Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674434493, 9780674434479

Citation preview

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

© 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 ι

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 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.)

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

τυπικώς

και γυμνώς

A s remarked above

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 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 ?

(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 — i f it is g e n u i n e — 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: u>vfj μεγάλη εκραΰγασεν ' 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

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

42 €KCL] om ρ 4 5 ιι8 pc lat sy ac 2 bo p c 11. 2 Se] 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

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. 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 Υ

=

' ων

άν,

= γι,

«ΛΓ = αυ, = ΤΤΟ

=

=

και,

pa, aas, τα,

=

ρ*.

= σιν,

^ = ταΐ;,

tJ>= P°>

fyv = ρυ

cO= σι,

γ

Q

= re,

= στ

0

Ο, — vs

φα, ;

Note that initial '•f is asmall ι. jf is ψ. At the ends of ligatures ο may be -ο, and τ, 1. Between letters e sometimes becomes -w. S = erat. 293

APPENDIX Β THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING CARPOCRATES

The following pages contain all the reasonably certain references to Carpocrates that I have found in patristic literature. A discussion of this evidence will be found in Chapter Four.

295

•8

2

3

•Ό

C Jj S 'S 1 '•S ·»

I § 6 $ & •>—s c/5• ίζ

*

X

X

a S.

co Μ

Ζ

g 'S ϊ S? tβ Μ

3

10

ö Ο •

•f -§ § l·» "T

Σ. 2 βασιλιδιανοι ATERB1 I έκαστος ιδίως > Β. 3 ετεροίωσ TERDM ετεροι ώσ ΒΣ έτερωσ A Ι παρεισηγάγοσαν Α παρεισηγαγον Β Χ Μ παρηγαγον D παρεισηγαγεν TERBC. 4 και φευδοπροφηται και φευδαπόστολοι D M .

3ΟΟ

1]

APPENDIX Β

p. 2J2

ίτι δ' ό αυτός και τ άς πάλαι γεγενημενας σεις ιστορεί

»ήσαν δε γνώμαι

διάφοροι εν τη περιτομη

10 » κ α τ ά της φυλής Ίοΰδα και τοΰ Χρίστου »Ήμεροβαπτισται και ίτΐρα

παρά Ίουδαίοις

Μασβωθεοι

δε πλείστα

Σαμαρεΐται

γράφει,

εν υίοΐς

αύται·

'Ισραηλιτών

Εσσαΐοι

Σαδδουκαΐοι

Γαλιλαίοι Φαρισαΐοι«.

ων εκ μέρους ήδη πρότερον εμνη-

μονεΰσαμεν, οίκείως τοις καιροις τας ιστορίας παραθέμενοι, καθ'

'Εβραίους

15 Έβραίδος

αίρ€- 7

λίγων

ευαγγελίου

και

τοΰ Συριακοΰ

και

8

εκ τε τοΰ

ιδίως

εκ

της

διαλέκτου τινά τίθησιν, εμφαίνων εζ 'Εβραίων εαυτόν πεπι-

στευκεναι, και άλλα δε ώς έζ 'Ιουδαϊκής άγράφου παραδόσεως

μνημο-

νεύει. Ρ· 37s

9 nach περιτομηί 4 Buchstaben getilgtB | 'Ισραηλιτών Valois ίσραηλ ή των A T J M Ισραήλ των Τ durch Rasur corr., ERBDZ/1. 10 αΰται ΠΣ > Λ nach Conjectur, Heg. schrieb αυτής. Ii μασβωθίοι Τ Ε μασβωθΐοι R μασβωθαΐοι BDM μασβώθζοι A S'fliam Σ. 13 παρατιθέμΐνοι D M . 16 ώσ BDM ώα αν A T E R .

Irenaeus: Harvey, 1.20-22 = Stieren, 1.25-26.2 (ed. Harvey I.204-213) CAP. X X . Qua est Carpocratis doctrina, et quoe operationes ipsorum, qui ab eo sunt, omnia \omniurri\. p. 204

i.

Carpocrates

autem et qui ab eo, mundum quidem, et μ . 103.

ea quae in eo sunt, ab Angelis multo inferioribus ingenito Patre factum esse dicunt. Jesum autem e Joseph natum, et qui similis reliquis hominibus fuerit, distasse a reliquis secundum id, quod anima ejus firma et munda cum esset, commemorata fuerit quae visa essent sibi in ea circumlatione, quae fuisset ingenito Deo: et propter hoc ab eo missam esse ei virtutem, uti mundi fabricatores effugere posset, et per omnes transgressa, et in omnibus liberata, ascenderet ad eum, et eas, quae similia ei p. 205 amplecterentur, similiter. Jesu autem dicunt animam in JudaeG. 100. orum consuetudine nutritam contempsisse eos, et propter hoc virtutes accepisse, per quas evacuavit quae fuerunt in poenis [/. poenas] passiones, quae inerant hominibus. Ea [I. earn] igitur, quae similiter atque ilia Jesu anima, potest contemnere mundi fabricatores archontas, similiter accipere virtutes ad operandum similia. Quapropter et ad tantum elationis provecti sunt, ut quidam quidem similes se esse dicant Jesu: quidam autem adhuc et secundum aliquid illo fortiores, qui sunt [/. quidam et] distantes amplius quam illius discipuli, ut puta quam Petrus et Paulus, et reliqui Apostoli: hos autem p. 206 in nullo deminorari a Jesu. Animas enim ipsorum ex eadem circumlatione devenientes, et ideo similiter contemnentes mundi 301

THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING CARPOCRATES

fabricatores, eadem dignas habitas esse virtute, et rursus in i d e m abire. Si quis autem plus q u a m ille contempserit ea quse sunt hie, posse meliorem q u a m ilium esse. 2. Artes enim magicas operantur et ipsi, et incantationes, philtra quoque et charitesia, et paredros, et oniropompos, et reliquas malignationes, dicentes se potestatem habere ad domin a n d u m j a m principibus et fabricatoribus hujus m u n d i : non

p. 20J

m. 104.

p. 208

Luc. χϋ. 58. 26. a ' v " 2 5 '

Cf. p. 198.

p. 20g Hipp· vii. 32.

solum autem, sed et his omnibus, quae in eo sunt facta. Q u i et ipsi ad detrectationem divini Ecclesiae nominis, q u e m a d m o d u m et gentes, a Satana praemissi sunt, uti secundum alium et alium m o d u m , quae sunt illorum audientes homines, et putantes omnes nos tales esse, avertant aures suas a praeconio veritatis: aut et videntes quae sunt illorum, omnes nos blasphement, in nullo eis communicantes, neque in doctrina, neque in moribus, neque in quotidiana conversatione. Sed v i t a m q u i d e m luxuriosam, sententiam autem i m p i a m ad velamen malitiae ipsorum nomine abutuntur, quorum judicium justum est, recipiendum d i g n a m Rom. üi. β. suis operibus a D e o retributionem. Et in tantum insania effraenati sunt, uti et omnia quaecunque sunt irreligiosa et impia, in potestate habere et operari se dicant. Sola e n i m h u m a n a opinione negotia m a l a et b o n a dicunt. E t utique secundum transmigrationes in corpora oportere in omni vita, et in omni actu fieri animas: (si non praeoccupans quis in uno a d v e n t u omnia agat semel ac pariter, qua: non tantum dicere et audire non est fas nobis, sed ne q u i d e m in mentis conceptionem venire, nec credere, si a p u d homines conversantes in his quae sunt secundum nos civitates, tale aliquid agitatur,) uti, secund u m quod scripta eorum dicunt, in omni usu vitae factae animae ipsorum, exeuntes, in nihilo a d h u c minus h a b e a n t ; adoperand u m a u t e m in eo, ne forte propterea quod deest libertati aliqua res, cogantur iterum mitti in corpus. Propter hoc dicunt Jesum hanc dixisse p a r a b o l a m : Cum es cum adversario tuo in via, G. IOI. da operam, ut libereris ab eo, ne forte te det judici et judex ministro, et mittat te in carcerem. Amen dico tibi, non exies inde, donee reddas novissimum quadrantem. E t adversarium dicunt u n u m ex Angelis qui sunt in m u n d o , q u e m d i a b o l u m vocant, dicentes f a c t u m e u m ad id, ut d u c a t eas quae perierunt animas a m u n d o ad principem. E t hunc dicunt esse p r i m u m ex mundi fabricatoribus, et ilium altero angelo, qui ministrat ei, tradere tales animas, uti in alia corpora i n c l u d a t : corpus enim dicunt esse carcerem. E t id quod ait: Non exies inde, quoadusque novissimum quadrantem reddas, interpretantur, quasi non exeat quis a potestate A n g e l o r u m eorum, qui m u n d u m fabricaverunt; sed sic transcorporatum semper, quoadusque in omni omnino opera302

APPENDIX Β

tione, quae in mundo est, fiat: et q u u m nihil defuerit ei, tum liberatam ejus animam eliberari ad ilium D e u m , qui est supra angelos mundi fabricatores; sie quoque salvari, et omnes animas sive ipsae praeoccupantes in uno adventu in omnibus misceantur operationibus, sive de corpore in corpus transmigrantes, vel immissae in unaquaque specie vitae adimplentes, et reddentes debita, liberari, uti j a m non fiant in corpore. 3. Et si quidem fiant haec apud eos, quae sunt irreligiosa, et injusta, et vetita, ego nequaquam credam. In conscriptionibus autem illorum sie conscriptum est, et ipsi ita exponunt; Jesum dicentes in mysterio diseipulis suis et apostolis seorsum locutum, p. 210

et illos expostulasse, ut dignis et assentientibus seorsum haec traderent. Per fidem enim et caritatem salvari; reliqua vero, indifferentia c u m sint, secundum opinionem hominum quaedam quidem bona, quaedam autem mala vocari, c u m nihil natura m a l u m sit. 4. Alii vero ex ipsis signant, cauteriantes suos diseipulos in posterioribus partibus exstantiae dextrae auris. U n d e et Marcellina, quae R o m a m sub Aniceto venit, cum esset hujus doctrinae, multos exterminavit. Gnosticos se autem vocant: m. 105. etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent, dicentes formam Christi factam a Pilato, illo in tempore quo fuit Jesus cum hominibus. Et has coronant, et proponunt eas c u m imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae, et Piatonis, et Aristotelis, et reliquorum; et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.

p. 211

CAP.

XXI.

Qualis est doctrina Cerinthi.

p. 212

ET Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia \l. g y p to], non a primo D e o factum esse m u n d u m doeuit, sed a virtute q u a d a m valde separata, et distante ab ea principalitate quae est super universa, et ignorante eum qui est super omnia Deum. Jesum autem subjecit, non ex virgine na tum, [impossibile enim hoc ei visum est], fuisse autem eum Joseph et Mariae filium, similiter ut reliqui omnes homines, et plus potuisse justitia, et prudentia, et sapientia ab omnibus. Et post baptismum descendisse in eum, ab ea principalitate quae est super omnia, Christum figura columbae; et tunc annunciasse incognitum Patrem, et virtutes perfecisse; in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse, et resurrexisse: Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse, exsistentem spiritalem.

303

THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING CARPOCRATES

CAP.

XXII.

Qua est Ebionitarum doctrina. Q u i autem dicuntur Ebionaei, consentiunt q u i d e m m u n d u m a D e o f a c t u m : ea autem quae sunt erga D o m i n u m , non simip. 213 liter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates opinantur. Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthaeum Evangelio utuntur, et apostol u m P a u l u m recusant, apostatam e u m legis dicentes. Quae G. 103. autem sunt prophetica, curiosius exponere nituntur; et circumciduntur ac perseverant in his consuetudinibus, quae sunt secund u m legem, et J u d a i c o charactere vitae, uti et Hierosolymam adorent, quasi domus sit Dei.

Irenaeus: Harvey, 1.26.2 = Stieren, 1.28.2 (ed. Harvey I.221) T h e alii are heretical sects and are contrasted, q u a libertine, w i t h the ascetic sects just previously mentioned, w h i c h sprang up from the teachings of Saturninus and M a r c i o n . p. 221

2. A l i i autem rursus a Basilide et Carpocrate occasiones accipientes, indifferentes coitus, et multas nuptias induxerunt, et negligentiam ipsorum quae sunt idolothyta ad m a n d u c a n d u m , non valde haec curare dicentes D e u m . E t quid e n i m ? non est n u m e r u m dicere eorum, qui secundum alteram et alteram m o d u m exciderunt a veritate.

Irenaeus: Harvey, II.48-53 = Stieren, II.31-33.4 (ed. Harvey I.369-379) p. 369

CAP.

XLVIII.

Quomodo ea quce adversus Valentinum dicuntur, omnem evertunt hasresin. i. DESTRUCTIS itaque his qui a V a l e n t i n o sunt, omnis haereticorum eversa est multitudo. Quae enim et q u a n t u m adversus Pleroma ipsorum et ad ea quae extra sunt diximus, ostendentes q u o n i a m concludetur et circumscribetur Pater universorum a b eo quod extra e u m est, (si tamen extra eum aliquid sit); et q u o n i a m necesse est multos q u i d e m Patres, multa autem Pleromata, et multas m u n d o r u m fabricationes, a b aliis q u i d e m coeptas ad alteras autem deficientes, esse secundum o m n e m p a r t e m ; et universos perseverantes in suis propriis, non curiose agere de aliis, in quibus neque participatio, neque communio aliqua est eis; et nullum alium o m n i u m esse D e u m , sed solam esse omnipotentis appellationem:

3°4

APPENDIX Β

Μ. 164. et adversus eos qui sunt a Marcione, et Simone, et Menandro, vel quicunque alii sunt, qui similiter dividunt earn quae secundum nos est conditionem a Patre, similiter erit ad eos aptatum. Quanta autem rursus diximus adversus eos, qui dicunt omnia quidem comprehendere Patrem universorum; earn autem quae sit secundum nos conditionem non ab eo esse factam, sed a Virtute quadam altera; vel ab Angelis ignorantibus Propatorem, in immensa magnitudine universitatis circumscriptum centri vice, velut maculam in pallio; ostendentes quoniam non est verisimile alium quemdam earn quae secundum nos est conditionem fecisse quam Patrem universorum; et adversus eos qui sunt a Saturnino, et a Basilide, et Carpocrate, et reliquos Gnosticorum, qui eadem similiter dicunt, idem dicetur. Qu as autem de prolationibus dicta sunt, et yEonibus, et deminoratione, et quemadmodum instabilis Mater ipsorum, similiter evertit Basilidem, et omnes qui falso cognominantur agnitores, aliis nominibus eadem similiter dicentes; magis autem quam hi qui ea quae sunt extra veritatem transferentes ad G. 186. characterem suae doctrinas. Et quaecunque sunt quae de numeris diximus, adversus omnes, qui in hujusmodi speciem deducunt quae p. 270 sunt veritatis, et dicentur. Et quaecunque dicta sunt de Demiurgo, ostendentia quod his solus est Deus et Pater universorum; et quaecunque adhuc dicentur in sequentibus libris, adversus omnes dico haereticos; eos quidem qui sunt mitiores eorum et humaniores avertes et confundes, ut non blasphement suum conditorem, et factorem, et nutritorem, et Dominum, neque de labe et ignorantia genesin ejus affingere: feroces autem, et horribiles, et irrationabiles effugabis a te longe, ne amplius sustineas verbositates eorum. 2. Super haec arguentur qui sunt a Simone, et Carpocrate, et si qui alii virtutes operari dicuntur: non in virtute Dei, neque in veritate, neque in beneficiis hominibus facientes ea qua; faciunt; sed in perniciem et errorem, per magicas elusiones et universa fraude, plus laedentes quam utilitatem praestantes his, qui credunt eis, in eo quod seducant. Nec enim caecis possunt donare visum, neque surdis auditum, neque omnes daemones effugare, praeter eos qui ab ipsis immittuntur, si tarnen et hoc faciunt; neque debiles, aut claudos, aut paralyticos curare, vel alia quadam parte corporis vexatos, quemadmodum saspe evenit fieri secundum corporalem infirmitatem; vel earum quae a foris accidunt infirmitatum bonas valetudines restaurare; tan tum 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 quoquo loco Ecclesia universa postulante per jejunium et supplicationem multam, reversus est spiritus mortui, et donatus est homo orationibus sanctorum, ut ne quidem credant

3°5

T H E E V I D E N C E CONCERNING C A R P O C R A T E S

hoc in t o t u m posse fieri: esse a u t e m resurrectionem a agnitionem ejus quae a b eis dicitur, veritatis. P· 371

mortuis,

3· Q u a n d o igitur a p u d eos q u i d e m error, et seductio, et magica phantasia in speculatu h o m i n u m impie fiat; in Ecclesia a u t e m miseratio, et misericordia, et firmitas, et Veritas ad opitulationem h o m i n u m , non solum sine mercede et gratis perficiatur, sed et nobis ipsis quae sunt nostra erogantibus pro salute h o m i n u m , et ea, quibus hi qui c u r a n t u r indigent, saepissime non habentes, a nobis accipiunt: vere et per h a n c speciem a r g u u n t u r a divina substantia, et benignitate Dei, et virtute spiritali in t o t u m extranei; f r a u d e a u t e m universa, et adinspiratione apostatica, et operatione daemoniaca, et p h a n t a s m a t e idololatriae per o m n i a repleti, praecursores vero sunt draconis ejus, qui per h u j u s m o d i p h a n t a s i a m abscedere faciet in c a u d a tertiam p a r t e m stellarum, et dejiciet Rev.xii.4. eas in t e r r a m : quos similiter a t q u e ilium devitare oportet, et q u a n t o m a j o r e p h a n t a s m a t e operari d i c u n t u r , t a n t o magis observare eos, quasi m a j o r e m nequitiae spiritum perceperint. Q u a m p r o p h e t i a m si observaverit quis, [adj. et] e o r u m d i u r n a m conv e r s a t i o n s operationem, inveniet u n a m et e a n d e m esse eis c u m daemoniis conversationem. G. 187. 4. E t haec a u t e m quae est erga operationes impia ipsorum M l6s ' ' sententia, quse dicit oportere eos in omnibus operibus etiam quibuslibet malis fieri, ex D o m i n i doctrina dissolvetur: a p u d q u e m Matt. v. p-3J2 non solum qui mcechatur, expellitur, sed et qui mcechari v u l t : et 2 I - e t s e q · non solum qui occidit, reus erit occisionis a d d a m n a t i o n e m , sed et qui irascitur sine causa fratri suo: qui et non solum n o n odire homines, sed et inimicos diligere jussit: et non solum non pejerare, sed nec j u r a r e prascepit; et non solum [non] male loqui de proximis, sed ne q u i d e m racha et f a t u u m dicere a l i q u e m ; si quo minus, reos esse h u j u s m o d i in i g n e m gehennas: et non t a n t u m non percutere, sed et ipsos percussos etiam a l t e r a m praestare m a x i l l a m : et non solum non a b n e g a r e quae sunt aliena, sed etiam si sua aufer a n t u r , illis non expostulare: et non solum non laedere proximos, n e q u e facere quid eis m a l u m , sed et eos qui m a l e t r a c t a n t u r m a g n a n i m e s esse, et benignitatem exercere erga eos, et orare pro eis, uti pcenitentiam agentes salvari possint; in nullo imitantes nos reliquorum contumeliam, et libidinem, et superbiam. Q u a n d o igitur ille, q u e m isti magistrum gloriantur, et e u m m u l t o meliorem et fortiorem reliquis a n i m a m habuisse dicunt, c u m m a g n a diligentia quaedam q u i d e m jussit fieri quasi b o n a et egregia, q u i b u s d a m a u t e m abstinere non solum operibus, sed etiam his cogitationibus quae ad opera d u c u n t , quasi malis et nocivis et n e q u a m : q u e m a d m o d u m m a g i s t r u m dicentes talem fortiorem et meliorem reliquis, deinde quae sunt contraria ejus doctrinae manifeste praecipientes, non c o n f u n d a n t u r ? Et si q u i d e m nihil esset mali a u t 306

APPENDIX Β

rursus boni, opinione autem sola h u m a n a , quaedam q u i d e m injusta Matt. xiii. quasdam autem justa putarentur, non utique dixisset dogmatizans, 43· [id est docens:] Justi autem fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris eorum: Matt .xxv. injustos autem et qui non faciunt opera justitiae, mittet in ignem 41. Marc, ix. 44, 46, aternum, ubi vermis ipsorum non morietur, et ignis non exstinguetur. 48. CAP.

XLIX.

Eversio Hareticorum omnium in iis, quibus non communicant cum Valentino. ι . ADHUC etiam dicentes, oportere eos in omni opere et in omni conversatione fieri, ut, si fieri possit, in una vitae adventatione omnia perficientes ad perfectum transgrediantur; eorum q u i d e m quae sunt ad virtutem pertinentia, et laboriosa et gloriosa et artificialia, quae etiam a b omnibus b o n a approbantur, nequaq u a m inveniuntur conati facere. Si enim oportet per omne opus, et per universam ire operationem; primo quidem oportebat p. 373 omnes se ediscere artes, quaecunque illae sive in sermonum rationibus, sive in operibus consumantur, sive per continentiam edocentur, et per Iaborem, et meditationem, et perseverantiam percipiuntur; ut puta o m n e m speciem Musicae, et Computationis, et Geom e t r i c , et Astronomiae, et universa quae in sermonum rationibus o c c u p a n t u r : a d h u c etiam M e d i c i n a m universam, et herbarum seientiam, et eas quae ad salutem h u m a n a m sunt elaboratae; et picturam, et statuarum fabricationem, et aerariam artem, et marmorariam, et similes his: a b his autem o m n e m speciem rusticationis, et veterinariae, et pastoralis, et opificum artes, quae dicuntur pertransire universas artes, et eas quae erga m a r e vacant, et corpori Student, et venatorias, et militares, et regales, et quotG. 188. quot sunt, q u a r u m nec d e c i m a m , nec millesimam p a r t e m in tota vita sua elaborantes ediscere possunt. E t h o r u m q u i d e m nihil conantur addiscere, qui in omni dicunt semetipsos oportere fieri opere, ad voluptates autem et libidinem, et turpia facta devergentes, a semetipsis j u d i c a t i c u m sint secundum doctrinam suam; q u o n i a m enim desunt eis quae praedicta sunt omnia, ad correptionem ignis adibunt. Q u i q u i d e m Epicuri philosophiam, et C y n i c o r u m indifferentiam aemulantes, Jesum magistrum gloriantur, qui non solum a malis operibus avertit suos diseipulos, sed etiam a sermonibus et cogitationibus, q u e m a d m o d u m ostendimus.

p. 374

2. Dicentes autem, se ex e a d e m circumlatione c u m Jesu habere animas, et similes ei esse, aliquando autem et meliores, ad opera produeti quae ille ad utilitatem h o m i n u m et firmitatem fecit, et nihil tale nec simile, neque secundum aliquid in comparationem quod venire possit, perficere inveniuntur. Sed et si aliquid faciunt, per m a g i c a m , q u e m a d m o d u m diximus, operati, fraudu-

307

THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING CARPOCRATES

lenter seducere nituntur insensatos: fructum quidem et utilitatem nullam praestantes, in quos virtutes perficere se dicunt; adducentes autem pueros investes, et oculos deludentes, et phantasmata ostendentes statim cessantia, et ne quidem stillicidio temporis perseverantia, non Jesu Domino nostro, sed Simoni M. 166. mago similes ostenduntur. Et ex hoc autem quod Dominus surrexit a mortuis in tertia die, firmum esse, et discipulis se manifestavit, et videntibus eis receptus est in coelum, quod ipsi morientes, et non resurgentes, neque manifestati quibusdam, arguuntur in nullo similes habentes Jesu animas. 3. Si autem et Dominum per phantasmata hujusmodi fecisse dicunt, ad prophetica reducentes eos, ex ipsis demonstrabimus, omnia sic de eo et praedicta esse, et facta firmissime, et ipsum solum esse Filium Dei. Quapropter et in illius nomine, qui vere illius sunt discipuli ab ipso accipientes gratiam, perficiunt ad p. 275 beneficia reliquorum hominum, quemadmodum unusquisque accepit donum ab eo. Alii enim dasmones excludunt firmissime et vere, ut etiam saepissime credant ipsi qui emundati sunt a nequissimis spiritibus, et sint in Ecclesia: alii autem et praescientiam habent futurorum, et visiones, et dictiones propheticas. Alii autem laborantes aliqua infirmitate, per manus impositionem curant, et sanos restituunt. J a m etiam, quemadmodum diximus, et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis multis. Et quid autem? Non est numerum dicere gratiarum, quas per universum mundum Ecclesia a Deo accipiens, in nomine Christi Jesu, crucifixi sub Pontio Pilato, per singulos dies in opitulationem gentium perficit, neque seducens aliquem, nec pecuniam ei auferens. Quemadmodum enim gratis accepit a Deo, gratis et ministrat. Nec invocationibus angelicis facit aliquid, nec p. 376 incantationibus, nec reliqua prava curiositate; sed munde et pure et manifeste orationes dirigentes [dirigens] ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, et nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans, virtutes secundum utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem perfecit. Si itaque et nunc nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi beneficia praestat, et curat firmissime et vere omnes ubique credentes in eum, sed non Simonis, neque Menandri, neque Carpocratis, nec alterius cujuscunque, manifestum est, quoniam homo factus, conversatus est cum suo plasmate, vere omnia fecit ex virtute Dei, secundum placitum Patris universorum, quomodo prophetae praedixerunt. Quae autem erant haec, in his quae sunt ex propheticis ostensionibus narrabuntur.

308

APPENDIX Β

C A P . L. Ostensio quod non transeant anima in alia corpora. DE corpore autem in corpus transmigrationem ipsorum sub- M. 167. vertamus ex eo, quod nihil omnino eorum quae ante fuerint, meminerint animae. Si enim ob hoc emittebantur, uti in omni

p. 377

fierent operatione, oportebat eas meminisse eorum quae ante facta sunt, uti ea quae deerant adimplerent, et non circa e a d e m semper volutantes continuatim, miserabiliter laborarent. N o n enim poterat corporis admixtio in totum universam ipsorum, quae ante habita erant, extinguere m e m o r i a m et contemplationem; et m a x i m e ad hoc venientes. Q u o m o d o enim nunc soporati et requiescente corpore, quaecunque anima ipsa a p u d se videt, et in phantasmate agit, et h o r u m plura reminiscens c o m m u n i c a t c u m corpore; et est q u a n d o et post p l u r i m u m temporis, quaecunque per somnium quis vidit, vigilans annuntiat: sic utique reminisceretur et illorum, quae, a n t e q u a m in hoc corpus veniret, egit. Si enim hoc, quod in brevissimo tempore visum est, vel in phantasmate conceptum est, et a b ea sola per somnium, postquam commixta sit corpori, et in universum m e m b r u m dispersa, commemoratur, multo magis illorum reminisceretur, in quibus, temporibus tantis et universo praeteritas vitas saeculo i m m o r a t a est.

CAP.

LI.

Ostensio quod non bibant, secundum Platonem, oblivionis poculum. G. 190. p. 378

AD haec Plato vetus ille Atheniensis, qui et primus sententiam hanc introduxit, c u m excusare non posset, oblivionis induxit p o c u l u m , putans se per hoc aporiam hujusmodi effugere: ostension e m q u i d e m nullam faciens, dogmatice autem respondens, quoniam introeuntes animae in hanc vitam, ab eo qui est super introitum daemone, priusquam in corpora intrent, potantur oblivione. E t latuit semetipsum in alteram m a j o r e m incidens aporiam. Si enim oblivionis p o c u l u m potest, posteaquam ebibitum est, o m n i u m factorum obliterare m e m o r i a m , hoc ipsum unde scis ο Plato, c u m sit nunc in corpore a n i m a tua, quoniam, priusquam in corpus introeat, a daemone potata est oblivionis m e d i c a m e n t u m ? Si enim daemonem, et poculum, et introitum reminisceris, et reliqua oportet cognoscas: si a u t e m ilia ignoras, neque daemon verus, n e q u e artificiose compositum oblivionis poculum.

309

THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING CARPOCRATES

CAP.

LII.

Ostensio quoniam corpus non est oblivio. ADVERSUS autem eos, qui dicunt ipsum corpus esse oblivionis m e d i c a m e n t u m , occurret h o c : Q u o m o d o igitur q u o d c u n q u e per semetipsam a n i m a videt, et in somniis et secundum cogitationem,

p. jyg

mentis intentionem, corpore quiescente, ipsa reminiscitur, et renuntiat proximis? Sed ne q u i d e m ea quae olim agnita sunt, aut per oculos, aut per auditum, meminisset anima in corpore exsistens, si esset corpus oblivio; sed simul atque a b inspectis abesset oculus, auferretur utique et ea quae esset de his memoria. In ipsa enim oblivione exsistens anima nihil aliud cognoscere poterat, nisi solum illud quod in prassend videbat. Q u o m o d o autem et divina disceret, et meminisset ipsorum exsistens in corpore, q u a n d o sit, ut aiunt, ipsum corpus oblivio? Sed et prophetae ipsi c u m essent in terra, quaecunque spiritaliter secundum visiones ccelestium vident vel audiunt, ipsi q u o q u e meminerunt in h o m i n e m conversi, et reliquis annuntiant: et non corpus oblivionem efficit anima; eorum quae spiritaliter visa sunt; sed a n i m a docet corpus, et participat de spiritali ei facta visione.

GAP.

LIII.

Quoniam in corporis communione non amittit suas virtutes anima. G. 191.

NON enim est fortius corpus q u a m anima, quod q u i d e m a b ilia spiratur, et vivificatur, et augetur, et articulatur; sed a n i m a possidet et principatur corpori. T a n t u m autem impeditur a sua velocitate, q u a n t u m corpus participat de ejus motione; sed non M. 168. amittit suam seientiam. Corpus enim organo simile est; anima autem artificis rationem obtinet. Q u e m a d m o d u m itaque artifex velociter q u i d e m operationem secundum se adinvenit, in organo autem tardius illam perficit, propter rei subjectae immobilitatem, et illius mentis velocitas a d m i x t a tarditati organi temperatam perficit operationem: sic et a n i m a participans suo corpori, mod i c u m q u i d e m impeditur, admixta velocitate ejus in corporis tarditate; non amittit autem in totum suas virtutes; sed quasi v i t a m participans corpori, ipsa vivere non cessat. Sic et de reliquis ei communicans, neque scientiam ipsorum perdit, neque m e m o r i a m inspectorum. 310

APPENDIX Β

Clement, Stromateis III.2 (ed. Stählin II. 197-200) p. igy

II. Ol δε από Καρποκράτους και 'Επιφανούς αναγόμενοι κοινάς είναι τάς γυναίκας άξιοΰσιν, έζ ων η μεγίστη κατά τον ονόματος έρρύη βλασφημία. 'Επιφανής ούτος, ου και τά συγγράμματα κομίζεται, υιός ήν Καρποκράτους και μητρός Αλεξανδρείας τοννομα τα 20 μεν προς πατρός Άλεξανδρεΰς, από δε μητρός Κεφαλληνεΰς, έζησε δε τα πάντα 'έτη έπτακαίδεκα, και θεός ev \ Σάμη της Κεφαλληνίας τετιμηται, ένθα αύτω ιερόν ρυτων λίθων, βωμοί, τεμένη, μουσεΐον ωκοδόμηταί τε και καθιέρωται, καϊ συνιόντες είς τό ιερόν οί Κεφαλλήνες κατά νουμηνίαν γενέθλιον άποθέωσιν θΰουσιν Έπιφάνει, σττέν25 δουσί τε και εύωχοΰνται καϊ νμνοι άδονται. έπαιδεΰθη μεν οΰν

παρά τω πατρί την τε εγκύκλιον παιδείαν καϊ τά Πλάτωνος, καθηγησατο δε της μοναδικής γνώσεως, άφ' ου και ή των Καρποκρατιανών αιρεσις. λέγει τοίνυν οΰτος εν τω Περί δικαιοσύνης »την p. ig8 δικαιοσύνην του θεοΰ κοινωνία ν τινά είναι μετ ίσότητος. ΐσος γέ τοι πανταχόθεν έκταθείς ουρανός κύκλω την γήν περιέχει πασαν, και πάντας η νύζ επ' ίσης επιδείκνυται τους αστέρας, τόν τε της ημέρας αίτιον καϊ πατέρα τοΰ φωτός ηλιον ό θεός έξέχεεν άνωθεν ίσον 5 επί γης άπασι τοΐς βλέπειν δυναμένοις, οι δε κοινή πάντες βλέπουσιν, έπεί μη διακρίνει πλούσιον η πένητα, δήμον η άρχοντα, άφρονάς τε και τους φρονοΰντας, θηλείας άρσενας, ελευθέρους δούλους, αλλ' ουδέ των αλόγων παρά τοΰτο ποιείται τι, πάσι δε επ' ίσης τοις ζωοις κοινόν αυτόν εκχέας άνωθεν άγαθοις τε και φαύλοις την ΙΟ δικαιοσύνην έμπεδοΐ μηδενός δυναμένου πλεΐον έχειν μηδέ άφαιρεΐσθαι τόν πλησίον, ιν' αυτός κάκείνου τό φως διπλασιάσας έχη. ήλιος κοινάς τροφάς ζωοις άπασιν ανατέλλει, δικαιοσύνης [τε] της κοινής άπασιν επ' ίσης δοθείσης, και είς τά τοιαύτα βοων γένος ομοίως γίνεται ώς αί βόες και συών ώς οί σύες και προβάτων ώς τά πρό15 βάτα και τά λοιπά πάντα· δικαιοσύνη γάρ εν αΰτοΐς αναφαίνεται ή p. igy

5> I 2

184 S

3 ^12 Ρ 6} I

2

3

4

16-S. 199, 13· '99> 29-200, 4 vgl. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte S. 4 0 2 f r . 1828 vgl. Epiph. Haer. 3 2 , 3 I S. 4 4 2 , 4 - 1 8 ; Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiph. S. i 6 i f . ; Usener, Weihnachtsfest S. m Anm. 1 0 . 2 3 t zur monatl. Geburtstagsfeier vgl. Rohde, Psyche 2 I p. 234f; Schürer, ZntW 2 (1901) S. 48fr; Wissowa, Hermes 3 7 ( 1 9 0 2 ) S. 157fr; Collitz, Dialektinschr. 1801, 5f (von einer

Freigelassenen): στεφανωέτω τάν Φίλωνος εικόνα καθ' εκαστον μήνα Sis δαφνίνω στεφάνω πλεκτώ νουμηνίαι και έβδομοι, p. ig8

p. 197

i s vgl. I Clem, ad Cor. 2 0 , 4 (Fr).

19 άλεξανδρία; L.

30 άπο Κεφαλληνίαs μεν τό irpos πατρός γένος ων Epiph. 23 nach τε καϊ ist σον von L 1 getilgt.

Κεφαλλην Cobet S. 511 (vgl. Ζ. 23f).

p. igS

25 και ΰμνοι ςίδονται Wi καϊ ύμνοι λέγονται L ύμνους τε αντω αδουσι Epiph. 6 δήμον η St η δήμου L ή δημότην (και) Hiller. 7 [TOUS] Wi. 8 ποιείται: Medium ist richtig, denn es bedeutet hier „einschätzen" (Fr).

11 τό κάκείνου L κάκείνου το ~ Wi.

9 αύτον L.

12 ανατέλλει Sy άνατέλλειν L [xcj Hiller.

14 oi oiiej] οί σύες Hilg.

311

THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING C A R P O C R A T E S

κοινοτης.

επειτα

κατα κοινοτητα

τροφή τε κοινή χαμαΐ επ'

ίσης,

οϋδενι

κελεύσαντος

νόμω

χορηγία

20 τά της γενέσεως ρουσι

έχοντες.

ού

25 καθάπαζ

πασιν

άμαθίαν

γαρ

Ιδιότης

και

παρατρώγει,«

πάσι

την

μη

συνιεις

άμαρτίαν

μήτε

γην

νωνία

μήτε

και

τον σΐτον

παρανομηθεΐσα

καρπών

κλεπτην.

κτήματα,

κολλήσας

την

γεγονότες άπηρνήθησαν νεΐν

επιθυμίαν

την

ωσπερ

πάλιν εύτονον

των γενών

άφανίσαι

εν τω

καθ'

15 εύαγγέλιον

ό μίαν

ομοίως και

θεοΰ γάρ

διά τούτων

»ουκ επιθυμήσεις«

θεόν διά

νόμου

p. ig8

3 ° R o m η, η.

p. igg

15 Exod 20, 13·

p. ig8

προς

προφητών

16 M t 5, 28.

16