Yet there is this one argument (highlighted in blue on my master list) which is so bizarre I don't know what to do with it. My 'gut' tells me that this can't be coincidence but I will let you guys decide whether I have been spending too much time looking at the original Greek of Clement.
The section starts with a reference to Mary as virgin Θεοτόκος, which Clement interestingly sidesteps and implies is a misunderstanding:
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth (τῆς ἐπικρύψεως τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας μυστηρίων). "And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth," Says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from a pairing of two things (συνδυασμοῦ). Wherefore the Scriptures have conceived to Gnostics; but the heresies, not having learned them, dismissed them as not having conceived.
I won't spoil my future discussion of how I think this sums up the controversy at the heart of the Letter to Theodore. I want to focus on what immediately follows.
Clement, after skirting the issue of whether Jesus actually had a physical mother likens all contemporary Christians to the disciples:
Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following (ἀκολουθοῦντες) the Word speaking (λόγῳ ποιοῦνται), take up for themselves trust (τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures (ἡδοναῖς), wrest, in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scriptures.
And the lover of truth (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ), as I think, needs vigour of soul. For those who put in hand the greatest things are subject to the greatest falls (γὰρ ἀνάγκη μέγιστα τοὺς μεγίστοις ἐγχειροῦντας πράγμασιν) unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of truth (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας), they cleave to the truth (ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας).
But such men (Οἱ τοιοῦτοι), in consequence of departing from the right road (ἅτε ἀποπεσόντες τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ), are brought down (σφάλλονται) in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false (διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἀληθῶν καὶ ψευδῶν), strictly trained (συγγεγυμνασμένον) to select what is essential (δέοντα). For if they had, they would have been persuaded by the divine Scriptures (ταῖς θείαις ἐπείθοντο ἂν γραφαῖς).
As I noted right off the top, I think that there are a number of striking parallels to things found in the letter to Theodore. We can quickly note:
- the heretics refusing to take 'faith' as their starting point and choosing 'carnality' instead
- the heretics falsely interpreting the gospel "in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας)" - cmp.to Theod. I.7 - 8 "boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile lusts (ἐπιθυμίῷν)
- Strom. 7.16 - "in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth (τῆς ἐπικρύψεως τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας μυστηρίων)" cmp. to Theod. II.2, I.20 "... being initiated into the great mysteries ... of that truth hidden by seven veils"
- Strom 7.16 " the lover of truth (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ)' - cmp. to Theod. I.9 the lover of truth (ό τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστής)
- Strom 7.16 "receiving from the truth itself the rule of truth (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας), they cleave to the truth (ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας)" - cmp. to Theod. I.9 - 11 "for not all true things are the truth (ἀλήθεία) ... [only] the true truth, that according to the faith (τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀληθείας τῆς κατἀ τὴν πίστιν)"
- Strom 7.16 "But such men ... "(Οἱ τοιοῦτοι)" - cmp. to Theod. I.6 "such men ..." (τούτοις)
- Strom. 7.16 "departing from the right road (ἅτε ἀποπεσόντες τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ), are brought down (σφάλλονται) in most individual points" - cmp. to Theod. I. 4 "[those] who wander from the narrow road of the commandments (στενῆς τῶν ἐντολών ὁδοῦ) into a boundless abyss of the carnal (τῶν σαρκὶκῶν) and bodily sins."
- Strom 7.16 " not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false (διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἀληθῶν καὶ ψευδῶν)" - cmp to Theod. I.9 - 11 "that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions (τὴν κατἀ τἀς ἀνθρωπίνας δόξας φαινομένον ἀλήθείαν) should not be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith (τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀληθείας τῆς κατἀ τὴν πίστιν).
It is very difficult in my mind to argue that the man who authored Strom 7.16 was not responsible for the Letter to Theodore. Sure, the other side will say that someone 'imitated' Clement's style. Yet I will go beyond this and say that Strom. 7.16 hasn't been recognized by anyone before or after the discovery of to Theodore to reference the same historical controversy. All of that is ahead of us of course. I am spending more time than I have ever spent on anything related to scholarship in the last week and a half. I think it is fairly easy to see where I see the negative description of the Carpocratians in the line:
... some, following (ἀκολουθοῦντες) the Word speaking (λόγῳ ποιοῦνται), take up for themselves trust (αἱροῦντι τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures (ἡδοναῖς), wrest, in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scriptures.
But we should also notice there is a positive description who use the 'following' of Jesus to achieve the desired goal of 'faith' - or indeed as we see a little later in the same material in Strom. 7.16 - the 'end' goal of perfection:
... for while reading the books we have out in the open ready at hand (ἐν μέσῳ καὶ προχείροις ἐντυχόντες παρ´ ἡμῖν ὡς), they despise them as useless, but in their eagerness to surpass common faith (τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πίστεως), they have diverged from the truth (ἐξέβησαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν). For, in consequence of not apprehending the knowledge of the mysteries of the Church (μαθόντες τὰ τῆς γνώσεως τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς μυστήρια), and having fallen away from the grandeur of the truth (χωρήσαντες τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς ἀληθείας), too indolent to descend to the deep things (μέχρι τοῦ βάθους τῶν πραγμάτων κατελθεῖν ἀπορρᾳθυμήσαντες), reading superficially, they have rejected (παρεπέμψαντο) the Scriptures. Elated, then, by vain opinion (τοῦ δοκεῖν μᾶλλον), they are incessantly disputing (ἐρίζοντες), and plainly care more to seem (τοῦ δοκεῖν) than to be philosophers (τοῦ φιλοσοφεῖν προνοοῦνται).
Not laying as foundations the necessary first principles of things (ἀρχὰς πραγμάτων); and influenced by human opinions (καταβαλλόμενοι δόξαις τε ἀνθρωπίναις κεκινημένοι), by compulsion then, following (ἀκολουθοῦν) the end (τέλος) which suits them; on account of being confuted, they spar with those who are engaged in the prosecution of the true philosophy (τοὺς τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν)
The terminology is clearly derived from the Gospel of Mark where ἀκολουθοῦντες appears twice:
Mark 10:32 They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going in front of them, and they were amazed; and those who followed (ἀκολουθοῦντες) were afraid. He again took the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were going to happen to him.The reason why we should be so certain that Mark 10:32 is meant rather than Mark 11:9 is because of the conjoining phrase '... take up faith' viz. ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ ποιοῦνται τὰς πίστεις. In other words, the reference in Strom. 7.16 is one part Mark 10:32 but channeling the first reference to Jesus foreshadowing of his death in Jerusalem:
Mark 11:9 Those who went in front, and those who followed (ἀκολουθοῦντες), cried out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
Mark 8:34 He called the multitude to himself with his disciples, and said to them, "Whoever wants to come after me ... and take up his cross (καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ), and follow me (καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι)."
Both ἀράτω and αἱροῦντι are forms of the verb αἴρω 'to take up' or ' to lift.' Thus, when the two passages are connected like this, Clement is saying that while some disciples fell away from faith, at least one disciple 'followed' Jesus all the way to the cross.
That Peter was the disciple who fell away is just as obvious as who the disciple that ultimately went all the way to the end with Jesus - John the disciple. Origen already juxtaposes John as Peter's equal in his Commentary on Matthew. Yet what I am suggesting here is that Clement must clearly know that Mark 10:32 was not only connected with 'gnostic perfection' for some but also the falling away to 'lusts' for others - namely the Alexandrian heretics identified as 'Carpocratians' in Strom. 3:1 - 10 and again in the Letter to Theodore.
Again, it wouldn't make sense for Clement to have said this:
Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following (ἀκολουθοῦντες) the Word speaking (λόγῳ ποιοῦνται), take up for themselves trust (ἀκολουθοῦν τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures (ἡδοναῖς), wrest, in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scriptures.
and this:
Not laying as foundations the necessary first principles of things (ἀρχὰς πραγμάτων); and influenced by human opinions (καταβαλλόμενοι δόξαις τε ἀνθρωπίναις κεκινημένοι), by compulsion then, following (ἀκολουθοῦν) the end (τέλος) which suits them; on account of being confuted, they spar with those who are engaged in the prosecution of the true philosophy (τοὺς τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν)
In two different sections of the same section of Strom 7.16 unless he had some knowledge of a controversy over the proper interpretation of 'secret Mark' as outlined in the Letter to Theodore. Not only is the language connected with these citations absolutely indicative of what is read in the manuscript discovered at Mar Saba, there is an overarching discussing of the heresies refusing to use the canonical gospels and preferring to apply their own interpretations free from such constraints on an otherwise unnamed extra-canonical gospel shared in common with Clement's Alexandrian Church.
Anyway, I don't want to give away the argument for my next series of posts. It is enough to say for now that Irenaeus already witnesses that the material from this section of Mark was 'read together' to imply that Mark 8:32 and Mark 10:32 pointed to one of the disciples being 'perfected' at the end of the narrative:
"Then drew near unto Him the mother of Zebedee's children, with her sons, worshipping, and seeking a certain thing from Him.” These people are certainly not void of understanding, nor are the words set forth in that passage of no signification: being stated beforehand like a preface, they have some agreement with those points formerly expounded.
“Then drew near.” Sometimes virtue excites our admiration, not merely on account of the display which is given of it, but also of the occasion when it was manifested. I may refer, for example, to the premature fruit of the grape, or of the fig, or to any fruit whatsoever, from which, during its process [of growth], no man expects maturity or full development; yet, although any one may perceive that it is still somewhat imperfect, he does not for that reason despise as useless the immature grape when plucked, but he gathers it with pleasure as appearing early in the season; nor does he consider whether the grape is possessed of perfect sweetness; nay, he at once experiences satisfaction from the thought that this one has appeared before the rest. Just in the same way does God also, when He perceives the faithful possessing wisdom though still imperfect, and but a small degree of faith, overlook their defect in this respect, and therefore does not reject them; nay, but on the contrary, He kindly welcomes and accepts them as premature fruits, and honours the mind, whatsoever it may be, which is stamped with virtue, although not yet perfect. He makes allowance for it, as being among the harbingers of the vintage, and esteems it highly, inasmuch as, being of a readier disposition than the rest, it has forestalled, as it were, the blessing to itself.
Abraham therefore, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers, are to be esteemed before all, since they did indeed afford us such early examples of virtue. How many martyrs can be compared to Daniel? How many martyrs, I ask, can rival the three youths in Babylon, although the memory of the former has not been brought before us so conspicuously as that of the latter? These were truly first-fruits, and indications of the [succeeding] fructification. Hence God has directed their life to be recorded, as a model for those who should come after.
And that their virtue was thus accepted by God, as the first-fruits of the produce, hear what He has Himself declared: “As a grape,” He says, “I have found Israel in the wilderness, and as first-ripe figs your fathers.” Hosea 9:10 Call not therefore the faith of Abraham merely blessed because he believed. Do you wish to look upon Abraham with admiration? Then behold how that one man alone professed piety when in the world six hundred had been contaminated with error. Do you wish Daniel to carry you away to amazement? Behold that [city] Babylon, haughty in the flower and pride of impiousness, and its inhabitants completely given over to sin of every description. But he, emerging from the depth, spat out the brine of sins, and rejoiced to plunge into the sweet waters of piety. And now, in like manner, with regard to that mother of Zebedee's children, do not admire merely what she said, but also the time at which she uttered these words. For when was it that she drew near to the Redeemer? Not after the resurrection, nor after the preaching of His name, nor after the establishment of His kingdom; but it was when the Lord said, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall kill Him, and on the third day He shall rise again.”
These things the Saviour told in reference to His sufferings and cross; to these persons He predicted His passion. Nor did He conceal the fact that it should be of a most ignominious kind, at the hands of the chief priests. This woman, however, had attached another meaning to the dispensation of His sufferings. The Saviour was foretelling death; and she asked for the glory of immortality. The Lord was asserting that He must stand arraigned before impious judges; but she, taking no note of that judgment, requested as of the judge: “Grant,” she said, “that these my two sons may sit, one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in Your glory.” In the one case the passion is referred to, in the other the kingdom is understood. The Saviour was speaking of the cross, while she had in view the glory which admits no suffering. This woman, therefore, as I have already said, is worthy of our admiration, not merely for what she sought, but also for the occasion of her making the request.
She did indeed suffer, not merely as a pious person, but also as a woman. For, having been instructed by His words, she considered and believed that it would come to pass, that the kingdom of Christ should flourish in glory, and walk in its vastness throughout the world, and be increased by the preaching of piety. She understood, as was [in fact] the case, that He who appeared in a lowly guise had delivered and received every promise. I will inquire upon another occasion, when I come to treat upon this humility, whether the Lord rejected her petition concerning His kingdom. But she thought that the same confidence would not be possessed by her, when, at the appearance of the angels, He should be ministered to by the angels, and receive service from the entire heavenly host. Taking the Saviour, therefore, apart in a retired place, she earnestly desired of Him those things which transcend every human nature.
Now it may be enough for the pious reading this to say that (a) Clement was referencing was only the concept of martyrdom and (b) it is John rather than Mark who is being witnessed as the chosen disciple by Irenaeus. There are a number of reasons to doubt this - the most important being that Strom 7.16 makes no reference whatsoever to martyrdom. Instead it is solely devoted to the mystical 'perfecting' of humanity into gods.
Indeed when we look to the two other times that ἀκολουθοῦντες is used in the Stromata it always emphasizes the idea that those following Jesus were 'made perfect' or 'impassible' through some sort of gnostic initiation:
For the light of truth -- a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him (ἀκολουθοῦντες), therefore, through our whole life, we become impassible; and this is to rest (Ἀκολουθοῦντες οὖν αὐτῷ δι´ ὅλου τοῦ βίου ἀπαθεῖς καθιστάμεθα, τὸ δέ ἐστιν ἀναπαύσασθαι). (Strom. 6.16)The point is now that it impossible to deny that Stromata 7.16 is channeling Mark 10:32 in the middle of a section which is replete with terminology echoed in the Letter to Theodore. Morton Smith couldn't have been so subtle as to have noticed that Clement was piecing together Mark 10:32 and Mark 8:34 side by side one another. The allusions are very subtle - and as we will develop in some detail - actually supplement our knowledge of what appears in the Letter to Theodore to the point that we can see that Morton Smith, Scott Brown and everyone else who tried to make sense of the Mar Saba text actually got it wrong.
The good, the most perfect (Τελειότατον) it is gnosis (γνῶσις) which is desirable for its own sake, and through it the things which follow (ἀκολουθοῦντα) are good. (Strom. 6.12)
I will enjoy spending forty five consecutive days before the Secret Mark conference in Toronto demonstrating how wrong all 'the experts' really are about this text.
