THE “HERETICAL” RECEPTION OF THE GOSPEL OF

MARK
Joel Kuhlin ([email protected])
& Paul Linjamaa ([email protected])
Lund University

Abstract:
This article is devoted to the reception of the Gospel of Mark among certain het-
erodox early Christian groups. It takes its departure in the hypothesis for-
warded by some scholars – supported by an interpretation of Irenaeus – that the
Gospel of Mark was well received among Valentinians, Basilideans and Carpoc-
rateans. This, it has been claimed, pushed the need for adding a new beginning
and end to the Gospel of Mark. The present article begins with a recapitulation
of the scholarship on the reception of the Gospel of Mark and then aims to scru-
tinize the modern interpretations of Irenaeus, which claim that particular heter-
odox groups were drawn to Mark. The article ends by looking at what can
actually be discerned from Valentinian texts as well as the scant sources of Basi-
lidean and Carpocratean theology. The conclusion presented here is that there
are some indications that Mark could have been of importance for Basilidean
followers, but nothing that would suggest that Mark retained any particular
standing among Valentinians or Carpocrateans, a notion chiefly supported by a
flawed reading of Irenaeus.

Key Words:
reception of the Gospel of Mark, early Christian heterodoxy, heretical exegesis,
Valentinians, Basilideans, Carpocrateans

PNA 36/2021 69
ARTIKLAR

The reception of the Gospel of Mark in the writings of early Christian

writers creates interesting problems and possibilities for a historiog-
raphy of early Christianity. The text was recognised as authoritative in
influential circles from early on, about the early 2nd century CE. On the
basis of its affiliation with the apostle Peter, it was arguably sanctioned
for wide use in the growing Christian movement, compared to other
texts which were more contested, like the Book of Revelation or the Let-
ter to the Hebrews. However, even though Mark enjoyed this ac-
ceptance, the peculiar gospel-version was simultaneously strangely
neglected.1 It is the canonical Gospel which is by far the least cited by
the formative Christian theologians during the 2nd–3rd centuries CE,
such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, and Or-
igen of Alexandria.
Scholarship on the reception on Mark pertains chiefly to proto-ortho-
doxy, patristic writers’ attitude toward the text.2 A few have, however,
commented on the reception of Mark within heterodoxy. Francis Wat-
son has spearheaded an interesting argument suggesting that Valentin-
ians were particularly drawn to Mark for the similar reasons that it was
ignored by proto-orthodox Christians: due to its poor theological finesse
and low Christology.3 Michael Kok concurs with Watson, and writes
that according to Irenaeus “Valentinus, Basilides and Carpocrates were
invested in Mark” because these groups “seemed to some interpreters

1 See the chapter “Present but Absent: Mark as Amanuensis and Abbreviator” in Brenda
Deen Schildgen, Power and Prejudice: the Reception of the Gospel of Mark, Detroit: Wayne
State University Press 1999, for a helpful review of a Christian reception of the Gospel
according to Mark, over the millennia. Schildgen summarizes the text’s reception in early
Christianity with the following comment: “The virtual absence of Mark in the first centu-
ries of Christian writing demonstrates that despites the gospel’s presence in the canon, it
was not treated equally with the others, let alone with any special deference.” Schildgen,
Power and Prejudice, 41.
2 We use the term “proto-orthodoxy” to refer to the diverse ideas, practices and beliefs
attached to early Christian writers whom later, when the Church became more solidified
around the fourth century onward, were posthumously counted as belonging to ortho-
doxy, i.e. people who were of right opinion before there was a clear idea and consensus
concerning what constituted it.
3 Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2013,
496.

70
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

to distance Jesus from the divinity and support a separationist Christol-

ogy where a celestial entity possessed Jesus at the baptism and vacated
the premises at the crucifixion.”4
Both Watsons and Kok’s assessments lean heavily on Irenaeus’ own
account of heretical exegesis and part of the aim of this article is to scru-
tinize this hypothesis concerning the reception of Mark in the groups
Irenaeus mentions. The article is divided into three parts. After an initial
overview of the general reception of Mark in early Christianity we turn
to scrutinize what Irenaeus actually says about a heretical reception and
exegesis of Mark. We conclude that, without basis in first-hand sources,
there is little to support the conclusions forwarded by Watson and Kok,
particularly in light of the polemical style on Irenaeus writing. The arti-
cle ends by scrutinizing the heterodox first- and second-hand sources
mentioned by Irenaeus and review what can actually be discerned from
them regarding an attitude toward the Gospel of Mark. We conclude
that the so-called “heretical reception” of the Gospel of Mark was more
diverse than either Irenaeus or his modern interpreters have previously
acknowledged.

Toward a General Reception of Mark in the 2nd–3rd Centuries

When attempting to construct the reception of Mark during the first cou-
ple of centuries of the Common Era, one is struck by a fundamental and
paradoxical problem. This gospel version, and particularly its ending, is
the cause of intense negotiation during the first centuries, for instance,
that the gospel story accumulated up to four different endings during
the rather limited time-period of the first couple of centuries.5 Despite
the wide and highly engaged ancient usage of the text, Mark’s version
of the gospel story is on the periphery of patristic discourse in terms of
its influence and theological significance. Furthermore, Mark is attested
only rarely in ancient papyri and MSS prior to the 5th century.6 Thus,

4 Michael Kok, The Gospel on the Margins: The Reception of Mark in the Second Century,
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers 2015, 264–265.
5 Matthew Larsen, Gospels Before the Book, New York: Oxford University Press 2018, 114–
21.
6 For a recent discussion, see Kok, Gospel on the Margins, 6–7; for a substantial review, see
James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and their Message
in the Longer Ending of Mark, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999. In this article, we are not mak-
ing a claim about the originality of a particular Markan ending.

71
ARTIKLAR

there is a disjunction between the reception of Mark — as a material

source for theological paraphrases (e.g., in the canonical Gospels, and
textual interpolation of Mark and its ending) — and the ideological and
theological appreciation of Mark in an ante-Nicean patristic discourse.
This tension is effectively displayed by Bart Ehrman, in a comparison
between the popularity of the Shepherd of Hermas and Mark in late an-
tiquity:

The Shepherd of Hermas… is relatively well attested in the early

centuries. Its only nearly complete witness, it is true, is Codex
Athous of the fifteenth century. But up to the sixth century, it is
better attested even than some of the books of the New Testa-
ment, being partially found in the Codex Sinaiticus (the last quar-
ter of the book), the Michigan papyrus of the third century (most
of the Parables), the Bodmer papyrus 38 (the last three visions),
and nearly twenty other fragmentary papyri, most of them from
the third to the fifth centuries. One could argue on strictly mate-
rial grounds that the Shepherd was more widely read than the
Gospel of Mark in the early centuries of Christendom.7

Indirect evidence for a widespread “Markan problem” in late antiquity

can also be inferred from the different sequences of the gospel texts,
where a Western ordering (e.g., in Codex Bezae and the theologian Ter-
tullian) puts Luke and Mark after John and Matthew.8 Could this seem-
ingly open “serialization” of the canonical Gospels also mean that Mark
was a possible cornerstone for heretical groups, who in turn prioritised
Mark when interpreting the Gospels?9
For a host of reasons, the Markan material is frequently read in har-
mony with the Gospels of Matthew, Luke (and John), in effect treating

7 Bart Ehrman, “Textual Traditions Compared: The New Testament and the Apostolic
Fathers,” in: A. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett (ed.), The Reception of the New Testament in the
Apostolic Fathers, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005), 9–28 (10–11).
8 The idea of Markan priority is at present axiomatically accepted. Yet, there is no need to
give similar value to either the two-source hypothesis or the Farrer-thesis to follow the
argument of this paper.
9 This is the hypothesis of Francis Watson (Watson, Gospel Writing, 518–519). That is, Wat-
son finds reason to use the marginality of Mark to hypothesise Christian groups that
would valorise the strangeness of Mark.

72
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

this gospel-version as a mere pre-stage to these rhetorically and theo-

logically “richer” portrayals of Jesus’ ministry and death. Is there also
reason to treat an isolated or non-Synoptical reading of Mark as poten-
tially dangerous on account of its origin with a disciple of an apostle (ap-
ostolici) rather than stemming directly from an eye-witness? Since the
status of apostolici (i.e., from an indirect authority of an apostle) is shared
with Luke (traditionally associated with Paul of Tarsus), this label itself
does not single out Mark as particularly problematic. However, since
the aforementioned ordering of the canonical Gospels also downplays
the importance of Luke (among other things, bringing out a historical
memory of Marcion’s infamous prioritization of the Lukan text), the
problem remains, albeit as one of degree rather than kind, in relation to
this group of Gospels.
The more pressing problem with Mark during the 2nd–3rd centuries
is presented in an interesting way by Michael Kok, in A Gospel on the
Margins: The Reception of Mark in the Second Century (2015). Kok demon-
strates that the 2nd-century patristic theologians — Papias, Justin,
Clement, Origen, and Irenaeus — share a particular tendency to (1) un-
dermine the theological value of Mark while simultaneously (2) under-
scoring its authority as being from the apostle Peter. From the per-
spective of a patristic tendency and critique, we find Mark in a marginal
position within the Christian canon, particularly among the Gospels,
while still holding a more or less clear position within the canonical
sphere, according to said early Christian writers. Following this analy-
sis, one is prone to ask: why does Mark end up in the Christian canon at
all?10 Kok defines Mark’s characteristic dialectic of presence and absence
in the 2nd–3rd centuries CE:

Given Mark’s lackluster reception in the patristic period, it is

astounding that it survived at all once its contents were almost

10 Watson defines and responds to Kok’s formulation (of the same problem) thus: “The
Gospel of Mark has a secure place within the canonical four gospel collection. Once it was
established there, no-one seems to have declared it to be redundant on the grounds that it
contains little more than mere repetition of material already available in Matthew and
Luke.” Francis Watson, “How Did Mark Survive?,” in: K. A. Bendoraitis & N. K. Gupta
(ed.), Matthew and Mark Across Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Stephen C. Barton and
William R. Telford, London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2016, 1–17 (1).

73
ARTIKLAR

completely reabsorbed in Matthew and Luke. It could have dis-

appeared without a trace like the other Synoptical sources lost to
the dust of antiquity.11

Kok goes on to locate the origins of the abovementioned double move

towards the Gospel, with Bishop Papias of Hierapolis’ lost five-volume
Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις; i.e. (1) undermining the text’s value, and
(2) affirming its origin with Peter, at the same time.12 After Papias, the
discourses of Clement, Origen, and Irenaeus consistently repeat this
particular posture toward the Gospel of Mark. Kok writes that “[o]n one
level, Mark is a trustworthy record of the life of Jesus substantiated by
Peter’s witness. At another level, Mark did not measure up to a Gospel
like Matthew (Papias, Irenaeus, Clement) or John (Clement)… [and in
comparison] seemed substandard, rhetorically and theologically.”13 The
patristic evidence leads Kok to a unanimous verdict: as a stand-alone
version of “the Gospel,” Mark was not believed to be theologically, or
rhetorically, trustworthy in late antiquity. Regarding heretical groups in
particular, he states the following:

The difficulty with any thesis on the reception of Mark in the sec-
ond century is the limited evidence. The editorial changes made
to Mark by evangelists and scribes alike disclose the passages
they were concerned were liable to be misinterpreted, but that
does not necessarily entail the existence of an opposing exegete
who drew the opposite conclusion…Yet the vague hints in Papias
and Justin that Christians were caught up in a war over the own-
ership of Gospel texts in which specific apostolic authorship was
a weapon in their arsenal gives way to the naming of alternative
interpretive communities in Irenaeus. Irenaeus reveal that the
students of Valentinus, Basilides and Carpocrates were invested
in Mark. Some of the recurrent texts in the debate, such as Mark

11 Kok, Gospel on the Margins, 11.

12 Papias is a particularly interesting candidate for a causa sui of the widespread reception
of Mark during late antiquity. The unanimous association juxtaposing Mark with the
apostle Peter in the 2nd century probably goes back to an early and influential attestation
by Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60–130 CE). See the discussion in Watson, Gospel Writing, 462f.
13 Kok, Gospel on the Margins, 227.

74
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

1:9–11, 10:17, or 15:34, seemed to some interpreters to distance Je-

sus from the divinity and support a separationist Christology
where a celestial entity possessed Jesus at the baptism and va-
cated the premises at the crucifixion.14

As we shall see, this evaluation by Kok of Irenaeus’ testimony is much

inspired by Francis Watson. Let us now turn to scrutinizing what Ire-
naeus actually says regarding heterodox use of Mark.

Interpreting Irenaeus’ Portrayal of Valentinian Use of Mark

In chapter nine of Francis Watson’s book Gospel Writing: A Canonical Per-
spective (2013) he discusses heretical uses of the canonical Gospels in an
attempt to discuss the canonization processes of late 2nd-century Chris-
tianity. Watson claims that the emerging consensus of a fourfold Gospel
is to be understood not against “Marcionites, countering one version of
a canon of Christian scripture with another.” Rather, one should shift
attention to Valentinians and post-Valentinian theology (“post” in the
sense of following Valentinus) since “heresy is dangerous not because it
uses the wrong Gospels but because it uses the right ones.”15 Valentini-
ans were purportedly already using the four canonical Gospels sepa-
rately and as “inspired scripture,” which meant that it was up to
heresiologists like Irenaeus to, in a sense, theologically undermine a dis-
tinct Valentinian interpretation and grab “the four” Gospels from their
hands for the cause of uniting “the Church.” In this context, Watson is
therefore interested in how Irenaeus treats the Gospel of Mark and its
heretical reception by Valentinians.16

14 Kok, Gospel on the Margins, 264–265.

15 Watson, Gospel Writing, 496.
16 See for instance Watson, Gospel Writing, 503–504 where Watson draws on Irenaeus, Haer.

3.11.7 and provides a speculative exegesis of Markan themes and passages, without refer-
ence to Valentinian sources: “If [the Gospel of Mark] is read without this love of truth, that
is, in light of the Valentinian theology, it will seem to contain a cacophony of voices: for
between the advent and the departure of the Saviour from above, Jesus is variously the
mouthpiece either of the Saviour, or of the mother (Achamoth), or the creator.” However,
in light of the complete absence of any reading of these themes in the Gospel of Mark in
particular, it is impossible to value Watson’s suggestion. Here as elsewhere, Watson is
uninterested in Valentinianism as Christian theology, and ends up siding with Irenaeus’
polemical views against ancient “heretics.”

75
ARTIKLAR

The hypothetical locating of a problematic, Markan reception in Wat-

son’s Gospel Writing actualizes the larger, interesting issue of early
Christian politics in relation to the Valentinians as well as unspoken as-
sumptions about “heresy” and “heretics,” in contemporary exegesis.17
But what does Irenaeus actually say regarding the Valentinian use of
Mark?
In Adversus Haeresis, Irenaeus is devoted to prove in particular Val-
entinian theology as faulty, and in one passage he writes the following:

Now the passion experienced by the twelfth Aeon is pointed out,

they say [the Valentinians], by the apostasy of Judas, the twelfth
of the apostles, when the betrayal took place. Also by the fact that
[Jesus] suffered in the twelfth month; for they profess that he
preached one year after his baptism. Furthermore, this is most
clearly manifested by the case of the woman with the hemor-
rhage, since, after she had suffered for twelve years, she was healed by
Savior’s coming, when she touched the hem of his cloak. And because of
that, Savior said: “Who touched me?” By this he taught the disciples
the mystery that had taken place among the Aeons and the heal-
ing of the Aeon that had suffered passion. For that power was
pointed out through her who had suffered for twelve years, inas-
much as she was straining forward and her material substance
was flowing out into immensity, as they say. And unless she had
touched that Son’s cloak, that is, the Truth of the First Tetrad,
which is indicated by them, she would have been resolved into
the universal substance. But she stopped and rested from her pas-
sion; for, when the power of the Son went out – this they hold is

17 Watson’s Gospel Writing is presently treated as initializing and opening a conversation

about early Christian reception of the Gospel of Mark and the label “heretic.” Watson’s
treatment of Mark in this context tries to establish a (post)Valentinian reading of signifi-
cant narrative events, such as Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1), the bleeding woman (Mark 5) and
Jesus’ execution (Mark 15) that seems, we argue, to presuppose that any reading of said
passages are problematic per se. The Valentinians’ reading of Mark is treated as “heretical”
until proved otherwise, as it were. Our point is, however, that there is no evidence to sup-
port that Valentinians’ looked on Mark any more or any differently than other Christians,
or that they used Mark when developing what Irenaeus considered to be Valentinian he-
retical theology. In short, Valentinian readings and use of the Gospel according to Mark
are more or less completely lacking in ancient sources. Similar to the situation with other
groups of second century Christians.

76
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

the power of Limit – he healed her and removed the passion from
her.18

Via this section, Francis Watson has argued that Mark is singled out by
Irenaeus, since this Gospel-version alone contains details about the
haemorrhaging woman which are left out from the other Synoptics.
Watson states that “[t]he question τίς µου ἥψατο [“Who touched me?”],
cited here, occurs only in Mark 5.30,”19 focusing his decoding of Irenaeus
to demonstrate a number of things that Valentinians saw in Mark 5.
Watson claims that the pneumatikoi among the (Valentinian) groups
would purportedly have been drawn to Mark 5 and that the linkage of
the twelve-year-old girl and the haemorrhaging woman (bleeding for
twelve years) parallels two forms of Sophia-figures. Secondly, Watson
suggests that an emphasis on the number twelve highlights the im-
portance of the twelfth aeon (Sophia). Thirdly, the flow of blood is said
by Watson to narrate the healing from the passion of the twelfth aeon,
which caused her fall.20
Other than the inquiry τίς µου ἥψατο, Mark 5 is not alone in the de-
tails required to create this overall connection between the Synoptic pe-
ricope and the Sophia theology that Irenaeus discusses. While it seems
plausible that Irenaeus refers to the particularities of a known Markan
pericope, nothing in the passage above indicates by necessity that he
was aware of this reference’s origin in Mark. After all, Irenaeus does not
mention Mark by name in this chapter.21 It is fully possible and even
probable that he did not consider this passage to be distinctly Markan.

18 Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haeresis 1.3.3.; in: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies,
translated and annotated by Dominic J. Unger; with further revisions by John J. Dillon,
vol. 55, New York: Newman 1992, 64–65.
19 Watson, Gospel Writing, 497, n.187.
20 Watson, Gospel Writing, 497.
21 Peter Head argues that out of 626 quotations from the Gospels, there are only three
explicit references to Mark in 1) Haer. 3.10.5 on Mark 1.1–3 and 16.19; 2) 3.16.3 on Mark
1.1; and 3) 4.6.1, which is a misattribution and actually refers to material in Matt
11.27//Luke 10.22: see Peter M. Head, “The Early Text of Mark,” in: J. M. Kruger and E. C.
Hill (ed.), The Early Text of the New Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, 108–
120 [112, 112 n.14]. In short, Irenaeus correctly references Mark only twice in the entirety
of Haer. Given the peripheral status of Mark in patristic theology, this is not a surprising
fact. On the contrary, the marginality of Mark is to be expected.

77
ARTIKLAR

Since only Jesus’ question stands out as particularly Markan, and Ire-
naeus does not make a point that Valentinian pneumatics used this detail
in their spiritual interpretation,22 more analysis is needed if one wants
to claim a connection between Mark 5.23–43 and Valentinians as im-
portant for Irenaeus.
Rather, Watson’s point directs our attention to a general problem of
Synoptic reading of the Gospels, both in late antiquity and for contem-
porary readers, where Gospel material can reside nameless in the
memory of the theologian. On this point, Peter Head has argued that
Irenaeus’ general use of Mark exemplifies a tendency to synthesise the
Synoptics, neglecting and even displaying ignorance of Markan peculi-
arities.23 And if Watson’s general hypothesis that Irenaeus did highlight
Mark as a valuable theological source for a particular Valentinian incli-
nation is worth pursuing more, what does this say about a possible re-
production of a (post) “Valentinian theology”? Does Haer. 1.3.3 exhibit
a particular preference to Markan material?24 Again, since Watson’s case
stands or falls on a brief three-word phrase which is unique to Mark 5.30
(which is not even mentioned as important to Valentinian theology as
such in Irenaeus’ discourse), more work needs to be done in order to
convincingly establish the relation.
Another locus used by Watson is seen where Irenaeus comments on
Jesus’ cry on the cross:

How much, likewise, they attempt to appropriate from the Scrip-

tures to the things outside of their Fullness is [clear from] the fol-
lowing. The Lord, they say, in the last times of the world came to
suffer for this reason, that he might manifest the suffering that
came upon the last of the Aeons and, by this end make visible the
purpose of the dealings concerning the Aeons. They tell us that

22 Irenaeus notes that “on this account the Saviour said, ‘Who touched me?’ – teaching his
disciples the mystery which had occurred among the Aeons, and the healing of that Aeon who had
been involved in suffering” (our italics). Although an interesting passage, it does not stress
Jesus’ inquiry as such.
23 Head, “Text of Mark,” 120.
24 This issue is raised by Watson’s quotation of Haer. 3.11.7., mentioned above, where Ire-
naeus (and Watson) evokes the entire Gospel of Mark (as those who “separate Jesus from
Christ, and claim that Christ remained impassible whereas Jesus suffered”) in relation to
the Valentinians. Watson, Gospel Writing, 504.

78
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

the twelve-year-old virgin, the daughter of the ruler of the temple,

whom the Lord visited and raised from the dead, is a type of
Achamoth, to whom their Christ stretched himself forward and
gave her form, and led her to the perception of the light which
had forsaken her… Also the sufferings which she endured, they
assert, the Lord pointed out on the cross. In this way, when he
exclaimed "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" he
recalled that Wisdom was deserted by the light and was hindered
by Limit from advancing any farther. Her grief he manifested
when he said: “My heart is very sorrowful”, even to death; her
fear when he said: "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass
from me", and her perplexity when he said: “And what shall I
say”, I do not know.25

Again, we see the connection made by Irenaeus to the importance of the

twelve-year-old girl. Here, stress falls upon Jesus’ raising her from the
dead, pointing forward to the event of resurrection. But more im-
portantly for present purposes, in the passage above Watson notices that
Irenaeus uses the Markan version ὁ θεός µου… εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές µε
(Mark 15.34) rather than the Matthean θεέ µου… ἱνατί µε ἐγκατέλιπες
(Matt 27.46).26 Mark’s cry of dereliction is said to have suggested to “Val-
entinian exegetes” a “tragic earthly occurrence [and] the heavenly trag-
edy of Sophia’s abandonment by the divine Christ, who left her in the
dark and with no immediate possibility of return to the Plērōma.”27
As before, Watson’s argument about a reception of Mark among Val-
entinians (now understood as a group of “exegetes”) does not establish
enough evidence that Irenaeus was arguing for their importance of a
Markan version of the crucifixion events. Surprisingly, Watson does not
discuss the role of Matthew’s paraphrase of Mark 15.34 for the overall
hypothesis, other than to say that Irenaeus cites the Markan Vorlage. The
mere occurrence of the unique Markan wording is presented as evi-
dence for the connection between Irenaeus and the problematic use of
Mark by Valentinians. Again, a reference to Mark could have been made
for a number of reasons. One needs, first of all, to argue that Irenaeus
was actually aware of the Gospel-version he was citing. This is not a given,

25 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.2.

26 Watson, Gospel Writing, 497, n.189.
27 Watson, Gospel Writing, 498.

79
ARTIKLAR

particularly when we consider the aforementioned article by Head and

the background that Irenaeus in Haer. 4.6.1 wrongly attributes material
found in Matthew and Luke to Mark.
However, if Watson is correct to assert that the citation of the Greek
phrase from Mark 15.34 signifies something crucial, what are the actual
particularities of the Markan passion-passages that Irenaeus located in
Valentinian exegesis? If they really exist, they are difficult to track down.
For instance, the explicit Gethsemane excerpts found towards the end
of the passage above, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto
death,”28 is actually shared by both Mark and Matthew, and in an iden-
tical Greek phrase. The sentence “Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me”29 has the definite shape of stemming from a Matthean
version and does not seem to originate in a Markan rendition.
The case for the importance of a connection between Mark and Val-
entinians is, again, built from Irenaeus’ use of a Markan Vorlage of shared
Synoptic material. If the wording of Jesus’ cry of dereliction in Mark is
of such importance, why does Irenaeus not make a bigger issue out of
it? Is the wording in Mark 15.34 (and ὁ θεός µου… εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές
µε) so different from Matt 27.46 (and θεέ µου... ἱνατί µε ἐγκατέλιπες)
that one can build an entire (Valentinian) theology from it? Is it enough
to simply point to the mere occurrence of particularities in the Markan
Greek phraseology in order to establish that Irenaeus was correct in jux-
taposing the Gospel of Mark and the Valentinians? Most likely not. The
passages above from Haer. are used by Watson to manufacture a con-
junction of specific Markan Gospel material and a Valentinian theology.
In a word, if the critical reader is not already invested in maintaining
Irenaeus’ general portrayal (for whatever reason), the evidence Watson
presents is not sufficient to convincingly bond the Gospel of Mark and
the Valentinians.

28 Mark 14.34 and Matt 26.38 cite the same psalm “περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή µου” and both

add “ἕως θανάτου” (“I am [or: my soul is] deeply grieved, even unto death”).
29 Mark 14.36 reads “Abba, father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from
me.” Matt 26.39 reads “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” What is
lacking for a Markan reference is the initial “Abba” and the claim that, for God, “all things
are possible.”

80
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

Searching for Mark in “Heterodoxy”

There are some general problems when looking for heterodox mentions
of Mark which has to do with representativity. We should be aware al-
ready at the outset that many of the names attributed to so called heter-
odox groups, such as the Valentinians, are categories stemming from
polemical contexts. We do not have any evidence suggesting that so
called Valentinians, Basilideans, Carpocrateans or any other “heresy”
viewed themselves as something “other” or “apart” from Christianity.30
It was a term applied to them by some early Christian writers whom we
today view as orthodox, and their name should not be attached to a
fixed theological system, but rather a collection of theological motifs of
sorts, some of which could possibly be traced back to an originator.31
Considering this background, it is problematic to classify texts, people,
and theological features as Valentinian, Basilidean, or Carpocratean, but
even more so to treat these phenomena as homogenous movements.32
Nevertheless, it might very well be true that some Christians who
were inspired by the specific theology which is associated with Valenti-
nus, Basilides, and other charismatic theologians and leaders were par-
ticularly interested in and inspired by Mark. Let us turn to the sources
themselves, beginning with the Basilidean and Carpocratean evidence,
ending with scrutinizing the larger corpus of Valentinian texts.

30 Frederik Wisse, “Prolegomena to the Study of the New Testament and Gnosis,” in: A.
H. B. Logan & A. J. M. Wedderburn (ed.), The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour
of Robert McL. Wilson, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1983, 138–145.
31 For details on Valentinus’ life and works, see Christoph Markschies, Valentinus
Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den
Fragmenten Valentins, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1992.
32 Michel Desjardins, “The Sources for Valentinian Gnosticism: A Question of Methodol-
ogy”, Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1986): 342–347. David Brakke rightly points out that in using
terms like Gnosticism (and this applies to Valentinianism also), there is a risk that periph-
eral “Gnostic” features of a text/group (for example, belief in a demiurge) take precedence
in terms of importance at the expense of something that could have been more central, for
example, the saving message of Jesus (David Brakke, The Gnostics, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press 2010, 1–28). See also Michael Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”,
Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996, 51, who acknowledges the usefulness of using
terms like “Valentinian” to highlight specific sub-traditions within the broader category
of Christianity.

81
ARTIKLAR

According to some early Christian writers, Basilides was allied with

a disciple to the apostle Peter, a man named Glaucias.33 Origen claimed
that Basilides had also composed his own Gospel in addition. But it is
unclear how Basilides positioned his own writings in relation to the four
Gospels, especially with regard to their theological authority.34 Accord-
ing to Irenaeus, Basilides taught that Jesus did not suffer on the Cross
and also denied Jesus’ bodily resurrection,35 which would go well with
the earliest versions of Mark which leave out the resurrection.36 The ma-
jority of the few fragments of Basilides’ own writings come from the
book Clement calls Exegetica, a voluminous work with unclear content.37
Nothing here, though, suggests that the Gospel of Mark is favoured or
neglected; no specific quotations from Mark can be detected, only one
from Paul (1 Thessalonians 4.3–8).38 It therefore remains unclear
whether Mark played a central role for Basilides.39 There are too few ex-
tant first- and second-hand sources to draw any firm conclusions re-
garding Basilides’ relation to the Gospel of Mark.
Sources on the Carpocrateans are even rarer, and no direct quotes
remain. Irenaeus is the most detailed in his references to their theology;
other references seem to rely on his claim that the Carpocrateans saw

33 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.17.

34 Origen, Homilies on Luke 1.2.
35 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.24.4.
36 James A. Kelhoffer, “Basilides’s Gospel and Exegetica (Treatises),” Vigiliae Christianae 59

(2005): 115–134. Kelhoffer points out that Irenaeus’ depiction of Basilides’ theological out-
look concerning Jesus’ death, where he gives the cross to Simon of Cyrene who is crucified
in his place, echoes Mark 15:21 mentioning a Simon of Cyrene, or possibly Matthew 27:32.
Kelhoffer, rightly in our opinion, questions the trustworthiness of Irenaeus’ rendering of
Basilidean theology at the point of Jesus’ escaping death.
37 It is often thought to be a text commenting on the gospels, but this is unclear, as
Kelhoffer has argued. It might just as well be a text expanding on Basilides’ theology.
Kelhoffer, “Basilides’s Gospel,” 115–134. See also Birger A. Pearson, “Basilides the
Gnostic,” in: A. M. P. Luomanen, A Companion to Second-Century Christian "Heretics",
Leiden: Brill 2008, 1–31.
38 Clement, Strom. 4.12. See also Hegemonius, Acta Archelai 38, 55, in: M.J. Vermes, Acta
Archelai, Turnhout: Brepols 2001.
39 Bentley Layton has previously suggested that Basilides’ take on the resurrection was
inspired by Mark. Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, New York: Doubleday 1987, 417–
444; Bentley Layton, “The Significance of Basilides in Ancient Christian Thought,”
Representations 28 (1989): 135–151.

82
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

Jesus as a philosopher man rather than as a god, and that they kept a
picture of Jesus along with other philosophers they revered. Clement
speaks of Carpocrates’ son, Epiphanes, and accuses him of libertinism
(in relation to the opposite sex), and further mentions a book Epiphanes
is supposed to have authored (but does not quote from it).40 There are
too few first- and second-hand sources to draw any conclusions regard-
ing the Carpocratean relation to the Gospel of Mark. Thankfully, in the
case of our final group, the Valentinians, the evidence is much more vo-
luminous.
There are a number of texts and textual fragments extant today
which are associated with the Valentinians. There is no scholarly con-
sensus regarding exactly which of these texts should be classified as Val-
entinian. Here, we will discuss those texts and fragments that are less
contended.41 Most obvious are the seven fragments of Valentinus him-
self, quoted by Clement and Hippolytus. In these fragments there is
nothing to suggest that Valentinus preferred Mark.42 Clement also
quotes a compilation of different Valentinian texts which he titled “Ex-
cerpts of Theodotus”, another text collection of Valentinian derivation
missing an overtly Markan influence. Clement’s productive junior, Ori-
gen, was also intimately familiar with the Valentinians and actually put
a lot of effort into refuting Valentinians’ uses of a particular Gospel ver-
sion important to them. However, it does not seem to have been the
Gospel of Mark that Origen depicts as the Valentinians’ gospel of choice,
but rather John’s. The earliest commentary to the Gospel of John extant
today came from the hand of a Valentinian (though unfortunately only
in piecemeal form), a man named Heracleon. Again, there is no mention
of Mark in this context either.43
What about the Nag Hammadi texts? A brief look at the extremely
thorough concordance of Bible passages in the different Nag Hammadi
texts makes it obvious that, compared to other Gospels and texts of the

40 Clement, Stromata 3.2.

41 To this list we include the fragments of Valentinus, Excerpts of Theodotus quoted by
Clement, the fragments of Heracleon quoted by Origen, and the following Nag Hammadi
texts: A Valentinian Exposition, The Tripartite Tractate, The Gospel of Truth, Prayer of Paul, and
The Interpretation of Knowledge.
42 Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus?, 337–407.
43 Elaine Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John,
Nashville: Abingdon 1973.

83
ARTIKLAR

Bible, Mark actually occurs very infrequently in the Valentinian mate-

rial (as well as in other Nag Hammadi texts).44 The main inspiration for
Valentinians seems rather to have been the apostle Paul. This has al-
ready been argued by Elaine Pagles in her book The Gnostic Paul.45 Paul
is cited as the great apostle, and has a text named after him in Codex I,
and he is also frequently quoted.46 Paul’s taxonomy of pneumatic, psy-
chic, and material knowledge of God discussed in 1 Cor 2–3 was proba-
bly foundational for traits often deemed typical for Valentinianism.47
The problem is not that one cannot find Markan references in the
Valentinian Nag Hammadi texts; the problem is that they are impossible
to separate from the Gospel of Matthew. Passages unique to Mark do
not occur, so we are left with references that could just as easily have
been references to Matthew. Let us take an example from the second text
in Nag Hammadi Codex XI, A Valentinian Exposition. This is a fitting text
to choose because it is the only Valentinian text extant today that clearly
portrays a theology similar to that which Irenaeus was most interested
in rejecting, what sometimes is called the Western version of Valentini-
anism.48 Evans and his colleagues identify no references to Mark in the
text itself. What about the ritual fragments that follow directly after this
text? On page 41, we can read the following concerning baptism:

Moreover, the first baptism is the forgiveness of sins. We are

brought from those of the right, that is, into the imperishability
which is the Jordan. But that place is of the world. So we have
been sent out of the world into the Aeon. For the interpretation of

44 C. Evans, R. Webb and R. Weibe (ed.), Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: A Synopsis and
Index, Leiden: Brill 1993.
45 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters, Philadelphia: For-
tress 1975.
46 Evans et al, Nag Hammadi Texts.
47 Ismo Dunderberg, Gnostic Morality Revisited, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2016, 137–148.
48 This form of Valentinianism focuses much on protological details and on the relations
among the multitude of Aeons in the Pleroma. For a discussion of the usefulness of this
division of Valentinianism, see Joel Kalvesmaki, “Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?,”
Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008): 79–89.

84
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

John is the Aeon, while the interpretation of that which is the up-
ward progression, that is, our Exodus from the world into the
Aeon. 49

In this passage, we are offered an interpretation of the more common

stories of John the Baptist found in Mark 1.4f., Matt 3.13f., and Luke 3.3f.
But which one is used as reference and inspiration? There are no appar-
ent differences between Mark 1.4, Matt 3.13, and Luke 3.3 which help us
to exclude Luke or Matthew from being the referenced text in this pas-
sage.
This situation is repeated with the other Valentinian Nag Hammadi
texts as well, like The Tripartite Tractate, The Gospel of Truth, and The In-
terpretation of Knowledge. There are no first-hand Valentinian sources
that make specific reference to the few passages that are unique to
Mark.50 Let us conclude the findings next.

Concluding Discussion
Kok’s analysis of early 2nd–3rd-century patristic critique of Mark, for
instance in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, rightly accentuates the general na-
ture of Mark as an ancient theo-political problem text. However, does
this context entail that “allowing” this Gospel-text to fall into the hands

49 A Valentinian Exposition 41.20–38, in: “A Valentinian Exposition,” text and translation

from John Turner ,” in: C. H. Hedrick (ed.), The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codices
XI, XII, XIII, Leiden: Brill 1990, 144–145: ⲡϣⲁⲣ̅ⲡ̅ ϭ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛ̄ⲃ[ⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥ ⲙⲁ ⲡⲉⲉ]ⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲕⲱⲉ̣ [ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̄ⲛⲛⲁⲃⲓ]
ⲥ̣ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ⲛ̣ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙ[ⲁⲛ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩ̅ⲛ̅ ⲛⲉⲧ̅ⲙ̅ⲙ]ⲉ̣ⲩ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩ̣ⲓ̣[ⲧⲟⲟⲧ̅ϥ̅ ⲁϩⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲛ ⲁⲛⲁⲩⲛⲉⲙ̣ [ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲉⲓⲡⲉ ⲁϩ]ⲟ̣ⲩⲛ
ⲁⲧⲙ̅ⲛ̅[ⲧⲁⲧⲧⲉⲕⲟⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ]ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ [ⲡ]ⲉ̣ ⲡⲓⲟ[ⲣⲇⲁⲛⲏⲥ ⲁⲗⲗ]ⲁ̣ ⲡⲓⲧⲟⲡⲟ̣[ⲥ] ⲡⲉ̣ [ⲡⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲡ]ⲕ̣[ⲟ]ⲥ̣ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁ̣[ⲩⲧ̅ⲛ̅ⲛⲁⲩ] ϭⲉ̣
ⲙ̣̄ⲙⲁⲛ ⲁⲃⲁ[ⲗ] ϩ̣[ⲙ̄ ⲡⲕⲟⲥ]ⲙⲟⲥ ⲁ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲡⲁⲓⲱ[ⲛ ⲑⲉⲣ]ⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛ̄ⲓ̈ⲱϩ[ⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ] ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲛ ⲑⲉⲣⲙ[ⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛ̄]ⲇⲉ
ⲙ̅ⲡⲏ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲟⲣⲇ̣[ⲁⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲉ] ⲡⲉ ⲧⲕⲁⲧⲁⲃⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ̣ [ⲡⲁⲛⲁⲃⲁⲥ]ⲙⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲉⲓ̣ [ⲡⲉ ⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲉⲓ] ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩ̅ⲙ̅ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟ̣[ⲥ
ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ] ⲁⲡⲁⲓⲱⲛ.
50 There are those who consider A Treaty on the Resurrection (NHC I,4) (also known as Letter

to Rheginos) a Valentinian text. In this text there is a possible reference to Mark in particu-
lar, at 48.6–10 mentioning Elijah and Moses in connection to the resurrection. In Mark,
Elijah is mentioned before Moses in this sequence, while Matthew and Luke mention Mo-
ses first, then Elijah. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer who pointed this out to
us. Even if A Treaty on the Resurrection is considered a Valentinian text, which it may in
fact be, even though this text seldom is counted among those featuring clear Valentinian
traits, this argument constitutes a weak basis on which to draw the conclusion that Valen-
tinians in general held Mark to their gospel of choice.

85
ARTIKLAR

of the wrong crowd – 2nd-century Christian theologians such as Valen-

tinus – means the establishment of a lasting theological divide among
the early Christian congregations, by way of producing a problematic
theology via a privileging of Mark as a theological source?51 If Mark was
already problematic to “orthodox” theologians, the reception of Mark
in the enemy camp, so to speak, would threaten to make matters worse,
following this hypothesis. Kok argues that if heterodox theologians,
such as Valentinus of Alexandria (ca. 100–160?), found theological au-
thority among the problematic tendencies of Mark, the broader Jesus-
movement could end up even more fragmented as a result – a prospect
clearly bothering a centrist and “peacemaker” theologian, such as Ire-
naeus.52
Kok’s study highlights intriguing problems surrounding the Gospel
of Mark during the 2nd–3rd centuries. Watson’s argument concerning
Valentinian interest in Mark strengthened Kok’s reading of Mark’s re-
ception during the 2nd century. We have demonstrated that both Kok
and Watson overlook the heterodox sources themselves and mainly rely
on Irenaeus’ one-sided testimony.
As is well known, referencing apostolic succession and attaching
oneself to the evangelists were just as strong legitimation techniques
among so called heretics as proto-orthodox writers.53 If Irenaeus really
tried to protect Mark from being overtaken by “heretics” (in particular,
Valentinians), one would have expected him to have stated this less
obliquely, or at least mentioned it in chapters 8 and 9 of Book I of Haer.
In these two chapters, Irenaeus deals exclusively with the question of
how the Valentinians, in his opinion, distorted Scripture for their own
purposes. But Mark is not discussed in detail, nor does it seem to make

51 Kok, Gospel on the Margins, 265.

52 Kok, Gospel on the Margins, 200–201. Through the use of terms such as centrism and rad-
icalism, with regards to proto-orthodox and “heretical” theologians of ancient Christianity,
Kok theoretically bypasses a value-laden debate on the naming of theologians. To be clear,
the terminology of “orthodoxy and heresy” is inherently problematic to explorative read-
ings of ancient religious material of any kind and is therefore avoided in the present study.
See the conclusion to Kok, Gospel on the Margins, 267–270 (“Conclusion: The Centrist Chris-
tian Approach to Mark”) succinct a treatment of said terms.
53 Recently, Candida Moss, “Fashioning Mark: Early Christian Discussions about the
Scribe and Status of the Second Gospel,” New Testament Studies 67 (2021): 181–204, has
engaged with the legitimation of the Gospel of Mark via Papias and Irenaeus from the
perspective of literacy and ancient practices of enslavement.

86
 J. Kuhlin & P. Linjamaa: Heretical Reception

up the foundations for the theology developed by those Valentinians

who Irenaeus opposed. Rather, it is the interpretations of Paul’s writings
which Irenaeus tries to protect, and he does so by painstakingly going
through the errors Valentinians have committed when extracting their
theology from Paul.54
There is little to suggest that Valentinians favoured the Gospel of
Mark in the way Watson and Kok read Irenaeus. There is more hope for
Basilides and possible Carpocrateans, but the evidence is scant, to say
the least. This does not mean that there were no ancient heterodox
groups particularly drawn to the Gospel of Mark. During the 4th cen-
tury a controversy arose involving a more straightforward “heretical”
use of the Gospel of Mark.55 Arian trinitarian theology was drawn to
enigmatic Markan sections and its peculiar theology, and thus presents
a later and more effective example analogous to Watson and Kok’s read-
ing of a more ancient heretical reception of Mark. Similar to how the
theological tendencies of the beginning of the Gospel of Mark and the
“adoption-scene” at the baptism of Jesus became a problem text for
proto-orthodox, Mark 13.32 worried Arians since Jesus – the son – here
explicitly denies exact knowledge of the eschaton’s chronology, and

54 For example, when Irenaeus describes the Valentinian tripartite anthropology and its
origin in Paul’s theology, he writes: “Paul, too, very clearly spoke of the earthly, the en-
souled, and the spiritual when he said in one place: “As was the earthly, such also are the
earthly” (1 Corinthians 15.48); and in another place: “But the ensouled man does not re-
ceive the things of the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2.14); and in still another place: “But the spir-
itual man judges all things” (1 Corinthians 2.15). That the ensouled man does not receive
the things of the Spirit they assert he said of Demiurge who, since he was ensouled, knew
neither his Mother, who was spiritual, nor her offspring, nor the Aeons in the Fullness.
Paul showed, furthermore, that Savior received the first fruits of those whom he was to
save, when he said: “And if the first fruits are holy, so is the whole lump” (Romans 11.16).
Now thy teach that the first fruits are the spiritual class whereas the lump is we, that is,
the ensouled church, which lump he assumed and raised up with himself since he was the
leaven.” Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.3
55 Athanasius of Alexandria introduces a particular issue with Mark 13.32 in Oration
against the Arians 3.26 and 42–50. For a review of Athanasius’ argument, see Paul S. Russel,
“Ephraem and Athanasius on the Knowledge of Christ. Two anti-Arian Treatments of
‘Mark’ 13:32,” Gregorianum (2004): 445–474 (462–466). Russel also calls another proto-or-
thodox theologian making a similar argument on the “correct” reading of Mark 13 to Ath-
anasius with the hymns of Ephraem the Syrian.

87
ARTIKLAR

thus iterates the baptismal story’s potential for emphasizing the son’s
ontological difference from God the father.56
Notwithstanding the methodological problems found in relation to
certain claims concerning heterodox beliefs (en masse) or a purported
attraction to particular biblical texts, there is little support for a distinct,
heretical reading of Mark. The evidence seems to be pointing instead in
the opposite direction: the heterodox groups we have discussed did not
differ much with respect to Irenaeus himself, nor to/from other patristic
writers, in their view of Mark. The Gospel of Mark was not of particular
interest or value to the heterodox groups we have discussed, but rather
seems to have been somewhat overlooked. Mark might have been au-
thoritative and one of the earliest textual sources left behind by Jesus’
followers, enjoying high status as a symbol, but, theologically, the Gos-
pel of Mark seems to have been neglected, by proto-orthodox and het-
erodox alike.

56 Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡµέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ
ὁ υἱός, εἰ µὴ ὁ πατήρ: ”But about that day or hour [of the eschaton], no one knows; neither
the angels in heavens, nor the Son but only the Father” (NRSV). It is not difficult to imag-
ine that a theology invested in the importance of locating differences concerning Jesus the
human and the nature of the divine reality would develop an interest in passages such as
Mark 1 and 13. This is precisely what the proto-orthodox proponents in this controversy
argued happened with Arian exegesis of the Gospel of Mark. The problem, according to
Athanasius for instance, was that Arians read Mark 13.32 in isolation from other texts un-
derlining the unity of the Son and the Father, such as John 17.1. We therefore find a chal-
lenging method of interpretating scripture in the center of this theological conflict:
“Scripture were themselves the source of the dispute and not fodder for proof-texting of
predetermined theological position” (Kevin Madigan, “Christus Nesciens? Was Christ
Ignorant of the Day of Judgment? Arian and Orthodox Interpretation of Mark 13.32 in the
Ancient Latin West,” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003): 255–278 (255). In short, Arians
were interested in the Gospel of Mark and its so-called “low Christology” because it
strengthened their theological position. While Arians simply needed to point to Markan
mentioning of Jesus’ ignorance of details pertaining to the eschaton, Athanasius and other
proto-orthodox theologians were forced to engage in a rather tortured exegesis of pas-
sages like Mark 13.32, in conflation with other canonical texts, in order to make the Gospel
of Mark fall into line with their trinitarian position.

88