Re: Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:20 am
Thanks for these links and directions!
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead". This Gnostic saying implies that those without a certain knowledge he was dispensing (by whatever means) were effectively to him the living dead. John said of Jesus: "In him was life". How such "life" was dispensed may be questioned.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 11:24 am Nakedness in antiquity wasn't the same as it is today. A gymnasium was quite literally a naked place. There were a lot of naked with nakeds. In Maximus naked with naked means naked (dead) bodies. In that way there is a parallel.
The youth is naked because in part he was dead. There are many Pauline references to death, baptism and unclothed. I find these conversations often take on a Tarantino on (gay) Top Gun dimension. If you want to see a cigar as a penis you most certainly can. But it can also just be a cigar. It's the reference to the agape between youth and Jesus that contextualizes the nakedness too. And agape was taken to mean an orgiastic love feast outside of to Theodore. And Clement himself defends the Agape from these charges elsewhere in his writings.
Seems to me like Clement's Alexandrian community made a big deal about 'throwing off' one's clothes, and staring at the 'naked' image of Christ before baptism and anointing. Seems to involve a naked man staring at another naked man.For I want, I want to impart to you this grace, bestowing on you the perfect boon of immortality; and I confer on you both the Word and the knowledge of God, My complete self. This am I, this God wills, this is symphony, this the harmony of the Father, this is the Son, this is Christ, this the Word of God, the arm of the Lord, the power of the universe, the will of the Father; of which things there were images of old, but not all adequate. I desire to restore you according to the original model, that you may become also like Me. I anoint you with the ungent of faith, by which you throw off corruption, and show you the naked form of righteousness by which you ascend to God. [Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 12]
The other is the well documented 'gnostic' reading of numbers in Stromata 6 and Irenaeus's description of the same followers of the gnostic or mystic 'Mark.' Another example of Clement being tied to a mystic Mark tradition. The mystery described in Irenaeus is overtly sexual - 'I want to share my Grace with you' is taken to mean 'I want to get my sperm (seed) into you.' Take that as you may. Maybe this 'mystic' Mark was a farmer who wanted people to eat the seeds he roasted on his farm as part of a well-balanced breakfast.For I want, I want to impart to you this grace (ἐθέλω καὶ ταύτης ὑμῖν μεταδοῦναι τῆς χάριτος)
[Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Greeks 1, 12]
But there is another among these heretics, Mark by name … addressing [his adherents] in such seductive words as these: "I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Grace (μεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς ἐμῆς χάριτος) … [Irenaeus Against Heresies 13.1 – 2]
Funny how YOU can use these words FOR forgery but I can't use them to further authenticity. Referee and player you are. Clement is denying that "naked with naked" is literally in the text while admitting earlier that Mark left the holiest of mysteries unsaid in his gospel.When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents but viva voce, wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."(1) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,(2) who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
I think Clement is playing word games. Morton Smith forging to Theodore is THE WORST POSSIBLE explanation of the text. One step above ripping it up which is likely what the Greeks ended up doing.Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils.
This hearken back to what follows the scene in the secret gospel - i.e. "And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus." It is arguable also that the 'naked form of righteousness' is also a reference to the name of the blind beggar Timaeus = “ritually unclean” and “impure."
The naked Christ, and not just Jesus, which is what he is called in the pericope? Below you allude to Jerome's nudus nudum deriving from this encounter. That is your evidence for the naked Christ, isn't it? Is there more?The sense seems to be that the blind beggar not only threw off his clothes but did so confronting the naked Christ.
It's been argued that the earth is flat. How about you actually present the argument for this? Like maybe start with quoting Jerome and explain how you interpret what he wrote, and why, and, you know, actually put forward an argument consisting of premises that logically lead to your conclusion? And while you're at it, maybe you could state clearly what your conclusion or thesis is.It's been argued that Jerome's nudus nudum derives from this encounter.
At the very least Jerome inevitably cites the Question of the Rich Man in this context. How did Jesus end up naked in front of the disrobed blind man?
What answer is that?Only one answer makes sense.
"At the least" implies this is a minimal construal of the evidence. What is the evidence for Jesus walking naked from the Jordan of which you claim this is a minimal construal? Or that there's an oral monastic tradition of this?At the very least there seems to have been an oral monastic tradition that Jesus walked naked from the Jordan (regardless of Secret Mark he has to cross the river before arriving at Jericho),
It's not a coincidence. What all of this has in common is that it's the product of your imagination. You made a number of assertions, assumed they are correct, and claimed "no other gospel has this." You ought to first demonstrate that Mark has this.the impure blind man takes off his clothes and presumably follows a naked Christ. Then there is Clement's explanation of the Question of the Rich Man - strip yourselves of your souls. Then the naked youth being initiated in Jerusalem. Lot of nudity in this section of Mark as we already discussed. No other gospel has this. Just Mark. Strange coincidence.
No, I don't say that. I don't think I've ever said that. If you think I'm mistaken in my recollection, could you cite and quote me saying that or words to that effect? Your inability to distinguish what other people have written from what you imagine them to have written is a severe problem for the credibility of your theories.And you say the best explanation is Morton Smith did this because he was having a hard time being gay in the 1950s.
I have highlighted in yellow and pink the parts of the quotation that I think are answering to the two parts of the introduction above. It seems to me that the pink bits in the proposed quotation are more than enough to give Eusebius the (tendentious) impression that the churches in the cities shared the same doctrine.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:42 pmThis is a response to Ben Smith's post on Epiphanius's possible use of Hegesippus. Some time has passed since Ben posted it, and hopefully he will be able to find the time to respond (at least to my last point about Eusebius's HE 4.22, if not the rest).
....
The text of Eusebius HE 4.22.1-3:
Ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἡγήσιππος ἐν πέντε τοῖς εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσιν ὑπομνήμασιν τῆς ἰδίας γνώμης πληρεστάτην μνήμην καταλέλοιπεν: ἐν οἷς δηλοῖ ὡς πλείστοις ἐπισκόποις συμμίξειεν ἀποδημίαν στειλάμενος μέχρι Ῥώμης, καὶ ὡς ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν παρὰ πάντων παρείληφεν διδασκαλίαν. ἀκοῦσαί γέ τοι πάρεστιν μετά τινα περὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς αὐτῷ εἰρημένα ἐπιλέγοντος ταῦτα: ‘καὶ ἐπέμενεν ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ Κορινθίων ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ μέχρι Πρίμου ἐπισκοπεύοντος ἐν Κορίνθῳ: οἷς συνέμιξα πλέων εἰς Ῥώμην καὶ συνδιέτριψα τοῖς Κορινθίοις ἡμέρας ἱκανάς, ἐν αἷς συνανεπάημεν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ: γενόμενος δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, διαδοχὴν ἐποιησάμην μέχρις Ἀνικήτου: οὗ διάκονος ἦν Ἐλεύθερος, καὶ παρὰ Ἀνικήτου διαδέχεται Σωτήρ, μεθ̓ ὃν Ἐλεύθερος. ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ κύριος.’I take it that on your reading the quotation of Hegesippus ends with the first mention of Anicetus, and that the rest is Eusebius writing in his own voice. I do not read it that way, because it's typical of Eusebius (among ancient writers; it's pretty standard for writers to do this now) to introduce a writer he's about to quote by stating the points he's quoting him to establish and then quote him to establish those points. I understand the quotation to extend as far as the final sentence quoted above, because it establishes the point “he received the same doctrine from all.” It seems to me that Eusebius is at least claiming the quotation of Hegesippus extends as far as that last sentence.Now, Hegesippus, in the five treatises that have come down to us, has left us a very complete record of his own opinion. In these he shows that he traveled as far as Rome and mingled with a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is well to listen to what he said after some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: 'And the church of the Corinthians remained in the true word until Primus was Bishop of Corinth. I associated with them on my voyage to Rome and I spent some days with them in Corinth, during which we were mutually stimulated by the true Word. And while I was in Rome I made a list of succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, and Soter succeeded Anicetus, and after him Eleutherus. In each list and each city all is as the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord preach.' [Deferrari translation]
Actually, I may, since I have had that exact thought before, but for different reasons. But it is just too much to go into at this time, and I am not by any means sure the idea holds water anyway.Alternatively, you could suggest that Eusebius interpolated the mention of the additional two bishops within the quotation of Hegesippus. Both of those things are possible, but do you have reasons for thinking that's what happened in this case other than it makes the rest of your theory on Epiphanius's use of Hegesippus work?
Irenaeus, like Hegesippus/Eusebius follows the bishops' list with a statement about how the one true faith has been preserved. Irenaeus could well be engaging in a paraphrastic expansion of Hegesippus there. It seems like we have to assume Irenaeus is largely dependent on Hegesippus for AH 3.3 (unless Eusebius invented the whole block of Hegesippus' testimony on Corinth and bishops of Rome in HE 4.22.1-3 based on Irenaeus H 3.3, which I think might be possible, but is not a theory I would advocate). But once we accept that Irenaeus is at least largely dependent on Hegesippus for AH 3.3, it's very difficult to say what he could not be getting from Hegesippus. A theory which holds that Irenaeus used Hegesippus up to a certain point, following it with his own material, and then had Eusebius quoting Hegesippus with Irenaeus's additional material directly after it, is possible, but would need some good justification on why it is preferable to the theory that Irenaeus and Eusebius are simply following Hegesippus throughout. I was working on a post on this that would lay the text of Irenaeus and Hegesippus/Eusebius side by side with more detailed commentary, but I got sidetracked.3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.3).