I will analyse two Clementine fragments found in Hypotyposes, but preserved by Eusebius in Church History. I start with the fragment found in Eusebius’ sixth volume first, for reasons that will become clear, before then analysing the fragment found in his second volume:
| 5. Αὖθις δ̓ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁ Κλήμης βιβλίοις περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν εὐαγγελίων παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων τέθειται, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρόπον. 6. προγεγράφθαι ἔλεγεν τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας, τὸ δὲ κατὰ Μάρκον ταύτην ἐσχηκέναι τὴν οἰκονομίαν. τοῦ Πέτρου δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ῥώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος, τοὺς παρόντας, πολλοὺς ὄντας, παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μάρκον, ὡς ἂν ἀκολουθήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωθεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθέντων, ἀναγράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα: ποιήσαντα δέ, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ. 7. ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασθαι. τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον, συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. | 5. Again, in the same books [Hypotyposes], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: 6. ‘The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. 7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.’ (Eusebius, E.H. 6.14.5-7) |
This is an intriguing passage as Peter reacts to the news that Mark is composing a gospel based on his teaching on Jesus, meaning that Peter is alive at the time of composition. Peter’s reaction to this news provides us with three important insights. The first is that Mark may not have consulted Peter beforehand as the notice that Peter ‘learned of this’ may suggest he learned this news from a third party. Secondly, Peter declines to encourage (or sanction) the work, nor does he forbid it. The cause of Peter's reluctance to sanction mark's work could be that Peter, remembering the contents of his sermons, may be apprehensive about what Mark will choose to include. Had Peter read the gospel his fears would have been partially realised as Mark does not spare Peter or brothers of Jesus from embarrassment. Mark does at least conceal the identity of the swordsman (Peter) who severed Malchus’ ear (John18:10), but he does preserve Jesus comparing Peter to Satan (Mark8:33) and Jesus’ brothers view that Jesus was insane (Mark3:21). This may explain Peter’s reluctance to sanction the work as Peter may have shared a little more in his preaching than he would have wanted to appear in written form.
The third and most important insight we can gather from this passage is that Peter’s reaction is one of the best examples of a text that passes the criterion of embarrassment. It is extremely unlikely that a mid to late 2nd C heterodox Christian would have invented this reaction as it would have been critically damaging for their cause. During this period the heterodox church was engaged in an existential struggle with heretical groups who were either using only one gospel or were adapting contents of the four used by heterodox groups to alter their meaning. They also produced gospels of their own such as the Gospel of Mary c120-150, Marcion’s Gospel c130-140, and Gospel of Truth c140-180. Justin Martyr seems to be the first who took these groups seriously enough to warrant two works against them prior to 160, but sadly they are lost. The heretics, according to the heresiologists who opposed them, were perverting scripture to deceive others into joining their heresy, as Irenaeus explains in his aptly titled work Against Heresies (c180):
Moreover, Irenaues complains that these groups held their own teachers at a higher authority than the apostles, and claimed that the scriptures (gospels?) were errant and lacked sufficient authority (emphasis mine):“They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions.” (Irenaeus, A.H. 1.8.1)
Irenaeus had two complaints relevant for our purposes: that some groups were only using one gospel, or they were supplementing the heterodox gospels with their own. Irenaeus argued that both approaches were in error, and that only the complete set of four heterodox gospels provided the “true gospel”. Irenaeus was concerned to show that the heterodox gospels were produced by the apostles themselves, or their disciples, and that only these gospels bore the truth. In the following extract, Irenaeus emphasises that Mark was the interpreter of the Peter, and therefore provides the teaching of an apostle, which represents the “true gospel” (emphasis mine):“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” (1Cor2:6) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (Irenaeus A.H. 3.2.1-2)
Irenaeus then rails against the practices of the heretics who only use one gospel, before turning on the Valentinians who supplement heterodox gospels with their own. In the midst of these complaints, Irenaeus asserts that it is not possible for the gospels to be more or fewer than four:“5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative ... Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.” (Irenaeus A.H. 3.10.5)
It is within this context where the heterodox church was struggling to maintain the authority of their gospels that we must ask what effect the Clementine claim that Peter declined to sanction the gospel of Mark would have had. For the heretics could point to this claim and ask, if their theology and gospels were inferior due to their lack of apostolic backing, then surely the same could said of the gospel of Mark, which was also the product of someone who was not a disciple of Jesus. This would critically undermine the heterodox efforts to attack and overturn the authority of the heretical gospels, as well as undermine the authority of one of their own. The Clementine fragment would therefore be significantly embarrassing and unhelpful for the heterodox church in the second half of the 2nd C, as it would be so difficult to explain away. It is for these reasons that I find it highly unlikely that this fragment was invented in the mid to late 2nd C, and instead preserves an earlier tradition.“7. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.
8. It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are….
9. …But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing the Gospel of Truth, though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. (Irenaeus A.H. 3.11.7-9)
We can detect the embarrassment this fragment caused by the presence of the other Clementine fragment that looks as if it is a correction of the earlier, less helpful fragment. For the sake of clarity, I entitle the embarrassing fragment we have just discussed as the ‘unhelpful fragment’, and the corrective fragment below as the ‘helpful fragment’. It is preserved by Eusebius in his second volume of Church History whilst discussing how Peter overcame Simon Magnus in Rome:
| 1. Τοσοῦτον δ̓ ἐπέλαμψεν ταῖς τῶν ἀκροατῶν τοῦ Πέτρου διανοίαις εὐσεβείας φέγγος, ὡς μὴ τῇ εἰς ἅπαξ ἱκανῶς ἔχειν ἀρκεῖσθαι ἀκοῇ μηδὲ τῇ ἀγράφῳ τοῦ θείου κηρύγματος διδασκαλίᾳ, παρακλήσεσιν δὲ παντοίαις Μάρκον, οὗ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον φέρεται, ἀκόλουθον ὄντα Πέτρου, λιπαρῆσαι ὡς ἂν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα τῆς διὰ λόγου παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς καταλείψοι διδασκαλίας, μὴ πρότερόν τε ἀνεῖναι ἢ κατεργάσαθαι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ταύτῃ αἰτίους γενέσθαι τῆς τοῦ λεγομένου κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου γραφῆς. 2. γνόντα δὲ τὸ πραχθέν φασι τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀποκαλύψαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος, ἡσθῆναι τῇ τῶν ἀνδρῶν προθυμίᾳ κυρῶσαί τε τὴν γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Κλήμης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων παρατέθειται τὴν ἱστορίαν, συνεπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Ἱεραπολίτης ἐπίσκοπος ὀνόματι Παπίας. τοῦ δὲ Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ: ἣν καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ̓ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ̓ αὐτόν, τὴν πόλιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων ‘ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου.’ | 1. And so greatly did the splendour of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower (ἀκόλουθον) of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. 2. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son. (Eusebius E.H. 2.15.1-2) |
This fragment bears strong indications that it is an altered version of the unhelpful fragment as it has not only reversed Peter’s decision to pass on sanctioning Mark’s gospel but emphasises it so strongly. The lateness of this fragment (although no later than Clement c200), is indicated by the notice that Mark’s gospel remains extant: “Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant”, suggesting that the process of expunging heretical gospels has already begun, as well as accidental loss (perhaps Q?). We may assume that this fragment belongs to the mid to late 2nd C when heterodox groups were challenging these heretical groups. This means the unhelpful fragment probably pre-dates the 2nd half of the 2nd C, but can we identify the date with any more precision?
Eusebius adds a note to the helpful fragment by claiming: “Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.” That Papias agrees with this claim is problematic given that, as we have seen, the helpful fragment likely post-dates Papias in the second half of the 2nd C - these are not the words of Papias. Perhaps instead, Eusebius is indicating that Papias agrees that Mark composed a work based on Peter’s sermons, which is attested by Papias? This is certainly what comes to mind, but when I took a closer look at these texts another possibility emerged.
After Eusebius has provided the more helpful fragment from Clement in his second volume, he follows this up with the following:
The proximity of Papias’ agreement with this unattributed support from 1Peter seems suspicious when we consider that when Eusebius is discussing the Papian fragments in his third volume, he mentions the supporting evidence of 1Peter:“Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.” (Eusebius, E.H. 2.15.2)
Eusebius therefore indicates Papias agrees with this Clement fragment and then goes onto provide some supporting evidence that Peter was in Rome without attribution - it is not until his next volume that Eusebius mentions that Papias provides this supporting evidence.“And the same writer [Papias] uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise.” (Eusebius E.H. 3.39.16)
What may have occurred is that Eusebius noticed that Papias had written something that aligned with the unhelpful fragment, but as this was so unhelpful for the heterodox church and as it shared many similar features of the helpful fragment, Eusebius decides to transfer Papias’ agreement to the helpful fragment instead. This would have ensured that the more ancient source, Papias, who used the testimony of apostles and eyewitnesses, would not be associated with such an unhelpful tradition that assisted the heretical groups in their attempt to undermine the authority of the heterodox gospels.
In this scenario Eusebius assigns Papias agreement to the helpful Clemetine fragment, and in the process of doing so, plagiarises Papias’ supporting evidence from 1Peter. In the next volume, Eusebius then mentions this supporting evidence, without giving a full citation. Only much later does Eusebius then provide the unhelpful fragment in his sixth volume of Church History amid briefly summarising Clement’s works.
If the unhelpful fragment does approximate Papias words, I have found that it happens to find a very natural home appended to his authentic fragment discussing Mark’s gospel as follows (I have coloured Papias authentic extracts in blue):
| τοῦθ̓ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν: τοῦ Πέτρου δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ῥώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος, τοὺς παρόντας, πολλοὺς ὄντας, παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μάρκον, ὡς ἂν ἀκολουθήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωθεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθέντων, ἀναγράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα: ποιήσαντα δέ, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ. ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασθαι. [ἀλλα] Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ: ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ̓ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων. ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς.’ | The Elder used to say: As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed (ἀκολουθέω) him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. [But](1) Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied (παρακολουθέω) him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreia, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.” |
(1 If this reconstruction is correct, and “The Elder used to say:” is moved to the beginning of the unhelpful fragment, then an ἀλλα finds a natural home replacing those words, especially as it is responding to the previous line concerning Peter declining to sanction Mark’s work.)
In support of this reconstruction, we can observe within the authentic Papian fragment many qualifications over Mark’s gospel as if the Elder has anticipated objections to its authority and accuracy. If the authentic Papian fragment has immediately followed from a line that has Peter detached from the process of composition (Peter learned of Mark’s work, presumably from a third party) and could therefore not correct any errors over order, as well as Peter declining to sanction the work, then this coheres with the following defence by accepting some errors in order, but nonetheless supporting the accuracy and authority of the “individual items” found the work.
Furthermore, the Elder states that Mark was Peter’s interpreter (ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου) and later emphasises that Mark was not a (close/intimate) follower (παρακολουθέω) of the Lord, but rather “as I said, Peter” (ὡς ἔφην Πέτρῳ). Now it is perfectly appropriate to association the Elder’s words “as I said” to the claim that Mark was Peter’s interpreter. However, the verb used for follower (or close/intimate follower) “παρακολουθέω” has a closer affinity with the unhelpful fragment that states that Mark had followed “ἀκολουθέω” Peter for a long time. As we have a closer connection between ἀκολουθέω and παρακολουθέω, rather than ἑρμηνευτὴς and παρακολουθέω, perhaps this is what the Elder had “said”?
We have already seen Eusebius removing attribution to Papias on the 1Peter support and placing his agreement to a fragment that must post-date him, so we know Eusebius felt at liberty to remove attributions to Papias and alter his agreement from one fragment to another. This raises the possibility that the fragment original to Papias was the more primitive and unhelpful.
If, as I suppose, the unhelpful fragment belongs to Papias, and was the beginning of the testimony from the Elder, then it would make even more sense for Eusebius to claim that Papias agrees with the helpful fragment, as it shares so many of the elements that is contained within it:
| Helpful fragment | Unhelpful fragment |
| [Eusebius’ context: Peter preaching in Rome](2) Peter’s hearers urged Mark to write an account Mark agrees and composes his gospel For Mark was a ἀκόλουθον (follower) of Peter Peter learned of this – i.e. he wasn’t present Peter reacted to news of this gospel | Peter preaching in Rome Peter’s hearers urged Mark to write an account Mark agrees and composes his gospel For Mark had ἀκολουθέω (followed) Peter Peter learned of this – i.e. he wasn’t present Peter reacted to news of this gospel |
(2 We may assume the context Eusebius supplies was also found within the Clementine fragment.)
If we then run a similar comparison with the authentic Papian fragment, we find much less agreement:
| Helpful fragment | Authentic Papian fragment |
| [Eusebius’ context: Peter preaching in Rome] Peter’s hearers urged Mark to write an account Mark agrees and composes his gospel For Mark was a ἀκόλουθον (follower) of Peter Peter learned of this – i.e. he wasn’t present Peter reacted to news of this gospel | No parallel No parallel Mark wrote accurately from memory Mark was Peter’s ἑρμηνευτὴς (interpreter) No parallel No parallel |
The relatively few agreements with the authentic Papian fragment mean that whilst we can still see some agreement with Papias, the connections are noticeably weaker, and the unhelpful fragment stands as the better candidate. The similar structure and agreements between the two Clementine fragments would provide Eusebius justification to claim Papias agrees with the helpful fragment if Papias was behind the unhelpful fragment.
As we have seen, the verb ἀκολουθέω in the unhelpful fragment finds a corresponding accusative adjective ἀκόλουθον in the more helpful fragment. The Elder’s reference to “as I said” in the authentic Papian fragment therefore finds a more natural reference in the unhelpful fragment if it originally belonged as a pretext to it. It is for these reasons that I find it at least possible, if not probable, that the unhelpful fragment is a recovered Papian fragment that preserves the Elder’s introduction to the composition of Mark’s gospel. If this is so then we have a highly credible source – a disciple of Jesus - confirming that Peter preached in Rome and Mark’s gospel, based on Peter’s teaching, was composed while Peter was still alive prior to Nero’s death in 68.