Clement and Nakedness Riddle Solved

[Secret Alias]

For he (Moses) commands holocausts to be skinned and divided into parts. For the gnostic soul must be consecrated to the light, stript of the integuments of matter, devoid of the frivolousness of the body and of all the passions, which are acquired through vain and lying opinions, and divested of the lusts of the flesh.

προστάσσει γὰρ τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα δείραντας εἰς μέλη διανεῖμαι, ἐπειδὴ γυμνὴν τῆς ὑλικῆς δορᾶς γενομένην τὴν γνωστικὴν ψυχὴν ἄνευ τῆς σωματικῆς φλυαρίας καὶ τῶν παθῶν πάντων, ὅσα περιποιοῦσιν αἱ κεναὶ καὶ ψευδεῖς ὑπολήψεις, ἀποδυσαμένην τὰς σαρκικὰς ἐπιθυμίας, τῷ φωτὶ καθιερωθῆναι ἀνάγκη. (5.11.68.1)

Philo offers an interpretation of the prescription in Lev. 2:14 that the offering of first fruits has to be new, roasted, sliced and finely ground (Sacr. 76); 'sliced' or 'divided' he takes to mean a careful analysis and classification of thoughts, and 'pounded' means persistent practice and exercise of what the mind has grasped (Sacr. 82-88). Philo enriches the context with an excerpt from Lev. 1:6: "when the burnt offering22 has been skinned, it shall be divided into its limbs." He interprets this related prescription to mean that the soul should be seen bare and without a skin of false conjectures and that it should then be 'divided' as its members demand.

The 'whole' (όλον) evoked by 'burnt offering' (ολοκαύτωμα) is virtue. This adds a further level of abstraction to the interpretation. The division, whether of the soul or of the virtuous soul, distinguishes prudence, temperance, courage and justice. The whole and the parts are closely linked with each other. This structure is then applied in a similar way to the idea of reason so that the ethical interpretation flows into an intellectual one; reason must be trained by being divided under the proper headings by arguments and demonstrations; it will thereby be relieved from disorder and obscurity.

From this speculation on the soul, virtues and reason, Clement selects only the soul. The soul is qualified with the title γνωστικός, and is linked to a discussion of the passions rather than of virtues. Philo's word σκεπασμάτων (Sacr. 84) is reflected by Clement with των παθών. 2 3 The soul is described as a willing instrument of carnal lusts, whose corporeal aspect is stressed emphatically. 2 4 The soul therefore must be stripped both from materiality and passions, so that it can be consecrated to the light in its naked form.

In Philo, the whole system, which departs from a cluster of biblical texts, seems to work within a context of logic, ethics and anthropology; practicing the virtues is an extension of the use of reason. Clement, on the contrary, takes over a fraction of Philo's arguments. This fraction, which, as usual, is centered on a biblical quotation, is placed into a purely ethical framework. This framework is based on the contradiction between the sphere of the σώμα and the πάθη and the sphere of the νους, and to a degree it dictates the selection of material. 2 5


Lev 2.11 “‘Every grain offering you bring to the Lord must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in a food offering presented to the Lord. 12 You may bring them to the Lord as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13 Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings. “‘If you bring a grain offering of firstfruits to the Lord, offer crushed heads of new grain roasted in the fire. 15 Put oil and incense on it; it is a grain offering. 16 The priest shall burn the memorial portion of the crushed grain and the oil, together with all the incense, as a food offering presented to the Lord.

Philo Sacrifices of Cain and Abel:

(84) It is enjoined therefore that sacrificers, when they have flayed the burnt offering, shall cut it up joint by joint, in order in the first place that the soul may appear naked (σκοπῶμεν δὲ ὅπως τήν τε ψυχὴν γυμνάσομεν) without any coverings (μὴ ὁλοσχερέσι), such as are made by empty (καὶ ἀτυπώτοις φαντασίαις) and false opinions (ὑποσυγχύτως ἀπατᾶσθαι); and in the second place that it may be able to receive suitable divisions, for virtue is a whole and one, which is divided into corresponding species, such as prudence and temperance, justice and courage, that we, knowing the differences of each of these qualities, may submit to a voluntary service of them both in their entirety and in particulars.

(85) And let us consider how we may train the soul so that it may not, from being thrown into a state of confusion, be deceived by general and unintelligible appearances, but that by making proper divisions of things it may be able to inspect and examine each separate thing with all accuracy, adopting language which will not, through being borne forward by disorderly impetuosity, cause any indistinctness, but being divided into its appropriate headings and into the demonstrations suitable to each, will be compounded like some living animal of perfect parts, properly put together. And we ought to apply ourselves to a continual meditation on and practice of these things, if we wish the use of them to be confirmed in us, as after having touched knowledge, not to abide in it is like tasting meat and drink, but being prevented from feeding on them in sufficient quantities.

Clearly if Secret Mark has something to do with the Jewish mysteries of Philo the resurrected youth is the sacrifice who epitomizes "the soul" which "may appear naked (υμνάσομεν) without any coverings (μὴ ὁλοσχερέσι), such as are made by empty (καὶ ἀτυπώτοις φαντασίαις)." So Secret Mark says of the youth "καὶ ὀψίας γενομένης ἔρχεται ὁ νεανίσκος πρὸς αὐτὸν περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνῷ." (the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body). The youth epitomizes the gnostic soul who is to be sacrificed.

The youth rather than Jesus is to appear crucified in Jesus's place.

[Secret Alias]

On the other guy, not Jesus, as the burnt offering/first fruit:

In the most wonderful harmony with these words, Euripides, the philosopher of the drama, is found in the following words, -- making allusion, I know not how, at once to the Father and the Son: "To thee, the Lord of all, I bring Cakes and libations too, O Zeus, Or Hades would'st thou choose be called; Do thou accept my offering of all fruits, Rare, full, poured forth." For a whole burnt-offering and rare sacrifice for us is Christ.

[Secret Alias]

Stromata 2.18

And the same law commands "not to muzzle the ox which treadeth out the corn: for the labourer must be reckoned worthy of his food."

And it prohibits an ox and ass to be yoked in the plough together; pointing perhaps to the want of agreement in the case of the animals; and at the same time teaching not to wrong any one belonging to another race, and bring him under the yoke, when there is no other cause to allege than difference of race, which is no cause at all, being neither wickedness nor the effect of wickedness. To me the allegory also seems to signify that the husbandry of the Word is not to be assigned equally to the clean and the unclean, the believer and the unbeliever; for the ox is clean, but the ass has been reckoned among the unclean animals. But the benignant Word, abounding in humanity, teaches that neither is it right to cut down cultivated trees, or to cut down the grain before the harvest, for mischiefs sake; nor that cultivated fruit is to be destroyed at all -- either the fruit of the soil or that of the soul: for it does not permit the enemy's country to be laid waste.

Further, husbandmen derived advantage from the law in such things. For it orders newly planted trees to be nourished three years in succession, and the superfluous growths to be cut off, to prevent them being loaded and pressed down; and to prevent their strength being exhausted from want, by the nutriment being frittered away, enjoins tilling and digging round them, so that [the tree] may not, by sending out suckers, hinder its growth. And it does not allow imperfect fruit to be plucked from immature trees, but after three years, in the fourth year; dedicating the first-fruits to God after the tree has attained maturity.

This type of husbandry may serve as a mode of instruction, teaching that we must cut the growths of sins, and the useless weeds of the mind that spring up round the vital fruit, till the shoot of faith is perfected and becomes strong. For in the fourth year, since there is need of time to him that is being solidly catechized, the four virtues are consecrated to God, the third alone being already joined to the fourth, the person of the Lord. And a sacrifice of praise is above holocausts: "for He," it is said, "giveth strength to get power." And if your affairs are in the sunshine of prosperity, get and keep strength, and acquire power in knowledge. For by these instances it is shown that both good things and gifts are supplied by God; and that we, becoming ministers of the divine grace, ought to sow the benefits of God, and make those who approach us noble and good; so that, as far as possible, the temperate man may make others continent, he that is manly may make them noble, he that is wise may make them intelligent, and the just may make them just.

2.18.96.3 Θυσία δὲ αἰνέσεως ὑπὲρ ὁλοκαυτώματα. οὗτος γάρ σοι, φησί, δίδωσιν ἰσχὺν ποιῆσαι δύναμιν. ἐὰν δὲ φωτισθῇ σοι τὰ πράγματα,
2.18.96.4 λαβὼν καὶ κτησάμενος ἰσχὺν ἐν γνώσει ποίει δύναμιν. ἐμφαίνει γὰρ διὰ τούτων τά τε ἀγαθὰ τάς τε δωρεὰς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ χορηγεῖσθαι καὶ δεῖν ἡμᾶς, διακόνους γενομένους τῆς θείας χάριτος, σπείρειν τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ εὐποιίας καὶ τοὺς πλησιάζοντας κατασκευάζειν καλούς τε καὶ ἀγαθούς, ἵνα ὡς ὅτι μάλιστα ὁ μὲν σώφρων τοὺς ἐγκρατεῖς, ὁ δὲ ἀνδρεῖος τοὺς γενναίους συνετούς τε ὁ φρόνιμος καὶ δίκαιος τοὺς δικαίους ἐκτελῇ. 2.19.97.1

Stromata 7.3

Now I pass over other things in silence (Τὰ δ' ἄλλα σιγῶ), glorifying the Lord. But I affirm that gnostic souls (πλὴν ἐκείνας φημὶ τὰς γνωστικὰς ψυχάς), that surpass in the grandeur of contemplation the mode of life of each of the holy ranks (τῇ μεγαλοπρεπείᾳ τῆς θεωρίας ὑπερβαινούσας ἑκάστης ἁγίας τάξεως τὴν πολιτείαν), among whom the blessed abodes of the gods are allotted by distribution (καθ' ἃς αἱ μακάριαι θεῶν οἰκήσεις διωρισμέναι διακεκλήρωνται), reckoned holy among the holy, transferred entire from among the entire (ἁγίας ἐν ἁγίοις λογισθείσας καὶ μετακομισθείσας ὅλας ἐξ ὅλων), reaching places better than the better places , embracing the divine vision not in mirrors or by means of mirrors (εἰς ἀμείνους ἀμεινόνων τόπων τόπους ἀφικομένας, οὐκ ἐν κατόπτροις ἢ διὰ κατόπτρων ἔτι τὴν θεωρίαν ἀσπαζομένας τὴν θείαν), but in the transcendently clear and absolutely pure insatiable vision which is the privilege of intensely loving souls (ἐναργῆ δὲ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα καὶ ἀκριβῶς εἰλικρινῆ τὴν ἀκόρεστον ὑπερφυῶς ἀγαπώσαις ψυχαῖς ἑστιωμένας θέαν), holding festival through endless ages, remain honoured with the indentity of all excellence (ἀιδίως ἀίδιον εὐφροσύνην ἀκόρεστον καρπουμένας εἰς τοὺς ἀτελευτήτους αἰῶνας ταὐτότητι τῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἁπάσας τετιμημένας διαμένειν). Such is the vision attainable by "the pure in heart" (αὕτη τῶν καθαρῶν τῇ καρδίᾳ ἡ καταληπτικὴ θεωρία). This is the function of the Gnostic, who has been perfected, to have convene with God through the great High Priest, being made like the Lord, up to the measure of his capacity, in the whole service of God (αὕτη τοίνυν ἡ ἐνέργεια τοῦ τελειωθέντος γνωστικοῦ, προσομιλεῖν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀρχιερέως, ἐξομοιούμενον εἰς δύναμιν τῷ κυρίῳ διὰ πάσης τῆς εἰς τὸν θεὸν θεραπείας), which tends to the salvation of men, through care of the beneficence which has us for its object; and on the other side through worship, through teaching and through beneficence in deeds (ἥτις εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων διατείνει σωτηρίαν κατὰ κηδεμονίαν τῆς εἰς ἡμᾶς εὐεργεσίας κατά τε αὖ τὴν λειτουργίαν κατά τε τὴν διδασκαλίαν κατά τε τὴν δι' ἔργων εὐποιίαν). The Gnostic even forms and creates himself; and besides also, he, like to God, adorns those who hear him (ναὶ μὴν ἑαυτὸν κτίζει καὶ δημιουργεῖ, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐπαΐοντας αὐτοῦ κοσμεῖ ἐξομοιούμενος θεῷ ὁ γνωστικός); assimilating as far as possible the moderation which, arising from practice, tends to impossibility, to Him who by nature possesses impossibility; and especially having uninterrupted converse and fellowship with the Lord (τῷ φύσει τὸ ἀπαθὲς κεκτημένῳ τὸ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως εἰς ἀπάθειαν συνεσταλμένον ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἐξομοιῶν, καὶ ταῦτα ἀπερισπάστως προσομιλῶν τε καὶ συνὼν τῷ κυρίῳ). Mildness, I think, and philanthropy, and eminent piety, are the rules of gnostic assimilation (ἡμερότης δ', οἶμαι, καὶ φιλανθρωπία καὶ μεγαλοπρεπὴς θεοσέβεια γνωστικῆς ἐξομοιώσεως κανόνες). I affirm that these virtues "are a sacrifice acceptable in the sight of God (ταύτας φημὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς θυσίαν δεκτὴν εἶναι παρὰ θεῷ); " heart with Scripture alleging that" right knowledge is the holocaust of God; each man who is admitted to holiness being illuminated in order to indissoluble union (τὴν ἄτυφον καρδίαν μετ' ἐπιστήμης ὀρθῆς ὁλοκάρπωμα τοῦ θεοῦ λεγούσης τῆς γραφῆς, ἐκφωτιζομένου εἰς ἕνωσιν ἀδιάκριτον παντὸς τοῦ ἀναλη7.3.14.2 φθέντος εἰς ἁγιωσύνην ἀνθρώπου).

For "to bring themselves into captivity," and to slay themselves, putting to death "the old man, who is through lusts corrupt," and raising the new man from death, "from the old conversation," by abandoning the passions, and becoming free of sin, both the Gospel and the apostle enjoin. (σφᾶς γὰρ αὐτοὺς αἰχμαλωτίζειν καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναιρεῖν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας φθειρόμενον ἀποκτειννύντας καὶ τὸν καινὸν ἀνιστάντας ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου τῆς παλαιᾶς διαστροφῆς τό τε εὐαγγέλιον ὅ τε ἀπόστολος κελεύουσι, τὰ μὲν πάθη ἀποτιθεμένους, ἀναμαρτήτους δὲ γινομένους).

It was this, consequently, which the Law intimated, by ordering the sinner to be cut off, and translated from death to life, to the impossibility that is the result of faith (τοῦτ' ἦν ἄρα ὃ ᾐνίσσετο καὶ ὁ νόμος τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν ἀναιρεῖσθαι κελεύων, τὸ μετατίθεσθαι ἐκ θανάτου εἰς ζωήν, τὴν ἐκ πίστεως 7.3.14.4 ἀπάθειαν); which the teachers of the Law, not comprehending, inasmuch as they regarded the law as contentions, they have given a handle to those who attempt idly to calumniate the Law (ὃ μὴ συνιέντες οἱ νομοδιδάσκαλοι, φιλόνικον ἐκδεξάμενοι τὸν νόμον, ἀφορμὰς τοῖς μάτην διαβάλλειν ἐπιχειροῦσι παρεσχήκασι). And for this reason we rightly do not sacrifice to God, who, needing nothing, supplies all men with all things; but we glorify Him who gave Himself in sacrifice for us, we also sacrificing ourselves ; from that which needs nothing to that which needs nothing, and to that which is impassible from that which is impassible (δι' ἣν αἰτίαν οὐ θύομεν εἰκότως ἀνενδεεῖ τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα τοῖς πᾶσι παρεσχημένῳ, τὸν δ' ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἱερευθέντα δοξάζομεν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἱερεύοντες εἴς τε τὸ ἀνενδεὲς ἐκ τοῦ ἀνενδεοῦς καὶ εἰς τὸ 7.3.14.6 ἀπαθὲς ἐκ τοῦ ἀπαθοῦς). For in our salvation alone God delights (μόνῃ γὰρ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σωτηρίᾳ ὁ θεὸς ἥδεται). We do not therefore, and with reason too, offer sacrifice to Him who is not overcome by pleasures, inasmuch as the fumes of the smoke stop far beneath, and do not even reach the thickest clouds; but those they reach are far from them. The Deity neither is, then, in want of aught, nor loves pleasure, or gain, or money, being full, and supplying all things to everything that has received being and has wants. And neither by sacrifices nor offerings, nor on the other hand by glory and honour, is the Deity won over; nor is He influenced by any such things; but He appears only to excellent and good men, who will never betray justice for threatened fear, nor by the promise of considerable gifts.

I defy anyone to identify what gospel passage this conforms to other than a Basilides/Gospel of Barnabas/Islamic pseudepegripha type "changing places" doctrine between a beloved disciple and Jesus. In short, Secret Mark is telling the story of a dead person who was reshaped into a living image of Jesus. I think the proximity to the "sacrifice in Jerusalem" is important in Secret Mark. The person who ended up on the Cross wasn't "Jesus" but a disciple who was fashioned into a likeness of Jesus. This agrees with Irenaeus's report (Book Three) on the Gospel of Mark (one of the earliest statements that Christ watched Jesus crucify "impassively" note the similarity of language here).

WHAT OTHER SCENE IN THE GOSPEL IS CLEMENT DESCRIBING HERE OTHER THAN SECRET MARK?

The component pieces are (a) a disciple (b) "sacrifice" and "holocausts" (i.e. so it has to be close to the crucifixion at Jerusalem) and (c) being made in the likeness of the Lord (i.e. a disciple who is made into an image of Jesus for sacrifice at the crucifixion at Jerusalem on Passover.

[Secret Alias]

If Secret Mark showed the "sacrificial victim" i.e. crucified martyr being prepared for his sacrifice it would be the source of the "substitution myth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitut ... he%20cross.





What is attractive from the "mythicist standpoint" about the "substitution hypothesis" is that it allows for the gospel to be "historical" (i.e. the crucified one could be named "Jesus" or any other name) but at the heart of the narrative is still a supernatural/divine being.

From the Secret Mark debate point of view, the question of "where is the influence of Secret Mark" is finally answered. Secret Mark gave the world "docetism." Indeed I would argue that you can see why the gospel was "outlawed" for lack of a better word (perhaps "fell out of disfavor"). If we are meant to follow the young initiate (a) there is no hiding from Clement thinking he was a god or divine (b) we are meant to becoming martyrs and die for God. No getting around it. The substitution or a substitution gospel puts humanity into the narrative.

To be a Christian is to die for God. There are no exceptions. Die, die, die, die and only die. Not sure the Roman authorities liked that message.

Basilides could have used Secret Mark.

[Secret Alias]

Curious also that Leviticus 2.17 has "Season all your grain offerings with salt." LXX "And every gift of your sacrifice shall be seasoned with salt; omit not the salt of the covenant of the Lord from your sacrifices: on every gift of yours ye shall offer salt to the Lord your God."

Clement in To Theodore says:

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired
Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications,
and others, even if they do contain some true elements,
nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being
mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes,
even the salt loses its savor.
4. As for Mark, then, during Peter`s stay in Rome he wrote an
account of the Lord`s doings, not, however, declaring all of
them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he
thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were
being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came
over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of
Peter, from which he transferred to his former books the
things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward
knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the
use of those who were being perfected (πνευματικώτερον εὐαγγέλιον εἰς τὴν τῶν τελειουμένων χρῆσιν) s

τελειουμένων is a term for the baptized in Epiphanius.

[Secret Alias]

Is Τοῦ δὲ Πέτρου μαρτυρήσαντος the inspiration, the context, from which the Secret Mark was composed?

But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.

Is Peter's death the distinguishing factor between the gospel of Mark and the "secret gospel"? Is the Gospel of Peter "secret Mark"?

[Stuart]

The Arabic take (Muslim writer) is lifted from some revision of the gospel of Judas. It's in the Cainite stream of literature (Irenaeus AH 1. 31.1). Basilides does not travel this path from everything we have in the Patristic writings about him.

From a theological developmental standpoint, the substitution of Jesus' body would be rather derivative. The development path no doubt started from a Docetic Christ like we find in the Marcionites, who only appeared to be fleshy, to one that had a body that masked him borrowed from the elements like we find with Appelles (Hippolytus RH 7.27) to explain things like the crucifixion and eating fish, and then finally to bodily substitution. So that Christ does not suffer.

But there is a second influence in this theological development stream, Possessionism, which itself a derivative of adoptionism (adoptionism has been noted by many is strong Luke, e.g., Erhman). In this theology Jesus is possessed by Christ, who descended as the spirit upon him live a dove, and then leaves him at the crucifixion (e.g., Matthew 27:50 ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα, Luke 23:46 Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου). Such was the interpretation. But clearly many didn't like the interpretation that Christ would abandon his host to such a cruel fate. Hence the development of substitution. Simon (of Cyrene), the passerby who was pressed to carry the cross was an obvious choice to be crucified in his place, by magical body switching. There is a good chance that the intended meaning, especially of the passerby, is that the Christian believer themselves are to carry the cross and even the crucifixion (era of martyrdom perhaps?). Note, others can, and were in some other versions, substituted (e.g., Judas, Simon Peter).

The point of this digression being that substitution cannot be early. It is highly derived from multiple stages of development prior, and the result of interpretation of existing gospels that must be close to our own canonical versions. If "Secret Mark" (which I think is fake anyway) incorporated such substitution theology, it had to be a very late gospel, significantly later than the four.

[Secret Alias]

The point of this digression being that substitution cannot be early.

Sorry if I am not taking notes correctly but I thought you were one of the gospel was written in the second century people.

[Stuart]

The point of this digression being that substitution cannot be early.

Sorry if I am not taking notes correctly but I thought you were one of the gospel was written in the second century people.

Definitely. I put Judas in the 3rd century. And I put Irenaeus' writings in the latter half of the 3rd century with overlays from the 4th and 5th century.

[Secret Alias]

But Basilides ...