The Description of the 'Truth' in the Inner Sanctum at the End of Clement's Stromateis

I have been meaning to say something about Pantuck's recent article about Secret Mark in BAR.  However I have become obsessed with the description of the inner sanctum in to Theodore.  I want to bring forward something I have long noticed in the conclusion to Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis (i.e. at the very moment the seventh stroma is being completely lifted).  So what to do about my take on Pantuck's recent article?  It will have to wait until I get back from Whistler. 

So let's get to my new discovery.  Clement clearly references the existence of a 'curtain' or curtains (αὐλαία) which hide the truth of the inner sanctum.  I want to cite the whole section to demonstrate that what is written here is virtually identical with what is described in the Letter to Theodore:

For we must never, as do those who follow the heresies, adulterate the truth (μοιχεύειν τὴν ἀλήθειαν), or steal the canon of the Church (οὐδὲ μὴν κλέπτειν τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἐκκλησίας), by gratifying our own lusts and vanity (ταῖς ἰδίαις ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ φιλοδοξίαις χαριζομένους), by misleading our neighbours (τῶν πλησίον ἀπάτῃ); whom above all it is our duty, in the exercise of love to them, to teach to adhere to the truth (οὓς παντὸς μᾶλλον ἀγαπῶντας τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτῆς ἀντέχεσθαι διδάσκειν προσήκει). It is accordingly expressly said, "Declare among the heathen His statutes," that they may not be judged, but that those who have previously given ear may be converted. But those who speak treacherously with their tongues have the penalties that are on record?

Those, then, that adhere to impious words, and dictate them to others (τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἁπτόμενοι λόγων ἄλλοις), inasmuch as they do not make a right but a perverse use of the divine words (τε ἐξάρχοντες μηδὲ εὖ τοῖς λόγοις τοῖς θείοις), neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to see (τυγχάνειν) the truth (τῆς ἀληθείας). But not having the key of entrance (τὴν κλεῖν ἔχοντες αὐτοὶ τῆς εἰσόδου), but a false (ψευδῆ) and as the common phrase expresses it, a counterfeit key (ἀντικλεῖδα), by which they do not enter in as we enter in, through the tradition of the Lord (διὰ τῆς τοῦ κυρίου παραδόσεως εἴσιμεν), by drawing aside the curtain (αὐλαία); but cutting through through the side-door (παράθυρον), and digging clandestinely through the wall of the Church (τὸ τειχίον τῆς ἐκκλησίας), and miss the truth (ὑπερβαίνοντες τὴν ἀλήθειαν), they constitute themselves the Mystagogues of the soul of the impious. (Strom 7.18)

It is very difficult to get an accurate sense of the physical layout of the Church of St. Mark from this description.  Nevertheless there seems to be at least some superficial similarities with emerges of the Jewish tabernacle (and by implication the Jewish temple).

The most obvious thing to keep in mind here is that there is - as one would expect a physical exterior wall and then an 'inner sanctum' hidden by 'curtains' (αὐλαία).  Why exactly coming through the walls or the 'side door' would make it impossible - or as the text puts it - leads to the heretics 'overstepping' (ὑπερβαίνοντες) the truth in the inner sanctum, is difficult to say.  In my mind the idea has to be connected with what is repeated throughout the rest of Stromata 7.18 and the Letter to Theodore - namely that the heretics never get to the inner sanctum because they somehow get 'stuck' in the courtyard presenting themselves as the things to be venerated rather than the 'truth' in the adyton.

A little earlier in the same section (Strom 7.18) Clement speaks of the heretics as being:

not pious (εὐσεβεῖς), inasmuch as they are not pleased with the divine commandments (ταῖς θείαις ἐντολαῖς), that is, with the Holy Spirit. And as those almonds are called empty (κεναὶ) in which the contents are worthless (ἄχρηστον), not those in which there is nothing; so also we call those heretics empty (κενοὺς), who are destitute of the counsels of God (τοῦ θεοῦ βουλημάτων) and the traditions of Christ (τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραδόσεων); bitter (πικριζόντων), in truth (ὡς ἀληθῶς), like the wild almond (τὴν ἀγρίαν ἀμυγδαλῆν), their dogmas originating with themselves (ἐξάρχοντας δογμάτων), with the exception of such truths as they could not, by reason of their evidence, discard and conceal (τῶν ἀληθῶν ἀποθέσθαι καὶ ἀποκρύψαι οὐκ ἴσχυσαν).

Yet the image of the nut is used at the very beginning of the Stromateis as an example of the 'concealment' (ἐγκεκαλυμμένην) of the inner sanctum, referenced both in the conclusion of the work and, famously, in the Letter to Theodore. The introduction of the Stromateis has Clement say that the work called 'the Stromateis' (i.e. 'The Coverings' - οἱ Στρωματεῖς):

will contain the truth mixed up in the dogmas of philosophy, or rather covered over (ἐγκεκαλυμμένην) and hidden, as the edible part of the nut in the shell. For, in my opinion, it is fitting that the seeds of truth be kept for the husbandmen of faith, and no others. I am not oblivious of what is babbled by some, who in their ignorance are frightened at every noise, and say that we ought to occupy ourselves with what is most necessary, and which contains the faith; and that we should pass over what is beyond and superfluous, which wears out and detains us to no purpose, in things which conduce nothing to the great end. Others think that philosophy was introduced into life by an evil influence, for the ruin of men, by an evil inventor. But I shall show, throughout the whole of these 'Coverings' (τοὺς Στρωματεῖς), that evil has an evil nature, and can never turn out the producer of aught that is good; indicating that philosophy is in a sense a work of Forethought (προνοίας). (Strom 1.1)

The point of this exercise again is to note that there heretics are likened to nuts and the shell of nuts are in turn always used as an example of a type of 'covering' or κάλυμμα (cf. Nic.Al.269). In other words, Clement begins by saying that the truth of the Alexandrian tradition is concealed like the edible part of the nut by a shell and then goes on after seven successive pulling back of these literary 'coverings' to say that heretics have put themselves up as 'the truth' but represent little more than inedible nuts protected by an apparently similar type of 'covering' (κάλυμμα).

The implication to me at least, by following the analogy of the final words of the Stromateis - is that the heretics have set themselves up as 'false' or pseudo-truths distracting people from pulling back the curtains (αὐλαία) which 'cover' the truth. By the implications of this study then the 'seven' which 'cover' or 'hide' the truth in to Theodore (τῆς ἐπτάκις κεκαλυμμένης ἀληθείας) would seem more than likely to be the very same αὐλαία in Stromata 7.18. This would seem to vindicate Smith's translation of the letter and make 'the truth' unveiled once you get past the curtains. One needn't think in terms of seven layers of curtains necessarily but even seven 'curtains' acting as seven walls around the inner sanctum.

But what about Jeffrey's objection that κάλυμμα is never used by Clement for the inner veils? It turns out that this holds a lot less water than he might think given that all of Clement's information about the temple derives from Philo and Philo is similarly thought to only use κάλυμμα for the outer veil. As David M. Gurtner notes in the Torn Veil: Matthew's Exposition of the Death of Jesus:

Scholars have frequently noted that Philo explicitly says that there were two curtains in the temple with the inner one called 'the veil' (καταπέτασμα) and the outer one called 'the covering' (κάλυμμα; Moses 2.87, 101). While he does use the term for the inner veil (Names 192; Spec. Laws 1.23 la; Moses 2.81), Philo uses it elsewhere for what can only be the outer veil (Spec. Laws 1.171, 1.231 b, 1.274, 1.296) and is therefore inconsistent in his own use and contrary to his own assertion in Moses 2. (p. 77)

The point then is that Clement's terminology needn't be imagined to be any more consistent than Philo's given the fact that the latter is ultimately his source. It is true that the word Philo typically uses for the curtain that covers the inner sanctum is αὐλαία, but one could make the case that αὐλαία were viewed as merely one type of κάλυμμα.

For those who are interested in what is meant by the Greek term αὐλαία I include this useful explanation from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890):

Aulaeum usually in the plural Aulaea (ἡ αὐλαία), a curtain, carpet, or hanging, mostly of the heavier and richer sort (τὸ μέγα καὶ ποικίλον παραπέτασμα, Cosmas Indicopl. Topog. Chr. [p. 1.260]p. 197). The name was especially applied to the tapestry worked with human and animal figures, which was early introduced from the East (Theophr. Char. 21, αὐλαίαν ἔχουσαν Πέρσας ἐνυφασμένους: Verg. G. 3.25; Ovid. Met. 3.111 ff.). The word αὐλαία is good Greek, as is shown by Theophr. l.c.; Hyperid. fr. 165 ed. Turic. = 142 Blass, οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες εἱστιῶντο ἐν τῇ στοᾷ, περιφραχάμενοι τι μέρος αὐτῆς αὐλαίᾳ: Menand. fr. 720 Meineke, στυππεῖον, ἐλέφαντ̓, οἶνον, αὐλαίαν, μύρον: and the notion of Servius, that aulaeum was ab aula Attali regis, betrays the ignorance of a late grammarian (ad Georg. l.c.). He was perhaps misled by the line of Propertius, Porticus aulaeis nobilis Attalicis (2.32, 12 = 3.24, 12); where, of course, the meaning is simply “rich enough for Attalus” (cf. Hor. Od. 1.1, 12).
Such hangings were extensively used (a) in temples, to veil the statue of the divinity (Paus. 5.12.4); (b) in houses, either as coverings over doors, or as substitutes for doors, as window curtains, or again to decorate the walls of rooms, especially the triclinium or dining-room (Hor. Sat. 2.8, 54); (c) on the outside of houses, to close in the verandahs, balconies, or open galleries [domus]; (d) to stretch over colonnades, and thus form a tent (Hyperid. l.c.; Propert. l.c.). See further references under velum; and for the use of the curtain in theatres, siparium and theatrum One or two disputed points may here he noticed.

As is well known, the curtain in the Roman theatre was not drawn up as in our own, but disappeared underneath the stage: the slit which contained the roller for this purpose, between the stage (proscenium) and the scena, is plainly seen in the smaller of the two theatres at Pompeii. Hence aulaea premuntur, “the curtain is let down,” when the acting begins (Hor. Ep. 2.1, 189); aulaeum tollitur, “the play is ended” (Cic. pro Cael. 27, § 65, and Ov. Met. l.c.). It has commonly been assumed, as by Donaldson (Theatre of the Greeks, ed. 7, p. 240), that the Greek custom was the same; but, according to Godfrey Hermann (Leipz. Lit. Zeit. 1818, p. 1906) and Böttiger (Kl. Schr. 1.402), it is doubtful whether the curtain was used in Greek theatres at all. The classical passages, cited in full above, in no way connect αὐλαία with the theatre; the grammarians who do so (Pollux, 4.122; Bekk. Anecd. 83, 7; 463, 14; αὐλαία τὸ τῆς σκηνῆς παραπέτασμα: Hesych., Suid.) of course prove nothing as to the earlier period. The remains of genuine Greek theatres are in general too scanty to throw any light on this question; the best preserved, that of Aspendus, has certainly been odernised in the time of the Roman Caesars. Becker, who shares these doubts, observes further that the Roman usage may perhaps not be as old as the time of Plautus, judging from the concluding lines of his Casina and Cistellaria, spoken by the entire company (grex, caterva). (W. A. Becker, ap. Pauly, i.2 s. v. Aulaeum; cf. Wieseler, Theater-gebäude u. s. w., Göttingen, 1851.)

Another common but probably erroneous opinion is that the word aulaea is applied in Latin poetry to the coverlets and draperies of couches in the triclinium or elsewhere (περιστρώματα, stragulum, stragula vestis, toralia). Of the passages relied on to prove this point, cenae sine aulaeis et ostro (Hor. Od. 3.29, 15) is explained by Orellius with reference to Sat. 2.8, 54, where there is no question as to the meaning of aulaea (for the distinction between aulaea and ostrum, cf. Böttiger, Kl. Schrift. 1.424, ap. Orell.); and in Verg. A. 1.697 Conington has rightly reverted to the explanation of Servius and the older commentators, rejecting that of Heyne and most moderns as “without authority.” (See two illustrations of wall-hangings under CENA)

Clearly then αὐλαία were a type of στρωματα (i.e. 'stromata') and both were in turn types of καλύμματα (coverings).

It is worth noting that Philo takes great pain to remind readers that the Jewish tabernacle was 'covered' by ten αὐλαία:

But as he proceeds onwards he speaks also of the divine abode, the tabernacle, and its ten Curtains (αὐλαία) (Ex 26.1) for, in fact, the compound edifice of entire wisdom has been assigned the perfect number, the number ten. And wisdom is the court and palace of the all governing and only absolute and independent king. Accordingly, this is his abode, discernible only by the intellect; but the world is perceptible by the outward senses; since Moses made the curtains (αὐλαία) of such things as are symbols of the four elements, for they were made of fine flax, and of hyacinthine colour, and of purple, and of scarlet, --four numbers, as I have said before. Now the fine flax is an example of the earth, for the flax grows out of the earth; and the hyacinthine colour is a symbol of the air, for it is black by nature; purple (porphyra), again, is a symbol of the water; for the cause of this dye is derived from the sea, being the shell-fish of the same name (heµ porphyra); and scarlet is a symbol of fire, for it most nearly resembles a flame. Again, that omnipotent overseer and ruler of the universe reproved the state of Egypt, when rebellious against the rein, when it was extolling with grandiloquent words the mind as an adversary of God, and bestowing on it all the ensigns of kingly authority, such as the throne, the sceptre, the diadem; and chastised it with ten stripes and severe punishment. And in the same manner, also, he promises the wise Abraham that he will work for him the overthrow and complete destruction of ten Nations (Deut 7:1) exactly, neither more nor less, and that he will give the country of those who are thus destroyed to his descendants; in every instance choosing to employ the number ten, both for praise and for blame, and also for honour and for punishment. And yet why do we mention these things? For what is more important than this is the fact, that Moses gave laws to that sacred and divine assembly in a code of ten commandments in all. And these are the commandments which are the generic heads, and roots, and principles of the infinite multitude of particular laws; being the everlasting source of all commands, and containing every imaginable injunction and prohibition to the great advantage of those who use them. (On Preliminary Studies 116,117)

The interchangibility of the terms στρωματα and αὐλαία is undoubtedly evidenced by the fact that Origen wrote a ten volume work entitled Στρωματεῖς (now lost).  Yet the connection between the ten curtains which 'concealed' the tabernacle and a ten volume work entitled Στρωματεῖς demonstrates that the same context must lay behind Clement's surviving work of the same name and the description of the inner sanctum of the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria.

There has to be a reason why Clement developed a seven volume Στρωματεῖς and the work itself - as we noted in a previous post - takes great pains to remind the readers that they are passing through successive 'coverings' to get a glimpse of the truth which was supposed to follow in a subsequent work.  The same idea is present in to Theodore (even though it is never explicitly referenced by Morton Smith) and more importantly we can see the understanding at work with the well known emphasis of the youth going to Jesus wearing only a linen cloth.  While the Carpocratians apparently implied there was something sordid about this reference it was quite obvious to Clement that this is a misreading of the material.

Indeed as Scott Brown notes in his Mark's Other Gospel, there is no nakedness in the passage.  As he interprets the passage "the young man who follows Jesus in Gethsemane is wearing his former burial attire (a linen sheet wrapped around a naked body) like a baptismal garment in order to symbolize his intention to undergo Jesus’ 'baptism' in Jerusalem." (p. 231)  While I do not agree entirely with the interpretation the important thing to see is that the sheet is clearly nothing other than the youth's burial 'covering.'   A burial covering interestingly can also be identified as a κάλυμμα as we see in a particularly important reference in Josephus (JW 5.12.3).

Why is this interesting?  Because it finally confirms what is now clearly the proper interpretation of the 'truth hidden by seven veils' reference.  For the passage in 'secret Mark' makes clear that the youth wearing this κάλυμμα is now appearing on the seventh day (i.e. after six).  The 'covering' has not dropped yet because we have yet to reach the 'eighth' (the ogdoad).  Similarly, Clement never actually reveals what the truth is that is being covered by the seven στρωματα in the Στρωματεῖς.  Instead he tells the reader that in the next work (by sequence 'the eighth') the truth will be revealed.  All of which confirms in my mind that the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria had indeed something called 'truth' concealed by seven curtains - identified alternatively as αὐλαία, στρωματα or καλύμματα.

The reason I continue to think that this 'truth' was the throne of St. Mark is the language Clement uses to intimate the vision which comes after the seventh 'covering' is removed.  Look again at the conclusion of Strom. 7.18 where the heretics who employ:

a perverse use of the divine words (τε ἐξάρχοντες μηδὲ εὖ τοῖς λόγοις τοῖς θείοις), neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to see (τυγχάνειν) the truth (τῆς ἀληθείας).

In to Theodore the youth is initiated into 'mysteries of the kingdom of God' at the end of seven days presumably as his final κάλυμμα is removed.  It is impossible not to see that this 'mystery' is in turn connected with the 'truth that is hidden by seven' in the inner sanctuary.  So in a sense, the 'kingdom of God' is realized in the truth of the adyton of the Church of St. Mark.

Now if we go back to the words which conclude the Stromateis, Clement says that the heretics who delude followers into believing that they are the 'truth' from the gospel:

neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to see (τυγχάνειν) the truth (τῆς ἀληθείας).

Is 'the kingdom of heaven' here denoting 'the afterlife'?  No of course not.  The context of the passage clearly implies that 'the kingdom' is the inner sanctum where the truth lies.  Clement is about to add that the heretics have made it only through the outer barrier but never make it to the adyton.  This confirms the context of 'the kingdom.' 
 
How then can it be denied any longer that the 'inner sanctum' could only be identified as a kingdom if there was something within which was 'royal' or 'of royalty'?  In the holy of holies there was certainly the mercy seat.  It would only stand to reason that 'the throne of St. Mark' - an object connected with the mystagogue described in the same letter to Theodore and witnessed by a number of travelers through the ages was 'truth' repeatedly referenced here. 
 
It is also worth noting that the specific language here also alludes to Luke 23.50.  Again, first the passage from Stromata 7.18:

[the heretics] neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to attain (τυγχάνειν) the truth (τῆς ἀληθείας).

and now Luke 20:35:

those who are considered worthy to attain (τυχειν) to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage

Clearly 'that age' to come in Luke is the realization of the 'kingdom of heaven' or 'kingdom of God' referenced in the gospels.  Those who know the beliefs of the Alexandrian tradition will certainly see that the establishment of the Papacy there is the fulfillment of that expectation, starting with Mark.  But this knowledge is again reserved for the few ...