Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by andrewcriddle »

The reason why Clement quotes from Mark rather than Matthew or Luke in Quis Dives is probably that the plausibility of his exegesis depends on the reading of his text of Mark 10:24 for those who trust in riches. This reading is found in many manuscripts of Mark but is absent in Matthew and Luke.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

Why doesn't his exegesis work with Matthew 19:21? I see no difficulties. And besides you're assuming that Clement felt the four canonical gospels were of equal weight, equal authority. Why is that a better assumption than Clement preferred Mark? Not only does Eusebius assumes Mark founded the Alexandrian tradition but so does the surviving Egyptian tradition and literature. Clement brings up sell your possessions. But why he does so is not limited to your assumptions about equanimity between the canonical gospels. To Theodore provides evidence for the opposite.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

I thought it would be interesting to have a list of gospel citations for QDS (as I am interested in DISCUSSING QDS and Clement's methodology):

1.
For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven (οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτόθεν καὶ προχείρως ἀκούσαντες τῆς τοῦ κυρίου φωνῆς, ὅτι ῥᾷον κάμηλος διὰ τρήματος ῥαφίδος διεκδύσεται ἢ πλούσιος εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν)" despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. [2]
So it would appear the discussion was prompted by the same passage that Celsus takes note of:
Matthew 19:24 εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστι κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν, ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν.

Mark 10:25 εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν κάμηλον διὰ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν.

Clement's text of Mark - εὐκόλως διὰ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς βελόνης κάμηλος εἰσελεύσεται ἢ πλούσιος εἰς τὴν βασι λείαν τοῦ θεοῦ

Celsus "Εὐκοπώτερον κάμηλον εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τρήματος ῥαφίδος ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
The form cited by Clement seems to agree more with Matthew rather than Mark. So the discussion is prompted by a reading from Matthew and Clement prefers (for some reason) to argue from Mark. With absolute certainty we can say that QDS is prompted by a Matthew text unlike any we know of which is followed up with a long citation of Clement's text of Mark.

2. long citation of Mark chapter 10:17 - 31 followed by the words "These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning. But well knowing that the Saviour teaches nothing in a merely human way, but teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom, we must not listen to His utterances carnally; but with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the meaning hidden in them." [5]

3. Summary of the material in Mark

4. "Εἰ θέλεις τέλειος γενέσθαι." [10]

This is very difficult to explain. In the citation of the Gospel of Mark in chapter 4 of QDS Mark 10:21 reads εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι. But here and in Stromata 3 it reads differently. In Stromata 3:
πάλιν τε αὖ ὅταν εἴπῃ· εἰ θέλεις τέλειος θείως, πωλήσας τὰ ὑπάρχοντα δὸς πτωχοῖς, ἐλέγχει τὸν καυχώμενον ἐπὶ τῷ πάσας τὰς ἐντολὰς ἐκ νεότητος τετηρηκέναι· οὐ γὰρ πεπληρώκει τὸ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν
This has to be explained. So Clement begins by citing a version of Mark 10:25 that is different from the text of Mark he eventually cites in chapter 4 and then by chapter 10 he has moved on to another text of Mark (?) entirely which reappears in Stromata 3.6.56.1. What is going on here? And notice the expression that follows:
"If thou wilt be perfect." Consequently he was not yet perfect. For nothing is more perfect than what is perfect. And divinely the expression "if thou wilt" (εἰ θέλεις) showed the self-determination of the soul holding converse with Him.
The new text is like Clement's text of Mark but the word γενέσθαι is added. And then he stresses the same 'divine' expression:
If thou wilt, then, if thou really wiliest, and art not deceiving thyself, acquire what thou lackest. One thing is lacking thee, -- the one thing which abides, the good, that which is now above the law, which the law gives not, which the law contains not, which is the prerogative of those who live. He forsooth who had fulfilled all the demands of the law from his youth, and had gloried in what was magnificent, was not able to complete the whole with this one thing which was specially required! by the Saviour, so as to receive the eternal life which he desired.

εἰ θέλεις οὖν, εἰ ὄντως θέλεις καὶ μὴ ἑαυτὸν ἐξαπατᾷς, κτῆσαι τὸ ἐνδέον. "ἕν σοι λείπει", τὸ ἕν, τὸ ἐμόν, τὸ ἀγαθόν, τὸ ἤδη ὑπὲρ νόμον, ὅπερ νόμος οὐ δίδωσιν, ὅπερ νόμος οὐ χωρεῖ, ὃ τῶν ζώντων ἴδιόν ἐστιν. ἀμέλει ὁ πάντα τὰ τοῦ νόμου πληρώσας "ἐκ νεότητος" καὶ τὰ ὑπέρογκα φρυαξάμενος τὸ ἓν τοῦτο προσθεῖναι τοῖς ὅλοις οὐ δεδύνηται, τὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐξαίρετον, ἵνα λάβῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἣν ποθεῖ·[10]
The version of Mark 10:21 cited in QDS 4 reads:
ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ: εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, πώλησον ὅσα ἔχεις καὶ διάδος πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι

One thing thou lackest. If thou wouldest be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me
In chapter 10 the text I identify as Secret Mark reads ἕν σοι λείπει which is only found in Luke. Why would Clement begin by explicitly citing Mark only to continually draw from another secret text he doesn't mention by name throughout?

5.
What then was it which persuaded him to flight, and made him depart from the Master, from the entreaty, the hope, the life, previously pursued with ardour? -- "Sell thy possessions (πώλησον τὰ ὑπάρχοντά σου)." And what is this? [11]
The citation of πώλησον τὰ ὑπάρχοντά σου here are at odds again with the Mark text which supposedly frames the discussion.

Watching a movie now ... will continue.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

Needless to say I don't think you ever looked at the material with this degree of detail. The pattern of QDS displaying:

a. the discussion is initiated by a non-canonical parallel gospel version of
b. Clement follows up with a detailed citation of the Gospel of Mark chapter 10
c. Clement basically abandons this Gospel of Mark and cites again from what appears to be that non-canonical parallel gospel throughout.

By the time he reaches chapter 12 we have what appears to be the Secret Mark reference. After rejecting the command to become a lowly beggar Clement makes explicit his interpretation of what 'sell your possessions' means:

6.
Why then command as new, as divine, as alone life-giving, what did not save those of former days? And what peculiar thing is it that the new creature the Son of God intimates and teaches? It is not the outward act which others have done (i.e. sell all your material possessions), but something else indicated by it, greater, more godlike, more perfect, the stripping off (γυμνῶσαι) of the passions from the soul itself and from the disposition, and the cutting up (ἐκτεμεῖν) by the roots and casting out of what is alien to the mind.
Not only do I think there is a reference to the preliminary part of the Alexandrian 'mystery of the kingdom of God' explicitly referenced in Secret Mark - i.e. 'stripping' - the second part of the reference - that of 'cutting' and 'casting out' is what is not mentioned in Secret Mark viz. the ritual castration of the catechumen. Origen repeatedly uses this verb to connect castration (something he himself underwent) to attaining the kingdom as we read in his Commentary on Matthew:
There are eunuchs such as have become eunuchs by men (Matt 19.12). But what is worthy of acceptance is if someone takes up the word which is living and “effective and sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb 4.12), even the “sword of the Spirit” (as the Apostle names it [Eph 6.17]), castrating the passionate part of the soul (ἐκτέμνοι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς παθητικὸν), without touching the body, indeed he may do this *** and understanding the kingdom of the heavens, and that to castrate the passionate part of his soul with reason (τὸ ἐκτεμεῖν λόγῳ τὸ παθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ) contributes greatly towards inheriting the kingdom of the heavens. It is to such people, and not as those who suppose that the passage is to be taken in a somatic fashion, that [the passage] is fitting, There are eunuchs such as have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens (Matt 19.12)
7. In Chapter 13 he continues down through his Secret Gospel and alights on the ultimate proof for his exegesis of Mark 10:17 - 31:
How could one give food to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and shelter the houseless, for not doing which He threatens with fire and the outer darkness, if each man first divested himself of all these things? Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, "To-day salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." He so praises the use of property as to enjoin, along with this addition, the giving a share of it, to give drink to the thirsty, bread to the hungry, to take the houseless in, and clothe the naked. But if it is not possible to supply those needs without substance, and He bids people abandon their substance, what else would the Lord be doing than exhorting to give and not to give the same things, to feed and not to feed, to take in and to shut out, to share and not to share? which were the most irrational of all things.
In other parts of his writings he makes reference to the fact that in 'another gospel' Zaccheus is called Matthew. It should be noted that in the second addition mentioned in Secret Mark falls in the exact place as the 'Lukan' story of Zaccheus:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho [Secret Mark addition B] there was a man named Zacchaeus, rich, and chief of the publicans. And he desired to see Jesus who he was; and he was not able for the pressure of the crowd, because Zacchaeus was little of stature. And he hastened, and went before Jesus, and went up into an unripe fig tree to see Jesus: for he was to pass thus. And when Jesus came to that place, he saw him, and said unto him, Make haste, and come down, Zacchaeus: to-day I must be in thy house. And he hastened, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they all saw, they murmured, and said, He hath gone in and lodged with a man that is a sinner. So Zacchaeus stood, and said unto Jesus, My Lord, now half of my possessions I give to the poor, and what I have unjustly taken from every man I give him fourfold. Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, because this man also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and save the thing that was lost.
8. δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι [16] - all synoptic gospels have this saying including Mark

9. δυσκόλως [18] - Mark has this.

10. "διότι τὸ εν ἀνθρώποις αδύνατον, δυνατόν θεῷ” [21] he cites Mark 10 as ὅ τι παρὰ ἀνθρώποις ἀδύνατον, παρὰ θεῷ δυνατόν"

11. He cites Mark 10:28 the same both times - ἴδε ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήσαμέν σοι. [21] " ἰδὲ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήσαμέν σοι"

I noticed I took the following notes from this article too:
Jana Platova "why in fact did Clement cite the Gospel according to Mark in his homily, when he prefers Matthew in other instances?"

Clement Quis Dives Salvetur

QDS Mark 10:17a - ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ εἰς ὁδὸν προσελθών τις ἐγονυπέτει λέγων

QDS Mark 10:17b "διδάσκαλε, ἀγαθέ τί ποιήσω, ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω;"
Origen CM 15:10 τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω

QDS Mark 10:18 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει· "τί με ἀγαθὸν λέγεις; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός.
Origen CM 15:10 τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός
τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθὸς
τί με ἐπερωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ

QDS Mark 10:19a τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας·
CM 15.12 εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς (incipit)
εἰ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς
CM 15.13 τήρησον τὰς ἐντολὰς λέγει ποίας

QDS Mark 10:19b μὴ εύσῃς, μὴ φονεύσῃς, μὴ κλέψῃς, μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα
CM 15.13 οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καί ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν
ἀπὸ μοιχείας καὶ φόνου καὶ πάσης κλοπῆς. ὡς γὰρ μοιχὸς καὶ φονεὺς οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν ζωήν, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὁ κλέπτων
CM 15.18 ὡς μοιχείας καὶ φόνου καὶ κλοπῆς καὶ ψευδομαρτυρίας, καὶ καθήκοντα
οὐκ ἐμοίχευσεν οὐδὲ ἐφόνευσεν οὐδὲ ἔκλεψεν οὐδὲ ἐψευ δομαρτύρησεν

QDS Mark 10:20 ὃ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει αὐτῷ· "πάντα ταῦτα ἐφύλαξα ἐκ νεότητός μου."
CM 15:14 ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξάμην ἐκ νεότητός μου (incipit)
πάντα ταῦτα ἐφύλαξα ἐκ νεότητός μου (citing Mark)

QDS Mark 10:21a ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐμβλέψας ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν
C 15:14 ἐμβλέψας ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν(citing Mark)

QDS Mark 10:21b "ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ· εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, πώλησον ὅσα ἔχεις καὶ διάδος πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι."

CM 15:14 ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ
ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει (QDS 11 "ἕν σοι λείπει")
CM 15:12 περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φησι τὸ εἰ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν
εἰ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς
CM 15:14 εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, ὕπαγε πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι (incipt)
εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, ὕπαγε πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς
εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, ὕπαγε πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς
CM 15.18 σαφῶς δὲ ὁ ταῦτα πράξας ἕξει θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ αὐτὸς γινόμενος ἐπουράνιος
πάντα ἀποδόμενος καὶ ἔχων θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ
CM 15.21 · εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι ὕπαγε πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρ χοντα καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι

QDS Mark 10:22a ὃ δὲ στυγνάσας ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ ἀπῆλθε λυπούμενος· ἦν γὰρ ἔχων χρήματα πολλὰ καὶ ἀγρούς
CM 15.19 Ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις λέγεται ὅτι ἀκούσας τὸν λόγον ὁ νεανίσκος ἀπῆλθε λυπούμενος διὸ καὶ καταλιπὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπῆλθεν (ἐπὶ ψόγῳ γὰρ εἴρηται τὸ ἀπῆλθε), καὶ ἀπῆλθε λυπούμενος λύπην τὴν «τοῦ κόσμου», τὴν «θάνατον» κατεργαζομένην.
ἦν γὰρ ἔχων κτήματα πολλὰ ἅπερ ἠγάπα, ἀγαπῶν τὸ ὀργίζεσθαι καὶ τὸ λυπεῖσθαι (διὸ ἀπῆλθε λυπούμενος) καὶ ὅσα ἀπὸ κα κίας ἦν <αὐτῷ γεγεννημένα> κε κρατηκότα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ
ᾗ δὲ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λυπούμενος διὰ τὰ κτήματα, δέον αὐτὸν χαίρειν, ὅτι ἀντ' ἐκείνων ἔμελλεν ἔχειν θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρα νῷ, καὶ ἀκολουθῶν τῷ Ἰησοῦ κατ' ἴχνη βαίνειν υἱοῦ θεοῦ, ψεκτὸς ἦν.

QDS Mark 10:23 . περι βλεψάμενος δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· "πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ."

CM 15:21 Ἀπελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι πλούσιος δυσκόλως εἰσε λεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (incipit)

οὐκ εἶπε μὲν γὰρ ὅτι πλούσιος οὐκ εἰσελεύ σεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἐπείπερ εἰ τὸ τοιοῦτον εἰρήκει, ἀποκεκλείκει ἂν <πάντως> τὸν πλούσιον ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν οὐρα νῶν βασιλείας. φησὶ δὲ ὅτι πλού σιος δυσκόλως εἰσελεύσεται

εἰ δὲ τροπολογούμενος <ὁ> πλού σιος παραλαμβάνοιτο, ζητήσεις πῶς κἂν δυσκόλως εἰσε λεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. τὴν δὲ δυσκολίαν τῆς εἰσόδου τοῦ ἑκατέρως νοουμένου <πλουσίου εἰς σωτηρίαν> ἐμφαίνει ἡ παραβολὴ τῷ εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστι κάμηλον διὰ τρύπης ῥα φίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν

QDS Mark 10:24 οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ ἐθαμβοῦντο ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ. πάλιν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει αὐτοῖς· "τέκνα, πῶς δύσκολόν ἐστι τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ χρήμασιν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν·

Not in Origen

QDS Mark 10:25 εὐκόλως διὰ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς βελόνης κάμηλος εἰσελεύσεται ἢ πλούσιος εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ."

CM 15.20 τὴν δὲ δυσκολίαν τῆς εἰσόδου τοῦ ἑκατέρως νοουμένου <πλουσίου εἰς σωτηρίαν> ἐμφαίνει ἡ παραβολὴ τῷ εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστι κάμηλον διὰ τρύπης ῥα φίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν

ἐν ᾗ παραβολῇ ὁ μὲν πλούσιος παραβάλλεται κα μήλῳ, οὐ διὰ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον τοῦ ζῴου μόνον ὡς ὁ νόμος ἐδίδαξεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ <διὰ> τὴν ὅλην
αὐτοῦ σκολιότητα, ἡ δὲ τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλεία τρυμαλιᾷ ῥαφίδος, εἰς παράστασιν τοῦ πάνυ στενὴν εἶναι καὶ εἰς ὑπερβολὴν τεθλιμμένην τὴν εἰς τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν εἴσοδον τῷ ἑκατέρῳ πλουσίῳ.

δηλοῖ δ' ὅτι <ὡς> αὐτόθεν μὲν ἀδύνατον τὴν κάμηλον διὰ τρυ μαλιᾶς ῥαφίδος εἰσελθεῖν, <δυνατὸν δὲ ὅσον πρὸς τὸν θεόν, οὕτως καὶ τὸν πλούσιον ὅσον πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀδύνατον εἰς τὴν βασι λείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν εἰσελθεῖν

τῷ δὲ δυνατὰ εἶναι τῷ θεῷ πάντα καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον αὐτῷ δυ νατόν ἐστιν, ἀφάτῳ δυνάμει <ἢ> τὴν παχύτητα τοῦ φαύλου λεπτύνοντι ἢ τὴν στενότητα τῆς εἰσόδου χω ρητὴν αὐτῷ ποιοῦντι. ὅτι γὰρ τοῦ δυσκόλως εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρα νῶν τὸν πλούσιον παράδειγμα ἔλαβε τὴν τρυμαλιὰν καὶ τὴν κάμηλον ἀλλ' οὐ τοῦ ἀδυνά του, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς τοὺς μα θητὰς εἰρῆσθαι (φήσαντας· τίς ἄρα δύναται σωθῆναι;) τὸ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις τοῦτο ἀδύνατόν ἐστι, παρὰ δὲ θεῷ πάντα δυνατά.

οὐκοῦν δυνατὸν καὶ τὴν κάμηλον εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τρυμαλιᾶς ῥαφίδος, ἀλλ' οὐ παρὰ ἀν θρώποις δυνατόν, <παρὰ δὲ θεῷ>· οὕτως δὲ καὶ τὸν πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ

ἅπερ νῦν λέγειν καὶ σαφηνίζειν τάχα μὲν καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ἐστι, τάχα δὲ καὶ τῷ εἰδότι πολλῆς ἂν καὶ ἀκαίρου ἔχοιτο παρεκβάσεως. δύο δὲ προκειμένων, τοῦ κάμηλον διὰ τρυμαλιᾶς ῥαφίδος εἰσελ θεῖν καὶ τοῦ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, εὐκο πώτερον εἶναί φησι τὸ πρότερον.

καὶ ζητήσεις γε ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἄλλον μὲν τὸν κάμηλον <γενό μενον> εἰσερχόμενον διὰ τρυμα λιᾶς ῥαφίδος, ἄλλον δὲ τὸν πλού σιον (ἀδυνάτως <μὲν> ἀνθρώποις δυνατῶς δὲ τῷ θεῷ) εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ· οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς καμήλου καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς ῥαφίδος, ὁστισποτοῦν ἐὰν εὑρεθῇ κάμηλος καὶ ἡτισοῦν ἐὰν νοηθῇ [κάμηλος] τρυμαλιὰ ῥαφίδος, [ἣ] εἰσελεύ σεται δι' ἐκείνης· ὅτι ἀδύνατον μὲν ἀνθρώποις, παρὰ δὲ θεῷ καὶ τοῦτο δυνατόν

QDS Mark 10:26 οἳ δὲ περισσῶς ἐξεπλήσσοντο καὶ ἔλεγον· τίς οὖν δύναται σωθῆναι

CM 15.19 τίς ἄρα δύναται σωθῆναι

QDS Mark 10:27 ὃ δὲ ἐμβλέψας αὐτοῖς εἶπεν· "ὅ τι παρὰ ἀνθρώποις ἀδύνατον, παρὰ θεῷ δυνατόν."

<δυνατὸν δὲ ὅσον πρὸς τὸν θεόν, οὕτως καὶ τὸν πλούσιον ὅσον πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀδύνατον εἰς τὴν βασι λείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν εἰσελθεῖν>. τῷ δὲ δυνατὰ εἶναι τῷ θεῷ πάντα καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον αὐτῷ δυ νατόν ἐστιν, ἀφάτῳ δυνάμει <ἢ> τὴν παχύτητα τοῦ φαύλου λεπτύνοντι ἢ τὴν στενότητα τῆς εἰσόδου χω ρητὴν αὐτῷ ποιοῦντι. ὅτι γὰρ τοῦ δυσκόλως εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρα νῶν τὸν πλούσιον παράδειγμα ἔλαβε τὴν τρυμαλιὰν καὶ τὴν κάμηλον ἀλλ'
οὐ τοῦ ἀδυνά του, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς τοὺς μα θητὰς εἰρῆσθαι (φήσαντας· τίς ἄρα δύναται σωθῆναι;) τὸ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις τοῦτο ἀδύνατόν ἐστι, παρὰ δὲ θεῷ πάντα δυνατά. οὐκοῦν δυνατὸν καὶ τὴν κάμηλον εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τρυμα λιᾶς ῥαφίδος, ἀλλ' οὐ παρὰ ἀν θρώποις δυνατόν, <παρὰ δὲ θεῷ>· οὕτως δὲ καὶ τὸν πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. τὰς δὲ ἐφόδους τοῦ πῶς ἂν τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιήσαι ὁ θεὸς δυνατά, αὐτὸς ἂν εἰδείη καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ᾧ ἂν ἀποκα λύψῃ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ.

QDS Mark 10:28 ἤρξατο ὁ Πέτρος λέγειν αὐτῷ· "ἴδε ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήσαμέν σοι."

CM 15.21 Ἑξῆς ἔστιν ἰδεῖν τὰ περὶ τοῦ τότε ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς ἀφή καμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήσαμέν σοι· τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμῖν (incipit)

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει· "ἀμὴν ὑμῖν λέγω, ὃς ἂν ἀφῇ τὰ ἴδια καὶ γονεῖς καὶ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ χρήματα ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

The coda to QDS - the story about the youth and his relationship with John - is interesting too. It replicates the Secret Mark youth story without revealing the contents of the gospel. Note:
And the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and guardianship, under the idea that the seal of the Lord he had set on him was a complete protection to him.

ὁ δὲ πρεσβύτερος ἀναλαβὼν οἴκαδε τὸν παραδοθέντα νεανίσκον ἔτρεφε, συνεῖχεν, ἔθαλπε, τὸ τελευταῖον ἐφώτισε· καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο ὑφῆκε τῆς πλείονος ἐπιμελείας καὶ παραφυλακῆς, ὡς τὸ τέλειον αὐτῷ φυλακτήριον ἐπιστήσας, τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ κυρίου.[42.5]
The youth becomes a bandit and forsakes Christianity but Clement says John asks about his beloved youth:
"Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit (παραθήκην) which I and the Saviour deposited (παρακατεθέμεθα) to thee in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness (μάρτυρος)." 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 youth, and the soul of the brother (τὸν νεανίσκον ἀπαιτῶ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ)" the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, "He is dead (ἐκεῖνος τέθνηκε) " "How and what kind of death?" (πῶς καὶ τίνα θάνατον) "He is dead," he said, "to God" (θεῷ τέθνηκεν). 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 guard of a brother's soul I left! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one be my guide on the way." He rode away, just as he was, straight from the church. On coming to the place, he is arrested by the robbers' outpost; neither fleeing nor entreating, but crying, "It was for this I came. Lead me to your captain;" who meanwhile was waiting, all armed as he was. But when he recognized John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, "Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me."

And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Saviour, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church. Then by supplicating with copious prayers, and striving along with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances of words, did not depart, as they say, till he restored him to the Church, presenting in him a great example of true repentance and a great token of regeneration, a trophy of the resurrection for which we hope; when at the end of the world, the angels, radiant with joy, hymning and opening the heavens, shall receive into the celestial abodes those who truly repent; and before all, the Saviour Himself goes to meet them, welcoming them; holding forth the shadowless, ceaseless light; conducting them,to the Father's bosom, to eternal life, to the kingdom of heaven.
Most people focus on the familiar extolling of repentance. That's nice. But let's think about things for a moment. The original point of interest was the 'deposit' (παραθήκην) which Jesus and John deposited in his soul. Given all that Clement has said in what precedes he is talking about mystery where the youth strips (presumably at his mentioned 'baptism') and takes on a divine soul.

Even though Clement does not explicitly mention a secret gospel here Tertullian tells us that 'deposit' was a code word among the heretics for secret gospel:
But although Paul was caught up as far as the third heaven, and when brought into paradise heard certain things there, yet these revelations
cannot be thought to be such as would render him more qualified to teach another doctrine, since their very nature was such that they could not be communicated to any human being.6 But if that unknown revelation did leak out and become known to some one, and if any heresy affirms that
it is a follower of that revelation, then either Paul is guilty of having betrayed his secret, or some one else must be shewn to have been subsequently caught up into paradise to whom permission was given to speak out what Paul was not allowed to whisper.

But, as we have said, the same madness is seen when they allow indeed that the Apostles were not ignorant of anything nor preached different doctrines, yet will have it that they did not reveal all things to all persons, but committed some things openly to all, and others secretly to a few; basing this assertion on the fact that Paul used this expression to Timothy, "O Timothy, guard the deposit (παραθήκην)" and again, "Keep the good deposit (καλὴν παραθήκην)." What was this "deposit" (παραθήκην) of so secret [tacitum] a nature as to be reckoned to belong to another doctrine [alteri doctrinae deputetur] ? Was it a part of that charge of which he says, "This charge I commit to thee, son Timothy"? And likewise of that commandment of which he says, " I charge thee before GOD Who quickeneth all things, and Jesus Christ Who witnessed before Pontius Pilate a good confession, that thou observe the commandment " ? What commandment, now, and what charge ? From the context it may be gathered not that something is obscurely hinted at in this phrase concerning a more hidden doctrine [remotiore doctrina], but rather that he was commanded not to admit anything beyond that which he had heard from Paul himself, openly too, I take it—"before many witnesses" are his words. If by these many witnesses the heretics refuse to understand the Church, it matters not, since nothing could be kept secret [tacitum] which was being set forth before many witnesses.

Nor, again, can his wish that Timothy should "commit these things to faithful men who would be fit to teach others also" be explained as a proof
of any secret gospel [occulti alicuius euangelii]. For when he says "these things," he refers to things of which he was writing at the moment. In reference to secret things [de occultis autem], present only to their secret knowledge, he would, as of absent things, use the word "those," not "these."


But nevertheless, it may be said, it was natural for the Apostle, when he committed to any one the administration of the Gospel, which was to be
ministered neither indiscriminately nor rashly, to add the injunction in accordance with the Lord's saying that "a pearl should not be cast before
swine nor that which is holy to the dogs."

The Lord spake openly without any indication of some hidden mystery. Himself had commanded that what they had heard in darkness and in secret
they were to preach in light and on the housetops. Himself had prefigured in a parable that they were not to keep even one pound, that is, one word of His, fruitless in a hidden place. Himself used to teach that a lamp is not wont to be thrust away under a measure, but placed on a lampstand that it may give light to all that are in the house. These instructions the Apostles either neglected or by no means understood if they failed to fulfil them, and concealed any portion of the light, that is, of the Word of GOD and mystery of Christ. I am fully assured they had no fear of any one, neither of the violence of the Jews nor of the Gentiles : how much more, then, would these men preach freely in the Church who were not silent in synagogues and public places! Nay, they could have converted neither Jews nor Gentiles unless they had set forth in order what they wished them to believe! Much less would they have kept back anything from Churches already believing to commit it to a few other persons privately! And even if they used to discuss some things in their private circles (so to speak), yet it is incredible that these things would be of such a nature as to introduce another Rule of Faith, different from and contrary to that which they were setting forth openly to all; so that they should be speaking of one GOD in the Church and of another in their private houses; and describing one substance of Christ in public and another in private; and proclaiming one hope of the resurrection before all and another before the few; at the time when they themselves were beseeching in their own Epistles that all would speak one and the same thing,2 and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the Church, because they themselves, whether it were Paul or others, were preaching the same thing. Moreover they remembered, "Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for what is more than this is of evil": words spoken to prevent them from treating the Gospel in different ways [Prescription 24 - 26]
Anyone who has ever read the writings of Clement, Origen and the early Alexandrian tradition it is plainly apparent that they were all guilty of this heresy. Clement assumes that Jesus spoke one way to the stupid and another way to the spiritual. But Tertullian is plainly explaining what Clement means by 'the deposit' which John left with his beloved youth - a secret mystery doctrine which was an extension of a secret gospel.

The problem that you - perhaps deliberately ignore when you 'consider' whether Clement may have been using a secret gospel is that he can't just declare in public documents 'hey I am using a Secret Gospel, my church in Alexandria has these secret mysteries, the initiates ritually prepare themselves for a set number of days then they strip off their clothes, our priests are also naked and ...' is because they are secret. So I propose that Clement gets around this in QDS by creating a made up story about the head of the rival tradition in Asia Minor - John. Now it is John who has the beloved youth. Now it is John who implicitly sees the youth naked and baptizes him and lays the soul of Jesus into or onto his flesh. The only difference is the 'death' of the Secret Mark youth is postponed to after his baptism. The bishop whom John left to be in charge declares him dead and now John has to venture 'into the underworld' so to speak to complete his initiation. But all the elements are there and it is a smart way of avoiding specifically mentioning the details of Secret Mark in this public homily or document.

Indeed almost the last line of QDS sums it up perfectly - "the good Father who is in heaven will give the true purification and the changeless life." This is the mystery of the kingdom of God in Secret Mark which again Clement cannot mention explicitly in QDS but works around it by a few cryptic references and a made up story about the head of the rival tradition in Asia Minor.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 8:57 am Why doesn't his exegesis work with Matthew 19:21? I see no difficulties. And besides you're assuming that Clement felt the four canonical gospels were of equal weight, equal authority. Why is that a better assumption than Clement preferred Mark? Not only does Eusebius assumes Mark founded the Alexandrian tradition but so does the surviving Egyptian tradition and literature. Clement brings up sell your possessions. But why he does so is not limited to your assumptions about equanimity between the canonical gospels. To Theodore provides evidence for the opposite.
I think you mean Matthew 19:23.
If so the issue is that Mark 10:24 in Clement's version is talking about trusting in riches i.e. avarice greed while the passage in Matthew is talking about being rich having lots of money. The Matthew passage provides little foothold for Clement's exegesis.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

If so the issue is that Mark 10:24 in Clement's version is talking about trusting in riches i.e. avarice greed while the passage in Matthew is talking about being rich having lots of money. The Matthew passage provides little foothold for Clement's exegesis.
But is Matthew more specific or more problematic for that interpretation? Even where Clement mentions Matthew's 'additions' Clement sees them as compatible with his exegesis. So QDS 17:
προσέθηκεν ὁ Ματθαῖος· "μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί·"
The only meaning here is that Matthew 'added' a partial reference to what is for us Matthew 5:3. But Luke 6:20 has Jesus saying Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί while Matt 5:3 adds (or Luke omits) τῶ πνεύματι. The first point is of course Matthew 'adds' μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί to what exactly? Not Luke. So what exactly? It has to be Mark. Mark is the immediate context. Matthew accordingly 'adds' to Mark that 'blessed are the poor in spirit.' Clement is able to make the addition in Matthew 'work' with his mystery exegesis here and could certainly have done the same with Matthew 19:23. This is the advantage of allegorists they can blur the distinction between anything and everything. So there has to be ANOTHER REASON Clement starts with Mark.

Staehlin emphasizes that this isn't a passing interest in Matthew 5:3 or the equivalent (the Marcionite gospel also had this reading). He says the interest shows up - QDS 16 § 3 (p.170, l.12) "This is he who is blessed by the Lord, and cared poor in spirit, a meet heir of the kingdom of heaven, not one who could not live rich." BP1, 17 § 5 (p.170, l.33) (what we just cited above) and BP1, 19 § 2 (p.172, l.2) BP1 "Let the former be possessed by the carnal poor, who are destitute of the latter. But thou, by receiving instead spiritual wealth, shalt have now treasure in the heavens." In other words - and this is critical - Clement begins by citing from the Gospel of Mark choosing it over Matthew for some reason. He is prompted by a version of the parable of the camel through the eye of the needle which as we know Celsus says betrays knowledge of Plato. In order to combat the communist interpretation of this passage Clement brings forward the long citation of Mark even though his citation of the parable takes on the Matthean form ('kingdom of heaven' versus 'kingdom of God'). After this long citation of Mark Clement proceeds to cite another gospel which is not the same as the Mark text cited in chapter 4. This text holds all the keys to the mystery rite used in his community namely that one must strip naked and receive a divine soul through baptism.

Worth pointing out that Tertullian/Irenaeus's exegesis of Luke 6:20 assumes that the Marcionite gospel had 'poor in spirit':
To him, for whom in every stage of lowliness there is provided so much of the Creator's compassionate regard, shall be given that kingdom also which is promised by Christ, to whose merciful compassion belong, and for a great while have belonged, those to whom the promise is made. For even if you suppose that the promises of the Creator were earthly, but that Christ's are heavenly, it is quite clear that heaven has been as yet the property of no other God whatever, than Him who owns the earth also; quite clear that the Creator has given even the lesser promises (of earthly blessing), in order that I may more readily believe Him concerning His greater promises (of heavenly blessings) also, than (Marcion's god), who has never given proof of his liberality by any preceding bestowal of minor blessings.
Also that Origen in his response to Celsus makes much the same argument - namely that "blessed are the poor in spirit" helps explain the parable of the camel through the eye of the needle:
In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich men, when He said, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches. Now who is there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs — not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind— that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature — not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews — as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him, had read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same time, had perverted this, and changed it into, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God! Now, if Celsus had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to the point why a camel — that one of animals which, as regards its physical structure, is crooked — was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich man, and what signification the narrow eye of a needle had for him who saw that strait and narrow was the way that leads unto life; and to this point also, that this animal. according to the law, is described as unclean, having one element of acceptability, viz. that it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz., that it does not divide the hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logos concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the fact that the poor are termed blessed by Jesus, while the rich are designated as miserable; and whether these words refer to the rich and poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is any kind of poverty known to the Logos which is to be deemed altogether blessed, and any rich man who is to be wholly condemned. For even a common individual would not thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many of whom lead most wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough.
It should be noted that it is Origen who says that Jesus was too Jewish to have read Plato. Celsus could have countered (as I would have) that Mark when adding his mystical bits to the original anecdotes of Peter could have also incorporated Plato into his 'secret gospel.' It is also tempting to wonder whether Origen was reworking an original response to Celsus written by Clement or whether QDS was a response to points raised by Celsus about the correct reading of the gospels. This passage in QDS is reminiscent of arguments made by Celsus:
What then was it which persuaded him to flight, and made him depart from the Master, from the entreaty, the hope, the life, previously pursued with ardour? -- "Sell thy possessions." And what is this? He does not, as some conceive off-hand, bid him throw away the substance he possessed, and abandon his property; but bids him banish from his soul his notions about wealth, his excitement and morbid feeling about it, the anxieties, which are the thorns of existence, which choke the seed of life. For it is no great thing or desirable to be destitute of wealth, if without a special object, -- not except on account of life. For thus those who have nothing at all, but are destitute, and beggars for their daily bread, the poor dispersed on the streets, who know not God and God's righteousness, simply on account of their extreme want and destitution of subsistence, and lack even of the smallest things, were most blessed and most dear to God, and sole possessors of everlasting life.

Nor was the renunciation of wealth and the bestowment of it on the poor or needy a new thing; for many did so before the Saviour's advent, -- some because of the leisure (thereby obtained) for learning, and on account of a dead wisdom; and others for empty fame and vainglory, as the Anaxagorases, the Democriti, and the Crateses.

Why then command as new, as divine, as alone life-giving, what did not save those of former days?
And what peculiar thing is it that the new creature s the Son of God intimates and teaches? It is not the outward act which others have done, but something else indicated by it, greater, more godlike, more perfect, the stripping off of the passions from the soul itself and from the disposition, and the cutting up by the roots and casting out of what is alien to the mind. [QDS 11, 12]
Celsus makes this point over and over again in his work. This is his point in the passage above. And this sort of argument repeats over and over again in the True Account. But it is even more interesting that Democritus and Crates appear side by side and in the same order to Clement's comments about the poor:
In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with Jesus, alleging that he did not show himself to be pure from all evil (ὡς μὴ δείξαντι ἑαυτὸν πάντων δὴ κακῶν καθαρεύοντα). Let Celsus state from what evil our Lord did not, show Himself to be pure (οὐκ ἔδειξεν ἑαυτὸν
καθαρεύοντα ὁ Ἰησοῦς). If he means that, He was not pure (μὴ κεκαθαρευκέναι) from what is properly termed evil, let him clearly prove the existence of any wicked work in Him. But if he deems poverty (πενίαν) and the cross to be evils, and conspiracy on the part of wicked men, then it is clear that he would say that evil had happened also to Socrates, who was unable to show himself pure from evils. And how great also the other band of poor men is among the Greeks, who have given themselves to philosophical pursuits, and have voluntarily accepted a life of poverty, is known to many among the Greeks from what is recorded of Democritus, who allowed his property to become pasture for sheep; and of Crates, who obtained his freedom by bestowing upon the Thebans the price received for the sale of his possessions. Nay, even Diogenes himself, from excessive poverty, came to live in a tub; and yet, in the opinion of no one possessed of moderate understanding, was Diogenes on that account considered to be in an evil (sinful) condition. [2.41]
When Clement says in QDS 11 and 12 that the 'poverty schtick' has been 'done before' by pagan philosophers and that Jesus is offering something new it fits within the continuum of arguments made by Celsus. I even go so far as to wonder whether Origen rewrote many of Clement's works - the Stromata, the First Principles (mentioned in QDS as περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ θεολογίας [On first principles and Theology] (cf. Giulea 2009:187-213; Osborn 1994:1-24) and referenced in Stromateis 3.13.1, 21.2, 5.140.2) albeit explicitly using the new orthodox canon developed around the four gospels.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:45 am
If so the issue is that Mark 10:24 in Clement's version is talking about trusting in riches i.e. avarice greed while the passage in Matthew is talking about being rich having lots of money. The Matthew passage provides little foothold for Clement's exegesis.
But is Matthew more specific or more problematic for that interpretation?
Yes, obviously. Come on.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Secret Alias »

The standard text of Matthew is
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Clement's text of Mark reads:
"If thou wouldest be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me."
Matthew 19:23 is:
“Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue May 26, 2020 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:02 am For an allegorist? Really? To the point that Mark in its entirety is cited?
Yes, even allegorists like money.

You have made some really good points on this thread. I mean that in all sincerity. Stick with those. Andrew's response to this one is completely correct. Clement needs that textual variant he cites from Mark; the rationale is literally all over the text.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply