How to Read and Understand Clement of Alexandria [Part Two]

We have started to demonstrate something very important to the question of the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter, a lost letter from the second century Alexandrian Church Father Clement. The ideas contained in the Letter to Theodore are perfectly reflected in a section of text in the sixth book of Clement's Stromateis. We noted in our previous post in this series Clement argues in what immediately precedes the section we are going to tackle today that:

1. it is okay to act in a way which contradicts virtue as long as one remains steadfast to 'essential truths'
2. that the Church was originally given 'a deposit' of the truth of the gospel at the beginning of Christianity with the implicit understanding of 'something better' coming at some point later.

Let's continue to examine what immediately follows our last cited section in Strom. 6.15:

"And what ye hear in the ear " -- that is, in a hidden manner, and in a mystery (for such things are figuratively said to be spoken in the ear) -- "proclaim," He says, "on the housetops," understanding them sublimely, and delivering them in a lofty strain, and according to the canon of the truth explaining the Scriptures (τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα διασαφοῦντες τὰς γραφάς); for neither prophecy nor the Saviour Himself announced the divine mysteries simply so as to be easily apprehended by all and sundry, but express them in parables. The apostles accordingly say of the Lord, that "He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;" and if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. "But all things are right," says the Scripture, "before those who understand," that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule, the exposition of the Scriptures explained by Him; and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord. Knowledge is then followed by practical wisdom, and practical wisdom by self-control: for it may be said that practical wisdom is divine knowledge, and exists in those who are deified; but that self-control is mortal, and subsists in those who philosophize, and are not yet wise. But if virtue is divine, so is also the knowledge of it; while self-control is a sort of imperfect wisdom which aspires after wisdom, and exerts itself laboriously, and is not contemplative. As certainly righteousness, being human, is, as being a common thing, subordinate to holiness, which subsists through the divine righteousness; for the righteousness of the perfect man does not rest on civil contracts, or on the prohibition of law, but flows from his own spontaneous action and his love to God.

For many reasons, then, the Scriptures hide the sense. First, that we may become inquisitive, and be ever on the watch for the discovery of the words of salvation. Then it was not suitable for all to understand, so that they might not receive harm in consequence of taking in another sense the things declared for salvation by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies are veiled in the parables -- preserved for chosen men, selected to knowledge in consequence of their faith; for the style of the Scriptures is parabolic. Wherefore also the Lord, who was not of the world, came as one who was of the world to men. For He was clothed with all virtue; and it was His aim to lead man, the foster-child of the world, up to the objects of intellect, and to the most essential truths by knowledge, from one world to another.

Wherefore also He employed metaphorical description; for such is the parable, -- a narration based on some subject which is not the principal subject, but similar to the principal subject, and leading him who understands to what is the true and principal thing; or, as some say, a mode of speech presenting with vigour, by means of other circumstances, what is the principal subject.

And now also the whole economy which prophesied of the Lord appears indeed a parable to those who know not the truth, when one speaks and the rest hear that the Son of God -- of Him who made the universe -- assumed flesh, and was conceived in the virgin's womb (as His material body was produced), and subsequently, as was the case, suffered and rose again, being "to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," as the apostle says.

But on the Scriptures being opened up, and declaring the truth to those who have ears, they proclaim the very suffering endured by the flesh, which the Lord assumed, to be "the power and wisdom of God." And finally, the parabolic style of Scripture being of the greatest antiquity, as we have shown, abounded most, as was to be expected, in the prophets, in order that the Holy Spirit might show that the philosophers among the Greeks, and the wise men among the Barbarians besides, were ignorant of the future coming of the Lord, and of the mystic teaching that was to be delivered by Him. Rightly then, prophecy, in proclaiming the Lord, in order not to seem to some to blaspheme while speaking what was beyond the ideas of the multitude embodied its declarations in expressions capable of leading to other conceptions. Now all the prophets who foretold the Lord's coming, and the holy mysteries accompanying it, were persecuted and killed. As also the Lord Himself, in explaining the Scriptures to them, and His disciples who preached the word like Him, and subsequently to His life, used parables. Whence also Peter, in his Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says: "But we, unrolling the books of the prophets which we possess, who name Jesus Christ, partly in parables, partly in enigmas, partly expressly and in so many words, find His coming and death, and cross, and all the rest of the tortures which the Jews inflicted on Him, and His resurrection and assumption to heaven previous to the capture of Jerusalem. As it is written, These things are all that He behoves to suffer, and what should be after Him. Recognising them, therefore, we have believed in God in consequence of what is written respecting Him."

And after a little again he draws the inference that the Scriptures owed their origin to the divine providence, asserting as follows: "For we know that God enjoined these things, and we say nothing apart from the Scriptures."

Now the Hebrew dialect, like all the rest, has certain properties, consisting in a mode of speech which exhibits the national character. Dialect is accordingly defined as a style of speech produced by the national character. But prophecy is not marked by those dialects. For in the Hellenic writings, what are called changes of figures purposely produce onscurations, deduced after the style of our prophecies. But this is effected through the voluntary departure from direct speech which takes place in metrical or offhand diction. A figure, then, is a form of speech transferred from what is literal to what is not literal, for the sake of the composition, and on account of a diction useful in speech.

But prophecy does not employ figurative forms in the expressions for the sake of beauty of diction. But from the fact that truth appertains not to all, it is veiled in manifold ways, causing the light to arise only on those who are initiated into knowledge, who seek the truth through love. The proverb, according to the Barbarian philosophy, is called a mode of prophecy, and the parable is so called, and the enigma in addition. Further also, they are called "wisdom;" and again, as something different from it, "instruction and words of prudence," and "turnings of words," and "true righteousness and again, "teaching to direct judgment," and "subtlety to the simple," which is the result of training, "and perception and thought," with which the young catechumen is imbued. "He who bears these prophets, being wise, will be wiser. And the intelligent man will acquire rule, and will understand a parable and a dark saying, the words and enigmas of the wise."

And if it was the case that the Hellenic dialects received their appellation from Hellen, the son of Zeus, surnamed Deucalion, from the chronology which we have already exhibited, it is comparatively easy to perceive by how many generations the dialects that obtained among the Greeks are posterior to the language of the Hebrews.

But as the work advances, we shall in each section, noting the figures of speech mentioned above by the prophet, exhibit the gnostic mode of life, showing it systematically according to the rule of the truth.

Did not the Power also, that appeared to Hermas in the Vision, in the form of the Church, give for transcription the book which she wished to be made known to the elect? And this, he says, he transcribed to the letter, without finding how to complete the syllables. And this signified that the Scripture is clear to all, when taken according to the bare reading; and that this is the faith which occupies the place of the rudiments. Wherefore also the figurative expression is employed, "reading according to the letter;" while we understand that the gnostic unfolding of the Scriptures, when faith has already reached an advanced state, is likened to reading according to the syllables.

Further, Esaias the prophet is ordered to take "a new book, and write in it" certain things: the Spirit prophesying that through the exposition of the Scriptures there would come afterwards the sacred knowledge, which at that period was still unwritten, because not yet known. For it was spoken from the beginning to those only who understand. Now that the Saviour has taught the apostles, the unwritten rendering' of the written [Scripture] has been handed down also to us, inscribed by the power of God on hearts new, according to the renovation of the book. Thus those of highest repute among the Greeks, dedicate the fruit of the pomegranate to Hermes, who they say is speech, on account of its interpretation. For speech conceals much. Rightly, therefore, Jesus the son of Nave saw Moses, when taken up [to heaven], double, -- one Moses with the angels, and one on the mountains, honoured with burial in their ravines. And Jesus saw this spectacle below, being elevated by the Spirit, along also with Caleb. But both do not see similarly But the one descended with greater speed, as if the weight he carried was great; while the other, on descending after him, subsequently related the glory which he beheld, being able to perceive more than the other as having grown purer; the narrative, in my opinion, showing that knowledge is not the privilege of all. Since some look at the body of the Scriptures, the expressions and the names as to the body of Moses; while others see through to the thoughts and what it is signified by the names, seeking the Moses that is with the angels.

Many also of those who called to the Lord said, "Son of David, have mercy on me." A few, too, knew Him as the Son of God; as Peter, whom also He pronounced blessed, "for flesh and blood revealed not the truth to him, but His Father in heaven," -- showing that the Gnostic recognises the Son of the Omnipotent, not by His flesh conceived in the womb, but by the Father's own power. That it is therefore not only to those who read simply that the acquisition of the truth is so difficult, but that not even to those whose prerogative the knowledge of the truth is, is the contemplation of it vouch-safed all at once, the history of Moses teaches, until, accustomed to gaze, at the Hebrews on the glory of Moses, and the prophets of Israel on the visions of angels, so we also become able to look the splendours of truth in the face.

What follows our last citation begins with what most careless commentators identify as a citation of Matthew 10:23 which reads:

What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs

ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί· καὶ ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε, κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων.

Yet the reality is that there are significant differences between Clement's citation and what appears in canonical Matthew. First of all, Clement never specifies that it is Jesus's words which are 'whispered,' the first part of the reading is never cited (i.e. 'What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight ...' and finally there is a slightly different word order:

"And what ye hear in the ear ... proclaim on the housetops"

Ὃ δὲ ἀκούετε εἰς τὸ οὖς Ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων κηρύξατε

What is often overlooked in this discussion is that the Diatessaron and Luke identify the context of the statement in terms of the 'hypocrisy' of the Pharisees which suits the context of Clement's citation much better:

Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs." [Luke 12:1 - 3]

and the Diatessaron even associates the 'whispering' more clearly with a 'mystery':

For there is nothing concealed, that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. Everything that ye have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light; and what ye have spoken secretly in the ears in the inner chambers shall be proclaimed on the roofs.

The original Greek in Luke reads:

ἐν τῷ φωτὶ ἀκουσθήσεται, καὶ ὃ πρὸς τὸ οὖς ἐλαλήσατε ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις, κηρυχθήσεται ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων.

which is at least much closer to Clement's citation but importantly again not an exact match:

Ὃ δὲ ἀκούετε εἰς τὸ οὖς Ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων κηρύξατε

So what is Clement's point in citing this saying here? As noted it is clearly an extension of the previous discussion of 'hypocrisy.'

As we noted in our previous post, Clement is clearly acknowledging that 'hypocrisy' is necessary to preserve the sanctity of 'the truth.' Yet notice that here Clement moves beyond referencing the rather generic concept of 'the truth' to that of 'the canon of truth' (τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα) under the umbrella discussion of the necessary 'hypocrisy' associated with 'right conduct' in relation to the scriptures:

"And what ye hear in the ear " -- that is, in a hidden manner, and in a mystery (for such things are figuratively said to be spoken in the ear) -- "proclaim," He says, "on the housetops," understanding them sublimely, and delivering them in a lofty strain, and according to the canon of the truth explaining the Scriptures (τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα διασαφοῦντες τὰς γραφάς); for neither prophecy nor the Saviour Himself announced the divine mysteries simply so as to be easily apprehended by all and sundry, but express them in parables

The obvious way for us to look back at Clement's saying here is to assume that Clement is talking about our New Testament canon. This is certainly how Irenaeus, his contemporary used the terminology. But was Clement really referencing the idea of our familiar New Testament canon built around a fourfold gospel? Certainly not.

Adolph von Harnack acknowledges of course that Irenaeus uses the same terminology:

The rule of truth (also ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσομένη ἀλήθεια “the truth proclaimed by the Church;” and τὸ τῆς ἀληθέιας σωμάτιον, “the body of the truth”) is the old baptismal confession well known to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See AH I. 9. 4; οὕτω δέ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτρίσματος εἴληφε, “in like manner he also who retains immovably in his heart the rule of truth which he received through baptism”); because it is this, it is apostolic, firm and immovable By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case of Irenæus (I. l0. 1, 2) naturally follows the arrangement of the (Roman) baptismal confession, the most important Gnostic theses were at once set aside and their antitheses established as apostolic. [History of Dogma p. 28 - 29]

Yet von Harnack wisely hesitates to acknowledge that Clement is referencing the same concept as Irenaeus (viz. our familiar New Testament canon). He notes at this point in his discussion that:

Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV. 15. 98, we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: “whatever you do, do it to the glory of God,” Clement remarks ὅσα ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ποιεῖν ἐπιτέτραπται. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας (ἐκκλησιαστικός). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lord’s Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the διδασκαλία τοῦ κυρίου); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1.3; VI. 15. 124; VI. 15. 131; VII. 16. 94; we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθέιας. In the first passage it is said: ἡ γοῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα γνωστικῆς παραδόσεως φυσιολογία, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐποπτεία, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσμογονίας ἤρτηται λόγου. ἐνθένδε ἀναβαίνουσα ἐπὶ τὸ θεολογικὸν εἶδος. Here no one can understand by the rule of truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second passage in which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He says first: παρακαταθήκη ἀποδιδομένη Θεῷ ἡ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀυτοῦ τῆς θεοσεβοῦς παραδόσεως σύνεσίς τε καὶ συνάσκησις; then he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα, or τ. ἐκκλησ. καν.; and continues (125): κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his rule agrees with Tertullian’s testimony about the Roman Church: “legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet.” But at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the term “ecclesiastical canon.” [ibid]

We should be thankful that von Harnack recognizes that there is 'something different' about the manner in which Clement uses the term κανόνα. At the very least the German doesn't mislead his readers into the belief that Clement confirms the familiar dogma promoted by Irenaeus. Yet we should take it upon ourselves to figure out what Clement actually means by this terminology.

It is worth noting that von Harnack notes that elsewhere in Clement's use of the term κανόνα it means 'the agreement' or 'harmony' that one thing has with another thing. In some cases it means the 'harmony' of the old 'body of Jewish writings' with the new 'body of Christian writings.' The heretics are specifically accused of leaving out the 'old' or inferior in favor of an exclusive interest in the 'new,' or in this particular section of Stromata 6.15, an exclusive reliance on the 'secret' writings at the expense of the 'public' or commonly held gospels and apostolic texts (viz. Acts).

As we noted in our last post Clement used the conflict with regards to Paul accepting circumcision in Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians to illustrate 'a hidden harmony' which is necessary for 'right conduct' and 'right belief.' Now Clement has moved beyond this and opened the door to things written in two different forms in two different 'forms' of the gospel. What Jesus spoke in a low voice (whispered) are the parables which appear in the revealed gospels of Christianity which circulate generally. These parables represent a 'lower' or subordinate form of the mystic wisdom ultimately revealed by Jesus and preserved in some other gospel form. Yet the harmony between these two gospel forms is indeed what Clement understands as the 'ecclesiastic canon' - a Pythagorean term which clearly represents again the preserving of an original tune in a 'lower key' (perhaps distinguished from the tonic by a 'diatessaron').

When we go back to Clement's original discussion it is important to see the underlying Pythagorean coloring to his use of the term κανόνα. For we read again:

"He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;" and if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. "But all things are right," says the Scripture, "before those who understand," that is, those who receive and observe, according to the exposition of the Scriptures explained by Him according to the ecclesiastic canon (τῶν γραφῶν ἐξήγησιν κατὰ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν κανόνα); and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord (κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ).

Thus in no uncertain terms then, Clement understands the term 'canon' in a Pythagorean sense. In this particular case Clement uses Jesus's condemnation of the Pharisees who 'lie' about the truth of the Law and the prophets and its prediction of a messiah like Christ as an example of unworthy behavior in the temporary Alexandrian community. Whoever Clement is attacking (the Carpocratians? the Marcionites? both?) have divorced the secret gospel from its original 'harmony' with the public gospels so as to ruin the true ecclesiastic 'canon' understood in the Pythagorean sense.

Perhaps it is necessary to remind or inform my readers that the term κανόνα was originally used by the Pythagoreans for the 'rule' of 'harmony' with respect to the interval of the diatessaron and the diapente. Diogenes Laertes for instance speaks of Pythagoras's original discovery in the following terms:

He also discovered the numerical rule (κανόνα) of sounds on a single string: he also studied medicine (Diogenes Laertes 11)

Clement of course is only speaking of the 'rule' of agreement between the 'old writings' and the 'new writings' but he is only moving in the direction of his overarching point about the two gospels referenced in to Theodore. Clement is just establishing that such Pythagorean harmonies exist between bodies of holy writings before moving on to the more advanced discussion of the two forms of Jesus' sayings and doings.

Indeed as we have seen throughout the Stromateis, Clement is always eager to demonstrate two levels to the understanding of the gospel. Here we read that:

Knowledge is then followed by practical wisdom (Γνώσει μὲν οὖν ἕπεται φρόνησις), and practical wisdom by self-control(φρονήσει): for it may be said that practical wisdom is divine knowledge (γνῶσιν θείαν), and exists in those who are deified (θεοποιουμένοις); but that self-control is mortal, and subsists in those who philosophize, and are not yet wise.

Indeed the concluding words of this section - "the perfect man does not rest on civil contracts, or on the prohibition of law" - already suggests again a Marcionite distinction of Law and gospel which is only obscured by Clement's admitted 'ritually sanctioned hypocrisy.'