Ending Scholarly Objections to To Theodore

I really don't mean to belabour this point - indeed part of me can't believe I never saw it before - but there seems to be surprisingly little reason to believe that a 'conflict' of any kind exists between Clement's 'authentic beliefs' and the Letter to Theodore.

Let me explain what I mean. Clement says very little - almost nothing - about the Gospel of Mark in any text that has come down to us in his name. The text which provides the claim that there is 'something incompatible' about to Theodore is
the Hypotyposes, a text which have been identified as a 'lost work of Clement' ever since Eusebius.

It is only owing to these fragments that scholars think that they need to provide 'explanations' for apparent 'contradictions' in Clement's understanding as to how the Gospel of Mark was developed.

Both Brown and Carlson essentially prattle on for pages about this apparent 'contradictions' - one attempts to 'explain them away' the other to 'exploit them' to his advantage when in point of fact as I noted earlier there is surprisingly little reason to think that Clement ever wrote the Hypotyposes.

Let's start with why we believe that the Hypotyposes were written by Clement. Eusebius tells us twice in his Church History about Clement's relationship to the text. First in Book Five:

In his Hypotyposes he speaks of Pantænus by name as his teacher. It seems to me that he alludes to the same person also in the first book of his Stromata, when, referring to the more conspicuous of the successors of the apostles whom he had met

And then in Book Six:

The books entitled Hypotyposes are of the same number. In them he mentions Pantænus by name as his teacher, and gives his opinions and traditions.

Of course as I have been trying to demonstrate through these posts, Eusebius doesn't say that Clement said that 'Pantainos' was his teacher in the Stromata. Eusebius' argument is that he has deduced that 'Pantainos' is the teacher of Clement by comparing what is written in Stromata 1:1 and a passage from the sixth book of the Hypotyposes. Eusebius never says that Pantainos is identified as Clement's teacher in any other writing.

More importantly he says that the Hypotyposes are the same length as the Stromata which if we look carefully at Book Seven originally ended with this work (Book Eight represents an additional work on a completely different subject).

To this end, Eusebius argues that the Hypotyposes was originally Clementine. As we have already noted it is very important to remember that Eusebius NEVER MENTIONS Theognostus of Alexandria, the author of another work called the Hypotyposes which was divided into seven books. It must be deemed as at least POSSIBLE that Eusebius mistook or misrepresented Theognostus' work as belonging to Clement (see other posts).

As such with this said we hear that Eusebius' identifies that the Hypotyposes declares a number of things about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark which appear to contradict what is written in to Theodore:

So, then, through the visit of the divine word to them, the power of Simon was extinguished, and immediately was destroyed along with the man himself. And such a ray of godliness shone forth on the minds of Peter's hearers, that they were not satisfied with the once hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with all manner of entreaties importuned Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, he being the companion of Peter, that he would leave in writing a record of the teaching which had been delivered to them verbally; and did not let the man alone till they prevailed upon him; and so to them we owe the Scripture called the "Gospel by Mark." On learning what had been done, through the revelation of the Spirit, it is said that the apostle was delighted with the enthusiasm of the men, and sanctioned the composition for reading in the Churches. Clemens gives the narrative in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes. [Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, II. 15]

and again:

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:-Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, in as much as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter's knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. [ibid VI:14]

And then finally in an explanation of 1 Peter:

while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Cæsar's equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews.[frag. Cassiodorus]

Most scholars take for granted that Clement actually wrote these words. Yet not only is the original text lost, it is based almost entirely on the testimony of one man - Eusebius of Caesarea.

I just noticed in Photius' section on the Instructor (which is universally acknowledged to have been written by Clement) how different the Hypotyposes were from this text. As Photius states rather baldly here in this report:

these discourses [i.e. the Hypotyposes] have nothing in common with the Outlines

In his discussion of the Hypotyposes itself, Photius' is even more explicit about his rejection of Clementine authorship:

He talks much other blasphemous nonsense, either he or some one else under his name.

In discussing the Stromata Photius acknowledges again that it

is in some parts unsound, but not like the Outlines, some of whose statements it refutes.

In other words, according to Photius 'professional' judgement Clement did not write the Hypotyposes.

Now I can see if Carlson and Jeffery make a case that to Theodore MIGHT conflict with the Hypotyposes which in turn MIGHT prove that to Theodore isn't genuine. Yet the amazing thing here is that it is simply ASSUMED that Hypotyposes is genuinely Clementine and to Theodore is not even though Photius goes out of his way to argue against this claim.

There is no doubt among scholars that Photius rejects the Clementine authorship of the Hypotyposes. Here is a sampling of opinion:

The censures of Photius were directed against the Hypotyposes, a commentary on the Bible ... of which we now possess only a few Greek fragments [Charles Bigg, the Christian Platonists of Alexandria p. 270]

... this book is not only despised by the excellent Photius, but rejected. And indeed anyone who has read the works of Clemens Alexandrinus will easily perceive the whole book contrary to the true Clemens and his principles [italics in the original], which is also observed by Photius [Jeremiah Jones, the Canonical Authority of the New Testament p. 326]

I want everyone to consider how embarrassing this is. Church Fathers rarely contradict established opinion regarding a text. Origen's doubts about the Epistle to the Hebrews is very unique. If Carlson was to systematically argue on behalf of the 'Clementine' characteristics of the Hypotyposes he would find himself in the exact position that Smith did when arguing on behalf of to Theodore (i.e. where scholars later sneered 'yeah it's too Clementine to really be by Clement!!!!).

So let's go back to the original problem.

Eusebius doesn't mention a Hypotyposes of Theognostus but only a book of the same title ascribed to Clement. Photius read two Alexandrian texts with the title Hypotyposes and viewed the one which passed under the name of Clement to be spurious while accepting the one ascribed to Theognostus. Then we have the curious detail that Athanasius - that anti-Origenist Church Father - employed a version of Theognostus' Hypotyposes to support his understanding of the relation of the Son and the Father. Athanasius is often identified as putting words into the mouths of individuals and texts to become mouthpieces for his own views (see Brakke's insight on the curious manner in which Antony's 'wishes' for his burial line up with Athanasius' own).

The point then is that one can imagine a scenario where Eusebius ascribed the original text of the Hypotyposes to Clement and DELIBERATELY passed over mentioning Theognostus in his Church History in order to save him from the charge of being labeled an Origenist. THEN sometime later a 'purified' version of the same Hypotyposes began to circulate with Athanasius in order to prove that the Orthodox position was current in Alexandria before Nicaea (notice that there seems to have been two versions of Dionysius writings - one in the hands of Arians and another employed by Athanasius). In due course this corrected 'orthodox' text was ascribed to Theognostus (owing to frequent citations of this version of the text by Athanasius). The original 'Origenist' text of the Hypotyposes - the one actually written by Theognostus - was by default ascribed to Clement thanks to Eusebius original misindentification.

The point of course is that it is hard to describe how weak the case of those against to Theodore really is. Carlson argument about anomalies in the handwriting of the manuscript is uttely subjective (and effectively debunked by Viklund). I have debunked Jeffery's idiotic claims about Smith 'getting the idea' for the phrase 'a truth hidden by seven veils' from Oscar Wilde. As I will demonstrate in my TV documentary with the help of Lawrence Schiffman it is a concept from the literature at Qumran.

P Alexander Mystical Texts: the Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice and related texts (New York, Continuum, 2006) p 36, 37 “The celestial curtain was a subject of extensive speculation in later mystical texts (Hofius 1972) ...The veil is also pluralized, for while4Q405 15 ii-16 3 speaks of 'the veil of the debir of the King' in the singular, two lines later we have a reference to 'the veils of the wondrous debirim’ in the plural. If there are seven debirs,then, logically, there must be seven veils. It is probable that the description of the celestial veil was followed by a description of God's heavenly throne, which would have stood behind the veil ... The mention of ‘eternal thrones’ (kis’ei ‘olamim) in the previous line is important. The reference must be to God's throne ... The throne, like the curtain, may have been depicted as engraved with figures of angels which praise and bless God. The idea of God's throne ties in with the royal imagery of the Songs. The commonest title for God in Sabbath Songs is 'the King'”

Now we have what amounts to being the 'death knell' for these silly claims - the whole business that the reconstruction of how the Gospel of Mark was made 'contradicts' what Clement says elsewhere. What is said in the Hypotyposes was not said by Clement. It was Theognostus who wrote these things. As such there should be no concerns about a 'contradiction' between the ideas which appear here and what was discovered at Mar Saba. The two different explanations result from them being uttered by two different authors living in two different ages.

What is said in to Theodore likely represents Clement's actually position on the matter or even the original Alexandrian take on matters. If anything we should see the material in Hypotyposes as representing a modification of the original position so as to obscure the very existence of a 'fuller gospel of Mark.'

Oh and by the way. If my theory stands, it would have to be Theognostus who originally identified Pantainos as his instructor and the rest of the business that is recorded in the Hypotyposes. This doesn't mean that Clement didn't also claim to be instructed by 'Pantainos' nor Origen nor again Heraclas. But now we see the length of 'Pantainos' instruction stretching to increasingly legendary degrees (170 - 248 CE). Indeed we never learn if 'Pantainos' ever left Alexandria. Severus Al'Ashmunein identifies a 'room' called Pantainos in the Church of St. Mark at Boucolia.

As I noted earlier he is always connected with the Alexandrian 'ur-Gospel.' Jerome describes him as the 'living voice' of the Alexandrian community - a term which comes up in Irenaeus' attack (AH III. 2) against the heresies from that city:

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 that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of instruction but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. (1 Corinthians 2:6)

I was scratching my head for days trying to figure out why the form pant' ainon appears in the
Illiad before I remembered a thing about Homeric Greek. The definite article drops so panta ton ainon becomes pant' ainon. Indeed it is this form which is used to describe Nestor's speech after the death of Patrocles. As Nagy notes the term ainos means 'coded words' or speech almost exactly in the manner in which Alexandrian Christians would employ the Platonic term gnostic (it is also the related to the term 'enigma'). It is apparently understood that Nestor secretly communicated 'coded messages' in this speech to his son to help him win the chariot race established in Patrocles' honor.

Let me say by way of closing that there is increasingly likelihood in my mind that pant' ainos was being applied to whatever 'correct' - i.e. gnostic - interpretation of the gospel among the Alexandrian community in the period. I am still toying with the idea that it might have even been a reference to the 'whole ainos' i.e. where the canonical gospel of Mark was only an incomplete ainos (I am at present waiting for the following doctoral thesis to arrive from Claremont The heroic ainos : Jesus in the gospel of Mark / (2006) by Ho Kim. If anyone is familiar with this author or his ideas I would love any more information I can get.