Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by neilgodfrey »

Thanks for these links and directions!
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by lsayre »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 11:24 am Nakedness in antiquity wasn't the same as it is today. A gymnasium was quite literally a naked place. There were a lot of naked with nakeds. In Maximus naked with naked means naked (dead) bodies. In that way there is a parallel.
The youth is naked because in part he was dead. There are many Pauline references to death, baptism and unclothed. I find these conversations often take on a Tarantino on (gay) Top Gun dimension. If you want to see a cigar as a penis you most certainly can. But it can also just be a cigar. It's the reference to the agape between youth and Jesus that contextualizes the nakedness too. And agape was taken to mean an orgiastic love feast outside of to Theodore. And Clement himself defends the Agape from these charges elsewhere in his writings.
Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead". This Gnostic saying implies that those without a certain knowledge he was dispensing (by whatever means) were effectively to him the living dead. John said of Jesus: "In him was life". How such "life" was dispensed may be questioned.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Who Created the Homosexual Reading of Secret Mark?

Post by Ken Olson »

In this post, I'm going to try to draw together some of the topics discussed in this thread and some of the conclusions I have drawn. (This has been kicking around in my docs file for a while now and I thought I should finish it off and post it).

I'm starting with two assumptions which are themselves conclusions for which I’ve argued earlier in this thread:

1 There is a homosexual reading of the text of Secret Mark acknowledged in the text of the Letter to Theodore. Clement, or the narrator of the Letter, says that “naked man with naked man” is not in the text, but by implication an addition by the Carpocratians:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7008&p=109694&h#p109688

2 The evidence for the practice of homosexual acts among the Carpocratians is weak and suspect. Perhaps I should say the theory that the Carpocatians as a group both openly advocated and practiced homosexual acts is very weakly supported. (I would imagine the Carpocratians probably had some members who practiced homosexual acts as do Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pastafarians and everyone else).

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7008&p=109840&#p109840

So who is responsible for the words “naked man with naked man” and/or the homosexual reading of Secret Mark?

The Carpocratians (two possibilities):

1 The Carpocratians added the words “naked man with naked man” to Secret Mark and introduced the homosexual reading of the text because they were libertines who practiced homosexual sex themselves in their orgies. This is the most common reading among those who accept the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore, but the idea that the Carpocratians practiced homosexual sex (more than other people) is not well supported. It is attested in antiquity, but only in polemical contexts in Christian anti-Carpocratian texts whose sources are very suspect.

2 The Carpocratians added the words “naked man with naked man” and introduced the homosexual reading of Secret Mark, not because they advocated homosexuality themselves, but in order to polemicize against the Alexandrian Christians who held Secret Mark in high regard. They were accusing the Alexandrians of making Jesus homosexual.

Mark

The fragment of Secret Mark and the Letter to Theodore are authentic, and the homoerotic reading of Secret Mark was intended by its author and accepted by Clement and a select few initiates in the Alexandrian church who took pains to guard the text of Secret Mark and even denied its existence to outsiders. Clement denied that the words “naked man with naked man” were in the text because he did not want to allow the Carpocratians that kind of ammunition for their anti-Alexandrian polemic (similar to the 2nd Carpocratians case above).

Clement

Clement himself came up with the words “naked man with naked man” so he could accuse the Carpocratians of having added it and thus make it sound as though Jesus engaged in homosexual activity. In this case, Clement himself the originator of the homosexual reading of Secret Mark which he invented in order to attribute it to the Carpocratians. He is accusing the Carpocratians of making Jesus sound homosexual when, in fact, he came up with that reading himself.

A Forger

The Letter to Theodore is not by Clement and the author is deliberately introducing the idea of a homosexual Jesus into his readers' minds. This is presumably either to polemicize against orthodox Christianity or to advocate for the tolerance of homosexuality or perhaps both. (This is the theory I laid out in the OP).

Best,

Ken
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

For I want, I want to impart to you this grace, bestowing on you the perfect boon of immortality; and I confer on you both the Word and the knowledge of God, My complete self. This am I, this God wills, this is symphony, this the harmony of the Father, this is the Son, this is Christ, this the Word of God, the arm of the Lord, the power of the universe, the will of the Father; of which things there were images of old, but not all adequate. I desire to restore you according to the original model, that you may become also like Me. I anoint you with the ungent of faith, by which you throw off corruption, and show you the naked form of righteousness by which you ascend to God. [Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 12]
Seems to me like Clement's Alexandrian community made a big deal about 'throwing off' one's clothes, and staring at the 'naked' image of Christ before baptism and anointing. Seems to involve a naked man staring at another naked man.

Note also the use of ἀποβάλλω in 'throwing off your corruption.' This hearken back to what follows the scene in the secret gospel - i.e. "And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus." It is arguable also that the 'naked form of righteousness' is also a reference to the name of the blind beggar Timaeus = “ritually unclean” and “impure." No where else in the gospel is ἀποβάλλω employed. The sense seems to be that the blind beggar not only threw off his clothes but did so confronting the naked Christ. It's been argued that Jerome's nudus nudum derives from this encounter. At the very least Jerome inevitably cites the Question of the Rich Man in this context. How did Jesus end up naked in front of the disrobed blind man? Only one answer makes sense. At the very least there seems to have been an oral monastic tradition that Jesus walked naked from the Jordan (regardless of Secret Mark he has to cross the river before arriving at Jericho), the impure blind man takes off his clothes and presumably follows a naked Christ. Then there is Clement's explanation of the Question of the Rich Man - strip yourselves of your souls. Then the naked youth being initiated in Jerusalem. Lot of nudity in this section of Mark as we already discussed. No other gospel has this. Just Mark. Strange coincidence. And you say the best explanation is Morton Smith did this because he was having a hard time being gay in the 1950s.

What is also interesting about these closing words, seemingly taken from some sort of liturgical rite is that it represents another parallel between the followers of 'Mark' in Irenaeus 1.13 - 21 and Clement:
For I want, I want to impart to you this grace (ἐθέλω καὶ ταύτης ὑμῖν μεταδοῦναι τῆς χάριτος)
[Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Greeks 1, 12]

But there is another among these heretics, Mark by name … addressing [his adherents] in such seductive words as these: "I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Grace (μεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς ἐμῆς χάριτος) … [Irenaeus Against Heresies 13.1 – 2]
The other is the well documented 'gnostic' reading of numbers in Stromata 6 and Irenaeus's description of the same followers of the gnostic or mystic 'Mark.' Another example of Clement being tied to a mystic Mark tradition. The mystery described in Irenaeus is overtly sexual - 'I want to share my Grace with you' is taken to mean 'I want to get my sperm (seed) into you.' Take that as you may. Maybe this 'mystic' Mark was a farmer who wanted people to eat the seeds he roasted on his farm as part of a well-balanced breakfast.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

As a side note the echo of Galatians 4:12, 1 Corinthians 11:1 and other Pauline statements is intriguing too - "I desire to restore you according to the original model, that you may become also like Me."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

It sounds like you understand the words "naked man with naked man" to have stood in the text of Secret Mark and to be part of a Markan motif. Why, in his Letter to Theodore, does Clement say those words are not found in Secret Mark?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

They're a description of something deliberately not said, an oral tradition. Remember what Irenaeus says AH 3.2.1.
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents but viva voce, wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."(1) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,(2) who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
Funny how YOU can use these words FOR forgery but I can't use them to further authenticity. Referee and player you are. Clement is denying that "naked with naked" is literally in the text while admitting earlier that Mark left the holiest of mysteries unsaid in his gospel.
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.
I think Clement is playing word games. Morton Smith forging to Theodore is THE WORST POSSIBLE explanation of the text. One step above ripping it up which is likely what the Greeks ended up doing.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Secret Alias wrote:
This hearken back to what follows the scene in the secret gospel - i.e. "And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus." It is arguable also that the 'naked form of righteousness' is also a reference to the name of the blind beggar Timaeus = “ritually unclean” and “impure."


It's also arguable that it does not. First, because the beggar's name is Bartimaeus, and you left out the initial word Bar or "son". Second, the name Timaeus, as in the case of the eponymous character for whom Plato's dialogue is named, usually means "honored" or "esteemed." More to the point, what, if anything, does this have to do with the question of nudity?
The sense seems to be that the blind beggar not only threw off his clothes but did so confronting the naked Christ.
The naked Christ, and not just Jesus, which is what he is called in the pericope? Below you allude to Jerome's nudus nudum deriving from this encounter. That is your evidence for the naked Christ, isn't it? Is there more?
It's been argued that Jerome's nudus nudum derives from this encounter.
It's been argued that the earth is flat. How about you actually present the argument for this? Like maybe start with quoting Jerome and explain how you interpret what he wrote, and why, and, you know, actually put forward an argument consisting of premises that logically lead to your conclusion? And while you're at it, maybe you could state clearly what your conclusion or thesis is.
At the very least Jerome inevitably cites the Question of the Rich Man in this context. How did Jesus end up naked in front of the disrobed blind man?


Could you explain what "this context" is? And quote what Jerome says? That's the sort of things scholars do. They don't just make vague claims and then suggest the people that don't accept their claims are stupid or dishonest. (Well, maybe some scholars do - I'm describing how scholarship is supposed to function).
Only one answer makes sense.
What answer is that?
At the very least there seems to have been an oral monastic tradition that Jesus walked naked from the Jordan (regardless of Secret Mark he has to cross the river before arriving at Jericho),
"At the least" implies this is a minimal construal of the evidence. What is the evidence for Jesus walking naked from the Jordan of which you claim this is a minimal construal? Or that there's an oral monastic tradition of this?
the impure blind man takes off his clothes and presumably follows a naked Christ. Then there is Clement's explanation of the Question of the Rich Man - strip yourselves of your souls. Then the naked youth being initiated in Jerusalem. Lot of nudity in this section of Mark as we already discussed. No other gospel has this. Just Mark. Strange coincidence.
It's not a coincidence. What all of this has in common is that it's the product of your imagination. You made a number of assertions, assumed they are correct, and claimed "no other gospel has this." You ought to first demonstrate that Mark has this.

The method you are using, first taking a large body of literature (Patristic writings) and then setting a low bar for what counts as a parallel, virtually assures that you'll come up with a large number of parallels.
And you say the best explanation is Morton Smith did this because he was having a hard time being gay in the 1950s.
No, I don't say that. I don't think I've ever said that. If you think I'm mistaken in my recollection, could you cite and quote me saying that or words to that effect? Your inability to distinguish what other people have written from what you imagine them to have written is a severe problem for the credibility of your theories.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Epiphanius's direct or indirect use of hegesippus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:42 pmThis is a response to Ben Smith's post on Epiphanius's possible use of Hegesippus. Some time has passed since Ben posted it, and hopefully he will be able to find the time to respond (at least to my last point about Eusebius's HE 4.22, if not the rest).

....

The text of Eusebius HE 4.22.1-3:
Ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἡγήσιππος ἐν πέντε τοῖς εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσιν ὑπομνήμασιν τῆς ἰδίας γνώμης πληρεστάτην μνήμην καταλέλοιπεν: ἐν οἷς δηλοῖ ὡς πλείστοις ἐπισκόποις συμμίξειεν ἀποδημίαν στειλάμενος μέχρι Ῥώμης, καὶ ὡς ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν παρὰ πάντων παρείληφεν διδασκαλίαν. ἀκοῦσαί γέ τοι πάρεστιν μετά τινα περὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς αὐτῷ εἰρημένα ἐπιλέγοντος ταῦτα: ‘καὶ ἐπέμενεν ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ Κορινθίων ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ μέχρι Πρίμου ἐπισκοπεύοντος ἐν Κορίνθῳ: οἷς συνέμιξα πλέων εἰς Ῥώμην καὶ συνδιέτριψα τοῖς Κορινθίοις ἡμέρας ἱκανάς, ἐν αἷς συνανεπάημεν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ: γενόμενος δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην μέχρις Ἀνικήτου: οὗ διάκονος ἦν Ἐλεύθερος, καὶ παρὰ Ἀνικήτου διαδέχεται Σωτήρ, μεθ̓ ὃν Ἐλεύθερος. ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ κύριος.’
Now, Hegesippus, in the five treatises that have come down to us, has left us a very complete record of his own opinion. In these he shows that he traveled as far as Rome and mingled with a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is well to listen to what he said after some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: 'And the church of the Corinthians remained in the true word until Primus was Bishop of Corinth. I associated with them on my voyage to Rome and I spent some days with them in Corinth, during which we were mutually stimulated by the true Word. And while I was in Rome I made a list of succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, and Soter succeeded Anicetus, and after him Eleutherus. In each list and each city all is as the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord preach.' [Deferrari translation]
I take it that on your reading the quotation of Hegesippus ends with the first mention of Anicetus, and that the rest is Eusebius writing in his own voice. I do not read it that way, because it's typical of Eusebius (among ancient writers; it's pretty standard for writers to do this now) to introduce a writer he's about to quote by stating the points he's quoting him to establish and then quote him to establish those points. I understand the quotation to extend as far as the final sentence quoted above, because it establishes the point “he received the same doctrine from all.” It seems to me that Eusebius is at least claiming the quotation of Hegesippus extends as far as that last sentence.
I have highlighted in yellow and pink the parts of the quotation that I think are answering to the two parts of the introduction above. It seems to me that the pink bits in the proposed quotation are more than enough to give Eusebius the (tendentious) impression that the churches in the cities shared the same doctrine.

Should these highlights prove not to be enough, I might point to another case in which Eusebius' introduction is not directly reflected in the quotation he offers:

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.6.3-8:

3 Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor, are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the title, On the Virtues. With him agrees also Josephus, who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Savior.

4 Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows: Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns, to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city.

5 Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when they cried out that they had no other king than Caesar.

6 The same writer further records that after this another calamity overtook them. He writes as follows: After this he stirred up another tumult by making use of the holy treasure, which is called Corban, in the construction of an aqueduct three hundred stadia in length.

7 The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud complaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen's clothing, forbidding them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those who should make an outcry. To them he now gave the preconcerted signal from the tribunal. And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot by their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives. But the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who were slain, held their peace.

8 In addition to these the same author records many other tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ.

There is more intervening material here than in the passage about Hegesippus, mainly because Eusebius quotes Josephus several times and Hegesippus only once, but the pattern is the same. The introduction would lead an unsuspecting soul to imagine that the ensuing quotation will contain something about the Savior, but it does not. Yet, when Eusebius wraps up at the end of the section about Josephus, we are once again assured that the quotation proves something about the Savior.
Alternatively, you could suggest that Eusebius interpolated the mention of the additional two bishops within the quotation of Hegesippus. Both of those things are possible, but do you have reasons for thinking that's what happened in this case other than it makes the rest of your theory on Epiphanius's use of Hegesippus work?
Actually, I may, since I have had that exact thought before, but for different reasons. But it is just too much to go into at this time, and I am not by any means sure the idea holds water anyway.

I have also been toying with an idea or two in which the "rest" of the quotation is Hegesippan, after all, but I have nothing concrete to show for those efforts yet, either.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben,

Thanks for the reply. Since my last post on the Hegesippus-Irenaeus-Eusebius issue it occurred to me that one really needs to settle the question of the source critical relationship between Hegesippus and Irenaeus before, or perhaps simultaneously with, the question of Eusebius' use of Hegesippus.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.3).
Irenaeus, like Hegesippus/Eusebius follows the bishops' list with a statement about how the one true faith has been preserved. Irenaeus could well be engaging in a paraphrastic expansion of Hegesippus there. It seems like we have to assume Irenaeus is largely dependent on Hegesippus for AH 3.3 (unless Eusebius invented the whole block of Hegesippus' testimony on Corinth and bishops of Rome in HE 4.22.1-3 based on Irenaeus H 3.3, which I think might be possible, but is not a theory I would advocate). But once we accept that Irenaeus is at least largely dependent on Hegesippus for AH 3.3, it's very difficult to say what he could not be getting from Hegesippus. A theory which holds that Irenaeus used Hegesippus up to a certain point, following it with his own material, and then had Eusebius quoting Hegesippus with Irenaeus's additional material directly after it, is possible, but would need some good justification on why it is preferable to the theory that Irenaeus and Eusebius are simply following Hegesippus throughout. I was working on a post on this that would lay the text of Irenaeus and Hegesippus/Eusebius side by side with more detailed commentary, but I got sidetracked.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply