γυμνὸς or γυμνοὶ in Clement's Letter to Theodore?

[Ken Olson]

IMO the shape of the letter looks more similar to the iotas.

If I had to base my decision on those selected comparanda, I would probably agree with you.

In the pic (with transcription) in your post above, it looks to me like the accent in ἀναστὰς is over the final sigma, not the preceding alpha.

Venetia Anastasapoulou writes on p.12 of her report, which I imagine you have, if not I can post the page):

The accent marks are correctly used. The size of each accent is bigger than average and it is placed vertically above the letter (12 o'clock) or to the right of the letter (13 o'clock).

Looking at the free standing final sigmas in the pic and setting aside the final sigmas connected to the previous letters by ligatures, I do not think the final letter in [γυµνοὶ / γυµνὸς] looks more like an iota than it does like the final sigmas in εἰς and τούτοις (where it's preceded by a iota) in line 11. I would say the same in comparison to the final sigmas in εἰς in line 14 and ἀληθὴς in line 18.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

https://akma.disseminary.org/wp-content ... etMark.pdf

10 Ἰησοῦς τὸ µυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς
11 ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. Ἐπὶ µὲν τούτοις ἕπεται τὸ καὶ
12 προσεπορεύοντο αὐτῷ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης καὶ πᾶσα ἡ
13 περικοπή. Τὸ δὲ [γυµνοὶ / γυµνὸς] γυµνῷ καὶ τἆvα περὶ ὧν ἔγραψας οὐκ
14 εὑρίσκεται. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς Ἱεριχὼ ἐπάγει µόνον, καὶ
15 ἦσαν ἐκεῖ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ νεανίσκου, ὃν ἠγάπα αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ
16 ἡ µήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ Σαλώµη, καὶ οὐκ ἀπεδέξατο αὐτὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
17 Τὰ δὲ ἄvα τὰ ποvὰ ἁ ἐγραψας ψεύσµατα καὶ φαίνεται καὶ ἐστιν. Ἡ
18 µὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις…

Looking at the free standing final sigmas in the pic and setting aside the final sigmas connected to the previous letters by ligatures,

These appear to me to be connected above:

10 Ἰησοῦς
10 ἀναστὰς (possibly, reqiures a better photograph)
12 Ἰάκωβος
12 ἔγραψας (possibly, requires a better photograph)
15 Ἰησοῦς
16 αὐτὰς (possibly, requires a better photograph)
16 Ἰησοῦς
17 ἐγραψας

These are the free standing final sigmas above (and my view on whether they are visually dissimilar):

10 τῆς (apparently dissimilar, requires a better photograph)
10 βασιλείας (dissimilar)
11 εἰς (dissimilar)
11 τούτοις (dissimilar)
12 Ἰωάννης (dissimilar)
14 εἰς (apparently similar, requires a better photograph)
18 ἀληθὴς (apparently dissimilar, requires a better photograph)
18 ἐξήγησις (dissimilar)

Within just the free standing final sigmas above, I consider there to be 5 that are definitely dissimilar, 2 that are apparently dissimilar, and one - i.e. 14 εἰς - that is apparently similar. As such, I have found nothing that disagrees with my statement, "The shape of the letter, which is dissimilar to the shape of the terminal sigmas (or at least a very large majority of them)."

There is one example here (out of many), i.e. 14 εἰς, that does not show the shape of a final sigma letter that is in accordance with the other examples in the letter. I don't believe it would be good methodology to refer to this one example as the most appropriate point of comparison here. The free standing forms here in general, aside from this example, still recognizably present the shape of the final sigma. I can't explain the appearance of the aberrant form in 14 εἰς with reference only to the point that the letter is free standing. A better possible explanation IMO would be that the hand rendered the common word quickly and in this case failed to draw a recognizable shape of final sigma. And even these comments about 14 εἰς may be premature without reference to a better photograph.

[Peter Kirby]

Venetia Anastasapoulou writes on p.12 of her report, which I imagine you have, if not I can post the page):

That could be helpful. Thanks!

I would also benefit from having a better photograph.

[Ken Olson]

Venetia Anastasapoulou writes on p.12 of her report, which I imagine you have, if not I can post the page):

That could be helpful. Thanks!

I would also benefit from having a better photograph.

Yes, a better image would help, and perhaps some more experienced palaeographers participating in the discussion. But no I don't agree that the final sigmas in the four examples I gave are more dissimilar to the final letter of γυμνοX than the iotas are, particularly in τούτοις, which has both.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Venetia Anastasapoulou writes on p.12 of her report, which I imagine you have, if not I can post the page):

That could be helpful. Thanks!

I would also benefit from having a better photograph.

Yes, a better image would help, and perhaps some more experienced palaeographers participating in the discussion.

That's completely fair. I am far from an expert. Just trying to understand better here.

But no I don't agree that the final sigmas in the four examples I gave are more dissimilar to the final letter of γυμνοX than the iotas are, particularly in τούτοις, which has both.

I may be able to show what I mean (or perhaps show myself that I am wrong) with a better photo.

Yes, you offered four examples. I agree that having four examples out of eight would make a reasonable case.

[Peter Kirby]

I remember ordering a copy of The Fourth R once with the photos. It's too bad I have no idea where it is or if I even still have it. If I come across some better images, I will share them, unless someone else is able to do so first.

[AdamKvanta]

There are several early Christian texts that use the word 'naked' (presumably) without a sexual suggestion. But what we are discussing here is the the Secret Gospel According to Mark mentioned in Clement's letter to Theodore, in which the issue of a sexual reading is raised directly by Clement.

I don't understand, are you saying there is no sexual suggestion in the Second Apocalypse of James?

[Peter Kirby]

There are several early Christian texts that use the word 'naked' (presumably) without a sexual suggestion. But what we are discussing here is the the Secret Gospel According to Mark mentioned in Clement's letter to Theodore, in which the issue of a sexual reading is raised directly by Clement.

I don't understand, are you saying there is no sexual suggestion in the Second Apocalypse of James?

I'm not familiar with this either way. Perhaps you can share the reference you have in mind.

(This may be the start of a new topic.)

[SaosSidirountios]

SaosSidirountios, you declared that much of the widely-accepted text of Clement is, in fact, not by Clement.
Without an example, your claim can not be assessed.

Dear Stephen, what I am trying to say is that there is a massive corpus of works which suppose to have been written by Clement, but not enough scientific work has been conducted so far to clarify which of those works were written by Clement and which may be later pseudepigrapha. I do not know which works of Clement are Clement's originals. There are masses of pseudepigrapha which have passed as original just because the scholarly world prefers to do other work rather than investigating the originality of texts.
I do not know if this letter is original or not, I did not study its originality.

[SaosSidirountios]

SaosSidirountios wrote above, Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:37 am, in part:

"much of the works widely accepted as originally produced by Clemens of Alexandria are not originally his."
and
"Josephus also is the same case, much of Josephus was not written by any Josephus."

Those are two bold claims, but not specific.
Perhaps consider starting two new threads in which you give an example of a widely-accepted passage of writing of Clement and of Josephus and explain why you assert that they did not write those texts.
Or just one thread, either on Clement or on Josephus.
Without any example(s), there is nothing to examine.

Yes, I will do that. Thanks