stephan huller

I have been wrestling with the significance of this ambiguous passage in Clement all day which is translated thusly:

I am particularly struck by the rendering of οἱ κεράτων μονοκερώτων. Did Clement really imagine the Alexandrian Church as erastai of the horns of unicorns? What the hell does that mean?

The first thing to note is that ἐραστής = 'lover' in Greek is usually used in conjunction with people. In a sexual relationship it designates the older male who loves the beautiful younger eromenos. But how can the the plural of ἐραστής be used in conjunction with a mythical animal?

There are a number of times when the word 'unicorn' רֶאֵם is used and it has a surprising significance in the religion. It appears in the blessing of Joseph (Deuteronomy 33:17) as well as Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7.

The blessing of Joseph in Deut. 33 reads "His horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the Earth." I can't help but wonder if there is something messianic in this understanding. Already Theodoret interprets the symbolism as related to the one god and I think he is right.

Indeed we all know about Jerome's tranlsation of a critical passage in the Torah. It is most famously represented in Michelangelo's painting. The origin of these horns is found in Exod 34:29 - 35, 'When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tables of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. And when Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him."

This text is correctly understood in the early Jewish Antiquitates Biblicae 12:1 as, 'And Moses came down. And when he had been bathed with invisible light, he went down to the place where the light of the sun and the moon are [sic]; and the light of his face surpassed the splendor of the sun and the moon, and he did not even know this. Other ancient Jewish witnesses, including the Septuagint, interpret this text in similar fasion.

The word in the verse translated as 'shone' is formed from the Hebrew root קרן . In The Bible it occurs as a verb only in our text - elsewhere the root is used as a noun. The noun means 'horn' in the Bible with the exception of Hab 3:4, where, similarly to Exod 34:29-35, it is translated as 'rays flashing'.

But here as well the Septuagint and thus also Jerome speak of 'horns'. For this and other reasons it is not surprising that the proselyte Aquila (Akylas, second century) translated the text into Greek as the 'horned face' of Moses. Based on Akylas Jerome produced the famous 'cornuta fades' of Moses (Exod 34:29 - 35). Jerome adopted Akylas' translation in the certainty that the horned countenance of Moses was already present in the Hebrew Bible." As can be seen from Jerome's exposition, he understood Moses' horns metaphorically.

It should be noted that the idea of a horned Moses is found throughout the rabbinic literature. I am wondering if Clement's οἱ κεράτων μονοκερώτων is a reference to the same concept only now with reference to Jesus.

The logic here should be very easy to follow. Clement EXPLICITLY states that Jesus is the 'prophet like Moses' in Deut 18:18. His argument is that Jesus is the prophetic voice which spoke through all the prophets including Moses.

The Hebrew of Deuteronomy 33:17 for example is בְּכוֹר שׁוֹרוֹ הָדָר לוֹ, וְקַרְנֵי רְאֵם קַרְנָיו

The other side of the equation is that we know that there was a heretical figure named Cerinthus. He is a Jewish-Christian heretic allegedly. But what fails to get noted is that the Greek name Cerinthus is generally acknowledged to be a substitute of the Latin name Cornutus in the poems of Sulpicius. In other words we go all the way back to knowledge of Jerome's substitution for the Aquila translation of the Hebrew קרן which forms part of the description of Moses.

I wonder whether there existed an understanding of Jesus as 'Cerinthus' - i.e. the one-like Moses who was horned. Indeed as the fulfiller of the prophesy of Joseph I wonder whether he was conceived as the κεράτων μονοκερώτων of Clement's text.

The specific terminology κεράτων μονοκερώτων appears in Psalm 21:22 LXX σῶσόν με ἐκ στόματος λέοντος καὶ ἀπὸ κεράτων μονοκερώτων τὴν ταπείνωσίν μου. Justin uses this to describe the Cross, but this is forced. The image of Jesus as the Unicorn was popular in Christian art http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/albertini2.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=GzM...nicorn&f=false

The only difficulty of course is that κεράτων μονοκερώτων are both plural - i.e. the horns of unicorns. But how on earth is erastai associated with lots of horns of a mythical animal? There is a bizarre phallic image if there ever was one.

The best solution I think is that Jesus is somehow meant. But then we find ourselves with a very explicit confirmation of LGM 1 of Secret Mark again ...

andrewcriddle

It may be relevant that early Christian writers use the horns of the unicorns as a metaphor for the cross.

Eg Justin Dialogue with Trypho
Andrew Criddle

Toto

A unicorn has one horn. This "cross" would have to be a stake.

stephan huller

I know the text of the Dialogue puts forward this explanation but it doesn't make sense here on many levels. No commentator I have ever read suggests this explanation for the passage. The various passages where unicorn is found in the OT make it obvious it can only mean God or Israel. Also are there any examples of ἐραστής being used with an inanimate object? How can one be an ἐραστής of the Cross? It sounds really perverted. Is the Cross then the eromenos? Even with this interpretation which I disagree with you still have Christianity described in terms of a homoerotic relationship:

Things are still clearly not the way you promoters of the hoax hypothesis claim they are with Clement. He certainly does borrow from the Platonic interest in pedastry to describe the 'love' at the heart of Christianity. N'est ce pas? How do you deny this?

stephan huller

The reason I was interested in this passage of course is that it seems to mirror a critical scene in the first addition to Secret Mark (= LGM 1):

Compare the allusion in Paed. 1.5:

We have to remember that bodies were typically buried beneath the earth. Look at the Acts of Peter of Alexandria and the description of the martyrium of St. Mark. Peter has to crawl into a tomb that is under the earth. When the youth of LGM 1 is 'stretching his hand' in the garden tomb, it is implicit that he was 'stretching up' (ἀνατεινόμενοι).

The more I think about Andrew's explanation of the passage, it doesn't contradict the LGM 1 interpretation. Just read Scott Brown's contextual interpretation of the passage in relation to the impending Passion. In other words, Jesus is preparing the youth for what is about to unfold in Jerusalem (i.e. the Cross).

It is also worth remembering Clement's consistent understanding of 'philosophia' as meaning the ritual 'love' of Jesus (= the Wisdom of God). Again the terminology is 'safe' (eros is not used). But that doesn't mean that this isn't a development of the pederastic description of love in the Phaedrus. It is something new. Christianity is 'perfecting' the ideas in Plato and the OT, combining them into something new but the original philosophical 'roots' of this conception were obvious for pagan critics (cf. Celsus on the Platonic 'appropriation' of contemporary Christianity).

DCHindley

Stephan,

Plato, Symposium 201d-212d Speech of Socrates: (summary)

The importance of Diotima of Mantinea. Socrates has learned that Eros is not 'good' and 'beautiful' (kalos kai agathos) in itself. Eros is in fact a mean between opposites, just as doxa ('right opinion') is a mean between real accurate knowledge (episthmh) and ignorance. Love cannot, therefore, be a god, but rather some thing halfway between the immortal and divine and the mortal. Eros is thus a daimon. According to Diotima the Prophetess, Eros is the offspring of Peneia ('poverty' 'want') and Resource (the offspring of Craft). Eros is a seeker after beauty and truth, and thus after wisdom. I might also add that in Plato daimons exist to facilitate communication between God and man.

Why the horns of a unicorn? Who knows. In the Physiologus, a form of which might originate in the 2nd century CE due to apparent parallels with imagery in Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr, the ferocious unicorn can be placated by the innocent virgin. I think in light of above sentiment of Plato on a higher form of eros, the unicorn's horns could simply be a metaphor for reaching up towards God by innocent youth who are untainted by knowledge of sin and corruption.

DCH

stephan huller

Compare the line in Paed. 1.5:

to the line from Clement's own hand in to Theodore:

The 'truth' is always used as a term to denote Jesus in the writings of Clement and Clement now uses a variety of terms to denote the concept of 'loving' Jesus as noted above. The interesting thing from these citations of course is that in both his acknowledged writings and to Theodore we see Clement turn around what would be the expect role in the homosexual relationship (i.e. the disciple/believer as ἐραστής and Jesus presumably as the eromenos). The same idea might be found in the early Patristic references to John/the dove 'descending' (= Latin descendo) onto/into Jesus.

Here is an important shade of meaning from the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary entry for the Latin term descendo consistently used in the surviving Latin texts of Irenaeus's description of the heretical understanding of what happened at Jesus's baptism:

The story of the yona 'descending' onto/into Jesus might be a development of the whispers related to LGM 1 which pre-dated Celsus's True Word. Remember the Marcionite gospel DID NOT have this Jesus being baptized by John and then a yona coming on to him. Von Harnack and every author authority on Marcion acknowledges this. I am wondering if this was developed out of the contemporary whispers about LGM 1 and added to the beginnings of the gospels.

If we take the references in Clement back to some lost gospel narrative (which Clement must have given what he says at the end of the Stromata - viz. that what seperates him from the heretics is that all his teachings and his ideas are rooted in scripture whereas the heretics 'make stuff up') whether or not LGM 1 is authentic or not, Jesus was understood to assume the role of the 'loved,' the Beloved, the passive one in the relationship who is pursued by the initiate (or 'sought' and 'found' to quote logia 2 of the Gospel of Thomas) by the younger initiate.

This is critical and it turns around the Platonic conception in the Phaedrus and ultimately precludes any sexual contact between disciple and teacher. Nevertheless as noted above the Platonic understanding developed from pedastry is still referenced which undoubtedly caused problems for contemporary Christians.

ph2ter

I agree with you that unicorn carries certain sexual allusions. Later it is usually connected with the virgin. But the first mention comes from Ctesius and he equates the unicorn with the Indian wild asses (and asses have an important role in the Bible):

“There are in India certain wild asses which are as large
as horses, and larger. Their bodies are white, their heads dark
red, and their eyes dark blue. They have a horn on the forehead
which is about a foot and a half in length. The dust filed from
this horn is administered in a potion as a protection against
deadly drugs. The base of this horn, for some two hands’-
breadth above the brow, is pure white; the upper part is sharp
and of a vivid crimson; and the remainder, or middle portion,
is black. Those who drink out of these horns, made into
drinking vessels, are not subject, they say, to convulsions or
to the holy disease [epilepsy]. Indeed, they are immune even to
poisons if, either before or after swallowing such, they drink
wine, water, or anything else from these beakers. Other asses,
both the tame and the wild, and in fact all animals with solid
hoofs, are without the ankle-bone and have no gall in the
liver, but these have both the ankle-bone and the gall. This
ankle-bone, the most beautiful I have ever seen, is like that
of an ox in general appearance and in size, but it is as heavy
as lead and its color is that of cinnabar through and through.
The animal is exceedingly swift and powerful, so that no
creature, neither the horse nor any other, can overtake it.”
Ctesias (416 B.C.)

Interestingly, the Indian wild ass or unicorn appears in the life of Apollonius of Tyana
"AND they say that wild asses are also to be captured in these marshes, and these creatures have a horn upon the forehead, with which they butt like a bull and make a noble fight of it; the Indians make this horn into a cup, for they declare that no one can ever fall sick on the day on which he has drunk out of it, nor will any one who has done so be the worse for being wounded, and he will be able to pass through fire unscathed, and he is even immune from poisonous draughts which others would drink to their harm. Accordingly, this goblet is reserved for kings, and the king alone may indulge in the chase of this creature.
And Apollonius says that he saw this animal, and admired its natural features; but when Damis asked him if he believed the story about the goblet, he answered:
"I will believe it, if I find the king of the Indians hereabout to be immortal; for surely a man who can offer me or anyone else a draught potent against disease and so wholesome, he not be much more likely to imbibe it himself, and take a drink out of this horn every day even at the risk of intoxication? For no one, I conceive, would blame him for exceeding in such cups.""
(The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus 'On the Existence of Unicorns')

ph2ter

The Physiologus is a didactic text written or compiled in Greek by an unknown author, in Alexandria; its composition has been traditionally dated to the 2nd century AD by readers who saw parallels with writings of Clement of Alexandria, who is asserted to have known the text, though Alan Scott has made a case for a date at the end of the third or in the 4th century.

The Syriac version says:—
“There is an animal called dajja, extremely gentle, which
the hunters are unable to capture because of its great
strength. It has in the middle of its brow a single horn. But
observe the ruse by which the huntsmen take it. They lead forth
a young virgin, pure and chaste, to whom, when the animal sees
her, he approaches, throwing himself upon her. Then the girl
offers him her breasts, and the animal begins to suck the
breasts of the maiden and to conduct himself familiarly with
her. Then the girl, while sitting quietly, reaches forth her
hand and grasps the horn on the animal’s brow, and at this
point the huntsmen come up and take the beast and go away with
him to the king.—Likewise the Lord Christ has raised up for us
a horn of salvation in the midst of Jerusalem, in the house of
God, by the intercession of the Mother of God, a virgin pure,
chaste, full of mercy, immaculate, inviolate.”

aeebee50

Too Arian for me.