Professor Michael Trapp of King's College London Drops By to Help Sort Out if Maximus of Tyre's Reference to 'Naked With Naked' is Related to Secret Mark

I think we have successfully connected Jerome's nudus nudum motto to the γυμνὸς γυμνῷ formula in the Letter to Theodore. I have been getting a lot of emails about this and many of the people sending me stuff don't seem to realize what is actually said in the Mar Saba document. It is only conjecture on the part of modern scholarship that Clement is responding to a claim of the Carpocratians that γυμνὸς γυμνῷ either literally appears in Secret Mark as a phrase or that two naked men appear together alongside of one another (presumably Jesus and the young man).

All that we can say for certain is that Theodore has asked a question involving the existence of a secret gospel in Alexandria and an additional narrative which references the concept - but not necessarily containing the words - γυμνὸς γυμνῷ. Here is the passage at the end of the surviving manuscript:

τὸ δε γυμνὸς γυμνῷ και ταλλα περι ων εγραψας ουκ ευρισκεται.

But “naked man with naked man,” and the other things about which you wrote, are not found (III.14)

Something about Theodore's original question then leads to Clement revealing a 'secret' or 'mystic' gospel that he doesn't make specific reference to in his other writings and one narrative in particular, the one which features the following reference:

και οψιας γενομενης ερχεται ο νεανισκος προς αυτον. περιβεβλημενος σινδονα επι γυμνου· και
εμεινε συν αυτω την νυκτα εκεινην

and when it was evening the young man comes to him donning a linen sheet upon his naked body; and he remained with him that night (III.7 - 9)

Modern scholarship has simply assumed that either the γυμνὸς γυμνῷ reference is a verbatim citation of what appears in the parallel 'mystic' gospel of Mark of the Carpocratians or that it makes clear that Theodore thought that 'homosexuality' was present in the narrative. I am not at all sure this is the case.

I have spent the greater part of the last week investigating two other appearances of the γυμνὸς γυμνῷ formula. The first, as mentioned, Jerome's understanding that Christianity is symbolized by a disciple who takes off his clothes after hearing Jesus's words in Mark 10:17 - 31 and is naked with a naked Jesus - presumably in a baptismal font. We have established that Jerome's knowledge here ultimately comes from Alexandria and the writings of Clement in particular, probably through Origen and Origenist circles. Yet the second reference is actually even more interesting - the allusion in the Platonist Maximus of Tyre to a similar formula:

γυμνὸν γυμνῷ, φίλον φίλῳ, ἐλεύθερον ἐλευθέρῳ

naked to naked, friend to friend, freeman to freeman

which comes from Maximus's forty-first dissertation in his surviving collection of orations.

Maximus lived and worked in the Antonine and Commodian period just before Clement was actively defending the Alexandrian Church. His writings betray a close relationship with other Middle Platonists such as Celsus of Rome. I began wondering whether it was at all possible that Dissertation 41 might well have been directed against Christians so I went to the local university library hoping to find some more information. Unfortunately I could find almost nothing on the subject of Maximus of Tyre and his writings.

So it was that I decided to do what I always do in this situation - I sent an email to a scholar who has written a number of books and articles on Maximus and related philosophical traditions - Michael Trapp of King's College London. Some of his published books include:

Maximi Tyrii Dissertationes (Teubner 1994)
Maximus of Tyre: The Philosophical Orations (OUP 1997)
Greek and Latin Letters. An Anthology (CUP 2003)
Philosophy in the Roman Empire: Ethics, Politics and Society (Ashgate 2007)
(Ed.) Socrates from Antiquity to the Enlightenment (Ashgate 2007)
(Ed.) Socrates in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Ashgate 2007)

I began by asking him whether he thought it was at all possible that the group that Maximus was addressing in Dissertation 41 might well be a group of Platonizing Christians and he wrote back:

Intriguing, but – sorry! - I’m not convinced. As I read him, Maximus is making a familiar Platonist point about the body being an alien encumbrance to the soul when soul and body separate at death, this is no disaster, but a stripping and a freeing of the soul from something it is better off without, because in the process it is returned to directer communion with what it really belongs to (God and the real essences of things). This is imaged as (a) the release of a prisoner from a rotting, dilapidated prison cell, and (b) an athlete (or Odysseus) stripping off his tatty, nasty rags and running around in glorious nakedness. All this works very well within a Platonist frame of reference, addressed to ordinary unphilosophical materialists, who wrongly believe that physical disease and bodily infirmity and death are evils to get distressed over.

At first glance the reader might think that I would be disappointed with the response from Professor Trapp. However as I was waiting for a response from my initial email I had actually uncovered that the γυμνὸς γυμνῷ of the Alexandrian tradition associated with Clement and Jerome actually is almost identical to what is being described here by the professor within Platonist circles.

Let's remember that I have always argued that LGM 1 (= the first addition to the longer gospel of Mark mentioned in the letter to Theodore) is actually developed from ideas in the writings of Plato. This gospel of Mark is above all else a Platonic gospel, which develops a 'liberation theology' of sorts from the conception in the Phaedrus that love - a sublimated pederastic love - will eventually cause wings to grow on an individual soul and fly him up to heaven. What Professor Trapp was ultimately doing for me, was to remind me that there is a deep interest in nudity in the writings of Plato which have been demonstrated to have had a great influence on Clement's precursor Philo of Alexandria.

The first thing that I think we should do is compare Trapp's summary of the Platonic interest in nakedness with what we noted consistently follows Clement's treatment of Mark 10:17 - 31. First the reference from Trapp just cited:

As I read him, Maximus is making a familiar Platonist point about the body being an alien encumbrance to the soul when soul and body separate at death, this is no disaster, but a stripping and a freeing of the soul from something it is better off without, because in the process it is returned to directer communion with what it really belongs to (God and the real essences of things).

And now the material we cited in a recent post from three allusions to nakedness associated with the rich youth of Mark 10:17 - 31:

Wherefore also the Lord says, “Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor; and come, follow me.” Follow God, naked of arrogance (γυμνὸς ἀλαζονείας), naked of fading display (γυμνὸς ἐπικήρου πομπῆς), possessed of that which is thine, which is good, what alone cannot be taken away—faith towards God, confession towards Him who suffered, beneficence towards men, which is the most precious of possessions. [Paed 3.2]

Why then command as new, as divine, as alone life-giving, what did not save those of former days? And what peculiar thing is it that the new creature (ἡ καινὴ κτισις) the Son of God intimates and teaches? It is not the outward act which others have done, but something else indicated by it, greater, more godlike, more perfect, the stripping off (γυμνῶσαι) of the passions from the soul itself and from the disposition, and the cutting up by the roots and casting out of what is alien (ἀλλότρια) to the mind. [Quis Dives Salvetur 10 - 12]

“Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me” —that is, follow what is said by the Lord. Some say that by what “thou hast” He designated the things in the soul, of a nature not akin to it, though how these are bestowed on the poor they are not able to say.[Strom 5.5]

There can be no question then that (a) Clement has some familiarity with the idea that intimation that appears in Secret Mark that the rich youth of Mark 10:17 - 31 eventually appears naked before Jesus (b) that Clement's interpretation of this material is derived from Plato and (c) that this understanding was transmitted to other later philosophically minded Christians including Jerome, Gregory Nazianzus, Maximus of Turin and John of Damascus.

In other words, we have established through Professor Trapp's expertise that our two second century Platonists - Maximus of Tyre and Clement of Alexandria - have the same Platonic concept in mind with their use of γυμνὸς γυμνῷ. But is there a relationship between the formula that Maximus cites at least a decade before Clement becomes an active defender of the faith, and therefore, ever came into contact with Theodore:

γυμνὸν γυμνῷ, φίλον φίλῳ, ἐλεύθερον ἐλευθέρῳ

I wrote to Professor Trapp this past Tuesday to ask him to speculate about the possible relationship between the two (three) contemporary uses of γυμνὸν γυμνῷ:

Stephan Huller: Combes-Dounous, the French translator of the Dissertations thinks the γυμνὸν γυμνῷ in γυμνὸν γυμνῷ, φίλον φίλῳ, ἐλεύθερον ἐλευθέρῳ is corrupt. He argues "on lisait ψίλον ψίλῳ, le sens en vaudrait mieux, d'autant que l'adjectif ψίλον a une acception de synonymie avec γυμνός qui le précède." Do you think the formula has been faithfully preserved?

Michael Trapp: What Combes-Dounous is questioning is not γυμνὸν γυμνῷ but φίλον φίλῳ – he thinks the phi’s are mis-writings for psi’s, because he doesn’t like (doesn’t see any particular coherence to) the sequence ‘naked – dear/friendly – free’; but there’s nothing wrong with this combination, each of the terms makes sense in the context of the topic and the image Maximus is using, and Combes-Dounous’s proposed change is if anything worse – the repetitious ‘naked – bare – free’

Stephan Huller: Can we infer from Combes-Dounous difficulties with the passage that it represents a break of some sort in the flow from what precedes the citation of the formula. Do you think that Maximus could be citing a Platonic or Pythagorean formula of some kind?

Michael Trapp: So I don’t think it is any worry about a break in flow from what preceded that is in C-D’s mind. Maximus could be citing a pre-existing Platonic or Pythagorean formula, but it isn’t one we have any other hard evidence for.

Stephan Huller: Could this be a citation of a now unknown saying given the appearance of a sorites - γυμνὸν γυμνῷ, φίλον φίλῳ, ἐλεύθερον ἐλευθέρῳ

Michael Trapp: In theory, but where’s the evidence/incentive? (And technically, I don’t think this counts as a sorites: doesn’t a sorites have to involve a chain of reasoning – one proposition building on the results of the previous one – as opposed to a series of verbal echoes/repetitions – for which (?) anadiplosis is the more appropriate term?)

Stephan Huller: I also notice that the saying is preserved by the Latin translators as nudum nudo, amicum amico, liberum libero. The most famous motto of Jerome was nudus, nudum and this saying was widely influential in western monasticism throughout the ages. Given the discovery of the Mar Saba document and its report of a γυμνὸς γυμνῷ formula known to at least two Christian contemporaries of Maximus and the fact that I think I can connect many of Jerome's formulations with Clement, Origen and Alexandrian Christianity can you envision an appropriation of a Platonic formula by Christians?

Michael Trapp: Clement, Origen and Jerome were all knowledgeable readers of Plato, and there’s a good chance that they all knew Plato Gorgias 523d – the idea that for effective Last Judgement the encounter must be post mortem, of naked soul judging naked soul. But it’s quite a step from this to the ethical advice of nudus nudum Christum sequi, both in topic, and because in the Gorgias passage Plato doesn’t directly juxtapose different inflections of the adjective gymnos.

Of course, this is a very short 'interview.' But I think it is always very useful to prevent oneself from formulating hypotheses and speculative lines of inquiry in a vacuum. It is very important to have theories have to face arguments to the contrary.

To this end, I think that Professor Trapp's reference to Gorgias 532d is actually very useful to understand (a) Clement's aforementioned references to the stripping of the body from the soul and (b) LGM 1 as a kind of refraction of a whole spectrum of Platonic ideas, including ritual nudity. For if we look at what is said in this section of the Gorgias it fits perfectly within the proposed framework of Secret Mark as a Platonic treatise for we read Socrates declare:

SOCRATES: Listen, then, as story-tellers say, to a very pretty tale, which I dare say that you may be disposed to regard as a fable only, but which, as I believe, is a true tale, for I mean to speak the truth. Homer tells us (Il.), how Zeus and Poseidon and Pluto divided the empire which they inherited from their father. Now in the days of Cronos there existed a law respecting the destiny of man, which has always been, and still continues to be in Heaven,--that he who has lived all his life in justice and holiness shall go, when he is dead, to the Islands of the Blessed, and dwell there in perfect happiness out of the reach of evil; but that he who has lived unjustly and impiously shall go to the house of vengeance and punishment, which is called Tartarus. And in the time of Cronos, and even quite lately in the reign of Zeus, the judgment was given on the very day on which the men were to die; the judges were alive, and the men were alive; and the consequence was that the judgments were not well given. Then Pluto and the authorities from the Islands of the Blessed came to Zeus, and said that the souls found their way to the wrong places. Zeus said: 'I shall put a stop to this; the judgments are not well given, because the persons who are judged have their clothes on, for they are alive; and there are many who, having evil souls, are apparelled in fair bodies, or encased in wealth or rank, and, when the day of judgment arrives, numerous witnesses come forward and testify on their behalf that they have lived righteously. The judges are awed by them, and they themselves too have their clothes on when judging; their eyes and ears and their whole bodies are interposed as a veil before their own souls. All this is a hindrance to them; there are the clothes of the judges and the clothes of the judged.--What is to be done? I will tell you:--In the first place, I will deprive men of the foreknowledge of death, which they possess at present: this power which they have Prometheus has already received my orders to take from them: in the second place, they shall be entirely stripped before they are judged, for they shall be judged when they are dead; and the judge too shall be naked, that is to say, dead--he with his naked soul shall pierce into the other naked souls; and they shall die suddenly and be deprived of all their kindred, and leave their brave attire strewn upon the earth--conducted in this manner, the judgment will be just.

I don't want to get too far off track with our analysis here but I want to remind my readership that I am absolutely certain that Secret Mark was not merely the canonical gospel of Mark plus 'new material' like LGM 1 and LGM 2, but something closer to a Diatessaron. Clement is only citing 'new material' in relation to canonical Mark because Theodore's original question demanded it.

The point here is that Secret Mark certainly resembled the structure of the Gospel according to the Hebrews cited by Origen in his Commentary on Matthew and the so-called Phillips gospel narrative which is common to all Diatessaronic texts including the Gospel according the Hebrews. The rich youth is being paired with the rich fool of Luke 12 by the original gospel writer and ultimately meets in the underworld to see his fate. The repentance of the rich youth follows from his witness of the torments of hell in the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative which immediately follows Mark 10:17 - 31 in all Diatessaronic narratives. The rich youth is 'raised' from the tomb in LGM 1 as part of some ancient liturgical cycle referenced throughout the Apostolikon (= 'the letters of Paul') and its 'baptism on behalf of the dead' and baptism being paired with the dead of 'Christ' (the heretics consistently viewed 'Jesus' and 'Christ' as separate figures cf. Irenaeus AH 3.11.7).

Regardless if all of my readers buy into my reconstruction of the gospel, we have from the testimony of Clement himself in the Letter to Theodore the idea that the rich youth of Mark 10:17 - 31 has somehow 'died' and is now 'resurrected.' It is a standard understanding in Judaism, Samaritanism, Christianity and Islam that a judgement of the dead accompanies such an event. The major difference here of course is the idea this 'judgment' isn't taking place at the end of the world but in some ritual setting - probably within the inner sanctum of the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria while the initiate is for all intents and purposes 'still alive.'

'The baptism on behalf of the dead' is clearly something developed from the language of religious mysteries with 'the dead' being associated with the state of those who have yet to 'come alive' or attain 'eternal life.' Yet the more we think about matters it is impossible if indeed the initiates were understood to be 'dead' or perhaps better - if this 'rich youth' was really understood to have been 'dead' that his 'resurrection' and standing in the company of God, naked or otherwise, could have been viewed as anything other than a 'judgement.' Indeed if the Letter to Theodore is to be believed and it is set alongside Clement's other references to what preceded it in the gospel he shared with the Carpocratians then the naked man with naked man reference - i.e. the two men standing in the baptismal waters - comes immediately (a) after Jesus informs the rich youth that he lacks 'love of the neighbor' (i.e. where Clement consistently identifies Jesus as the πλησίον of the Question of the Rich Youth narrative) and the rich youth is deliberately depicted as waking up from his death slumber filled with agape in his heart for Jesus.

In other words, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the 'mystic' gospel of Mark was intended as a kind of fusion of Jewish and Platonic concepts developed from the writings of Philo. Not only do we have an initiate standing before God after his death and resurrection to face judgment, but the entire episode develops in the manner that one would expect if it were a Platonic narrative - i.e. with both judge and dead person 'naked.' At the same time the youth has just come back from seeing his counterpart, the Rich Fool, writhing in everlasting torments but notice of course that even this individual has been introduced now to the doctrine of Christ. The set up is clearly for the Marcionite notion of the baptism of the living here on earth to save the souls of those who died previous and were 'misplaced' in the wrong place because their judgment occurred 'while they were still clothed.' Clement's writings have a very strong notion of Jesus and the apostles coming to the underworld to save those who died without the knowledge of Christ.

All in all, I am beginning to suspect that if we investigate the Alexandrian notion of death, baptism, resurrection and judgment that we will find that these things all were originally understood to have taken place before the 'real' death of the individual and indeed the 'real' destruction of the cosmos in the final conflagration. Those who undergo the Alexandrian Christian rite must have been understood to have been 'pro-active' in this respect - i.e. anticipating the final judgement and now sufficiently purified 'in the body' that when the end comes they would leave this world with a completely spiritual body.

This must be at the bottom of the whole confused reporting of the Origenist notion of the resurrection. The Origenist Evagrius of Pontus clearly intimates much the same thing when he writes "in the last judgment of the righteous, it is not the transformation of the bodies that will be made manifest, rather it will make known their destruction" (Kephalaia Gnostica. II:77). There is still a final judgment for the rest of the world but the Alexandrian gnostics must have thought that their ritual - developed from LGM 1 - made it clear that they had already underwent the judgment with Jesus.

I had always been puzzled about one of the oldest titles associated with the Patriarch of Alexandria - Ecumenical (Universal) Judge. I think this developed from his role as the representative of Christ but also from his original function in the baptism rituals of the Church. He originally must have stood naked alongside the other initiates in imitation of the secret ritual. This is the ultimate source of the γυμνὸς γυμνῷ. The importance of St. Mark's throne is similarly rooted - i.e. it is the judgment seat in the ritual setting.

I will have more to say about this in coming days, but for those who are interested here is a list of references to the Gorgias in the Platonists mentioned in his post:

Maximus Tyrius makes use of 450a, 464cd, 465bc, 484c-e, 485e, 486b-c, 493a, 500dff., 518b; Philo of 464dff., 469cd, 484b, 493a, 500b, 501a, 508b, 509c

Philo of 464dff., 469cd, 484b, 493a, 500b, 501a, 508b, 509c

Clement of Alexandria of 448c, 456a, 465c, 486d, 492c, 497a-c, 508a, 521a, 524ab, 525bc

The emboldened reference will clearly be to the section we are discussing here.  I am too sick right now to do any more writing.  I will have to continue this when I get back from the doctor.  Nevertheless, I think we are uncovering things that the rest of the academic world can't see, would never see - because they are 'boxed in' by their own presuppositions.