a possibility so remote that it deserves a little reflection

[Blood]

Oh Sweet Jesus, please hide this thread from Secret Alias, or we will have 37 pages of gobbledygook about "Secret Mark" by Saturday.

[Peter Kirby]

Oh Sweet Jesus, please hide this thread from Secret Alias, or we will have 37 pages of gobbledygook about "Secret Mark" by Saturday.

I'm disappointed. I haven't seen 1 post yet.

Can I get my money back?

EDIT: not Saturday yet. We'll see.

[Charles Wilson]

not Saturday yet. We'll see.

We all know what kind of a Sabbath Breaker SA is...

[andrewcriddle]

The Stromateis is generally regarded as written over a number of years beginning in the mid to late 190s (after the death of Commodus) with the last books written after 200 CE (probably after Clement had permanently left Alexandria). Given the fragmentary state of book VIII it was probably first published as a whole by Clement's friends after his death.

Andrew Criddle

Well, I had a feeling I was walking into a trap there.

Does the letter show dependence on Stromateis in some way, I wonder? (This might help complete the loop on this argument.)

The Stromateis is such a large proportion of Clement's (surviving) work, that the very close parallels between Clement's vocabulary and the vocabulary of the Mar Saba letter probably requires access to the Stromateis.

Morton Smith demonstrated a striking stylistic resemblance between book III of the Stromateis (the one about the Carpocratians) and the Mar Saba letter, however it is possible that the early books of the Stromateis were published before the completed work.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Given the fragmentary state of book VIII it was probably first published as a whole by Clement's friends after his death.

There can be little doubt IMHO that the surviving Clementine writings have been reworked by an orthodox editor in the fourth century. The methodology seems to follow the general re-composition of ancient Christian literature i.e. the order has been scrambled. I am not sure whether 'Stromateis' was originally intended to convey the primary mean 'patchwork' but curtains (i.e. those that hid the holy of holies in the desert tabernacle. Odd how things work out.

But the Instructor has been corrupted. I've read it argued that Books Two and Three are built around a Stoic philosophical treatise again with bits and pieces of (corrected) things Clement wrote. I think it is quite probably true. But are any of the surviving treatises of early Christianity 'authentic' creations of a particular individual at a particular time? Is Tertullian's Against the Valentinians or Against the Jews or Against Marcion wholly 'authentic' creations of Tertullian's imagination? Of course not. Is the common use of older gospel material in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wholly 'authentic' creations of individuals with these names? Of course not.

[Secret Alias]

Notice that I - as only one of three published authors on the text who participates at this forum - will refrain from discussing the discovery. Rather I will limit myself to the more significant question as to whether the surviving collection of MSS of Clement are pristine or not. On the subject of whether the Instructor is authentically Clementine or perhaps something worse:

Even more damaging to Clement's reputation is the accusation made by Wendland and seconded by Parker, that Books 2-3 of the Paidagogue are nothing but a workedover copy of a treatise by Musonius, the Stoic teacher of Epictetus

In other words, the question simply whether or not the discovery is authentic but rather whether the other texts of Clement are authentic.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/310429?seq ... b_contents

[Secret Alias]

Parker's attempt to uncover the Stoic treatise at the heart of Books 2 and 3 of Clement's Instructor:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/310429.pdf

[Secret Alias]

An example of where Parker sees a 'Christian interpolation' in an original Stoic text of Musonius that now is known as 'Clement's Instructor.' The Stoic treatise begins to reference a characteristic dislike of hedonism:

These gluttons, surrounded with the sound of hissing frying-pans, and wearing their whole life away at the pestle and mortar, cling to matter like fire. More than that, they emasculate plain food, namely bread, by straining off the nourishing part of the grain, so that the necessary part of food becomes matter of reproach to luxury. There is no limit to epicurism among men. For it has driven them to sweetmeats, and honey-cakes, and sugar-plums; inventing a multitude of desserts, hunting after all manner of dishes. A man like this seems to me to be all jaw, and nothing else.

"Desire not," says the Scripture, "rich men's dainties;" for they belong to a false and base life. They partake of luxurious dishes, which a little after go to the dunghill. But we who seek the heavenly bread must role the belly, which is beneath heaven, and much more the things which are agreeable to it, which "God shall destroy," says the apostle, justly execrating gluttonous desires. For "meats are for the belly," for on them depends this truly carnal and destructive life; whence some, speaking with unbridled tongue, dare to apply the name agape, to pitiful suppers, redolent of savour and sauces. Dishonouring the good and saving work of the Word, the consecrated agape, with pots and pouring of sauce; and by drink and delicacies and smoke desecrating that name, they are deceived in their idea, having expected that the promise of God might be bought with suppers. Gatherings for the sake of mirth, and such entertainments as are called by ourselves, we name rightly suppers, dinners, and banquets, after the example of the Lord. But such entertainments the Lord has not called agapoe. He says accordingly somewhere, "When thou art called to a wedding, recline not on the highest couch; but when thou art called, fall into the lowest place;" and elsewhere, "When thou makest a dinner or a supper;" and again, "But when thou makest an entertainment, call the poor," for whose sake chiefly a supper ought to be made. And further, "A certain man made a great supper, and called many." But I perceive whence the specious appellation of suppers flowed: "from the gullets and furious love for suppers"--according to the comic poet. For, in truth, "to many, many things are on account of the supper." For they have not yet learned that God has provided for His creature (man I mean) food and drink, for sustenance, not for pleasure; since the body derives no advantage from extravagance in viands. For, quite the contrary, those who use the most frugal fare are the strongest and the healthiest, and the noblest; as domestics are healthier and stronger than their masters, and husbandmen than the proprietors; and not only more robust, but wiser, as philosophers are wiser than rich men. For they have not buried the mind beneath food, nor deceived it with pleasures. But love (agape) is in truth celestial food, the banquet of reason. "It beareth all things, endureth all things, hopeth all things. Love never faileth." "Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God." But the hardest of all cases is for charity, which faileth not, to be cast from heaven above to the ground into the midst of sauces. And do you imagine that I am thinking of a supper that is to be done away with? "For if," it is said, "I bestow all my goods, and have not love, I am nothing." On this love alone depend the law and the Word; and if "thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbour," this is the celestial festival in the heavens. But the earthly is called a supper, as has been shown from Scripture. For the supper is made for love, but the supper is not love (agape); only a proof of mutual and reciprocal kindly feeling. "Let not, then, your good be evil spoken of; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," says the apostle, in order that the meal spoken of may not be conceived as ephemeral, "but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." He who eats of this meal, the best of all, shall possess the kingdom of God, fixing his regards here on the holy assembly of love, the heavenly Church. Love, then, is something pure and worthy of God, and its work is communication. "And the care of discipline is love," as Wisdom says; "and love is the keeping of the law." And these joys have an inspiration of love from the public nutriment, which accustoms to everlasting dainties. Love (agape), then, is not a supper. But let the entertainment depend on love. For it is said, "Let the children whom Thou hast loved, O Lord, learn that it is not the products of fruits that nourish man; but it is Thy word which preserves those who believe on Thee." "For the righteous shall not live by bread." But let our diet be light and digestible, and suitable for keeping awake, unmixed with diverse varieties. Nor is this a point which is beyond the sphere of discipline. For love is a good nurse for communication; having as its rich provision sufficiency, which, presiding over diet measured in due quantity, and treating the body in a healthful way, distributes something from its resources to those near us, But the diet which exceeds sufficiency injures a man, deteriorates his spirit, and renders his body prone to disease. Besides, those dainty tastes, which trouble themselves about rich dishes drive to practices of ill-repute, daintiness, gluttony, greed, voracity, insatiability. Appropriate designations of such people as so indulge are flies, weasels, flatterers, gladiators, and the monstrous tribes of parasites--the one class surrendering reason, the other friendship, and the other life, for the gratification of the belly; crawling on their bellies, beasts in human shape after the image of their father, the voracious beast. People first called the abandoned aswtous, and so appear to me to indicate their end, understanding them as those who are (aswsous) unsaved, excluding the S. For those that are absorbed in pots, and exquisitely prepared niceties of condiments, are they not plainly abject, earth-born, leading an ephemeral kind of life, as if they were not to live [hereafter]? Those the Holy Spirit, by Isaiah, denounces as wretched, depriving them tacitly of the name of love (agape), since their feasting was not in accordance with the word. "But they made mirth, killing calves, and sacrificing sheep, saying, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." And that He reckons such luxury to be sin, is shown by what He adds, "And your sin shall not be forgiven you till you die," --not conveying the idea that death, which deprives of sensation, is the forgiveness of sin, but meaning that death of salvation which is the recompense of sin. "Take no pleasure in abominable delicacies," says Wisdom. At this point, too, we have to advert to what are called things sacrificed to idols, in order to show how we are enjoined to abstain from them. Polluted and abominable those things seem to me, to the blood of which, fly "Souls from Erebus of inanimate corpses."

"For I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons," says the apostle; since the food of those who are saved and those who perish is separate. We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them); but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, "whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God." "For it is not that which entereth in that defileth a man, but that which goeth out of his mouth." The natural use of food is then indifferent. "For neither if we eat are we the better," it is said, "nor if we eat not are we the worse." But it is inconsistent with reason, for those that have been made worthy to share divine and spiritual food, to partake of the tables of demons. "Have we not power to eat and to drink," says the apostle, "and to lead about wives"? But by keeping pleasures under command we prevent lusts. See, then, that this power of yours never "become a stumbling-block to the weak."

For it were not seemly that we, after the fashion of the rich man's son in the Gospel, should, as prodigals, abuse the Father's gifts; but we should use them, without undue attachment to them, as having command over ourselves. For we are enjoined to reign and rule over meats, not to be slaves to them. It is an admirable thing, therefore, to raise our eyes aloft to what is true, to depend on that divine food above, and to satiate ourselves with the exhaustless contemplation of that which truly exists, and so taste of the only sure and pure delight. For such is the agape, which, the food that comes from Christ shows that we ought to partake of. But totally irrational, futile, and not human is it for those that are of the earth, fattening themselves like cattle, to feed themselves up for death; looking downwards on the earth, and bending ever over tables; leading a life of gluttony; burying all the good of existence here in a life that by and by will end; courting voracity alone, in respect to which cooks are held in higher esteem than husbandmen. For we do not abolish social intercourse, but look with suspicion on the snares of custom, and regard them as a calamity. Wherefore daintiness is to be shunned, and we are to partake of few and necessary things. "And if one of the unbelievers call us to a feast, and we determine to go" (for it is a good thing not to mix with the dissolute), the apostle bids us "eat what is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake." Similarly he has enjoined to purchase "what is sold in the shambles," without curious questioning?

We are not, then, to abstain wholly from various kinds of food, but only are not to be taken up about them. We are to partake of what is set before us, as becomes a Christian, out of respect to him who has invited us, by a harmless and moderate participation in the social meeting; regarding the sumptuousness of what is put on the table as a matter of indifference, despising the dainties, as after a little destined to perish. "Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth." And a little way on he explains the reason of the command, when he says, "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, and giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." So that the right food is thanksgiving. And he who gives thanks does not occupy his time in pleasures. And if we would persuade any of our fellow-guests to virtue, we are all the more on this account to abstain from those dainty dishes; and so exhibit ourselves as a bright pattern of virtue, such as we ourselves have in Christ. "For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts," says he, "that I may not make my brother stumble." I gain the man by a little self-restraint. "Have we not power to eat and to drink?" And "we know"--he says the truth--"that an idol is nothing in the world; but we have only one true God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus. But," he says, "through thy knowledge thy weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died; and they that wound the conscience of the weak brethren sin against Christ." Thus the apostle, in his solicitude for us, discriminates in the case of entertainments, saying, that "if any one called a brother be found a fornicator, or an adulterer, or an idolater, with such an one not to eat;" neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons. "It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine," as both he and the Pythagoreans acknowledge. For this is rather characteristic of a beast; and the fumes arising from them being dense, darken the soul. If one partakes of them, he does not sin. Only let him partake temperately, not dependent on them, nor gaping after fine fare. For a voice will whisper to him, saying, "Destroy not the work of God for the sake of food."

For it is the mark of a silly mind to be amazed and stupefied at what is presented at vulgar banquets,

after the rich fare which is in the Word;

and much sillier to make one's eyes the slaves of the delicacies, so that one's greed is, so to speak, carried round by the servants. And how foolish for people to raise themselves on the couches, all but pitching their faces into the dishes, stretching out from the couch as from a nest, according to the common saying, "that they may catch the wandering steam by breathing it in!" And how senseless, to besmear their hands with the condiments, and to be constantly reaching to the sauce, cramming themselves immoderately and shamelessly, not like people tasting, but ravenously seizing! For you may see such people, liker swine or dogs for gluttony than men, in such a hurry to feed themselves full, that both jaws are stuffed out at once, the veins about the face raised, and besides, the perspiration running all over, as they are tightened with their insatiable greed, and panting with their excess; the food pushed with unsocial eagerness into their stomach, as if they were stowing away their victuals for provision for a journey, not for digestion. Excess, which in all things is an evil, is very highly reprehensible in the matter of food. Gluttony, called oyoFagia, is nothing but excess in the use of relishes (oyon); and laimargia is insanity with respect to the gullet; and gastrimargia is excess with respect to food--insanity in reference to the belly, as the name implies; for margos is a madman.

It is hard to figure out why bits and pieces of Clement's writings - or perhaps that of another Christian mixed in with Clement's - have been inserted into a Stoic treatise. But I do think there is something to this understanding and more importantly the question of 'authentic Clementine' texts. We have to be careful because quite clearly the Instructor is not in any way shape or form 'authentic' in this way. I suspect the Letter to Theodore is far more representative of a text written from the hand of the author than this monstrosity.

[Secret Alias]

The author next notes:

With the rest of section 7 I will not meddle for the present. In 8 Clement introduces a new problem, περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, and continues on this for several pages. Numerous quotations are made from the Apostle Paul, and the discussion is conducted on the principles which Paul lays down to the Corinthians and the Romans; but all this argument seems to be concerned in Clement's mind with the question of eating the flesh of animals; and there are not a few traces of a Stoic or Pythagorean writer strangely mixed in with the Scripture, and not well adjusted thereto in every respect. The first glimpse of this author is 218, 21-23, where occurs the implied suggestion that those who love the bloody feasts are like the ghosts of Homer's Odyssey gathering to drink the blood.

It is utterly incredible for anyone to accept this treatise as 'authentically' Clementine but doubt the discovery from 1958. Just notice how the Stoic treatise is obviously broken up by Christian interpolation (i.e. 'circle of flowers' and 'crown' in the first break):

They say, too, that Here delights in the lily, and Artemis in the myrtle. For if the flowers were made especially for man, and senseless people have taken them not for their own proper and grateful use, but have abused them to the thankless service of demons, we must keep from them for conscience sake. The crown is the symbol of untroubled tranquillity. For this reason they crown the dead, and idols, too, on the same account, by this fact giving testimony to their being dead. For revellers do not without crowns celebrate their orgies; and when once they are encircled with flowers, at last they are inflamed excessively.

We must have no communion with demons. Nor must we crown the living image of God after the manner of dead idols.

For the fair crown of amaranth is laid up for those who have lived well. This flower the earth is not able to bear; heaven alone is competent to produce it.

Further, it were irrational in us, who have heard that the Lord was crowned with thorns, to crown ourselves with flowers, insulting thus the sacred passion of the Lord. For the Lord's crown prophetically pointed to us, who once were barren, but are placed around Him through the Church of which He is the Head. But it is also a type of faith, of life in respect of the substance of the wood, of joy in respect of the appellation of crown, of danger in respect of the thorn, for there is no approaching to the Word without blood. But this platted crown fades, and the plait of perversity is untied, and the flower withers. For the glory of those who have not believed on the Lord fades. And they crowned Jesus raised aloft, testifying to their own ignorance. For being hard of heart, they understood not that this very thing, which they called the disgrace of the Lord, was a prophecy wisely uttered: "The Lord was not known by the people " which erred, which was not circumcised in understanding, whose darkness was not enlightened, which knew not God, denied the Lord, forfeited the place of the true Israel, persecuted God, hoped to reduce the Word to disgrace; and Him whom they crucified as a malefactor they crowned as a king. Wherefore the Man on whom they believed not, they shall know to be the loving God the Lord, the Just. Whom they provoked to show Himself to be the Lord, to Him when lifted up they bore witness, by encircling Him, who is exalted above every name, with the diadem of righteousness by the ever-blooming thorn. This diadem, being hostile to those who plot against Him, coerces them; and friendly to those who form the Church, defends them. This crown is the flower of those who have believed on the glorified One but covers with blood and chastises those who have not believed. It is a symbol, too, of the Lord's successful work, He having borne on His head, the princely part of His body, all our iniquities by which we were pierced. For He by His. own passion rescued us from offences, and sins, and such like thorns; and having destroyed the devil, deservedly said in triumph, "O Death, where is thy sting?" And we eat grapes from thorns, and figs from thistles; while those to whom He stretched forth His hands--the disobedient and unfruitful people--He lacerates into wounds. I can also show you another mystic meaning in it. For when the Almighty Lord of the universe began to legislate by the Word, and wished His power to be manifested to Moses, a godlike vision of light that had assumed a shape was shown him in the burning bush (the bush is a thorny plant); but when the Word ended the giving of the law and His stay with men, the Lord was again mystically crowned with thorn. On His departure from this world to the place whence He came, He repeated the beginning of His old descent, in order that the Word beheld at first in the bush, and afterwards taken up crowned by the thorn, might show the whole to be the work of one power, He Himself being one, the Son of the Father, who is truly one, the beginning and the end of time.

But I have made a digression from the paedagogic style of speech, and introduced the didactic. I return accordingly to my subject.

To resume, then:

we have showed that in the department of medicine, for healing, and sometimes also for moderate recreation, the delight derived from flowers, and the benefit derived from unguents and perfumes, are not to be overlooked. And if some say, What pleasure, then, is there in flowers to those that do not use them? let them know, then, that unguents are prepared from them, and are most useful. The Susinian ointment is made from various kinds of lilies; and it is warming, aperient, drawing, moistening, abstergent, subtle, antibilious, emollient. The Narcissinian is made from the narcissus, and is equally beneficial with the Susinian. The Myrsinian, made of myrtle and myrtle berries, is a styptic, stopping effusions from the body; and that from roses is refrigerating. For, in a word, these also were created for our use. "Hear me," it is said, "and grow as a rose planted by the streams of waters, and give forth a sweet fragrance like frankincense, and bless the Lord for His works." We should have much to say respecting them, were we to speak of flowers and odours as made for necessary purposes, and not for the excesses of luxury. And if a concession must be made, it is enough for people to enjoy the fragrance of flowers; but let them not crown themselves with them.

For the Father takes great care of man, and gives to him alone His own art. The Scripture therefore says, "Water, and fire, and iron, and milk, and fine flour of wheat, and honey, the blood of the grape, and oil, and clothing,--all these things are for the good of the godly."

[Secret Alias]

I don't know what you call this systematic interpolation method but I think it is not limited to the Paedagogue. I think it finds its way into Justin Martyr's treatises too. It is how the Church was built, plain and simple.