Secret Mark and the Alexandrian Christian Interpretation of the Resurrection

We have been spending a lot of time on the doctrine of ritual nudity in Alexandria.  It would seem to prove that the Letter to Theodore is authentic.  Yet in the course of discussing the Platonic roots of LGM 1 (= the first addition to the longer gospel of Mark) we touched upon something rather significant.  If the rich youth of Mark 10:17 - 31 did indeed 'die' and was subsequently 'resurrected' by God (= Jesus) then it would appear that the 'naked man with naked man' reference (remember Clement only cites from Secret Mark to demonstrate that Jesus and the disciple don't actually appear together in the baptismal font; he doesn't actually deny that a baptism took place) was developed from Gorgias 532d as a 'judgment of the dead.'  Why is this significant?  Because there is credible evidence that the Alexandrian tradition denied the future resurrection of the dead.

It isn't just that Methodius and later witnesses cast these words in the mouth of Origen.  It is very strange that Clement indicates a similar attachment to this heretical opinion.

Alexandria was the fountainhead of Hellenistic speculations, and there is an a-priori presumption that the idea of the resurrection was influenced by this atmosphere. An inductive study at once reveals the fact that the resurrection is conceived of in a sense other than it was by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Clement of Alexandria has hardly anything to say on the resurrection. It has for him little interest, and is not a fundamental doctrine in his conception of Christianity. He promised, however, a treatise on the resurrection, but evidently he never composed it, or if so, all traces of it are lost.  In his extant writings the references to the resurrection are not merely brief but also fanciful, so that one can scarcely be confident in the interpretation of certain passages.

Clement repeatedly speaks of the after-life in the sense of immortality; and whenever he refers to the future life in a general way, one receives the impression that in the hereafter it is the soul merely that survives.  Scripture is never appealed to in'an effort to prove the resurrection, or in an attempt to set forth its nature. In any case Clement invariably approaches Christian truths from a philosophical basis rather than on scriptural grounds, and whenever he uses Scripture he prefers an allegorical interpretation. Clement disparaged the body rather than elevated it to the dignity which others had given it. He does not think that the resurrection of the body is necessary on the ground that it may share in the rewards and punishments. "The soul of man is confessedly the better part of man, and the body the inferior" (Strom. IV. 26). The body is the source of sinful tendencies, though not necessarily evil. Piety is for him ascetic, a steadfast abstraction from the body and its passions. "The Gnostic soul must be consecrated to the light, stript of the integuments of matter" (Strom. V. n). The elect man dwells in the body simply as a sojourner; for he leaves his dwelling-place — his body — and turns to heaven, giving thanks for his sojourn and blessing God for his departure (Strom. IV. 26). Souls when released from their bodies in Hades are able to perceive more clearly, because they are no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh (Strom. VI. 6). Thus in his general attitude to the future, in his conception of piety, and seemingly in his disparagement of the flesh, Clement teaches a doctrine of man's survival after death consonant with the Greek idea of immortality.

On the other hand, Clement speaks of the resurrection of the body and the resurrection of the body and the resurrection of the flesh. He repeats these stereotyped expressions without defining their content. In at least two instances he refers to that which rises as flesh (Paed. II. 10; III. 1). But at the same time it is very evident that he does not endeavor to convey the idea that the resurrection is a fleshly resurrection. If he teaches anything concerning a resurrection body, it is a glorified frame which is to be different from this present body. Christ rose "through fire, as the wheat springs from decay to germination," or as earthly fire changes wheat into bread.1 If these words are to be taken seriously, then fire is the agent, not of chastisement, but of sublimation, by which an organism is fitted for existence in a new sphere. Clement also uses a few incidents from the resurrection narratives of the gospels, and one from the Preaching of Peter, but without comment or application.

The situation in the mind of Clement is something like this. He firmly believes in the future existence of the soul. This is in conformity with the trend of his thought and his idea of the relation of body and soul and his philosophical tendencies. But he cannot free himself from the current accepted terms applied to the resurrection. Hence, he is driven to an inconsistency, saying at one time that the resurrection is of the flesh, and at another that flesh is so sublimated in the resurrection that that which is raised is some kind of a spiritual body.  This latter view lends itself more readily to his philosophical conceptions of Greek immortality and undoubtedly was more controlling.

Origen grew up in the same atmosphere ... [Calvin Klopp Staudt The idea of the resurrection in the ante-Nicene period p. 60 - 61]

I do not think that the Alexandrian 'disagreement' on the nature of the resurrection is 'coincidence.' I think it derives from the fact that Secret Mark played such a central role in the culture, defining the very concept of how and when bodies were raised.

My assumption would be that the individual initiates already underwent 'the resurrection' when they were ritually raised from the dead and baptized. I think the Nag Hammadi text a Treatise on the Resurrection will help us out here as well as a re-reading of Origen and the Letter to Theodore ...