a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

[bbyrd009]

Oof. It is always disorienting to see words I penned more than 7 years ago (on a page I last edited, doubtless for something tiny, more than 2 years ago) resurface. Sometimes present Ben is still thoroughly impressed with what past Ben wrote; but there are other times when past Ben makes present Ben cringe a bit.

not that this discussion isn't fascinating, but that's where the real gold is imo

[perseusomega9]

Will the real Ben C. Smith please stand up

[Peter Kirby]

And since I don’t think Morton Smith was capable of making a fraud like this one, and since apart from Smith, I don’t see how anyone from Medieval time and onwards could have made such a forgery, I regard the letter as probably genuine.

Since we're in this thread, and since the alternative that the letter is ancient but not Clement's has been glossed over, I would be curious to know what you believe of the possibility/probability of the idea that the letter is not by Clement of Alexandria but was written by someone else in his name in antiquity, like many other texts of antiquity that are attributed to apostles and church fathers.

http://www.textexcavation.com/secretmark.html

The answers to these three (sets of) questions produce four basic possibilities for the secret gospel and the letter describing it:
1. The secret gospel is genuine, written by Mark (or by whoever wrote the canonical gospel), whether before or after he wrote the canonical version.
2. The secret gospel is an ancient forgery, written by an ancient author imitating Mark.
3. The entire Clementine epistle is an ancient, medieval, or early modern forgery.
4. The manuscript itself is a late modern forgery, probably engineered by Morton Smith himself.

Technically, the secret gospel could itself be genuine while the Clementine letter describing it is not, but that possibility seems so remote as to deserve little reflection.

Typically we think about the problem as being like Russian nesting dolls: On the outside, you have the option to go for forgery by Morton Smith. Inside that, forgery by a 20th century person after 1936. Inside that, forgery in the 18th century. (These last two are quickly glided over.) After that, authorship of the letter by Clement of Alexandria, but forgery of the secret gospel. After that, the secret gospel is related to the ancient development of GMark, or even by the original author himself.

There's at least the possibility, though, that Secret Mark has a close connection to the Gospel of Mark (whether standing before or after the canonical text, in the late first or second century) yet that the letter to Theodore itself is a forgery.

Claims of forged letters and books were relatively common in antiquity. Sometimes the motives were financial--Galen the physician was compelled to write instructions on how to identify his own genuine works from the many being sold under his name. Other times, the motive was propaganda, as would be the case for the forged "Acts of Pilate," both of the pagan and the Christian variety.

Some have detected in the letter to Theodore an attention to authenticating and legitimizing the secret gospel of Mark. More than that, the text defends and supports the Carpocratians even as it utters formal denunciations of them, constantly giving ground and succor to the heretics ostensibly under fire. Consider these facets of the text.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

The author of the letter does not bring himself to condemn the Carpocratians without leaving in both a stunning testimony to the hypocrisy of those doing so and the truth being told by them. As much as Plato's noble lie was a well-known ancient concept, it is also scandalous in its own very Machiavellian way, and the pretense of a private letter between close confidants allows it to be stated without apology and in the clearest terms. But what if this were not genuine private correspondence? Then we'd have to conclude that the letter reflects poorly on Clement and Theodore, making them less credible in any public exchange on the subject. Not only that, it grants major concessions: both that the Carpocrations teach the truth, at times, and that what they say indeed "seems true." Even to the ancient ear, the very rough statement that "not all true things are the truth" would sound a little too much like black-is-white nonsense, and indeed almost like parody.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

What are the falsifications, then, and to whose advantage is it to bring attention to them? We will see.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

It's certainly plausible that Clement of Alexandria would want to confirm a "more spiritual Gospel" if he had known of one. Why do we suppose, then, that Clement draws attention to point that "he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord"? It stands merely as a statement of the fact and a defense of Mark's good intentions. On the other hand, if the Carpocratians had their own secret teachings, which were being developed out of this more spiritual gospel, would it not benefit them to get the word out there that there were parts Mark did not even divulge in the "extended edition"?

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

The letter continues to use strong words against the Carpocratians, and it accuses Carpocrates of liberating the secret gospel from the presbyter in the church in Alexandria that was keeping it away from them. Aside from the obligatory polemical tinge, Carpocrates appears in this story to be like a Prometheus figure, being punished for bringing the fire of the secret gospel of Mark to the people, who would otherwise have been denied even knowing of its existence.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness".

The author emphasizes that the catholic churchmen are simply lying when they deny the existence of a secret gospel of Mark in Alexandria. As if only to magnify the perfidy, Clement instructs it to be denied under oath, so as to keep the people foolish and in darkness. They can't handle the truth.

But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel.

And, finally, as promised, we are going to get to the matter of the falsifications that Clement takes care to refute.

For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.

We are told that there are "many other things," which are falsifications, but the only words given as their example are "naked man with naked man." The author is very careful to indicate where the quotes belong in terms of the canonical text, quoting the differences in full and respectfully. The author says that "the secret Gospel adds only," and the words that follow seem innocuous.

But who profits from this slogan, "naked man with naked man"? Surely it is their opponents who gain from it, by using it as a shorthand for all the immorality and licentiousness that the Carpocratians engage in. Just as the Christians were accused of debauchery and cannibalism at their "love feasts," so also the Carpocratians are accused of a sexual immorality that becomes their strange and permissive doctrines.

If a church position at the time was that the "Secret Gospel" of Mark did not even exist, then anything that helped clear the text of these charges of promoting immorality would help to rehabilitate its use by the Carpocratians. If the allegation is that the Carpocratians justified these things from their text, then the Carpocratians stand to gain from clearing their text of the accusation and clarifying its exact contents.

So let's step back and assess a bit.

The letter brings up several "facts on the ground":

1) Clement and the church authorities denied the authentic existence of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
2) Carpocratians indulged in licentiousness that is claimed to be based on the Secret Gospel of Mark.
3) Clement and the church authorities claim the moral high ground and access to the truth.

The letter resolves these situations in this way:

1) Clement and the church authorities are lying, and they in fact know there was an authentic spiritual gospel of Mark.
2) The things said about Secret Mark are falsifications, and in fact there is nothing objectionable about the text at all.
3) Clement and the church authorities are liars who work to suppress the Carpocratians, while Carpocrates is the one offering the truth.

If we don't believe the letter is by Clement, then we should consider a suitable context for its forgery.

One such suitable context is staring us in the face: the letter would be a powerful weapon in the controversies in second century Egypt regarding the Carpocratians. It would be ammunition for the gnostics to show their own and to pull others into their fold.

(This doesn't really address the question of the "secret gospel" text itself, which logically just has to be prior to the letter. It could be a second century forgery, or it could have a more complex history. That's another question.)

[Secret Alias]

I will let Roger answer this but I will say that someone stole an idea that I had posted at my blog and wrote a whole paper on the idea that Origen was the author of the letter. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/649995 My original observation was that Origen's famous sidekick Gregory was originally named Theodore. My observation - not the author of this article - was also that Gregory/Theodore ruled alongside with a 'buddy' - a kind of companion. Could this be some sort of ancient same sex coupling? http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2011/ ... order.html

Gregory and his beloved write together of Origen's effect on them (together):

It was like a spark falling in our deepest soul, setting it on fire, making it burst into flame. It was, at the same time, a love for the Holy Word, the most beautiful object of all that, by its ineffable beauty, attracts all things to itself with irresistible force, and it was also love for this man, the friend and advocate of the Holy Word. I was thus persuaded to give up all other goals. ... I had only one remaining object that I valued and longed for — philosophy, and that divine man who was my master of philosophy.

That was where my mind was in 2011 and it would seem that this author read my posts and developed his own ideas ... without giving me proper credit in the article. He claims he came up with this on his own. But he came to my site.

[Secret Alias]

More on Gregory/Theodore and the letter:

The point here is that Pontus was an extremely important center in the development of early Christianity. It wasn't just that Marcia of the Marciani is confusingly referenced as being from 'here' by way of the Hippolyta metaphor. In this chapter we will trace a significant chain of events which unfolds from the immediate aftermath of Origen's 'Egyptian exodus.' Origen leaves Alexandria in 215 and arrives in Caesarea by way of Tyre. He is met there by two rich youths who undergo catechetical instruction before returning together to Neocaesarea, the capitol of Pontus to sit as rulers in that region. One of these youths was the famous Gregory the so-called Wonder worker or 'Gregory the Great.' While the name may not be familiar to most people he was one of the most popular saints of the Christian East. His partner was named Athenodorus and we know nothing more about other than the two sat together overseeing the churches in Pontus.

We will eventually make the case that Gregory and Athenodorus are our first clear 'flesh and blood' Christian same sex couples. Yet the path to this understanding will be come by means of an inner circle of influential Church Fathers who claimed to be descendants of Gregory's original ministry. Basil of Caesarea, the grandson of a certain Macrina references his memory in the following terms

But where shall I rank the great Gregory, and the words uttered by him? Shall we not place among Apostles and Prophets a man who walked by the same Spirit as they; who never through all his days diverged from the footprints of the saints; who maintained, as long as he lived, the exact principles of evangelical citizenship? ... He too by Christ's mighty name commanded even rivers to change their course, and caused a lake, which afforded a ground of quarrel to some covetous brethren, to dry up. Moreover his predictions of things to come were such as in no wise to fall short of those of the great prophets. To recount all his wonderful works in detail would be too long a task. By the superabundance of gifts, wrought in him by the Spirit in all power and in signs and in marvels, he was styled a second Moses by the very enemies of the Church. Thus in all that he through grace accomplished, alike byword and deed, a light seemed ever to be shining, token of the heavenly power from the unseen which followed him.[8]

The cult that grew around Gregory is quite unique. We learn from Eusebius that his real name was Theodore and a few other details of his life. Yet it was owing to the efforts of Basil, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and his partner Gregory Nazianzus, that this Theodore - later known as 'Gregory the Great' - became one of the greatest saints in the early Church.

As we go through the material which survives from these ancient sources it is almost impossible to separate facts from fiction in the legendary accounts. Yet even the legendary details are significant for our purposes. We see in absolutely clear terms that Gregory was taken from the very beginning to be a new Moses for the people of Pontus and perhaps even the entire Christian world. This understanding repeated over in Gregory of Nysa's Life of Moses. Moses was the original worker of wonder (= Gk. thauma), Theodore followed in his footsteps and became known as Gregory Thaumaturgus. It is important to also see however that the figure of Athenodorus was necessarily the Aaron to his Moses. The two were certainly not blood relatives. Instead they were made into brothers by means of a secret Alexandrian rite.

In order to get the proper perspective here we have to re-examine the surviving material associated with Gregory and Athendorus in light of the 'living example' of the so-called Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus and Basil). Given the fact that so many of these figures share the same name, we will have to distinguish the thaumaturgus from the later figures by identifying him as 'Theodore' or 'Gregory/Theodore' or even 'Gregory the Great' throughout the material that follows.

It will be our contention that Theodore and his partner established a mystical 'brother assembly' in Pontus which continued into the fourth century. As such the interest in same-sex unions held among the Cappodocian fathers not only came from Theodore but more precisely, it was a preservation of the original religion of Christian Alexandria. To this end we should see what we can learn about this original association with Alexandrian gnosis from Theodore's surviving Panegyric for Origen. The document has always been treasured for the information that it provides us about the Christian tradition shared by the Egyptian and Palestinian churches as well as the apparent 'chance encounter' between Origen and Theodore and Athenodorus immediately following his Egyptian exodus.

Scholars have long noticed strange things about the narrative most notably the allusions to Theodore's 'family.' The question becomes - were Theodore and Athenodorus brothers of the same parents or - as we now suspect - ritually established brothers - 'manufactured' if you will - according to an ancient mystery rite of Alexandria. Theodore never mentions Athenodorus by name in the Panegyric. There is a cryptic male 'other' figure in the text whom Theodore hides from plain view. Theodore also tells us that he came from a rich family but that his father died when he was young. By the fourth century the actual details of Gregory's life become confused through an industry of apocryphal legends related to the Cappadocian Fathers - Gregory of Nysa, his brother Basil of Caesarea and his 'spiritual' brother Gregory of Nazianzus. Indeed as we shall soon see Gregory of Nyssa goes so far as to actually substitute the name of Firmillianus of Caesarea - a second century Cappadocian Father - for Theodore's original same sex partner.

Where did Gregory get the idea for using Firmillianus to replace Athenodorus? There is a whole story to that which we will develop later in this book. The short answer we shall use at present is that many scholars see it as a homage to the contemporary same-sex relationship between his brother, Basil and his partner Gregory of Nazianzus. In other words there were two male couples living a century apart but which were ultimately quite intimately related to one another. Basil and Gregory were modeling their relationship on the holy paradigm established by Theodore and Athenodorus.

Eusebius provides us in no uncertain terms with the understanding to make sense of their relationship - Theodore left his studies with Origen at Caesarea Maritima united to Athenodorus. We can also see traces of this in Theodore's own Panygeric. He tells us that his decision to go to see Origen was set in motion by his mother effort to get an education for her son. Theodore tells us that she decided that "I should attend a teacher of public speaking, in the hope that I too should become a public speaker."[9] His mother made the fateful decision to send Theodore alone (there is no mention of him even having a 'brother' yet) to gain "instruction in the Roman tongue" to further his career as a lawyer and it was only after he attended this school that he met Athenodorus, presumably fell in love and decided to go see Origen at Caesarea Maritima.

Much the same thing is reported to have happened to Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus interestingly enough a century later. Yet this in no way should make us suspect that the two 'invented' the original yoke between Theodore and Athenodorus. The relationship is attested in the writings of Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century. Theodore tells us in one section of the Panygeric that Origen who acted the part of mystagogue uniting him to some other man:

And that man took up this charge zealously with me; and I, on my side, gave myself to it— more, however, to gratify the man, than as being myself an admirer of the study. And when he got me as his pupil, he began to teach me with all enthusiasm ... I was becoming well instructed in these laws, at once bonds, as it were, were cast upon my movements, and cause and occasion for my journeying to these parts arose from the city Berytus, which is a city not far distant from this territory, somewhat Latinized, and credited with being a school for these legal studies. And this revered man [Origen] coming from Egypt, from the city of Alexandria, where previously he happened to have his home, was moved by other circumstances to change his residence to this place, as if with the express object of meeting us.[10]

Scholars have always noticed the strange shift from the singular 'I' to the 'we' or 'us' throughout the narrative. The figure of Athenodorus is made obscure - perhaps deliberately so - because their union was both sacred and secret in early Church.

Scholars however have struggled to make sense of the switch from 'I' to 'we.' Michael Slusser, who published a recent English translation of the Panyrgetic argues that it is impossible that Gregory actually brought a brother with him from Pontus - "it seems unnecessary to connect the frequent use of the first person plural in the Panygeric with Eusebius's assertion that Athenodorus, a brother of Gregory, also studied with Origen, and to make them mutually dependent on each other." Indeed he goes one step further arguing that the 'we' in the Panygeric occurs where a brother can hardly be meant, and the singular sometimes appears where one would expect a brother to be explicitly included, had one been present.[11]

So who was this 'we' that Theodore references in the Panygeric? Richard Valantasis, an expert on the Greek Orthodox tradition suggests the list of possibilities include "fellow students, or the audience at the presumed presentation of the speech, or a combination of all of these."[12] As such it is generally acknowledged by people who have actually studied the material that Gregory did not have a brother accompany him when he left Pontus. To this end, Athenodorus only became the brother of Gregory after undergoing some sort of mystical initiation within the school of Origen at Caesarea.

Eusebius describes the historical situation as follows "[a]mong these Theodore, the same that was distinguished among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory, and his brother Athenodorus, we know to have been especially celebrated. Finding them deeply interested in Greek and Roman learning, he infused into them a love of philosophy, and led them to exchange their old zeal for the study of divinity. Remaining with him five years, they made such progress in divine things, that although they were still young, both of them were honored with a bishopric in the churches of Pontus."[13] Indeed this unusual situation where two men presided together over all the churches of Pontus is very odd. Eusebius repeats the formula over and over again in his Church History - viz. "the brothers Gregory and Athenodorus, pastors of the churches in Pontus."[14]

We learn from Gregory of Nyssa that when Theodore arrived back in Pontus after his initiation into the Alexandrian mysteries at Caesarea Maritima he was allegedly confirmed as a priest in the most unusual manner. The previous bishop just waves his hands while Gregory was still journeying far away and 'presto' he becomes the next to sit on the episcopal throne. The implications clearly are that there was no 'Catholic Church' at Pontus of this time. Theodore was probably the head of a separate church in this chaotic period, one which may well have attempted to bring former 'Marcionites' into some sort of communion with the greater Church. Interesting also is the fact that Gregory of Nazianzus's family were also said to venerate 'God Most High' (Theos Hyspsitos).

It is important to note that in his Life of Gregory (the name Theodore ultimately took at baptism) Gregory of Nyssa makes repeated identification of our Gregory as a 'second Moses.' The bishop of Nyssa notes:

But since [Gregory] had set his mind on how the soul might be perfected by virtue, he devoted his entire life to this with zeal, and allowing himself to say good-bye to life's affairs he became in our parts another Moses, rivalling him outright with wonderous deeds. Both left this agitated and beset life, Moses and Gregory each in his own time going off by himself, until to each the reward of the pure life was manifested by a theophany. But it is said that Moses had a wife along with philosophy, while Gregory made virtue his only consort. So although they both had the same aim, for each of them departed from the crowd with the purpose of penetrating the divine mysteries with the pure eye of the soul, someone who knows how to size up virtue is entitled to judge which of them was marked more by the passionless life: the one who stooped to the legitimate and permissible participation in pleasures, or the one who transcended even that and gave no opening into his life to material attachment.[12]

The obvious comparison between Theodore (= Gregory) and Moses must have already been established long before. The identification of Athenodorus as his 'brother' may have all but disappeared but it clearly imitated the pairing of Moses and Aaron.

Indeed it would be more correct to say here that Gregory of Nyssa comparison of Moses and Theodore is slightly imperfect. It would be better to say that while Moses had a wife and appeared in public with his brother, Theodore presided over the churches of Pontus seated alongside a 'brother' who was not a blood relative. For the moment we should reinforce that the association with Moses goes back to the earliest strata of information about Theodore. His traditional epithet 'the wonder-worker' or Thaumaturgus, this developed as a conscious effort to imitate Moses as Gregory of Nyssa notes:

For just as the word says that Moses, having left the world of appearances and calmed his soul within the invisible shrines (for this is what "the darkness" stands for), learned the divine mysteries, and in person instructed the whole people in the knowledge of God, the same dispensation is to be seen in the case of this Great One. He had not some visible mountain of earth but the pinnacle of ardent desire for the true teachings; for darkness, the vision which others could not comprehend; for writing-tablet, the soul; for the letters graven on the stone tablets, the voice of the one he saw; through all of which both he and those initiated by him enjoyed a manifestation of the mysteries.[13]

It should be clear that the account of Gregory's miracles have been consciously lifted from the original account of Exodus. There is even a story about Gregory parting a large body of water later in the work.

As noted earlier, the Moses connection is deeply significant given as it goes back to a pre-Christian mystical interpretation of Moses and Aaron which was likely fundamental to the gospel. In other words, just as Moses and Aaron became 'brothers' at their mystical union so to with respect to when men are united by god as 'brothers' they become apostles capable of working wonders on behalf of God. We have already argued that this Alexandrian yoking practice is found at the core of the longer gospel of Mark. The Roman interest in Peter and Paul is derived from the same source too apparently. While this tradition was quite influential in antiquity yet it is only known to us now through mostly fragmentary evidence - the most compelling being the practices of latter day 'Origenists' like the Cappadocian fathers.

According to our earliest sources this rite was performed in secret. When Jerome is forced to deny his heretical past he allows us to at least peer into the room - "men’s bodies will be turned into spirits and their wives into men ... and we will be fashioned again into one body as it was in the beginning" much like Peter and Paul.[14] This statement isn't as clear as it ought to be. Does Jerome mean that the female wives of Christian presbyters get transformed into men at the end of time? No certainly not. In the very next breath Jerome tells us that the presbyters of the Church were never allowed to marry women. So what does he really mean? The most likely explanation is that men were supposed to be paired in same sex unions together.

The current sitting Pope of the Catholic, Joseph Ratzinger in his recent book notes that of "Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa - the last was the only one who married." [15] Yet many scholars even question this traditional claim that Gregory of Nyssa ever had a wife.[16] As we shall see in our next chapter, there is very strong evidence that Basil and Gregory Nazianzus had strong erotic feelings for one another. While no one ever comes out and says that they were ever married, the manner in which Basil's brother reshapes the the character of Theodore to reflect many of minor details of his brother's relationship of Gregory has long been recognized.

As Raymond Van Dam notes in his Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia the original historical couple of 'Gregory and Athenodorus' becomes replaced with a hidden reference to 'Basil and Gregory Nazianzus':

although in this panegyric Gregory never mentioned his (i.e. Gregory Thaumaturgus') brother directly, drafting an account of the life of Gregory Thaumaturgus allowed him to provide an oblique meditation on the career of Basil, another native of Neocaesarea who had become a local bishop. Through these implicit comparisons and contrasts Gregory could comment indirectly on his brother's life and career. He also used this oration to comment on his own relationship with his brother. One commentary took the form of silence. Gregory of Nyssa never mentioned this brother. Instead, in one story he claimed that Gregory Thaumaturgus' companion in his studies had been Firmilianus, "one of the aristocrats in Cappadocia" who would himself later became bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. This version of Gregory Thaumaturgus' life suggested a parallel with Basil's life. Just as Gregory Thaumaturgus had studied with a friend from Cappadocia, so Basil, another native of Pontus, had studied with his friend Gregory of Nazianzus, another native of Cappadocia. Basil had selected a friend as his companion, rather than his brother.[17]

Interestingly one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Gregory of Nyssa wasn't married is the manner in which Gregory Nazianzus references his sister Theosebia as his syzygos.[18]

Of course the question which now stands before us is why was it that Gregory of Nyssa was forced to take his sister as his partner rather than his more accomplished brother? The obvious answer is that the bishop of Nyssa recognized - Basil was already taken. He and Gregory Nazianzus were once madly in love. They saw themselves following in the footsteps of Theodore and Athenodorus. As such we can use the later relationship of Basil and Gregory to help us understand the earlier inaccessible information about Basil and Gregory. At bottom - if Basil and Gregory can be demonstrated to have been madly in love with one another we can surely assume the same passionate longing existed between Theodore and Athenodorus and likely further was accepted and reinforced by the Alexandrian Church before them.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/searc ... y+theodore

[Secret Alias]

The author's denial (in an email) that the ideas in his article published in 2017 were inspired by my blog posts written as far back as 2011:

Stephan, I'm sorry to say that the core ideas in my paper--indeed, all of them--are entirely my own work! Identifying Theodore (whom I technically don't identify with Gregory) especially was made without any awareness of any work you might have been doing, since I was no longer reading your blog by then, with only rare exceptions. In fact I first guessed who Theodore was while reading the online Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Gregory, while researching an entirely different subject! It was quite accidental, and had nothing to do with your blog.

As I began my research on Origen I recall coming across one or two entries on your blog in search results, that seemed vaguely related, but as it also seemed you had an entirely different understanding of the letter than I did, I ignored them in favor of the secondary literature on Origen, which formed the only basis for my ideas. In fact at that time I stopped reading your blog altogether while I developed my ideas and wrote my paper. I'm afraid I have little idea what you've been blogging about over the past few years.

I did check in a few months ago, and it seems you've taken something of a break from blogging? Personally I have abandoned it altogether, to focus on academic presentations and publications. I find it more rewarding, though in some ways more work.

I can't find any more correspondence with you than the few emails I sent in June 2011 regarding the Quesnell materials and Greek handwriting. I do recall commenting on your blog a few times, but don't recall learning anything from those exchanges that I used in my paper.

But I must say I am very excited about your forthcoming article! You have my sincere admiration for preserving Quesnell's papers, and you deserve a great deal of credit for it, and I hope you get it. My compliments to Daniel as well. The history of this mess deserves much more attention from the academy than it's gotten. I'm really very eager to learn more about your findings, and can hardly wait! It all sounds quite intriguing.

No doubt there remains a great deal of work to do on the subject.

Best wishes,
Mike

I leave it to the readers to decide. I don't care any more.

[Peter Kirby]

To be clear, the OP wasn’t about Mike’s or Stephan’s ideas.

[perseusomega9]

"At bottom"

[perseusomega9]

Sorry, 12 year old me

[perseusomega9]

To be clear, the OP wasn’t about Mike’s or Stephan’s ideas.

I think we get that, yet there's considerable overlap between your and Stephen Alias' observations