|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
The End of the 'Hoax Hypothesis' With Respect to the Letter to Theodore
Those who promote the idea that Morton Smith rather than Clement of Alexandria wrote the Letter to Theodore have a surprising lack of evidence to support their claims. What they have going for them are a core group of very intelligent and knowledgeable authorities who 'feel' that something is wrong with the text and its explicit witness of homosexuality in earliest Christianity. This argument from feeling or inituition is really the basis to the current 'probation' that the document seems to have been placed. The forgery has been 'proved' for many without any real evidence.
It is a very strange situation in scholarship - and I don't say this merely because I am convinced that the document does indeed shed light on the shadowy late second century period in Christianity. It is strange because I actually admire the people on the other side of the debate. Craig Evans, Birger Pearson, Larry Hurtado and many more familiar names are highly qualified individuals - more qualified than I will ever be with respect to an understanding and appreciation of all that has been written during the last few centuries of the study of New Testament and Patristic writings. It would be utterly ridiculous for me to claim otherwise.
Nevertheless we have something very different going on here. These men can't really put together a convincing argument (convincing to anyone other than other people who share their presuppositions) that the document 'can only be viewed' as a fake. The reason for this obvious - it is the mention of homosexuality in the text which really gets under their skin. There are of course a range of opinions here as to why the 'gay vibe' of the Letter to Theodore 'tips' each of them as to the document's spuriousness. Yet I am not convinced that any of these men who promote the 'hoax hypothesis' are experts on the subject of homosexuality in antiquity (or the modern age for that matter) - even though their theories really depend on this expertise.
It is very similar to the arguments that Stephen Carlson made with respect to certain signs of 'forgery' in the manuscript without Carlson having any expertise in the field. These have since been demonstrated to be misguided and based entirely on Carlson chosing the worst possible resolution for the image of the document on which to develop his analysis (a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy). I wonder whether the same thing is true with respect to all these 'difficulties' which supposedly exist with respect to the Letter to Theodore's reference to 'homosexuality.' In other words, is it the scholars themselves who have 'issues' with homosexuality and find arguments to support their prejudices.
If we were to start all over again - back before the smear campaign directed against Morton Smith and his 'lifestyle' began - the real question would have to be whether the Letter to Theodore might actually reflective of Clement of Alexandria's beliefs and experiences in the late second century/early third century. In short, whether Clement of Alexandria might actually have been the author of the text.
Carlson developed an argument that only a modern reader would view the material from Secret Mark cited in the Letter to Theodore as reflecting any sort of homosexuality. Yet as I mentioned before, I am not convinced that any of these people would have any more than a superficial understanding of the culture of homosexuality in the ancient world. Yes they might have read a book or too on the subject - perhaps only some passing references which might have appeared in a lexicon somewhere. But the idea the Alexandrian Christian tradition might have embraced homoerotic references in Plato and developed them within a gospel produced sometime after the apostolic age might well be beyond the capabilities of these men.
First and foremost, it is a speculative argument. Scholars typically prefer what is to what might have been. Second most of the men cited are themselves Christians and Christianity is a religion with a deep seated hostility to homosexuality. I find it hard to believe that the idea that a gospel which wasn't entirely hostile to homosexuality, which might have transformed the pederastic references in Plato into something which was fully compatible with the Judeo-Christian tradition would get a 'fair shake' from these folks.
As I have noted many times here, Clement began writing in an age when it was established by a number of high profile Christian writers, that homosexuality and pederasty were an integral part of Christianity. These ideas probably first appeared in the orations of Emperor Marcus Cornelius Fronto, the paedagogue of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Celsus makes numerous references to the idea that the pederastic cult of Antinous was ultimately influenced by similar beliefs and practices in Christianity.
All of this leads to the point where undo emphasis is placed on the earliest works of Clement of Alexandria, which demonstrate a very critical tone towards homosexuality. It is very plain to a critical observer that Clement is as much attempting to deflect the charges of Fronto and Celsus as he is expressing the official views of the Alexandrian Church. The fact that it is only in those works written during the age of Commodus (i.e. the Exhortation to the Gentiles, the Paedagogue) that this sharp tone is demonstrated has to be taken into consideration.
Indeed I have taken the time to gather together ever reference to ἐραστής (i.e. 'lover') in those early works and there is no question that they are all hostile:
Quote:
There is then the foam-born and Cyprus-born, the darling of Cinyras,--I mean Aphrodite, lover of the virilia, because sprung from them, even from those of Uranus, that were cut off,--those lustful members, that, after being cut off, offered violence to the waves. Of members so lewd a worthy fruit--Aphrodite--is born. In the rites which celebrate this enjoyment of the sea, as a symbol of her birth a lump of suit and the phallus are handed to those who are initiated into the art of uncleanness. And those initiated bring a piece of money to her, as a courtesan's paramours (ἐρασταί) do to her. [Exhortation 14]
For He is admirable always at cutting out the roots of sins, such as, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," (τὸ οὐ μοιχεύσεις) by "Thou shalt not lust" (διὰ τοῦ οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις). For adultery is the fruit of lust (καρπὸς γὰρ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἡ μοιχεία), which is the evil root. And so likewise also in this instance the Instructor censures licence in names, and thus cuts off the licentious intercourse of excess. For licence in names produces the desire of being indecorous in conduct; and the observance of modesty in names is a training in resistance to lasciviousness. We have shown in a more exhaustive treatise, that neither in the names nor in the members to which appellations not in common use are applied, is there the designation of what is really obscene. For neither are knee and leg, and such other members, nor are the names applied to them, and the activity put forth by them, obscene. And even the pudenda are to be regarded as objects suggestive of modesty, not shame. It is their unlawful activity that is shameful, and deserving ignominy, and reproach, and punishment. For the only thing that is in reality shameful is wickedness, and what is done through it. In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately, termed filthy speaking, as talk about adultery (μοιχείας) and paederasty (παιδεραστίας) and the like [Paed. 2.6]
As regards the hare, legend claims that it needs to void excrement only once a year, and possesses as many anuses as the years it has lived. Therefore, the prohibition against eating the hare is nothing else than a condemnation of pederasty (παιδεραστίας). And with regard to the hyena, it is said that the male changes every year successively into a female, so that Moses means that he who abstains from the hyena is commanded not to lust after adultery (αἰνίττεσθαι δὲ μὴ χρῆν ἐπὶ μοιχείας ὁρμᾶν τὸν τῆς ὑαίνης ἀπεχόμενον) . [Paed. 2.10]
the pure are always the only ones who may handle what is pure (Ἀεὶ δὲ καθαρῷ καθαροῦ θέμις θιγγάνειν). Let us, therefore, never divest ourselves of our modesty when we take off our clothes, for a just man should never strip himself of chastity. 'Behold, this corruption shall put on incorruption,' when the intensity of desire that degenerates into sensuality is educated to self-control and, losing its love (ἀνέραστον) for corruption, allows man to practise constant chastity. [Paed 2.10]
[women] the true imitators of the Egyptians, they adorn the enclosure of the flesh to lure lovers (ἐραστάς) who stand in superstitious dread of the goddess. But, if anyone draw back the veil of this temple, I mean the hairnet and the dye and the garments and gold and rouge and cosmetics or the cloth woven of all these things, which is a veil if he draws back this veil to discover the true beauty that is within, I am sure he will be disgusted. He will not find dwelling within any worthy image of God, but, instead, a harlot and adulteress who has usurped the inner sanctuary of the soul. [Paed 3.2]
In fact, because they do dazzle the undiscriminating, they cleverly scheme to win the admiration of their lovers (ἐραστάς), who then insult them when they see them naked shortly afterwards. [Paed 3.5]
I pass over in silence Susanna and the sister of Moses, since the latter was the prophet's associate in commanding the host, being superior to all the women among the Hebrews who were in repute for their wisdom; and the former in her surpassing modesty, going even to death condemned by licentious admirers (τῶν ἀκολάστων ἐραστῶν), remained the unwavering martyr of chastity. [Strom 4.19]
|
Now it might seem that because we have already reached the Stromateis that the book can be closed on Clement's use of the term ἐραστής - i.e. that it is incompatible with the core Christian theology of 'loving God' but this would be the furthest thing from the truth, and why I think so many of these critics who promote the hoax hypothesis are misguided.
If we look beyond the obvious references to the 'sleazy' use of the term lover, there is already an inkling to the idea we have already mentioned in a previous thread that Christians are the ἐρασταί of Jesus. Let's take a second look at that last reference from the Paedagogue again:
Quote:
|
[women] the true imitators of the Egyptians, they adorn the enclosure of the flesh to lure lovers (ἐραστάς) who stand in superstitious dread of the goddess. But, if anyone draw back the veil of this temple, I mean the hairnet and the dye and the garments and gold and rouge and cosmetics or the cloth woven of all these things, which is a veil if he draws back this veil to discover the true beauty that is within, I am sure he will be disgusted. He will not find dwelling within any worthy image of God, but, instead, a harlot and adulteress who has usurped the inner sanctuary of the soul. [Paed 3.2]
|
When you really think about it, all Clement is really doing here is comparing an Egyptian temple to the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia in Alexandria. Both have an adyton where something 'mystical' was revered. The difference is that the ἐρασταί of the symbol of the goddess are engaged in something disgusting, while the 'truth' (i.e. the secret symbol of Jesus) that is hidden by seven stromateis in the Alexandrian shrine has 'spiritual' ἐρασταί. Nevertheless the language is clearly borrowed from the contemporary erotic culture.
There can be no doubt that ἐραστής was used with respect to 'heterosexual' relationships in antiquity. Yet I am not even sure that such a distinction between 'heterosexuality' per se and 'homosexuality' even existed then. There was just the ἐραστής and the ἐραστῷ. It is important to note that Clement never once uses the term ἐρώμενος in a 'positive' sense. Nevertheless none of this has any bearing on the discussion with whether the Carpocratians compared the initiation of the youth in LGM 1 with the pederastic conceptions in Platonic literature. I think this is certain and I believe that some of Clement's language betrays the fact that his Alexandrian tradition was developed from a similar understanding (I suspect that the Carpocratians were just a disguised and distorted image of the Alexandrian Church).
In a previous thread I mentioned how Clement seems to have had knowledge of LGM 1 in his acknowledged writings:
Quote:
And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth (ἐξέτεινεν) his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. [to Theod. 3.1 - 4]
... crawling with the whole body about senseless lusts; but, stretching upwards (ἀνατεινόμενοι) in thought (ἐννοίᾳ), loosed from the world and our sins, touching the earth on tiptoe so as to appear to be in the world, we pursue holy wisdom ... [we] who are simple, and infants, and pure, who are erastai of the κεράτων μονοκερώτων. [Paed. 1.5]
|
Yet I was also quick to point out that Clement's own comments on the proper understanding of the gospel pericope sounds remarkably similar to the use of ἐραστής in Paed. 1.5:
Quote:
[we] who are simple, and infants, and pure, who are lovers of the horns of the unicorns (κεράτων μονοκερώτων ἐρασταί).
Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, the lover of the truth (της αληθειας εραστης) should not, even so, agree with them. [to Theod. 1.6]
|
Now I would like to demonstrate that these 'gay tinged' references are by no means alone. Clement consistently speaks of Christian believers as the ἐρασταί of Jesus - i.e. male 'lovers' of a male. Here are some of the other references from Stromata 6.9 alone:
Quote:
No more does he envy; for nothing is wanting to him, that is requisite to assimilation, in order that he may be excellent and good. Nor does he consequently love any one with this common affection, but loves the Creator in the creatures. Nor, consequently, does he fall into any desire and eagerness; nor does he want, as far as respects his soul, aught appertaining to others, now that he associates through love with the Beloved One (δι´ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ), to whom he is allied by free choice, and by the habit which results from training, approaches closer to Him, and is blessed through the abundance of good things.
Οὔτ´ οὖν ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ ὀρέξει τινὶ περιπίπτει οὔτε ἐνδεής ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄλλων τινός, συνὼν ἤδη δι´ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ, ᾧ δὴ ᾠκείωται κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν, καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως ἕξει τούτῳ προσεχέστερον συνεγγίζων, μακάριος ὢν διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν περιουσίαν, ὥστε ἕνεκά γε τούτων ἐξομοιοῦσθαι βιάζεται τῷ διδασκάλῳ εἰς ἀπάθειαν·
How, then, has he any more need of fortitude, who is not in the midst of dangers, being not present, but already wholly with the object of love (συνόντι τῷ ἐραστῷ)? And what necessity for self-restraint to him who has not need of it? For to have such desires, as require self-restraint in order to their control, is characteristic of one who is not yet pure, but subject to passion. Now, fortitude is assumed by reason of fear and cowardice. For it were no longer seemly that the friend of God, whom "God hath fore-ordained before the foundation of the world" to be enrolled in the highest "adoption," should fall into pleasures or fears, and be occupied in the repression of the passions. For I venture to assert, that as he is predestinated through what he shall do, and what he shall obtain, so also has he predestinated himself by reason of what he knew and whom he loved (ἠγάπησεν).
Πῶς οὖν ἔτι τούτῳ τῆς ἀνδρείας χρεία, μὴ γινομένῳ ἐν δεινοῖς, τῷ γε μὴ παρόντι, ὅλως δὲ ἤδη συνόντι τῷ ἐραστῷ; τίς δὲ καὶ σωφροσύνης ἀνάγκη μὴ χρῄζοντι αὐτῆς; τὸ γὰρ ἔχειν τοιαύτας ἐπιθυμίας, ὡς σωφροσύνης δεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν τούτων ἐγκράτειαν, οὐδέπω καθαροῦ, ἀλλ´ ἐμπαθοῦς, ἀνδρεία τε διὰ φόβον καὶ δειλίαν παραλαμβάνεται. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ πρέπον ἔτι τὸν φίλον τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃν προώρισεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἰς τὴν ἄκραν ἐγκαταλεγῆναι υἱοθεσίαν, ἡδοναῖς ἢ φόβοις περιπίπτειν καὶ περὶ τὴν καταστολὴν ἀπασχολεῖσθαι τῶν παθῶν. Τολμήσας γὰρ φήσαιμ´ ἄν· καθάπερ προωρισμένως κεῖται δι´ ὧν πράξει [καὶ] οὗ τεύξεται, οὕτως καὶ αὐτὸς προορίσας ἔχει δι´ ὧν ἔγνω ὃν ἠγάπησεν
|
The point is that Clement and the Alexandrian tradition have done away with the concept of the ἐρώμενος. This is not an older man taking advantage of a younger male beauty but in fact the situation which I think Plato was attempting to illustrate in the Symposium with respect to Alcibiades and Socrates failed love affair. The 'youth' is supposed to have a burning desire for God with ultimately no sexual contact.
It might be worth reading von Harnack's comments on the last citation in his History of Dogma:
Quote:
|
We have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the Stromateis where Clement describes the perfect Gnostic: the latter elevates himself by dispassionate love to God, is raised above everything earthly, has rid himself of ignorance, the root of all evil, and already lives a life like that of the angels. (cf. Strom. VI. 9. 71, 72)
|
I am not quite sure I agree with Herr von Harnack exactly. Only a German could conceive of the use of ἐραστής and its cognates 'in a dispassionate' way. If Clement really meant to say that he wouldn't have chosen this term. Instead what I think Clement is doing is bringing his readership back to the Phaedrus and the conception of love which takes the initiate into the mysteries ultimately upwards to heaven.
The initiate into the Christian mysteries is following the path set forward by Plato in his writings. He is to have a deep passionate burning desire for union with Jesus and this will be achieved in the ritual setting of the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria - but again, there is no physical contact of any kind certainly. Note the references in the last book of the Stromateis too:
Quote:
Now that which is lovable leads, to the contemplation of itself, each one who, from love of knowledge, applies himself entirely to contemplation (Ἀγωγὸν δὲ τὸ ἐραστὸν πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θεωρίαν παντὸς τοῦ ὅλον ἑαυτὸν τῇ τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπῃ ἐπιβεβληκότος τῇ θεωρίᾳ). Wherefore also the Lord, drawing the commandments, both the first which He gave, and the second, from one fountain, neither allowed those who were before the law to be without law, nor permitted those who were unacquainted with the principles of the Barbarian philosophy to be without restraint. For, having furnished the one with the commandments, and the other with philosophy, He shut up unbelief to the Advent. Whence every one who believes not is without excuse. For by a different process of advancement, both Greek and Barbarian, He leads to the perfection which is by faith. [Strom 7.2]
Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts. And the lover of truth (τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ), as I think, needs force of soul. For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures.
As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god.[Strom. 7.16]
Πάντων δὲ ἀνθρώπων τὴν αὐτὴν κρίσιν ἐχόντων οἱ μὲν ἀκολουθοῦντες τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ ποιοῦνται τὰς πίστεις, οἱ δὲ ἡδοναῖς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδωκότες βιάζονται πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὴν γραφήν. Δεῖ δ´, οἶμαι, τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ ψυχικῆς εὐτονίας· σφάλλεσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκη μέγιστα τοὺς μεγίστοις ἐγχειροῦντας πράγμασιν, ἢν μὴ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας παρ´ αὐτῆς λαβόντες ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας. Οἱ τοιοῦτοι δέ, ἅτε ἀποπεσόντες τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ, κἀν τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν κατὰ μέρος σφάλλονται εἰκότως, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἀληθῶν καὶ ψευδῶν κριτήριον συγγεγυμνασμένον ἀκριβῶς τὰ δέοντα αἱρεῖσθαι
|
I really think that any objective observer will have to admit that it is impossible to believe that Clement wasn't referencing LGM 1 when he was making all these statements cited here. They are utterly consistent with the references I have shown in other threads all of which demonstrate a ritual process (baptism) which apparently wedded Jesus to the soul of the initiate. It is impossible to believe that Clement wasn't thinking of something like LGM 1 from a non-canonical gospel. If this much is true, the Letter to Theodore should be given the benefit of the doubt.
|
03-21-2011, 01:08 AM
