.jpg)
I have written about this before. I was sure I found another reference to the Alexandrian throne at the beginning of Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Teachings which has survived only in Armenian. Most people haven't noticed this before because they haven't observed a pattern of depreciating the Alexandrian see. They haven't also supposed that the Markan tradition of that Christian center was the read 'seat' of the heresy of which Irenaeus' Roman See was actively engaged in a struggle for the heart of the Church in the late second and early third century CE. In any event let's start with a citation of the original text:
Wherefore the Holy Spirit says by David: Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly: that is, the counsel of the nations which know not God: for those are ungodly who worship not the God that truly is. And therefore the Word says to Moses: I am He that is but they that worship not the God that is, these are the ungodly. And hath not stood in the way of sinners: but sinners are those who have the knowledge of God and keep not His commandments; that is, disdainful scorners. And hath not sat in the chair (cathedra) of the pestilent: now the pestilential are those who by wicked and perverse doctrines corrupt not themselves only, but others also. For the seat is a symbol of teaching. Such then are all heretics: they sit in the seats of the pestilential, and those are corrupted who receive the venom of their doctrine.
There can be no doubt that Clement refers to Irenaeus' interpretation in the second book of the Stromateis (in bold below) and turns around and implies that the one who made the interpretation is working with the Imperial authorities to persecute his tradition. We read:
David, too, and Moses before David, show the knowledge of the three precepts in the following words: "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly;" as the fishes go down to the depths in darkness; for those which have not scales, which Moses prohibits touching, feed at the bottom of the sea. "Nor standeth in the way of sinners," as those who, while appearing to fear the Lord, commit sin, like the sow, for when hungry it cries, and when full knows not its owner. "Nor sitteth in the chair of pestilences," as birds ready for prey. And Moses enjoined not to eat the sow, nor the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish without scales. So far Barnabas. And I heard one skilled in such matters say that "the counsel of the ungodly" was the heathen, and "the way of sinners" the Jewish persuasion, and explain "the chair of pestilence" of heresies. And another said, with more propriety, that the first blessing was assigned to those who had not followed wicked sentiments which revolt from God; the second to those who do not remain in the wide and broad road, whether they be those who have been brought up in the law, or Gentiles who have repented. And "the chair of pestilences" will be the theatres and tribunals, or rather the compliance with wicked and deadly powers, and complicity with their deeds. "But his delight is in the law of the Lord." Peter in his Preach ing called the Lord, Law and Logos. The legislator seems to teach differently the interpretation of the three forms of sin -- understanding by the mute fishes sins of word, for there are times in which silence is better than speech, far silence has a safe recompense; sins of deed, by the rapacious and carnivorous birds. The sow delights in dirt and dung; and we ought not to have "a conscience" that is "defiled."[Strom. ii.15]
This is of massive significance. Notice that Clement never identifies Irenaeus by name. Notice that he is too scared to openly express his contempt for all that Irenaeus stands for. However it is clear when you read Irenaeus and Clement back to back there is an attack and counter attack going on. Also the reference to the 'preaching' of Peter. Was Clement UNABLE to call the Gospel of Peter 'Peter's gospel' because the official line in Rome was that the canonical Gospel of Mark was Peter's gospel? [cf. Irenaeus AH Book 3] I strongly think so but the whole idea is as of yet unproven.
Scholars haven't even seen these parallels let alone the implications of these parallels.
I sometimes think that the study of Patristic writings amounts to the art of reading badly. It is utterly unbelievable that no one saw this before and it has absolutely great significance for our study of To Theodore. Clement DOES reject the teachings of Irenaeus and the Roman Church albeit in an oblique manner. Scholars have to learn to appreciate subtly and nuance in the writings of the Church Fathers.
It is the same skills that they would need when making love to a woman and bringing her all the way to the gates of paradise. But then again, how many of them have ever done that completely? Have you ever looked at this group of people? My God, the only way they're getting it is if they are paying for it and only a handful of these people have the money for that ...
