Who Are These People Who Say that the Initiation Described in To Theodore is Unlike Anything Known to Clement of Alexandria?

It seems that those who claim to Theodore has nothing to do with the authentic beliefs and practices of ancient Alexandria obviously never read Philo of Alexandria's description of Moses establishing the priests of Israel in the Second Book of the Life of Moses where he writes:

then Moses entered into the tabernacle, leading his brother by the hand (and it was the eighth and last day of the festival, for the seven previous days had been devoted to the initiation of the hierophants), he now initiated him ... [Vita Mos. 153]

Am I really reading too much into the text when I see a marked similarity with what is described in Secret Mark:

and straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.

Yes I am sure that critics will now say that Morton Smith 'copied' the description or 'had the description in mind' when he 'forged it' but has anyone seen Smith make the argument that the initiation was connected to the establishment of Christian priests in the Alexandrian Church?

Let us remember that even among the members of the Alexandrian Church today St. Mark is celebrated for his Levite ancestry. So it is that when you really think about matters, it makes perfect sense that Clement a prominent member in St. Mark's Church in the late second century, says that the apostle:

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. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

Those who are being initiated in Alexandria are the catechumen who will eventually go on to function in the presbytery of the Church. They aren't being baptized on Sunday in order to go back to their job at Burger King the next day.

The point is that the reference to the 'truth hidden by seven veils' is clearly some sort of physical tabernacle - I suspect it is a throne like the one I discovered in Venice. This because Philo similarly begins his discussion of Moses' initiation of the Israelite priesthood mentioning that they two were drawn to an object hidden behind veils:

the ark was in the innermost shrine, in the inaccessible holy of holies, behind curtains; being gilded in a most costly and magnificent manner within and without, the covering of which was like to that which is called in the sacred scriptures the mercy-seat. Its length and width are accurately described, but its depth is not mentioned, being chiefly compared to and resembling a geometrical superficies; so that it appears to be an emblem, if looked at physically, of the merciful power of God [Vita Moses II 95]

Philo also says that the Israelite priesthood gained 'instruction' from seeing the truth hidden behind seven veils:

And when he had been taught the patterns of the sacred tabernacle, and had in turn himself taught those who were gifted with acute comprehension, and well-qualified by nature for the comprehension and execution of those works, which it was indispensably necessary should be made; then, as was natural, when the temple had been built and finished, it was fitting also, that most suitable persons should be appointed as priests, and should be instructed in what manner it was proper for them to offer up their sacrifices, and perform their sacred ministrations ... he washed them all over with the most pure and vivifying water of the fountain; and then he gave them their sacred vestments, giving to his brother the robe which reached down to his feet, and the mantle which covered the shoulders, as a sort of breast-plate, being an embroidered robe, adorned with all kinds of figures, and a representation of the universe. And to all his nephews he gave linen tunics, and girdles, and trowsers; the girdles, in order that the wearers might be unimpeded and ready for all their sacred ministrations, were fastened up tight round the loose waists of the tunics; and the breeches, that nothing which ought to be hidden might be visible, especially when they were going up to the altar, or coming down from the high place, and doing everything with earnestness and celerity. For if their equipment had not been so accurately attended to for the sake of guarding against the uncertain future, and for the sake of providing for an energetic promptness in the sacred ministrations, the men would have appeared naked, not being able to preserve the becoming order necessary to holy men dedicated to the service of God. [Vit Mos II 141 - 145]

The point I am trying to get at is that those who claim that the Mar Saba document is a forgery want it both ways. They are prevented from claiming that these additions to the Gospel of Mark don't appear Markan (as they exhibit all the stylistic features of Mark's writing). So they often claim that 'nothing like this appears in the writings of Clement.'

Nevertheless Clement would be unlikely to describe to outsiders what actually went on during the initiation of a priest of the Alexandrian Church. The letter to Theodore does this only under the most extenuating circumstances (i.e. their sacred gospel has been 'stolen' and is being used in ways that violate the sacred order).

The point is of course that - not surprisingly - the Alexandrian Church developed an initiation ritual which was very similar to that of Alexandrian Judaism. The ideas and concepts being described here match perfectly what Philo writes about Moses because Philo is filtering his account of the initiation of Aaron and his nephews through the general typology of the Alexandrian Jewish community he was familiar with.

No one can deny that Philo had a massive influence on Clement. What is often not appreciated is the fact that Clement didn't just stumble on Philo's writings in his dentist's office. The influence was there because the rituals of the Alexandrian Christian community were a development of those of the Jewish community of which Philo was a member. There can be no doubt of this.

The fact that Morton Smith WANTS to see a homoerotic encounter between Jesus and the neaniskos or elements of magic only prove that he was an unworthy interpreter. Indeed the vindicate the authenticity of the document. For in the same way as Moses wasn't preparing to 'bang' his beloved brother Aaron and his two nephews, Jesus should not be imagined to be preparing to sodomize his beloved neaniskos.

Morton Smith only discovered the document. He did not write its contents otherwise he would have argued on behalf of a connection with Philo's description of the establishment of the ancient priest of Israel.

As my esteemed colleague Pier Franco Beatrice of the University of Padova aptly notes "Smith's Aberrant Interpretation Concerning Magic and Homosexuality Can be Definitively Discarded as Something Totally Unfounded, Which Prevents Many Scholars from Developing a Serious and Unbiased Discussion. The Two Extant Fragments Don't Support Smith's Fantasies."

Can we get on now with the important task of integrating the text into our knowledge of the earliest rituals of the Alexandrian Church?