andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:56 am
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 6:03 pm
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:42 pm
Could you translate the full sentence and then explain it?
Τὸ δὲ γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ καὶ τἆλλα περὶ ὧν ἔγραψας οὐκ εὑρίσκεται.
I would understand it as: 'But the naked men with naked man and the other things about which you wrote are not found.' I take the two words γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ to be what Theodore wrote to ask about and Clement is saying they are not found in the text of the secret gospel.
Are you taking the two words separately, with Clement saying γυμνοὶ is not found in the text but γυμνῷ is? Could you explain a bit more how that reading works and what the significance of γυμνῷ being in the dative is? I realize there are options other than the 'with' I used, but I'm not seeing how your reading works.
Best,
Ken
One hypothesis may be: "But the 'naked people with naked man' and the other things about which you wrote are not found."
Any explanation would have to be speculative, but one possibility (supplying more than what is said) is that there is a reference here to the scene where Jesus is arrested, a reference implied to be coming from the voice of Clement (as something that was previously written about by Theodore). The clarification from Clement would be that there is no reference to "γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ" (even though there is a reference to γυμνὸς in Mark 14:52). So this reference to γυμνὸς in Mark 14:52 is part of the gospel (mentioned here in the singular as γυμνῷ in the letter's rejected wording), but any additional reference to "γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ" (i.e., the plural also) is neither part of the gospel nor part of the secret gospel.
It's possible that what is referenced here is a scene of a group of people having sex in the garden of Gethsamane that is broken up, with people running off naked (along with the mentioned naked man), when the authorities arrive.
If more detail is required to understand this suggestion, one of many possibilities is that Theodore was supposedly asking about something like this (Mark 14:51-52): "A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, naked people fled with the naked man leaving his garment behind." But this particular wording is not part of the suggestion.
Although this is speculative, I believe it is the only passage in canonical Mark with the word mentioned (in any case or number).
As I said in another thread I think the issue has to be about the correct version of the pericope Clement has just quoted. I think it particularly unlikely that Gethsemane is involved. The letter says
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
And these words follow the text, "And James and John come to him" and all that section. But "naked man with naked man" and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words,"And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications. Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy...
Clement quotes one addition in Mark chapter 10 says
naked with naked does not occur and then quotes another addition later in chapter 10. I.E. Clement is throughout discussing additions in the section about Jesus going to Jerusalem, not additions to the narrative of events after Jesus arrives in Jerusalem.
Regarding the location of the quoted extracts, I would suggest that they are located where they are (Mark chapter 10) because of the existence of narrative aporias in this part of Mark. So in the voice of Clement of the letter, two locations where there are well-known difficulties in the text of Mark receive expansion.
There is also reference to "many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications" and its parallel earlier phrase "and the other things about which you wrote, are not found," which may be referring to falsifications in any part of Mark.
For this suggestion, the reason for mentioning this denial under the first quote would indeed be to lampshade some interpretations of the first quote, so you'd be correct in that respect that the denial is in some way related to the first quote. Here I am following Ken Olson and his explanation of the purpose of the denial in the context of the letter.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 10:56 pm
What device or technique is this? In rhetorical terms, it might be considered a particular form of preterition, in which someone emphasizes an idea by pretending to pass over it (“I intend to stick strictly to the issues and will not discuss the multiple allegations of sexual assault against my opponent”). In psychological terms, it might be considered a form of reverse psychology, but it's also related to the phenomenon called ironic process theory, ironic rebound, or “the white bear problem.” The latter goes back at least to 1863, when Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, “Try to pose for yourself this task: not to think of a polar bear, and you will see that the cursed thing will come to mind every minute.”
In psychology and hypnosis this is called negative suggestion.
If this is being placed here in order to suggest a certain reading of the first quote, then the idea that there are questions from Theodore about the first quote is fictive. Read not just on the narrative surface, instead of the first quote being supplied in order to answer Theodore's question, Theodore's question is introduced in order to suggest an interpretation of the first quote.
In the voice of Clement, the first passage is presented as the closest thing to the matter about which Theodore inquires, which is presented in an exact quote to remove any suspicion about the passage. The reference to an exact quote already denies other interpretations of the passage. Then, in addition, Clement can refer to a passage mentioned by Theodore that has a similar interpretation to the one being refuted about the first quote. It is mentioned in this context to complete a denial about the interpretation of the secret gospel, first with reference to this quote, then with reference to the falsification mentioned by Theodore.
This would allow two different passages to be discussed close together in the voice of Clement in order to deny a certain interpretation of both, with the first by providing an exact quote from the secret gospel, and with the second by denying a falsification of the secret gospel.
And, no, I don't think it is particularly unlikely as an interpretation of "γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ" here. It was written to answer Ken Olson's question about an interpretation of "γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ" here. I get the impression that the response is coming from the perspective that this isn't the text here, which would mean that the response doesn't address the question Ken Olson asked.