https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Here's the problem. You think that Clement and the Carpocratians were night and day different. They weren't. Hegesippus unfortunately made reference to "Harpocratians" or "Carpocratians" and nudity. And these things made their rounds in antiquity. The Carpocratians probably weren't these "libertines" they were reported to be. They just got a bad rap. Clement wasn't going to defend a group that had a bad reputation. So he piled on. But the reality was Christianity was about getting back to the primal purity of Adam. Adam was naked. So these sorts of misunderstanding were inevitable. I think the Patristic writings on the heresies was just an endless supply of "whataboutism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhataboutismΚαὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ δῆμος ἐπὶ τῶν τιμωρητικῶν σκευῶν ἕτοιμος, καὶ ἐν μέσοις αὐτοῖς καλλίνικες Μάρτυρες, ἤτοι Ἀπόστολοι κριθησόμενοι παρήγοντο, Ἀγγέλοις τε καὶ ἀνθρώποις θέατρον γενόμενοι πρὸς ἄρχοντας καὶ ἐξουσίας, καὶ τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους αἰσθητῶς τε καὶ νοητῶς συνεπλέκοντο· λόγοις μὲν ἀκραιφνοῦς θεολογίας τὴν ἀπάτην τε αὐτοῦ καὶ πλάνησιν ἐξελέγχοντες, καὶ τὴν κατὰ Χριστὸν ἀλήθειαν παρρησιάζοντες, ἔργοις δὲ γενναίας καὶ καρτερικωτάτης διανοίας εὐμαρῶς τε καὶ ἄγαν προθύμως τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου δεχόμενοι κακοπαθείας, τὰς ἐπηρείας, τὰς πληγάς, τὰ στρεβλωτήρια, τὰ δεσμά, τοὺς ραβδισμούς, τοὺς λιθασμούς, πρὸς τούτοις δὲ τὰ ξίφη, τὰ δόρατα, τοὺς σταυρούς, τὸ πῦρ, τὸν σίδηρον, τοὺς ποικίλους καὶ παντοδαποὺς θανάτους, οὓς ἐπὶ τέλους ἐπέχοντες ἀνδρικῶς τε καὶ χριστομιμήτως, τοῦ ἀπὸ γῆς ὀστράκου περιρρηγνυμένου τούτοις ἀπελύοντο, καὶ οὕτως ὅλον τὸν θνητὸν ἀπεκδυόμενοι καὶ φθαρτόν, καὶ γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ καθαροί τε τῷ καθαρωτάτῳ προσωμιληκότες Λόγῳ· καί γε τελεώτερον ἔτι τούτῳ καὶ μυστικώτερον ἑνούμενοι καὶ συναρμολογούμενοι ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρί, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἓν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῷ οὕτως οἱ Ἀπόστολοι ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἓν ἐν αὐτοῖς.
"And the people themselves were ready with the instruments of punishment, and in their midst were noble Martyrs, or rather Apostles, who were being led to judgment, becoming a spectacle to angels and men, to rulers and authorities, and engaging with the rulers of the darkness both visibly and intellectually; by words of pure theology, they were refuting his deceit and error and boldly proclaiming the truth about Christ, and by deeds of noble and most steadfast minds, willingly and eagerly accepting sufferings for the sake of the word, the insults, the blows, the tortures, the chains, the beatings, the stonings, and besides these, the swords, the spears, the crosses, the fire, the iron, the various and manifold deaths, which they endured bravely and in imitation of Christ, being released from this earthly shell, and thus stripping off the whole mortal and corruptible nature, and being naked to the naked, and pure to the purest Word; and indeed being united with Him more perfectly and mystically, just as He is in the Father, and the Father is one with Him, so the Apostles are in the Lord Jesus, and the Lord is one with them." https://msoe.gr/min-iounios/iouniou-30h ... -2?start=5
I don't quite understand this. The letter is claiming that the clause mentioned by the Carpocratians γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ (or γυμνὸς γυμνῷ) is not authentic. Whether the phrase should be singular or plural does not seem to be the point. The phrase is (according to the letter) bogus anyway.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 7:51 am The Carpocratians said γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ. The letter reassures Theodore that there were lots of naked people together in the gospel. That's all. There was no exegesis of the Secret Gospel because the number of naked people was the issue, the only issue addressed by the citation. There was one naked person.
FWIW this interesting passage is from an enconium by Nicetas the Paphlagonian from about 900 CE, I am unsure how far it is helpful for Greek usage c 200 CE.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 8:00 am On the supposed "grammatical preferability" of Morton's Smith's γυμνὸς γυμνῷ to the actual reading γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ. γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ is good Greek. You guys can't have a millimeter separating Morton Smith and the discovery. You knows it's over for this silly theory.
Here's the problem. You think that Clement and the Carpocratians were night and day different. They weren't. Hegesippus unfortunately made reference to "Harpocratians" or "Carpocratians" and nudity. And these things made their rounds in antiquity. The Carpocratians probably weren't these "libertines" they were reported to be. They just got a bad rap. Clement wasn't going to defend a group that had a bad reputation. So he piled on. But the reality was Christianity was about getting back to the primal purity of Adam. Adam was naked. So these sorts of misunderstanding were inevitable. I think the Patristic writings on the heresies was just an endless supply of "whataboutism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhataboutismΚαὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ δῆμος ἐπὶ τῶν τιμωρητικῶν σκευῶν ἕτοιμος, καὶ ἐν μέσοις αὐτοῖς καλλίνικες Μάρτυρες, ἤτοι Ἀπόστολοι κριθησόμενοι παρήγοντο, Ἀγγέλοις τε καὶ ἀνθρώποις θέατρον γενόμενοι πρὸς ἄρχοντας καὶ ἐξουσίας, καὶ τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους αἰσθητῶς τε καὶ νοητῶς συνεπλέκοντο· λόγοις μὲν ἀκραιφνοῦς θεολογίας τὴν ἀπάτην τε αὐτοῦ καὶ πλάνησιν ἐξελέγχοντες, καὶ τὴν κατὰ Χριστὸν ἀλήθειαν παρρησιάζοντες, ἔργοις δὲ γενναίας καὶ καρτερικωτάτης διανοίας εὐμαρῶς τε καὶ ἄγαν προθύμως τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου δεχόμενοι κακοπαθείας, τὰς ἐπηρείας, τὰς πληγάς, τὰ στρεβλωτήρια, τὰ δεσμά, τοὺς ραβδισμούς, τοὺς λιθασμούς, πρὸς τούτοις δὲ τὰ ξίφη, τὰ δόρατα, τοὺς σταυρούς, τὸ πῦρ, τὸν σίδηρον, τοὺς ποικίλους καὶ παντοδαποὺς θανάτους, οὓς ἐπὶ τέλους ἐπέχοντες ἀνδρικῶς τε καὶ χριστομιμήτως, τοῦ ἀπὸ γῆς ὀστράκου περιρρηγνυμένου τούτοις ἀπελύοντο, καὶ οὕτως ὅλον τὸν θνητὸν ἀπεκδυόμενοι καὶ φθαρτόν, καὶ γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ καθαροί τε τῷ καθαρωτάτῳ προσωμιληκότες Λόγῳ· καί γε τελεώτερον ἔτι τούτῳ καὶ μυστικώτερον ἑνούμενοι καὶ συναρμολογούμενοι ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρί, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἓν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῷ οὕτως οἱ Ἀπόστολοι ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἓν ἐν αὐτοῖς.
"And the people themselves were ready with the instruments of punishment, and in their midst were noble Martyrs, or rather Apostles, who were being led to judgment, becoming a spectacle to angels and men, to rulers and authorities, and engaging with the rulers of the darkness both visibly and intellectually; by words of pure theology, they were refuting his deceit and error and boldly proclaiming the truth about Christ, and by deeds of noble and most steadfast minds, willingly and eagerly accepting sufferings for the sake of the word, the insults, the blows, the tortures, the chains, the beatings, the stonings, and besides these, the swords, the spears, the crosses, the fire, the iron, the various and manifold deaths, which they endured bravely and in imitation of Christ, being released from this earthly shell, and thus stripping off the whole mortal and corruptible nature, and being naked to the naked, and pure to the purest Word; and indeed being united with Him more perfectly and mystically, just as He is in the Father, and the Father is one with Him, so the Apostles are in the Lord Jesus, and the Lord is one with them." https://msoe.gr/min-iounios/iouniou-30h ... -2?start=5
There is a good but old discussion by Nathaniel Lardner on the probable non-existence of the ancient Adamites linked to Prodicus by Theodoret.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 8:00 am
........................
Here's the problem. You think that Clement and the Carpocratians were night and day different. They weren't. Hegesippus unfortunately made reference to "Harpocratians" or "Carpocratians" and nudity. And these things made their rounds in antiquity. The Carpocratians probably weren't these "libertines" they were reported to be. They just got a bad rap. Clement wasn't going to defend a group that had a bad reputation. So he piled on. But the reality was Christianity was about getting back to the primal purity of Adam. Adam was naked. So these sorts of misunderstanding were inevitable. I think the Patristic writings on the heresies was just an endless supply of "whataboutism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism