stephan huller

And then you can also follow the homosexual context for various scriptural references like the material in Titus 1.11 - 15. When Clement begins his letter to Theodore thusly:

Theodore knew that he was referencing this scripture:

And notice that Clement not only references this same section of text but also but also the salt symbolism:

And again elsewhere in the Stromateis yet another reference to this same section from Titus:

The same quotation from Titus shows up again in the Letter to Theodore:

Indeed this quote is used to introduce the same connection of the heretics with homosexuality. The point of the citation of both texts of Clement is to say that the pure develop the real interpretation of texts while the heretics are misguided by their carnality. In fact in to Theodore Titus 1.15 introduces the first addition to secret Mark with this very purpose.

I find the degree of complexity required to integrate scriptural references in a manner consistent with Clement's existing writings just one other dimension to the forgery argument which just doesn't seem plausible. As I have noted elsewhere, the Letter to Theodore is so 'Clementine' even Clement's brother couldn't have pulled it off successfully, let alone an American living 1800 years later ...

steve_bnk

And some appear to have an obsessive fascination witrh ancient homosexuality. Ancient 'unatural acts' is not exactly breaking news.

As to grsaping sex without hands on experience, one inserts part A into part B, is there someting I am missing?

Roger Pearse

I don't know whether Stephan's posts were intended as a reply to my request for information, but if so, I am afraid to say that I am none the wiser.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

Well I am sorry that these things I am bringing up aren't interesting to you. I think it is terribly important that people get a balanced view of the discovery. Most people hear that so and so many 'experts' view the text as a forgery. But what is never said is that none of these people are experts in the one thing that matters (beyond paleography) - the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

I think it is enough that we acknowledge that indeed that letter to Theodore seems very much to be written by the same author wrote the Stromateis. I will eventually write something somewhere, that all signs point to both documents being written against the same historical crisis facing the Alexandrian community - but I won't get into that here.

It is enough point continually point out the underlying similarities, things which never get mentioned in the debate over authenticity - not even by apologists for the document. In the beginning of the Stromateis, Clement struggles over how he can defend his Alexandrian tradition given the ritual prohibition on revealing 'mysteries.' To this end, we see Clement chose to write what he calls 'hypomnemata' to explain his tradition (a literary concept which also has a significant role in to Theodore). Clement writes at the beginning of the Stromateis:

Now let us stop right there. Clement makes clear that he is carefully referencing a secret doctrine in this hypomnemata directed to everyone and no-one (i.e. the Stromateis). Writing hypomnemata allows him to speak freely because they are intended only to indirectly reference concepts, more a memory aid for what his impressions of his instructions were rather than the instructions themselves.

To Theodore of course is different. It is a private letter to an individual whom Clement sees to have had some familiarity. This individual had some authority (being able to 'shut the mouths' of people). Why is this the 'secret gospel' explicitly mentioned in the private correspondence with Theodore but not the Stromateis? I think Theodore was an important figure in the Church. We don't know much about that period in Church history. It's just a guess based on the text.

Some would argue that Clement is also saying that the secret doctrine can't be written down. But he says the same thing about the secret gospel when he condemns Carpocrates for allegedly coercing some Alexandrian presbyter and writing it down. It should be obvious then that what was prohibited was the 'writing down' of the 'secret gospel.' There clearly was a non-canonical gospel which shared by the Carpocratians and Clement's Alexandrian community. He makes this absolutely clear in Strom. 3.1 - 11. He also makes clear that the text was 'read' to the initiates, thus the terminology used here - viz. 'hearing' - would be absolutely appropriate. He immediately goes on to say:

Note again that the Letter to Theodore is introduced by the condemnation of the Carpocratians for 'revealing' things which are inherently 'unspeakable.' This makes the Carpocratians and their doctrines 'unspeakable' - a play on words turning around the original terminology into something which ends up slighting the heretics.

Clement is clearly distinguishing himself from those who openly reveal the secrets associated with the mystic gospel. He will instead write what he has designated a 'memory aid' (the same terminology used to describe the gospels associated with Mark and Peter) which will maintain a ritual silence around mystical doctrines, but will ultimately serve to draw in people to be initiated into the Alexandrian mysteries and thus apprehend the truth in a controlled setting:

I truly don't understand how people can argue that there isn't a pattern of similar ideas which connect the letter to Theodore and the Stromateis. Moreover, given that we have been tackling the beginning and end of the seven volume book and its relation to the Mar Saba document, these 'borrowings' appear absolutely fundamental.

For instances the reader should recognize the obvious parallel between Clement's writing of hypomnemata (i.e. the Stromateis) on the one hand and 'something secret' which he can't publish, and the report in to Theodore where it is said that Mark:

It is simply shameless that people can argue that the Letter to Theodore isn't in complete agreement with the sentiments of the introduction of the Stromateis. One might argue that Morton Smith was so familiar with Clement's writing that he created a letter in miniature which summed up the Stromata, but this is utter madness in itself because it would be impossible to accept any new letter of Clement as authentic by that criterion.

Indeed as I have noted many times before, the most of the opponents of the letter have absolutely no scruples. They simply want to deny the realities that the letter brings forward. Indeed their malice is so unbridled that they avoid mentioning how Clementine the ARGUMENTS are. All to make their denial of the authenticity of the letter appear all the more reasonable.

For Clement in the Stromata is basically saying - "it is okay for me to put down carefully constructed hypomnemata ('mental notes') recollecting the holy things I learned over my acquaintance with the 'true philosophy' of Alexandria, but I am not going to actually cite divinely inspired 'word of God." This is going to help establish 'faith' among the readers of this document. Yet at the same time he says that he is not going to reveal the deeper truths because they are so holy that if he lets them out they are going to get polluted.

But this is exactly how the Letter to Theodore says the patron saint of Alexandria - Mark - proceeded, except in reverse. He gathered up two hypomnemata and then blended them into the 'unspeakable' word of God. Now we can all have our doubts that Clement is presenting us with a factual historical account of how the 'secret gospel' was written. The Carpocratians certainly turned it around, arguing that the secret Gospel was written first and that what passes itself off as 'the gospel according to Mark' is a false 'mixture' of things of the Law with the pristine words of the divine apostle. I don't want to get into that debate because it is so distracting, nevertheless I want to stress that Clement's position is supported by the Apostolikon and in specific 1 Corinthians 2.1 - 9 (i.e. that a basic text came first and then a 'secret wisdom').

What we are doing here of course is merely noting that the core argument of the Letter to Theodore is absolutely Clementine. It couldn't be more authentic. If someone was 'copying' and imitating the Stromateis only in microsmic form, this person knew Clement so well that he could pass for his brother.

Indeed on top of all that we have just noted there is a single word in the middle of the section just cited from the opening words of the Stromata that should be noted - i.e. the last section which reads:

It's painful to imagine that there are intelligent people who can't recognize the similarities to the description of Mark in the letter to Theodore. First there is the parallel in the act of 'selecting' (Strom 1.1 ἐκλέγων; to Theod. εκλεγομενος) from the holy 'mystic' doctrine to bring the initiate safely to faithfulness. At the same time there is also Clement's defense - of himself in the Stromateis and Mark in the Letter to Theodore - that their withholding information was not done out of spite or 'grudgingly' (to Theod. φθονερως; Strom. 1.1 φθονῶν). These parallels are so utterly fundamental to the understanding of Clement as a writer it is impossible to argue that the two statements are not related to one another. The person writing one text had to be aware of the arguments of the other.

mountainman

I am happily convinced that the author of the Gospel of Philip wanted his readers to believe that Jesus:

"loved [Mary] more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her ...."

And we all know that one thing can sometimes lead to another.

stephan huller

No mr. mountainman, not if you are a eunuch:

That's why I don't believe that any Alexandrian would have promoted the idea that Jesus had sex with his disciple. The importance of celibacy was too fundamental. I don't believe that Marcion 'seduced' a virgin either. This is clearly a metaphor for the Church. The accusation that a group of Alexandrians promoted the idea that Jesus had sex with his disciple is implausible and unbelievable. The claim was developed by those - like yourself - who hate Christianity.

mountainman

On the basis of a statement from the Latin writer Tertullian you are trying to make informed decisions about the Greek literate Alexandrians? Isn't that a bit far fetched?


I happen to be convinced that there is a reasonable likelihood that the origins of "Early Christianity" is inauthentic, fraudulent and fabricated. This is not the same thing as "hating Christianity". But perhaps you cannot differentiate the two positions.

However I do agree that the claim that Jesus had sex with Mary was developed by the Gnostics, and that they did this as a method to satirize the name of Jesus. As to the reasons that the Gnostics "hated Christianity", I think these resolve to the historical context between the orthodox and the gnostics, especially after Nicaea, when it can be firmly established that the Gnostics were persecuted as heretics by the orthodox. In fact, it is more than reasonable to conjecture that the authoritarian christian regime and its persecution of heretics gave rise to the adverse feelings of the gnostics against the orthodox.

andrewcriddle

Hi Roger

Stephan's argument IIUC, (and I'm sure Stephan will correct me if I'm wrong), is that although the early writers accuse the Carpocratians of promiscuity, they do not explicitly accuse them of homosexual practices. Epiphanius of Salamis does, but he is a late source though plausibly based upon earlier (lost) sources. Clement's own description of the teachings of Epiphanes the son of Carpocrates, with its emphasis on the irresistible male drive to produce offspring, would seem to point towards specifically heterosexual promiscuity rather than homosexual behaviour. Hence evidence that Clement's acknowledged writings show awareness of Carpocratian homosexuality would make more plausible Clementine authorship of the Mar Saba letter.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I don't think this refers specifically to homosexuality. It is talking about passions contrary to right reason in general.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

As an example of the wide usage in Clement of para phusin see Pedagogue Book 2 chapter 12 about women piercing their ears. As an example of Clement's familiarity with technical stoic terminology see Stromateis Book 2 chapter 21 Andrew Criddle