stephan huller

once again, the existence of a gospel like Secret Mark or the Diatessaron which was used by Clement reconciles the apparent 'contradiction' and the use of the story of Zacchaeus in a homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 (Quis Dives Salvetur) to explain things. The Letter to Theodore confirms what is really going on as 'more additional information' is cited from the same chapter in Mark

stephan huller

I also thought of something just now. Irenaeus and Origen also witness that stories were once a part of the Gospel of Mark which do not appear there now. It is theoretically possible that Clement is citing Zacchaeus from a publicly circulating copy of the Gospel of Mark just as Irenaeus had a copy of Mark that had the 'No one knows the Father except the Son' reference (AH 4.2)

stephan huller

Perhaps I should cite from Clement's original argument in Quis Dives Salvetur to make absolutely clear that he is using some non-canonical gsopel. He explains Mark 10:17 - 31 is only completed in the example of Zacchaeus (which follows in all Diatessaronic gospels).

CW Phillips only followed the chain of integrated passages from the Rich Fool (Luke 12) to Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10) to the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) and I have demonstrated that Clement already used a gospel which demonstrated this synthesis of material (Strom 3).

Yet it is also clear from Clement that the integrated section went further all the way down to the Zacchaeus narrative as we see in Strom 4 which starts again with the Rich Fool and ends with Zacchaeus albeit in a slightly differnet form:

For so He says, "Fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee; and whose shall those things be which thou hast prepared?" And the commandment is expressed in these very words, "Take heed, therefore, of covetousness. For a man's life does not consist in the abundance of those things which he possesses. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" "Wherefore I say, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for your body, what ye shall put on. For your life is more than meat, and your body than raiment." And again, "For your Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." "But seek first the kingdom of heaven, and its righteousness," for these are the great things, and the things which are small and appertain to this life "shall be added to you." Does He not plainly then exhort us to follow the gnostic life, and enjoin us to seek the truth in word and deed? Therefore Christ, who trains the soul, reckons one rich, not by his gifts, but by his choice. It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, "Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;" on which the Saviour said, "The Son of man, on coming to-day, has found that which was lost." Again, on seeing the rich cast into the treasury according to their wealth, and the widow two mites, He said "that the widow had cast in more than they all," for "they had contributed of their abundance, but she of her destitution." [Strom. 4.6]

So Clement knows of a text where Zacchaeus is identified as 'Matthew' thus confirming the citation from a non-canonical text (Secret Mark?). In Quis Dives Salvetur the Zacchaeus/Matthew references is understood not only to come after the Rich Fool narrative as in Strom 4.6 but to complete or answer the Question from the Rich Youth (Mark 10:17 - 31) the subject of the Homily:

Why then command as new, as divine, as alone life-giving, what did not save those of former days? And what peculiar thing is it that the new creature s the Son of God intimates and teaches? It is not the outward act which others have done, but something else indicated by it, greater, more godlike, more perfect, the stripping off of the passions from the soul itself and from the disposition, and the cutting up by the roots and casting out of what is alien to the mind. For this is the lesson peculiar to the believer, and the instruction worthy of the Saviour. For those who formerly despised external things relinquished and squandered their property, but the passions of the soul, I believe, they intensified. For they indulged in arrogance, pretension, and vainglory, and in contempt of the rest of mankind, as if they had done something superhuman. How then would the Saviour have enjoined on those destined to tire for ever what was injurious and hurtful with reference to the life which He promised? For although such is the case, one, after ridding himself of the burden of wealth, may none the less have still the lust and desire for money innate and living; and may have abandoned the use of it, but being at once destitute of and desiring what he spent, may doubly grieve both on account of the absence of attendance, and the presence of regret. For it is impossible and inconceivable that those in want of the necessaries of life should not be harassed in mind, and hindered from better things in the endeavour to provide them somehow, and from some source. And how much more beneficial the opposite case, for a man, through possessing a competency, both not himself to be in straits about money, and also to give assistance to those to whom it is requisite so to do! For if no one had anything, what room would be left among men for giving? ... Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, "To-day salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." He so praises the use of property as to enjoin, along with this addition, the giving a share of it, to give drink to the thirsty, bread to the hungry, to take the houseless in, and clothe the naked. But if it is not possible to supply those needs without substance, and He bids people abandon their substance, what else would the Lord be doing than exhorting to give and not to give the same things, to feed and not to feed, to take in and to shut out, to share and not to share? which were the most irrational of all things. [Quis 12 - 13]

If we deny the existence of Secret Mark then at the very least we have to admit that Clement had a different version of a 'publicly' circulating gospel of Mark. Yet the incorporation of what we would call 'Lukan' and 'Markan' material suggests some connection with the Marcionite gospel which is identified as 'according to Mark' in the Philosophumena (although obviously containing again many familiar Lukan elements). The difficulty in identifying whether a gospel is Luke or Mark is akin to deciding the sex of someone who underwent a sex change operation. Is it now a 'he' or 'she' when both sexual organs are present? Or if you will is a cockapoo a cockerspaniel or a poodle? The correct answer is - it is both but also something else.

stephan huller

Notice also that Syriac speakers like Ephrem can see 'Zacchaeus' as a kind of codeword for ritual purity:

Hurry and come down from the fig tree, because it is with you that I will be staying. The first fig tree of Adam will be forgotten, because of the last fig tree of the chief tax collector, and the name of the guilty Adam will be forgotten because of the innocent (zakai) Zakai. (Commentary on the Diatessaron)

It is worth noting that the gnostic baptist sect which were ridiculed by the name Borborites 'filthy' are said to have called themselves 'the Zakai' (the pure, blameless). I think Doug Shaver asked a question last week about a category of people who appear in Romans 3:18 known as 'the righteousness.' Wherever 'righteous' appears in Hebrew manuscripts it is inevitably translated by 'zakai' in the Targumic literature.

stephan huller

Interestingly again there might be a Pythagorean underpinning that Clement might have taken an interest in. Zacchaeus says that he restores fourfold (τετραπλοῦς). The Pythagoreans apparently took an interest in quadruples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_quadruple which in turn led to the development of the so-called 'Diophantine equation' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diophantine_equation of a certain Pythagorean Diophantes of Alexandria a near contempory of Clement and Origen

There are, however, some interesting numerical results, such as, Pythagorean quadruples. Similar to Pythagorean Triples, quadruples are sets of 4 integers, such that the sum of the squares of the smaller three equals the square of the fourth larger integer.
One such quadruple is [3, 4, 12, 13].
= 32 + 42 + 122 = 132

Interestingly 4:3 is the diatessaron ratio and 12 = 3 x 4. The section of text in the chapter 10 of Mark that Clement knew was filled with such diatessaronic (or perhaps more correctly 'sesquitertian') ratios. First Jesus says that he will be raised 'after three days' = 4 then (if you accept the authenticity of Secret Mark) he tells the youth at the end of the day to come 'after six days' = 7 but the initiation occurs on the eight day (see Irenaeus and Clement's discussion of an identical calculation with respect to the Transfiguration in my other post). 6/8 = 4:3 again. Then we have the Pythagorean quadruple (τετραπλοῦς) mentioned in the Zacchaeus/Matthew narrative the first of which develops from a 4:3. Coincidence or more of the Pythagoran fishes and loaves=

first multiplication = 5:2 second multiplication 7:7 (in some variant Diatessaronic readings) = 12:9 = 4:3

Notice also that Irenaeus emphasizes that the resurrection that happened after three days (3/4) is emphasized by the Marcosians also to happen in the twelfth month (according to the Egyptian calendar) AH 2

andrewcriddle

See also stromateis book 3

Andrew Criddle

Joan of Bark

You could look at it that way, but I see Christians = Christianity, since there is no other agreed upon definition for Christianity.

stephan huller

It is a waste of time to accuse any organized body of harboring 'hypocrites' at one time or another. Such is the nature of humanity and human nature. The real question is whether Christianity - and in this case Alexandrian Christianity at the time of Clement - practices a ritualized or institutionalized form of deception to preserve 'secret' teachings at odds with the new orthodoxy from Rome in the age of Commodus. Such a proposition is difficult to prove but would help explain many curiosities that emerge at the time of Clement, Origen, Dionysius - and even reports that Arius in the early fourth century was willing to compromise shortly before his death.

There is a difference between 'hypocrisy' (Aram hanef) and ignorance. Modern Christians do not understand their religion or its scriptures because they have no informed authorities to guide them. Are they blameworthy in that regard? Are people who profess to understand or promote Darwin blameworthy for misunderstanding or misrepresenting his model? Is Marx to blame for Soviet Russia? Nietzsche for Nazi Germany? Where does this end?

I think at some point we have to decide whether we are interested in explaining the texts and traditions of early Christianity or just want to mock and insult a tradition which had great influence over the world for most of the last two thousand years.

Joan of Bark

How is it a waste of time to point out that those who wish to base our society on their version of Christianity don't even follow Jesus themselves? Hypocrites have been the major part of Christianity since the fourth century, when Constantine and Theodosius gave the Church wealth and power. (I'm defining Christians here as people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus).

They are blameworthy if they haven't even read -- at the very least -- the gospels. There's no excuse for literate people in this day and age to plead ignorance of the law. Christians are also hypocritical in this ignorance because they claim that Jesus is extremely important and should be followed ... yet they haven't even read Him themselves! Whilst the few that have read the gospels don't follow the teachings because few people want to be passive and poor.


Yes, if they haven't even read Darwin.

This is the opposite situation to the examples you give above. No, the author is not responsible for those who don't read him.

Over the western world, you mean. And the influence it's had has often been negative and repressive.

Chili

The Gospels take place in Galilee and that is not part of Catholicsm proper. It is their "Church Suffering" between the "Church Militant" commonly known as Catholic (and therefore not Christian), and the "Church Triumphant" and therefore not or no longer Catholic.

Do you see the movement here? and if you don't you either are not being honest, or you suffer from the triple S syndrome.

This then is why Catholics are not Gospel people and never are required to read the bible and have no place for that during mass except for some snippets that fall from the rich man's table, maybe (if they are not sleeping by then but are bored with it tfor sure).
Yes but blameworthy only from your point of view presuming that the Gospels really count for anything and that worshiping Jesus is the right thing to do while we do "hail Mary's" instead and have a side altar in her honor and a whole shitload of stuff that we do to venerate Her coming and going throughout the Year and Jesus is just left hanging there upon the cross . . . and nobody quite understands this because they look for religious righteousness as a good thing and profess that he died for rightreousness as sinner while we say that [B]we must do the same thing as sinner too.

Hint hint, good works instead of good words, and so in being 'doer' of the word that comes to us in snippets lest it bloats us too.

Don't bother as he suffered triple S too.