Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

[Secret Alias]

I was stupid this morning not taking the opportunity to have interest from someone in a topic I have always had more than a passing interest - secret Mark. I apologize to that person (whose name means 'son of old age' in Hebrew according to the Samaritans rather than 'son of the right (hand)'). If he would be so kind to continue (or anyone else for that matter) here is the possible evidence for this Alexandrian 'super' gospel:

1. to Theodore (letter)
2. the name Pantainos
3. the Alexandrian 'gospel harmony' or Diatessaron associated with Ammonius Sacca
4. numerous gospel references in Clement (far more than other church fathers) which don't reference any known gospel or western readings of known texts

So did Clement use a gospel harmony? Well Clement does reference each of the four canonical gospels by name in his works. So right off the bat the theory doesn't seem to work. Nevertheless there are a number of explanations including the idea - one which I support based on the corrupt nature of our existing texts of Clement especially the Instructor (and the statement of Jerome that Eusebius 'corrected' the surviving Alexandrian writings including Clement of Alexandria).

I would like to stay away from the references to the two canonical gospels in Stromata 1. The conversation will surely go off the rails because these things inevitably devolve into 'if he stupid enough to accept unreasonable explanations here we shouldn't listen to him there when he discusses the secret gospel.' Everyone is capable of making mistakes. Let's avoid discussing whether or not Clement originally referenced Matthew and Luke for the moment and instead focus on whether he used a secret 'gospel harmony.'

Where do I want to start? Not with Clement at all but Origen his supposed student in Alexandria and the question was the Commentary on Matthew originally a commentary on Matthew at all or was it as once suspected looking at the text on a long airplane ride to Africa a commentary on a gospel harmony text reshaped into a commentary on Matthew? The idea would be that Origen's teacher Ammonius gave him his gospel harmony and then someone - Origen or Eusebius - reshaped the text according to Matthew.

[Secret Alias]

So here is an example of what I noticed in Origen's Commentary. From the start of Book 10:

Again the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid. Matthew 13:44 The former parables He spoke to the multitudes; but this and the two which follow it, which are not parables but similitudes in relation to the kingdom of heaven, He seems to have spoken to the disciples when in the house. In regard to this and the next two, let him who gives heed to reading 1 Timothy 4:13 inquire whether they are parables at all. In the case of the latter the Scripture does not hesitate to attach in each case the name of parable; but in the present case it has not done so; and that naturally. For if He spoke to the multitudes in parables, and spoke all these things in parables, and without a parable spoke nothing to them, Matthew 13:34 but on going to the house He discourses not to the multitudes but to the disciples who came to Him there, manifestly the things spoken in the house were not parables: for, to them that are without, even to those to whom it is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 13:11 He speaks in parables. Some one will then say, If they are not really parables, what are they? Shall we then say in keeping with the diction of the Scripture that they are similitudes (comparisons)? Now a similitude differs from a parable; for it is written in Mark, To what shall we compare the kingdom of God, or in what parable shall we set it forth? Mark 4:30 From this it is plain that there is a difference between a similitude and a parable. The similitude seems to be generic, and the parable specific. And perhaps also as the similitude, which is the highest genus of the parable, contains the parable as one of its species, so it contains that particular form of similitude which has the same name as the genus. This is the case with other words as those skilled in the giving of many names have observed; who say that impulse is the highest genus of many species, as, for example, of disinclination and inclination, and say that, in the case of the species which has the same name as the genus, inclination is taken in opposition to and in distinction from disinclination.

Diatessaron 17:9f And he set forth to them another parable, and said, To what is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I liken it? And in what parable shall I set it forth? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and planted in his field: and of the number of the things that are sown in the earth it is smaller than all of the things 12 which are sown, which are upon the earth; but when it is grown, it is greater than all the herbs, and produces large branches, so that the birds of heaven make their nests in its branches.

Matthew 13 31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”

Origen is dealing with the first part of Matthew chapter 13 then he suddenly diverts his attention to Mark (for no apparent reason) and then he goes back to citing Matthew at 13:45. It's all very odd. And this business of referencing Mark and Luke for no apparent reason in a Commentary on Matthew happens over and over and over again.

[John2]

Is it uncommon for the Church fathers to do this though? I can't find Jerome's Commentary on Matthew online to compare it (out of curiosity), but Chrysostom's Homilies on Matthew 1.7-8 says:

"Now Luke tells us also the cause wherefore he proceeds to write: “that you may hold,” says he, “the certainty of the words wherein you have been instructed” [Luke 1:4]; that is, that being continually reminded you may hold to the certainty, and abide in certainty.

But as to John, he has himself kept silence touching the cause; yet, (as a tradition says, which has come down to us from the first, even from the Fathers,) neither did he come to write without purpose; but forasmuch as it had been the care of the three to dwell upon the account of the dispensation, and the doctrines of the Godhead were near being left in silence, he, moved by Christ, then and not till then set himself to compose his Gospel. And this is manifest both from the history itself, and from the opening of his Gospel. For he does not begin like the rest from beneath, but from above, from the same point, at which he was aiming, and it was with a view to this that he composed the whole book. And not in the beginning only, but throughout all the Gospel, he is more lofty than the rest.

Of Matthew again it is said, that when those who from among the Jews had believed came to him, and besought him to leave to them in writing those same things, which he had spoken to them by word, he also composed his Gospel in the language of the Hebrews. And Mark too, in Egypt, is said to have done this self-same thing at the entreaty of the disciples.

For this cause then Matthew, as writing to Hebrews, sought to show nothing more, than that He was from Abraham, and David; but Luke, as discoursing to all in general, traces up the account higher, going on even to Adam. And the one begins with His generation, because nothing was so soothing to the Jew as to be told that Christ was the offspring of Abraham and David: the other does not so, but mentions many other things, and then proceeds to the genealogy.

But the harmony between them we will establish ..."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200101.htm

[John2]

Maybe the difference is the "for no apparent reason" part, but still, I'd be curious to see what other commentaries on Matthew say.

[Ben C. Smith]

Underlining mine:

So here is an example of what I noticed in Origen's Commentary. From the start of Book 10:

Again the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid. Matthew 13:44 The former parables He spoke to the multitudes; but this and the two which follow it, which are not parables but similitudes in relation to the kingdom of heaven, He seems to have spoken to the disciples when in the house. In regard to this and the next two, let him who gives heed to reading 1 Timothy 4:13 inquire whether they are parables at all. In the case of the latter the Scripture does not hesitate to attach in each case the name of parable; but in the present case it has not done so; and that naturally. For if He spoke to the multitudes in parables, and spoke all these things in parables, and without a parable spoke nothing to them, Matthew 13:34 but on going to the house He discourses not to the multitudes but to the disciples who came to Him there, manifestly the things spoken in the house were not parables: for, to them that are without, even to those to whom it is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 13:11 He speaks in parables. Some one will then say, If they are not really parables, what are they? Shall we then say in keeping with the diction of the Scripture that they are similitudes (comparisons)? Now a similitude differs from a parable; for it is written in Mark, To what shall we compare the kingdom of God, or in what parable shall we set it forth? Mark 4:30 From this it is plain that there is a difference between a similitude and a parable. The similitude seems to be generic, and the parable specific. And perhaps also as the similitude, which is the highest genus of the parable, contains the parable as one of its species, so it contains that particular form of similitude which has the same name as the genus. This is the case with other words as those skilled in the giving of many names have observed; who say that impulse is the highest genus of many species, as, for example, of disinclination and inclination, and say that, in the case of the species which has the same name as the genus, inclination is taken in opposition to and in distinction from disinclination.

Diatessaron 17:9f And he set forth to them another parable, and said, To what is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I liken it? And in what parable shall I set it forth? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and planted in his field: and of the number of the things that are sown in the earth it is smaller than all of the things 12 which are sown, which are upon the earth; but when it is grown, it is greater than all the herbs, and produces large branches, so that the birds of heaven make their nests in its branches.

Matthew 13 31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”

Origen is dealing with the first part of Matthew chapter 13 then he suddenly diverts his attention to Mark (for no apparent reason) and then he goes back to citing Matthew at 13:45.

I think John2 hit the nail on the head in questioning the "no apparent reason" bit above, especially since the reason is so readily apparent in this case. Origen is exploring what a parable, by definition, really is (a concern echoed in modern literature about parables; consult Crossan's early book on the parables of Jesus, for example); is a parable, for instance, just a similitude (a "this is like that" statement)? Matthew 13 does not have the wording he needs to further his point, but Mark 4.30 does: it presents similitudes ("liken") and parables in parallel clauses, allowing him to find (some might say, to force) a distinction where ordinarily one might not find one (Matthew's wording allows no such leeway). Commentaries, both ancient and modern, do this sort of cross referencing all the time. Try finding any commentary on Matthew, ancient or modern, that does not reference Mark or Luke a bunch of times. Are there any?

At any rate, it seems to me that the value of this Origenic passage for your main thesis here is precisely zero. If Origen cannot refer to parallel passages in the other two synoptic gospels here, where the Marcan wording absolutely trumps the Matthean wording for his purposes, when can he refer to them?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

I said this was the first example. Over time the parallel with the Arabic Diatessaron makes the difference. I do have a job and I have just finished driving from the soccer academy to get dinner for the rest of the car pool. Shouldn't judge on one example from the first page of the Commentary on Matthew. More will follow

[Secret Alias]

And while I am eating my Ivars. Since the two of you are so convinced this intertextual argument was quite common show me an example of this sort of thing before Origen.

[Secret Alias]

And if you look carefully Origen isn't comparing parallel texts from the synoptics but reading lines successively as a progression as if from a harmony jumping Matthew, Mark, Like then Matthew again. It's quite remarkable

[Secret Alias]

And why would there need to be a consistent appeal to things Mark and Luke said (which happen to usually follow things Matthew said in a harmony) in a commentary on Matthew? If you accept the parallels with a harmony here mean Origen consulted an actual gospel harmony why would Origen have done this if Matthew is the source for what appears in Matthew? How did the "harmonist" know what parts of Mark and Luke to add to Matthew and why did Origen believe his (the harmonist) decisions were authoritative enough to guide the production of his commentary of Matthew. First you will have to decide whether the use of Mark and Luke suggest the use of a harmony and then if you do you have to explain why Origen decided to write a commentary on Matthew using a harmony.

[Ben C. Smith]

I said this was the first example. Over time the parallel with the Arabic Diatessaron makes the difference. I do have a job and I have just finished driving from the soccer academy to get dinner for the rest of the car pool. Shouldn't judge on one example from the first page of the Commentary on Matthew. More will follow

Okay, sure. I know one example is not going to do it. But you did say that referring to Mark here is "odd", and I am saying that it really is not.