In any event, there are countless references to the concepts of 'baptism,' 'death' and 'resurrection' - so much so that I think they are nothing short of commentaries on LGM 1. Yet we shouldn't forget that there are also references to ritual states of 'nakedness' which are also important to examine. Above all others in significance of course are Clement's citations of the first few lines of 2 Corinthians chapter 5, given that all of Clement's citations demonstrate remarkable textual variation from our received text. Here is the reference from the concluding words of Book Four of the Stromateis:
But the elect man dwells as a sojourner, knowing all things to be possessed and disposed of; and he makes use of the things which the Pythagoreans make out to be the threefold good things. The body, too, as one sent on a distant pilgrimage, uses inns and dwellings by the way, having care of the things of the world, of the places where he halts; but leaving his dwelling-place and property without excessive emotion; readily following him that leads him away from life; by no means and on no occasion turning back; giving thanks for his sojourn, and blessing for his departure, embracing the mansion that is in heaven. “For we know, that, if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we walk by faith, not by sight,” [cf. 2 Cor. v. 1, 2, 3, 7] as the apostle says; “and we are willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with God.” The rather is in comparison. And comparison obtains in the case of things that fall under resemblance; as the more valiant man is more valiant among the valiant, and most valiant among cowards. Whence he adds, “Wherefore we strive, whether present or absent, to be accepted with Him,” [2 Cor. v. 9] that is, God, whose work and creation are all things, both the world and things supramundane. I admire Epicharmus, who clearly says:— “Endowed with pious mind, you will not, in dying, Suffer aught evil. The spirit will dwell in heaven above”
The first thing that we should note is that the citation of the material from 2 Corinthians chapter 5 is considerably abbreviated from our received text. Here is what Clement cites from the beginning of the chapter to verse 9:
Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι, ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ στενάζομεν, τὸ οἰκητήριον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπενδύσασθαι ἐπιποθοῦντες, εἴ γε καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα· διὰ πίστεως γὰρ περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ εἴδου. Εὐδοκοῦμεν δὲ μᾶλλον ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Here is the received text with words not found in Clement's recension emboldened in red:
Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοὐτῳ στενάζομεν τὸ οἰκητηρίον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπενδύσασθαι ἐπιποθοῦντες, εἴ γε καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα. καὶ γὰρ οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ σκήνει στενάζομεν βαρούμενοι, ἐφ’ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι ἀλλ’ ἐπενδύσασθαι, ἵνα καταποθῇ τὸ θνητὸν ὑπὸ τῆς ζωῆς. ὁ δὲ κατεργασάμενος ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θεός, ὁ δοῦς ἡμῖν τὁν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος. Θαρροῦντες οὖν πάντοτε καὶ εἰδότες ὅτι ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν τῷ σώματι ἐκδημοῦμεν ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου· διὰ πίστεως γὰρ περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ εἴδους· θαρροῦμεν δὲ καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον.
It cannot be argued that Clement is 'cherry picking' from a common text. His Alexandrian text was more shorter and thus more original, following a pattern we see throughout the Marcionite tradition that the Catholics added things to the authentic text to obscure its sense.
Let's now take a careful look at the added material unknown to Clement:
For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord ... We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether ...
And a careful look at what is authentic:
For we know, that, if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we walk by faith, not by sight, and we are willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with God. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
At last the reader begins to see that the context here is shaping up to be an almost exact parallel with Plato's Gorias 523d.
But there is one little thing we must address which has been the subject of some controversy in New Testament scholarship for some time - i.e. whether the original reading in 2 Corinthians 5 was 'if so be that being clothed (ἐνδυσάμενοι) we shall not be found naked' or the alternative reading found in the Marcionite text 'if so be that being stripped (ἐκδυσάμενοι) we shall not be found naked.' I needn't get into too much detail here but it was Metzger's bizarre opinion which reassured most scholars that the tautology 'being clothed we shall not be found naked made sense' could make any sense. It is obvious that ἐκδυσάμενοι is the correct reading. It is the only one which makes any sense contextually. Our only seeming problem is that the existing MS of Clement reads ἐνδυσάμενοι.
I needn't remind readers that everyone who takes the study of Clement's writings seriously acknowledges that the manuscripts are hopelessly corrupt. The same scripture can be cited in three or four different forms within the same work. It is worth noting that the only place ἐκδυσάμενοι is ever used in the New Testament is in 2 Corinthians 5:3 and Clement uses this very term in the Paedagogue to describe the ritual 'stripping' of the soul from the flesh exactly as we find here:
Truly, then, are we the children of God, who have put aside the old man, and stripped off (ἐκδυσάμενοι) the garment of wickedness, and put on the immortality of Christ; that we may become a new, holy people by regeneration, and may keep the man undefiled. [Paed 1.6]
Νήπιοι ἄρα εἰκότως οἱ παῖδες τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ τὸν μὲν παλαιὸν ἀποθέμενοι ἄνθρωπον καὶ τῆς κακίας ἐκδυσάμενοι τὸν χιτῶνα, ἐπενδυσάμενοι δὲ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα καινοὶ γενόμενοι, λαὸς ἅγιος, ἀναγεννηθέντες ἀμίαντον φυλάξωμεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ νήπιοι ὦμεν ὡς βρέφος τοῦ θεοῦ κεκαθαρμένον πορνείας καὶ πονηρίας.
These words are clear echoes of the rest of 2 Corinthians Chapter 5 which can be fleshed out in its early Alexandrian form by paying attention to detail in the Third Book of the Stromateis too:
So they (i.e. the Carpocratians) have not understood, it seems, that "we must all appear before Christ’s tribunal, where each must receive what is due to him for his physical conduct, good or bad," (2 Cor 5.10) that is, where a person may receive recompense for what he has done by means of his body. "So that, if a person is in Christ, he is recreated" (2 Cor 5.17) in a way no longer subject to sin. "The past is gone" – we have washed away the old life. "Look, new things have emerged" – chastity instead of sexual looseness, self-control instead of license, righteousness instead of unrighteousness. "What have righteousness and lawlessness in common? What fellowship is there between light and darkness? Can Christ agree with Beliar? What have the faithful to do with the faithless? Can there be a compact between the Temple of God and idols? These are the promises made to us. Let us purify ourselves of anything that can stain flesh or spirit, aiming at the goal of holiness in the fear of God." (2 Cor 6.14-16, 7.1) [Strom 3.8.61]
Clement never references any of the material between 2 Corinthians 5.10 and 5.17 in any of his writings. I believe it is possible to tentatively reconstruct the whole of early Alexandrian version of chapter 5 as:
For we know, that, if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we walk by faith, not by sight, and we are willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with God. we must all appear before Christ’s tribunal, where each must receive what is due to him for his physical conduct, good or bad. So that, if a person is in Christ, he is recreated. Look, new things have emerged!
The point then is that it is absolutely certain that the passage cited from the Instructor - we "who have put aside the old man, and stripped off (ἐκδυσάμενοι) the garment of wickedness, and put on the immortality of Christ; that we may become a new, holy people by regeneration, and may keep the man undefiled": is a reference to 2 Corinthians chapter 5 and thus a witness that Clement did in fact read ἐκδυσάμενοι in 2 Cor 5:3 rather than the present reading in the Stromateis (ἐνδυσάμενοι).
What all of this ends up serving to demonstrate is that 2 Corinthians Chapter 5 is indeed all about the 'naked with naked' concept from Gorias 523d. Theodore's original question may not have been restricted to simply the Alexandrian gospel but the Alexandrian New Testament canon. The reference to LGM 1 (= the first addition to the longer gospel of Mark) was a red herring. The Apostolikon was no less sacred than the gospel. And so:
being stripped (ἐκδυσάμενοι) we shall not be found naked ... before the judgment seat of Christ.
confirms the Platonic 'naked with naked' concept from the Gorgias's judgment in the underworld. It rather than LGM 1 may have been one part of the puzzle that would unravel the mysteries of Alexandria.
It is also worth noting that ome of Clement's other references to 2 Corinthians chapter 5 might be useful here to help understand that Clement is clearly talking about a ritual context rather than something that is to happen in the future at the 'real death' of the individual. Our misunderstanding is 'assisted' of course by the falsified material added in verses 4 - 6 and 8 in the Catholic recension. In Book Five of the Stromateis Clement clearly understands that the ultimate 'clothing' with 'new flesh' takes place behind the 'veils' (seven?) of the church of St. Mark as in to Theodore where the naked initiate looks up, beholds and is recreated after the image of the naked Christ (or his representative):
But the knowledge of God is a thing inaccessible to the ears and like organs of this kind of people. Hence the Son is said to be the Father’s face, being the revealer of the Father’s character to the five senses by clothing Himself with flesh. “But if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” “For we walk by faith, not by sight,” (2 Cor. 5.7). the noble apostle says. Within the veil, then, is concealed the sacerdotal service; and it keeps those engaged in it far from those without. [Strom 5.6]
I am particularly intrigued by the manner here that Clement follows the idea of nakedness or 'death', baptism and reclothing to continue through the rest of a much shorter Second Letter to the Corinthians (notice the truncation in the last citation again). We have a clear confirmation that the 'naked with naked' reference might not have been in the text of Secret Mark but was clearly developed in the rituals of the Alexandrian Church from Gorgias 523d.
I want to call it a night but I thought it might be useful to cite the way a modern New Testament scholar struggles with the surviving text of 2 Corinthians Chapter Five and even the correct reading of 2 Cor 5.3 without the knowledge that the writings of Clement and the Letter to Theodore in particular afford us about the correct context of the material. Here is David Garland's analysis of 2 Corinthians 5:3:
The Greek conditional particle ei plus the intensive particle ge and the conjunction kai that begin v. 3 may be translated, “If indeed then we have been clothed, [then] we will not be found naked.” The NRSV, however, however, opts for the textual variant “having put off” (ekdysamenoi) probably because “having put on” (endysamenoi) would seem to leave us with a seemingly banal tautology: “being clothed, we will not be found naked. But “having put on” is not only the best attested reading, it is the hardest. Why, if Paul had originally written “put off,” would a later scribe change it to “put on”? The supposed tautology was probably intentional on Paul's part to emphasize that we will not be disembodied ghosts but will experience this complete salvation at death. He might have thought that this point needed underscoring for those at Corinth who still harbored ideas that a disembodied state was preferable. Paul does not believe in nor value an immaterial existence.
What does Paul intend to connote by the image of nakedness? Some interpreters take it in an ethical sense to refer to our guilty moral state so that being clothed or being naked have to do with God's favorable or unfavorable judgment. Although Paul was not nonchalant about the prospect of the judgment (see Phil 3:8–11), as one who was in Christ he had no fear of being found guilty before God. Standing before God's tribunal is not in the purview of this verse, and “being naked” does not refer to spiritual alienation from Christ. Paul is not referring to the plight of the godless who do not receive a glorious body because, unlike believers, they are not clothed with Christ or robed with his righteousness. The immediate context suggests that being naked refers to a disembodjavascript:void(0)ied state, a soul stripped of its body. “To be clothed,” means the opposite, to have a bodily existence.
To be naked means to lack a bodily existence. In this verse Paul essentially repeats what he says in 5:1–2 to emphasize that the believer will never be found in a bodiless state. Redemption was not redemption from the body, redemption of the body (Rom 8:23). Nakedness, some incorporeal existence, is an absurd idea to him because of the resurrection of Christ; and his assertion that we will not be found naked links with his earlier insistence in 1 Cor 15:35– 44 that “the future life is a bodily one." If we prune away the metaphorical language in this verse, Paul simply says that the dead rise with a body. If this is correct, we should not read into his imagery an interim period or an interim state. Nor should we read into this verse any dread of some naked state. Instead, this assertion should be understood as expressing the solace that Paul's resurrection hope gives him: “we shall not be found naked." [p. 61]
My Lord, when is this 'Paul' guy going to go away? When are people going to start calling him by the name Clement (secretly) knew him - i.e. 'Mark'? Any way, good night ...
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."