Morton Smith Couldn't Have Faked This

Okay, so I have been writing on this subject for some time - the 'controversy' over the authenticity of the Mar Saba document. One you knock out the 'forger's tremor' argument because of Roger Viklund's wonderful paper, what are you left with? Not much. However what I suspect is the 'bottom line' is the 'strange coincidence' that an allegedly homosexual scholar (I've never seen the proof that Morton Smith was gay but since the hoaxer side is so certain about this I assume one of them was there with him during one of his 'encounters') found a document which references homosexuality in early Christianity.

I will leave aside if there has ever been an audit done of the sexual orientation of scholars and archaeologists and then cross referenced whether any of the men who discovered the other documents which reference 'homosexuality in early Christianity' or homosexuality in antiquity (Stromata III, Tertullian's Apology etc.) ever had sex with other men. The bottom line is that in a former age this issue would never have been raised and for good reason.

It is stupid and unproductive.

I don't see how the idea that someone outside of the Church accused Christians of engaging in ritualized sodomy. Is the question about 'naked man with naked man' any more or less serious than what Tertullian references in the Apology "but it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred" or what appears in the Toledoth Yeshu.

Did anyone investigate the sexual history of the men who discovered these documents? Should we throw away these texts too if the men who discovered them could be demonstrated to have possessed 'gay books' or 'gay art'? Where does this end?

In any event the point of this post isn't to rehash old arguments. I would like instead to focus on the last part of the document to reinforce that Clement in no way was endorsing the idea that Jesus engaged in gay sex.

We no longer know what Theodore's original question to Clement was or indeed who the 'Carpocratians' were (this question rarely gets enough attention either). The important thing is that we get the closest to the answer to that question immediately after Clement cites the first addition to the gospel of Mark (LGM 1) and we read:

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.

Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy ...

Not only does Clement specifically reference at least part of what Theodore's original question was - i.e. 'but "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found' - what I think has escaped the notice of scholars is that the last line - 'now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy' - clinch what I think is the ultimate proof for Morton Smith's innocence.

Of course we can't prove what argument follow the words 'the true philosophy.' However is it too much to assume that Clement's use of the term 'the true philosophy' here would be in keeping with how he uses the same term in other sections of his writings, right?

Let's start with the obvious. The line "[and] now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy" is a segue FROM the Carpocratian interpretation of the passage - viz. that it means Jesus had sex with the neaniskos - TO the 'true explanation' which accords with 'true philosophia.'

Now why hasn't anyone bothered to notice that the term philosophia was a Platonic term which represented 'a vision of beauty, pure and absolute, [in which] the soul achieves the complete sublimation of eros.' In other words, philosophia was always conceived as a higher form of the base impulses associated with human sexuality.

As such when Clement segues away from the base interpretation of LGM1 associated with the Carpocrates the fact that he speaks of 'the true love of wisdom' in that segue necessarily means that what followed identified Jesus as 'wisdom' and the neaniskos embodying a pure and absolute form of love and devotion that all gnostics continued to show Jesus down through to Clement's day.

This is clear from almost ALL of the passages I cited in the other link but consider especially:

but the soul is raised to God: trained in the true philosophy, it speeds to its kindred above, turning away from the lusts of the body [Strom. iv. 3]

Yet there is something more important for us to consider here. Clement isn't just saying that we should 'love' Jesus without sexual interest. Rather he is saying that the Carpocratians (whoever they were) were like the sophists of old who thought that they embodied 'wisdom' in themselves and that the Alexandrian Church was the 'modern' equivalent of the circle of Socrates who 'loved wisdom.'

Let us consider what Plato understood by philosophia. He conceived philosophia as a kind of activity, not a set of philosophical doctrines. Plato argued that practical problems can be truly, reliably solved only on a theoretical basis. Plato's philosophia aims essentially at education (paideia). His interest is in the form of mind, soul and character rather than of true propositions and valid arguments.

Clement undoubtedly entitled one of his works the Paedagogue because he felt Alexandrian Christianity was a natural extension of these Platonic principles. The Christian was being educated by the divine Word himself.

And here is the critical point where I think everything is leading.

If you really think about it, since the Alexandrian Church 'loved' the Wisdom that was Jesus in a pure 'philosophical' manner the Carpocratians have to be the sophists who thought they possessed true wisdom without bothering to engage in Socratic dialectic.

Doesn't that sound a lot like the Roman Church? Couldn't it be that the Carpocratians (i.e. transplanted Alexandrians living in Rome like Marcellina, the only 'real' Carpocratian we ever come across) were only accusing the Alexandrians of engaging in sodomy in the very manner that 'Catholics' would accuse sectarians in ages to come. More on this in a subsequent post.

For the moment let us go back to the issue of whether Morton Smith could have faked the text.

I can't get over how that one line "now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy" is so powerful, so completely connected to established ideas in Clement and Origen about Jesus as 'Wisdom' and the whole purpose of Christianity is to establish the proper 'love' in initiates to the religion to contemplate this Wisdom's living embodiment - the gospel (or indeed the canon of New Testament writings).

When you understand this one line in its proper context we not only know what necessarily followed the very point at which the text breaks off - something which we will demonstrate shortly - but more importantly it also takes us back to the original question at the beginning of the Mar Saba letter - viz. the distinction between the 'carnal' gospel of Mark in the Roman canon - i.e. the 'wisdom of the world' and a pure 'spiritual' gospel hidden in the Alexandrian Church which represents 'the wisdom of God.'

The same basic idea appears in Origen's writings. First Origen in his Eighth Homily on Jeremiah explains that God allowed for foolishness to save people. In order to explain this idea he begins by citing a passage from Jeremiah and then reveals the EXACT SAME DISTINCTION BETWEEN ROMAN AND ALEXANDRIAN CANONS. We read:

Every man has become foolish from knowledge [Jer. 10:14 LXX].' If every man has become foolish from knowledge, and Paul is a man, Paul has become foolish from knowledge because he knows in part, prophesies in part, has become foolish from knowledge because he sees through a mirror, sees dimly, sees and comprehends matters in a small part and - if one can say - an infinitely tiny part. And seen from the opposite, you will understand that every man has become foolish from knowledge ... The knowledge which is in Paul, with respect to that knowledge which is in the heavens, is as foolishness compared to the mature knowledge. Hence, every man was made foolish by knowledge.

... The Word intends to be somewhat daring in saying that he emptied himself to sojourn in this life in order that in his emptying the world might be filled. But if that one who sojourned emptied himself in this life, the empty vessel was wisdom itself, for the foolishness of God is wiser than men. If I spoke of the foolishness of God, how the faultfinders would misquote me! How can things supposed good by them be said a thousand times, but when what they suppose is not good is said, I would be denounced, since I said, since I said the foolishness of God!

But Paul as one wise and one who has apostolic stature has now dared to say that every wisdom on earth, the wisdom in him and in Peter and in the Apostles every kind of wisdom which dwells in the world is the foolishness of God. For as with that wisdom which no place on earth contains, as with that wisdom which is supra-heavenly, supra-worldly, this wisdom which dwells among us is the foolishness of God.

Then he explains that Jesus established another wisdom - the thing the Apostle identifies as the 'wisdom of God' - through a beloved disciple who Origen identifies as the Apostle himself. We read:

in order not to leave men altogether without help, is shown by that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he says: "For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." Now by these words it is clearly shown that it is by the wisdom of God that God ought to be known. But as this result did not follow, it pleased God a second time to save them that believe, not by "folly" universally, but by such foolishness as depended on preaching. For the preaching of Jesus Christ as crucified is the "foolishness" of preaching, as Paul also perceived, when he said, "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and wisdom of God."[Origen Against Celsus i.13]

Have people been reading my posts? The 'wisdom of God' or 'divine wisdom' if clearly the heavenly gospel (which is to be distinguished from the 'wisdom of the world' i.e. the canon of the Church of Rome).

If people incorporated (a) the Marcionite understanding of 'the Apostle' as the author of the original gospel and (b) the evidence that the Marcionites had this epistle - the epistle of the Corinthians - as the first letter AFTER the gospel in the canon of apostolic writings and called it 'to the Alexandrians' we have the beginnings of a 'secret' very similar with the 'secret gospel' in Clement's To Theodore.

Nevertheless it is important to note that Clement connects this very same juxtaposition between the 'the wisdom of God' and 'the wisdom of the world' to the 'true philosophy' concept which concludes our existing manuscript of To Theodore.

The apostle designates the doctrine which is according to the Lord, "the wisdom of God," in order to show that the true philosophy has been communicated by the Son. Further, he, who has a show of wisdom, has certain exhortations enjoined on him by the apostle: "That ye put on the new man, which after God is renewed in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth. [Strom i.18]

Yet let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's get back to the question which started this post.

In order to accept that Morton Smith forged to Theodore we either have to accept that he had a greater knowledge of Clement than all of the scholars who have taken sides on the issue of its authenticity (who never realized the significance of the 'true philosophy' concept) or that Smith just randomly added some 'Clementine mumbo jumbo' to his forgery that happened to seamlessly weave into the deepest layer of the text.

I just can't believe that.

I have read Clement's writings for years and ALL of his writings have this exact sort of subtlety to them. There is this obvious argument floating 'on top of the text' and then there is this subtext which is only makes sense to those who have been initiated into the technical terminology of Clement's inner circle.

That's why I think the document is authentic. I liken it to a counterfeit dollar bill. Anyone can fake the general shape and look of a dollar bill. But a dollar bill has a lot of things which aren't visible to the naked eye which prove its authenticity to the informed observer.

In any event, my wife wants me to watch a movie with her so here is Clement's clearest explanation of the 'true philosophy' concept which I believe connects not only to Origen's discussion cited above but also To Theodore's juxtaposition between carnal and spiritual gospels of Mark. Enjoy. (I will continue editing this selection to make it more readable whenever I get bored of the movie - 500 Days of Summer).

WHAT TRUE PHILOSOPHY IS, AND WHENCE SO CALLED.

As we have long ago pointed out, what we propose as our subject is not the discipline which obtains in each sect, but that which is really philosophy, strictly systematic Wisdom, which furnishes acquaintance with the things which pertain to life. And we define Wisdom to be certain knowledge, being a sure and irrefragable apprehension of things divine and human, comprehending the present, past, and future, which the Lord hath taught us, both by His advent and by the prophets. And it is irrefragable by reason, inasmuch as it has been communicated. And so it is wholly true according to [God's] intention, as being known through means of the Son. And in one aspect it is eternal, and in another it becomes useful in time. Partly it is one and the same, partly many and indifferent -- partly without any movement of passion, partly with passionate desire -- partly perfect, partly incomplete.

This wisdom, then -- rectitude of soul and of reason, and purity of life -- is the object of the desire of philosophy, which is kindly and lovingly disposed towards wisdom, and does everything to attain it.

Now those are called philosophers, among us, who love Wisdom, the Creator and Teacher of all things, that is, the knowledge of the Son of God; and among the Greeks, those who undertake arguments on virtue. Philosophy, then, consists of such dogmas found in each sect (I mean those of philosophy) as cannot be impugned, with a corresponding life, collected into one selection; and these, stolen from the Barbarian God-given grace, have been adorned by Greek speech. For some they have borrowed, and others they have misunderstood. And in the case of others, what they have spoken, in consequence of being moved, they have not yet perfectly worked out; and others by human conjecture and reasoning, in which also they stumble. And they think that they have hit the truth perfectly; but as we understand them, only partially. They know, then, nothing more than this world. And it is just like geometry, which treats of measures and magnitudes and forms, by delineation on plane-surfaces; and just as painting appears to take in the whole field of view in the scenes represented. But it gives a false description of the view, according to the rules of the art, employing the signs that result from the incidents of the lines of vision. By this means, the higher and lower points in the view, and those between, are preserved; and some objects seem to appear in the foreground, and others in the background, and others to appear in some other way, on the smooth and level surface. So also the philosophers copy the truth, after the manner of painting. And always in the case of each one of them, their self-love is the cause of all their mistakes. Wherefore one ought not, in the desire for the glory that terminates in men, to be animated by self-love; but loving God, to become really holy with wisdom. If, then, one treats what is particular as universal, and regards that, which serves, as the Lord, he misses the truth, not understanding what was spoken by David by way of confession: "I have eaten earth [ashes] like bread." Now, self-love and self-conceit are, in his view, earth and error. But if so, science and knowledge are derived from instruction. And if there is instruction, you must seek for the master. Cleanthes claims Zeno, and Metrodorus Epicurus, and Theophrastus Aristotle, and Plato Socrates. But if I Come to Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and Thales, and the first wise men, I come to a stand in my search for their teacher. Should you say the Egyptians, the Indians, the Babylonians, and the Magi themselves, I will not stop from asking their teacher. And I lead you up to the first generation of men; and from that point I begin to investigate Who is their teacher. No one of men; for they had not yet learned. Nor yet any of the angels: for in the way that angels, in virtue of being angels, speak, men do not hear; nor, as we have ears, have they a tongue to correspond; nor would any one attribute to the angels organs of speech, lips I mean, and the parts contiguous, throat, and windpipe, and chest, breath and air to vibrate, And God is far from calling aloud in the unapproachable sanctity, separated as He is from even the archangels.

And we also have already heard that angels learned the truth, and their rulers over them; for they had a beginning. It remains, then, for us, ascending to seek their teacher. And since the unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God; one, too, is the First-begotten, "by whom all things were made, and without whom not one thing ever was made." "For one, in truth, is God, who formed the beginning of all things;" pointing out "the first-begotten Son," Peter writes, accurately comprehending the statement, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." And He is called Wisdom by all the prophets. This is He who is the Teacher of all created beings, the Fellow-counsellor of God, who foreknew all things; and He from above, from the first foundation of the world, "in many ways and many times," trains and perfects; whence it is rightly said, "Call no man your teacher on earth."

You see whence the true philosophy has its handles; though the Law be the image and shadow of the truth: for the Law is the shadow of the truth. But the self-love of the Greeks proclaims certain men as their teachers. As, then, the whole family runs back to God the Creator; so also all the teaching of good things, which justifies, does to the Lord, and leads and contributes to this.

But if from any creature they received in any way whatever the seeds of the Truth, they did not nourish them; but committing them to a barren and reinless soil, they choked them with weeds, as the Pharisees revolted from the Law, by introducing human teachings, -- the cause of these being not the Teacher, but those who choose to disobey. But those of them who believed the Lord's advent and the plain teaching of the Scriptures, attain to the knowledge of the law; as also those addicted to philosophy, by the teaching of the Lord, are introduced into the knowledge of the true philosophy: "For the oracles of the Lord are pure oracles, melted in the fire, tried in the earth, purified seven times." Just as silver often purified, so is the just man brought to the test, becoming the Lord's coin and receiving the royal image. Or, since Solomon also calls the "tongue of the righteous man gold that has been subjected to fire," intimating that the doctrine which has been proved, and is wise, is to be praised and received, whenever it is amply tried by the earth: that is, when the gnostic soul is in manifold ways sanctified, through withdrawal from earthy fires. And the body in which it dwells is purified, being appropriated to the pureness of a holy temple. But the first purification which takes place in the body, the soul being first, is abstinence from evil things, which some consider perfection, and is, in truth, the perfection of the common believer -- Jew and Greek. But in the case of the Gnostic, after that which is reckoned perfection in others, his righteousness advances to activity in well-doing. And in whomsoever the increased force of righteousness advances to the doing of good, in his case perfection abides in the fixed habit of well-doing after the likeness of God. For those who are the seed of Abraham, and besides servants of God, are "the called;" and the sons of Jacob are the elect -- they who have tripped up the energy of wickedness.

If; then, we assert that Christ Himself is Wisdom, and that it was His working which showed itself in the prophets, by which the gnostic tradition may be learned, as He Himself taught the apostles during His presence; then it follows that the grinds, which is the knowledge and apprehension of things present, future, and past, which is sure and reliable, as being imparted and revealed by the Son of God, is wisdom.

And if, too, the end of the wise man is contemplation, that of those who are still philosophers aims at it, but never attains it, unless by the process of learning it receives the prophetic utterance which has been made known, by which it grasps both the present, the future, and the past -- how they are, were, and shall be.

And the gnosis itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles. Hence, then, knowledge or wisdom ought to be exercised up to the eternal and unchangeable habit of contemplation. [Strom. vi.7]