn. 10.40 and canonical M k . 10.1 and go on from this to the Lazarus story: MARK

ΙΟ.I

και εκείθεν άναστάς ερχεται els τά δρια tt}s 'IovBalas και πέραν τον 'Ιορδανού, και σννπορενονται πάλιν όχλοι προς αυτόν, και (lis ειώθει πάλιν εδιδασκεν αύτοΰς.

40

JOHN ΙΟ.40-Ι Ι.54 Και άπήλθεν πάλιν πέραν τον Ίορδάνον els τον τόπον οπον ήν 'Ιωάννης το πρώτον βαπτίζων,

41 και εμενεν εκεί. και πολλοί ηλθον προς αντον και ελεγον δτι 'Ιωάννης μεν ση μείον εποίησεν ούδεν, πάντα δε οσα εΐπεν 'Ιωάννης περί τοντου 4θ. πρώτον] προτερον ρ45ΚΘ ΐι$ at it

149


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

42 αληθή ην. καϊ πολλοί

επίστευσαν

els αυτόν εκεί.

.2-12 dispute on divorce . 1 3 - 1 6 blessing children . 1 7 - 2 3 the rich young ruler .24-31 sayings on rewards II

"Ην δε τις ασθενών, εκ της κώμης

2 αυτής.

άπό

και Μάρθας

ην δέ Μαριαμ

ή άλείφασα

μύρω καϊ έκμάζασα 3 αυτής,

Λάζαρος

Μαρίας

Βηθανίας

της

άδελφήί

τον

Κύριοι

τους πόδας αύτοΰ ταΐς

ής ο άδελφός Λάζαρος

θριξιι

ησθένει.

απέστει-

λαν οΰν αί άδελφαι προς αυτόν λέγουσαι, 4 ί-'Se αν φιλεΐς εΐπεν, αλλ'

Αύτη

ασθενεί, ή ασθένεια

ύπερ τής

δόξης

άκουσας

Κύριε,

δε ό

Ίησοΰς

ούκ εστίν προς

τοΰ

Θεοΰ,

5 Υιός τοΰ Θεοΰ δι' αυτής, ήγάπα

θάνατοι

ίνα δοζασθή δε ό Ίησοΰς

Μάρθαν καϊ την άδελφήν αυτής και τον 6 ώς οΰν ήκουσεν • 32 ήσαν δί εν τή όδώ άναβαίνοντες λυμα, και

•33

και

ην προάγων

εθαμβοΰντο,

και παραλαβών

ήρζατο

αύτοΐς

σόλυμα,

λέγειν

δτι Ιδού

και

ό

Ίησοΰς,

τους

άναβαίνομεν

αύτω

μαστιγώσουσιν

αυτόν

αυτόν τοις

αύτώ

σε λιθάσαι

καϊ

εμκαι

Ούχι

μετά τοΰτο

εις την Ίουδαίαν Ραββει,

πάλιν.

νΰν

έζήτουι

καϊ πάλιν υπάγεις δώδεκα

ημέρας;

εάν Tis περιπατή

κόπτει,

οτι τό φως τοΰ κόσμου

εκεί,

ώραί είσιν

εν τή ημέρα,

ει

λέγει

τήί

ού προσ-

τούτου

βλέπει'

εν τή νυκτί, προσκόπτει,

οτι

ό φό

αυτόν 11

και

οί 'Ιουδαίοι, Ίησοΰς,

Λάζαρον.

τότε μεν έμεινεν

έπειτα

οί μαθηταί,

ΙΟ εάν δέ τις περιπατή

«αϊ

αύτω

"Αγωμεν

αύτω

9 άπεκρίθη

παραδο-

θανάτω

δυο ημέρας·

τοις μαθηταΐς, 8 λέγουσιν

'Ιερο-

γραμματεΰ-

έθνεσιν

και έμπτύσουσιν

7 ω ην τόπω

δώδεκα

els

και τοις

κατακρινοΰσιν

έφο-

μέλλοντα

καϊ ο υίός του ανθρώπου

παραδώσουσιν •34 παίξουσιν

πάλιν τα

θησεται τοις άρχιερεΰσιν σιν,

'Ιεροσό-

οί δε άκολουθοΰντες

βοΰντο.

σνμβαίνειν,

αυτούς

εις

ότι άσθενεΐ,

ο τηι

και μετά τρεις ημέρας

ταύτα

ειπεν,

και

μετα

τοΰτο λέγει αύτοΐς,

αποκτενοΰσιν,

μηται·

άναστησεται

άλλα

Λάζαρος

πορεύομαι

12 είπαν οΰν οί μαθηταί 1 3 σωθήσεται. του αύτοΰ·

είρήκει

δέ ο Ίησοΰς

χαίρω

δι'

ύμάς,

τότε

Λάζαρος

Δίδυμος

αύτόν

κεκοίμηται

περί τοΰ

οΰν εΐπεν άπέθανεν,

ίνα πιστεύσητε,

ι 6 εκεί· άλλα αγωμεν ό λεγόμενος

εΐ

εκείνοι δε εδοζαν οτι περί τής

παρρησία,

κεκοί

εξυπνίσω

αύτω, Κύριε,

14 σεως τοΰ ύπνου λέγει, 15 Ίησοΰς

6 φίλος ημών ίνα

θανά κοιμή

αύτοΐς /

και

ότι ούκ ή μην

προς αύτόν. εΐπεν οΰν τοις συνμαθηταΐς,

Θωμάς "Αγωμεν

11. 2 Se] 42 €KCL] om ρ 4 5 ιι8 pc lat sy ac 2 bo p c add αντη X e: add αυτή η ρ 4 5 6 ev ω ην] επι τω p 4B D 7 «reiTα] etxap 45VId,66 D 435 I μαθ.] om p 4 5 y i d · 6 6 · e t 11 κεκοιμ-ηται] κοιμαται D lat, item vs. 12 D latt I50


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

IJ

T H E LONGER T E X T II.23

κ α ι

εις Βηθανίαν

καϊ

ημείς

ίνα

άποθάνωμεν

θών oSv ο Ίησοΰς

έρχονται.

ΐ 8 ημέρας

καϊ rjv εκεί

έχοντα

αυτόν

μία γυνή ής ό αδελφός

προς αύτής

την Μάρθαν αύτάς

ώς ήκουσεν 21 Μαριάμ Μάρθα .24

άπεθανεν

Ίησοΰν,

λέγει

άπήλθεν

και

3 0 ταχύ

αύτω,

ερχόμενος,

έφώνησεν

λάθρα

29 και φωνεΐ 6 Ίησοΰς

προς

ανέστη

αυτήν,

και έζήλθεν.

32 δτι υπάγει καΐ

προσεκύνησε .25 αύτω·

Μαριαμ

έλθοΰσα τον Ίησοΰν

υιέ Δαβίδ

επετίμησαν .26 όργισθεις

αύτη. ο

έλέησόν καΐ

καΐ λέγει με. ol δε

μαθηται 33

'Ιησούς

ίδόντες

εγώ

ό Υίός τοΰ

Θςοΰ

πάρεστιν εγείρεται δέ

καϊ

εληλύθει

ήκολούθησαν

είς τό μνημεΐον

δτι

ταχέως

αύτη,

δόξαντες

Ινα κλαύση εκεί. ή οΰν

τους

πόδας,

ίδοΰσα

Κύριε,

ει ής ώδε, ούκ αν μου άπέθανεν 'Ιουδαίους

αύτόν

λέγουσα ο

αύτω, αδελφός.

οΰν ώς εΐδεν αυτήν κλαίουσαν αύτη

τόποι Ιουδαίοι

παραμυθού-

την Μαριαμ

αύτοΰ

Ίησοΰς

άδελφήν

οί ού ν

επεσεν

συνελθόντας

είποΰσα

την

ώς ήλθεν δπου ην Ίησοΰς, προς

αίωνα·

αλλ' ήν έτι εν τω

αύτω ή Μάρθα,

καϊ

κλαίοντας,

τους ένεβρι-

17 Ιησούγ] add εις Βηθανίαν D {13 33 Pm bo p c p 66

και

Κύριε·

οΰπω

οι δντες μετ' αύτής εν τή οικία μενοι

είς τον

καϊ τοΰτο

αυτόν

είς

ο ζων

δέ ώς ηκουσεν,

είς την κώμην,

31 όπου ύπήντησεν

άνα-

Ίησοΰς,

Ό Διδάσκαλος

εκείνη

και ήρχετο

λέγει

εν τη

Ναι,

Μαριαμ

είποΰσα,

σε.

αύτη

σου.

και πας

δτι σύ ει ό Χριστός

2 8 ό είς τον κόσμον

αν

και ή ζωή· ο πιστεύων

ζήσεται,

τοΰτο;

ουκ

εΐπεν αύτη ο

είς ε με ού μη άποθάνη

πεπίστευκα

αύτής

ό αδελφός

ημέρα,

είμι ή άνάστασις καν αποθανη

πιστεύων

οΰν η

el ής ώδε,

Οΐδα δτι άναστήσεται

εν τη εσχάτη

27 πιστεύεις

αύτω·

εΐπεν

σοι 6 Θεός. λέγει

Άναστήσεται

αύτω η Μάρθα,

Μάρθα

ύπήντησεν

μου. και νΰν οΐδα δτι όσα αν

τον Θεόν δώσει

25 στάσει

παραμυθη-

ή οΰν

έκαθέζετο.

Κύριε,

ό αδελφός

24 ό Ίησοΰς,

Έγώ

έρχεται,

δεκα-

εληλύθεισαν

ίνα

τοΰ άδελφοΰ.

δτι Ίησοΰς

προς

23 αίτηση

26 έμε

και Μαριαμ,

περί

Βηθανία

ώς από σταδίων

δέ εν τω οίκω

22 άπέθανεν

Έλήδη

δέ εκ των 'Ιουδαίων

πολλοί

20 σωνται

αύτοΰ. τέσσαρα?

ην δέ

εν τω μνημεία>.

εγγύς των 'Ιεροσολύμων 19 πέντε,

μετ'

εΰρεν

19 την

K B W al; R ] ras περί p 4 5 A © f/ f 1 3 p m s: omD

(lat)

21 Κύριε] om Β sy3 25 και η ζωη] om ρ 4 5 α Γ sy 3 Cypr O r " ' (, f ] , λαθρα)] σιωπή D lat sy 8

2 8 λαθρα

29 εγείρεται ρ 4 5 · 6 6 Α ©

f/ f 1 3 pm Vg cl ' w s] ηγερθη N B D W al it vg s Co; R | ηρχετο N B W pc it c o ; R ] ερχεται 33 ενεβριμ . . . εαυτόν] εμβριμουμενο;

151

(13.

p 4 5 ' 6 6 A D ® ii f 1 3 pi lat s 2l)

εταραχθη

p 4 s > e 6 c D ( © ) ϊι dp sa a c a c 2

τω πν.

ως


THE SECRET GOSPEL

34 μησατο 35 εϊπεν,

τω πνεύματι Ποΰ

καϊ ετάραζεν

τεθείκατε

αυτόν;

εαυτόν,

λεγουσιν

και

αύτω,

36 Κύριε, ερχου και ι δε. εδάκρυσεν ό Ίησοΰς.

ελε-

37 yov οΰν οί 'Ιουδαίοι, "/δε πως εφίλει αύτόν. τινεί )> ι λ t Λ' ' τ < » If οε ες αυτών είπαν, Ουκ εουνατο ούτος ο ανοιςας άπήλθεν μετ τό III. I

τούς

αύτης els τον κήπον δπου rjv

οφθαλμούς

τοΰ τυφλοΰ

38 ούτος μη άποθάνη ; Ίησοΰς

μνημεΐον

και evdvs ήκούσθη

εκ τοΰ μνημείου

39 σπήλαιον, Ίησοΰς,

και λίθος επεκειτο

40 τεταρταΐος άπεκΰλισε

τον λίθον

καϊ εισελθών

από της

•3

νεανίσκος

εξετεινεν

•4

αυτόν

•5

παρακαλεΐν

την χείρα

καϊ

εξελθόντες

αυτόν

αυτόν καϊ

Ινα μετ

εκ τοΰ μνημείου

οΐκίαν τοΰ νεανίσκου· ην γαρ

αύτοΰ

ήγειρεν

και

ήλθον είς την πλούσιος.

Μάρθα,

Κύριε,

όζει· Ούκ

εΐττόν σοι ότι εάν πιστεύσης δφη τήν δόξαν τοΰ 41 Θεοΰ; I ήραν οΰν τον λίθον. ο δέ Ίησοΰς

μου άκούεις· άλλα δια τον όχλον τον εΐπον, 43

και

ίνα πιστεύσωσιν

ταΰτα

44 Λάζαρε,

ειπών

φωνή

ήρεν

εύχαριστώ

42 σοι οτι ήκουσάς μου. εγώ δέ ήδειν ότι

ήρζατο η.

ήδη

γάρ εστίν, λεγει αύτη ό Ίησοΰς,

τούς οφθαλμούς άνω και εΐπεν, Πάτερ,

κρατήσas της χειρός- ό δε νεανίσκο?

εμβλεφας αύτω ήγάπησεν .6

θι/pas τοΰ

ευθύς δπου ην 6

ήν δε

επ' αύτω. λέγει ό

"Αρατε τον λίθον. λεγει αύτω ή αδελφή

τοΰ τετελευτηκότος

μνημείου·

ίνα και εμβριμώ-

μενος εν έαυτω ερχεται εις τό μνημεϊον·

φωνή

μεγάλη· και προσελθών ό Ίησοΰς

.2

ποιήσαι

οΰν πάλιν

πάντοτε

περιεστωτα

ότι συ με

άπέστειλας.

μεγάλη

εκραύγασεν,

δεΰρο εζω. έζήλθεν

ό τεθνηκώς

δεδε-

μένος τούς πόδας και τάς χείρας κειριαις, και η όφις αύτοΰ σουδαρίω περιεδέδετο. λεγει αύτοΐς ό Ίησοΰς, Λύσατε αύτόν και άφετε αύτόν

. J - 1 0 the nocturnal initiation

54 Ό οΰν Ίησοΰς τοις

.10 εκείθεν δε άναστας . I1 επεστρεφεν εις τό πέραν τοΰ

ύπάγειν.

4 5 - 5 3 the Jews' reactions and plot.

Ίουδαίοις,

ούκετι παρρησία αλλά άπήλθεν

περιεπάτει εκείθεν

χώραν εγγύς rfjs ερήμου, els Έφράϊμ

'Ιορδανού.

είς

εν τήν

λεγομένην

πόλιν, κάκεΐ εμεινεν μετά των μαθητών. 39 V αδ· τ. TCTeA.] trsp post Μαρθα D vg sji"-b sa bo: om © it sys ac 2 41 λιθον p 66 XBDW al lat; R] add οΰ ην A f j al f: add ov ην ο τεθνηκως κειμενος f13 pul s: add οπου (Κίίτο $6 44 περιεδε&ετο] εδεδετο ρ 45 54 εκείθεν] om P 45 D 57g pc lat sy3 ac2 | χωράν] add Σαμφονρειν D | εμεινεν XBWpc; R] διετρφεν ρ45·ββΑΌ® f13 pm latt co s Comparison of these two texts shows that the story in the longer text of M k . is of more primitive form than that in Jn. T h e majority of the contentual differences between the two are the results of Johannine 5 additions, to wit: Jn.

1 1 . 1 - 2 : T h e preface, naming the hero, relating him to M a r y and M a r t h a of the

same village, and identifying M a r y as the woman who performed the anointing in the same village. T h e basis of this was probably the common name of the v i l l a g e — Bethany. T h e naming of unknown characters and the attempt to relate the characters 5. "Johannine" here means " i n style and/or content typical of the present Gospel according to John."

"52


THE SECRET GOSPEL

of stories located in the same place are well-known secondary traits (Bultmann, Geschichte 70fr, and note in Ergänzungsheft to p. 72; also 256^ 338, and Johannes 301 n4 end, 302 n i ; etc.; Barrett, 324 on verse 1 e n d ; Bauer, Leben 5 i 6 f ) . T h a t the n a m i n g of Lazarus is secondary even in the Johannine story is persuasively argued b y Eckhardt, Tod 22ff. T h e doubling of the sister is paralleled by the doubling of the blind m e n in the M a t t h a e a n retellings of M k . ' s Bartimaeus story, Lk.'s doubling of the angel in the resurrection, etc. (more examples in Bultmann, Geschichte 345; see further below, on 1 1 . 2 8 - 3 1 ) . 1 1 . 3 : T h e sisters send word to Jesus. T h i s m a y be from the story w h i c h was k n o w n to J o h n , but is probably an attempt to provide motivation for Jesus' return to Jerusalem. J o h n was in the habit of inventing historical explanations: 4.1,45; 5 . 1 6 , 1 8 ; 6.2,i4f, 22ff; 7.1,5,30; 8.20; u . 4 5 f , 53f, etc. 1 1 . 4 - 1 5 : T h e Johannine explanation of Lazarus' sickness a n d of w h y Jesus let h i m d i e — t o m a k e possible the miracle, to reveal the glory of G o d , and to confirm the disciples' faith (cf. 9.3).® John's use of the passion prophecy will be discussed later. Here the thing to be noted is that his substitute for it, 11 .gf (as against M k . io.33f) is typically Johannine ( = 9.4f) and obviously intrusive (Bultmann, Johannes 304 η ι ; D o d d , Historical Tradition 373fr). T h e misunderstanding of a metaphor as an excuse for Jesus' explanation (verses 1 1 - 1 5 ) is a standard Johannine device for introducing secondary material (3.4; 4 . 1 1 , 3 3 ; 6.34,52; 8.22,33,39; etc.; Barrett, 1 7 3 - 1 7 4 . Bultmann's distinction of different types of misunderstanding—Johannes 304 n 6 — i s unimportant; this author was not so choosy.) Here Jesus' explanation is intended to prevent a n y discrediting of the miracle, w h i c h might result if κεκοίμηται were taken literally a n d Lazarus supposed to have been merely cataleptic. C o m p a r e the addition of el Sores ότι aneOavev in L k . 8.53 to prevent literal misunderstanding of the similar saying in 8.52 ( = M k . 5.39), and see below, on 1 1 . 1 7 . 1 1 . 1 6 : T h e report of T h o m a s ' devotion is a n edifying addition (Barrett, 327 on verse 16; Bultmann, Johannes 305 n4). 1 1 . 1 7 : T h e specification that the body had been four days in the t o m b is a d d e d to magnify the miracle a n d to refute a n y claim that Lazarus was merely asleep (see below, on 11.39b and 44; also Barrett, 335 on verse 39; Bultmann, Johannes 305 n 6 — cf. n9). J o h n likewise insisted that the blind m a n w h o m Jesus cured was born blind and that such a cure was therefore unheard of (9.if, 20,32, contrast M k . 8.22f).John also m a d e the centurion's slave into the son of a royal official (4.46, cf. M t . 8.5; L k . 7.2), m a d e Jesus identify himself after the resurrection b y showing his wounds (20.27), etc. These stories h a v e g r o w n with time. 1 1 . 1 8 : T h e precise specification of the distance from Jerusalem to Bethany is another pseudohistorical explanation (it explains w h y the Jews c a m e — t h e y were so n e a r b y ; so Barrett, and Bultmann, Johannes, ad loc.). T h u s it is probably late, rather than early, material, especially since it happens to be incorrect (Dalman, Orte 266). 1 1 . 1 9 : T h e " c h o r u s " of Jewish mourners (so D o d d , Fourth Gospel 363) is introduced to provide additional witnesses to the miracle (Bultmann, Johannes 306) as "well as 6. Against Barrett, 325 on verse 6, see Lightfoot, Jn. 219 n i , to say nothing of the text, aaBevct, verse 3.

153


T H E S E C R E T GOSPEL

the standard Johannine foil to Jesus. T h e mixed reactions of the Jews—skepticism, conversion, and talebearing (verses 37 and 4 5 ) — a r e also standard in J n . (chs. 5 - 1 0 passim). 1 1 . 2 0 - 2 7 : T h e homiletic conversation w i t h M a r t h a leading to the formal confession of faith is completely Johannine, though the confession is presumably that current in J o h n ' s church (Bultmann, Johannes 308 n8; 309 n2). 1 1 . 2 8 - 3 1 : M o r e " h i s t o r i c a l " explanation, to get the second sister a n d the chorus into the act (Bultmann, Johannes 309 n2; 311 n3). W i t h M a r y ' s arrival (verse 32) J o h n returned to the story as it lay before him, that is, to the saying xvpie, el tfs ώδε κ.τ.λ. from w h i c h he had departed (verse 21) to introduce the intervening sermonette. (Cf. the similar case below, verse 34-37, and the note on 11.38. M a r k does the same thing, 2.5b and 10b, evidently it was customary.) T h e parallelism with the longer text, w h i c h broke off at verse 21, now resumes. T h i s indicates that the doubling of the sisters was J o h n ' s work and was not in his source. H e probably did it to m a k e room for both M a r y and M a r t h a , w h o m he knew as a pair located in Bethany. T h e appeal wpie, el ης ώδε does not necessarily imply that messengers h a d been sent; it m a y be a typical expression of faith, later " e x p l a i n e d " by the story of the sending (II-3)· I I . 3 3 : ένεβριμήσατο τω πνεύματι καΐ Ιτάραζΐν εαυτόν. T h e difficulty of explaining this behavior as a consequence of the weeping of M a r y and the Jews is indicated b y Barrett's contortions {ad loc.). But και opyiaOels in the longer text is easily explicable as a consequence either of the w o m a n ' s use of the messianic title or the disciples' rebuke of her. T h e disappearance of the appeal to the son of D a v i d (a title J n . never uses) entailed the disappearance of the rebuke a n d left the anger unexplained. J o h n (or his source) therefore substituted the v a g u e and portentous και eveßpiprjaaTo κ.τ.λ., w h i c h seemed suitable as an introduction to the miracle because of the words' magical overtones (Bonner, Technique 177fr; L i e b e r m a n , Tosefta Part V , p. i 3 6 3 ) . J n . regularly differs from the synoptics b y its use of more pretentious language, w i t h suggestions of something miraculous, mystical, or royal, e.g.: M t . 8.5 || J n . 4.46; M k . 6.45fr || J n . 6 . i 4 f ; M k . 6.53 || J n . 6 . 2 1 ; M k . 8.29 |] J n . 6.69; M t . 18.3 || J n . 3.3; M k . 11.8 || J n . 1 2 . 1 3 ; M k . 14.43fr II J n . 18.3fr; M k . 15.37 || J n . 19.29^ 11-3Öf: ίδε πως Ιφίλΐΐ αυτόν is perhaps intended to show how the Jews twisted Jesus' innocent sorrow into evidence for a charge of homosexuality. οΰκ 48ύνατο ούτος 6 άνοίζας τους οφθαλμούς τοΰ τυφλοΰ ποιησαι Ινα και οντος μ·η άποθάντ); continues the theme by a p p l y i n g to Jesus a commonplace of Judeo-Christian polemic against p a g a n divinities and thus attempting to discredit his miracles; cf. Chrysostom, In Joannem homiliae, ad. loc.·, Aristides, Apologia 1 1 . 3 : Si igitur Aphrodite dea est et amatorem suum in morte eius adiuvare non poterat, qui alios adiuvare potest? Et ut audiatur naturam divinam in lacrimas (cf. J n . 1 1 . 3 6 ) . . . venire fieri non potest. (Again 11.5, on R h e a , and 6, on K o r e . ) T h e theme long continued p o p u l a r ; Wetstein on J n . 11.37 quotes Ausonius on Zeus and Sarpedon. T h a t it was applied to Jesus appears also from its use in the crucifixion scene, M k . 15.31 || M t . 27.42, άλλους εσωσεν, 4αυτον ού δύναται σωσαι, a n d in Midrash Tannaim on Dt. 3.23: " B e f o r e a m a n put his trust in flesh a n d blood (i.e., in another m a n ) a n d ask h i m to save him, let him ( t h e proposed saviour) save

154


T H E S E C R E T GOSPEL

himself from death first." T h e italicized words appear exactly in the L u c a n parallel to M k . 15.31 (Lk. 23.35). J o h n ' s purpose in reporting the taunt here is the same as M a r k ' s in the crucifixion s c e n e — d r a m a t i c irony to emphasize (1) the coming resurrection, (2) the contrast between Jesus a n d the p a g a n divinities, a n d (3) the error of the Jews. 11.38: J o h n again returns to his source b y repeating the w o r d at w h i c h he left i t : ένεβριμήσατο verse 33, πάλιν εμβριμώμενος verse 38 (cf. above, on 1 1 . 2 8 - 3 1 ) . A g a i n the parallelism to the longer text of M k . stops with the first occurrence of the repeated w o r d and resumes with the second. T h i s all but demonstrates that the material between the two occurrences was added b y J o h n a n d was u n k n o w n to the author of the longer text of M k . (Cf. J n . 18.18 a n d 25, where the repeated words evidently came from a text like M k . 14.54. T h e evidence of the longer text thus supports Bultmann's supposition of an interpolation between J n . 18.18 and 25—Johannes, ad loc.—against D o d d , Historical Tradition 82 n i . ) n . 3 g b - 4 o : Another Johannine addition to m a g n i f y the miracle and explain its purpose; see above, on 1 1 . 4 - 1 5 a n d 17, and Bultmann, Johannes 311 nn4,6. n . 4 i b - 4 2 : T h i s stage whisper to G o d — a d d r e s s e d as " F a t h e r " — ( B a r r e t t , ad loc.) is clearly a n interruption in, the story a n d completely J o h a n n i n e ; cf. 5.36; 6 . 5 7 ; 7.29; 9 . 3 1 ; 12.28; 1 7 . ι ; etc; and Bultmann, Johannes 311 n6. B u l t m a n n thought it obvious ("selbstverständlich," ibid. 312) that the words of the prayer were not to be heard by the crowd, but Chrysostom was almost certainly right in treating them as public instruction {De Christi precibus contra anomoeos I X end). 11.44: T h e grave clothes are another means of emphasizing that Lazarus h a d really been d e a d ; see above, on 1 1 . 4 - 1 5 , 17, and 38. It is not likely that J o h n thought Lazarus' moving, though bound, an additional miracle; the evangelist w o u l d not h a v e been averse to throwing in a miracle, but did not visualize his scenes with sufficient clarity to realize the difficulty. (Contra, Bultmann, Johannes 312.) 1 1 . 4 5 - 4 6 : T h e Jews' reactions—unmistakably secondary in relation to the structure of the story, and typical o f j o h n , cf. 2.23; 7 - 3 i f f ; i 2 . i o f , 42, etc.; Barrett, 337. 11,47~54a: A n independent tradition, developed b y independent invention. Its use in relation to the larger structure of the Gospel is obvious (Barrett, 337); it is inserted at this point to provide John's regular explanation for a w i t h d r a w a l by Jesus, since a w i t h d r a w a l was reported by his source ( 1 1 . 5 4 b || the longer text) and had to be " e x p l a i n e d . " Cf. J n . 7 . 1 ; 8.59; 10.39; e t c T h i s completes the list of material in J n . w h i c h is unparalleled in the longer text of M k . E v e r y bit of it is obviously secondary and obviously Johannine. W i t h the above analysis that of D o d d , Historical Tradition 228fr, can now be compared. W i t h o u t knowing the longer text, D o d d concluded that the Johannine account was a reworking of an earlier story of synoptic type, w h i c h , however, he thought it impossible to dissect. H e r e m a r k e d — 2 2 8 n 2 — " a s Johannine traits . . . the identification of individual characters, the measurement of time a n d space (two days, four days, fifteen stades), the use of the term ol Ιουδαίοι. Locutions w i t h a Johannine ring are υπέρ της δόξης τον 9eov, Iva δοξασθ-fj 6 vios τον θΐοΰ, παρρησία, χαίρω δι' ύμάς ίνα πιστεύσητε, όσα αν αίτηση τον θεόν δώσει σοι (cf. 16.23), £Υ<" £Ψι> et>? τ ° ν <"ώνα (twelves times in

155


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

J o h n , t w i c e in M a r k , once e a c h in M a t t h e w a n d L u k e ) , 6 els τον κόσμον οφη την δόζαν τοΰ θεοΰ, "να πιστεΰσωσιν

ότι συ με άπεστειλας."

ερχόμενος,

T h e a g r e e m e n t of this

list w i t h the results of the a b o v e anslysis is clear. A c c o r d i n g l y there c a n be n o question that the story in the longer text of M k . is m o r e p r i m i t i v e in f o r m t h a n the story of L a z a r u s in J n . F u r t h e r , it is impossible to suppose that the a u t h o r of the longer text of M k . used, or e v e n k n e w , the J o h a n n i n e L a z a r u s story. H a d he k n o w n it, his text w o u l d certainly h a v e s h o w n at least some of the s e c o n d a r y J o h a n n i n e traits listed a b o v e .

S i n c e it has none of t h e m , it must be c o m p l e t e l y i n d e p e n d e n t of

JnT h e s e facts m a k e it possible to distinguish, in the J o h a n n i n e L a z a r u s story, the source J o h n used. I t is often r e c o g n i z a b l e b y its parallels to the longer text. B u t in the m a t e r i a l p a r a l l e l e d there are i m p o r t a n t differences: ( ι ) T h e sisters are represented as sending w o r d to Jesus ( a b o v e , on 11.3 a n d 32). (2) T h e sister a p p e a l s to Jesus w i t h the c r y κύριε el rjs ώδε κ.τ.λ., (3) οργίζομαι

r a t h e r t h a n υίε Ααβίδ,

is r e p l a c e d b y εμβριμάομαι

ελεησόν με (on 1 1 . 2 8 - 3 1 ) .

(on 1 1 . 3 3 ) . (4) N o φωνή μεγάλη is h e a r d f r o m

the t o m b on Jesus' a p p r o a c h . (5) T h e stone is r e m o v e d b y persons unspecified, not b y Jesus himself. (6) Jesus calls L a z a r u s forth f r o m the t o m b {φωνή μεγάλη)

instead

of g o i n g in a n d raising h i m b y h a n d . (7) T h e J o h a n n i n e story concludes w i t h reference to L a z a r u s ' g r a v e w r a p p i n g s a n d Jesus' order to untie h i m (on 1 1 . 4 4 ) , w h e r e a s the story used b y the longer text said n o t h i n g of these, b u t c o n c l u d e d w i t h the raising, (ιεμβλεφας αντω ήγάπησεν

αυτόν κ.τ.λ.

p r o b a b l y comes f r o m the editor, a n d και

εξε-

λθόντες κ.τ.λ. is a n editorial transition to the n e x t episode.) N o t all of these differences- c a n c o n f i d e n t l y be a t t r i b u t e d to J o h n ' s source. A s i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , the sisters' sending to Jesus p r o b a b l y w a s J o h n ' s w o r k ; likewise the r e p l a c e m e n t of οργίζομαι

b y εμβριμάομαι.

T h e same p r o b a b i l i t y c a n b e estab-

lished for the c h a n g e in the use of φωνή μεγάλη

(4 a n d 6, a b o v e ) . T h e c r y f r o m the

t o m b w o u l d h a v e led m a n y a n c i e n t readers to question the m i r a c l e . H a d the m a n w h o w a s raised r e a l l y b e e n d e a d ? Stories of persons w h o w e r e t h o u g h t to h a v e died b u t c a m e b a c k to life w e r e f r e q u e n t in a n t i q u i t y (Plato, Republic 6 1 4 b ; Proclus, In Piatonis rem publicam, ed. K r o l l , I I . 1 1 3 ; K e r e n y i , passim·, Philostratus, Vita

Apollonii

I V . 4 5 , Eus., Against the Life of Apollonius 26 a n d 3 1 ) , a n d the notion t h a t the persons " r a i s e d " b y Jesus h a d not b e e n really d e a d w a s a f r e q u e n t e m b a r r a s s m e n t to C h r i s t i a n apologists ( O r i g e n , Contra Celsum I I . 4 8 ; GCS,

Origenes, v o l . 1 2 . I I I . 1 , frags. 1 8 5 - 1 8 6 ;

E p h r a e m , Commentaire V I I . 2 7 p. 7 7 ; C r a m e r , I.321 o n M k . 5 . 4 3 ; C h r y s o s t o m , In Matthaeum homiliae 31 o n M t . 9 . 1 8 f r ) . W e h a v e seen a b o v e t h a t this e m b a r r a s s m e n t w a s a l r e a d y felt b y J o h n a n d that (as C h r y s o s t o m r e m a r k e d ) J o h n e m p h a s i z e d the four d a y s ' e n t o m b m e n t a n d the smell, a n d so on, " t h a t t h e y should n o t h a v e a n y g r o u n d to disbelieve t h a t the m a n w h o m <(Jesus> raised h a d b e e n d e a d . " G i v e n this a p o l o g e t i c c o n c e r n , it is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that either J o h n or his source should h a v e suppressed the voice f r o m the t o m b a n d transferred the φωνή μεγάλη

to J e s u s — i n

spite of the fact that it is s o m e w h a t out of c h a r a c t e r , as C y r i l of A l e x a n d r i a r e m a r k e d (In Johannem, ad loc.). T h e original significance of the c r y f r o m the t o m b is p r o b a b l y i n d i c a t e d b y the use of φωνή μεγάλη

in M k . , w h e r e it occurs often at crises in the relations b e t w e e n 156


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

spirits a n d m e n — s e e the c o m m e n t a r y on I I I . ι , a b o v e . I n 1.26 the d e m o n φωνήσαν φωνή μΐγάλτ) εξήλθεν;

in 5.7 the legion of demons κράξας φωνή μεγάλη respond w i t h

a counter spell to Jesus' c o m m a n d that they leave their v i c t i m ; in M k . 15.34 Jesus himself εβόησεν . . . φωνή μεγάλη φωνήν μεγάλην εξεπνευσεν

Ελωι

Ελωι

λαμα

σαβαχθανει,

a n d in 15-37 °·φεις

(cf. F e n t o n , Destruction 57)· I n the longer text, a c c o r d i n g l y ,

the φωνή μεγάλη is p r o b a b l y the cry of D e a t h , d e p a r t i n g from its p r e y : cf. M k . 1.42; L k . 4 . 3 9 ; I C o r . 15.26; A p o c . 6.8; 2 0 . i 3 f ; B r a n d o n , Personification 33of. D e a t h o r H a d e s releasing the soul of L a z a r u s a p p e a r s in figured representations of the m i r a c l e f r o m the fifth c e n t u r y on, M i l l e t , Recherches 233. R e a u , Iconographie II.ii.338, calls this " t h e first version of the m i r a c l e p r o p e r l y s o - c a l l e d . " F o r these t w o references I a m i n d e b t e d to M e y e r S c h a p i r o . [Substantially this same interpretation w a s p r o p o s e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y b y R . S . , w h o also, w i t h T . B . , suggests that there m a y be a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the longer text of M k . a n d J n . 1 2 . 1 7 , w h e r e the c r o w d a c c o m p a n y i n g Jesus into J e r u s a l e m celebrates his miracles b y d e c l a r i n g τον Λάζαρον εφώνησεν εκ τοΰ μνημείου

και

ηγειρεν αυτόν εκ νεκρών. T h i s c o u l d h a v e been d e r i v e d f r o m the longer text b y substitution

o f τον

Λάζαρον

for ό Λάζαρος

either

deliberately

or b y

misreading.

T h e possibility of m i s r e a d i n g , especially of a n A r a m a i c text, c a n be seen f r o m the Peshitta, w h e r e J n . 12.17 reads κλοο

^o η»»ιικο :r^ä» ye

d o u b l i n g of the first V, this m i g h t represent 6 Λάζαρος ζό 'Ιησοϋς)

κηπ. W e r e it not for the

εφώνησεν εκ τοΰ μνημείου,

καΐ

ηγειρεν αυτόν εκ νεκρών, w h e r e the sequence of events a n d the u n d e r l i n e d

w o r d s are p a r a l l e l e d e x a c t l y — a l b e i t w i t h i n t e r r u p t i o n — i n the longer text.] S u c h a m i s r e a d i n g (substitution of τον Λάζαρον

for 6 Λάζαρος)

would be psychologically

likely, since L a z a r u s was d e a d a n d therefore not e x p e c t e d to call out. A n d

the

d e m o n o l o g i c a l parallels g i v e n a b o v e a r g u e that the story of the raising in the longer text of M k . is primitive. T h e fact that it contains a difficulty, w h i c h the story in J n . does not, also argues that it is older t h a n the J o h a n n i n e f o r m : difficilior lectio. A c c o r d i n g l y , I think J o h n k n e w the story in a f o r m similar to that of the longer text, a n d the transference of the φωνή to Jesus should be a t t r i b u t e d to h i m rather t h a n to his source. W e saw a b o v e that it accords w i t h his a p o l o g e t i c concerns. ( T h e possibility t h a t J o h n ' s source w a s w r i t t e n in A r a m a i c w i l l be of some i m p o r t a n c e hereinafter.) T h u s a n u m b e r of the peculiarities of the J o h a n n i n e story are to be referred to J o h n , a l o n g w i t h the o b v i o u s l y J o h a n n i n e interpolations previously listed. H o w e v e r , there is at least one d i f f e r e n c e w h i c h c a n m o r e confidently be referred to J o h n ' s s o u r c e — t h e a p p e a l κύριε, el ής ώδε, κ.τ.Χ., w h i c h J o h n r e p e a t e d as a c a t c h w o r d in verse 32 w h e n he c a m e b a c k to his source after his h o m i l e t i c a n d e x p l a n a t o r y excursion in verses 2 3 - 3 1 (see a b o v e , o n 1 1 . 2 8 - 3 1 a n d 38). S i m i l a r l y , the differences as to w h o m o v e d the stone (no. 6, a b o v e ) a n d h o w the y o u t h w a s raised (no. 7) are p r o b a b l y d u e to J o h n ' s s o u r c e ; at least, neither of t h e m is directly a c c o u n t e d for b y J o h n ' s p e c u l i a r interests or style. T h e s e differences w h i c h c a n be referred to J o h n ' s source a f f o r d reason to believe t h a t e v e n the source w a s later in f o r m t h a n the story in the longer text. I n the first p l a c e , the a p p e a l κΰριε, ει ης ώδε, ουκ αν άπεθανεν ό αδελφός μου, is a c r y of grief f r o m the C h u r c h after Jesus' d e p a r t u r e a n d a n expression of h o p e in a f u t u r e resurrection, w h e r e a s υΐε Δαβίδ, ελεησόν με expresses the p r i m i t i v e Palestinian

157


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

hope for immediate action by a present, Davidic Messiah (and was therefore dropped when Christianity moved away from its Palestinian Jewish origins). In the second place, that Jesus himself should move the stone is more likely to be primitive than that others should do it for him. So far as I can recall, Jesus is never reported in the Gospels to have done any hard manual labor—except for Jn.'s emphatic "himself carrying his cross" (19.17), which is the last humiliation before crucifixion. This lack of reference to Jesus' doing any manual labor is presumably an attempt to make him respectable, like Matthew's alteration and Luke's omission of Mk.'s d τε'κτων (Mk. 6.3 |[ Mt. 13.55; Lk. 4.22). The quite casual and nondogmatic way (contrast Jn. 19.17) with which the longer text refers to Jesus' removing the stone makes it seem that we have here early material. Finally, it might be argued on similar grounds that a story which reports the direct, physical method of taking the hand and literally raising the dead is probably more primitive than one which reports a raising by remote command. It was remarked above (commentary on III.4) that references to χειρ as an instrument of supernatural help are substantially more frequent in Mk. than in the later synoptics and Jn. (10 or 11 in Mk., 7 in Mt., 5 in Lk., ο i n j n . ) Notice also the disappearance from Mt. and Lk. of Markan miracles worked by physical means (7.32-37; 8.22-26) and the continuation of this tendency in later Christian apologetics (Fridrichsen, Probleme 61). Is it possible that the Johannine story was also influenced by considerations of purity, to eliminate the reference to Jesus' touching a corpse ? Having thus established grounds for belief that John's source was later than the resurrection story in the longer text of Mk. and differed from it substantially, we can conclude that Jn. was independent of the longer text no less than it of Jn.

C.

The order of events in Mk.

and Jn.

This conclusion gives particular importance to the parallelism in order of events which appears between the latter halves of Mk. and Jn. once the longer text is put in its place in M k . This parallelism can best be demonstrated by an abbreviated synopsis:

Mk.

6.32 και άπηλθον εν τω πλοίψ είς ερημον

τόπον κατ'

της θαλάσσης της Ταλιλαίας

T h e feeding of the five thousand 6.45 καΐ ευθύς ήνάγκασεν τους μαθητάς εμβηναι

εις το πλοΐον

πέραν προς Βηθσαϊδάν, τον

Jn. 6.1 μετά ταύτα άπηλθεν 6 Ίησοΰς

Ιδίαν.

και προάγειν ΐως

αυτός

= αντοΰ

μαθηται

αύτοΰ

απολύει

εμβάντες

είς

θαλάσσης εις Ι58

πέραν

ΤιβεριάΒος.

T h e feeding of the five thousand 6.16—17a ώς 8e όφία εγενετο,

είς το

οχλον.

της

επι

πλοΐον

την

κατέβησαν θάλασσαν,

ηρχοντο

Καφαρναουμ.

πέραν

oi και της


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

— 6 . 4 6 καϊ άποταξάμενος όρος

αύτοΐς

άπήλθΐν

( 6 . 1 5 'Ιησούς

είς τό

οΰν γνούς ότι μελλουσιν

ερχεσθαι

ίνα ποιήσωσιν

βασιλέα,

els τό όρος αυτός

μόνος.)

καϊ άρπαζειν

προσεύζασθαι.

αύτόν

άνεχώρησεν T h e walking on the sea 6.54—55a και ΐζΐλθόντων ευθύς την

επιγνόντες

=

αυτών ix τοΰ

πλοίου

αυτόν περιεδραμον

όλη ν

πάλιν

T h e walking on the sea 6.24—25a ore οΰν εΐδεν ουκ

εστίν

εκεί

ενεβησαν

χωράν.

αύτοι

=

S u m m a r y : Jesus' miracles of healing

οι

ότι

Ίησοΰς

μαθηται

ζητοϋντες

αύτοΰ, καϊ

είς τά πλοιάρια

εις Καφαρναουμ eipovTes

ό όχλος

ουδέ

ήλθον

τον Ίησοΰν.

και

αύτόν . . .

Discussion: Jesus is the bread of life

T h e dispute on handwashing T r i p to the territory of T y r e T h e Syrophoenician R e t u r n to Galilee T h e d u m b man

(εφφαθα)

T h e feeding of the four thousand T h e demand for a sign T h e saying on the leaven of the Pharisees —

T h e blind m a n of Bethsaida 8.27-30

Peter's

confession

(in

Caesarea

=

6.66-69

Peter's confession

(in

Caper-

naum ?)

Philippi) =

Peter is Satan

J u d a s is a devil

T h e sayings on self-sacrifice T h e transfiguration T h e demoniac boy 9.30—31 κάκειθεν δια της γνοΐ•

εξελθόντες

Γαλιλαίας,

εδίδασκεν

και ΐλεγεν

παρΐπορΐΰοντο

και ουκ ηθελΐν γαρ

τους

μαθητή

ότι ο νιος του

αύτοΐς

παραδίδοται

els

άποκτενοΰσιν

αυτόν . . .

χείρας

ίνα

Tis

7.1 και μετά

αύτοΰ,

περιπατεΐν,

άνθρωπου

άποκτεΐναι.

ανθρώπων

ταΰτα

τη Γαλιλαία·

περιεπάτει

ού γάρ ηθελεν ότι εζητουν

ό Ίησοΰς εν τη

αύτόν

εν

'Ιουδαία

οΐ

'Ιουδαίοι

και Jesus' brothers taunt him

T h e dispute on precedence T h e stranger who exorcized T h e sayings on scandals ΙΟ. I a και εκείθεν της

άναστάς

ερχεται

els τά

δρια

'Ιουδαίας

7.ΙΟ ως δέ άνεβησαν εορτην,

τότε

ol άδελφοι

αύτοΰ

εις

την

και αυτός άνεβη . . .

T h e disputes in Jerusalem T h e man born blind T h e sayings on the door to the sheep T h e appeal to the witness of his works ΙΟ.lb και πέραν του 'Ιορδανού, ονται πάλιν πάλιν

όχλοι προς αυτόν,

(διδασκεν

και

συνπορεύ-

και cos ε'ιωθει

αΰτους.

10.40—41a και Ίορδάνου τό πρώτον πολλοί

!59

άπηλθεν

πάλιν

είς τον τόπον βαπτίζων,

ηλθον προς

όπου

πέραν ην

και εμενεν αύτόν.

τον

'Ιωάννης εκεί,

και


THE SECRET GOSPEL T h e question o n d i v o r c e T h e blessing o n c h i l d r e n T h e rich y o u n g ruler T h e sayings o n scandals T h e p r e f a c e to the L a z a r u s story IO.32 "ήσαν δε εν τη όδω άναβαίνοντες 'Ιεροσόλυμα,

και

fjv προάγων

αύτονΐ

11.7-8

els

επειτα μετά τοΰτο λέγει τοΐs

άγωμεν

ο

els την Ίουδαίαν

Ίησοΰς, και εθαμβοΰντο, ol δε άκολουθοΰντες

αΰτω οι μαθηταί,

εφοβοΰντο.

λιθάσαι οι 'Ιουδαίοι,

Jesus' p r o p h e c y of his o w n passion a n d

μαθηταΐς,

πάλιν,

Ραββει,

λεγουσιν

νΰν εζήτουν

και πάλιν υπάγει

σε εκεί;

=

Jesus' a n n o u n c e m e n t of L a z a r u s ' d e a t h

=

T h e L a z a r u s story

resurrection

a n d p r o p h e c y of his resurrection

Longer text: T h e L a z a r u s story T h e n o c t u r n a l initiation ( T h e J e w s ' plot, M k . 1 4 . 1 - 2 , infra)

=

III.ΙΟ—II εκείθεν δε άναστας έπεστρεφεν eiy τό πέραν τοΰ

T h e J e w s ' reaction a n d plot 1 1 . 5 4 ό οΰν Ίησοΰς

Ιορδανού.

πάτει

εν τοις

ούκετι παρρησία

Ίουδαίοις,

άλλα

περιεάπηλθεν

εκείθεν εις την χωράν εγγύς Trjs ερήμου, els Έφραιμ μετά των

λεγομενην

πάλιν,

κάκεΐ

εμεινεν

μαθητών.

Mk. T h e question of J a m e s a n d J o h n Longer text: T h e events in J e r i c h o Mk.

Bartimaeus

T h e entry of J e r u s a l e m

=

T h e cursing of the fig tree

( T h e entry of J e r u s a l e m , J n .

12.12-19,

infra)

T h e cleansing of the T e m p l e

=

T h e fig tree f o u n d w i t h e r e d

( T h e cleansing of the T e m p l e , J n . 2 . 1 3 17)

T h e question as to Jesus' a u t h o r i t y T h e p a r a b l e of the rented v i n e y a r d s

=

( T h e question as to Jesus' a u t h o r i t y , J n . 2.18)

Questions b y H e r o d i a n s , S a d d u c e e s a n d a scribe T h e question as to the son of D a v i d T h e widow's mite T h e p r o p h e c y of the destruction of the

=

( T h e p r o p h e c y of the destruction of the Temple, Jn. 2.19-22)

Temple T h e p r o p h e c y of the e n d T h e J e w s ' plot

=

( T h e J e w s ' reaction a n d plot, J n . 1 1 . 4 7 -

T h e a n o i n t i n g in B e t h a n y

=

T h e a n o i n t i n g in B e t h a n y

54, supra) ( T h e entry of J e r u s a l e m , M k .

11.1-10,

=

supra)

T h e entry o f J e r u s a l e m T h e request o f the G r e e k s T h e Evanglist's c o m m e n t s o n the J e w s Jesus' d e c l a r a t i o n o f his mission

T h e p r e p a r a t i o n for the last s u p p e r T h e footwashing T h e last supper

=

T h e last supper

T h e passion story

=

T h e passion story


THE SECRET GOSPEL

I n this synopsis the things w h i c h require explanation are the continued parallelism of the geographical framework (shown b y the verses quoted in Greek) and the nearidentity in order of those larger elements w h i c h the two Gospels have in c o m m o n . O f these elements (indicated by the equal sign) t h r e e — t h e cleansing of the T e m p l e , the question as to Jesus' authority, a n d the prophecy of the T e m p l e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n — are not properly in question, since they appear in J n . 2. (However, it is interesting to note: [1] that in J n . 2 they appear in the same order as they do in M k . 1 1 - 1 3 ; [2] that the Streitgespräche, with w h i c h they are closely connected, are in M k . divided between 2 . 1 - 3 . 6 and 1 1 . 2 7 - 1 2 . 3 7 . T h e s e facts suggest that their material derives in part from an independent block of tradition w h i c h h a d some connection w i t h an early stage in Jesus' c a r e e r — a suggestion to w h i c h w e shall return later.) O f the other 12 m a j o r elements listed as c o m m o n to M k . (including the longer text) and J n . , all occur in the same order, save that J n . has the entry of Jerusalem after the J e w s ' plot a n d the anointing, and M k . has it before them. T h i s coincidence in order of so m a n y events can hardly be accidental. Y e t , it seems unlikely that J o h n used M k . or M a r k , J n . (Haenchen, Probleme·, numerous studies of detail b y Buse; more recently Smith, Jn. 12.12; and above all D o d d , Historical Tradition). A n d w e have already seen evidence that the longer text and J n . were independent developments of a c o m m o n source, possibly in A r a m a i c , from w h i c h J n . was separated b y at least two removes (since his immediate source was later in form than the story in the longer text). Evidence for the independence of J n . and canonical M k . is to be found in the great differences of form between some of the elements c o m m o n to t h e m : Peter's confession, the curse on Peter ( " S i m o n " ) or Judas ( " t h e son of S i m o n " ) , the anointing, the last supper, and the passion story. M o s t of these were mentioned a b o v e as " r e m o t e , but unmistakable parallels, w h i c h can best be explained as divergent forms of the same tradition." T h e same relation seems to hold between the elements of the geographical frame. T h e y are undeniably parallel, and in outline their accounts of Jesus' movements are substantially identical. 7 But the verbal coincidences between them are trivial (άπήΧθον, TOVS μαθητάς

αύτοΰ,

ΐμβηναι

ecs ττΧοΐον,

πέραν,

et? το όρος,

της

ΓαΧιΧαίας,

ουκ

rjdeXev,

άποκτ€Ροΰσιν, etc.) and the differences, not only of wording, but also of content, are so substantial that it w o u l d be implausible to suppose either author got them from the other (especially since material of this sort is for the most part theologically unimportant a n d therefore not likely to suffer deliberate changes). Therefore their continual parallelism a n d substantial differences must be explained b y supposition of a c o m m o n source of w h i c h both authors used different developments. 7. M k .

ΙΟ. I, και CKclOtv αναστας €ρ\€ται et s τα opta της Ιουδαίας

καϊ 77 (μ αν τον Ιορδανού,

has

often been thought corrupt, or " e x p l a i n e d " as meaning the reverse of w h a t it says. However, neither treatment is necessary, and the plain sense of the verse as it stands (he went first to J u d e a and then to Transjordan) is supported not only by the parallels in Jn., but also by the independent tradition in L k . 9.51fr and 1 7 . 1 1 . See the discussion in T a y l o r , ad loc. [ C . R . suggests that the text of M k . 10.1 as given above m a y have been produced by abbreviation, that is, by omission of the stories of w h a t happened in J u d e a . H e compares M k . 7.31, where the strange geography (from T y r e through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis) is possibly the result of amalgamation of parts of a number of introductory notices.]

l6l


THE SECRET GOSPEL

T h e same conclusion is indicated again b y the fact that in both Gospels the parallel episodes stand in the same relation to the parallel f r a m e w o r k ; that is, the same events occur not only in the same order, but also in the same places in the parallel frames, a n d are thus for the most part located in the same geographic places. H e r e again there are discrepancies sufficient to make it unlikely that either author used the other, but insufficient to obscure the basic identity of the outlines. Finally, the similarities demonstrated by the above synopsis would be increased yet further if w e were to accept the theory of D o d d (Close) a n d H u f f m a n n (Sources 128) that M k . 8 . 1 - 2 6 and M k . 6.30-7.37 are variant forms of the same b o d y of tradition. T h i s theory yields for J n . 6 . 1 - 6 5 a double set of M a r k a n parallels w h i c h cannot plausibly be explained as accidental coincidence of editorial constructions, especially because the coincidence lies less in matters of w o r d i n g (which might be editorial formulas) than in the order of events w h i c h are not obviously identical but turn out, one after another, to be basically similar. Discussion of D o d d ' s theory w o u l d be irrelevant for our present purpose, but his evidence strengthens materially the already strong case to be m a d e from the synopsis printed above. Incidentally, although w h e n he wrote Close D o d d was of the opinion that his data were evidence of John's use of M k . (p. 288), he has since changed his m i n d a n d treated them as evidence of the dependence of both Gospels on c o m m o n tradition (Fourth Gospel 448fr; Herrnworte a n d Historical Tradition, passim). I t seems unlikely, however, that oral tradition should account for so extended an agreement in orderâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;particularly since the events and, even more, the geographical references reported do not seem to be connected b y any coherent plot w h i c h w o u l d fix their order in the narrator's memory. I f w e therefore suppose a c o m m o n written source, h o w can w e account for the differences between the Gospels, and especially for the differences between the material they have in c o m m o n (which p r o b a b l y came from the source) ? T h e source m a y have been in A r a m a i c a n d the differences m a y result in part from different translations. Into these different translations both M a r k and J o h n w o u l d then have inserted, chiefly from other sources, the additional material peculiar to their o w n Gospels. These suggestions obviously resemble those of D o d d , Framework, on w h i c h there h a v e been m a n y attacksâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;for example, N i n e h a m , Order, Robinson, Quest 48fr, and T r o c m e , Formation 23fr. See D o d d ' s reply to N i n e h a m in Historical Tradition 233 n2. I n the same book, 235fr, D o d d picked out of J n . a n u m b e r of transitional passages w h i c h he thought derived from material akin to that of the synoptics. O f these, three (Jn. 7 . 1 - 2 ; 10.40-42; 11.54) occur after 6.1, where the parallelism w h i c h w e have observed begins. A l l three of these can n o w be seen to be paralleled in M k . ( 1 1 . 5 4 in the longer text). Clearly, this does not settle the matter. But the new evidence is strong prima facie support for D o d d . A n d the question is important. If a good part of the content of a c o m m o n source c a n be discovered by comparison of M k . and J n . , w e shall have not only some notion of an extremely early Gospel, but also good indications of the peculiar elements of the M a r k a n and the Johannine traditions, as evidenced by their additions to this source. T h a t some of the M a r k a n insertions were m a d e late in the development of M k . is suggested by the coincidence of J n . with L k . in most of Lk.'s " g r e a t omission" of 162


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

Mk. 6.46-8.26. We need not, however, suppose that either John or Mark copied his source whole. Each may have omitted or reworked parts of it. In Jn. 11.7-16, for instance, it is plausible to suppose that John reworked the incoherent elements of the source (reflected by canonical Mk. and the longer text) into a coherent preface to the resurrection of Lazarus. Reworking of the Johannine preface into the incoherent material now found in Mk. and the longer text is incredible. Again, neither Jn.'s omission of the nocturnal initiation nor the longer text's inclusion of it is proof that it was not—or was—in their common source. But the facts that both Jn. and the longer text of Mk. do include the resurrection story, that both locate it at the same place in their outline, and that both introduce it and follow it by similar pieces of framework—these facts make it likely that the resurrection story was part of the common source on which both Mk. and Jn. were dependent. But if the story was in Mk.'s source it was probably in the earliest form of Mk. If so, we should suppose that the canonical text of Mk. was produced, at least in this instance, by abbreviation of the earlier, longer text. W e shall have later to weigh this conclusion against the opposite one, reached above from consideration of the stylistic evidence. Before leaving the relation of the Johannine Lazarus story to the resurrection story in the longer text, it should be noted that both have a number of parallels to the stories ofJesus' resurrection. This is easily explicable. T h e similarity of content would necessitate some, chance might account for others, the tendencies to assimilate the phrasing of similar stories and to regard Lazarus' resurrection as a prefiguring of Jesus' would produce yet more. Accordingly it is not surprising that a tomb located in a garden and closed by a stone which had to be rolled away should appear in the stories of both resurrections. (As we saw above on Jn. 11.37, John also included in his Lazarus story the same sort of polemic material which Mk. put in his crucifixion scene, and for the same purpose—dramatic irony before the resurrection.) 8 8. B u t there is one further parallel between J n . and canonical M k . w h i c h deserves a t t e n t i o n : J n . insists t h a t L a z a r u s was raised on his fourth d a y in the t o m b ( 1 1 . 1 7 , 3 9 , e m p h a t i c repetition). T h e passion prophecies of M k . 8.31, 9.31, and 10.34

date Jesus' resurrection μ(τά τρΰς ημέρας, w h i c h

m i g h t m e a n " o n the fourth d a y . " T h i s is w h y the date was c h a n g e d to τη τρίτχι ημέρα b y M a t t h e w in all instances and by L u k e in two. (In the t h i r d — 9 . 4 4 — L u k e eliminated the date entirely. N o t e also the correction b y the copyists of M k . , Williams, Alterations 45.) For the m e a n i n g of the expression in M k . cf. M k . 9.2, w h e r e μ«τά ημέρα; ίξ presumably means " o n the seventh d a y " — a s shown b y the parallel in E x . 2 4 . 1 6 — n o d o u b t for Sabbatarian or numerological reasons ( L o h m e y e r , G r u n d m a n n ) . L X X uses μ ΐ τ ά with a n u m b e r of days to indicate the d a y following the n u m b e r given. [ C . R . remarks that this is particularly clear f r o m the parallelism in Hosea 6.2: νγιάσςι ήμας μετά διίο ημέρας, έν τη ημέρα τη τρίτη άναστηοόμ(θα.]

( O n this the third-day resurrection tradition m a y h a v e been built.) See also D a n .

1 . 1 5 ( L X X ) , w i t h w h i c h cf. T h e o d o t i o n ; G e n 7 . 1 0 ; 8.3,6, etc. L u k e seems to h a v e understood M k . ' s μ«τά ήμέραs ίξ in 9 2 as m e a n i n g " o n the seventh d a y , " since his woel ημέραι οκτώ (9.28) are p r o b a b l y the 7 days of M k . plus 1 for the d a y f r o m w h i c h the count b e g a n (so, on M k . , Swete, followed b y L a g r a n g e and K l o s t e r m a n n ; on L k . , C r e e d , followed b y L u c e ; contra, R e n g s t o r f ) . L a t e r on, h o w e v e r , both M k . (chs. 1 5 - 1 6 ) and J n . (19-20) date the resurrection on the third d a y after the crucifixion. T h e r e f o r e the expectation of a resurrection on the fourth d a y is so odd that its a p p e a r a n c e in the M a r k a n passion prophecies and the J o h a n n i n e L a z a r u s story m a y be t h o u g h t evidence for the h y p o thesis that J o h n used a source like that of Mk.-plus-the-longer-text, in w h i c h the L a z a r u s story w a s closely connected to a resurrection p r o p h e c y of the M a r k a n type. T h e only (?) other traces of the

163


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

D.

Relation of the new material to the structure of Mk.

N o w we turn to the evidence of M k . itself as to whether or not the canonical text is an abbreviation of the longer one. I.

POSITION IN T H E " H I S T O R I C A L

OUTLINE"

T h e longer text reports that the dead man's sister addressed Jesus publicly by the messianic title " s o n of D a v i d " and that the disciples rebuked her. T h i s is an example of the M a r k a n motif of the "messianic s e c r e t " w h i c h is always being let slip and then hushed u p â&#x20AC;&#x201D; t h e closest parallels are in i.24f; 3.1 i f ; 8.2gf; 9.9,30^ 10.48; a recent discussion is Burkill's Revelation esp. 62fr. I n canonical M k . the title " s o n of D a v i d " first appears in 10.47 (the Bartimaeus story) and is difficult to explain there. People h a d not been saying that Jesus was the Messiah ( M k . 6 . i 4 f ; 8.28). O n l y Peter h a d guessed it (8.29); a n d he and the others w h o heard h i m h a d been w a r n e d to keep it secret (8.30). H o w , then, did the title indicative of this secret get into the mouth of the beggar Bartimaeus, outside Jericho (10.47) ? This question was asked b y Ebeling [Messiasgeheimnis 92) w i t h the confidence that it w o u l d be historically insoluble. T h e longer text does not supply a historical solution, but it does present a sequence of facts from w h i c h historical imagination can create an understandable sequence of events. For between Peter's confession and Bartimaeus' appeal it puts first the use of the title b y one of the w o m e n of a family with w h i c h Jesus was intimate (Jn. 11.5) and then a visit b y this w o m a n to Jericho, where (or before which) she h a d some sort of difference with Jesus such that he did not " r e c e i v e " or " w e l c o m e " her a n d her companions. By the time he left the city, even the beggar b y the roadside knew he claimed to be the son of D a v i d . T h i s argument might have been well received fifty years ago. T o d a y the reader will object: (1) W h a t e v e r m a y be thought of the primitive outline of M k . , the present order of events is not in detail historically reliable (Schmidt, Rahmen). (2) T h e introductory inventions in J n . 1 1 . 1 - 5 are unreliable (see the comments above) a n d cannot be used to prove Jesus' intimacy with the family of the deceased; in the longer text of M k . the sister appears without a n y introduction a n d her usage of the title " s o n of D a v i d " is no more explicable than Bartimaeus'. (3) A likely " h i s t o r i c a l " explanation w h i c h w o u l d account for a given sequence of events is not necessarily true. T o demonstrate its truth one w o u l d have to demonstrate that no other explanation was equally likely and that w h a t did happen was w h a t was most likely to h a p p e n (often not the case). Such demonstration is impossible in the present instance, therefore this possibly historical construction is of little value as evidence for the question of whether the longer text was prior to the shorter one or vice versa. expectation are M t . 12.40; 27.63; and the western text of Acts 10.40â&#x20AC;&#x201D;another example of the corruption of the western text b y the influence of this section of M k . (Stendahl, School, has a r g u e d that M t . 12.40 is a later insertion. T r o c m e , Formation 180 and n24, also r e m a r k e d the difficulty a n d d r e w f r o m it the conclusion that the original M k . did not contain chs. 1 4 - 1 6 . But if a later interpolator could overlook such contradictions, so could an original compiler. T h e material is better evidence for diversity o f tradition than for details of literary history.)

164


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

2.

PARALLELS TO T H E TRANSFIGURATION AND PASSION STORIES

More important is the fact that insertion of the quotations from the longer text into canonical Mk., at the places Clement indicates, enables us to present three important sections of Mk. as parallel constructions showing the same basic pattern. M k . 8 . 2 9 : Peter's confession of faith (Mt.

1 6 . 1 7 : Jesus' blessing

man's

pro-

1 0 . 2 1 : Jesus loved the man

prophecy

of his passion.

1 0 . 2 1 : Jesus' demand, For-

Jesus'

teaching (an expression of

10.22:

The

man

M k . 1 4 . 2 7 : Jesus' prophecy of his passion.

sake all and follow me.

rejects

(Lk. 2 2 . 3 1 : Jesus' prayer for Peter.) 9

(a youth, M t . 19.20).

M k . 8 . 3 1 : Jesus' Peter

10.20: A

fession of good works.

of Peter.)

8.32:

Mk.

rejects

14.29:

Peter rejects Jesus'

teaching (an expression of

Jesus' teaching.

his love for Jesus).

his love for Jesus). 8 . 3 3 : Jesus calls Peter Satan.

1 0 . 2 3 : Jesus

declares

that

the man can hardly enter

1 4 . 3 0 : Jesus' prophecy that Peter will deny him.

the kingdom. 8 . 3 4 : Jesus' demand, Deny yourself and follow me, Lose your life for me.

10.28:

Peter's

claim,

We

have forsaken all andfollowed you.

8 . 3 4 : Implies Jesus' passion.

1 0 . 3 2 : Jesus'

9. ι : Jesus' prophecy, Some

Longer T e x t :

14.31:

Peter's

promise,

Though it cost me my life, I shall not deny you.

prophecy

of

i 4 - 5 3 f f : Jesus' passion.

his passion. shall not taste death.10

Resurrection

of the man (a youth). His

(Supposed but not reported: Jesus' resurrection.)

love for Jesus. 9 . 2 : μετά. ημέρας

ίξ.

L T : μεθ' ήμίρας

εξ.

16.1:

διαγενομίνου

τοΰ

σαββάτου.11 g.2ff:

Transfiguration

pearance

(in

white)

ap-

L T : Teaching of the mystery

to

to the youth (in w h i t e ) . 1 2

Peter, J a m e s , and J o h n .

1 6 . 5 : A youth in white appears, anouncing the resurrection. 1 3

9. Note the similarity between Lk.'s prayer for Peter (that Satan shall not prevail over him, that he shall strengthen the brethren) and Mt.'s blessing of Peter (the Church shall be built on him and Hell shall not prevail over it). Furthermore, Lk.'s prayer follows Jesus' teaching that greatness is service and the promise that in Jesus' kindom the twelve shall sit on thrones. This is akin to the request of the sons of Zebedee to sit at Jesus' right and left hands in his kingdom and Jesus' reply that greatness is service. A n d this request and reply immediately follow the second passage shown here (Mk. 1 0 . 2 0 - 3 4 plus the longer text). 10. This verse is probably to be connected with the Lazarus story and the expectation that the beloved disciple would never die, an expectation also attributed to events in a resurrection appearance ( J n . 2 1 . 2 3 ) . Eckhardt's denial of the relationship (Tod i 6 f ) does not allow for the fluidity in form of traditional material nor the importance of the common tradition (demonstrated above) behind M k . and J n . 1 1 . In its present Markan context this cannot mean μχθ' -ημέρας (ξ; yet σάββατον is used in the very next verse to mean " w e e k , " and both Matthew (28.1) and Luke (24.1) so changed the construction as to eliminate the ambiguity. Is it accidental that the rejected sense should accord so closely with the two parallels? 1 2 . [K..S. suggests that M k . 1 0 . 3 5 - 4 5 is related to 1 0 . 3 2 - 3 4 as is 8 . 3 2 - 3 3 to 8 . 3 1 . ] This I doubt. There is no rejection of Jesus and no curse on the apostles. 1 3 . Note that M k . 16.7 promises a resurrection appearance, presumably with some teaching (secret?). It may or may not be supposed that this was the appearance to Peter (Lk. 24.34; I Cor. 15.5) of which the disappearance is one of the most suggestive mysteries of early Christian tradition. (The attempted solution b y Annand, He Was Seen, does not convince me.)


THE SECRET GOSPEL

T h e s e texts seem to follow the same basic pattern: acceptance, blessing, demand for sacrifice, rejection, curse; renewed d e m a n d for sacrifice, Jesus' fulfilment of the d e m a n d , resurrection, and, one week later, revelation of the mystery. 1 4 Y e t it w o u l d seem also that the expression of this basic pattern has been carried out with considerable differences even as to the most important points: M k . 8.34 does not explicitly foretell or report Jesus' passion, but merely implies it, and M k . 16. i f f merely implies the resurrection; but the implication is certain in both instances, so there is no denying the identity of the basic pattern. Similarly, in 8.29-9.10 a n d in 10.20-34 plus the longer text, the pattern is presented in concentrated form with relatively little extraneous material, whereas in 14.27-16.8 it is worked into the m u c h larger passion story in w h i c h the earlier parts of it (14.27-31) appear as an excrescence unimportant to the course of the m a i n action. T h u s the relation between these passages is somewhat similar to that between the variant forms of identical stories (discussed above) and the variant developments b y M a r k and J o h n of a c o m m o n narrative presumably given b y tradition. But here there seems to be an important difference. It can hardly be supposed that the transfiguration, the Lazarus story, and the passion story are all variants of a single narrative. (Against the supposition that the transfiguration is an account of a resurrection appearance see above, p. 149). Nor do the stories of Peter's confession and the rich y o u n g ruler seem variants of a single original. R a t h e r , the c o m m o n pattern here is the result not of c o m m o n origin, but of c o m m o n purpose, w h i c h has three times put together pieces of different origins to express the same teaching. T h e teaching seems to be that of h u m a n depravity and the consequent vicarious atonement : E v e n those w h o accept Jesus (or the L a w ) and therefore receive his blessing cannot accept the d e m a n d for sacrifice, and therefore come under his curse; consequently he sacrifices himself, rises from the dead, and communicates to his unworthy followers the mystery of his resurrection. T h e parallels to this in Paul are well k n o w n (e.g., R o m . 5.8: G o d shows his love for us in that while w e were yet sinners Christ died for us), and the Hodayot from Q u m r a n have shown that even before Jesus' time some circles in J u d a i s m were m a g n i f y i n g h u m a n depravity and God's salvation of his elect in spite of it (Hodayot I.2off; III.24fr; I V . 2 g f f ; etc.). H o w e v e r , in none of the three passages outlined above is the doctrine clearly expressed. Instead it is implied by the sequence of stories and sayings, of w h i c h no single one states it clearly. O n l y w h e n the three pericopae are put side b y side does the repetition of the pattern and thus its significance appear. T h e pattern can hardly be a c c i d e n t a l — t h e parallels are too close; w h y , then, did the author not state its significance? Evidently he expected his book to be taught, and left the explanation of these patterns to the teacher. T h i s is exactly w h a t Clement's letter says M a r k did (1.22-26). T h e same conclusion was reached b y Bird (γάρ 174). But the fact that C l e m e n t realized that there was latent teaching in M k . does not prove that his account of the origin of the longer text is correct. A n d the above 14. K . S . comments: " A n o t h e r complex is T h o m a s in J n . 20 with a week's delay, coupled with T h o m a s ' role in the Gospel of Thomas, where he receives the secret revelation in three words." This is perhaps important, especially because of the connection of T h o m a s with Salome, to be noted below.

166


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

demonstrated f a c t — t h a t the longer text taken together w i t h M k . 10.20-32 embodies a pattern found in two pericopae of the canonical Gospel—suggests that the longer text was originally part of the Gospel, since the patterns are presumably the work of a redactor a n d the three instances of the same pattern look like three examples of the work of the same redactor. T h i s is particularly so because the patterns are not explicit or even obvious; therefore one might say they w o u l d not have served as models for some later editor w h o a d d e d the material of the longer text to produce another example. But against this there is evidence that these patterns were recognized b y later editors (who h a d the exegetic traditions of their churches to guide them). M a t t h e w added to M k . the blessing of Peter, Luke, the prayer for Peter, a n d both of these additions stand in exactly the right places to extend a n d emphasize the patterns; this can hardly be accident. (See, further, note 9 on the three texts outlined above.) Accordingly, it is not impossible that the material of the longer text should h a v e been interpolated after 10.34 i n order to produce another example of a pattern useful for exegetic purposes. However, the supposition that all three examples were produced by the same redactor seems more likely. T h e additions in M t . and L k . are comparatively minor a n d — a l t h o u g h they e m b o d y independent tradition—their attachment to the pattern would have been suggested by its existence. In M k . 10.2032, on the contrary, the most important elements of the pattern are lacking; and the addition of the material of the longer text w o u l d not merely have filled out an existing example, but w o u l d have created a new one. Postscript: O n rereading this section in 1966, some three years and more since it was written, I must confess I a m more dubious than ever, not only as to the significance of these parallels, but even as to their actual parallelism. M k . 10.21 is not actually paralleled in M k . 8 or 14, and even if the additions from M t . and L k . be supposed to have been derived from early tradition, love is neither a blessing nor a prayer. T h e rejection of Jesus in M k . 10.22 is something quite different from Peter's expressions of loyalty in 8.32 a n d 14.29, a n d they, in turn, are different from each other. 10.28 is not a new d e m a n d for sacrifice, but a claim to have m a d e the necessary sacrifice. In the longer text a n d in 9.1 w e have the youth's resurrection, not Jesus'. C o n s e q u e n t l y — t h o u g h the one resurrection was doubtless thought to prefigure the o t h e r — t h e proposed interpretation in terms of the vicarious atonement seems forced. A further fact w h i c h seems to me important is that these alleged parallels do not fit easily into the structure of M k . revealed b y the interpretation of M k . 10, to be presented in the following section. But the interpretation of M k . 10 is m u c h better supported than the argument for the above parallels. Accordingly, I suspect the parallelism m a y be due not to " M a r k ' s " intention but to m y invention. But if I was deceived before, w h e n I could see it, I m a y be deceived now, w h e n I can't. A c c o r d i n g ly, I submit the problem to the reader. 3.

R E L A T I O N T O T H E B A P T I S M A L C O N C E R N OF MK.

ΙΟ. 1 3 - 4 5

T h e j u d g m e n t that the material of the longer text was probably coeval with 1 0 . 1 7 34 is further supported b y the fact that they fit together as parts of a larger section, 167


THE SECRET GOSPEL

1 0 . 1 3 - 4 5 — a pericope designed to provide a textual basis for systematic teaching concerning baptism, teaching which followed the baptismal service point by point. Accordingly, the pericope may have been read at the baptismal service preceding the pascha. This was first pointed out to me by Richardson in a letter (of January 13, 1961) which furnished not only the thesis, but also some important items of the evidence I shall use to support it. T h o u g h the bulk of the following argument is mine, I have profited so greatly by discussions with Richardson that it would be impossible to indicate exactly the limits of his contributions. This general acknowledgment—with m y thanks—must stand in place of many brackets and initials. 15 T h e evidence for treating the whole passage, 10.13-45, as a baptismal pericope is as follows: (a) Clement says the longer text was written els τήρ των τελειουμένων χρήσιν ( 1 . 2 2 ) and was read προς αυτούς μόνους τους μυουμένους τα μεγάλα μυστήρια (II.2). This proves its liturgical use in his church; and τα μεγάλα μυστήρια would most easily be referred to the pascha, the annual occasion for baptism. Clement sharply distinguishes ordinary baptism—το λουτρόν—as the lowest stage of the Christian initiation, from τα μεγάλα μυστήρια—see the commentary on II.2; but Clement's church m a y have practiced a second baptism by which the believer achieved true gnosis. This question must be postponed to Chapter Five; here it is enough to remark that such higher initiatory rites were common in second-century Christianity (Acts 8 . 1 4 - 1 7 ; 1 9 . 1 - 7 ; Irenaeus (Harvey, I.14.1 = Stieren, 1 . 2 1 . i f ) . [ C . R . thinks a second baptism unlikely; he would explain το λουτρόν as baptism administered alone and τά μεγάλα μυστήρια as the entire paschal ceremony, including baptism.] (b) T h e liturgical use of this pericope in a most important service in Clement's church would account for (1) the fact that almost half of Clement's quotations of M k . come from chs. 9 and 10 (above, p. 79, and Appendix D ) ; (2) the influence of this pericope on the western text (above, p. 122); (3) the frequency with which it is echoed by the other parts of M k . (above, pp. 139fr); and (4) the fact that Luke ends his " g r e a t insertion" (9.51-18.14) and comes back to the text of M k . precisely at the beginning of this pericope (Mk. 10.13 = Lk. 18.15). (c) T h a t the service—the μεγάλα μυστήρια—with which Clement associated this material was (or included) some sort of baptism may be indicated by the scriptural reminiscences with which he justifies himself for quoting the passage to Theodore ( I I . l 6 f f ) : ήμεΐς δέ υίοι φωτός εσμεν, πεφωτισμένοι ττ) εζ ΰφους ανατολή του πνεύματος τοΰ κυρίου· ου δε τ ο πνεΰμα τοΰ κυρίου, φησίν, εκεί ελευθερία, πάντα γαρ καθαρά τοις

καθαρόΐς.

T h e baptismal associations of these verses are familiar; the references in the commentary, above, could easily be multiplied. (d) T h e structure of canonical M k . can be seen as parallel to that of the paschal service: chs. 1-8.30 can be taken as exoteric teaching for those catechumens not yet ready for baptism. Then, with the creed (Peter's confession) and the consequent transfiguration would begin the esoteric teaching for those about to be baptized (so 15. A similar interpretation of the longer text alone as a baptismal lection was suggested by G . L . , but this suggestion rested on interpretations of detail which I do not think plausible and therefore have not presented.

168


THE SECRET GOSPEL

Riesenfeld, Tradition 162). Here the baptismal pericope w o u l d follow. A f t e r the baptism the story, like the service, proceeds to Jerusalem, the eucharist, passion, and resurrection, a n d closes with a hint of the disciplina arcani in 16.8. It must be admitted that this outline is obscured by numerous interpolations in M k . , but one could defend the proposition that it remains recognizable. Its recognition w o u l d confirm the hypothesis that 10.13-45 is a baptismal pericope: the section stands at the very place in M k . where the general outline w o u l d require such a pericope. (e) Finally, the details of M k . 10.13-34 + the longer text + 35-45, and the order in w h i c h they occur, correspond to the content and order of the elements in the baptismal service. T h i s I shall now demonstrate by a commentary (points i - x i i ) : (i) T h e pericope begins with M k . i o . 1 3 - 1 6 , a pronouncement story of w h i c h the key verses are 14—15, atφετε τά παιδία ΐρχΐσθαι ττρός με, μη κωλύετε αυτά, των γάρ τοιούτων εστίν η βασιλεία τοΰ θεοϋ, (15) αμην λέγω ύμΐν, οj αν μη δεζηται την βασιλείαν τοΰ θεοΰ ώς παιδίον ού μη εισελθη εις αυτήν. 15 is omitted by M t . a n d m a y not have stood in his text; B u l t m a n n (Geschichte 32), L o h m e y e r , a n d K l o s t e r m a n n (both ad loc.) recognize it as a secondary addition. M t . has a different version in 18.3 (the c o m m o n supposition that this derives from M k . — e . g . , m y Comments 4 5 — i s gratuitous). A n o t h e r presumably underlies J n . 3.3fr. W h a t e v e r the original sense of the saying, J n . is conclusive evidence of its interpretation to refer to baptism, and the same interpretation probably explains its addition to the stories here a n d in M t . 18 (cf. M t . H . 2 5 , 2 9 άρατε τον ζυγόν = Ο'Ό© mDVD Vl5? V3p = δεχεσθαι την βασιλείαν— the essential act of the convert. T h i s explains the apparent contradiction: only those w h o accept the k i n g d o m can enter it, D o d d , Parables 34.) C u l l m a n n , Baptism 72fr, has established the likelihood that there was an early baptismal formula τί κωλύει; ουδέν κωλύει. O f this the μη κωλύετε in the text m a y be an echo. Baptism as rebirth, a n d the childlikeness of candidates and recipients, are commonplaces of early Christian literature; besides the passages cited above, see I Pet. 1.13F; 2.2; Hermas, Mandates I I . 1 ; Similitudes I X . 2 9 . 1 ; Acta Thomae 132; Gospel of Thomas (Leipoldt) 22; Clementine Homilies V I I . 8 ; X I . 2 6 ; Sibylline Oracles V I I I . 3 1 3 f r ; Grant, Children 71. A c c o r d i n g l y w e need not enter the current controversy as to whether M k . 10.13fr was written to justify infant baptism (so Jeremias, Kindertaufe·, contra, A l a n d , Säuglingstaufe). A d m i t t e d l y the passage was used in Tertullian's time to justify infant baptism {De baptismo X V I I I ) , a n d w h e n infant baptism was provided for, infants were baptized first (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X I . 4 ) , as M k . 10.13fr stands first in the M a r k a n pericope. But the position of the passage w o u l d be justified even in a pericope dealing solely with adult baptism, since it states a sine q u a non. T h i s is w h y its parallel also stands first in the discussion of baptism in J n . 3. T h i s was almost seen by G r u n d m a n n , on M k . 1 0 . 1 7 - 3 1 : " O n e must reckon with the possibility that the pericopae concerning the blessing of the children and the rich y o u n g ruler, with the attached conversation w i t h the disciples, had been put together in some p r e - M a r k a n tradition as answers to the question: H o w can one enter the kingdom of G o d ? " (ii) H a v i n g begun w i t h the blessing of those w h o are like children (in w h a t w a y need not concern us), the pericope in M k . goes on to more specific requirements for baptism (verses 1 7 - 2 2 ) : monotheism, observance of the T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s , 169


THE SECRET GOSPEL

renunciation of property. 16 These are presented in answer to the question, " W h a t shall I do to inherit eternal l i f e ? " Equivalent questions in Acts 16.30 and 2.37 lead directly to baptism; cf. also Acts 11.18, where baptism is τήν μετάνοιαν είς ζωήν (with a preceding reference to the κωλύειν formula, as here). In Lk. 10.25 the same question is answered by the two great commandments, which also appear in the Didache as the first point of the instruction to be recited before baptism (1.2, cf. V I I . 1 ) . Cf. J u s t i n M a r t y r , First Apology 61.2, the p r e p a r a t i o n for b a p t i s m : οσοι αν πεισθώσι πιστεύωοιν

αληθή ταΰτα τά ΰφ' ημών

a n d t h e r o l e o f J e s u s ) , και βιοΰν

διδασκόμενα οΰτως

δΰνασθαι

και

και λεγόμενα

είναι ( t h a t is, m o n o t h e i s m

νπισχνώνται

( a c c o r d i n g to the c o m -

mandments of Jesus)—these proceed to baptism. Baptismal catechesis presumably lies behind the similar summary of Christian teaching in Aristides, Apologia 15.3-9 (monotheism, commandments, sharing property with the poor). Again, in the passages behind which Boismard, Liturgie, has recognized a baptismal catechism (I Pet. i . 3 - 1 2 ; Titus 2.12-14; I Jn. 3.1-11—especially this last) appears the same sequence as in M k . 10. 13-22: children of God, the holiness of God, the consequent obligation to keep the commandments and to share with the poor (ποιεΐν δικαιοσννην). O n I Pet. 1.3-21 see also Windisch-Preisker, Briefe 157. Preisker likewise sees in this a prebaptismal διδαχή. Note also the sequence of themes in 1 7 - 2 1 : the holiness and fatherhood of God, the fear ( = obedience) of God, the worthlessness of silver and gold, the saving death and resurrection of Christ. This same sequence appears in M k . 10.17-34. T h e evidence given by Preisker and Boismard seems to me to refute the contention of Robinson, Survey, that in N T times there was no prebaptismal instruction. Robinson's arguments are all based on silence; and the most impressive instances of silence, those in Acts, are not probative because most of them report baptisms resultant on miracles and therefore not to be taken as evidence of normal procedure. (iii) In these passages used by Preisker and Boismard, however, the holiness of God is taken as an attribute to be realized also in the lives of his children. In Mk. 10.18 the goodness of God is sharply declared unique: τι με λέγεις αγαθόν; ουδείς αγαθός el μη eis 6 θεός. This declaration is clearly an insertion irrelevant to the latter half of Jesus' reply (τά? εντολάς οΐδας, κ.τ.Χ.) and to all the rest of the story. Only the latter half of Jesus' reply responds to the preceding question, and only this latter half is found in the independent version of the same story in Lk. io.25f. Moreover, the Didache (1.2) parallel to L k . , i n t r o d u c i n g the c o m m a n d m e n t s as η όδος της

ζωής,

suggests a pre-Christian, Jewish origin for the present question and answer in its Lucan form, and a variant of the same question and answer appears in many passages of rabbinic literature as an exegesis of Ps. 39.13fr (Margulies, Wayyikra Rabbah, sec. 16.2). Accordingly, the insertion in the Markan form has to be explained. W h y should an editor have inserted such a detail ? T o adapt the story to the requirements of baptismal catechesis. T h e catechesis required an initial proof text for monotheism, so a verbal detail ("good master") was seized on as an excuse to insert this irrelevant proof text. T h a t 16. Walter, Analyse, has not persuaded me that the following account should be changed.

170


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

ουδείς

αγαθός,

el μη elς

ο θεός.

is a p r o o f text is clear n o t o n l y f r o m its m n e m o n i c f o r m , b u t also f r o m its b a c k g r o u n d a n d its history in C h r i s t i a n exegesis. Its b a c k g r o u n d is g e n e r a l l y i n a c c l a m a t i o n s of the elς θεός t y p e (studied b y Peterson, Els), b u t m o r e specifically in Philo, De mutatione nominum 7 : Moses, πάντα δια πάντων ερευνησας εζητει τον τριπόθητον τηλαυγώς

De somniis 1.148—149, ταΐς άοράτως

καΐ μόνον αγαθόν

ϊδεΐν, a n d therefore p r a y e d to see G o d ( E x . 3 3 . 1 3 ) . E v e n m o r e striking is μεν 8η των άκρως κεκαθαρμενων

ό των δλων ηγεμών

εμπεριπατεϊ

. . . ταΐς

διανοίαις άφοφητί

δε των έτι άπολουομενων,

κατά το παντελες εκνιφαμενων . .. άγγελοι, λόγοι θείοι, φαιδρΰνοντες αύτάς τοις δόγμασιν. δήλόν

όσα δε εποικίζεται

εστί.

σπούδαζε

οδν,

κακών ω

οίκητόρων

φνχή,

θεοΰ

στίφη,

ίνα είς ό αγαθός

οΐκος

γενεσθαι,

Ιερόν

μόνος

μήπω

δε

καλοκαγαθίας είσοικίσηται, άγιον.

The

connections of this passage w i t h the rhetoric of C h r i s t i a n b a p t i s m a r e so n u m e r o u s t h a t it m a y be t h o u g h t a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e for the b a p t i s m a l usage of the ει? ο άγαθός/θεός

phrase a n d consequently of the M a r k a n pericope to w h i c h the phrase

w a s a d d e d . A s for the history of M k . 10.18 in C h r i s t i a n exegesis, t h a t shows the verse constantly used, as in this passage, to i n c u l c a t e m o n o t h e i s m . I t a p p e a r s in Justin, First Apology 16.6f, as p r o o f ώς . . . to? θεόν μόνον δει προσκννεΐν,

a n d Dialogue

ιοι.ι

as a p r o o f text against the M a r c i o n i t e s — J e s u s w a s s a v e d b y the G o d of the O T . M a r c i o n , for his part, used it to p r o v e t h a t the true G o d , q u a g o o d , is superior to b o t h Jesus a n d the d e m i u r g e ( H i p p o l y t u s , Philosophumena V I I . 3 1 ) . I n P t o l e m a e u s it is p r o o f of the nature of the τελειος

θεός . . . ό πατήρ,

εξ ου τά πάντα

(Epiphanius,

Panarion X X X I I I . 7 . 5 f ) · Irenaeus ( H a r v e y , 1 . 1 3 . 2 = Stieren, 1.20.2) reports t h a t the M a r c o s i a n s used it to the same p u r p o s e ; so, too, the Naassenes in H i p p o l y t u s

Phil-

osophumena V . 7 (fol. 30 verso). It was not only a n i m p o r t a n t text in gnosticism ( G r a n t , Gnosis 4), b u t also a favorite of C l e m e n t ( O s b o r n , Philosophy 6 5 ) — a g a i n , as a p r o o f of a single, supreme G o d τον αγαθόν και πρώτον καΐ μόνον ζωης αιωνίου ταμιαν, ην ο υίός δίδωσιν ημιν παρ' εκείνου λαβών ( I I I . l 6 4 . I l f — a g a i n a b a p t i s m a l t h e m e ) . (iv) T h e use of the ten c o m m a n d m e n t s in b a p t i s m a l t e a c h i n g , as in M k .

10.19,

a p p e a r s a l r e a d y in the Didache (II. 1 - 3 ) a n d p r o b a b l y in Pliny's epistle of the y e a r 1 1 2 ( X . 9 6 . 7 ; G r a n t , Decalogue n f ) ; it w a s a n t i c i p a t e d b y their use in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the skema'—the

nearest t h i n g in Israelite tradition to a confession o f faith

(Kuhn,

Phylakterien·, G r a n t , Decalogue 1). [ S t e n d a h l reminds m e t h a t in C h r i s t i a n b a p t i s m a l p r a c t i c e not the w h o l e d e c a l o g u e w a s used, b u t o n l y the latter half, as in M k . 10.19. See his School 63.] (ν) εμβλεφας

αϋτώ ηγάπησεν

αύτόν ( M k . 10.21) is n o t p a r a l l e l e d in either M t . or

L k . E i t h e r the later evangelists deleted it as i m p r o p e r (so W e l l h a u s e n EM,

ad loc.),

or t h e y d i d not find it in their texts of M k . Its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the rest of the M a r k a n story is difficult to explain. D o e s it i m p l y t h a t because Jesus l o v e d the y o u n g m a n he told h i m t h a t in order to be s a v e d he must sell his belongings a n d f o l l o w h i m ? I f Jesus h a d not l o v e d h i m w o u l d he h a v e c o n c e a l e d this secret a n d let h i m g o to h e l l ? (So L o h m e y e r ! ) O r does it i m p l y t h a t because Jesus l o v e d h i m his f u l f i l m e n t of the c o m m a n d m e n t s , w h i c h w o u l d otherwise h a v e sufficed for salvation, b e c a m e insufficient

17!


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

a n d this extra r e q u i r e m e n t ( w h i c h he w o u l d not meet) w a s imposed o n h i m b y a special act of d i v i n e l o v e ? (So L a g r a n g e ! ) S u c h " e x p l a n a t i o n s " suggest (by their desperation) that the phrase here is intrusive. S o does the f a c t t h a t it is not in M k . ' s m a n n e r , w h e n r e p e a t i n g himself, to transfer to one person w h a t he says elsewhere of another. S u c h transferences a r e m o r e c o m m o n in the use of M a r k a n material b y the later evangelists (see a b o v e , p. 137). A c c o r d i n g l y , the phrase here is a n interp o l a t i o n a n d the longer text enables us to e x p l a i n it. I t w a s a d d e d here to i d e n t i f y this m a n w i t h the y o u t h of the f o l l o w i n g passage in the longer text, w h e r e the same phrase is used w i t h a clear narrative f u n c t i o n : the y o u t h , l o o k i n g at Jesus, l o v e d h i m , and therefore b e g g e d to be w i t h h i m , and therefore the t w o of t h e m w e n t to the y o u t h ' s house. T h i s m a k e s sense. T h e same h a n d p r o b a b l y a d d e d ήν γαρ ΐχων κτήματα

πολλά

to the longer text ( I I I . 6 ) for the same purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g the t w o characters (and some copyist a b b r e v i a t e d it to ην γαρ πλούσιος; see a b o v e , in the c o m m e n t a r y , ad loc.). T h e editor w h o m a d e these interpolations (both in c a n o n i c a l M k . a n d in the longer text) seems to h a v e w o r k e d after M a t t h e w a n d L u k e , b u t w o r k e d so e a r l y that his a d d i t i o n has p r o b a b l y left no trace in the M S tradition of M k . 10.21. ( T h e omission of ήγάπησεν

αυτόν και b y I i , 15, a n d 579 is m o r e likely censorship.) H o w e v e r , it is

n o t a b l e t h a t M t . 19.20 m a k e s the unidentified rich m a n of M k . a " y o u t h " — ν ε α ν ί σ κ ο ς — l i k e the one in the f o l l o w i n g passage of the longer text, a n d thus effects the same identification as d i d the editor of M k . , b u t w i t h o u t the a w k w a r d n e s s of the intrusive phrase a n d the possibly o b j e c t i o n a b l e a t t r i b u t i o n to Jesus of love for a m a n . H e r e w e h a v e p e r h a p s a n o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n that M t . k n e w the longer text (cf. the c o m m e n t a r y o n προσεκΰνησεν,

II.24,

an

d on και προσελθών,

I I I . I , a b o v e ) . T h e m o t i v e for

i d e n t i f y i n g the t w o characters was the b a p t i s m a l use of the p e r i c o p e , for

ήγάπησεν

αυτόν in 10.21 looks f o r w a r d to the resurrection a n d the n o c t u r n a l initiation (baptism) in the l o n g e r text. B a p t i s m is the gift of love. S o E p h . 5.25fr ο χριστός ήγάπησΐν

την

εκκλησίαν

τοΰ

και εαυτόν παρεδωκεν ύπερ αυτής ίνα αυτήν άγιάση καθαρίσας τ ω λουτρώ

ύδατος εν ρήματι. A p o c . 1.5, τ ω άγαπώντι ήμας και λυσαντι (λοΰσαντι, koine,

Pal.gig.vg.)

ήμας εκ των αμαρτιών ήμών εν τω αιματι αντοΰ. J n . 3 · 1 6 a n d 1 3 · i f f · (Is f o o t w a s h i n g a J o h a n n i n e second b a p t i s m ?) (vi) T h e a b a n d o n m e n t of p r o p e r t y as a r e q u i r e m e n t for b a p t i s m w a s e v i d e n t l y a p e c u l i a r i t y o f t h a t c h u r c h f r o m w h i c h this m a t e r i a l originally derived. T h e corollary a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n of this p r i m i t i v e c o m m u n i s m a p p e a r in verses 2 8 - 3 0 : W h o e v e r j o i n s the g r o u p enjoys its c o m m o n p r o p e r t y a n d is a m e m b e r of its c o m m o n f a m i l y . νΰν εν τω καιρώ τούτω . . . μετά διωγμών

is h a r d l y e x p l i c a b l e otherwise. S o the a n c i e n t

C h u r c h understood the passage ( C r a m e r ; T h e o p h y l a c t ) a n d so, g e n e r a l l y , d o m o d e r n c o m m e n t a t o r s (cited b y L a g r a n g e , ad loc.). G o g u e l ' s o b j e c t i o n (Persecutions 275 n3) that c o m m u n i t y of goods w a s " n e v e r " realized is a petitio principii: it a p p a r e n t l y w a s realized in the c o m m u n i t y f r o m w h i c h this text c a m e (cf. L o h m e y e r ,

214-219;

G r u n d m a n n , ad loc.). T h e parallels discussed a b o v e , p. 165, if v a l i d , w o u l d show t h a t verse 28 (Peter's c l a i m , " W e h a v e left all a n d f o l l o w e d " ) was a l r e a d y a t t a c h e d to the story in the earliest f o r m o f M k . Verses 2 6 - 2 7

are

clearly s e c o n d a r y ( B u l t m a n n ,

Geschichte 2 1 ) . T h e y reflect the a b a n d o n m e n t of the original r e q u i r e m e n t a n d e x p l a i n that, in spite of the f a m o u s s a y i n g a b o u t the c a m e l , salvation is possible e v e n for those 172


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

who keep their wealth. A similar modification appears in Mt. 19.21, where the unconditional requirement of M k . is softened to a counsel of perfection: e'i θίλεις τ£λΐίος ehai. Since the Markan requirement was thus soon abandoned, no survival of it is to be expected in the baptismal teaching of the later Church. But it is in place in a baptismal pericope, where later baptismal teaching substituted for it the requirement of indiscriminate charity: Didache 1.5, παντι τω αίτονντί σε δίδου και μη άπαίτΐΐ. (Further passages cited above, ii, end.) T h e rewards in this world are the consequences of church membership, effected by baptism (verses 28-30), " a n d , in the world to come, eternal life," made available by baptism. (vii) Hereupon follows the prophecy of the passion and resurrection because, in the first place, it is the essential of the specifically Christian creed; and in the baptismal service, as here, this creed follows the preliminary instructions in monotheism, commandments, and charity, which Christianity had in common with other forms of Judaism (cf. the " T w o W a y s , " in Didache I - V I ) . Mark also attached the passion and resurrection prophecy to Peter's confession in ch. 8, of which it fills out the credal content (verses 29-31): Son . . . suffered . . . dead . . . rose again. Like the creed, the passion prophecy is here presented as a μυστήριον (Theophylact, ad loc.), "esoteric teaching" (Bultmann, Geschichte 357). In the second place, Jesus' resurrection is the assurance of the efficacy of baptism and the reliability of the promise—in the preceding verses—of reward in the world to come (I Cor. 15.12-22). Finally, Jesus' passion, death, burial, and resurrection are, according to Paul, the essential content of baptism; the effect of baptism is to make the initiate participate in these (Rom. 6-3f). And this same use of baptism as the symbol of passion, death, and burial appears in the immediately following section of M k . (10.38, δύνασθε . . . τό βάπτισμα ο εγώ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήναι;). It is therefore plausible to suppose that the passion prophecy appears in this baptismal pericope not only as the assurance, but also as the explanation of the rite's efficacy. (viii) Chrysostom, De quatriduano Lazaro, treats the Lazarus story as the immediate sequel and consequence of the prophecies of the passion, and so, too, it is here, in the longer text of Mk. Chrysostom sees in it Jesus' demonstration of his power to raise the dead, thus the antitype of his own resurrection. For the author of the longer text it was probably also the antitype of the two resurrections of the believer, both the final resurrection which will bring the life of the world to come, promised above—this interpretation appears in Irenaeus (Harvey, V . 13 = Stieren, V . 1 3 ) — a n d also the initial, baptismal resurrection of the sinner from the death of sin—this interpretation appears in Origen, for example, in Homilia in Jeremiam I X . 3 (ed. Klostermann, GCS Origines, vol. 3, pp. 6yf) and in Hippolytus Commentary onjn. (ed. Bonwetsch and Achelis, GCS Hippolytus, vol. 1 .II, p. 216), where the interpretation of the story as a preparation for baptism is explicit: on the statement that Lazarus was sick, Hippolytus comments, ω ασθενεία πυρετούς φνχών αποσοβούσα καί Ιδρώτας βαπτίσματος δροσίζουσα, και λαμπράς στολάς φνχης έξυφαίνουσα. Moreover, the interpretation of baptism as resurrection from the dead seems to have been held already by the Carpocratians (below, p. 185) and is traceable through the hymn quoted in Eph. 5.14 back to the time and possibly to the affiliates of the ζ) um ran sect; see Kuhn, Epheser-

173


THE SECRET GOSPEL

brief 342-345. Accordingly, the story is perfectly in place where the longer text puts it in this baptismal pericope. T h e baptismal and the literal interpretations are conjoined in the second-century and perhaps Egyptian Epistula Apostolorum, 27(38), where Jesus says, " A n d therefore, indeed, I have gone down to (the place of} Lazarus, and have preached <1to the righteous and) the prophets

A b r a h a m , Isaac, and Jacob, to your fathers the prophets, and have brought them word that they might come out of the rest, which is beneath,

that they might come out of the rest, which is beneath, and ascend to that which is (above}

into the heavens; and I have given them the right hand

right (hari)d on them . . .

of the baptism of life and forgiveness and release, freeing from all evil, as I have also done for you, and from now on also for those w h o believe on m e . " 1 7 Here the saviour's entering the tomb (underworld) and reaching his hand to the dead agree with the longer text against Jn. Similar interpretation and agreements appear in the Apocryphon of John (edd. Krause and L a b i b , 195fr, 250fr) and in Methodius, De resurrectione 1.23 end (ed. Bonwetsch, GCS, p. 248): In saving the wicked from sin πρεπει δε τω θεω άνοιγειν τα μνημεία

εκάστου

καΐ εζάγειν

εκ των μνημείων

ημάς εζωοποιημενους,

ωσπερ 6

σωτηρ τον Λάζαρον εΐλκυσεν εξω. This agrees with the longer text against Jn. in making Jesus open the tomb himself and (probably) raise Lazarus by hand. T h u s the Lazarus story, in both its Johannine and M a r k a n forms, was connected with baptismal resurrection. This perhaps explains w h y John prefaces his version of the story by a contrast of Jesus with the Baptist, continuing his polemic against the latter (i.26ff; 3.26fr; 4.1). In l o g o f f he has Jesus go to the Baptist's original territory a n d t h e r e e m p h a s i z e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e m : και πο?<λοΙ ηλθον προς αυτόν και ελεγον ο τ ι 'Ιωάννης μεν σημεΐον έποίησεν ού8εν, πάντα δε δσα εΐπεν 'Ιωάννης περί τούτου αληθή

fjv. This leads directly to the raising of Lazarus, Jesus' greatest σημεΐον (that is, miracle, as in Jn. 11.47; 12.18; cf. Melito, On the Passion 12, line 38), but the intention m a y also be to contrast the miraculous resurrection effected by the Christian σημεΐον (sign = baptism: Clement I I I . 1 3 8 . 1 5 ; cf. circumcision, R o m . 4.11) with Johannite baptism w h i c h — J o h n implies—had no such supernatural effect; a similar contrast is made in Acts 19.1-7. (ix) T h e baptismal concern which has thus far dominated the pericope makes it probable that the nocturnal initiation which follows the Lazarus story should be understood to be a baptism. This probability finds curious confirmation in a tradition reported from Ephraem Syrus by Dionysius bar Salibi, that Lazarus was raised in order to be baptized, and that after his baptism he was taken to Alexandria (where the longer text appears). Baumstark, Lazarusakten, from whose discussion I know the 17. M y translation from Duensing's G e r m a n . T h e italics are his and distinguish elements peculiar to the older, but imperfectly preserved, Coptic text, from the complete, but corrupt, Ethiopic. His revised translation (Hennecke-Schneemelcher 1.141) presents no significant difference.

174


THE SECRET GOSPEL

passage, thinks the source must have been a very early περίοδος, πράξεις, or μαρτύριον Λαζάρου (p. 2 1 1 ) . Another trace of the same tradition perhaps appears in the Iohannis Evangelium Apocryphum Arabice (tr. I. Galbiati, Milan, 1957), L I I I . 8 , etc., which refers to " t h e disciple whom Jesus loved and whom he instructed in his mysteries"; cf. Clement's description of the rich young ruler as νπο τον κνριον uvvt^Xc ιον μένος ( 1 1 . 2 2 ι . 27). These passages may reflect knowledge of at least the content of the longer text, where the baptismal character of the initiation is indicated not only by the preceding context, surveyed above, but also by the details of the rite: it is after six days, it is nocturnal, the prescribed costume is a sheet to be worn over the naked body, and the content is the mystery of the kingdom of God. Let us examine these details one by one. " T H E SIX D A Y S , " Richardson wrote to me, " a r e the six days of the Alexandrine paschal feast (Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistle to Basilides 1 end). Cf. the transfiguration six days, Mk. 9.2, and the paschal six days of J n . 12.1. The earlier custom of two days is in Mk. 14.1, Didache V I I . 4 , and Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X . 7 ; X X I X . 2 , and is referred to by Dionysius, loc. cit." However, Dionysius wrote of the length of the fast before the feast celebrating the resurrection, and his letter makes clear that even as to this there were variations of practice. Mk. 14.1, μετά δυο -ημέρας, supposes a three-day preparation period (see above, p. 163 n8). Thus the story of the anointing, which it places on the first day, accords with the preparatory washing of the catechumens which Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X . 5 , sets on Maundy Thursday, to be followed by the fast on Friday and Saturday. And Hippolytus X X . 1 - 3 supposes that even before these three days there had been a preparatory period in which those set apart to be baptized had undergone examination, Gospel reading, and daily exorcism. A seven-day period of preparation for baptism is supposed in Acta Thomae 26 end. J n . 1 2 . 1 , which puts the anointing -προ ΐξ ήμερων τοΰ πάσχα, probably presupposes such a period, and the importance in pre-Markan tradition of a six-day period prior to the initiatory revelation is strongly suggested by the similarities (set forth above, section 2) of Mk. 8.29-9.8; 10.20-32 plus the longer text; and 14.27-16.5. So it seems likely that the six days' preparation before baptism is even earlier than the two days' fast of the Didache. Both seven- and three-day periods of preparation are frequently required for magical operations; e.g., PGM I I I . 304; V . 228; V I I . 334; X I I I . 115= 118, 674. NOCTURNAL: Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X I . 1, sets baptism at cockcrow, following an all night vigil. This is repeated by the later Church orders (e.g., Apostolic Constitutions V . 19.3) and seems to have been common usage. Baptism is nocturnal in Acta Petri et Andreae 21 end; Martyrium Matthaei 8; Acta Thomae 27; and probably Clementine Homilies X I V . 1. If the author of Acts 10.47 knew the geography of Palestine, he must have thought baptism nocturnal: Caesarea is 1 ο hours by horse from J o p p a (Baedeker, Palestine 239) so Peter would have arrived in the evening. Baptism is again nocturnal in Acts 16.33. The footwashing in J n . 13 (a variant of baptism) is nocturnal. Nicodemus, in J n . 3, comes to Jesus by night and receives instruction concerning baptism as the means of entering the kingdom of God (3.3,5,13fr). THE SHEET OVER T H E NAKED BODY : Nudity in baptism is prescribed by Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition X X I . 3 , 5 , 1 1 , and was required by the Pharisees in proselyte baptism

175


T H E SECRET G O S P E L

as well as in immersions for purification (Mikwaot V I I I end and I X ; B. Tebamot 4 7 b ) . Particularly close to the longer text, w h e r e the prescribed garment is a σινδών, is Acta Thomae 121, w h e r e the apostle has to baptize a y o u n g l a d y : εκελευσεν

τη

τροφω αύτη ς άποδΰΐΐν αυτήν και σινδόνα αυτήν περιζωσα ι. Undressing for baptism appears also in Acta Barnabae 12 a n d Martyrium Matthaei 27. In the J o h a n n i n e footwashing (which Aphraates, Demonstratio X I I . 10, interpreted as a baptism) Jesus is naked except for a towel (λεντιον, 13.4), w h i c h the Syriac versions describe as a σινδών (KJOT®). IS it b y chance that the beggar in M k . 10.50 (immediately after the second passage of the longer text) throws a w a y his himation w h e n he comes to Jesus to be c u r e d ? T h e gesture was understood as symbolic b y the commentator in C r a m e r , ad loc. a n d m a y h a v e been so understood b y the author. T h a t naked baptism was already customary in Paul's time is shown b y his allegorizing the undressing for it a n d dressing after it: Col. 2.1 if, εν τη απεκδΰσει τον σώματος της σαρκός, εν Tfj περιτομη τού . . . εν τω βαπτίσματι",

τον χρισ-

G a l . 3-27j όσοι γαρ els χριστον εβατττίσθητε χριστον

iveSva-

ασθε; further, I C o r . 1 5 - 3 3 ^ ( a s interpreted b y Odes of Solomon 15.8, see L i e t z m a n n , Korinther, ad loc.) a n d I I Cor. 5.2. Similar allegorization (not apparently dependent on Paul) appears in the Gospel of Thomas (Leipoldt) 3 7 ; the Gospel according to the Egyptians (Clement, I I . 2 3 8 . 2 4 f f ) ; a n d P. Oxy. 655 e n d ; a n d the same general theme recurs in the Gospel according to Philip (Schenke, 77, 1 0 1 ) ; Clementine Homilies V I I I . 2 2 . 4 2 3 . 1 ; Hippolytus, Philosophumena V . 19 e n d

(the

Sethians);

Irenaeus

(Harvey,

1 . 1 4 . 1 - 4 = Stieren, 1 . 2 1 . 1 - 5 — t h e V a l e n t i n i a n s ) ; Acta Thomae 132 (text Ρ o n l y ) ; Justin, Dialogue 1 1 6 ; C l e m e n t I I I . 131.25fr (Excerpta ex Theodoto);

140.6ff; 143.24fr

(Eclogae); Apostolic Constitutions V I . 6 ; a n d m a n y later Christian documents. T h i s early dissemination of the theme argues a n early origin. T h e indicated baptismal practice (nudity a n d σινδών) lent itself particularly to Pauline exegesis because (as L i e b e r m a n pointed out to me) the initiatory σινδών (which L X X regularly uses to translate ]HD) was also the regular burial g a r m e n t ; cf. J . KWayim I X . 4 (32b) = J. Ketubot X I I . 3 (35a) 13η "Dpi f n s pTOS, " R a b b i <Judah, the P a t r i a r c h ) was buried in a single σινδών" J.

(and no other g a r m e n t ) ;

Terumot V I I I . 10 (46b, inf.), 1 Π 0 3 Π0Π "[TD,) " L e t the d e a d m a n be w r a p p e d i n

his σινδών"

(that is, let the m a n be a b a n d o n e d to his f a t e — a current saying).

A c c o r d i n g l y , Jesus h a d been b u r i e d in a σινδών ( M k . 15.46 a n d parallels). Paul's interpretation of baptism as death a n d burial w i t h Jesus suggests that the σινδών over the naked b o d y was the customary costume as early as Paul's time. T h e σινδών was not a " p r o p e r " garment, though it was w o r n occasionally. Crates, the cynic, w h e n called d o w n b y the A t h e n i a n police for going a b o u t in a σινδών, offered to show t h e m the great philosopher Theophrastus similarly attired. W h e n they found this incredible, he took them to a barber shop a n d showed t h e m T h e o phrastus in a σινδών h a v i n g his hair cut (Diogenes Laertius, V I . 9 0 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , since the costume specified in the longer text is unusual a n d is associated with baptism, it can be used as an indication of baptism. T h i s explains w h y the phrase of the longer text, περιβεβλημένος M k . 14.51 (except that W fam

σινδόνα επι γυμνοΰ, recurs v e r b a t i m in

1 c k Sy.s Cop.s&· h a v e discreetly omitted επί γυμνοΰ,

while θ fam 13. 5 4 3 . 5 6 5 . S y . p A e t h . h a v e accidentally replaced it b y the γυμνός of the

176


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

following verse). I n 14.51, too, the subject is νεανίσκος τις—the y o u n g m a n w h o was with Jesus at the time of his arrest a n d w h o , on being seized, fled naked (an episode both M a t t h e w and L u k e chose to omit). As suggested in the commentary on III.8, above, the recurrence of the περιβεβλημένος phrase is to be explained as that of a fixed formula, p r o b a b l y a baptismal rubric. M a r k ' s fondness for repetition as a means of cross-reference was noted above (p. 136); for example, his initial identification of the Baptist as Elijah merely b y repeating ζώνην δερματίνην περί την όσφύν αύτοΰ. A n d fixed formulas, especially those connected with baptism, frequently recur v e r b a t i m or are referred to by partial quotation in the N T and early Christian literature, for example, το βάπτισμα Ίωάννον, M k . I i . 3 0 and parallels; L k . 7.29; Acts 1.22; 18.25; 19.3; (εις) άφεσιν αμαρτιών M k . 1.4 and parallels; M t . 26.28; L k . 1 . 7 7 ; 24.47; Acts 2.38; 5 . 3 1 ; IO.43; 13-3®5 26.18; Col. 1 . 1 4 ; εις το ονομα του κυρίου Ίησοΰ, Acts 8.16; 19.5; cf. 2.38 (έπϊ); 10.48 (εν); I Cor. i . i 3 f , etc.; τί κωλύει; οΰδεν κωλύει, C u l l m a n n , Baptism 72ff (to his evidence a d d Clementine Homilies X I I I . 1 1 . 1 , where Peter's laughter is better explained if the previous speaker has unwittingly quoted a part of the formula of the rite). Further, M k . 14.51 is echoed in M k . 16.5, νεανίσκον . . . περιβεβλημενον στολην λευκην, a n d again in the Gospel of Peter 55 (13), νεανίσκον . . . περιβεβλημενον στολην λαμπροτάτην; a n d the recurrent use of περιβεβλημένους στολας λευκάς and cognate phrases to describe the saints in the Apocalypse (3.5,18; 4.4; 7.9,13; 19.8) indicates that the expression and the white garment (σινδών = στολή λευκή) h a d some special significance in the early C h u r c h . F r o m the longer text a n d the parallels above, w e can conclude that the garment was the baptismal a n d burial garment. T h u s the repetition in M k . 14.51 (recognized by B u l t m a n n as primitive tradition, b y contrast with the " c o m p l e t e l y l e g e n d a r y " agony in 3 2 - 4 2 ; Geschichte 288ff) is an explanation, from an early M a r k a n stratum, of w h a t the y o u n g m a n was doing there (a problem for w h i c h no plausible solution has hitherto been suggested). T h e reader w h o h a d already read the longer text w o u l d realize that this youth, too, h a d come to be baptized. ( O n the stylistic difference between the story of the arrest a n d that of the agony, see W o h l e b , Beobachtungen 190; the objections of Zerwick, Untersuchungen 4f are naive.) H o w e v e r , a further question has to be answered: W h y , then, is the same phrase used for the angels at the resurrection and the saints in the A p o c a l y p s e ? Because the burial garment is also the resurrection garment. T h i s is stated explicitly by the first two of the rabbinic passages cited a b o v e — J . Kil'ayim I X . 4 (32b) = J. Ketubot X I I . 3 (35a): " A m a n is raised in the same clothes in w h i c h he is b u r i e d . " (Such is, at least, the majority opinion). Accordingly, the baptismal shroud is also the robe of the saints and of the saviour, and hence of the caelicoli generally. T h i s explains the stories in Acta Thomae 27, Actus Petri cum Simone 5 end, and Acta Barnabae 3, where baptism is followed b y appearance of a y o u n g m a n in a white garment a n d a blaze of light: these are the angels whose appearance announces the initiate's resurrection b y baptism. Finally, this conclusion is confirmed b y a n d itself confirms the observations of G o o d e n o u g h as to the symbolic importance of white robed figures in Jewish art (for example, K r a e l i n g , Dura pi. L I I , L I I I , L X I , L X I I , L X I I I , etc.). Goodenough's point of departure h a d been the obvious importance of such figures in Philo a n d in 177


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

early Christian art (Goodenough, I . 2 8 f f a n d the indices, under Robe; further, I X . 1 3 1 168, where the argument is pushed to absurdity but not thereby wholly invalidated). T H E M Y S T E R Y OF T H E KINGDOM OF G O D : This phrase, too, recurs in Mk., at 4 . 1 1 . For the variants there and those of the Matthaean and Lucan parallels, see the commentary above, on I I I . 10. In M t . and Lk. (as Lk. now stands) the plural " m y s t e r i e s " which the disciples are given " t o k n o w " are the teachings of the Church—especially, in this instance, its interpretations of the parables. This misinterpretation was suggested by the context into which the logion was inserted in Mk. 4 . 1 1 ; it would also have been suggested by the use of εδίδασκεν in the longer text, if Matthew and Luke had read it. T h a t M k . 4.1 if is an old logion, not an invention by the compiler of Mk., was shown by Jeremias (Gleichnisse 7 - 1 2 , partly anticipated by Lohmeyer, ad loc. and Manson, Teaching 77) and has since been widely accepted (Taylor; Cranfield; Grundmann; Gnilka, Verstockung 2 3 ; Boobyer's attempt in Redaction to defend the unity of the passage is not convincing). T h e compiler of Mk. knew or represented the logion as addressed to Jesus' circle (οί περι αυτόν); a later glossator has added συν τοΐς δώδεκα (4.10; Bultmann, Geschichte 7 1 ) . T h e compiler also took εν παραβολαΐς τα πάντα γίνεται to mean, " I teach only in parables," (cf. Mk. 4 . 3 3 ^ , but Jeremias has argued that, once the logion is separated from its present context, this meaning is not necessary; he proposes to translate " i s t alles rätselvoll"—"everything is puzzling," and this, too, has been widely accepted. If it be accepted, there is no need to refer τα πάντα exclusively to Jesus' verbal teaching (and such a reference would not be expected even in rabbinic Judaism, where students customarily learned from their masters' actions as well as from their words—e.g., B. 'Erubin 64b). τά πάντα may, therefore, mean "everything I do and say," or even "everything G o d does." Accordingly, one cannot define from τά πάντα the meaning of the μυστήριον to which it might or might not be sharply antithetical. T h e μυστήριον, therefore, must be defined—if at all—from the general sense of the verse and the similar usages elsewhere in the N T and in related works. In the first place, it is clear that in Mk. 4 . 1 1 the μυστήριον cannot be the explanation that follows in 4 . 1 4 - 2 0 , for it is something which already " h a s been g i v e n " in the past, something which Jesus' intimates have already received and which makes it possible for Jesus to give them now, as a further gift, the explanation of the parable. T h a t they had already received the μυστήριον was what distinguished them from τοις εξω, which presumably meant for Mark what it means in I Cor. 5 . 1 2 ; Col. 4 . 5 ; I Thess. 4 . 1 2 ; that is, those outside the Church (cf. the parallels from philosophic schools cited by Bauer, Wb., εξω, β). Now that " m y s t e r y " which " w a s g i v e n " to members of the Church, which distinguished them from nonmembers, and which enabled them to be given the secret teachings of the Church, was baptism. T h e word μυστήριον in Eph. 5.32 probably refers to the spiritual union effected by baptism. T h e argument in verses 2 5 - 3 2 runs as follows: Christ loved the Church, washed it with water and the word, hallowed it, placed it beside him in glory, and made it his own body, therefore he feeds and cherishes it; men make their wives their own bodies, therefore they should love, feed, and cherish them. T h e first half of this argument 178


THE SECRET GOSPEL

reflects the P a u l i n e doctrine of b a p t i s m ( i n c l u d i n g the e n t h r o n e m e n t w i t h C h r i s t ; cf. C o l . 2 . 1 2 - 3 . 4 ) . O f this d o c t r i n e the w o r d s italicized at the b e g i n n i n g a n d the e n d w e r e r e l e v a n t to the a u t h o r ' s p u r p o s e ; the m i d d l e terms (washing, h a l l o w i n g , a n d e n t h r o n e m e n t ) w e r e not. W h y , then, d i d he i n c l u d e t h e m ? P r e s u m a b l y because t h e y w e r e fixed parts of the doctrine o f b a p t i s m . T h e r e f o r e w h e n he concludes το μύστηριον τοΰτο μέγα εστίν, εγώ δε λέγω els Χριστον και els την έκκλησίαν, the " m y s t e r y " is p r e s u m a b l y the spiritual u n i o n e f f e c t e d b y b a p t i s m a n d thence the rite itself w h i c h m a k e s the C h u r c h the b o d y o f Christ b y m a k i n g Christ's spirit live in the m e m b e r s . T o this m y s t e r y the w r i t e r c o m p a r e s the spiritual u n i o n e f f e c t e d b y physical intercourse in m a r r i a g e , a n d he finds a reference to b o t h these mysteries in G e n . 2.24. T h e same use of " m y s t e r y " to refer to b a p t i s m is f o u n d in I C o r . 2.6f σοφίαν Se λαλοΰμεν

εν τοις

τελείοις . . . λάλου μεν θεοΰ σοφίαν εν μυστηρίω,

w h e r e it is Utterly

i m p l a u s i b l e to neglect the parallelism a n d to separate the initiated (τελείοις) initiation (μυστηρίω).

f r o m the

A l l o ' s objection {I Cor., ad loc.) that the C o r i n t h i a n converts

w e r e not τέλειοι neglects the distinction b e t w e e n potential a n d a c t u a l salvation, w h i c h is basic to P a u l ' s t h o u g h t w i t h its constant alternation b e t w e e n d e i t y a n d d e p r a v i t y ( R o m . 7 - 8 , I I C o r . 4, etc.) Baird's a t t e m p t to e x p l a i n a w a y the t e r m i n o l o g y (Mature) is b u i l t o n the false antithesis: either " a special a n d esoteric doctrine reserved for . . . the i n i t i a t e d " or " t h e G o s p e l , ' t h e w o r d of the C r o s s . ' " It never o c c u r r e d to h i m that, to the ancients, b a p t i s m was a n i n i t i a t i o n — a τελετή,

as L u c i a n said (Peregrinus

1 1 ) . A n t i c i p a t i n g a r g u m e n t s to be presented later, it m a y be said t h a t a further reason for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the " m y s t e r y " in I C o r . 2.7 to be baptism lies in the f a c t that the " w i s d o m of G o d " r e v e a l e d in it involves the secret of Christ's descent in disguise a n d his assumption of the b o d y from the cosmic powers, for the purpose of s u b j u g a t i n g t h e m : σοφίαν . . . fjv ουδείς των αρχόντων

τοΰ αιώνος τούτου εγνωκεν·

οΰκ άν τον κΰριον της

cf. Ascension of Isaiah 10—Ii. T h i s secret o f

έσταύρωσαν;

el γαρ

έγνωσαν,

descent in disguise underlies the P a u l i n e interpretation o f baptism in C o l . 2 . 1 5 , w h e r e the second h a l f of the process, the stripping o f f in the ascent, is referred to. A n d the conclusion of the process in I C o r . 2.9, as in C o l . 2 . 1 2 - 3 . 4 , is the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f the b a p t i z e d in Christ's resurrection, ascension, a n d session in g l o r y , α οφθαλμός εΐδεν και ους ουκ ηκουσεν . . . οσα ητοίμασεν

the longer text of M k . , the connection of b a p t i s m w i t h αγάπη; e n d ) . F i n a l l y , the " w i s d o m of G o d "

οΰκ

ό θεός τοις άγαπώσιν αυτόν. (Note a g a i n , as in cf. a b o v e , section v,

(I C o r . 2.7) g i v e n in the m y s t e r y is C h r i s t

(1.24,30) a n d C h r i s t is g i v e n in b a p t i s m , therefore the m y s t e r y is b a p t i s m . T h i s w i s d o m is g i v e n only b y the spirit ( 2 . 1 1 ) a n d the gift o f the spirit is the f u n c t i o n o f b a p t i s m (Acts 2.38 a n d often). S i n c e the " m y s t e r y " of I C o r . 2.7 is b a p t i s m , it is n o t unlikely t h a t in I C o r . 4 . 1 - 6 , w h e r e P a u l speaks of himself, K e p h a s , a n d A p o l l o s as οικονόμους μυστηρίων

θεοΰ, he

refers to their f u n c t i o n not o n l y in g e n e r a l , as agents of the g r a n d secret strategy of G o d , b u t also in p a r t i c u l a r , as administrators o f the m y s t e r y rites of b a p t i s m a n d the eucharist, a n d thus of the salvation e f f e c t e d b y these rites. T h e same sense c a n b e borne b y the interpretation of this passage in E p h . 3.9 a n d of this in Ignatius,

Trail.

2.3, w h e r e the contrast b e t w e e n the " m y s t e r i e s " a n d " f o o d a n d d r i n k " is t h a t o f I C o r . 11 b e t w e e n the eucharist a n d o r d i n a r y e a t i n g a n d d r i n k i n g ; the reference is

179


THE SECRET GOSPEL

particularly to 11.22. (Bauer's reference, Ig., ad loc., to Acts 6.2 is not justified by the text.) All the above argument on μνστήριον has run counter to the common dogma that μνστήριον in the N T always has the sense of π or n o and that these always mean "secret," never "secret r i t e " ; so Bornkamm, μυίω; Nock, Mysterien; Alio, ICor., on 5.7; Klostermann, Taylor, and Cranfield on M k . 4 . 1 1 ; etc. But this dogma is false. Paul sometimes did use μνστήριον to mean "secret," but there are a number of instances where he clearly did not: the "mystery of iniquity," that is, " t h e unlawful magic," in II Thess. 2.7 is not a secret, but a process—a secret process, no doubt, but the essential thing is not the secrecy but the process, which is already " w o r k i n g " to bring the coming of the evil one. So, too, μνστήριον in the magical papyri means not only " c h a r m , " but the whole magical ceremony and its consequences (PGM 1.131; IV.476; etc.; contrast Rigaux, Thess., on 2.7). Similarly in Col. i.26f the mystery is not a secret but a process, χριστός iv ύμΐν, the indwelling and working of Christ in the baptized; cf. PGM I.i28ff, where τό μέγα τοΰτο μνστήριον means not only the whole magical ceremony by which one receives 6 κύριος τον αέρος (cf. Eph. 2.2) as an indwelling deity, but also all the consequences which follow from the reception: the continued possession and service of the deity, the status of an initiate, μα\κάρϊ\ε μνστα της Upäs μαγείας. That Paul should have used μνστήριον to describe the process and consequences of Christ's indwelling in Christian initiates was probably a reflection of his use of the same term for the rite of initiation, baptism. As in PGM, the mystery produced the association of man and god, and the term was carried over loosely to its consequences. Nock's notion that Paul was not aware of the connection between μνίω, μύστης, and μνστήριον (Mysterien n i ) seems to me incredible. T h a t Paul was thinking of baptism in Col. i.26f is indicated by the immediately preceding verses where he speaks of the body of Christ, the Church (25), ής εγενόμην εγώ διάκονος κατά την οίκονομίαν

τοΰ θεον την Βοθεΐσάν μοι εις νμας πληρώσαι

τον λόγον

τον

etc. This is the vocabulary found in I Cor. 4.1 where Paul is speaking of his work as οΐκόνομος of the mysteries; and the concept of the Church as the body of Christ is that remarked above in connection with the references to baptism, since by baptism this embodiment was effected. Thus, the notion that Paul always uses μνστήριον to mean " s e c r e t " is false. θεον, τό μνστήριον,

Further, the notion that when Paul does use μνστήριον to mean " s e c r e t " he cannot at the same time use it to mean "secret process" or " r i t e , " is also false. This has been shown by the examples above. For some consequences of this false antithesis, see above, in the comment on μυστήρια in the body of the letter (II.2). Finally, the notion that η and πιο always refer to secrets and never to secret rites is also false, πιο in particular is not infrequently taken in rabbinic literature as a reference to the rite of circumcision; for example, Tanhuma, Hayye Sarah 4, where Prov. 31.24, nn©17 I'lO, is glossed (by punning on πιο) with the words η V a n It ΤΉΤ1*? Π1ΪΓ mo m x j p "this is circumcision, of which it is said, ' T h e mystery (mo) of the Lord is given to those who fear h i m ' " — P s . 25.14. (A contributory element in the exegesis may have been the fact that ]·>Τ0 was the initiation garment, the σινδών; see 180


THE SECRET GOSPEL

above). M o r e important is the fact that both "no and Π appear in Hekalot Rabbati (27.1; 28.3; 29.1,2,4; etc.) as descriptions of the magical technique by w h i c h one is enabled to ascend through the heavens and be seated in the throne of G o d . T h o u g h the present form of this text is late, Scholem, Gnosticism, has shown that speculations on the subject of the ascent go back to a syncretistic J u d a i s m of the early first century A.D. at the latest; a n d his argument is now confirmed b y the appearance of their peculiar angelology in the Q u m r a n texts, 3Q, 7.5 = Discoveries III.99. Further, I have shown (Observaions end) that the account of the ascent in the Hekalot and that in the so-called " M i t h r a s L i t u r g y " ( P G M I V . 4 7 5 f f ) § ° back to a c o m m o n source of tradition, if not of writing. T h e " M i t h r a s L i t u r g y " describes itself as μυστήρια (476), and means b y this " i n i t i a t i o n , " for it prescribes that one m a y have a συνμύστης (line 732). T h e first reference to practice of a technique for ascent to the heavens m a y be that in Col. 2.18: " t h e angels w h o m he saw when going i n . " Into the heavens? (Cf. Observations 156). A n d ascent to the heavens and session with Christ on the right hand of G o d are described by Paul in the same context as the potential climax of the consequences of Christian baptism (Col. 3. i f f ) . So the supposition that T"1 and/or n o could h a v e been used b y Paul to refer to the rite of baptism as a " m y s t e r y " is not unsupported. Judaism was often considered a " m y s t e r y " religion (e.g., b y Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales I V . 6 : Jewish doctrines and ceremones are τα 'Εβραίων απόρρητα a n d the u n k n o w n Jewish god is identified as Dionysus because of parallels between the Jewish a n d the Eleusinian mysteries). Paul's Jewish contemporary, Philo, frequently described the doctrines and ceremonies of Judaism as " m y s t e r i e s " (Goodenough, Symbols V I . 2 0 6 - 2 1 6 ; Wolfson, Philo 1.43). A n d the rabbis took over the word μυστήριον w i t h the full range of its G r e c o - R o m a n meanings. O n the one h a n d they used it to m e a n " s p e l l " or " m a g i c " and identified " t h e mystery of Israel," *?ΐπβΡ VtP p I B D ' S , as the secret name of Y a h w e h . It was by pronouncing this that Moses killed the E g y p t i a n : Wayyikra' Rabbah 32.4 end, a n d Margulies' note ad loc. As in Greek, the w o r d can m e a n not only the essential c h a r m , but the whole magical praxis in w h i c h it is used; thus the Shunnamite says to Elisha, r r n m dtiVk b v p i ö o a a πηχ τ ι » » r e o » ηχ μ "•V ηηι nVnna dti^n

pitjoaa m a s

»WIK " Y o u practiced the mysteries of G o d w h e n y o u gave m e a son, to begin with, so n o w practice the mysteries of G o d a n d raise him from the d e a d . " (Shemot Rabbah 19.1. T h i s passage is of particular interest here because it shows these mysteries were conceived as means of resurrection, as was baptism.) Besides this magical usage, the rabbis also took over, as Philo did, the usage of μυστήριον for " m y s t e r y initiation." T h e y used it in this sense to refer to the initiatory rite of Judaism, circumcision. For this they found Biblical basis in Ps. 25.14, Dsrnn 1 ? U V - m TNT 1 ? m r r T O , w h i c h L X X h a d translated κραταίωμα κύριος των φοβούμενων αυτόν' καΐ ή διαθήκη αύτοΰ δηλώσαι αύτοίς, but A q u i l a translated απόρρητον (Theodotion a n d Quinta, μυστήριον) κυρίου τοις φοβουμίνοις αυτόν' καϊ την συνθήκην αύτοΰ γνωρίσει (Theodotion, δηλώσει) αύτοΐς, thus rendering ΠΙΟ as " m y s t e r y " and equating the mystery a n d the covenant. C o m p a r e Is. 24.16, where 'V "Ή ,l 7 "Ή was omitted b y L X X but translated b y S y m m a c h u s a n d Theodotion 181


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

το μυστήριου

μου εμοί, το μυστήριόν

μου έμοί—a

translation also reflected b y a n

a g r a p h o n attributed to Jesus in C l e m e n t , the Clementine Homilies, a n d m a n y later authors (see the c o m m e n t a r y on 1 . 1 2 ) : τά μυστήρια έμοι και τοις υίοΐς τοΰ οίκου μου. A s observed in the c o m m e n t a r y , this a g r a p h o n is introduced in the Clementina as if it c a m e from M k . , b u t is interpreted, b y a n a l o g y w i t h the M a t t h a e a n a n d L u c a n interpretations of M k . 4 . 1 1 , as referring to teachings. Ps. 25.14, however, is consistently taken in rabbinic literature as referring to circumcision. T h u s Tanhuma on G e n . 17.2 (Lek,

19) comments: ΠΓΝ -ΚΓΤΙΠ1? V V i a i VXT 1 ? 'Π TlO Π"ΡΤ "|Γ31 T 3 TV-D Π3ΠΚ1

• α π - π ι ό nVn n ^ a

Va; p i a o »

rvopn

n ^ j xVw n ^ a n

u -vktV

n^aty t i o

χιπ

— " ' A n d I shall establish m y covenant between us.' T h i s is w h a t is referred to b y the verse, ' T h e mystery of Y a h w e h is for those w h o fear h i m a n d so is his covenant, to give them k n o w l e d g e ' (Ps. 25.14). W h a t is this ' m y s t e r y ' w h i c h he revealed ' t o those w h o fear h i m ' ? T h i s is the rite of circumcision. For the H o l y O n e , blessed be H e , did not reveal the mystery rite of circumcision to a n y save A b r a h a m . " T h i s exegesis occurs as part of a h o m i l y beginning with the verse •'ΉΠ ΠΤΠ ""SD1? "jVnnn (Gen.

17.1),

perfect."

w h i c h is taken

Here

LXX

corrected to τελeios—a " i n i t i a t i o n " (τΐλΐτή),

and

to m e a n ,

Philo

"Do

rendered

as I tell y o u a n d y o u shall be D'Dn

by

αμεμπτος,

which

Aquila

term cognate to the technical terms " t o i n i t i a t e " (reAe'co), etc. τέλειος is also the term used b y Jesus in u r g i n g his followers

to follow his l a w rather than the traditional c o m m a n d m e n t s ; he concludes ( M t . 5.48), εσεσθε οΰν ύμεΐς τελΐίοι OJS ο Πατήρ υμών ο ουράνιος τελειός ianv;

cf. M t . 19.21, where,

in the conversation w i t h the rich y o u n g m a n of M k . 10, M a t t h e w ' s Jesus contrasts a m a n w h o merely keeps the M o s i a c l a w w i t h one w h o is τέλειος. T h e difference between L X X a n d Philo on the one h a n d a n d A q u i l a , S y m m a c h u s , T h e o d o t i o n , a n d M t . on the other in the translations of G e n . 17.1 a n d Ps. 25.14 a n d Is. 24.16 (noted above) indicates that the interpretation of circumcision as a mystery is to be dated in the first or early second century. T h e sermon in Tanhuma goes on to declare this mystery the necessary means to happiness in the afterlife (as were, for e x a m p l e , the Eleusinian mysteries, and baptism). T h i s exegesis was standard. It recurs in the parallel version of the Tanhuma (ed. Buber, Lek 20-27), w h i c h places even more emphasis on the notion that b y circumcision the initiate becomes reλείος (here dVe?, 20 a n d 25), takes A b r a h a m as prefiguring the Messiah (22), a n d explains that the mystery was given him in order that he m i g h t be m a d e like G o d (23 e n d ; cf. M t . 5.48, above) a n d that its performance prevents the world's returning to chaos ( 2 4 ) — a notion derived from the mysteries of ancient M e s o p o t a m i a (and a reminder that this development need not be conceived as wholly the result of G r e e k influence). W e h a v e already seen this same exegetic c o m p l e x referred to en passant in Tanhuma (Sarah 4) apropos of a mention of the σινδών w h i c h was p r o b a b l y the costume for the rite

710 IDNlttf Π17,0Π IT) • A corrupt version was introduced into

most M S S of Bereshit Rabbah 49.2; see T h e o d o r e ' s notes there. Finally, the theme is further developed in Shemot Rabbah 1 9 . 5 - 7 . A f t e r emphasizing again that to h a v e been circumcised is necessary a n d sufficient (save to heretics and the very wicked) for salvation, the text goes on to treat it as the precondition for participation in the sacred, secret, passover meal (6). O n l y one speaker is n a m e d — t h e Galilean, R . Simon 182


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

b e n H a l a f t a , of the b e g i n n i n g of the third c e n t u r y — b u t h o w m u c h o f the tradition c a n be a t t r i b u t e d to h i m is not clear. T h e text c o m m e n t e d u p o n is E x . 12.43fr, •13 VDiT N1? VlS? V m "O V s i r xV "DJ ρ

ΠΟΒΠ n p n n s t . . . P a r t i c u l a r l y striking is

the c o m m e n t , " I t is like a k i n g w h o m a d e a dinner for his friends (ΤΟΠΊΚ*? = rots άγαπώσιν

αυτόν — τοις τελείου . . . ev μυστηρίω,

I C o r . 2 . 6 - 9 ; see a b o v e , p a g e 179^·

T h e k i n g s a i d , ' I f there is a n y o n e , of all those invited, o n w h o m m y seal does not a p p e a r , he is not to be a d m i t t e d here.' <Cf. M t . 2 2 . 1 - 1 4 . C i r c u m c i s i o n is a " s e a l " i n R o m . 4 . 1 1 ; b a p t i s m or c h r i s m — p r o b a b l y — i n A p o c . 7.2; 9.4. A l l these use σφραγίς, o n w h i c h , a n d on its b a c k g r o u n d in the mysteries, see B a u e r , Wb., s.v., a n d the literature there.)· S o G o d m a d e a feast (i.e.,

the p a s s o v e r ) . . . because he was delivering t h e m f r o m

evil < m s n , cf. M t . 6 . 1 3 ; G a l . 1 . 4 ) . H e said to t h e m , ' I f the seal of A b r a h a m is not in y o u r flesh y o u shall not taste of i t ' <Lk. 14.24, also Didache I X . 5 , none b u t the b a p t i z e d m a y eat the e u c h a r i s t ) . . . (7) ' N o alien shall eat of i t ' . . . T h e H o l y O n e , blessed b e H e , said to t h e m , ' L e t n o other p e o p l e p a r t i c i p a t e in it, a n d let t h e m not know s.v.),

the m y s t e r y

^pTlüOtt,

accepting

the e m e n d a t i o n

of

Krauss,

Lehnwörter,

b u t let it b e for y o u a l o n e . ' " T h e text goes o n to describe the Passover in this

w o r l d as a n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the feast of the blessed in the w o r l d to c o m e . I n sum, then, the r a b b i s often spoke of the initiatory c e r e m o n y of J u d a i s m as a " m y s t e r y " w h i c h h a d b e e n " g i v e n " to t h e m . T h e y t h o u g h t this initiation prerequisite for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the sacred m e a l of the cult in this w o r l d , a n d for the life of the b l e s s e d — a glorified f o r m of t h a t sacred m e a l — i n the w o r l d to c o m e . T h u s the clear e v i d e n c e of the r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l confirms the p r e c e d i n g interpretation of P a u l . μυστήριον

in J e w i s h usage r e g u l a r l y refers to the initiatory rite o f circumcision, as in

P a u l ' s usage it refers to the initiatory rite of b a p t i s m w h i c h P a u l e q u a t e d w i t h c i r c u m c i s i o n : C o l . 2 . 1 1 ; τ f j περιτομγ) τοΰ χριστού . . . τω

βαπτίσματι.

G i v e n the P a u l i n e a n d the r a b b i n i c usage, it is not surprising to

find

μυστήριον

used as a technical expression for b a p t i s m in the c o m m u n i t y f r o m w h i c h M k . d r e w his material. C h r i s t i a n b a p t i s m is " t h e m y s t e r y of the k i n g d o m o f G o d " because it enables those to w h o m it is g i v e n to enter the k i n g d o m — s o J n . 3, N i c o d e m u s ' n o c t u r n a l visit to Jesus (of w h i c h the similarity in content to the initiation in the longer text is no less striking than the total i n d e p e n d e n c e of the t w o passages). T h e r e f o r e those to w h o m C h r i s t i a n b a p t i s m has been g i v e n ( M k . 4 . 1 1 ) are in the k i n g d o m , as opposed to " t h o s e o u t s i d e " (ibid.) like the Baptist (Lk. 7.28; M t . 1 1 . 1 1 ; A c t s 1 9 . 1 - 7 ) , w h o h a v e b e e n b o r n o n l y of w o m e n , not o f w a t e r and the spirit (Jn. 3 . 3 - 5 ) . T h e one difficulty in the w a y of a b a p t i s m a l interpretation o f " t h e m y s t e r y of the k i n g d o m of G o d " in the longer text is the w o r d εδίδα σκε. I n the light of the e v i d e n c e r e v i e w e d a b o v e , I think this a c o r r u p t i o n of a n original εδωκεν. T h e corruption w a s p r o b a b l y m a d e b y a copyist i n f l u e n c e d b y the misinterpretation o f M k . 4 . 1 1 in M t . 13.n

a n d L k . 8.10, w h e r e " t h e m y s t e r y " b e c o m e s " t h e m y s t e r i e s " — t h a t is, the

f o l l o w i n g interpretations of the parables, w h i c h " i t is g i v e n " the disciples " t o k n o w . " T h a t misinterpretation, in turn, p r o b a b l y resulted f r o m the r a p i d g r o w t h o f C h r i s tianity, w h i c h m a d e b a p t i s m a n e x p e r i e n c e c o m m o n to all m e m b e r s o f a l a r g e g r o u p i n c l u d i n g m a n y not c o m p l e t e l y s a v e d ; b a p t i s m therefore d e c l i n e d in prestige a n d there w a s a c o r r e s p o n d i n g g r o w t h of secret teachings w h i c h professed to reveal 183


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

something more. This is the development reflected by the Matthaean and Lucan emendations of canonical Mk. and by the corruption of the longer text. Apart from this, the details of the nocturnal initiation (the six days' preparation, the coming by night, the sheet and the nudity, and the mystery of the kingdom) all accord with the interpretation required by the clearly baptismal character of the preceding pericope. T h e rite was a form of baptism. (f) This baptismal interpretation explains both the inclusion in the longer text of the story of the baptism and its omission from the canonical text if that was intended, as Clement says it was, for reading by the unbaptized. T h e inclusion at the place where it stands is exactly in accord with the requirements of the pericope as a reading for the baptismal service. We have h a d the prerequisites—become as children, believe in the one good God, obey the commandments, forsake all, and join the Church—and the peculiarly Christian creed, the death a n d resurrection of Jesus, the Son of M a n , which the initiates are now to share. W e have h a d the evidence of resurrection and the antitype of baptism—the raising of Lazarus (the Gospel for the service, here following the creed—evidently because it belonged to the secret teaching of the church—see above on τους μνουμενους in II.a). Now we come to the baptism itself, and here, as in the eucharist, the essential is not a prayer, but a story of what Jesus once d i d : eWrafev αύτώ . . . καΐ. . . έρχεται. . . και έ'/xctve . . . ΐδωκεν γαρ αύτω . . . το μνστηριον της βασιλείας τοΰ θεοΰ (III.7—9)· And with this the story ends as abruptly as the M a r k a n account of the institution of the eucharist: €KtWev δε άναατας ΐπίστρΐφΐν ( I I I . IΟ— I i ) ; cf. Mk. 14.26, ύμν-ησαντΐς ΐξηλθον. T h a t this story should have been omitted in revision of the Gospel for exoteric use is in accord with J o h n ' s omission of both Jesus' baptism and the eucharist (so Dodd, Fourth Gospel 309-310). It is remarked in Windisch-Preisker (Briefe 157) that in I Peter, between 1.21 and 1.22, " D e r Taufakt selbst ist aus Arkandisziplin fortgelassen." Schille, Tauflehre 35, remarks a similar omission of advanced eschatological teaching in Barnabas 17.2: ού μη νοησητΐ δια το ev παραβολαΐς κΐϊσθαι; cf. Mk. 4 · 1 1 · Preisker, Boismard, and Schille represent I Peter and Barnabas as baptismal texts because of their outlines (above, page 170), and we have shown the extensive agreement of these outlines with that of Mk. 10. Therefore the omission in Barnabas 17 may help to explain the suppression in Mk. 10. Baptism, as the secret way of entering the kingdom (Jn. 3.5) was acutely eschatological. T h e most important secret about the kingdom was how to get in. Perhaps this was why, in canonical Mk., baptism was suppressed while the eucharist was not (cf. Moule, Intention 17if). This question, however, would lead to that of the structure and history of canonical Mk., which must indeed be restudied in the light of the longer text, but not here. Returning to the role of the baptism story in the baptismal pericope, it should be noted that the liturgical interpretation of the whole pericope explains the seeming difficulty that the resurrection of the youth (the symbol of his baptism) precedes, by six days, his baptism. O n e might either compare Apuleius, Golden Ass X I . 13-25 (where Lucius' restoration to h u m a n form precedes his initiation, of which it is the symbol), or quote the Pharisaic ruling on circumcision: "Separation from a foreskin is like separation from a t o m b . " -)3pn ]H ©"IIDD Π"?Ί5?Π ΕΠΙΒΠ (Pesahim 184


THE SECRET GOSPEL

V I I I . 8 ; 'Eduyot V . 2 ) , w h i c h puts a seven-day purification period (Num. 19.16) between circumcision a n d participation in the passover meal. But the Pharisaic ruling is not closely parallel, since the ceremonies it affects are not related as symbol a n d reality. A n d in Apuleius the duplication is due to the shift from allegory to autobiography : h a v i n g allegorized his uninitiated self as an ass, he h a d to restore himself to h u m a n form (that is, undergo allegoric initiation) before he could describe his actual initiation as a man. In the longer text of M k . , however, the resurrection story (allegoric initiation) anticipates the story of the actual baptism because the whole pericope is designed to correspond with a service in w h i c h the Gospel anticipates the actual ceremony, as the Gospel for the feast of Corpus Christi anticipates the canon of the mass. (Note that the roles of these elements in the baptismal pericope do not determine their relations in the smaller s e c t i o n — M k . 10.20-34 plus the longer text, discussed above in pp. 165fr. Perhaps that pattern was worked into the pericope as a basis for yet more esoteric teaching.) (g) A t this point C l e m e n t tells T h e o d o r e , το δέ γυμνοί γυμνώ καί ταλλα περί ων ίγραψας ούχ ευρίσκεται", in other words, the longer text as used in Clement's church (or, as C l e m e n t chose to describe it) did not contain some m a t e r i a l — i n c l u d i n g the phrase γυμνός γυμνώ—which T h e o d o r e h a d reported as standing hereabouts in the C a r p o c r a t i a n text. Since the Carpocratians h a d a reputation for sexual license (see A p p e n d i x B) and this section of the longer text reported that a youth came to Jesus περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα επί γυμνοΰ and stayed with h i m all night, it is easy to suppose that the Carpocratians took the opportunity to insert in the text some material w h i c h w o u l d authorize the homosexual relationship C l e m e n t suggested by picking out γυμνός γυμνώ. Similar developments might be thought to lie behind the celebration of baptism in Acta Thomae 27 as η κοινωνία του άρρενος (cf. 132, text Ρ, both lacking in the Syriac), a n d sayings like Gospel of Thomas (Leipoldt) 108, "Jesus said: ' H e w h o will drink of m y m o u t h will become like me, and I shall be he, and the hidden things shall be revealed to h i m . ' " Cf. the longer text, ϊδίδασκεν γαρ αυτόν τό μυστηριον της βασιλείας τοΰ θεοΰ. H o w e v e r , C l e m e n t does not explicitly say that the additional material was sexually offensive, and he w o u l d hardly have missed the chance to say so if it had been. Therefore the γυμνός γυμνώ p r o b a b l y belonged to a fuller account of the ritual. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition X X I . 11, after speaking of the catechumen a n d the presbyter w h o is to baptize him, goes on to specify, " A n d let them stand in the water n a k e d . " T h e C a r p o c r a t i a n text m a y have contained some similar provision, more explicitly phrased. A n o t h e r possibility is indicated by the fact that the Carpocratians interpreted baptism as a resurrection. This appears from Irenaeus (Harvey, II.48.2 = Stieren, I I . 3 1 . 2 ) : A f t e r arguing that the Carpocratians perform their miracles by m a g i c , a n d cannot perform m a j o r cures, he goes on to say, tantum autem absunt ab eo ut mortuum excitent, quemadmodum Dominus excitavit et apostoli per orationem {et in fraternitate saepissime propter aliquid necessarium, ea quae est in quoque loco ecclesia universa postulante per jejunium et supplicationem multam, reversus est spiritus mortui, et donatus est homo orationibus 185


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

sanctorum) ut ne quidem credant hoc in totum posse fieri; esse autem resurrectionem a mortuis agnitionem eius, quae ab eis dicitur, veritatis. O n this H a r v e y a p t l y quotes T e r t u l l i a n , De resurrectione mortuorum X I X . 2 f f . resurrectionem . . . mortuorum manifeste adnuntiatam in imaginariam significationem distorquent, adserentes ipsam etiam mortem spiritaliter intellegendam. Non

enim hanc esse in vero, quae sit in medio, discidium

carnis

atque

animae,

sed

ignorantiam dei, per quam homo mortuus deo non minus in errore iacuerit quam in sepulchre. Itaque et resurrectionem earn vindicandam, qua quis adita veritate redanimatus et revivificatus deo ignorantiae morte discussa velut de sepulchro veteris hominis eruperit. . . exinde ergo resurrectionem fide consecutos cum domino esse, quem in baptismate induerint. Hoc denique ingenio etiam in conloquiis saepe nostros decipere consueverunt, quasi et ipsi resurrectionem carnis admittant: " Vae," inquiunt, " qui non in hac came resurrexerit," ne statim illos percutiant, si resurrectionem statim abnuerint. "Vae,

Tacite autem secundum conscientiam suam hoc sentiunt:

qui non, dum in hac came est, cognoverit arcana haeretica." Hoc est enim apud illos

resurrectio. Sed et plerique ab excessu animae resurrectionem vindicantes, de sepulchro exire de saeculo evadere interpretantur, quia et saeculum mortuorum sit habitaculum, id est ignorantium deum, vel etiam de ipso corpore, quia et corpus vice sepulchri conclusam animam in saecularis vitae morte detineat. G i v e n this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of resurrection as initiation (and v i c e versa) it is easy to suppose t h a t the C a r p o c r a t i a n s a d d e d to the ritual o f their b a p t i s m a l initiation some sort of resurrection ritual like t h a t suggested b y the parallels a d d u c e d in the c o m m e n t a r y on γυμνός

γυμνω

a b o v e (on I I I . 13). Elisha's raising o f the w i d o w ' s

son, I I K g s . 4.34, w o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d a n O T p r e c e d e n t ; its i m p o r t a n c e in J u d a i s m of the R o m a n p e r i o d is s h o w n b y its p l a c e o n the front w a l l o f the D u r a s y n a g o g u e (panel W G i , K r a e l i n g , Dura pi. L X I I I ) , a n d the c o m m e n t s b y impressed visitors ( G e i g e r , Texts nos. 49, 5 1 , 55). A t all events, the one t h i n g certain a b o u t the C a r p o c r a t i a n text is also the one t h i n g most i m p o r t a n t for o u r present p u r p o s e : it is f u l l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the interpretation of the secret c e r e m o n y as a b a p t i s m . (h) A f t e r the b a p t i s m c o m e s the sermon, the p o s t b a p t i s m a l instruction, w h i c h still stands in c a n o n i c a l M k .

1 0 . 3 5 - 4 5 . T h e " m e s s a g e " is as follows: T h e n e w l y

b a p t i z e d s h o u l d not feel themselves a t a d i s a d v a n t a g e vis ä vis Christians o f l o n g e r s t a n d i n g , for not e v e n the o r i g i n a l disciples w e r e assured the highest places in the k i n g d o m . A l l w h o enter must d r i n k of Jesus' c u p ( c o m m u n i o n — t h e c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f the p a s s i o n — w i l l follow) a n d b e b a p t i z e d (as the initiates j u s t h a v e been) w i t h his b a p t i s m (his d e a t h a n d resurrection), b u t for the f u t u r e he w h o w o u l d b e greatest s h o u l d f o l l o w the e x a m p l e o f the S o n of M a n w h o m a d e himself servant of all a n d g a v e his life for us. S o practice h u m i l i t y , m a k e yourselves useful in the c h u r c h , a n d give w h a t you can. W i t h this c o n c e r n for c h u r c h discipline a n d finance the b a p t i s m a l p e r i c o p e comes to its n a t u r a l conclusion. I n the d r a m a t i c situation, t h a t is, as p u t into Jesus' m o u t h , the references to the b a p t i s m a n d the c u p in verses 3 8 - 3 9 must be u n d e r s t o o d as prophecies of his o w n passion a n d d e a t h a n d therefore of those of the sons of Z e b e d e e . 1 8 18. The amusing exegeses contrived to avoid this conclusion (Bernard, Study, Delling, Baptisma; etc.) need not concern us; nor need the question whether or not the prophecy was fulfilled in the case of John. The writer of Mk. 10.39 may have yet expected its fulfillment or may have erroneously believed it to have been fulfilled.

186


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

B u t for t h a t c h u r c h w h i c h told the story, b a p t i s m a n d c o m m u n i o n h a d b e c o m e ritual m e a n s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in Jesus' d e a t h a n d resurrection ( R o m . 6 . 3 ; I C o r . 1 1 . 2 4 - 2 8 ) ; so the question to the sons of Z e b e d e e is n o w directed to all Christians, a n d their a n s w e r is the initiates' a f f i r m a t i o n of faith in the m a g i c a l identification w i t h the s a v i o u r , e f f e c t e d b y the rites of the m y s t e r y . T o suppose the d r a m a t i c reference to the passion excludes the h o m i l e t i c reference or the sacraments ( W e r n e r , Einfluss 137fr) is ridiculous. E q u a l l y ridiculous w a s the gnostic interpretation of the verses as referring to a second b a p t i s m ( I r e n a e u s : H a r v e y , I . 1 4 . 1 = Stieren, 1 . 2 1 . 2 ) , b u t it m a y h a v e been a c c e p t e d also b y C l e m e n t ' s c h u r c h in A l e x a n d r i a (point a, a b o v e , p. 168). T h i s c o n c l u d e s the a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g the structure of M k . 1 0 . 1 3 - 4 5 a n d its relation to the longer text. Since the a r g u m e n t has b e e n c o m p l i c a t e d , it s h o u l d be summarized here: (a) C l e m e n t declares t h a t the longer text w a s r e a d in τά μΐγάλα

μυστήρια,

probably

the p a s c h a l service w h i c h i n c l u d e d b a p t i s m . (b) T h e liturgical use of the text w o u l d e x p l a i n its i m p o r t a n c e to C l e m e n t , to the western text, to L k . , a n d to M k . (c) T h a t τά μΐγάλα

μυστήρια

w e r e or i n c l u d e d some sort of b a p t i s m is suggested

b y the b a p t i s m a l reminiscences w i t h w h i c h C l e m e n t introduces the text. (d) T h e text stands at t h a t p l a c e in c a n o n i c a l M k . w h e r e b a p t i s m a l m a t e r i a l is to b e e x p e c t e d . (e) T h e details of M k . 10.-13-34 + the longer text + 1 0 . 3 5 - 4 5 show the w h o l e p e r i c o p e to be a b a p t i s m a l lection, to w h i c h all its parts are essential: (i) 1 0 . 1 3 - 1 6 states the general prerequisite of b a p t i s m : b e c o m e as little c h i l d r e n . (ii-vi)

10.17-31

states

specific

requirements:

monotheism,

obedience

to

the

c o m m a n d m e n t s , r e n u n c i a t i o n of p r o p e r t y ; these correspond to the s t a n d a r d p r e l i m i n a r y instruction for baptism. (vii) 10.32-34, the c r e d a l p r o p h e c y of the passion a n d resurrection,

provides

b o t h the assurance a n d the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the rite's e f f i c a c y . (viii) T h e " G o s p e l " for the service, the story of the raising of L a z a r u s , w a s f r o m the second c e n t u r y o n associated w i t h b a p t i s m — b o t h as a s y m b o l of the initiates' resurrection f r o m sin a n d as a n e x a m p l e of the e x p e c t e d resurrection f r o m d e a t h . (ix) T h a t the n o c t u r n a l initiation w h i c h follows the resurrection was understood to h a v e b e e n a b a p t i s m is a r g u e d b y E p h r a i m ' s tradition c o n c e r n i n g L a z a r u s a n d b y the details r e p o r t e d : the six-day interval, the n o c t u r n a l c h a r a c t e r , the sheet a n d the n u d i t y , a n d the c o m m u n i c a t i o n of " t h e m y s t e r y of the k i n g d o m o f G o d , " w h i c h seems to h a v e b e e n baptism. (f) T h i s b a p t i s m a l interpretation explains b o t h the inclusion of this m a t e r i a l at this p l a c e in the longer text, a n d its omission f r o m the shorter, exoteric text. I t w a s i n c l u d e d because the c h u r c h for w h i c h the longer text w a s w r i t t e n

performed

b a p t i s m , as it p e r f o r m e d the eucharist, b y telling a story of w h a t Jesus did. T h e story of the n o c t u r n a l initiation w a s the " c a n o n " of the b a p t i s m a l service, as the story of the n o c t u r n a l supper w a s — a n d i s — t h e c a n o n of the mass. H e n c e the omission f r o m the exoteric text, c o m p a r a b l e to the omission of the " w o r d s of i n s t i t u t i o n " f r o m J o h n . H e n c e also the d o u b l i n g of the a c c o u n t of b a p t i s m — f i r s t s y m b o l i c (resurrec187


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

tion) as the " G o s p e l " for the service, then a c t u a l (initiation) as the w o r d s a c c o m p a n y i n g the

δρώμενα.

(g) T h e additions r e p o r t e d f r o m the C a r p o c r a t i a n text also a d m i t of b a p t i s m a l interpretation, a n d this interpretation is m a d e likely b y reports of the C a r p o c r a t i a n s ' allegorizing of resurrection. (h) M k . 1 0 . 3 5 - 4 5 is best understood as postbaptismal instruction. T h e s e a r g u m e n t s a r e c u m u l a t i v e . I f e v e n o n e of t h e m be t h o u g h t conclusive, it establishes the b a p t i s m a l c h a r a c t e r of the section to w h i c h it applies, a n d thus strengthens the case for a b a p t i s m a l interpretation of the a d j a c e n t sections. A n d e v e n if none b e t h o u g h t conclusive, the fact that so m a n y sections in sequence l e n d themselves so r e a d i l y to the same i n t e r p r e t a t i o n will be difficult to e x p l a i n a w a y . 4.

EVIDENCE

FOR A B B R E V I A T I O N

AT

MK.

10.46

F o r the second q u o t a t i o n f r o m the longer text I see n o such structural a r g u m e n t . B u t it reports a n i n c i d e n t l o c a t e d in J e r i c h o , o n Jesus' last trip to J e r u s a l e m . L k . 19. ι - ι ο also reports a n i n c i d e n t — t h e Z a c c h a e u s s t o r y — a n d all the synoptics tell the story of b l i n d B a r t i m a e u s (doubled b y M t . ) as s o m e t h i n g w h i c h h a p p e n e d n e a r J e r i c h o . S o there w e r e stories c o n n e c t e d w i t h the p l a c e , a n d B u l t m a n n is i n c l i n e d to consider these local connections as " o l d t r a d i t i o n " or e v e n " h ö c h s t p r i m i t i v " ('Geschichte 68f, 258, 364). M o r e o v e r , the Z a c c h a e u s story, like the p r e c e d i n g story in the longer text, is o f a rich m a n w h o w i s h e d to see (cf. " b e w i t h " ) Jesus a n d therefore received h i m in his house a n d w a s saved. O t h e r connections w i t h the b a p t i s m a l p e r i c o p e in M k . a r e his gift of (half o f ) his possessions to the p o o r (cf. M k . 10.21) a n d the c o n c l u d i n g sentence, ηλθεν γαρ ό υιός τοΰ άνθρωπου ζητησαι και σώσαι τό άπολωλός;

cf. the M a r k a n

conclusion (10.45, w h i c h L k . o m i t t e d ) , και γαρ 6 νιος τοΰ ανθρώπου ουκ ηλθεν νηθηναι άλλα διακονησαι καϊ δοΰναι την φυχην αύτοΰ λΰτρον άντί πολλών.

διακο-

O n e is t e m p t e d

to suppose t h a t in telling the Z a c c h a e u s story L u k e h a d in m i n d the p r e c e d i n g M a r k a n p e r i c o p e , including the passages f r o m the longer text. T h i s j i b e s w i t h the e v i d e n c e seen a b o v e t h a t M a t t h e w also k n e w the longer text (see the c o m m e n t a r y o n προσεκύνησε,

I I . 2 4 ; και προσελθών

άπεκύλισε,

I I I . I i ; a n d the a r g u m e n t a b o v e

on p a g e 172), a n d the first of these bits of M a t t h a e a n e v i d e n c e implies k n o w l e d g e of the second a d d i t i o n , t h a t f o l l o w i n g M k . 10.46a. T h e r e f o r e , it is interesting t h a t there seems to be a g a p in the text of M k . 10.46, j u s t at the p l a c e w h e r e C l e m e n t locates his q u o t a t i o n f r o m the longer text. 10.46a reads καϊ έρχονται et? Ιερειχω.

10.46b reads και εκπορευομενου

αύτοΰ άπό Ιερειχω

(and

the text goes o n to tell the B a r t i m a e u s story). N o t i c e the c h a n g e of n u m b e r b e t w e e n έρχονται

a n d εκπορευομενου

αύτοΰ, a n d the repetition είς Ιερειχω

. . . άπό

w h i c h w o u l d be better u n d e r s t a n d a b l e if s o m e t h i n g h a d i n t e r v e n e d .

Ιερειχω,

Apparently

the story of w h a t h a p p e n e d in J e r i c h o has b e e n o m i t t e d . T h i s a p p e a r a n c e is strengthe n e d b y the w a y M a t t h e w a n d L u k e h a n d l e d the M a r k a n t e x t : M a t t h e w o m i t t e d 4 6 a entirely, thus suppressing all reference to a n y t h i n g h a p p e n i n g in J e r i c h o ; L u k e c h a n g e d 46a to εγενετρ δε εν τω εγγίζειν

αυτόν εις Ιερειχω, 188

o m i t t e d 46b) a n d told


THE SECRET GOSPEL

the Bartimaeus story as something w h i c h happened before Jesus reached the city. H e then w e n t on, καΐ είσελθών διήρχΐτο την Ιερβιχω καϊ ϊδου, etc. (19. i f ) and proceeded to tell his version of w h a t happened in J e r i c h o — t h e Zacchaeus story which, as w e h a v e just seen, has reminiscences of the baptismal pericope, including the longer text. So it seems that w h a t happened in Jericho was something to w h i c h M a t t h e w chose not to refer, a n d for w h i c h L u k e had another, remotely cognate tradition w h i c h he preferred to M k . T h i s appearance is strengthened b y examination of the other passages where M a r k begins a pericope w i t h καϊ έρχεται/έρχονται els. A s noted above (commentary on II.23), ^ i s is one of M a r k ' s favorite formulas a n d characteristic of his style as opposed to the other synoptists'. H e used it in 3.20; 5.38; 6 . 1 ; 8.22; 10.1 ( e x p a n d e d ) ; 10.46; 1 1 . 1 5 ; 1 1 . 2 7 ; I 4-3 2 > a n d he used the same construction w i t h other verbs or tenses in 1 . 2 1 ; 3 . 1 ; 5 . 1 ; 9.33. I n all of these the formula is introductory, and in all except 3.20 and 10.46 it is followed b y an account of some event w h i c h occurred in the place entered. T h e text in 3.20 was omitted b y M a t t h e w a n d L u k e a n d looks as if it were the introduction to another deleted section of the longer text. Perhaps 9.33 is another example of the same t h i n g : καϊ ήλθον εις Καφαρναονμ, καϊ ivTjj οΙκία γενόμενος. W h a t happened to " t h e m " in C a p e r n a u m before " h e " went to " t h e " (unexplained) house? A c c o r d i n g to M a t t h e w , w h a t happened was an encounter between Peter a n d a tax collector (the coin in the fish's mouth). Is this the only story in the Gospels to imply that Christians need not obey the civil law ? I f so, the fact that it was kept secret is understandable. M a r k is k n o w n for the loose ends—references to unexplained houses or boats or p e o p l e — h i s text contains (e.g., 3.20; 4 . 1 ; 6.32; 15.21) and for passages w h i c h look like abbreviations or references to omitted material, e.g., 1 . 1 2 - 1 3 ; 3.6; 4-33f; 6.30,34; 7.31 (see Richardson's c o m m e n t above, p. 161 n 7 ) ; 1 0 . 1 ; 1 1 . 1 9 ; 16.7f). It is obvious that the text of canonical M k . was abbreviated considerably b y later revisers ( M a t t h e w and L u k e ) , and other examples of abbreviation of Gospel material can readily be found (see above, p a g e 94). Therefore it is not surprising that scholars of quite diverse views have supposed canonical M k . produced by abbreviation: so Hilgenfeld, Markus-, Parker, Gospel·, V a g a n a y , Probleme. But such theories are necessarily speculative. In the present instance w e have a specific case where expansion is reported b y early tradition, but where the present text looks as if it has been produced b y abbreviation and, as remarked above, traces of the abbreviated material seem to appear in M t . a n d L k . T h e case for abbreviation is further strengthened b y the fact that the omitted material mentions Salome. Salome appears in the N T only in M k . 15.40 a n d 16.1 — i n both as a witness of an event of great importance to Christian claims (the crucifixion, the discovery of the empty t o m b ; see the commentary on I I I . 16). For these events she seems to h a v e been one of the chief original witnesses, all of w h o m were w o m e n (so M k . ; contrast the later Gospels). 1 9 Y e t L u k e (23.55; 24.1) omitted 19. T h e w a y these w o m e n witnesses are introduced in M k . 15.41 suggests that they were not previously mentioned in the Gospel as the author of 15.41 left it. But the introduction also shows that the author of 15.41 knew other stories about them. W e r e they stories he h a d cut out of the Gospel?

189


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

both M a r k a n lists of these w o m e n witnesses. [ H . J . C . w o u l d prefer " r e a r r a n g e d , " rather than " o m i t t e d " ; cf. L k . 8.3; 23.49,55; 24.10. But, though L u k e did mention the other w o m e n elsewhere, he eliminated Salome's name.] M a t t h e w deleted the n a m e of Salome from the first list (27.56) and removed her figure entirely from the second (27.61; 28.1) and J o h n also omitted her name (19.25). T h e Johannine text m a y come from a different tradition, but the omissions by M a t t h e w and L u k e were presumably deliberate. T h e presumption is that Salome was eliminated because persons of w h o m the canonical evangelists disapproved were appealing to her as a n authority. For the late first century this is only a presumption. [ H . J . C . compares Lk.'s variants in the lists of the twelve.] But for the second century there is no doubt that Salome was popular in heretical circles; w e have Celsus' report that the Carpocratians appealed to her authority (Origen, Contra Celsum V . 6 2 ) . Salome appears as one of the interlocutors of Jesus in the Gospel according to the Egyptians (Hennecke-Schneemelcher, i o g f ) , used by the encratites, Julius Cassianus, Theodotus the V a l e n t i n i a n , the Naassenes, a n d the Sabellians, as well as by II Clement and C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a . She also appears in the Gospel of Thomas (Leipoldt) 61 b w h e r e she asks Jesus the curious question, " W h o <are y o u , ) m a n , as from the o n e ? ( s i c ) Y o u get onto m y b e d . " ( T h e text has, understandably, been corrupted.) A g a i n in the Chenoboskion gnostic documents she is found in the First Apocalypse of James (BĂśhlig-Labib, KG A, p. 50). The Book of the Resurrection of Christ (James, ANT 183) lists a m o n g the w o m e n w h o went to Jesus' t o m b " M a r y M a g d a l e n e , M a r y the mother of James w h o m Jesus delivered out of the hand of Satan, Salome w h o tempted him, M a r y w h o ministered to him and M a r t h a her sister." Salome is one of the interlocutors in the gnostic Pistis Sophia (54, 58, 132, 145) and explains the mysteries. By contrast, the orthodox Ethiopic Didascalia (III.6) makes the apostles report that " t h e r e abode with us M a r y M a g d a l e n e , and the sisters of Lazarus, M a r y a n d M a r t h a , and Salome, and others also with t h e m ; (and) since H e (Jesus) c o m m a n d e d not them (sic, H a r d e n ) to teach along with us, neither is it right for other w o m e n to t e a c h . " (This occurs again in a Greek fragment of the Didascalia Apostolorum I I I . 6 , Connolly, p. x x v i , thinks Salome intrusive.) O f special interest is the double tradition found in the stories of the birth of Jesus. In the orthodox Protevangelium Iacobi X I X . 3 - X X . 4 Salome was not the Virgin's midwife, but a w o m a n w h o heard of the virgin birth only after it had taken place and w o u l d not believe it. She attempted to test M a r y ' s virginity and was punished b y the withering of her hand. In the less respectable Liber de Infantia there were two midwives, Z e l o m i a n d Salome (as A m a n n notes, Protevangile 325, these are two forms of the same name). Zelomi first m a d e a m a n u a l test, proclaimed M a r y ' s virginity, and gave glory to G o d ; Salome refused to believe Zelomi's report, m a d e a second m a n u a l test, a n d had her hand blasted. Finally, in a Coptic fragment quoted by Robinson (Gospels i g 6 f ) a n d in the C o p t i c Discourse by Demetrius on the Birth of our Lord (Budge, Texts 673fr), Salome was the only midwife; she immediately believed and became the first to proclaim the Gospel; a n d she followed the holy family and, later, Jesus everywhere, a n d â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a s Demetrius specifiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;she saw everything. (A trace of this legend appears also in the History of Joseph the Carpenter V I 1 1 . 3 : Salome a c c o m p a n i e d 190


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

the holy family to Egypt.) Obviously, Salome was a controversial figure. And it can be seen that the orthodox material has been edited to diminish her importance as a witness, for the oldest text of the Protevangelium Iacobi (which denies that she was the midwife) reports her cure with the words καΐ Ιάθη ή μαΐα ev rfj ώρα ΐκείντ) (Testuz, p. 108, lines 9 - 1 0 , ca. A.D. 200). This shows reworking of an older form in which she was the midwife (a fact overlooked by Strycker, to say nothing of Testuz). The hostile orthodox tradition is further represented by Origen on Mt., Commentariorum Series 141 and 144, which admits that Salome watched the crucifixion from a distance, but denies that she was in at the resurrection—only Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James were admitted to that, "quasi maiores in caritate." Against this, the semignostic tradition favorable to Salome is represented by numerous Coptic texts on the assumption of the Virgin (Robinson, Gospels 5 1 , 59, 60, 77) in which she appears as one of the Virgin's companions. (Some of these contain details reminiscent of the raising of Lazarus in the longer text.) Finally, in the Psalms of Thomas (note his connections) in the Manichaean Psalm Book ΙΙ.222Ϊ, Salome appears as the equivalent of the O T " W i s d o m " who builds her house, the Church. [K.S. pointed out to me the similarity of Salome's disbelief and manual test of the virgin birth and Thomas' disbelief and manual test of the resurrection in J n . 20.24-29. He also remarked (above, p. 166 ni4) that J n . 20.24-29 plus Thomas' reception of the secret revelation (in the Gospel of Thomas) make up a rejectionresurrection-revelation complex similar to those in Mk. 8.2gff; io.2off; 14.27fr discussed above, pp. 165fr.] Of this complex John chose to retain only the first element and to use that as polemic against the followers of Thomas. Thomas had indeed seen, but was less blessed that the evangelist who, presumably, had not seen. (The explicit counterclaim in I J n . 1.1 is less convincing than the implicit admission in J n . 20.29.) Here, as in the development of the Salome stories, the original figures of Jesus' circle are pushed aside by the authorities of the developing churches. The importance of this will appear in the following chapter. The above survey covers almost all the early Christian reports concerning Salome. Omitted are only a set of notices in which Salome's name appears in lists of women who served the Lord or were related to the holy family or were involved in the resurrection stories. Such comparatively colorless material is directly derivable from the Markan references. Not so the tradition surveyed above. That tradition is almost entirely Egyptian (Strycker, 423, thinks Egypt the source of the Protevangelium Iacobi) and is sharply divided between (a) orthodox polemic and (b) glorification by "heretical" material and by Coptic material which, although sometimes nominally orthodox, perpetuates quite unorthodox elements of Egyptian background. Since the Carpocratians who appealed to Salome's authority (Origen, Contra Celsum V.62) also maintained that Jesus was a natural man, the son of Joseph (Irenaeus: Harvey, I.20 = Stieren, I.25), and since Salome in orthodox material was cursed for her denial of the virgin birth, it would seem that she had figured as an authority for esoteric traditions allied with a naturalistic account of Jesus' birth, and that the importance of the esoteric traditions for the Egyptian churches had been sufficient to save her from the polemic which the naturalism engendered and to transform 191


THE SECRET GOSPEL

her into the first disinterested witness of the virgin birth. But whatever m a y be thought of the later history of the tradition, it is quite clear that the early material is so widespread and rich in content that it cannot be explained as derived from the two references in canonical M k . T h e r e must have been other early traditions a b o u t Salome to explain the later developments. T h e later developments, in turn, suggest reasons for the suppression of the early material. T h a t suppression is already visible in M t . and L k . , and m a y therefore have operated in the editing of M k .

E.

Conclusions

L e t us now review the points w h i c h have been made. A . T h e resurrection story in the longer text is an example of the miracle-inresponse-to-intercession story: its similarities in content to canonical examples of that type (e.g., the story of the Gerasene demoniac) are no more numerous than the similarities of the canonical examples to each other. B. However, it is especially related to the story of L a z a r u s : the story in J n . is a Johannine expansion of a later version of the story in the longer text. T h a t the author of the longer text did not know the Johannine story is as nearly certain as anything based on source-analysis can be. T h a t J o h n did not know the longer text is probable. C . W h e n the longer text is a d d e d to M k . , the geographical outlines of M k . 6 . 3 2 16.8 and J n . 6.1-20.2a are so similar and the order of m a j o r events and the places of these events in relation to the geographical outlines are so similar as to indicate that M a r k and J o h n independently expanded and reworked w h a t were probably independent translations of some ultimately c o m m o n source. C l e m e n t locates his first quotation from the longer text exactly where it should be in M k . h a d it been part of this source. Also, the piece of geographical framework with w h i c h it concludes is paralleled in J n . , but differs so far from the Johannine parallel that it cannot be explained as derived from J n . Presumably both it and its Johannine parallel came from the source. T h a t the source was A r a m a i c is not unlikely in view of the numerous A r a m a i c traits in the style of both M k . and J n . , w h i c h have led a n u m b e r of scholars to suppose them dependent, more or less directly, on A r a m a i c material (Burney, Origin; Black, Aramaic; Schlatter, Sprache; T o r r e y , Four Gospels a n d Translated Gospels, etc.). D . T h e new material has particularly close structural ties with canonical M k . : 1. I t fits the " h i s t o r i c a l " outline traditionally found in M k . 2. M k . 10.20-34 plus the longer text shows an order of events paralleled in M k . 8.29-9.8 and M k . 14.27-16.5. These parallels do not seem to come from a c o m m o n source, but from c o m m o n editorial arrangement of diverse material. It m a y be that the same editor was responsible for all three instances of the pattern. a 3. M k . 10.13-34 + the longer text + 10.35-45 pericope of w h i c h the contents follow closely the order and contents of a baptismal service. Another

192


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

form of the first section, related to the longer text, stood in a Gospel according to the Hebrews ( K l i j n , Question). T h e M a r k a n ( + longer text) pericope was designed as a basis for baptismal teaching and for reading in the service. In this design the resurrection and initiation stories of the longer text are essential elements and occur exactly where they should. Moreover, the interpretation of the initiation as a baptism is confirmed by and explains the details given, and these explain M k . 14.51. 4. T h e second quotation from the longer text has been so bowdlerized

by

C l e m e n t or his predecessors that few conclusions can be d r a w n from it. H o w e v e r , M t . seems to have k n o w n it where C l e m e n t located it in M k . L u k e also locates in Jericho a story w h i c h has important similarities to the longer text (it looks like a late version of the same tradition with moralizing substituted for miracles). T h e present text of M k . seems to have suffered a deletion precisely where C l e m e n t locates the additional material. A n d the reference to Salome suggests a reason for the deletion. O f the above points, B, C , and D concur to indicate that the longer text was the original text of M k . , and that canonical M k . has been produced by abbreviation. Against this conclusion must be set the conclusion reached from the stylistic study in the previous section (pp. 144-145, above). T h e evident conflict of these bodies of evidence leads one to examine w h a t can be said against either side. Against the stylistic evidence it can be objected that the excess of parallelism might be accounted for by the convergence of m a n y different elementsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the similarity in content of resurrection stories as such; the self-repetition of M a r k ; the use of liturgical and narrative formulas; the influence exerted by an important text; deliberate interpolation and manuscript corruption; and mere chance. A n d most important of all is the fact that the sample is too short to afford conclusive stylistic evidence. Against the evidence from content it c a n be said that interpolation is often concerned to produce texts useful for teaching, and interpolators often take a d v a n t a g e of small irregularities in texts interpolated. So the lacuna in M k . 10.46 might have attracted an interpolator, and the concern to use earlier sections of the chapter for baptismal teaching, or for teaching of the vicarious atonement, might have led to their being filled out with appropriate material. Similarly, the fact that the resurrection story of the longer text shows a form older than the source o f j n . ' s Lazarus story does not prove that the longer text was originally part of M k . â&#x20AC;&#x201D; e a r l y material could h a v e been written down at a later date and interpolated in the canonical text. T h u s the strongest piece of evidence for supposing the canonical text an abbreviation is the indication that the resurrection story stood in the c o m m o n source of M a r k a n d J o h n . This argument could be eliminated b y supposing J o h n used the longer text of M k . ; but that supposition w o u l d have to be defended against the extremely strong case for John's independence of M k . , presented b y D o d d in Historical Tradition.

!93


T H E SECRET GOSPEL

I f w e suppose that J o h n did not use M k . , but that both used different translations of a c o m m o n source, it w o u l d still be possible to suppose that this c o m m o n source was not used all at once. If the source was an esoteric document and if the first form of M k . was written for beginners in Christianity—as C l e m e n t s a y s — t h e n the first form of M k . might have been filled out at a later date by further selections from the esoteric source, a n d the editor w h o added these might have t r i e d — p a r t i c u l a r l y if he were translating from the A r a m a i c — t o imitate as closely as possible the w o r d i n g of the earlier M a r k a n text. A n A r a m a i c origin m a y be indicated b y the attribution of another floating scrap of this material to a Gospel according to the Hebrews ( K l i j n , Question). T h i s theory seems to fit the evidence from style as well as that from content, but it still leaves unexplained the evidence that something was deleted from M k . 10.46. H o w e v e r , there is no need to suppose that the editorial work on M k . was limited to interpolation, or that all selections of the longer t e x t — o r all sections of canonical M k . — h a d the same origin a n d history. T h e editor m a y h a v e deleted as well as a d d e d ; insertions m a y h a v e been m a d e b y one editor and deletions b y a second; other possibilities can easily be imagined. Accordingly, if w e were to shape our theory as closely as possible to the evidence, w e should suppose that the latter part of J n . a n d M k . had as their remote source an A r a m a i c document w h i c h they knew in different translations and perhaps differently mutilated or interpolated or both. T h e earliest form of M k . , though using this source, did not include the resurrection and initiation stories now k n o w n from the longer t e x t — a l t h o u g h at least the former was in the source, and p r o b a b l y both were. However, a later editor cast these stories in a style constantly reminiscent of the M a r k a n material he already knew, and a d d e d them to the M a r k a n text. I n doing this he was a d d i n g in written form material w h i c h had hitherto been kept secret a n d supplied orally in the teaching concerning baptism. T h e expanded text he produced was probably that used by M a t t h e w . W h e t h e r it was later cut d o w n again to form the present canonical text, or whether the canonical text was an older form w h i c h preserved its integrity alongside the interpolated text, there is no telling. But in 10.46, at least, the present canonical text seems to be an a b r i d g m e n t ; and the longer text, as quoted b y Clement, preserves the introductory phrases of the material cut out. Postscript: R e r e a d i n g this text in 1970, more than seven years after it was written a n d four years after its revision, I find the a r g u m e n t from style m u c h weaker than that from content. Also I notice that I h a v e not considered the likelihood that Clement, w h o had no reason to love the secret Gospel, might have been inclined to prefer an account representing it as a secondary expansion of the shorter text w h i c h in his d a y was well on its w a y to b e c o m i n g " c a n o n i c a l . " Perhaps, therefore, I have overestimated the reliability of his report. But the theory proposed above still seems to m e the one w h i c h w o u l d best fit the evidence reviewed.

194


FOUR

The Background A draft of this chapter was read by Professors Cyril Richardson and Gershom Scholem, to both of whom I am indebted for helpful discussion. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

The question as to the historical value of the new Gospel text, 196 Secrecy in ancient Judaism, 197 Reports about the secret teaching of Jesus, 199 Questions about the content of Jesus' secret teaching, aoi The kingdom of God, 202 The problem of Jesus' role in relation to the present kingdom, 204 The role of the Baptist, 205 Evidence from the Gospels that Jesus baptized, 209 Baptism according to Paul, 213 Elements derived from Jesus in Pauline baptism, 216 A. B. C.

D.

XI.

The rite was a means of uniting with Jesus, 217 The union was effected by the spirit, 219 The rite was magical, 220 1.

T h e term and the facts, 220

2. 3. 4.

T h e question of spells, 222 Minor magical traits of the miracle stories, 223 T h e predominantly magical character of the Gospel stories, 224

5. 6.

T h e relation of " m a g i c i a n " to 9eios άνήρ and " S o n of G o d , " 227 Jewish and pagan opinions of Jesus, 229

7. M a g i c in the practice of Jesus' followers, 231 8. Recapitulation and conclusions, 235 The rite was a means of ascent to the heavens, 237 1.

Background, 238

2. 3.

Indirect evidence of Jesus' practice, 240 Records of Jesus' practice, 243

a. The transfiguration, 243 b. Phil. 2.5-11; I Tim. 3.16; Jn. 3, 244 E. The rite liberated its recipients from the Mosaic Law, 248 Consequences of Jesus' baptismal practice, 251 A. B.

The coming of the spirit, 252 The adoption and development of baptism by the early churches, 253

C.

The libertine tradition in early Christianity, 254

195


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

XII. XIII.

I.

Κ.

T h e persecution of the early churches, 2 5 4

2.

T h e parties in the early churches, 2 5 6

3.

Direct evidence of libertinism, 25g

4.

Source and dispersion of the libertine tradition, 262

D. The "loss" of all writings of Jesus' immediate followers, 263 E. Second-century silence about Paul's doctrine of baptism, 264 Conclusion: The historical value of the new text, 265 Carpocrates, 266 A. Names, 266 B. Date, 267 C. Testimonia, 268 D. Studies, 276

T H E QUESTION AS TO THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE NEW GOSPEL TEXT

Solution of the literary problem as to the relation between the new Gospel text and canonical Mk. does not solve the historical problem as to the reliability of the material contained in the new text. Since all first-century Christian authors drew on the traditions of their churches, as well as on their own imaginations, an early text may contain mere invention or a late one report old tradition. Therefore, although some of the material in the longer text probably came from a Gospel earlier than canonical Mk., and although some of it was probably cast in its present form a decade or so later than most of the stories in the canonical Gospel, neither of these probabilities is of much value as evidence of historical reliability. False statements may be primitive, and true statements may be secondary accretions to original errors. Given this state of affairs, and given the evidence collected by Bultmann, Geschichte, passim, it would be naive to ask whether or not the events reported in the longer text "really happened." In dealing with the Gospels we have no prima facie criterion of truth save verisimilitude, and verisimilitude is not reliable. But we can ask how the new text is related to the historical problems which have been raised by the study of the canonical Gospels. One of the most important of these problems is that of the source and significance of the secrecy motifs in the Gospels. With this we may conveniently begin, especially because Clement's letter, which quotes the new text, has revealed that Clement's church in Alexandria kept this Gospel secret and read it only to those being initiated into the "great mysteries." Moreover, the new text itself reports that Jesus administered to one of his followers a nocturnal initiation in which "Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God." How is this report related to the canonical Gospels' reports of Jesus' secret teaching? 196


THE BACKGROUND

II.

S E C R E C Y IN ANCIENT JUDAISM

First, the background: Throughout the ancient world secrecy was practiced everywhere—in government and politics, in the trades and professions, in the philosophic schools, and, above all, in religion and magic. Secret rituals had been particularly common in ancient near eastern religions (Hooke, Religion 53), and the religion of Israel had been no exception in this respect: its official center was a temple of which the area around the altar might be entered only by members of the various grades of the priestly caste. None save the high priest himself was permitted to enter the adyton (Lev. 16; Num. 1.47-54; 4 · Ι _ Ι 5 > 8 . 1 4 - 1 9 ; 1 7 . 1 - 5 ; 1 8 . i - 7 ; etc.). J u d a i s m not only perpetuated but developed these esoteric traits. T h e main court of the temple was now closed to gentiles (Bickerman, Warning 390-394, remarks on the similarity to pagan mysteries), and increased emphasis on purity law did much to cut off Jews from their gentile neighbors. T h e degree of separation has been greatly exaggerated in such works as Moore's Judaism, but the fact of it is undeniable. Consequent, the gentiles saw the religion of the J e w s as a mystery religion and the J e w s themselves represented it as such (see above, pp. i 8 o f f ) . Besides the assimilation of J u d a i s m in general to the mystery religions, the several sects which grew up within J u d a i s m kept their doctrines and rites secret from each other and from ordinary Jews. These sects probably originated in differences of legal theory and practice, particularly differences concerning the purity laws (see my Sect). Consequently, their meals, their houses, their schools, and their synagogues were apt to be closed to all " o u t s i d e r s " {rots M k . 4.11), gentile and Jewish alike. (Accordingly, Strack-Billerbeck on M k . 4.11 is mistaken. T h e commentary there contains only one really relevant passage—Megillah I V . 8 — a n d that one it misinterprets. T h e DTiXTI are not "ketzerisch gerichtete M e n s c h e n " ; on the contrary, they are sharply contrasted with the heretics, who are the adherents of ΓΠΓΪ3; the D'HSTl are the ordinary J e w s who are not members of the Pharisaic sect or of any other, while the heretics are members of competing sects—see the notes of Bertinoro and Y o m Τ ο ν . But the precision here is determined by the contrast. W h e n there is no such contrast, D'JIXTI means nothing more or less than " those o u t s i d e " ; what they are outside of must be determined from the context.) Groups cut off from the outside world by such legal barriers usually developed further peculiarities of doctrine and observance, and among these was apt to be a deliberate affectation of secrecy concerning their teachings and practices. How far this was rooted in childish delight at having secrets, how far it was based on practical considerations of discipline and prudence, how far it was influenced by the examples of philosophic schools and mystery cults are questions which doubtless had different answers for each sect. Anyhow, it is clear from the disciplinary material in the Q u m r a n finds that the pattern was well established in Palestine before the time of Jesus. See, for instance, Manual of Discipline I X . 16f: I t is a legal obligation to conceal the sense of the Law from wicked men. Again, V I . 1 3 - 2 3 : An initial examination and covenant is required before the outsider can even be instructed in the rules of the r

97


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

sect, two years' probation before full admission. This material roughly agrees with the descriptions of the Essenes' practice of secrecy as found in Josephus, BJ I l . n g f f and Hippolytus, Philosophumena I X end (on which my Description), also Josephus, AJ X V I I I . Κ iff. (That Jewish laws were to be kept secret, a fortiori, from the gentiles, is a notion probably older than the Essenes and more widely accepted than their practices; it appears already in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Judah X V I . 4 . ) These agreements help secure credence for the account of the secret practices of a similar group in Egypt given by Philo in On the Contemplative Life. A society of would-be revolutionists whom Josephus describes as another "philosophical" sect {BJ I I . 1 1 8 ; AJ X V I I I . 2 3 ; etc.) must certainly have practiced a good deal of secrecy for prudential reasons; so must later revolutionary groups, of which the most famous were to be the " Z e a l o t s " (with whom Jesus' zealous disciple Simon (Lk. 6.15; Acts 1.13) had probably no connection). The tradition of doctrine and practice from which came the Merkabah literature (especially the Hekalot tracts) and the "Mithras L i t u r g y " (discussed above, p. 181) was certainly secret and must have existed in Palestine during Jesus' lifetime. The priests, particularly the upper priesthood, must have had a large body of secret traditions and practices; so must the Samaritans (among whom, in turn, were a number of secret sects). We hear of the Samaritans keeping secret, for instance, the principles by which they regulated their calendar (as did the Dead Sea Sect: Bowman, Calendar 27fr). But of all these groups we are badly informed. The one sect best known, the Pharisees, practiced secrecy in many fields. Jeremias (Jerusalem II.B.io6ff) has shown they had secret doctrines about God, his name and his throne, the heavens, creation, the structure of the world, eschatology, the "reasons for the L a w , " sexual questions, magical formulas, discreditable traditions, and laws or legal provisions likely to be abused. He remarks that this "Arkandiziplin " played an even larger role in early Christianity, where it also involved Christology, the secrets of the divine nature, and the sacraments {ibid., 109). The material Jeremias collected could easily be increased (see, e.g., Jervell, Imago 2of, 72f, etc.). Moreover, these secrets are secrets which were kept even from ordinary members within the Pharisaic sect. Therefore, besides all this, it must be emphasized that vis-ä-vis Judaism at large the Pharisaic sect itself was, in the first century A.D., an esoteric group. Melamed, Lesheelat 1 1 8 , shows that public teaching was prohibited (except as a demonstration in times of persecution) by the older interpretation of the Law (which Rabbi tried to maintain as late as the end of the second century). This secrecy produced in rabbinic material a form of "pronouncement story" which is also important in Mk.: An outsider asks a question of a rabbi, the rabbi gives him an inadequate or even false answer, later the rabbi's students ask him in private about the matter, and he gives them the true explanation; e.g., Bereshit Rabbah 8.9 and parallels. See, for example, the stories about Yohanan ben Zakkai, a younger contemporary of Paul and Jesus, in Bemidbar Rabbah 19.4; Tanhuma' (ed. Buber) Hukat 26; J . Sanhedrin 1.2 (19b). (In the first group of these passages his secret teaching is that a dead body does not render the man who touches it impure, nor does the immersion legally prescribed for purification after contact with dead 198


THE BACKGROUND

bodies p u r i f y ; b u t the l a w s are to b e observed as a r b i t r a r y d i v i n e rulings. C f . Jesus' s a y i n g , M k . 7 . 1 5 , oi)8eV ianv κοινώσαι

ΐξωθΐν

τον άνθρωπου είσπορευόμ,ενον els αύτον ο δύναται

αυτόν. T h i s in M k . is f o l l o w e d b y a p r i v a t e e x p l a n a t i o n to the disciples.

O n the story of Y o h a n a n see D a u b e , NTRJ

III.

REPORTS ABOUT

THE

141 ff; N e u s n e r , Life 6 i f . )

SECRET T E A C H I N G

OF JESUS

Stories of this same f o r m — p r o n o u n c e m e n t , question in p r i v a t e , secret t e a c h i n g to d i s c i p l e s — a r e told o f j e s u s in M k . 4 . i o f f ; 7 . 1 7 f r ; g.28f; i o . i o f f ; 13.3fr. T h e p r i v a t e questions a n d answers in these passages h a v e often b e e n a t t r i b u t e d to the r e d a c t o r of M k . : e.g., B u l t m a n n , Geschichte 3 5 6 ; Seitz, Criteria. T h e latter (p. 220) affords a n a m u s i n g e x a m p l e of " h i s t o r i c a l " criticism: it proves the s e c o n d a r y c h a r a c t e r of M k . 7 . 1 8 f r b y the f a c t (!) that a special r e v e l a t i o n f r o m h e a v e n was r e q u i r e d to p e r s u a d e Peter to g o w i t h a gentile. A d m i t t i n g o n literary g r o u n d s t h a t the M a r k a n secret e x p l a n a t i o n s are r e d a c t i o n a l , one has to ask w h y the r e d a c t o r chose to represent Jesus in this w a y . I t is not e n o u g h to a r g u e (as Seitz does) t h a t the c o n t e n t of the secret e x p l a n a t i o n s represents the wishes of the gentile c h u r c h . E v e n if o n e w e r e to a c c e p t the d u b i o u s distinction b e t w e e n the " p r i m i t i v e P a l e s t i n i a n " a n d " g e n t i l e " churches, one w o u l d h a v e to e x p l a i n w h y the s e c o n d a r y m a t e r i a l w a s i n t r o d u c e d as secret t e a c h i n g . W h y c o u l d the question not h a v e b e e n asked f r o m the c r o w d a n d the answer g i v e n o p e n l y ? T o this the c u s t o m a r y reply, since R e i m a r u s , has been t h a t doctrines falsely a t t r i b u t e d to Jesus h a d to b e presented as secret t e a c h i n g because his p u b l i c t e a c h i n g was k n o w n a n d the i n t e n d e d dupes w o u l d r e m e m b e r t h a t he h a d not p u b l i c l y t a u g h t such things. B u t , first, it is unlikely that the p u b l i c t e a c h i n g o f j e s u s w a s so c o m p l e t e l y k n o w n to readers of the Gospels t h a t t h e y c o u l d confidently d e n y it h a d c o n t a i n e d one or a n o t h e r element. A n d , second, if it be supposed t h a t Jesus' t e a c h i n g was c l e a r l y a n d fully r e m e m b e r e d b y the churches, they w o u l d h a v e r e m e m b e r e d also w h e t h e r or not he t a u g h t in secret. S o the fact t h a t the editors of the Gospels chose to present some additions as secret t e a c h i n g suggests their churches h a d a t r a d i t i o n t h a t Jesus did t e a c h in secret, a n d this tradition w a s older t h a n the Gospels w h i c h relied on it to lend credit to their a c c o u n t s of w h a t he thus t a u g h t . T h i s leads to the question, are there other traits in M k . or in other early Christian d o c u m e n t s w h i c h c o n f i r m these reports of secret t e a c h i n g ? I t is w e l l k n o w n t h a t there are such traits in M k . W r e d e has left a classic description of those w h i c h , as he says (Messiasgeheimnis

146fr), w e r e noticed b y m a n y c r i t i c s —

S c h l e i e r m a c h e r , Strauss, K e i m , H i l g e n f e l d , a n d o t h e r s — b e f o r e his t i m e : the t a k i n g aside of the sick, the m a n i p u l a t i o n a n d use of t a n g i b l e m e a n s in the miracles, the m a g i c a l overtones, the c o n c e p t i o n of miracles as mysteries, the c o n c e p t i o n or the disciples as initiates to w h o m the m y s t e r y has b e e n g i v e n , the c o n c e p t i o n o f j e s u s as a g o d disguised in flesh, his mysterious, secret j o u r n e y s , his t r a v e l i n g incognito, his g o i n g a p a r t a l o n e or w i t h a f e w d i s c i p l e s — " s c e n e s f r o m the life of a m a g i c i a n . " M o r e o v e r , W r e d e declares, the earlier critics w e r e right. A l l these are characteristics

199


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

of M k . as opposed to the other Gospels. T h e earlier critics saw t h e m because t h e y looked at M k . as it w a s ; the later critics overlooked t h e m because they c a m e to M k . w i t h the p r e c o n c e i v e d notion that it was the earliest a n d most historical Gospel, the repository of Peter's memories, a n d therefore looked at it only to find m a t e r i a l w h i c h w o u l d pass as historical a n d possibly Petrine. " S c h l e i e r m a c h e r has a l r e a d y r e m a r k e d that this Gospel a p p r o x i m a t e s the characteristics of the a p o c r y p h a l ones. H o w he m e a n t this, is not here in question. B u t one t h i n g seems to m e c e r t a i n : If this Gospel came to light today, for the first time, in some grave, Schleiermacher's judgement would be approved by more than a few." (Ibid., m y italics.) C f . Schille, Formgeschichte 18: " W h y does M a r k choose, in developing Jesus' speeches of revelation, a form w h i c h p r e s u m a b l y was customary in the catechetic initiation of neophytes in the t e a c h i n g of the C h u r c h , as if Jesus like a hierophant led the twelve a n d ' those a r o u n d h i m ' step by step into the mysteries of the 'Church'?"

(His italics.) E v e n W r e d e ' s e n u m e r a t i o n does

not exhaust the esoteric t r a i t s — t h e r e are, further, the t e a c h i n g in parables, the disciples' failures to understand, the c o m m a n d s of secrecy, the actions p e r f o r m e d before a few chosen witnesses, the contrast of the i m m e d i a t e circle w i t h those outside, a n d so on. T h e early Christians recognized these traits a n d consistently pictured Jesus as t e a c h i n g mysteries in secret, C r a m e r 3 1 1 , 335, 353, etc. Since W r e d e ' s time this material in M k . has c o m m o n l y been discussed u n d e r the h e a d i n g " t h e messianic secret." T h i s is a pity because, as W r e d e ' s list shows, the traits are too various to be e x p l a i n e d b y the sole secret that Jesus w a s the Messiah. W h a t has that to do w i t h — f o r i n s t a n c e — t h e use of m a g i c a l techniques in the miracles ? A further misfortune resultant from W r e d e ' s brilliant study has been the t e n d e n c y to treat these p h e n o m e n a as peculiar to M k . (See the review of theories in B o o b y e r , Secrecy 225f.) T h i s was not W r e d e ' s fault. H e h a d e x a m i n e d the other Gospels, too, a n d h a d found in M t . a different theory of a secret teaching, exemplified in such passages as 9.27fr; 11.25

an

d

I 2 . i 8 f f (Messiasgeheimnis 1 5 1 - 1 6 2 ) a n d in L k . - A c t s a theory

closer to M k . ' s (165fr). H e r e he noted especially the report of Jesus' postresurrection t e a c h i n g (Lk. 24.25^ A c t s 1.3, τα περί της βασιλείας

τοΰ θεον) b u t did not see that

this w a s intended to authenticate some b o d y of secret doctrine k n o w n to L u k e . H e also observed (188ff) traces of the M a r k a n theory in J n . Jesus' claim in his trial, iv κρύπτω ΐλάλησα

oüSe'v (Jn. 18.20), p r o b a b l y reflects a

c h a r g e of secret teaching. N e g l e c t i n g this claim, J n . represents N i c o d e m u s as c o m i n g to Jesus for secret instruction b y night (ch. 3 — t h e parallelism to the longer text of M k . is clear), reports that Jesus h a d secret disciples ( 1 9 . 3 8 ^ , a n d makes the last supper a long secret lecture. Also, the disciples in J n . , like those in M k . , r e p e a t e d l y failed to u n d e r s t a n d : 2.22; 1 2 . 1 6 ; 13.7,28; 14.20; 1 6 . 1 2 , 2 5 ; 20.9. O n l y after Jesus' d e a t h c a m e the spirit w h i c h was to recall to t h e m all things Jesus h a d said ( i 4 . i 6 f ) a n d lead t h e m into all truth ( 1 6 . 1 3 ) ; that is, into a revelation m o r e r e v e a l i n g t h a n J o h n ' s Gospel, of w h i c h the last speech w a s still ev παροιμίαις

(16.25). 1 T h i s a g a i n

ι . T h i s closely resembles the relation which Clement said existed between the longer text of M k . and the secret teachings: the longer text contained those stories and sayings the spiritual interpretation of which would lead the initiates to the hidden truth (Letter 1.21-26, and commentary, also p. 166 above).

200


THE BACKGROUND

m u s t b e a c l a i m to secret t e a c h i n g or to p r i v a t e r e v e l a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d i m m e d i a t e l y pass o v e r i n t o secret t e a c h i n g (cf. K r a g e r u d , Lieblingsjünger 84fr; K ä s e m a n n ,

Ketzer

302). T h e i d e n t i c a l c l a i m is f o u n d in P a u l , I C o r . 2 . 1 1 , a n d there is n o d o u b t t h a t P a u l has secret teachings w h i c h he w i l l not reveal e v e n to b a p t i z e d Christians w h o are still " c a r n a l " {ibid., 3 . i f f ) . M a c h e n , Origin, has m a d e a strong case for the supposition t h a t the m a i n elements of P a u l ' s religion c a m e f r o m Jesus. W e s a w a b o v e (pp. 178fr) t h a t P a u l a n d M k . w e r e at one in their use of μνστήριον

to refer to b a p t i s m . T h e y

a r e also at o n e in their belief t h a t the teachings of C h r i s t i a n i t y i n c l u d e secrets to b e r e v e a l e d o n l y to the f e w elect. A further p o i n t of a g r e e m e n t is their belief t h a t Jesus w a s a s u p e r n a t u r a l p o w e r in disguise: M a r k t h o u g h t d e m o n s c o u l d r e c o g n i z e h i m b u t m e n c o u l d n o t ( 1 . 2 4 , 3 4 ; 3 . 1 1 ; e t c . ) ; P a u l t h o u g h t even d e m o n s w e r e fooled (I C o r . 2.8, o n w h i c h M a c g r e g o r , Principalities·, cf. Phil. 2 . 7 ; C o l . 2 . 1 5 ; J n . P a u l ' s o p i n i o n w a s shared b y the

first-century

19.11);

(?) a u t h o r of the Ascension of Isaiah

10—11. ( A similar belief w a s p r o b a b l y h e l d a b o u t S i m o n M a g u s b y his f o l l o w e r s : A c t s 8 . 1 0 ; C e r f a u x , Gnose, 1.504^ See the r e m a r k s of Weiss, Christianity 758f.) I n s u m , the Gospels all represent Jesus as t e a c h i n g in secret; P a u l certainly h a d secret doctrines a n d L k . a n d J n . presuppose t h e m . W h e n C h r i s t i a n i t y first a p p e a r s in the writings of p a g a n authors it is described as a secret society (Pliny, ad Traianum 9 6 . 7 : hetaeria; G r a n t , Pliny,

PW

sub voc.) or a n initiation

Epistulae (Lucian,

Peregrinus 1 1 : τελετή). T h e s e descriptions are c o m p l e t e l y in a c c o r d w i t h its b a c k g r o u n d in sectarian J u d a i s m . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e n e e d not question the r e p o r t in the n e w text t h a t Jesus t a u g h t in secret, b u t w e m a y r e a s o n a b l y i n q u i r e w h a t he secretly t a u g h t .

IV.

QUESTIONS A B O U T

THE

CONTENT

OF JESUS'

SECRET

TEACHING

B u t c a n w e h o p e , a t this r e m o v e , to discover w h a t Jesus t a u g h t secretly ? T h e r e is n o scholarly a g r e e m e n t e v e n as to w h a t he t a u g h t in p u b l i c . H e has b e e n represented as a r a b b i , a philosopher, a pacifist, a r e v o l u t i o n a r y , a m o r a l reformer, a p r o p h e t of the c o m i n g e n d of the w o r l d , a n itinerant exorcist, a n d the son of G o d , c o m e d o w n to earth to reveal his o w n nature. T h i s g e n e r a l d i s a g r e e m e n t as to his teachings suggests t h a t some of t h e m , a t least, w e r e secret. S o does the cause of the g e n e r a l d i s a g r e e m e n t — t h e f a c t t h a t the c a n o n i c a l Gospels c o n t a i n considerable elements w h i c h g i v e a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y pictures of their hero. T h e s e c o n t r a dictions must be dealt w i t h either b y supposing o n e b o d y o f m a t e r i a l

"primary"

a n d the rest " s e c o n d a r y " (the m e t h o d w h i c h has p r o d u c e d the v a r i o u s " h i s t o r i c a l " pictures of Jesus listed a b o v e ) , or b y supposing t h e m all " s e c o n d a r y " (an a c t of faith, n o t to say c r e d u l i t y ) , or b y supposing t h a t t h e y reflect different facets of a c o m p l i c a t e d c h a r a c t e r in w h i c h they w e r e r e c o n c i l e d (more or less) b y considerations n o t m a d e p u b l i c . O f these three m e t h o d s the first a n d last are not m u t u a l l y exclusive, b u t their possible c o m b i n a t i o n s d o n o t here c o n c e r n us. H e r e the facts to b e n o t e d 201


C L E M E N T OF A L E X A N D R I A

are that a n y a t t e m p t to explore the area of secrecy in the Gospel tradition is necessarily speculative, b u t a n y a t t e m p t to deny it is necessarily w r o n g . E v e n texts like M t . 10.27, " W h a t I tell y o u in darkness, declare in the light, a n d w h a t y o u hear in the ear, p r o c l a i m o n the housetops," w h i l e intended to suggest that (all?) the content of the secret t e a c h i n g has n o w been m a d e p u b l i c , a d m i t implicitly that a secret t e a c h i n g existed. A c c o r d i n g l y w e must recognize b o t h that w e deal here w i t h an extremely speculative area o f study, a n d also that the preserved e v i d e n c e necessitates speculation. T o the question " w h a t d i d Jesus tell his disciples in d a r k n e s s ? " the answer has usually been " t h e messianic secret." T h i s secret is d i v i d e d b y a recent study (Burkill, Revelation) into t w o parts: the secret f a c t — t h a t Jesus w a s the M e s s i a h — a n d

the

secret interpretation o f the messiahship as a career of service, suffering, a n d death. A s for the secret f a c t — i t seems likely that Jesus did think he was the Messiah, a n d h a d obvious, prudential reasons to conceal his opinion. A s for the secret interpretation, h o w e v e r — t h e r e is no clear reason w h y that should be kept secret, a n d M k . insists t h a t Jesus t a u g h t it p u b l i c l y ( 8 . 3 i f ) . M o r e o v e r , it seems unlikely that he ever t a u g h t it a t a l l : the prophecies of the passion look like prophecies ex eventu—the of the opposite opinion has been demonstrated b y T a y l o r ' s defense of it

weakness (Origin).

A n d the report that Jesus set guards at G e t h s e m a n e ( M k . 14.32,34; cf. L k . 22.40) indicates that he h a d no intention of g i v i n g his life as a ransom for a n y . T h e question of S h e m t o v ben S h a p r u t , reported b y K r a u s s (Leben 269) is w o r t h r e p e a t i n g : I f Jesus g a v e himself freely to his sacrificial death, w h y did he say that J u d a s Iscariot betrayed him ? O n the other h a n d , there is no reason to suppose Jesus h a d only one s e c r e t — t h e fact that he w a s the Messiah. T h e existence of other secrets m a y be i n d i c a t e d b y obscurities in the tradition. O n e such obscurity is that c o v e r i n g the relation of the M e s s i a h to the k i n g d o m of G o d . A n d since M k . 4 . 1 1 declares that " t h e mystery o f the k i n g d o m of G o d " has been g i v e n to the disciples (as opposed to " t h o s e o u t s i d e " ) , a n d the n e w text represents Jesus as t e a c h i n g this mystery to the y o u t h w h o c a m e to h i m for nocturnal initiation, w e seem to h a v e here another element of Jesus' secret teaching. W e h a v e a l r e a d y seen e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g that the mystery w a s a b a p t i s m (above, p p . 178fr). W e must n o w try to find out w h a t this baptism w a s supposed to effect, w h y it w a s administered b y Jesus, a n d w h y it w a s secret. B u t these questions presuppose a n o t h e r : I f b a p t i s m w a s " t h e mystery of the k i n g d o m o f G o d , " w h a t w a s " t h e k i n g d o m of G o d " ?

V.

T H E KINGDOM OF

GOD

T h e discussion of the k i n g d o m t o u c h e d o f f b y D o d d ' s Parables has practically e n d e d w i t h the recognition that " k i n g d o m " m e a n t p r i m a r i l y , " r u l e "

(as JVdVq

— a n a b s t r a c t — w o u l d ) b u t m i g h t , b y extension, refer to the persons or o r g a n i z a t i o n or a r e a r u l e d ; cf. L u n d s t r ö m , Kingdom a n d Perrin, Kingdom. O f recent articles, L a d d , 202


THE BACKGROUND

Reign, is right as to the essential meaning but does not allow sufficiently for the extensions. Grant, Idea 442, gives a better account by comparing G o d ' s rule of all creation to the rule of the G r e a t K i n g : it had originally been complete, but since the time of A d a m certain provinces (the demonic, h u m a n , and animal worlds) had been in revolt, and in Jesus' time apocalyptic writers had recently been foretelling that the revolt was soon to be suppressed and the rule restored. It was, later, the peculiarity of Jesus' followers to believe that the suppression h a d already b e g u n ; the G r e a t K i n g ' s rule had come back into the revolted provinces in the person of his representative, Jesus, it had been manifested in Jesus' acts of power, and it was continued in their o w n obedience, as they looked forward eagerly to his coming again " w i t h power and great g l o r y " to complete the restoration. This explains w h y the N T documents generally speak of the " k i n g d o m " both as present and as f u t u r e — i t was both at once: It was present in Jesus, in the C h u r c h , and in G o d ' s eternal rule of the heavens; it was yet to come in the full resubjugation of the lower world (so K ü m m e l , Eschatologie). T h a t the C h u r c h is a manifestation of the " k i n g d o m of G o d " confirms our previous interpretation of " t h e mystery of the k i n g d o m " as b a p t i s m — t h e ritual of initiation into the C h u r c h . Stanley (Kingdom) has shown that in M t . a n d L k . the kingdom is sometimes the C h u r c h (so especially in M t . 13.33,52), and the same sense appears in Paul (Col. 1 . 1 3 ; 4 . 1 1 ) , the Apocalypse (1.6,9, etc.), and the M a r k a n parable of the mustard seed ( M k . 4.30; cf. D a n . 2.35,44 and Jeremias, Gleichnisse 93). A further point m a d e clear by Grant's analogy is that God's rule of the heavens continued unchanged in spite of the rebellion of the lower provinces. God's throne either is in or is the heavens (Apoc. 4.2; M t . 5.34; 23.22) a n d G o d himself is in the heavens (Mt. 6.1,9, etc.); the heavens are therefore his kingdom, κατ' εξοχήν. T h i s had been the opinion of the Psalmist (103.19, where 1 is to be translated " e v e n t h o u g h " — c f . 115.16). In W i s d o m , too, " t h e kingdom of G o d " is in the heavens, where it was shown to J a c o b in his dream (10.10) and whence the divine w o r d descended to destroy the wicked (18.15). So, too, in the pseudepigraphic apocalypses, G o d is customarily enthroned in the heavens a n d his kingdom is, by implication, there; the implication is m a d e explicit in III Baruch (the Greek apocalypse) 1 1 . i f , where the keys " o f the kingdom of h e a v e n " are identified as those to the gate of the fifth heaven. C o m p a r e D a n . 4.34, where G o d is " t h e K i n g of the heavens." This explains the fact noted b y A a l e n , that in the N T " t h e kingdom of G o d " often has a local sense and evidently refers to " a confined a r e a " (Reign 229). This " c o n f i n e d There " i n a r e a " is in the heavens, the realm of G o d , as Riesenfeld noted (ΠΑΡΑ). the kingdom of G o d " is A b r a h a m ( M t . 8.11, L k . 13.28), to whose bosom Lazarus was carried b y angels immediately after death (Lk. 16.22; cf. D o d d , Parables 44). T h e r e (in the third heaven) is the Paradise to w h i c h Paul was taken u p on his conversion (II Cor. 1 2 . 1 - 4 ; cf. G a l . 2.1), to w h i c h four second-century rabbis reportedly ascended (J. Hagigah I I . 1 [77b]), and to w h i c h Jesus promised to take, on the very d a y of their deaths, the thief w h o believed that he w o u l d yet come into his kingdom (Lk. 23.42^. It is in the heavens that the reward of the righteous is laid u p — t h e kingdom prepared for them from the beginning of creation (Lk. 12.32203


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

3 4 ; M t . 5 . 1 2 ; 6.20; 25.34). It is in the h e a v e n s t h a t G o d ' s k i n g d o m has c o m e , t h a t is, his w i l l is done, a l r e a d y , as the C h u r c h p r a y s it m a y c o m e on earth ( M t . 6.10). S o t o o the S y n a g o g u e prays, in a p r o b a b l y c o n t e m p o r a r y p r a y e r : " M a y he w h o maintains

peace

in

his heavens

(vaniaa)

maintain

peace

for us a n d

for

all

I s r a e l " (Baer, Seder 104). T h e keys of the k i n g d o m of the heavens, w h i c h are to b e g i v e n to Peter, w i l l render his legal decisions b i n d i n g in the h e a v e n s ; c o m p a r e the r a b b i n i c c l a i m t h a t G o d ' s c o u r t in the heavens confirms the actions of r a b b i n i c courts o n earth ( Β . Makkot

23b a n d parallels, etc.). Before A b r a h a m c a m e , says

Sifre Devarim 3 1 3 (on D t . 32.10), G o d was, as it w e r e , K i n g o n l y over the h e a v e n s ; w h e n A b r a h a m c a m e G o d b e g a n to rule also on earth. B y t a k i n g a w a y the key o f k n o w l e d g e the experts o n the l a w locked the k i n g d o m o f the heavens in m e n ' s faces; t h e y neither w e n t in themselves n o r p e r m i t t e d others to enter ( M t . 2 3 . 1 4 ;

Lk.

1 1 . 5 2 ; P. Oxy. 6 5 5 ; K r a f t , Oxyrhynchus; Gospel of Thomas ( L i e p o l d t 3 9 ) ; Clementine Homilies X V I I I . 1 5 - 1 6 ) . A n d finally the a u t h o r of I I T i m . 4 . 1 8 prays t h a t the L o r d w i l l deliver h i m f r o m every evil t h i n g κ αϊ σώσει els την βασιλΐίαν

αύτοΰ την

ϊπονράνίον.

T h i s d e m o n s t r a t i o n t h a t " t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d " m a y refer to a locality in the heavens has b e e n p r o t r a c t e d because the fact is usually i g n o r e d . H a v i n g established t h e f a c t — f o r w h i c h w e shall later o n b r i n g further e v i d e n c e — w e c a n n o w r e t u r n to the previous p r o b l e m : w h a t w a s Jesus' secret t e a c h i n g a b o u t b a p t i s m , " t h e m y s t e r y o f the k i n g d o m " ? H e r e w e shall try to d e t e r m i n e Jesus' position b y c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the Baptist's o n the one h a n d a n d P a u l ' s o n the other. T h e interval b e t w e e n the w o r k of the Baptist a n d the preserved letters of P a u l is a m e r e 25 years (ca. A.D. 2 5 - 5 0 ) . T h e r e f o r e the w o r k of Jesus c a n be defined f u n c tionally as t h a t w h i c h , b e g i n n i n g f r o m the Baptist, led to P a u l . A c c o r d i n g l y , after some p r e l i m i n a r y remarks o n the difficulty of distinguishing Jesus' role f r o m the Baptist's, w e shall define as sharply as possible the w o r k of the Baptist, then r e v i e w the N T evidence t h a t Jesus b a p t i z e d , a n d t h e n consider P a u l ' s statements a b o u t b a p t i s m a n d try to discover in t h e m the elements w h i c h d e r i v e f r o m Jesus.

VI.

THE

PROBLEM OF JESUS' ROLE IN RELATION TO THE PRESENT KINGDOM

A c c o r d i n g to the Gospels, the i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Jesus a n d the Baptist w a s t h a t Jesus w a s the M e s s i a h , the Baptist, m e r e l y a f o r e r u n n e r of the M e s s i a h . T h e Gospels a r e clear as to the role of Jesus in the f u t u r e , w h e n the k i n g d o m w i l l c o m e " w i t h p o w e r " : t h e n he, as Messiah, w i l l be the c h i e f e x e c u t i v e ( M t . 2 5 . 3 1 f r ; M k . i 3 . 2 6 f f ; etc.). B u t in the present k i n g d o m , the k i n g d o m o n earth in his d a y , he is generally represented as a n a d v a n c e a g e n t : his f u n c t i o n is to p r o c l a i m the c o m i n g of the k i n g d o m a n d to e x e m p l i f y its presence, to manifest its p o w e r in his miracles a n d its requirements in his p r e a c h i n g (so, for e x a m p l e , D i b e l i u s - K ü m m e l , Jesus).

B u t all this c o u l d h a v e b e e n d o n e b y a n y p r o p h e t a n d therefore, a fortiori, 204


THE BACKGROUND

b y the Baptist, w h o w a s a d m i t t e d l y m o r e t h a n a p r o p h e t ( M t . i i . g f f ; L k . 7 . 2 6 f r . â&#x20AC;&#x201D; J n . 10.41 is p r e s u m a b l y p a r t l y p o l e m i c ) . T h e r e f o r e w e m u s t ask w h e t h e r Jesus t h o u g h t his present role different f r o m the Baptist's, a n d , if so, h o w . I t w i l l d o n o g o o d to say t h a t w i t h the Baptist the k i n g d o m w a s y e t to c o m e b u t in Jesus' w o r k it w a s present. F o r w e h a v e seen a b o v e that the k i n g d o m is simply the rule of G o d , therefore it is present whenever G o d manifests his p o w e r or m e n o b e y h i m . S o if the presence of the k i n g d o m m e a n s only its presence in p r e a c h i n g a n d p r e d i c t i o n a n d acts of p o w e r , it was present a l r e a d y in the w o r k of the Baptist. A n d e v e n if w e w e r e to suppose J n . 10.41 correct in r e p o r t i n g that the Baptist d i d n o miracles (an unlikely supposition), a n d if w e should follow M t .

n . 2 f f || L k .

7 . 1 8 f r a n d L k . 11.20 in supposing t h a t Jesus saw in his o w n miracles the p r o o f t h a t the k i n g d o m w a s c o m i n g in a n e w w a y , w e should h a v e still to ask w h a t consequences he d r e w f r o m this belief. D i d he think his present role was m e r e l y to p r e a c h , p r o p h e s y , a n d p e r f o r m miracles ? A n d d i d he e x p e c t no response b u t belief, r e p e n t a n c e , a n d e x p e c t a t i o n o f the great c h a n g e ? (These w e r e the responses e x p e c t e d b y the Baptist, M t . 3 . 1 - 1 2 a n d parallels.) O r d i d Jesus think of himself as h a v i n g some f u r t h e r f u n c t i o n ; d i d he think there w a s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h he a n d his hearers c o u l d do, b u t w h i c h the Baptist a n d the Baptist's hearers c o u l d n o t ? L i k e the Baptist, Jesus w a s to be e x e c u t e d b y the civil authorities a n d to rise f r o m the d e a d ( M k . 6 . 1 6 ; 8.28), b u t he p r o b a b l y d i d not foresee these details of the d i v i n e p l a n until the last m i n u t e ; therefore the Gospels c o n t a i n little m a t e r i a l e x p l a i n i n g h o w the c r u c i f i x i o n w a s useful for or r e l e v a n t to the k i n g d o m , a n d w h a t little t h e y do c o n t a i n p r o b a b l y dates f r o m the p e r i o d after Jesus' d e a t h . A n o t h e r p e c u l i a r i t y of Jesus' w o r k was the c e r e m o n y of the last supper, b u t this w a s r e p o r t e d l y p e r f o r m e d o n l y once, o n the last e v e n i n g of his life, a n d therefore does not represent the sort of thing w e a r e l o o k i n g f o r â&#x20AC;&#x201D; s o m e t h i n g w h i c h the M e s s i a h (as distinct f r o m a prophet) c o u l d do for his followers, some action w h i c h his followers c o u l d take because He (and not m e r e l y a n o t h e r p r o p h e t ) h a d c o m e . I t is not impossible that, as S c h w e i t z e r believed

(Leben-Jesu-Forschung 4 2 i f ) , the stories of the f e e d i n g of the

multitude

reflect some sort of s y m b o l i c a n t i c i p a t i o n of the b a n q u e t of the righteous in the w o r l d to c o m e ; b u t the e v i d e n c e for this interpretation is not c o n v i n c i n g . S o the p r o b l e m as to Jesus' messianic f u n c t i o n , in relation to the present k i n g d o m , r e m a i n s open.

VII.

T H E ROLE OF THE BAPTIST

T h e p r o b l e m of Jesus' f u n c t i o n is the m o r e a c u t e because the Baptist certainly d i d h a v e a n o t i o n of his o w n special f u n c t i o n , b y w h i c h he w a s to p r e p a r e his hearers for the c o m i n g o f the k i n g d o m , a n d of a special response ( b e y o n d belief, r e p e n t a n c e , a n d reformation) b y w h i c h his hearers c o u l d b e p r e p a r e d . H i s f u n c t i o n w a s to administer a n e w rite, a " b a p t i s m of r e p e n t a n c e for the remission of s i n s " 1.4 a n d parallels). 205

(Mk.


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

F r o m the N T it can at once be seen that the Baptist's work marked an epoch for early Christianity. Not only do M k . , ζ ) , and J n . represent it as " t h e beginning of the G o s p e l " ( M k . i . i f f and parallels; L k . 1 6 . 1 6 b ; cf. J n . 1.6), but it seems to mark in fact the beginning of the Christian tradition, w h i c h contains no reliable report of anything earlier. Moreover, it is repeatedly referred to, in the traditional material, as the point from w h i c h the movement b e g a n : " T h e law and the prophets were until J o h n . " " F r o m then o n " is the Christian period (Lk. 16.16 || M t . n . i 2 f ) . W h e n a successor is chosen for Judas he must be one w h o was a m e m b e r of the group throughout all Jesus' career " b e g i n n i n g from the baptism of J o h n " (Acts 1.22). W h e n Peter begins to explain the Gospel to Cornelius and c o m p a n y he assumes, " Y o u know w h a t has been happening throughout all the Jewish districts, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism w h i c h J o h n p r o c l a i m e d " (Acts 10.37). 2 W h e n Paul presents the Gospel to the Jews of Pisidian Antioch he dates Jesus' work " a f t e r J o h n h a d preached . . . the baptism of repentance to all the people of I s r a e l " (Acts 13.24). Moreover, from w h a t the Gospels tell it can be seen that the Baptist's importance was not limited to the Christians. A l l J u d e a and Jerusalem ( M k . 1.5) and Transjordan ( Q , M t . 3.5 II L k . 3.3) went out to him, in crowds (Mt. 11.7 || L k . 7.24; L k . 3.7,10; etc.). His teaching was accepted b y masses of the c o m m o n people (Lk. 7.2g). E v e n the authorities of the T e m p l e are said to have been afraid to speak against the Baptist, even after his death, because of his popular following ( M k . 11.32 and parallels). His disciples carried his sect as far as A l e x a n d r i a and Ephesus (Acts 18.25; 19.3). In this matter the testimony of the N T is confirmed by Josephus, w h o had heard of John as a figure both influential (Herod Antipas had him executed for fear he might initiate a revolt) and popular (many Jews interpreted a subsequent defeat of Herod's a r m y as a divine punishment for this execution, AJ X V I I I . 1 i 6 f f ) . T h e importance of the Baptist makes it not unlikely that he is the object of the polemic in the Q u m r a n Manual of Discipline 111.4fr against the notion that baptism can remit sins. T h e opponent is not named, but the passage seems to have one and to insist, against him, that men can be cleansed of their iniquities only by the holy spirit and by submission to the rules of the sect ( I I I . 7 - 8 ) , and only after this spiritual cleansing can their flesh be cleansed of impurity by the regular O T method of sprinkling with water containing the ashes of a red heifer properly killed and burned ( N u m . 19.9,13, etc.). 3 T h a t the object of the polemic was the Baptist is m a d e very likely by the fact that Josephus, in the passage cited above, saw fit to defend him against such charges and to insist that he required repentance as a prerequisite for his physical cleansing. Evidently his teaching left some danger of ex opere operate— 2. F o r the translation of Ίου&αία see Burkitt, Vestigia 485^ 3. T h i s passage has been repeatedly misunderstood b y neglect of its polemic character, a l t h o u g h that was recognized (but misinterpreted) b y Gottstein, Traits. A g a i n s t Flusser, Sect, and Betz, Proselytentaufe, it must be said that nothing in the Q u m r a n documents implies the use b y the sect of a n y type of immersion other than such as are prescribed in the O T for purification. I n particular, the regulations for entrance to the sect, w h i c h are twice described in the Manual of Discipline (I and V I ) a n d once in the Damascus Document ( V I . 14fr) say nothing of a n y special immersions, nor does Josephus mention a n y such rite of admission to the sect. See further R o w l e y , Baptism; Benoit, Qumran 280.

206


T H E BACKGROUND

not to say libertine—interpretation (with the polemic in the Manual of Discipline III.4f, cf. Connolly, Didascalia VI.22, p. 254). Admittedly, there is no being sure that the Q u m r a n polemic was directed against the Baptist—rites of immersion were popular at the time, as Thomas, Mouvement, has shown. Nevertheless, his importance makes the hypothesis plausible; and so does the fact that his baptism was remembered as a distinct rite, " t h e baptism of J o h n " (Mk. 11.30 a n d parallels; Lk. 7.29; Acts 1.22; 10.37; Ι 3 · 2 4 ; 18.255 which was sharply differentiated from Christian baptism (Acts 18.25; J 9-3f) a n d also from ordinary Jewish immersions for purification (Mk. 7.4, Heb. 9.10—the βαπτισμων διδαχή of Heb. 6.2 was presumably instruction as to the different sorts of baptisms then in competition; cf. Spicq, ad loc.). T h e characteristics of the Baptist's rite have often been noticed: It was not something one could do for oneself; it had to be administered by the Baptist or one of his disciples, was perhaps public, was administered to Jews (whether or not to gentiles), may not have been repeatable, used water and probably required immersion, either required or effected repentance, was accompanied by confession of sins, effected remission of sins, demanded the performance of good works in the future, was performed as a preparation for the coming j u d g m e n t or kingdom of God, a n d either was not connected with any teaching about the holy spirit, or supposed the spirit would be given (as a further " b a p t i s m " ) only at the last judgment (Acts 19.2 vs. Mk. 1.8 and parallels; see Best, Spirit). T h a t it made the recipient a member of a new community is often said by the critics but never by the sources—there is no evidence that all those whom J o h n baptized became his disciples; the reports of crowds coming to be baptized suggest that the rite entailed no membership in any society, and Josephus' βαπτίσμω συνιίναι is inadequate as an excuse for supposing the contrary (vs. Flemington, Doctrine 15). W h a t was demanded of the few who did become disciples, we do not know. It has already been remarked that no baptism of this kind appears in the Q u m r a n documents. Attempts to derive it from Jewish proselyte baptism are equally mistaken. (See the distinctions made by Werblowsky, Rite 10if; Doeve, Doop; Michaelis, Hintergrund; Beasley-Murray, Baptism 40-42; and the chronological arguments of Taylor, Beginning.) It should be added that the rule " a proselyte is as a new born c h i l d " is a legal fiction meaning that the proselyte is freed from most legal liabilities —including the liability for transgressions—contracted in his earlier life, and also loses his prior legal claims—for example, he has no property. It does not m e a n — pace Werblowsky, Rite 102—that he is reborn as a child of Israel; Daube's examples, Reflections 51, show loss of prior legal ties, including family connections, but not acquisition of new ones. R a b b i ruled in Bikkurim 1.4 that proselytes must continue to speak of the Patriarchs as " t h e i r fathers," not " o u r fathers." Though the contrary opinion of R. J u d a h (J. Bikkurim 1.4 (64a), called to my attention by R . William G. Braude) subsequently prevailed, the fact that neither the Mishnah nor the Tosephta mentions it makes almost certain—so R . Saul Lieberman advises me—that the preference of it is a subsequent alteration of the law. In any event, R. J u d a h based his opinion on Gen. 17.5, " F o r I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of peoples," 207


C L E M E N T OF A L E X A N D R I A

so he presumably considered the proselytes a different people than Israel and justified their reference to " o u r " fathers b y the fact that they were descendants of A b r a h a m , not of J a c o b — t h i s w o u l d have involved no change of ancestry. M o r e o v e r it seems likely that his opinion was a reply to Christian p r o p a g a n d a , see the use of the same verse by Paul, R o m a n s 4.17fr, and the development of this by the fathers, for instance Aphraates, Demonstratio X I . 1 off, w h o is evidently answering Jewish arguments. Since, then, the Baptist's rite can be derived neither from Pharisaic baptism of proselytes nor from Q u m r a n , w e must look elsewhere for its origin. T h e true source is that indicated b y M k . 11.30: it was from " H e a v e n , " that is, from G o d . This was w h a t all the people believed (ibid.), and their belief presumably came from the Baptist's o w n c l a i m — t h a t he was a prophet (Mt. 11.9 a n d parallels) charged b y G o d to institute a new rite, an immersion w h i c h w o u l d remit sins (cf. K r a f t , Anfänge 40if). T o understand the importance of this one must realize that in Jewish law sin and impurity are different things. O n e m a y become highly impure b y any number of accidents w h i c h involve no sin w h a t e v e r — f o r example, b y being present in a house w h e n a death occurs there. M a n y sins, on the other h a n d — t h e f t , for i n s t a n c e — d o not render the sinner impure. A d m i t t e d l y , by the Baptist's time the distinction h a d often been blurred. T h e prophets and psalmists had spoken of sins as impurities from w h i c h men could be cleansed (e.g., Ps. 5 1 . 4 ) ; the verb " t o s i n " had an intensive form w h i c h should have meant " t o d e - s i n " but actually meant " t o p u r i f y , " a n d the water used for certain types of purification was k n o w n as " s i n - w a t e r . " But neither poetry nor etymology is valid in law. I n law, impurity was removed by immersions (the " b a p t i s m s " of M k . 7.4), and certain unintentional sins could be expiated b y the sacrifices prescribed in the O T ; but for the rest one could only trust to the general expiatory rites of the d a y of atonement, to the powers of repentance, restitution, reformation, and prayer, to the atonement effected by one's death, and to the mercy of G o d (Torna' V I I I . 8 f ) . Moreover, the possibilities for sacrifice to Y a h w e h in Palestine had been cut down sharply under the M a c c a b e e s ; the destructions of the temples at Gerizim, A r a q el Emir, and Lachish indicate w h a t happened to lesser shrines. B y John's time the only place in the country where Jews could legally offer sacrifices was Jerusalem, and its services were expensive. T o introduce into this situation a new, inexpensive, generally available, divinely authorized rite, effective for the remission of all sins, was John's great innovation. 4 His warning of the coming j u d g m e n t was nothing n e w ; prophets had been predicting that for the past eight centuries. T h e new thing was the assurance that there was something the average m a n could easily do to prepare himself for the catastrophic coming of the kingdom. Therefore J o h n was remembered not merely as a prophet, but as " m o r e than a p r o p h e t " — a s " t h e Baptist."

4. T h e Q u m r a n sect h a d p r o b a b l y developed the doctrine that their life of obedience to the L a w h a d the a t o n i n g p o w e r of the sacrifices (see Flusser, Sect. 2 2 9 - 2 3 6 ) ; b u t the devotion of a n entire life to the observance of an ascetic l a w is a very different thing f r o m the p e r f o r m a n c e of one, quick, easy ceremony.

208


THE BACKGROUND

VIII.

EVIDENCE

FROM T H E

GOSPELS T H A T JESUS

BAPTIZED

Since the Baptist's role in relation to the c o m i n g k i n g d o m is so clearly d e f i n a b l e , it is surprising that there should be such obscurity a b o u t the role of J e s u s — w h o is said to h a v e b e e n t h o u g h t , in his o w n lifetime, the Baptist r e d i v i v u s ( M k . 6 . 1 4 ; 8.28 a n d p a r a l l e l s ; cf., h o w e v e r , K r a e l i n g , Necromancy). P a r t i c u l a r l y surprising is the p a r t i c u l a r obscurity c o n c e r n i n g Jesus' use of b a p t i s m . H e himself w a s b a p t i z e d ; b u t the synoptics say n o t h i n g of his h a v i n g b a p t i z e d his followers, w h i l e the F o u r t h G o s p e l contradicts itself o n this p o i n t (as o n so m a n y others): it says in 3.22 t h a t he d i d b a p t i z e ; it refers to reports of his b a p t i z i n g in 3.26 a n d 4 . 1 ; b u t in 4.2 it adds καίτοι ye Ίησοΰς

αύτος ουκ εβάπτισεν

αλλ' oi

μαθηται

αύτοΰ. H e r e the a c c e p t e d alternatives are either to e l i m i n a t e 4.2 as a gloss ( B u l t m a n n , Johannes 128 n 4 ; D o d d , Fourth Gospel 3 1 1 a n d Historical Tradition 237) or to a c c e p t it as a c o r r e c t i o n : Jesus d i d not himself b a p t i z e , b u t d u r i n g a n e a r l y ministry in J u d e a ( u n k n o w n to the synoptics e x c e p t for L k . 4.44, o n w h i c h cf. A c t s

10.37—above,

p. 206) he p e r m i t t e d his disciples to g o o n a d m i n i s t e r i n g (the Baptist's?) b a p t i s m , a practice w h i c h he subsequently stopped ( w h y ?) b u t w h i c h the disciples nevertheless r e s u m e d as soon as he w a s o u t of the w a y , A c t s 2.38. B u t here the f u n c t i o n of the Baptist's r i t e — ε ι ς σ,φεσιν των αμαρτιών—is €7τι τω ονόματι

Ίησοϋ

Χρίστου.

c o m b i n e d w i t h the C h r i s t i a n f o r m u l a

H o w the disciples c o u l d b a p t i z e in Jesus' n a m e if

Jesus h a d stopped the p r a c t i c e is not easily e x p l i c a b l e (see the w r i g g l i n g s of BeasleyM u r r a y , Baptism 7of; F l e m i n g t o n , Doctrine 3of, chose to ignore the p r o b l e m ) . T h e s e difficulties m a y perhaps j u s t i f y a hypothesis of mistranslation. I n S y r i a c 4.2 reads,

ι ώ κ • Kern l U a x i o ^.euc>

οτ>

κοοη

»Λ

-as.

I t is o n l y the m e d i a l period w h i c h

prevents this f r o m m e a n i n g , " Y e t Jesus himself b a p t i z e d none save his disciples." ( A Nj before

would

be desirable, b u t not necessary.

Cf. the

similarly

possible mistranslation in J n . 1 2 . 1 7 , a b o v e , p. 157.) V a r i a n t forms of the tradition t h a t Jesus b a p t i z e d o n l y his disciples are f o u n d in C l e m e n t later writers

(Echle, Baptism

367^,

and

(III. 196.2iff) and

this is the m e a n i n g i n d i c a t e d

by

the

c o n t e x t in J n . 4.2. J n . has b e e n at its usual business of contrasting Jesus a n d the Baptist to the latter's d i s a d v a n t a g e . I t has just r e p o r t e d h o w the Pharisees h e a r d δτί Ίησοΰς

πλείονας

μαθητάς

ποιεί

και βαπτίζει

η 'Ιωάννης.

H e r e the S y r i a c reads

. ^ » b ^ p ή.4\, ηΛιοοο. κ α kiu^jo κ:υώ<λ·η I n a n y case the G r e e k should not b e r e a d as e v i d e n c e t h a t all w h o m the Baptist b a p t i z e d b e c a m e his disciples. T h e evangelist w a s t a l k i n g a b o u t Jesus. H e realized the a m b i g u i t y of his statement ( w h i c h w a s to mislead B u l t m a n n , Johannes 128 n7) a n d therefore w e n t on to e x p l a i n it b y d e c l a r i n g , " Y e t Jesus b a p t i z e d only his d i s c i p l e s ! " — w h i l e the Baptist (it is to be understood) b a p t i z e d e v e r y b o d y w h o c a m e to h i m — a n d e v e n so Jesus' disciples w e r e n u m e r o u s t h a n the Baptist's h e r e - t o d a y - a n d - g o n e - t o m o r r o w

penitents. T h i s

more pre-

s u m a b l e e x a g g e r a t i o n c o n c l u d e s the t h e m e b e g u n in 3.26 a n d f o r m a l l y stated in 3.30. (See also D o d d ' s a r g u m e n t s in Historical

Tradition

285^ 292, a n d , further,

f r o m the themes of w a t e r a n d spirit in Fourth Gospel 3 0 8 - 3 1 1 . ) [Discussion w i t h C . R . leaves m e d u b i o u s a b o u t the a b o v e interpretation. I t is possible that the a u t h o r 209


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

(or glossator) meant, "Tet Jesus baptized only his disciples, and consequently the Pharisees were misinformed and their (suggested) plots unnecessary."] T h u s w e have the statements of J n . on one side, the silence of the synoptics on the other. T o Jn.'s statements should be a d d e d the account of the footwashing in 1 3 . 1 - 1 5 . T h e footwashing is to baptism as the feeding of the multitude is to the eucharist; for both sacraments J n . has a chapter of theological exegesis (3 on baptism, 6 on the eucharist) and a story of a similar event w h i c h could be used by a teacher as a type of the rite. Aphraates, Demonstratio X I I . 10 understood the footwashing as a miraculous baptism, by anticipation, of the twelve, into Jesus' passion. As such he contrasted it with the Baptist's rite, w h i c h only produced remission of sins b y repentance, and he thus explained w h y the Baptist's penitents were rebaptized, w i t h the baptism of Jesus, b y the apostles. But J n . , as usual, remains enigmatic. Synoptic evidence that Jesus baptized m i g h t be found in M k . 1.8 and parallels (including J n . 1.33), w h e r e the Baptist is m a d e to declare that he c a n baptize only w i t h water, but his greater successor will baptize with the holy spirit ( " a n d w i t h fire," Q J ; and also in M k . 9.49 (correcting άλισθήσεται to βαπτισθήσεται, with B a a r d a ) . But Acts ( 1 . 5 ; 11.16) interprets the promise of baptism w i t h spirit a n d fire as referring to Pentecost (Acts 2.3^17), a n d J n . 7.39 indicates that the spirit w a s not given until after Jesus' resurrection; so it could be that the whole of the Baptist's prophecy is an anachronistic invention of the Christian polemic against his followers. ( T h e greater successor—whose shoelaces he was not w o r t h y to u n t i e — c a n hardly have been Y a h w e h , w h o has no b o d y , parts, or shoelaces. Contrast K r a f t , Anfänge 400.) M k . 9.49, as a prophecy b y Jesus, is, rather, evidence against his practice of a n y such rite. T h a t M S S c a n d e at L k . 23.5 a d d to the J e w s ' charges against Jesus, et filios nostros et uxores avertit a nobis, non enim baptizantur sicut nos, is dubious evidence at best, and the first phrase is attributed to M a r c i o n by Epiphanius (Panarion X L I I . i 1.6-8 scholion 70, ed. Holl, p. 1 1 6 ) — b u t the attributed phrase is in a slightly different form a n d place, so m i g h t be taken as collateral evidence for the tradition. I n sum, w e come back again to the self-contradictory statements ofJ n . a n d the silence of the synoptics. Jn.'s statements might be explained as polemic, to set Jesus above the Baptist, but self-contradiction is not a c o m m o n polemic device, a n d one's general impression of J n . is that it misrepresents more by exaggeration than b y baseless invention. O n the other hand, the strength of arguments from the silence of the synoptics has been weakened considerably b y the evidence w e have seen for thinking M k . an exoteric work. A c c o r d i n g l y , since neither is conclusive, the contradictory evidence of Jn.'s statements a n d the synoptics' silence must be j u d g e d b y relation to the larger problems of the history. These indicate that Jesus baptized. Foremost a m o n g them is the obscurity, w h i c h w e have been trying to penetrate, of Jesus' function in relation to the kingdom. W e have seen his expected role in the final establishment, and his present role as advance agent. But we h a v e also seen that these are inadequate, because they indicate nothing unusual for his hearers to do about his a n n o u n c e m e n t s — a n d this i n a d e q u a c y is particularly glaring b y contrast w i t h the clear a n d practical function of the Baptist. 210


THE BACKGROUND

M o r e o v e r , against the supposition that Jesus gave up the practical rite of the Baptist a n d w e n t back to the mere preaching of repentance traditional to the prophets stands the fact that the Gospels do not consistently represent h i m as a preacher of repentance. T h e y contain no accounts of mass penitence produced b y his preaching, a n d few of individuals' repentance (and those few are suspect—e.g., L k . 1 9 . 1 - 1 0 ) . T h e message w h i c h M k . 1.15 and parallels put into Jesus' m o u t h is not his, but that of the later Christian preachers: μετανοείτε καΐ πιστεύετε eV τω ΐύαγγελία} (that is, the gospel about Jesus; against T a y l o r see L o h m e y e r , and Bultmann, Geschichte, 124). Accordingly, it is plausible to suppose the same origin for the reference to repentance in M k . 6.12 (a late addition u n k n o w n to both M t . and L k . ?). These two are the only references in M k . to Christian preaching of repentance. J n . never refers to μΐτάνοια or to μεταvoeiv. Q_ has the verb in its exegesis of the sign of J o n a h (Lk. 11.32 II M t . 1 2 . 4 1 — e v i d e n t l y posterior to the resurrection) and in the woes on the Galilean cities (Lk. 10.13 || M t . 1 1 . 2 1 ) , w h i c h are thus the best evidence that Jesus occasionally did use the theme. It w o u l d be hard to believe that he did not, but it w o u l d be even harder to believe, in the face of this evidence, that he was principally a preacher of repentance. T h e difficulty becomes even clearer w h e n one remembers that against this exiguous evidence must be set not only the rarity of stories of repentance, a n d the rarity of a n y other examples of Jesus' preaching it (found only in Lk.), but also the presence of a great deal of material w h i c h represents Jesus and his followers as anything but penitents. T h e Baptist, w h o certainly did preach repentance, conducted himself as a penitent; Jesus, b y contrast, " c a m e eating and d r i n k i n g " (Lk. 7.34 || M t . 11.19). T h e followers of the Baptist and those of the Pharisees fasted; Jesus' followers did not, and Jesus justified this b y comparing them to the members of a bridal party ( M k . 2 . i 8 f f a n d parallels). H e justified their laxity in observance of the L a w b y comparing them to the companions of D a v i d ( M k . 2.25 and parallels). H e forgave sins freely, without d e m a n d i n g repentance ( M k . 2.5 and parallels). H e blessed not the penitent a n d the fasting, but the poor and the hungry (Lk. 6.2ofF || M t . 5.3fr). A n d so o n — t h e theme is familiar a n d need not be developed at length: T h e Gospels simply do not represent Jesus as principally a preacher of repentance; in this respect he differed fundamentally from the Baptist, and the difference was noticed and criticized in his own time. It now has to be accounted for. Ever since D o d d ' s Parables this difference has customarily been accounted for b y saying that for the Baptist the kingdom is still in the future, for Jesus the k i n g d o m is here. T h i s position is now familiar and does not need exposition, but development. I f the kingdom is simply the realm of obedience to G o d , then it should come whenever G o d is obeyed. A n y prophet preaching repentance will restore it insofar as his preaching is successful, and repentance will be the p r i m a r y step in its restoration. Therefore the emphasis placed by the Gospels on the fact that Jesus was not merely a prophet ( M k . 8.28f and parallels; L k . 7.26ff || M t . 11.9fr; J n . 4 . 1 9 - 2 6 ; 7.40fr; etc.), and the inconspicuous role of repentance in his teaching and his followers' practice, indicate some different notion of the w a y in w h i c h the kingdom is present a n d the consequence of its presence. T h i s notion presumably concerns some special 211


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

function of Jesus in relation to the present kingdom, and also, in the light of the Baptist's career, some special, practical, probably ritual, response which could be made by Jesus' followers to his announcement of the kingdom's presence. N o w a few elements in the synoptics represent the kingdom as a l r e a d y — i n some r e s p e c t — attainable, and the disciples as already in it: Mk. 2.19

T h e members of the wedding party cannot be made to fast.

2.26

D a v i d gave those who were with him the holy bread. T h e disciples already need not observe the sabbath. T h e twelve are empowered, already, to exorcise (again 6.7). Those who do the will of G o d are already Jesus' kin. T h e mystery of the kingdom has been given to the disciples. T h e kingdom is already growing like a mustard seed.

3.15 3.35 4.11 4.30fr 7.2ff g.2ff 9.18fr,28 io.2gf 14.22fr

T h e disciples already need not observe the purity laws. T h e transfiguration. T h e disciples practiced exorcism (9.38, so did others, in Jesus' name). T h e disciples will be rewarded n o w — b u t with persecutions. T h e eucharist.

(The references are to L k . ; generally I follow Manson, Sayings.) 7.28 T h e least in the kingdom is greater than Jn. 9.60 T h e disciple should let the dead bury the dead (he is already alive). 10.9 T h e disciples are, already, to heal the sick and announce the kingdom; M t . adds, raise the dead! 10.16 H e that heareth you heareth me, etc. 10.21 10.22 11.10 11.52 12.3 12.31 13.21 16.16 19.26 Mt. 11.28 n.29f 13.44

T h e Father has revealed these things to babes (and hidden them from the wise). T h e Father is now revealed by the Son. Whoever asks receives now, etc. Those who were entering (the kingdom, M t . 23.14) were hindered by the lawyers. T h e things told the disciples now in secret are someday to be proclaimed openly. Seek first the kingdom, and the good things of this world will be added. T h e kingdom is already spreading like leaven. T h e law and the prophets were until John, thenceforth (i.e., now), everyone forces his way into the kingdom. T o him that hath shall be given. Come unto me and I will give you rest now. T a k e my yoke (sc. of the kingdom) now. T h e field with the treasure can be purchased now. 212


THE

BACKGROUND

13.46

T h e pearl can be purchased now.

13.52

A scribe c a n a l r e a d y b e a disciple o f the k i n g d o m .

16.19

T h e keys of the k i n g d o m shall b e g i v e n to Peter n o w (so that

18.20

W h e r e t w o or three are g a t h e r e d in m y n a m e , I a m a m o n g t h e m

w h a t he binds on earth shall b e also at once b o u n d in h e a v e n ) . now. Lk. 10.17

T h e demons are a l r e a d y subject to the disciples, whose names are a l r e a d y written in h e a v e n .

15.11fr

T h e repentant son is a d m i t t e d a t once to the feast.

17.21

T h e k i n g d o m is in y o u r p o w e r (Griffiths,

Within).

S o m e of these elements are m u c h clearer a n d m o r e conclusive than others, b u t the clear ones indicate h o w the others should b e interpreted. M a n y different sorts a n d strata of material are represented, b u t this shows that the notion is not a peculiarity o f a n y one strand o f the tradition. Its w i d e distribution argues a n early, c o m m o n source, a n d the a r g u m e n t is strengthened b y the present u n i o n of the disciples w i t h Jesus in J n . (15.1fr, etc.), a n d the location of the believers in the k i n g d o m b y P a u l ( C o l . 1.13) a n d b y the A p o c a l y p s e (1.6, etc.). A l l in all, it w o u l d seem that Jesus s o m e h o w e n a b l e d at least some of his followers to enter the k i n g d o m forthwith, a n d to enter it in some special fashion other t h a n that o f m e r e r e p e n t a n c e a n d o b e d i e n c e to G o d — s o m e fashion w h i c h w o u l d m a k e t h e m greater t h a n the Baptist ( w h o w a s p r e s u m a b l y penitent a n d obedient), w o u l d e x e m p t t h e m f r o m the L a w , g i v e t h e m p o w e r over demons a n d diseases, a n d a d m i t t h e m at once to the feast. T h i s admission w a s the special function of Jesus, the M e s s i a h — t h e function w h i c h the Baptist, t h o u g h m o r e t h a n a p r o p h e t , c o u l d not perform. N o w the r e c o g n i z e d means of p r e p a r a t i o n for admission to the k i n g d o m — r e c o g n i z e d b y Jesus himself, since he h a d used i t — w a s b a p t i s m , a n d in the earliest C h r i s t i a n m a t e r i a l w e find b a p t i s m the means o f admission to the C h u r c h , w h i c h is the k i n g d o m present on earth. I t is therefore reasonable to assume that Jesus effected the admission o f his chosen followers to the k i n g d o m b y some sort of baptism. O n the other h a n d , the Baptist's baptism evidently d i d not a d m i t the recipient to the k i n g d o m , so Jesus' b a p t i s m must h a v e differed f r o m it. First a n d foremost it differed in b e i n g not only private, b u t secret. T h e r e f o r e , attempts to determine its other differences are necessarily speculative.

IX.

BAPTISM ACCORDING TO

PAUL

A s a check o n speculation, it is helpful to c o m p a r e the Baptist's baptism, w h i c h dates from a b o u t A.D. 25, w i t h the Christian baptism as w e find it in the earliest C h r i s t i a n d o c u m e n t s — P a u l ' s letters o f a b o u t A.D. 50. T h e r e is a d m i t t e d l y some d o u b t as to w h e n P a u l is t a l k i n g a b o u t b a p t i s m ; here w e shall follow the e x a m p l e o f 213


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

B r a u m a n n , Taufverkündigung, and confine ourselves to passages where the reference is indubitable. O f these the most important are the following: Rom.

e.^ff:

T h o s e o f us w h o w e r e b a p t i z e d i n t o M e s s i a h J e s u s w e r e b a p t i z e d i n t o h i s

d e a t h . T h a t is to s a y , w e w e r e b u r i e d w i t h h i m , t h r o u g h t h e b a p t i s m i n t o d e a t h , i n o r d e r t h a t , j u s t as M e s s i a h w a s r a i s e d f r o m the d e a d t h r o u g h t h e g l o r y o f the F a t h e r , t h u s w e t o o s h o u l d l i v e a n e w life. F o r if w e h a v e b e e n u n i t e d w i t h h i m in a d e a t h like his, let us b e so, t o o , i n a r e s u r r e c t i o n like his. F o r w e k n o w t h a t t h e m a n w e o n c e w e r e w a s c r u c i f i e d w i t h h i m , in o r d e r t h a t t h e b o d y w h i c h b e l o n g e d to sin m i g h t b e m a d e i n e f f e c t i v e , so t h a t w e s h o u l d n o l o n g e r b e slaves to sin. F o r w h e n a m a n dies h e is n o l o n g e r a n s w e r a b l e f o r his sins. A n d if w e d i e d w i t h M e s s i a h , w e b e l i e v e t h a t w e shall also c o n t i n u e to live w i t h h i m , k n o w i n g t h a t M e s s i a h , h a v i n g b e e n r a i s e d f r o m the d e a d , w i l l n e v e r a g a i n d i e . I Cor. is.isf:

F o r j u s t as t h e b o d y is o n e , b u t h a s m a n y m e m b e r s . . . so also is t h e M e s s i a h .

A n d t h u s w e a l l w e r e b a p t i z e d w i t h o n e spirit to c o n s t i t u t e o n e b o d y — w h e t h e r J e w s o r G r e e k s , w h e t h e r slaves or f r e e m e n — a n d w e w e r e a l l g i v e n o n e spirit to d r i n k . Gal. 3.s6ff:

F o r a l l o f y o u < f o r m e r l y g e n t i l e s ) a r e sons o f G o d t h r o u g h f a i t h i n M e s s i a h

J e s u s . F o r as m a n y o f y o u as w e r e b a p t i z e d i n t o M e s s i a h h a v e b e e n c l o t h e d w i t h M e s s i a h . I n h i m t h e r e is n e i t h e r J e w n o r G r e e k , t h e r e is n e i t h e r slave n o r f r e e m a n , t h e r e is n o m a l e a n d f e m a l e , for y o u a l l a r e o n e in M e s s i a h J e s u s . A n d if y o u a r e M e s s i a h ' s , t h e n y o u a r e t h e seed o f A b r a h a m a n d heirs o f t h e p r o m i s e < m a d e to A b r a h a m b y G o d ) . Col.

s.gjf:

< I n t h e M e s s i a h ) all t h e fullness o f t h e d i v i n e d w e l l s b o d i l y . A n d y o u a r e

f u l f i l l e d in h i m , since h e is t h e h e a d o f e v e r y c o s m i c p o w e r a n d a u t h o r i t y . I n h i m y o u h a v e also b e e n c i r c u m c i z e d , n o t w i t h t h e p h y s i c a l i m a g e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n , b u t w i t h t h e s t r i p p i n g o f f o f t h e b o d y o f flesh, w i t h t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n o f t h e M e s s i a h , h a v i n g b e e n b u r i e d w i t h h i m in b a p t i s m , in w h i c h y o u h a v e also b e e n r e s u r r e c t e d t o g e t h e r w i t h h i m t h r o u g h f a i t h i n t h e w o r k i n g o f G o d w h o r a i s e d h i m f r o m t h e d e a d . T h u s , w h e n y o u w e r e d e a d in y o u r sins a n d in t h e f o r e s k i n o f y o u r flesh, G o d b r o u g h t y o u to life t o g e t h e r w i t h h i m . H a v i n g f o r g i v e n us all o u r sins, h e <the M e s s i a h ) h a s c a n c e l l e d t h e b o n d w i t h t h e l e g a l d e m a n d s w h i c h w a s a g a i n s t us a n d h a s set it aside, h a v i n g n a i l e d it to t h e cross. H a v i n g s t r i p p e d o f f the cosmic powers a n d authorities he has m a d e a public spectacle of t h e m a n d led them, b y m e a n s o f t h e cross, as c a p t i v e s i n his t r i u m p h a l procession. T h e r e f o r e let n o m a n sit i n j u d g m e n t o n y o u a b o u t f o o d a n d d r i n k , o r in a m a t t e r o f festival o r n e w m o o n o r s a b b a t h , w h i c h a r e a s h a d o w o f the t h i n g s t o c o m e , w h e r e a s t h e s u b s t a n c e is o f t h e M e s s i a h .

Do

n o t let y o u r s e l v e s b e c o n d e m n e d b y a n y o n e set o n s e l f - a b a s e m e n t a n d w o r s h i p o f a n g e l s , t h i n g s h e s a w g o i n g in <to t h e h e a v e n s ) , 5 s o m e o n e p u f f e d u p to n o p u r p o s e b y

carnal

i m a g i n a t i o n s , a n d n o t h o l d i n g to t h e h e a d f r o m w h i c h a l l t h e b o d y , n o u r i s h e d a n d k n i t t o g e t h e r t h r o u g h o u t a l l its j o i n t s a n d l i g a m e n t s , g r o w s t h e g r o w t h o f G o d . If, d y i n g w i t h M e s s i a h , y o u left b e h i n d t h e e l e m e n t a l spirits o f t h e w o r l d , w h y d o y o u l i v e as if still i n t h e w o r l d ? . . . I f y o u h a v e b e e n r a i s e d f r o m t h e d e a d w i t h t h e M e s s i a h , seek t h e t h i n g s a b o v e , w h e r e t h e M e s s i a h is, s i t t i n g to t h e r i g h t o f G o d . F i x y o u r m i n d o n t h e t h i n g s a b o v e , n o t those o n e a r t h . F o r y o u h a v e d i e d , a n d y o u r life h a s b e e n h i d d e n w i t h t h e M e s s i a h i n G o d . W h e n t h e M e s s i a h , o u r life, s h a l l b e r e v e a l e d , t h e n y o u t o o w i l l b e r e v e a l e d w i t h h i m in glory.

Finally, w e must a d d I. Cor. 10.1-4,

although it does not speak directly of Christian

baptism: 5. See m y Observations, 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 .

214


THE BACKGROUND I w o u l d not h a v e y o u ignorant, brethren, of the fact that our fathers were all u n d e r the c l o u d a n d all w e n t t h r o u g h t h e sea a n d w e r e all b a p t i z e d i n t o M o s e s i n the c l o u d a n d i n t h e sea, a n d all a t e t h e s a m e s p i r i t u a l f o o d a n d all d r a n k t h e s a m e s p i r i t u a l d r i n k , f o r t h e y d r a n k f r o m t h e s p i r i t u a l r o c k w h i c h f o l l o w e d t h e m , a n d the r o c k w a s the M e s s i a h . 6

T h e a b o v e passages show at a glance the immense difference between the baptism of the Baptist a n d that of Paul. T h e former was analogous to earlier biblical immersions except that it was specially instituted b y G o d through a new prophet a n d it r e m o v e d sin, whereas they h a d r e m o v e d impurity. T h e baptism of Paul, on the contrary, is essentially a means of uniting with the Messiah. Since the Messiah a n d the spirit are so closely related as to be practically i d e n t i c a l — P a u l once explicitly identifies them (II C o r . 3.17, " T h e L o r d is the spirit," cf. I C o r . 1 5 . 4 5 ) — t h e union is conceived as possession b y a spirit. T h e spirit dwells in the baptized (οικεί eV, R o m . 8.9, 11 bis; I C o r . 3 . 1 6 ; cf. I C o r . 6.19 a n d Philo, De somniis I . i 4 8 f , cited a b o v e , p. 1 7 1 ) , a n d acts through t h e m (I Cor. 12 a n d passim·, notice especially the spirit's " s p e a k i n g " through the possessed—Rom. 8.26, στεναγμοΐς

άλαλήτοις,

cf. I

C o r . 2.13 a n d all of ch. 1 2 — a phenomenon often observed in schizophrenia; cf. M k . 1.24; 5 . 7 ; 1 3 . 1 1 ; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii III.38). T h u s the b o d y of the possessed Christian is in effect a part of the b o d y of the Messiah, the spirit w h i c h lives in each Christian a n d acts through him. A l l Christians together constitute the whole b o d y of the Messiah, of w h i c h each individual b o d y is a m e m b e r (that is, a n o r g a n — a h a n d , or a foot, or w h a t e v e r ) A s I C o r . 12.13 says, " w e were baptized w i t h one spirit to constitute (els ) one b o d y . " (Cf. Plutarch, De Iside 73 (380c): T h e soul of T y p h o n is divided a m o n g the various T y p h o n i c animals.) T h i s central concept P a u l develops in different w a y s to meet the needs of different situations. I n Romans 6, where he is protesting against a libertine interpretation of his teachings, he argues that union w i t h the Messiah involves participation in his death a n d resurrection; since the death was a death to sin, the new life is a life to G o d , from w h i c h sin is necessarily excluded. ( R o m . 6.11 f. T h e future in verse 5 is h o r t a t o r y ; that the resurrected life has already b e g u n is clear from the context. T h e future is used in verse 8 because the present resurrected life will c o n t i n u e ; cf. M o u l e , Idiom-Book 23; S a n d a y - H e a d l a m , Romans 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 and n. on 6.8.) W e shall see later that Paul's notion of baptism as death a n d resurrection m a y have resulted 6. Here it is a mistake to speak as Lietzmann (Korinther, ad loc.), does, of topology. T h e concluding explanation ( " f o r . . . M e s s i a h " ) must have been needed to explain w h y the food and drink were " t h e s a m e . " " T h e s a m e " is repeated for emphasis. T h e same as w h a t ? T h e same as w h a t we Christians now eat and drink, " f o r . . . the rock was the Messiah." This is the point of the whole passage: Baptism and communion will not make you wholly immune to the consequence of eating things offered to idols, for they did not produce such immunity in the generation of the exodus. This argument requires that baptism into Moses should be " t h e s a m e " thing as baptism into C h r i s t — n o t a mere type of i t — a n d so it would be for any Christian who had formerly been a reader of Philo and knew that Moses had been, like Jesus, an incarnation of the Logos. Therefore Paul does not have to explain this as he does his notion about the rock, which depends more on Palestinian Jewish traditions (Alio, I Cor., ad loc.). T h i s shows he expected most members of his Corinthian church to be familiar with exegesis of the Philonic type on the story of the exodus. This is evidence in favor of Goodenough's hypothesis (1.23-29) that such exegesis was once widespread in G r e c o - R o m a n J e w r y .

215


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

f r o m other causes as w e l l as f r o m the notion of u n i o n w i t h Jesus. H e r e let it b e noted o n l y as a d e v e l o p m e n t b o t h so i m p o r t a n t a n d so unlikely as to deserve attention. I n I Cor. 12, w h e r e P a u l is protesting against the a r r o g a n c e of those w h o c l a i m e d special spiritual gifts, he argues t h a t u n i o n w i t h the Messiah implies t h a t all Christians h a v e the same spirit a n d are therefore parts of the same b o d y a n d m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t . I n Galatians 3 , w h e r e he is protesting against the pretensions o f those w h o c l a i m e d to k e e p the J e w i s h l a w , he argues t h a t u n i o n w i t h the M e s s i a h implies t h a t all Christians are essentially identical, for all are the M e s s i a h , the true seed of A b r a h a m , the true heir of the promise. ( H e r e his use of the m e t a p h o r " y o u h a v e c l o t h e d yourselves in M e s s i a h " is p r o b a b l y a n allegorization of the c l o t h i n g w h i c h f o l l o w e d b a p t i s m , a n d suggests t h a t the b a p t i s m w a s n a k e d . See a b o v e , p p . 1 7 5 ^ a n d , further, I C o r . 15.53, w h e r e the b a p t i s m a l reference w a s a l r e a d y r e c o g n i z e d b y Odes of Solomon 1 5 . 8 ; also I C o r . 1 5 . 4 4 - 4 9 , cf. R o b i n s o n , Hymn 62 a n d 72fr, esp. 7 7 - 7 8 ; also I I C o r . 3 . 1 7 f ; 5.2.) F i n a l l y , in Colossians 2-3, w h e r e he is protesting against the i n t r o d u c t i o n of some c u l t of the cosmic p o w e r s ( w h i c h c o n c e i v e d of t h e m as s u p e r n a t u r a l beings to be h o n o r e d or p l a c a t e d b y o b s e r v a n c e of rules of the M o s a i c L a w ) , he argues t h a t u n i o n w i t h the M e s s i a h involves p a r t i c i p a t i o n in his n a t u r e , his d e a t h , a n d his resurrection. B y n a t u r e he w a s superior to all the cosmic powers, b y d e a t h he stripped t h e m o f f a n d subjected t h e m , a n d b y resurrection he a s c e n d e d a b o v e t h e m , a n d w a s h i d in G o d , w h e r e the Christians are h i d d e n w i t h h i m until the end. T h e r e f o r e t h e y should not subject themselves to the laws of inferior beings. N o t i c e the recurrence of the stripping-then-clothing m o t i f in 2 . 1 1 , 1 5 a n d 3.9. H e r e it is c o n n e c t e d w i t h the l e g e n d of the descent of a s u p e r n a t u r a l b e i n g to the l o w e r w o r l d , his assumption f r o m it of a physical b o d y or some other sort o f disguise, a n d his return to the heavens, stripping o f f the disguise a n d resuming his true f o r m (cf. Bousset,

Himmelsreisse

1 3 9 - 1 4 1 , 233 a n d n2). T h i s l e g e n d w a s a n c i e n t a n d w i d e s p r e a d in O r p h i c

and

I r a n i a n m y t h o l o g y (Bidez, Ecoles 5 7 f ; P u e c h , Ou 3 0 i f f ; C u m o n t , Religions 282f n 6 g ) , w a s p o p u l a r i z e d b y Plato, a n d a b o u t P a u l ' s t i m e f o u n d expressions as different as CH I . 1 2 - 2 6 , the Naassene h y m n in H i p p o l y t u s , Philosophumena V . i o , a n d The Hymn of the Soul (cf. Preuschen, Hymnen 6 i f ) . C o m p a r e also the Prayer of Joseph

(James,

Lost Apocrypha 2 i f f ; N o c k , r e v i e w o f Schoeps 5 8 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; N o c k ' s discussion of the descent l e g e n d , 584-590, is v i t i a t e d b y a scholarly c o n c e r n for details w h i c h p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m r e c o g n i z i n g the c o m m o n p a t t e r n v a r i o u s l y a d a p t e d in the various stories). T h e l e g e n d was a l r e a d y used b y Christians as a n interpretation of Jesus' w o r k in the p r e - P a u l i n e h y m n q u o t e d b y P a u l in Phil. 2.6ff. W e h a v e also r e m a r k e d its use b y P a u l , S i m o n M a g u s , M a r k (?), a n d the Ascension of Isaiah (see a b o v e , p. 201). I t is also basic to the t h o u g h t of J n . ( 1 . 9 - 1 1 ; 16.28; 1 9 . 1 1 ) a n d H e b r e w s

(i.2f),

a n d is e p i d e m i c in gnosticism a n d neoplatonism (Bousset, Hauptprobleme 3 6 1 f r ) .

X.

E L E M E N T S DERIVED

FROM JESUS IN

PAULINE

BAPTISM

S o m e o f these P a u l i n e interpretations a n d applications of b a p t i s m a r e r e c o g n i z a b l y s e c o n d a r y . T h e notion that identification w i t h Jesus involves p a r t i c i p a t i o n in Jesus' 216


T H E BACKGROUND

d e a t h a n d resurrection is obviously later t h a n those events. (Contrast the Ebionite tradition t h a t the essential for salvation is not the sacrifice of Jesus, b u t b a p t i s m : Schoeps, Judenchristentum 69, 84.Ϊ. This at least could have been the teaching of Jesus.) Paul's deduction of m u t u a l dependence f r o m the analogy of the body looks like moralization p r o d u c e d to meet the needs of a developing community. Similarly, the a r g u m e n t that all members of the Messiah must be parts of the seed of A b r a h a m can have been pressed only in a c o m m u n i t y where Jewish snobbery a n d gentile emulation were a problem. Finally, the identification of baptism into Jesus with baptism into Moses is a consequence of the Philonic type of logos theory, which does not seem to have been c o m m o n in Jesus' circle. All these, therefore, are p r o b a b l y posterior developments. T h e case is different for the essential Pauline notion that baptism results in the possession of the baptized by the spirit of Jesus. This reflects demonological beliefs which a p p e a r in the exorcisms in M k . I t m a y have its b a c k g r o u n d in the same Palestinian milieu. C o m p a r e the way the Palestinian apocalyptic writers " e x p l a i n inspiration ultimately in terms of possession," Russell, Apocalyptic 175. ( I n n u m e r a b l e attempts have been m a d e to find the origin of the Pauline notion in paganism, especially in the mysteries; these are reviewed a n d rejected by W a g n e r , Problem. T h e rejection was evidently predetermined, b u t nevertheless seems to m e justified. Cf. W a r n a c h , Tauflehre.) Moreover, there are ä n u m b e r of reasons for thinking that Pauline baptism came not only generally from Palestine, b u t specifically from J e s u s : A. I t was essentially a means of uniting with Jesus. B. This union was effected by the spirit, which Jesus h a d . C. T h e closest analogies to the rite are found in magical material, a n d there is considerable evidence t h a t Jesus practiced magic. D . Paul's rite was soon a n d widely connected with ascent to the heavens, with which Jesus was also credited. E . I t freed the recipient from the obligations of the law, f r o m which Jesus' disciples were freed. Let us examine these points in order.

A.

The rite was a means of uniting with Jesus

Because it was a means of uniting with Jesus, Pauline baptism was radically unlike any rite known from Palestinian Jewish tradition except the eucharist. If G o o d e n o u g h be correct in supposing (1.6, etc.) that some rite was devised or interpreted to symbolize or effect union with the Logos, this provides an analogy. But the evidence is inconclusive a n d the analogy—if any—remote. T h e demonological character of Paul's concept indicates t h a t his rite did not come from the philosophers of Alexandria, b u t f r o m the magicians of Palestine. Its magical character was long ago r e m a r k e d by Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie 178. O n the prevalence of magic in Palestinian J e w r y see Schürer, Geschichte 111.407fr a n d L i e b e r m a n , Greek 91-114. T h e evidence is rich, from Jewish a n d p a g a n sources alike. Spells in which the magician identifies himself with a spirit are plentiful in the magical papyri. A good Jewish 217


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

example comes from The Sacred Hidden Book of Moses called Eighth or Holy (PGM XIII.343ff), lines 783fr: " A n d Thou, lord of life, ruler of the heavens and the earth and all those dwelling in them, whose righteousness is not turned aside, whose glorious name the Muses hymn, whom the eight guards escort, Η, Ω, Χω, Χουχ, Νουν, Ναννι, Άμονν, Άμαυνι, who hast the unerring truth: thy name and thy spirit rest upon the good; enter my mind and my thoughts for the whole time of my life and perform for me all the desires of my soul, for Thou art I and I am Thou. Whatever I say must happen, for I have thy name as sole amulet in my heart, and no disturbance of the flesh shall overpower me, no spirit shall oppose me, no demon nor visitation nor any of the evil beings of Hades, through thy name, which I have in my soul" (cf. Rom. 8.38f; Apoc. 3.12; 14.1; 22.4). There is another ritual means of uniting with Jesus—the eucharist—which is even less compatible with the material commonly taken to represent " n o r m a t i v e " Judaism (eat my body! drink my blood!), but which pretty certainly was introduced by Jesus and exemplifies the same sort of magical thought and practice. Cf. DMP XV.1-19: One mingles various ingredients in a cup of wine and says over it an invocation: " I am he of Abydos . . , as to which the blood of Osiris bore witness . . . when it (the blood) was poured into this cup, this wine. Give it, blood of Osiris (that?) he (?) gave to Isis to make her feel love in her heart for him . . . give it, the blood of N. born of N. . . . to N. born of N. in this cup, this bowl of wine, today, to cause her to feel a love for him in her heart, the love that Isis felt for Osiris." This type of magical procedure is standard; cf. PGM no. V I I , lines 643fr, which comes even closer to "this is my b o d y " ; the wine is made into the flesh (σπλάγχνα) of Osiris and Iao ( = Yahweh). O n the relation of the eucharist to the mysteries see Nock, EGC and Mysteries. As in the case of baptism, the eucharist's obvious incompatibility with supposedly " n o r m a t i v e " Judaism has led to repeated efforts to derive it from the mysteries. It is a fact that Dionysiac rites celebrating the god's gift of wine were practiced around Galilee in Jesus' time; see my article " O n the Wine God in Palestine," in the forthcoming Festschrift for S. Baron. These rites probably derived from a native Syro-Palestinian cult of a wine god; the Greek myth associated with them referred to the wine as " b l o o d " ; the god was said to enter those who drank the wine; Jn. 2.1-11 was modelled on this myth; there are other traces of its influence in Jn. and the influence of the cult of the wine god can be traced in many elements of Palestinian Judaism from Genesis on. But the influence of the mysteries and the influence of magic are not mutually exclusive—indeed, magicians were commonly said to have established mysteries (Burkert, ΓΟΗΣ 3gf; Lucian, Alexander 38; etc.), and certainly drew material from them (notably for the figures of Orpheus, Hecate, and Selene: Nilsson, Zauberpapyri 67, 7 i f f ) . Moreover, the Dionysiac myth is not enough to explain Jesus' institution of the eucharist: the myth tells of what a god once did, but provides no excuse for a man's doing it. That a man should undertake to identify his own blood with wine and give it to his followers to drink in order to unite them with himself—this goes far beyond the 218


THE BACKGROUND

mysteries; its only close parallels are in magic. A n d there is plenty of evidence that magic was common in Palestine; e.g., B.Berakot 53a (end); Sifre Devarim 26; Sotah I X . 13; J.Kiddushin I V . 11 (66c); Gressmann, Aufgaben 1 1 - 1 5 . T h u s early Christianity has two rites for uniting the believer with Jesus. Both derive from the same type of magical practice, both show a similar break with traditional Judaism, and both must have been introduced within half a dozen years, if w e are to accept Acts' stories of baptisms in the first days of the Jerusalem community and of the baptism of Paul. O f these two rites, one was certainly introduced by Jesus; the presumption that the other one also came from him is strong. If it be accepted, it enables us to understand in a new sense a number of sayings in which the unity of the disciples with Jesus is implied, e.g., Lk. i o . i 6 f and parallel: H e that heareth you heareth me.

B.

The union was effected by the spirit

In Pauline baptism the union with Jesus was effected by the spirit. O T immersions have nothing to do with the spirit; neither does proselyte baptism. The Manual of Discipline I I I . 4 f f required cleansing by the spirit as a prerequisite for valid immersion for purity; so the immersion probably was not thought to give the spirit. T h e Baptist's baptism, too, is contrasted with Christian on the ground that it was only with water, not with the spirit. (So M k . 1.8 and parallels; Acts 19.2fr. O n 18.24-28 see Flemington, Doctrine 40.) Whence, then, did the spirit come into connection with baptism ? It first appears at the baptism of Jesus. T h e variety of the traditions which agree on this point suggests that some historical fact m a y lie behind it. Compare M k . 1.11 and parallels (presumably Q j ; Jn. 1.33; Ebionite Gospel; Gospel according to the Hebrews; Col. 1.19 (?—see Münderlein, Erwählung). Jn. 1.33 is particularly interesting for our purpose. T h o u g h suppressing Jesus' baptism (because that subordinated him to the Baptist) it implies a connection between the descent of the spirit on Jesus and his power to give it to others. A n d both friends and enemies agreed that Jesus had a spirit—the only question was, which ? T h e spirit possessed him and drove him into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil—another spirit (Mk. 1.10 and parallels). He made his reputation by casting out spirits (Mk. 1.23fr,27; 3 . 1 1 ; 5 - 2 f f ; 7 . 2 5 ; 9.17fr). H e was accused of doing so by Beelzebub or some unclean spirit, but claimed that he did so by the holy spirit (Mk. 3 . 2 2 f r ) ; he gave his disciples power over spirits (Mk. 6.7) and assured them that the holy spirit would speak through them (as the spirits in the demoniacs spoke through t h e m — M k . 1.24; 5.7; 13.11). This M a r k a n material is further developed in the other synoptics (e.g., M t . 1 0 . 2 5 ; ^k. 1 0 . 1 7 f r ) and supported by apparently independent traditions in Jn. (e.g., 8.48; io.2of—for the magical background of this see Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie 117) and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (See, further, Samain, Magie 4 5 6 f r . ) Since spirits played such an important role in the life of Jesus, and since baptism had been the occasion when he—unlike most of those w h o m John b a p t i z e d — w a s seized by a spirit, it is not 219


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

implausible to suppose that he was the one w h o transformed baptism into a regular means of his followers' getting a spirit. (The tradition in J n . and Acts that the spirit was not given until after Jesus' death will be discussed below.)

C.

The rite was magical

T h e magical character of Pauline baptism also points back to Jesus. W e h a v e already seen (above, in A ) that it jibes w i t h the magical character of the eucharist, w h i c h Jesus instituted. However, the use of the term " m a g i c a l " is sure to occasion misunderstanding and requires justification. I.

THE TERM AND THE FACTS

I n the R o m a n Empire the practice of m a g i c was a criminal offense (Paulus, Sententiae V . 2 3 . 1 4 - 1 8 ) , and " m a g i c i a n " was therefore a term of abuse. It still is, but the connotation has c h a n g e d : now it is primarily f r a u d ; then it was social subversion ( M a c M u l l e n , Enemies 124fr). T h e efficacy of m a g i c was almost universally believed, and the magician was conceived as a m a n w h o , b y acquiring supernatural powers, had become a potential danger to the established authorities and the order they sought to maintain. Consequently magic was widely practiced, but rarely admitted. For Judaism, a further limiting factor was the d o g m a that there was no g o d save Y a h w e h . But this did not lead to the denial of the efficacy of p a g a n m a g i c ; that was a matter of c o m m o n knowledge, not to be denied. Nor did it prevent Jews from using the same magical practices as pagans; on the contrary, they were famous as magicians (Josephus, AJ V I I I . 4 6 ) . T h e Sepher ha-Razim, newly discovered b y Margalioth, shows how, as late as the fourth or fifth century, a J e w steeped in the O T and thoroughly at home in the poetry of the synagogue could still compose a magicians' handbook, listing p a g a n deities and Christ a m o n g the angels of the lower heavens, prescribing the prayers and sacrifices to be offered them in magical ceremonies (among the prayers, an invocation of Helios in transliterated Greek), a n d concluding, on reaching the seventh heaven, with a celebration of Y a h w e h as the sole (that is, supreme) god. T h e more scrupulous Jews distinguished their marvels â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a s performed b y the power of the supreme god or of pure spiritsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;from those of the pagans, whose gods were demons and whose spirits, impure. T h u s R a b b i A k i b a , complaining of his o w n ill success in magic, said: " W h e n a m a n fasts in order that an unclean spirit should rest upon him, the unclean spirit does so. A fortiori, therefore, w h e n a m a n fasts in order that a pure spirit should rest upon him, it should do so. But w h a t can I do, since our iniquities are the cause of our difficulties, as it is s a i d , ' For your iniquities were dividing y o u from your G o d , ' " B. Sanhedrin 65b end. ( T h e context leaves no doubt of the magical reference; it goes on to report that R a b b a created a h o m u n c u l u s â&#x20AC;&#x201D; t h e implication being that the holy spirit rested upon h i m and communicated to him its creative power.) O f course neither A k i b a nor R a b b a is represented in the T a l m u d s as a magician. " M a g i c i a n , " as w e said, was a term of abuse. 220


THE BACKGROUND

G i v e n this state of affairs, it goes without saying that J e s u s is not represented b y the Gospels as a magician. F o r the Gospels he is the Son of G o d in disguise. B u t were his practices those of contemporary magic ? T h a t he should be represented as a supernatural being is the first suspicious item, for this was a common claim of magicians and result of magical operations. T h u s in the " M i t h r a s L i t u r g y " the magician begins with a prayer that the supreme being will " b r e a t h e into m e the holy spirit," and then goes on to declare, " I a m the S o n . " ( P G M I V . 4 8 7 - 5 3 5 ; cf. M k . 1 . 1 if.) A g a i n , the letter of " N e p h o t e s to P s a m m e t i c h u s " {ibid., 154-221), begins with directions for uniting oneself with the sun, as follows: At any dawn you wish, when it is the third day of the moon, going to the roof of a high building, spread on the earthen roof a clean sheet (σινδόνιον—see above, pp. 176f>. Do this with a mystagogue. Then you yourself, wearing a wreath of black ivy, after eleven o'clock, when the sun is in the midst of the heaven, lie down naked < γ υ μ ν ό ς — i b i d . ) on the sheet,· looking upward, and order that your eyes be covered with a black band. Then, wrapping yourself up like a mummy, closing your eyes and keeping your face toward the sun, begin the following prayer: "Powerful Typhon, sovereign and ruler of the realm above, God of gods, King ( α β ΐ ρ α μ ε ν θ ω ο ν formula), thou who scatterest the darkness, bringer of thunder, stormy one, who dazzlest the night, who breathest warmth into the soul, shaker of rocks, earthquake-destroyer of walls, God of foaming waves and mover of the deep Ίωερβηταυταυιμηνι!, I am he who searched through the whole world with thee and found the great Osiris, whom I brought to thee a prisoner. I am he who fought as thine ally with the gods (other texts: against the gods). I am he who locked the double doors of heaven <Mt. 16.19)» and put to sleep the invisible dragon, who stayed the sea, the tides, the streams of the rivers until thou mightest subdue this realm. I, thy soldier <11 Cor. 10.4), have been defeated by the <astral> gods <1 Cor. 2.8); I have been cast down because of vain wrath. Raise up, I beseech thee, thy friend, I entreat thee, and do not cast me on the earth, Ο King of gods αεμιναΐβαρωθερρΐθωραβΐανιμΐα! Fill me with power, I beseech thee, and grant me this grace, that, when I shall order one of those gods to come, he shall at my spells come and appear to me quickly ναινΐβασαναπτατου€απτονμηνωφα€σμητταπτουμηνωφ· αεσιμ-η" τραυαπτι' πευχρη' τραυαρα' πτονμηφ' μούρα ι' ανχονχαφαπτα' μονρσα' αραμ€ί" Ιαω . . . Ιαω α~ηι cu/αω." When you say these things thrice the following sign of your union (with the god/ will occur, but you, armed by your magic soul, should not be terrified. For a sea hawk, flying down, will strike you with his wings on your body <Mk. 1.1 ο and parallels), by this very sign indicating that you should arise. You, therefore, arise, clothe yourself in white garments, and burn uncut frankincense in drops on an earthenware incense altar, saying as follows: " I have been united with thy sacred form <11 Cor. 3.18; Phil. 2.6). I have been empowered by thy sacred name <Acts 3.16). I have received the effluence of thy goodness, Lord, God of gods, King, Daimon, αθθουιν θονθουϊ ταυαντί" λαω ατττατω." When you have done this, descend, having attained that nature, equal to the God's < Ι σ ό θ ΐ ο ς φύσις—cf. Phil. 2.6; J n . 5.18), which is effected by this ritual union. 7

It has seemed worthwhile to translate this section as a whole, not only because of the ritual parallels to the story in the longer text, but also to show that magic 7. The next five words in the Greek text are to be taken with σκει/rij, which follows them. 221


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA does not necessarily c o m p e l the gods, 8 b u t is c a p a b l e o f p r a y e r , o f i n d i v i d u a l devotion to the deity, a n d of considerable religious feeling. Also, besides the parallels p o i n t e d o u t in the text, the m a i n notion o f the p a s s a g e — t h a t b y u n i o n w i t h the ruler of the g o d s the initiate c a n attain superiority to the astral d e i t i e s — i s precisely that of P a u l in C o l . 2.8-3.4, discussed a b o v e . A f t e r these asides w e r e t u r n to the p o i n t — t h a t Jesus was, for the authors of the Gospels, a s u p e r n a t u r a l b e i n g in h u m a n f o r m does n o t p r o v e their t h o u g h t a b o u t h i m w a s n o t m a g i c a l . O n the c o n t r a r y , it suggests t h a t it w a s m a g i c a l . M a n y m a g i c a l operations w e r e designed to p r o d u c e such i n c a r n a t e deities; if Jesus c o u l d b e m a d e the S o n o f G o d b y h a v i n g the spirit descend u p o n h i m after a ritual p u r i f i c a t i o n , so c o u l d other m a g i c i a n s . T h a t Jesus did b e l i e v e he o w e d his p o w e r s to the possession o f s u c h a spirit is strongly suggested b y the story o f his d y i n g c r y , " M y g o d , m y g o d , w h y hast t h o u forsaken m e ? " ( M k . 15.34 reads " m y

dynamis,"

an

e q u i v a l e n t to " m y

d p a r a l l e l s ; cf. Gospel of Peter 19, w h i c h

daimon.")

From Mk.

14.50 a n d

15.40

it seems unlikely t h a t a n y o f Jesus' disciples w a s o n h a n d to h e a r w h a t — i f a n y t h i n g — h e a c t u a l l y said. T h e r e p o r t e d cry, therefore (Ps. 22.2) is their n o t i o n of w h a t he should h a v e s a i d — a n expression at once of messianic h o p e a n d m a g i c a l C h r i s t o l o g y . I t is plausible to suppose t h a t the beliefs of disciples reflect those of their master. 2.

THE QUESTION OF SPELLS S i n c e the Gospels represent Jesus as the S o n of G o d , t h e y credit h i m w i t h the

p o w e r to p e r f o r m his miracles i m m e d i a t e l y . T h u s he does not use c h a r m s , m a g i c a l formulas, or special rituals, a n d this m i g h t be t h o u g h t to distinguish h i m sharply f r o m the m a g i c i a n , w h o is supposed to h a v e used o n e v e r y occasion the e l a b o r a t e ceremonies of the m a g i c a l p a p y r i . T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n the belief of the evangelists; A r n o b i u s , Adversus Nationes 1.43^ a n d Philostratus, Vita Apollonii V I I . 3 8 e n d , uses this a r g u m e n t to p r o v e their heroes w e r e not m a g i c i a n s . B u t m a n y of the ceremonies in the m a g i c a l p a p y r i are initiations-—means of g e t t i n g a spirit. O n c e one has a spirit, n o such rites are necessary. T h u s PGM

1 . 9 7 - 1 9 4 , after d e s c r i b i n g at l e n g t h

the ceremonies b y w h i c h one c a n get " t h e L o r d of the a i r " ( E p h . 2.2) as a f a m i l i a r , concludes (lines 1 7 6 f r ) : " W h e n y o u die he w i l l p r e p a r e y o u r b o d y for b u r i a l , as befits a g o d , b u t , t a k i n g u p y o u r spirit, he w i l l l e a d it into the air, w i t h himself <1 Thess. 4 . 1 7 ) , for a n aerial spirit u n i t e d w i t h a m i g h t y f a m i l i a r w i l l not go into H a d e s <Acts 2 . 2 7 f r ) , for to such a one all things are subordinate <1 C o r .

15.27).

N o w w h e n y o u w a n t h i m to d o something, say into the air o n l y his n a m e a n d ' C o m e , ' a n d y o u w i l l see h i m , a n d s t a n d i n g n e a r y o u . T h e n say to h i m , ' D o thus-and-so,' 8. The assertion that the magician attempts to compel the gods, the religious man to entreat them, is so common a commonplace that it seems worthwhile to quote the explicit denial of this by I a m b l i c h u s , De mysteriis I I I . 1 8 end (ed. des Places, Paris, 1966): τά μεν oiv θεον η δαίμονα η άγγελον τον αποτελούντα

τα κρείττονα εργα σνγχωρήσειεν

οτι St* ημών ελκόμενος ο συναπτόμενος

αν τις' ον μην ετι γε δίδομεν ο σν προσερριφας ως

άνάγκαις ταΐς της κλήσεως

αύτω των κρειττόνων

ταύτα επιτελεί,

χορός, ού της εξ ανθρώπων

εΐνικ

όμολογονμενον,

κρείττων

γαρ ανάγκης εστίν ο θεός καί

επαγόμενης

μόνον, άλλα και οση τον

πας

κόσμον

κατείληφεν. κ.τ.λ. It must be added, however, that this philosophic protest proves the other opinion was widespread.

222


THE BACKGROUND

a n d he will do it at once and, w h e n it is done, will say to you, ' W h a t else do y o u want, for I haste to the heaven ? ' A n d if y o u do not have anything to c o m m a n d at once, say to him, ' G o , sir,' and he will go <Mt. 8.9). Accordingly, this g o d will be seen only b y you, nor will any hear his voice save y o u only «(Acts 2 2 . 9 ) . " Similar notions will be found in PGM I V . 208 i f f a n d elsewhere. O f course there is no more historical probability that " t h e L o r d of the a i r " ever came down to answer a magician than there is that " t h e holy s p i r i t " ever descended upon Jesus; but that a magician w h o believed he had " t h e L o r d of the a i r " could perform miracles expeditiously is no less likely than that Jesus could do so, as the result of his similar belief. H e n c e it is clear that the absence of elaborate magical formulas from the reports of Jesus' miracles is no evidence as to whether or not he was a magician.

3.

MINOR M A G I C A L T R A I T S OF T H E M I R A C L E

STORIES

T o m a k e u p for the absence of elaborate spells and rituals, the miracle stories in the Gospels show a great m a n y of the minor traits of magical procedures. These were studied by Bonner, Technique 1 7 i f f , w h o cited magical parallels for curing by touch, manipulation, looking u p w a r d , sighing or groaning (especially στεναγμός), the use of A r a m a i c phrases in a Greek context, the use of ίμβριμάομαι (175fr) and of ταράσσω (177). Eitrem, Demonology, a d d e d evidence for the traits noted b y Bonner and himself noted further traits: the anointing with a salve c o m p o u n d e d with spittle (47), the emphasis on the use of the hand in touching, etc. (35; cf. the longer text I I I . 3 - 4 ) , and especially the touching of the tongue (48), the use of " t h e finger of G o d " (34), the use of hτιτάσσειν in exorcisms, and the prohibition of the demons' return (20f), the use of φιμοΰν (30Q, the anger at the demons ( 4 i f ) , the commands that the patients or bystanders keep the matter secret (47), the requirement that the petitioner have faith (47), and the instruction to the disciples to pray a n d fast before exorcisms (38). These, as Eitrem remarked, " d o not seem to fit well into the picture of a wonderworking Messianic S o t e r " (49). N o r do they exhaust the material. T h e requirement of three- or seven-day preparatory periods is frequent in PGM— e.g., I V . 1 1 0 0 (three days); I V . 2 6 , 5 3 , 7 3 4 - 7 3 5 ; X I I I . 6 7 1 (all seven days); cf. M k . 9.2; the longer text I I I . 6 - 7 ; M k . 16.1. T h e use of a σινδών, usually over the naked b o d y , in magical initiations—and particularly as a costume for boys w h o are to serve as m e d i u m s — i s a frequent and striking parallel to M k . 14.51 and the longer text I I I . 8 (cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica V . 9 . 6 ; PGM III.305,706fr; IV.88f, 170fr,3095; DMP I I I . i 2 f ; X X V I I I . 6 ; X X I X . 2 3 ) . R e q u i r i n g the demon to tell his n a m e is a familiar piece of magical technique ( M k . 5.9; PGM 1.160; I V . 3 0 3 8 ; L u c i a n , Philopseudes 1 6 ) — a n d so o n ; the list could easily be lengthened. A d m i t t e d l y , there are traces of a tendency in the Gospels to increase the magical traits in the stories: Eitrem, Demonolog)/ 29, notes especially the w a y M k . 1.29fr has been m a d e an exorcism by L k . 4.39; and he thinks the notion of binding, especially b y Satan, in L k . 13.16 (p. 37) and the introduction of anointing with oil into the charges to the apostles (38) are later developments. O n e might a d d that the Johannine 223


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

editor of the Lazarus story has built it up with magical traits: Jesus' prefatory declaration in 11.25 like many prefaces in the magical papyri (e.g., PGM V . 1 4 5 f r , ΐγώ elμι η αλήθεια, cf. Jn. 1 4 . 6 ) , and his prayer before the raising ( n . 4 i f ) has a parallel in PGM IV.Io6of, ξύχαρισται σοι, κΰριε . . . έπακοΰων μοι ΐπι τον της ζωής μου χρόνον. So not even the magical traits in the Gospels can be taken as certainly primitive. However, some of them must be: they are too many to be got rid of entirely. A n d besides, their presence is stronger evidence than the absence of more elaborate magical material. Quite apart from the prudential and theological motivation pointed out above, the Gospels were exoteric works and we should not expect them to describe Jesus' magical practices. Moreover, the tendency in the tradition to increase magical traits is more than matched by the tendency to diminish t h e m — n o t e the omission of both saliva miracles (Mk. 7.32fr; 8.22ff) by both M t . and Lk. This latter tendency probably reflects an apologetic concern which later is well documented (Fridrichsen, Probleme 5 9 f r ) — J e s u s must not appear as a magician. 4.

THE PREDOMINANTLY MAGICAL CHARACTER

OF T H E GOSPEL

STORIES

Unfortunately for the would-be apologists, not only the minor traits of the Gospel stories, but also the essential content of most of them come from the world of magic. Jesus appears in M k . as one possessed by a holy spirit and thereby made the son of a god; we have already seen the same sort of figure in the magical papyri ( P G M IV.510, 5 3 5 ) . Other stories say he was born of a god (Mt. i.i8ff); so was Apollonius of T y a n a , whom the Christians, and ancient opinion generally, considered a magician — t h o u g h his followers, like Jesus', denied the charge (Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 1.4,6; IV.18; VII.38; cf. Dio Cassius L X X V I I . 1 8 . 4 ; Origen, Contra Celsum VI.41, with Chadwick's n3). A t the beginning of his career Jesus, like Apollonius, was driven by the spirit (Mk. 1.12 and parallels; V.Ap. 1.18) into the wilderness, where he was approached by an evil spirit but repulsed it (Mk. 1.13; Lk. 4 · 2 ί Γ ; V.Ap. II.4). This accords with the general pattern of shamanic initiation. So does the mixture of traditions which represent Jesus now as possessing spirits, again as himself possessed (Eliade, Shamanism 3 3 f r , esp. 2 3 6 ; M k . i.i2f; 3 . 2 1 - 3 0 ; M t . 9 . 3 4 ; 1 0 . 2 5 ; Jn. 7 - 2 0 ; 8 . 4 8 ^ 5 2 ; 1 0 . 2 0 ) . O n returning to settled areas Jesus, like Apollonius, became a wandering preacher with an attendant circle of disciples (Mk. 1.21,36; 3 . 7 - 1 9 ; Lk. 6 . 2 o f f ; V.Ap. I V . i f f , 3 7 ; V.43 and passim), and the admirers of both later appealed to their religious teaching and its success as evidence that they were not magicians (V.Ap. I V . 1 9 , etc.; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.38,68, where he overlooks Apollonius). Both, however, were distinguished from ordinary preachers by their miraculous powers; many of the same miracles appear in the stories about both of them; and most of the miracles reported of Jesus are those which are commonly reported of magicians and for which recipes are given in the magical papyri. T h u s we find (and the following references give merely a few examples of each): T h e power to make anyone he wanted follow him: M k . i.i6ff; 2 . 1 4 (cf. V.Ap. IV.20); PGM I V . 1 7 1 6 f r ; VII.300ff,620fr (from The Diadem of Moses); XIII.238 (from The Eighth Book of Moses); X X X I I a ; etc. 224


T H E BACKGROUND

Exorcism: Mk. 1.23,34; 3· 1 1 >225 δ · 1 ^ e t c . ; V.Ap. IV. 10,20,25, e t c · ; Lucian, Philopsendes 16; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.68; PGM 1.115; IV.2170; V.g6ff; VII.43iff, etc.; Tamborino, Daemonismo i8f. Exorcism at a distance, remote control of spirits, and the power to order them about: Mk. 7.25fr; Lk. 7 . 1 - 1 0 ; V.Ap. III.38; Lucian, Philopseudes 13; PGM I.i8off; V.i65fr. Miraculous cures: Mk. 1.29fr (fever),34,4off; 2.iff; 3.iff (withered hand); 3.10; 5.25fr (issue of blood), etc.; Lk. 7.18fr (lame, blind, etc.); V.Ap. VII.39 (lame, blind, a man with a withered h a n d ) ; Lucian, Philopseudes 11 (|| Mk. 2.12, he took up his pallet and walked); Origen, Contra Celsum 1.68; PGM X V I I I b ; X X X I I I (fever); X X I I . i f f (issue of blood); VII.191-214,580 (πασαν νόσον, er. Mt. 4.23), 677, etc.; Heim, Incantamenta; DMP verso, passim. Stilling storms: Mk. 4.35fr; V.Ap. I V . 1 3 ; PGM I.120; V.137 (|| Mk. 4.41); X X I X . Raising the dead: Mk. 5.21-43, etc.; V.Ap. IV.45 (II L k · 7· 1 l f f ) ί P G M X I I I . 278fr. Giving his disciples power over demons: Mk. 6.7; PGM 1.42fr,193fr; IV.475ff, 732-747>850, etc. Miraculous provision of food: Mk. 6.35fr; 8.iff; V.Ap. IV.25; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.68; Lucian, Philopseudes 35; PGM I . 1 0 3 - 1 1 5 ; XIII.998; J. Sanhedrin VI.g(23c) and parallels. Walking on water: Mk. 6.48; Lucian, Philopseudes 13; PGM I.i2off; X X X I V . Miraculous escapes (his body could not be seized): Lk. 4.30; J n . 7.30,44; 8.20,59 (C, koine, etc.); 10.39; V.Ap. VII.38; V I I I . 3 0 ; PGM I . 1 9 5 - 2 2 2 ; X X I I a . u f ; XXXVI.320fr; Vienna National Library, Pap. gr. 323; Tamborino, Daemonismo 18. Making himself invisible: J n . 8.59; 12.36(F); Lk. 24.31; V.Ap. V I I I . 5 ; PGM I.i02,222ff,247ff; VII.619fr; XIII. 2 68r. Possession of the keys of the kingdom: Mt. 16.19; PGM I I I . 5 4 1 ; IV.i89f. Foreknowledge: Of his own fate: Mk. 8.31fr, etc.; V.Ap. XIII.38,41; PGM Γ. 173f; XIII.7ooff. Of disasters coming on cities: Lk. io.i3f; 13.34^ 23.28fr; Mk. 13.2; V.Ap. IV.4; V.13; Sibylline Oracles, passim. General: Mk. 5.39; J n . i i . u f f ; Mk. 14.13fr; V.Ap. IV.24; V.24; VI.32; PGM I.i88ff (|| Mk. 5.39); IV.231,250; V.288ff, etc. Knowledge of others' thoughts: Mk. 2.8; 12.15; V.Ap. IV.25; "VI.3; PGM 1.176; ΙΠ.330,459; V.228; etc. Metamorphosis: Mk. 9.3; PGM I.i 17^177; XIII.270fr. The tradition that Apollonius was the son or Proteus—V.Ap. I.4—suggests that he was credited with this accomplishment, for which Proteus was notorious—Odyssey IV.455ff. However, in these metamorphoses the new forms assumed are disguises, by which the magician attempts to prevent recognition of his true and familiar form; in the transfiguration the new form reveals Jesus' true, supernatural powers, of which his familiar form was a disguise; cf. Odyssey XIII.22iff,287fr. This motif of the deity in disguise was common in Greek mythology: for example, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter 91-280, whence it influenced both the legends 225


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

of hellenistic c u l t s — c f . P l u t a r c h , De Iside 1 4 - 1 6 ( 3 5 7 ) — a n d the claims a n d practices of m a g i c i a n s , L u c i a n , Alexander 40; PGM

I V . 1859. A f o r m p a r t i c u l a r l y

i m p o r t a n t for N T t h o u g h t w a s the descent-in-disguise legend, on w h i c h see a b o v e , p. 201. T h i s is the m o r e r e m o t e b a c k g r o u n d of the transfiguration story, b u t its i m m e d i a t e b a c k g r o u n d is in m a g i c a l p r a c t i c e a n d a p o c a l y p t i c theory. F r o m these c a m e the n o t i o n t h a t the m a g i c i a n c o u l d ascend into the h e a v e n (or the m o u n t a i n ) o f the gods a n d assume their g l o r y : Is. 1 4 . 1 3 ^ E z e k i e l 2 8 . i 3 f f ; II Enoch A 22.8ff; Ascension of Isaiah 7 . 2 5 ; 9.30; etc. I n PGM

IV.475-750 and

in the Hekalot w e h a v e instructions for such a n ascent, either alone or w i t h a disciple (732fr). A disciple in w h o m suggestion p r o d u c e d the h a l l u c i n a t i o n o f such a n ascent w o u l d h a v e seen his master c l o t h e d in the g a r m e n t of g l o r y a n d t a l k i n g w i t h the i n h a b i t a n t s o f the heavens. R e v e a l i n g s u p e r n a t u r a l beings to his disciples: M k . 9 . 4 ; PGM 8 9 7 - 9 2 2 ; V . 1 - 4 0 ; V I I . 5 4 9 ; DMP

I V . 8 8 f f , 172,732fr,

I I . i f f ; V I I . 1 0 ; X I V . 2 4 f ; etc.

P r e s c r i b i n g reforms of t e m p l e p r a c t i c e s : M k .

11.15fr;

V.Ap. 1 . 1 6 ;

IV.1,23,24;

etc. I n t r o d u c i n g a n e w rite, a m e a l b y w h i c h his followers are u n i t e d w i t h h i m b y p a r t a k i n g of f o o d m a g i c a l l y identified w i t h his flesh a n d b l o o d : M k .

14.22fr;

J n . 6 . 5 6 ; I C o r . 1 0 . 1 6 ; n . 2 4 f ; cf. V.Ap. I I I . 2 5 , 3 2 , 5 1 ; see a b o v e , section A . T h e role o f m a g i c i a n s in i n t r o d u c i n g n e w religious rites is e m p h a s i z e d Burkert, ΓΟΗΣ

by

39f, a n d e x e m p l i f i e d b y L u c i a n , Alexander 38. C f . D i o d o r u s

V . 6 4 . 4 ; I r e n a e u s — H a r v e y , 1 . 7 . 1 f r = Stieren, 1 . 1 3 . 1 f r . C l a i m i n g to be u n i t e d w i t h his disciples, so t h a t he is in t h e m a n d t h e y in h i m : J n . 6.56; 14.20;

15.3fr,9 (union in l o v e ) ; e t c . ; PGM

XXXIIa:

"Adona(i),

A b r a s a x , P i n ( o ) u t i a n d S a b a o t h , e n f l a m e the soul a n d h e a r t o f . . . A m o n i u s . . . for S e r a p i a c u s . . . n o w , n o w , q u i c k l y , q u i c k l y . . . F o r t h w i t h m i n g l e together the souls of b o t h a n d m a k e . . . A m o n i u s . . . one w i t h S e r a p i a c u s . . . e v e r y h o u r a n d e v e r y d a y a n d e v e r y night. T h e r e f o r e A d o n a i , highest of gods, . . . set to it, A d o n a i ! " C l a i m i n g to b e a g o d or a son of a g o d , or u n i t e d w i t h some g o d or s u p e r n a t u r a l entity ( n o t a b l y in statements b e g i n n i n g " I a m " ) : M k . 14.62; cf. 1 3 . 6 ; ( M t . 2 6 . 6 3 , ο vios του θεοΰ του ζώντος

C*WZl<f> 0 9 0 al. ff2; D M P

son of the g o d w h o l i v e t h " ) ; V.Ap. ° vlos. J n -

IV.535) αλήθεια

(cf. D M P

ειμι 6 "Ηλιος

PGM

1 4 . 6 , εγώ

ειμί rj . . . αλήθεια.

IX.. 1 4 ) . J n . 8 . 1 2 , εγώ

ό δεδειχώς

φως.

Jn.

XX.33,

"I

am

I I I . 1 8 ; J n . 10.36, υιός τοΰ θεοΰ εΙμί.

17.21

είμι το φως

P G M

τοΰ κόσμου.

V.

1 4 8 , εγώ

ειμί ή

P G M Χ 11.2^2,

( t o t h e F a t h e r ) , συ .. . εν εμοι κάγώ

the P G M

εγώ

εν σοι.

V I I I . J O (to H e r m e s ) , εγώ . . . σύ και συ εγώ.

T h i s list b y no m e a n s exhausts the m a t e r i a l . T h e r e are m a n y other traits in the Gospels' picture of J e s u s — p a r t i c u l a r l y , b u t b y n o m e a n s exclusively, in the J o h a n n i n e p i c t u r e — w h i c h are c o m m o n in m a g i c a l m a t e r i a l : the m a g i c i a n is the o n l y one w h o k n o w s his g o d ( L k . 10.22; J n . 7 . 2 9 ; 1 7 . 2 5 ; PGM

I . i 8 6 f f || J n . 5 . 3 7 ; X I I I . 5 8 0 f r ,

841-888) a n d is k n o w n b y his g o d (Lk. 10.22; J n . 1 0 . 1 5 ; P G M V I I I . 4 9 ) ; those w h o see h i m see the invisible g o d , of w h o m he is the visible i m a g e (Jn. 1 . 1 8 ; 226

PGM


THE BACKGROUND

X I I . 2 2 9 , 2 3 5 ) ; a n d so on. But these similarities in sayings (and, a fortiori, mere similarities of terminology, like the uses of κύριος a n d σώζΐΐν remarked by Robinson, Text 252Ο are less i m p o r t a n t for our purpose t h a n the fact t h a t the stories of the Gospels are mostly stories a b o u t things a magician would do. T h e y are not mostly stories a b o u t things the Messiah would do. (Who ever h e a r d of the Messiah's being a n exorcist—let alone being eaten?) T h e closest parallels in the O T material are to be found in the stories of the prophets, b u t here, too, the exorcistic a n d the sacramental elements are completely lacking. T h e sacramental side, too, is wholly lacking f r o m the reports a b o u t the rabbis. Jesus doubtless was, as was Apollonius, involved in arguments a b o u t the proper observance of religious laws, he did behave like a prophet a n d was t h o u g h t to be one, a n d he p r o b a b l y came to think himself the Messiah (certainly other people t h o u g h t him so a n d their opinion cost him his life); b u t neither his messianic nor his legal opinions, nor even his imitations of the prophets, account for the most i m p o r t a n t of the stories a b o u t him, which are stories of a m a n who did the things magicians claimed to do. This fact was recognized in antiquity even by the Christian apologists: J u s t i n , First Apology 30; Tertullian, Apology X X I . 17; Origen, Contra Celsum 11.49fr. Moreover, after Jesus' d e a t h his followers continued to credit him with typically magical activities. H e a p p e a r e d to his followers after his d e a t h ( J n . 20, etc.; V.Ap. V I I I . 3 1 !| Acts 9.3fr). H e could, at will, make himself unrecognized or invisible (Lk. 2 4 . 1 6 , 3 1 ; see above). H e came t h r o u g h locked doors (Jn. 20.19,26; PGM X I I . 279; X I I I . 1064fr; X X X V I . 3 1 2 f r ) . H e gave his followers power to handle serpents a n d drink poison without being h a r m e d (Mk. 1 6 . 1 8 ; PGMl.i 15; I V . 2 1 7 5 ; X I I I . 2 5 3 ) . H e gave t h e m the holy spirit by breathing it into t h e m ( J n . 20.22; T a m b o r i n o , Daemonismo 8 1 , 102; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.68; PGM IV.3007-3085). A n d finally, he ascended into the heavens (Lk. 2 4 . 5 1 ; Acts i.gf; V.Ap. I I I . 5 1 ; VI.11 e n d ; V I I I . 3 0 e n d ; PGM 1.178; IV.475ff) a n d was worshiped as a god (V.Ap. V I I . 2 1 ; VIII.5,7.vii, 31 e n d ; PGM 1.191 f) a n d as a m a g i c i a n : M a n y sects in the gnostic wing of Christianity not only practiced magic, b u t r e m e m b e r e d a n d revered Jesus as the great magician (Anz, Frage 5 - 9 ; Irenaeus, Harvey, 1.19.2—1.20 = Stieren, 1.24-25; etc.). T h e apocryphal gospels a n d acts, it is well known, a d d m a n y magical traits to the picture of J e s u s : e.g., Gospel of Peter 19; Gospel of Thomas (Leipoldt), heading, 13, 19, etc.; Acta Ioannis 8 7 - 1 0 5 ; Pistis Sophia, passim; etc. W h e t h e r these traits came from tradition (as is possible) or from invention (as is commonly taken for granted) or from b o t h (as is likely) they at all events show t h a t m a n y , perhaps most, Christians t h o u g h t of Jesus as doing the things a magician would do in the ways a magician would do them. Even in the comparatively " o r t h o d o x " catacombs a n d mosaics he is customarily represented with the magician's rod (Goodenough I X . i 6 o f , with recognition of the Mosaic parallel b u t not of the reason for it). 5.

THE RELATION OF "MAGICIAN" TO θεΐος άνηρ

AND "SON OF GOD"

I t is not to be thought t h a t the destined occupants of the catacombs, or even most of the gnostics, would have described Jesus as a " m a g i c i a n . " For his believers, he 227


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

was " t h e Son of G o d " ; sceptical but reverent pagans would probably have called him " a divine m a n , " θείος άνήρ. Both terms were applied to a good many wonderworking religious teachers, some of them men who lived in the R o m a n empire, others ancient worthies like Pythagoras and Moses, whose stories were retold with the embellishments then fashionable. (For " S o n of G o d , " Wetter, Sohn, is still most valuable; the apologetic quibbles of Bieneck, Sohn, need not be read; Kramer, Christos, non vidi. For the θείος άνήρ see Bieler, with the remarks of Nilsson, II.527fr; Levy (Legende) demonstrated the influence of the type on Jewish thought, but pushed his arguments too far; a recent recognition of its influence on the Gospels' picture of Jesus will be found in Robinson's Problem . . . Reconsidered i36f.) In spite of the original diversity of these heroes and the diversity of theological explanations and consequent titles imposed on them, their stories, as now retold, follow a relatively uniform pattern (compare the " b i o g r a p h i e s " summarized in Heroes and Gods), but are not directly or even—in many cases—indirectly derived from each other. Therefore the uniformity may in part be explained by the fact that the authors were describing a single social type, and Wetter's chapter " T h e Son of God as Antitype of the M a g i c i a n " (Sohn 73fr) leaves no doubt as to what that type was. T h e magician claims the powers which the "divine m a n " or " S o n of G o d " is thought to possess. T h e difference between these figures is one of social status and success. A wandering quack to whom servant girls go for potions or poisons has little chance to pass himself off (even to himself) as a deity in disguise. But let him begin to succeed and Lucian, Alexander, will tell you how he can become the founder of a new cult and the spiritual director of R o m a n senators. He can then represent himself not only as the prophet, but also as the son, of a god (Alexander 11, 39). H e can also come to believe his own representations (especially if his success has not been achieved by such conscious, mechanical devices as Alexander used, but has resulted from abnormal elements in his own personality which he himself would understand as evidence of supernatural powers). His enemies, however, will continue to call him a magician (γόης, Lucian, Alexander 1, cf. Burkert, ΓΟΗΣ; μάγος, Alexander 6, cf. Nock, Magus) the different connotations of the words do not here concern us. For alternation of the terms προφήτης (by friends) and γόης (by enemies) see Nock, Alexander 162.) " M a g i c i a n " thus covers a larger range t h a n θειος άνήρ or "son of a g o d " ; it includes the market quack (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.68) and even the individual who practices in private (Lucian, Lucius 4), whereas the θείος άνήρ or "son of a g o d " must be a m a n of considerable public reputation and theosophic pretensions. With the difference of pretensions goes a supposed difference of technique which we have already noticed: the hole-in-the-corner magicians peddle spells and ceremonies and materia magica, therefore they have a different set for each different purpose (and customer). T h e θείος άνήρ has his own spirit who has only to be ordered and will at once obey. T h e son of a god is himself a spirit who can command others. T o guess what these differences meant in terms of actual experience is a risky, albeit tempting, game. O n e may begin with the notion that " m i r a c l e s " (including magical cures a n d the like), when they do happen, are usually the results of suggestion (often hypnotic) a n d therefore depend both on the practitioner's " p o w e r of suggestion" 228


T H E BACKGROUND

a n d the patient's " s u g g e s t i b i l i t y " (for w h i c h the ancient t e r m s — o f equally obscure m e a n i n g — w e r e " s p i r i t " and " f a i t h " ) . Both of these can be augmented b y various factors a m o n g w h i c h are rituals, practice, previous success, and consequent reputation. As the two latter increase, the dependence on rituals diminishes and the practitioner also rises in social position, self-esteem, a n d consequent claims. T h e change is a gradual one and the magical papyri therefore contain a medley of material, from simple charms for particular purposes through the more complex rites necessary to gain control over one or another spirit, to the elaborate initiations w h i c h will enable the magician himself to enter the heavens, become a god or the son of a god, and c o m m a n d all the spirits inferior to himself. T h e difference reflects that between the do-it-yourself world of the peasants and the slave service available to the rich. Theologically (or, demonologically ?), however, as the magical texts show, this difference is one of form, not of essential content. A n d this fact is reflected b y the terminology. O n c e the requirements of social status and decorum are met, the same m a n will customarily be called a θείος άνήρ, or son of a god, b y his admirers, a magician b y his enemies. W i t h i n this area all three terms refer to a single social type, a n d that type is the one characterized by the actions listed above, w h i c h make u p b y far the greatest part of the Gospels' reports about Jesus.

6.

JEWISH A N D

P A G A N OPINIONS

OF JESUS

F r o m w h a t has been said it follows that Jesus w o u l d be described, by those w h o did not accept his claims, as a magician. T h i s description in fact appears repeatedly in both the p a g a n a n d the Jewish traditions about him, w h i c h have generally been disregarded b y Christian scholarship on the grounds that they were p a g a n or Jewish. Y e t surely the historical study of any m a n should take account of, not only the reports of his adherents, but also those of his opponents, and especially those of comparatively indifferent observers. T h e j u d g m e n t of Jesus' opponents is reported already b y the Gospels: M k . 3.22 a n d parallels. T h e scribes w h o came d o w n from Jerusalem said, " H e has {control o v e r ) B e e l z e b u b , " a n d " h e drives out demons by the ruler of the d e m o n s . " A different version of the same tradition appears in M t . 9.32. F r o m M t . 10.25 it seems that Jesus was actually nicknamed " B e e l z e b u b . " O t h e r traces of the same tradition appear in the arguments to refute it, w h i c h M t . 12.27 a n ( i L k . 1 1 . 1 9 derived from Q,. O t h e r , independent, traditions to the same effect, but ignorant of Beelzebub, are stated or reflected in M k . 3-28f; L k . 12.10 and parallel (probably Q j ; possibly M k . 6.14 (see K r a e l i n g , Necromancy); and certainly J n . 7.20; 8.48,52; 10.20 (on the typical alternation between possession and being possessed see above, section 4, a n d also Samain, Magie 475). It is significant that neither Jesus nor his followers denied the charge that he " h a d " a spirit; on the contrary, they admitted it, but claimed that the spirit was a holy one (Jn. 1.32fr; M k . 1.10 and parallels; 3-28f and parallels; etc.; and The Gospel according to the Hebrews). This charge w o u l d explain Jesus' " r e c u r r e n t warnings against being ' s c a n d a l i z e d ' at him, or being ashamed of him, or denying him before m e n " w h i c h appear in both J n . and the synoptics 229


CLEMENT OF

ALEXANDRIA

a n d were t h o u g h t perhaps historical by D o d d (Historical Tradition 2 2 1 ) , though he was u n a b l e to suggest an a d e q u a t e reason for them. After Jesus' d e a t h the charge that he h a d been a magician continued c o m m o n in both Jewish a n d p a g a n circles (e.g., Justin, First Apology 30; Dialogue 69.7; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.6; Tertullian, Apology X X I . 1 7 ; Arnobius, Adversus Nationes 1.43; B. Sanhedrin 43a as quoted by Strack, Jesus 1; the T a l m u d i c references to Jesus as Balaam (Bileam), e.g., Strack, Jesus 5 ; J. Shabbat X I I . 4 ( i 3 d ) — b e n S t a d a is p r o b a b l y Jesus—cf. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28; Krauss, Leben 4off; the Clementine Recognitiones 1.58). B. Sanhedrin 107b a n d B. Sotah 47a represent Jesus as a pupil of R a b b i J o s h u a ben P e r a h y a h w h o appears in Babylonian magic as a great magician who h a d ascended into heaven a n d mastered all the demons, M o n t g o m e r y , Incantation Texts 225fr a n d texts 8, 9, 17, 32, 33. Birds of a feather . . . These accusations were of course denied b u t were not f u n d a m e n t a l l y countered by Jesus' followers, of w h o m some (as remarked above, section 4 end) not only admitted, b u t celebrated his achievements as a magician, while all p e r p e t u a t e d a n d m a n y a d d e d to the magical traits of the stories a n d pictures in which he was represented. O n c e again, the question was not his control of spirits, b u t only the means by which he h a d achieved it. This evidence is f u r t h e r strengthened by t h a t of comparatively indifferent observers — b o t h J e w s a n d p a g a n s — w h o did not become followers of Jesus, b u t a d m i t t e d his magical powers a n d a t t e m p t e d to make use of t h e m in their own operations. Even in his own lifetime, if we are to believe M k . 9.38^ m e n who were not his followers were using his n a m e to cast out demons. Similar usage continued in Palestine as late as the second century, w h e n T. Hullin I I . 2 2 a n d parallels show us one J a c o b , of the village of S a m a in Galilee, offering to cure snakebite " w i t h the n a m e of J e s u s . " This does not prove J a c o b a Christian! Jesus' reported magical powers led p a g a n magicians also to use his n a m e in their c h a r m s : PGM X I I . 192 a n d 39if. (For discussion a n d additional examples see Eitrem, Demonolog)/ 4-9.) Bickerman called to m y attention Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 1.1 iff, esp. I4f: there are pagans who think Jesus a m a n who attained the highest wisdom; they a t t r i b u t e to h i m letters to Peter a n d to Paul (!) p r e t e n d i n g to teach the magic (exsecrabiles) arts by which he did his miracles. Particularly i m p o r t a n t is the story in Acts 19.13fr, t h a t Jewish exorcists in Ephesus were using the n a m e of Jesus in their exorcisms by A.D. 55 a n d that some of t h e m used the formula " I conjure you by the Jesus w h o m Paul proclaims." T o this the d e m o n is represented as replying, "Jesus I know a n d Paul I a m a c q u a i n t e d with, but who are y o u ? " This is intended as testimony t h a t Jesus a n d Paul are supernatural powers p r o m i n e n t in the demonic w o r l d : Jesus because he has the holy spirit, a n d Paul because he has Jesus. T h a t the demoniac t h e r e u p o n j u m p e d on the would-be exorcists a n d drove t h e m away in disgrace is said to have p r o d u c e d great reverence for the n a m e of Jesus a m o n g " a l l the J e w s a n d Greeks dwelling in Ephesus . . . A n d m a n y of the believers {the Christians) began to confess a n d declare their magical practices. A n d a large n u m b e r of those w h o h a d been practicing the occult arts b r o u g h t together their books a n d b u r n e d t h e m publicly, a n d w h e n their prices were reckoned u p they came to 50,000 pieces 230


THE BACKGROUND

of silver." Here the writer's intention is not only edification but also admonition. W h a t had happened in Ephesus was to be an example to the churches which the writer had in mind—presumably those of Asia Minor. H e suspected or knew that they were thick with magicians, a n d — a s Paul in Colossians—he reminded them that Jesus is more efficacious in magic than are the demonic powers. There is also a strong element of party propaganda: the only safe use of Jesus' name is that by proper representatives of the Pauline party. 7.

MAGIC IN T H E P R A C T I C E OF JESUS'

FOLLOWERS

It must again be insisted that the practices and teachings of a man's followers are at least some indication of what he practiced and taught. If so, the accounts of Jesus' followers indicate strongly that he practiced and taught magic. His followers are said to have begun exorcising demons and performing cures already during his lifetime, and of course by the use of his name (Mk. 6 . 7 , 1 3 , 1 4 and parallels; Lk. 10.17). After his death they reportedly continued and developed these practices (Acts 3 . 6 ; 5 . 5 , 9 , 1 5 f ; etc.). Paul is credited with them, too, and also—as were Jesus and Peter—with miraculously effective curses, another hallmark of the magician (Acts 3 . 6 ; 5.5,9,15^ 13.9fr; 14.8fr; i 6 . i 6 f f ; M k . i 1.13fr,2off and parallels; Lk. 9.54; PGM XIII.248,261fr; etc.) Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he had been present in Corinth in the spirit a n d so had judged and " handed over to Satan, for destruction of the flesh"—that is, for affliction with some illness, a common magical procedure (see Audollent, passim)—a libertine member of the Corinthian church (I Cor. 5.3fr). Consequently, Alexander and Hymenaeus were " g i v e n over to S a t a n " by pseudoPaul in I T i m . 1.20. Here, probably, is to be found the explanation of Paul's claim to have some strange power over his congregations (I Cor. 4.1 gf; 5.3fr; I I Cor. 6.7; 10.3fr; 1 2 . 1 9 - 1 3 . 7 ) , as well as his fear that the initiates in Jerusalem might invalidate his work (Gal. 2 . 2 and my comments in Problems 1 i 6 f ) . T h e keys given to Peter could lock as well as open (Mt. 1 6 . 1 9 ) . Also, like Jesus, both Peter and Paul were believed to have such supernatural powers resident in their bodies that even the shadow of Peter (Acts 5.15) or clothes which had touched the body of Paul (Acts 19.12) might work wonders. T h e great importance of exorcism in Jewish Christianity is noted by Schoeps, A F £ 65^ T h e widespread practice of magic in the gnostic wing of Christianity is notorious from the accusations made by other Christians (Irenaeus, I passim·, Hippolytus, Philosophumena, passim) and Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit, has given strong reasons for his opinion that in the late first and early second centuries the gnostic wing was larger than that which subsequently became " o r t h o d o x . " Far more important, however, than such occasional phenomena as exorcisms, blessings, curses, and cures, more important, also, than the extraordinary gnostic ceremonies of which the self-styled " c a t h o l i c s " complained, was the essentially magical nature of the fundamental rites of initiation (baptism) and communion (eucharist) by which practically all Christian communities were constituted and held together. T o the Christians, of course, these rites were the sacred mysteries instituted by the Son of their G o d , but this is no argument against their magical 231


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

c h a r a c t e r . T h e p a r a l l e l rites are also represented b y the m a g i c a l p a p y r i as sacred mysteries, d i v i n e l y revealed. T h e m a g i c a l c h a r a c t e r of b a p t i s m is m a d e p a r t i c u l a r l y clear b y P a u l ' s reference in I C o r . 15.29 to " t h o s e w h o are b a p t i z e d o n b e h a l f of the d e a d " — a

piece of substitutionary m a g i c P a u l e v i d e n t l y a p p r o v e d , since he

used its u n q u e s t i o n e d e f f i c a c y as a n a r g u m e n t to p r o v e t h a t the d e a d must be raised. T h i s sort of t h o u g h t a b o u t C h r i s t i a n ceremonies c o n t i n u e d d o w n to the t i m e of C l e m e n t , w h o objects to w o m e n w e a r i n g w i g s because, w h e n the presbyter lays his h a n d s o n a w i g a n d gives his blessing, the blessing w i l l not g o to the w e a r e r of the w i g b u t to the h e a d w h i c h p r o v i d e d the hair ( 1 . 2 7 1 . 2 0 — t h i s w a s p o i n t e d o u t to m e by H.C.). T h e f u n d a m e n t a l position o f b a p t i s m a n d the eucharist testifies t h a t this sort of t h o u g h t was not s e c o n d a r y in C h r i s t i a n i t y , b u t primitive. S u c h , too, is the testimony g i v e n b y the essential c h a r a c t e r o f the stories in the Gospels, r e v i e w e d a b o v e . T h e same conclusion follows f r o m P a u l ' s a c c o u n t o f C h r i s t i a n i t y as, essentially, salvation b y possession; this, too, has b e e n p o i n t e d out a b o v e , b u t w e m a y a d d here the e v i d e n c e a f f o r d e d b y the p r a c t i c e of " s p e a k i n g w i t h t o n g u e s " in the P a u l i n e churches. A s I C o r . 12 m a k e s clear, this w a s the u t t e r a n c e of i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e sounds, t h o u g h t b y the believers to be the speech of the spirit w h i c h possessed the speakers. A s a l r e a d y r e m a r k e d in section I X this is a c o m m o n s y m p t o m of schizophrenia. I n the c h u r c h at C o r i n t h it h a d b e c o m e so c o m m o n that it w a s disrupting the w o r s h i p , a n d those especially gifted w i t h it w e r e g i v i n g themselves insufferable airs. T h e r e f o r e P a u l has to insist that it is n o t the greatest of the gifts of the spirit. T h e spirit gives also w i s d o m , k n o w l e d g e , faith, a n d the ability to p e r f o r m cures, do miracles, p r o p h e s y , distinguish g o o d f r o m evil spirits, a n d interpret things spoken in " t o n g u e s . " A n d p r a c t i c a l l y all of these P a u l t r e a t s — o n this o c c a s i o n — a s superior to the gift o f " t o n g u e s . " T h i s o b v i o u s l y does not r e d u c e the i m p o r t a n c e o f m a g i c in P a u l ' s v i e w of the w o r l d . O n the c o n t r a r y , it extends it to the w h o l e of n o r m a l , as w e l l as a b n o r m a l p s y c h o l o g y . E v e r y t h i n g g o o d is the w o r k of " t h e s p i r i t . " A n o t h e r t h i n g to b e noticed is t h a t even in this letter P a u l thanks G o d t h a t he speaks w i t h tongues " m o r e t h a n all of y o u " (14.18), a n d elsewhere, w h e n this p r o b l e m of c h u r c h discipline is not u p p e r m o s t in his t h o u g h t , he treats " s p e a k i n g w i t h t o n g u e s " as the s u p r e m e p r a y e r o f the

Church—Rom.

8.26f. το γαρ τι προσΐυζώμίθα

αυτό τό πνεύμα ύπερΐντυγχάνει τ6

φρόνημα

τοΰ

πνεύματος,

"unutterable"—they

were

στεναγμοΐς οτι

κατά

άλαλητοις·

θΐον

uttered—but

καθο Set ουκ οϊδαμεν,

άλλα

6 δε ερευνών τas καρΒίας oiBev τί

ΐντυγχάνεί

ΰπερ

άγιων,

άλάλητος

is not

" i n a r t i c u l a t e " ; vs. LS J see B a u e r ,

Wb.

ad loc. T h i s fact, a n d the p h e n o m e n o n of glossolalia, w e r e t a c t f u l l y o v e r l o o k e d b y D i e t z e l , Beten, w h o s e denial of the relation b e t w e e n C h r i s t i a n a n d m a g i c a l p r a y e r overlooks the m a i n p r o b l e m — t o explain, not w h y the spirit spoke to the churches, b u t w h y it spoke to t h e m in j a b b e r w o c k y . στεναγμός

w a s noted a b o v e (section 3)

as a characteristic f o r m of m a g i c a l utterance. S u c h στεναγμοί

άλάλητοι are preserved

i n great quantities in the m a g i c a l p a p y r i , of w h i c h they are p e r h a p s the most noticea b l e peculiarity. T h e s e are the " m a g i c a l w o r d s , " o f w h i c h a f e w are fixed formulas w i t h secret significance, b u t most are a p p a r e n t l y meaningless c o m b i n a t i o n s of letters b y w h i c h the m a g i c i a n calls the spirit in the spirit's o w n l a n g u a g e , or, b y s p e a k i n g 232


THE BACKGROUND

in the spirit's l a n g u a g e , shows that the spirit is a l r e a d y in h i m a n d a c t i n g t h r o u g h h i m . T h e s e c o m b i n a t i o n s perhaps w e r e not intended merely for repetition,

but

w e r e indications of the " t u n e " — t h e sort of phonetic combinations a n d interspersed n a m e s — a p p r o p r i a t e to the spirit i n v o k e d . 9 A n u m b e r of examples of this h a v e been g i v e n in the passage a l r e a d y q u o t e d from PGM in section ι ; m o r e are to b e f o u n d on almost every p a g e of that collection. T h e same sort of thing appears in Pistis Sophia i n the c o n c l u d i n g prayers of Jesus, p r e s u m a b l y representative o f the secret prayers o f the c h u r c h that preserved this m a t e r i a l : " T h e n ( a f t e r the resurrection) Jesus stood w i t h his disciples . . . a n d called on ( t h e F a t h e r w i t h ) this p r a y e r . . . ' H e a r m e , m y F a t h e r , T h o u F a t h e r of all paternity, T h o u endless light, αζψονω· αωϊ"

ωϊα-10

μαραχαχθα'

ψινωθερ4

0€ρνωφ'

θωβαρραβαυ'

νωφιτερ'11

θαρναχαχαν

ζαγουρη"

παγουρη'12

ζοροκοθορα"

ieov'13

νΐθμομαωθ' σαβαωθ.'"14

ϊαα>·

νΐφιομαωθ' (ch.

136,

Uly

translation f r o m S c h m i d t - T i l l ; m o r e in ch. 142.) H a r n a c k , Pistis-Sophia 89, recognized these passages as representations of speaking w i t h tongues; A n z , Frage 8, as incantations, combinations of " m a g i c a l w o r d s " typical of the spells in the m a g i c a l p a p y r i . B o t h w e r e right. T h e spirit w h i c h spoke t h r o u g h the Christians a n d the spirits w h i c h spoke t h r o u g h the p a g a n magicians spoke the same characteristic language. N o t only is this fact r e c o g n i z a b l e n o w ; it w a s a l r e a d y r e c o g n i z e d in a n t i q u i t y a n d its recognition resulted in m a n y of the persecutions w h i c h Christianity every9. Similar variation of formulas appears in the defixiones and on the magical gems. In the case of the latter, this has been noticed by A . Delatte and P. Derchain, Les Intailles magiques greco-egyptiennes, Paris (Bibliotheque Nationale), 1964, p. 234: " T h e r e is little chance, naturally, that one should ever find an object <magical gem> exactly in agreement with the ancient description <in the magical p a p y r i ) , for magic was still living at the time of the redaction of the papyri and at the time when the gems were engraved. Consequently, on comparing them with each other, one finds that the formulas show innumerable variations about which the magicians hardly bothered at a l l . " 10. Such variations on the seven vowels are c o m m o n in PGM,

in which all tjiese individual com-

binations o c c u r — e . g . , no. I I . lines 1 4 - 1 6 ; III.230,436; I V . 4 8 7 , 9 1 7 , etc.; X I I . 7 2 , 1 0 2 , 1 1 9 ; X I I I . 2 0 9 , 895,936; and often elsewhere. Ίαω (the commonest Greek name of ΠΊΓΡ) the indices to PGM,

particularly frequent. In

which the late Prof. Preisendanz kindly put at m y disposal ,there are three col-

umns full of references to Ίαω—far

more than to any other deity. (The runners u p are Ά8ωναϊ

and

Έρμης with about two columns each.) 11. PGM I I I . l 8 6 a - b νωφίθ[ΐρ] θ^ρνωφι; IV.828f φινωθερ νωφίθερ θερνωφι; V I I . 3 1 6 φινωθ βep. 12. PGM

V . 4 7 9 ; X X X V I . 3 0 8 ; 348-353; K r o p p , A K Ζ no. X I I I line 7, cf. vol. I I I . 127 n 5 . A l l

these give the combination ζαγουρη παγουρη or vice versa (with various misspellings). Both words also occur alone; e.g., PGM X X X V I . 10,64 iayovPV> VII.597,606 παγουρη. 13· PGM X I I I . 9 5 9 - 9 6 3

νεθμομαω

Audollent no. 267.9ff [ν](θμομαω νεθμομαωθ

(and variants)

μαρχαχθα . . . θαρνμαχαχ ζαροκοθαρα . . . ηεου θωβαρραβαυ μαρχαχον . . .

alone: PGM

ζαρακ\α]θαρα

θωβαρραβαυ θαρναχαχα.

I I . 1 1 9 (μαίραχαχθα follows in 120); I I I . 1 5 3 (οροκοτοθρο in

154); Audollent no. 242.31. veifii- combinations do not appear elsewhere; this is probably a corruption. θωβαρραβαυ (and variants) alone: PGM V I I . 9 7 7 ; X I X a . 4 2 ; Audollent no. 242.18; etc. ieov alone: PGM 14. PGM

I I . 1 3 7 ; V I I . 4 7 6 ; X I I . 1 8 9 ; X I I I . 8 1 0 ; etc.

V I I . 6 0 5 ; I X . 7 ; X I I . 2 0 7 and passim (almost a full column of references in Preisendanz'

index).

233


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

where called forth. These persecutions require explanation both because of their frequency and because of the general tolerance throughout the R o m a n empire for cults of oriental gods a n d deified men. Occasional exceptions to this tolerance might be explained by peculiar local circumstances; but the consistent opposition to Christianity evidently resulted from something characteristic of the new religion. W h a t was it? T h e common answer is, the Christians' refusal to worship other gods. But other worshipers of Yahweh—the Jews and the Samaritans—also refused to worship other gods, and they were not generally persecuted. Consequently, the Christians had to explain the persecutions as inspired either by the demons or by the Jews who, they said, denounced them to the authorities (Acts 13.50; 14.2; 17.6,13; 18.12; etc.; I Thess. 2 . 1 5 ; Apoc. 2.9; Martyrdom of Polycarp X I I . 2 ; X V I I . 2 ; Justin, Dialogue 17). But for what could the Jews denounce t h e m ? Certainly not for refusing to worship other gods—that was the hallmark of Jewish faith generally. Perhaps for political conspiracy ? But there is no evidence that the Christians were, generally, subversive in politics—not, at least, after the year 70 (cf. Brandon, Fall)—and they were not generally accused of plotting political revolution. W h a t they were accused of was the practice of magic a n d other crimes associated with magic: h u m a n sacrifice, cannibalism, and incest (Vita Apollonii V I I I . 5 ; Bidez-Cumont, Mages 78ff). T h e accusation of magic probably appears already in Suetonius, Nero 16.3: Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae, since a maleficus is par excellence a magician. Suetonius indicates how Tacitus, Annals XV.44, should be interpreted: quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. . . exitiabilis superstitio . . . atrocia aut pudenda . . . primum correpti qui fatebantur. W h a t did they—under torture—confess? Probably firing the city, probably being Christians, but probably also magic. Magic figures conspicuously in charges against Christians from the second century on (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.6; VI.4of; Passio Perpetuae 16; Acta Acacii V.2f; Tertullian, Ad uxorem II.5.2; Eus., HE III.26.4; I V . 7 . i o f ) . Moreover, as the passages from Eusebius show—and they could be paralleled by m a n y more from Irenaeus, Hippolytus, a n d Epiphanius—the Christians made considerable use of this charge against each other. Presumably they knew what they were talking about. Magic has been commonly neglected in discussions of the persecutions (recently Speyer, Vorwürfen-, Gregoire, Persecutions·, Sherwin-White, Letters, 691fr, 772ff; but cf. Freudenberger, Verhalten, 165fr) because these have commonly been based on the apologists a n d the acts of the martyrs a n d have neglected the heresiologists. But the apologists chose to defend Christianity from charges of which most Christians were not guilty; magic would have been an embarrassing topic, therefore they do not mention it and in refuting the charge of cannibalism they are careful to avoid the question of what actually happens in the eucharist. And the acts of the martyrs are propaganda pieces, mostly intended to represent the Christians as innocent victims martyred solely because of monotheism; therefore they usually say nothing of any of the flagitia cohaerentia nomini (Pliny, Epistulae X.96.2). Commonly the only questions are, are you a Christian, and, will you sacrifice to the gods or the emperor. References to magic are rare, but references to incest and cannibalism are even rarer. History should not use such material uncritically. 234


THE BACKGROUND

8.

RECAPITULATION

AND

CONCLUSIONS

It has now been a r g u e d : (ι) T h e fact that Jesus is not represented as a magician b y the Gospels is insignificant; " m a g i c i a n " was a dirty word. T h e significant fact is that he is represented as the possessor of the holy spirit and as " t h e Son of G o d , " a supernatural being recognized b y demons as able to c o m m a n d t h e m ; he is represented as a successful magician w o u l d have represented himself. (2) T h a t Jesus is not represented by the Gospels as using long spells or magic rites is insignificant. O n c e a magician " h a d " his spirit, he need only c o m m a n d a n d it would instantly obey. Here too, the Gospels represent Jesus as a successful magician w o u l d have represented himself. (3) T h e miracle stories are shot through with minor traits of magical practice. (4) T h e Gospels' stories generally are stories of things magicians claimed to do, and they a d d up to an account of a magicians' life: Jesus' career began w h e n he was possessed by a spirit w h i c h drove him into the wilderness ( M k . i . 9 - 1 2 ; Eliade, Shamanism 3ßf, 64, etc.). After surviving the ordeals to w h i c h the spirits there subjected him ( M k . 1.13F; L k . 4 . 1 - 1 3 and parallel) he returned to Galilee, where he m a d e his reputation as an exorcist ( M k . 1 . 2 1 - 2 7 ) and miracle worker (Jn. 2.11) and developed it by cures of w h i c h the magical traits have been mentioned. H e then empowered his disciples to exorcise and perform similar cures ( M k . 6 . 7 - 1 3 ) . His fame thus became so great that magicians outside the circle of his followers began to use his n a m e in their exorcisms ( M k . 9.38^. H e introduced a reAerrj—a secret meal in w h i c h his followers were united with him by being given bread a n d wine w h i c h were declared to be his flesh and blood ( M k . 1 4 . 1 7 - 2 5 ) . I n all these respects his work can be paralleled from the claims and careers of other magicians. ( T h e career most fully reported is that of Apollonius of T y a n a , but if the facts were known a closer parallel w o u l d perhaps be found in that of Jesus' contemporary Simon, the Samaritan magician, w h o also did miracles, claimed to be a power come down from heaven, and was credited with the introduction of mystery rites; Acts 8.gff; Irenaeus, H a r v e y , 1 . 1 6 . i f f = Stieren, 1 . 2 3 . i f f ; see m y Account). Finally, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and, somehow, to be able to a d m i t his followers to the kingdom of G o d , and this claim resulted in his execution by the R o m a n s . I n these respects, too, his career has magical parallels. Josephus reports that in Palestine at this period there was a plague of messianic magicians w h o similarly raised men's hopes for the coming of the kingdom, and w h o c a m e to similarly b a d ends at the hands of the R o m a n s : BJ I I . 258fr; AJ X X . 9 7 , 188; Eisler, Messiah 328,360. (5) and (6) As in the case of Simon and Apollonius and other magicians, Jesus' followers believed him a supernatural b e i n g — e i t h e r a " d i v i n e m a n " or the son of a g o d — b u t by his enemies he was repeatedly accused of magic, and these accusations were continued in later reports. Magicians also believed him a magician. (7) Similar accusations were often m a d e against his followers and were an important contributory element in a long series of legal actions against them. Considerable groups of his followers admittedly did practice m a g i c a n d claimed that he was the source of their practice. I n addition to all this evidence, the hypothesis that Jesus practiced m a g i c helps

235


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

to e x p l a i n some of the m a j o r p r o b l e m s raised b y the Gospels' a c c o u n t o f his career. F r o m t h a t a c c o u n t it appears, as w e h a v e said, that Jesus c l a i m e d to b e the Messiah a n d b r i n g e r of the k i n g d o m of G o d . B u t there is n o clear i n d i c a t i o n o f his f u n c t i o n a l relation to the k i n g d o m as a l r e a d y present. T h i s is the m o r e surprising because even in the sketchy stories g i v e n b y Josephus (in the passages j u s t cited) a b o u t the other messianic m a g i c i a n s , their functions in relation to the k i n g d o m are c l e a r â&#x20AC;&#x201D; t h e y w i l l use their m a g i c a l p o w e r s to protect their followers a n d o v e r t h r o w the R o m a n s . So, too, the f u n c t i o n a l relation of the Baptist to the k i n g d o m he foretold w a s clear (above, p p . 2 0 5 f r ) . So, the silence of the Gospels on Jesus' f u n c t i o n a l relation to the k i n g d o m is a m a z i n g . I t requires a n e x p l a n a t i o n . A considerable n u m b e r of Jesus' sayings i m p l y t h a t not o n l y he, b u t also some o f his disciples are a l r e a d y in the k i n g d o m (above, pages 2 1 i f f ) . A

f e w of these

sayings i n d i c a t e t h a t there is a definite, p r a c t i c a l w a y to get in. T h a t the m y s t e r y o f the k i n g d o m has been given to the disciples ( M k . 4 . 1 1 )

suggests there w a s some

initiatory rite. S o m e e v i d e n c e indicates that this rite was a b a p t i s m (above, p p . 178fr), w h i c h Jesus administered secretly to a chosen few of his followers (above, pages 2 0 9 f r ) . N o t i c e h o w the Q_ statement, L k . 7 . 2 8 a n d parallel, fits together w i t h J n . 3.3fr. Q says, none b o r n of w o m e n is greater t h a n the Baptist, b u t the least in the k i n g d o m is greater t h a n he. W e n a t u r a l l y ask: W h a t , then, was the least in the k i n g d o m b o r n o f ? J o h n answers, of w a t e r a n d the spirit, for only those b o r n o f w a t e r a n d the spirit (as opposed to those b o r n of the flesh) c a n enter the k i n g d o m . " O f w a t e r a n d the s p i r i t " is e v i d e n t l y a reference to Jesus' b a p t i s m , w h i c h g a v e the spirit, as opposed to the Baptist's b a p t i s m , w h i c h d i d not ( a b o v e , p p . 2 0 7 ,

219).

B u t the gift of the spirit is not p r i m a facie identical w i t h admission to the k i n g d o m , so w e ask: H o w d i d Jesus' b a p t i s m a d m i t his followers to the k i n g d o m ? I f t h e y " e n t e r e d " the k i n g d o m , the k i n g d o m w a s p r e s u m a b l y a n a r e a in space. T h i s agrees w i t h w h a t w e h a v e seen, that the k i n g d o m w a s p a r excellence in the h e a v e n s (above, p p . 2 0 2 f r ) . A n d w e h a v e also seen some reason to believe that there w a s in Palestine in Jesus' time a m a g i c a l t e c h n i q u e for a s c e n d i n g a n d c a u s i n g others to ascend i n t o the heavens

(p. 1 8 1 ) .

I f w e suppose Jesus p r a c t i c e d such a t e c h n i q u e , then w e

c a n e x p l a i n the f a m o u s Q_ statement that, " t h e L a w a n d the prophets w e r e <in f o r c e ) until J o h n ( t h e B a p t i s t ) ; since then the g o o d news a b o u t the k i n g d o m o f G o d has b e e n p r o c l a i m e d a n d a n y o n e c a n force his w a y into i t " ( L k . 16.16; M t . 1 1 . 1 2 ; notice the c o n n e c t i o n in M t . w i t h the statement t h a t the least in the k i n g d o m is greater t h a n J o h n ) . H e r e D o d d ' s despairing c o m m e n t o n M t . 1 1 . 1 2 ( " t h e k i n g d o m o f h e a v e n suffers v i o l e n c e " ) , " w h a t e v e r that m a y m e a n , " (Parables 4 0 ) a n d such fantastic explanations as D a n k e r ' s {Lk. 16.16)

are alike unnecessary. I n the m a g i c a l

techniques of ascent to the heavens the m a g i c i a n must o v e r c o m e the resistance o f the d e m o n i c or a n g e l i c g u a r d s w h o b a r the w a y (e.g., Hekalot, passim). T h e s e p o w e r s Jesus has o v e r c o m e ( C o l . 2 . 9 f r ) . T h e r e f o r e the k i n g d o m of G o d , the k i n g d o m in the h e a v e n s , suffers violence, because its g u a r d s are n o w o v e r c o m e b y those w h o h a v e b e e n m a g i c a l l y u n i t e d w i t h the spirit of Jesus in the b a p t i s m of J e s u s â&#x20AC;&#x201D; " t h e m y s t e r y of the k i n g d o m o f G o d , " the m y s t e r y w h i c h enables t h e m to force their w a y into the k i n g d o m of G o d in the heavens.

236


T H E BACKGROUND

I t was while performing such a baptism that Jesus was arrested. T h e rite was secret. H e chose a lonely garden, through which a stream still flows, and went there late at night, after the ceremony of the eucharist had assured the magical union of his circle of initiates. Since he did not wish to be interrupted (this is essential in magic) he set guards (Mk. 14.32-34). H e had no intention of being arrested if he could help it. T h e agony, therefore, has no likelihood, and it was witnessed by no one. (On its homiletic motivation see my Comments 22f.) W h e n the guards fell asleep a n d the police arrived unexpectedly they surprised both Jesus a n d the initiate, veaviaKos τις . . . περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα έπΐ γυμνοΰ (Mk. Ι4-5 1 )—the proper magical costume in the proper magical setting. If this was not an initiation, what was the young m a n doing with Jesus at such an hour, in such a place, and in such a costume ? T h e author of Acta Ioannis 94fr understood what was going on and supplied an account of the initiation, unfortunately imaginative.

D.

The rite was a means of ascent to the heavens15

By this time the reader will have forgotten that the long argument about magic was only the third point of a yet longer argument to show that important elements in the Pauline concept of baptism were derived from Jesus. T h a t argument went as follows: Paul interpreted baptism as a means of uniting with Jesus—the one baptized was possessed by Jesus' spirit. This notion looks as if it came from Palestinian demonology. And there are five traits which point to Jesus as its source. Of these five we have now considered three: (A) as a means of uniting with Jesus baptism is essentially like communion, which he introduced; (B) it is effected by the spirit, a n d the spirit is distinctive of Jesus' ministry, as opposed to that of the Baptist; (G) it is a magical ceremony, and Jesus practiced magic. These points established, we can now go on to the fourth: (D): Pauline baptism was conceived as a means of ascent to the heavens (above, pp. 214fr) a n d in Christianity this notion of ascent seems also to go back to Jesus. Here I shall try to show: (1) the notion of ascent to the heavens was an important element in Jesus' Palestinian background a n d h a d led to the development of a technique for ascent which Jesus might have practiced. (2) There is a good deal of indirect evidence indicating that Jesus did practice such a technique. (3) A number of passages in the Gospels are best understood as records of his practice and consequent teaching. 15. T h e following section was written before Scholem brought to my attention Danielou's

Traditions,

which has demonstrated the existence in Christianity, from Paul's time on, of a secret tradition concerning ascent through the celestial spheres. Danielou supposes the tradition came into Christianity through Paul, from his Jewish background (p. 2 1 3 ) . But it is too widely distributed to have come through Paul alone. Most important is the extensive agreement of the conclusions of two studies made independently and from standpoints so diverse as Danielou's and my own. For this reason I have not here repeated Danielou's arguments and evidence, but leave it to the reader to look at his article and see for himself at once the independence of the methods and the agreement of the results.

237


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

I.

BACKGROUND

T h e notion of ascent to the heavens is ancient (Kees, Himmelsreise; ANET ioif; 118; 446f; Oppenheim, Interpretation 2 5 9 , 2 6 7 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 7 ) and widespread (Eliade, Shamanism 115-144, 1 8 1 - 2 8 8 , 3 9 2 f r , 4 7 7 f r , 4 8 7 f r , etc.). Since 1 8 9 7 , when its fundamental importance in gnosticism was pointed out by Anz, Frage, it has been repeatedly discussed; see the remarks of L e w y , Oracles 4 1 3 f r . T h e studies cited above (section I X , end), and those referred to below are only the ones I have found most useful for the present argument. I have been careful not to refer to some others, particularly the pan-Iranian anachronisms of Reitzenstein and the inaccurate work of Widengren. M a n y of the previous discussions have dealt with origins and transmission. Here w e need concern ourselves only with those forms in which the notion of ascent to the heavens may have been current in the Greco-Roman, Hebrew, and A r a m a i c material circulating in Palestine during the first centuries B.C. and A.D. In the eastern Mediterranean world the notion had early appeared in two forms not always separate, but roughly distinguishable. O n e was that of the soul's ascent into the heavens after death, the other that of ascent by living individuals either carried aloft bodily or in dream or ecstasy leaving their bodies below and returning to them later (cf. Bousset, Himmelsreise 136). It would be a mistake to try to differentiate the stories too sharply. Paul, who claimed to have had such an experience, said he did not know whether, at the time, he was in the body or not (II Cor. 12.2). T h e notion of the soul's ascent at some time after death was given classical expression by Plato and was popularized by Posidonius and by the influence of astrology (Cumont, Lux ch. 3 ) . During the first centuries B.C. and A.D. it was widely held all over the Greco-Roman world, including Palestine where the expectation that the righteous dead will shine as the stars appears in D a n . 12.3 and their ascent to heaven is anticipated in many other apocalypses (e.g., Enoch 3 9 . 4 f ; 1 0 4 . 2 ; Assumption of Moses io.8ff; II Enoch 8 - 9 ; II Baruch 5 1 . 1 0 f r ; III Baruch 1 0 . 5 ; IV Ezra 7 . 9 0 - 1 0 0 ) . Josephus attributes the same anticipation to the Essenes (Β J 11.154fr). It thus provided a widespread background for the other notion—more important for our present purpose—of ascent to the heavens by living men. Claims of ascent by living men seem to be attacked already in Is. 14.13f and Ezek. 28, esp. verses 1,6,9,13-17. With " t h e mountain of G o d " cf. M t . Sinai in the story of Moses' enthronement as κοσμοκράτωρ (Ezekiel tragicus in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX.29.4f) and the mountains of the temptation and the transfiguration (Mt. 4.8; M k . 9 . 2 - 1 3 ; and parallels) and notice how many early Christian revelations were located on mountains—Apocryphon of John, Pistis Sophia, Gospel of Eve, Great Questions of Mary (Epiphanius, Panarion X X V I . 3 . 1 ; 8 . i f f ) etc. T h e O T attacks show that those who ascended were thought to become like the gods in form (cf. Phil. 2.6) and to be enthroned in the heavens (cf. Col. 3 . 1 ; Heb. 1.3; this is the goal of the Hekalot mystics). A similar claim is made on behalf of (probably) Simon Maccabaeus in Ps. 110.1: " T h e Lord said unto my Lord, ' S i t thou at m y right h a n d . ' " (This is perhaps related to the stories of the enthronement of Moses, cited above, and the ascension of Levi, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi I I . 6 V.3.) Such notions were so important to the religious and political thought of the 238


T H E BACKGROUND

times that they were m a d e the basis for the imperial cult. Indeed, from the beginning of the second century A.D. the R o m a n government regularly used magical techniques to effect the bodily apotheosis of the dead emperor (Bickerman, Kaiserapotheose esp. 5 f f ) . Stories like those of the bodily assumptions in supernatural chariots of the wonder-worker Elijah (II K g s . 2.11) and the magician M e d e a (Roscher, Lexikon s.v., 11.2.2484fr) had been allegorized already by Parmenides as types of the ascent in philosophic contemplation (Diels, 28 B i ) . This allegory was powerfully developed b y Plato in the Phaedrus 244-257, a n d the type became a commonplace (Pippidi, Recherches 170 n2). For the great importance of the Elijah story as an archetype of the Christian experience, see Schrade, Ikonographie 81-89, where the connections with magic are made clear. Besides these myths specifying the means of transportation, there were simpler stories deriving directly from ecstatic or cataleptic experience; and these, too, Plato m a d e part of the literary tradition k n o w n to all educated m e n b y his use of the story of E r in the Republic (614fr) as the vehicle for his great m y t h of the travels of the soul (cf. Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie 199). Similar pictures of the heavens a n d the afterlife, as seen b y living travelers, abound both in subsequent Greek and L a t i n literature (for example, from the first century B.C., Cicero's Somnium Scipionis), and appear in Judaism both in the work of Philo (e.g., De opificio 23 end) a n d in the originally H e b r e w or A r a m a i c Palestinian apocalypses from the late third or early second century B.C. a n d thereafter (Vita Adae 25; Enoch 14.8; 39.3; 7 1 . 1 , 5 ; II Enoch 3 . 1 ; 6 7 . 1 ; Testament of Abraham 10; Apocalypse of Abraham 1 5 ; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi I I . 6 f f ; III Βaruch 2ff; etc.). For the connection of these with Christian and rabbinic traditions see Scholem, Gnosticism ch. I I I . These Palestinian stories of heavenly travels probably reflect not only the influence of Greek literature and near eastern legend, but also, as has long been recognized, some sort of experience deliberately cultivated in pietistic circles (Eppel, Pie'tisme 66f; Scholem, Gnosticism ch. I I I ) . Just w h e n this deliberate cultivation first took the form of a definite technique there is no telling. In the Q u m r a n Hodayot and Manual of Discipline the entrance of the members of the sect into the c o m p a n y of the angels is often celebrated as something already accomplished. T h e members are " t o g e t h e r w i t h the angels of the presence, and there is no need of an interpreter between t h e m " (Hodayot V I . 1 3 ; cf. I I I . 2 o f f ; X l . i o f f ; X I I I . 2 7 f r ; frag. 2 . i o f f ; frag. 5; Manual of Discipline X I . 5 - 1 0 ) . 1 6 It is not unlikely that this state of affairs was thought to be brought about by some special ceremony, probably that (άττ)αθανατιαμός referred to by Josephus, AJ X V I I I . 18: άθανατίζονσι τα? φνχάς, πΐριμάχητον ηγούμενοι τον δικαίου την πρόσοδον. Bousset, Himmelsreise 143; remarks that this probably refers to demonic opposition, encountered b y those w h o w o u l d enter the heavens, and explains the Essenes' desire to know the names of the angels, w h i c h commonly serve as passwords for the j o u r n e y (Hekalot, passim; Josephus, Β J I I . 142; contrast the forced translations a n d implausible conjectures discussed by Feldman, Josephus, at AJ X V I I I . 1 8 ) . περιμάχητον here has the same background as E p h . 6.1 iff, " P u t 16. ι Q, 2ÖÄ, cols. I l l and I V , shows the same notions projected into the future. Not only do the members of the sect have access to the assemblies of heaven, but the angels come down to those of earth: War Scroll X . g f f ; XII.7fr.

239


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

on the whole armour of God . . . for our battle is . . . against the cosmic rulers of this darkness, the spiritual powers of evil in the heavens." άθανατίζουσιν, accordingly, means " m a k e immortal" by some rite which provided the soul with the necessary purification and information (angelic names and spells)—the armour required for the περιμάχητον πρόσοΒον in which, if unarmed, it would be destroyed. For a magical άπαθανατισμός introducing the initiate into the company of the gods, see the " Mithras Liturgy," PGM Τν.&^ηϊ,η^ι,η^η,ηηι·, also X X I I b . 2 4 , προσευχή Ίακωβ; etc. T h a t such a magical technique for ascent into the heavens had developed in some Jewish circles during the first century B.C. is also shown by the fact that this date is the latest possible one for the common ancestor of the Hekalot literature and the " M i t h r a s L i t u r g y " cited above. Scholem in Gnosticism 41 f argued that the common ancestor of these traditions must be dated not later than the early second century A.D. and Nock (review of Scholem's Gnosticism) accepted this argument. In my Observations 155fr, I brought evidence for the practice of the technique in the mid-first century A.D. (Col. 2.18) and for its relation to the Essenes; but I did not see clearly its role in early Christianity. 17 Now Strugnell (Angelic Liturgy) has published a text full of the terminology and constructions of the Hekalot hymns. T h e second of his fragments in particular is rich in such parallels and, to judge from them, describes the wonders of the heavens which the initiate, in his ascent, was expected to see. This text proves the tradition represented by the Hekalot and the " M i t h r a s L i t u r g y " was in development at Qumran during the first century B.C., from which Strugnell would date two of the four M S S he used. Consequently there is nothing unlikely in the supposition that Jesus may have practiced such a technique for ascent to the heavens. Moreover, a number of considerations indicate that he did so. 2.

INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF JESUS' PRACTICE

First of all, such an ascent was the goal anticipated by much early Christian teaching. We saw above (pp. 203f) that for the Gospels the kingdom of God, the 17. I had not noticed the evidence for Jesus' ascent, and was led by άρπαγέντα (II Cor. 12.2) to think Paul's ascent an involuntary ecstatic experience, peculiar to him. (I neglected the indication that his opponents claimed similar experiences.) Also, I drew a sharp distinction between ascent and instances when the initiate remained on earth but saw heavenly beings or saw the heavens opened (as did ben Zakkai and his disciples, B. Hagigah 14b and parallels, on which Neusner, Life 97ff; cf. Mk. 1.10). But the connection between vision and ascent was very close (e.g., Apoc. 4. iff), and I doubt that such hallucinations can be sharply distinguished. As for άρπαγίντα, I wonder if it may not be an indication of what Paul experienced in his involuntary conversion. (The account in Acts is exoteric and may be fictitious.) Baptism as administered by Jesus was presumably a vivid, hypnotic experience of ascent. The stages by which it passed from this to a sacramental fiction are unknown and probably differed in each different chain of tradition, as different disciples had more or less of Jesus' hypnotic power. T o Paul's churches the gift of the spirit (in baptism ?) seems still to have been a matter of vivid experience; but from the way Paul had to remind the members of their death, resurrection, and ascension with Jesus, it would seem that these had already become things which baptism " w a s supposed to do," rather than experiences actually produced. Within half a century after Paul even the gift of the spirit had probably dwindled to a legal fiction for most of the "orthodox." The gnostics still strove for actual experience, and some may have succeeded in maintaining it well into the second century—hence came some of the charges that they practiced magic.

240


THE BACKGROUND

sphere of divine rule, is κατ' εξοχήν in the heavens. Accordingly, it is to the heavens that Jesus is represented as ascending, at or after his resurrection (Col. 3 . 1 ; J n . 20.17; Acts 1.9; L k . 24.51 A B C ; etc.; P a u l p r o b a b l y equated the resurrection with the ascension—Weiss, Christianity 8 4 — J n . and L k . distinguished them). A n d it is to the heavens that m a n y Christians hope to ascend, either at the E n d (I Thess. 4 . 1 7 ; L k . 12.8f a n d parallel; J n . I4.2f, cf. 6.38; 16.28) or immediately after death (Lk. 6.23; 12.33 a n d parallels; 16.22; 23.43— c f- H Cor. 1 2 . 4 — M k . 10.21 a n d parallels; I I Cor. 5 . 1 - 1 0 ; Phil. 3.20; Col. 1.5; I I T i m . 4 . 1 8 ; I Pet. 1.4; A p o c . 3.21, 7 . 9 - 1 7 ; e t c . ) — o r even, somehow, in this life (Heb. i2.22f). Jesus, ascending thither, went as the leader of his followers a n d showed them the w a y (Heb. 2.10; J n . 1 4 . 1 - 5 ) . T h i s orientation of the sect might derive from its founder. I n the second place, it appears that claims to have ascended into the heavens were frequently m a d e by Jesus' followers and played an important role in their competition for prestige a n d authority. O n e example of such a claim has come down to u s — t h a t of P a u l in I I Cor. 1 2 . 1 - 5 . But from the context there it appears that Paul's claim was not unique (Schmithals, Gnosis 174fr). It was m a d e as vindication of his apostolic status in answer to the claims of his competitors, w h o presumably were alleging their ascents as proofs of their superiority to Paul (cf. n . 2 i f f ; 12.1 i f f ; I C o r . 9 . i f f ) . T h e s e opponents were " H e b r e w s , Israelites, seed of A b r a h a m , " and ύπερλίαν απόστολοι; therefore it is not implausible that their claims w e n t back to Palestinian Christian circles. Such claims, put in the m o u t h of Simon M a g u s , are repeatedly attacked b y the Clementina {Horn. X V I I . 1 4 , 1 9 , etc.). Paul's opponent in Colossians also claimed to have ascended into the heavens, a n d linked his claims with observance of the O T holy days (Col. 2.18, on w h i c h m y Observations 156). T h e r e m a y be a touch of polemic against similar teachings in R o m . 10.6. T h e author of the A p o c a l y p s e (4.1fr) claimed to have been taken u p into heaven, a n d to report w h a t he had heard a n d seen there. I I Peter 1.11 recommends that its recipients practice various virtues because ούτω? . . . πλουσίως επιχορηγηθήσΐται ύμΐν ή είσοδο? eis την αίώνιον βασιλΐίαν. H e r e πλουσίως has its normal meaning, " a b u n d a n t l y , plentifully," with reference to repeated entries (contrast Windisch-Preisker, Briefe, ad loc.; they were forced to m a k e of it " e i n glänzender E i n z u g , " although the proof passage they cite from Philo, De vita contemplativa 35, shows the normal reference to plurality). Aphraates, Demonstratio I V . 5 , says that J a c o b saw in his vision (Gen. 28.1 i f f ) the gate of heaven, w h i c h gate is Christ, a n d the ladder to heaven, w h i c h is " t h e mystery of <(instituted b y ? ) our saviour, by w h i c h righteous m e n ascend from the lower ( w o r l d ) to the ( w o r l d ) a b o v e . " Another interpretation, preferred by Aphraates (ibid. 6), took the ladder as the cross. T h e notion that " t h e mystery of our s a v i o u r " means a rite or technique instituted b y h i m is m a d e more likely by the fact that in the contemporary Hekalot material the technique for ascent to the heavens is also described as a ladder. I n the third place, the supposition that these claims by Jesus' followers reflect some similar claim by Jesus himself is thoroughly in accord with the magical character of Jesus' career, as set forth in the preceding section. T h e Christian story of Simon M a g u s charges Simon w i t h magical ascent to the heavens; the Jewish story of Jesus makes the same charge against Jesus (Actus Petri cum Simone 32; Krauss, Leben 4 3 ; 241


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

etc.). Eliade, Shamanism, has shown (passim) that the claim to have ascended to the heavens and thereby attained supernatural powers is characteristic of a type of magician found all over Asia and the Americas. T h i s type of magician w e n o w begin to find along the Palestine-Syria coast, a n d soon elsewhere in the R o m a n empire. T h e Vita Apollonii represents ascent to the heavens as the greatest achievement of the I n d i a n magicians and the ultimate triumph of Apollonius ( V I . n e n d ; V I I I . 3 0 end). In L u c i a n , Philopseudes 13, it is the conclusive proof b y w h i c h the (pseudo) sceptic claims that a H y p e r b o r e a n magician (from the territory of the shamans) overcame his doubts. T h e magical papyri represent it as the means to achieve magical powers, the reward of their achievement, and the ultimate goal of the magician's career (PGMYV.^jff·, I . n 8 f f ; X X X I V . j f · , 1.1788"). I n the fourth place, the supposition that Jesus practiced some such technique for ascent enables us to explain both the secret character of his baptism and the w a y he got his disciples into the k i n g d o m of G o d . Both the Hekalot a n d the " M i t h r a s L i t u r g y " give directions for performing the ascent with a companion or assistant, a n d provision for a boy as assistant is very frequent in the magical papyri (e.g., PGM I V , passim·, DMP, passim). Most often the boy is the m e d i u m ; the magician causes him to see the gods. T h i s technique lent itself for development into an initiation, a " m y s t e r y of the kingdom of G o d , " by w h i c h chosen disciples could be m a d e to believe they had literally " e n t e r e d the k i n g d o m . " Hence the claim to h a v e experienced such an ascent appears as accreditation of the apostolate a n d as authority for teaching, both in Paul a n d in his J u d a i z i n g and Jewish opponents. A n d how else is this fact to be explained ? W h a t authority other than Jesus was both early enough a n d important enough to give both Paul and his opponents not only the odd notion that they could ascend to the heavens, but the a m a z i n g one that such an ascent was necessary to m a k e them apostles of Jesus ? I n the fifth place, Paul's interpretation of baptism as a means of ascent to the heavens (Col. 2.98"; above, pp. 2 1 4 8 ) has to be explained. Acts 9.18 reports that Paul found baptism an established practice in the church in Damascus about fourteen years before his correspondence with the Corinthians (II Cor. 1 2 . 2 ) — t h a t is, within half a dozen years of Jesus' death. Presumably his teaching concerning baptism reflected at least the essentials of the teaching given him w h e n he was baptized. T h e burden of proof m a y be left to those w h o w o u l d deny this. T h e y will have to show whence, if not from Jesus, came the Pauline interpretation of baptism as a means of union with Jesus and of ascent to the heavens. Finally, we h a v e here another contact with shamanism. Eliade (Shamanism 33, 64, 288, etc.) has shown that the traditional scheme of a shamanic initiation involves hallucinations of passion, death, a n d resurrection prior to the ascent to the heavens. O n e of the most striking developments of Paul's, as opposed to the Baptist's, baptism was the notion that it was an initiation ceremony in w h i c h the candidate died, was buried, and rose again (above, pp. 2 1 4 8 ) . C a n it be accidental that the followers of a magician credited with shamanic ascent to the heavens came to see in their initiation ceremony the essentials of a shamanic initiation ? I t can. T h i s particular magician had been caught and put to death, his followers h a d seen visions of h i m 242


T H E BACKGROUND

after his death, and these historical accidents m a y have led to a reinterpretation of the baptism he administered: originally a rite of union with h i m and participation in his ascent to the heavens, it later came to include also participation in his death, burial, and resurrection. This, at least, has been m y assumption thus far; so I have treated all N T references to Jesus' death and resurrection as later reflections of those alleged events. But the theme of deliverance from death, couched in terms suggesting a resurrection, was familiar in the Psalms (e.g., 30.4; 49.16; 86.13) and in the Q u m r a n Hodayot (II.32; I I I . 1 0 , 1 9 ; V . 6 ; I X . 4 f f ; X - 3 3 f ; X V I I . 1 3 ? ) as an expression of deliverance from illness or danger, and, in the Hodayot, from the corruption natural to man. It is possible, therefore, that such elements m a y have figured in Jesus' magical teaching a n d practice. I f so, they w o u l d have prepared for the disciples' resurrection experiences. In a n y event, Paul's interpretation of baptism as death, resurrection, and ascension, and his claim (and the claims of his Christian competitors) to have ascended into the heavens, fit together as pieces of a recognizable pattern. Therefore it seems likely that their c o m m o n source—the teaching and practice of J e s u s — c o n t a i n e d at least the most important element of the pattern, the ascent to the heavens. ( T h e possibility of a connection with Shamanism has not been disproved by G o l d a m m e r ' s defense of it in Shamanismus.) 3.

RECORDS OF JESUS'

PRACTICE

T h e above indirect evidence is supported b y some direct evidence from N T passages, chief of w h i c h is the story of the transfiguration. This direct evidence is not conclusive, but conclusive evidence about a secret magical practice is hardly to be expected. W h a t w e have are several puzzling passages w h i c h can all be explained b y this one hypothesis more satisfactorily than they have hitherto been b y diverse hypotheses. a.

The transfiguration

T h e transfiguration is one of the most puzzling stories in the synoptics. Scholars h a v e often noticed its resemblance to four other stories: the baptism (Feuillet, Perspectives), the scene in Gethsemane ( K e n n y , Transfiguration·, Burkill, Revelation 241), the resurrection, a n d the ascension (see above, pp. 149, 165). T o these can now be a d d e d the initiation story from the longer text of M k . T h i s complex set of relations has often led to attempts at source analysis (recently M ü l l e r , Verklärung), none of them convincing. In this group of related stories, the Gethsemane scene differs sharply from the rest because of its central section, the agony, and its historical conclusion, the arrest. T h e first of these differences confirms the supposition that the a g o n y is a homiletic insert filling the g a p produced b y the disciplina arcani, w h i c h prohibited a report of the initiation Jesus was performing that night (see above, pp. 177 and 237). T h e historical conclusion, on the other h a n d , indicates that this type of story had some basis in some type of event recurrent in Jesus' life: it is not pure myth. T h e nature of the event is indicated b y the agreements of the stories: a preparatory period or ceremony (John's baptism ofJesus, the last supper, the burial), a small group of participants (in the first baptism, only the Baptist and Jesus?),

243


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

a revelation (except in the Gethsemane story, where the police arrive instead). I n the two fullest a c c o u n t s — t h e transfiguration and the ascension—the revelation involves an ascent, a vision of the glorified Messiah, an entering into a cloud. T h e first of the stories is the account of Jesus' baptism, and the story in the longer text of M k . states that the thing revealed was " t h e mystery of the kingdom of G o d , " that is (as we have seen), a baptism, leading to entrance of the heavens. Paul supposed entering into a cloud to be a form of baptism (I Cor. 10.2); neither A l i o , I Cor., nor L i e t z m a n n , Korinther, could gues w h y . O n e could m a k e sense of this data b y supposing that Jesus, w h e n baptized b y J o h n , had some sort of ecstatic experience in w h i c h he saw the heavens opened and the spirit took possession of h i m ( M k . 1.10), and that using the magical discipline of his d a y he developed his spiritual gift into a technique b y w h i c h he was able to ascend to the heavens and also to give others the same experience and similar spiritual powers. Evidence for this might be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews·. " M y mother, the holy spirit, seized m e by a hair of m y head and carried me off to the great mountain, T a b o r . " L k . 10.17fr: " T h e demons are subject to us . . . I saw S a t a n falling from the heaven like lightning. Behold. I have given you a u t h o r i t y . . . over every power of the enemy . . . But do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to y o u ; rather rejoice that your names are written in the heavens." J n . 1 . 5 1 : " Y o u shall see the heaven opened and the angels of G o d ascending and descending on the Son of M a n . " It was seen b y Burney, Origin 1 1 5 f r that the Son of M a n is here the ladder of Gen. 28.12, b y w h i c h ascent to the heavens is m a d e possible. So in Bereshit Rabbah 68.12 the angels ascend and descend on J a c o b , the mediator (cf. Aphraates, Demonstratio I V . 5 , quoted in the preceding section). As the first step in this technique Jesus continued to use the water baptism of the Baptist, since it removed sin a n d presumably also impurity (which was automatically removed by immersion in sufficient running water) and thus m a d e the initiate fit to enter the heavens. W h a t Jesus a d d e d w e can guess from Paul, the Hekalot, and the " M i t h r a s L i t u r g y . " W h a t the initiates experienced can be guessed also from the partial, remote, and deliberately secretive reflections in our group of stories. These experiences w h i c h Jesus' disciples had during his lifetime probably produced a n d shaped their visions of him after his death. T h u s the resurrection and ascension stories are reflections of the transfiguration experiences w h i c h were produced in " t h e mystery of the kingdom of G o d . " ( T h e ancient world saw the development of m a n y such magical rites and mysteries w h i c h purported to m a k e the initiate ascend into the heavens; see the material collected b y L e w y , Oracles 177fr. Schrade, Ikonographie 87, saw that recollection of initiatory experience might lie behind the story of the transfiguration.) b.

Phil. 2.5-11; I Tim. 3.16; Jn. 3 T h e s e three N T passages i m p l y that Jesus had ascended into the heavens before his death. A l l three of them m a y be plausibly connected with baptism. L e t us consider first the h y m n quoted b y Paul in Phil. 2 . 6 - 1 1 (and therefore earlier than Paul's letter): ^Messiah Jesus) ev μορφή θεοΰ υπάρχων ούχ άρπαγμον ηγησατο το είναι Ισα θεω, άλλα εαυτόν ΐκίνωσΐν μορφην δούλου λαβών, ev όμοιωματι ανθρώπων γινόμενος, καϊ σχηματι 244


THE BACKGROUND

ευρεθείς ως άνθρωπος,

εταπείνωσεν

εαυτόν γενόμενος

σταυροΰ· διό και ό θεός αυτόν υπερύψωσαν και εχαρίσατο ΐνα εν τω

ονόματι

και πάσα γλωσσά

Ίησοΰ

υπήκοος μέχρι· θανάτου,

πάν γόνυ κάμψτ) επουρανίων

εζομολογήσηται

ότι

κύριος

Ίησοΰς

θανάτου δε

αύτώ το ovo μα το ΰπερ παν όνομα, και επιγείων Χρίστος

και

εις δόζαν

καταχθόνιων, θεοΰ

πατρός.

T h e credal character of this is obvious and its connection with baptism not unlikely. It has commonly been understood (e.g., by Käsemann, Analyse·, Jervell, Imago 2i2f, 227fr) by reference to Col. 1, Jn. 1, Heb. 1, etc., as beginning with an account of the incarnation. But this neglects the fact that it is an account of what was done by Jesus, not by " t h e S o n " (Col. and Heb.) or " t h e L o g o s " (Jn.). Nor can it be said that " J e s u s " here is a mere slip of the pen by Paul, who carelessly attributed to Jesus a hymn celebrating some pre-existent entity. O n the contrary, as is obvious from the conclusion (and as Käsemann has shown at great length) the hymn is a celebration of Jesus. Moreover, Paul expresses similar ideas about Jesus in II Cor. 8.g: δι' υμάς επτωχευσεν πλούσιος ων. O f course Paul believed in a pre-existent Messiah, but that is not in question here. In both these passages Paul is proposing an example which his disciples can and should follow—the example of their fellow man, Jesus. Therefore, we must ask: when was Jesus in the form (μορφή) of God and either " a s G o d " (ΐσα θεώ) or able " t o grasp at equality with G o d , " and when could he have voluntarily relinquished this glory and taken the form of a minister (δούλος = Τ35;) of God—specifically, of a man? 1 8 T h e answer is: after his ascent to the heavens. After the Helios initiation, quoted above in section C, the initiate is described as Ισοθεου φύσεως κυριεύσας, and he gives thanks with the words συνεστάθην σου τή ίερά μορφή,

εδυναμώθην

τω ίερώ σου ονόματι

(PGM

I V . 2 1 6 - 2 2 1 ; for parallels f r o m

rabbinic literature and the relation to Phil. 2.6ff see my discussion in Image 478ff). Having seen Christian baptism as a magical union of the initiate with Jesus and therefore a magical participation in Jesus' ascent, we can now see the force of Phil. 2.5 as an argument for humility and good behavior (which it is in its context, cf. 2.2fT; 2.12fr). Paul here, as so often, is arguing against a libertine interpretation o f t h e G o s p e l . W h e n h e says τοΰτο φρονείτε εν ύμΐν ό καΐ εν Χριστώ

Ίησοΰ h e c o n c e d e s

that the Philippians have, as a result of baptism, been, like Jesus, εν μορφή θεοΰ. But they should not attempt, as would the libertines, τό εΐναι ΐσα θεώ. O n the contrary they should now—like Jesus—come down to earth and make themselves serviceable and obedient to their fellow Christians (among others, to Paul). Moreover, in this instance we can specify the apocalyptic tradition by which the magical practice was interpreted: it is that of Enoch. Enoch began his apocalyptic career as a holy man who was taken up to heaven to see the rewards and punishments reserved for the righteous and wicked, then sent back to earth for a one-year ministry 18. T h e specification was necessary because the angels are also δούλοι τον θεοΰ, A p o c . 19.10. O n the other h a n d , no significance w h a t e v e r c a n be attached to the distinctions of m e a n i n g to be f o u n d b e t w e e n μορφή, ομοίωμα, a n d σχήμα. T h i s is devotional poetry, not philosophic prose. ( A n d even for philosophic prose, see the observations of Wolfson on the laxity of Philo's usage, Philo 1.102.) In the h y m n paraphrased b y P a u l in Philippians the choice of words w a s p r o b a b l y determined more b y metrical considerations than b y those of content, σχήμα a n d ομοίωμα

p r o b a b l y represent

Aramaic

terms w h i c h w e r e once equated, since the verse in w h i c h they stand still shows its original parallelismus membrorum.

245


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

to w a r n men of the j u d g m e n t ( = rule, kingdom) to c o m e : I Enoch 81.5). I n 7 1 . 1 1 it is mentioned that he was transfigured w h e n taken on high. This theme is developed in II Enoch, where his transfiguration makes him look exactly like a n angel ( 2 2 . 1 0 — this could be ΐσα θεώ or iv μορφ-rj deov, since angels are often called " g o d s " in Jewish tradition; e.g., Image 4 7 7 ; K ä s e m a n n ' s statement that 'ίσα 0εω could not come from J u d a i s m is mistaken). T h i s time, w h e n E n o c h was sent down on his saving mission to m e n (ch. 36), he h a d to be changed back to a form m e n could bear to see (ch. 37). II Enoch probably dates from sometime in the late first century (Scholem, Gnosticism 17) and is therefore approximately contemporary with the Ascension of Isaiah where, as in Phil. 2, w e have the E n o c h story adapted to Christianity. In the Ascension of Isaiah, the prophet is transfigured on the w a y up and becomes like an angel (7.25; 9.30). T h e n the descent of the L o r d is foretold: it involves a whole series of transformations, first to the likeness of the angels of the lower heaven and eventually into h u m a n form (ch. 10). Finally Isaiah is ordered to return into his garment of flesh ( = σχήμα ανθρώπου) and go back to earth (11.35). H e is to be a martyr for G o d a n d for the salvation of m e n (υπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου). Last of all comes III Enoch (closely connected w i t h the Hekalot literature and its doctrine of magical ascent). Here E n o c h is transformed into the angel M e t a t r o n and is given the n a m e " Y a h w e h " (ch. 12, cf. 15), as is Jesus in Phil. 2 . 9 - 1 1 ( " Y a h w e h " = κύριος); and all the powers of heaven fall prostrate before him (ch. 14), as they do before Jesus in Philippians. These parallels suffice to show from w h a t tradition the h y m n in Philippians has come. T h e parallels from the Hermetica to w h i c h Jervell, Imago 228fr, appeals are less similar in content and more remote from Palestinian tradition. H e r e again the closest and earliest parallels to Paul's ideas about Jesus are to be found in Palestinian material. Such parallels establish a strong presumption that Paul got these ideas from Jesus' Palestinian followers, w h o got them from Jesus himself. T h e s e parallels also m a k e it probable that the similar h y m n in I T i m . 3.16, o? ΐφανΐρώθη iv σαρκί, έδικαιώθη eV πνΐΰματι, ωφθη αγγίλοις, έκηρΰχθη iv ΐθνΐσιν, επιστεΰθη iv κόσμω, άνελήμφθη iv δόξ-η, reflects the same tradition: the gift of the spirit is immediately followed by the first ascension, then comes the ministry on earth, and finally the second ascension in glory. This h y m n shows the "adoptionist C h r i s t o l o g y " (deriving from the historical tradition that Jesus' messianic delusion began with his baptism) combined with the "pre-existent C h r i s t o l o g y " w h i c h eventually w o n out. T h e two theories can be reconciled in a n y n u m b e r of w a y s ; their combination m a y go back to Jesus himself: he would not have been the only m a n in antiquity to think himself the son or incarnation of a supernatural power (Wetter, Sohn ch. 1). T h i s interpretation of Phil. 2 . 6 - 1 1 and I T i m . 3.16 is strengthened b y the fact that the same outline of Jesus' career appears more explicitly in J n . 3 where the connection with baptism is indubitable. A f t e r h a v i n g declared that to enter the k i n g d o m of G o d one must be reborn of water and of the spirit (verses 3fr—for the rebirth imagery see CH X I I I and Festugiere's notes ad loc.), Jesus goes on to describe the magical powers of one w h o possesses the spirit: L i k e the spirit itself he can go a b o u t invisible; his motions cannot be traced. (So PGM I.222ff; 247fr; etc.; the 246


THE BACKGROUND

superstition goes b a c k to Plato's r i n g of G y g e s , Republic 359f. J o h n p r o b a b l y m e a n t this b o t h s y m b o l i c a l l y a n d literally; his Jesus c o u l d w a l k o n w a t e r , 6 . 1 9 , a n d t h r o u g h c r o w d s of m e n w h o w i s h e d to seize h i m , 7.44, 8.59, 10.39; a n d t h r o u g h locked doors, 20.19.) N i c o d e m u s ' request for a n e x p l a n a t i o n suggests disbelief (verse 9). Jesus replies (1 o f f ) that all this is well k n o w n in J e w i s h tradition ( w h e r e m a g i c a l practices w e r e long established) a n d t h a t he is speaking f r o m personal e x p e r i e n c e (ο έωράκαμεν μαρτυροΰμεν).

H e then goes on, el τά em'yeia ε'πτον νμιν και ού πιστεύετε, πως εάν ειπω

ύμΐν τά έπονράνια πιστevσeτe; καταβάς,

και ουδείς άναßeßrjKev els τον ούρανδν el μη ό 4κ τον ούρανοΰ

6 vlos τον ανθρώπου. T h e n comes a reference to the Son's future crucifixion

a n d a n a c c o u n t of his role as a m e a n s of salvation. T h i s lecture o n b a p t i s m is foll o w e d b y the report t h a t Jesus w e n t forth a n d b a p t i z e d (verse 22), w h i c h leads to the Baptist's " t e s t i m o n y " to Jesus ( 2 7 f r ) : Jesus is the b r i d e g r o o m w h o has the b r i d e (λ;. the spirit, W e t t e r , Sohn 5 4 ) ; he comes f r o m " a b o v e , " t h a t is, f r o m G o d ( = " t h e h e a v e n " ) , a n d is therefore a b o v e all a n d ο ewpaKev και ήκουσεν, τούτο μαρτυρεί 32). H e r e B a r r e t t (on verse 13) takes και ουδείς αναβεβηκεν,

κ.τ.λ.,

(verse

as a c o m m e n t m a d e

b y the C h u r c h , w h i l e B u l t m a n n (Johannes 108) sees it in a p r o p h e c y of the resurrection a n d a s c e n s i o n — o n e of the " h e a v e n l y t h i n g s " N i c o d e m u s c o u l d not believe. B u t the p l a i n sense of the passage is: " Y o u do n o t believe w h a t I tell y o u of e a r t h l y things •(like the m i r a c u l o u s p o w e r s o f the b a p t i z e d ) , h o w will y o u believe if I tell y o u o f h e a v e n l y things <the ascent into the k i n g d o m ) ? Y e t <1 a m the o n l y one q u a l i f i e d to declare such things, f o r ) n o one has ascended into the h e a v e n e x c e p t he w h o { f i r s t ) c a m e d o w n f r o m h e a v e n , the Son of M a n ( t h a t is, I ) . " So, a g a i n , verse 32. H e r e w e h a v e , as in I T i m . 3.16, the c o m b i n a t i o n of " a d o p t i o n i s t " a n d " p r e - e x i s t e n t " Christologies. F o r J o h n , Jesus is the i n c a r n a t i o n of the pre-existent logos. B u t this does not p r e v e n t J o h n f r o m preserving a n d r e w o r k i n g m a t e r i a l w h i c h has c o m e to h i m f r o m a n earlier a n d m o r e historical tradition, a n d to such m a t e r i a l w e o w e this recollection that Jesus in his lifetime c l a i m e d to h a v e g o n e u p to h e a v e n a n d to speak of it from

firsthand

k n o w l e d g e . ( C o n t r a s t S i d e b o t t o m ' s contorted a t t e m p t

to e x p l a i n a w a y the reference of the ascent.) Parallels to J n . 3.3 in the Clementine Homilies X I . 2 6 . 2 a n d M a c a r i u s (Neue Homilien X V I . 3 , p. 83) show such agreements against J n . that Q u i s p e l (Syrian Thomas 23of) argues that this m a t e r i a l was h a n d e d d o w n i n d e p e n d e n t l y b y a J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n Gospel tradition a k i n to that of the Gospel of Thomas. O n e of the most i m p o r t a n t characteristics of this tradition, in Q u i s pel's opinion, was the belief " t h a t eschatology has been r e a l i z e d here a n d n o w a n d that this has implications for m a r r i a g e a n d possessions" (p. 235). T h e possible r e l e v a n c e of this w i l l b e c o m e a p p a r e n t later, w h e n w e speak of the libertine side of early Christianity. O t h e r references to the tradition of Jesus' ascent are p r o b a b l y to be f o u n d in J n . 6.38,42,58,62, since it is this t r a d i t i o n — t h a t Jesus h a d b e e n taken u p into h e a v e n , transformed into a s u p e r n a t u r a l being, a n d sent b a c k into the w o r l d as the messenger of the F a t h e r — w h i c h explains w h y the J e w s b o t h do a n d do not k n o w w h e n c e he c o m e s : they k n o w his earthly origin b u t not his h e a v e n l y mission. T h e same tradition, a g a i n , lies b e h i n d 10.36, w h e r e Jesus speaks of himself as o n e " w h o m the F a t h e r 247


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

hallowed and sent into the w o r l d . " This description fits a figure like Enoch, w h o was first a m a n , then was taken up into heaven, hallowed, and sent back to earth. I t does not fit the Logos, w h i c h from the beginning " w a s G o d " ( i . i ) and therefore could never have been hallowed. T h e commentators, from St. Cyril of A l e x a n d r i a down to Bultmann and Barrett, w h o try to avoid the difficulty b y equating sanctification with commission, probably understand the verse as the author intended it to be understood. But the Johannine context imposes on the words a meaning w h i c h they ordinarily w o u l d not carry. Finally, in Hebrews the secret doctrine to w h i c h the believers should go on (leaving behind the elementary, exoteric t e a c h i n g — 6 . i f f ) is that of Jesus' ascent to the heavens (9.1 i f f ) , w h i c h enables the baptized to follow him thither ( i o . i g f f ) . Here, as in Paul, the doctrine has been reinterpreted in the light of the passion—Jesus has been m a d e the high priest bearing the sacrifice of his o w n blood into the heavenly a d y t o n ; but this reinterpretation m a y disguise a teaching rooted in Jesus' magical practice.

E.

The rite liberated its recipients from the Mosaic law

W e turn now to the fifth of the traits of Pauline baptism w h i c h were listed as p r o b a b l y derived from Jesus. This is the fact that it results in liberty from the Mosaic L a w . Paul expresses this as a consequence of the death of Jesus: B y his death Jesus satisfied the demands of the L a w , so that it had no further claim on h i m ; the baptized, being united with him, are also beyond its claims (e.g., R o m . 7.4). T h e r e has been m u c h speculation as to how P a u l — r e p o r t e d l y a P h a r i s e e — c a m e to hold such a theory, so alien to his training and his moralizing temperament a n d therefore probably not his o w n invention. Perhaps the most brilliant presentation of the problem remains that b y M a c h e n , Origin, w h o argues that Paul got the main ideas b y tradition from Jesus. Here w e shall begin by distinguishing between Paul's explanation of why baptism results in liberty from the L a w , and the mere teaching that it does so. Paul's explanation presupposes Jesus' death and therefore can hardly go back to Jesus himself. But the mere teaching makes no presupposition. Therefore it might be supposed to have come from Jesus if there were good evidence of his belief that he and his disciples had been freed from the requirements of the L a w . W e should then suppose that his freedom began with his identification with " t h e S o n " as a result of his possession by the spirit at his baptism, and that the freedom of his disciples resulted from their identification with him through their possession b y his spirit, in the baptism w h i c h he administered (cf. I I K g s . 2.9fr, where Elisha gets a double portion of Elijah's spirit as a result of seeing him taken u p to heaven in a chariot of fire and/or a whirlwind). It w o u l d be plausible also to connect both Jesus' a n d his disciples' possession b y the spirit and consequent freedom from the L a w with their entrance of the kingdom, conceived as a passage from this world or age (subject to the L a w ) to the coming world or age (of liberty). A century later R a b b i Elisha ben A b u y a h was believed to have learned how to enter the paradise 248


THE BACKGROUND

in the heavens, and this was thought the cause of his throwing over the L a w and b e c o m i n g a libertine (Β. Hagigah i4.bff a n d parallels. Like Jesus, even after he h a d become a libertine he continued to be consulted as a n authority on legal questions, ibid.., i5a-b). T h e evidence on Jesus' attitude toward law is complex. Here all that can be done is to indicate the major elements. (See further Jesus' Attitude.) First, the law of the state: Jesus was condemned and executed for criminal sedition; he was arrested at a nocturnal meeting (to w h i c h at least one of his followers h a d come armed, M k . 14.47 a n d parallels, cf. L k . 22.38). Sometime before his arrest he had created a disturbance in the T e m p l e markets ( M k . 1 1 . 1 5 f a n d parallels), a n d he was accused of plotting to destroy the T e m p l e ( M k . 14.58 and parallel; J n . 2.19). A s to his teaching about taxes, w e have contrary reports: M k . 12.17 and parallels (render unto C a e s a r ) ; M t . i7-26f (his followers are free but m a y p a y if they wish, from policy). T h e charge that he forbade p a y m e n t of taxes appears in one report of his trial, L k . 23.2. Second, the Mosaic L a w : T h e evidence is again contradictory. First there are a series of sayings i m p l y i n g that the Mosaic L a w is still in force. These are notoriously conspicuous in M t . (5.17,20; 23.2; etc.) but they occur also in Q_ and M k . — M t . 5.18 II L k . 1 6 . 1 7 — i t is easier for heaven a n d earth to pass a w a y than for one iota to fall from the L a w . M t . 23.23 || L k . 1 1 . 4 2 : one should do justice and love mercy and also tithe. M k . 10.19: obedience to the ten commandments is the w a y of life; cf. M k . 12.34. T h e same i m p l i c a t i o n — t h a t the Mosaic L a w is still in f o r c e — i s to be seen in a series of stories and sayings in w h i c h Jesus interprets one or another c o m m a n d m e n t either m o r e or less strictly than do his contemporaries; for example, the stories of preparing food a n d healing on the S a b b a t h , M k . 2.23fr; 3 . i f f ; L k . 13.iofF; 14.1fr; J n . 5 . i f f ; 9 . i f f . I n most of these Jesus defends his action b y arguments from the O T or from precedents in Jewish tradition. These arguments presuppose the validity of the Mosaic L a w w h i c h they interpret; thus M k . 2.25fr; M t . 1 2 . 5 , 1 1 ; L k . i 3 . i o f f ; J n . 7.22. T h e same validity is presupposed b y most of the material in M t . 5 a n d 23 a n d parallels. This large and clear body of evidence determines the interpretation of w h a t otherwise might be dubious cases, where Jesus' exegesis is so drastic as to practically annul a provision of the Mosaic L a w ; e.g., M k . 1 0 . i f f ; M t . 5.38; " J n . " 8. ι ff. These are to be understood as corrections of detail (tikkunim) w h i c h do not call into question the validity of the general system. (All this is familiar a n d is documented in Strack-Billerbeck a n d Bonsirven, Textes.) O n the other hand, there is an important series of sayings in w h i c h the coming of the kingdom in Jesus and his disciples is represented as the beginning of a new age, sharply distinguished from the old age of the L a w . " T h e L a w a n d the prophets were until J o h n , from then on the kingdom of G o d is p r o c l a i m e d " and is available to those w h o will use violence (Mt. n . i 2 f || L k . 16.16). Consequently, the least in the k i n g d o m is greater than J n . (Mt. 11.11 || L k . 7.28). T h e new kingdom is the new garment w h i c h is not to be cut to p a t c h up the antiquated fabric of J u d a i s m (Lk. 5.36); it is the new wine not to be put in the old bottles ( M k . 2.22). Therefore

249


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

the Son of M a n is lord of the S a b b a t h ( M k . 2.28) and has authority on earth to forgive sins ( M k . 2. i f f and parallels; L k . 7.47fr); and his companions, as he celebrates his marriage w i t h the spirit, m a y not fast ( M k . 2.19). As opposed to the Baptist, w h o represented the L a w a n d therefore came " i n the w a y of r i g h t e o u s n e s s " â&#x20AC;&#x201D; t h a t is, asceticism ( M t . 1 1 . 1 8 ; 21.32), he comes eating and drinking and is called a gluttonous m a n and a winebibber, a friend of publicans a n d sinners ( M t . 1 1 . 1 9 || L k . 7.34), in whose homes he is a frequent guest ( M k . 2.15 a n d parallels; L k . 15. i f ; 1 9 . i f f ) . His yoke, by contrast to that of the law, is light ( M t . n . 2 8 f f ; Acts 15.10). A s J o h n said, the L a w came b y Moses, grace b y Jesus ( 1 . 1 7 ) . W i t h the coming of grace came a new c o m m a n d m e n t , to love one another (Jn. 13.34; 1 5 . 1 2 ; M t . 5.44fr). Accordingly, worship at G e r i z i m and Jerusalem was to be replaced by worship in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4.2 i f f ) . For the Son had now revealed to his chosen the hitherto u n k n o w n Father ( M t . 11.27 || L k . 10.22 || J n . 1.18), and it was at last possible to assure the initiate, " Y o u shall know the truth, and the truth will m a k e y o u f r e e " (Jn. 8.32). " F r e e " from w h a t ? T h e saying is directed " t o the J e w s " (8.31), so the implication is, " f r e e from the L a w . " Between these opposing bodies of material there is a large no-man's-land of sayings w h i c h can be interpreted one w a y or the otherâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;either as expressions of a liberal legal position, or as manifestations of the freedom of the n e w age. T h e neglect of washing before meals is a recurrent example ( M k . 7.5 and parallel; L k . 11.38). But in spite of this (and of other complicating factors) the difference of the two m a i n bodies of tradition is clear. It is also clear that both are so widely represented in the preserved documents that neither can safely be dismissed as secondary. N o d o u b t it was true (as I argued in Elements) that the rapprochement between the Jerusalem church and Pharisaism in the forties and thereafter contributed not a little to the reformation of Jesus. A n d the legal arguments to justify the sabbath healings are separable and perhaps secondary. But the bulk of the legalistic material, and the consistency with w h i c h it appears in all the sources, rule out a n y attempt to eliminate it from the primary evidence. O n the other h a n d , the sayings on the presence of the kingdom are now generally recognized as reflections of the most peculiar a n d original element in Jesus' teaching. W h a t is needed, therefore, is some explanation of the coexistence of these two bodies of material. A n d from w h a t w e have seen above, the explanation can be supplied. T h e legalistic material represents Jesus' exoteric teaching. For " t h o s e w i t h o u t " ( M k . 4 . 1 1 ) the law was still binding, and for them Jesus interpreted it as did the lawyers of his time, holding with more lenient opinions in some instances, with stricter ones in others. (Such variation appears in the opinions of every ancient r a b b i . ) 1 9 His secret teaching was only for those to w h o m the mystery of the kingdom 19. H o w it came about that Jesus was consulted as a legal authority (e.g., Mk. 10.2; Lk. 12.13) we do not know. It is not impossible that he had some legal training. As the Hekalot tracts, the stories of Yohanan ben Zakkai (on which Neusner, Life g7, etc.), and the magical material newly discovered by Margalioth demonstrate, the halakic tradition, even in rabbinic Judaism, has close connections with the study of magic, including the practice of ascents to the heavens. T h a t these could be combined with libertinism, too, and that the successful magician and notorious libertine could remain a great legal authority, is shown in the case of Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah. O n the other hand, anyone in first-century

25Î&#x;


THE BACKGROUND

had been given {ibid..). He had no intention of giving that which was holy to the dogs, or of casting his pearls before swine (Mt. 7.6). T h e contradictions of the present Gospels may result from seepage of secret material into originally exoteric texts. O f this we should now have a further example in the additions of the longer text to Mk. More evidence might be seen in the fact that material suggesting the presence of the kingdom, as a radically new regime exempt from the laws of the former age, is more prominent in ζ) and L than in M k . — i t was added to Mk. by Matthew and Luke. Later additions may be found in Jn. 8.iff and in the western text (D) at the end of Lk. 6.4: " O n the same day, seeing a man working on the sabbath, he said to him, ' Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed, but if you do not know, you are accursed and a transgressor of the L a w . ' " More of the esoteric teaching is found in the epistles of Paul, the oldest Christian documents and those most surely written for reading within the closed circles of the churches. Within those circles there were still distinctions in degree of initiation (I Cor. 3.iff)—esoterism is rarely content with a simple inside-outside contrast, but loves to elaborate secrets within secrets to the thirty-third degree. Nevertheless, Paul enables us to glimpse the true beliefs of the congregations to which he writes, and he is to be preferred, as a source for early Christian thought, to the later, comparatively exoteric Gospels.

XI.

CONSEQUENCES

OF JESUS'

BAPTISMAL

PRACTICE

Through the preceding studies of the relations of Jesus' work to that of the Baptist and of Paul, we have arrived at a definition of " the mystery of the kingdom of G o d " : It was a baptism administered by Jesus to chosen disciples, singly, and by night. In this baptism the disciple was united with Jesus. T h e union may have been physical (see above, commentary on III. 13 and pp. i85f—there is no telling how far symbolism went in Jesus' rite), but the essential thing was that the disciple was possessed by Jesus' spirit. One with Jesus, he participated in Jesus' ascent into the heavens; he entered the kingdom of God and was thereby set free from the laws ordained for and in the lower world. This understanding of the mystery of the kingdom enables us to understand in the history of the early Church a number of problems which hitherto have gone either without solution or without recognition. T h e failure to recognize and the inability to solve them have in part been due to the influence of Acts, a partizan document often shown to be incomplete (it neither reports the foundations of the churches of Rome and Alexandria nor the survival of Christianity in Galilee, Palestine w h o had messianic pretensions would have had to give decisions on legal questions. In Jesus' Attitude I discuss the whole problem further and propose (p. 244) a threefold division of Jesus' hearers: ordinary Jews, for w h o m the Mosaic L a w is still binding, those w h o would be perfect, w h o are still subject to the L a w but with additional requirements and also with special exemptions, and those w h o have been admitted to the kingdom, w h o are free from the L a w .

251


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

cf. Lohmeyer, Galiläa; etc.), confused (5.19 is a doublet of 12.7fr; Peter's miracles are doublets of Jesus'; the chronology of Paul's career is hardly to be reconciled w i t h G a l . 1 and 2), and misrepresentative (it minimizes doctrinal differences in order to present a single, original, united Christian C h u r c h , of w h i c h Paul was the fully approved representative—cf. Weiss, Christianity 260; Brandon, Fall 2o8ff; on the Hellenists, C u l l m a n n , Significance·, Simon, Stephen, vs. Haenchen, Apostelgeschichte, on 6.1). But the blame cannot be laid entirely on Acts. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit, has shown that the N T as a whole is a partizan collection, m a d e to present and support the views of that party w h i c h became predominant within the C h u r c h in the late second century and finally triumphed in the third. Accordingly, the picture of early Christianity given by the NT has constantly to be supplemented by pictures of the parties it opposes, and has frequently to be explained by reference to factors it attempts to conceal. O n e of these concealed factors is Jesus' practice of baptism as " t h e mystery of the kingd o m . " Therefore a number of consequences of this practice appear in the history of early Christianity as unexplained phenomena or are " e x p l a i n e d " b y stories of miracles. These can now be explained historically by recognition of their source in Jesus' practice.

A.

The coming of the spirit

Most critical scholarship has uncritically taken for granted that " t h e s p i r i t " — t h a t is, the schizophrenic b e h a v i o r — j u s t " c a m e , " and has not tried to explain its coming. Acts " e x p l a i n e d " it as a miracle (Pentecost). But the coming of the spirit presupposes a group with peculiar preparation. T h e holy spirit did not descend on the disciples of R a b b i A k i b a after he was executed for treason; at most they heard a heavenly voice (Β. Berakot 6 1 b ) . But Jesus' disciples had been prepared for the phenomena of group possession by their experience of individual possession in his baptism. It must be remembered that he had a peculiar attraction for and power over schizophrenics. Hence his exorcisms and his following of " w o m e n w h o had been cured of evil spirits," L k . 8.2. T h e stories of his disciples' sudden, total abandonment of their ordinary lives, to follow h i m — M k . i . i 6 f f ; 2.14; J n . 1.43; cf. L k . 9 . 5 9 f r — p r o b a b l y reflect the same power and explain not only the disciples' suitability for possession in baptism, but also their visions of the resurrected L o r d . These same psychological characteristics were perpetuated in the Pauline churches (above, p. 215). This explains also w h y the spirit is identified with Jesus, as it is in Paul (I Cor. 6.18; 15.45; I I Cor. 3 . 1 7 ^ . Jesus had originally been the source of it. W h e n the type of personality disturbance originally connected with him recurred as a group phenomenon in the circle of those w h o had depended on h i m for it, he was of course supposed to be the cause. This, however, was a historical inference, and as time went on and personal memories ofJesus faded, the spirit became an independent personality and pushed Jesus aside. This can be seen happening already in Paul. For, unlike Jesus, the spirit was alive and present: it spoke to the churches (Apoc. 2 . 7 , 1 1 , 1 7 , etc.), did miracles, and was the source of knowledge a n d wisdom (I Cor. i 2 . 8 f f ) 252


THE BACKGROUND

a n d the guide of private life (Gal. 5.18,22, etc.). Therefore, as the churches grew, the importance of the present, active spirit grew with them, while its connection w i t h Jesus receded into the b a c k g r o u n d â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a m e m o r y for the few he had initiated, a d o g m a for the m a n y new converts. Accordingly, for Acts the spirit is something Jesus gives after his death, resurrection, a n d ascension. T h e prophecy of Jesus' baptizing by the spirit, w h i c h M k . 1.8 put into the m o u t h of the Baptist, is m a d e by Acts to refer to the beginning of the group experience after Jesus' d e a t h : 1.5; 11.16. (Another factor in the account given by Acts is secrecy. Luke's silence about the baptismal teaching of Jesus, like his silence about Paul's theology, can hardly be explained save as deliberate reticence. For further evidence on this point, see Reason.) D e v e l o p m e n t has gone even further in the latest stratum of J n . , w h i c h insists that the spirit was not given until after Jesus' death and ascension (7.39; cf. 14.17, 26; 15.26; 16.7,13; 20.22). T h e insistence looks like polemic and is perhaps to be explained along the line suggested b y K r a g e r u d (LieblingsjĂźnger) and K ä s e m a n n {Ketzer): J o h n is appealing to the newly given spirit for authorization, against opponents w h o had better claims than he to h u m a n traditions about Jesus. N e w problems required a new authority, so the development of the doctrine of the T h i r d Person of the Trinity was under w a y , though its progress was soon to be slowed. A s the original enthusiasm of the Christian communities wore off, the temporary attacks of schizophrenia w h i c h h a d been the most conspicuous gift of the spirit became rarer. Also, their practical importance presumably declined as the frequent foolishness of the promptings they produced became evident, as the churches developed fixed routines for worship and daily life, and as control of the churches fell more a n d more into the hands of professional administrators w h o are not, as a class, m u c h given to ecstasy and have often viewed ecstatics with hostility as possible competitors for authority. F r o m the mid-second century on, therefore, the active guidance of the spirit is characteristic of groups soon thereafter to be declared " h e r e t i c a l . "

B.

The adoption and development of baptism by the early churches

A second problem explained b y Jesus' practice of baptism is that posed b y the fact that Jesus' followers practiced a baptism of the Baptist's type, yet claimed that it w o u l d not only remit sins, but also give the spirit. I f Jesus never baptized (and, even more, if he deliberately stopped baptizing) it w o u l d be very difficult to explain w h y his followers took u p the practice (above, pages 2ogf). A n d even if w e neglect this difficulty and suppose they did take over the practice from the Baptist's followers, where did they get the notion that baptism gave the spirit, w h i c h the Baptist's baptism did not (Acts 1 9 . 1 - 6 ) ? T h e most probable explanation is that the first element of Jesus' baptismal rite had been an immersion like the Baptist's for remission of sins a n d also for the purity necessary to approach the heavenly kingdom. (Until baptism the candidate was still of this world and therefore bound to obey the L a w . ) W h a t Jesus h a d done b e y o n d the Baptist's immersion was something dependent 253


CLEMENT OF A L E X A N D R I A

o n his peculiar powers o f suggestion. B u t even if some of the early disciples succeeded in repeating Jesus' rite of possession a n d ascension, their initiations of a few individuals, one b y one, were soon o v e r s h a d o w e d b y the p h e n o m e n a o f g r o u p possession in the meetings of the churches. T h e spirit n o w united the believer to the life of the C h u r c h , not to the person of Jesus, a n d the entrance to the k i n g d o m in the heavens w a s replaced b y the entrance of the C h u r c h , the k i n g d o m present in this w o r l d (above, pp. 202f). C o n s e q u e n t l y , the developments w h i c h Jesus h a d a d d e d to the Baptist's b a p t i s m fell into disuse or were preserved as " g r e a t m y s t e r i e s " for m o r e a d v a n c e d candidates. B u t the Baptist's baptism was preserved as the necessary c e r e m o n y for entrance to the C h u r c h . Since the C h u r c h w a s the k i n g d o m of G o d on earth, entrance r e q u i r e d that the initiate be p u r e a n d sinless. Since the C h u r c h w a s also the b o d y i n h a b i t e d b y Jesus' spirit (I C o r . I 2 . i 2 f ) , ceremonial entrance of the C h u r c h c a m e to be credited w i t h effecting possession of the spirit. T h i s interpretation w e

find

a l r e a d y in Paul, b u t A c t s reflects the tradition that a l t h o u g h Christian baptism is n o r m a l l y followed b y the gift of the spirit (2.38; 1 9 . 5 Q , nevertheless it n e e d not b e so. T h e c o m i n g o f the spirit m a y b e d e l a y e d for some time after baptism ( 8 . i 2 f f ) or m a y even precede it (10.47;

C.

1J¡I5ff;

F l e m i n g t o n , Baptism 39fr).

The libertine tradition in early Christianity

A third consequence of Jesus' baptismal practice w a s libertinism. T h e Christian libertine tradition, because of its early date a n d w i d e extent, is best e x p l i c a b l e as the consequence of Jesus' t e a c h i n g that those w h o h a v e entered the k i n g d o m are free o f the law. S o m e t h i n g has a l r e a d y been said of this as the source o f P a u l i n e theology, a n d the i m p o r t a n c e o f Paul's doctrine needs no exposition. W h a t has not generally been realized is that P a u l as an e x p o n e n t of C h r i s t i a n liberty was neither u n i q u e nor extreme. O n the contrary, he w a s a c o m p a r a t i v e l y conservative a n d m e d i a t i n g figure, consistently a t t a c k i n g a n d attacked b y representatives of the libertine side. T h e libertine p a r t y or parties, whose tradition derived from Jesus himself, must h a v e been w i d e s p r e a d a n d influential, since e v i d e n c e of their i m p o r t a n c e is to be f o u n d in almost every book of the N T a n d in most of the e x t r a c a n o n i c a l Christian literature of the first t w o centuries. H o w e v e r , since all of their o w n writings h a v e been destroyed, the v e r y existence of the m o v e m e n t has too often been overlooked. C o n s e q u e n t l y , it seems w o r t h w h i l e here to sketch at some length the m a j o r elements of the evidence. I.

THE PERSECUTION OF THE E A R L Y

CHURCHES

T h i s p r o b l e m has b e e n pointed out a b o v e (p. 234), b u t deserves further consideration. A s reported b y Acts, the history of the early c h u r c h o f J e r u s a l e m w a s a series of persecutions. B u t w h y should Jesus' followers h a v e been persecuted ? T o believe that the Messiah h a d c o m e , or to expect that he w o u l d soon c o m e a g a i n , were not offenses p u n i s h a b l e b y J e w i s h law. A n d a m a n like P a u l w o u l d not h a v e taken a n active

254


THE BACKGROUND

part in a persecution (as he himself testifies that he d i d — G a l . 1.23; I C o r . 15.9) without serious cause. T h e concern of the temple authorities to stop the apostles' preaching in Jesus' n a m e because " y o u wish to bring upon us the blood of this m a n " (Acts 5.28) is understandable if it means " y o u are inciting the m o b to riot and punish us for h a n d i n g h i m over to the R o m a n s . " But this can hardly be taken as the Christian message; neither will it explain the persecution b y Paul, a Pharisee, w h o presumably h a d little concern for the welfare of the S a d d u c e a n high priests. A g a i n w e are told that the Sadducees were " g r i e v e d at their proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the d e a d " (Acts 4.2). I f this m e a n t simply " t e a c h i n g that there w o u l d be a resurrection of the dead, and using Jesus as an e x a m p l e , " it w o u l d not have been grounds for legal action, since the Pharisees also taught the resurrection of the dead a n d the appeal to an example does not alter the teaching. Perhaps the author wished to represent the Sadducees as acting illegally and thus expressed his hostility to the Sadducees, b y contrast to the Pharisees w h o m he represented as not always unfriendly (so Blass, Acta, ad loc., comparing 5 . 1 7 , 3 4 ; 23.6fr). Another possibility, however, is suggested by Paul's w a r n i n g the Thessalonians against those w h o taught that the d a y of the L o r d is already here (II Thess. 2.2). I f the teaching in Jerusalem was that " t h e resurrection" had already come " i n Jesus," it might have l e d — a s it did in Thessalonica (3.6fr)—to irregularities of behavior w h i c h could have occasioned legal action. I n Acts 6.14 Stephen is charged with h a v i n g said that Jesus w o u l d destroy the temple a n d abolish (or, change?) the Mosaic L a w . Stephen proceeds to deliver a speech w h i c h tends to justify these charges, and is lynched. H e r e again, while his prediction of such events in the future might have m o v e d a Jewish audience to lynch him, the action w o u l d have been more understandable had he been teaching that the end was already come and the law already abolished for those in Jesus. It was this latter teaching w h i c h almost got Paul lynched in the same place about twenty years later (Acts 21.21,28), a n d something similar is attributed to Jesus half a dozen years earlier ( M k . 2.10,19,28) in a body of material intended to lead u p to and explain the Pharisees' plot against his life ( M k . 2.1-3.6). Finally, no explanation at all is offered for the beginning of the persecution under H e r o d A g r i p p a I (A.D. 4 1 - 4 4 ) , but it began w i t h the beheading of James, the brother o f j o h n (12.2), and even in first-century Palestine capital punishment usually required serious grounds. Acts says the persecution was continued " b e c a u s e it was pleasing to the J e w s . " But some fifteen years later, w h e n Paul comes to Jerusalem in Acts 21, w e find the church on excellent terms with its neighbors and making " t e n s of thousands of converts . . . all of w h o m are zealots for the l a w " (21.20). Perhaps the change was begun by Herod's persecutions, w h i c h drove Peter underground and so allowed the leadership of the Jerusalem community to pass to James, Jesus' brother (Acts 1 2 . 1 7 — A c t s ' first mention of James). T h e question of cause of the persecutions is thus related to the question of the parties in the Jerusalem church, where, it w o u l d seem, the libertine w i n g was originally important but was expelled b y outside pressure a n d by developments within the Christian group. T h e leaders of the legalist

255


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

party within the church m a y have asked their friends in other Jewish p a r t i e s — particularly the Pharisees, w h o h a d m u c h influence with H e r o d A g r i p p a I — f o r a little timely persecution to help get rid of their libertine rivals. See further Reason. 2.

T H E PARTIES IN T H E EARLY

CHURCHES

T h e same picture emerges from the preserved evidence about the parties in the Jerusalem C h u r c h . T h i s evidence is presumably incomplete, a n d w h a t is preserved is none too good. E v e n a m o n g the accepted Gospels the lists of the twelve closest followers of Jesus differ slightly; the libertine parties m a y h a v e appealed to other figures like Salome (above, pp. i 8 g f f ) or Glaucias a n d T h e o d a s (Clement I I I . 7 5 . 1 5 f r ) , whose names have been eliminated from the accepted tradition. T r o c m e , Formation 42fr, 90-108, etc., sees in M k . a tradition w h i c h emphasized the role of Jesus as a miracle worker, not to say magician, and was hostile to the " r e s p e c t a b l e " tradition w h i c h appealed to Peter and J o h n and represented them as the authoritative apostles. But w e need not speculate as to w h a t has been lost (though we must always remember that m u c h certainly has b e e n ) ; there is plenty of evidence in the preserved material for the relation of different figures of the Jerusalem church to different parties. J o h n is particularly hostile to Jesus' brothers; he goes out of his w a y to state that they did not believe in Jesus during his lifetime (7.5). But none of the Gospels represents them as part of his following. W e m a y suppose that they came into the movement after his d e a t h ; as members of the family of a n alleged pretender to the throne, they were involved in his disaster whether they liked it or not. T h e probability therefore is that James (like the other converts m a d e since Jesus' death) had never received Jesus' initiation. His succession to leadership of the Jerusalem church will have marked the triumph of the converts over Jesus' original circle. Significantly, his authority had to be supported by the story that he had seen the risen L o r d (I C o r . 1 5 . 7 ) — P a u l was not the only one w h o appealed to posthumous revelations. A f t e r James' triumph, the antinomian aspect of Jesus' original teaching was obscured. Jerusalem became the center of a legalistic interpretation of the Gospel. Repercussions of this in the mission field are seen in Galatians and in Acts 21.15fr, from w h i c h it is customary to distinguish four positions. First is the position of the legalists, w h o m James sake he urges Paul to show that he still observes Since this party maintained that the law was still either that the kingdom could as yet be entered, beyond the law.

is trying to pacify and for whose the law (Acts 2 i . 2 o f f ; G a l . 2.3f). binding, they must have denied or that entrance to it put one

Second, the position of J a m e s : the appearance of obeying the law is to be maintained. T h i s concern for appearance (]"Ί?π ΓΡΝΊΰ) is of great importance in Jewish law (e.g., Kil'ayim I I I . 5 ; I X . 2 ; Shebi'it I I I . 4 ; Shabbat X I X . 6 ; Bekorot V I I . 3 , 5 ) . If Acts 21.24fr can be trusted, James and P a u l were agreed that full observance of the law by gentile converts was not required, and James presumably h a d few illusions about Paul's practice outside Jerusalem (21.21, cf. G a l . 2.12). W h a t he urged and Paul accepted was an act of "occasional c o n f o r m i t y . " Cf. G a l . 6.13 and Paul's argument to deter the Galatians, 5.3, w h i c h is proof that they were being asked to 256


THE BACKGROUND

obey only a few conspicuous commandments. Another concern perhaps relevant here is that for living at peace w i t h one's neighbors (QlbtP Ό Π Shebi'it I V . 3 ; V . g ; Gittin V . 9 ; Shekalim 1.3). But evidence as to rabbinic law in this period is so unreliable that there is no point in trying to define closely the legal positions of the several parties. T h i r d , the position of P a u l : there is no need to appear to obey the law unless apparent disobedience of it w o u l d lead y o u into danger or your fellow Christians into sin (I Cor. 8.gff; 10.14-31). However, one is free to obey w h e n obedience seems politic (I Cor. g . i g f f ) , provided that one does so with clear understanding that obedience and disobedience are of no importance for salvation (I Cor. 8.yf). Fourth is a mediating position (?) represented b y Peter and Barnabas, w h o felt no obligation to preserve appearances a m o n g the lax but w a n t e d to keep on good terms with James (Gal. 2 . 1 1 - 1 3 ) . O n this customary analysis, two observations must be made. T h e first is that James' position practically presupposes that the doctrine about the liberty of those in the kingdom will be kept secret. T h e legalist party in James' church was p r o b a b l y the source of pronouncements like M t . 23.2: " T h e scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; all things whatsoever that they say unto you, these do and observe." Such a party could hardly have lived at peace with another w h i c h held that obedience to the law was optional, unless the latter opinion was masked b y obedience a n d kept secret. Similarly, the position of Paul is congenial to secrecy, though it does not require it (cf. Reason). T h e existence in his churches of members w h o do not know that the eating of things sacrificed to idols is harmless (I Cor. 8.7fr) implies that his doctrine of Christian liberty had been kept to an inner group. I Cor. 3.1 indicates that he had teaching reserved for more a d v a n c e d believers and kept secret from " b a b e s . " These " b a b e s " were ignorant of the mysteries revealed by the spirit (I Cor. 2.6-16), of the things to be revealed at the end ( 1 3 . 8 - 1 3 ) , and of their own freedom from the law (ibid.; 8.7). ( H o w such ignorants got into a Pauline church is a question to be noted in passing for its indication of the difference between w h a t Paul preached w h e n he first came to a community a n d w h a t he taught later.) T h i s leads to the second observation on the customary catalogue of parties, given above. T h e catalogue follows Acts a n d therefore neglects one important factor in the situation, the libertine party or parties to the left of P a u l — g r o u p s like that against w h i c h Paul defends himself in I Cor. 8ff. Acts says nothing of this side of Christianity (save for an occasional veiled reference, like 20.29fr), and its silence is not accidental. O n e of the author's purposes was to persuade his R o m a n readers that Christianity was morally admirable and politically innocent (18.14^ 23.29; 25.25; 26.31). Therefore the libertinism, usually scandalous a n d occasionally criminal, was concealed. Consequently scholars have neglected it, a n d have treated the references to it in the N T as references to particular abuses in practice or corruptions in doctrine peculiar to the single church in connection with w h i c h they are mentioned. A d m i t t e d l y , as Köster has remarked (Häretiker, sec. 3 end), it is not safe to suppose that every w a r n i n g against moral turpitude implies the existence of a libertine sect. Sin occurs also in the most legalistic communities, as M e l e a g e r of G a d a r a happily

257


C L E M E N T OF A L E X A N D R I A

observed: eari και iv ψνχροΐς σάββασι θΐρμος "Ερως (Anthologie. Palatino, V . 160.4). Nevertheless, the arguments of J u d e or I Cor. cannot be explained by individual offenses unconnected with theological theory. A n d the existence of clear cases of theoretical libertinism requires that other cases be examined for their relevance. Accordingly, we now turn to these. 3.

D I R E C T E V I D E N C E OF

LIBERTINISM

Here is a list of the passages in which polemic against libertinism is fairly clear: Mt. 5.1g. Those w h o teach others to break the commandments, and are therefore the least in the kingdom, are evidently libertine teachers. This indicates the interpretation of 5 . 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 7 f r , etc., and also of Matthew's additions of δικαιοσύνη to Q, sayings like M t . 5 . 6 and 6 . 3 3 — t o say nothing of the emphasis on the need for good works which runs throughout the sermon on the mount. Mt. 7 . 1 5 - 2 7 . These teachers pretend to observe the law, but their secret teaching is contrary to it. T h e y are false prophets and are conspicuous for their magical powers, displayed in prophecies, exorcisms, and miracles done " i n Jesus' n a m e " (cf. Col. 3.17), but they are also έργαζόμενοι την άνομιαν. Mk. g.42. Whoever scandalizes one of the "little o n e s " a m o n g the believers would be better off dead. Cf. I Cor. 8.9-12. This m a y indicate for w h o m the editor intended the warnings of M k . 9.43fr. Lk. j.36-50. This has been edited. From the premise " h e w h o is forgiven more will love more," the conclusion to be drawn is that the greatest sinners (who have most to be forgiven) are capable of the greatest love. This Luke has replaced by less dangerous doctrine. He has similarly edited the saying " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" by adding " t o r e p e n t a n c e " (5.32 || M k . 2 . 1 7 b ; M t . 9.13). Ho