I Don't Get the Ordinal Grouping of Powers in Clement of Alexandria's Statement

[Secret Alias]

My theory about this statement at the beginning of Stromata 1 is a reference not to individuals but gospels - or at least is a cryptic reference to Secret Mark. This would of course mean that there were six gospels known to Clement which isn't as crazy as it sounds given that Irenaeus knows 5 (the canonical 4 plus the Gospel of the Hebrews). Secret Mark would be six.

If we revisit the passage the idea of 'rest' coming from the gospel is itself a non-canonical gospel saying:

"He that seeks will not rest until he finds; and he that has found shall marvel; and he that has marvelled shall reign; and he that has reigned shall rest."

οὐ παύσεται ὁ ζητῶν, ἕως ἂν εὕρῃ· εὑρὼν δὲ θαμβηθήσεται, θαμβηθεὶς δὲ βασιλεύσει, βασιλεύσας δὲ ἐπαναπαήσετα

When I came upon the last (he was the first in power), having tracked him out concealed in Egypt, I found rest (ὑστάτῳ δὲ περιτυχὼν (δυνάμει δὲ οὗτος πρῶτος ἦν) ἀνεπαυσάμην, ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ θηράσας λεληθότα).

The 'seeking' 'finding' and 'resting' with a secret source in Egypt is developed from a saying in a secret gospel repeated referenced by Clement.

The idea that 'rest' is given by scripture is explicit elsewhere in Stromata 1:

To these, then, and certain others, especially the Marcionites, the Scripture cries, though they listen not, "He that heareth Me shall rest with confidence in peace, and shall be tranquil, fearless of all evil."

Τούτοις τε οὖν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἑτέροις τισί, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος ἐμβοᾷ οὐκ ἐπαΐουσιν ἡ γραφή· ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων ἀναπαήσεται ἐπ' εἰρήνης πεποιθώς, καὶ ἡσυχάσει ἀφόβως ἀπὸ παντὸς 2.8.39.2 κακοῦ

[Secret Alias]

And with respect to "the Ionian" being first on the list (= the Gospel of John in Ephesus) it is interesting to note that the consensus seems to be that John appeared first in the Egyptian canons and the canon of Clement's student Origen https://books.google.com/books?id=jIwRA ... k"&f=false. Hmmmm ...

[Secret Alias]

Apparently Origen gave tht order John, Matthew, Mark, and Luke in his Commentary on John (1.6).

Now the Gospels are four. These four are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the Church, out of which elements the whole world which is reconciled to God in Christ is put together; as Paul says, 2 Corinthians 5:19 God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself; of which world Jesus bore the sin; for it is of the world of the Church that the word is written, John 1:29 Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. The Gospels then being four, I deem the first fruits of the Gospels to be that which you have enjoined me to search into according to my powers, the Gospel of John, that which speaks of him whose genealogy had already been set forth, but which begins to speak of him at a point before he had any genealogy. For Matthew, writing for the Hebrews who looked for Him who was to come of the line of Abraham and of David, says: Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. And Mark, knowing what he writes, narrates the beginning of the Gospel; we may perhaps find what he aims at in John; in the beginning the Word, God the Word. But Luke, though he says at the beginning of Acts, The former treatise did I make about all that Jesus began to do and to teach, yet leaves to him who lay on Jesus' breast the greatest and completest discourses about Jesus.

So too Tertullian in Adv Marc 4.

[Charles Wilson]

So the Anti-Alexandria Coalition would not even allow a J-Mt-Ma-L ordering?

[Secret Alias]

I don't know but when you think about it, it doesn't make sense that Irenaeus is supposedly the disciple of Polycarp who is the disciple of John who wrote the gospel but Irenaeus places Matthew first. That part of the equation might be a late addition to AH. Look also at Papias being supposedly associated with John and the same section - AH 3 - begins with an echo of Papias but then the same 'Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John." The Johannine tradition seems to flow from Polycarp to Florinus to the various Valentinian groups. Not only Origen in antiquity but the present day Copts have John first in their canon - https://books.google.com/books?id=kkVFO ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

Apparently Tertullian (Irenaeus) isn't consistent in his John first ordering:

Tertullian (c. 200) in one place gave the order John, Matthew, Luke, Mark (Adv. Marc. 4.2), and in another John, Matthew, Mark, Luke (Adv. Marc. 4.5).

I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by our Lord himself. If they also have for their authors apostolic men, yet these stand not alone, but as companions of apostles or followers of apostles: because the preaching of disciples might be made suspect of the desire of vainglory, unless there stood by it the authority of their teachers, or rather the authority of Christ, which made the apostles teachers. In short, from among the apostles the faith is introduced to us by John and by Matthew, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark give it renewal, <all of them> beginning with the same rules <of belief>, as far as relates to the one only God, the Creator, and to his Christ, born of a virgin, the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the faith—and on these they show no agreement with Marcion. [AM 4.2]

That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as witness also for the other gospels, which no less <than Luke's> we possess by their agency and according to their text—I mean John's and Matthew's, though that which Mark produced is stated to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. Luke's narrative also they usually attribute to Paul.[4.5]

[Secret Alias]

Also in De Recta in Deum Fide - the orthodox canon order is John, Matthew, Mark, Luke:

AD. Will you agree if I show from the Gospels that they are not fabrications?
MEG. I will agree if you prove it. First state the names of the Gospel writers
AD. The disciples of Christ wrote them: John and Matthew; Mark and Luke25.
MEG. Christ did not have Mark and Luke as disciples, so you and your party are convicted of producing spurious writings. Why is it that the disciples whose names are recorded in the Gospel did not write, while men who were not disciples did? Who is Luke? Who is Mark? You are therefore convicted of bringing forward names not recorded in the Scriptures. https://books.google.com/books?id=KI6Bu ... 22&f=false

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you, SA.

[Secret Alias]

So the original ordering - the ordering at the time of the anti-Marcionite debates - was:

John, Matthew, Mark, Luke

if Clement can be dated to this period, it is my guess that he is acknowledging the Johannine gospel's superiority with his reference to 'the Ionian' being first. He speaks about his 'secret' gospel in Egypt - if my interpretation is correct - as the most recent or last but first in order. Curiously if you think about what happened to the Gospel of John in the orthodox tradition we see:

John, Matthew, Mark, Luke

to

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

We also have to remember the Marcionite argument in De Recta in Deum Fide that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus. That gives a post-apostolic date for all gospels. John might well have been the first non-apostolic gospel.

[Secret Alias]

The reason for Luke being placed last in this 'anti-Marcionite' formulation would be to diminish the value of the Marcionite gospel.