We started with a simple observation. The term 'diatessaron' cannot mean what scholars have learned to accept its meaning to be. It can't mean a gospel made 'through four' other gospels. As we noted in previous posts, the term is unquestionably rooted in Pythagoreanism. Its real meaning was known to almost everyone in antiquity. It described the musical interval of a 'perfect fourth.' Plutarch demonstrates in his Moralia that even common men hanging around in taverns were aware that diatessaron meant a 4:3 ration (and thus one to be avoided unless you wanted watered down drinks!).
The point again is that when we reconstruct what 'Diatessaron' necessarily meant originally to Christians of the second century, we can't continue to accept later orthodox propaganda any longer. The term diatessaron can't have been used to describe a gospel 'harmonized' from our four canonical gospels. A diatessaron wasn't a chord, it was an interval made up of only two notes. As we have noted many times here, a diatessaron wasn't a harmony of four, but a harmony of two.
Of course, there is a difficulty here. Clement's writings are very difficult to read and even harder to understand. The reason for this is simple - they are often 'mystical' in nature. They are by nature attempting to describe something which isn't supposed to be revealed openly. So it is that we are often left groping in the dark, perhaps understanding the individual references but ultimately not understanding what the underlying point is in any section of his writings.
I have often tried to bring forward bits and pieces of Clement's writings to demonstrate that Clement makes reference to the very ideas at the heart of the Mar Saba document, often to mixed results. The difficulty is of course goes back to what we just noted, you never can be sure what Clement is actually driving at. Given the fact that he is dealing with a mystical material one can never be too sure if we are 'reading too much' into what he is saying. That is the difficulty inherent in proving the authenticity of the Mar Saba document. The real Clement and his Alexandrian tradition is surrounded by a historical darkness.
So what's so great about mathematics? Math is wonderful because it can't be altered. It essentially deals with fixed values. Its beauty lies in the fact that it transcends subjectivity. The number 5 is the same in any culture you visit - its value never changes.
It just so happens in the long 'mathe-mystical' discussion which leads up to his intimation of a wonderfully, sublime 'mystical truth at the heart of the two feeding of the multitudes narratives which he can't reveal is centrally focused on the musical harmonies of the Pythagorean and especially the diatessaron. He even begins the discussion with a reference to the existence of a 'secret gospel' narrative which is distinguished from our familiar gospels of 'faith.' I think this section in question demonstrates an unmistakable parallel to the 'public' gospel of faith and the 'secret' gospel according to perfect knowledge in the Letter to Theodore. I think many of you will end up agreeing with me if you follow my argument through right to the end.
Thus we see Clement in the middle of Book Six make explicit reference to the idea that in order for us to essentially make the leap from 'faith' in the Son to 'knowledge' of the Father, one has to understand the fundamental principals of Pythagorean harmony (συμφωνία). He notes that the 'gnostic' must apply himself:
to the subjects that are a training for knowledge, taking from each branch of study its contribution to the truth. Prosecuting, then, the proportion of harmonies in music; and in arithmetic noting the increasing and decreasing of numbers, and their relations to one another, and how the most of things fall under some proportion of numbers; studying geometry, which is abstract essence, he perceives a continuous distance, and an immutable essence which is different from these bodies. And by astronomy, again, raised from the earth in his mind, he is elevated along with heaven, and will revolve with its revolution; studying ever divine things, and their harmony (συμφωνίαν) with each other; from which Abraham starting, ascended to the knowledge of Him who created them. Further, the Gnostic will avail himself of dialectics, fixing on the distinction of genera into species, and will master the distinction of existences, till he come to what are primary and simple.
But the multitude are frightened at the Hellenic philosophy, as children are at masks, being afraid lest it lead them astray. But if the faith (for I cannot call it knowledge) which they possess be such as to be dissolved by plausible speech, let it be by all means dissolved, and let them confess that they will not retain the truth. For truth is immoveable; but false opinion dissolves. We choose, for instance, one purple by comparison with another purple. So that, if one confesses that he has not a heart that has been made right, he has not the table of the money-changers or the test of words. And how can he be any longer a money-changer, who is not able to prove and distinguish spurious coin, even offhand?[Strom. 6.10]
I take it as very significant that Clement should reference a saying from the non-canonical gospel at this point in his discussion - i.e. just after reinforcing again the existence of a divine truth apprehended through 'knowledge' rather than mere 'faith.' The same saying occurs in Strom 1.28 under much the same context "With reason, then, the scripture, wishing us to become such kind of dialectics, exhorts: But become approved moneychangers, rejecting the [evil] things, and embracing the good."
Now that we have become acquainted with the Letter to Theodore we already know the likely source for this 'agrapha' - viz. the secret gospel of Mark. This is a text which superficially resembles but is fundamentally different from the 'public gospel' of Mark. The public gospel of Mark is clearly little more than what is referenced in 1 Cor 2:1 - 5 a doctrine of "Christ and him crucified." The secret gospel of Mark is the "secret wisdom reserved for the perfect." Yet it would seem that for Clement at least, Pythagoreanism is the gateway toward understanding this 'mystic' text.
So it is that we read in what follows that such a gnostic "will not then be deficient in what contributes to proficiency in the curriculum of studies and the Hellenic philosophy." Yet Clement throws up a flag of caution for his orthodox readers. Unlike the heresies who apparently delight too much in these esoteric principles the true Gnostic will use the Pythagorean doctrines "rightly" (καταχρήσεται).
Clement's caution must be attributed to the fear of being recognized for what he really was - a heretic. The section which immediately follows has already been demonstrated by Schaff and others to witness Clement's association with the so called 'Marcosian' sect (i.e. 'those of Mark' Iren. AH 1.13 - 21). Clement rattles off a number of Pythagorean interpretations of scripture beginning with the firmest proof that there really was such a mystical underpinning to the Torah - viz. the name Eliezer having the numerical value of 318. Yet it is very difficult to follow this long section - which essentially acts as a bridge from this last statement that only Pythagoreanism can unlock the gnostic secrets of the Bible - with the conclusion of the section viz. the mystical secret at the heart of the two descriptions of the feeding of the multitudes in the gospel.
I will cite the section as a whole and then follow it up with Harold Attridge's excellent discussion of the Pythagorean theory that Clement is channeling. It must be acknowledged however that Attridge himself can't figure out what the actual point to Clement's long digression is. Attridge isn't alone. No one has been able to figure it out. I think we have finally cracked the code as it were - Clement is referencing the existence of Secret Mark by means of the Pythagorean interest in musical theory. I will let my readers be the ultimate arbiters of whether we are right or wrong. The section which immediately follows our last citation from the Stromateis Book Six reads:
As then in astronomy we have Abraham as an instance, so also in arithmetic we have the same Abraham. “For, hearing that Lot was taken captive, and having numbered his own servants, born in his house, 318 (τιὴ),” he defeats a very great number of the enemy.Attridge explains the passage as follows:
They say, then, that the character representing 300 is, as to shape, the type of the Lord’s sign, and that the Iota and the Eta indicate the Saviour’s name; that it was indicated, accordingly, that Abraham’s domestics were in salvation, who having fled to the Sign and the Name became lords of the captives, and of the very many unbelieving nations that followed them.
Now the number 300 is, 3 by 100. Ten is allowed to be the perfect number. And 8 is the first cube, which is equality in all the dimensions—length, breadth, depth. “The days of men shall be,” it is said, “120 (ρκ´) years.” And the sum is made up of the numbers from 1 to 15 added together. And the moon at 15 days is full.
On another principle, 120 is a triangular number, and consists of the equality of the number 64, [which consists of eight of the odd numbers beginning with unity], the addition of which (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15) in succession generate squares; and of the inequality of the number 56, consisting of seven of the even numbers beginning with 2 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14), which produce the numbers that are not squares
Again, according to another way of indicating, the number 120 consists of four numbers—of one triangle, 15; of another, a square, 25; of a third, a pentagon, 35; and of a fourth, a hexagon, 45. The 5 is taken according to the same ratio in each mode. For in triangular numbers, from the unity 5 comes 15; and in squares, 25; and of those in succession, proportionally. Now 25, which is the number 5 from unity, is said to be the symbol of the Levitical tribe. And the number 35 depends also on the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic scale of doubles—6, 8, 9, 12; the addition of which makes 35. In these days, the Jews say that seven months’ children are formed. And the number 45 depends on the scale of triples—6, 9, 12, 18—the addition of which makes 45; and similarly, in these days they say that nine months’ children are formed.[Strom. 6.11]
The passage falls into two parts. The first involves gematria, linking the number in Scripture (318) with the name of Jesus. This traditional exegesis appears in the Epistle of Barnabas 9.7-9, written before 135 CE, possibly in Alexandria and cited by Clement. The second half of the exposition is more recondite, yet the theories involved are basic to Greek arithmetic and readily found in the standard first-century CE handbook Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus of Gerasa. Fundamental is the Pythagorean notion that numbers (or at least positive integers) may be expressed as geometrical shapes. Thus Nicomachus explains triangular numbers:
A triangular number is one which, when it is analyzed into units, shapes into triangular form the equilateral placement of its parts in a plane. 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28 and so on, are examples of it; for their regular formations, expressed graphically, will be at once triangular and equilateral. (Introduction to the Arithmetic 2.20.1)
The sequence of such triangular numbers continues: 36, 45, 55, 66, 78, 105, 120. In the triangular arrangement of 120, the number of interest to Clement, there would be fifteen rows of dots. The number of dots in each row would be that of the successive positive integers from 1 to 15. He is intrigued by one property of this geometrically arranged number, that the sums of successive pairs of odd-numbered rows are squares,50 while the even ones are not.
Clement also finds it of interest that 120 can be expressed as the sum of other regular geometrical numbers, a triangle (15), square (25), pentagon (35), and hexagon (45). 52 The pentagonal number 35 further excites his interest because of the way one set of its addends (6, 8,, 12) combines the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic proportions, a theory dear to Greek arithmeticists. This requires some explanation.
Proportions can be expressed as the relationship between two sets of numbers: a : b : : c : d. In some proportions, or in Clement's term "scale of doubles," b may = c, and the proportion will consist of two terms and a "mean" defined in various ways. Of proportions in general, Nicomachus notes,
After this it would be the proper time to incorporate the nature of proportions, Of proportions in general, Nicomachus notes, After this it would be the proper time to incorporate the nature of proportions, a thing most essential for speculation about the nature of the universe and for the propositions of music, astronomy, and geometry, and not least for the study of the works of the ancients, and thus to bring the Introduction to Arithmetic to the end that is at once suitable and fitting.(Introduction to Arithmetic 2.21.1)
The first three proportions, then, which are acknowledged by all the ancients, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, are the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic; and there are three others subcontrary to them, which do not have names of their own, but are called in more general terms the fourth, fifth, and sixth forms of mean; after which the moderns discover four others as well, making up the number ten, which, according to the Pythagorean view, is the most perfect possible.(Introduction to Arithmetic 2.22.1)
The general definition of the three proportions is as follows:
In the arithmetic proportion the mean term is one that exceeds and is exceeded by an equal amount; in the geometric proportion it is differentiated from the extremes by the same ratio, and in the harmonic it is greater and smaller than the extremes by the same fraction of those same extremes. (ibid 2.27.1)
To simplify, in an arithmetic proportion the terms will differ by the same amount (a : b : : b : c where ba = cb, or b = [a + c]/2). Thus for the numbers in question, the arithmetic proportion obtains 6 : 9 : : 9 : 12. [emphasis mine] In a geometric proportion the ratio between the terms will be equivalent (a : b : : c : d; where a/b = c/d). Thus for the numbers in question, the geometric proportion obtains 6 : 8 : : 9 : 12. In a harmonic proportion the ratio between the end terms will be the same as the ratio between the differences between the middle and end term to the relevant end term (a : b : : b : c; where a/c = [b - a]/[c - b]). Nicomachus gives a formula for determining the harmonic mean: "For the harmonic mean, you must multiply the difference of the extremes by the lesser term and divide the product by the sum of the extremes, then add the quotient to the lesser term, and the result will be the harmonic mean."(ibid 27.7.1) For the terms in question, in question, 6 and 12, the formula {harmonic mean = a[(c - a)/(a + c)] + a} yields 8. Hence the harmonic proportion is 6 : 8 : : 8 : 12, and the ratio of the differences is equivalent (2/6 = 4/12).
What can one make of such a passage? On the surface, Clement seems to be even more "scientific" than Plutarch's polite company, where, despite some discussion of proportions, there are no mathematical gymnastics of the sort in evidence in the Stromata. Yet the fact that this passage is singular in the Stromata should give pause. Clement's remarks in the second half of the "mathematical" tour de force are as traditional as the passage on the number 318 that is shared with Barnabas. Most of Clement's speculation, in fact, derives from Jewish exegetical sources. Philo of Alexandria, whom Clement knows and cites, was enamored of the symbolic value of numbers in ways that probably influenced Clement. For instance, a passage of Philo illuminates Clement's treatment of the proportions involved in the sequence 6, 8, 9, 12. In his rhapsodic reflection on the number 7 in De opificio mundi 107-8, Philo argues:
It (the number 7) is, not only a bringer of perfection, but, one may say, absolutely harmonious, and in a certain sense the source of the most beautiful scale, which contains all the harmonies, that yielded by the δια τεσσάρων, by the διὰ πέντε and by the διά πασων (the octave) and all the progressions, the arithmetic, the geometric, and the harmonic as well. The scheme is formed out of the following numbers: 6, 8, 9, 12. 8 stands to 6 in the proportion 4 : 3, which regulates the harmony of the δια τεσσάρων, 9 stands to 6 in the proportion 3 : 2, which regulates the harmony of the διὰ πέντε; 12 stands to 6 in the proportion 2:1, which regulates the octave. And, as I said, it contains all the progressions, the arithmetic, made up of 6 and 9 and 12 — for as the middle number exceeds the first by 3, so it in its turn is exceeded to the same amount by the last ; the geometric, made up of the four numbers (6, 8, 9, 12) ; for 12 bears the same proportion to 9 that 8 does to 6, and the proportion is 4 : 3; the harmonic, made up of three numbers (6, 8, and 12), etc (On the Creation 105 - 110)
Philo has obviously adapted arithmetical theory on number progressions to his reflection on 7, where the mathematical theory does not, in fact, fit. Clement has followed in his footsteps, deploying the theory of proportions, without the hebdomadic concerns [Attridge, What the Gnostics Knew Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson p. 9 - 13]
This is a very important reference to unlock the secrets to thw whole section. Attridge is trying to help us understand Clement's use of Pythagorean musical harmonies. Clement is alluding to technical terminology that his educated audience would have been very familiar with before applying it symbolically to the dimensions of the tabernacle and then ultimately moving on to apply it to the two feeding of the multitude narratives of the gospel.
Clement's point is quite obvious that the gospel - or gospels - were written according to Pythagorean principles. This will become clearer as continue to go through the section. As Attridge rightly notes, it is not as if Clement is simply applying Pythagoreanism haphazardly to his understanding of the Bible. It is clearly being filtered through Philo who has already strangely - as Attridge notes - applied the number seven to traditional Pythagorean musical harmony. Attridge doesn't mention that Clement saw something else in the section cited from On the Creation which clearly must been central to his interest in musical theory - the idea that Philo says that the number seven itself is a 'perfect fourth' i.e. the diatessaron.
Philo references the well known Pythagorean interest the series 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 in which each number is twice the one before
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
8 + 8 = 16
16 + 16 = 32
32 + 32 = 64
The whole discussion is to give, as Philo says:
for the particular praise of the number seven, that it has a very admirable rank in nature, because it is composed of three and four. And if any one doubles the third number after the unit, he will find a square (= 6); and if he doubles the fourth number, he will find a cube (= 8). And if he doubles the seventh from both, he will both a cube and a square; therefore, the third number from the unit is a square in a double ratio. And the fourth number (4), eight, is a cube. And the seventh number, being sixty-four, is both a cube and a square at the same time; so that the seventh number is really a perfecting one, signifying both equalities, ùthe plane superficies by the square, according to the connection with the number three, and the solid by the cube according to its relationship to the number four; and of the numbers three and four, are composed the number seven. (Op Mundi 106)
So it is that we see that Clement goes on to immediately draw us towards another musical example - this time that of king David, the forerunner of Christ playing a lyre. Clement says:
Further, as an example of music, let us adduce David, playing at once and prophesying, melodiously praising God. Now the Enarmonic suits best the Dorian harmony, and the Diatonic the Phrygian, as Aristoxenus says. The harmony, therefore, of the Barbarian psaltery, which exhibited gravity of strain, being the most ancient, most certainly became a model for Terpander, for the Dorian harmony, who sings the praise of Zeus thus:—
“O Zeus, of all things the Beginning, Ruler of all;
O Zeus, I send thee this beginning of hymns.”
The lyre, according to its primary signification, may by the psalmist be used figuratively for the Lord; according to its secondary, for those who continually strike the chords of their souls under the direction of the Choir-master, the Lord. And if the people saved be called the lyre, it will be understood to be in consequence of their giving glory musically, through the inspiration of the Word and the knowledge of God, being struck by the Word so as to produce faith. You may take music in another way, as the ecclesiastical symphony at once of the law and the prophets, and the apostles along with the Gospel, and the harmony which obtained in each prophet, in the transitions of the persons
Let us start with Clement's reference to the ἐναρμονικόν, διάτονον, and χρωματικόν. When we do a search for information on the web we discover that:
The basic musical scale unit of ancient Greece was the tetrachord meaning literally four strings. The first and fourth notes of the tetrachord were always tuned to the interval of a diatessaron (fourth) but the tuning of the other strings depended on the genus and mode of the music. In the ancient Greek system notes of a scale were arranged in descending order. In the diatonic (διάτονον) genus the tuning of the other intervals comprised two tones and a semitone. The chromatic (χρωματικόν) genus comprised a minor third (three semitones) and two semitones. The enharmonic (ἐναρμονικόν) mode comprised a major third (two tones) and two quarter tones. Prior to Pythagoras there appears to be little evidence of a theoretical basis for the tuning of musical scales. Pythagoras was involved with the science of harmonics which was separate from the practical art of music. In the absence of a theoretical basis for the tuning of scales the actual tuning can only have been empirical and probably varied widely.
So it is when we go back to what Clement says about "the lyre" being used as a symbol "for the Lord" and that follows viz.
according to its secondary, for those who continually strike the chords of their souls under the direction of the Choir-master, the Lord. And if the people saved be called the lyre, it will be understood to be in consequence of their giving glory musically, through the inspiration of the Word and the knowledge of God, being struck by the Word so as to produce faith.
Clement is really saying that holy Scripture is attuned to the diatessaron which again, as we noted, is the interval of which the first and fourth strings are tuned.
The significance of this 'tuning' is clearly used by Clement as a means to express that one 'text' is attuned' to another 'text' as by a diatessaron. Yet he is deliberately vague in terms of saying what are the two things being harmonized by the diatessaron. We only hear that:
You may take music in another way, as the ecclesiastical symphony at once of the law and the prophets, and the apostles along with the Gospel, and the harmony which obtained in each prophet, in the transitions of the personsHowever there is clearly something more which Clement isn't saying. We know this not only by his introductory remarks which reference a saying always quoted from some extra-canonical gospel but also because in the course of making his way to the reference to the two feeding of the multitude narratives, he makes explicit reference to a great 'secret' that most newly baptized Christians are unaware of. We read in what immediately follows Clement saying that:
But, as seems, the most of those who are inscribed with the Name,(i.e. the sign of the cross) like the companions of Ulysses, handle the word unskilfully, passing by not the Sirens, but the rhythm and the melody, stopping their ears with ignorance; since they know that, after lending their ears to Hellenic studies, they will never subsequently be able to retrace their steps. But he who culls what is useful for the advantage of the catechumens, and especially when they are Greeks ... must not abstain from erudition, like irrational animals; but he must collect as many aids as possible for his hearers. But he must by no means linger over these studies, except solely for the advantage accruing from them; so that, on grasping and obtaining this, he may be able to take his departure home to the true philosophy, which is a strong cable for the soul, providing security from everything.
Music is then to be handled for the sake of the embellishment and composure of manners. For instance, at a banquet we pledge each other while the music is playing; soothing by song the eagerness of our desires, and glorifying God for the copious gift of human enjoyments, for His perpetual supply of the food necessary for the growth of the body and of the soul. But we must reject superfluous music, which enervates men’s souls, and leads to variety,—now mournful, and then licentious and voluptuous, and then frenzied and frantic.
Of course those who have developed a great familiarity with the Letter to Theodore can immediately see where this discussion is necessarily leading us - to the existence of a 'secret gospel' attuned to the more familiar canonical gospels by means of a 'diatessaron' - which is only introduced to the catechumen at their baptism.
Clement in the Letter to Thedoore of course after explaining to Theodore that there was this secret text developed from the familiar canonical gospel of Mark makes explicit reference to this very same idea noting:
Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteriesNot surprisingly after citing two 'mystical' additions to the 'secret' gospel of Mark (the text which is presumably referencing in Strom. 6.11 as according with the canonical gospel of Mark by means of a 'diatessaron') Clement concludes with "now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy" using the very same language we just saw before the introduction of the discussion of the two feeding of the multitude narratives.
The way Clement introduces the two feeding narratives is very instructive. Immediately after the last section we cited Clement makes reference to the aforementioned Philonic conception that the whole universe is governed by the diatessaron. The diatessaron, says Clement, is at the heart of astronomy:
For treating of the description of the celestial objects, about the form of the universe, and the revolution of the heavens, and the motion of the stars, leading the soul nearer to the creative power, it teaches to quickness in perceiving the seasons of the year, the changes of the air, and the appearance of the stars; since also navigation and husbandry derive from this much benefit, as architecture and building from geometry. This branch of learning, too, makes the soul in the highest degree observant, capable of perceiving the true and detecting the false, of discovering correspondences and proportions, so as to hunt out for similarity in things dissimilar; and conducts us to the discovery of length without breadth, and superficial extent without thickness, and an indivisible point, and transports to intellectual objects from those of sense.
The studies of philosophy, therefore, and philosophy itself, are aids in treating of the truth. For instance, the cloak was once a fleece; then it was shorn, and became warp and woof; and then it was woven. Accordingly the soul must be prepared and variously exercised, if it would become in the highest degree good. For there is the scientific and the practical element in truth; and the latter flows from the speculative; and there is need of great practice, and exercise, and experience.
But in speculation, one element relates to one’s neighbours and another to one’s self. Wherefore also training ought to be so moulded as to be adapted to both. He, then, who has acquired a competent acquaintance with the subjects which embrace the principles which conduce to scientific knowledge (gnosis), may stop and remain for the future in quiet, directing his actions in l conformity with his theory. But for the benefit of one’s neighbours, in the case of those who have proclivities for writing, and those who set themselves to deliver the word, both is other culture beneficial, and the reading of the Scriptures of the Lord is necessary, in order to the demonstration of what is said, and especially if those who hear are accessions from Hellenic culture.
How do we know this for certain? Let's look at the final reference in the section, the one in which the gospel is finally referenced (notice that no direct references from the gospel have been made since the agrapha back in Strom. 6.10). Clement now says in his conclusion that 'true philosophy' is not natural science but the proper understanding of scripture, writing:
For the Gnostic knows things ancient by the Scripture, and conjectures things future: he understands the involutions of words and the solutions of enigmas. He knows beforehand signs and wonders, and the issues of seasons and periods, as we have said already. "Seest thou the fountain of instructions that takes its rise from wisdom?" But to those who object, What use is there in knowing the causes of the manner of the sun’s motion, for example, and the rest of the heavenly bodies, or in having studied the theorems of geometry or logic, and each of the other branches of study?—for these are of no service in the discharge of duties, and the Hellenic philosophy is human wisdom, for it is incapable of teaching the truth—the following remarks are to be made. First, that they stumble in reference to the highest of things—namely, the mind’s free choice. “For they,” it is said, “who keep holy holy things, shall be made holy; and those who have been taught will find an answer.” For the Gnostic alone will do holily, in accordance with reason all that has to be done, as he hath learned through the Lord’s teaching, received through men.
Again, on the other hand, we may hear: “For in His hand, that is, in His power and wisdom, are both we and our words, and all wisdom and skill in works; for God loves nothing but the man that dwells with wisdom.” And again, they have not read what is said by Solomon; for, treating of the construction of the temple, he says expressly, “And it was Wisdom as artificer that framed it; and Thy providence, O Father, governs throughout.” And how irrational, to regard philosophy as inferior to architecture and shipbuilding! And the Lord fed the multitude of those that reclined on the grass opposite to Tiberias with the two fishes and the five barley loaves, indicating the preparatory training of the Greeks and Jews previous to the divine grain, which is the food cultivated by the law. For barley is sooner ripe for the harvest than wheat; and the fishes signified the Hellenic philosophy that was produced and moved in the midst of the Gentile billow, given, as they were, for copious food to those lying on the ground, increasing no more, like the fragments of the loaves, but having partaken of the Lord’s blessing, and breathed into them the resurrection of Godhead[24] through the power of the Word. But if you are curious, understand one of the fishes to mean the curriculum of study, and the other the philosophy which supervenes. The gatherings point out the word of the Lord. “And the choir of mute fishes rushed to it,” says the Tragic Muse somewhere.
“I must decrease,” said the prophet John, and the Word of the Lord alone, in which the law terminates, “increase.” Understand now for me the mystery of the truth, granting pardon if I shrink from advancing further in the treatment of it, by announcing this alone: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing.” Certainly He is called “the chief corner stone; in whom the whole building, fitly joined together, groweth into an holy temple of God,” according to the divine apostle.
I pass over in silence at present the parable which says in the Gospel: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who cast a net into the sea and out of the multitude of the fishes caught, makes a selection of the better ones.”
Once again, it is difficult to cut through the veil of mysticism. In this case however having already established the diatessaron as the harmony between the scriptures in what has preceded this reference, Clement now tackles the ultimate question of which texts are specifically understood to be in harmony by the primordial diatessaron.
The reader should not be surprised to find out that Clement is not going to come out and tell us that a 'secret gospel' exists in Alexandria alongside our familiar canonical gospels. The circumstances which led to the unveiling of this paradigm in to Theodore must have been very unique as the text itself seems to indicate (viz. misinformation about the text in the world). In the case of Stromateis Book Six, Clement has been establishing a parallel mystical argument 'through a veil.' He is alluding to the general concept of the secret 'mystic gospel' through the most indirect of references - viz. the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, one of two 'canonical' texts referenced in the Letter to Theodore.
Why the Wisdom of Solomon? Clement clearly saw in the material some glimmer of the 'prediction' of the establishment of something like the 'secret gospel' of Mark. We see this clearly in the context of the three references to the work in the section. The first deals with the fact that this 'wisdom' (viz. 'secret Mark') must be kept secret and away from public knowledge:
Unto you therefore, O kings, do I speak, that ye may learn wisdom, and not fall away. For they that keep holiness holily shall be judged holy: and they that have learned such things shall find what to answer. Wherefore set your affection upon my words; desire them, and ye shall be instructed. Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth away: yea, she is easily seen of them that love her, and found of such as seek her. She preventeth them that desire her, in making herself first known unto them. Whoso seeketh her early shall have no great travail: for he shall find her sitting at his doors. To think therefore upon her is perfection of wisdom: and whoso watcheth for her shall quickly be without care. For she goeth about seeking such as are worthy of her, sheweth herself favourably unto them in the ways, and meeteth them in every thought. (Wisdom 6.9 - 16)
The second citation of the Wisdom of Solomon in Strom. 6.11 comes is drawn from the next chapter of the work and is used by Clement to show that there are two gospels in Alexandria according to what is written in 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 9 - i.e. a gospel of 'power' and of 'wisdom' - as we have shown previously:
God hath granted me to speak as I would, and to conceive as is meet for the things that are given me: because it is he that leadeth unto wisdom, and directeth the wise. For in his hand are both we and our words; all wisdom also, and knowledge of workmanship. For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements: the beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons: the circuits of years, and the positions of stars: the natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts: the violence of winds, and the reasonings of men: the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots: and all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know (Wisdom 7.15 - 21)
The last reference appears in the citation above which Clement ultimately connects us back to to the original discussion about the diatessaron:
Again, one preparing himself to sail, and about to pass through the raging waves, calleth upon a piece of wood more rotten than the vessel that carrieth him. For verily desire of gain devised that, and the workman built it by his skill. But thy providence, O Father, governeth it: for thou hast made a way in the sea, and a safe path in the waves; Shewing that thou canst save from all danger: yea, though a man went to sea without art. Nevertheless thou wouldest not that the works of thy wisdom should be idle, and therefore do men commit their lives to a small piece of wood, and passing the rough sea in a weak vessel are saved. For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel, and left to all ages a seed of generation. For blessed is the wood whereby righteousness cometh. (Wisdom 14.1 - 5)
The point then is that Clement takes a deep interest in the Wisdom of Solomon but he does so because he sees a pre-existent argument there for a 'secret wisdom' which governs all things through Pythagorean harmonies and in particular - the diatessaron.
The last citation is particularly striking as the passage at face value has nothing to do with what Clement says it is about - viz. Solomon's building of the temple and its sanctuary. Let's look at the original cluster of citations from the Wisdom of Solomon in the Stromateis one more time, to understand his underlying purpose here. Clement again writes:
“For they,” it is said, “who keep holy holy things, shall be made holy; and those who have been taught will find an answer.” For the Gnostic alone will do holily, in accordance with reason all that has to be done, as he hath learned through the Lord’s teaching, received through men. Again, on the other hand, we may hear: “For in His hand," that is, in His power and wisdom, are both we and our words, "and all wisdom and skill in works; for God loves nothing but the man that dwells with wisdom.” And again, they have not read what is said by Solomon; for, treating of the construction of the temple, he says expressly, “And it was Wisdom as artificer that framed it; and Thy providence, O Father, governs throughout.” And how irrational, to regard philosophy as inferior to architecture and shipbuilding!
When we look a second time at the context of the material Clement is really using the contemporary misinterpretation of the Wisdom of Solomon as an example of what Christians don't understand about the gospel. Clement is saying Solomon only appears to be referencing the building of the temple - which Clement has already noted was accomplished through the diatessaron - the Alexandrian Church Father is really intimating that the real subject of Solomon's discussion is the 'secret gospel.'
How do we know this? It is confirmed in the second citation where Clement subtly adds a reference to 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 9:
Again, on the other hand, we may hear: “For in His hand," that is, in His power and wisdom (τουτέστι τῇ δυνάμει καὶ σοφίᾳ), are both we and our words, "and all wisdom and skill in works; for God loves nothing but the man that dwells with wisdom.”
The only place where the words 'power' (δυνάμει) and wisdom (σοφίᾳ) appear side by side like this is the 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 9 where the apostle makes reference to his establishing two different gospels as we have been noting for months:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified ... And my word and my preaching (καὶ ὁ λόγος μου καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα) was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (πνευματος και δυναμεως): That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (εν δυναμει θεου).
But we speak wisdom (σοφιαν) among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery (θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ), even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory [1 Cor 2.1 - 9]
What we have been arguing for months here has finally been confirmed by Clement. The pairing of 'power' and 'sophia' is ultimately understood as the diatessaronic harmony of the perfect fourth. The former is the gospel of faith which only seeks to establish 'Christ and him crucified' - i.e. no reference of anything beyond the historical details of his ministry. It is only in 'the wisdom of God' - the 'secret' gospel of Mark - a text that can only be sought out through Pythagorean references in the public gospel, that the secrets of the universe can finally be unlocked.
It is very significant that it is at this very point after a lengthy effort to establish the diatessaron as the 'harmony' by which the choir-master of the universe - viz. 'the Lord' - governs the universe that Clement finally brings forward an example of the Pythagorean harmony of the diatessaron within the gospel narrative. As noted above it is the first time that Clement has dared to reference what we might call 'gospel kabbalah' and we should be careful notice that he deliberately avoids soiling its sacred character.
All that Clement will imtimate is that something about the two feeding of the multitude narratives manifests the very diatessaron which has been the subject of the long, preceding section. By now it should be obvious that this 'something' is the ratio of loaves and fishes in the narrative. Interestingly Clement will only explicitly reference the first multiplication narrative saying, immediately after our last citation:
And the Lord fed the multitude of those that reclined on the grass opposite to Tiberias with the two fishes and the five barley loaves, indicating the preparatory training of the Greeks and Jews previous to the divine grain, which is the food cultivated by the law. For barley is sooner ripe for the harvest than wheat; and the fishes signified the Hellenic philosophy that was produced and moved in the midst of the Gentile billow, given, as they were, for copious food to those lying on the ground, increasing no more, like the fragments of the loaves, but having partaken of the Lord’s blessing, and breathed into them the resurrection of Godhead through the power of the Word.
There is already a hint of the use of an extra-canonical gospel in this reference as there is nothing in our familiar texts that would suggest that the narrative took place 'on the grass opposite to Tiberias.' However we needn't get distracted by this observation. It is far more important to stay strictly grounded in the Pythagorean and ultimately Philonic context that Clement has taken so much effort to lay down for us.
As this is the feeding of the multitude is the scriptural reference which closes the section, it has to be understood by Clement to embody the points that he has taken care to make over the course of his discussion earlier including the hebdomad and its ultimate grounding in the harmony of the diatessaron. Already that the ratio of loaves and fishes should manifest a 5:2 ratio is deeply significant as this ratio was part of the original Philolonic argument lifted by Clement into the material in Stromateis 6.11. We read again in Philo that:
Most musical is the proportion of these numbers also: for 6 and 1 is a sixfold proportion (seventh), but the sixfold proportion makes the greatest distance that there is (in music), the distance from the highest to the lowest note. 5 : 2 exhibits the fullest power in harmonies, all but rivalling the diapason, a fact which is most clearly established in theoretical music. 4 : 3 yields the first harmony, the sesquitertian or diatessaron. 7 (or " 7th ") exhibits yet another beauty belonging to it, a most sacred object for our mind to a most sacred object for our mind to ponder. Being made up as it is of three and four it is a presentation of all that is naturally steadfast and upright in the universe.(On the Creation 95)
The point is that Clement must have been accutely aware that Philo understands the 5:2 ratio to immediately precede the establishment of the diatessaron in the division of the primal hebdomad (or 'seven'). That the 5:2 division of the first feeding narrative makes way for the establishment of the diatessaron harmony of 4:3 is clearly implied by Clement's emphasis that:
the two fishes and the five barley loaves, indicating the preparatory training of the Greeks and Jews previous to the divine grain, which is the food cultivated by the law. For barley is sooner ripe for the harvest than wheat
Clement is surely aware that the second feeding narrative involved wheat rather than barley. Yet it is important to note that in all our canonical accounts the exact number of fish has been obscured. We read that Jesus was brought 'seven loaves' and 'a few' ( ) little fish. I will argue that this number has been deliberately erased owing to the fact that it was used by contemporary mystical teachers such as Clement to argue on behalf of the existence of a secret gospel which was ultimately excluded from the Roman canon.
In spite of this effort, it is not at all difficult to see that the original number of fish was indeed seven. We have already cited a number of Islamic witnesses to this effect as well as representations of the 'seven fishes' in early Christian artist renderings of this miracle. However our analysis confirms once and for all that this is the only possible number which allows for Clement's analysis to make any sense. For there is absolutely no way for anyone to establish the 4:3 diatessaronic ratio only within the context of the second feeding narrative as '7' - the number of loaves fixed in all our canonical gospel accounts is a number which is indivisiable by 4 or 3.
The only way Clement's analysis makes any sense is if the Church Father was arguing for a diatessaronic harmony between the two feeding narratives. In other words:
five loaves + two fish (first miracle)
seven loaves + seven fish (second miracle)
five loaves + seven loaves = 12
two fish + seven loaves = 9
12:9 = 4:3 = διὰ τεσσάρων
Clement's borrowing from Philo would clearly argue for such an interpretation given - as Attridge rightly notes - Philo inserts the hebdomad within an original Pythagorean system which really did not allow for its inclusion.
In other words, it is very curious that Clement should so emphasize the hebdomad in a discussion rooted in a diatessaronic harmony between two gospels - viz. of the doctrine of 'power' and 'wisdom.' Sevens abound in the narrative but all that Clement will say about the 'divine' food which will come in the second feeding narrative is the following:
But if you are curious (about this i.e. the other feeding), understand one of the fishes to mean the curriculum of study, and the other the (true) philosophy which supervenes. [This] points out the word of the Lord. “And the choir of mute fishes rushed to it,” says the Tragic Muse somewhere.
Clearly then what will come in the second feeding narrative is understood to be superior to what was manifest in the 5:2 ratio of the initial miracle. Not only Clement says this but his heir on the Alexandrian chair of instruction who declares:
And these I think who ate of the seven loaves for which thanks were given, are superior to those who ate of the five which were blessed; and these who ate the few little fishes to those who ate of the two, and perhaps also these who sat down upon the ground to those who sat down on the grass. And those from fewer loaves leave twelve baskets, but these from a greater number leave seven baskets, inasmuch, as they were able to receive more. [Comm. Matt 11.19]
Again neither Clement nor Origen can reveal what is necessarily the original number of fish in the narrative - viz. 'seven' - but it is clearly at the heart of their understanding of the 'superiority' of both the loaves and fishes of the second feeding.
Indeed when Clement speaks earlier about "the choir of mute fishes" and that he must necessarily "pass over in silence at present the parable which says in the Gospel: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who cast a net into the sea and out of the multitude of the fishes caught, makes a selection of the better ones" we have to take these as references to the blotted number of fish in the second narrative. That Clement is necessarily keeping something from his readers is clear from the way he closes the discussion:
understand now for me the mystery of the truth, granting pardon if I shrink from advancing further in the treatment of it, by announcing this alone: 'All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing.' Certainly He is called 'the chief corner stone; in whom the whole building, fitly joined together, groweth into an holy temple of God,' according to the divine apostle."
Of course those who have been paying attention to what Clement has been saying throughout the previous material, these two references are only oblique confirmations of the presence of the diatessaron in these narratives.
That Clement should instruct us that "All things were made by Him" was already that "The lyre" according to its primary signification "may by the psalmist be used figuratively for the Lord" in so far as all scales that are played on its second and third strings are established by the harmony with the diatessaron. Similarly the statement that follows the Lord is the cornerstone of the temple reinforces a similar understanding as Clement spent a long section previously proving that it too was built according to the harmonies of the perfect fourth.
To this end, there can be no doubt that the number of fishes in the second narrative was seven and that the harmony of the diatessaron was thereby established between the two feeding narratives in the same way as Clement wants us to understand, there was a diatessaronic harmony between the canonical gospel of Mark and its 'secret' mystic precursor hidden in the Church of Alexandria. It all accords with the canon of Pythagorean teaching which was closest to Clement's heart and that of his teacher Philo of Alexandria.
