If only the people studying Clement of Alexandria weren't 'believers' going into making sense of the writings of the Church Fathers. Why do I say this? Because religion, for the most part, closes people's minds to the possibilities in the texts. What I mean by that is that most religious people see religion as just the reinforcement of what is familiar. So all that 'strange' Clement gets pushed in the background. What we end up having is a 'Clement of Alexandria' which strives above all else to keep in harmony with 'our' tradition - i.e. the Roman tradition of Ireaneus and those who came after him. It's comforting to the 'faith' of these scholars, but it isn't a true picture of Clement or his writings.
This psychological phenomenon might be described as 'like with like' (τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ) and it interesting appears throughout Clement's writings. Indeed this concept is a central to Clement's theology - but it is ignored by most scholars because it is so radically different from everything we read in Patristic writers outside of Alexandria. Clement thinks scripture should be interpreted 'like with like.' Indeed it appears in the very section I am using to prove that to Theodore is authentic:
We ought not to surrender our ears to all who speak and write rashly. For cups also, which are taken hold of by many by the ears, are dirtied, and lose the ears; and besides, when they fall they are broken. In the same way also, those, who have polluted the pure hearing of faith by many trifles, at last becoming deaf to the truth, become useless and fall to the earth. It is not, then, without reason that we commanded boys to kiss their relations, holding them by the ears; indicating this, that the feeling of love is engendered by hearing. And "God is love" (Ἀγάπη δὲ ὁ θεὸς) is known to those who love (ὁ τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι γνωστός), as "God is true" (πιστὸς ὁ θεὸς) who by instruction is communicated to the faithful (ὁ τοῖς πιστοῖς παραδιδόμενος διὰ τῆς μαθήσεως), and we must be assimilated to Him by divine love (καὶ χρὴ ἐξοικειοῦσθαι ἡμᾶς αὐτῷ δι´ ἀγάπης τῆς θείας): so that by like we may see like (τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ θεωρῶμεν), hearing the word of truth guilelessly and purely, as children who obey us. And this was what he, whoever he was, indicated who wrote on the entrance to the temple at Epidaurus the inscription: "Pure he must be who goes within The incense-perfumed fane."This passage in Clement is so obviously indebted to the homosexual culture of Plato it's amazing that anyone claim's Clement couldn't have written to Theodore. It's as gay as Elton John. You just have to pay attention to the references to the passages in Plato.
And purity is "to think holy thoughts." "Except ye become as these little children, ye shall not enter," it is said, "into the kingdom of heaven."
For there the temple of God is seen established on three foundations -- faith, hope, and love.
Respecting faith we have adduced sufficient testimonies of writings among the Greeks. But in order not to exceed bounds, through eagerness to collect a very great many also respecting hope and love, suffice it merely to say that in the Crito Socrates, who prefers a good life and death to life itself, thinks that we have hope of another life after death.
Also in the Phaedrus he says, "That only when in a separate state can the soul become partaker of the wisdom which is true, and surpasses human power; and when, having reached the end of hope by philosophic love, desire shall waft it to heaven, then," says he, "does it receive the commencement of another, an immortal life." And in the Symposium he says, "That there is instilled into all the natural love of generating what is like, and in men of generating men alone, and in the good man of the generation of the counterpart of himself. But it is impossible for the good man to do this without possessing the perfect virtues, in which he will train the youth who have recourse to him." And as he says in the Theaetetus, "He will beget and finish men. For some procreate by the body, others by the soul;" since also with the barbarian philosophers to teach and enlighten is called to regenerate; and "I have begotten you in Jesus Christ," says the good apostle somewhere.
Empedocles, too, enumerates friendship among the elements, conceiving it as a combining love: "Which do you look at with your mind; and don't sit gaping with your eyes."
Parmenides, too, in his poem, alluding to hope, speaks thus: "Yet look with the mind certainly on what is absent as present, For it will not sever that which is from the grasp it has of that which is Not, even if scattered in every direction over the world or combined."
For he who hopes, as he who believes, sees intellectual objects and future things with the mind. If, then, we affirm that aught is just, and affirm it to be good, and we also say that truth is something, yet we have never seen any of such objects with our eyes, but with our mind alone. Now the Word of God says, "I am the truth." The Word is then to be contemplated by the mind. "Do you aver," it was said, "that there are any true philosophers?" "Yes," said I, "those who love to contemplate the truth." In the Phaedrus also, Plato, speaking of the truth, shows it as an idea. Now an idea is a conception of God; and this the barbarians have termed the Word of God. The words are as follow: "For one must then dare to speak the truth, especially in speaking of the truth. For the essence of the soul, being colourless, formless, and intangible, is visible only to God, its guide." Now the Word issuing forth was the cause of creation; then also he generated himself, "when the Word had become flesh," that He might be seen. The righteous man will seek the discovery that flows from love, to which if he haste he prospers. For it is said, "To him that knocketh, it shall be opened: ask, and it shall be given to you." "For the violent that storm the kingdom " are not so in disputations speeches; but by continuance in a right life and unceasing prayers, are said "to take it by force," wiping away the blots left by their previous sins.
"You may obtain wickedness, even in great abundance?
And him who toils God helps; For the gifts of the Muses, hard to win, Lie not before you, for any one to bear away."
The knowledge of ignorance is, then, the first lesson in walking according to the Word. An ignorant man has sought, and having sought, he finds the teacher; and finding has believed, and believing has hoped; and henceforward having loved, is assimilated to what was loved -- endeavouring to be what he first loved. Such is the method Socrates shows Alcibiades, who thus questions: "Do you not think that I shall know about what is right otherwise?" "Yes, if you have found out." "But you don't think I have found out?" "Certainly, if you have sought."
"Then you don't think that I have sought?" "Yes, if you think you do not know." So with the lamps of the wise virgins, lighted at night in the great darkness of ignorance, which the Scripture signified by "night." Wise souls, pure as virgins, understanding themselves to be situated amidst the ignorance of the world, kindle the light, and rouse the mind, and illumine the darkness, and dispel ignorance, and seek truth, and await the appearance of the Teacher.
"The mob, then," said I, "cannot become a philosopher."
"Many rod-bearers there are, but few Bacchi," according to Plato. "For many are called, but few chosen." "Knowledge is not in all," says the apostle. "And pray that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith." And the Poetics of Cleanthes, the Stoic, writes to the following effect: "Look not to glory, wishing to be suddenly wise, And fear not the undiscerning and rash opinon of the many; For the multitude has not an intelligent, or wise, or right judgment, And it is in few men that you will find this."
And more sententiously the comic poet briefly says: "It is a shame to judge of what is right by much noise."
For they heard, I think, that excellent wisdom, which says to us, "Watch your opportunity in the midst of the foolish, and in the midst of the intelligent continue." And again, "The wise will conceal sense." For the many demand demonstration as a pledge of truth, not satisfied with the bare salvation by faith.
"But it is strongly incumbent to disbelieve the dominant wicked, And as is enjoined by the assurance of our muse, Know by dissecting the utterance within your breast."
"For this is habitual to the wicked," says Empedocles, "to wish to overbear what is true by disbelieving it." And that our tenets are probable and worthy of belief, the Greeks shall know, the point being more thoroughly investigated in what follows. For we are taught what is like by what is like (τῷ γὰρ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον ἐκδιδασκόμεθα). For says Solomon, "Answer a fool according to his folly." Wherefore also, to those that ask the wisdom that is with us, we are to hold out things suitable, that with the greatest possible ease they may, through their own ideas, be likely to arrive at faith in the truth. For "I became all things to all men, that I might gain all men." [Stromata 5.1.1 - 3]
I don't understand why other scholars who claim to have read 'all of Clement's writings' don't see the obvious - no, let me correct this - the fucking obvious acceptance that Clement of homosexual love. He sees the Platonic ideal (i.e. the love of a boy for a man) as compatible with the Christian ideal. There is no is no question here. There is no possible room for debate. There are just a lot of religious people who either claim to have familiarity with the writings of Clement and really don't (i.e. that never read this passage) or that their minds are so closed that they won't allow themselves to see what the material actually says. Either way the end result is still the same.
The facts are that Plato in the Phaedrus uses paderasty as the type of love 'most like' the divine love which eventually leads the individual to attain heavenly redemption. I am not endorsing that choice. I am just saying it like it is. Clement knew that this concept lay at the heart of the Phaedrus and he cites it here. Why so? Because he accepted the Platonic ideal as being wholly compatible with Christianity. As I have noted many times here before, Clement understands 'philosophy' as meaning the ritual love of Jesus (= the 'wisdom' of God).
I don't understand the controversy that people see in him accepting a document like 'Secret Mark' (where it is intimated by some contemporaries that Jesus had a 'Platonic' relationship with a rich youth. This isn't my Jesus. This isn't your Jesus. This isn't Irenaeus's Jesus. But it is the Jesus of the guy that wrote Book Five of the Stromateis.
You see the 'experts' on Clement avoid explaining why he is so intent on bringing forward allusions to homosexual love in Plato to help explain the proper relationship between initiate and Jesus. Eric Osborne is a well respected authority on Clement but his summary of the section I have just cited is laughable. Here is what he writes:
The union of the believer to God joins 'like to like' in a reciprocity which enables a man from his own ideas to come to faith in the truth (5.3.18.6). The focus of faith is the supreme power of God. Only through God can truth and goodness be found. [Eric Osborme Clement of Alexandria p 160]This is very interesting but it is like describing the plot of Star Wars without mentioning that it happens in outer space. Now it is obvious why there are scholars who don't accept the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore. It can't be by Clement because all the 'Cliff notes' editions of Clement's writings that these assholes get their information from doesn't mention Clement's interest in Plato's idealizing of pederasty.
It is only because I am rather tired today, that I am not going to spend a lot of time demonstrating how idiotic these people are. Let's just forget the reference to the Phaedrus (where Plato is explicit about his interest in pederasty). Let's forget all the other allusions to homosexuality in the section I just cited. Let's fix our eyes on the repeated mention of 'like with like' in the passage.
It is true that the proverb comes from Homer originally. "Unto the like God ever brings the like." (Odyssey 17. 218) However the saying is always used in Plato to explain his concept of heavenly love. In the Symposium for instance Socrates gives a long speech about Love where he explains why the god is attracted to young boys:
May I say without impiety or offence, that of all the blessed gods he is the most blessed because he is the fairest and best? And also the fairest, which I prove in this way : for, in the first place, Phaedrus, he is the youngest, and of his youth he is himself the witness, fleeing out of the way of age, which is swift enough surely, swifter than most of us. Love hates him and will not come near him; but youth and love live and move together--like to like, as the proverb says. [Plato, Symposium]
Do I really need to continue explaining the passage? Well, here is what Jowett has to say the Platonic application of the passage in the Lysis for good measure:
When one man loves another, which is the friend—he who loves, or he who is loved? Or are both friends? From the first of these suppositions they are driven to the second; and from the second to the third; and neither the two boys nor Socrates are satisfied with any of the three or with all of them. Socrates turns to the poets, who affirm that God brings like to like
I am so tired complete idiots who have written so much - and ignored so much else - which helps everyone misinterpret Clement. Clement knew what Plato was saying. If he really opposed the content, he wouldn't have cited it here in Book Five as he tries to explain what 'true Christian love' is.
And why doesn't anyone notice the textual variant here where Jesus is described as Love himself - Ἀγάπη δὲ ὁ θεὸς. There is no known passage in tthe New Testament which is to this effect. Nevertheless in the 'gnostic canon' of Alexandria, something appears like this. Is there any question that there is a connection between Jesus - i.e. the god 'Love' - the 'ideal' disciple mentioned throughout and a 'Platonic' affection of youth for god, that ends up looking exactly like what Morton Smith discovered in the manuscript in the Mar Saba monastery?
You know I am so sick of these people. As I have noted time and time again, they ask the question 'how can we believe that Mark wrote a homosexual gospel?' The proper question however was always, 'is it likely that the man who wrote the Stromateis also wrote the Letter to Theodore?' The answer to this question is obviously τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ.
