Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

The best one could argue IMHO is that Morton Smith read QDS recognized the underlying argument necessitating a passage LIKE Secret Mark (just as he must have read John of Damascus's reference to a collection of letters of Clement at Mar Saba and invented it) and forged it based on the implication of Clement's argument in QDS.

But there is no actual evidence for Morton Smith's forging anything so that is far more speculative than merely saying QDS suggests a passage like Secret Mark followed Mark 10:17 -31. Indeed why of all the gospels does Clement pick Mark to refute the communist heretics in QDS who sound a lot like the Carpocratians? Again it is suggestive of a similar dynamic (i.e. arguing against the Carpocratians out of Mark found in to Theodore).

Even if it is argued that Morton Smith got the connection between the Carpocratians and Mark from Celsus (Salome only appears in Mark) it's odd for Smith to have invented an exegetical battle over Mark when it was the least popular gospel among Patristic writers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Le_Boulluec
“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: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Stephan,

Please do take until Tuesday or however long it takes to lay out the case clearly for how you know that Clement's The Rich Man's Salvation shows knowledge of the Secret Mark passage attested in the Letter to Theodore. If at all possible, do it without mentioning Morton Smith. I hope that you will feel free to lay out any argument Le Boulluec makes that you consider useful, but please refrain from appealing to his authority.

Best,

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

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

But it is worth noting that perhaps the world's leading authority on Clement sees QDS "expecting" something like Secret Mark. There i said it. Won't mention it again on Tuesday. :D
“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
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun May 24, 2020 9:39 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sun May 24, 2020 9:26 am
The letter claims that Mark prepared two versions of his Gospel the shorter public version for the purpose of instruction and a longer esoteric version with extra material for the purpose of mystic initiation. It is legitimate to read the public version literally (although such a reading will be incomplete.) However the initiatory material in the esoteric version deals with deep mysteries that cannot be literally described and must be approached symbolically and will lead to error if read in a crudely literal way. This is (part of) the reason why such material should not be made public.
Andrew,

How do you square this with the passage from the Rich Man's Salvation, where Clement says:
And as we are clearly aware that the Saviour teaches His people nothing in a merely human way, but everything by a divine and mystical wisdom, we must not understand His words literally, but with due inquiry and intelligence we must search out and master their hidden meaning” (RM 5, Loeb translation).
He appears to be talking about canonical Mark here. What do you see as the difference between how Clement says Mark should be read and how the author of the Letter to Theodore thinks Secret Mark should be read?

Best,

Ken
Hi Ken

First of all I am not claiming that the implied hermeneutic of the Mar Saba letter is entirely compatible with the views of Clement as expressed in his acknowledged writings. I doubt if they are entirely compatible but it begs the question to say that the Mar Saba letter cannot be claiming X because Clement of Alexandria would not have claimed X.

However I don't think the views of canonical Mark in the Mar Saba letter really contradict Clement's acknowledged writings. Clement is not claiming in Quis Dives that it is harmful to read Mark here literally, he agrees that for some people this is the right way. Clement argues that it is better to emphasise things like the desire for riches rather than literal wealth but there is no suggestion that simple unsophisticated Christians should avoid these passages because of the risk of misunderstanding. In any case Clement would hold that misinterpreting canonical Mark can be straightforwardly avoided by listening to people like Clement.

According to the Mar Saba letter Secret Mark deals with profound mysteries and as such is more harmful if taken crudely literally and more difficult to truly comprehend than is true of canonical Mark. I don't myself think it likely Clement of Alexandria believed in different types of texts requiring different types of hermeneutic, but this seems to be the position of the Mar Saba letter.

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

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't think the views of canonical Mark in the Mar Saba letter really contradict Clement's acknowledged writings
But can Clement have reasonably interpreted Mark 10:17 - 31 and its command to "sell your possessions" to mean γυμνῶσαι without the Secret Mark passage being read as an appendage or continuation? Dig through all the exegesis on these words. Not even strippers see this as a defense of their profession. How did Clement arrive at stripping as the meaning of Jesus's answer to the question "how do I attain eternal life" in Mark's gospel quite specifically. The best explanation is what is found in To Theodore.
“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: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun May 24, 2020 12:36 pm But can Clement have reasonably interpreted Mark 10:17 - 31 and its command to "sell your possessions" to mean γυμνῶσαι without the Secret Mark passage being read as an appendage or continuation? Dig through all the exegesis on these words. Not even strippers see this as a defense of their profession. How did Clement arrive at stripping as the meaning of Jesus's answer to the question "how do I attain eternal life" in Mark's gospel quite specifically. The best explanation is what is found in To Theodore.
Well, perhaps ἐκδύω is better attested than γυμνῶσαι to express the concept, as in Colossians 3.5-11:
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. 7 These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. 8 But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices 10 and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. 11 In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!
Still, the use of a verb meaning "to strip off" in the context of ridding oneself of negative passions is attested in the New Testament.

Also, Clement uses different words to express ridding the soul of negative passions in, e.g., RM 11 and 40. It's not as if he's particularly fixed on γυμνῶσαι. It's just one of the ways he formulates the concept.

And ecdysiasts do use the word to describe their profession.

Best,

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

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

No.

1. Clement's exegesis in QDS is limited to the Gospel of Mark and for the most part to the saying "sell your possessions."
2. Clement puts forward that the correct exegesis of these words from Mark is a mystery, instruction or command to strip naked (γυμνῶσαι)?

His opponents - communists like the Carpocratians - have our explanation of those words: Jesus is teaching that we have to sell all our material goods. Clement says this isn't the correct understanding of Mark's gospel. He knows other canonical gospels. He refutes words from the parallel section of Matthew. For Clement and the communists the battle lines are drawn from Mark's gospel. Why Mark? What about the gospel of Mark as Clement and the communists knew it points to a mystery rite which began with stripping naked to put on a new divine soul? What gospel of Mark helps explain these anomalies?

Without citing a specific authority on Clement - cough - the best explanation is Clement knew a gospel of Mark which had stripping naked following Mark 10:17 - 31. You can refute this suggestion. That's fair. But it is the best explanation of Clement's use of γυμνῶσαι in QDS. You can also say there is nothing in Clement to support to Theodore's authenticity. I'd counter you're not trying very hard...
“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: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ken Olson »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun May 24, 2020 7:08 pm 1. Clement's exegesis in QDS is limited to the Gospel of Mark and specifically the saying "sell your possessions."
Clement is expounding on the meaning of the story of the Rich Man in Mark 10, and especially on the meaning of the command to "sell your positions" in Mark 10;21. In the course of his 40 chapter exposition, he uses numerous New Testament texts, including Pauline ones, which he quotes, or alludes, in interpreting Mark 10. Here's half a dozen examples:

He who destroys the temple of God shall be destroyed [1 Cor. 3.17, QDS 18]

The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal [2 Cor. 4.18, QDS25]

The world rulers of the darkness (Eph. 6.12, QDS 29]

Now the Apostle's saying is also good, "God loveth a cheerful giver" [2 Cor. 9.6, quoted in QDS 31].

Treasure we carry in an earthen vessel [2 Cor. 4.7, QDS 34]

But do you learn the "more excellent way" to salvation, which Paul shows. "Love seeketh not its own" [1 Cor.12.31, QDS 38]

There are more, but the point is that Mark 10.17-22 is the text Clement is performing his exegesis *on*, but he's performing it *with* numerous NT texts including Paul.
2. Clement puts forward that the correct exegesis of these words from Mark is a mystery, instruction or command to strip naked (γυμνῶσαι)?
No, he doesn't. He says:
Namely, to strip the soul itself and the will of their lurking passions and utterly root out and cast away all alien thoughts from the mind. For this is a lesson peculiar to the believer and a doctrine worthy of the Saviour (QDS 12).
There is no command to strip naked, though the verb used is a cognate of the word naked. It's a command to strip the negative passions from the soul. It's much more like Colossians 3.5-11 than like Secret Mark. I suppose you could translate it "strip naked the soul and the will of their lurking passions," but that's awkward.
Without citing a specific authority on Clement - cough - the best explanation is Clement knew a gospel of Mark which had stripping naked following Mark 10:17 - 31.
So your claim rests on an appeal to authority?

Le Boulluec's conclusion is a bit tentative:,
The reconciliations presented here are not proof. They are unable to guarantee the authenticity of the letter. They pretend only to indicate that the discourse "On the Salvation of the Rich Man", far from opposing this authenticity, includes a thematic line compatible with the symbolic interpretation of the "secret gospel" (and of Mark). A strong objection would, however, come from the very nature of the question posed in Mk 10:17: what to do to receive eternal life? One could say that the search for an answer should lead Clement to associate this simple explanation of the pericope with a mystical teaching. The movement of the turnstile, surely, has not yet stopped. [Alain Le Boulluec, La Lettre sur "L'Evangile Secret" de Marc et le Quis Dives Salvetur? de Clement D'Alexandrie, Apokrypha 7.1 1996; pardon my attempt at French]
You can refute this suggestion.


I have done so.
That's fair. But it is the best explanation of Clement's use of γυμνῶσαι in QDS. You can also say there is nothing in Clement to support to Theodore's authenticity. I'd counter you're not trying very hard...
I'd counter that you don't seem to know what the text of QDS actually says. You're just asserting that your theory is correct.

Best,

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

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

I've laid out my own version of the QDS points to Clement's (secret) knowledge of Secret Mark argument. I'm not even convinced you've digested the text of QDS, like I mean read it like a love letter, become truly intimate with Clement's thoughts. I came to the same conclusions as Le Boulluec without having awareness of his thesis (I think I did it here or at the old forum). Your description of Clement's methodology is so generic it could describe any of the Church Fathers. It doesn't take into account that the gospel citations follow the order of a gospel harmony etc. It doesn't recognize Clement's uniqueness

I am not defending authenticity or countering charges of it being a forgery by it, I am simply saying that the "naked mystery" of QDS is one of many coincidences which suggest that to Theodore is what it claims to be a list which includes John of Damascus's reference to a collection at Mar Saba.

You treat Clement like he's just another Church Father. But Clement is very different from his known contemporaries outside of Alexandria. There is so much he holds back from his readers. The very name Stromata manifests his secretive nature. QDS is unique from everything else we know from the period. His lengthy citation of Mark. Origen writes commentaries on every other gospel. Matthew is the preferred gospel in Irenaeus. Clement doesn't tell us why he cites a long passage from Mark so we are left speculating.

Could it be that Mark had a special significance for Alexandrian Christianity? Yes I think so. Did Clement's opponents- the communists - also share a preference for Mark? Yes I think that's reasonable. Now that causes a dilemma. Why isn't Mark shown a preference in Clement's other writings? I would suggest that to Theodore explains that. How do you Ken explain QDS's choice of arguing from Mark rather than Matthew?
“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 »

And as I am up at 330 am because my son was screaming so loud playing Fortnite, if Clement's citation of Mark shows a cultural "preference" for that gospel doesn't Exhortation, Stromata and the Instructor's lack of overt reference to Clement's preference for Mark also suggest that it was a secret preference for Mark? If Ammonius's ordering was Matthew, Mark, Luke and then John how could QDS's choice of Mark be anything other than reflective of a hitherto secret preference for Mark?
“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
Post Reply