1. 1 The Letter
1. 1
THE LETTER
to the question of authenticity. The work for this chapter was completed in 1961, at which time I turned from Clement to study the Gospel fragment. Since that time
I have made only minor changes in the text and have not attempted to take account of recent publications on Clement, of which I should mention as particularly valuable
A. Mehat's Etude. I have not been persuaded by P. Nautin's attempt to redate the events of Clement's later life ( Lettres , 1 39f ) though the traditional dates are certainly dubious (Barnes, Origen , 314 f.) The first draft of the following commentary on the text of the letter was read by E. Bickerman, Columbia University; W. M. Calder III, Columbia; H. Chadwick,
Oxford; B. Einarson, Chicago; L. Fruchtel, Ansbach; R. Grant, Chicago; M.
Hadas, Columbia; W. Jaeger, Harvard; G. Lampe, Cambridge; C. Mondesert, Lyon; J. Munck, Aarhus; A. D. Nock, Harvard; J. Reumann, Lutheran Theological
Seminary, Philadelphia; M. Richard, Paris; C. Richardson, Union Theological Seminary, New York; R. Schippers, Amsterdam; W. Volker, Mainz; and A.
Wifstrand, Lund. I am indebted not only for their kindness in examining the text and expressing their opinions on its authenticity, but also for a great many corrections and suggestions in matters of detail. I sincerely thank them for the help they have given me. My thanks are due also to a number of scholars who have commented on particular passages and whose help is, at those passages, acknowledged. All substantial comments are included in square brackets and followed by the initials of the commentator; the initials are explained in the list of abbreviations at the end of the volume. Bracketed comments are not exact quotations except when set within quotation marks; I have often taken the liberty to summarize or to translate, the more so because the untimely deaths of a number of the commentators have made it impossible for them to approve small rectifications in the wording of their state ments. Moreover, besides the bracketed comments, many minor corrections have been accepted and incorporated in grateful silence.
I.11
+ €κ των βπιστολών €κ τών επιστολών. Citations from Clement's letters appear in the Sacra Parallela attributed, perhaps rightly, to John of Damascus, who worked at Mar Saba from about 715 to 750 (Beck, 477, 482). Among the lemmata to them given by Stahlin,
III .223fj are Κλημεντος Στρωματεως εκ της κα επιστολής and Κλημεντος Στρωματεως επιστολή. Ishodad of Merv reportedly refers to a writing, possibly a letter, against heretics who rejected marriage, and such were the Garpocratians ; but Stahlin, Ill.lxff, thinks the reference merely an inference based on Eusebius, HE III. 30, where the passages cited come from the Stromateis. i. Numerals refer to plate and line. The dot between the two numbers is located over the point at which the new line begins.
THE LETTER
1. 1-2 1.2 τοΰ αγιωτά του Κλήμβντος τοΰ στρωματβως * Θβο8ώρω. καλώς βττοίησ ας έπιστομίσας τοΰ άγιωτάτον. Clement is cited as τοΰ άγιωτάτον in collections of patristic material attributed to Maximus the Confessor, fl. 620-650 (Beck, 437); citations, III. 219k2
For Maximus he is also μακαριώτατος (III.220; cf. Osborn, Philosophy , 190, 191 ni); for Anastasius of Sinai, ιερός καί άποστολικός (ibid.) ; and for the Chronicon Paschale, όσιώτατος (III.2 1 6) . Already, in his own lifetime, Alexander of Jerusalem called him μακάριος and Ιερός (Eus., HE VI. 1 1.6; 14.9). The use of άγιώτατος for ecclesias tical personages appears in Athanasius (Muller, Lexicon s.v.) as a development from the earlier Christian usage of the absolute (Williger, 84ff). τοΰ στρωματεως. See above, on επιστολών. Also used by Maximus (III. 220.5, 12;
224.15), John Moschus (III. 196.21), codex Laura 184 B (III. 218. 15), and Palladius,
HL 60; also (according to Cedrednus) by Sextus Julius Africanus (about a.d. 225).
Africanus, although a friend of Origen, placed Clement's activity in the time of Commodus, 180-192 (Routh, II. 307).
Θεοόώρω. Unknown? The name was common in Jewish and thence in Christian circles and could easily have been that of a correspondent in Palestine. Clement, before coming to Alexandria, had studied in Palestine under a teacher of Jewish ancestry
(II. 8. 23) whom he listed among those who had received the Christian tradition by straight descent from Peter, James, John, and Paul (Eus., HE V. 1 1.5). Clement was also a friend of a subsequent bishop of Jerusalem (Eus., HE VI. 1 1.6; 13.3; 14.9), to whom he dedicated a book against Judaizing heretics or Jews (Photius, 1 1 1). He may have had other connections in the city. καλώς εποίησας. As the beginning of a letter, with the following aorist participle,
Libanius, Epistulae (ed. R. Foerster, Leipzig, 1903-1927, vols. X,XI) 51,679, etc.
Baur, I.584, lists 8 instances, including one from Athanasius and two from Basil.
[This is, of course, a common formula in papyrus letters of the period. C.H.R.] επιστόμιό ας. 1. 187. 8, τούς χρωμενονς αυτή (αισχρολογία) επιστομιστεον', again
Ι.192.22. This is perhaps a reminiscence of Titus 1.11 where pseudo-Paul declares that Jewish libertine teachers should be shut up (οΰς 8εΐ επιστομίζειν). Clement cited Titus 1.10 (II.27.14f), in an attack on libertine heretics, and Titus 1.12 (II. 37.
25ff) in an attack on Hellenizers. επιστομίζω normally has for its object a person or an animal — so always in Clement — but it is used with an inanimate object often in Philo, of the passions, and in Josephus, AJ XVII. 251 : την ' Ιουδαίων νεωτεροποιίαν επιστομιοΰντες.
2. Hereafter, numerals thus given refer to the Stahlin edition of Clement by volume, page, and, if a third number is given, line.
THE LETTER
1.2-3 τάς άρρητους διδασκαλίας των Καρποκρατιανών. ουτοι γαρ οι προφήτευ σβντες άστερες πλανηται , άρρητους. 1.17-5? °f Eleusinian mysteries, emphasizing their sexual symbolism.
I.I 7.2 I, of the worshipers of Dionysus, /χόρια άρρητα ώς αληθώς ύπ αισχύνης άναισχυντως σεβουσιν. διδασκαλίας. Ι·47·3? ο-ΰται των συμπορνευόντων ύμΐν Θεών αί διδασκαλίαι. τών Καρπό κρατιανών. Referred to as a sect (αϊρεσις), II. 197.27; 200.5. (For Carpocrates and the question whether he or Epiphanes founded the sect, see below, II. 3-4; for testimonia and literature, Appendix B.) The letter agrees with Clement not only in its general moral judgment of the Carpocratians, but also in identifying them as the heretics attacked in the Epistle of Jude and in associating them — probably — with the Nicolai tans; see the commentary on the following lines. The letter also agrees with Irenaeus' report (Harvey, 1. 20. 3 = Stieren, 1. 25. 5) that the Carpocratians claimed to be the possessors of a secret apostolic tradition which justified their libertine practices, τον Τησοΰν λεγοντες εν μυστηρίω τοΐς μαθηταΐς αύτοΰ καί άποστόλοις κατ' ιδίαν λελαληκεναι, etc. Liboron, 4^5 conjectured that this claim was based on Mk. 4.1 1 ; the present letter confirms at least the conjectured relationship of the sect to Mark. ουτοι yap. II. 195. ΙΟ, ουτοι, φασίν, είσίν οί εκ γενετής ευνούχοι (initial, as in the letter) ;
II. 1 78. 14, ουτοι yap 01 (initial). οί προφητευθεντες. II. 1 35.24, Christ is ό ύπδ νόμου προφητευθείς ; cf. Ι.249·23· άστερες πλανηται. Jude 1 3. Jude is cited by Clement (I.262. igff; II. 200. 25ff) where it is said to refer to the Carpocratians, as it does in this letter. A similar interpretation of this passage of the epistle, referring it to libertine heretics, is probably condensed from Clement, III.2o6ff, esp. 208. In a different connection Riedinger, 165, has remarked on how consistently Clement's exegesis follows a certain line of thought when directed against certain opponents, and how each line of thought is regularly associated with certain biblical passages. That Clement used Jude in the Stromateis and the Hypotyposes is remarked by Eus., HE VI. 13b Clement also compares sinners to planets in 1. 5 1.2 iff
(believers in astrology) and probably 177.5 (gluttons, lechers, and drunkards); similarly, Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus II. 15 end. [Cumont, Egypte 168 ni, notes the use of πλανήτης for victims of demoniacal possession. C.H.R. This passage recalls Plutarch, De genio Socratis 59id-f, where stars disappearing into a chasm represent souls completely plunged into the body. Could άστερες πλανηται possibly refer to shooting stars? B.E.]
1.4
1-3-4
THE LETTER
ol άπο της στενής των εντολών όδοϋ είς άπό. Clement does not use άπό with πλανασθαι , but he might well have done so in the fashion of this letter, since the usage here is part of a reminiscence of Wisdom 5.6, where the wicked say άρα επλανήθημεν άπό όδοΰ αλήθειας, καί το της δικαιοσύνης φως ούκ ελαμφεν ήμΐν. This in turn is based on Dt. 11.28 (LXX). There are reminiscences of Wis. 5.6 in James 5.19 and II Peter 2.15. Clement cites Wis. 5.3-5 in II. 287. 4-8 and echoes 5.6 in 1. 145. ΙΟ : φώτιζε ι τοΐς πλανωμενοις την αλήθειαν. [W.M.C. notes πλανασθαι άπο του λόγον ; Plato, Politicus 263a.] των εντολών. Inserted adjectival genitives are frequent in Clement: e.g., II. 423.10b
The road "of the commandments" here is paralleled by that "according to the commandments" in II. 346. 6, a reminiscence of Dt. 11.28 (see the preceding para graph) where the road is that of the commandments. [Expressions of this type, a metaphor with an adjective attribute and an explicative genitive, are for the most part
Christian. In pre-Christian prose there are no instances save in Philo, where the usage begins. They arise easily out of allegorical exegesis. In the New Testament there are a few — e.g., I Peter 5.4. Clement has them sometimes; e.g., 1. 5. 5: τον πράον καί φιλάνθρωπον της θεοσεβεί ας . . . ζυγόν, this in connection with a phrase from the Gospels, as above with της στενής . . . όδοΰ; again I.197.I, τω σωφροσύνης άμβροσίω χρίσματι. In later Christian Greek they become more common, and instances appear also in the later neoplatonists. A.W.] όδοΰ. The στενή όδό? comes from Mt. 7.13b The simile was a favorite with Clement; see Stahlin's Citatenregister to Mt. 7. 1 3f and index s.v. οδός. In III. 67. 6 heretics are particularly condemned for having left the right (ορθή) road, which is, for Clement, the road of the commandments — he is particularly hostile to antinomians (Buri,
Clemens 36). The broad road of carnal sins and pride appears in II. 263.i2ff; 346.6.
The letter may also have been intended to recall Prov. 2. 13-14 (LXX), ώ οι εγκαταλείποντες οδούς ευθείας τοΰ πορευεσθαι εν όδοΐς σκότους, οι ευφραινόμενοι επί κακοΐς καί χαίροντες επί διαστροφή κακή. Proverbs was one of Clement's favorite Old Testament books ; he cited it more often than any others save Psalms and perhaps Genesis. He cites
2.3-7 II.17.20ff, and 2.2ifin II.169.6ff. εις. Clement's regular usage; Mossbacher, 56. With πλανασθαι: πεπλανημενα . . .είς την δεύρο γενεσιν, 11.239· Ι2·
1-4-5
THE LETTER
Ι·5 άπβρατον άβυσσον πλανώμζνοι των σαρκικών και ενσωμάτων αμαρτιών. πεφυσιωμένοι γάρ εις γνώσιν. άπερατον. Dubious whether άπερατος, "impassable," or άπερατος, "limitless." The latter appears in the scholion on Aristophanes Nubes 3, and in perhaps two passages of Philo, De fuga 57 and Quis rerum 212. [But see the note of F. Colson and G. Whitaker on the latter passage, where they would read απέραντος, in their edition of Philo
(Loeb Library) IV.572. A.D.N.] Philo greatly influenced Clement. Clement uses απέραντος of God (II. 380. 14); but in III. 137. 15 he explains Dan. 3.55 (LXX),
Ευλογημένος εί 6 βλεπων αβύσσους, καθη μένος επί Χερουβίμ, with the words ό Δανιήλ λεγει, όμοδοζών τω Ένώχ τω είρηκότι " καί είδον τας ύλας πάσας ," άβυσσος γάρ το άπεράτωτον κατά την Ιδίαν ύπόστασιν, περαιουμενον δε τη δυνάμει του Θεού, αί τοίνυν ούσίαι ύλικαί, άφ'ών τα επί μέρους γένη καί τα τούτων είδη γίνεται, άβυσσοι είρηνται. Here άπεράτωτον almost certainly means "quite without limit" (as it does in Plutarch and Damascius, LSJ s.v.) and περαιουμενον means "being limited" or "bounded," the process of limitation being that by which particular genera are separated from undifferentiated matter. For this meaning of περαιόω see LSJ s.v., II. [In the letter the meaning "limitless" seems indicated by the contrast with στενή. B.E. In any event, the two senses are very close in Clement, Philo, and elsewhere, as in this text, where they are almost equivalent. C.M.] άβυσσον. The abyss into which the errant stars are cast for punishment appears in Enoch 21.2; cf. the use of Enoch in the preceding paragraph. Enoch is referred to in Jude 14, and Jude 13 has been quoted just above. Clement by implication compares drunkenness to an abyss in I.206.21, but this is hardly a parallel. πλανώ μενοι. Many instances of metaphorical use in connection with sensual indulgence, IV. 649-650. See below, on τον ζόφον του σκότους. σαρκικών καί ενσωμάτων. II.3i8.i7f, της αμαρτίας καί απείθειας σαρκικής τε ουσης καί ενσωμάτου καί νέκρας καί διά τούτο βδελυκτης. πεφυσιωμένοι. 1. 104.28, οι εις γνώσιν πεφυσιωμένοι ; cf. 1 . 1 2 1 . σφάς τελείους τινες τολμώσι καλεΐν καί γνωστικούς . . . φυσιουμενοί τε καί φρυαττόμενοι. All three passages come from I Cor. 8.1, η γνώσις φυσιοΐ. For the type of sentence incipit (nominative participle + γάρ + dependents of participle + verb), see, e.g., II.204.9flf; this was a structure Clement favored.
THE LETTER
I.5-6 w \ τον ον του ώς λ βγουσιν, " των βαθβων του Σατανα " λανθά νονσιν βΐς // σκοτους , ώς . . . Σατανα. Apoc. 2.24, εγνωσαν τα βαθεα του Σατανά, ώς λεγουσιν, of heretics whose doctrines lead them to commit adultery and eat things sacrificed to idols.
These are the followers of a prophetess whom the author of the Apocalypse calls Jezebel (2.20). He elsewhere attacks a party called the Nicola'itans and accuses them of teaching the same practices (2.i4f). Therefore the Nicolai' tans and the followers of Jezebel have often been identified. Clement knows the Nicola'itans, attributes to them similar practices, and therefore associates them, as this letter probably did, with the Carpocratians, whom he accuses of practicing community of wives (II. 177.
2ff; 207.17-208.9). His attempt to rescue the reputation of Nicholas is probably a sign of embarrassment that his opponents should be able to cite an authority so near the apostles. Clement knows the Apocalypse and quotes it often; Stahlin,
Citatenregister s.v. The claim to know the deep things of Satan is akin to Paul's claim to know the deep things of God, I Cor. 2.10, which is taken up by Clement (II. 1 16.
2 5f ; 517.26!), probably in deliberate contrast to gnostic claims (cf. below, II. 14, the conclusion of the note on άποκρίνου and the note on πρός). Perhaps the contrast was not so great as the terminology suggests [ του Σατανά was presumably an abusive comment by the Christian author— A. D.N.]. And in II.363.1-1 2 Clement warns that το βάθος της γνώσεως is not to be revealed to those whom it might scandalize
(a theme which recurs in II. 495. 2 if; evidently this secret doctrine was likely to be misunderstood). Hippolytus, Philosophumena V.6, says the name "gnostics" was taken by those φάσκοντες μόνοι τά βάθη γινώσκε ιν; and Irenaeus (Harvey II. 32. 6 =
Stieren, II.22.1) attacks the Valentinians for their claim "adinvenisse profunda
Bythi" (cf. Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos 1. 4). The Nicola'itans who appear in the Middle Ages — 1-333-30, scholion on 1. 224. 27— are probably irrelevant to the present discussion. λανθάνουσι. 1. 195.25; 251.16; etc., with participle as here. εις. See below, on άπορρίπτοντες. τόν ζόφον του σκότους. Continues the quotation of Jude 13; see above, on άστερες ττλανηται. The combination of πλανηται and σκότος made appropriate the intervening reminiscence of Wis. 5.6; see above, on από. The metaphor was a favorite with Clement: e.g., 1.63.17!, του σκότους ... τους π εττλανη μένους διανί στησιν. " εγειρε " φησίν, "ό καθευδων . . . καί επιφαυσει σοι ό Χριστός ," and especially the conclusion to Book III of the Stromateis — the book which deals particularly with libertine heretics and notably the Carpocratians: "μη πλανάσθαώ' φησίν, "ούτε πόρνοι ούτε είδωλολάτραι ούτε μοιχοί ούτε μαλακοί ούτε άρσενοκοΐται . . . βασιλείαν Θεού ου κληρονομησουσ ιν," και " ημείς" μεν " άπελουσάμεθα " . . . οι δε, εις ταυτην απολουοντες την άσελγειαν, εκ σωφροσύνης εις πορνείαν βαπτίζουσι . . . φευδωνυμου γνωσεως προσηγορια την εις το εξώτερον σκότος οδοιπορίαν επανηρημενοι (II. 246—247)? c^· ΠΙ. 65. 2 iff.
I I
1.6-7
THE LETTER
τον φευδους, εαυτούς αττορρίπτοντες' καί καυχώμενοι ελεύθερους είναι, του φεύδους. This looks like a gloss, but may possibly be original. There is a similar instance of abrubt explanation in Clement's Paedagogus 1. 1 29.1 iff: καθυλομανεΐ γάρ μη κλαδευομενη η άμπελος, ούτως δε καί 6 άνθρωπος, καθαίρει δε αυτόν τάς εζυβριζούσας παραφυάδας 6 λόγος, η μάχαιρα, καρποφορεΐν . . . άναγκάσας. The equation of darkness with falsity is a commonplace and is therefore common in Clement's works: L4.11;
20.24k (with πλανάσθε, from the Sibylline Oracles)', 81.20; 106.22; etc. [Perhaps του φεύδους is not an appositive explanation of του σκότους, put in the same case and to be included in commas. It could be an explicative genitive to the metaphor σκότους, so that here το σκότος του φευδους is put in the genitive through the connec tion with τόν ζόφον. Cf. το της άγνοιας σκότος, I.2o6.i2. For two genitives in succession, the one dependent on the other, cf. Blass-Debrunner, no. 168; also Dio Cassius,
L . 1 2 . 7? rrpo του στόματος του κόλπου του Άμπρακικοΰ. For a single word, like του φευδους here, adhering to a quotation as an explanation and grammatically connected with the words of the quotation, cf. Clement, 1. 57. 20, μητραγύρτης. A.W. However, the two genitives ζόφον του σκότους του φευδους sound too clumsy for this elaborate style. If not a gloss, του φευδους may perhaps be a variant to σκότους. Either gloss or variant seems likely. W.J. On the other hand, τοΰ φευδους seems necessary to provide a contrast to γνώσιν. B.E.] εαυτούς άπορρίπτοντες. 1 1. 454.9^ ol εν "Αιδου καταταγεντες καί εις απώλειαν εαυτούς εκδεδωκό τες καθάπερ εκ τίνος νεώς εις θάλασσαν εκόντες άπορρίφαντες. καυχώμενοι. II. 2 18.25, as here, the participle with a dependent infinitive. Used of heretics who deny marriage. Clement rather favored the word for abusing heretics
(IV. 508, eight references). This is a Pauline trait. ελεύθερους. I.269.31, etc. [The accusative in this construction is frequent in Greek of this period; see Radermacher, 181, and Schmid, II. 57; III.81; IV.83,620. εαυτούς may be supplied. A.D.N. Nevertheless, the construction in this letter is difficult.
The parallels in Radermacher and Schmid have for the most part expressed subjects of the infinitives and are not so hard as this instance, where the nominative participle is immediately followed by the accusative. Similarly Thucydides, I.12.1 and IV.84.2, where predicate adjectives of the infinitive are put into the accusative, are easier than that of this letter. If the text here is right, I can understand it only as influenced by the εαυτούς of the preceding line. A.W.] Cf. Apoc. 3.9: των λεγόντων εαυτούς
' Ιουδαίους είναι. In the preceding phrase, the writer had been thinking of Apoc. 2.24.
[If the text is corrupt, a possible emendation would be ελευθεροΰσθ at. C.H.R.] The content of the letter here is paralleled in II. 2 16.24, where gnostic libertines are described as λεγόντων ελευθερίαν την υπό ηδονης δουλείαν.
THE LETTER
1.7-8 1.8 δούλοι yeyovaaiv άνδραποδώδων επιθυμιών, τουτοις ούν άντιστατεον πάντη τε και πάντως, εί γάρ καί τι αληθές δούλοι. Slaves of the passions (also with the perfect of γίγνομαι ), 1.26. 12; cf. II. 2 16.24 in the preceding paragraph. II. 14.20, of the Greeks who seek after wisdom. Frequent; see Tsermoulas, 58. γεγόνασιν. γεγόναμεν, III. 15. IO. ελεύθερους είναι, δούλοι γεγόνασιν. [The style is antithetic throughout, but not in the naive, early rhetorical way of Attic prose. The antitheses are calculated to contrast words and reality, or different meanings of a word, apparent and real meaning, and so on. E.g., I.8f: he contrasts άληθεα with αλήθεια in a deeper sense and summarizes the contrast by saying (1. 9) ού γάρ πάντα τάληθη αλήθεια. We might compare the truth of certain facts of science with that of which the Christian gospel says, "I am the truth." And going even beyond that, he can contrast the seeming truth of human δόξαι and the true truth ( άληθης αλήθεια) which is based on faith. This sophisticated rhetoric should therefore not surprise us by its repetition of the same word, which indeed is not Clement's usual manner, but should be valued as a gen uine play on the various meanings of one and the same word ( άληθης-άληθεια ). W.J.] άνδραποδω 8ων. 1. 1 76.2 1 (of belchings). επιθυμιών. II. 237. 27) επιθυμία ις δεδουλω μένους. Frequent. τουτοις οΰν. Initial, Ι.27.1, etc. Again below, II. 10. άντιστατεον. Frequent (II. 2 12.19; 213.17; 240.18) in argument with the gnostics.
The form does not appear in Stahlin's index, but Clement was fond of these verbal adjectives (see below, on προκριτεον in 1. 10). Here the use of the verb is perhaps a reminiscence of I Pet. 5.9, ( τω διαβόλω ) αντί στητε. Clement quotes I Peter often,
5.7 in II.52. 1 6 and 5.10 in III.206.16. The directive to oppose the Carpocratians with might and main is repeated below, II. 10; it appears also in Epiphanius' attack on the sect, Panarion XXVII. 7, δει τοίνυν τουτους άνατρεπειν παντι σθενει. Evidently it was a rule accepted in the Church.
7 τάντη τε και πάντως. Verbatim, II. 51 1.24. ei γάρ καί . . . ούκ αν. Both with optatives, as here, in a "future less vivid" construc tion, II.420.20f. ei γάρ καί concessive and initial, with indicative, 1. 48. 22; 49.24;
57.8; etc.
!3 τι αληθές, αληθές τι, III.89.21; τι followed by an adjective, 1. 254.2 (τι βελτιον) ;
TO αληθές is frequent in Clement, though not indexed by Stahlin. The way the letter in the following lines harps on αληθές and its cognates is unlike Clement's usual concern for variation of terms (Tengblad, 4ff), but Clement sometimes uses repetition for emphasis (Tengblad, 4,22ff). Cf. the note on αλήθεια in the following line and Jaeger's note on ελεύθερους είναι, δοΰλοι γεγόνασιν, above.
1. 8-io
THE LETTER
λβγοιβν ούδ' οΰτω συμφωνοίη αν αύτοΐς 6 της άληθβίας Ιραστης. ουδέ γάρ Ι.ιο πάντα τάληθη αλήθεια. ούδε την κατά λέγοιεν. Clement uses λέγω in the present active optative nine times, according to Scham, 13. The use of the optative here in a "future less vivid" conditional clause is classically correct and is paralleled in II.30.13. This is a general considera tion. When the text comes to the particular case, in lines 12-13 below, it will use the indicative, περιέχει. ονδ'οντω. Neither ουδέ nor οΰτω is fully indexed by Stahlin, Ast, or Leisegang, but the combination with this sense is classical (Thuc. II. 76. 3; Lysias, 1. 14). συμφωνοίη άν. With the dative, II. 233. 20. The use of av is normal. (Clement's use of av is studied in Hort and Mayor in their Appendix B.)
6 της αλήθειας εραστής. III. 67. 3, τω της αλήθειας εραστή, in polemic against those who force Scripture to suit their own ends, without being orthodox. [The phrase is an echo of Plato, Republic Vl^oid. W.M.C.] The notion that 6 γνωστικός δέ αλήθειας έρα (II.252.8f) is fundamental to Clement's thought and is developed at length in the Stromateis, especially in Book IV. ουδέ γάρ . . . ουδέ. Neither . . . nor, I.4.5. 1 1 f (initial, as here), etc. τάληθη. II. 517. 14; III. 1 62. 1 1, with erasis; II. 465. 14; III. 66. 5, without crasis; these irregularities in the use of crasis are probably scribal, but Stahlin notes them also in the other MSS of Clement, IV.223 s.v. αλλά. Άληθη without the article, as a substantive, III. 39. 14, where Clement explains that the true Christian will some times lie, as might a doctor, for therapeutic purposes — a principle he justifies by appeal to the example of St. Paul (Acts 16.3; I Cor. 9.igf). [Cf. Philo, Questions ... on Genesis IV. 204. J.R.] It is characteristic of Clement to talk most of truth when recommending falsity. αλήθεια. For the contrast, τάληθη άληθεια, cf. II.509.22ff, οϋκουν ποτέ τάς επί μέρους άληθείας, καθ' ών η άληθεια κατηγορεΐται, αυτήν δέ την άληθειαν πολυπραγμονητέον: that is to say, one should study theology and not the subordinate sciences. This sort of play on words is a favorite of Clement's; Tengblad, 80, goes so far as to restore it by analogy when it is lacking; cf. Jaeger's note on έλευθέρους είναι, above in 1. 7.
(On the various meanings of άληθεια in early Christian usage, Bultmann, άληθεια,
242ff. The contrast here is evidently between his meanings [3] " wirklicheTatbestand" and [5] "die rechte Lehre, der rechte Glaube" or [61 "gottliche Wirklichkeit,
Offenbarung.") κατά. Mossbacher, 66 : numerous examples of this use.
THE LETTER
I.IO-I I 1. 1 1 τάς άνθρωπίνας δόξας φαινομενην αλήθειαν προκριτεον της αληθούς αλή θειας της κατά την πίστιν. των τοίνυν άνθρωπίνας δόξας. II.365.15, to describe the secret doctrines of the mystery cults.
(As these are hidden from the ignorant, how much more should the holy science of Christianity be hidden!) III.69.15, heretics who have not learned the mysteries of Christian gnosis, and are not able to grasp the greatness της αλήθειας , are motivated by άνθρωττίναις δόξαις (cf. 67.13 αιρέσεων ανθρωπίνων) . Δόξα opposed to αλήθεια ,
III. 46. 3i. [CH, Extr. IIA.7 — the whole of Extr. IIA illustrates this contrast between truth and human opinion. A.D.N.] κατα τας άνθρωπίνας δόξας. [The same phrase, but in the singular, Plato, Sophista
229a. This is skillful irony. Plato contrasted doxa with philosophia ; Clement now identifies Plato's philosophia as doxa. W.M.C.] φαινομενην αλήθειαν. ΙΙ.473Ί5, μερικής οΰν τυγχανουσης της κατά την 'Ελληνικήν φιλοσοφίαν εμφαινομενης άληθείας, ητω οντι αλήθεια (differs from it) . Cf. II. 63. 2, χωρίζεται δε η 'Ελληνική αλήθεια της καθ' ημάς, and ours, of course, is truer. III.64.27ff, one must distinguish την τω οντι αλήθειαν from the teaching of the heretics as true from wax fruit, and as το αληθές από του φαινομένου, φαινόμενος meaning "seeming," i. e. "false," is frequent in Clement; contrast classical usage, where δοκεΐν is usually
"seem and be not," φαίνομαι usually "appear to be and be." [In II. 473. 15 there is truth in the εμφαινομενη αλήθεια; its fault lies in being particular. Here, however, φαινομενη is "apparent" as opposed to "real." Clement perhaps did not here say δοκοΰσαν because that might have introduced a certain cacophony— δόξας δοκοΰσαν.
But the very word δόξας seems to have suggested to him the opposition of apparent to real. B.E.] προκριτεον. Clement is fond of these verbal adjectives in -τεος and -τεον, e.g.,
II. 3. iff; III.64.25ff (7 in 13 lines). This particular verb in this form, with genitive and accusative, as here, occurs in 1. 223. 19. [For the ablatival genitive, cf. Plato,
Apology 35b, and Kiihner-Gerth, 1. 393. W.M.C.] της αληθούς αλήθειας. The play on words is reminiscent of Plato, Theaetetus 162a,
171c. See above, on αλήθεια. Clement cites Plato more often than any other author outside Scripture; of his citations, those which stand nearest Theaetetus 162-171 are i55e in II.348.4ff; 173c in II.391.7ff.
της κατά την πίστιν. II. 64. 3? V κατά την πίστιν αλήθεια is contrasted to the inferior truth attained by Greek philosophy. των. Initial των with participle followed by τά μεν . . . τά δε, ΙΙΙ.94*2 1 ff ? °f· 24f>
95.4f,i8ff,2 7f. Further examples in Tengblad, 47. τοίνυν. Thus in 1. 9. 24; 10.20; etc. Frequent.
I.i i— i 2
THE LETTER
1. 12 θρυλονμβνων rrepl του θζοπνβυστου κατά Μάρκον evayyeX ίου, θρυλουμενων. Frequently contemptuous, as here; e.g., II. 13.5, τά θρυλουμεν a πρός τινων άμαθώς φοφοδεών, 213.28, etc. περί. Mossbacher, 69: many examples, περί with the genitive is used thus with θρυ λεΐν in Epicurus (H. Usener, Epicurea frag. 423). Aristotle, Historiae animalium
I.36, 620b. I of (τά . . . θρυλουμενα περί τον βάτραχον . . . εστιν αληθή ) is interesting as proof that our author sometimes did not use accusatives for which there were prece dents. θεόπνευστου. III.73.5ff, an attack on those who τά προσφυή τοΐς θεοπνευστοις λόγοις υπό των μακαρίων αποστόλων τε καί διδασκάλων παραδιδόμενα ε κοντές είναι, σοφίζονται δά αιρεσιν συστήσ ασθαι. Explicitly of Scripture, with quotation of II Tim. 3. 1 6f, in I.65. 7f. Again, III. 7 1.23. κατά Μάρκον ευαγγελίου. Verbatim, III. 163. 13. Nothing is said in the recognized works of Clement, or anywhere else in the heresiologists, about special use by the Carpocratians of a peculiar Gospel attributed to Mark. Hippolytus, Philo sophumena
VII. 30. i, speaks of refuting Marcionites by pointing out that the Gospel according to Mark does not contain material they had evidently claimed to find in it — but probably had found by exegesis. The material was hostile to the demiurge εκ τής άντιπαραθεσεως αγαθού καί καλού. This phrase might conceivably reflect material from the Carpocratian tradition quoted below (II. 3-4, at the end of the note on Carpocrates), "opposing" things truly good to things commonly believed to be so; but it might equally well reflect Marcionite doctrine, more or less misunderstood
(especially if κακού be read for καλού). Irenaeus (Harvey, III.11.10 = Stieren, III. 1 2.7) speaks of those qui autem Iesum separant a Christo , et impassibilem perseverasse
Christum , passum vero Iesum dicunt , id quod secundum Marcum est praeferentes evangelium.
This could have come from canonical Mark, 1.10 + 15.34 [but it is not likely that Irenaeus read Mark in this way — A.D.N.]. Irenaeus could have had the Carpocra tians in mind, but he adds cum amore veritatis legentes illud , corrigi possunt , and this is not like the things he said elsewhere about the Carpocratians; see Irenaeus
(Harvey, I.20.2 = Stieren, I.25.3), ad velamen malitiae ipsorum nomine abutuntur. On the other hand, Irenaeus is not always consistent. It is interesting that Harvey, in his note on this passage, was led to postulate the existence in Egypt of a secret
Gospel according to Mark — a conjecture which the present text confirms. But, al though no special connection with the Carpocratians is reported, the Gospel according to Mark was the most popular of the canonical Gospels with the gnostics in general
(which may account for its comparative neglect by the orthodox). Swete, xxxi, remarks on this and cites evidence of its use by Heracleon and other Valentinians, certain docetists, the Gospel of Peter , and the Clementine Homilies , esp. XIX.20.1: εΐπεν ήμΐν
"τά μυστήρια εμοί καί τοΐς υίοΐς του οίκου μου φυλάξατε ." διό καί " τοΐς αυτού μαθηταΐς κατ' ιδίαν επελυε ' ' τής των ουρανών βασιλείας τά μυστήρια. This probably uses Mk. 4. 1 I
Ι*ΐ3 I.I2-I3
THE LETTER
τα μεν φευδεται ττα ντελώς, τα si et καί άληθη τιν α περιεχει, ουδ' ούτως αληθώς παραδίδοται, and 4-34 as Pr°of of secret teaching by Jesus (Sanday, Gospels 1 79Γ) , and it quotes the preceding agraphon as if it came from the same Gospel. Now Clement of Alexan dria quotes, from some unknown author, a quotation of the same agraphon (in the form μυστήριον όμόν όμοί καί τοΐς υίοΐς του οίκου μου ) as written ev τινι εύαγγελίω
(II.368. 27. Ropes, Spriiche is mistaken in thinking the quotation continued from the preceding sentence, which comes from Barnabas 6.10. His attempt to explain τοΐς υίοΐς του οίκου μου as derived from a mistranslation of *»V is ludicrous.)
Resch1 correctly noted the Semitism, which suggests translation from a Hebrew original (i67ff). Taken over from Clement or the Clementina (?) and hellenized — τοΐς όμοΐς — the agraphon spread through Christian tradition, is preserved in Hilary
Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John of Damascus and in a contamination of some MSS of Symmachus and Theodotion on Is. 24.16 — where a literal mistrans lation of the Hebrew had yielded το μυστήριόν μου όμοί; Field, II. 470 n24; Resch1, i67ff, logf, 282. φζυδεται. Clement uses the verb in III. 40.6, as here; 1. 22. 25; etc. The usage is classical, LSJ s.v. A. II. παντελώς. Final, following verb, as here, 1. 2 74. 16; II. 3 1.6. cl καί. In a concessive, inserted clause, with the indicative, as here, II. 201. 7. In both instances what is conceded is probably no more than the facts of the particular case, el γάρ ... ου δη, both with indicative, 1. 221. 9-1 2. άληθη τινα. II. 55. 10, ev δε τοΐς φευδεσιν καί άληθη τιν α ελεγον οι φευδοπροφηται.
7Γ€ρΐ€χ€1. Of books, II. 13·1 ; 70*7; 71-23; 235-23; etcουδ' ούτως. With the indicative following εί καί, II. 305. 3 1-306.1 ; classical examples plentiful, LSJ s.v. ούτως. άληθώς. III. 43.29, etc. Frequent. The use here was determined by the concern to play on άλήθεια.
τταραδίδοται. The same form of the verb, III.41.11. Clement uses the verb for traditions he believes true, but he must have been aware that the heretics also handed down their teachings. Like θρυλουμόνων, which is also used for the doctrines of a sect, the word here suggests not commonly known, but specifically sectarian, tradition.
1. 14
I* *3 — *5
THE LETTER
-τούτο Ι.ϊ5 συγκεκραμόνα γάρ τάληθη τοΐς πλάσμασι παραχαράσσεται ώστε8η το λεγόμενον — " καί το άλας μωρανθηναι." συγκεκραμενα. The perfect middle participle (singular), III. 125. 12 [Extracts from Theodotus). For the structure, see above, 1. 5, πεφυσιωμένοι γάρ. πλάσμασι. Cf. Clement's usage, III. 70. 7, where the gnostics πάμπολλα συγκαττυουσι ψευσματα και πλάσματα, which are evidently synonymous. In the present instance the choice of πλάσμασι was probably determined by the desire not to repeat too often forms cognate with ψεύδομαι. Tengblad, 4IF, collects examples of Clement's use of such deliberate variation. [Further, the word πλάσματα had been used for religious fictions throughout pagan Greek theological language. Xenophanes of Colophon (Diels, frag. 1 .22) calls impious myths about the immorality of the Homeric and Hesiodic gods πλάσματα των προτέρων. For the way in which Critias imagined such πλάσματα to have been introduced into religious thought, see the great fragments taken from his satyr play, Sisyphus (Diels, frag. 25), and the comments in Jaeger,
Theology r86ff. W.J.] παραχαράσσεται. II.208.i9ff, καί των του κυρίου φωνών διαφεύδονται οί της άσελγείας κοινωνοί, οι της λαγνείας αδελφοί, όνειδος ου φιλοσοφίας μόνον , άλλα και παντός του βίου, οί παραχαράσσοντες την αλήθειαν μάλλον δε κατασκάπτοντες ώς ο ιόν τε αυτοί?' οί γάρ τρισάθλιοι την (τε') σαρκικήν καί (την) συνουσιαστικην κοινωνίαν ίεροφαντοΰσι καί ταυτην οίονται εις την βασιλείαν αυτούς άνάγειν του Θεού. Both the metaphor expressed by παραχαράσσεται and this verb to express it were favorites with Clement. Stahlin cites nine uses of the verb ( Register , s.v.). ώστε. Stahlin (IV.827 s-v·) remarks Clement's frequent use of ώστε with a following infinitive. τούτο δη το λεγόμενον. Verbatim. Interjected, as here, to introduce a following conventional expression, 1. 8. 9; 51.13. καί τό άλας μωρανθηναι. Mt. 5. 1 3, έάν δε το αλα? μωρανθη, εν τίνι άλισθησεται', = Lk.
14.34· The text here is closer to Lk., which differs from Mt. by beginning εάν δέ καί. Behind the choice of this proverb probably lies not only recollection of the context of these Gospel passages (and Mk. 9.50), which declare corrupted Christians fit only to be cast out, but also recollection of Jeremiah 28.17 (LXX) (= 10.14 Heb.) εμωράνθη πας άνθρωπος άπό γνώσεως . . . οτι ψευδή εχώνευσαν, ούκ εστιν πνεύμα εν αύτοΐς (and ff), which made the verse particularly appropriate for use against gnostics who had corrupted the Scriptures. This sort of multiple biblical allusion
THE LETTER
6 γοΰν Μάρκος is typical of Clement and would be very difficult for a forger to imitate. In III.183.23ff
Clement identifies as "the salt of the earth" those "more elect than the elect," "who hide away, in the depth of thought, the mysteries not to be uttered." The passage is clearly a description of orthodox gnostics, and the application to the Carpocratians of the saying about corruption of the salt suggests that Clement saw the Carpocratian secret society as a perverted parallel of similar secret groups within the Church.
The same suggestion is brought to mind by I.28i.25ff, where Clement argues that "we are the salt of the earth" (see below, II. 17, "we are the children of light") and therefore should not follow the libertines in their abuse of the Christian liberty of kissing. In quoting the phrase from the NT, Clement, like this letter, uses αλα?, elsewhere άλς. Greek proverbs frequently begin with καί; e.g. Stromberg, Proverbs
38, 60, 67, 73; Leutsch-Schneidewin, Corpus 1. 505; II. 809-8 10. It is possible that the Gospel saying reflected a popular proverb. Talmud Babli (hereinafter i?), Bekorot
8b, has, in a trial of wits, the question ,νγρπόϊ Nnbmn mb ,nb mb» xmo m xnbm .mo m Nnbmi ,Nnnmb anbrn mi "<(They asked R. Joshua ben Hananya, ca. a.d. 90:) 'When salt has lost its savor, with what can it be salted?' He said to them, 'With the after-birth of a female mule.'
<(They said,) 'But does any female mule have an after-birth?' <(He said) 'And does salt lose its savor?'" Billerbeck, on Mt. 5.13b, saw a slur on the story of the virgin birth in the reference to a she-mule's giving birth (a possibility which is also dismissed as absurd in the sentence just preceding the quotation). This may be correct, but even so the exchanges quoted may reflect either the popular saying, or polemic against the Christian one, or both. (The literature in Bauer, Wb. s.v. άλας, to which add Bauer, Sal, and Nauck, Salt, does not suffice to decide the question.) Note the five successive long syllables in the clausula; Clement often uses this ending, as it is used here, for emphasis.
6 γοΰν. Initial, 1. 201. 19; II. 188.27; 190.23; III. 165. 15. Clement often used it thus for introducing proof.
Μάρκος. We have three reports that Clement gave this account of the origin of
the second Gospel. Two come from Eusebius (HE II. 15 and VI. 14.5-7), and one from the Latin Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in Epistolas Canonicas, a translation and adaptation of parts of Clement's Hypotyposes, made in the early sixth century
(III. XL). These three are arranged on the two following pages in parallel columns with Eusebius' report of the same account as given by Papias of Hierapolis in Asia
Minor in the early second century.
!·ΐ5
THE LETTER
Eus., HE II. 15
Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in Epistolas Canonicas (III.206.17ff) Οϋτω δη ούν επιδημησαντος αύτοΐς του θείου λόγον η μεν του Σίμωνος άπεσβη καί παραχρημα συν καί τώ άνδρί καταλελυτο δυναμις. Τοσοϋτον
Marcus, Petri sectator praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam δ'επελαμφεν ταΐς των ακροατών του Πέτρου διανοίαις εύσεβείας φέγγος , ώς μη τη εις άπαξ ίκανώς όχειν άρκεΐσθαι άκοη, μηδε τη άγράφω
Caesareanis equitibus, et multa Christi testi monia proferente, petitus ab eis, ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare, τοϋ θείου κηρύγματος διδασκαλία, παρακλησεσιν δε παντοίαις Μάρκον, ου το ευαγγελ ιον φερεται, ακόλουθον όντα Πέτρου, λιπαρησαι ώς αν καί διά γραφής υπόμνημα της διά λόγου παραδοθείσης αύτοΐς καταλείφοι διδασ καλίας , μη πρότερόν τε scripsit ex his, quae a Petro dicta sunt, άνειναι η κατεργάσασθαι τον άνδρα, καί ταυτη αίτιους γενεσθαυ της τοϋ λεγομένου κατά Μάρκον ευαγγελίου γραφής, evangelium quod secundum Marcum voci tatur; γνόντα δε το πραχθεν φασι τον άπόστολον άποκαλυφαντος αύτώ τοϋ πνεύματος, ησθηναι sicut Lucas quoque Actus τη των άνδρών προθυμία κυρώσαί τε την Apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur, γραφήν εις εντευξιν της εκκλησίας. Κλημης εν εκτω των 'Υποτυπώσεων παρατεθειται την ιστορίαν, συνεπιμαρτυρεί δε αύτω καί ο et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam.
' Ιεραπολίτης επίσκοπος όνόματι Παπίας. τοϋ δε Μάρκου μνημονεύει τον Πέτρον εν τη προτερα επιστολή, ην καί συντάξαι φασίν επ' αυτής 'Ρώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοϋτ αυτόν, την πόλιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλώνα προσειπόντα διά τούτων, άσπάζεται υμάς η εν Βαβυλώνι συνεκλεκτη καί Μάρκος ο υιός μου.
THE LETTER
Eus., HE 111.39-15 (Papias) Eus., HE VI. 14.5-7 Αΰθις . . . περί της τάξεως των ευαγγελίων παράόοσιν των ανέκαθεν πρεσβυτερών τεθειται, καί τούτο ό πρεσβύτερος ελεγε · τούτον εχονσαν τον τρόπον, προγεγράφθαι ελεγεν των ευαγγελίων τα περιεχοντα τάς γενεαλογίας, το 8ε κατά Μάρκον ταύτην εσχηκεναι την οικονομίαν. Τού Πέτρου 8ημοσία εν 'Ρώμη κηρύξαντος τον λόγον καί πνεύμα tl το εύαγγελι ον εξειπόντος , τούς παρόντας, πολλούς όντας, παρακαλεσαι Μάρκος μεν τον Μάρκον, ώς αν άκολουθησαντα αύτω πόρρωθεν καί ερμηνευτής Πέτρου γενόμενος, οσα εμνημόνευσεν ακριβώς εγραφεν ου μεντοι μεμνημενον των λεχθεντων, άναγράφαι τα rage ι> τα νττο του Αριστου η Λβχυβντα ή είρημενα. ποιησαντα 8ε, το εύαγγελ lov πραχθεντα. ούτε γάρ ηκουσε τού κυρίου, ούτε παρη κολουθησεν αύτω, ύστερον 8ε, ώς εφην,
Πετρω, ος προς τάς χρείας εποιεΐτο τάς 8ι8ασκαλίας άλλ' ούχ ώσπερ σύνταξιν των κυριακών ποιούμενος λογιών, ώστε ού8εν μεταόούναι τοΐς 8εομενοις αυτού, όπερ επιγνόντα τον Πέτρον προτρεπτικώς μήτε κωλύσαι μήτε ημαρτε Μάρκος ούτως ενια γράφας ώς προτρεφασθαι . άπ εμνημόνευσεν. ενός γάρ εποιησατο πρόνοιαν, τού μη8εν ών ηκουσε παραλιπεΐν η φεύσασθ αί τι εν αύτοις. Ταύτα μεν οΰν ίστόρηται τώ
Παπία περί τού Μάρκου. Περί 8ε τού Ματθαίου ταύτ εΐρηται. Ματθαίος μεν οΰν ' Εβραΐ8ι
8ιαλεκτω τα λόγια συνεγράφατο, ηρμηνευσε αυτα ως ην δυνατός έκαστος. Κεχρηται ο αυτός μα ρτυρίαις από της Ίωάννου προτερας επιστολής καί από της Πέτρου ομοίως.
Ll5
THE LETTER
Eusebius remarked the similarity of Clement's account to that of Papias. The parallels between the passages make it seem that Clement relied on Papias for his statement about Mark and for the proof of it from I Pet. 5.13, which may have been the source of the whole story (though Papias attributed it to one John of Ephesus, a presbyter and a "disciple of the Lord," albeit not an apostle;
Eus., HE ΙΠ.39.4,15). But Clement had other sources, which he preferred to Papias, for his statements about Matthew and Luke, Acts and Hebrews. Moreover, even in respect to Mark he did not follow Papias closely. Papias wanted to defend Mark from charges of confusion, misrepresentation , and omission (charges which become sig nificant in the light of the present letter) . Clement wants to excuse him from writing down oral tradition and so making it potentially public — a charge against which he had to defend himself too; Stromateis Ei-17. He therefore develops the basic story, given by Papias, in his own fashion. His account has been further rewritten by Eusebius, especially in Π.15 (note the rhetorical larding and the contradiction of the report of Peter's reaction given in VI. 14.7). Harnack, it is true, denied that Eusebius' account in HE II. 15 came mostly from Clement and Papias. He maintained that the repeated φασίν in the text there must refer to a secondary tradition. The one solid piece of evidence in his argument was the statement (
Pseudopapianisches 160 n2) :
"For Clement, Babylon means the real Babylon." For this statement, however, I can find no justification. On the contrary, the passage from the Adumbrationes cited above (III.206.17ff) is a comment on I Pet. 5.13 and clearly supposes that the "Babylon" mentioned in that text is Rome. This disposes of Harnack's denial that the repeated φασίν in Eusebius ( HE II. 1 5f) refers to Clement and Papias. It is not, of course, necessary to suppose that both witnesses said everything there reported;
Eusebius is writing a summary based on both their reports. ["In comparison with the older descriptions of the importance of Peter for the Gospel of Mark, the letter stresses what Mark has done . . . Here nothing is said of Peter as the source of the Gospel of Mark. After Peter's death Mark goes to Alexandria with his own and Peter's hypomnemata— a remarkable change in the situation of the hermeneutes of Peter — and there he composes his second, more spiritual, Gospel; cf. the Canon
Muratori, quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit , if these words are to be understood as meaning that Mark had been an eyewitness to some of the doings of the Lord. In this way Mark is connected with Alexandria, and Mark, not Peter, is the authority behind his Gospel. As the general trend of patristic thought is to stress the part of Peter in the composition of the Gospel according to Mark, this letter seems to be an Alex andrian statement." J.M.] See below, Chapter Five, section I.
THE LETTER
I.I5-16 1. 16 ανέγραψε τάς πράξεις του Κυκατά την του Πέτρου iv 'Ρώμ,η διατριβήν, ρίου, κατά. For synchronism, Ι.42.15; 107.3; etc.; Mossbacher, 65. του Πέτρου έν 'Ρώμ,τρ III. ΐ97·2ΐ in Eusebius' summary of Clement's account,
HE VI. 14.6. Use of έν, 1. 35. 23, etc.; Mossbacher, 60. διατριβήν. In this sense, 1. 242.11. ανέγραψε. In Eusebius' summary, HE VI. 14.6, the Christians of Rome beseech
Mark άναγράψαι τα ειρημένα. Clement uses the verb often, IV. 232-233. See further the comment by J.M. on πνευματικώτερον εύαγγέλ ιον below, in 1.2 1—22. πράξεις. Perhaps by analogy from τάς πράξεις των άποστόλων, which Clement often cites by title, IV. 668 s.v. πράξις end. However, the usage here may reflect the influence of Papias, whose account of the origin of Mark's Gospel, we saw, probably influenced Clement. [Papias said Mark wrote τα υπό τοΰ Χριστοΰ λεχθέντα ή πραχθέντα
(Eus., HE ΙΙΙ.391 5) ? whh which compare Acts I.I, τον μεν πρώτον λόγον έποιησ άμην περί πάντων . . . ών ήρξατο 6 Ίησοΰς ποιεΐν τε και διδάσκειν. A.D.N.] Another source of influence may have been Roman imperial usage. The Res gestae divi Augusti , for instance, became in translation πράξεις . . . Σεβαστού θεού; Bauer, Wb. s.v.
[πράξεις were an established literary form, which the author of our πράξεις άποστόλων followed as his example. In retrospect, referring to both pagan and early Christian πράξεις, the author of this letter here calls the Gospel πράξεις, and perhaps he is right in assuming that the Christian Gospel form developed under the influence of such earlier types of writing. W.J.] του Κυρίου. Κύριος for Jesus; Stahlin has over six columns of references to particular instances, IV.529-533, nos. 3, 6, 10, 11.
1.17
1.16-17
THE LETTER
ον μέντοι πάσας έζαγγελλων, ουδέ μην τάς μυστικας ον μεντοι πάσας εξαγγελλων. ["Origen in his commentary on Mt. < GCS , Origenes, vol io, 1.2, p. 441) by his treatment of the parable, Mt. 20.1-16, showed himself convinced that Matthew knew the secrets (or mysteries) of this parable as well as those of the parables of the sower and of the tares, but kept silent about them.
He did not make known everything which was revealed because he was aware of the danger." J.M., comparing Origen's defense of Matthew to the praise of Mark in this letter.] ού μεντοι. "Not, however," 1. 208. 28; see also II. 329. 28. όξαγγελλων. Clement uses this only once, II. 43. 9, for a prophet's declaring the decree of the goddess Lachesis (Fate), Plato, Republic 6iyd. The use here is probably determined by the word's connotation, "betray a secret" ( LSJ s.v.). It is used else where with this sense concerning the mystery cults; e.g., Epictetus (Arrian), III. 21. 16, where, having assimilated the teachings of philosophy to the secrets of the Eleusinian mysteries, the philosopher complains, συ δ' εξαγγέλλεις αυτά καί εξορχη παρά καιρόν, παρά τόπον, άνευ θυμάτων, άνευ άγνείας· ούκ εσθητα 0χεις ην δει τον Ιεροφάντην, etc. ουδέ μην. " Nor yet." Frequent. Following ού, 1-45-6 ; 50·2 1 ff; 206.5 i etc. μέντοι . . . ούδε μην I have not found in Clement. μνστικάς. Clement uses this often, both in the sense of "secret" and in that of "pertaining to the mysteries"; it is impossible to prove which is intended here.
Clement uses it in II.496.17 of Jesus' teaching: The Holy Spirit spoke obscurely through the prophets in order to prove that all gentile sages ignored την εσομενην του κυρίου παρουσίαν και την απ' αυτού παραδοθησομενην μυστικήν διδασκαλίαν. But this probably refers to all his teaching, as hidden from former ages, while the reference in the letter is to certain actions as symbolic or secret or connected with a mystery, by contrast with others which were not. [Most likely, as having symbolic meaning, but the use with πράξεις is surprising. A.D.N. C.M. also thinks that the sense of μυστικάς is "having symbolic meaning"; Clement considers the person and the actions of Jesus himself as being par excellence the μυστήριον εμφανες.\
[If the letter is by Clement, it may be that an original τε καί λεξεις following πράξεις — as in Acts 1.1 — has dropped out. A.D.N.] The combination of πράξεις
καί λεξεις not only is found in Acts and Papias (who was ignorant of Luke-Acts), but also is adumbrated in Mk. 6.2,30. Cadbury ( Making 50) thinks it may be older than Lk. Although Clement does not use μυστική with the general term πράξις he does use it with terms indicating particular actions, things, or rituals: μυστικόν φίλημα, I.281.9; τό μυστικόν του άρτου, 1. 1 1 7.29. Julius Pollux lists as usual usage έργων μυστικών (1. 1 7) and τέλη μυστικά (1. 36).
THE LETTER
I.I7-18 I.l8 ύποσημαίνων άλλ' βκλβγόμβνος ας χρησιμωτάτας βνόμισβ προς αυξήσω ύποσημαίνων. Clement uses the verb to mean "indicate," with no connotation of obscurity, II. 250.1 — τοΐς οδόν άπιούσιν ην ονκ ΐσασιν άρκεΐ την φορούσαν ύποσημηναι μόνον. (Here the context shows the meaning is "merely indicate," as opposed to "describe in detail.") III. 162.5, ,(77/' έσχατη σάλπ ιγξ ύι τοσημηνη . . . της εντεύθεν εξόδου; I.ioi.8f, τοϋτό tol <(an extremely dubious significance of νηπιος'} σαφέστατα
6 μακάριος Παύλος ύπεσημηνα το είπών <(Ι Thess. 2.7 )>· In spite of the σαφέστατα Paul did not say it explicitly, but perhaps implied it. The implicit contrast with εξαγγελλων in the preceding phrase of the letter probably determines the meaning here as the classical one, "indicate obscurely" or "hint at"; so LSJ. Clement also uses ύποσημείωσις — although in a different sense — in a context where the general thought and vocabulary are so close to this letter as to deserve quotation at length (Il.g.qff) :
'AXX οι μεν την άληθη της μακαρίας σωζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν ευθύς από Πέτρου
. . . ηκον δη συν Θεω και εις ημάς τα προγονικά εκείνα και άποστολικά καταθησόμενοι σπέρματα' και ευ οίδ ' ότι άγαλλιάσονται, ούχ ι τη εκφράσει ησθέντες . . . μόνη δε τη κατά την ύποσημείωσιν τηρησει. ποθουσης γάρ οίμαι φυχης την μακαρίαν παράδοσιν άδιάδραστον φυλάττειν . . . η και ου κεκώλυκεν 6 κύριος άπο άγαθοϋ σαββα τίζειν, μεταδιδόναι δε των θείων μυστηρίων καί τού φωτός εκείνου τού άγιου τοΐς χωρεΐν δυναμενοις συγκεχώρηκεν' αύτίκα ου πολλοΐς άπεκάλυφεν ά μη πολλών ην, ολίγοις δε, οίς προσηκειν ηπίστατο . . . τά δε απόρρητα, καθάπερ ό Θεός, λόγω πιστεύεται, ου γράμματι . . . τά μυστήρια μυστικώς παραδίδοται . . . Ή μεν οΰν τώνδέ μοι των υπομνημάτων γραφή . . . επαγγέλλεται . . . ούχ ώστε ερμήνευσα ι τά άπόρρητα ίκανώς, πολλοΰ γε καί δει, μόνον δε το ύπομνησαι. [it should be noted that in the letter the explicit contrast is between both εξαγγέλλων and ύποσημαίνων on the one hand and εκλεγόμενος on the other. A.D.N.] άλλ\ For emphasis after a string of negatives, II.117.18f; 241.20; 465.136^ etc. έκλεγόμενος. Frequent in middle with accusative, IV. 373. With χρήσιμον, II. i 14.29, το εξ άπάσης παιδείας χρήσιμον εκλεγόμενους ημάς εχειν, see 1 1
. 2 1 . 7
· χρησιμωτάτας. The superlative, II. 113.15? with πρός, 1. 264.21; II. 1 7.32 ; Mossbacher, 73-74.
ενόμισε. Judge to be, consider, 1. 17.25; II. 12.20. αύξησιν. Frequent in Clement. With πίστις, II.327.8ff, φαίνεται οΰν ό απόστολος διττήν καταγγέλλων πίστιν, μάλλον δε μίαν, αύξησιν καί τελείωσιν επιδεχομένην. The context declares, as does the text here, that faith can be increased by learning.
1. 1 8
THE LETTER
της των κατηχουμένων πίστβως. τον Se Πέτρου μαρτυρησαντος , κατηχουμένων. Used thus as a technical term for persons receiving instruction pre paratory to admission to the sacraments, II. 13.25; 476.19. The motivation ascribed to Mark here, by the letter, is strikingly similar to that Clement claims for himself,
II.476. i8f, τα) δ'άπανθι ζομένω το χρειώδες εις ωφέλειαν των κατηχουμένων . In 11.494· iif Clement, arguing from the example of St. Paul, implies, as does this letter, that catechumens may be left without full information — not to say misinformed — in order to protect their faith: αύτίκα 6 Παύλος τον Τιμόθεον περιέτεμεν διά τούς εξ
' Ιουδαίων πιστεύοντας , ΐνα μη, καταλύοντος αυτού τα εκ τού νόμου σαρκικώτερον προειλημμένα, άποστώσι της πίστεως οι εκ νόμου κατηχούμενοι, ειδώς ακριβώς ότι περιτομή ου δίκαιοι' τοΐς πάσι γαρ πάντα γίγνεσθαι ώμολόγει, κατά συμπεριφοράν σωζων τά κύρια των δογμάτων, ΐνα πάντας κερδηση. (Cf. Acts 1 6. 3; Gal. 5»2ff; I Cor. 9. 1 9— 22.) [The sense of κατηχούμενοι in II.494.11ff seems, however, to be general rather than technical, and it is the general sense which the term in the letter probably has, if the letter is by Clement. A.D.N. So, too, C.M. On the other hand, W.J. wrote, in substance: It is interesting to see how Clement's classification of early Christian literature takes for granted, as a criterion, the suitability of each book for the classes of Alexandrian religious instruction, κατηχούμενοι and τελειούμενοι (inf., 1. 22). Such classification perhaps produced the concept of a secret Gospel, which Mark did not disclose to the simpliciores. This concept, in turn, may have caused imaginative people to interpolate the canonical Gospel of Mark and add to it their particular kind of gnosis, like that of the Carpocratians. Clement himself believes in a secret
Gospel; he objects only to the Carpocratian "mixture" by interpolation. Such Christian fictions of secret or esoteric versions of their accepted holy books seem to follow the trend of Greek philosophers in Hellenistic times, to distinguish an exoteric from an esoteric kind of Pythagoreanism and Platonism, and, finally, to forge such a pseudoliterature as we still have under allegedly ancient Pythagorean names. Also, the misinterpretation of Aristotle's λόγοι εξωτερικοί (dialogues) — as opposed to the esoteric writings (treatises) which were "hypomnemata" — must be understood as a consequence of this later trend.] τού δέ Πέτρου. With the article, I.116.11 ; 277.5; 283.5; etc. τού Πέτρου in genitive absolute, beginning a sentence, III. 197.21 (Eusebius' summary of Clement). Genitive absolute in the beginning of a narrative to indicate the time after which the events occurred, III. 188.3,12. The repetition of proper names, found here and again below
(ο Μάρκος ) is a marked characteristic of both the Eusebian summaries (above, 1. 15). μαρτυρησαντος. The only reference to Peter's death in Clement's recognized works has κοιμάω, III. 1 06. 24, but the context there would make a reference to the martyr dom intrusive. Clement regularly uses μαρτυρεΐν as a technical term with the sense it has here — to undergo martyrdom, II. 254. 27; 285.14; etc. [The earliest use in
1.18-19
THE LETTER
I-I9 παρηλθεν els ' AXe£av8peiav ό Μάρκος, κομίζων και τά [τ] αΰτοΰ και this technical sense seems to be not in the NT, but in Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 5.4; therefore this appearance in Clement of Alexandria is interesting.
W.J.] Swete, xxv, remarks that Clement of Alexandria differs from the Asiatic tradition about Mk. (Irenaeus — Harvey, III. 1.2 = Stieren, III. 1 . 1 , etc.) by repre senting the Gospel as composed before Peter's death. The present letter shares this
Clementine peculiarity. [This is an important argument for authenticity. E.B.] παρηλθεν. II.96.13; cf. LSJ s.v. Ill, "pass on and come to a place," which is the sense here. εις. Regularly used with παρέρχομαι ; see the passages cited in the preceding paragraphs and Mossbacher, 55.
'Αλεξάνδρειαν. Without the article after εις, 1. 37.17; after εν, II. 86. 8; 92.12.
Μάρκος. The tradition that Mark came to Alexandria does not appear in the pre served works of Clement, but Clement and Papias were probably the sources from which it was drawn by Eusebius ( HE II. 16). The φασίν which now stands in the first sentence of II. 16, if not used impersonally, should refer to Clement and Papias, who were named as the sources of information in the preceding sentence. [C.M. thinks this suggestion concerning the subject of φασίν plausible. J.M., however, argued that because, "we have no tradition . . . about Mark's connection with Alexandria before Eusebius {HE II. 16)," therefore this letter depends on Eusebius.] κομίζων. In Clement this verb usually means "provide"; but the sense it has here,
"carry away so as to preserve, carry, convey, bring" ( LSJ s.v. II), is common in classical authors and perhaps appears in metaphor in II.29.16f, ό δέ προς τον βίον άναφέρων έκαστα τον ορθόν, εκ τε των 'Ελληνικών και των βαρβαρικών υποδείγματα κομίζων, πολύπειρος οΰτος της αλήθειας ιχνευτής', cf. II. 256.96, σοφίσματα εις μέσον κομίζοντες. [The verb is often used of introducing and, in that sense, "bringing" a doctrine; Bonitz, Index 402b23ff. Here it seems to mean simply "bring" from one place to another, but the extension of this meaning to the former is well illustrated by the passage. W.J.] Jerome, De viris inlustribus 8, writes of Mark, "adsumpto itaque evangelio quod ipse confecerat perrexit Aegyptum." Swete, xix ni, thinks this an inference from Eus., HE II. 16.
καί . . . τ' . . . καί. [If one reads και τά r' a υτοϋ καί τά του Πέτρου, which I find preferable to τά έαυτοϋ, the καί . . . καί cannot mean "both . . . and," because a τέ cannot be combined with a καί in this manner, but the last καί must be connected with the τέ and the first καί is connected closely with κομίζων and stands for "also."
He carried with himself also his own and Peter's hypomnemata. A.W.]
1. 19-20
THE LETTER
1.20 τα του Πέτρου υπομνήματα τα αύτοΰ. MS, ταταντοΰ. [A.D.N. would read τά τ' αυτόν , on the supposition that the copyist did not understand the letters he found in his MS and so reproduced them en bloc.\ This would suggest that he may have had before him a MS without accents and breathings. [But had that been the case, there would have been many more instances of omitted accents and of false divisions. I suspect that an ancestor had τά αύτοΰ, which became ταντοϋ. This can represent either τά αύτοΰ, or του αύτοΰ.
To show that it represented τά αύτοΰ someone superscribed τά — hence ταταντοΰ. καί τά τ' αύτοΰ καί is odd Greek; I should expect καί τα αύτοΰ or (omitting καί ) τά τ € αύτοΰ. Β.Ε.] Stahlin, I.XXXVIf, remarks on the frequency with which his manu script used αύτοΰ, etc., after articles, in place of the reflexive forms, and omitted the coronis in erasis. However, I think the error here must be given an explanation which will accord with the amazing correctness of the rest of the MS. I should suppose, therefore, that the writer found a folio of an uncial MS with few or no explanatory signs or word divisions. Therefore he studied it carefully, correcting the spelling, marking the divisions, adding accents, breathings, and the like. Along with his other changes he indicated by a superscribed τά, as B.E. suggests, that Τ ΑΥΤΟΥ, which stood in his text, was to be understood as τά αύτοΰ. Then he copied his corrected text into his book. He was pressed for time when he copied, and therefore made a number of minor mistakes, of which ταταντοΰ was one. ύπο μνήματα. Clement uses this often for his own writings, occasionally for those of others; e.g., II. 73.25. He apparently uses it to mean "notes" or "papers," as it probably does here [and this is the regular usage — W.J.]. Eusebius, in his summary of Clement, HE II. 15, describes the cononical Gospel according to Mark as a ύπόμνημα. [The word is normally used in the singular to mean simply "book."
W.J. J.M. thought it derived from Eusebius; see his comment on πνευματικώτερον εναγγελιον below, 1.2 1-22.] For the customary use of ύττομνήμ ατα to describe either private notebooks or works composed without attention to arrangement of material, or not in finished form, Lazzati, 24; Lieberman, Hellenism 87; Munck, Untersuchungen
39; Jaeger, Studien 135; Hyldahl, 75ff. The term could also mean, generally, "docu ments"; e.g., Eus., HE VI. 1 2. i. Justin Martyr knew απομνημονεύματα "of Peter,"
Dialogue 106.3 [and "of the apostles," First Apology 67.3 — W.V.] and quoted from them material now to be found only in Mk. 3.16! Clement quotes as statements of Peter material from Mt., Mk., Acts, I Tim. (! I.233.ioff), I Pet., the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter', but he also had a good deal of information about Peter from a source or sources now lost, and he seems to have made use of this information in those of his own works which have also been lost — or suppressed:
I.220. 15; 453. 1 1 fT;3 III.46. iff; 196. 12 (?) ; 22ff; 197. 1 7ff ; 32ff; 198.201!; 1 99.2 1 ff
3. Probably not from the Preaching·, it differs in type of content from the Preaching material which precedes it in this passage of Clement, and it circulated separately (Eus., HE V.18.14, where it is reported as ώς εκ παραδόσεως) .
1.20
THE LETTER
εξ ών μετά φερων (cf. II.466.9); 2o6.i7ff; 230.2ff(?). Of these 11 passages, the last 8 come from works of Clement now lost, and at least 1 is of typically gnostic content — III. 199.2 if, from Eus., HE 1 1 . 1 . 4E, which reports that Clement said Ίακώβω τω δικαίω και Ιωάννη καί Πέτρω μετά την άνάστασιν παρέδωκεν την γνώσιν 6 κύριος. It is precisely from these apostles and Paul that Clement claims his teachers had received, evidently by private tradition, and handed on to him the essential teachings of the Lord.
Thus 1 1 . 9 ·4ίΤ : Οι μεν την άληθη της μακαρίας σώζοντας διδασκαλίας πα ράδοσιν ευθύς άπο Πέτρου re και ' Ιακώβου , Ίωάννου re και Παύλου των αγίων αποστόλων παΐς παρά πατρος έκδεχόμενος . . . ηκον δη συν Θεω και εις ημάς τα προγονικά έκεΐνα και άποστολικά καταθησόμενοι σπέρματα. This is not merely the public Christian tradition. See the context of the passage (it has been quoted above, on ύποσημαίνων, 1. 17). It definitely refers to a body of secret doctrine. Other gnostics also claimed to have secret tradi tions derived from Peter; Clement mentions particularly the followers of Basilides, whose teacher, Glaucias, had been Peter's "interpreter" (III. 75. 16), and those of Valentinus, whose teacher had been Theodas, an acquaintance of Paul's. The books accepted as authoritative by Clement and his friends — those books of which some eventually became "The New Testament" — seem to have said nothing of Glaucias and Theodas, but some books accepted as authoritative by Basilides and his friends similarly said nothing of Peter's "interpreter," Mark (Eus., HE III. 39. 15) or of Paul's acquaintance, Luke (unknown even to Papias), from whom the party Clement represents claimed to have gotten their traditions. And Basilides (fl. ca. 135) was considerably earlier than Clement (fl. 175-200). The claim to have apostolic tradi tions was common in the ancient church and, since new apostolic traditions were discovered to settle new disputes as they arose, it must have been believed that the traditions had been secret before the times of their fortunate discovery. Therefore, this common method of doctrinal argument presupposes a general belief in a considerable body of secret apostolic traditions to which privileged members of the clergy [and perhaps other privileged persons — J.R.] had access. For example, see the material quoted from Eusebius by Holl, 175, on the claim of a secret tradition about the date of the Pascha [and cf. Eus., HE V.25 — A.D.N.]. The system by which the dates of the festivals were set was a most important element of the secret doctrine of the Samaritans, and probably also of the Qumran sect (Bowman, Calendar 24,27), as of rabbinic Judaism. On the public tradition about secret traditions, see A. D.
Nock in Gnomon 29 (1957) 527-528. έξ ών μεταφέρων. Έκ is used to refer to taking material from a book or books,
in II. 435. 3; again, with μεταφέρειν, as here (II.442.20f) Αριστοφάνης . . . iv ταΐς πρώταις Θεσμοφοριαζούσαις τά έκ των Κρατίνου Έμπιπραμένων μετηνεγκεν έπη. The context is concerned with examples of plagiarism, so the verb almost certainly means
"took over," not "remodeled"; cf. line 10 of the same page, Εύροις δ' αν . . . "Ομηρον
1.20-2 I
THE LETTER
1. 21 βϊς τό πρώτον αυτόν βιβλίον τα τοΐς προκόπτουσι περί την γνώσιν els. Clement uses with μεταφερε iv, but metaphorically, III. 17 1.3 1. The literal use is, of course, well established; e.g., Plato, Timaeus 73c. πρώτον. For πρότερον; so II.442.20ff, quoted above; also III. 118.4; noted by Stahlin, IV. 691. [Cf. Acts 1.1. W.M.C.] βιβλίον. Frequent in this sense in Clement; II. 5 1.3, etc. προκόπτουσι περί. II.473.9ff, °^κ άπολειφθησεται τοίννν <(ο γνωστικός') των προκοπτόντων περί τάς μαθήσεις τάς εγκυκλίους και την 'Ελληνικήν φιλοσοφίαν. Parallels to the use of περί, Mossbacher, 70b [That προκόπτουσι is to be understood here in accord with this usage of Clement's, as meaning "whatever things make for headway" rather than "the persons advancing" toward gnosis, is proved by the concluding phrase of the sentence, where των τελειουμενων makes the antithesis to των κατηχου μένων above. Were not the sense of προκόπτουσι that indicated by the Clementine parallel, the antithesis would be spoiled by its intrusion and the last phrase would be tautologous. Parallels are found in Thuc., IV. 60. 2, and Sextus Emp., Pyrroneion
Hypotyposeon II. 240. A.D.N. C.H.R. comments, " προκόπτω appears with τα έργα as its subject in a third century papyrus quoted in F. Preisigke, Papyrusworterbuch; but I find it very hard to take it here otherwise than in a personal sense." A.W. is of the opinion that τοΐς προκόπτουσι " must " stand for "the persons advancing." He ob serves that the προκοπτόντων in Thuc. IV. 60. 2 has a personal subject, while in Sextus
Emp. Pyr. Hyp. II. 240 the subject is τόν λόγον. W.V. is of the same opinion, remark ing that if τοΐς προκόπτουσι refers to the persons we have an orderly progression, των κατηχουμένων — τοΐς προκόπτουσι — των τελειουμενων , in which this second term is a nec essary connective between the first and the third.] But if so, how are we to explain that by adding to his text things suitable for τοΐς προκόπτουσι he produced a gospel for the use of των τελειουμενων ? This difficulty seems to me to require either the unlikely equation of τοΐς προκόπτουσι with των τελειουμενων or the translation pro posed by A.D.N. and confirmed by the striking parallel in Clement. [But why, then, κατάλληλα? Wouldn't τα προκόπτοντα περί την γνώσιν be enough? Β.Ε.] No, the meaning is not the same. Clement's point is that Mark did not write down the essen tials of the secret doctrine, but merely things suitable to lead the initiates toward these essentials. It would seem, therefore, that Clement's wording here is precise
(and precisely answers the objection that the letter cannot be by him because he thought the gnostic tradition unwritten; see below, on συνεταξε). γνώσιν. III. 36. 29 ; Ι42·3> πίστεως καί φόβου προκόφας εις γνώσιν άνθρωπος. This phrase expresses those conceptions of faith as inferior to knowledge, and of the believer's advance from faith to knowledge, which are also implied by the letter and by many other passages in Clement's works: e.g., III. 41-42; II.187.33f.
THE LETTER
1. 21 κατάλληλα συνέταξβ κατάλληλα. Frequent with the dative, and of spiritual suitability: e.g., 1. 149.25;
268.2; etc. συνεταξε. Clement regularly uses this for the composition of books, IV. 734 (13 instances). A tradition that Mark wrote in Egypt is preserved by Chrysostom and certain NT MSS; Swete. xxxix. [In this account of Mark's writing a second, "more spiritual," Gospel W.V. finds the principal theological motive of the letter and the conclusive proof that it is not by Clement. Clement knows a gnostic tradition within the Church, but for him the characteristic of this tradition is that it is unwritten; cf. Volker, 363b Gnosis is that κατά δια δοχάς els ολίγους εκ των αποστόλων άγράφως παραδοθεΐσα (II.462.28f). Accordingly, Clement says explicitly ούκ εγραφον δε οί πρεσβυτεροί (111.144*26), and only this fact explains why the Stromateis begin with Clement's self-defense for having broken with this custom and written down the tradition. Consequently III. 145. 5-1 5 cannot mean that the gnostics within the Church had secret books; the reference must be merely to written confirmatory evidence of the oral tradition, in the sense of Stromateis 1. 1 ( = II. 1 . 1 ff )
. Consequently, too, the present letter is not by Clement. Further evidence for this conclusion is found in the fact that the letter reflects a Church more highly institutionalized than that known to Clement — one which inherits property and of which presbyters are ecclesiastical officials rather than spiritual teachers (see below, on 1. 28 and II. 5).
The date of the letter is to be determined by two considerations: on the one hand, the gnostic controversy is still a living issue; on the other hand, the ecclesiastical organization has become fixed and established in the ways mentioned.] However, it must be pointed out that: (1) This letter does not say that Mark, in his second
Gospel, wrote down the gnostic tradition. On the contrary, it is careful to deny that he did so (1. 22-24). He merely added to his former Gospel material he knew would serve as points of departure to those instructed more fully (see above, end of the paragraph on τοΐς προκόπτονσό). (2) Mark was not a presbyter, and there is no doubt that Clement thought Mark did write, so Clement's statement that the presbyters did not write is no evidence as to what Clement thought Mark wrote.
(3) Stromateis I.i is not an apology for breaking with the tradition that instruction should be oral only. Clement never in this chapter mentions any such tradition; on the contrary, he repeatedly takes for granted that Christian instruction is already both oral and written (II. 4.24^ 6.12; 8.3). He could hardly do otherwise, since he goes on in the Stromateis to quote a great deal of written Christian literature. Moreover,
Harnack agreed with Mercati that even some of the passages Clement reports as "traditions" were before him in written form {Fragment 903). Whether or not Clement thought any secret Christian material was in writing he does not explicitly say in this chapter; but his concession that it is impossible that secret material, if written down, should not fall into the wrong hands (II. 1 i.qf) would be more under standable if he had known of some material which had done so — for instance,
Mark's second Gospel, which the Carpocratians had got hold of. Further, Clement
1. 21-22
THE LETTER
1.22 ττνζυματικώτερον euayyeAi ov does not, in Stromateis I.i, defend himself for writing down the gnostic tradition.
Instead, he is at pains to say that he did not write down this tradition, and he says so in words strikingly similar to those used in this letter to say the same thing about Mark (compare Clement II.10.17— i i.ii with the letter 1. 22-24 and 27). Clement's defense in Stromateis I.i is against the charge of presumption, which might be brought for his writing at all, the charge of indiscretion, for making the truth available to the wrong people, and the charge of frivolity, for decking out Christian doctrine with philosophic argumentation. Volker's misunderstanding is admittedly the communis opinio (recently repeated by Osborn, Teaching 340) ; but I can find nothing in the text to justify it, nothing which says or even implies that Clement's undertaking was a radically new departure or that there were no previous Christian writings of the same sort. (Since there certainly were, and Clement knew them and had made excerpts from them, it is not surprising that he does not deny their existence.) (4) III. 144.26-145. 15 deserves quotation at length: Ούκ εγραφον δε οι π ρεσβύτεροι μήτε άπα σχολεΐν βουλόμενοι την διδασκαλικήν της παραδόσεων φροντίδα . . . μηδε μην τον . . . καιρόν καταναλίσ κοντές εις γραφήν, τάχα δε ουδέ της αυτής φύσεως κατόρθωμα τό συντακτικόν καί διδασκαλικόν είδος είναι πεπεισμένοι τοΐς εις τούτο πεφυκόσι συνεχώρουν. τό μεν γάρ άκωλύτως καί μετά ρύμης φερεται ρεύμα του λεγοντος . . . τό δε υπό των εντυγχανόντων εκάστοτε βασανι ζόμενον, ακριβούς της εξετάσεως τυγχάνον, άκρας καί της επιμελείας άξιοΰται, καί εστιν οίον ειπεΐν έγγραφος διδασκαλίας βεβαίωσις, καί εις τούς όφιγόνους ούτως διά της συντάξεως παραπεμπομενης της φωνής, η γάρ των πρεσβυτερών παρακαταθήκη διά της γραφής λαλοΰσα υπουργώ χρηται τω γράφοντι προς την παράδοσιν ζείς σωτηρίαν') των εντευξομενων . . . φθόνος δε άπείη γνωστικού, διά τούτο γάρ καί ζητεί πότερον χείρον , άναξίω δούναι η άξίω μη παραδούναι , καί κινδυνεύει υπό πολλής της αγάπης ου μόνον παντί τω προσηκοντι, άλλ' εσθ' οτε καί άναξίω λιπαρώς δεομενω κοινωνησειν, ου διά την δεησιν . . . άλλά διά την επιμονήν τού δεόμενου μελ ετώντος εις πίστιν διά πολλής της δεησεως. This seems to me reasonably plain and complete justification for my statement below (II. 5) that Clement thought the teaching of the presbyters "had been oral, but now, written down, formed part of the body of secret Christian tradition — and was sometimes indiscretely communicated to the unworthy." How Volker knows that this can not mean that the gnostics in the Church possessed secret books, I do not understand.
Accordingly, his basic reason for supposing the letter not by Clement fails to convince me. On the other considerations — the Church's inheritance of property, the use of "presbyter" to refer to a church official — see below, on I.28 ( κατελιπε ) and II. 5 (πρεσβύτερον) . πνεύμα τικώτερον εύαγγελ ιον. III. I97-27ff> τον μεντοι Ίωάννην έσχατον . . . πνεύμα τι θεοφορηθεντα πνευματικόν ποιησαι εύαγγελ ιον. This is Eusebius' report ( HE VI. 1 4. 7) of what Clement said in the lost Hypotyposes ; it is confirmed by the Latin version of Clement's Adumbrationes on I John (III. 209. 25Q , Consequenter evangelio secundum Iohannem
1.22
THE LETTER
£ts" την των τ€λ€ίουμ€νων χρησιν et convenienter etiam haec epistola principium spiritale continet. Clement uses the comparative form of the adjective in II. 465. 34^: στοιχειωτικη τις εστιν ή μερική αυτή φιλοσοφία, της τελείας όντως επιστήμης επεκεινα κόσμον περί τα νοητά και ετι τούτων τα πνευματικώτερα άναστ ρεφομενης. πνεύμα τικώτερον as an adverb, to describe an under standing of the hidden sense of Christian teachings, II.370.18f. Here it is used to describe Mark's second Gospel as "more spiritual" than his first because it contained or indicated more of the hidden sense of Jesus' teachings and actions. [Contrast, however, the opinion of J.M. : "The central feature of the letter ... is the importance ascribed to . . . Mark in Alexandria and his authority as a writer of gospel literature
. . . We have no tradition, as far as I know, about his connection with Alexandria before Eusebius ( HE II. 16). Some details could be used to argue in favor of the dependence of the author of the letter on Eusebius : When Eusebius tells about the spiritual Gospel of John ( HE VI. 14.5-7 · · ·) after speaking of the Gospel of Mark, a later author identifying Mark with John ('John, called Mark,' Acts 12.25; 1 5-37) could understand this text as meaning that Mark, after writing his canonical Gospel, had composed another more spiritual Gospel. As smaller items I should like to mention the use of αναγράφω in HE VI. 14.6 and in the letter 1. 16, and Eusebius' use of the word υπόμνημα about the Gospel of Mark (HE II. 1 5.1) and the use of the word in the plural in the letter I.igf. It is possible that the letter tries to combine the two traditions about Mark — that he wrote his Gospel before the death of Peter
(Clement) and after it (Irenaeus) — by stating that Mark wrote one Gospel before and another one after the death of Peter (both opinions are mentioned by Eusebius)."] εις . . . χρησιν. III. 36. 2, εις την τούτων χρησιν . . . τα πάντα γεγονεν. Clement regu larly uses είς to indicate objectives; Mossbacher, 56f. των τελειονμενων. These might be baptized persons, as opposed to the catechumens above. Thus I.i05.2oflf lists the immediate consequences of baptism: βαπτιζόμενοι φωτιζόμεθ α, φωτιζόμενοι υίοποιουμεθα , υίοποιουμενοι τελειουμεθα, τελειουμενοι άπαθανατιζόμεθα. [But if τελειονμενων referred to baptism it would mean either persons in the process of being baptized or those on the road to it, who would be identical with the catechumens. A.D.N. But C.F.D.M. suggests that the participles in this passage are "frequentative"; κατηχουμένων = "any who (from time to time) become catechumens"; προκόπτουσι = "any who (at any given time) are advanc ing," and so τελειονμενων and μυονμενονς, cf. Gal 6.13.] Richardson's discovery that Mk. 10.13-45 was probably a lection for a baptismal service makes it not unlikely that τελειονμενων here means "persons in the process of being baptized" and that Clement thought the additions were made to adapt the Gospel for catechetic and liturgical use in the Christian initiation. However, the questions raised by Richardson's discovery require more discussion than can be undertaken in this commentary; they will be dealt with in section III of Chapter Three. Here it is enough to say that Clement's notion of τελείωσις is very hard to define and certainly
1.22
THE LETTER
makes possible the interpretation of τελειουμενων as referring either to baptism or to some initiatory ceremony other than baptism or to a long process of perfection in gnosis. The last of these possibilities is clearly indicated by the discussion in I.10512 1, following the passage quoted above. There Clement explains that the conse quences he has listed are present only potentially (io6.3of, ούδεπω . . . άπείλ ηφεν την τελείαν δωρεάν) and that even Paul had to say (l2I.Ioff) "ουχ οτι ηδη ελαβον η ηδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δε εί καί καταλάβω " . . . καί τελειον μεν εαυτόν ηγείται, ότι άπηλλακται τοΰ προτερου βίου , εχεται δε του κρείττονος, ούχ ώς εν γνώσει τελειος , άΛΑ' ώς του τελείου εφιεμενος. Developing the thought of this passage, Clement conceives of τελείωσ ις as a process which may affect only one or another aspect of a Christian's life — one may be perfected in piety or endurance or prophecy, and so on (II.305. igff;
307.i8ff) — but when he writes of "perfection" without further specification he means perfection in gnosis (Volker, 30 if). He sharply distinguishes the gnostic from the mere believer (II.298.23ff and often, esp. 485, 487; III. 37. iff; 42.8; 60.2; etc.) and thinks of the gnostic's being perfected as a process normally continuing throughout the Christian's earthly life (cf. Volker, 151, esp. n2). E.g., II.307.4ff, σπευστεον άπανδροΰσθαι γνωστικώς καί τελειοΰσθαι ώς οτι μάλιστα ετι εν σαρκί καταμενοντας, εκ της τελείας ενθενδε ομοφροσύνης μελετησαντας συνδραμεΐν τω θέλημα τι τοΰ Θεού εις την άποκατάστασιν της τω οντι τελείας εύγενείας τε καί συγγένειας εις το πλήρωμα τοΰ
Χριστοΰ. But he thinks its goal can be anticipated by the gnostic already in this life, III.30.30ff, 6 γνωστικός παρά ολ ον εύχεται τον βίον, δι'εύχης συνεΐναι μεν σπευδων
Θεώ , καταλελοιπεναι δε , συνελόντι ειπεΐν, πάντα όσα μη χρησιμεύει γενομενω εκεί , ώς αν ενθενδε ηδη την τελείωσιν άπειληφώς τοΰ κατά άγάπην (ήν^δ ρω μενού (accepting the emendations of Tengblad, 96, and of Stahlin, against Lazzati, 92). The achievement is never absolutely complete on earth (II.330.13), but is made almost complete
(II.467.15ff; 468-469; 485ΙΪ) by the gift of gnosis. Both Clement and this letter conceive the gift of gnosis as a process of instruction in elements of the Christian tradition, including the Lord's teaching (III. 42. 5) — instruction given only to chosen candidates after considerable probation and leading eventually to deification (II.
367.3; 460.20; 462.24). So, esp., III.40.2iff-4i.25: "Εστιν γάρ.,.η γνώσις τελείωσίς τις ανθρώπου ώς άνθρώπου , διά της των θείων επιστήμης συμπλ ηρουμενη κατά τε τον τρόπον καί τον βίον καί τον λόγον , σύμφωνος καί ομόλογος εαυτη τε καί τω θείω λόγω, διά ταυτης γάρ τελειοΰται η πίστις . . . καί τά μεν άκρα ου διδάσκεται, η τε άρχη καί το τέλος ' πίστις λέγω καί η άγάπη, η γνώσις δε εκ παραδόσεως διαδιδόμενη κατά χάριν Θεοΰ τοΐς άξιους σφάς αυτούς της διδασκαλίας παρεχομενοις οίον παρακαταθήκη εγχειρίζεται . . . όθεν επί τελεί η γνώσις παραδίδοται τοΐς εις τοΰτο επιτηδείοις καί εγκρίτοις διά το πλείονος παρασκευής καί προγυμνασ ίας δεΐσθαι καί προς το ακούε ιν τών λεγομένων καί εις καταστολήν βίου καί εις το επί πλέον της κατά νόμον δικαιο σύνης κατ' επίτασιν προε ληλυθεναι' αυτή προς τέλος άγει το ατελεύτητου καί τελεί ον, προδιδάσκουσατην εσομενην ημΐν κατά τον Θεόν μετά Θεών δίαιταν . . . Θεοί την προσηγορίαν κεκληνται, οι σύνθρονο ι τών άλλων Θεών, τών υπό τω σωτηρι πρώτων τεταγμενων, γενησόμενοι. For further discussion of the problem see, besides Volker, especially the articles of Butterworth, Lebreton, Moingt, and Wytzes. Particularly important is
Mehat, Ordres, which shows that Clement distinguished three classes of "philosophi cal," that is, Christian, material: the protreptic, for complete outsiders; the pedagogic
1.22
THE LETTER
ούδβπω (paraenetic) , for catechumens and ordinary Christians ; the didascalic, for the advanced students, the gnostics. Mehat concludes that this classification of philosophical material reflects the system of instruction used in Clement's church. He comments, p. 357: "It is surprising to see that (within this system) the catechumenate does not constitute a peculiar phase. On the other hand, the distinction between the neophytes, still subject to elementary instruction, and the more advanced Christians who are initiated into the true doctrine, ought to be given more attention than it has hitherto received. For my part, I think the origin of this distinction lies in a common practice of the Church, established long before Clement's time, and going much further back than is generally supposed." ούδεπω. Initial, II.385.21; meaning "not yet," i.e., "he did not go so far as to,"
II.460.29; 469.23; 483.19. [So A.W. and B.E. C.F.D.M. here observed: "It seems to me that a case can be made (though I could not make it with deep conviction) for Clement's intending three documents: (1 ) το πρώτον βιβλίον (i.e. canonical Mk.) compiled at Rome during Peter's lifetime and containing select praxeis; (2) the πνευματικώτερον ευαγγελ ιον, an enlarged edition of (1) amplified by such material from Peter's and Mark's hypomnemata as Mark thought appropriate for any who made progress in knowledge and were initiates, or candidates for initiation; (3) a mystic gospel, an enlargement of (2) by additional praxeis and logia of a mystical sort. The arguments that might be used for distinguishing (3) are as follows: (a) ουδέ πω όμως seems naturally to imply not less than two preceding stages, 'yet, not even now . . . ; (b) my no. 2 is called πνευματικώτερον and related to ol τελειουμενοι, whereas there are other and more 'mystic' terms which only begin to appear at my stage (3), viz. τά απόρρητα, η ίεροφαντικη διδασκαλία, μυστ αγωγεΐν (and the whole of that phrase), αυτοί μόνου OL μυουμενοι τα μεγάλα μυστήρια, το μυστικόν εύαγγελιον',
(c) to achieve a reference to only two, one has to make several rather difficult assumptions, viz. (1) ούδεπω means 'not yet (and indeed never)'; (2) the άλλα clause which follows (including the ετι phrase in it) has to be taken in a 'but only' sense and treated as a mere amplification of what has already been described in rather different terms— terms relating only to οι τελειουμενοι and to praxeis without logia; (3) since, by assumption no. 1, αυτά τά απόρρητα never were written down by Mark and to a υτοϋ σύγγραμμα does not represent them, the rest of the Clement fragment must be about something less than the most esoteric material." This interpretation, however, Moule abandoned after discussion with Maurice Wiles, who argued to the contrary that in Clement's view τά απόρρητα ought not to be written down ( Stromateis 1. 13.2; VI. 6 1.3), that Clement's mention of them was intended to assure Theodore that although the Carpocratians had got hold of the secret Gospel they had not learned the highest secrets, and that the use of ούδόπω rather than ουδέποτε, although surprising, was not a serious objection.] To the best of my recollection, only one other reader of the letter, Richardson, thought it might possibly refer to three versions of the Gospel, and he also gave up the notion.
1.23
1.22-23
THE LETTER
όμως αυτά τά απόρρητα βξωρχησατο, ούδβ κατόγραψβ όμως. Postpositive, with the sense it has here, I.283.21, where, as here, it follows a vowel. τά απόρρητα. Τά δε απόρρητα . . . λόγω πιστεύεται, ου γράμματι (this of Jesus' teaching).
II. ΙΟ.3; I0.l7ff, η μεν οΰν τώνδε μοι των υπομνημάτων γραφή . . . επαγγέλλεται . . . ούχ ώστε ερμήνευα αι τά απόρρητα ίκανώς, πολλοΰ γε και δει, μόνον δε το ύπομνησαι. This use of τά απόρρητα for the mysteries of Christian teaching is frequent in Clement. εζωρχησατο. II.i4.i3ff, μεγας ό κίνδυνος τον απόρρητον ώς αληθώς της όντως φιλοσο φίας λόγον εξορχησασθαι. This was a common word for revealing the rites of mystery cults (Lucian, De saltatione 15), and Clement uses it of them as well as of Christian mysteries, I.ii.io. [See Nilsson, I2. 656. A.D.N. For the content, see Origen's state ment on Mt. 20.1-16 that Matthew knew, but withheld, the secret interpretations of the parables, GCS, Origenes, vol. 10, 1. 2, p. 441. J.M.] κατέγραφε. In this sense, II. 302. 15; used of formally written records, Plato, Laws
74 1 c. Clement believed that in Christian tradition ην γάρ τινα άγράφως παραδιδόμενα,
ΙΙ.368.2; and he insisted that it was this unwritten tradition which was most important for the instruction of the gnostic, II.462.24ff; 498.15!^ In this the letter and Clement agree. Clement's claim to a secret tradition has been emphasized by Lebreton, 4936^ and is recognized even by Lazzati, 69; Bardy, Origenes 73; and Mondesert, Clement
47-62, 1 10 and Symbolisme 161, 176-180; etc. The most penetrating study of the problem is that of Mondesert, who begins (51-55) by pointing out that many supposed instances of this claim are really examples of propaedeutic method or reflections of the Platonic tradition and of the allegorical theory of exegesis; but he goes on to recognize that beside these explanations one must admit that Clement claimed there was a secret body of doctrine, revealed by Christ to Peter, James, and John, and handed down orally to Clement's own time (56-57). This secret doctrine is not the ordinary ecclesiastical tradition (no), but is linked with a special
Christian initiation by which it is communicated, not to all Christians, but to a chosen few. It thus constitutes a "second gnosis," distinct from the philosophical gnosis of which Clement usually wrote (161, 176, 180). Mondesert points out that this notion is contradictory not only to the philosophical system, but also "to the profound thought and even to the mentality of Clement" — his sympathy for all men, his belief in God's universal self-revelation, etc. (57). Mondesert also remarks that this notion is absolutely contrary to the Christian concept of tradition as the living magistracy of the entire Church (58), a concept beginning to prevail in the Alexandrian Christianity of Clement's time (though it may not have been so impor tant earlier). These observations are acute and from them it follows that Clement did not himself invent this secret doctrine and its claims; nor did he derive it from
THE LETTER
the contemporary tendencies of the church of Alexandria. Whence, then, did he get it ? And why did he feel that he had to accept it in spite of its contradiction of his own temperament and theories? Presumably it was there and he believed its claims. Mondesert's suppositions that it was merely pretense, "an esoteric attitude," or that Clement thought he had a secret doctrine although he actually did not (61) are implausible in the face of his own observation of the fact: in Clement's theory the secret doctrine is an alien and intrusive element. This fact can be understood in the light of the present letter. [Commenting on this paragraph, C.M. wrote: "Je suis d'accord avec tout votre commentaire dans son ensemble et meme pour votre remarque sur la page 61 de mon livre." See also W.J.'s remarks in the following paragraph. J.M., on the other hand, wrote: "The most important objection against ascribing the letter to Clement is that he knew only the apostolic writings, e.g., the Gospel of Mark, and the oral tradition from the apostles which he had obtained through his teachers, the presbyters ( Stromateis I.ii.iff). Every link in this transmis sion of the tradition was, in his words, 'a son receiving it from his father.' The great change in the transmission is effected by Clement himself by his writings where he publishes the tradition from the apostles which his teachers had given him. I find it impossible to believe that Clement could write that Peter and Mark left υπομνήματα.
In that case his words on the transmission of the apostolic tradition in the Stromateis would be completely un-understandable. The author of the letter has divided the Christian tradition into three parts, the first being represented by the Gospel of Mark where some of the acts [πράξεις) of the Lord have been written down, not all, and not the mystical acts, but those which were most useful to help the faith of the catechumens. The second way of expressing the Christian tradition is found in the mystical Gospel of Mark. Here Mark introduced material from his own and Peter's
'notes' . . . and in this way he brought together a more spiritual gospel to be used for those who are being initiated . . . The third kind of tradition is characterized by the subjects which Mark did not include in his more spiritual gospel (1. 23). I do not think Clement would consent to a threefold division of the Christian tradition by which the oral tradition was divided up in an already written tradition from those who had been eyewitnesses to the acts of the Lord (Peter and Mark) and then the tradition which was transmitted only orally. But this threefold division might be more natural at a later time in the history of the Church."] When? After Clement the determination of the canon goes forward steadily. Consequently Clement, of all early Christian writers who can pretend to orthodoxy, is the one most receptive of "noncanonical" writings claiming apostolic authorship. About Peter he undoubt edly believed that, besides his canonical Epistle, the apostle had left his Apocalypse , his Preaching , and considerable other material, some of which he thought preserved in written form; see above, 1. 19-20, on υπομνήματα. Consequently I see no justifica tion for Munck's confidence that Clement cannot have believed that Peter left
"papers" and that material drawn from these was incorporated into a second edition of Mark's Gospel. As for the common misunderstanding of the beginning of the Stromateis , see item (3) of my comments on Volker's remarks, in the paragraph on συνετά ξε above, 1.2 1.
1.23
THE LETTER
την ίβροφαντικην διδασκαλίαν ιβροφαντικήν. 1. 1 6.3, of pagan mysteries; cf. 1. 84.25, ιβροφαντβΐ 8e 6 κύριος, of Christian mysteries. [On this W.J. wrote, in substance: The letter seems to contradict those who have a tendency to interpret away or attenuate the existence in Clement of a theory of an esoteric Christian doctrine, because they feel that it is not consistent with his belief in the Christian religion as a universal message to all. I would not dare to expect in Clement anything like logical or philosophical consistency; and Christian ity would remain a message to all, by the way, even if it had room for some kind of esoteric knowledge. The truth, as all the fathers of the Church believed, is not communicable to all men in the same way and by the same means, and the capacity of the human mind to understand these things is very limited at best. Whoever assumes different levels of interpretation must differentiate also between those who can see only the literal meaning and others who can penetrate deeper. We should refrain from letting our modern ideas or preferences influence our historical judgment.
There was a strong tendency at Clement's time, and in him most of all, to construe
Christianity as a philosophy; and, as I have said before, contemporary philosophical schools insisted on finding an esoteric and an exoteric form of teaching in almost every system. This must have influenced the way Christians looked for their own
"philosophy" from the beginning, and every new, private interpretation given by individual Christians or gnostics could be justified only by saying that it was not to be found in the previous tradition of the Church because it had been kept secret.
The letter makes clear that Clement does believe in an esoteric Christian tradition and thinks that the gnostics have something to do with it, but have got their knowl edge of it in an illegal way and have corrupted its content. Most striking is the consistent use throughout the letter of terminology derived from the mysteries; this is found in Clement's other works as well, but is more concentrated in this letter than elsewhere because the letter deals with this question, and the words are not merely a stylistic device. I have always felt and taught that Clement's polemic against pagan religion is most violent when he impugns the mystery religions. It is obvious that they were to him the only serious competition for Christianity, since they were still living religion, involving a personal relation of the individual believer to God. But this letter proves that the competition of Christianity with the mysteries has influenced the form of the Christian religion itself most strongly, so that a Gregory of Nyssa could say that in the Christian religion the mystery is far more important than the dogma. He saw it in the Christian worship, which he interpreted always in this sense. So he solved the problem of the "few" and the "many." In Clement they were still sharply divided.] See also Jaeger's published remarks, Christianity 56f and n22. διδασκαλίαν. This is Clement's favorite word for "teaching"; he rarely uses διδαχή, the common early Christian term. He often uses διδασκαλία with του Κυρίου, IV. 340
(io references).
1.23-25
THE LETTER
I.24 τοΰ Κυρίου , άλλα ταΐς ττρογεγραμμεναις πράξεσιν βτηθβίς καί άλλας , eri 1,25 προσεπηγαγε λόγια τινα ών ηπιστατο αλλά. A favorite conjunction of Clement's, used probably, on an average, more than once a page; so I.3.15; 4.4 and 18; 5.3 and 19; 7.10 and 14; 8.1 ; 9.4; etc. π ρογζγ ραμμόναις . Not in Clement's preserved works, but twice in Eusebius' reports of his lost statements, III. 197. 19; 201.22. [C.H.R. observes that προγβγραμμόνος, equivalent to the English "aforesaid," is so common from the fourth century onward in documents of all kinds that he would lay no weight on its occurrence here. W.M.C. remarks on the frequency of forms of the perfect tense in this letter, by contrast with their comparative rarity in classical Greek, for which see Cloud.] This frequency is paralleled in the recognized works of Clement. It is probably an atticizing trait; see
Kilpatrick, Atticism 136. The letter, apart from the quotations from the secret Gospel, has 12 perfects in about 560 words (or 13, if όξψτληται is read in II. 9) ; the first two pages sampled in Stahlin — II. 64-65 — yielded 11 perfects in approximately 450 words.
7 τράξζσιν. Cf. above, on 1. 16. όπιθβίς. The same form is used, as here, of literary addition, with the dative and accusative, II. 305. 6. [However, in II. 305. 6 the όπιθβ ίς occurs as part of the set phrase όπιθεϊν αι τον κολοφώνα. Apart from this phrase, επιθεΐναί τι τοΐς π ρογεγ ραμμενοις is not very common in Clement's time; the ordinary word would be προσθεΐναι; but cf. Apoc. 22.18. A.W.] άλλας. "Others of same kind," e.g., 1. 3. 6 and 8, etc. ετι. The sentence structure (participle, ετι, main verb), III. 169. 17 (also in negative form, II. 233. 2 if). προσεπηγαγε. The same form, as here, of literary addition, 1. 265. 10. λόγια. Clement has τά λόγια του κυρίου in III. 161.14 and probably 1.225.46 Here he might have felt the specifying genitive was adequately replaced by the context; he evidently did so in 1. 289. 2 7, where τά λόγια are the sayings of Jesus. ών. The relative pronoun in the genitive as a connective, 1. 256. 21 (also with €7τ ίσταμαι and infinitive). ηττίστατο. The same form, also with infinitive, in a strikingly similar context,
II. 10. if, αύτίκα ου ττολλοΐς άπεκάλυφεν <(ο 'Ιησούς )> ά μη πολλών ην, όλίγοις δε, οίς
1.25-26
THE LETTER
1.26 την εζηγησιν μυσταγωγησειν τούς άκροατάς εις το άδυτον της επτάκις όξηγησιν. Of τά λόγια του κυρίου, III.l6l.I4· μυσταγ ωγησειν. Also in III. 16 1. 1 8 where, as here, it refers to advanced instruction evidently effected by "exegesis" of "the Lord's sayings." Again, with the same sense, in II. 320. 7, where the mystery imagery is further developed with emphasis on the άρρητα. Gnostic teachers are described as μυσταγωγοί in III. 75. 7. That Clement conceived of documents, especially the books of Scripture, and their interpretation as means of gnostic initiation is shown by Volker, 354ff. The method which the letter ascribes to Mark is that followed in the earliest period of rabbinic mystical speculation but already being abandoned in the time of Clement. Scholem writes, Gnosticism 3 1 :
"Tanna'itic tradition has it that a pupil who is found worthy to begin a study of mystical lore is given . . . only . . . 'beginnings of chapters,' whose function is only to point to the subject matter to be dealt with and leaves to the student the task of proving his understanding." For this Scholem finds evidence in the Talmud Terushalmi
(hereinafter J.) Hagigah II. 1 (77a), and he concludes that texts giving full accounts of secret doctrine are post-Tannai'tic (third century or later) "even though much of the material itself may belong to the Tanna'itic period — which, of course, was, at the same time, the flowering season of Gnosticism." άκροατάς. Frequent (and, as here, without technical sense), IV. 2 19. εις. Not used with μυσταγωγεΐν in Clement's preserved works, but the usage was probably standard. Photius ( Lexicon s.v.) gives as a meaning of μυσταγωγεί, "εις μυστήρια άγει." τό άδυτον. Clement was fond of άδυτα, IV.207 (9 references). The same complex of ideas — το άδυτου της αλήθειας with the veil(s) concealing it from most, even, of the chosen people — is found in 1 1 . 3 3 S . 2 7 f^? rV$ όπικρυφεως τον τρόπον, θειον όντα ώς αληθώς και αναγκαιότατου ημΐν (διά τόν)> εν τώ άδυτα» της αλήθειας άποκείμενον ιερόν άτεχνώς λόγον, Αιγύπτιοι μεν διά των παρ' αύτοΐς άδυτων καλούμενων, 'Εβραίοι δε διά του παραπετάσματος ηνίξαντ ο, <(δι* ου^> μόνοις έξην επιβαίνειν αυτών τοΐς ιερωμενοις. επτάκις. ΙΙ.505.2. According to Β. Ketubot 106a, inf., there were seven veils at the seven gates of the Temple in Jerusalem. Goodenough has seen a reference to them in the seven walls of the Temple represented in the Dura synagogue (panel WB3,
Jewish Symbols XI pi. XI), and these were probably the seven περίβολοι of the Temple which Clement knew from Jewish tradition and interpreted as symbolic of the ways in which the truth at the heart of Scripture is concealed: II.347.3ff, αντίκα ομολογεί την επίκρυφιν η περί τον νεών τον παλαιόν τών επτά περιβόλων πρός τι άναφορά παρ'
'Εβραίοις ιστορούμενη. (This passage is part of a long list of examples, assembled from pagan and Jewish tradition, to prove that wise men always keep their essential
1.26-2 7 1.27
THE LETTER
κβκαλνμμένης αλήθειας. όντως ovv προπαρεσκβυασβν, ού φθονβρώς ουδ* teachings secret; the list began with the passage cited in the preceding paragraph,
II.338.27ff.) [With επτάκις compare Apoc. 5. if — the book sealed with seven seals — and also Clement, II. 349. 13. C.M.] κεκα λυμμενης αλήθειας. Clement uses κάλυμμα for the outer veil of the Temple's adyton in II. 347. 7, the immediate sequel of the passage referred to above. In II.347. 19 and 348. 1 3f he explains the veil as a means of keeping the unworthy from knowledge of the divine secrets ( κάλυμμα κώλυμα λαϊκής απιστίας) . In II. 340*28 the style of Greek poetry ( ? — ποιητική ψυχαγωγία) is a curtain which concealed the theology of the poets from the vulgar. In II.13.26f the manuscript of the Stromateis reads αξιόπιστος . . . η τοιαύτη ψυχαγωγία, δι'ης κακουμενην οι φιλομαθείς παραδέχονται την αλήθειαν. Wilamowitz emended κακουμενην to κεκαλυμμενην, Stahlin and Mon desert, Stromateis I, accepted the emendation; it is now confirmed by the reading of the new text. ούτως οΰν. Initial, II. 237. 26; 282.2. προπαρεσκεύασεν. II. 422. 1 7. Since LSJ s.v. reports the absolute use only of the middle forms of the verb, some object ("the text"? "matters"?) is probably to be understood here. [An object is similarly understood in Aristotle, Historia animalium
6i3a4· Cf. the use with όπως and a verb in the future, Plato, Gorgias 503a, 5iod.
A.D.N.] ού . . . ουδέ. With adverbs, II. 289. 31 ; with participles, II. 244. 25. ψθονερώς. Clement also defends from the accusation of envy his own practice of teaching only in part, II. IO. 32-1 1.3: ταϋτα δε άναζωπυρών ύπομνημασι, τα μεν εκών παραπεμπομαι εκλεγων επιστημόνως , φοβούμενος γράφειν ά και λεγειν εφυ λαξάμην, ού τί που φθόνων (ου γάρ θεμις), δεδιώς δε άρα περί των εντυγχανόντων, μη πη ετερως σφαλεΐεν, etc. [And in the same connection he lays down the principle φθόνος δε άπείη γνωστικού, διά τούτο γάρ και ζητεί πότερον χείρον, άναξίω δούναι η άξίω μη παραδοΰναι. III. Ι45· Ι0^·
A.D.N.]. He also quotes Barnabas to the same purpose, in defense of the secret teaching of Jesus: Άλλα και Βαρνάβας ... ηδη σαφεστερον γνωστικής παραδόσεως ίχνος παρατιθέμενος λεγει. . . " εύλογητος (ό) κύριος ημών, άδελφοί, ό σοφίαν και νοΰν θεμενος εν ημΐν των κρύφιων αύτοΰ. λεγει γάρ ό προφήτης ' παραβολήν κυρίου τις νοήσει, εί μη σοφός ' . . ." επει ολίγων εστι ταΰτα χωρησαι. "ου γάρ φθόνων ," φησ ί, " παρηγγειλεν ό κύριος " εν τινι εύαγγελίω, " μυστήριον εμον εμοι και τοΐς υιοΐς τού οικου μου "
(II. 368. 12-28). Clement has the adjective φθονερός (in similar context, II. 116.29) but not the adverb φθονερώς, which, however, appears in Plato ( Phaedrus 243c) and other classical authors ( LSJ s.v.). The tradition goes back to Odyssey XI.38of. By contrast, Clement accuses the gnostics of secretive jealousy; Osborn, Teaching 336.
1.27-Π.ι
THE LETTER
1.28 άπροφνλάκτως , ώς ζγώ οιμαι. καί άποθντ/σκων κατέλίπβ το αύτοΰ II. ι σύγγραμμα rrj βκκλησία rfj Ιν ' Αλεξάνδρειά οπού εισετι νυν άπροφνλάκτως. Not in Clement. LSJ cites Dio Cassius, XXXVIII.41, and Achilles
Tatius, VIII. i. In the latter it has the same meaning as here, "incautiously." ώς άγω οιμαι. Verbatim, I.26.10; etc., but the simple οιμαι, inserted without reference to the construction, is much more frequent in Clement's works (IV. 592). άποθνησκων. Frequent. Stahlin, IV.262, cites 1 1 examples and marks his entry as incomplete. Here the writer of the MS seems to have written first άποθανων and then, over avtur, νησκ. The form άποθνησκων, therefore, may represent a deliberate correction by the writer of what he found in his text. κατελιπε. II. 3. 5, πότερον δ' ουδ'δλαι? η τισι καταλειπτεον συγγράμματα ' with the dative as here, [κατελιπε in the letter is an unmistakable claim to legitimate, testatory inheritance, no doubt by implicit contrast to the gnostics. A.D.N. That a particular church at this time should be heir to such a secret document, and should entrust its presbyters — in the sense of church officials — with the custody of it, is altogether contradictory to the practices of the period and, at about the year 200, quite un thinkable. W.V.] Volker gives no evidence to support his comment, and I do not know of any. Long before Clement's time, the letters of Paul had been sent to particular churches and presumably preserved by them (Goodspeed, Introduction
2i5ff, who remarks that the practice of Paul in directing letters to individual churches was followed by Ignatius and the author of the Apocalypse). σύγγραμμα. The singular, meaning "composition," "work," II. 59. 22; 404.8. The συγγράμματα of the apostles, II. 307.28. Cf. below, II. 4, on Καρποκράτης. εκκλησία. For single communities, IV.371, sec. 2b. The five passages referred to by Stahlin all refer to churches, in the plural, but the usage here is exactly paralleled by many passages in the NT, e.g. I Cor. 1.2; II Cor. 1.1; Col. 4.16; I Thess. 1.1. τη εν 'Αλεξάνδρειά. II.92.12, την εν 'Αλεξάνδρειά . . . βιβλιοθήκην. οπού. IV.6oo. Frequent. εισετι νυν. 1.8. 4; ίο. 3; 15*26 — postpositive and used with the present, as here. This claim on behalf of the church of Alexandria is not unparalleled: the church of Ephesus claimed to have the original manuscript of the canonical Gospel according to John
( Chronicon Paschale , Migne, PG 92.77C, μάχρι του νυν πεφνλακται). Sometime in the
THE LETTER
II. 1-2 II.2 ασφαλώς ev μαλα τηρβΐτα t, αν αγινωσ κάμινον προς αυτούς μόνους τούς μυουμόνους 480s the body of the apostle Barnabas was found in Cyprus, with a copy of the Gospel according to Matthew which Barnabas himself had made; this copy was taken to Constantinople (Lipsius, Apostelgeschichten II. 2. 292). Cf. also Tertullian, De prae scriptione haereticorum XXXVI. 1. As late as the end of the eighteenth century a library in Prague claimed to possess a fragment of Mark's original MS (actually a good sixthor seventh-century copy of the Vulgate; Metzger, Survey 4); the history of this fragment is given in Acta Sanctorum Aprilis ΙΙΙ.348Γ. ασφαλώς. Only (according to Stahlin) in II. 30. 5, where it means "inerrantly."
Clement uses ασφάλεια and ασφαλής in the senses of "security" and "safe" (1. 269. 23;
II. 100.29), and he could have found ασφαλώς in the corresponding sense — "securely"
— in Mk. 14.44; Acts 16.23; or Tobit 6.4. [Or in many classical authors, e.g., Sophocles, Oedipus tyrannus 613. W.M.C.] ευ μάλα. Frequent. To strengthen an adverb, as here, 1. 280. 34; II. 105.8; III. 46. 3. τηρείται. Of keeping secrets safe, II. 332. 20; 1. 123.32; etc.; objects, 1. 83. 29; 178.2.
That the orthodox Christian "gnostics" of Alexandria had certain books which they were supposed to keep secret from the unworthy, and that sometimes one or another, yielding to entreaties, "leaked" one of these books to some unworthy person, is indicated by Clement in his Eclogae propheticae 27 (III. 145.6-15), quoted above, at the end of the paragraph on συνεταξε, 1.2 1. άναγινωσ κόμενον. IV.231 (i2 references, and the entry is incomplete). The present passive participle used of reading Scripture, III. 145.20. προς. Regular usage with verbs of speaking, saying, etc.; see Mossbacher, 73. With άνα γινώσκειν, I Esdr. 9.48; Jer. 3.12; Aristophanes, Ranae 53. μόνους. Frequent. Declined, e.g. II. 455. 20, where, as here, it means "alone." τούς μυουμενους. II.497.l6fF, τώ δε μη πάντων είναι την άληθειαν επικρυπτεται (η προφητεία )> πολυτρόπως, μόνοις τοΐς εις γνώσιν μεμυημενοις , τοΐς δι'άγάπην ζητοΰσι την άληθειαν, το φώς άνατελλουσα. Cf. 1. 84-236^5 άύ τών αγίων ώς άληθώς μυστήριων . . . άγιος γίνομαι μυουμενος, ίεροφαντεΐ δε ό κύριος. It need not be supposed that the participle μυουμενους refers to a very short period of time. Compare the provisions in Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition XX: at unspecified dates, persons who have made sufficient progress in the catechumenate are chosen and set apart to receive baptism.
At this time their behavior while catechumens is to be examined. If it proves to have
II.2
THE LETTER
τά μεγάλα μυστήρια. been morally satisfactory, " then let them hear the Gospel" (XX. 2, my italics). What
Gospel it was that the catechumens might not hear before this time neither Dix nor Botte declares. After hearing the Gospel they were exorcised and hands were laid on them daily for at least a week before baptism. During all this time they were pre sumably μυουμενοι. τα μεγάλα μυστήρια. ΙΙ.249·8> τά μικρά προ των μεγάλων μυηθεντες μυστηρίων (of instruction by degrees in the secrets of Christian doctrine; a reminiscence of Plato,
Gorgias 497c). Clement's use of μυστήριον has been studied by Marsh, who concludes
(66) that for Clement "there were two types of Christian μυστήρια, the one reserved" for the true gnostics, "the other revealed" to all believers. This seems to Marsh clear from II.367. 19 fT, and by means of this he explains (68) the passages in which Clement distinguishes between μικρά and μεγάλα μυστήρια, e.g. that cited above and especially
II. 373. 23-374. 4, ούκ άπεικότως άρα και των μυστηρίων των παρ' "Ελλησιν άρχει μεν τά καθάρσια, καθάπερ και <(τών παρά') τοΐς βαρβάροις <^i.e. , the Christians)> το λουτρόν. μετά ταΰτα δ' εστί τά μικρά μυστήρια διδασκαλίας τινά ύπόθεσιν εχοντα και προπαρασκευης των μελλόντων, τά δε μεγάλα περί των συμπάντων ού μανθάνειν <( ούκ)ετι υπολείπεται, εποπτευειν δε καί περινοεΐν την τε φυσιν καί τά πράγματα. This distinction seems to Marsh (69) to explain the fact that while Clement usually "emphasizes . . . that the μυστήρια are to be concealed from all save the privileged few, even among the members of the Christian Church itself," he nevertheless in the Protrepticus "seems to invite his heathen hearers to a revelation of the μυστήρια ," without indicating that some might still be hidden from those who had passed through the Christian initiatory rites. The explanation is that Clement took for granted among the heathen the expectation of a series of graded initiations and, further, that he concealed from "those without" even the existence of the higher "mysteries." Marsh then concludes
(80), "there is nothing to suggest that in Clement's works the term <( μυστήριον ) was ever applied to either Baptism or the Eucharist as a description peculiar to them and distinct from the other uses of μυστήριον ." In this connection the passage quoted above is particularly valuable since it clearly shows baptism (το λουτρόν) interpreted as part of a series of "mysteries," but as the preparatory cleansing rather than itself one of the initiations [cf. the preliminary rites at Eleusis — A.D.N.]. Belief in and practice of mysteries allegedly greater than baptism and the eucharist were, of course, frequent in gnostic circles; see Pistis Sophia, passim (especially chs. 1 41-142) and, for a survey,
Fendt. Discussion of the mystery terminology in Clement and Philo has too often begun from the presupposition that either this terminology refers to a series of secret rites or it is merely allegorical description of the stages of philosophical instruction.
Therefore it has been taken for granted that if the philosophical significance could be demonstrated, the possibility of the series of rites would be eliminated. But the alternative is not justified: philosophical instruction and secret rites could be com bined. Philo has described such a combination in his treatise On the Contemplative Life.
Π.2-3
THE LETTER
* 11,3 Clement hints at something similar in the passage quoted above, and something of the sort seems to be supposed by the text of our letter. [C.M. agrees with this note in general, and in particular with the above conclusion, but adds that one should speak not only of "philosophical instruction" but also and especially of " religious " — his italics — "and theological instruction."] A brief and brilliant survey of pagan,
Jewish, and Christian usage of mystery terminology is given in Nock, Mysteries.
Unfortunately, the conclusions Nock reaches are open to a number of objections, one of which is particularly relevant here: even if the authenticity of this letter be denied, the parallels between it and the recognized works of Clement suffice to show that Clement's adoption (or inheritance) of mystery terminology to describe Christianity had been considerably more than "slight" (Nock, Mysteries 202). With Nock's conclusions contrast the remarks of Jaeger, above, on 1. 23. τών . . . μηχανώντων. Initial genitive absolute indicating cause or prior condition
("since"), I.go.2f. Genitive absolutes are rare in Clement, but occasionally he uses a number in quick succession, e.g. II. 2 12.29-2 13.4 (5 in 8 lines). They appear in his narrative style, as here, in III. 188.3 and μιαρών δαιμόνων. I.30.16, el γάρ ovv δαίμονες, λίχνοι re και μιαροί. Clement often refers to demons (IV. 382, almost a full column of references) and, though he nowhere says explicitly that they always plot the destruction of men, he describes them as hostile to men (1. 31. 17, μισάνθρωποι; so 33.3, etc.), destructive ( ολέθριους ), and plotting (ibid). Presumably he was familiar with this theory, which had been the leitmotif of Justin's First Apology, e.g., ch. 26, where the demons were represented as having instigated Simon Magnus, Menander, and Marcion, as they do here
Carpocrates. For further parallels in the apologists see Wey. όλεθρον. I.253. i g, etc· Always without article, as here, τω τών ανθρώπων γενει. Verbatim, 11.277-4* Clement often spoke of "the race of men": IV.307 s.v. γένος, ii references, listing not complete. πάντοτε. Meaning "at every moment," 1. 255. 28. μχηανώντων. Clement uses the middle in 1. 261. 25, with dative (ημϊν understood) and accusative, as here. The active appears only in poetry, άτάσθαλα μηχανόωντας
(Odyssey XVIII. 143), which was echoed by Apollonius Rhodius, III. 583, and of which the phrasing of the letter may be reminiscent. [Cf. the echo of Sophocles, below, II. 1 4-1 5; the active of μηχανάω appears also in Sophocles, Inachus 21 (SP
THE LETTER
11.3—4 II.4
6 Καρποκράτης III. 24) and Ajax 1037. On the latter passage Kamerbeek, Ajax, remarks, "It would seem that the rare active use here raises the verb above the all-too-human sphere . . .
Note also the sinister associations of ambush and guile inherent in the verb μηχανάνΤ
The uses of the passive in Sophocles, Trachiniae 586 and elsewhere, also imply the existence of an active. W.M.G.] Clement frequently quoted and paraphrased Homer
(IV.4if, four columns of references, including a quotation of Odyssey XVIII. 130 in II .202.7), and his prose contains many words described in LSJ as primarily poetical and appearing in prose only in the work of "late" writers, that is, writers of about Clement's time. Besides these words, Clement uses in prose a considerable number of words cited in LSJ only from poetry. Of these latter, inspection of Stahlin's index from α—αμ alone has yielded άεικίζω, 1. 40. 6; άθυρόγλωσσος, I.253.13, etc.; άλετρίβανος,
1. 155.20; and αμβρόσιος, 1. 1 97. i. Therefore this use of a poetical form is not atypical of Clements' style. [On this point I am particularly happy to record the agreement of C.M., who has had so much experience in edition and translation of Clement's
Greek.] ό Καρποκράτης. II. 1 97. 1 6 and 19; 199.29 (with article, as here); 200.15; 207.18;
221.6. (For testimonia and literature, see ch. 4, sec. XIII.) In the first three of these references (pp. 1 97— 1 99) Clement agrees with the present letter to the extent of representing Carpocrates as an Alexandrian (citizen?) — the letter shows him working in Alexandria — from whom the sect of the Carpocratians derived at least its name; further, he describes the Carpocratian doctrine of free love as expounded by Epi phanes, the son of Carpocrates, and he declares that Epiphanes was the founder of the sect (l97.26f, καθηγησατο δε της μοναδικής γνώσεως, άφ'ού και η των Καρποκρατιανών αΐρεσις) or at least the cofounder (197.16, οι δε από Καρποκράτους και
' Επιφανούς άναγόμ€νοι). In the later references (pp. 200-221) he says nothing of Epiphanes and speaks of Carpocrates as the founder and lawgiver of the sect (200.15, νομοθετεΐν . . . εδει implies that he did give other laws, as do, also, κατά Καρποκράτην,
207.18, and η δε Καρποκράτους δικαιοσύνη, 221.6). Since Clement says Epiphanes died at seventeen, it would be plausible to explain this contradiction by supposing that the father and son cooperated in founding the sect and, after the son's death, the father carried it on so long and conspicuously that it came to be known by his name. At all events, the letter says nothing of Epiphanes, and the recognized works of Clement say nothing of Carpocrates' use of a secret Gospel by Mark. (Given the embarrassment which the author of the letter felt in writing privately on this subject — below,
II. 1 0-19— it is hardly to be expected that he would mention it in his published works.) Irenaeus, however (Harvey, I.20.3 = Stieren, I.25.5), speaks of Carpocratian documents representing τον Ιησοΰν . . . εν μυστηρίω τοΐς μαθηταΐς αύτοΰ και άποστόλοις καΤ Ιδίαν λελαληκεναι, και αυτούς άξιώσαι τοΐς άξίοις και τοΐς πει θομενοις ταϋτα παραδιδόναι. διά πίστεως . . . και αγάπης σώζεσθαι. τά δε λοιπά αδιάφορα οντα. κατά την
H-5 Π.4-5
THE LETTER
f > V7T αυτών 8ώαχθβΙς καί άπατηλοΐς τβχναις χρησάμβνος, οΰτω πρεσβυτβρόν δόζαν των ανθρώπων, πη μεν αγαθά , πη δε κακά νομίζεσθ αι, ούδενος φύσε ι κακού υπάρχοντος.
On Clement's thoughts about heretics in general, see Riither, Kirche.
["The description of the Carpocratians in the letter is completely different from what Clement writes about them in Stromateis III. It is possible with de Faye
( Gnostiques 4i4f) to doubt that Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes had anything to do with the Carpocratians known through other sources. The only thing in Clement . . . of interest for the letter is that Carpocrates was an Alexandrian (II. 197.20). In the letter the expressions used about the Carpocratians are vague and uncharacteristic.
Anybody could be 'corrupted by the Devil' (cf. Eus., HE IV. 7. 10), could get a copy of a secret gospel through an ' enslaved ' presbyter and have a ' blasphemous ' doctrine
{ibid.) and so on. I have taken some parallels from Eusebius' description of the Carpocratians, but I do not find the expressions so characteristic <(as to suggest) that the author of the letter must have known Eusebius. Anybody could use language of that kind about the heretics. ύπ* αυτών διδαχθείς. The aorist passive participle, 1. 26 1.8; sensu malo , 1. 248. 35249.1; the passive with υπό, II. 222. 24; 363.1; etc.; elision of the o of υπό, Mossbacher, 46. Demons lead men astray, 1. 33. 10; 48.2 7ff. That magical arts in particular were taught by demons is explained in Enoch 8f, and the theory was adopted by Clement, II.332.16ff (and extended to include philosophy, II.53.5ff). άπατηλοΐς τεχναις. 1. 47. 28, απατηλόν τέχνην, of art used to make images. Here too the adjective is of the second declension. In the letter it probably refers to magical practices [though A.D.N. thinks this reference not certain]. Clement uses it with this reference in 1. 4. 23, etc. The Carpocratians were widely accused of magical practices,
Irenaeus (Harvey, 1. 20. 2 = Stieren, 1. 25. 3); Hippolytus, Philosophumena VII. 32;
Epiphanius, Panarion XXVII. 3; etc. Clement in his recognized works does not mention the accusation, but he had no occasion to do so. χρησάμενος. Frequent in Clement, IV.812 (about 60 references). οϋτω . . . ώστε. III. 1 68. 1 4f, with both verbs in the indicative, as here. πρεσβυτερον. II. 485.10, πρεσβυτερος . . . της εκκλησίας. In this passage Clement allegorizes the title, but the fact that he does so proves that he knew it as a title, as it is used here. He often refers to presbyters as ecclesiastical officials (IV. 669c, 9 references). He also speaks of presbyters in a more general sense as elder leaders of the Church, particularly those of earlier generations, whose teaching had been oral, but now, written down, formed part of the body of secret Christian tradition — and was sometimes indiscreetly communicated to the unworthy, III. 144.26-1 45. 15. It is
11.5-6
THE LETTER
II. 6 τινα της εν 'Αλεξάνδρειά εκκλησίας κατεδουλωσεν ώστε παρ' αυτόν εκόμισεν not surprising that the official presbyters should have been, as the letter represents them, custodians of the books in which the traditions of the earlier presbyters were recorded. The term πρεσβυτεροι is found frequently in second-century papyri, regularly as a title of pagan priests — particularly those in charge of financial matters, who often furnished to the Roman authorities lists of personnel and of temple property evidently under their supervision (Hauschildt, 237, 239; cf. 241). According to Eus., HE VI. 1 3.9, Clement in his published works referred to presbyters especially as custodians of oral traditions; see below, II. 19, on ούκ όκνησω end, and III. 139.20; i44.26ff (Harnack, Geschichte 1. 29 iff). Irenaeus similarly quoted presbyters as sources of unpublished apostolic traditions (Harvey, IV. 42. 2; 49.1 = Stieren, IV.27.1 ; 32.1).
Papias similarly specifies presbyters, evidently in some technical sense, as the source of his oral traditions about Jesus; Eus., HE III.39.3ff (on which see Munck,
Presbyters) . The role of presbyters in Clement's works as bearers of secret tradition is noted by Lazzati, 34f; Zahn, 158; Lebreton, 495; etc. Hornschuh's denial of it
Anfange 359ff) is based on implausible arguments from silence. On the evidence of 11.485. i off it has sometimes been supposed (e.g. by Wytzes, 230) that Clement's gnostic group had its own presbyters, as opposed to those of the main church of Alexandria. Some presbyters, probably of a church in Alexandria, showed Celsus βιβλία βάρβαρα δαιμόνων ονόματα εχοντα και τερατβίας , Origen, Contra Celsum VI. 40; this about A.D. 175. της εν 'Αλεξάνδρειά εκκλησίας. II.92.12, την εν 'Αλεξάνδρειά ... βιβλιοθήκην. On εκκλησία see above, Ι.28. The repeated specification of Alexandria (instead of the use of "here") is perhaps for solemnity. Or perhaps the letter was not written from that city; cf. οπού, above, II. 1. It may date from the period following Clement's flight
(ca. 202?). κατεδουλωσεν. Twice, in the middle, of evil spirits enslaving men, 1.8. 3; III. 5. 14.
The active (II Cor. 1 1.20; Gal. 2.4) is classical ( LSJ s.v.) ; more important, it is used in PGM IX, line 4, as here, for enslaving the soul by magical means. A presbyter
"deceived" (not "enslaved") by a demon acting through a would-be heresiarch appears in Cyprian, Epistulae LXXV.10. τταρ'. Use, construction, and elision are all paralleled in Clement; Mossbacher,
45f, 67f. With κομίζειν, III. 141.7b εκόμιζεν. Meaning "get," II. 29. 17; of writings — as it happens, those of Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates — II.197.18f, where it means "be in circulation, be preserved."
A similar story (without the magical motif) seems to lie behind the textual confusion of the Πράξεις Παύλον καί Θεκλης, I. Against Vouaux, 147 n7, the Latin versions are to
II. 6
THE LETTER
άπόγραφον του μυστικόν ευαγγελίου, ο και be preferred: Paul did not suspect the hypocrisy of Demas and Hermogenes which made them unworthy of his secret doctrine (as opposed to his public preaching).
Therefore he taught them things they should not have been permitted to learn.
[W.V. objects that the gnostics had their own chains of tradition and therefore did not need to borrow from the Church.] However, that in Clement's time some gnostics did claim the same apostolic authorities as the "orthodox" is proved by Clement's grudging report of Basilidean appeal to Peter, and Valentinian to Paul,
III.75.15ff. The Carpocratians known to Irenaeus (Harvey, 1. 20. 2 = Stieren, I.25.4) would seem to have used Mt. 5-25f or Lk. 12.58b Moreover, even if we suppose the letter to be by Clement, we need not suppose its statements about Carpocrates entirely true. Clement was faced with the problem which now faces us : How did the Carpocratians come by a Gospel strikingly similar to a secret Gospel accepted by the church in Alexandria and by it attributed to Mark? Clement's statement tells us only the answer his party gave when forced to give an answer. άπόγραφον. Not in Clement — who has, however, άπογράφεσθαι , meaning "to copy," II. 47 1. 7. άπόγραφον meaning "copy" or "imitation" is used by Cicero, Ad
Atticum XII. 52 end (overlooked by Oksala, 158); άπόγραφος with the same meaning appears in Dionysius Hal., Usener-Raderm., Isaeus 11. In Diogenes Laertius, VI. 84, άπόγραφος is taken by R. Hicks, in the Loeb translation, to mean "an imitator" [but more likely it means "a copy" — B.E.]. άπόγραφον is, in the preserved literature, a rare word; one can hardly believe that an imitator would have chosen it instead of the common άντίγραφον. [But the rarity of άπόγραφον is no argument against Clement's possible use of it. A great many words which must have been common in ancient everyday usage are extremely rare in the preserved literature; see the numerous examples in the vocabulary of Krauss, Lehnworter. A.D.N. Moreover, άπόγραφον (-ος) has a contemptuous sense not found in άντίγραφον. Thus in Cicero, Diogenes, and perhaps Dionysius άπόγραφον is dyslogistic. B.E. With this opinion, however, A.D.N. disagrees, contending that Cicero was only "apologizing whimsically for his philo sophical works," and that "when you speak of a man as being a copy, you imply inferiority; it is not so with a book."] But the usage in this letter seems to support the opinion of B.E. μυστικόν. Above, 1. 17· ευαγγελίου. Above, 1. 1 2, 21—22. ο καί. This stringing together of sentences by relative pronouns is not uncommon in Clement, e.g. II. 7.24^ ης ούδε . . . αλλά; 17*24, ην; 20.12; 2ΐ.2; 27*131 etc·
Π;9
THE LETTER
II-7 — 9 έξηγησατο κατά την βλάσφημον καί σαρκικήν αυτόν δόξαν, €τι δέ και έμί ave, ταΐς άχράντοις και άγίαις λέξβσιν άναμιγνύς αναιδέστατα
II. 7 II. 8
όξηγησα το. Frequent with the sense "interpret," IV.397, over 20 examples, listing incomplete. Aorist, II. 232. 18, etc.; reference to a specific document, II. 308. 4;
280.10; 168.3; etc. Irenaeus (Harvey, 1. 20. 3 = Stieren, 1. 25. 5) speaks of the Carpocratian doctrine concerning the secret teaching of Jesus as something which εν τοΐς σνγγράμμασιν αυτών όντως άναγεγραττται καί αυτοί όντως εξηγούνται. κατά. Usage regular; Mossbacher, 66. Used as here to indicate the principle of interpretation, II. 495. 4. βλάσφημον. II. 1 1 3.23; III. 72. 29 (of the utterances of libertine heretics); etc. σαρκικήν. Frequent, IV.697, 30 references. Not used directly of teachings, but cf. 1 1. 1 5 1. 1 if, σαρκικώς νοονντες τάς γραφάς. δόξαν. Frequent of heretical or false philosophical teachings, IV.35of (20 examples, listing incomplete). The φευδεΐς δόξας of libertine heretics, who misrepresent the .8.
Scriptures to make them accord with their own desires and doctrines, are attacked in καί . . . ετι δε καί. 1 1 . 1 89. 1 7 — 1 8, etc. εμίανε. IV.568, 6 times (4 refer to defilement of holy things). None in the aorist active, but the identical form appears in Philo, De virtutibus 199 end. άχράντοις καί άγίαις. 1.44.3^ το άχραντον εκείνο καί το άγιον (these are divine attributes). Elsewhere άχραντος is used of Jesus, the soul, marriage, etc., and άγιος of Scripture, as here (1. 289. 19, ταΐς βίβλοις ταΐς άγίαις). The sayings in the sermon on the mount are άγιοι λόγοι , 1. 77.20; cf. 289.24. λεξεσιν. Of Scripture, 1. 125. 22; II. 385. 15 (meaning "saying"); 498.29 (probably meaning "words"); III.3.11 and 16. άναμιγνύς. I.2J8.J, άναμίγνυσθαι (sic). LSJ s.v. gives άναμίγνυμι as the prevailing later form (see under άναμείγννμι). Clement uses the active in 1. 37. 52; he uses the verb of literary composition in II. 1 3.1, ττεριεξουσι δε οί Στ ρω ματ εις άναμεμιγμενην την αλήθειαν τοΐς φιλοσοφίας δόγμα σι. He also complains of heretical interpolations in Christian material; see above on θεοπνευοτον, I.xi. αναιδέστατα. 5 uses of άναιδης in the absolute and 2 in the comparative, IV. 234. The superlative was used by Plato, Laws 729C.
THE LETTER
II. 9-10 II. 10 φευσμ ατα. του δε κράματος τούτον εξαντλείται το των Καρπό κρατιανών δόγμα, τουτοις οΰν , καθώς και προείρηκα , ουδέποτε φεύσματα. III. 70. 7, of heretics who make up false stories in order to reject the prophecies: αμελεί πάμπολλα συγκαττύουσι φεύσματα καί πλάσματα. κράματος. IV. 520 (7 references). Genitive singular, 1.177*24· Of literary or doc trinal mixture, as here, 1 . 1 74* 3^? τ° κράμα του νόμου του παλαιού καί τού λόγου τού νέου. τούτου. Similar use of a postpositive demonstrative at the beginning of a sentence, to express contempt, II. 197. 18, Έπιφάνης οΰτος (referring to the son of Carpocrates).
For this function, the position after the noun is customary; Palm, Funktion I2f.
Similar sentence structure, II. 493. 6, etc. εξαντλείται. The MS reads εξαντληται, or perhaps εξηντληται. The latter is paleographically much less likely, but if it should be the correct reading then εξηντληται could be read by mere change of accent. And Clement's fondness for perfects is an argument for εξηντληται, see above, 1. 24, on προγεγραμμεναις. But I prefer to follow the more likely reading. Clement uses the verb in II.9.12, τά φρεατα εξαντλούμενα διειδεστερον ύδωρ άναδίδωσι. This fits the meaning "drain, draw off" given by LSJ and suggested by the pejorative context of the letter, where the verb may be a sarcastic reminiscence of Jn. 2.8, αντλήσατε νυν, in the miracle of Cana. [The letter's metaphoric use of εξαντλεω is rare, but cf. Gregory of Nyssa, In Canticum Canticorum p.
457, line 7, Langerbeck (col. 1108 Migne). A. W. Also Cicero, Academicorum II. 34
(108). W.M.C.]
Καρποκρατιανών . Above, 1.2. δόγμα. IV. 349, 1 6 times with reference to teachings of philosophers, 6 times to teachings of the Church, 1 7 times to teachings of heretics, as here. The singular is used, as in the letter, to refer to the whole dogmatic system of a heretical school, in III. 68. 34b τούτοις οΰν. Above, 1.7. καθώς καί προείρηκα. 1. 1 io. 24, καθώς προειρηκαμεν ; the letter's use of the singular is less formal. For the addition of καί, 1. 237. 3, καθώς καί ό Παύλος μαρτυρεί. With or without καί, καθώς is a regular form of cross-refernce in Clement, II. 75. 24; 79.1;
91.6 (all three without); 241.1 (with); etc. ουδέποτε. II. 516. 12; III. 52. 26; etc.
II. 10-12
THE LETTER
II. 1 1 €lkt €ov y ov8e ττροτβίνουσιν αύτοΐς τα κατζφευσμβνα συγχωρητβον τον II. 1 2 Μάρκου βΐναι το μυστικόν εικτεον. IV. 365 lists 5 usages of εΐκ ω, none of this verbal adjective, but — as re marked above (1. 10, on προκριτεον) — Clement was very fond of the form. ούόεποτε . . . ούδε. This I have not found in Clement. [But it is perfectly good
Greek and Clement might well have used it. A.D.N.] προτείνουσιν. Meaning "allege," 11.329-5 (cf. 130.29). The form προτείνουσι
11.173.27f. κατεφενσμενα. Clement uses the verb once, 1. 267. 6, in the present participle. The perfect participle, used by the letter, is frequent in Philo (13 references in Leisegang s.v.). The meaning common to Philo and Clement — something false, an imitation — has here been extended to include something falsified; or perhaps the reference is especially to the passages peculiar to the Carpocratian Gospel, and the writer wished to indicate that those were imitations of the true text. [One should consider the possibility of τα κατε φενσμενα belonging, as sometimes happens in Greek, both to προτείνουσιν and to the infinitive clause dependent on σνγχωρητεον. If it does so, one should perhaps translate as follows: "a ces gens-la, il ne faut done, comme je l'ai deja dit, jamais ceder ni, quand ils presentent eux-memes leurs falsifications, accorder que e'est la Γ 'Evangile mystique' de Marc: au contraire, il faut meme le nier avec serment." This is followed by a string of scriptural texts which recall the ideas of spiritual pedagogy so dear to Clement and which are cited, in Clement's way, without introduction or words of transition. The reason for the above translation is the text's report that Mark made, at Alexandria, a second, more "spiritual," re daction of his Gospel ; and that, besides these two redactions , there was also the secret oral tradition. C.M. See also the comment of C.R., below, on μεθ * όρκου .] σνγχωρητεον. Meaning "concede," II. 173. 20; III. 90. 24; III. 72. 31 (sarcastically).
In II. 1 73.20 it has, as here, the indirect object αύτοΐς and the direct είναι without τό.
The form found in the letter appears in 1. 204. 9.
Μάρκου. Above, 1. 15. είναι. With genitive, of a work's being "by" its author, II. 81. 2, Όνομάκριτος ... ου τά εις Όρφεα φερόμενα ποιήματα λεγεται είναι. μυστικόν. Above, I . I 7.
II. 12
THE LETTER
ζύαγγέλ ιον, άλλα και μβθ' ορκου εύαγγελι ον. Above, 1.2 1— 22. άλλα καί. "But moreover," 1. 121.24; 11.197-45 etc. μεθ' ορκου. This I have not found in Clement, μετά πολλών όρκων occurs in Plato,
Phaedrus 240c; μεθ ' όρκων in II Macc. 4.34 and 14.32; μεθ ' ορκου in Mt. 14.7.
[Preisigke, Papyrusworterbuch, notes an instance in an official document of the third century b.c. C.H.R.] Clement's use of μετά is normal; Mossbacher, 67. Linguistically, therefore, the phrase presents no difficulty. But in III. 37. 19-38.27 Clement says the true gnostic will never (or hardly ever) swear, and certainly never swear falsely. In I.279.26-27 he forbids the ordinary Christian to use oaths in buying, selling, and similar transactions; and in II. 391 . 19-392.6 he finds the Judeo-Christian tradition to be the source from which Plato derived his prohibition of oaths. On the other hand, Christians, of course, did swear (see Nock, Sacramentum ), and in III. 190. 12
Clement represents the apostle John as swearing; in II. 494.1 iff he approves deception practiced for a good purpose (citing Paul's claim to have been all things to all men) ; and in III. 39. 12-40. 10 (the sequel of the first passage cited above) he modifies his previous statements to the extent of teaching that the true gnostic will tell the truth
"except sometimes, when it is a matter of helping {someone), he may, as does a doctor . . . lie, or, {to distinguish) as the sophists {do), 'say what is false.'" This exception he again justifies by the same example of Paul, and finally he insists that the true gnostic always tells the truth. (See further the paragraphs on the following quotations). This ambiguous attitude toward truth becomes even more ambiguous when we recall that the true gnostic is partially an ideal figure, and the account of his achievements in the Stromateis describes a perfection which Clement himself probably did not hope to realize fully in this life. Accordingly, the contradiction between Clement's principles as expressed in his published works and the practical advice given in this evidently private letter should not be exaggerated, especially since the practical advice was in accord with much philosophical teaching (During, Chion 20).
Compare the reports concerning the Essenes, that there is no swearing among them
(Josephus, BJ II. 135; Hippolytus, Philosophumena IV. 22) and that they bind their initiates with hair-raising oaths ( BJ II. 1 39-143; Philosophumena IV. 23-24). ["Tout a fait d'accord avec votre conclusion: il ne faut pas exagerer la portee de certaines contradictions chez Clement." C.M. "Surely, however, Clement is too devious to advocate unnecessary and downright perjury. One could legitimately (as the Sophists say!) take an oath to the effect that precisely what the Carpocratians have is not Mark's secret gospel. I find it hard to suppose that Clement's oath is a denial that Mark's is the Church's secret gospel, with the consequent admission that the Church has a secret gospel, but it is by someone else." C.R.; compare the similar suggestion by C.M., above, on κατεφευσμενα .] I think the denial is intended to give the impression that Mark did not write any secret Gospel, and that consequently the one which the Carpocratians have is a fake. The one the Church has should not be mentioned,
THE LETTER
II. 1 2—i 3 II.I3 άρνητβον. "ου γάρ άπασι πάντα αληθή λβκτβον." since the Church has kept its existence a secret even from the lower grades of Christians; thus Theodore did not know of it heretofore. However, I agree that Clement would have wished to avoid perjury. Therefore I think the suggestions of C.M. and C.R. correct in pointing out the deliberate ambiguity of the Greek. [J.R. comments: "I assume the oath to be an example of the 'economic behavior' (κατ' οίκονομίαν) emerging in the Alexandrian fathers as an ethical stance, developing in part from pagan backgrounds." See his article Οικονομία , 37off.] άρνητβον. Meaning "deny," IV. 275 (13 references, listing incomplete). The piling up of forms in τβον here (el '.kt<eov, σνγχωρητβον, άρνητβον, λβκτβον) is typical of Clement; see above, on προκριτάον, I.io, and the passages cited there. ον γάρ. A favorite formula of Clement's for beginning sentences, e.g., II. 22 1.26;
222.24,29; 223.1; 224.12. ου γάρ . . . A €kt€ov. This saying appeared in Philo, Questions . . . on Genesis IV. 67, from which it was quoted by Procopius in his commentary on Genesis in the form ου πάντα αληθή λβκτβον άπασυν. Philo's text, according to the preserved Armenian translation, went on to elaborate the principle and to teach (in IV. 69) that "the wise man requires a versatile art from which he may profit in imitating those mockers who say one thing and do another in order to save whom they can " (my italics). This text strikingly parallels Paul's claim in I Cor. 9.22, "I became all things to all men that I might by all means save some ." Since influence of Philo on Paul or of Paul on Philo is almost out of the question, it would seem likely that these two passages derive from a single source. The common-sense idea behind them had long been familiar in ancient philosophy. Diogenes Laertius, VIII. 15, quotes from Aristoxenus, as a saying of certain Pythagoreans, μή elvat προς πάντας πάντα ρητά ; for further examples see Reumann, Οικονομία. From philosophy and common sense alike it was taken over by early Christianity, where the example of the Apostles — and especially that of Paul — is often cited to justify the use of deception for good ends (Bauer, Rechtglaubigkeit , 4 if; cf. above, on μβθ' ορκου). Clement, as remarked above, shared this early Christian belief, which he summed up with the words τω μή πάντων elvai τήν άλήθααν (ΙΙ·497·ι6) and understood as a principle even of divine revelation; cf.
Sibylline Oracles XII(X).290f, το δ' ούχ άμα πάντως ίσασιν. ου γάρ πάντων πάντα.
Clement was deeply indebted to Philo (IV.47ff, 7 columns of citations — more than any other non-Christian author except Plato, who has 10). Both his similarity to Philo and his borrowing from him have resulted in considerable confusion in medieval
MSS, where many passages now found only in Philo are attributed to Clement (III.LXXI-LXXXII). Among these are at least two from Questions ... on Genesis
(III.LXXIV, no. 51 1.15; LXXX, no. 339). Moreover, Clement himself appropriated