a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

[andrewcriddle]

I may be misunderstanding but the argument seems to be that the Paedogogue is a genuine work of Clement which has heavily plagiarized a stoic writer probably Musonius Rufus. I don't think it is being claimed that the work is post-Clementine in its present form.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

But do you think that Clement scribbled additions between sections of Musonius? The authors have actually noticed what anyone can plainly see from the text - ie there is a patchwork of material some from a Stoic, some from a Christian. I think it's up to the rest of us to figure out how it got like that.

[andrewcriddle]

But do you think that Clement scribbled additions between sections of Musonius? The authors have actually noticed what anyone can plainly see from the text - ie there is a patchwork of material some from a Stoic, some from a Christian. I think it's up to the rest of us to figure out how it got like that.

The Christian material seems related to the (earlier) Stoic material. I don't think there were originally two independent works one Stoic and the other Christian which have later been compiled together into one work.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

The patching together of different texts is present in Irenaeus (Adv Haer is structured that way). Book 3 of Adv Marc is a hodgepodge built from Adv Iud and other elements. Adv Val is a rearranged Adv Haer on the Valentinians. Are any of these texts "authentically" Tertullian? What does authenticity mean here? How do you judge "aurhenticity" when the core is plagiarized? Who or what part of Adv Val belongs to Tertullian? What if we didn't have the parallel sections of Adv Haer? What if we could find the other bits that were used here? We have to start acknowledging that in early Christianity forgery was the rule not the exception.

[Secret Alias]

The Christian material seems related to the (earlier) Stoic material

Well of course. SOMEONE attempted to "riff" in Christian variations to the original material. That much is obvious. But why would it be Clement? Why in God's name would Clement have decided to falsify or "add Christian stuff" to Musonius?

[Secret Alias]

I try to avoid insulting religious traditions but it is mind boggling sometimes that people can pretend there is "santicty" in a canon built around three forgeries (Mark, Matthew, Luke).

[andrewcriddle]

The Christian material seems related to the (earlier) Stoic material

Well of course. SOMEONE attempted to "riff" in Christian variations to the original material. That much is obvious. But why would it be Clement? Why in God's name would Clement have decided to falsify or "add Christian stuff" to Musonius?

Do you have a more likely author for the work in its present form ?

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Ummm someone who wasn't Clement. I can't explain why anyone would corrupt their own writings. The pattern in Patristics suggests it was someone who lived after Clement. Just like Tertullian abused the authors who preceded him, this just happened all the time. I haven't been able to make sense of why in this case Christian material was added to Musonius other than to point out it happens over and over again within Christian literature.

[rakovsky]

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.

Good point. It makes it look like a forgery aimed at covertly undermining Clement's Church.

You made a good point here too:

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.

[rakovsky]

That suggests authenticity (in the sense of being ancient at least) because I can imagine 'John' (Cerinthus) further developing this secret Mark story. The other way around would seem weird. Why create such a secret story for a secret Mark when a better version of it exists already in public John?

Because for a forger who wanted to express ideas about secret instruction, the "Secret Mark" version is preferable to Lazarus' raising in John 11, which lacked instruction by Jesus of the healed/raised person.