.jpg)
I have read almost every author who has ever written anything of note on the question of the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore. As I see no convincing reason to doubt that Morton Smith's discovery is anything but genuine I will not enter into the fray. My only interest is in figuring out the CONTEXT of the letter to Theodore. I should say something right at the outset. I am one of the few people who actually reads the writings of a given Church Father from beginning to end, the way one would a modern book. I lay particular emphasis on this approach because this is generally not shared by other scholars. They instead typically 'poke around' in the body of a given work without paying enough attention to the nuances of a particular writer.
Indeed I like Henny Fiskå Hägg have noticed that there is a mystery of the revelation of 'truth' which weaves its way through the writings of Clement which fits the context of To Theodore quite perfectly. While the idea is not as pronounced in The Instructor, it builds up to quite a crescendo in Clement's Stromata.
I have already noted that because of my familiarity with Clement - and more significantly his greatest single influence - Philo of Alexandria - I suspected a long time ago that a physical object was used to initiate members of its congregation into a deeper mystical knowledge of the Most High God.
Now most scholars as I already noted simply want to 'stay within the lines' and argue whether this or that word or this or that concept proves or disproves that Clement actually wrote the Letter to Theodore. I became bored with this approach a long time ago.
I couldn't help notice that LGM 1 (the first of two reported 'additions' to the Gospel of Mark mentioned in the Letter to Theodore) comes just before John-Mark and his brother make a request to sit on the divine throne with Jesus a section of text which the heretical 'followers of Mark' (the Marcosians Irenaeus AH i.21) identifies as the basis to their heretical baptism ritual called 'redemption.' I wondered whether LGM 1 was the original CONTEXT for the baptism (which doesn't appear anywhere else in the gospel). I also thought that it was intriguing that Ephrem the Syrian identifies the 'redemption' alluded in this section of the gospel was completed when one of those sons of Zebedee actually ended up sitting in the divine throne at the end of the gospel.
Is this over most people's heads? It probably is. Nevertheless as I noted, I am trying to establish the CONTEXT of the material Morton Smith discovered at Mar Saba. If I am right - and To Theodore is referencing presence of the 'divine throne' as the thing the beloved disciple of LGM 1 is being prepared for (cf Ephrem) - then I am effectively also PROVING that the discovery was authentic. After all, I am demonstrating that Morton Smith wasn't up to properly interpreting the text in its original CONTEXT.
To this end, all I need to do is to prove that the 'truth' that Clement identifies was hidden by 'seven veils' in To Theodore - viz. that St. Mark "brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils" - is an actual physical object hidden in the adyton of the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria. In other words, it is not just a general poetic reference to 'hidden gnostic teachings' as most read and interpret the passage - including Morton Smith.
So let's start from the beginning again. I think Clement is secretly alluding to the bishop's throne. There are a variety of reasons for this assumption. The chief among these arguments is the fact that the metaphor of the 'seven veils' is inevitably connected with the divine throne in Jewish writings of the period:
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' [P Alexander Mystical Texts: the Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice and related texts (New York, Continuum, 2006) p 36, 37]
I will show that Clement identifies this 'truth' to be veiled in a a physical room of the 'Church' in the Stromata. The way he speaks about it here and elsewhere leave little room for doubt that it was a real object. Indeed it was a real object hidden in a room of the Church (of St. Mark in Boucolia) just as we read in To Theodore.
I think Clement got the idea from Philo and Philo's ideas trickled down to other Alexandrian writes like Clement's successor Origen who similarly speaks of seven heavens which separate us from the divine throne which towers high above them all.
The arrangement of the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia (the region just beyond the eastern walls of Alexandria) we must presume was deliberately manufactured to imitate the celestial realm.
So it is that I am suggesting a real physical counterpart to the heavenly world mentioned in the writings of the Alexandrian Church Fathers. Clement passed on this concept to Origen and Origen to Eusebius (through intermediaries) and as we already noted Eusebius provides an interpretation of Isa. 16.5 which helps solidify the connection between 'truth' and the physical 'imitation' of the throne in heaven - viz. the Episcopal throne of St Mark in his Alexandrian church in the Boucolia.
Yet I needn't restrict the identification of the Episcopal throne as 'truth' to the fourth century. I can easily show that Irenaeus, Clement's contemporary similarly identified the Episcopal thrones with 'truth.' As we read in Book Four of his Against the Heresies:
it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the sure gift of truth [charisma veritatis certum] according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God--namely, strange doctrines--shall be burned up by the fire from heaven ... Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, "No man sees us," shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance [secundum gloriam], nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart ... From all such persons, therefore, it be-bores us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood [presbyterii ordine], display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others ... Such presbyters does the Church nourish ... [w]here, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets. [Irenaeus AH iv.26.2-4]
In this way we have now solidified that there was a pre-existing and well established contemporary Christian identification of 'truth' as a term related to the authority of Episcopal thrones (think in terms of the phrase ex cathedra).
Yet did Clement share this understanding?
I think I can prove that with a lengthy discussion of his use of the word 'truth' in the Stromata. But for the moment I just like to jump to the conclusion of Book Seven of Clement's work and argue that he shares Irenaeus' understanding cited above.
Clement begins by identifying "the danger that they are in of not discovering the truth" owing to their ignoring "the books we have ready at hand." As I have already noted, I think that Secret Mark was all about the enthronement of a man in the throne of God. I think that this was the underlying context of the reason for Clement's writing the Letter to Theodore.
Whatever the case maybe let's return to Clement's original discussion and see how similar his ideas are to those described in Irenaeus above. Clement says that the heretics:
in their eagerness to surpass common faith, they have diverged from the truth. For, in consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical knowledge, and not having capacity for the grandeur of the truth, too indolent to descend to the bottom of things, reading superficially, they have dismissed the Scriptures. Elated, then, by vain opinion, they are incessantly wrangling, and plainly care more to seem than to be philosophers.
Not laying as foundations the necessary first principles of things; and influenced by human opinions, then making the end to suit them, by compulsion; on account of being confuted, they spar with those who are engaged in the prosecution of the true philosophy, and undergo everything, and, as they say, ply every oar, even going the length of impiety, by disbelieving the Scriptures, rather than be removed from the honours of the heresy and the boasted first seat in their churches; on account of which also they eagerly embrace that convivial couch of honour in the Agape, falsely so called.
When you really dissect what Clement is saying here it is (a) that the heretics have no respect for truth and (b) the heretics have a bishop's chair which lacks the dignity and authority of the 'true Church.' Can we conclude from this that one and same object - viz. the Episcopal chair - is being referenced in both arguments?
I think this is clear from what immediately follows when Clement writes:
The knowledge of the truth among us from what is already believed, produces faith in what is not yet believed; which [faith] is, so to speak, the essence of demonstration. But, as appears, no heresy has at all ears to hear what is useful, but opened only to what leads to pleasure. Since also, if one of them would only obey the truth, he would be healed.
Now the cure of self-conceit (as of every ailment) is threefold: the ascertaining of the cause, and the mode of its removal; and thirdly, the training of the soul, and the accustoming it to assume a right attitude to the judgments come to. For, just like a disordered eye, so also the soul that has been darkened by unnatural dogmas cannot perceive distinctly the light of truth, but even overlooks what is before it.
They say, then, that in muddy water eels are caught by being blinded. And just as knavish boys bar out the teacher, so do these shut out the prophecies from their Church, regarding them with suspicion by reason of rebuke and admonition. In fact, they stitch together a multitude of lies and figments, that they may appear acting in accordance with reason in not admitting the Scriptures. So, then, they are not pious, inasmuch as they are not pleased with the divine commands, that is, with the Holy Spirit. And as those almonds are called empty in which the contents are worthless, not those in which there is nothing; so also we call those heretics empty, who are destitute of the counsels of God and the traditions of Christ; bitter, in truth, like the wild almond, their dogmas originating with themselves, with the exception of such truths as they could not, by reason of their evidence, discard and conceal.
I will cite Henny Fiskå Hägg's lengthy discussion of the 'mystery of truth' in my next post (it will take me a day or two to type out the lengthy section in this wonderful work). The bottom line again is that Clement and Philo continually reference a mystery initiation where proselytes are 'brought over' to God by physically being brought into an adytum and see a physical object with their own eyes.
I happen to think that to Theodore solves the mystery in the Stromata. The reference to the 'truth hidden by seven veils' makes explicit what is still hidden in Stromata (although I can still bring out ten passages from the eight volume work which makes absolutely certain that Clement is referencing a throne).
I will let you be the judge of that ...
If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here
If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here
