stephan huller

I have always believed that it is familiarity with the writings of the Clement and the early Alexandrian tradition which stands in the way of accepting the Letter to Theodore as authentic. Of course some of the people who argue the text is a fake have some familiarity with Clement. Yet let's face it - there is a difference between fucking a woman and making love to a woman. Intimacy requires familiarity with nuance. The people who would have us believe that 'Clement never mentions' Secret Mark are raping the material. Of course Clement isn't going to explicitly reference a holy and secret text. Almost every notable in antiquity participated in the Eleusinian mysteries; the fact that they didn't divulge the experience doesn't prove they were just sitting around playing cards.

In the same way, we shouldn't expect Clement to come out and say 'hey guys, there's the secret gospel which I can't tell you about and this pericope where a rich youth is resurrected by Jesus.' It's like finding out your spouse is cheating on you. You look for tangential evidence like text messages, phone calls, dressing habits etc (or video surveillance tape after a call to Joey Greco at Cheaters).

I have always noticed that Clement of Alexandria pays more attention to the Question of the Rich Man narrative (Mark 10:17 - 31) than any other pericope in his writings. It not only forms the basis to Quis Dives Salvetur but large sections of the Instructor and the Stromateis. In every reference there is an unmistakable sense that he is aware of the 'public version' of the narrative (cited as 'what the gospel according to Mark says' at the beginning of Quis Dives Salvetur) and then another version of the story found in a non-canonical gospel that he shared with the Carpocratians and other heretics which resembled the early Diatessaronic narratives of such texts as the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

As I have noted many times here the Rev. C W Phillips noticed that the Gospel According to the Hebrews was only one of many Diatessaronic gospels which seemed to have integrated the section around Mark 10:17 - 31 with stories found principally in Luke (i.e. the Rich Fool, Dives and Lazarus). Clement always connects the Question of the Rich Youth to stories in Luke. In Quis Dives Salvetur for instance he proves that Jesus did not want us to simply become religious communists by arguing that the Zacchaeus narrative 'completed' the ideas which were introduced in Mark 10:17 - 31. He is plainly aware of another version of the Zacchaeus narrative from a non-canonical gospel for he makes passing reference to a version of the story where Zacchaeus is actually identified as 'Matthew.'

Yet all the Diatessaronic gospels have the Zacchaeus narrative follow the Question of the Rich Youth. Indeed the story is actually 'inserted' into Mark 10:46 in the very same place as the second addition to Secret Mark (= LGM 2). Mark 10:46 now reads:

It plainly seemst that something has been cut out of the text. Why mentioned Jesus and his disciples coming and then suddenly leaving Jericho? The Letter to Theodore tells us only what 'extra-canonical material' was added in Secret Mark (i.e. stuff that no one else knew about):

Now most people just assume that Clement's public gospel of Mark resembled our own so when he says 'that's all there is' the rest of Mark 10:46 must have followed the material cited. Yet it is important to note that Clement doesn't ever say that. In the case of the first addition he tells us what came before and after the citation. In this case, just what appeared before the additional material.

I happen to think that Clement's secret gospel of Mark had the Zacchaeus narrative immediately follow LGM 2 because this is what appears in every Diatessaronic gospel and I have demonstrated over and over again how Clement used a non-canonical gospel related to the earliest Diatessaronic witnesses. Here is how the Diatessaron reads in this section:

Now I have written about Clement's use of Zacchaeus in Quis Dives Salvetur in many other threads and posts and my blog so now I would like to demonstrate something else completely.

Clement's non-canonical gospel which resembled the Diatessaron always seems to touch upon material related to the so-called 'Phillips Gospel Narrative' - i.e. where (a) the Rich Fool (b) the Question of the Rich Fool and (c) the Rich Man and Lazarus were integrated in a highly synthesized narrative. Yet Clement also always seems to imply that the rich youth was a paradigmatic example of salvation. It was for this reason that he and the Carpocratians were locked in a bitter struggle over the meaning of the pericope. The Carpocratians saying you have to live as religious communists if you want to attain 'the kingdom of heaven' (interesting phrasal substitution); Clement, that Mark apparently used Zacchaeus to demonstrate the importance of charity and that this rich man - i.e. the rich youth - did indeed attain the 'kingdom of God.'

It is interesting to observe that at the very conclusion of Quis Dives Salvetur - just before the strange addition from the Acts of John or some such apocryphal narrative - Clement actually lets it slip out that the Question of the Rich Youth was followed by a baptism narrative called 'the apolutrosis' (ἀπολύτρωσις). Clement makes reference to the narrative as following Mark 10:17 - 31 and Irenaeus interestingly in the conclusion of his attack against 'those of Mark' (AH 1.21.1 - 2) says that this sect pointed to the ἀπολύτρωσις baptism immediately preceding Mark 10:35 - 45 i.e. the Request to Sit at the Right and the Left of Jesus.

I am not very good at math of course but if Clement says that the ἀπολύτρωσις follows line 31 and Irenaeus that it preceded line 35 that leaves one of two possibilities - i.e. that it came immediately after 31 and before Jesus's announcement that he was going to undergo his Passion in Jerusalem or immediately after this announcement and before the request of the mother of the brothers Zebedee which is where the Letter to Theodore places the baptism narrative.

In any event, let's take a look at the conclusion of Quis Dives Salvetur and let us notice (a) that there a presumption that the rich youth does indeed attain the perfection alluded to in Mark 10:21 QDS (b) that he underwent the heretical form of baptism (ἀπολύτρωσις) (c) that he died or observed 'death' before this initiation and that (d) like Secret Mark his emergence out of a death-like state is accompanied by an 'opening of doors' (αἱ θύραι καὶ δέχεται) comp. to Theod. 3.1,2 "and going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb (της θυρας του μνημειου). And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand." I also think that the 'festival' which is connected with this purifying ἀπολύτρωσις baptism is the Alexandria Agape.

Here then is the reference which I think puts the final nail in the coffin of the 'hoax hypothesis.' Of course, I have about 100 more of these posts from the writings of Clement if you don't agree just yet ...

Of course the 'anointer' ἀλείπτησ was also a 'teacher' at the gymnasium. Nevertheless I think the reference is significant because it recalls the anointing which must have accompanied the 'mystery of the kingdom of God' in Secret Mark. But that is a whole different argument ...

mountainman

Where does the gymnasium fit into the picture here? Which gymnasium?

stephan huller

It's just a technical term from antiquity. It has to do with wrestling.

Vivisector

Interesting, given the implications of "gymnasium," that you're preserving for another discussion. I'll look forward to that one (no sarcasm implied).

Cheers,

V.