Clement and Nakedness Riddle Solved

[Stuart]

But Basilides ...

Basilides late 2nd, possibly 3rd century. He is neither a Possessionist nor a Cainite. I think you are associating him with later theological developments.

BTW, Basilides was a real teacher, but I am not convinced either Marcion (legend of Mark as follower of Paul, which Acts tries to flip, sending him with Peter after a falling out with Paul) or Valentinus ("strong", as opposed to "weak Christians", thus a character like Ebion of the Ebionites, or for that matter Papias = "venerated father", just a aptronym for a fictional character) actually existed as people. But they are legends and in the case of Marcion, a sect's patron saint.

Note, I've come around a bit to your thinking, that a lot of the material is political, meant to support one family claim over another for rights to bishoprics and places of pilgrimage/shrines/relics, that is positions that make money. I almost see the theologies developed as secondary outgrowths rather than primary drivers. In this respect creeds become great mechanisms to retain control over your properties, as somebody not ascribing to your camp can be rejected for positions. Give it a generation, and people forget they were made up in the first place.

[ABuddhist]

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.

Early can mean relative to Christianity's origins, whenever those are, rather than early in only chronological terms.

[gryan]

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.

I found this post hard to comprehend. I asked Chat Gpt to summarize and explain it. Here is the AI generated summary:

The forum post by Secret Alias discusses the interpretation of a passage from Philo in Leviticus 1:6, where the burnt offering is to be skinned and divided into its limbs. Philo interprets this to mean that the soul should be seen bare without false conjectures and then divided as its members demand. This interpretation applies to both the ethical and intellectual realm, where reason must be trained by being divided under proper headings by arguments and demonstrations, thereby relieving it from disorder and obscurity.

Clement of Alexandria takes over this argument, selecting only the soul, which is qualified with the title γνωστικός and linked to a discussion of passions rather than virtues. The soul is described as a willing instrument of carnal lusts, and therefore must be stripped of both materiality and passions so that it can be consecrated to the light in its naked form.

Secret Alias then connects this interpretation to the Secret Mark, suggesting that the resurrected youth in the Secret Mark represents the sacrifice that epitomizes "the soul" that must appear naked without any coverings, such as those made by empty and false opinions. Thus, the youth in the Secret Mark epitomizes the gnostic soul that is to be sacrificed, rather than Jesus, who is to appear crucified in Jesus's place.

[ABuddhist]

But Basilides ...

Basilides late 2nd, possibly 3rd century. He is neither a Possessionist nor a Cainite. I think you are associating him with later theological developments.

BTW, Basilides was a real teacher, but I am not convinced either Marcion (legend of Mark as follower of Paul, which Acts tries to flip, sending him with Peter after a falling out with Paul) or Valentinus ("strong", as opposed to "weak Christians", thus a character like Ebion of the Ebionites, or for that matter Papias = "venerated father", just a aptronym for a fictional character) actually existed as people. But they are legends and in the case of Marcion, a sect's patron saint.

Note, I've come around a bit to your thinking, that a lot of the material is political, meant to support one family claim over another for rights to bishoprics and places of pilgrimage/shrines/relics, that is positions that make money. I almost see the theologies developed as secondary outgrowths rather than primary drivers. In this respect creeds become great mechanisms to retain control over your properties, as somebody not ascribing to your camp can be rejected for positions. Give it a generation, and people forget they were made up in the first place.

1. When did bishoprics stop being hereditary in early Christianity in your understanding?

2. Have you considered comparing hypothetical early hereditary Christian bishoprics with later, definitively hereditary Christian bishoprics, such as in Iceland or Montenegro? Or, outside the Christian scope but still related to hereditary leadership as a factor in sect formation, the Ismaili Muslim fragmentation over the centuries into sects led by lereditary leaders teaching diofferent doctrines or the development of Tibetan Buddhist sects as associated with powerful lineages of hierarchs - most extremely the Sakya school of Buddhism, which restricts its highest leadership positions to male members of the Sakya branch of the Khon family?

[Stuart]

1. When did bishoprics stop being hereditary in early Christianity in your understanding?

LOL, sometime after the Pauline letters were revised in the late 2nd century. All those "salute so-and-so" that runs through chapter 16 of Romans, Chapter 4 of Colossians are a mix of legendary figures that Pual supposedly would have known (per various acts, apocryphal or otherwise) mixed with a supposed ancestor of some local mucky-muck trying to legitimize their claim over something, probably against a rival claim: some examples that stand out for me Romans 16:5, 16:7, 1 Corinthians 16:15 (Stephen might reference a patron saint of a particular group in Acha'ia, as this was also the turf of a group that has Andrew as patron saint ... endorsement of one sect over another in this area?), Colossians 4:15 and 4:17.

BTW, when I talk of inherited bishoprics, it's a mix of families and groups. Very early on, just like every other aspect of ancient or feudal life, the bigger city and bigger following churches exerted as much control over neighboring churches as they could. I'm pretty sure the practice you see to this day of processions from local churches bringing their local shrines to the larger church (Cathedral) for certain festivals, would have also been a get together of local leaders, the host having the most prominence (and he would of course have monetized the event). It is somewhat speculative, as there isn't much said about the process.