Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-22-2012, 09:21 AM | #1 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Was Secret Mark a Mythical Jesus Gospel?
I don't want to get into questions about the authenticity of the text. I simply want to know if my interpretation of the Greek is flawed. As we all know the Letter to Theodore of Clement was brought to the attention of the world in 1960 at a SBL conference. A letter from Clement was found at the Mar Saba monastery. It is addressed to a Theodore and references (a) the evangelist Mark writing a longer gospel at Alexandria which (b) was used by orthodox and heretics alike and which (c) Clement criticizes the Carpocratian sect for holding 'carnal' and 'human' opinions about the content which somehow have some relation to homosexuality.
My question is whether it is too much of a stretch to suggest that the specific terminology that Clement uses - i.e. 'human opinions' (τὴν κατὰ τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας δόξας) and his [i.e. Carpocrates] 'carnal doctrine' (καὶ σαρκικὴν αὐτοῦ δόξαν) are a subtle intimation on Clement's part that the Carpocratians erred by inferring that Jesus (the δόξα of God) was human and fleshly. As we all know δόξα originally meant something like 'opinion' but after the LXX the Jewish Scriptures used it to translate kavod (= glory). The logic apparently as far as I can see is that δόξα is opinion but can also mean one's reputation (= the opinion others have of you). I don't know if I am reading too much into this that God can't be seen so when we see his glory we gain an idea or 'opinion' of his nature. In any event, what I am wondering is whether the Greek could be developed with this double entendre in mind (= opinion/glory). If so that Clement would be developing the idea in Romans chapter 1 and actually help make sense of something that I previously thought was senseless. In other words, it has never made sense to me why Paul accuses the Greeks of becoming homosexual from falling away from the true God. I had always thought that Christians believed that Jesus (or his apostles) came to witness the true God to the pagans. This was why they went on missions to the nations. It never made sense to me why it is that Paul should accuse these same pagans of becoming homosexuals from falling away from the true god when they had never been enlightened about him until the preaching of Christianity. Of course my interpretation of the Letter to Theodore holds up then Clement would be a witness to the original interpretation. The reason for this is that Clement's Alexandrian text of Romans reads slightly differently than our received text. There is no mention of animals, just man: Quote:
In other words, Christianity becomes a 'homosexual' religion if we substitute the historical Jesus for the mythical Jesus (= a Jesus of flesh and blood for a spiritual Jesus). Presumably the ritual made the initiate 'unite' with Jesus and thus it seemed gay to take about uniting with a physical man. Does this make at least intuitive sense? Are there difficulties with my use of doxa? I just woke up and had this interpretation and haven't really though it through. |
|
03-22-2012, 10:00 AM | #2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I should also mention that irenaeus identifies carpocrates as holding that jesus was only a man alone of the gnostics
|
03-22-2012, 01:18 PM | #3 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I think something of this conception (i.e. that Jesus was said in the gospel to be a God rather than man) in Tertullian's discussion of the Marcionite interpretation of Romans 1. He says quite clearly that the Marcionites thought Romans 1 was about the identity of Jesus:
Quote:
Whoever it was that 'knew God' and turned him into a man was a Christian community. |
|
03-22-2012, 02:47 PM | #4 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Some interesting references in Clement:
Strom 1:5 - καὶ πόρνης δόξαν παρασχοῦσαν = "presenting the appearance of a harlot" |
03-22-2012, 07:01 PM | #5 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I wonder if this:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-22-2012, 07:17 PM | #6 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Clement cites the passage just once in the Stromata:
Quote:
1. 1 Corinthians 2:13: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Indeed if you look at the very next words in the Stromata Clement makes a lengthy citation from what follows in 1 Corinthians but explains: Quote:
|
|||||
03-23-2012, 11:41 AM | #7 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I hit the jackpot with a search for the first reference to the Carpocratians engagine in "human opinions" - τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας δόξας. A quick check of Smith's 1973 book demonstrates that he failed to recognize this as a citation of Isocrates's Helen which interestingly uses doxas in a manner which could easily be translated 'opinions' or 'glories':
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|