γυμνὸς or γυμνοὶ in Clement's Letter to Theodore?

[Ken Olson]

Hi Ken, Andrew and Peter.

Could you please bring here the entire Greek text of this letter, as published by anyone, and not just a photo of the manuscript?

From the OP:

Bibliography:

Adam, A.K. M., Fragment of the Letter of Clement to Theodore Containing the Secret Gospel of Mark: A Study Edition (2018)

https://akma.disseminary.org/wp-content ... etMark.pdf

I don't know if you can call any of the publications a critical edition, but Smith, Tselikas, in the bibliography have all published a transcription of the text, and Viklund & Paananen give a critique of Tselikas transcription.

If anyone has better quality images of the manuscript, including page 3, by all means post them.

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

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."

[snip]

Although this is speculative, I believe it is the only passage in canonical Mark with the word mentioned (in any case or number).

I think Andrew has now given a better response to this than the one I was writing.

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

Agamemnon Teslikas' transcription of Clement's Letter:

Tselikas - A Transcription of the Text of Clement's Letter - First Page.png (233.08 KiB) Viewed 278 times

Teslikas - A Transcription of the Text of Clement's Letter - Second Page.png (240.87 KiB) Viewed 278 times

The page from Paananen and Viklund with the footnote for the errors they claim to find in Tselikas:

Paananen & Viklund - Critique of Tesikas - p. 27 n. 112.png (284.21 KiB) Viewed 278 times

[StephenGoranson]

a) The black and white photos that Morton Smith published were cropped. The black and white photos that Ariel Sabar published in The Atlantic, April issue, are not cropped.

b) SS., do you think Clement wrote the Letter to Theodore, and why?

[SaosSidirountios]

Thanks for the link. Both the Greek Mark and this text attributed to Clement are clear that this man was not naked. He was wearing the cheapest type of textile that existed that time, a sindoni, over his naked body. My argument is that this man was wearing this cheap textile because he did follow what Jesus said to his followers Luke 22:36-38 : sell your garments (cloak) and buy a long knife. After selling your cloak (most people at that time only had one cloak, as it was expensive to have a second), what would you wear? A sindoni was cheap textile. This is what that young man was wearing. Also, one should not exclude that this man was poor and never had the money to buy a proper cloak, so all what he could afford was a sindoni.

The text presented by Adam is clear, there was no sex and no nudity and "Clement" tried to correct some mistakes "Theodore" made. The phrase in the Gospels as well as in other ancient texts that a man loved another man is often translated by some modern scholars as evidence of homosexuality. This is not the case. There is an entire branch of Historical Jesus scholars who do believe or try to prove that an historical Jesus and other important figures in history were homosexual. Psychiatrists have noticed that people with luck of empathy often understand love as something which must involve sex. It is clear to me that a number of professors do suffer from psychosexual disorders and do produce many interpretations of history which are based on their psychosexual distortion of the ancient sources.

[SaosSidirountios]

b) SS., do you think Clement wrote the Letter to Theodore, and why?

An entire textual analysis should be conducted. Each writer does have his own specific "fingerprints" in the way he writes, consisted from the way he uses certain phrases, grammar, syntax, vocabulary etc. So far no serious analysis has been conducted on what is original in Clement and in many other early authors. For centuries we just follow earlier traditions and accept many texts as the product of one or the other author. As I said in an earlier comment, we should first try to establish which Clement texts are original. Only after that we could compare this letter to what looks to us as original Clement. Just to explore the originality of Clement texts we need a collective work of at least four experts in different fields, who will work together for a few years.

Generations upon generations of professors base their entire career on earlier assumptions and fabrications. I started exactly like this, but I was lucky to meet three teachers who opened my eyes. When you pop out and prove most professors wrong after a discovery, they usually try to eradicate you and many of them would rather kill themselves or others than accept they lived a life based on wrong theories or on fabricated materials. My first supervisor, Julian Chrysostomides, did suffer much from daring to say some texts were not original. She never tried to harm anyone, never hated anyone, but because of what she indicated she was savaged by some well known professors who managed to sideline her. The issue of the originality of many texts, the pseudepigrapha, fabrications and interpolations is massive and not explored. Much work has been done only for the New Testament but not for most other texts produced from the first to the seventh centuries.

[StephenGoranson]

SaosSidirountios, you declared that much of the widely-accepted text of Clement is, in fact, not by Clement.
Without an example, your claim can not be assessed.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

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.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

I think Andrew has now given a better response to this than the one I was writing.

You did ask or present these questions in the OP:

Second, if Tselikas' reading is correct, what would it mean that R. Morton Smith gave the wrong reading? Third, how would Tselikas' reading affect the interpretation of the text if it were adopted?

This would be the only real attempt to answer them, seriously and in detail, so far in this thread. If I am missing some other different and better interpretation of γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ that someone else has presented, what is it?

One possibility is that a person introducing the text of Clement to Theodore didn't want to mention the most risque interpretations. So the text can operate at two levels, the more explicitly mentioned one where "naked man with naked man" gingerly highlights the possibility of a homosexual reading in the first quote, and the unmentioned one based on the text itself where γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ is a reference to the scene of the arrest where the man following Jesus fled away naked. The explicitly mentioned transcription is more plausible for Clement. The text of the letter itself, γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ, invites the reader to discover a reference to the story in Mark 14. That reference can't be explained because it is implausible for Clement, but it can be planted in the text in a playful way, to see if anyone picks up on it.

[Peter Kirby]

Scott G. Brown, "The Question of Motive in the Case against Morton Smith," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 2 (Summer, 2006), p. 360.

Smith could himself chuckle at the young man's naked flight, and in lectures would sometimes caption this pericope "Cops Arrest Rabbi in Park with Naked Teenager."33

33 A private e-mail correspondence from William M. Calder III, who was a close friend of Smith (July 12, 2002). Calder recollected to me that Smith suggested in lectures that both Jesus and Paul were gay.

And for something like this, seeing γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ as a reference to Mark 14:

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.

A 20th century reading could see in this the police breaking up what's happening at a park or an interstate rest stop.