On the Suffix εὺς in the Title "Κλήμης ὁ στρωματεὺς"

[Secret Alias]

I am not saying I know what the answer is just what the answer isn't.

[Secret Alias]

It is interesting to see that beside the term concorporatio:

That was when in the first warmth of faith he presented the catholic church with that money which was before long cast out along with him after he had diverged from our truth into his own heresy. What now, if the Marcionites are going to deny that his faith at first was with us—even against the evidence of his own letter? What if they refuse to acknowledge that letter? Certainly Marcion's own Antitheses not only admit this, but even make a show of it. Proof taken from them is good enough for me. If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke—we shall see <later> whether it is <accepted by> Marcion—if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the protectors of Judaism (protectoribus Iudaismi) with a view to its incorporation (ad concorporationem) with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already.

It is hard not to get the idea that "protector" wasn't a term for "bishop" or a figure one higher than the rest of the ecclesia. Look at how the term is used in On Baptism

Not that the Holy Spirit is given to us in the water, but that in the water we are made clean by the action of the angel, and made ready for the Holy Spirit ... After that we come up from the washing and are anointed with the blessed unction, following that ancient practice by which, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses, there was a custom of anointing them for priesthood with oil out of a horn ... After that we come up from the washing and are anointed with the blessed unction, following that ancient practice by which, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses, there was a custom of anointing them for priesthood with oil out of a horn ... Next follows the imposition of the hand in benediction, inviting and welcoming the Holy Spirit. Human ingenuity has been permitted to summon spirit to combine with water, and to animate their incorporation (concorporationem) by adapting their hands from above with another spirit of excellent clarity: and shall not God be permitted, in an organ of his own, by the use of holy hands to play a tune of spiritual sublimity?

It just sounds to me like "protector" might have been an early term for bishop. The Greek equivalent for the Latin "protector" would be φύλαξ.

[Secret Alias]

This is interesting:

Besides, the tithes of the fruits and of the flocks taught both piety towards the Deity, and not covetously to grasp everything, but to communicate gifts of kindness to one's neighbours. For it was from these, I reckon, and from the first-fruits that the priests were maintained. We now therefore understand that we are instructed in piety, and in liberality, and in justice, and in humanity by the law. For does it not command the land to be left fallow in the seventh year, and bids the poor fearlessly use the fruits that grow by divine agency, nature cultivating the ground for behoof of all and sundry? How, then, can it be maintained that the law is not humane, and the teacher of righteousness? Again, in the fiftieth year, it ordered the same things to be performed as in the seventh; besides restoring to each one his own land, if from any circumstance he had parted with it in the meantime; setting bounds to the desires of those who covet possession, by measuring the period of enjoyment, and choosing that those who have paid the penalty of protracted penury should not suffer a life-long punishment. "But alms and acts of faith are royal guards (φυλακαὶ βασιλικαί,), and blessing is on the head of him who bestows; and he who pities the poor shall be blessed." For he shows love to one like himself, because of his love to the Creator of the human race. The above-mentioned particulars have other explanations more natural, both respecting rest and the recovery of the inheritance; but they are not discussed at present. [Stromata 2.18]

Clement's citation of Proverbs is different than the LXX. Clement's reads:

ἐλεημοσύνη καὶ ἀλήθεια φυλακὴ βασιλεῖ καὶ περικυκλώσουσιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ

ἐλεημοσύναι δὲ καὶ πίστεις φυλακαὶ βασιλικαί, εὐλογία δὲ εἰς κεφαλὴν τοῦ μεταδιδόντος καὶ ὁ ἐλεῶν πτωχοὺς μακαρισθήσεται, ὅτι τὴν
ἀγάπην ἐνδείκνυται εἰς τὸν ὅμοιον διὰ

[Secret Alias]

I knew it. I knew it. I fucking knew it. I have VERY good instincts. It's almost a sixth sense I am telling you. I am not like the rest of you fucks.

In Clement of Alexandria we meet with the " guardian " as a type of a bishop . A bishop's behaviour towards the individual should be that of a guardian of a brother. [footnote Quis dives salvetur 42.10 : John the Evangelist says this as he entrusts a young man to the care of the bishop ( Φύλακα τῆς τἀδελφοῦ ψυχῆς )] https://books.google.com/books?id=0ViKP ... B1&f=false

I am telling you. I come here and put my research on line. How I work. How one step leads to the other. Like a grand spectacle. It's magic sometimes. So here's the section:

Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to you in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness. The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother, the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, He is dead. How and what kind of death? He is dead, he said, to God. For he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now he has taken possession of the mountain in front of the church, along with a band like him. Rending, therefore, his clothes, and striking his head with great lamentation, the apostle said, It was a fine defender/guard of a brother's soul I left! , "καλόν γε" ἔφη "φύλακα τῆς τἀδελφοῦ ψυχῆς κατέλιπον."

I think "Κλήμης ὁ στρωματεὺς" is a secret way of saying that Clement was a bishop. He couldn't say it because there must have been some dispute with Demetrius. But στρωματεὺς means "coverer" (stroma + teus as above). "Coverer" is a literal rendering of the Latin "protector" and "protector" = φύλακα. There is a lot of work here. Sorting out φύλακα references in Who is the Rich Man, researching Philo's allusions to φύλακα and related words. But the underlying sense is that the φύλακα (guardian/protector) of their brethren.

Is Moses ever described as a φύλακα? What's the Hebrew equivalent? Questions. Questions.

[Secret Alias]

Yup. Just as I thought. We're heading to Simon Magus-land.

I think both φύλαξ and the Hebrew שמר have the sense "one who keeps watch over, protects."

II. guardian, keeper, protector, Hes.Op.123, 253; κτεάνων Pi.P.8.58; δωμάτων, χώρας φ., A.Ag.914, S.OT1418, etc.; παιδός Hdt.1.41; τῆς γυναικός X.Cyr.6.3.14; τῆς πολιτείας And.4.16, cf. Pl.R.374d, al.; τῆς ἀρχῆς Lys.12.94; τῶν νόμων Pl.Lg.966b; τῆς εἰρήνης Isoc.4.175: as fem., E.Tr.462, Pl.Plt.305c, X.Mem.2.1.32; of a divinity, Ἄγγδιστιν .. φύλακα καὶ οἰκοδέσποιναν τοῦδε τοῦ οἴικου SIG985.51 (Philadelphia, i B.C.): also φ. Ἀργείου δορός a protector against it, E.Ph.1094; ἐπὶ τοῖς ὠνίοιςφύλακας κατεστήσατε, of the ἀγορανόμοι, Lys.22.16.

Jesus is the (Good) Samaritan. φύλαξ must have dropped out of use among orthodox Christians.

[mbuckley3]

I think "Κλήμης ὁ στρωματεὺς" is a secret way of saying that Clement was a bishop. He couldn't say it because there must have been some dispute with Demetrius. But στρωματεὺς means "coverer" (stroma + teus as above). "Coverer" is a literal rendering of the Latin "protector" and "protector" = φύλακα. There is a lot of work here. Sorting out φύλακα references in Who is the Rich Man, researching Philo's allusions to φύλακα and related words. But the underlying sense is that the φύλακα (guardian/protector) of their brethren.

Stephan, you may well be onto 'something', but this is not 'it'.

At Strom.1.29.182, Clement concludes Book One calling it the πρωτος Στρωματευς, the first 'tapestry' (or whatever).

He never refers to himself as ό Στρωματευς.

Κλημης ό Στρωματευς is an epithet used by much later writers, such as Palladius and John Moschus.

It's a bit of a stretch to infer that Clement styled himself this way, with a coded meaning necessary because of lexical purity ( the suffix-of-agency which so intrigued André Méhat before you).

After all, that other στρωματευς, the Red Sea fish, didn't 'do' anything. It was just a (pretty, stripey) fish.

[billd89]

I am not saying I know what the answer is just what the answer isn't.

You're the only one posting, in dialogue with yourself though. It's barking, bro.

"Clement the Stromatist" was a way of saying 'Clement-who-wrote-the-Miscellanies; -- to distinguish that particular 'Clement' (writer) from other known Clements (i.e. writers) by that work. There is simply nothing to suggest it was his personal title, i.e. that he was known as the "protector" or "coverer" of a secret doctrine. Even if -- as you would read it -- the term 'Stromatist' had a definite esoteric shading, it would still merely be 'Clement-who-wrote-the-(Esoteric) Miscellanies' and nothing more. No, 'Clement-the-Obscurantist' gets you no closer to a Bishop's title, poor fellow.

At Strom.1.29.182, Clement concludes Book One calling it the πρωτος Στρωματευς, the first 'tapestry' (or whatever).

THIS.

He never refers to himself as ό Στρωματευς. Κλημης ό Στρωματευς is an epithet used by much later writers, such as Palladius and John Moschus.

And THIS.

It's a bit of a stretch to infer that Clement styled himself this way, with a coded meaning necessary because of lexical purity (the suffix-of-agency which so intrigued André Méhat before you).

The convoluted inference is indeed bonkers. But I want to consider the coded meaning of Agency elsewhere, in an entirely different context: a modern book of miscellanies cryptically drawing on divers Alexandrian philosophies. In addition to the miscellany of the Basic Text, we are told the First 100 were varied, variegated:

We are ordinary Americans. All sections of this country and many of its occupations are represented, as well as many political, economic, social and religious backgrounds. We are people who normally would not mix. But there exists among us a fellowship ...

and then to the compound elements -- the relevance which Philo has indicated, on the Coat-of-Many-Colors referenced above -- in more 'Concrete' terms, to build the Arch, etc.: an allusion to the Jewish Mythos of the Twelve Tribes building the Egyptian Pyramids (=Horon's people.)

Instead of regarding ourselves as intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation, we agnostics and atheists chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end of all. Rather vain of us, wasn't it?

This is the how and why of it. First of all, quit playing God yourself. It doesn't work. Next, decide that hereafter in this drama of life, God is going to by your Director. He is the Principal; you are to be His agent. He is the Father, and you are His child. Get that simple relationship straight. Most good ideas are simple and this concept is to be the keystone of the new and triumphant arch through which you will pass to freedom.

What would we call a 'Gnostic Agent' in the Greek of Judeo-Hermeticists or Pythagorean Jews?

[billd89]

I imagine if you put the Greek suffix at the end of "bullshit" μαλακίες whether μαλακεὺς would be "bullshitter."

μαλάκας doesn't mean "bullshitter" tho, it means (literally) "wanker" or "jerk" (=jerk-off) in modern Greek.

In Antiquity, your hypothetical "Κλήμης ὁ μαλακεὺς" -- derivative of the term for passive homosexual -- would probably be understood as 'Clement-the-Fag.' There would be no connotation whatsoever to Early 20th C Anglo-American bullshitting, in any case.

You really need to stick to actual words and their literal (i.e. proven, demonstrable) meaning --in Alexandria c.200 AD--, rather than leaping off the cliff on such flights of fancy.