Nichomachus the Pythagorean Helps Crack the Code of Why the Two Gospels of Mark in To Theodore Were Likely Identified as 'Diatessaronic' in Relation to One Another

It is getting late but I think my initial suspicions about the public and secret gospels of Mark being 'tuned to each other according to a diatessaron' can be confirmed by what appears in Nichomachus's Manual of Harmonics. I demonstrated a few posts ago that the seven and eight string lyres of antiquity had their strings tuned to two tetrachords.

The term hypermese, also called lichanos, was derived from one of the positions on either side of the Sun, that of Ares, which was assigned the sphere between Zeus and the Sun. On the other side of the Sun between Aphrodite and the Sun, the position occupied by Hermes provided the name paramese. [Nichomachus Manual of Harmonics Chapter Three; Levin trans. p. 45]

It might be useful now to cite Levin's explanation of Nicomachus's termonology:

E - Kronos
F - Zeus
G - Ares
A - Sun
Bb - Hermes
C - Aphrodite
D - Moon

This series of notes yields the fundamental form of attunement [harmonia] the heptachord — according to which the ancient musical scales or systemata were constructed. It is an attunement of two diatonic tetrachords, each comprising the intervals: semitone, whole-tone, whole-tone, and both joined together on the common note A or mese. The resulting scale structure covers a total total range of a minor seventh or one whole-tone less than an octave:

E  F  G  A  Bb  C  D

As Levin notes however there is a octave present in Nicomachus's formulation. The Earth taken to be the unmoving center of the universe is the eighth note and the following "planets" are explained by Nicomachus to orbit the earth in their allotted epochal (calculating from the most distant one — Kronos — to the nearest — the Moon.

As such now that we see the octave was present in Nichomachus's conception that's to a helpful diagram that Levin produces (and which i will scan and post later) demonstrating that two tetrachords were formed - the first going from the Sun to Cronos (A-G-F-E) and the other from the Earth to Hermes (E-D-C-Bb) - separated by a diatessaron.

E-F-G-A     Bb-C-D-E

tetrachord    tetrachord

     meson      synemmenon

The Sun, which is the root of the lower tetrachord is A while the tetrachord formed after 'the earth' (with the octave as the highest note) is E.

The Alexandrian variation of course was that the eighth note was clearly understood to represent 'the highest heaven.' Under this scenario, the lower tetrachord formed around 'the Sun' clearly represents the Logos or 'the Son' while the other tetrachord represents 'the Father.' This may well explain why some manuscripts of Mark 1:1 add the word 'the Son of God' and moreover why Clement distinguishes between two gospels - one 'of the Son' and the other 'of the Father' at the beginning of Stromateis Book Five:

We proceed now to the sequel, and must again contemplate faith; for there are some that draw the distinction, that faith has reference to the Son, and knowledge to the Father. But it has escaped their notice that, in order to believe truly in the Son, we must believe that He is the Son, and that He came, and how, and for what, and respecting His passion; and we must know who is the Son of God. Now neither is knowledge without faith, nor faith without knowledge. Nor is the Father without the Son; for the Son is with the Father. And the Son is the true teacher respecting the Father; and that we may believe in the Son, we must know the Father, with whom also is the Son. Again, in order that we may know the Father, we must believe in the Son, that it is the Son of God who teaches; for from faith to knowledge by the Son is the Father. And the knowledge of the Son and Father, which is according to the gnostic canon [κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τὸν γνωστικὸν] -- that which in reality is gnostic -- is the attainment and comprehension of the truth by the truth. [Strom. 5.1]

It should be startling enough to people that Clement of Alexandria references a 'gnostic canon' of New Testament writings. Can anyone really deny that two gospels - one 'of the Son' and another 'of the Father' were the backbone of this 'rule'?

Of course there are going to be those who continue to deny alternative possibilities. But what do they really know about 'gnostic canons' of Alexandria? Of course they want to convince themselves and others that they know everything there is to know. But they can't have authority in this domain.  So then we return to the original question - are those who deny the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore really denying that it might have been written by Clement or that its contents might reflect an authentic Alexandrian Christian canonical paradigm from deepest antiquity or are they just attempting to deny any other possibilities other than the inherited notions of orthodoxy? 

It should be obvious what I think is really at work here, both among the athiest detractors who want to bury Christianity and the pious detractors who want to save it