THE GOSPEL OF ME - FOUND AGAIN!

JESUS THE ANGEL OF THE PRESENCE IN THE ANTONINE PERIOD

The point is of course that Clement represents Marcion as an “elder," a predecessor to two early Gnostic teachers, Valentinus and Basilides having his original conversion occur c. 50 A.D. Tertullian for his part alludes to an age for Marqion of approximately one hundred and twenty years when we hear that:

there is no doubt that [Marqion] is a heretic of the Antonine period, impious under the Pius. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6 1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between [Jesus] and Marcion. Inasmuch, then, as Marcion, as we have shown, first introduced this god to notice in the time of Antoninus, the matter becomes at once clear, if you are a shrewd observer. The dates already decide the case, that he who came to light for the first time in the reign of Antoninus, did not appear in that of Tiberius; in other words, that the God of the Antonine period was not the God of the Tiberian; and consequently, that he whom Marcion has plainly preached for the first time, was not revealed by [Jesus] (who announced His revelation as early as the reign of Tiberius).

In other words, Marqion must have thought that Jesus pointed himself out as his tradition’s “Christ” or indeed their “Paraclete.” Indeed Origen says that they held “the apostle” to have been just this – we demonstrate how “Marqion” was the original figure behind the Catholic invention of “Paul” in the closing section.

Tertullian’s point here however is that the followers of Marqion claim to receive the same spirit which was came from Jesus to Mark in the beginning – i.e. Pele the angel of great counsel – but the Church Father claims that “Apelles” is manifesting another god entirely. They point to all the “strange creations” of the neo-Marqionites and said “look at the diversity of spirits here! Look at all the confusion stirred about by these men! This is not god but the devil working through the appearance of holiness!” and attempted to convince people to the more “rational” and indeed more practical belief of the Catholic Church and slowly made in roads towards replacing Marqionitism as the “most popular brand of Christianity” which we must infer that they did indeed accomplish by the beginning of the third century in the Roman Empire.

Yet I call my readership to notice that the timetable which Tertullian puts forward here almost perfectly suits the continued existence of Marcus Agrippa into his one hundred and twentieth year when executed in Rome. He says a little over one hundred and fifteen years have elapsed since Jesus’ ministry and the end of Marqion. The Copts identify “little Mark” as being present at the miracles of Jesus before writing them down in the gospel. The “god” which Marqion is supposed to have “shown” in the age of Antoninus which was “different” than “Christ” i.e. the being which came forth out of Jesus was “Apelles” – i.e. Pele the angel of great counsel. Now while most of us would agree that we have never heard of Pele the facts remain that he was very well known to prominent Christian traditions to such a degree that it would be nothing short of misleading to claim that the idea of “Pele” emerging out of Jesus to establish “another Christ” was completely foreign to contemporary orthodoxy.

The idea appears in Justus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius and most significantly Novatian where in the span of one relatively short treatise the figure of Isa 9:6 no less than five times. He continually reinforces that Pele is Jesus “the Son” as opposed to the Father who remained in heaven and never appeared on earth directly noting that Jesus was:

the Announcer of the Father's will, He is declared to be the Angel of Great Counsel [ch 18]

[that] it manifestly appears that it was not the Father who thus spoke to Hagar, but rather [Jesus] since He is God; and to Him also is applied the name of angel, since He became the "angel of great counsel.” [ibid]

He is also the angel who was opposed to Jacob i.e. Esau [ch 19] and again:

[he] who came down from heaven; " who testified what things he had seen and heard; who "came not to do His own will, but rather to do the will of the Father," by whom He had been sent for this very purpose, that being made the "Messenger of Great Counsel," He might unfold to us the laws of the heavenly mysteries; and who as the Word made flesh dwelt among us, of us this Christ is proved to be not man only, because He was the son of man, but also God, because He is the Son of God? And if by the apostle Christ is called "the first-born of every creature," how could He be the first-born of every creature, unless because according to His divinity the Word proceeded from the Father before every creature [ch 21]

[that] when [Jesus] had not yet made known the mind of the Father, it is said, "And His name shall be called the Angel of Great Counsel." [ch. 28]

[that] He was destined of the Father as an Angel to announce the Great Counsel of God. [ch 31]

These references of course by no means exhaust the Pele references in the Church Fathers but represent only what amounts to a “scratching of the surface” of these allusions many of which tie Jesus to the events of the Law.

The critical thing to see here as we close the section is that there are indeed countless Catholic traditions which while superficially acknowledging Jesus’ “humanity” continue the original Marqionite understanding him as the “firstborn angel” who is know named also “Pele.” It is of great importance to see that “Pele” is the “wonder” or the “miracle” which is established through the “worker” – i.e. paulos - of God. In other words even here Jesus and Paul are two separate beings which correspond to the hypostases of “Son” and “Father” respectively. Speaking of Jesus and Paul as two separate beings Novatius writes that “here are already two Lords. How, then, is it true according to the Scriptures, there is one Lord? And [Jesus] is called the "one Master." Nevertheless we read that the Apostle Paul also is a master. Then, according to this, our Master is not one, for from these things we conclude that there are two masters.” [ch 30] Yet earlier in the same treatise Novatian carries out the same argument employing “Pele” or in specific “Apelu” in the Syriac text in place of “Jesus” here.

So it is that he says citing the material in 1 Corinthians chapter three that:

who does not perceive that Apollos is one person and Paul another, and that. Apollos and Paul are not one and the same person? Moreover, also, the offices mentioned of each one of them are different; for one is he who plants, and another he who waters. The Apostle Paul, however, put forward these two not as being one person, but as being" one; "so that although Apollos indeed is one, and Paul another, so far as respects the distinction of persons, yet as far as respects their agreement both are "one." For when two persons have one judgment, one truth, one faith, one and the same religion, one fear of God also, they are one even although they are two persons: they are the same, in that they have the same mind. [ch. 27]

Indeed this follows the very same pattern of distinction between “Son” on the one hand and “Father” on the other which appears in Novatian’s writings but also the works of other neo-Marqionite traditions. The point is then that Marqionitism did not simply die out with the execution of Marqion. It became diffused through countless traditions, many of which didn’t even recognize any longer that they were heirs to the very heretic with whom they warred against throughout the next two centuries.

So I would like to remind my readers that Marqion’s legacy certainly lived on despite his name being effectively erased from the hearts and minds of European “believers.” We can still the followers of Mark maintaining a strong presence in all the lands which his tradition first grew in – i.e. in Syria, Palestine, Egypt – before moving eastward alongside other “disgraced Palestinian traditions” like Mandaeanism to eastern lands outside of the direct control of Rome – i.e. Armenia, Osrhoene, Mesopotamia, and Persia. The tradition continued to remain influential down to the third and fourth centuries assisting in the development of one significant messianic offshoot i.e. “Manichaeanism.” By the fifth and sixth centuries we begin to see any meaningful settlements of the original tradition of Mark disappear completely from the world. However it is difficult not to see continuing neo-Markan reverberations in old centres of its worship such as Coptic Christianity, Samaritanism and even aspects of the Roman Catholic cult which distinguish it from its Greek Orthodox cousins.

In the end the greatest triumph perhaps for at least the ideas behind the Markan tradition can be found in Islam which indeed succeeded in re-conquering the original members of the “perfect revelation” in the name of “another” who was supposedly announced by Jesus as “coming after him.” The Muslim Gospel of Barnabas (i.e. the gospel in the name of the uncle of Mark) which almost as many people on the earth believe is the “true gospel” as our Catholic “fourfold gospel” (and which interesting is claimed by its supporters to have been interestingly used in Alexandria until the Council of Nicea) places just this kind of a “spin” on gospel material such as we see in the familiar gospel story of Mark 8:27f.[ix] These are most certainly Marqionite readings of the same material – viz. that Jesus assumed the position we assign to “John” – i.e. as the messenger or “voice” crying out in the wilderness announcing the coming of “another.” Only know the “other” is named Mohammed and not Mark but again many of the same approaches to scripture are found in both.

This is not the place of course to develop an understanding again of the interrelation between Marqionitism and Mohammedism but the fact that both traditions stress Jesus as “Isa” or “Isu” and “Chrestos” – i.e. mush’lam – rather than Christos is a good starting point for anyone to begin the inevitable comparison. A more detailed study would focus on “Mani” – i.e. the Paraclete (a title associated with the Arabic “Mohammed” by many authors) and his coming to Harran in the Acts of Archelaus to gain the sanction of “little Mark” that he and not “the apostle” was really the “one to come.” The point then is that in the Semitic speaking territories of Syria, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Persia the basic logic of “another” Christ never entirely disappeared and accounts in my mind for the quick reception of the one called “Mohammed” as the predicted Paraclete of Jesus. If as Crowne and Crone note that Islam developed many of its core doctrines from Samaritanism Marqionitism must have been the original conduit.

In future works I hope to develop a thesis that Mohammedism had neo-Marqionitism as one of its underlying influences. The idea shines forth in the passage from the Koran which reads:

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" Who doth greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against God, even as he is being invited to Islam? And God guides not those who do wrong. Their intention is to extinguish God's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But God will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it). It is He Who has sent His Apostle with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

The “carry over” from the Syrian kingdom of Marcus Agrippa of course was the expectation that a great king would establish a kingdom of God as a fulfillment of the original prophesy of Jesus.

The real point of course is that we can trace the general pattern back to a messianic tradition in northern Israel – i.e. Galilee and Samaria – where the fact that Mark was not just a king but a conquering “man of war” certainly assisted his messianic identification. We can I think continue to see reverberations however of a Catholic “backlash” as it were where because of these very same reasons we hear Irenaeus say that “appears as if he really were the precursor of the Antichrist.” In other words the idea of Mark being “Christ” or “Antichrist” is really two sides of the same coin. The same author says that Marqion’s followers “set forth, indeed, the name of Christ as a sort of lure but in various ways they introduce the impieties of Simon and thus they destroy multitudes, wickedly disseminating their own doctrines by the use of a good name, and, through means of its sweetness and beauty, extending to their hearers the bitter and malignant poison of the serpent, the great author of apostasy.”

Irenaeus’ teacher Polycarp goes further in his vitriol against Marqion saying to his face again that “I do recognize thee, the first-born of Satan” who claims moreover that his teacher taught that anyone who like Marqion “who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist [1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7] … and whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the firstborn of Satan" Most theologians necessarily read this comments about a connection between Marqion and the “Antichrist” of the Catholic tradition entirely superficially. They water down the link noting that Irenaeus only says that he “presaged” the appearance of another who was the real Antichrist. The point however is that by the end of the second century it would have been impossible to hold that Mark really was the Antichrist just as neo-Marqionite traditions were struggling to maintain that he was the Christ.

After all time was marching on, the his kingdom of heaven – the malkootha d’shemay – in the historical “kingdom of Syria” – al-Sham – had been effectively dismantled by Antoninus Pius. There was no way that he could be Christ or Antichrist to future generations any longer because the “end times” and the revelation of God never occurred! So it is that the tradition which followed Polycarp had to reconstitute all of his anti-Marqionite teachings into a new light just as the various splinter groups of neo-Marqionitism put forward new explanations about the “apostle” heralding “another apostle” to come after him. Nevertheless if we look closely at each we can see the original historical Marcus Agrippa shining through what survives.

When for instance see Irenaeus identify the historical character of their Antichrist saying that:

being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol.

In my mind everyone should be able to see Marcus Agrippa quite clearly here. After this false Christ is said to establish himself in Jerusalem “endeavoring to show himself as Christ” the same author puts forward that “this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire.” Can anyone yet see the events of the Jewish rebellion which established Mark originally as “Christ” were now being used to make him “Antichrist”?

The truth is of course that no one can really use any of these statements as absolute yardsticks or proofs for anything other than a general “remembrance” about what the Antichrist “would look like” based upon the figure whom the first Church Fathers were told by no less than Polycarp himself was the very living thing. Hippolytus, the next link in the chain of Polycarp’s students tell us that:

as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of his royalty and glory, in the same way have the scriptures also beforehand spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion. Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb, so he too in like manner will appear as a lamb without; within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circumcision [i.e., the Jewish race], and he will come in the same manner. . . . The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem.

Of course it may well be mere coincidence again that the apostle Mark alone of all the evangelists is identified by the symbol of the lion in the standard Catholic understanding, coincidence again that he shares the same sign “Christ” and indeed “Antichrist.”

Yet I defy anyone to overlook Lanctantius’ understanding of the Antichrist who will come being derived from what is certainly the historical person of Marcus Agrippa when we read:

[A] king shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself. . . . But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him. He will command fire to come down from heaven and the sun to stand and leave his course, and an image to speak, and these things shall be done at his word. . . . Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people

We could go on and on reporting no less the “positive” content of Mark’s “kingdom of Syria” in the Islamic apocalyptic tradition but I am afraid that at a certain point too much information is now liable to compromise the cause of reinstating Marcus Agrippa into the assembly of “great men of history” no less than the canon of saints.

# © 2006 by World Star International Inc. Marcus Julius Agrippa Jr.