I Am So Much Happier After Giving Up Participating in Discussion Boards

Oh my God. A friend noted there was this weird conversation going on at a place I used to frequent. I have to mention it because it epitomizes the emptiness I left.

My reason for leaving was simple. The site owner deliberately provokes "ambiguity" "conflict" "I am not sure" behavior to stimulate traffic at his site. In common parlance (or what used to be common parlance in the 1850s) he "plays the harlot" in order to stimulate participants. 

My dog does this at the dog park. I really have one of the cutest dogs on the planet so my comparison of my dog with the site owner should flatter Peter Kirby. But I've noticed that my dog deliberately greets and fawns over other dogs owners in order to provoke a reaction from his companion canine. 

I think it cute in Tiger, not so cute in a "serious" discussion board. 

Anyway Peter's "taking seriously" of certain "anachronisms" with the Letter to Theodore - specifically an attributive adjective modifying its cognate abstract noun - is just bullshit. Clement, Stromata 6.12.97.1 has:

καὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἰδιότητος ἐποίησεν αὐτόν
“and he made him an image of his own distinctive nature.”

So just fuck right off. This is just a ruse on his part to "stimulate" discussion. The same old same old. I hope the coffee he bought at Starbucks was worth it. 

The never-ending controversy over Secret Mark increasingly resembles a marriage in which one spouse can always find room for criticism. Answer one complaint and another takes its place; explain the offending words and the objection shifts to how they were phrased. In a recent discussion, the Letter of Clement’s reference to “true truth” begins as evidence of modern philosophical perspectivism. When ancient parallels enter the conversation, attention shifts to the precise Greek adjective–noun combination. Each objection deserves consideration, but so does the movement between them. What, exactly, is supposed to be modern here: the idea, the wording, or the English translation? Before bringing Nietzsche into the marriage, we might let Clement speak.

The discussion on the Early Writings forum begins with an argument reproduced from Craig Evans, drawing on Peter Jeffery: the Letter’s “true truth” allegedly reflects a modern conception of truth foreign to antiquity. Later contributions concentrate on whether the precise Greek expression, ἀληθοῦς ἀληθείας, occurs elsewhere in ancient literature.

These are different questions. A phrase can be unusual without expressing an unfamiliar idea. It can also be unattested elsewhere in the surviving literature without being anachronistic. The distinction becomes particularly important when Clement’s undisputed writings supply close parallels for the thought under examination.

Consider Stromata 1.17.85:

ἐν δὲ τοῖς ψεύδεσι καὶ ἀληθῆ τινα ἔλεγον οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται

“Among their falsehoods, the false prophets also said some true things.”

Clement proceeds to invoke Hermas, explaining that a false prophet can speak true words while serving a destructive purpose. Accurate statements do not automatically establish the authority or truthfulness of the person delivering them.

This is immediately relevant to the Letter’s warning against agreeing with the Carpocratians merely because they say something true. Clement’s undisputed work already recognizes the underlying problem: genuine material can occur within deceptive teaching. The recipient must judge more than the isolated accuracy of a statement.

The Letter itself explains its apparently paradoxical assertion that not all true things are truth. Immediately afterward, it states:

συγκεκραμένα γὰρ τἀληθῆ τοῖς πλάσμασι παραχαράσσεται

“For true things, mixed with fabrications, are falsified.”

The problem is identified in the verbs: true material has been mixed with inventions and adulterated in transmission. Its presence does not authenticate the resulting account.

We encounter this distinction constantly. An account can contain accurate quotations, correctly named individuals, and authentic events while arranging them into a misleading story. Recognizing that possibility does not require us to believe that truth is socially constructed. It requires us to distinguish the truth of particular details from the truthfulness of the account containing them.

Litwa’s objection, quoted in the discussion, treats the Letter as asserting that some true things are untrue. But this interpretation needs to address the author’s explanation about mixture. The Letter does not leave its maxim suspended in philosophical abstraction. It applies it to the transmission of material about Mark’s Gospel.

The distinction between the plural “true things” and the abstract noun “truth” makes that reading possible. The following sentence makes it contextually persuasive. The presence of true material does not guarantee truthful transmission.

There is another difficulty with the suggestion that the Letter’s hierarchy of truth sounds modern. Clement explicitly distinguishes forms of truth in Stromata 1.20.97–98. After discussing geometry, music, and philosophy, he writes:

χωρίζεται δὲ ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ ἀλήθεια τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς

“Greek truth is distinguished from our truth.”

He adds that they share the same name while differing in the extent of knowledge, the authority of demonstration, and divine power.

Clement’s belief in the unity of truth therefore coexists with distinctions among the ways people possess and understand it. Calling something “truth” does not, for him, erase differences between philosophical knowledge and divine instruction. A claim that such distinctions belong to modern esotericism must first explain their explicit presence in Clement.

The strongest comparison comes from Stromata 6.15.122–126. There Clement speaks of:

ἡ ὄντως ἀλήθεια

“Genuine truth,” or “the truth that really is.”

He connects this truth with the teaching of the Son and the power of faith. Shortly afterward, he considers heretics who speak of one God and praise Christ, yet concludes:

κατὰ περίληψιν λέγουσιν, οὐ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν

“They speak in general terms, not in accordance with truth.”

His explanation concerns their understanding of God and Christ. The familiar religious language does not guarantee agreement with the teaching transmitted through the prophets. The same chapter then discusses accommodation for salvation and the concealment of scriptural mysteries from unsuitable hearers.

This continuous argument deserves more attention than it receives. Genuine truth, faith, misleading religious statements, selective communication, and concealed mysteries occur together in undisputed Clement. We do not have to assemble them from unrelated authors separated by centuries.

Andrew Criddle’s suggestion that emphatic truth language associated with secrecy sounds characteristically modern encounters a substantial obstacle here. Clement himself supplies an ancient setting for that combination. This does not settle every question about the Letter’s treatment of secrecy, but it prevents the combination from functioning as a self-evident chronological marker.

The appeal to perspectivism is also difficult to reconcile with the Letter’s actual argument. The author assigns authority to truth according to faith and rejects the priority of what appears true according to human opinions. He asserts a governing standard. Whatever one thinks of that standard, identifying it with a denial of objective truth requires an argument that the phrase “true truth” cannot supply on its own.

Peter Kirby’s examination of the proposed parallel from Plato makes a legitimate correction. In Theaetetus 162a, the question is whether Protagoras’ Truth is true. That does not furnish the same attributive construction found in the Letter. There is no reason to pretend otherwise.

But conceding that point does not establish anachronism. The reported searches show that the exact expression has not been located in the material searched. That is relevant to its rarity and potentially to an assessment of style. Establishing a modern date requires an additional explanation of why the expression belongs to a later linguistic or intellectual environment.

Nor can the English translation carry that burden. Finding “true truth” in modern English does not establish that the Greek was composed under its influence. The suggestion that a forger worked on Greek and English simultaneously remains a proposed reconstruction, not something demonstrated by the two Greek words.

The positive evidence from Clement must still be weighed. He acknowledges true statements within false prophecy. He distinguishes Greek truth from Christian truth despite their shared name. He speaks of genuine truth in connection with faith, and he discusses concealed mysteries within the same argument. These passages provide a recognizable Clementine setting for the Letter’s language.

They do not prove that Clement wrote the Letter. A later imitator could have understood Clement’s thought. But that possibility is a different claim from the assertion that the thought is alien to Clement or necessarily modern. An argument for forgery must preserve those distinctions if it is to remain an argument rather than an accumulation of suspicions.

There will always be room for another criticism of Secret Mark. The question is whether the criticism establishes what it claims. Here, the exact wording may remain unusual, but the conceptual setting has substantial ancient parallels in the very author whose name the Letter bears. Before concluding that Clement could not have written it, we should give his surviving Greek more weight than the unfamiliar sound of its English translation.

So happy to go back to my job, not back to responding there.

I Don't Think Women Knew What Gay Was in the 1980s

 

“True Truth” Before Nietzsche: Clement, Irenaeus, and the Interpretation of the Gospel

 Does the “true truth” of the Letter to Theodore require a modern explanation involving Nietzsche? Before making that argument, we should examine what Clement and Irenaeus actually wrote.

In Against Heresies I, Preface 2, Irenaeus explains that error disguises itself persuasively, appearing:

καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ἀληθεστέραν

“even truer than truth itself.”

Here the comparative is explicit. Irenaeus describes false teaching that presents itself as superior knowledge, misleading inexperienced readers through its interpretation of the Lord’s sayings. The distinction between truth and something apparently “truer” is already part of ancient Christian polemic.

The Letter to Theodore makes a related distinction with τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀληθείας, “the true truth,” understood according to faith. This is not grammatically a comparative. Its point is that apparently true statements can mislead: true material mixed with inventions produces a falsified account. The issue is the relationship between accurate details and a truthful interpretation of the whole.

Clement’s acknowledged writings provide two useful comparisons. In the Protrepticus, chapter 3, he addresses a human being as:

ἀληθέστερε τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος

“more truthful than Apollo.”

Contrasting Solon and Cyrus with Apollo’s treatment of Croesus, Clement uses the same comparative adjective found in Irenaeus. A supposed god’s authority does not guarantee truthfulness.

More significant is Stromata I.20.98:

χωρίζεται δὲ ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ ἀλήθεια τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς, εἰ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μετείληφεν ὀνόματος

“Greek truth differs from our truth, even though it shares the same name.”

Clement distinguishes these truths by their scope of knowledge, authority of demonstration, and divine power. He acknowledges truth in Greek philosophy while assigning superior authority to revelation through God’s Son. Things sharing the name “truth” need not possess equal religious authority. This is a much closer conceptual parallel to Theodore’s “true truth.”

Two other works supply supporting context. In Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 5, Clement argues that even apparently plain Gospel sayings require investigation of their hidden meaning. In Paedagogus II.9.80.4, he speaks of contemplating “truth itself.” Neither passage reproduces “true truth” or “truer than truth”; both concern the difference between immediate apprehension and deeper understanding.

Irenaeus’s warning can therefore be read alongside Clement’s claims for authoritative interpretation: what one teacher presents as deeper understanding, a critic may condemn as error masquerading as superior truth. That makes a direct polemical relationship worth investigating, but does not establish that Irenaeus was answering Clement specifically.

The evidence nevertheless challenges the proposed modern explanation. Clement distinguishes forms of truth, and Irenaeus explicitly writes “truer than truth itself.” These ancient parallels must be addressed before the language of Theodore can reasonably be treated as evidence of Nietzsche’s influence.

“True Truth” Before Nietzsche: A Response to Craig Evans

Craig Evans’s appeal to Nietzsche in discussing the Letter to Theodore overlooks an ancient comparison that deserves serious attention. In the passage reproduced in the forum discussion, Evans maintains that the letter’s language reflects nineteenth-century perspectivism rather than ancient thought. But Irenaeus’s Against Heresies supplies a closely related formulation within a directly relevant controversy over truth, deception, and privileged religious knowledge.

Before treating “true truth” as evidence of modern authorship, we should examine what ancient Christians were already saying about truth and its counterfeits.

The Letter to Theodore uses the expression:

τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀληθείας τῆς κατὰ τὴν πίστιν
“the true truth according to faith.”

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies I, Preface 2, describes error presenting itself as:

καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ἀληθεστέραν
“even truer than truth itself.”

The distinction is important. Theodore has the positive adjective, “true”; Irenaeus has the comparative, “truer.” This is not an exact quotation. It is, however, a striking comparison whose significance increases when we examine the surrounding arguments.

Theodore’s letter warns that genuine information can be mixed with invention and transmitted misleadingly. Its distinction between apparent and authentic truth therefore does not simply make truth a matter of individual perspective. The author asserts a standard by which misleading claims can be judged: truth according to faith.

Irenaeus likewise describes deception that succeeds through its resemblance to authenticity. His examples include glass imitating an emerald and base metal mixed with silver. The problem is the difficulty of recognizing corruption when its exterior is convincing.

The strongest argument is that Irenaeus’s “truer than truth” could be a polemical reversal of the kind of claim defended in Theodore. What a teacher presents as access to authentic truth, the critic redescribes as an appearance of superiority that deceives the inexperienced.

The surrounding controversy makes that possibility concrete. Theodore defends a legitimate, restricted Alexandrian Gospel tradition against its alleged Carpocratian corruption. Irenaeus reports that Carpocratian writings claimed private instruction from Jesus to his disciples and apostles, authorized for subsequent transmission to worthy believers. Selective apostolic transmission was therefore an actual issue in the controversy.

The proposed disagreement concerns who can authenticate such teaching. Clement’s account distinguishes faithful custodians from corrupt appropriators. An Irenaean response could challenge the credentials of the custodians themselves: how does their claim to privileged access establish that what they preserve is genuine?

Irenaeus develops the institutional form of that objection in Against Heresies III.3.1. If the apostles had transmitted mysteries privately to the perfect, he argues, they would especially have entrusted them to those responsible for the churches. Apostolic custody must be demonstrable through the churches and their succession.

On this reading, “truer than truth” compresses an attack on claims of superior interpretive authority. The teacher’s supposed credential becomes the critic’s accusation.

Direct dependence remains unproved. Irenaeus does not name Clement here; his immediate targets are Valentinians. Establishing that he responds to this particular letter would require evidence for its priority and his access to it. Reverse dependence and a shared argumentative background remain possible.

But the objection to Evans’s argument does not depend on proving that Irenaeus read Theodore. The ancient comparison already shows that paradoxical language about truth, persuasive appearances, and qualified interpretation belongs within an early Christian controversy. Its presence cannot simply be assigned to Nietzsche without addressing that evidence.

Nor does the parallel establish the letter’s authenticity: a later author could also have known Irenaeus. Its narrower significance is substantial enough. A modern provenance cannot be inferred merely from language for which an ancient conceptual setting is readily available.

The question is therefore concrete: what makes Nietzsche a better explanation of this passage than the ancient disputes over authentic teaching and its counterfeits? That comparison needs to be demonstrated, rather than assumed.

My SBL Presentation (November 21, 2026)

 

The Reason Why Scholars Want to Believe that Morton Smith Forged to Theodore

Why are so many older members of religious academia willing to believe that one of the most respected scholars of the twentieth century was capable of producing a seventeenth-century “fake” of a letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria to a certain Theodore?

That question has fascinated me more than anything else during the twenty years I have spent studying this controversy.

My basic assumption about life is not especially charitable: people lie. People exaggerate. People routinely represent their abilities as being far greater than they actually are. So, in theory, I should be predisposed to accept the idea that Morton Smith lied about his 1958 discovery of a seventeenth-century copy of what purported to be a second-century letter of Clement.

And yet I don’t.

What interests me is why so many leading scholars of the generation immediately following Smith’s death in 1991 became attracted to such an extraordinary theory.

I think part of the answer is that it allows them to avoid looking in the mirror.

Turning Morton Smith into an all-powerful scholarly supervillain creates the comforting possibility that the people who supposedly exposed him must themselves possess extraordinary powers. They become something more than mere philologists—people who study ancient words, manuscripts, and texts.

Consider Bart Ehrman. I have read his dissertation on Didymus the Blind. It is detailed, serious, and nuanced. It is also light-years away from anything that would interest most people. Ehrman subsequently built an enormously successful career by extracting interesting questions from what can otherwise be the rather dry landscape of early Christian studies.

But nothing he discovered during his career remotely compares, in historical importance, with what Morton Smith claimed to have found at Mar Saba: the Letter to Theodore.

There are at least two ways someone in Ehrman’s position might confront that fact. He could simply say: “I never made a discovery comparable to Morton Smith’s.” Or he could take the sour-grapes approach of Aesop’s fox: what cannot be attained must somehow be worthless.

In my view, Ehrman chose something closer to the second approach.

Do I think everyone who rejects the authenticity of To Theodore is simply reenacting Aesop’s fox, deciding that whatever he or she could never attain must therefore be sour? No. Not necessarily.

Indeed, in one respect I would distinguish Ehrman from some of his peers. I do not see his position as being driven by the kind of hostility toward homosexuality that, in my view, contaminated parts of the discussion after Smith’s death. Some scholars were willing to entertain arguments in which Smith’s sexuality became entangled with allegations of forgery in ways that I have always found deeply troubling.

But what, then, binds Ehrman to the broader forgery camp?

I think it is the transformation of Morton Smith into a “supervillain.” Once Smith becomes a scholar capable of constructing an astonishingly sophisticated historical hoax, the people who detect that hoax acquire a corresponding aura of scholarly brilliance. The adjective super migrates from the villain to the detectives pursuing him.

That dynamic matters even more now, with the advent of AI.

Many of the techniques that once made academic writing appear forbiddingly sophisticated can now be examined rapidly by people outside the guild. Arguments can be broken down, sources compared, methodological sleights of hand identified, and mountains of scholarly prose reduced to their actual claims. Quite often, what remains is considerably less impressive than the original performance suggested. As Wieland Willker once memorably put it, a great deal of scholarship amounts to “hot air.”

And this is where Morton Smith becomes genuinely dangerous—not as a forger, but as an example.

Suppose Smith really did discover the Letter to Theodore but fundamentally misinterpreted it.

That possibility is far more unsettling than forgery.

Because if Morton Smith—one of the most formidable scholars of his generation—could completely mess up his analysis of To Theodore, what does that imply about the other ten thousand studies devoted to far less consequential questions in the same field?

That, I think, is why some advocates of the forgery hypothesis are so reluctant to allow any daylight between Smith’s discovery and Smith’s interpretation of it. If the text is authentic but Smith’s exegesis was wrong, then the lesson is not that one uniquely devious scholar fooled everybody.

The lesson is that great scholars can be spectacularly wrong.

And once you admit that, a much more uncomfortable possibility appears: perhaps a considerable portion of the field consists not of accumulated certainty, but of confident interpretations built upon other confident interpretations—many of which may ultimately be little more than hot air.

The forgery theory offers a cleaner story. Smith forged the document; the detectives exposed him; scholarship triumphs.

The alternative is much messier.

Morton Smith made an extraordinary discovery—and then fucked up what it meant.

Introducing the Proverbs Mystery Gospel and Mystery Gospel Hermeneutic

Proverbs, Parables, and the Mystery-Gospel Hermeneutic

The evidence is best presented in two groups: six foundational passages from Clement of Alexandria, followed by six passages showing the continuation of the same hermeneutic in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, and the wider Alexandrian tradition.

outward expression → inward meaning → parable → mystery → public proclamation → private explanation

These passages do not independently prove that a separate written mystery Gospel existed. They do establish that the conceptual and exegetical system presupposed by such a Gospel was real, explicit, and deeply rooted in Alexandrian Christianity.

I. Clement of Alexandria: Six Foundational Passages

1. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.1.13.1–5

English / Greek

“The Lord permitted the divine mysteries and that holy light to be communicated to those capable of receiving them. He did not reveal to the many what did not belong to the many, but to the few whom he knew to be suited to receive them and capable of being formed by them. Secret things, like God, are entrusted to speech, not to writing.... What is hidden from the many will become manifest to the few; for the mysteries are delivered mystically, so that what is spoken resides not merely in the voice but in the understanding.” / «Μεταδιδόναι δὲ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκείνου τοῦ ἁγίου τοῖς χωρεῖν δυναμένοις συγκεχώρηκεν. Αὐτίκα οὐ πολλοῖς ἀπεκάλυψεν ἃ μὴ πολλῶν ἦν, ὀλίγοις δέ, οἷς προσήκειν ἠπίστατο, τοῖς οἵοις τε ἐκδέξασθαι καὶ τυπωθῆναι πρὸς αὐτά· τὰ δὲ ἀπόρρητα, καθάπερ ὁ θεός, λόγῳ πιστεύεται, οὐ γράμματι.... Καὶ τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς κρυπτόν, τοῦτο τοῖς ὀλίγοις φανερὸν γενήσεται.... Ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὰ μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδοται, ἵνα ᾖ ἐν στόματι λαλοῦντος καὶ ᾧ λαλεῖται, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἐν φωνῇ, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ νοεῖσθαι.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — RESTRICTED APOSTOLIC TRANSMISSION. This is Clement’s strongest statement that Jesus disclosed divine mysteries only to recipients capable of receiving them. The material is distinguished from ordinary written communication: what belongs to the few is entrusted through meaningful speech and apprehended in the understanding.

2. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.12.55.1–3

Connection: Mystery wisdom and Matthew 7:6.

English / Greek

“Since this tradition is not common and public to one who perceives the greatness of the Word, it is necessary to conceal ‘the wisdom spoken in a mystery,’ which the Son of God taught.... Even now I fear to cast pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn and tear us.” / «Ἐπεὶ δὲ μὴ κοινὴ ἡ παράδοσις καὶ πάνδημος τῷ γε αἰσθομένῳ τῆς μεγαλειότητος τοῦ λόγου, ἐπικρυπτέον οὖν “τὴν ἐν μυστηρίῳ λαλουμένην σοφίαν”, ἣν ἐδίδαξεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.... Καὶ νῦν δὲ δέδοικα, ὥς φησι, “μὴ βάλλειν τοὺς μαργαρίτας ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων, μήποτε καταπατήσωσιν αὐτοὺς τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ἡμᾶς.”»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — THE SON’S MYSTERY WISDOM. Clement explicitly identifies a non-public tradition with “the wisdom spoken in a mystery” taught by the Son of God. The warning about pearls supplies the Gospel justification for restricting its disclosure.

3. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.4.19.3–20.1

English / Greek

“According to the method of concealment, the truly sacred and divine Word, most necessary for us, was deposited in the sanctuary of truth.... Among the Hebrews it was indicated by the veil. Only the consecrated were permitted access. Hence prophecies and oracles are spoken in enigmas, and the mysteries are not displayed indiscriminately to everyone, but only after certain purifications and preliminary instruction.” / «Κατὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς ἐπικρύψεως μέθοδον ὁ ὄντως ἱερὸς καὶ θεῖος καὶ ἡμῖν ἀναγκαιότατος λόγος ἐν ἀδύτοις τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποκείμενος.... Παρὰ δὲ Ἑβραίοις διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος ἐδηλοῦτο. Μόνοις δὲ τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις ἐξῆν προσιέναι.... Ἔνθεν αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ οἱ χρησμοὶ δι’ αἰνιγμάτων λέγονται, καὶ τὰ μυστήρια οὐχὶ προπετῶς τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐπιδείκνυται, ἀλλὰ μετὰ καθαρμούς τινας καὶ προδιδασκαλίας.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — CONCEALMENT, VEIL, AND INITIATION. Sacred truth is placed behind a veil and approached only after purification and preliminary teaching. Enigmatic expression and restricted access belong to the divinely ordered method of revelation.

4. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.9.58.1–4

English / Greek

“The Scriptures provide true philosophy and true theology only to those who repeatedly approach them and test them through faith and their whole manner of life. They also require an interpreter and guide.... It is not intended that everything be exposed indiscriminately to everyone, nor that the benefits of wisdom be communicated to those who have not been purified even in a dream; nor are the mysteries of the Word to be explained to the profane.” / «Τοῖς γὰρ πολλάκις προσεληλυθόσι καὶ διὰ πίστεως καὶ τοῦ παντὸς βίου πεπειραμένοις τήν τε ὄντως φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τὴν ἀληθῆ θεολογίαν παρέξεται. Βούλεται δὲ καὶ ἐξηγητὴν καὶ καθηγητὴν ἡμᾶς λαβεῖν.... Οὐδὲ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀναπεπταμένως ἐκκεῖσθαι βούλεται, οὐδὲ τὰ τῆς σοφίας ἀγαθὰ μεταδοτέον τοῖς μηδ’ ὄναρ τὴν ψυχὴν κεκαθαρμένοις.... Οὐδὲ τὰ τοῦ λόγου μυστήρια τοῖς βεβήλοις ἐξηγητέον.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — INTERPRETER, PURIFICATION, AND THE PROFANE. The concealed meaning is not obtained simply by reading. Scripture requires an interpreter, a disciplined life, faith, purification, and appropriate preparation. The mysteries of the Logos must not be explained to the profane.

5. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.15.125.1–4

Connection: Proverbs 8:8–9, Matthew 10:27, and the Gospel parables.

English / Greek

“‘What you hear in the ear’—that is, secretly and in a mystery, since things said ‘in the ear’ are spoken figuratively—‘proclaim upon the housetops,’ receiving them in an elevated sense, transmitting them in a lofty manner, and interpreting the Scriptures according to the rule of truth. For neither prophecy nor the Saviour himself uttered the divine mysteries plainly so that casual hearers could easily grasp them; rather, he spoke in parables.” / «“Καὶ ὃ ἀκούετε εἰς τὸ οὖς” — τουτέστι κρυφίως καὶ ἐν μυστηρίῳ· ἐν τῷ ὠτὶ γὰρ λεγόμενα ἀλληγορεῖται — “κηρύξατε”, φησίν, “ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων”, ὑψηλῶς ἐκδεχόμενοι καὶ μεγαλοφώνως παραδιδόντες καὶ κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας τὰς γραφὰς διηγούμενοι. Οὔτε γὰρ ἡ προφητεία οὔτε ὁ σωτὴρ αὐτὸς ἁπλῶς οὕτως, ὡς τοῖς ἐπιτυχοῦσιν εὐάλωτα εἶναι, τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια ἀπεφθέγξατο, ἀλλ’ ἐν παραβολαῖς διελέξατο.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — SECRET GOSPEL RECEPTION AND PARABOLIC TRANSMISSION. Clement explicitly equates hearing “in the ear” with receiving something secretly and in a mystery. The material is interpreted figuratively and transmitted in an elevated form. Jesus’ parables contain divine mysteries not readily accessible to casual hearers.

6. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.15.126.1–127.1

Connection: Proverbs 1:1–6.

English / Greek

“For many reasons the Scriptures conceal their meaning: first, so that we may become seekers and remain continually watchful for the discovery of the words of salvation; and secondly, because it was not appropriate for everyone to understand.... Therefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies, reserved for the elect among humanity—those approved for advancement from faith to knowledge—are veiled in parables; for the character of the Scriptures is parabolic. A parable is a discourse proceeding from something that is not the principal subject but resembles it, leading the person who understands toward the true and principal reality.” / «Διὰ πολλὰς τοίνυν αἰτίας ἐπικρύπτονται τὸν νοῦν αἱ γραφαί, πρῶτον μὲν ἵνα ζητητικοὶ ὑπάρχωμεν καὶ προσαγρυπνῶμεν ἀεὶ τῇ τῶν σωτηρίων λόγων εὑρέσει, ἔπειτα ὅτι μηδὲ τοῖς ἅπασι προσῆκον ἦν νοεῖν.... Διὸ δὴ τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τοῖς τε ἐκ πίστεως εἰς γνῶσιν ἐγκρίτοις, τηρούμενα τὰ ἅγια τῶν προφητειῶν μυστήρια ταῖς παραβολαῖς ἐγκαλύπτεται· παραβολικὸς γὰρ ὁ χαρακτὴρ ὑπάρχει τῶν γραφῶν. Τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἡ παραβολή, λόγος ἀπό τινος οὐ κυρίου μέν, ἐμφεροῦς δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ, ἐπὶ τἀληθὲς καὶ κύριον ἄγων τὸν συνιέντα.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — COMPLETE MYSTERY-GOSPEL HERMENEUTIC. This is Clement’s most complete theoretical statement. Scripture intentionally conceals its meaning; the mysteries are reserved for those progressing from faith to knowledge; the scriptural form is parabolic; and the parable leads the understanding recipient from its surface image to the true underlying reality.

II. Six Later Alexandrian and Neo-Alexandrian Witnesses

1. Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs, Prologue 3

Connection: Proverbs 1:1–6 and John 16:25.

English / Latin

“A proverb is so called when one thing is stated openly, but another is indicated inwardly. ‘I have spoken these things to you in proverbs; the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs, but shall proclaim to you plainly concerning the Father.’” / «Proverbium enim dicitur, cum aliud quidem in promptu dicitur, aliud vero intrinsecus indicatur. “Haec in proverbiis locutus sum vobis; venit hora, cum iam non in proverbiis loquar vobis, sed palam de Patre annuntiabo vobis.”»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — OUTWARD STATEMENT AND INWARD MEANING. Origen supplies the clearest formal definition of the hermeneutic.

outward expression → inward indication → proverbial Gospel speech → plain disclosure

One discourse possesses a publicly stated form while inwardly indicating another reality.

2. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 12:9–12

English / Latin

“There is one thing in the inner kernel and another on the surface. We are taught even in the Gospels that proverbs do not mean simply what is written: the Lord spoke to the people in parables and proverbs, but privately explained them to the apostles.” / «Aliud est in medulla, aliud in superficie. Proverbia quippe non hoc sonare quod scriptum est, etiam in Evangeliis edocemur: quod Dominus populo in parabolis et proverbiis sit locutus; secreto autem Apostolis dissolverit ea.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — SOLOMONIC SURFACE AND PRIVATE GOSPEL EXPLANATION. Jerome explicitly identifies the structure of Solomon’s proverbs with the structure of Jesus’ teaching.

surface → inner kernel → public parables → private apostolic explanation

This is the strongest direct statement that the Gospels authorize the mystery hermeneutic of Proverbs.

3. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium III.1.22–24

Connection: Proverbs 1:6 and 8:22.

English / Greek

“A proverb is discourse which, through things understood at the surface level, secretly indicates something else.... A certain mystical contemplation.” / «Ἡ παροιμία λόγος ἐστὶ διὰ τῶν ἐπιπολαίως νοουμένων ἕτερόν τι κρυπτῶς ἐνδεικνύμενος.... Μυστική τις θεωρία.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — SECRET SIGNIFICATION. Gregory gives the most precise surviving Greek definition of the hermeneutic.

surface-level meaning → secret indication → another referent → mystical contemplation

Even apparently transparent language can contain a reality secretly indicated beneath its surface.

4. Origen, Contra Celsum 3.45–46

English / Greek

“You will find that the multitude of believers who hear the parables are, as it were, outside and worthy only of exoteric teachings, while the disciples privately learn the interpretations of the parables.” / «Εὑρήσεις τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς τῶν πιστευόντων, τοὺς τῶν παραβολῶν ἀκροατάς, ὡς ἔξω τυγχάνοντας καὶ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν μόνον λόγων ἀξίους· τοὺς δὲ μαθητὰς κατ’ ἰδίαν μανθάνοντας τὰς τῶν παραβολῶν διηγήσεις.»

Assessment: ESSENTIAL — EXOTERIC CROWDS AND PRIVATE DISCIPLES. Origen describes differentiated instruction within the Christian audience itself. The wider body of believers receives the outward, exoteric parables; the disciples privately receive their interpretation.

5. Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 1, on Ezekiel 1:13–14

Connection: Proverbs 26:4–5 and 31:15.

English / Latin

“For not everything is suitable for everyone, nor is one and the same teaching presented at every time; rather, the discourse of the teacher must be dispensed according to the capacity of the hearers.... For if you strike the Gospels together, you will discover the mysteries of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the letter and humble history.” / «Neque enim omnibus omnia conveniunt, nec omni tempore una eademque doctrina profertur; sed pro qualitate audientium dispensandus est sermo doctoris.... Si enim Evangelia sibi colliseris, in medio litterae vilisque historiae Spiritus sancti sacramenta reperies.»

Assessment: VERY STRONG — MYSTERIES WITHIN GOSPEL HISTORY. Jerome joins differentiated audiences, measured nourishment, temporary concealment, and mysteries embedded inside the ordinary historical wording of the Gospels. The mystery is not external to the narrative; it is found within it.

6. Jerome, Tractate on Psalm 77, opening

Connection: Proverbs 23:1 and Psalm 77:2.

English / Latin

“This is a mystical psalm, enveloped in mysteries. For one thing is contained in the letter and another in the spirit. The Lord spoke outwardly to the people in parables; inwardly, however, he opened them to the disciples, and what he had spoken obscurely in public he explained more clearly in private.” / «Mysticus psalmus est et sacramentis involutus. Aliud enim in littera, aliud in spiritu continetur. Dominus foris in parabolis loquebatur ad populum; intus autem discipulis aperiebat, et quod publice obscure dixerat, secreto manifestius disserebat.»

Assessment: VERY STRONG — OUTWARD PARABLE AND INWARD DISCLOSURE. Jerome presents the complete pattern.

Proverbs’ banquet → scriptural mysteries → letter and spirit → outward public parables → inward private explanation

The spatial contrast between “outside” and “inside” becomes a distinction between public parabolic discourse and private interpretive disclosure.

III. The Combined Pattern

Element	Clement	Later witnesses
Divine mysteries are not disclosed indiscriminately.	Stromata 1.1.13; 1.12.55; 5.4.19–20	Origen, Contra Celsum 3.45–46
Teaching is adapted to the capacity of the recipient.	Stromata 1.1.13; 5.9.58	Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 1
Parables conceal divine mysteries.	Stromata 6.15.125–127	Origen, Gregory, and Jerome
One thing appears outwardly while another is indicated inwardly.	Implied by Clement’s definition of parable	Origen, Song of Songs, Prologue 3; Gregory, Contra Eunomium III.1
The crowds receive the public discourse.	Stromata 6.15.125	Origen, Contra Celsum 3.45–46; Jerome, Psalm 77
Disciples or apostles receive private interpretation.	Stromata 1.1.13	Origen and Jerome
Mysteries remain within the wording and history of Scripture.	Stromata 6.15.126–127	Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 1

Conclusion

The six Clementine passages establish the foundational Alexandrian system.

Clement says that Jesus did not reveal to the many what did not belong to the many, but disclosed divine mysteries to the few capable of receiving them. The secret things were entrusted through meaningful speech rather than ordinary writing. The mysteries were delivered mystically and existed not merely in the speaker’s voice but in the understanding of the recipient.

Clement identifies a non-public tradition with “the wisdom spoken in a mystery” taught by the Son of God. He presents sacred truth as hidden behind a veil and approached only after purification and preliminary instruction. Scripture requires an interpreter and guide, and the mysteries of the Logos must not be explained to the profane.

Most importantly, Clement directly connects the Gospel with this system. What Jesus spoke “in the ear” was received secretly and in a mystery. Neither prophecy nor the Saviour expressed the divine mysteries plainly; Jesus spoke them in parables. Scripture intentionally conceals its meaning, and its holy mysteries are reserved for those advancing from faith to knowledge.

The six later witnesses confirm and clarify the same pattern.

Origen defines a proverb as discourse in which one thing is spoken outwardly while another is indicated inwardly. He also distinguishes the multitude of believers who receive exoteric parables from the disciples who privately receive their interpretations.

Gregory of Nyssa defines proverbial language as surface-level discourse secretly indicating another reality and containing a mystical contemplation.

Jerome states that Solomon’s proverbs possess one thing on the surface and another in their inner kernel. He explicitly says that the Gospels teach this principle because Jesus spoke publicly in parables and proverbs but privately explained them to the apostles. Jerome further maintains that the mysteries of the Holy Spirit can be found within the ordinary letter and humble history of the Gospels.

the many / the few

the outward statement / the inward meaning

the public parable / the private explanation

the written surface / the divine mystery

ordinary faith / advancement toward knowledge

These texts do not independently prove the historical existence of a separate written mystery Gospel. They do establish that the intellectual, pedagogical, and exegetical system presupposed by such a Gospel was real, explicit, and deeply rooted in Clement’s Alexandrian Christianity, and that it remained intelligible to the later Alexandrian and neo-Alexandrian Fathers.

Cole Porter is the greatest. Please like:

Photos of the Mar Saba Manuscript Shelves at the Jerusalem Patriarchate

The Closest Thing to the Cultural Milieu rhat Produced Secret Mark

From certain copies of John Moschus's Spiritual Meadow (depicting events from around 540 CE)

We came to Abba Stephen the Cappadocian, on Mount Sinai, and he related to us, saying: “When I was in Raithou five years ago, on Holy and Great Thursday, I was in the church, and while the Eucharistic offering was being performed and all the fathers were standing there, behold, I saw two certain anchorites entering the church. They were naked. And no one else among the fathers perceived that they were naked, except I alone. So when they had partaken of the Lord’s body and blood of Christ our God, they went out from the fortress; and I went out together with them. When we had gone out, I made a prostration before them, saying: ‘Do me the favor (literally do me the act of love"): take me with you.’ But they understood that I had seen them naked, and they said to me: ‘You are sitting well; remain quiet.’ Again I made a prostration before them, so that they might take me. Then they said to me: ‘You cannot be with us. Stay where you are; you are sitting well.’ And after they had made a prayer for me, in front of me, walking on foot upon the waters of the Red Sea, they departed to the other side of the sea.” 

Παρεβάλομεν πρὸς τὸν ἀββᾶν Στέφανον τὸν Καππαδόκην, εἰς τὸ Σινᾶ ὄρος, καὶ διηγήσατο ἡμῖν λέγων ὅτι ὢν ἐγὼ ἐν Ῥαϊθοῦ πρὸ τούτων τῶν πέντε ἐτῶν, ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ πέμπτῃ ἤμην ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, καὶ τῆς ἀναφορᾶς ἐπιτελουμένης καὶ πάντων τῶν πατέρων ἱσταμένων, ἰδοὺ θεωρῶ δύο τινὰς ἀναχωρητὰς εἰσελθόντας ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἦσαν δὲ γυμνοί. Καὶ οὐδεὶς ἄλλος τῶν πατέρων ἐθεώρησεν ὅτι γυμνοί εἰσιν, εἰ μὴ ἐγὼ μόνος. Ὡς οὖν μετέλαβον τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ κάστρου· ἐγὼ δὲ συνεξῆλθον αὐτοῖς. Ὅταν οὖν ἐξήλθομεν, βάλλω αὐτοῖς μετάνοιαν λέγων· Ποιήσατε ἀγάπην, λάβετέ με μεθ’ ὑμῶν. Αὐτοὶ δὲ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐθεώρουν αὐτοὺς γυμνοὺς, λέγουσί μοι καὶ αὐτοί· καλῶς κάθῃ, ἡσύχασον. Πάλιν ἐγὼ ἔβαλον αὐτοῖς μετάνοιαν, ἵνα λάβωσί με· τότε εἶπόν μοι· Οὐ δύνασαι μεθ’ ἡμῶν, κάθου, καλῶς κάθῃ. Καὶ ποιήσαντές μοι εὐχήν, ἔμπροσθέν μου ἐπάνω τῶν ὑδάτων τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης πεζεύσαντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης. (= Mark 5:1) 

 Mark 5:1: καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης — “and they came to the other side of the sea.” Secret Mark: Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου.

This narrative is found first in the Greek monastic literature of the 6th–7th century. In John Moschus’s Pratum Spirituale (Λειμώνάριον, “Spiritual Meadow”, BHG 1441–42) it appears as chapter 122. The chapter title in Greek reads roughly “Concerning two monks who went naked into church to make their communion, and were not seen by anybody except Abba Stephan” . (Moschus’s Pratum is a collection of ascetic anecdotes composed c. 600 AD.) Modern editions group this under Anastasius’s narratives, but the story as such is Moschus’s (John Wortley’s English translation of the Pratum also includes it). In the manuscripts it runs e.g. “Παρεβάλομεν πρὸς τὸν ἀββᾶν Στέφανον… εἰδὼς θεωρῶ δύο τινὰς ἀναχωρητὰς εἰσελθόντας ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἦσαν δὲ γυμνοί” (as edited by Pattenden). Key Greek witnesses belong to the φ and μ families of the Pratum. 

For example, Florence Laurenziana Plutei X.3 (12th c., φ-group) and Venice Marcianus Gr. II.21 (10th c., μ-group) both contain chap. 122

. (Pattenden 1975 analyzes these families in JTS 26.)

Greek sources: The story is chapter 122 of Moschus’s Pratum . It is explicitly printed in Du Duc’s 1624 edition (Fronto Ducaeus, Acta SS.) and in Cotelier’s 1681 Spiritualia with parallel Latin. Migne’s PG vol. 87 reprints the Greek (cols. 2852–3112) and Latin (questio CXXII, cols. 2983–2986) . (In PG 87 the Latin stands under “Questio CXXII”.) The Greek version is also quoted by Anastasius of Sinai in his Narrations (see F. Nau 1902) and by later collections – e.g. Pitra’s Anastasiana lists it as item no.39 of the Cypriot Anastasius’s tales.

Latin traditions: A Latin translation appears in the Patrologia Graeca: Migne reprints it under “Questio CXXII” (cols. 2983–2986) . (Fronton du Duc and Cotelier both published Latin versions.) Ambrogio Traversari made a Latin version of Moschus in the 15th c., printed by Rosweyde (1615, Vitae Patrum) as PL 74, cols. 119–240; this too contains chap. 122 in Latin (Vitae Patrum index). The online vitae-patrum.org site reproduces a Latin/English translation of the Pratum.

Manuscript witnesses: In addition to Laurenziana X.3 and Marcianus 163 (see above), the story is found in many medieval manuscripts of the Pratum. Pattenden notes that over 100 mss. contain this text . Key witnesses include Paris Gr. 1596 (mixed collection, π-group), Vatican gr. 738 (used by Fronto Ducaeus), and others. Modern catalogs (e.g. the Dumbarton Oaks database) list “Moschus, Spiritual Meadow, Anastasius narratives” with Greek and Latin mss. The Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem has MS 113 (17th c.) containing this story.

Modern editions and studies: The Greek text was edited by F. Nau (“Le texte grec des récits du moine Anastase…”, Oriens Christianus 2 [1902] 58–89)

, and an English translation by John Wortley appears in Cistercian Studies 139 (1992). R. Pattenden collated the mss. (“The text of the Pratum”, JTS 26 [1975]). Derek Krueger (2011) analyzes the tale (“Between Monks…”, J. History of Sexuality 20(1):28–61), summarizing it as “They were naked, yet none of the other fathers perceived that they were naked except me.”

Krueger and others note the motif of naked communion and miraculous crossing of the Red Sea.

Summary of variants: In short, the only known versions are those deriving from John Moschus’s account. It is preserved in the Greek Pratum (chap. 122) and its Latin translations; no independent analog in other Patristic works is known. All attestations – Greek manuscripts (φ/μ families), Migne’s PG, Pitra’s catalog entry, and modern studies – stem from that source.

Sources: John Moschos, Pratum Spirituale (chap. 122)

; G. H. B. Pattenden, Journal Theol. Studies 1975; F. Nau, Oriens Christianus 1902 ; Migne PG 87; D. Krueger 2011

. (See also Roger Pearse’s summary of the Pratum manuscripts .)

Random Aphorisms About Christianity

Developing exclusively from faith,  Christianity demands all doubters prove themselves beyond a reasonable doubt.