In Greek the word KALLIMA is used for whatever covers:
KALLIMA KLYNIS KLYNOSKEPASMA = Bed cover
KALLIMA SARCOPHAGOU = sarcophagus lid
KALLIMA AGGEIOU = Vase lid
KALLIMA KYTIOU - Box cover
KALLIMATA AGHIAS TRAPEZAS are called the precious embroidered material placed on Christian altars. (Not the KIBORION --ciborium in Latin-- that has four columnelae).
Nowadays the Greek orthodox bishop thrones have a top but in early Christian time they were just high seats made of stone (marble) or wood.
As such TIS EPTAKIS KEKALLIMENIS ALITHEIAS is a metaphor for the truth that is sealed with 7 seals, a possible reference to the seven seals of John Apocalypse.
There is a monograph "EPTADIKAI EREYNA" of Ioannis Kalitsounakis.
The same thing was basically revealed by a consultation with Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon as well as a few examples from ancient literature:
... but Hector was so skilful that he held his broad shoulders well under cover (κεκαλυμμένος) of his ox-hide shield (Homer Iliad 16)What I want to draw attention to again in this essay is that most contemporary scholars lack the language skills and the familiarity with the writings of Clement and the customs of antiquity to explain what exactly is being described in this passage in the Letter to Theodore. Morton Smith couldn't do it and as such must be eliminated from suspicion as the texts original author.
Accordingly, one should have dealings with such persons only in so far as one is compelled to do so and extremely little at that, what is more, keeping wide awake one's self and on guard, as the poet says of the Achaeans and Hector, "But he, experienced in war, with shield Of ox-hide covered his shoulders broad and watched The whir of arrows and the thud of darts." Similarly in our life we must employ prudence and understanding as a shield and, covered by it, flee and guard against men's villainy and the tricks and plots which they are wont to use (Dio Chrysostom Discourse 74)
Patroclus did not see him as he moved about in the crush, for he was enveloped (κεκαλυμμένος) in thick darkness (the Iliad Book 16)
The heavens, until then enveloped (κεκαλυμμένος) in darkness, appeared with that beauty which they still present to our eyes.(Basil Hexameron 2.7)
But Telemachus as he lay covered (κεκαλυμμένος) with a woollen fleece kept thinking all night through of his intended voyage of the counsel that Minerva had given him. (Odyssey I)
So the Lord Apollōn rushing along he darted to most-holy Pulos seeking out his curved-hooved cattle. He covered (κεκαλυμμένος) his broad-shoulders with a dark cloud; and the Far-Shooter spotted the foot tracks (Homeric Hymn IV - to Demeter)
Now the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men's minds or their eyes; for it was covered (κεκαλυμμένος) all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun's own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white (Josephus Jewish War 5.5.6)
A more recent example of the ignorance which pervades most discussions of the contents of the letter is that of Peter Jeffrey's attempt to connect the description to Morton Smith's interest in Oscar Wilde. I won't get into the theory because it is so downright stupid. The gist of it is that since κεκαλυμμένος was never used by Clement to describe the curtains of the inner sanctum (the one grain of truth in Jeffrey's otherwise idiotic analysis) the document must be a forgery and Smith the forger. This even though - as we demonstrated in a previous post - that Smith himself recognized that κεκαλυμμένος was used by Clement to describe the outer tabernacle rather than the drapes which screened the inner sanctum (see Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark p. 40 - 41) but decided to leave the English translation as 'the truth that is hidden by seven veils' because he apparently lacked the imagination to come up with another explanation.
In Jeffrey's mind however - ever unable to distinguish between Smith's failings as a translator or a scholar - with the misunderstood testimony of the authenticwritings from Clement the fact that Smith's translation is inaccurate is proof enough that he was the forger. He repeatedly mentions this difficulty in his The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery:
... the authentic works of Clement do not refer to seven veils in this way, but in the Mar Saba letter the veils [of the inner sanctum] hide a truth [p. 229]
Thus Smith adduces no direct support for the proposition that Clement (or any other ancient writer) actually used a metaphor of seven veils hiding an innermost sanctuary. [p. 322]
In order to show some fairness I should mention that even those who argue that the text is authentic can do no better with what is described in the text. Andrew Itter (someone who was invited but declined to speak at the upcoming Secret Mark Conference in Toronto) in his the Esoteric Teachings in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, finds himself in the same predicament as Smith with regards to this passage:
Smith points out here translated as 'veils', is the term used by Clement to refer to the outer-covering of the tabernacle and also to the concealed nature of the nature of the books of the Stromateis. However, the seven veils mentioned here surround the inner sanctuary, the adyton, not the tabernacle or temple (ὁ νεώς) as a whole as mentioned in the fifth book.46 If the veils mentioned in the letter surround the inner and not the outer sanctuary then they equate with the seven stages of purification of which we have been speaking and which take the initiate fully into the Holy of Holies rather than the seven circuits which only take the initiate to the outer covering of the tabernacle. They constitute the last seven stages of the ascent and not the first as represented by the circuits. Strictly speaking the seven circuits do not represent the purificatory process of the gnostic or high priest, but the “barrier of popular unbelief”, which stands outside the outer covering of the tabernacle and which cannot, therefore, represent what is being called mystagogic in the letter. The seven veils of the mystagogy refer more probably to the purificatory stage of Clement's soteriology, the holy septenary that leads to the ogdoad. The confusion concerning the seven circuits and seven veils poses another interesting conundrum. If the letter is spurious, as some scholars believe, the author wrote it without the understanding that Clement distinguishes the inner sanctuary from the tabernacle as a whole, and that the seven circuits only lead to the outside of the whole structure. The letter concerning the secret gospel supports the internal evidence of the Stromateis without the supposedly spurious author knowing it. This would suggest authentic Clementine material. [p. 44, 45]The truth is that Smith's choice of 'veil' to translate κεκαλυμμένης is problematic by implication. The English word 'veil' can of course mean a 'covering' which is of course the meaning of κεκαλυμμένος. But Smith clearly means to associate the terminology with the 'curtains' which divided the inner sanctum from the rest of the tabernacle. Clement and Philo before him carefully avoids using κάλυμμα in this capacity but those who criticize Smith's discovery lack the imagination to interpret the terminology in another way.
Towards Egypt, as we enter the city, there is a large church on the right, in which St. Mark the Evangelist is interred. The body is buried in the eastern part of the church, before the altar, with a monumentum of squared marble over it. [p. 11]I am not the first to connect this 'monumentum' with the episcopal throne of St. Mark which made its way to Venice. Nor again was I the first to connect the same relic with the Acts of Peter of Alexandria. Secchi and van Lohuizen-Mulder already use the tradition to date the throne to at least the early fourth century. I noted in my recent Journal of Coptic Studies article that the context of the story actually suggests a date closer to the first half of the third century at the very latest.
In any event, I have buried in piles of paper on my desk a number of different versions of the same narrative related to the 'martyrdom' of Peter of Alexandria in 311 CE. Since Anastasius Bibliothecarius's Latin version is closest at hand I will cite from it but the reader should recognize that there are a great variations in the various traditions. What interests me about the Latin narrative is that one can read it as if implies that the dead body of Peter was (a) placed on the episcopal throne of St Mark and then (b) buried, wrapped in the stromata which were already spread over the chair. The story looks back from the fateful day when Peter was murdered to reflect on the period long before 311 CE when the throne stood in a prominent place in the inner sanctum:
Thereupon the throng of the people, as if the heavenly treasure had been snatched from them, some by straight roads, and others by a more devious route, followed with hasty steps. And when they at length arrived there, there was no longer any altercation where he was to be placed, but by a common and unimpeachable counsel they agreed first to place him in his episcopal chair, and then to bury him.
And this, most prudent reader, I would not have you regard as a wild fancy and superstition, since, if you learn the cause of this novelty, you will admire and approve of the zeal and deed of the populace. For this blessed priest, when he celebrated the sacrament of the divine mysteries, did not, as is the ecclesiastical custom, sit upon his pontifical throne, but upon its footstool underneath, which, when the people beheld, they disliked, and complainingly exclaimed, “You ought, O father, to sit upon your chair; ”and when they repeated this frequently, the minister of the Lord rising, calmed their complaints with tranquil voice, and again took his seat upon the same stool. So all this seemed to be done by him from motives of humility. But upon a certain great festival it happened that he was offering the sacrifice of the mass, and wished to do this same thing. Thereupon, not only the people. but the clergy also, exclaimed with one voice, “Take your seat upon your chair, bishop.” But he, as if conscious of a mystery, reigned not to bear this; and giving the signal for silence,— for no one dared pertinaciously to withstand him—he made them all quiet, and yet, nevertheless, sat down on the footstool of the chair; and the solemnities of the mass having been celebrated as usual, each one of the faithful returned to his own home.
But the man of God sending for the clergy. with tranquil and serene mind, charged them with rashness, saying, “How is it that you blush not for having joined the cry of the laity, and reproaching me? Howbeit. since your reproach flows not from the muddy torrent of arrogance. but from the pure fountain of love, I will unfold to you the secret of this mystery. Very often when I wish to draw near to that seat, I see a virtue as it were sitting upon it, exceeding radiant with the brightness of its light. Then, being in suspense between joy and fear, I acknowledge that I am altogether unworthy to sit upon such a seat, and if I did not hesitate to cause an occasion of offense to the people, without doubt I should not even venture to sit upon the stool itself. Thus it is, my beloved sons, that I seem to you, in this, to, transgress the pontifical rule. Nevertheless, many times when I see it vacant, as you yourselves are witnesses, I refuse not to sit upon the chair after the accustomed manner. Wherefore do ye, now that you are acquainted with my secret, and being well assured that, if I shall be indulged, I will sit upon the chair, for I hold not in slight esteem the dignity of my order, cease any further from joining in the exclamations of the populace.” This explanation the most holy father while he was yet alive, was compelled to give to the clergy. The faithful of Christ, therefore, remembering all this with pious devotion, brought his sacred body, and caused it to sit upon the episcopal throne. As much joy and exultation arose then to heaven from the people, as if they were attending him alive and in the body. Then embalming him with sweet spices, they wrapped him in silken coverings; what each one of them could be the first to bring, this he accounted to himself as greatest gain.
We have to remember that the Acts of Peter were written no earlier than the late fourth/early fifth century. By that period - as I note in my article - the body of Peter was exhumed, mistaken for that of the evangelist himself and the throne set above it - likely unadorned with any of the original 'coverings.'
Yet in a previous period there can be no doubt that not only was the chair used as the seat of the bishop (as the story notes) it was undoubtedly covered as all thrones were in the period. A hard marble chair would not have made for a comfortable seat and, as we have demonstrated previously, it was quite typical to adorn pieces of furniture such as chairs, couches and beds with stromata. As such it seems to me that when the Letter to Theodore is read alongside the Stromateis, it is difficult not to see that knowledge of an underlying 'veiling' mystery related to the throne is indicated in all of Clement's writings.
That a throne would be identified by the term 'truth' (ἀληθείας) follows from the LXX of Isa 16.5 "A throne will even be established in mercy, And a judge will sit on it in ἀληθείας in the tent of David; Moreover, he will seek justice and be prompt in righteousness." Clement, as we have already noted in a previous post, puts forward his seven volume Stromateis as a series of 'coverings' (στρωματα) which are removed one after another - in seeming imitation of the mystery alluded to in the Letter to Theodore - until the ἀληθείας is finally revealed.
All of this only makes sense if the throne, which was always a part of the inner sanctum of the earliest Church in Egypt, played a central role in its mysteries. The only clues that Clement provides us of these most ancient rites are scattered references to the 'agape' festival of Alexandria, a sacrament already renamed, abandoned or unmentioned by the time of Origen. Clement not only speaks of the gathering occuring around a 'table of truth' (τράπεζα τῆς ἀληθείας Paed 2.1) but moreover characterizes the assembly in the following terms:
But devotion to activity begets an everlasting vigil after toils. Let not food weigh us down, but lighten us; that we may be injured as little as possible by sleep, as those that swim with weights hanging to them are weighed down. But, on the other hand, let temperance raise us as from the abyss beneath to the enterprises of wakefulness. For the oppression of sleep is like death, which forces us into insensibility, cutting off the light by the closing of the eyelids. Let not us, then, who are sons of the true light, close the door against this light (Τὸ οὖν φῶς τοῦτο οἱ τοῦ φωτὸς τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ υἱοὶ μὴ ἀποκλείσωμεν θύραζε); but turning in on ourselves, illumining the eyes of the hidden man, and gazing on the truth itself (τήν τε ἀλήθειαν αὐτὴν), and receiving its streams, let us clearly and intelligibly reveal such dreams as are true. (Paed 2.9)
My only point here is that to Theodore fits within the existing Clementine literature - and more importantly - what we know of the sacred chambers of the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria. The fact that the people attempting to understand the material haven't gotten up to speed with regards to its significance isn't surprising. It shows the underlying limitations of the modern education system.
For those who want to see an easily accessible article on the symbolism on the throne of St. Mark go here. The next part in this series will be to demonstrate from the writings of experts on the Clementine writings such as Bogdan Bucur most recently that the vision of the throne (i.e. merkavah mysticism) was indeed the 'vision of truth' referenced earlier.
