What I mean by this of course is that Clement never once references 'free-flowing salt.' The idea came to Carlson that 'he must have meant' free-flowing salt because it is being mixed with something. Before Carlson's insipid book came along no one was fixated on that possibility - i.e. of two 'solids' being 'mixed.' Everyone seems to have forgotten that the same terminology - συγκεκραμένα (Philosophumena 5.16) - is used with liquids like water and wine used in Christian sacraments etc.
Of course people are going to stand up now and say that salt is not a liquid. Yes, of course that is true but salt is commonly mixed with water. An example from personal experience tonight for instance - I put water in a pot and applied heat and then make a 'mixture' of salt and water to prepare some fresh cooked gnocchi (which, incidentally I added some melted butter and sage which is absolutely important). The point is that the 'Carlson paradigm' is stupid enough but the idea that publications like the Biblical Archaeology Review would have to even make reference to this 'question' is even more unbelievable.
Why couldn't Clement have been talking about salt being mixed with water?
I don't know why it is that we have to have research guided by 'professionals' with an obvious agenda. I guess at one time having a degree meant something. Now it just means that you are given a platform to promote partisan agendas like - Morton Smith's discovery is an 'obvious forgery ... because of the salt reference.' Really? The idea that the Mar Saba document was filled with clues so that Smith could help Carlson uncover him as a forger is a more reasonable proposition? Really? If it were someone else, I'd say it sounds more like something that came from a guy that spent one too many nights with his lips attached to a bong while reading the Da Vinci Code.
And here is Watson equally insipid discussion of the 'problem' of salt in the Letter to Theodore:
Salt and truth are both alike corrupted by the addition of alien substances. But it is possible, and preferable, to assume a looser connection between the "falsification of truth" and the corruption of salt, since the word "falsification" itself implies "forgery"
Really? This is just the way it is because this guy has a PhD beside his name? It's just settled like that, I guess - case closed.
Of course my comparative analysis of Stromata 7.16 and the Letter to Theodore leads me to conclude that Clement isn't talking about 'forgery' of anything but instead the falsification of the 'true exegesis' (Strom 7.16). The two communities were using the same gospel but - supposedly - had two different interpretations of the same material. The 'true Church' embraced and accepted the canonical gospels and the Jewish scriptures, the heretics arguing that interpreting the gospel by what came before it brought about 'falsification' of understanding through 'commingling' (συγκεκραμένα).
Anyway, enough of these disingenuous attempts to 'understand' the newly discovered text. Let's get back to the ignored possibility of the mixing of salt and water. Why is it important? Because it is witnessed by almost everyone of Clement's contemporaries in the Church.
As I am most familiar with the literature related to Marcion and the Marcionite tradition, it is not surprising that it was Tertullian's reference to the ancient practice of 'salting' newborns that got me thinking. Here is the original passage:
But how can that Christ of yours [i.e. the Marcionite Christ] be liable to a shame, which it is impossible for him to experience? Since he was never condensed into human flesh in the womb of a woman, although a virgin; never grew from human seed, although only after the law of corporeal substance, from the fluids of a woman; was never deemed flesh before shaped in the womb; never called foetus after such shaping; was never delivered from a ten months' writhing in the womb; was never shed forth upon the ground, amidst the sudden pains of parturition, with the unclean issue which flows at such a time through the sewerage of the body, forthwith to inaugurate the light of life with tears, and with that primal wound which severs the child from her who bears him; never received the copious ablution, nor the meditation of salt and honey; nor did he initiate a shroud with swaddling clothes; nor afterwards did he ever wallow in his own uncleanness, in his mother's lap; nibbling at her breast; long an infant; gradually a boy; by slow degrees a man. But he was revealed from heaven, full-grown at once, at once complete; immediately Christ; simply spirit, and power, and god. [Tertullian Against Marcion 4.21
So what was Tertullian referencing here? The honey is clearly the feeding of young infants honey mixed with milk as referenced in 1 Peter chapter 2. The 'salt' however clearly goes back to the practice of mixing salt with water and immersing the newborn baby in this mixture shortly after birth.
The context is most suitably explained by James Ratham in his the Religious Symbolism of Salt:
The liturgical notion that salt is health-giving may have its origin in two Old Testament passages. Ezekiel 16/4 describes the infant-Jerusalem as not being salted at birth. The prophet was referring to the Hebrew custom of drying an tightening the skin of newborn infants with salt. Jerome explains this practice, and Origen, Tertullian, and Chromatius quote Ezekiel in their individual developments of the symbolism of salt. (p. 181)
Does anyone really believe that hard rock crystals of salt with rubbed against the tender skin of newborns? Maybe Carlson does but then again he doesn't have any kids. If anyone takes the time to Google 'salt' 'water' and 'newborn' they can see for themselves that there was a practice throughout the ages of 'mixing' salt and water to apply on the skins of newborns.
In the event of course that Carlson - or perhaps one of his spiritual descendants - should argue that the Morton Salt company first developed the idea of mxing salt and water, there is a very instructive passage from Pliny which already refutes that, where in the course of discussing the various maladies cured by sea-water, he instructs his readers how to make sea-water at home:
I am by no means unaware that these details may very possibly appear superfluous to persons who live at a distance from the sea ; but scientific research has made provision against this objection, by discovering a method of enabling every one to make sea-water for himself. It is a singular fact in connexion with this discovery, that if more than one sextarius of salt is put into four sextarii of water, the liquefying properties of the water will be overpowered, and the salt will no longer melt. On the other hand, again, a mixture of one sextarius of salt with four sextarii of water, acts as a good substitute for the efficacy and properties of the very saltest sea-water. The most reasonable proportion, however, is generally thought to be eight cyathi of salt, diluted in the quantity of water above mentioned; a preparation which has been found to have a warming effect upon the sinews, without in any degree chafing the body.[Pliny Natural Science 5.35]
Now that the idea is already established that people long before Clement figured out how to mixing salt with something - in this case water - we should move on to discuss the early Christian interest in this mixture as part of the ritual of welcoming newborns to the world.
For this we return again to Ratham's the Religious Symbolism of Salt, who notes in his section on Origen's interest in salt that:
of all the Fathers who predate the earliest known use of salt in the baptismal liturgy, Origen (185-245) is the one singled out as a possible source of the symbolism found in that rite. This is due to the fact that he speaks of salt in the context of baptism. In his sixth Homily on Ezekiel, however, he is merely following the obvious allegorical sense of the description of Jerusalem as an abandoned infant.
But as for your birth, on the day you were born your navel-string was not cut, were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in cloths. (Ezekiel 16.4)
The custom of rubbing salt on an infant immediately after birth is an ancient one and has survived to our own times in Persia and Greece 8. Antonin Jaussen recounts that Arabs dissolve salt in oil or water and rub the solution on the body of an infant until he is a year old. This is apparently done to strengthen the infant's body. The article in the Jewish Encyclopedia entitled « salt » suggests that this may have been done for religious reasons, as a protection against demons, but admits that this was no longer the case at the time of Ezekiel. Others would see the rubbing of salt as signifying the division between the former unclean state of the child and his normal state as a member of society. From the context, no more can be said for certain than that the use of salt on infants was for medicinal purposes.
The pertinent section of Origen's commentary on Ezekiel reads as follows:
«Nor salted with salt.» And this is the guilt of Jerusalem, because it was not worthy of the salt of God. If I believe in my Lord Jesus Christ, he makes me salt and says to me: « You are the salt of the earth. » If I believe in the Spirit who spoke in the Apostle, I am seasoned with salt, and I am able to keep the precept that says: «Let your speech, while always attractive, be seasoned with salt.» It is a great work to be salted. The one who is seasoned with salt is full of grace. For in the well-known proverb, salted means favored (gratiosus), and on the contrary, he is foolish (insulsus) who does not have grace. If, therefore, grace comes to us from God, and if we are filled with His gift, we are salted with salt.
This excerpt is part of a comparison between a Christian's rebirth in Christ through Baptism, and Jews, who were not worthy of the common post-natal care given to infants. The washing with water is seen as a figure of Baptism. The salting seems to represent the grace bestowed by the Holy Spirit (p. 129)
The point of course is that whether or not the Alexandrian baptism ritual included a ritual rubbing of a saline mixture in imitation of the rites performed on a newborn baby is an open question. We simply don't know enough about the Alexandrian practice. Yet I think that there are clear signs in contemporary writings - especially the original reference we cited from Tertullian - that this was indeed the case. Yet more on that later.
For the moment we should at least acknowledge that it is absolutely clear that Origen took an avid interest in the salt imagery of Ezekiel 16.4 and it seems to have been connected with an unknown Alexandrian baptism rite. As Ratham notes:
Origen nourished himself on Scripture. It is not surprising, then, that he cites several New Testament passages concerning salt while commenting on Ezekiel. The texts from Matthew and Paul do not clarify the metaphor of the infant being rubbed with salt, but they provided an occasion for him to discuss the symbolic meaning of salt, as he understood it. Salt, he says, is a sign of God's favor or grace. This is a development of the parable of salt and makes a play on the word insulsus, which can mean unsalted or foolish. He who is insulsus is out of favor with God. This idea is echoed in the Roman liturgy. The salt of wisdom is given to the catechumen to confer on him God's favor of life everlasting (Gel. I, 31).Those references in the Song of Songs can be cited here on its own for the sake of simplicity. In the first we read:
The proverb referred to by Origen is found in Plutarch who says, «Moreover, there are people who give to salt the name of grace, because it communicates a taste that is very agreeable to the food which has need of it» (Table Talk V.Q.10)
Elsewhere, in the fifth Homily on Genesis, Origen speaks of salt as a sign of prudence. This is a form of wisdom, of course, but it would help to know the Greek word he used. The Homily, like most of Origen's works, exists only in a Latin translation.
In the Contra Celsum Origen sees salt as guarding against corruption. It is noteworthy that he uses this theme to interpret the salt parable in Luke 14/34.
Indeed, men of God are the salt by which the composition of this world is preserved: and the things of this earth endure as long as that salt is not corrupted.(Contra Celsum 8.70)
Finally, our author may be listed under the theme of 'salt and the word.' In his commentary on the Song of Songs he expresses a hope that the Lord will bless those 'seasoned with the salt of the reasonable word.'(p. 132)
we likewise hope that after a little search and after pursuing a plainer sort of explanation than appeared possible before, the Lord our God may deliver the prey into our hands, and that we, preparing and seasoning it in the salt of the reasonable word, after the knowledge of our mother Rachel, may be found worthy to obtain blessings from our spiritual father Jacob. (Song of Songs 3.13)
There is also:
And therefore every perfect soul sets a watch before her mouth and a door round about her lips, that what she utters may ever be seasoned with salt, and so be gracious to those who hear it, and that the Word of God may say of her: 'Thy voice is swet.' (chrestos) (ibid 3.15)
We have already seen that Tertullian knows of a tradition where salt diluted in water, and milk mixed with honey were given to newborn infants. These practices are universally recognized to have went back to a period long before the beginning of Christianity.
Support for Origen's citation of 1 Pet. 2:3 where the newly baptized believers (the "newborn babes," 2:2) who have now "tasted" or experienced the kindness (Gk. chrestes, as in LXX Ps. 34:8) of the Lord are pointed toward that nourishment by which they will truly "grow up to salvation" the milk of the word of God. The allusion is possibly to an early baptismal rite in which, after coming back up from submersion, the newly baptized received milk mixed with honey, symbolic of the word of God for which the new believers ought now to hunger and by which they might be nourished and grow. Not only does Tertulian witness that a mixture of honey and milk were given to the newly baptized (On the Crown 3) he infers the same practice existed in the Marcionite churches of his day (Against Marcion 1.14.3) and it was certainly known to the Alexandrian Church (Clement Paed. 1.6).
If one part of the 'rituals of newborns' referenced in Tertullian's Against Marcion Book 4 developed into a core part of the baptismal rite of Alexandria (i.e. the mixture of milk and honey) why not the 'salt and water' mixture that was applied to the bodies of newborns? Again, while I can't prove any of this - this isn't the point of the exercise. Carlson and Watson make it seem that it is 'obvious' that the Letter to Theodore is a forgery. Yet I would counter that they lack the imagination to see all the possibilities.
It is worth noting that the 'milk and honey' drink is generally thought to be reflective of Egyptian and African customs. The practice already spread to Rome at the time of Jerome. We should also notice that our clearest witness to the idea that salt was used in the baptismal ritual also comes from third century north Africa as Ratham notes:
The sal sapientiae of the rite for catechumens has been traced back to Augustine. But this same theme was known in the Church of Carthage more than a century earlier. At the third Council of Carthage (256) under Cyprian a letter of Bishop Lucius to Castra Galbae was read to support the position that baptism by heretics was invalid. After quoting Matthew 5/13, «You are the salt of the earth,» and Christ's command to baptize all nations (Matt. 28/18), Lucius concludes: Since therefore it is obvious that heretics, the enemies of Christ, do not have the whole confession of the sacrament, so also schismatics cannot be seasoned spiritual wisdom (condire sapientiae); since these foolish ones (infatuati), by leaving the One Church, are put into opposition to it let it be at it is written: «the house of the wicked will be destroyed » (Prov. 4/11) consequently they who have been baptized shamefully by those (outside the Church), first must be purified and then baptized. (Sententiae Episcoporum de Haereticis Baptizandis, » No. 7. CSEL Vol. I, 440 [Hartel])
Baptism is described by Bishop Lucius as a seasoning with spiritual wisdom. Moreover, those who separate themselves from the Church lose their flavor (infatuati). These expressions are obviously a development of Matthew 5/13. (p. 107)
Latham repeats over and over again that the Roman rite eventually did absorb a salt blessing from somewhere. I wonder whether it is a vestige of something related to a ritual application of Ezekiel 16.4.
Again, I am not required to 'prove' that such a practice existed - only that it could have existed - and thus we shouldn't limit ourselves to the paradigm of salt needing to be 'free-flowing' in order to be mixed with something. My guess is that Christians might well have been baptized in sea water for a deliberate liturgical purpose - i.e. the connection with the crossing of the sea (cf. 1 Cor 10.2). This idea seems to be present in the Clementine Literature which is universally recognized to have been of Egyptian origin - viz. "then after three months were fulfilled, he ordered me to fast for several days, and then brought me to the fountains that are near to the sea, and baptized me as in ever-flowing water."
Just as there is a single passage where Clement is recognized to have witnessed the 'milk and honey' being given to the newly baptized, there also seems to be one clear reference to the salt water baptism for the perfect:
Wherefore it was not said to all, "Ye are the salt of the earth." For, even among those who received the teaching of divine speech, there are those who like to fish from the sea, who need to be prepared with salt, although at birth they have lived in salt water.
«Ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ ἅλες τῆς γῆς»
Εἰσὶ γάρ τινες τῶν καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἐπακηκοότων τοῖς ἰχθύσι τοῖς θαλασσίοις ἐοικότες, οἳ δὴ ἐν ἅλμῃ ἐκ γενετῆς τρεφόμενοι ἁλῶν ὅμως πρὸς τὴν σκευασίαν δέονται.
One can see immediately how the salt being ritually mixed in the water would symbolize the adding of the Holy Spirit. The reference in to Theodore is thus an attempt to say that the Carpocratians - who apparently shared this ritual weren't getting the Holy Spirit from their 'salt' because their exegesis of the Gospel was already 'mixed' with pollution. Indeed one more thing which undoubtedly goes to the deepest layer of the ritual - the Greek moraino, usually "make foolish, show to be foolish" (Rom. 1:22; 1 Cor. 1:20; Sir. 23:14), appears twice in the NT (Mt. 5:13, Luke 14:34) with a rare, specialized nuance, "become insipid, tasteless," applied to salt.
As such when Clement references the Carpocratian understanding of the relationship of the development of the "the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark" it is clear that everyone has misunderstood what is really being stated here. The Carpocratians (as I will show in my upcoming post) are attacking canonical Mark for being a 'commingling' of things of what they call 'the mystic' gospel written by Mark and 'things of the Law and prophets.' Clement in turn is attacking their supposedly 'spiritual' (or 'higher') understanding of things by reinforcing that what they say is a 'mixture' of truth and lies:
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 becomes insipid.(to Theod. 1.13 - 15)
This is the literal meaning of the passage and it is important to remember that when trying to figure out what is meant by the original author.
I think it is safe to say that the idea that 'free flowing' salt is necessarily required for the Letter to Theodore to 'work' is complete nonsense. Clement's contemporaries and successors all had an interest in Ezekiel 16.4 which references a mixture of salt and water that 'preserved' the newborn baby. These Fathers all seem to have connected this idea with the 'commingling' of the Holy Spirit and water in the rite of baptism in some form or other. Clement is thus clearly saying that salt - i.e. the Holy Spirit - can indeed be lost from a bad 'commingling' (συγκεκραμένα (Theod. 2.9) thus undoubtedly turning around the original charge of the heretics (cf. Philosophumea 5.16) against the canonical gospel of Mark back onto their own doctrines.
Got to get some sleep ...
BTW - an interesting aside. It was von Harnack who first noted that Marcion is never identified as 'of Sinope' in Irenaeus and Tertullian - only as 'of Pontus.' The name of the Roman province of Pontus derives from its association with the Black Sea (pontos = sea). Is it possible that the lost origins of the name 'Marcion of Pontus' were rooted in his association with seawater (or his insistence that baptism had to take place in it?). Just a thought.
