Looking for passage: angel of the council...

[rgprice]

In The Great Angel, Barker cites Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus, Excerpt 43 as: "...he is sent forth as the angel of the counsel and becomes the head of the whole after the Father." followed by a citation of Col :16 and Phil 2:10.

I can't find this. I looked here: https://www.amazon.com/Excerpts-Theodot ... 081S4BTC1/

But there excerpt 43 says something totally different.

Any ideas as to what exactly she is citing?

[Ben C. Smith]

In The Great Angel, Barker cites Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus, Excerpt 43 as: "...he is sent forth as the angel of the counsel and becomes the head of the whole after the Father." followed by a citation of Col :16 and Phil 2:10.

I can't find this. I looked here: https://www.amazon.com/Excerpts-Theodot ... 081S4BTC1/

But there excerpt 43 says something totally different.

Any ideas as to what exactly she is citing?

Andrew Criddle to the rescue: http://www.textexcavation.com/documents ... racts.html.

[rgprice]

Thanks Ben. What exactly is the provenance of this work? I'm not able to find much info on it. It contains quite a lot of interesting statements. While the teachings are labeled as Valentinian, many would be right at home in a Catholic church.

This is interesting:

5 How was it that they were not frightened when they saw the vision of light but fell on the earth when they heard the voice? Because the ears are more sceptical than the eyes and an unex­pected voice is more terrifying. But John the Baptist, when he heard the voice, was not afraid, as if he heard in the spirit, which was accustomed to such a voice. But it was just as any ordinary man on merely hearing would have been frightened; therefore the Saviour said to thern, "Tell no one what you saw." Yet they had not even with eyes of the flesh seen the light (for there is no bond of kinship and relation between that light and the present flesh) but as the power and will of the Saviour en­abled the flesh to have vision. Moreover, that which the soul saw it shared with the flesh that companied with it. . .. And "tell no one" was spoken lest any, when they knew what the Lord is, should refrain from laying hands on the Lord and the plan of God be made incomplete and death refrain from the Lord as from a vain attempt on the unapproachable. And, moreover, the voice on the mountain came to the elect who already understood, so that they were also amazed when testi­mony was given to that which they believed; but the voice at the river was for those who were going to believe. Therefore, too, the voice was disregarded by them, held down as they were to the discipline of the Scribes.

Basically, I see this as an explanation for the "messianic secret" in the Gospel of Mark, claiming that essentially his identity had to be kept secret so that he would be able to carry out his mission without being thwarted.

6 The verse, "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God" the Valentinians understand thus, for they say that the "beginning" is the "Only Begotten" and that he is also called God, as also in the verses which immediately follow it explains that he is God, for it says, "The Only-Begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." Now they say that the Logos in the be­ginning, that is to say in the Only-Begotten, in the Mind and the Truth, indicates the Christ, the Logos and the Life. Where­fore he also appropriately calls God him who is in God, the Mind. "That which came into being in him," the Logos, "was Life," the Companion. Therefore the Lord also says, "I am the Life. "

Another indication that John was a "gnostic" Gospel.

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks Ben. What exactly is the provenance of this work?

It is one of the standard Clementine texts, preserved in codex Laurentianus and published most authoritatively by Otto Stählin, just like the Stromata.

[billd89]

Clement's Notes, c.200 AD, of older material presumably collected c.175 AD.

43 So they say that those on the right knew the names of Jesus and Christ even before the Advent, but they did not know the power of the sign. And when the Spirit gave all power, and the Pleroma united in praise, he is sent forth, “as the angel of the counsel” and becomes the head of the whole after the Father. “For all things were created by him, things visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, kingdoms, divinities, services.” “So God also exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name that every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ, the Saviour, is the Lord of Glory.” “He who ascended also descended. That he ascended, what does it imply but that he descended? He it is who descended into the lower parts of the earth and ascended above the heavens.”

This bit follows Paul very closely, see Pagels' Gnostic Paul (1975), p.117. if not an interpolation by Clement, we would presume LATE Valentinians he knew in Egypt incorporated Paul, or -less likely- Paul's Ephesians 1:10-19 (c.80 AD) and proto-Valentinians drew from an identical source (c.70 AD). Doesnt it seem too close to Paul, though? Theudas?

The text is a hodge-podge, but note Valentinians, left-right in §37 "According to the Valentinians, of those who proceeded from Adam, the righteous, making their way through created things, were held in Space, but the others are held among those who are on the left, in the place created for darkness, and feel the fire."

On the danger of interpolation, Encyclopedia Britannica says:

Excerpta ex Theodoto (“Extracts from Theodotus”), actually a scrapbook that the 2nd–3rd-century Christian philosophical theologian Clement of Alexandria appended to his Stromata (“Miscellanies”). Certain passages integrate the comments of Clement; thus, the unsystematic arrangement of the material causes problems of interpretation.

What is a recent, recommended scholarly re-arrangement of Ex Theodoto?

[rgprice]

Thanks for that billd. I'm not to familiar with this terms right and left, but from the text it appears to be talking about the right and left hand fo God.

18 When the Saviour descended, he was seen by the angels and so they proclaimed him. But he was also seen by Abraham and the other righteous men who are in Paradise on his right hand. For he says, "He rejoiced to see my day," that is the advent in the flesh. Wherefore, the risen Lord preached the good tidings to the righteous who are in Paradise, and moved them and translated them and they shall all "live under his shadow." For the advent here is a shadow of the Saviour's glory which is with the Father, and a shadow of light is not darkness but illumination

I'm not entirely sure what this means:

28 The followers of Basilides refer "God visiting the disobedient unto the third and fourth generation" to reincarnations, but the followers of Valentinus maintain that the three places mean those on the left, while the "fourth generation" is their own seed, and "showing mercy unto thousands," refers to those on the right.

A little clearer... sort of...

34 But also the powers on the left hand, which were the first to be put forth by her from those on the right, received no form by the advent of the Light, but those on the left hand remained behind to be formed by Space. So after the entry of the Mother with the Son and the seeds into the Pleroma, then Space will receive the power of the Mother and the position that the Mother now has.

62 Now the psychic Christ sits on the right hand of the Creator, as David says, " Sit thou on my right hand " and so on. And he sits there until the end "that they may see him whom they pierced." But they pierced the appearance, which is the flesh of the psychic one, "for," it says, "a bone of him shall not be broken," just as in the case of Adam the prophecy used bone as an allegory for the soul. For the actual soul of Christ de­posited itself in the Father's hands, while the body was suffer­ing. But the spiritual nature referred to as "bone" is not yet deposited but he keeps it.

[billd89]

Warning! Don't assume everything is same-same, or that it is all logically-flowing. There is Basilidian, Valentinian, other gnostic plus orthodox material combined here. It's a scrapbook, a somewhat eclectic jumble. So, for a Basilides bit, you will have to research Basilides, etc.

That's why I'd want to see critical analysis & posited reconstruction of the entire work.

For the Greek text,
https://scaife.perseus.org/library/urn: ... 55.tlg007/

My own area of interest is perhaps a century earlier, and these later complex gnostic systems (c.125-175 AD) baffle me. But I am curious if that passage (§28) refers to Metangismos or Palingenesia. Google reveals a 2017 PhD that I will have to examine, tho! Philo and the Valentinians

Not sure I agree w/ conclusions at the Introduction, but I will keep an open mind:

On the grounds of this study, it is reasonable to suggest that there was a historical relationship between Philo and the Valentinians. The relation was restricted, however, to one group of Valentinians whose teachings go back to the school of Ptolemy in Alexandria and Rome. This study shows that it is probable that some Valentinian teachers belonged to the circle of Alexandrian Christian Platonists ...

[MrMacSon]

On the danger of interpolation, Encyclopedia Britannica says:

Theodotus’ teachings, of primary importance for the study of primitive Gnosticism, survive in Excerpta ex Theodoto (“Extracts from Theodotus”), actually a scrapbook that the 2nd–3rd-century Christian philosophical theologian Clement of Alexandria appended to his Stromata (“Miscellanies”). Certain passages integrate the comments of Clement; thus, the unsystematic arrangement of the material causes problems of interpretation.

Note

Introduction

by Andrew Criddle

This is the English text of the Greek-English version of the Excerpta Ex Theodoto prepared by the late Robert Pierce Casey. It was published in 1934 as No. 1 in the Studies and Documents series, under the Editorship of Kirsopp and Silva Lake ...

It is a collection of notes made by Clement of Alexandria mainly dealing with the teachings of the Valentinian Theodotus, but also covering other Valentinian and orthodox speculations.

It has not previously been available online. The online text called ‘Extracts from Theodotus’ is a quite separate work by Clement of Alexandria, more accurately known as ‘Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures’ or ‘Prophetic Eclogues’.

http://www.textexcavation.com/documents ... racts.html
.

[billd89]

I havent referred to the "online text" Criddle is referring to. Everyone here is referring to the Excerpta Ex Theodoto. I'm not seeing Encycl. Britt's 'error' either, if that's what you've conflated.

The Gnosis link was resolved (if this is what your Note addresses?) years ago. That updated 2013 Gnosis version corrects many errors in the original Criddle transcription too.

[MrMacSon]

The Gnosis link was resolved (if this is what your Note addresses?) years ago.

Thank you (I wasn't seeing an error, just a potential discrepancy that might lead to potential confusion as it did for me).

As the Gnosis link you provided notes

Note: Another text was erroneously located on this page and under this title for many years. That text - now provided at the bottom of this page - is a separate work sometimes attributed to Clement of Alexandria, and more accurately known as ‘Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures’ or ‘Prophetic Eclogues’. It appears here following the Excerpta ex Theodoto and under separate title. We thank Andrew Criddle for pointing out this error and making the Excerpta ex Theodoto available in electronic format. (Please note that most internet Gnostic document collections have copied their material directly from this site; we regret having helped propagation this error.)