Yet I think we can go beyond this discovery to demonstrate that Clement's knowledge of something like 'Secret Mark' extends well beyond the conclusion of the Stromateis. It is even more obvious when we go to its opening 'greeting' to prospective readers. But before we do that, let's summarize what we have already noted from the 'Markan credal formula' just mentioned at the end of the seven volume work.
It would seem that the Letter to Theodore is the Stromateis in microcosmic form. Indeed we can go one step further - it demonstrates that this hypomnemata itself was promopted by some sort of crisis brought about by errant members of the Alexandrian Church (= 'Carpocratians') in the Christian body politic outside of Egypt. In other words, the Stromateis is an elegant attempt to answer the same questions raised by an otherwise unknown Theodore in a previous (and now lost) correspondance.
We have ascertained from our side by side reading of Strom 7.16 and the Letter to Theodore that these 'errant members' of the Alexandrian Church did not hold Clement's understanding that the 'mystic gospel' of Mark was developed from hypomnemata. Indeed one may even argue that the 'heretics' argued it was developed directly from an 'unspeakable' revelation and that the canonical text preserved in the name of the evangelist represented a corrupt 'mingling' of pure words from the mystic gospel and 'things of the Law.'
We will develop all these points in the weeks to come but for the moment it is enough for us to take a second look at an example of Clement responding to a specific question from Theodore. A little after halfway through the surviving portion of the letter (the rest is lost after the words 'the true philosophy') Clement makes reference to the original inquiry from Theodore that prompted the reply by saying:
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found. [to Theod. II.19 - III.14]
Many conservative critics contend that the fact that Theodore's original question seemed to focus on the homosexual rituals of the Carpocratians 'proves' that Morton Smith wrote the text rather than Clement. Yet this just demonstrates the unfamiliarity of these 'experts' with the facts regarding contemporary reports about homosexuality and the Carpocratians.
Lawlor makes an iron-clad argument that the material regarding similar 'homosexual interests' of the Carpocratians cited in Epiphanius are clearly verbatim reports from Hegesippus's Hypomnemata from 147 CE. It is also well established that Clement cites from this exact same mid-second century text in Stromata 1.21. As such the claim that Clement wasn't aware that the Carpocratians were reportedly involved in homosexuality is ridiculous.
What begins to become clear from the Letter to Theodore is that all that proceeded this reference to 'extra material' being present immediately following Mark 10:34 is necessarily connected to the 'true exegesis' of the passage which originally followed the aformentioned citation. A more detailed discussion of this relationship necessarily also followed the citation of the material. Nevertheless this part of the manuscript has now unfortunately all disappeared. It was not preserved by the eighteenth century scribe.
Nevertheless we can clearly infer that all the business about the apostle Mark having:
composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries. [to Theod. I.15 - II.2]
All of this necessarily confirms that the 'extra material' cited here as being a part of the Alexandrian gospel of Mark was connected to the idea of 'gnostic' perfection as manifest in the writings of Clement.
It is not surprising then that we also find in Clement's writing a number of important references to the very unique terminology that almost only appears in the Gospel of Mark - and Mark 8:34 and Mark 10:32 in particular, which leads me to confirm that Clement indeed wrote the Letter to Theodore.
Let's start with the 800 pound gorilla that none of the self-described 'defenders of the faith' ever acknowledge - Clement wasn't one of them. He was a mystic who openly identified himself as a 'gnostic.' This already shoots a missile through the argument that these people WANT to make - namely that as an 'orthodox' Church Father, Clement of Alexandria COULDN'T have venerated another gospel besides the canonical four.
Oh, these people would LOVE to make that argument, but they can't - simply because there are still a few people sitting on the fence which won't allow them to manufacture THAT lie.
Clement rarely references gospels 'according to' anybody. There is I think one reference to the 'gospel according to Mark' (Quis Dives Salvetur), two references to 'the gospel according to Luke' (Stromata), and I think one reference to 'the gospel according to John' - all of this in over seven hundred pages of surviving material.
Clement's preferred way of speaking about the gospel is to reference 'the Gospel' - a term which applies to material cited from what we would identify as coming from 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' or 'John.' He also references material as coming from 'Scripture' or 'the word of the Lord' or 'the word of God.' But it is hard to reconcile this methodology with the idea that Clement 'adhered to' a four gospel canon. Everything that survives points to Clement employing these four gospels, but his terminology is deliberately ambiguous.
He makes absolutely clear for instance at the beginning of the Stromateis that he is not merely presenting 'ideas' that came to him through inspiration, but a tradition - a presumably Alexandrian tradition which he is honest enough to admit hasn't survived the scourge of the ages in pristine form. First and foremost however, Clement confirms the existence of a 'great secret' which he cannot reveal directly to his readership - they will simply have to 'read between the lines' of what he is saying:
the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath (κύριος ἀπὸ ἀγαθοῦ σαββατίζειν) but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries (τῶν θείων μυστηρίων), and of that holy light (τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκείνου τοῦ ἁγίου), to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many (Αὐτίκα οὐ πολλοῖς ἀπεκάλυψεν ἃ μὴ πολλῶν ἦν); but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them. But secret things (τὰ δὲ ἀπόρρητα) are entrusted to speech, not to writing (λόγῳ πιστεύεται, οὐ γράμματι), as is the case with God.
And if one say that it is written, "There is nothing secret which shall not be revealed, nor hidden which shall not be disclosed," let him also hear from us, that to him who hears secretly, even what is secret shall be manifested (τῷ κρυπτῶς ἐπαίοντι τὸ κρυπτὸν φανερωθήσεσθαι). This is what was predicted by this oracle (τοῦ λογίου). And to him who is able secretly to observe what is delivered to him that which is veiled shall be disclosed as truth (καὶ τῷ παρακεκαλυμμένως τὰ παραδιδόμενα οἵῳ τε παραλαμβάνειν δηλωθήσεται τὸ κεκαλυμμένον ὡς ἡ ἀλήθεια); and what is hidden to the many, shall appear manifest to the few (καὶ τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς κρυπτόν, τοῦτο τοῖς ὀλίγοις φανερὸν γενήσεται).
For why do not all know the truth (ἐπεὶ διὰ τί μὴ πάντες ἴσασι τὴν ἀλήθειαν)? why is not righteousness loved, if righteousness belongs to all? But the mysteries are delivered mystically (ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὰ μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδοται), that what is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding. "God gave to the Church, some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."
It absolutely amazes me that people can argue that the language here EXACTLY resembles what appears in the Letter to Theodore. I would even go so far as to say that the Letter to Theodore explains in a microcosmic level, what prompted Clement to write the Stromateis. However that is an argument for another time.
For the moment though, it is enough that we acknowledge that indeed that the same author wrote the Stromateis and did so in order to 'openly' respond to a matter which resembles what is contained in the private discourse of to Theodore. To this end, we see Clement continue to explain why he wrote his 'hypomnemata' (the name by which Clement refers to the work we have decided to call 'the Stromateis'):
The writing of these hypomnemata of mine (τῶν ὑπομνημάτων γραφὴ), I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck with the thyrsus. For "speak," it is said, "to a wise man, and he will grow wiser; and to him that hath, and there shall be added to him."Now let us stop right there. Clement is clearly referencing the idea that his hypomnemata are referencing a secret doctrine. Why isn't this the 'secret gospel' explicitly mentioned in the private correspondence with Theodore? Some would argue that Clement is also saying that the secret doctrine can't be written down. But he says the same thing about the secret gospel when he condemns Carpocrates for allegedly coercing some Alexandrian presbyter and writing it down.
It should be obvious then that what was prohibited was the 'writing down' of the 'secret gospel.' There clearly was a non-canonical gospel which shared by the Carpocratians and Clement's Alexandrian community. He makes this absolutely clear in Strom. 3.1 - 11. He also makes clear that the text was 'read' to the initiates, thus the terminology used here - viz. 'hearing' - would be absolutely appropriate. He immediately goes on to say:
And we profess not to explain unspeakable things sufficiently (τὰ ἀπόρρητα ἱκανῶς)- far from it - but only to recall them to memory (μόνον δὲ τὸ ὑπομνῆσαι), whether we have forgot aught, or whether for the purpose of not forgetting.
Note again that the Letter to Theodore is introduced by the condemnation of the Carpocratians for 'revealing' things which are inherently 'unspeakable.' This makes the Carpocratians and their doctrines 'unspeakable' - a play on words turning around the original terminology into something which ends up slighting the heretics.
Clement is clearly distinguishing himself from those who openly reveal the secrets associated with the mystic gospel. He will instead write what he has designated a 'memory aid' (the same terminology used to describe the gospels associated with Mark and Peter) which will maintain a ritual silence around mystical doctrines, but will ultimately serve to draw in people to be initiated into the Alexandrian mysteries and thus apprehend the truth in a controlled setting:
Many things, I well know, have escaped us, through length of time, that have dropped away unwritten. Whence, to aid the weakness of my memory, and provide for myself a salutary help to my recollection (ἀπομνημονευθέντα) in a systematic arrangement of chapters, I necessarily make use of this form. There are then some things of which we have no recollection (ἀπομνημονευθέντα); for the power that was in the blessed men was great (μακαρίοις δύναμις ἦν ἀνδράσιν). There are also some things which remained unnoted long (ἀνυποσημείωτα μεμενηκότα), which have now escaped; and others which are effaced, having faded away in the mind itself, since such a task is not easy to those not experienced; these I revive in my commentaries (ἀναζωπυρῶν ὑπομνήμασι). Some things I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection (παραπέμπομαι ἐκλέγων ἐπιστημόνως), afraid to write (φοβούμενος γράφειν) what I guarded against speaking (καὶ λέγειν ἐφυλαξάμην): not grudging (φθονῶν)- for that were wrong -- but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in a wrong sense (πῃ ἑτέρως σφαλεῖεν); and, as the proverb says, we should be found "reaching a sword to a child." For it is impossible that what has been written should not escape, although remaining (μεμενηκότα) unpublished (ἀνέκδοτα) by me .I truly don't understand how people can argue that there isn't a pattern of similar ideas which connect the letter to Theodore and the Stromateis. Moreover, given that we have been tackling the beginning and end of the seven volume book and its relation to the Mar Saba document, these 'borrowings' appear absolutely fundamental.
For instances the reader should recognize the obvious parallel between Clement's writing of hypomnemata (i.e. the Stromateis) on the one hand and 'something secret' which he can't publish, and the report in to Theodore where it is said that Mark:
selecting (εκλεγομενος) what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed ... [but] he prepared matters, neither grudgingly (φθονερως) nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
It is simply shameless that people can argue that the Letter to Theodore isn't in complete agreement with the sentiments of the introduction of the Stromateis. One might argue that Morton Smith was so familiar with Clement's writing that he created a letter in miniature which summed up the Stromata, but this is utter madness in itself because it would be impossible to accept any new letter of Clement as authentic by that criterion.
Indeed as I have noted many times before, the opponents of the letter have absolutely no scruples. They are wicked men who simply want to deny the realities that the letter brings forward. Indeed their malice is so unbridled that they avoid mentioning how Clementine the ARGUMENTS are (Criddle mentions the individual word count but even this is somehow twisted into something 'suspicious'). All to make their denial of the authenticity of the letter appear all the more reasonable.
For Clement in the Stromata is basically saying - "it is okay for me to put down carefully constructed hypomnemata ('mental notes') recollecting the holy things I learned over my acquaintance with the 'true philosophy' of Alexandria, but I am not going to actually cite divinely inspired 'word of God." This is going to help establish 'faith' among the readers of this document. Yet at the same time he says that he is not going to reveal the deeper truths because they are so holy that if he lets them out they are going to get polluted.
But this is exactly how the Letter to Theodore says the patron saint of Alexandria - Mark - proceeded, except in reverse. He gathered up two hypomnemata and then blended them into the 'unspeakable' word of God. Now we can all have our doubts that Clement is presenting us with a factual historical account of how the 'secret gospel' was written. The Carpocratians certainly turned it around, arguing that the secret Gospel was written first and that what passes itself off as 'the gospel according to Mark' is a false 'mixture' of things of the Law with the pristine words of the divine apostle. I don't want to get into that debate because it is so distracting, nevertheless I want to stress that Clement's position is supported by the Apostolikon and in specific 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 9 (i.e. that a basic text came first and then a 'secret wisdom').
What we are doing here of course is merely noting that the core argument of the Letter to Theodore is absolutely Clementine. It couldn't be more authentic. If someone was 'copying' and imitating the Stromateis only in microsmic form, this person knew Clement so well that he could pass for his brother.
Indeed on top of all that we have just noted there is a single word in the middle of the section just cited from the opening words of the Stromata that should be noted - i.e. the last section which reads:
I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection (ἐκλέγων), afraid to write (φοβούμενος γράφειν) what I guarded against speaking (καὶ λέγειν ἐφυλαξάμην): not grudging (φθονῶν)- for that were wrong -- but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in a wrong sense (πῃ ἑτέρως σφαλεῖεν); and, as the proverb says, we should be found "reaching a sword to a child." For it is impossible that what has been written should not escape, although remaining (μεμενηκότα) unpublished (ἀνέκδοτα) by me .
It's painful to imagine that there are intelligent people who can't recognize the similarities to the description of Mark in the letter to Theodore. First there is the parallel in the act of 'selecting' (Strom 1.1 ἐκλέγων; to Theod. εκλεγομενος) from the holy 'mystic' doctrine to bring the initiate safely to faithfulness. At the same time there is also Clement's defense - of himself in the Stromateis and Mark in the Letter to Theodore - that their withholding information was not done out of spite or 'grudgingly' (to Theod. φθονερως; Strom. 1.1 φθονῶν). These parallels are so utterly fundamental to the understanding of Clement as a writer it is impossible to argue that the two statements are not related to one another. The person writing one text had to be aware of the arguments of the other.
Indeed, the fact that the two understandings go in two different directions is also interesting. In other words, while Mark takes hypomnemata and constructs something 'unspeakable,' Clement came into acquaintance with the 'secret wisdom' and develops hypomnemata to explain them. One could argue also that the existence of so many explanative commentaries (hypomnemata) eminating from Alexandria might be explained by the formula witnessed by to Theodore.
Yet I want to say that these parallels MUST be acknowledged by the other side in the debate. If you meet one of these guys in the street they make it seem like the forgery is so bad that anyone would pick up on it, if they only looked closely. The reality is the exact opposite. The more that we actually scrutinize the text as a purported 'letter of Clement' (rather than getting distracted by the IMPLICATIONS of the letters - viz. 'secret Mark') the more authentic the text actually appears.
So when we return to the place we left in the opening words of the Stromata we see Clement continuing to justify the writing of hypomnemata rather than simply revealing the great secret at the heart of Alexandrian Christianity. He writes:
But being always revolved, using the one only voice, that of writing, they (the hypomnemata) answer nothing to him that makes inquiries beyond what is written; for they require of necessity the aid of some one, either of him who wrote, or of some one else who has walked in his footsteps. Some things my treatise will hint; on some it will linger; some it will merely mention. It will try to speak imperceptibly, to exhibit secretly, and to demonstrate silently.
Again, only the hopeless deluded, the wickedly partisan, the members of the faith so abused by adherence to pre-conceived notions, could feel at all justified misrepresenting the Letter to Theodore as somehow being 'an obvious forgery.' This last reference could serve as nothing short of the introduction to a critical edition of the Mar Saba letter. The reason it hasn't is because scholarship is too busy debating 'secret Mark.'
The point of course is that Clement is clearly part of a tradition. It was certainly an Alexandrian tradition which he wrote when he was 'old' enough, to need a 'memory aid' - viz. hypomnema as he references in the material which appears immediately precedes what we have just cited:
Now this work of mine in writing is not artfully constructed for display; but my hypomnemata (ὑπομνήματα) are stored up against old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness (λήθης φάρμακον), truly an image and sketch of things vigorous and animated which I was privileged to hear (εἴδωλον ἀτεχνῶς καὶ σκιαγραφία τῶν ἐναργῶν καὶ ἐμψύχων ἐκείνων), words also of blessed and truly remarkable men (λόγων τε καὶ ἀνδρῶν μακαρίων καὶ τῷ ὄντι ἀξιολόγων). Of these (τούτων) the one, in Greece, an Ionic; the other in Magna Graecia: the first of these from Coele-Syria, the second from Egypt, and others in the East. The one was born in the land of Assyria, and the other a Hebrew in Palestine.It is simply incredible to believe that ANYONE - for or against the authenticity of the Mar Saba document EVER BOTHERED TO COMPARE the text with the introduction and conclusion of the Stromata. For if they had it would have been obvious that the ideas contained in the text all appear here - albeit in an 'encrypted' form.
When I stumbled upon (περιτυχὼν) the last - it was the first in power (δυνάμει δὲ οὗτος πρῶτος ἦν) I found rest (ἀνεπαυσάμην) having captured it (θηράσας) escaping notice (λεληθότα) in Egypt. 'Sicilian' was indeed the bee (Σικελικὴ τῷ ὄντι ἦν μέλιττα), gathering the bloom of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow (προφητικοῦ τε καὶ ἀποστολικοῦ λειμῶνος τὰ ἄνθη δρεπόμενος), engendered in the souls of his hearers a deathless element of knowledge (ἀκήρατόν τι γνώσεως χρῆμα ταῖς τῶν ἀκροωμένων ἐνεγέννησε ψυχαῖς)
That Eusebius and later writers understand the 'bountiful' (= Sicilian) bee was a person named 'Pantainos' is perfectly understandable. Pantainos was once a name in the classical Greek period, but it also appears in writing from the period as a term which designated 'the complete account' which - as Nagy notes may reprsent a "code that can have hidden agenda. It can be a secret password for initiation into mysteries."
My point is clearly that given all that we have seen from our line by line analysis of the opening words of the Stromateis, Clement is clearly saying he followed the path of initiation described in to Thedoore. First he came across a number of hypomnemata, written 'memory aids' for what the true word of God was, until at last stumbling on the 'mystic gospel' - written in the Hebrew language (as Morton Smith divined from his analysis of Mar Saba 65) - 'escaping notice' in Alexandria. I wish I had more time to devote to correcting the despicable situation that exists within scholarship. But that will have to wait for my next post ...
