stephan huller

I have been going through Strom 7.16 word by word, line by line for two weeks now because I have noticed a number of uncanny parallels between its phraseology and to Theodore. Just today I uncovered an undeniable reference to homosexuality thus ending another objection to the authenticity of Morton Smith's discovery. It is usually claimed that the 'homosexuality' of the Carpocratians wasn't known to Clement. It first appears in Epiphanius's Panarion which appeared over a century after Clement so - it is argued - Morton Smith 'slipped up' and introduced something into this purported text of Clement which Clement couldn't have known.

Of course Lawlor has already demonstrated that Epiphanius reference is actually a verbatim citation of Hegesippus's Hypomnema (so the reference is actually older than Clement) but let's leave that aside. Arguments like that will never convince anyone because they are too subtle. Let's bring forward my discovery from the writings of Clement. The reference reads:

The first emboldened text confirms that the unnamed sect is the Carpocratians. Why so? Because as Andrew McGowan (“Naming the Feast: The Agape and the Diversity of Early Christian Meals,” StPatr 30 (1997): 314–8) notes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3dB...page&q&f=false

The second emboldened text makes clear that these Carpocratians are identified as engaging in παρὰ φύσιν. As any knowledgeable person will immediately recognize, παρὰ φύσιν

Most of us are familiar with this passage because it is used by the same people who claim that the Letter to Theodore is a forgery to condemn homosexuality. Now of course when cornered with this argument - what are they going to say?

That "unnatural relations" (παρὰ φύσιν, para phusin) carries the sense of something contrary to the order of nature is evinced by its usage again in the analogy of the olive tree in Romans 11. There Paul writes that Gentiles "were cut off from their natural stock (κατὰ φύσιν , kata phusin) of the wild olive tree and ingrafted into the unnatural (παρὰ φύσιν, para phusin) cultured olive tree" (Rom. 11:24). Not surprisingly, παρὰ φύσιν (para phusin) becomes used for homosexuality in several subsequent Greek writers (see Athenagoras [13]; Philo [On Abraham 135-136, On Special Laws 3.39 preserves a stinging rebuke of pederasty as the "pursuit of unnatural pleasure,” thn para phusin hdonhn diwkei]; Plutarch [Dialogue on Love 751-752]; Dio Chrysostom [Discourse 7.135, 151-152]; Josephus [Against Apion 2.199, 273, 275]; and the Testament of Naphtali [3:3-4]).

One by one these idiotic claims about Morton Smith forging the Letter to Theodore to 'promote' an acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity (or to get 'revenge' on the Church) are all coming crumbling down. Yet almost no one has tackled the only question that matters in all of this - is Clement of Alexandria the original author of the document? I have been developing a massive demonstration from the beginning and end of the Stromateis that the Letter to Theodore not only 'fits' the patterns in Clement's writing that it is integrally connected to the development of the Stromateis itself.

One day scholarship will look back and laugh at all this 'debate' about the letter. It offended the vanity of a lot of people who wanted the beginnings of Christianity to be otherwise. Because these people are utterly infantile (and pride themselves on their 'childishness') they devised a malicious tactic to ram through the argument that to Theodore was a 'fake' - quietly hinge everything on the 'homosexual question.' Conservatives have been doing this for years with the electorate (remember the 'gay marriage' hot button in the 2004 election?)

Since most scholars typically haven't gotten laid (or at least gotten laid by someone that doesn't look like another egghead) they bring up the gay question to intimidate the other unnattractive eggheads who are insecure about their sexual identity (because sex has no place in most of these people's lives).

Morton Smith never got married. But have you ever looked at Morton Smith? He was no Brad Pitt. But then have you ever looked at the freaks who run academia. I know escorts that wouldn't have sex with these guys even if they offered to pay double (and the pay in academia isn't good enough to afford paying double to escorts).

The point again is that no one in scholarship is getting laid - (except for Robert Cargill who really has movie star good looks). Morton Smith was attracted to monasteries probably because he lived a monastic life. Most Patristic scholars are like-minded in that respect. There is nothing wrong with that of course. People just need to remember what's what.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

I think there are two issues here:

a/ In Stoic thought (and this is a very stoic influenced passage from Clement) παρὰ φύσιν (para phusin) as a category of behavior has much wider connotations than homosexuality. It can extend to things like adultery. eg Zeno fragment 244 Online at zeno-natural-law-and-roman-catholic
Hence Clement could have regarded the Carpocratians, (who it is plausible but not IMO certain that Clement is thinking about here), as being against nature in their practice of adultery, without homosexuality being involved.

b/ My other problem is that Clement speaks here of doctrines or opinions which are against nature. Now this could possibly mean doctrines or opinions which advocate behaviour which Clement regards as against nature. However one must understand the fundamental status in Stoicism of the dichotomy of "in accord with Nature (kata phusin)"/"against Nature (para phusin)", where things are in accord with Nature if they correspond to Universal Reason and against Nature if they falsify and reject Universal Reason. It seems more likely that Clement is referring to the intellectual corruption of the doctrines/opinions/arguments involved, rather than to the corrupt nature of some specific behavior being advocated. This would agree with Clement's emphasis on the danger to ones judgment (ability to distinguish truth from error) of these doctrines/opinions/arguments.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Hi Andrew,

I did think anyone read these threads. Yes, if Zeno of Citium or Cleanthes used παρὰ φύσιν there is a possibility that it might have the strict Stoic interpretation, I agree. However this is a very different kind of reference, this because:

a) Clement certainly was aware of the use of παρὰ φύσιν in Romans 1:26, 27
b) Clement was also certainly influenced by the terminology of Philo who - as noted - used παρὰ φύσιν in this sense.
c) the context of the passage is clearly connected with the Carpocratians and the Carpocratians are described by Clement as 'lustful' in Strom 3 and engaged in strange sex practices
d) Lawlor's argument that Ephiphanius's reference to the homosexual rituals of the group were not his own but a citation of the Hypomnema of Hegesippus (only loosely cited in Irenaeus AH 1.25) is also significant. Clement demonstrates his knowledge of this text in his discussion in Strom 1.21 (Josephus = Hegesippus)
e) the reference to παρὰ φύσιν in relation to the Carpocratians comes in a section of text which betrays uncanny parallels to the Letter to Theodore. A few notable statements from a little earliest in the narrative:

- the heretics refusing to take 'faith' as their starting point and choosing 'carnality' instead
- the heretics falsely interpreting the gospel "in accordance with their lusts (πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας)" - cmp.to Theod. I.7 - 8 "boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile lusts (ἐπιθυμίῷν)
- Strom. 7.16 - "in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth (τῆς ἐπικρύψεως τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας μυστηρίων)" cmp. to Theod. II.2, I.20 "... being initiated into the great mysteries ... of that truth hidden by seven veils"
- Strom 7.16 " the lover of truth (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ)' - cmp. to Theod. I.9 the lover of truth (ό τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστής)
- Strom 7.16 "receiving from the truth itself the rule of truth (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας), they cleave to the truth (ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας)" - cmp. to Theod. I.9 - 11 "for not all true things are the truth (ἀλήθεία) ... [only] the true truth, that according to the faith (τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀληθείας τῆς κατἀ τὴν πίστιν)"
- Strom 7.16 "But such men ... "(Οἱ τοιοῦτοι)" - cmp. to Theod. I.6 "such men ..." (τούτοις)
- Strom. 7.16 "departing from the right road (ἅτε ἀποπεσόντες τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ), are brought down (σφάλλονται) in most individual points" - cmp. to Theod. I. 4 "[those] who wander from the narrow road of the commandments (στενῆς τῶν ἐντολών ὁδοῦ) into a boundless abyss of the carnal (τῶν σαρκὶκῶν) and bodily sins."
- Strom 7.16 " not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false (διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἀληθῶν καὶ ψευδῶν)" - cmp to Theod. I.9 - 11 "that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions (τὴν κατἀ τἀς ἀνθρωπίνας δόξας φαινομένον ἀλήθείαν) should not be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith (τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀληθείας τῆς κατἀ τὴν πίστιν).

Since the Carpocratians are identified ultimately as 'homosexual' in contemporary literature, and since Clement certainly knew the use of the terminology in relation to a condemnation of homosexuality, I find it impossible not to agree that it is more probable than not that Clement used the term to denote homosexuality.

For those interested, I am in the middle of a massive demonstration of forty six parallels between Strom 7.16 and the Letter to Theodore of which this argument is number forty-six. It is a work in progress which might eventually be developed into an article or a book. The link is here - http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-theodore.html

stephan huller

Checkmate. I have found three references to παρὰ φύσιν in Clement where it refers to 'homosexuality." I am just rushing out to a meeting but here is the first from Paed. 3.3

Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν); women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness! Besides, the wretches know not how many tragedies the uncertainty of intercourse produces. For fathers, unmindful of children of theirs that have been exposed, often without their knowledge, have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself, and daughters that are prostitutes; and licence in lust shows them to be the men that have begotten them.

stephan huller

How much better are the Egyptians, who in their towns and villages pay divine honours to the irrational creatures, than the Greeks, who worship such gods as these? For if they are beasts, they are not adulterous or libidinous, and seek pleasure in nothing that is contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν). And of what sort these deities are, what need is there further to say, as they have been already sufficiently exposed? (Protrept. 1.39.1)

stephan huller

Our Instructor, the Word, therefore cures the unnatural passions (παρὰ φύσιν) of the soul by means of exhortations. (Paed 1.2)

stephan huller

I just noticed that the whole section on homosexuality in Paed 3 (which is deliberately left untranslated in all the online editions) develops the theme of Rom 1.26,27's 'contrary to nature' as homsexuality:

Nequaquam ergo credendum est, hyaenam unquam mutare naturam: idem enim animal non habet simul ambo pudenda maris et feminae, sicut nonnulli existimarunt, qui prodigiose hermaphroditos finxerunt, et inter marem et feminam, hanc masculo-feminam naturam innovarunt. Valde autem falluntur, ut qui non animadverterint, quam sit filiorum amans omnium mater et genetrix Natura: quoniam enim hoc animal, hyaena inquam, est salacissimum, sub cauda ante excrementi meatum, adnatum est ei quoddam carneum tuberculum, feminino pudendo figura persimile. Nullum autem meatum habet haec figura carnis, qui in utilem aliquam desinat partem, vel in matricem inquam, vel in rectum intestinum: tantum habet magnam concavitatem, quae inanem excipiat libidinem, quando aversi fuerint meatus, qui in concipiendo fetu occupati sunt. Hoc ipsum autem et masculo et feminae hyaenae adnatum est, quod sit insigniter pathica: masculus enim vicissim et agit, et patitur: unde etiam rarissime inveniri potest hyaena femina: non enim frequenter concipit hoc animal, cum in eis largiter redundet ea, quae praeter naturam est, satio. Hac etiam ratione mihi videtur Plato in Phoedro, amorem puerorum repellens, eum appellate bestiam, quod frenum mordentes, qui se voluptatibus dedunt, libidinosi, quadrupedum coeunt more, et filios seminare conantur. Impios "autem tradidit Deus," ut air Apostolus, "in perturbationes ignominiae: nam et feminae eorum mutaverunt naturalem usum in eum, qui est procter naturam: similiter autem et masculi eorum, relicto usu naturali, exarserunt in desiderio sui inter se invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in se recipientes." At vero ne libidinosissimis quidem animantibus concessit natura in excrementi meatum semen immittere: urina enim in vesicam excernitur, humefactum alimentum in ventrum, lacryma vero in oculum, sanguis in venas, sordes in aures, mucus in hares defertur: fini autem recti intestini, sedes cohaeret, per quam excrementa exponuntur. Sola ergo varia in hyaenis natura, superfluo coitui superfluam hanc partem excogitavit, et ideo est etiam aliquantisper concavum, ut prurientibus partibus inserviat, exinde autem excaecatur concavitas: non fuit emm res fabricata ad generationem. Hinc nobis manifestum atque adeo in confesso est, vitandos esse cum masculis concubitus, et infrugiferas sationes, et Venerem praeposteram, et quae natura coalescere non possunt, androgynorum conjunctiones, ipsam naturam sequentibus, quae id per partium prohibet constitutionem, ut quae masculum non ad semen suscipiendum, sed ad id effundendum fecerit. Jeremias autem, hoc est, per ipsum loquens Spiritus, quando dicit: "Spelunca hyaenae facta est domus mea," id quod ex mortuis constabat corporibus detestans alimentum, sapienti allegoria reprehendit cultum simulacrorum: vere enim oportet ab idolis esse puram domum Dei viventis.

I am at work but I can translate this later. I also noticed that Eric Osborne and another experts on Clement make explicit that he uses παρὰ φύσιν to denote homosexuality. Thus confirming that indeed the Carpocratians are identified as such in Strom. 7.16

Roger Pearse

(I have edited the post down, taking out the verbatim "evidence" so we can see the argument, or more precisely, the lack of it).

I was unable to follow the logic of this post, tho. Possibly I am lacking knowledge of some argument to which this is a response? But I don't see how this all hangs together.

Let me say what I do understand about the argument, and perhaps what I don't follow will be clearer.

A) Smith's letter insinuates that Jesus was a homosexual, and part of Carlson's argument against the authenticity is that the details are anachronistic, and reflect 50's American rather than 2nd century Alexandria; and in particular gay spites of the period against Christians. (Summarising very quickly a detailed argument)
B) The post responds to this, by saying that Clement in the Stromateis knows that the Carpocratians were also homosexuals, and he condemns this.

I don't see how B relates to A, as evidence for or against. It's just a fact (or not), surely? (Confused)

Something is missing here from the argument?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

If Adolf Hitler found an early Christian manuscript which condemned the Jews it MIGHT imply that the text was artificially manufactured. At the same time fortune does occassionally smile on bad men. This is not to say that Morton Smith was a bad man, or that he was a homosexual for that matter. The point is that critics of the Mar Saba discovery are all over the place in terms of what about the Mar Saba letter 'proves' that it is inauthentic. In my mind there are a number of ways that Morton Smith COULD HAVE been convicted of manufacturing the manuscript but the arguments that have been put forward by critics don't rise to that level.

I won't get into all of them because it will distract from my present discovery but clearly two document examiners have looked at the text and found nothing to support that contention (I know Agamemnon Tselikas personally so I can say that before the official release of the report for BAR). Given the fact that Stephen Carlson's arguments were based on the lowest possible resolution images (any lower they would be those handdrawn images that used to appear in books when I was kid) and the fact that he was not a professional document examiner, the argument has been effectively put to rest (see Scott Brown's recent article for BAR http://www.bib-arch.org/scholars-stu...onse-brown.asp).

Now whether or not there are arguments for forgery is another issue entirely. Someone might come up with something rather compelling tomorrow and its game over. The bottom line is that without the original manuscript or some 'smoking gun' piece of evidence from Morton Smith's hand - I see nothing that stands in the way of asking the ultimate question in light of the lack of physical evidence which is - does the Letter to Theodore resemble the writings of Clement of Alexandria? Is it 'Clementine'?

In my mind, the issue of authenticity can now be settled only by experts on the writings of Clement of Alexandria. If a document which claimed to be a letter from Adolf Hitler or Julius Caesar ended up being 'repossessed' by a Greek Orthodox monastery, we'd have to turn to those who specialize in the study of those people.

With all of that said, I have long thought that the focus of modern scholarship is utterly wrong-headed with respect to this document. Everything is focused on 'Secret Mark.' Do a Google search for 'the Letter to Theodore' you turn up 14,000 results, 'Secret Mark' triple the number.

Whether or not Mark wrote a second gospel should be a secondary issue. The focus should be on seeing whether there are any obvious contradictions between this letter and the writings of Clement. Some have been raised by scholars - free flowing salt and the identification of the Carpocratians as homosexual are supposed to have been 'unknown' to Clement.

The fact that free-flowing salt is witnessed in ancient writings is one thing. The fact that everyone seems to have forgotten that even crystalized salt can be 'mixed' with water (for boiling and salting foods) seems to have escaped everyone. I will have a thread about that in the future (but let it be said I found a 'recipe' for the manufacturing of sea water from Pliny's writings which uses the same terminology as to Theodore.

So now we are left with the homosexual argument. It is the crown jewel of the hoax side because it rallies the troops against the discovery. Smith was gay. The document says Jesus was gay. Let's kill Smith (oh, he's dead). Well, let's reject the document.

The truth is that I don't see that the document makes a claim that Jesus was gay. It develops an argument according to hearsay (from our point of view because we lack the original question by Theodore) which implies that Theodore HEARD that a sect called the Carpocratians CLAIMED that there is this reference about 'naked man with naked man' or the like.

Clement isn't making the argument. He is vehemently attacking it. But we should be very cautious with Clement owing to the sophisticated level of his writing. Look at the example in Stromata 3 where he attacks the Carpocratian interpretation of a passage from a non-canonical gospel where Jesus commands 'Do not lust.' The Greek word, like the Latin equivalent can mean 'lust' as well as 'desire' for anything. Clement's argument unfolds in such a way that BECAUSE the Carpocratians interpreted the text in such a way so as to stress the voluntarily abandonment of wealth they were receptive to the other meaning of the saying - i.e. that they were perverted.

The point is that everything about the discussion in Stromata 3 indicates that the Carpocratians were only using passages to support their interest in religious communism Clement emphasizes their perverted nature. To this end, the fact that Clement ends up saying that the Carpocratians interpreted this other reference to a commonly held Alexandrian non-canonical gospel in such a way so as to support homosexuality, does mean that it is true.

It just means that Clement is using the same tactics that is used by modern day opponents of the Mar Saba letter itself - i.e. bringing up homosexuality as a red herring.

My guess is that the original concept might have developed out of the double meaning of a term like descendo in Latin. Irenaeus for instance always reports that the heretics hold that Jesus 'descended' onto Christ or some such garbled report. Descendo can mean 'to go down' but also 'to penetrate.' I have been meaning to identify a parallel Greek term that would allow for two interpretations of the original heretical baptism paradigm.

The bottom line is that there is (a) what the heretics (Carpocratians) actually said and believed, (b) what Theodore reported to Clement about these sayings and beliefs and then (c) Clement's reinterpretation of (b) which makes its way into the Letter to Theodore.

I am not at all convinced that the Carpocratians ever believed that Jesus had sex with one of his disciples.

stephan huller

And to be honest, I think the disconnect is between (a) and (b). Clement is just trying to distance the 'accepted' Alexandrian tradition from the accusation of Theodore (or those associated with him) against the so-called 'Carpocratians' of being degenerate homosexuals. Again, I think that there was a lot of misrepresentations in the heresiological writings. Something is being twisted by Theodore (notice that he has already 'silenced' the members of the sect). He is not waiting for information from Clement per se. Clement just feels obligated to say - 'we in Alexandria aren't the same as those degenerates you silenced earlier.' In my opinion the letter is actually exposing not only the collision between 'heresiological reporting' of people like Irenaeus and the sects themselves but the underlying inaccuracy of those reports. Just look at the similarities between the Marcosians and the Carpocratians. They are impossible to tell apart. Two different reports of the same sect. The same with the Marcosians and the Marcionites. Michael the Syrian says that Cerdo and Marcion were different names of the same person.

I don't think the heresiologists strove for accuracy as much as effect - i.e. that Satan was filling the world with all sorts of wild heretics ready to devour the Church. They were definitely not trying to 'understand' the heresies. There is no attempt at real explanation or 'sympathy' for the Devil as it were. Scholars who adhere to these writings without the proper amount of critical discretion do so at their own peril.