I think that the conference being organized in Toronto for this April is a complete waste of time for two reasons - (1) there will be no Clementine experts present (Bogdan Bucur could drive from his house to Toronto in less than six hours) and (2) Agamemnon Tselikas, author of the forthcoming BAR article examining certain paleographical issues was not invited to the conference (I was willing to split the airfares with the organizing committee to no avail).
Given the fact that no recognized expert on the writings of Clement will take a public stand on authenticity - let me bring forward one of the clearest proofs that the letter really was written by Clement. Morton Smith didn't understand his own discovery. Just read this single sentence from the last paragraph of the introductory paragraph of the Stromateis:
The Stromateis will contain the truth mixed up (ἀναμεμιγμένην) in the dogmas of philosophy, or rather covered over (ἐγκεκαλυμμένην) and hidden (ἐπικεκρυμμένην), as the edible part of the nut in the shell. For, in my opinion, it is fitting that the seeds of truth be kept for the husbandmen of faith, and no others.
Compare this with Smith's English translation of the Letter to Theodore reference to Mark adding:
to the stories already written 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 (τῆς ἐπτάκις κεκαλυμμένης ἀληθείας). 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 mysteries. But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing (αναμιγνυς) with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies.Come on people! This core idea from the Stromateis - which is repeated over and over again at the beginning and end of the work - is absolutely identical with the most identifiable reference from the Letter to Theodore. In other words, Clement says in either case 'truth' has to be 'mixed.' It can't appear in its pure form - although the Carpocratians 'mix' truth with lies.
The Carpocratian position (as learned from both the Stromateis and the Letter to Theodore) is that 'mixing' is bad. They want to use only the pure mystic gospel without reference to the 'prophetic' writings from which it developed (a term by which Clement clearly includes the canonical gospels - viz. 'hypomnemata'). This leads to Clement's criticism in both the Stromateis and the Letter to Theodore that in reality the Carpocratians are only mixing their inventions and lies with the truth in substitution of the disputed 'prophetic writings.'
Yet I have talked about this many times before and don't want to rehash this explanation. More importantly I would like to demonstrate where Smith misinterprets the Letter to Theodore - proving once and for all that he didn't write the document. It occurs when he artificially transforms κεκαλυμμενης into a 'veils':
... that truth hidden by seven veils (τῆς ἐπτάκις κεκαλυμμένης ἀληθείας)
Morton Smith's justification for transforming the original Greek this way comes in his 1973 book where he writes:
Clement uses κάλυμμα for the outer veil of the Temple's adyton in II.347.7, the immediate sequel of the passage referred to above. In II.347.19 and 348.13f he explains the veil as a means of keeping the unworthy from knowledge of divine secrets (κάλυμμα κώλυμα λαϊκής απιστίας). In II.340.28 the style of Greek poetry is a curtain which concealed the theology of the poets from the vulgar. In II. 13.26f the manuscript of the Stromateis reads ἀξιόπιστος ... ἡ τοιαύτη ψυχαγωγία, δι' ἧς κακουμένην οἱ φιλομαθεῖς παραδέχονται τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Williamowitz ammended κακουμένην to κεκαλυμμένην; Stahlin and Mondesert, Stromateis I, accepted the ammendation; it is now confirmed by the reading of the new text. [p. 41]
But all of this amounts to no more than an educated guess on Smith's part because Clement is not referencing the inner sanctum of the Jewish temple in to Theodore but that of the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria. Indeed, it is only because Smith is so set on interpreting the passage in this particular way - the wrong way - that he neglects to tell the reader about the use of the same term in the introduction and conclusion to the Stromateis itself (cited above) or even in Clement's To the Newly Baptized.
We read in this very early Alexandrian liturgical text a reference to κάλυμμα which Smith didn't mention because it contradicts the way he wants to interpret the word. Clement says there:
And give up the many anxious cares about the body by taking comfort in hopes towards God; because for you He will provide all necessary things in sufficiency, food to support life, covering for the body (καὶ κάλυμμα σώματος), and protection against winter cold.
Notice at once that the κάλυμμα literally sits on top of the human body. As such I think that the proper translation of to Theoodre 1.26:
τῆς ἐπτάκις κεκαλυμμένης ἀληθείας
is
the truth that is covered by seven (things)
It is important to note Liddell has the following in its entry for stroma:
στρῶμα , ατος, to/, (στρώννυμι)
A. anything spread or laid out for lying or sitting upon, mattress, bed, “ἀσπάλαθοι δὲ τάπησιν ὁμοῖον στρῶμα θανόντι” Thgn.1193, cf. PEleph.5.5 (iii B.C.), etc.; used on the funeral bier, IG12(5).593.3 (Ceos, v B.C.), Schwyzer 323 C 29 (Delph., iv B.C.): pl., bedclothes, coverings of a dinner-couch, Ar.Ach.1090, Nu. 37, 1069, al.; of a bird's nest, Arist.HA616a2; “ς. πορφυρόβαπτα” Pl. Com.208; coupled with ἱμάτια, ἔπιπλα, Lys.32.16; αἴρεσθαι τὰ ς. Ar.Ra.596 (lyr.); ς. ὑποσπᾶν to pull the bed from under one, D.24.197: cf. “στρωματεύς” 1.
For 'stromateus' a term which Clement invariably uses for a single book from the seven volume collection we see a similar entry:
στρωμα^τ-εύς , έως, o(,
A. coverlet, bedspread, Antiph.38, Alex.115, Thphr.HP4.2.7; also,= στρωματόδεσμον, Poll.7.79, condemned in this sense by Phryn.379.
I have no idea why people claim that the meaning of the work is that of a 'patchwork' or miscellanies. Clement clearly is envisioning seven luxuries 'sheets' lying on top of something which needs to be unveiled in order to be properly understood.
So let's go back to our initial demonstration. What Clement had in mind was not 'seven veils' which separated the adyton of the temple from outsiders (a specific number never referenced in any surviving historical witness) but something else entirely - viz. seven coverings or 'carpets' which lay draped over furniture. Look at the initial reference one more time:
'The Coverings' (οἱ Στρωματεῖς) will contain the truth mixed up in the dogmas of philosophy, or rather covered over and hidden, as the edible part of the nut in the shell. For, in my opinion, it is fitting that the seeds of truth be kept for the husbandmen of faith, and no others. I am not oblivious of what is babbled by some, who in their ignorance are frightened at every noise, and say that we ought to occupy ourselves with what is most necessary, and which contains the faith; and that we should pass over what is beyond and superfluous, which wears out and detains us to no purpose, in things which conduce nothing to the great end. Others think that philosophy was introduced into life by an evil influence, for the ruin of men, by an evil inventor. But I shall show, throughout the whole of these 'Coverings' (τοὺς Στρωματεῖς), that evil has an evil nature, and can never turn out the producer of aught that is good; indicating that philosophy is in a sense a work of Forethought (προνοίας).
I can't believe that no one else noticed this before - but then again NONE of the 'experts' who will be speaking at this 'Secret Mark' conference (or any other previous for that matter) has a fucking clue about the nuances of Clement's writing.
For those who don't get what I am driving at yet - Morton Smith got it completely wrong. His 'hidden by seven veils' translation is way off the mark. If he had been more familiar with Clement's writings he would have realized that the seven volume work called 'the coverings' (the Stromateis) was deliberately developed into the same analogy as what appears in to Theodore. In other words, each book in the seven volume work represents a separate 'covering' (stromata) which is lifted from the veil of truth until the very end of the work where Clement comes closest to revealing that 'truth' covered by the seven 'as a shell encases the nut.'
The problem of course is that most New Testament scholars haven't a fucking clue about the manner in which 'stromateis' were used in antiquity. They hear the word 'carpet' and think in terms of something which lies on the ground so the analogy is lost to them. Here is what William Smith writes about the role of stromateis as bed or chair coverings:
In the heroic ages of Greece beds were very simple; the bedsteads, however, are sometimes represented as ornamented (treta lexea, Il. iii.448; compare Odyss. xxiii.219,&c.). The principal parts of a bed were the chlainai and rigea (Odyss. xix.337); the former were a kind of thick woollen cloak, sometimes coloured, which was in bad weather worn by men over their chiton, and was sometimes spread over a chair to render the seat soft. That these chlainai served as blankets for persons in their sleep, is seen from Odyss. xiv.488, 500, 504, 513, 529, xx.4. The rigea, on the other hand, were probably a softer and more costly kind of woollen cloth, and were used chiefly by persons of high rank. They were, like the chlainai, sometimes used to cover the seat of chairs when persons wanted to sit down (Odyss. x.352). To render this thick woollen stuff less disaagreeable, a linen cloth was sometimes spread over it (Odyss. xiii.73). It has been supposed that the rigea were pillows or bolsters; but this opinion seems to be refuted by the circumstance that, in Odyss. vi.38, they are described as being washed without anything being said as to any operation which would have necessarily preceded the washing had they been pillows. Beyond this supposition respecting the rigea, we have no traces of pillows or bolsters being used in the Homeric age. The bedstead (lexos, lektron, demnion) of persons of high rank was covered with skins (koea) upon which the rigea were placed, and over these linen sheets or carpets were spread; the chlaina, lastly, served as a cover or blanket for the sleeper (Odyss. iv.296,&c.; Il. xxiv.643, &c.; ix.660, &c.). Poor persons slept on skins or beds of dry herbs spread upon the ground (Odyss. xiv.519; xx.139, &c.; xi.188,&c.; compare Nitzsch, zur Odyss. vol. i p210). These simple beds. to which shortly after the Homeric age a pillow for the head was added, continued to be used by the poorer classes among the Greeks at all times. Thus the bed of the orator Lycurgus is said to have consisted of one sheep-skin (kodion) and a pillow (Plut. Vit. Dec. Orat. Lycurg. p842c). But the complete bed (eune) of a wealthy Greek in later times, generally consisted of the following parts: kline, epitonoi, tuleion or kefalon, proskefaleion, and stromata.
The kline is properly speaking only the bedstead, and seems to have consisted only of posts fitted into one another and resting upon four feet. At the head part alone there was a board (anaklintron or epiklintron) to support the pillow and prevent its falling out. Sometimes the anaklintron was wanting, as we see in drawings on ancient vases (Pollux, x.34, vi.9). Sometimes, however, the bottom part of a bedstead was likewise protected by the board, so that in this case a Greek bedstead resembled a modern so-called French bedstead. The kline was generally made of wood, which in quality varied according to the means of the persons for whose use it was intended; for in some cases we find that it was made of solid maple or box-wood, or veneered with a coating of these more expensive woods. At a later period, bedsteads were not only made of solid ivory or veneered with tortoiseshell, but sometimes had silver feet (Pollux, l.c.; Aelian, V.H. xii.29; Athen. vi. p255).
The bedstead was provided with girths (tonoi, epitonoi, keiria) on which the bed or mattress (kefalon, tuleion, koinos or tuli) rested; instead of these girths poorer people used strings (Aristoph. Av. 814, with the Schol.). The cover or ticking of a mattress was made of linen or woollen cloth, or of leather, and the usual material with which it was filled (to emballomenon, pliroma, or gnafalon) was either wool or dried weeds. At the head part of the bed, and supported by the epiklintron, lay a round pillow (proskefaleion) to support the head; and in some ancient pictures two other square pillows are seen, which were intended to support the back. The covers of such pillows are striped in several pictures on ancient vases (see the woodcut under SYMPOSIUM), and were therefore probably of various colours. They were undoubtedly filled with the same materials as the beds and mattresses.
The bed-covers, which may be termed blankets or counterpanes, were called by a variety of names, such as peristromata, upostromata, epiblimata, erestrides, chlainai, amfiestrides, epibolaia, dapides, yilodapides, custides, xrusopastoi, tapites or amfitapitea. The common name, however, was stromata. They were generally made of cloth, which was very thick and woolly either on one or on both sides (Pollux, vi.9). It is not always easy to distinguish whether the ancients, when speaking of klinai, mean beds in our sense of the word, or the couches on which they lay at meal times. We consequently do not know whether the descriptive epithets of klinai, enumerated by Pollux, belong to beds or couches. But this matters little, as there was scarcely any difference between the beds of the ancients and their couches, with this exception, that the latter being made for appearance as well as for comfort, were, on the whole, undoubtedly more splendid and costly than the former. Considering, however, that bedsteads were often made of the most costly materials, we may reasonably infer that the coverings and other ornaments of beds were little inferior to those of couches. Notwithstanding the splendour and comfort of many Greek beds, the Asiatics, who have at all times excelled the Europeans in these kinds of luxuries, said that the Greeks did not understand how to make a comfortable bed (Athen. ii. p48; Plut. Pelop. 30). The places most celebrated for the manufacture of splendid bed-covers were Miletus, Corinth, and Carthage (Aristoph. Ran. 410, 542, with the Schol.; Lysistr. 732; Cic. c. Verr. i.34; Athen. i. pp27, 28). It appears that the Greeks, though they wore night-gowns, did not simply cover themselves with the stromata, but wrapt themselves up in them. Less wealthy persons continued, according to the ancient custom, to use skins of sheep and other animals, especially in winter, as blankets (Pollux, x.123; Aristoph. Nub. 10).
Now at last we are finally making some progress and when we see Clement at the end of the Stromateis reference 'couches of honour' in the agapes of the Alexandrian church, it must have been to those seata covered with the most expensive and with the most 'stromateis' - possibly even seven.
Here is the reference in Strom. 7.16 to the heretics who:
disbelieving the Scriptures, rather than be removed from the honours of the heresy and the boasted first seat in their churches; on account of which also they eagerly embrace that convivial couch of honour in the Agape, falsely so called. The knowledge of the truth among us from what is already believed, produces faith in what is not yet believed; which [faith] is, so to speak, the essence of demonstration. But, as appears, no heresy has at all ears to hear what is useful, but opened only to what leads to pleasure. Since also, if one of them would only obey the truth, he would be healed.
Now the cure of self-conceit (as of every ailment) is threefold: the ascertaining of the cause, and the mode of its removal; and thirdly, the training of the soul, and the accustoming it to assume a right attitude to the judgments come to. For, just like a disordered eye, so also the soul that has been darkened by unnatural dogmas cannot perceive distinctly the light of truth, but even overlooks what is before it.
They say, then, that in muddy water eels are caught by being blinded. And just as knavish boys bar out the teacher, so do these shut out the prophecies from their Church, regarding them with suspicion by reason of rebuke and admonition. In fact, they stitch together a multitude of lies and figments, that they may appear acting in accordance with reason in not admitting the Scriptures. So, then, they are not pious, inasmuch as they are not pleased with the divine commands, that is, with the Holy Spirit. And as those almonds are called empty in which the contents are worthless, not those in which there is nothing; so also we call those heretics empty, who are destitute of the counsels of God and the traditions of Christ; bitter, in truth, like the wild almond, their dogmas originating with themselves, with the exception of such truths as they could not, by reason of their evidence, discard and conceal.
We have just seen from the reference at the beginning of the Stromateis that the 'coverings' which lay on top of the truth are likened to the shell of a nut. Now the heretics - already criticized for their misconduct at the agape in terms of their inherent 'carnality' - are likened to 'empty' nuts i.e. with the same covering but nothing of any worth inside.
What exactly is Clement driving at with all these references to 'chair' or 'couch coverings'? I think the concept was rooted in the peculiar setting within the adyton of the Alexandrian Church of St. Mark. The seats of the prebytery - or perhaps of the bishop himself - were firmly set into stone, like what we see in ancient theatre construction (see image above). The 'stromateis' in turn covered the hard seats. For formal services the chairs were always draped with the stromateis but - as we see with the throne of St. Mark taken from Alexandria in the ninth century (but which I have dated in a formal article for the Journal of Coptic Studies to the third century century) - the chair itself was claimed to be an ancient relic from the past filled with mystic codes and symbols of great significance.
Once again, Clement says at the beginning of the Stromateis that the work itself represents a stromata covering (not a 'veil'). There are seven books to the Stromateis and at the end of each one of these books, Clement tells his audience that another stromata has been lifted from the truth. So at the end of the first 'covering':
But at this point, according to the true philosophy, hypomnematon of gnostic notes, our first stroma, come to a close (Ἀλλ´ ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων πρῶτος ἡμῖν Στρωματεὺς ἐνταυθοῖ περιγεγράφθω)
At the end of the second 'covering':
Let us conclude this second stroma at this point, on account of the length and number of the chapters (Περιγεγράφθω καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ἡμῖν ἐνθάδε Στρωματεὺς διὰ τὸ μῆκός τε καὶ πλῆθος τῶν κεφαλαίων)
At the end of the third 'covering':
But our polemic, though necessary against those who masquerade under the false name of knowledge, has carried us beyond the limit and made our discussion lengthy. Accordingly this is the end of our third stroma in accordance with the true philosophy, of gnostic hypomnematon (Ἀλλὰ γὰρ πέρα τοῦ δέοντος ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ψευδωνύμους τῆς γνώσεως ὑποκριτὰς ἀναγκαία γενομένη ἀπήγαγεν ἡμᾶς καὶ εἰς μακρὸν ἐξέτεινε τὸν λόγον ἀντιλογία. Ὅθεν καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἡμῖν τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων Στρωματεὺς τοῦτο ἔχει τὸ πέρας)
At the beginning of the fourth 'covering' Clement notes:
After which sketch, the brief explanation of the Scriptures both against the Greeks and against the Jews will be presented, and whatever points we were unable to embrace in the previous stroma (ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτου Στρωματεῦσι) through having respect necessarily to the multitude of matters, in accordance with the commencement of the poem, purposing to finish them in one commentary (ὑπομνήματι)At the beginning of the fifth 'covering' Clement writes:
And we showed in the first stroma (τῷ πρώτῳ Στρωματεῖ) that the philosophers of the Greeks are called thieves, inasmuch as they have taken without acknowledgment their principal dogmas from Moses and the prophets. To which also we shall add, that the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge; while the rest of the angels concealed them, or rather, kept them against the coming of the Lord. Thence emanated the doctrine of providence, and the revelation of high things; and prophecy having already been imparted to the philosophers of the Greeks, the treatment of dogma arose among the philosophers, sometimes true when they hit the mark, and sometimes erroneous, when they comprehended not the secret of the prophetic allegoryAnd then midway again through the same 'covering':
Hence the Stoics say that the end of philosophy is to live agreeable to nature; and Plato, likeness to God, as we have shown in the second stroma (τῷ δευτέρῳ παρεστήσαμεν Στρωματεῖ)
And then at the end of the same:
Thus, then, let our fifth stroma in accordance with the true philosophy be brought to a close. (Ὧδε μὲν οὖν καὶ ὁ πέμπτος ἡμῖν τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων Στρωματεὺς περαιούσθω)And then at the beginning of the sixth 'covering':
The sixth and also the seventh stroma hypomnemata of gnostic notes, in accordance with the true philosophy (Ὁ δὲ δὴ ἕκτος καὶ ὁμοῦ ὁ ἕβδομος ἡμῖν τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων Στρωματεύς), having delineated as well as possible the ethical argument conveyed in them, and having exhibited what the Gnostic is in his life, proceed to show the philosophers that he is by no means impious, as they suppose, but that he alone is truly pious, by a compendious exhibition of the Gnostic's form of religion, as far as it is possible, without danger, to commit it to writing in a book of reference. For the Lord enjoined "to labour for the meat which endureth to eternity." And the prophet says," Blessed is he that soweth into all waters, whose ox and ass tread," [that is,] the people, from the Law and from the Gentiles, gathered into one faith.And again in the second chapter of the sixth 'covering':
"Now the weak eateth herbs," according to the noble apostle. The Instructor, divided by us into three books, has already exhibited the training and nurture up from the state of childhood, that is, the course of life which from elementary instruction grows by faith; and in the case of those enrolled in the number of men, prepares beforehand the soul, endued with virtue, for the reception of gnostic knowledge. The Greeks, then, clearly learning, from what shall be said by us in these pages, that in profanely persecuting the Godloving man, they themselves act impiously; then, as the notes advance, in accordance with the style of the stromateon (προϊόντων τῶν ὑπομνημάτων κατὰ τὸν τῶν Στρωματέων χαρακτῆρα), we must solve the difficulties raised both by Greeks and Barbarians with respect to the coming of the Lord.
In a meadow the flowers blooming variously, and in a park the plantations of fruittrees, are not separated according to their species from those of other kinds. If some, culling varieties, have composed learned collections, Meadows, and Helicons, and Honeycombs, and Robes; then, with the things which come to recollection by haphazard, and are expurgated neither in order nor expression, but purposely scattered, the form of the stromateon is promiscuously variegated like a meadow (ἡ τῶν Στρωματέων ἡμῖν ὑποτύπωσις λειμῶνος δίκην πεποίκιλται). And such being the case, my notes shall serve as kindling sparks; and in the case of him, who is fit for knowledge, if he chance to fall in with them, research made with exertion will turn out to his benefit and advantage. For it is fight that labour should precede not only food but also, much more knowledge, in the case of those that are advancing to the eternal and blessed salvation by the "strait and narrow way," which is truly the Lord's.
Our knowledge, and our spiritual garden, is the Saviour Himself; into whom we are planted, being transferred and transplanted, from our old life, into the good land. And transplanting contributes to fruitfulness. The Lord, then, into whom we have been transplanted, is the Light and the true Knowledge.
Before handling the point proposed, we must, by way of preface, add to the close of the fifth stroma what is wanting (Πρὸ δὲ τῆς εἰς τὸ προκείμενον ἐγχειρήσεως ἐν προοιμίου εἴδει προσαποδοτέον τῷ πέρατι τοῦ πέμπτου Στρωματέως τὰ ἐνδέοντα). For since we have shown that the symbolical style was ancient, and was employed not only by our prophets, but also by the majority of the ancient Greeks, and by not a few of the rest of the Gentile Barbarians, it was requisite to proceed to the mysteries of the initiated. I postpone the elucidation of these till we advance to the confutation of what is said by the Greeks on first principles; for we shall show that the mysteries belong to the same branch of speculation. And having proved that the declaration of Hellenic thought is illuminated all round by the truth, bestowed on us in the Scriptures, taking it according to the sense, we have proved, not to say what is invidious, that the theft of the truth passed to them.
And the sixth chapter of the same 'covering':
But how? Do not [the Scriptures] show that. the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept "in ward and guard"? And it has been shown also, in the second stroma, that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades (Τί δ´; οὐχὶ δηλοῦσιν εὐηγγελίσθαι τὸν κύριον τοῖς τε ἀπολωλόσιν ἐν τῷ κατακλυσμῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ πεπεδημένοις, καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ τε καὶ φρουρᾷ συνεχομένοις; δέδεικται δὲ κἀν τῷ δευτέρῳ Στρωματεῖ τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἀκολούθως τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἅιδου εὐηγγελισμένους)And then in the fifteenth Chapter of the seven and final 'covering':
Since it comes next to reply to the objections alleged against us by Greeks and Jews; and since, in some of the questions previously discussed, the sects also who adhere to other teaching give, their help, it will be well first to clear away the obstacles before us, and then, prepared thus for the solution of the difficulties, to advance to the next stroma (Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀκόλουθόν ἐστι πρὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Ἑλλήνων καὶ Ἰουδαίων ἐπιφερόμενα ἡμῖν ἐγκλήματα ἀπολογήσασθαι, συνεπιλαμβάνονται δὲ ἔν τισι τῶν ἀποριῶν ὁμοίως τοῖς προειρημένοις καὶ αἱ περὶ τὴν ἀληθῆ διδασκαλίαν αἱρέσεις, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι, πρότερον διακαθάραντας τὰ ἐμποδών, εὐτρεπεῖς ἐπὶ τὰς τῶν ἀποριῶν λύσεις, εἰς τὸν ἑξῆς προϊέναι Στρωματέα)Clement's last words in the Stromateis, at the end of the seventh 'covering' are:
These points, then, having been formerly thoroughly treated, and the department of ethics having been sketched summarily in a fragmentary way, as we promised; and having here and there interspersed the dogmas which are the germs of true knowledge, so that the discovery of the sacred traditions may not be easy to any one of the uninitiated, let us proceed to what we promised. Now the Stromateis are not like parts laid out, planted in regular order for the delight of the eye, but rather like an umbrageous and shaggy hill, planted with laurel, and ivy, and apples, and olives, and figs; the planting being purposely a mixture (ἀναμεμιγμένης) of fruit-bearing (καρποφόρων) and fruitless trees, since the composition aims at concealment, on account of those that have the daring to pilfer and steal the ripe fruits; from which, however, the husbandmen, transplanting shoots and plants, will adorn a beautiful park and a delightful grove. The Stromateis, then, study neither arrangement nor diction; since there are even cases in which the Greeks on purpose wish that ornate diction should be absent, and imperceptibly cast in the seed of dogmas, not according to the truth, rendering such as may read laborious and quick at discovery. For many and various are the baits for the various kinds of fishes. And now, after this seventh Miscellany of ours, we shall give the account of what follows in order from another commencement. (Τούτων ἡμῖν προδιηνυσμένων καὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ τόπου ὡς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ὑπογραφέντος, σποράδην, ὡς ὑπεσχήμεθα, καὶ διερριμμένως τὰ ζώπυρα τῶν τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως ἐγκατασπείραντες δογμάτων, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίαν εἶναι τῷ περιτυχόντι τῶν ἀμυήτων τὴν τῶν ἁγίων παραδόσεων εὕρεσιν, μετίωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν. Ἐοίκασι δέ πως οἱ Στρωματεῖς οὐ παραδείσοις ἐξησκημένοις ἐκείνοις τοῖς ἐν στοίχῳ καταπεφυτευμένοις εἰς ἡδονὴν ὄψεως, ὄρει δὲ μᾶλλον συσκίῳ τινὶ καὶ δασεῖ κυπαρίσσοις καὶ πλατάνοις δάφνῃ τε καὶ κισσῷ, μηλέαις τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἐλαίαις καὶ συκαῖς καταπεφυτευμένῳ, ἐξεπίτηδες ἀναμεμιγμένης τῆς φυτείας καρποφόρων τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀκάρπων δένδρων διὰ τοὺς ὑφαιρεῖσθαι καὶ κλέπτειν τολμῶντας τὰ ὥρια, ἐθελούσης λανθάνειν τῆς γραφῆς. Ἐξ ὧν δὴ μεταμοσχεύσας καὶ μεταφυτεύσας ὁ γεωργὸς ὡραῖον κατακοσμήσει παράδεισον καὶ ἄλσος ἐπιτερπές. Οὔτ´ οὖν τῆς τάξεως οὔτε τῆς φράσεως στοχάζονται οἱ Στρωματεῖς, ὅπου γε ἐπίτηδες καὶ τὴν λέξιν οὐχ Ἕλληνες εἶναι βούλονται καὶ τὴν τῶν δογμάτων ἐγκατασπορὰν λεληθότως καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν πεποίηνται, φιλοπόνους καὶ εὑρετικοὺς εἶναι τοὺς 〈ἀναγιγνώσκοντας〉 εἴ τινες τύχοιεν παρασκευάζοντες. Πολλὰ γὰρ τὰ δελέατα καὶ ποικίλα διὰ τὰς τῶν ἰχθύων διαφοράς. Καὶ δὴ μετὰ τὸν ἕβδομον τοῦτον ἡμῖν Στρωματέα τῶν ἑξῆς ἀπ´ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ποιησόμεθα τὸν λόγον. [end]
The point then - a point which even Bucur can't escape - is that the Stromateis clearly ended after seven 'coverings' - not 'veils.' The uncanny parallel here with what is written in the Letter to Theodore and Morton Smith's mistranslation of the parallel terminology should end - once and for all - the claims that Smith forged the text.
What we see instead is the undeniable evidence that the Stromateis and the Letter to Theodore are connected in a deep manner which entirely escaped Smith's awareness. This isn't at all surprising as Smith was not an expert on the writings of Clement. But doesn't this all suggest that the Letter to Theodore might hold the answer to what necessarily followed the Stromateis, or possibly might be that very text ...
