Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-15-2012, 03:36 PM

We already know that the Marcionites did not have the baptism of Jesus by John in their gospel. I just noticed that Clement does not make reference to the any of the baptism narratives in the canonical gospels. What's more it has been noted that:

Quote:

Like Theophilus and the earlier Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria also fails to make a connection between the anointing of Christians in baptism and the baptism of Jesus. http://books.google.com/books?id=V9C...sus%22&f=false

What then is the basis to Alexandrian Christian baptism? It would seem that Secret Mark is the only text from Alexandria which can help us explain this strange phenomena.

andrewcriddle · 01-16-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

We already know that the Marcionites did not have the baptism of Jesus by John in their gospel. I just noticed that Clement does not make reference to the any of the baptism narratives in the canonical gospels. What's more it has been noted that:

Quote:

Like Theophilus and the earlier Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria also fails to make a connection between the anointing of Christians in baptism and the baptism of Jesus. http://books.google.com/books?id=V9C...sus%22&f=false

What then is the basis to Alexandrian Christian baptism? It would seem that Secret Mark is the only text from Alexandria which can help us explain this strange phenomena.

Clement Instructor book I chapter VI

Quote:

For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, "Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee." ...Well, I assert, simultaneously with His baptism by John, He becomes perfect? Manifestly. He did not then learn anything more from him? Certainly not. But He is perfected by the washing-of baptism-alone, and is sanctified by the descent of the Spirit? Such is the case. The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal. "I," says He, "have said that ye are gods, and all sons of the Highest."

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 01-16-2012, 06:44 PM

Thank you Andrew. This reference is not included in the index in the Ante-Nicene collection. It doesn't agree with any known reading save Bezae Luke. Maybe that's why they didn't reference it in the index. Any idea why Clement says Jesus is “free” just before the reference.

I think this reference is very important

stephan huller · 01-16-2012, 06:55 PM

Here is Bart Ehrman's discussion of the passage:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NHI...day%22&f=false

He argues that this was the original reading in Luke which was corrected by later editors because of its adoptionist implications.

stephan huller · 01-16-2012, 07:14 PM

Let's put the whole questionable passage under a microscope. Clement begins talking about his experience with baptism or some mystical sacrament where he came into contact with God:

Quote:

We have ample means of encountering those who are given to carping. For we are not termed children and infants with reference to the childish and contemptible character of our education, as those who are inflated on account of knowledge have calumniously alleged. Straightway, on our regeneration, we attained that perfection after which we aspired. For we were illuminated, which is to know God. He is not then imperfect who knows what is perfect. And do not reprehend me when I profess to know God; for so it was deemed right to speak to the Word, and He is free.

Then the narrative suddenly changes and the narrative from Bezae Luke is introduced:

Quote:

For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, "Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee." Let us then ask the wise, Is Christ, begotten to-day, already perfect, or--what were most monstrous--imperfect? If the latter, there is some addition He requires yet to make. But for Him to make any addition to His knowledge is absurd, since He is God. For none can be superior to the Word, or the teacher of the only Teacher. Will they not then own, though reluctant, that the perfect Word born of the perfect Father was begotten in perfection, according to oeconomic fore-ordination? And if He was perfect, why was He, the perfect one, baptized? It was necessary, they say, to fulfil the profession that pertained to humanity. Most excellent. Well, I assert, simultaneously with His baptism by John, He becomes perfect? Manifestly. He did not then learn anything more from him? Certainly not. But He is perfected by the washing--of baptism--alone, and is sanctified by the descent of the Spirit? Such is the case. The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became.

And then after this lacuna the original narrative continues:

Quote:

Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal. "I," says He, "have said that ye are gods, and all sons of the Highest." This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing: washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly. Now we call that perfect which wants nothing. For what is yet wanting to him who knows God? For it were truly monstrous that that which is not complete should be called a gift (or act) of God's grace. Being perfect, He consequently bestows perfect gifts. As at His command all things were made, so on His bare wishing to bestow grace, ensues the perfecting of His grace. For the future of time is anticipated by the power of His volition.

Can someone tell me why on earth Clement cites Bezae Luke to explain the original discussion of why Christians are called children? The passage has nothing to do with the original discussion especially the "Thou art my beloved son ..." business. Indeed one might expect to have had Clement say that Jesus was made the 'son of God' at his baptism but he never says that.

One more thing. The style of the Bezae section is odd. Clement is usually quite a sophisticated writer. In this section he seems to be engaging in a debate with himself which is very atypical:

Quote:

For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, "Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee."

Let us then ask the wise (Πυθώμεθα οὖν τῶν σοφῶν). Is Christ, begotten to-day, already perfect, or--what were most monstrous--imperfect?

If the latter, there is some addition He requires yet to make. But for Him to make any addition to His knowledge is absurd, since He is God. For none can be superior to the Word, or the teacher of the only Teacher.

Will they not then own, though reluctant, that the perfect Word born of the perfect Father was begotten in perfection, according to oeconomic fore-ordination? And if He was perfect, why was He, the perfect one, baptized?

It was necessary, they say, to fulfil the profession that pertained to humanity.

Most excellent (Παγκάλως).

Well, I assert (Φημὶ γάρ).

Simultaneously with His baptism by John, He becomes perfect?

Manifestly (δῆλον ὅτι).

He did not then learn anything more from him?

Certainly not (οὐ γάρ).

But He is perfected by the washing--of baptism--alone, and is sanctified by the descent of the Spirit?

Such is the case (οὕτως ἔχει)

The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar the Lord became.

This is not Clement's writing style. It is very choppy. I am going to look for these words and phrases in the rest of Clement's books just now.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2012, 06:44 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Thank you Andrew. This reference is not included in the index in the Ante-Nicene collection. It doesn't agree with any known reading save Bezae Luke. Maybe that's why they didn't reference it in the index. Any idea why Clement says Jesus is “free” just before the reference. I think this reference is very important

01-16-2012, 06:55 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is Bart Ehrman's discussion of the passage: http://books.google.com/books?id=NHI...day%22&f=false He argues that this was the original reading in Luke which was corrected by later editors because of its adoptionist implications.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.