stephan huller

For those who might be interested, I finally closed the book on this argument and may well write an academic paper on it. There can be no doubt that Strom 5.3 is a reference to LGM 1 and Secret Mark. I found a coroborating piece of evidence in Strom 2.4. It is getting to late to reproduce what I wrote at my blog over here (I am too stupid to figure out how to use those tables). But you can look here for the proof http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...t-mark_17.html

mountainman

Thanks for that.



Do you see any relation between it and the Second Apocalypse of James found within the Nag Hammadi Codices, a mid 4th century Coptic translation of a Greek original?

stephan huller

This is now less about the original OP - viz. the 'gay vibe' in Secret Mark - but it is more important. I have 'cracked the code' as it were. I can now explain the structure of the citation of Gospel of Thomas logia 2 in relation to LGM 1. I am too busy again to retype everything here. The argument appears at my blog - http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...mark-code.html. There is no argument against this. I have effectively proved the authenticity of the document or at least made an argument which is stronger than that which argues for forgery. I think this is very imprtant and its significance goes beyond the question of authenticity for the Letter to Theodore.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

I think some parts of this post are probably true and interesting ie the idea that Strom. 5.3 begins as an imitation of the non-canonical gospel reference found in Strom 5.14 (and other places).

What seems problematic is the connection between this sorites and the events described in Secret Mark. I agree that if you try hard enough you can connect them but this is true of lots of sequences. At least for me it is not the sort of parallel that seems obvious once it is pointed out.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Andrew

I am sure part of the difficulty is the format here and the fact the understanding developed quite organically. Clement is referencing some understanding of Jesus being loved by someone. He is also citing the version of logia 2 of the Gospel of Thomas preserved for us in Greek not the same saying as preserved in the Gospel to the Hebrews. Instead of the reference to being “astounded” in the original saying Clement talks about loving Jesus. In the parallel citation in Strom 2.4 where only the astounded and reigning sorites is referenced it is explained in terms of gazing and loving Wisdom (= Jesus). I think one could publish a paper arguing that Clement has LGM 1 in mind. At the very least the addition of secret praxeis and logia are specifically referenced as the foundation of Secret Mark`s structure (to Theod 1.16 - 25). Clement suggests there that Mark added both in order to lead initiates to the “truth.” Clement uses secret logia and praxeis of Jesus here and elsewhere in the Stromateis in the very same matter - ie one is used to explain the other (like with like).

I think Strom 5.3 shows that the secret logia that were added by Mark were the logia of the Gospel of Thomas. Morton Smith never took up an interest in the Gospel of Thomas

mountainman

Does the manuscript evidencetalk about the "word" or the "logos"?

I think you have just ignored trying to explain what appears to be a very similar rendition of the "heretical gospel' found at Nag Hammadi (referenced above). Were the Pachomonian gnostics preserving Clement, or a similar text to "Secret Mark" alluded to in Smith's Clement's Mar Saba letter? I would not consider the matter "proved" at all until more evidence is discussed.

The original OP might wish to address the 'gay vibe' at Nag Hammadi.

stephan huller

Well, I think some of my language is reactionary - i.e. when I am told by people that support the hoax hypothesis that the letter has been 'proved' to be a forgery by so-and-so (usually because of the now outdated book by Stephen Carlson). Yes, I am guilty of the same kind of logic. If you catch me in a sober mood, I'd have to confess that the letter sounds Clementine but that's really all there is. I don't know if you could prove everything about every surviving text of Clement. For instance - is the text called Quis Dives Salvetur really by Clement. I am certain of it. I think that argument has been 'proved' in a sense but it has to be admitted that the earliest manuscript does not list an author and the text is merely identified as 'a Homily' tacked on to the end of a work of Origen.

Is the Stromateis a seven volume or eight volume work? I am certain that it was seven books in length but one could argue for eight (and some do). The surviving manuscript makes it seem as if it was eight volumes in length.

I should do a thread about some information I was given about Quis Dives Salvetur originally being found at Mar Saba long before any of our earliest manuscripts. Maybe that will be later tonight.

The question surrounding Cleemnt and his works are almost without end. Another question - is the fact that Clement fled to Caesarea and the Stromateis, the Instructor and Exhortation were preserved by a bishop of the same city - i.e. Arethas of Caesarea - related? In other words, did Arethas preserve a copy of the manuscripts that dated back to Clement's time in the city? I would think so but ...

Is the fact that the Hypotyposeis were NOT included in Arethas's bundling of Clementine texts reflective of his teacher Photius opinion that the Hypotyposeis were NOT written by Clement. Yes, I think so but ...

The point is that all of these discussions about 'genuine Clementine' works are inherently problematic. The surviving texts were edited. To this end what we are really debating is whether the discovery of the Mar Saba manuscript is best explained by (a) assuming that the work wasn't really 'discovered' by Morton Smith but manufactured by him clandestinely or (b) that the work went back to a period before Morton Smith's claim of discovery.

I think that the people who claim (a) have to more of a foundation for their claims than merely not liking the contents of the text or having some vague 'suspicion' about the circumstances of the discovery. You have to provide some hard evidence and they haven't. If anything recent work has demonstrated how flimsy (and borderline fradulent) these original claims were.

To this end, I claim 'victory' or to have 'proved' the authenticty of the text merely by developing plausible arguments for authenticity. No one on the side of Morton Smith even tries to do that. For twenty years it has been little more than engaging in scholarly abstractions. Writing papers against the forgery position. This has led to the claim that things are at a 'stalemate.' They are not at a stalemate. Someone has to demonstrate that something is wrong with the manuscript THAT STANDS UP TO EXPERT SCRUTINY and that simply hasn't happened. Someone has to demonstrate that Clement didn't or couldn't have written the letter that hasn't happened. Someone has to provide hard evidence that Smith didn't merely discover a lost manuscript of Clement. That surely hasn't happened. If anything it has been reasonably argued that he couldn't have manufactured the forgery. Even prominent members of the 'hoax hypothesis' have acknowledged that.