Clement of Alexandria: The Sin of the Heresies was that They Used the Secret Gospel 'Cut' from its Original Harmony with the 'Prophetic Literature'

There is a thing called 'Christianity.' It is divided at a fairly early period (c. 180 CE) between the people Irenaeus hates, or if you will - 'the traditions Irenaeus claims the apostles, the earliest Fathers rejected' - and those people who ultimately jump on board Irenaeus's progam. Most scholars end up also 'jumping on board' too and they do so principally because there isn't enough of the other stuff - viz. the traditions Irenaeus hated - to make a meaningful scientific examination (if there is only woman left in the world and she happens to be a 400 pound one-eyed hairy gorilla, she ends up looking like Rachel Welch by default).

In my opinion however, since the starting point of our investigation is off to such a bad start (i.e. Irenaeus's testimony is inherently flawed and the documents he produces are corrupt) all else that follows is hoplessly inaccurate.

Nothing makes sense with Irenaeus. There is no logical explanation for the origins of Christianity in the accepted model. We can't even explain the most basic terminology. What is a 'gospel'? Why is it called a New Testament 'canon'? Yet the standard explanations to things are so superficial, that their widespread acceptance only demonstrates that most scholars think that the fundamentals in the field of New Testament origins have been settled a long time ago. All that is left it straigtening out the finer details.

Along comes Clement of Alexandria's Letter to Theodore and that complacency is suddenly challenged. We are forced to chose between inherited assumptions about the gospel and the development of the New Testament canon or ... accuse Morton Smith of forging the document. Religious minds crave certainty. The document discovered at Mar Saba necessarily creates uncertainty about all our cherished assumptions. No wonder so many conservative scholars buy into the forgery premise (after all a 'gay subplot' is thrown in for good measure; after all what's more Christian than homophobia?).

Yet the reality is that the more I think about the idea that Alexandrian Christianity was developed around two gospel narratives (undoubtedly rooted in what is said in 1 Cor 2.1 - 9; 3.10,11) the more it makes sense. Already we have noted that there was a gospel in the late second century whose harmony with the rest of the scriptures was likened to a 'diatassaron.' This metaphor was likely misrepresented by Eusebius to mean 'of four gospels' rather than its unquestionable original meaning - of 'two.'

The more we look at the writings of Clement the clearer we see that for him the 'canon' of ecclesiastical writings in Alexandria were understood to denote a similar Pythagorean harmony. Clement clearly distinguished between the 'old' and 'new' by means of lumping all that came before the establishment of the 'mystic' gospel completed around the time of the Jewish revolt (cf. to Theodore 1.18 - 19) as 'prophetic literature' - even, I would argue the canonical gospels would full under this category.

I know this is a difficult concept to accept but it is clear that Papias, Clement and Eusebius identify the canonical gospel of Mark as a υπομνημα. I have already noted that the Marcionite representative in the Dialogues of Adamantius (c. 220 CE) seems to say the same thing about Matthew and John (i.e. they are not 'gospels' per se but mere 'reflections' on the ministry of Jesus). 'The gospel' referenced in the Apostolikon (a.k.a. 'the writings of Paul') was necessarily something more than an unfinished 'memoir.' It was a mystic reflection of the 'deep things of God' layered on top of the original narrative of Jesus's ministry.

This idea that the canonical gospels of the Roman Church were mere υπομνηματα is a heretical opinion witnessed as early as Irenaeus. He notes that his heretical (Alexandrian) opponents:

have discovered the unadulterated truth [and] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery (AH 3.2.2)

While Irenaeus clearly denies the other 'hidden mystery' gospel of the heretics (cf. Tert. Praescript. 24), Clement's position is slightly different. Clement argues that the heretics want to strip the 'secret gospel' from its original (and proper) moorings in one 'canon' with the prophetic writings - a body of work, as noted above, which would necessarily have included the canonical gospels.

Once the reader comes to this understanding the Letter to Theodore can be understood to say the exact same thing as the concluding words of the final book of Clement's Stromateis. In the Letter to Theodore, Clement speaks of a 'completed' mystic gospel developed from previous hypomnemata:

Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his and Peter's from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable those studies which make for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel for those being perfected (to Theodore I.18 - 22)

In Stromata Book Seven he speaks instead in terms of an allegory of Mary's virginity:

Now, it is a very great thing to abandon opinion (τὴν οἴησιν ἀποθέσθαι), by taking one's stand between accurate knowledge and the rash wisdom of opinion (ἀκριβοῦς ἐπιστήμης καὶ προπετοῦς δοξοσοφίας), and to know that he who hopes for everlasting rest (τὴν αἰώνιον ἐλπίζων) knows also that the entrance to it is toilsome "and strait." And let him who has once received the Gospel, even in the very hour in which he has come to the knowledge of salvation (τὸ σωτήριόν), "not turn back, like Lot's wife," as is said; and let him not go back either to his former life, which adheres to the things of sense, or to heresies (τὰς αἱρέσεις παλινδρομείτω). For they form the character, not knowing the true God (τὸν ὄντα μὴ γινώσκουσαι θεόν).

"For he that loveth father or mother more than Me," the Father and Teacher of the truth (τὸν ὄντως πατέρα καὶ διδάσκαλον τῆς ἀληθείας), who regenerates and creates anew, and nourishes the elect soul (τὸν ἀναγεννῶντα καὶ ἀνακτίζοντα καὶ τιθηνούμενον τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν ἐξειλεγμένην), "is not worthy of Me" -- He means, to be a son of God and a disciple of God, and at the same time also to be a friend, and of kindred nature (λέγει τοῦ εἶναι υἱὸς θεοῦ καὶ μαθητὴς θεοῦ ὁμοῦ καὶ φίλος καὶ συγγενής). "For no man who looks back, and puts his hand to the plough, is fit for the kingdom of God."

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.

Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord (κυριακαὶ γραφαί), which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth (τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀποτίκτουσαι καὶ μένουσαι παρθένοι μετὰ τῆς ἐπικρύψεως τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας μυστηρίων). "And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth," Says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself (ὡς ἂν ἐξ αὑτῆς), and not from conjunction (οὐκ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ συλλαβοῦσα). Wherefore the Scriptures have conceived to Gnostics (Διόπερ τοῖς γνωστικοῖς κεκυήκασιν αἱ γραφαί); but the heresies, not having learned them, dismissed them as not having conceived (αἱ δὲ αἱρέσεις οὐκ ἐκμαθοῦσαι ὡς μὴ κεκυηκυίας παραπέμπονται).

I will argue that the gospel paradigm in the Letter to Theodore is the ultimate context here. When the Carpocratians are said to be "boasting that they are free (to Theodore 1.7) what Clement is really upset about is their claim to have 'liberated' the mystic gospel from its intended mooring in a 'canon' alongside the 'prophetic' writings which included the original hypomnemata.

This becomes much clearer as we continue with what immediately follows the last citation from Book Seven of the Stromateis:

Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs (τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ ποιοῦνται τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts (οἱ δὲ ἡδοναῖς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδωκότες βιάζονται πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὴν γραφήν).

And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul (ψυχικῆς εὐτονίας). For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας), they cleave to the truth (ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας). But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path (ἅτε ἀποπεσόντες τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ), err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures (ταῖς θείαις ἐπείθοντο ἂν γραφαῖς).

There can be no doubt now that this section in particular reflects the exact same terminology as to Theodore's description of the 'Carpocratians.' Just as Clement references heretics who "giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts (οἱ δὲ ἡδοναῖς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδωκότες βιάζονται πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὴν γραφήν), to Theodore's heretics are identified as "boasting that they are free (of the canon of truth), have become slaves of servile desires (ἐπιθυμίῷν)."

Moreover just as the section cited from the end of the Stromateis portrays the 'lover of truth' (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ) receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας), they cleave to the truth (ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας) we see the exact same language in to Theodore condemning the Carpocratians again for ripping the 'secret gospel' from its harmony with the prophetic writings in the canon of truth:

For, even if they should say something true, the lover of truth (ό τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστἡς) should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith. (to Theod. 1.8 - 11)

All kinds of stupid conjectures about what Clement means by the use of this terminology. The parallel section in the Stromateis makes clear the context is the 'canon of truth' - i.e. 'harmonizing' the secret gospel alongside the public gospel of Mark and the related 'prophetic' writings.

The point of the Letter to Theodore is correct the Carpocratians for turning their back on the canonical gospel of Mark and deeming it as less inspired version of the original. It is for this reason then that Clement immediately emphasizes that the 'Gospel according to Mark' is still 'divinely inspired':

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor. (to Theod. 1.11 - 14)

All scholarship hitherto has failed to see the immediate context. The Carpocratians are rejecting the public Gospel according to Mark arguing that it is not 'from God' - or as Irenaeus writes "the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery."

We have to remember that the Marcionites for instance deliberately shunned identifying their 'true gospel' as having a human author and went so far as to reject the canonical gospel of Mark (cf. Dialogues of Adamantius 1), this in spite of the fact that some still identified their gospel as being that 'of Mark.' Clement's point then in what immediately follows the last citation is to explain how it was that the 'mystic' gospel developed from the lowly hypomnemata. Clearly, Theodore has become confused with regards to the origins of this text and its relation to the gospel of Mark. The specific understandign that Mark "neither grudgingly nor incautiously" (to Theod. 1.27) wrote the gospel, must necessarily be a reflection of what the Carpocratians were saying about his publicly acknowledged text.

Indeed when Clement finally gets around to talking about how Carpocrates allegedly got "a copy of the mystic Gospel" (to Thedoore 2.7) we again here of the inevitable consequences of his rupturing of the original 'harmony' of the Alexandrian canon. It was owing to the fact that Carpocrates rejected the 'public' gospel of Mark and the 'prophetic Scriptures' that:

he both interpreted [the mystic Gospel] according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.(to Theod. 2.8 - 9)

As I have noted many times here, the ultimate context for the heretical opinion is what we see associated with the Marcionites - i.e. a steadfast refusal to connect the text to a human author. It owing to an 'unspeakable' revelation (cf. 2 Cor 12.4) that the text was said to have been generated, and so the Letter to Theodore itself begins with a reference to the "the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians." (to Theod. 1.2)

When Clement finally says that "to them (i.e. the Carpocratians), therefore, as I said above, one must never give way nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark’s
mystic Gospel, but should even deny it on oath" (to Theod. 2.10 - 12) what is really being reflected in the text is the idea that the Carpocratians DID NOT identify their text as being from Mark's hand and Clement seeing no reason to break the ritual silence surrounding the real origins of the text held in common between the two communities (cf. Strom. 3.1 - 11).

I am going to call it a night, but for those who are interested I will cite the remainder of the section in Strom. 7.15 from the point we last cited. I think it is very important that the readers get a sense that Clement is clearly confirming that what separated the heretics from the official tradition of Alexandria is that Clement's Church 'harmonized' the commonly held 'mystic gospel' with 'prophetic writings' which included the hypomnemata of the apostles (called 'canonical gospels' in Rome):

As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god.

For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.

He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.

For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration; in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers; while those who, having advanced further, and become correct expounders of the truth, are Gnostics. Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration.

And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.

But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures. Neither, then, do they want to turn to the truth, being ashamed to abandon the claims of self-love; nor are they able to manage their opinions, by doing violence to the Scriptures. But having first promulgated false dogmas to men; plainly fighting against almost the whole Scriptures, and constantly confuted by us who contradict them; for the rest, even now partly they hold out against admitting the prophetic Scriptures, and partly disparage us as of a different nature, and incapable of understanding what is peculiar to them. And sometimes even they deny their own dogmas, when these are confuted, being ashamed openly to own what in private they glory in teaching. For this may be seen in all the heresies, when you examine the iniquities of their dogmas. For when they are overturned by our clearly showing that they are opposed to the Scriptures, one of two things may be seen to have been done by those who defend the dogma. For they either despise the consistency of their own dogmas, or despise the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope. And they invariably prefer what seems to them to be more evident to what has been spoken by the Lord through the prophets and by the Gospel, and, besides, attested and confirmed by the apostles.

Seeing, therefore, the danger that they are in (not in respect of one dogma, but in reference to the maintenance of the heresies) of not discovering the truth; for while reading the books we have ready at hand, they despise them as useless, but 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.

More Discoveries Related to the Syriac Gospel Used by Mohammed

It is a fundamental understanding within Islam that the name Mohammed means 'comforter.' Alfred Guillaume translator of the Inb Ishaq "Sirat Rasul Allah" some of which can be found on p. 104:

In the Sira, the biography of the Prophet, written by Ibn Ishaq, we have a quote from the Gospel of St. John that is relevant for us:

Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John [Yuhannis] the apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testamant of Jesus Son of Mary: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not had sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the Law must be fulfilled, 'They hated me without a cause' (ie. without reason). But when the Comforter [Munahhemana] has come whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth [ruhu`l-qist] which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that you should not be in doubt.

The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the Paraclete [Albaraqlitis ]

Alfred Guillaume has very convincingly argued that Ibn Ishaq must have had access to a Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels:

It will be apparent to the reader that Ibn Ishaq is quoting from some Semitic version of the Gospels, otherwise the significant word munahhemana could not have found a place there. This word is not to be found in the Peshitta version [Syriac version of the Bible], and in the Eastern patristic literature…it is applied to our Lord Himself. Furthermore the Peshitta, Old Syriac, and Philoxenian versions all write the name of John in the form Yuhanan, not in the Greek form Yuhannis found in the Arabic text. Accordingly to find a text of the Gospels from which Ibn Ishaq could have drawn his quotation we must look for a version which differs from all others in displaying these characteristics. Such a text is the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels [24] which will conclusively prove that the Arabic writer had a Syriac text before him which he, or his informant, skilfully manipulated to provide the reading we have in the Sira.

... Apart from the spelling of the name Johannes …the renderings of Paracletus and Spiritus veritatis are crucial. It has long been recognized that the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary has been strongly influenced by Jewish Aramaic and nowhere is this more perceptible than in their rendering of Paraclete which the Syriac Versions and the Vulgate simply transliterate, preserving the original Greek term as the English Bible in some places. The word Paraclete has been 'naturalized' in Talmudic Literature and therefore it is strange that the Syriac translators of the Lectionary should have gone out of their way to introduce an entirely new rendering, which given its Hebrew meaning has, by a strange coincidence, the meaning 'Comforter' of the English Bible ….But in ordinary Syriac no such meaning is known. There menahhemana means ‘life-giver’ and especially one who raises from the dead, while nuhama stands for resurrection in John XI.24, 25. Obviously this cannot be the meaning of our Lord’s words in the passage before us. What is meant is one who consoles and comforts people for the loss of one dear to them, their advocate and strengthener, a meaning attested by numerous citations in Talmudic and Targumic dictionaries.

Secondly for spiritus veritatis the best MSS of Ibn Ishaq have ruhu `l-qist, which later writers have gratuitously altered to ruhu `l-quds. But qist is not truth, but rather 'equity' or 'justice'. Whence, then, came the word? There is no authority for it in the Old Syriac or Peshitta which read correctly sherara. Again the answer is to be found in the Lectionary which has ruh d`qushta, the correct meaning in Jewish Aramaic." It is worth noting that Schulthess in his Palestinian Syriac Lexicon gives the secondary meaning of “to Console, comfort” for nHem, naHHem.

Guillaume`s discovery is of enormous importance, since it lends credence to Christoph Luxenberg’s theory that the Koran must have emerged out of a Syriac Christian milieu. Guillaume has conclusively shown that Ibn Ishaq must have had access and recourse to Syriac Christian texts.

The Best Argument for the Authenticity of the Letter to Theodore Comes from a Study of Clement Written One Hundred and Ten Years Before Morton Smith's Discovery at Mar Saba!

Every once and a while, you stumble on to something quite accidentally which confirms all the beliefs and suspicions and gives you added resolve to go on fighting yet another day. This is what happened when I decided to do some research on the manner in which other scholars were interpreting a certain section of text in Clement's Stromata (6.15) which I think has a deep significance for the question of the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore discovered at the Mar Saba monastery.

I happened to come upon the writings of a certain William Goode, an Anglican clergymen and fierce evangelical, who, in the course of disputing those who promoted typically erroneous views of the beliefs and practices of the gnostics touched upon the question of the gospel of Clement of Alexandria. I have read his rather lengthy entry on Clement of Alexandria in his The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice, Or, A Defence Of The Catholic Doctrine That Holy Scripture Has Been, Since The Times Of The Apostles and have come to the conclusion that it stands as the best paper ever written on the subject of whether Clement of Alexandria's writings can be interpreted to witness the existence of a 'secret gospel' like that mentioned in the Letter to Theodore - this, not withstanding the fact that the book itself was written 110 years before Morton Smith's discovery of the MS.

For whatever reason, the debate over the authenticity of this letter discovered written in the blank pages of a book found in the Mar Saba monastery, never engages the question of whether or not Clement is the likely author of the text. While Goode clearly has no idea that such a text would be discovered years later, he lays out what can be viewed as a case for the existence of such a document at the time Clement was active.

The Dictionary of National Biography describes the book as follows - 'The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,' 2 vols 1848 8vo, and again revised and enlarged in 3 vols. 1853, 8vo. This is an 'expansion of Chillingworth's doctrine that the Bible alone is the religion of protestants,' supported by a systematic collection of church authorities, and is perhaps the most learned exposition of distinctively evangelical theology."

Without getting to deeply into the overarching thesis of the work, Goode successfully demonstrates that while it is impossible to deny that Clement is indeed a Gnostic and perfectly embodies the 'secret system' ascribed to contemporary heretics by writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, it would be a complete misunderstanding to infer that Clement did not strictly employ a canon of writings from which his unique opinions developed. Indeed Goode clearly assumes that Clement deliberate hid from his readership a gospel text or some body of apostolic writings which was used as the foundation of all his highly unusual opinions. Here then is Goode's original narrative:

Clement of Alexandria (fl. a 192)

We come to Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned of the early Fathers whose remains are extant, but one whose works, valuable as they are, exhibit strong traces of feelings and habits of thought derived more from human philosophy than fron divine revelation.(cf. Strom. 1)

In entering upon a review of his opinions on the subject before us, we have at once to remark his advocacy of a notion somewhat similar to that of our opponents, and which might by an incautious reader be confounded with it, but which nevertheless is far from being the same, and moreover is one almost peculiar to himself, of the Fathers yet extant. It was his opinion, then, as we learn from Eusebius, that "the Lord, after his resurrection, conferred the gift of knowledge upon James the Just, John and Peter, which they delivered to the rest of the Apostles, and those to the seventy disciples."(Euseb. HE 3.1) And in the first Book of his Stromata, he says that the teachers from whom he had learned the Christian doctrine, "preserved the true tradition of the blessed Gospel as delivered by Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, the holy Apostles, having received it in succession the son from his father, though few are like the fathers ; and at length, by God's help, are depositing with us those seeds received from their forefathers and the apostles."(Strom. 1) A knowledge of this tradition he considers to be necessary to constitute a perfect Christian, whom he calls a Gnostic, distinguishing him from the ordinary Christian, whom he speaks of as having only common faith.(Strom. 5)

This "Gnostic tradition," however, as he frequently calls it,(Strom 4) was not intended for Christians in general. The Lord, he tells us, "permitted the Divine mysteries and the holy light to be communicated to those who were capable of receiving them. He did not immediately reveal them to many, because they were not adapted to many, but to a few, to whom he knew them to be adapted, and who were both able to receive them and to be conformed to them. Secret things, like God, are entrusted to speech and not to writing."(Strom. 1)

And hence he exhorts the Gnostic, "Be cautious in the use of the word, lest any one who has fallen in with the knowledge taught by you, and is unable to receive the truth, should disobey and be ensnared by it; and to those who come without understanding, shut the fountain, whose waters are in the deep, but give drink to those who are athirst for truth. Conceal, therefore, this fountain from those who are not able to receive the profundity of the knowledge. The Gnostic, who is master of this fountain, will himself suffer punishment, if he gives occasion to one who as yet is only conversant with little things of taking offence, and of being swallowed up as it were by the greatness of his discourse, or if he transfers one who is only an operative to speculation, and leads him away by occasion of a momentary faith [which has no solid grounds in his mind to rest upon]."(Strom. 5)

Of this tradition Clement professes to give in his Stromata some account, though not of the whole of it, concealing some part intentionally, as too profound for common ears, and delivering the rest so that a common reader would not understand its full Gnostic sense,(Strom. 1) and, moreover, acknowledging that some part of what had been delivered to him had escaped his recollection, not being committed to writing and other parts partially obliterated by the lapse of time, a tolerably good proof of the insufficiency of oral tradition for the conveyance of truth. But we will quote his own words.

After stating that he is about to deliver the tradition which he had been taught by his Christian instructors, he adds, — "But I well know that many things have escaped us, having by the length of time fallen from my recollection, being unwritten, whence, in order to assist the weakness of my memory, and supply myself with a systematic exposition of the principal points, as a useful record for keeping for keeping them in remembrance, I have found it necessary to use this delineation of them. There are indeed some things which I do not recollect, for there was in those blessed men great power. And there are some things which remained unnoted for some time, and which have now escaped me; and some things are nearly obliterated from my memory, perishing in my own mind, since such a service is not easy to those who are not experienced. But reviving the recollection of these things in my writings, I purposely omit some things, making a prudent choice, fearing to write what I even speak with caution and reserve ; not in the spirit of envy, for that would be unjust, but fearing for my readers, lest by any means they should otherwise be made to fall, and we should be found putting, as those who speak in proverbs say, a sword into the hands of a child."(Strom. 1)

Now certainly our opponents have here a patron not only of oral tradition, but also of "reserve in the communication of religious knowledge," but, unfortunately for their cause, not the sort of tradition for which they are contending. The notion of this Gnostic tradition delivered only by our Lord to three or four of the Apostles, and disclosing certain hidden meanings of the truths and doctrines of Christianity not intended for Christians in general, is one of which Clement is, of those whose writings remain to us, almost the only supporter.

Nay, his statements on this point are directly opposed to those of Irenseus and Tertullian, who both inveigh strongly against any such notion. The former speaks of it as a tenet of the Carpocratian heretics, who, he tells us, 'said that Jesus spoke some things privately in a mysterious manner to his disciples and commanded them to deliver those things to those that were worthy and obedient.'(Irenaeus AH 1) And he says, "That Paul taught plainly what he knew, not only to his companions, but to all who heard him, he himself manifests. . For in Miletus the bishops and presbyters being assembled, ... he says, ' I have not shunned to declare to the whole counsel of God.' Thus the Apostles plainly and willingly delivered to all those things which they had themselves learned from the Lord."(ibid AH 3) And again, he says, "The doctrine of the Apostles is manifest and firm, and conceals nothing, and is not that of men who teach one thing in secret and another openly. For this is the contrivance of counterfeits, and seducers, and hypocrites, as the Valentinians do."(ibid AH 3.15)

And thus Tertullian; — "All the sayings of the Lord are proposed to all."(Praescript. 8) And he accuses those of "madness" who "think that the Apostles did not reveal all things to all, but that they committed some things openly to all, without exception, and some secretly to a few."(ibid 25)

Most justly, therefore, is this notion of Clement, as to a secret tradition reserved for a few, pronounced by a learned prelate of our Church, who is referred to with approbation by our opponents to be "destitute of solid foundation."(cf. Bishop of Lincoln's account of Clement)

And the reserve recommended, is a reserve only in communicating this Gnostic tradition, not in preaching the great doctrines of Christianity ; and one which even to this limited extent is entirely opposed, as we have shown, to the views of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

At any rate, as this Gnostic tradition is confessedly delivered by Clement so that the uninitiated cannot avail themselves of it, his writings will not serve to show us its true nature; and unless our opponents can lay claim to the possession of the key which unlocks this treasure, his tradition, and his notions respecting it, are to us equally useless and inapplicable. The knowledge of the profundities of this mystic tradition is gone, and with it the applicability to any practical purpose of all that is said respecting it.

But, with this exception, he speaks agreeably to the view we have been attempting to establish, as I shall now proceed to show. For:

First, he acknowledges no divine informant but Scripture, and this supposed Gnostic tradition.

Secondly, with respect to the claims of Scripture, as the rule of faith, he speaks thus.

"He, therefore," he says, "who believes the divine Scriptures with a firm conviction, receives an incontrovertible demonstration, namely the voice of God, who gave the Scriptures."(Strom. 2)

Again; "But the just shall live by faith; that faith which is according to the Testament and the commandments; since these [Testaments], which are two as it respect name and time, having been given by a wise oeconomy, according to age and proficiency, are one in effect. Both the old and the new were given by one God, through the Son."(Strom. 2)

Again; "But since a happy life is set before us by the commandments, it behoves us all to follow it, not disobeying anything: that is said, nor lightly esteeming what is becoming, though of the most trifling nature, but following whithersoever the word may lead ; if we err from it, we must necessarily fall into endless evil. But they who follow the divine Scripture, by which believers walk, that they may become, as far as they can, like the Lord, ought not to live carelessly, but, &c."(Strom. 3)

Again, he tells us, that for those who, "for the benefit of their neighbours, betake themselves, some to writing, and others to the oral delivery of the word, while learning of another kind is useful, the perusal of the Dominical Scriptures is necessary for the proof of what they say."(Strom. 6)

And in the seventh book of his Stromata, replying to the objection of the heathen to Christianity, on the ground of its followers being divided into so many sects, he says, — "But when proof is being given, it is necessary to descend to the particular questions, and to learn demonstratively, from the Scriptures themselves, how, on the other, both the most perfect knowledge, and that which is in reality the best sect, are in the truth alone and the ancient Church."(Strom. 7)

Nor let it be supposed that by the words "the ancient Church," he says anything opposed to our view; for, by that phrase, he means the Church under the Apostles; as is evident, not only by the time when he wrote, but from his own words a little further on.(Strom. 7)

Again, he says, — "They who are willing to labour for the acquisition of those things which are of the greatest excellence, will not desist from their search for truth, before they have received a proof from the Scriptures themielves, persuade through faith demonstratively;"(Strom. 7)

and again; — "The truth is found . . . by confirming each of the things demonstrated by the Scriptures from like Scriptures."(Strom. 7)

And a little further on his language clearly shows that he appealed to the Scripture alone as the rule and judge of controversies, in disputing with those who differed from him, where he says, — "When we have overthrown them by by demonstrating that they are clearly opposed to the Scriptures, you will see the leaders of the doctrine opposed do one of two things ; for either they give up the consequence of their own doctrines or the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope."(Strom. 7)

"They," he says, "who do not follow God whithersoever he may lead them, fall away from that exalted state [which has been describing]; and God leads by the divinely-inspired Scriptures."(Strom. 7)

From these passages, I think it is evident it is evident that the Holy Scriptures were proposed by Clement, as the authoritative rule of faith and judge of controversies for all Christians, and to all but his Gnostic Christian, the sole and exclusive rule and judge.

Unless, then, our opponents are willing to contend for his notions about a Gnostic tradition, delivered to four of the apostles, and left as deposits with certain rabbies of the church for the benefit of a few mature Christians,(cf. Strom. 7) they will derive no benefit from Clement's testimony on this matter.

Moreover, notwithstanding his notions about a Gnostic tradition, it is evident that he considered it to be only an exposition of Scripture, and not as containing any additional doctrines or points of faith; for he says ; — "We offer that which cannot be contradicted, even that of which God is the author; and of each of those things which form the subject of our inquiries, he has taught us in the Scriptures."(Strom. 5)

And it is clear from many passages, that he considered the Gnostic tradition as only explanatory of Scripture, and not adding to it any new points of faith. Thus he says, when about to give a description of the Christian faith, "We shall bring testimonies from the Scriptures hereafter, in their proper places; hut we shall give what they deliver, and describe the Christian faith (or Christianity) in a summary way . . . and if what we say should appear to any of the vulgar contrary to the Dominical Scriptures, they must know that, from that source, they have their breath and life; and taking their origin from them, profess to give the sense only, not the words."(Strom. 5)

So, also, he intimates elsewhere, that the Gnostic tradition delivered only things "agreeable to the divinely-inspired oracles."(Strom. 7) And that "the Gnostic knows antient things and conjectures things to come, by the Scriptures."(Strom. 6)

Hence, he says, that "they who have only tasted the Scriptures are believers; but they who have advanced further are perfect indexes of the truth, namely, the Gnostics, as, in things pertaining to this life, those who understand things further are perfect indexes of the truth, namely, the Gnostics, as, in things pertaining to this life, those who understand any art possess something more than the ignorant, and produce that which is superior to the ideas of the vulgar."(Strom. 7)

It is evident, therefore, that, therefore, that (as the learned prelate already quoted has observed) "the same Scriptures were placed in the hands of Clement's Gnostic, and of the common believer; but he interpreted them on different principles he affixed to them a higher and more spiritual meaning. The same doctrines were proposed as the objects of his faith, but he explained them in a different manner; he discovered in them hidden meanings which are not discernable by the vulgar eye."[p. 225 - 235]

Appendix:

As to the perspicuity of Scripture, and its aptness to teach the faith, (with the exception, of course, of the mysticisms of his "Gnostic tradition,") he speaks thus; — "The divine oracles exhibiting to us most clearly the way to true religion, lay the foundations of the truth; and the divine Scriptures and wise institutions compendiously lead to salvation; destitute of ornament and external beauty of language, and words suited to captivate and allure, they rouse man suffocated by vice; strengthening us against the evils incident to human life, by one and the same word serving many purposes, turning us on the one hand from the delusion that would be injurious to us, and on the other clearly exhorting us to the salvation set before us.""(Exhort. p. 65)

Again; "The Apostle, knowing this doctrine to be truly divine, says, 'Thou, O Timothy, from a babe hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ.' For those Scriptures are truly holy which make men holy and even divine. The same Apostle consequently calls the writings or volumes composed of these sacred words and syllables, ' divinely inspired, profitable for doctrine. For reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, Throughly furnished unto all good works."(ibid p. 71)

Again: "Hear ye who are far off, hear ye who are near; the word has not been concealed from any; it is a common light, and shines upon all men. No one is in darkness who knows the word. Let us hasten to obtain salvation, &c; where, though there may be a difference of opinion on the point, the context seems to me to. show that by the word he means the Scripture rather than the Logos." (ibid p. 76)

Again, he says, — "On this account the Scriptures were translated into the language of the heathen, that they might never be able to put forward the plea of ignorance, having it in their power to hear the truths of Christianity, if only they are willing. Truth interprets itself differently to what any man says respecting truth."(Strom. 1)

Again: "The Prophets have spoken to us according as we who are bound by flesh are able to hear, the Lord accommodating himself to the infirmity of men with a view to their salvation."(Strom. 2)

Again, referring to the "Shepherd" of Hermas, he says, that an observation of Hermas, that he had written the book given to him in a vision according to the letters, not knowing how to form the syllables, was intended to signify, "that the Scripture was clear to all taken according to the mere words, and that faith in it in that signification possessed the elements of the truth, and therefore it was allegorically called the literal reading; but we hold that the Gnostic exposition of the Scriptures, when faith advances, is likened to the syllabical reading."(Strom. 6)

And hence he says, in a passage quoted above, that "they who have tasted the Scriptures only are believers."

From which passages it is evident that he considered that the Scriptures alone were adapted to give at least sufficient instruction in the faith to make men good Christians, though he supposed them to need the impartation of his Gnostic tradition to lead them on to perfection, for "the Gnostic only," he tells us, "can understand and explain those things which are spoken obscurely by the Spirit."(Strom. 6)

And with respect to the obscurities of Scripture, he says that the Scriptures conceal their meaning on several accounts; first, that we may be diligent seekers and always on the watch to find out the words of salvation; moreover, it was not fit that all should know the meaning, lest, receiving what was savingly spoken by the Holy Spirit otherwise than was intended, they might be injured."Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies preserved for the elect, and those who are through faith admitted to knowledge, are veiled in parables."(Strom. 6:15)

And, with the exception of his Gnostic tradition, he makes Scripture the interpreter of Scripture. Thus, in passages quoted above, he says, "We, giving perfect proof respecting the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, persuade through faith demonstratively," and again; — "The truth is found . . . by confirming each of the things demonstrated by the Scriptures from like Scriptures."(see above)

And he tells us that the Scriptures are to be expounded according to the ecclesiastical rule, (which he calls just before the rule of truth,) and that the "ecclesiastical rule is the consent and harmony of the Law and the Prophets with the Covenant delivered by the advent of our Lord."(see above)

And hence he speaks elsewhere of those who "explain the truth by showing the harmony of the Covenants (or, Testaments.)"

By which, and other passages,* it is evident how much Clement attributed to the interpretation of Scripture by itself."

The point of citing this study is not to argue that Goode 'knew' of Secret Mark but rather that he lays out of scenario which anticipates its discovery. It is very much the conclusion of our last post in our study of Strom. 6:15. There is no doubt that the exposition of 'Scripture by Scripture' is a core tenet of contemporary Alexandrian Christianity (not only Clement but Origen too). The question comes down to whether Clement's meaning can be limited to the study of the known gospels by the Scriptures of the 'Old Testament' or something like Secret Mark. It is my opinion that anyone reading Clement with an open mind has to come to agree with the latter proposition.

Of course, there aren't many open-minded people in scholarship these days. They accuse Morton Smith of having an 'agenda' in discovering an hitherto unknown text of Clement because they are only catching an image of their own reflection ...

How to Read and Understand Clement of Alexandria [Part Three]

We have only started the process of 'decoding' an important section of text in Clement's Stromateis Book Six. It represents one of the clearest testimonies that the Letter to Theodore is firmly rooted in the ideas of Clement of Alexandria. Exactly what you might expect if Clement is the author, but of course there are always those who doubt the discovery. Of course I have always found it difficult to deny Clementine authorship of the Mar Saba document. But then again, unlike many who pontificate about Morton Smith's discovery, I have actually read and though a great deal about the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

As we continue through the section of material in Stromata 6.15 we have already noted that Clement makes reference to ideas such as:

1. it is okay to act in a way which contradicts virtue as long as one remains steadfast to 'essential truths'
2. that the Church was originally given 'a deposit' of the truth of the gospel at the beginning of Christianity with the implicit understanding of 'something better' coming at some point later.
3. that the Alexandrian concept of 'ecclesiastic canon' was developed from Pythagoreanism and necessarily the understanding that the public gospel of faith was somehow 'harmonized' (probably through a 'diatessaron') with a gospel or a collection of writings held 'secret' by the Alexandrian Church

Let's continue now with our examination of what immediately follows our last cited section - viz:

For many reasons, then, the Scriptures hide the sense. First, that we may become inquisitive, and be ever on the watch for the discovery of the words of salvation. Then it was not suitable for all to understand, so that they might not receive harm in consequence of taking in another sense the things declared for salvation by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies are veiled in the parables -- preserved for chosen men, selected to knowledge in consequence of their faith; for the style of the Scriptures is parabolic. Wherefore also the Lord, who was not of the world, came as one who was of the world to men. For He was clothed with all virtue; and it was His aim to lead man, the foster-child of the world, up to the objects of intellect, and to the most essential truths by knowledge, from one world to another.

Wherefore also He employed metaphorical description; for such is the parable, -- a narration based on some subject which is not the principal subject, but similar to the principal subject, and leading him who understands to what is the true and principal thing; or, as some say, a mode of speech presenting with vigour, by means of other circumstances, what is the principal subject.

And now also the whole economy which prophesied of the Lord appears indeed a parable to those who know not the truth, when one speaks and the rest hear that the Son of God -- of Him who made the universe -- assumed flesh, and was conceived in the virgin's womb (as His material body was produced), and subsequently, as was the case, suffered and rose again, being "to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," as the apostle says.

But on the Scriptures being opened up, and declaring the truth to those who have ears, they proclaim the very suffering endured by the flesh, which the Lord assumed, to be "the power and wisdom of God." And finally, the parabolic style of Scripture being of the greatest antiquity, as we have shown, abounded most, as was to be expected, in the prophets, in order that the Holy Spirit might show that the philosophers among the Greeks, and the wise men among the Barbarians besides, were ignorant of the future coming of the Lord, and of the mystic teaching that was to be delivered by Him. Rightly then, prophecy, in proclaiming the Lord, in order not to seem to some to blaspheme while speaking what was beyond the ideas of the multitude embodied its declarations in expressions capable of leading to other conceptions. Now all the prophets who foretold the Lord's coming, and the holy mysteries accompanying it, were persecuted and killed. As also the Lord Himself, in explaining the Scriptures to them, and His disciples who preached the word like Him, and subsequently to His life, used parables. Whence also Peter, in his Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says: "But we, unrolling the books of the prophets which we possess, who name Jesus Christ, partly in parables, partly in enigmas, partly expressly and in so many words, find His coming and death, and cross, and all the rest of the tortures which the Jews inflicted on Him, and His resurrection and assumption to heaven previous to the capture of Jerusalem. As it is written, These things are all that He behoves to suffer, and what should be after Him. Recognising them, therefore, we have believed in God in consequence of what is written respecting Him."

And after a little again he draws the inference that the Scriptures owed their origin to the divine providence, asserting as follows: "For we know that God enjoined these things, and we say nothing apart from the Scriptures."

Now the Hebrew dialect, like all the rest, has certain properties, consisting in a mode of speech which exhibits the national character. Dialect is accordingly defined as a style of speech produced by the national character. But prophecy is not marked by those dialects. For in the Hellenic writings, what are called changes of figures purposely produce onscurations, deduced after the style of our prophecies. But this is effected through the voluntary departure from direct speech which takes place in metrical or offhand diction. A figure, then, is a form of speech transferred from what is literal to what is not literal, for the sake of the composition, and on account of a diction useful in speech.

But prophecy does not employ figurative forms in the expressions for the sake of beauty of diction. But from the fact that truth appertains not to all, it is veiled in manifold ways, causing the light to arise only on those who are initiated into knowledge, who seek the truth through love. The proverb, according to the Barbarian philosophy, is called a mode of prophecy, and the parable is so called, and the enigma in addition. Further also, they are called "wisdom;" and again, as something different from it, "instruction and words of prudence," and "turnings of words," and "true righteousness and again, "teaching to direct judgment," and "subtlety to the simple," which is the result of training, "and perception and thought," with which the young catechumen is imbued. "He who bears these prophets, being wise, will be wiser. And the intelligent man will acquire rule, and will understand a parable and a dark saying, the words and enigmas of the wise."

And if it was the case that the Hellenic dialects received their appellation from Hellen, the son of Zeus, surnamed Deucalion, from the chronology which we have already exhibited, it is comparatively easy to perceive by how many generations the dialects that obtained among the Greeks are posterior to the language of the Hebrews.

But as the work advances, we shall in each section, noting the figures of speech mentioned above by the prophet, exhibit the gnostic mode of life, showing it systematically according to the rule of the truth.

Did not the Power also, that appeared to Hermas in the Vision, in the form of the Church, give for transcription the book which she wished to be made known to the elect? And this, he says, he transcribed to the letter, without finding how to complete the syllables. And this signified that the Scripture is clear to all, when taken according to the bare reading; and that this is the faith which occupies the place of the rudiments. Wherefore also the figurative expression is employed, "reading according to the letter;" while we understand that the gnostic unfolding of the Scriptures, when faith has already reached an advanced state, is likened to reading according to the syllables.

Further, Esaias the prophet is ordered to take "a new book, and write in it" certain things: the Spirit prophesying that through the exposition of the Scriptures there would come afterwards the sacred knowledge, which at that period was still unwritten, because not yet known. For it was spoken from the beginning to those only who understand. Now that the Saviour has taught the apostles, the unwritten rendering' of the written [Scripture] has been handed down also to us, inscribed by the power of God on hearts new, according to the renovation of the book. Thus those of highest repute among the Greeks, dedicate the fruit of the pomegranate to Hermes, who they say is speech, on account of its interpretation. For speech conceals much. Rightly, therefore, Jesus the son of Nave saw Moses, when taken up [to heaven], double, -- one Moses with the angels, and one on the mountains, honoured with burial in their ravines. And Jesus saw this spectacle below, being elevated by the Spirit, along also with Caleb. But both do not see similarly But the one descended with greater speed, as if the weight he carried was great; while the other, on descending after him, subsequently related the glory which he beheld, being able to perceive more than the other as having grown purer; the narrative, in my opinion, showing that knowledge is not the privilege of all. Since some look at the body of the Scriptures, the expressions and the names as to the body of Moses; while others see through to the thoughts and what it is signified by the names, seeking the Moses that is with the angels.

Many also of those who called to the Lord said, "Son of David, have mercy on me." A few, too, knew Him as the Son of God; as Peter, whom also He pronounced blessed, "for flesh and blood revealed not the truth to him, but His Father in heaven," -- showing that the Gnostic recognises the Son of the Omnipotent, not by His flesh conceived in the womb, but by the Father's own power. That it is therefore not only to those who read simply that the acquisition of the truth is so difficult, but that not even to those whose prerogative the knowledge of the truth is, is the contemplation of it vouch-safed all at once, the history of Moses teaches, until, accustomed to gaze, at the Hebrews on the glory of Moses, and the prophets of Israel on the visions of angels, so we also become able to look the splendours of truth in the face.

It's been awhile since we engaged this text so let's go back to the end of the previous section of this text and remind our readers of the Pythagorean context everything seems to be rooted in. 

At the end of a long section which made clear that Clement interpreted the word 'canon' (κανών) in the Pythagorean sense - i.e. a 'rule' of musical harmony - we hear him put forward a mystical understanding of a series of emanations related to Pythagoreanism:

Knowledge (Γνώσει) is then followed by thought (φρόνησις), and thought by self-control (σωφροσύνη): for it may be said that φρόνησις is divine knowledge (γνῶσιν θείαν), and exists in those who are deified (καὶ ἐν τοῖς θεοποιουμένοις); but that σωφροσύνη is mortal, and subsists in those who philosophize, and are not yet wise (σοφοῖς).

As Kittel notes "In Neo-Platonism φρόνησις is an emanation ruled by nous. The rational soul is beautiful. Regard for nous is phronesis. phronesis is the intellectual activity of an individual soul related to a body." [p. 153] σωφροσύνη was always used by Pythagoreans in conjunction with the concept of 'harmony' (Ἁρμονία).

Clement is clearly borrowing from Plato's discussion of the relationship between φρόνησις and σωφροσύνη in the Republic which as Guthrie notes is itself developed from Pythagoreanism:

We are of course approaching Plato's view of the soul as he expounds it in the Republic, and can see how much he owed to his Pythagorean friends. There (431f) the virtue of 'temperance' (sophrosyne) is said to be the virtue of the soul as a whole, the result of the smooth working together of all its parts. But Plato speaks in Pythagorean language of it "singing together through the whole octave" (literally 'diapason') and calls sophrosyne straight out a harmonia. The man who possesses it is 'well-tuned' and it is achieved 'by bringing three parts into accord, just like the three fixed tones in the scale — highest, lowest and middle' — that is, as a musical harmony is achieved. In the case of the soul, the three parts that have to be brought into accord are of course reason, passion and desire. [Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy p 317]

I don't want to get too deeply involved in the relationship with Pythagoreanism, Platonism and neo-Platonism but Clement is once again intimating the existence of two things - one superior, one inferior - which are understood to be in harmony with one another and embody the health and 'rule' of the Church body.

Yet it must be said that Clement disguishes between the two 'things' mentioned above - one superior, the other inferior - in terms of 'the Law' and the gospel. Clement goes on to immediately put forward the statement that:

if virtue (ἀρετή) is divine (θεία), so is also the knowledge (γνῶσις) of it; while self-control (σωφροσύνη) is a sort of imperfect wisdom (ἀτελὴς φρόνησις) which aspires after wisdom (φρονήσεως), and exerts itself laboriously, and is not contemplative. As certainly righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), being human (ἀνθρωπίνη οὖσα), is, as being a common thing (κοινόν), subordinate to holiness, which subsists through the divine righteousness (θείαν δικαιοσύνην); for the perfect man (τελείῳ) not resting on civil contracts, or on the prohibition of law (ἀπαγορεύσει νόμου), develops from his own spontaneous action and his love to God (θεὸν ἀγάπης) a path to righteousness (δικαιοσύνη).

I hope at the end of this long citation from the previous material the reader can already see not only a glimmer of a Marcionite rejection of the Law, but rather the beginnings of a Platonic understanding of the 'gnostic' standing above the law because he possesses the divine faculty which established the laws in the first place (cf. Plato's Politikos)

It is with this Pythagorean/Platonic context now firmly established that we move on to the next section of text in Stromateis 6.15 where Clement says:

For many reasons, then, the Scriptures (γραφαί) hide (ἐπικρύπτονται) the sense (νοῦν). First, that we may become disposed to searching (ζητητικοὶ), and be ever on the watch for the discovery of the words of salvation (τῶν σωτηρίων λόγων).

After what appears to be a very long preamble now through the material cited in the last four posts we have finally reached the heart of the section. Clement references now to writings (presumably Christian writings) which have veiled their sense (literally 'mind') in order to prompt the individual to search out for something called 'words of salvation' (τῶν σωτηρίων λόγων). This could easily have been construed by Clement to signify the 'secret' gospel of the Alexandrian community hidden behind the enigmas written in the publicly circulating gospel(s).

The Clement continues by immediately declaring that:

it was not suitable for all to understand (νοεῖν), so that they might not receive harm in consequence of taking in another sense the things declared for salvation by the Holy Spirit (τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος σωτηρίως εἰρημένα). Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies (τὰ ἅγια τῶν προφητειῶν μυστήρια) are veiled in the parables (ταῖς παραβολαῖς ἐγκαλύπτεται) -- preserved for the elect (τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), selected to knowledge in consequence of their faith (τοῖς τε ἐκ πίστεως εἰς γνῶσιν).

Now someone may look at this citation and argue that Clement isn't talking about the relationship between two gospels - one public and another secret or 'mystic' - but rather the relationship between the Law and the prophets and the canonical gospels. After all he makes specific reference to 'τὰ ἅγια τῶν προφητειῶν μυστήρια.' The 'elect' here would be understood in the sense of 'bishops' or other ecclesiastic figures who knew that Jesus was the messiah predicted in the sacred writings of the Jews. Yet this is why it is so important for us to go through the whole context of the chapter.

For the 'holy mysteries of the prophesies' are clearly not the prophetic writings of the Jews but the gospel first established near the time of Jesus's ministry. Clement makes this absolutely certain when he immediately follows the last section with a clarification of what 'scriptures' are being referred to here:

for the style of the Scriptures is parabolic (παραβολικὸς γὰρ ὁ χαρακτὴρ ὑπάρχει τῶν γραφῶν). Wherefore also the Lord, who was not of the world, came as one who was of the world to men (οὐκ ὢν κοσμικός, ὡς κοσμικὸς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἦλθεν). For He was clothed with all virtue (καὶ γὰρ ἐφόρεσεν τὴν πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν); and it was His aim to lead man, the foster-child (σύντροφος) of the world, up to the objects of intellect, and to the most essential truths by knowledge, from one world to another (διὰ τῆς γνώσεως ἀνάγειν ἐκ κόσμου εἰς κόσμον). Wherefore also He employed the metaphorical to furnish the writing with what is necessary (Διὸ καὶ μεταφορικῇ κέχρηται τῇ γραφῇ) for such is the parable (παραβολή), -- a narration (λόγος) based on some subject (ἀπό τινος οὐ κυρίου μέν) which is not the principal subject, but similar to the principal subject (ἐμφεροῦς δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ), and leading him who understands to what is the true and principal thing (ἐπὶ τἀληθὲς καὶ κύριον ἄγων συνιέντα); or, as some say, a mode of speech which actually presents, by means of other words, what is the principal subject (λέξις δι´ ἑτέρων τὰ κυρίως λεγόμενα μετ´ ἐνεργείας παριστάνουσα).

Once we understand that the actual context of the 'holy mysteries of the prophesies' are the original gospel writings rather than the Law and the prophets a veil lifts over the whole passage when viewed in its entirety.

Clement is clearly stating that the 'public gospels' themselves reference another narrative (= logos); this by means of the 'parable.' Not only is Jesus pointing us in the direction of 'another world' (i.e. 'heaven'), Clement implies that his words point us in the directly of a more spiritual text.

All Ancient Witnesses to the Diatessaron [Part Eight]

J) MOSES BAR KEPHA

A slightly younger contemporary of Isho'dad of Merv, bar Kepha served as bishop of the combined diocese of Mosul, Beth Kijonaja and Beth Raman; he died in 903 at the age of 90. Like Isho'dad, it appears bar Kepha also cited the Diatessaron in his Commentaries', however unlike Isho'dad's Commentaries, which survive complete, bar Kepha's exist only in fragmentary form (London: British Library, Add. 17274; eleventh - twelfth centuries):

Which shows who collected the four books of the Evangelists and set them in order in one book. And some people, indeed, say that Eusebius of Caesarea, when he saw that Julianus [sic!] one expects Ammonius] of Alexandria made the Gospel of the Diatessaron, ie by means of the Four, and changed the sequence of stories [or: words] of the Gospels. And also Tatian the Greek, the heretic leader, made a Gospel which is called Tasaron [sic] and he too changed the sequence of the stories [or: words]; he, Eusebius, took care and collected the four books of the four Evangelists and set them in order and placed them in one book, and preserved the essence of the books of the evangelists as it [= the "essence"] was, without taking anything from their books or adding anything to them, and made certain Canons concerning their mutual agreement.[Chapter 53; text and translation (adapted) cited from JR Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus on the Diatessaron (London 1895)]

Tatian is a "Greek," and the Diatessaron's full title seems to include the word "gospel." "Julianus" must be corrected to "Ammonius," as per Eusebius' Ep. ad Carpianum. Bar Kepha appears to be juggling multiple traditions from earlier sources. First, he conflates Eusebius' two references to a "Diatessaron" (that of Ammonius of Alexandria's and that of Tatian's); second, he calls Tatian a heretic (cp. the presumed addition to bar All's description [item H]); third, he also calls him a Greek (cp. Theodore bar Koni [item F] and the Chronicle of Se'ert [item L]).

Hermann Raschke Update

I have been told by Ulrich Schmid that he will make a scan of Hermann Raschke's Werkstatt des Markus-Evangelisten (1923) where the author develops an argument for the Mark as the Marcionite gospel. I will commission a translation of a few important chapters and post them here in the next month or so.

If it is Acknowledge that the ἀπομνημονεύματα of Justin Martyr Were Incorporated into 'the Diatessaron' Why is the Letter to Theodore's Suggestion that Mark Developed a 'Mystic Gospel' from υπομνήματα So Controversial?

We already have Papias and Eusebius identifying the canonical gospel of Mark as a υπομνημα (Church History 2.15). So what's so controversial about the second suggestion that this 'mental note' or 'notebook' was eventually transformed into some mystic literary composition? Isn't the gospel supposed to be something lofty and sublime? Petersen almost gets it right, but misunderstands the terminology once again. He thinks that Justin's ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων were themselves an earlier 'gospel harmony' which again goes against the original sense of the term as 'mental notes' from an experience. In any event, if the reader can ignore this mistake Petersen's other observations are very signficant for our emerging study:

"An examination of the relationship of the Diatessaron to Justin's ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων is the present writer's most recent study of the harmonized tradition. Since Tatian was Justin's student, and since the best evidence suggests that Justin's "memoirs of the apostles" were a gospel harmony, the possibility of textual dependence existed, at least in theory. Agreement was already a well-known fact in one passage: the "light" at Jesus' baptism. Using criteria developed in researching Romanes' gospel text, Justin's text was filtered for agreements with Diatessaronic witnesses. Eleven instances of clear agreement were found. Six of these were presented as "Primary Evidence," for the evidence was clear-cut. The other five cases were adduced as "Secondary Evidence"; here there was agreement, but dependence could not be proven because of the type of the reading (an omission etc.). The parallels (one of which is presented in the next chapter as Exhibit 9) offer textual support for the long-theorized2 dependence of Tatian's Diatessaron (almost certainly composed in Syriac) upon Justin's Greek "memoirs of the apostles" - whatever the form, and whatever their name.238 The parallels also refuted the unsubstantiated assertion of Georg Strecker that "Nennenswerte Verbindungs- linien [from Justin's hypothesized harmony] zum Diatessaron Tatians bestehen nicht.

Two unexpected findings emerged from this study. First, fully half of the six readings common to Justin and the Diatessaronic witnesses adduced as "Primary Evidence" were, according to the reports of later Fathers, said to be variants found in heretical gospels.240 In the most technical sense of the term, then, these readings were "extra-canonical." Previously, two possibilities had been entertained: either Tatian had used a "fifth source," a Judaic-Christian gospel, now lost, or Tatian had used an early redaction of the incipient canonical gospels, which contained these "deviating" readings. Now a third possibility must be added to this list: Tatian may have used Justin's harmony (whose title JC Zahn, Lippelt, and many others suspected was the Gospel according to the Hebrews), which already contained these "deviating," "Judaic-Christian" readings.

[For example] at Matt 3.15/16, the "fire" in the Jordan at Jesus' baptism (Epiphanius says this is the reading of "the Hebrew gospel"); at Matt 3.16, the interpolation of "in the form/likeness of" (Epiphanius also quotes this reading from "the Hebrew gospel"); at Matt 19.17, the interpolation of "the Father, who is in heaven" (Irenaeus says this is the reading of the gospel used by the Marcosians; Hippolytus says it is the reading of the gospel of the Naassenes)."[Petersen Diatessaron p. 346 - 347]

Most scholars assume that Tatian incorporated the ἀπομνημονεύματα that were in the possession of his master to make the 'Diatessaron.' Why is it such a leap of logic to accept what is written in the Letter to Theodore, namely that:

when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own and Peter's υπομνήματα, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected[Clement to Theodore 1.18 - 22]

Why is it acceptable to assume that such a development from υπομνήματα to gospel could have taken place with regards to the Diatessaron but not the so-called 'mystic gospel' of Mark? Oh, I forgot - Morton Smith was gay. It always comes down to this for these dildo-heads. If only the guy that found the Mar Saba letter was married and had three kids and a dog. Then we'd know, it was authentic ...

How Did Irenaeus Transform a 'Memory Aid' into an Integral Part of the Fourfold Gospel from Heaven?

I have been struggling all day to think a modern equivalent for the ancient υπομνηματα or ἀπομνημονεύματα. I think I finally found it - blog post.  The hypomnema were introduced at the time of Plato as a kind of memory aid.  They were a revolutionary technology which the great French philosopher Michel Foucault spent a lot of time contemplating. He notes:

First, to bring out a certain number of historical facts which are often glossed over when posing this problem of writing, we must look into the famous question of the hypomnemata. Current interpreters see in the critique of the hypomnemata in the Phaedrus a critique of writing as a material support for memory. Now, in fact, hypomnemata has a very precise meaning. It is a copybook, a notebook. Precisely this type of notebook was coming into vogue in Plato's time for personal and administrative use. This new technology was as disrupting as the introduction of the computer into private life today. It seems to me the question of writing and the self must be posed in terms of the technical and material framework in which it arose. [...]

What seems remarkable to me is that these new instruments were immediately used for the constitution of a permanent relationship to oneself -- one must manage oneself as a governor manages the governed, as a head of an enterprise manages his enterprise, a head of household manages his household...So, if you will, the point at which the question of the hypomnemata and the culture of the self comes together in a remarkable fashion is the point at which the culture of the self takes as its goal the perfect government of the self – a sort of permanent political relationship between self and self. The ancients carried on this politics of themselves with these notebooks just as governments and those who manage enterprises administered by keeping registers. This is how writing seems to me to be linked to the problem of the culture of the self. [...]

In the technical sense, the hypomnemata could be account books, public registers, individual notebooks serving as memoranda. Their use as books of life, guides for conduct, seems to have become a current thing among a whole cultivated public. Into them one entered quotations, fragments of works, examples, and actions to which one had been witness or of which one had read the account, reflections or reasonings which one had heard or which had come to mind. They constituted a material memory of things read, heard, or thought, thus offering these as an accumulated treasure for rereading and later meditation. They also formed a raw material for the writing of more systematic treatises in which were given arguments and means by which to struggle against some defect (such as anger, envy, gossip, flattery) or to overcome some difficult circumstance (a mourning, an exile, downfall, disgrace). [...]

As personal as they were, the hypomnemata must nevertheless not be taken for intimate diaries or for those accounts of spiritual experience (temptations, struggles, falls, and victories) which can be found in later Christian literature. They do not constitute an "account of oneself"; their objective is not to bring the arcana conscientiae to light, the confession of which – be it oral or written – has a purifying value. The movement that they seek to effect is the inverse of this last one. The point is not to pursue the indescribable, not to reveal the hidden, not to say the nonsaid, but, on the contrary, to collect the already-said, to reassemble that which one could hear or read, and this to an end which is nothing less than the constitution of oneself. The hypomnemata are to be resituated in the context of a very sensitive tension of that period. Whithin a culture very affected by traditionality, by the recognized value of the already-said, by the recurrence of discourse, by the 'citational" practice under the seal of age and authority, an ethic was developing which was very explicitly oriented to the care of oneself, toward definite objectives such as retiring into oneself, reaching oneself, living with oneself, being sufficient to oneself, profiting by and enjoying oneself. Such is the objective of the hypomnemata: to make of the recollection of the fragmentary logos transmitted by teaching, listening, or reading a means to establish as adequate and as perfect a relationship of oneself to oneself as possible.[From an Interview with Michel Foucault in The Foucault Reader; Paul Rabinow, editor (New York) Pantheon, 1984, p 363-5]

I think that when Papias and Eusebius characterize the canonical gospel of Mark as a υπομνημα most scholars just gloss over the fact that this terminology is incompatible with all the things Irenaeus ascribes to our canonical gospel. When Justus references ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων he is necessarily again speaking about something very different from what Irenaeus is developing at the end of the second century.

They say you can't get blood from a stone, but it is equally true you can't get the heavenly 'fourfold gospel' of Irenaeus from texts described as υπομνηματα or ἀπομνημονεύματα in our oldest sources. Something's not quite kosher here. Irenaeus is taking a written text which is clearly derived from a very personal and very human experience and is attempting to rocket it into orbit as a kind of 'heavenly revelation.' But this is absolutely incompatible with the original terminology. Irenaeus claims to be devoted to the memory of Justin, Papias and Polycarp, yet we see at every turn he manipulates and misrepresents their original witness.

The Lettter to Theodore by contrast is much more compatable with the original apostolic understanding. The canonical gospels weren't intended to be 'witnesses from heaven.' Everything about them screams out that they come from the experiences of human beings. As Loveday Halliday notes in his Preface to the Gospel of Luke "the whole question of the literary status of hypomnemata needs urgent reconsideration in the light of the literary praxis of the scientific tradition, and of new evidence emerging from the papyri." I put forward that we already possess that revaluation of all inherited values - the Letter to Theodore. The original υπομνηματα like that ascribed to Mark by Papias, Clement and Eusebius was not a gospel per se but rather, only a building block used in the ultimate creation of the gospel.

How very Platonic of the evangelist to establish things this way ...

Fire and Lightning in Japan - Lightning Strikes Active Volcano on Mount Kirishima

All Ancient Witnesses to the Diatessaron [Part Seven]

I) 'ABU'L HASAN BAR BAHLUL

Living in the latter half of the tenth century, bar Bahlul also compiled a lexicon, which has the following entry for "Diatessaron":

Diatessaron, that is to say, the Gospel combined, that is from the four Evangelists.[Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, I, 870. The text is also in Lexicon Syriacum auctore Hassano bar Bahlule, ed. R. Duval (Parisiis 1901), I, col. 552]

This reference is from the oldest MS of bar Bahlul's opus, dated 1214. Later manuscripts augment the entry by appending:

and this was composed in Alexandria which Tatian the bishop wrote.[The text is from the same sources as given in note 70, above. JR Harris, The Diatessaron, 14]

Alexandrian provenance appears to derive from Isho'dad of Merv, although the confusion could have arisen independently. The tradition concerning Tatian's ecclesiastical office first appears here. That Tatian wore a bishop's miter is unsubstantiated. This tradition betrays, however, the East's high esteem for the Diatessaron and its composer: since the Diatessaron was venerated, its creator must have been a holy man.

Why Scholars Often Don't Get Dirty Wrestling with the Truth

I noted in a previous post how well written Scott Brown's recent article on Venetia Anastasopoulou's handwriting analysis is. I have also consistently come out hard against Scott Brown's interpretation of the Mar Saba document. It might seem in some ways that my dislike for all things Scott Brown is motivated solely by jealousy. After all - as I noted a month ago - his father was already established in academia while mine was forced into a lower social standing in Canada owing to the circumstances of the Second World War.  Sounds suspiciously like a case of 'sour grapes,' right?  Well maybe, but let's continue with the personal investigation for a moment.

As a student of the Greeks I have always believed that envy is a virtue. So in that respect it is hard to argue with the idea that for purely selfish reasons I would very much would have liked to have had a father who was of 'a certain standing in society,; let alone one who was already familiar with how one 'gets around' in higher education.  I mean who really wants to be of 'a lower social ranking'?  This especially in a very stratified society like Canada was (and still is).

Did I want to be born to a father who was so debilitated by his experiences in a concentration camp in WWII that he was incapable of engaging in personal relationships with anyone let alone his eldest son?  No, of course not.  But that's the hand that life dealt me. 

I am starting to chuckle to myself that this post is really beginning to sound like an exercise in self-pity.  I literally start typing the words that appear on the page each time I write a post so I am as puzzled as many of you must be with the direction that this line of personal reflection has taken.  I think my original point was supposed to be that despite my unenviable starting point in life, I can honestly say that something good came out of it - an unwillingness to compromise on the search for truth. 

I sincerely believe that something gets lost when you know how to play the game too well. In other words, I am so happy that we have someone like Scott Brown to defend the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore as he did in his recent article for BAR. When I higher a lawyer to repreent me in court or I choose a doctor to treat my illness - or even a plumber who will unclog my sink - I don't want one who has all sorts of crazy ideas and strategies. I want one that gets the job done.

Yet at the same time, it has to be acknowledged that scholarship isn't simply to be understand in terms of functionality. Tertullian, for instance was a masterful rhetorician but I wouldn't want my whole understanding of Marcionitism to derive from a lawyer with an agenda. My point is that the guy who can defeat my opponent in a courtroom isn't necessarily the person I want to get advice for raising my kids or how to develop a relationship with God.

I think the distinction is important because - as a failed writer - I have often wondered why it is that so many people are so much better at expressing their points of view than I am. I don't say this as a way to get self-pity. I think I already know the answer to the question. And just to seem like I am not picking on Scott Brown, I will use an analogy developed from someone I am quite familiar with in the world of Biblical scholarship - Robert Price.

Robert Price is another excellent writer who happens to work in a field that I am involved in peripherally. I have always found his writing quite extraordinary. He manages to synthesize things he has read by other scholars and manages somehow to make the original work more readable for people who have an entrenched agenda (in this case 'atheists' and agnostics).

Yet is there something that Scott Brown and Robert Price have in common beyond being writers who can express themselves better than I can? I think so. I think the key to being a 'great writer' is to limit the scope of your ambitions.

For instance, I found Scott Brown's writing particularly compelling in the BAR article. Yet the article had a limited focus - viz. synthesize and in many ways augment the arguments in Venetia Anastasopoulou's original handwriting analysis for a polemic purpose. Similarly Robert Price's efforts are mostly limited to buttressing a particular point of view. I would argue that it is much easier to engage in these sorts of projects than what I do here at the blog which is to gaze at the indescribable 'harmony' of earliest Christianity and come away with a small piece for my readership.

In other words, I am not interested in attacking people or engaging in 'scholarly debate' about various 'issues' in the field of Biblical exegesis. There is only one thing that I am after and that is to make sense of the original paradigm at the heart of Alexandrian Christianity. The reason Alexandrian Christianity interests me so is because I have determined - through twenty five years of personal research - that Christianity developed from the unique Jewish culture of this Egyptian city. I am not interested in 'debating' this issue in every post any more than I want to convince a homosexual that a vagina is a preferable orifice to all the other possibilities that are out there.

Either you are with me on this one or you are against me. There are other places to go for your information than at this blog.

I take my research to be literally a kind of journey that takes place in 'real time' at my blog each day. But in the case of other scholars - and indeed most scholars out there 'in the real world' - I find a great deal of dishonesty goes on in their work. I feel that they often 'cut corners' or deliberately take positions to make their work more readable and gain wider acceptance.

In the case of Scott Brown for instance I think he was too willing to abandon all or most of Morton Smith's work on the Letter to Theodore as a means of restoring credibility for the original discovery. I know that to some degree this has to take place in scholarship. What's the point of writing a paper or a book if you are simply endorsing someone else's point of view? Yet it has to be acknowledged that what actually happens in academia is that writers take up positions merely to get themselves heard.

It's the same thing in the movie or television business. The projects that are easiest to explain are the ones that get made. 'It's kind of like Pretty Woman except its the guy who's the prostitute and the Richard Gere character is played by Demi Moore.' Does this sound like a movie that needs to get made? No, but is it certainly the kind of film which has more of a chance to get made merely because it is so predictable?  Yes, of course.  Such is the way of life. 

My opinions about the origins of Christianity have changed a great deal over the last twenty five years. I attribute almost all of this to my commitment to seek out the truth. I have always refused to take up a position merely because it was useful. Yet I can't say the same about most of my colleagues.

The truth is that I think when I look at all the evidence that exists from antiquity, I think that the most likely scenario is that there really was a 'St. Mark,' that he really did write a gospel and that this gospel has not survived down to us in a pristine form. I find it curious that the author of what is generally agreed to be the earliest gospel is not credited with the status of 'apostle' outside of Alexandria. The original Greek term does not restrict itself to 'eyewitnesses of an event.'  An ἀπόστολος is merely a 'spokesman.'  Thus I find it highly suspicious that the original evangelist should be 'robbed' (as the Alexandrian say) of a title which should have come to him quite naturally.

It is this kernel of truth - the conspiracy of the rest of the Church against St. Mark which is the foundation of Coptic Christianity and my own perspective on the origins of later Christianity.  'Oh what injustice the apostle Mark suffered at the hands of the followers of St. Peter' moans Pope Shenouda at every turn.  This Coptic melancholy pervades ever aspect of my approach to Christianity.  I do think there is something rotten at the heart of Christianity.  All my other opinions and approaches to the problem of Christian origins follow from this basic observation and I can't be swayed from this assessment even if it means losing the respect of my peers.

So it is that when we assess the real meaning of the Letter to Theodore, I can only see it as a witness of the most fundamental expression of Alexandrianism.  Something about St. Mark was kept hidden.  Something about his role in the development of Christianity was obscured because it was offensive to the followers of St. Peter.  This is the real 'agenda' behind the letter.  All this business about homosexuality and the rest of the nonsense put forward by those promoting the hoax proposition completely misses the mark (so to speak). 

I sincerely believe that most of my colleagues are more concerned with being understood and accepted rather than the true purpose of scholarship - an attempt to express the truth. The truth of the Mar Saba letter is certainly a difficult - if not impossible - goal for readers unfamiliar with the Alexandrian tradition.  In order to stand up to the modern apologists for St Peter they have to immerse themselves in the writings of Clement and the oldest known representatives of the Alexandrian tradition and only then can they find themselves in a position to truly defend its authenticity.  Everything else I am afraid is little more than hot air.

The truth is that even those arguing for the forgery proposition do not deny that the letter sounds like it was written by Clement.  What they seem to have an issue with is the fact that the end result of all these words, phrases and sentences that sound 'Clementine enough' to pass as Clement's own come together in a portrait of Alexandrian Christianity which ultimately seems 'out of step' with the orthodoxy of Irenaeus of Rome.  So in fact, it all comes down on a referendum on the sanctity of the Church  Since the letter suggests that Clement's loyalties were actually aligned against the 'infalible truth' being promoted by Irenaeus, the letter can only be explained as a forgery written by someone with an ax to grind. 

Who is that 'enemy of the Church of Rome' made out to be?  Morton Smith.  The logic is so deftly simple that it convinces all who come under its sway.  Morton Smith wrote a book called 'Jesus the Magician.'  Morton Smith seems to have went out of his way to seek out explanations for the origins of Christianity which went again the 'official teachings' of the Church therefore - these men reason - Smith rather than Clement of Alexandria, should be the prime candidate for authorship of this text. 

Yet this line of reasoning is so utterly stupid it boggles the mind.  After all, it has yet to be proved or even demonstrated that the rest of Clement's writings were 'in step' with the accepted position of Church Fathers - let alone Irenaeus.  How is it then that none of these men has ever bothered to draw up an argument that the Mar Saba letter can't be from Clement's hand because everything else about Clement's writing witnesses hiso orthodoxy? 

I will tell you why they haven't attempted this - it would not be a convincing argument.  Clement's writing style is very murky.  It is always hard to pin him down.  So it is that the question of whether Clement wrote the Letter to Theodore is ignored by both sides of the issue even though it is the most obvious - and indeed the most fundamental - question with respect to the Mar Saba document. 

Everyone wants to be heard.  Everyone wants to come up with wittiest arguments that convinces the greatest number of people.  Yet everyone avoids tackling the one question which is decisive - did Clement really write the Letter to Theodore.  Everyone except me that is, because I don't know any better.  I haven't been schooled in what is 'expedient' in academia.

For the most of the rest of the world it doesn't matter what the truth is.  It is all about being heard and recognized.  The cunning scholar always chooses those opinions which are easily expressed and which are even easier for people to digest. In short, it is what 'sells; that matters.  Pity.

Why Does David Dungan See Something 'Platonic/Pythagorean' in the Name of Justin's Gospels - the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων?

A few days I cited extensively from David Dungan's thoughts on the Diatessaron, and passed over without mention something very interesting. Dungan apparently sees a precedent for the establishmnet of the 'Diatessaron' in the name ascribed to Justin's gospel - the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων:

Did this Pythagorean concept influence Tatian? Possibly. Just as Justin used the Platonic/Pythagorean concept of memoirs to the three Christian Gospels he had harmonized, Tatian might have selected the Platonic/Pythagorean term diatessaron to identify his new fitting together of the four sacred books "of the barbarian philosophy.[A History of the Synoptic Problem p. 41]

I find this conception particularly intriguing because Clement in the Letter to Theodore identifies certain υπομνήματα associated with Mark and Peter which apparently harmonize together to make the 'secret gospel' associated with the evangelist.

I can't for the life of me though understand what Dungan means by a 'Platonic/Pythagorean' ἀπομνημονεύματα unless he means Xenophon's ἀπομνημονεύματα of things said by Socrates. It is interesting to note that Robbins in his preface to Xenophon's Memorabilia note that ἀπομνημονεύματα and υπομνήματα are viritually indistinguishable from one another as classical terminology:

ἀπομνημονεύματα from ἀπομνημονεύείν, things related from memory. It is not, however, restricted to that which fell under the author's own observation, but includes also particulars which he received from other witnesses. The Latin term Memorabilia, things memorable or worthy to be remembered, although it does not correspond precisely t: the Greek word, is a veiy good designation of the contents of these Books, and as such is very commonly used in English. We not unfrequently affix the termination ana to proper names to designate much the same thing; as Johnsoniana, the memorable sayings of Johnson. Aulus Gellius (NH XIV. 3.) called these books: Libras quos dictorum atque factorum Socratis commentarios composuit Xenophon. And some modern editors, as Kuhner, retain Commcntarii as the most fitting title of the work. Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1. 12, refers to Xenophon in iis, quae a Socrate dicta retulit

Instead of ἀπομνημονεύματα, two Mss. Victorii, have υπομνήματα; and one, Parisiensis F. has ὲκ τῶν τοῦ Ξενοφῶντος υπομνήμονεύματων, ie memoranda, things written written down in order not to forget them. This name does not seem to apply so well to the contents of a work which consists not merely of hasty sketches, but in many parts exhibits signs of elaboration; still the two words ἀπομνημονεύματα and υπομνήματα may have been used, even in ancient times, as nearly synonymous. Thus υπομνήματα seems to be used like ἀπομνημονεύματα in Polybius 1. 1. 1., 6. 32. 4 et al.[Xenophon Memorabilia, trans. R D C Robbins p. 173]

So we have established that the term Clement uses for Peter and Mark's 'notes' is the same as Justin's 'gospel.' Yet the same terminology is also used in Eusebius's description of the creation of the gospel of Mark:

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them [καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα τῆς διὰ λόγου παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς καταλείψοι διδασκαλίας]. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.[Eusebius Church History 2.15]

But what of Dungan's claim that this is somehow 'Platonic/Pythagorean'? Is this all a bit of stretch? Or does it just come down to an association or imitation of Socrates (and thus only indirectly 'Platonic')? I don't really know right now. This certainly requires more investigation. But it might begin with the clue Wikipedia provides for us in its entry for hypomnema:

Plato's theory of anamnesis recognized the new status of writing as a device of artificial memory, and he developed the hypomnesic principles for his students to follow in the Academy. The hypomnemata constituted a material memory of things read, heard, or thought, thus offering these as an accumulated treasure for rereading and later meditation. They also formed a raw material for the writing of more systematic treatises in which were given arguments and means by which to struggle against some defect (such as anger, envy, gossip, flattery) or to overcome some difficult circumstance (a mourning, an exile, downfall, disgrace).

Dungan's point seems to be that Justin's use of the terminology suggests not only a connection with Plato but the idea that the gospel that was being used 'openly' in the Church was a rough unfinished composition. Yet if there is a relationship between the 'rough notes' of Justin and the finished 'harmony' of Tatian, doesn't it necessarily presuppose the kind of gospel paradigm that the Letter to Theodore suggests existed between rough υπομνήματα and a later gospel text that was finished, polished or 'perfected' finally in an Alexandria and that the relation between the two texts was that of a 'diatessaron' - i.e. separated by a chasm or interval - owing to the relative completeness of the original composition?

I really can't see it in any other terms.

Scholarship has been too blindly influenced by Irenaeus and his obsession that all the gospels were perfect, all the truths contained in them immaculate. Yet even if we leave Clement's newly discovered letter to the side, what of Justin's use of the term 'ἀπομνημονεύματα' for the text associated with Peter? Is this really 'an immaculate' collection or something imperfect which could be polished and reworked into something sublime ('a diamond in the rough' as they say today). Similarly Eusebius also gets the idea that the gospel Mark wrote for the followers of Peter is a ὑπόμνημα strikes the same chord.

I just don't happen to believe that Clement's explanation seems 'forced' or 'faked' in any way. The publicly circulating gospel texts were by nature less than perfect, and perhaps even for Justin and Tatian the 'finished' text developed from these ἀπομνημονεύματα or υπομνήματα were deliberately kept from public viewing. What I am suggesting now of course is that Justin's use of the terminology necessarily assumes the existence of something 'more perfect' that he isn't mentioning, perhaps because it was meant to be kept secret.