1. 1 The Letter

1. 1 The Letter

THE LETTER

II.I5-16 II.16 το φως της αλήθειας δεΐν εττικρυπτεσθαι διδάσκουσα , αυτίκα φησί, " του

Ο \ V >/ > /3 / //

de μη εχοντος αρυησεται, το φως της αλήθειας. Verbatim, ΙΙ.502.4; ΙΙΙ.70.2, η φυχη τοΐς παρά φυσιν θολωθεΐσα δόγμασιν ονχ οΐα τε το φως της αλήθειας διϊδεΐν ακριβώς, etc. The frequency of the metaphor in Clement's works is noted by Tsermoulas, 2gf. δεΐν . . . διδάσκουσα. II.189.8ff, a sentence of almost exactly the same structure as that in the letter: όθεν 6 ' Αβραάμ . . . φησίν . . . <(Gen. 20.12)> . . . τάς ομομήτριους μη δεΐν άγεσθαι προς γάμον διδάσκων. Another sentence of the same type, and also similar in content to that of the letter, is found in II.490.15ff, αυτίκα 6 Δαβίδ . . . γράφει <(Ps.

I 7. 1 2f)> . . . επικεκρυμμενους τούς αγίους λόγους είναι διδάσκων. Both δεΐν and διδάσκειν are, of course, frequent in Clement's vocabulary. επικρυπτεσθαι. A favorite verb of Clement's, IV.411 (17 references, listing incom plete; all but 2 in middle or passive). Some of the passages in which it is used fit the teaching of this letter exactly, e.g. II.35.15 επεί δε μη κοινή η παράδοσις καί πάνδημος . . . επικρυπτεον οΰν " την εν μυστηρίου λα λουμενην σοφίαν " ην εδίδαζεν ό υιός του Θεού. II. 497· 1 7' τ<-θ ^ πάντων είναι την αλήθειαν επικρυπτεται πολυτρόπως, μόνοις τοΐς εις γνώσιν μεμυημενοις , τοΐς δι αγάπην ζητοΰσι την αλήθειαν , το φως άνατελ λουσα. αυτίκα φησί. Verbatim and, as here, intial, to introduce a Gospel saying, II. 138.28.

The phrase is used thus very often, and Clement's use of αυτίκα both with and without φησί is so frequent and so peculiar that it was discussed by Mayor in appendix A (36 iff) of his edition of Stromateis VII. Of the peculiarly Clementine uses of αυτίκα distinguished there, this is evidently that which should be translated "further" or "again" (363-364). του . . . άρθησεται. Mt. 25.29 ||Lk. 19.26. The text is considerably shorter than that now found in the Gospels. This might be the result of deliberate abbreviation.

However, Clement's text of this verse probably differed in much the same way from that preserved. He quotes the first half twice (II. 10.21 and III. 41. 7), both times in the form τω εχοντι προστεθησεται, which differs from the preserved forms of the first half as the text of the letter does from those of the second. Moreover, Clement's text and that of the letter, put together, yield a simple, epigrammatic, rythmically balanced version of the verse; the Matthaean and Lucan forms are unbalanced and cluttered. This does not prove the simple form the original form. [Simplicity is often the result of revision — A.D.N.] But it strongly suggests that the letter, since it con tains the second half of the simple form, comes from Clement, in whose works we find the (parallel) first half of the simple form. (II. 100. iff and 263.25, which Stahlin took as references to this passage, are probably from an extracanonical logion, combined in 263.25 with Mt. 6.33 || Lk. 12.31. The tradition of the saying is extremely complex; see Lindeskog. Logiastudien.)

II. 17

11.16-17

THE LETTER

καί "ο μωρός iv gkot€l πορβυβσθω/' ημβΐς 8e καί. As sole connection of two quotations from different sources, II. 10.21; 125.1;

221.16,20; etc. But καί πάλιν is much more common.

The use of a group of quotations, after a long stretch relatively free of them, is typical of Clement; for example, Stromateis II:

Ch. I, 3 quotations Ch. II, 25 quotations Ch. Ill, no quotations Ch. VI, lines 1-6, 3 quotations Ch. VI, lines 7-64, 2 quotations Ch. VI, lines 65-87, 8 quotations Ch. VI, lines 88-1 1 7, 1 quotation Ch. IV, lines 1-50, 8 quotations Ch. IV, lines 51-80, 1 quotation Ch. VII, lines 1-34, 3 quotations Ch. IV, lines 81-120, 9 quotations Ch. V, 23 quotations Ch. VII, lines 35-55, 10 quotations These figures are approximate. ό μωρός . . . πορενεσθω. Ecclesiastes 2.14. Clement quotes Eccles. in II.37.3ff

(i.i6ff) and 8f (7.12), and in II.385.18ff (1.2), each time in texts almost identical with LXX. The text in the letter differs from LXX by substituting μωρός for άφρων

(as did the above quotation from Prov. 26.5) and πορενεσθω for πορεύεται. The Hebrew text has holek, ( πορεύεται ) and no variants are noted, so this latter difference may be interpretive. [It may also have been motivated at least in part by stylistic considerations. The imperative is more vigorous Greek. A writer with atticizing traits, like Clement, would prefer it. Similarly, De sublimitate IX. 9 has γενεσθω φως . . . γενεσθω γη, where LXX has γενηθήτω. W.M.C.] Clement's willingness to alter scriptual quotations to suit his purposes is noted by Kutter, 22; Tollington, II. 178; and others. [It may well have been subconscious, since he quoted from memory.

A.D.N.] His use of an OT quotation, as here, to follow and clinch a NT one, is found in II. 131.20-29 (the "NT" one is from Barnabas ) 5135.23-31 ; 141.22-24; etc. ημείς δε. In Christian self-congratulation, as here, to contrast a preceding unfavorable

OT quotation with a following favorable NT one, 1 . 1 12.12 fT, "μη κανχάσθω ό σοφός εν τη σοφία αυτού" <(etc., Jer. 9*22f)> ημείς δε " θεοδίδακτοι " (1 Thess. 4·9/>· With slightly different form, contrasting two verses of Paul, II.246.23ff, "μη πλανάσθε . . . ούτε πόρνοι . . . βασιλείαν θεόν ου κληρονομήσονσιν" <(Ι Cor. 6.9— Ιθ)> καί ημείς μεν

" άπελουσάμεθα','> <Τ Cor. 6.1 1). This comes at the conclusion of Stromateis III,

Clement's major attack on libertine gnostics, in which he gives most attention to the Carpocratians. There may be an echo of this letter in Apostolic Constitutions VI. 10 end1 1 , where the author concludes a list of the abominable teachings of the heretics with an unmistakable reference to those of the Carpocratians, then declares, οΰτοι δε πάντες τον ιερόν καί εύθη λόγον κηρνσσοντες . . . and follows this up with a declaration of the mysteries of Christian doctrine which is really an expanded baptismal creed.

THE LETTER

II.I7-18 / // ·) / / λ >> */ / 5 N / Vi οι φωτός βσμβν, πεφωτισμένοι τρ ες υψους ανατολτ) του πνεύματος

II. 1 8 \\ t \ I του Κυρίου. υιοί φωτός. This, with the preceding ημείς and the following εσμεν, is an adaptation of I. Thess. 5.5, νμεΐς υιοί φωτός εστε (in contrast to the sinners of the preceding verses, cf. the preceding note). I Thess. 5.5 is quoted by Clement, I.206.13. He uses the metaphor viol φωτός again, 1. 206.24^ deriving it from Jn. 12.36, and he also uses τέκνα φωτός from Eph. 5.8 (1.68. 1 3). The quotation there is introduced exactly as here, without any reference or identification either before or after it. Kutter, 35, comments on this manner of quotation as typical of Clement. The metaphor was commonplace in the early Church; e.g., the fragments of Hippolytus' work against Gaius argue that believers are "children of light" who do not "walk in darkness" and should therefore not be treated as unbelievers (Harnack, GwynrCschen 122).

However, it seems to have been particularly popular in semignostic circles in Egypt;

Sophia JC, 126; Epistula Apostolorum 28(39); 39(50); etc. Hornschuh, Anfange 87,

238ff, suggests an Essene background. [So does J.R.] πεφωτισμένοι. I.2o6.6, in the context of Clement's quotation of I Thess. 5.5 (above), ό πεφωτισμένος describes the initiated Christian gnostic. Clement uses the verb often

(IV. 806, 26 references). For the thought and the connection with sonship, I.i05.2of, βαπτιζόμενοι φωτιζόμεθ a, φωτιζόμενοι υιοποιουμεθα, cf. above, on τελειουμενων in 1.22.

Illumination by the spirit, as here, II. 295. 23; 502.5; etc. τη εξ νφους ανατολή. The same metaphor, II. 36.I if, φωτός δ', οίμαι , ανατολή πάντα φωτίζεται, of the Logos as the source of all wisdom. Here it is reminiscent of Lk.

1.78, which Clement echoes in I.8o.i6ff and refers to in II.84.20f. Clement's fondness for metaphors using the sun and light is noted by Tsermoulas, 296 Christ as il luminator is compared to the rising sun in 1 .63. 1 7fT ; 78. 1 pfT ; 8 1.2 iff; etc. του πνεύματος του Κυρίου. This interprets Lk. 1.78 as a prophecy of illumination by the gift of the spirit, normally in baptism, for which see above, on πεφωτισμένοι, εξ υφους was no doubt justified by Mk. 1.10 and parallels (τδ πνεύμα . . . κατ αβαΐνον sc. εξ ουρανών), and Acts 2.2ff (εκ τοΰ ούρανοΰ ήχος . . . πνεύματος αγίου)', cf. Acts 8.16;

10.44; 1 1 - 1 5 (έπεπεσεν τό πνεύμα); etc. Clement regularly interpreted Lk. 1.78 as a prophecy of the illumination of Christians (see the passages listed in the previous paragraph), and he regularly conceived of the spirit as illuminating and as coming from without and from above (Frangoulis, 16, citing I.io6.22ff). Clement uses πνεύμα κυρίου in II. 502.4^ τδ γάρ φως της αλήθειας φως αληθές, άσκιον, άμερώς μεριζόμενου πνεύμα κυρίου. In II. 295-22 he quotes Prov. 20. 27 as reading πνεύμα κυρίου λύχνος, and develops the idea, but it was one for which he evidently had no special fondness. Its use here is dictated by the following quotation of II Cor. 3.17, of which the first half (not quoted) identifies the Lord with the spirit (δ δε Κύριος τό πνεΰμά εστιν). This makes it possible to reconstruct the sequence of the writer's

11.18-19

THE LETTER

\ \ t f \ ' ^ ~ T7f ' w > « »\ η / " " ' " ου de το πνβυμα του Κυρίου, φησίν e/ce ι eΛeυuepLa, παντα γαρ Π.ι9 \\ Γ\ \ λ β Λ // καυαρα tols καοαροις. thought: Dangerous facts should be concealed from the heretics — let the fool walk in darkness — but we are children of light — illuminated by the dayspring (from on high) — the dayspring is Jesus — Jesus is the Lord — the Lord is the spirit (from on high) — therefore we are illuminated by the dayspring of the spirit — but where the spirit is, (there) is liberty. This sort of exegetic stringing together of texts is typical of Clement. The close relation, approaching interchangeability, of πνεύμα and λόγος in the thought of Clement is noted by Frangoulis, 14b ov 8e . . . ελευθερία. II Cor. 3.17b. εκεί is read by the koine, G and most Greek manuscripts, the Vulgate and some Old Latin texts, and the Heraclean Syriac. Here it may be a sign of affinity with the "western" text or a "correction" by the copyist.

The (unsupported?) του is probably a copyist's blunder. Clement often quotes II Cor., but never this particular verse. [H.C. comments: Its use here, like that of the following Titus 1.15, is a piece of self-justification for revealing the secret. When a secret gospel has been corrupted by heretics, the true gnostic, being enlightened by supernatural gifts, is able to distinguish the authentic from the false and, in virtue of the ελευθερία conferred by his pneumatic state, can be freer with such dangerous material than a Christian of inferior status, to whom the apocryphon would be impure and a pollution to read. The like opinion is found in Origen, Commentariorum

Series in Matt. 28, middle, and Prologus in Canticum, end, and something similar per sists even to the time of Isidore of Seville (cf. Chadwick, Sextus 123). Therefore in describing Clement's motivation here it is not enough merely to emphasize his concern to justify concealment of truth from the nonelect. This may be too simple an account of his implied reasoning. Of course he believed in reserve in the communica tion of religious knowledge, and it is a short step from keeping silence on certain topics to saying what one does not oneself wholly believe because it is pastorally expedient for the audience addressed. But he is also seeking to justify his own status as a true gnostic who is therefore free to handle the secret gospel, and besides this he wants to make clear to his correspondent, Theodore, that he too must regard the ensuing quotations as confidential matter. H.C. also calls attention to III.183.16ff: πάντες ούν οί πιστοί καλοί καί θεοπρεπεΐς ... οι) μην άλλ' είσίν η8η πνες καί των εκλεκτών εκλεκτότερου. All the faithful are elect, but some are more elect than others.] φησίν. This use, interrupting a quotation, is frequent in Clement, e.g., II. 115.24;

1 1 6. 1 6 ; 121.28; 124.20; etc. πάντα . . . καθαροΐς. This stringing together of quotations without connectives appears often in Clement's works, e.g., 1. 206. 3-1 7; II.io8.i6ff; 150.26-151.6;

216. 4ff; 382.20; etc. Here the quotation is Titus 1.15, quoted by Clement in II.246.20

THE LETTER

II. 19-20

11.20 σοι τοίνυν ούκ όκνησω τά ή ρωτημένα αποκρίνασθαι , 0ι αυτών <τών> where it is used as here, in polemic against libertine gnostics, including the Carpocratians. The same purpose as here — to justify concealment of truth from the non elect and revelation of it to the chosen few — is served by a similar scriptual quotation in II.495.2f, "άπαντα ορθά ενώπιον τών συνιέντων" φησίν η γραφή (Prov. 8.9). This justifies Jesus' teaching outsiders only in parables, which he explained to his disciples. σοί. Sentences beginning with aoi in epistolary style, e.g., Epistolographi Graeci ,

Alciphron, 1. 39, Anacharsis, 6; Libanius, Epistulae , 570, 668, 988. τοίνυν. Thus used in 1. 10.20; 59.7; 95.26; 119.8; etc. ούκ όκνησω. Another epistolary cliche; Libanius, Epistulae 56,251, etc. Frequent also in Clement, IV. 593, fifteen references. The future with a dependent aorsit infinitive, as here, II. 11.22; Libanius, Epistulae 251. An exact parallel in content to the present passage appears in Epistula Apostolorum 8(19), "Behold, therefore" — because of the false teachings of Simon Magus and Cerinthus — "we have not scrupled to write you concerning the testimony of our saviour, Christ, that which he did." This also leads to the revelation of allegedly secret tradition. The same form was used in a similar connection by Papias, as quoted by Eus., HE III. 39. 3, ούκ όκνησω δέ σοι και όσα ποτέ παρά των πρεσβυτερών καλώς έμαθον . . . συντάξαι ταΐς έρμηνε ίαις, δια βεβαιούμενος υπέρ αύτών αλήθειαν, ού γαρ τοΐς τα πολλά λεγουσιν εχαιρον . . . άλλα το ΐς τάληθη διδάσκουσιν, etc. Further, Eusebius (HE VI. 13.9) reports that Clement used a similar form, καί εν τω λόγω δε αυτού τω περί του πάσχα εκβι ασθηναι ομολογεί προς των εταίρων ας ετυχε παρά των αρχαίων πρεσβυτερών άκηκοώς παραδόσεις γραφή τοΐς μετά ταΰτα παραδοϋναι. The general tradition (with φθόνε ω instead of όκνεω) goes back to Odyssey

XI.38of; see the use of φθονερώς above, I.27. τά ηρωτημενα. Clement, uses the verb often (Stahlin does not index it fully) and has the perfect middle passive in III. 163.32. The perfect participle meaning, as here, "the questions which have been asked" is found in Plato, Laws 662e. αποκρίνασθαι. Thus used in II. 32. 1 1. Frequent in Clement; not indexed by Stahlin.

The question to be answered is regularly indicated by the accusative, Plato, I Alcibiades Ii4d (τά έρωτώμενα) , etc. δ ι αύτών . . . ελέγχων. Strikingly paralleled by II. 248. 25-249. 3, πολλαί δε ημάς αί προς τούς ετεροδόξους αντιρρήσεις έκδέχονται πειρωμένους τά τε ύπ ' αύτών προκομιζόμενα εγγράφως διαλύεσθαι, πείθειν τε αύτούς καί άκοντας, δό αύτών ελέγχοντας τών γραφών.

< τών ). Possibly omitted by the copyist through homoioteleuton; cf. II. 495. 4.

[A.W. thinks its insertion necessary, especially if one thinks the letter written by Clement. B.E. also suggests it. A.D.N. disagrees.]

11.20—22

THE LETTER

II.2I του ζύαγγελ ίου λβξβων τα κατεψβυσμένα ελέγχων. αμελεί μετά τό, " ήσαν 11.22 ε εν τη οοω αναραινοντες εις Ιεροσόλυμα , καί τα €ςης εως , μετά τρεΐς ημέρας άναστησεταί '' ώδε του ευαγγελίου . Above, 1.2 1—22. λέξεων. Above, II. 8. τά κατεφευσμένα. Above, II. 1 1 . ελέγχων. Above, on hi αυτών. Clement uses the verb often, IV.379 (40 references, listing incomplete). The present active participle, 1. 141.22; 240.13; etc.; with accusative, ibid, and often (IV.379); with διά and genitive, see above. αμελεί. Meaning "for instance." Clement uses it frequently in this sense, often to introduce quotations, e.g. 1. 191.24; 455.22; U.39. 1 ( ?) ; 150.18. A closely related meaning, which it often has in Clement and which is also possible here, is "thus" or "similarly," e.g. 1. 6. 23; 99.18; 1 1 5.3 ; 194.6. μετά . . . επιφέρει. II. 332. 7; 408.20; 497.2; etc. τό. Before citations, as here, 1. 1 10.19; 1 20.22 ; II. 461. 10; 463.26; etc. The accentua tion before quotations (whether to or to) is dubious here and in III. 1 1 and 14; I have followed the appearances, but they may be deceptive. ησαν . . . f Ιεροσόλυμα . Mk. io. 32. Identical with Nestle's text, which records no variants for these words. [R.S. remarks that the only variants recorded by von Soden are omission by K 1038.] Clement quotes 10.31 in III. 176.27. άναβάίνείν εις , III.

36.16. καί τα έξης εως. Verbatim and frequent, II. 115.12; 1 19.14; 1 35* 1 4 ? Ι5°·5; etc·

Mondesert, 68, mentions this sort of citation with this formula as characteristic of Clement. μετά . . . άναστησεταί. Mk. 10. 34 end. μετά τρεις ημέρας is read by the principal representatives of both the "western" and the "Alexandrian" texts; the koine has τη τρίτη ημέρα. ώδε. Frequent for the introduction of quotations, ώδε εχεί κατά λέξίν to introduce one from the NT, II. 263. 17. Other examples: II. 43. 12; 65.7; 331.13; 359.4; 366.15;

THE LETTER

επιφερει κατά λεξιν, II.23-III.11 Quotation from the secret Gospel [III. 1 1 continued] III. 12

> \ \ / επι μεν τουτοις επεται το, και προσπορευονται αυτω Ιακωρος και ΙΠ.Ι3 Ιωάννης," καί πάσα η περικοπή, το δε 4Ο5.Ι4) etC· With 67TL φέρει, II.303.25f. Π. 1 99 * 3 1 but verbatim, ώδβ πως επιφέρει κατά λέξιν , and introduces a quotation from the works of Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates. επιφέρει and κατά λέξιν. See above, on ώδε. Both are very frequent, IV.421, 539.

The κατά A έξιν formula or an equivalent was used by Clement particularly when quoting heretics; with the passage in the preceding note compare his quotations of Isidore, the son ofBasilides, and of Valentinus, II. 174.23 (κατά λέξιν) ; 174.30 ( αύταΐς λέξεσι), and again of Isidore, 196.1 (κατά λέξιν), and again of Epiphanes, 199.10

(ταΰτα είπών κατά λέξιν, πάλιν ομοίως αύταΐς ταΐς λέξεσιν επιφέρει) ; Cassianus, 238. iof

(κατά λέξιν); Valentinus, 458.12 (κατά λέξιν) ; and again Isidore, 458.20. επί . . . τουτοις. Of literary sequence and, as here, initial, II. 248. 15, επί τουτοις . . . έξιστορητέον. The phrase is fairly common in the terminal expression, καί τά επί τουτοις , 1.26. 29; 61.4; Ι43·235 277·^5 etc· μέν . . . δε. Frequent, II.251.16f; 255·30_25^·5 (loosely connected, as here); 236.16

(the δε' never appears) ; 264.6; etc. έπεται. Frequent (IV.422, 36 references). Of literary sequence, II. 119.20, τά τουτοις έπόμενα (i. e., the rest of the passage). Regularly with επί , LSJ s.v. to. Above, II.21. καί προσπορεύονται . . . Ιωάννης. Mk. 1 0. 35. No variants. καί πάσα η περικοπή. Verbatim and used in exactly the same way, II. 154.8-9.

Stahlin cites 8 other uses of περικοπή (IV. 639).

τό. Above, II.21. δε'. Above, III. 1 1.

HI· 1 3

THE LETTER

" γυμνός γυμνά) " γυμνός γυμνώ. Aelian, De natura animalium 16.28, in FGrHist , no. 564F3, Καλλίας εν τω δεκάτω των Περί τον Συρακουσών Άγαθοκλεα λόγων φησί τούς κεράστ ας οφεις δει νους είvai το δήγμα, άναιρειν γάρ καί ζωα άλογα καί ανθρώπους, εΐ μη παρείη

Λίβυς άνηρ, Ψύλλος ων το γένος, οΰτος γοΰν εάν τε κλητός άφίκηται εάν τε καί παρη κατά τύχην καί θεάσηται πράως ετι άλγοΰντα, την πληγην [η το δήγμα) μόνον προσπτυσας, είτα μεντοι την οδύνην επράυνε, καί κατεγοητευσε το δεινόν τω σιάλω. εάν δε €υρη δυσανασχετοϋντα καί άτλητως φεροντα , ύδωρ άθρόον σπάσας είσω των όδόντων καί χρησάμενος αύτω του στόματος κλυσματι, είτα τούτο ες κύλικα εμβολών δίδωσι ροφησαι τω τρωθενττ εάν δε περαιτέρω καί τ ουδέ τού φαρμάκου κάτισχνη το κακόν, ό δε τω νοσοϋντι παρακλίνεται γυμνω γυμνός, καί τού χρωτός οι τού ίδιου προσανατρίφας την ισχύν την συμφυή, είτα μεντοι τού κακού πεποίηκε τον άνθρωπον ε ξάντη . The practice is attested also by some verses of Nicander's, which Aelian goes on to quote. See Kings 1. 17.21 ; II. 4.34^ Lucian,

De syria dea 55; Sulpicius Severus, Vita s. Martini ( CSEL I) 7.3; 8.2; Vita secunda s.

Samsonis ( AnBoll VI. 97) i6ff, and Daiches, 492b This type of miracle has been discussed by Bieler, esp. 237-243, and by Weinreich. The above references, except that to Lucian, appear in Bieler. Weinreich, 247fT, adds that the method is implied in Plutarch, De Iside 17 (357D), and the underlying idea in Plato, Symposium I75c-e: τον ούν Άγάθωνα — τυγχάνειν γάρ έσχατον κατακείμενον μόνον — Δεΰρ* , εφη φάναι, Σώκρατες, παρ' εμε κατάκεισο, ΐνα καί τού σοφού άπτόμενός σου απολαύσω, ο σοι προσεστη εν το ΐς προθυροις. δηλον γάρ ότι ηύρες αυτό καί εχεις' ου γάρ αν προαπεστης. Καί τον Σωκράτη καθίζεσθαι καί είπείν ότι Ευ αν εχο ι, φάναι, ώ Άγάθων, εί τοιούτον ειη η σοφία ωστ εκ τού πληρέστερου εις το κενωτερον ρεΐν ημών, εάν άπτώμεθα άλληλων, ώσπερ το εν ταΐς κυλιξιν ύδωρ το διά τού ερίου ρεον εκ της πληρέστερος εις την κενωτεραν. εί γάρ ούτως έχει καί η σοφία, πολλοΰ τιμώμαι την παρά σοί κατάκλισιν οίμαι γάρ με παρά σοΰ πολλής καί καλής σοφίας πληρωθησεσθαι. Plutarch, De Iside 17 (357-^) an<^ x9 (358E), reflects the story that Isis, after recovering the body of Osiris, lay upon it and revived it to such an extent that she conceived from it the child Harpocrates.

The story is related to a number of magical and erotic passages, e.g. : PGM vol. I, p. 71, n7; also no. IV, lines 1 1 pfT, 40off; no. XXXVI, lines 288ff;

DMP, col. XV, lines 14-20; Anthologia Palatina V. 128; Anthologia Latina 430 (Riese) ; Kerenyi, 39ff. All this material accords with what was said about the Garpocratians, both by Clement (II. 197. 16-200. 15) and by Irenaeus (Harvey,

I.20.2 = Stieren, I.25.3-4). And the Garpocratians are said to have interpreted resurrection allegorically as initiation into their sect, Irenaeus, (Harvey, II. 48. 2 =

Stieren, II. 3 1.2). It is not unlikely, therefore, that the Garpocratian text here had an

account of a resurrection effected by Elisha's somewhat indiscreet method, but used to justify liturgical or extraliturgical practices of their own. [H.G. refers to the attempt to strip a dead body in a tomb, reported in Acta Ioannis 70-80.] This is an account of an attempted assault prompted by necrophilia, but it stands in contrast to the sub sequent raising of the body by the apostle; and the raising follows the model in this letter, not that in John — the apostle enters the tomb and takes the hand of the dead.

It is possible, therefore, that the story of the assault may be polemic against the

III. 13-14

THE LETTER

III.I4 καί τάλλα περί ών εγραφας ούχ εύρίσκεται, μετά δε τό, " και ερχεται εις Ιζριχω, Carpocratians and their ritual. And since De Iside 17 reports the occasion of the conception of Harpocrates, was it merely by a scribal error that Origen made Celsus refer to the sect of the " Harpocratians" (

Contra Celsum V.62) — or was this polemic?

Clement often uses γυμνός metaphorically of the state in which the soul must approach

God, IV. 321 (some 15 references); he also uses it in its liturgical sense, 1. 255. 15, etc.

[The metaphorical use is often part of the theme of the restoration of the original condition of humanity in paradise, as is the notion of the disappearance of the difference of the sexes. A.D.N.] The metaphorical use is relevant to the requirement of actual nudity in Christian and Jewish proselyte baptism (Hippolytus, Apostolic

Tradition XXI. 5 and 11, ed. Dix; Werblowsky, Rite ggf). The same conjunction of metaphorical and literal meaning appears in the Egyptian youth's account of his joining the gymnosophists, Philostratus, Vita Apollonii VI. 16: μειράκιον γενόμενος τα μεν πατρώα τοΐς βουλομενοις άφηκα, γυμνός δε Γυμνοΐς επεφοίτησα τούτοις, ώς μα θησόμενος

(sc. their secret doctrine). In this respect Carpocratian practice seems to have been similar to that of Hippolytus' church, which required that both the initiate and the baptizing presbyter be nude (XXI. 11). See below, pp. 1 75 — 1 77, and the discussions of Mk. 1 4.5 if and of Clement, Excerpta 66 referred to in the Index of Passages

Discussed. ταλ λα. For Clement's usage (or that of the copyists of his works) as regards con tractions, see above, 1. 9, on τάληθη. περί ών εγραφας. I Cor. 7.1a, which, however, has εγράφατε. No variants. (7.1b is quoted by Clement, II.240.12f.) εγραφας is an epistolary commonplace; Weichert,

8f. περί τίνος γράφείν , in Clement II.222.6f; 341. iof; 402.7; etc. ούχ. The copyist wrote ούκ. εύρίσκεται. εύροις dv of finding in Scripture is rather frequent in Clement, II. 187.20;

442.8; 448.19 (εύροίμεν δ'άν) ; etc. The form εύρίσκεται is used, not of Scripture, in II.316.8 and 466.14; it is used of things being found written εν τη εκκλησία τού θεού , which here practically means "in Scripture," in a quotation from Valentinus,

11.458. 14. [Both εύρίσκεται and ούχ εύρίσκεται with this meaning are common in grammarians and scholiasts. A.W.]

μετά δε τό. Above, II.20-21. Initial, II. 507. 23 (without τό). μετά with επάγειν in citation, II. 406. 56 καί ... 'Ιεριχώ. Mk. 10.46. ερχεται is read by the "western" text (D, Sinaitic

Syriac [R.S. adds 788 — of the Ferrar group — and some Old Fatin: a b ff 2 r2 i]);

III. 14-18

THE LETTER

επάγει μόνον, III.14-III.16: quotation from the secret Gospel III. 17 τά δε άλλα τά πολλά ά εγραφας φευσματα και φαίνεται και όσην.

ΙΙΙ.ιδ η μεν οΰν άληθης και κατά την άληθη φιλοσοφίαν εζηγησις έρχονται , by the rest of the tradition. Clement quotes 10.45 in ^

* 1 39-3°^ and 10.48

(perhaps) in II. 498. 33. επάγει. Very frequent in citations, IV.401 (28 references). μόνον. Frequent, IV.571, not fully indexed. τά δε άλλα. Not found as the beginning of a sentence in Stromateis IV-VI inclusive. και τα μεν άλλα , II. 281.3; τά μεν οΰν άλλα, 303*12; τά δ' ομοια (following citations, to indicate further literary material), 333.5; 339.3; 409.4 (no δε); τά δ' έξης, 384. 15All these are beginnings of sentences. The absence of elision is noteworthy; cf. the earlier usage of the letter (1.8,9,27; II. 4, 6, 12; etc.). Does this indicate that the earlier cases were due to the manuscript, not the copyist? εγραφας. Above, III. 13; further examples, 1. 22. 22, etc. φεΰσατα. Above, II. 9. και φαίνεται και εστιν. For the contrast, III.64.32fF, όιακριτεον 8ε . . . το αληθές από του φαινομένου. See above, I. ίο. The expression here might be an ironic reminiscence of Plato, Hippias Major 294a— c, esp. c, καί είναι καί φαίνεσθ at. [However, φαίνεται καί εστιν is so common that it need not have come from the Hippias. Could its usage here be due to this: Clement's correspondent had said, "These seem ( φαίνεται ) to be falsifications," and Clement now answers, "They not only seem to be so, they are "? B.E.] η .. . εξηγησις. II. 249. 1 I, η γοϋν κατά τον της αλήθειας κανόνα γνωστικής παραόόσεως φυσιολογία (also the beginning of a sentence). μεν οΰν. At the beginning of a sentence, following an article, II.347.18, etc. άληθης. Above, I.9. κατά την άληθη φιλοσοφίαν. Verbatim, II. 3. 2; 1 12.5; 247.15; 421. 15f; 422.3f.

Clement's standard description of his own theories. εξηγησις. II. 495. 5 (with κατά) ; 498. 1 2 ( τών γραφών — and so the preceding instance) ;

361.1 (of profane writings); 9 other references, IV.397.

THE LETTER

II. Synthesis of findings Of the scholars to whom the preceding commentary was submitted, most concluded that the manuscript's attribution of the text to Clement was probably correct — so Bickerman, Calder, Chadwick, Einarson, Friichtel, Grant, Hadas, Jaeger, Lampe,

Mondesert, Reumann, Richard, Richardson, Schippers, and Wifstrand. Nock was inclined to deny this attribution, though basing his opinion only on "instinct," and Munck and Volker denied it emphatically, for the reasons discussed in the com mentary. To me, the evidence in the commentary seems, if judged by the standards customarily used in questions of literary authenticity, to justify attribution to Clement.

Moreover, there is further evidence which points in the same direction.

A. Linguistic and Stylistic Data The similarity of the letter to the recognized works of Clement in many details of language and style has been illustrated frequently in the commentary. These details must now be summarized and general considerations added.

I . VOCABULARY

Index I lists the words of the text and indicates whether or not they occur in the works of Clement and of Athanasius. (A comparison with Philo was attempted, but Leisegang's index omits too many words.) The "letter" (that is, everything except the heading and the quotations from the secret Gospel) has a vocabulary of 258 different words, of which 7 are not in Clement, 28 not in Athanasius; by contrast, the quotations from the secret Gospel have a vocabulary of only 82 different words, but of these 4 are not in Clement and only 3 not in Athanasius.4 It appears, therefore, that the vocabulary of the letter is somewhat closer to Clement than is that of the secret Gospel, and is much closer to Clement than it is to Athanasius. This is shown by the following table (see next page).

were based on a different division of the 4. The different figures given in the preliminary report material.

THE LETTER

Not in Clement Not in Athanasius Secret Secret Heading Gospl Heading Σαλώμη Letter Letter Gospel Κλημης άναιδεστατος άποκυλίω αναιδέστατος άποκυλίω άναμίγνυμι άπερατος Βηθ ανία στρωμ ατευς άνδραποδώδης όφία άπόγραφον απατηλός εμβλεπω άπροφυλάκτως οφ ία μηχανάω (act.) άπερατος προσπορευομαι άπόγραφον φθονερώς άπροφυλάκτως εζα ντλεω όξήγησις επτάκις εραστής ζόφος Ιεροφαντικός Καρπό κρατιανός καταδουλόω κράμα μηχανάω (act.) πλανήτης παραχαράσσω πνευματικώτερος μυεω προπαρασκευάζω προσεπάγω προσπορευομαι ύποσημαίνω φθονερώς φιλοσοφία χρησιμώτατος The results above are confirmed by consideration of the words in the text which occur less than five times in either Clement or Athanasius. Here it seems worthwhile to report also those usages recorded in the index to Philo. This has yielded the table on the opposite page, where P, C, and A stand for Philo, Clement, and Athanasius. The plus signs indicate incomplete entries in Stahlin's index.

In sum, the letter, of its 258 words, has 63 (a quarter) which are rare in either

Clement or Athanasius. But of these words 680+ uses are recorded in Clement, 376 in Leisegang's incomplete index to Philo, and only 142 in Athanasius. By contrast,

THE LETTER

From the letter Ρ C Λ Ρ C A άβυσσος

— ι5

μυεω *5 + 6 + I

I —

Καρποκράτης 68ο 4From the secret Gospel Ρ C A Ρ C A — I

σινδών — I I 23 21+ 90

THE LETTER

the secret Gospel, of its 82 words, has 12 (only a seventh) which are rare in either

Clement or Athanasius, and of these words there are only 2 1 4uses in Clement and 23 in Philo, but 90 in Athanasius. This shows that the letter is much closer to the peculiar language of Clement and Philo than it is to the later Alexandrian tradition as represented by Athanasius. (Indeed, from the above figures the letter would seem closer to Clement than to Philo, but the figures for Philo cannot be pressed.) It further appears that the quotations from the secret Gospel use a vocabu lary of which the affiliations are quite different from those of the letter. This suggests that the different vocabularies came from different authors, but it is not conclusive, for the difference of vocabulary might be explained as a result of content and of imitation of Mark.

The rare words in the letter have been discussed in the commentary; the more significant cases may be recalled here, άπέρατος meaning "boundless" (1. 4) probably appears in Philo, whose influence on Clement is well known; the superlative άπεράτωτον seems to be used in the same sense by Clement, άπόγραφον meaning ' ' copy

(II. 6) and άπροφυλάκτως (1. 27) are rare in the preserved literature and not found in Clement's preserved works; they would probably not have been used by an imitator anxious to avoid questionable traits, but they are evidenced by contemporary usage and Clement himself could well have used them, αύτίκα (II. 15) appears in one of the senses distinguished by Mayor as peculiar to Clement, who was abnormally fond of this word, μηχανάω in the active (II. 3) is extremely rare (in prose otherwise unknown?); that it should have been used by an imitator is almost incredible, but Clement himself might have used it as a deliberate echo of Homer — he was very fond of Homer and often uses poetic verb forms in his prose. The three remaining words not in Clement, Philo, or Athanasius are προσπορευομαι (III. 1 2) quoted from Mk. 10.35, and αναιδέστατος (II. 8) and φθονερώς (1. 27), both in Plato, who was the chief pagan influence on Clement. The words in the letter and Clement, but not in Philo or Athanasius, are άναμίγνυμι (II. 8), άνδραποδώδης (J-.j), εζαντλεω (II. 9), and προπαρασκευάζω (1.27)? a^ in Plato; ιεροφαντικός (1. 23) in Iamblichus; προσεπάγω

(1. 24) in Polybius; and Καρποκρατιανός (1.2) and πνευματικώτερος (1.2 1) from the Christian vocabulary, πλανήτης, Philo πλανήτες, scarcely belongs in the list, especially since the letter uses it in a quotation from Jude. By contrast, the words peculiar to the secret Gospel, άποκνλίω (III. 1 ) and οφία (III. 7), are both in LXX; but neither is in Plato. There is only one word shared by the secret Gospel and Clement, but not listed for Philo or Athanasius: the name. Σαλώμη (ΙΙΙ.ιβ) — a name particularly important in the gnostic side of Egyptian Christianity with which Clement was involved. It will be discussed below in the commentary on the secret

Gospel.

[JR. here remarks: "Though I find myself convinced by the cumulative arguments for the authenticity of the letter ... I fear the statistics here might only point to a date for the document in the centuries between Philo and Athanasius. A comparison with Origen, if an index verborum existed, would be more significant."] With this I agree, but, as things are, the comparisons with Philo and Athanasius seemed the most relevant that could easily be made.

THE LETTER

2. VERBAL ASSOCIATION

Not only do the letter and Clement use the same words, but they associate them in the same ways: σαρκικών καί Ενσωμάτων, of sins (1. 4) πεφυσιωμένου εις γνώσιν (1. 5) καυχάομαι, of libertines who boast of their freedom (1.6) πάντη τε και πάντως (1.8) ο της αλήθειας εραστής (Ι.9) άνθρωπίνας δόξας and φαινομένην αλήθειαν (Ι.ΐο) as opposed to τη αλήθεια τη κατά την πίστιν (1. 1 1) αϋξησις πίστεως (1. 17-18) τα προκόπτοντα περί ( τινα ) = those things which make for (I.2of) πνευματι κξώτερ^ον ευαγγέλι ον (1.2 if) α ντους μόνους τούς μυονμένονς τα μεγάλα μυστήρια (II. 2) μιαρός, of demons (II. 2-3) απατηλός, of the black art (II. 4) τω των ανθρώπων γένει (II. 3) άχραντος και άγιος (ΙΙ.8) κατά την άληθη φιλοσοφίαν, as a description of the writer's opinions (III. 18)

Associations of words similar to all of these, but not usually identical and usually in different contexts, are to be found in Clement and are cited in the commentary.

This letter has, also, many of Clement's stock phrases — ώς εγώ οΐμαι (1.2 7), εΐσετι νυν (ΙΙ.ι), εύ μάλα (II. ι), etc. — which belong rather to vocabulary than to verbal association. Against these similarities, I have found in Clement no parallels for the following associations in the letter: παραδιδόναι , of the traditions of heretics (1. 13); έξαγγέλλειν, of an evangelist's publication of Jesus' teachings (1. 16); μυστικός, of Jesus' πράξεις (1. 16-17); επιτίθημι, of addition to a literary work (1. 24). It is to be expected that any work of any author will show some peculiar traits, and these seem within the range of Clement's possible usage.

3. COMPARISONS AND METAPHORS

The following are found both in the letter and in Clement's preserved works: sinners to planets (1. 3) the road of the commandments (1. 3, a favorite of Clement's) wandering into sensual indulgence (1. 4) depths of knowledge (1. 5) casting oneself into damnation (1.6) the darkness of falsity (1.6) slaves of the passions (1. 7) counterfeiting the truth (1. 14) salt, as a symbol of goodness (1. 15, NT) dancing out mysteries which are not to be spoken (1. 23)

Jesus a hierophant (1. 23)

THE LETTER

instruction acts as a mystagogue (1. 25) the veiled adyton of the truth (1. 26; confirming Wilamowitz' conjecture) unbelief is mental blindness (II. 14.Γ, a favorite of Clement's) the light of the truth (II. 15, another favorite; Tsermoulas, 29Q the evil walk in darkness (II. 16, OT) right believers are children of light (II. 17, NT) the coming of the spirit of Christ is sunrise (II. 1 7f ) moral purity (II.i8f, NT) Clement's works do not speak of drawing off a doctrine from a book (letter, II. 9), nor (clearly) of the abyss of sin (letter, 1. 4). That men are enslaved by magic or by evil spirits (letter, II. 5; Clement, 1. 8. 3; III. 5. 14) may not be metaphorical. The frequency with which the letter uses metaphors and similes and its failure to develop them — the way they are merely suggested by a word or two and then abandoned — have both been remarked as typical of Clement's style (Tsermoulas, 108; Murphy, xif).

Along with metaphor may be mentioned two other characteristics of Clement's style: his fondness for plays on words, conspicuously illustrated in the letter by the play on αλήθεια (1. 7-13, see the note on I.9), and his deliberate variation of nouns when referring repeatedly to the same thing, illustrated in the letter by the change from φεΰΒος to πλάσμα (1. 1 21 4).

4. FORMS OF REFERENCE

The following forms used in the letter are either closely or exactly paralleled in Clement: ovToi γάρ ol προφητευθεντες, identifying figures of Clement's world as those referred to by a cryptic phase of Scripture (1. 3) το κατά Μάρκον εύαγγελ ιον (1. 1 2) τούτο Βη το λεγόμενον, as an interjection to introduce a conventional expression

(1. 14) του . . . τούτον, for contemptuous reference to an object previously indicated (II. 9) καθώς και προείρηκα (II. I θ) η σοφία του Θεοΰ . . . παραγγελλει, to introduce a quotation from Proverbs (II. 13)

(II· i 3) _ διά τούτο . . . διά Σολομώντος παραγγελλει, to introduce a quotation from Proverbs αντίκα φησί, to introduce a quotation from a Gospel (II. 15) φησίν interrupting a quotation of Scripture (II. 18, very frequent in Clement) δι' αυτών (των γραφών') λεξεων . . . ελεγχων, introducing scriptural quotations to refute heretics (II .20) μετά το . . . ώΒε επιφερει (II. 2 I— 22) καί τα έξης εως (II. 2 if) κατά λεξιν (11.22) επί τουτοις and επεται (III. ι ι) καί πάσα ή περικοπή (III. 12) τά δβ' (III. 13) μετά Βε τό and επάγει (III. 1 4)

THE LETTER

Besides these there are 4 instances in the letter (1.6 and II. 16, 17, 18) in which Scripture is quoted without any introduction, or with only καί or γάρ to connect it to what precedes; this way of quoting Scripture is frequent in Clement's works

(see II. 1 8). Like Clement, the letter quotes Philo without mentioning him (II. 12).

The letter's only form of reference not paralleled in Clement is the epistolary common place περί ών εγραφας (III. 1 3).

5. FORMULAS BEGINNING SENTENCES

Of 26 such formulas, 17 are found verbatim in Clement: ουτοί yap oi (1-3) ον γάρ (ΙΙ.Ι2) διά τούτο (ΙΙ.Ι3) τούτους ovv (1. 7; II. io) αύτίκα φησ ί (II. 15) εΐ yap καί, c.opt. (1.8) ουδέ γάρ (1. 9) 6 γοΰν (1. 15) ημεΐς 8ε (II. 1 6—1 7) αμελεί (II .20—2 I ) ούδεπω (όμως) (I.22) επί (μεν') τούτους (III. 1 1 ) μετά 8ε (III. I 4) ούτως ovv (1.26) του 8ε . . . τούτον (ΙΙ·9) η / το μεν ούν (ΙΙΙ.17-18) Of the remaining 9, 5 are exactly paralleled in structure, though the words used are different; these are beginnings with initial participles or with nouns in the genitive,

1.5,11,13,18; II. 2. Two are epistolary cliches not found in Clement's preserved works

(which contain only brief fragments of two letters) but frequent in the imperial epistolography ( καλώς εποίησ ας, 1.2; σοί τοίννν, II. 19). One is a quotation of II Cor.

3.17 (in II. 18). The one unaccounted for is τά 8ε άλλα (III. 17). Of those found in Clement, αμελεί and αύτίκα φησί are so often used by him as to be characteristics of his style.

6. PREPOSITIONS

The uses of prepositions are customarily classified by cases and meanings; by those criteria, all the uses found in the letter are found also in Clement. Of the 25 uses of prepositions with verbs — l.^,4,jbis,io,i 1, ig,2obis, 21, 26; II. 2, 4,6, 7, i^bis, 16,20

2 1 (μετά), 2 1 (εις) ; III. 1 1 ,13,1 4bis — Clement has, for at least the 17 italicized, the same preposition in the same sense with the same verb. The rest are all to be found either in LXX and NT or in standard Hellenistic and classical authors. The preposi tional phrases in 1.15,22, II. 1 2, 1 3,2 1 (eV),22bis were excluded from the above list because they are standard adverbial constructions, practically independent of the verbs with which they are used. Of these constructions, those in 1.15,22, II. 13 and κατά λεξιν in 11.22 are all found in Clement, while εν τη 68ω (II.2i) and μετά τρεις ημέρας (11.22) are quoted from the NT; only μεθ * ορκου (II. 1 2) remains, and it is found in Mt. Thus the individual uses of prepositions in the letter are always in accord with Clement's general usage and often exactly paralleled in his works. But the situation is complicated by the question of the relative frequency with which particular prepositions and cases are used. This was studied for Clement's works by

THE LETTER

Mossbacher, who listed 18 prepositions in order of frequency, with estimated totals for the uses of each (p. 7). The first 12 items of his list appear in column M , below; column L lists the prepositions used in the letter (excluding the heading and the secret Gospel) and column C the prepositions in a sample passage from Clement, of approximately the same length as the letter (II. 243-246). In the L and C columns the totals are broken down to indicate the number of uses with each case, the cases being indicated by the initals A (accusative), D (dative), and G (genitive). κατά 1995 L M C διά 13A iG εν ηΏ είς gA κατά jA διά 1956 εν i/ 45 ' i-TV εν r TP T *7 Ί O επί 3 A 2D κατα 4A els 1589 1 TTUU$ είς 4 A μετά 3 A iG διά 2G iA 6771 !239 προς 1059 €K 933 ΊΤρΟζ rV από I G υπό I G €K JVjr 7 T£.UL jL, vJT 1 1\.

' _ περί /5<j παρα 505 αντί I G άνευ I G Ί i GIl/ (aX vX 2 _ 1 τ Γ'

(X V / U ZLd· j

LL1T (J 1 V_X ' "

/X€T(X 404

< > , (~Λ

Uli U iLvJ 4 UTT O 1 vjr

5G 9^ 26Α

1 1 G 6D 24A

It will be seen that the 12 prepositions which occur in the letter are precisely the same as the 12 Mossbacher found Clement used most often, and that the relative frequency of their uses in the letter is roughly in accord with Mossbacher's report of their relative frequency throughout Clement's works. In both these respects the letter agrees with Mossbacher's table much better than does the passage of Clement chosen for comparison-an atypical passage chosen deliberately to show that the letter is well inside the range of variations from which Mossbacher's averages were compiled.

On the other hand, according to Mossbacher (p. 9) the average frequency of cases throughout Clement's works, is 1.8 genitives and 2.7 accusatives for every 1 dative.

The letter has 1.8+ genitives and 4 accusatives for every dative, and Clement, II.243-246, has .55 of a genitive and almost 2.9 accusatives for every dative. Since the use of the accusative increased sharply in the centuries after Clement's work, and that of the dative declined even more sharply, the high relative frequency of accusatives in the letter would be a trait almost certain to be found in a later imitation; it seems to me the chief ground for doubting the letter's authenticity. On the other hand, the uses of είς, κατά , and μετά which account for this are almost all determined by content and individually paralleled from Clement's undoubted works, and isolated passages of Clement would be expected to show considerable deviation from averages based on the whole. In particular one might expect to find a private letter

THE LETTER

somewhat further along the line of linguistic change than its author's published works. It is also possible that some of the letter's accusatives were introduced by medieval copying; see below, on τον Ίησοΰν, in II. 24.

7. SYNTAX

The sentence structures of the letter can all be paralleled from Clement and, generally, from many Greek writers of the imperial period ; so can the letter's use of moods and tenses. For the most part these present nothing extraordinary. The exact parallel in Clement — with quite different words and context — to the rather odd sentence form in II. 13— 15 (διά τούτο . . . παραγγέλλει . . . δεΐν . . . διδάσκουσα) deserves notice. So does the grammatical slip, καυχώμενοι ελευθέρους είναι, , in 1. 6-7, which could hardly have been made by a careful imitator capable of writing the rest of the text, but is more understandable in a private letter. Besides these details, the most conspicuous grammatical characteristics of the letter are the fondness for the perfect (1. 24) and for verbal adjectives in -τέος and - τε'ον (I.io), both charac teristics of Clement.

8. EUPHONY

The letter's practices are common to Clement and to later Greek generally, but may be due to the copyists rather than the writer. Thus, although the letter agrees with Clement (Mossbacher, 45-47) in neglecting hiatus before prepositions and avoiding it after them (II. 4, 6, 12,20), no importance can be attributed to this; so does the secret Gospel (II. 26; III. 5, 6).

9. CLAUSULAE

Appendix C shows the results of a study of the quantitative rhythms at the ends of the sentences of the letter and of Stromateis III (chosen because it is closest in content to the letter). Quotations, sentences introducing quotations, rhetorical questions of less than four syllables, and passages textually corrupt have been excluded.

Of the remaining 314 sentences of Stromateis III, the quantities of the last five syllables have been tabulated. Five syllables can display only 32 patterns of longs and shorts.

If these 32 patterns occurred at random in the 314 sentence endings, each pattern should occur about 9 or 10 times. Actually, however, there are 6 patterns which account for more than a third of the endings, and 9 patterns which together make up only a ninth. This looks like the result of deliberate preference and avoidance.

Now the letter contains 2 1 indubitable sentence endings (apart from those in quota tions or introducing quotations) and to these may be added, for the sake of complete ness, the endings διδασκαλίαν του κυρίου (I.23Q and ουδέποτε είκτέον (II. I ο), which may perhaps conclude sentences, and αληθή λεκτέον (II. 13), the end of an unacknowl edged quotation from Philo which this author has probably rephrased. Of the resultant 24 units, 10 come from Clement's 6 favored patterns, 11 from Clement's

1 7 neutral patterns, and only 3 from Clement's 9 avoided patterns. All his favored

THE LETTER

patterns are represented in the letter, but only two of his avoided patterns appear there. The 6 favored patterns account for slightly more than four-twelfths of the endings in Stromateis III and five-twelfths of those in the letter, while the 9 avoided ones make up only a ninth of the endings in Stromateis III and an eighth of those in the letter. Thus the clausulae of the letter are those we should expect in a composition written by the author of Stromateis III.

B. Conclusions from the linguistic and stylistic data When taken together, the above similarities between the letter and the works of Clement virtually prove that the letter is either genuine or a deliberate and careful imitation. There can be no question here of accidental misattribution to Clement of a nameless document which some scribe assigned to a familiar author by a plausible guess. For that, the similarities are too great. Nor is there any evidence to justify the notion that we have here a genuine letter expanded by interpolation: the text is uniform and closely knit throughout. So the letter is either entirely genuine or a deliberate imitation of Clement's style. But if it be an imitation, its freedom is no less amazing than its accuracy. There is no passage of Clement's extant works from which it could have been derived by adaptation. Nor could it have been made up as a cento by putting together snippets of sentences taken from Clement. Except for a few fixed phrases and a considerable number of syntactic expressions which Clement used over and over, it almost never uses Clement's exact words, though it constantly uses his vocabulary, his phraseology, and his metaphors.

Thus the relation of the letter to the undoubted works of Clement is one of close similarity without either quotation or paraphrase. Now this is quite different from the relation of the letter's passages of the secret Gospel to the text of the canonical

Gospel according to Mark. The secret Gospel passages are largely made up of phrases which coincide almost word for word with phrases of Mk. If an imitation, it is an imitation of the simplest and most childish sort.

But this difference of relation is the opposite of what we should expect. Mk. is written in simple Greek with many striking peculiarities; it should be easy to imitate freely. On the other hand, Clement's style is often difficult, but has few striking peculiarities which an imitator could exploit. Without profound study it could not be imitated with assurance of accuracy except by taking whole phrases and piecing them together or by taking a whole section and making minor changes in it. So if one imitator had written the whole document, we should expect his imitation of Clement to be a cento or an adaptation, and we should not be surprised if his imita tion of Mark were considerably freer. That we find the reverse of this means that if the letter is an imitation , then the letter and the Gospel fragments were not composed by the same man. No man who could write such a free and skillful imitation of so difficult an author as Clement would then write such a slavish imitation of so easy an author as Mark.

THE LETTER

But what if the letter should be genuine? Then, too, it would follow that the letter and the Gospel fragments were by different hands. For Clement's works make clear that he would never have invented these Gospel quotations. No doubt he was of less than perfect honesty — see above, on II. 12 — but neither his conscience nor his feeling for Greek style would have permitted him to forge fragments of the sacred

Scriptures. Therefore if the letter is genuine , the letter and the Gospel fragments were not composed by the same man.

Now as remarked above, we must suppose either that the letter is genuine or that it is an imitation. Since both these suppositions have led to the conclusion that the letter and the Gospel fragments are not by the same man, we are justified in discussing them as separate compositions. We can therefore deal here with the letter by itself and reserve consideration of the secret Gospel for the following chapter.

Returning to the question of the letter's authenticity, we first remark its title:

4 4 From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis, to Theodore."

If the letter is not genuine, this title must be the result either of deliberate falsification or of a mistaken guess — some copyist found an unidentified letter "to Theodore" and attributed it to Clement on the grounds of content and style. But it has already been shown that the mistaken-guess theory is unlikely because the style of the letter is so close to Clement's that the work must either be his or a deliberate imitation, and if it were an imitation the imitator would have provided the title. Moreover, the words "from the letters" suggest (but do not absolutely require) that the letter at some time came from a collection of letters by Clement, and a collection is less likely to have been misattributed than a short, isolated text. On the other hand, "to Theodore" argues against falsification, for no Theodore is known to have been associated with Clement; nor was there any eminent Theodore who lived about his time and with whom he might plausibly be supposed to have corresponded. The name, especially because of its acceptability to Christians of Jewish background, fits very well with the content and finding-place of the letter; but a forger would probably have attempted something more spectacular — would have made Clement instruct his reported pupil Origen or his undoubted friend Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem. Of Theodore one can say, as Lebon said of Dositheus (

Fragments 17 n58), "This name is neither rare nor illustrious at this period; there is nothing about it which would have tempted a forger."

C. Content

I. KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF SCRIPTURE

The letter refers to the canonical Gospels as θεόπνβυστοί (I.ii) and αγία (II. 8); so did Clement. It uses, besides the four Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Pastorals,

I Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse.5 All these were accepted by Clement. Among the letter's quotations of the NT are a number Clement also used (1.3,5; H-i6,

5. See Index II for the quotations and reminiscences in the letter.

THE LETTER

17#«·, 19), and its quotations show points of contact with the western text (II. 18,22;

III. 14), as did Clement's (Barnard).6 Its quotation of Mt. 25.29 || Lk. 19.26 suggests that its author had the same peculiar form for the first half of the verse as did Clement

(II. 16). Of the NT, it uses Mk. 4 times; I and II Cor. together 3; Lk. 3; Mt., Titus, and Jude 2 each; Jn., I Thess., I Pet., and Apoc. 1 each. The prominence of Mark and Jude in this list is determined by the subject matter with which the author had to deal. Clement's order of preference (by columns of references in Stahlin's index) is: Mt. 9 cols.; I and II Cor. together 7; Lk. 5.5; Jn. and Rom. 4 each; Mk. 2.5.

(Stahlin's index is not always accurate in its assignment of material to the various biblical books — cf. Appendix D.) Of the OT (and Apocrypha) the letter uses Prov. three times and Jer., Wis., and Eccles. once each. Clement's favorites were Pss., 4.5 cols.; Prov. and Gen.,

3.5 each; Is., 3; but there is more than a column of Jer., and Wis. and Eccles. are both represented. The letter quotes Prov. 26.5 in a form in which it is quoted by no writer save Clement, and interprets it as Clement did (II. 14). It has what may be a reminiscence of one passage of Enoch ; the particular detail recalled is one for which Clement explicitly referred to Enoch (I.4).

Besides Enoch , the letter accepts as Scripture the secret Gospel; Clement is out standing among Christian writers for his acceptance of OT and NT pseudepigrapha.

Zahn wrote of him, "His amazingly uncritical attitude to apocryphal literature exceeds anything to be found in other Church fathers" (

Forschungen III. 156). This judgment is documented involuntarily even by the minimizing and incomplete studies of Kutter, 5off, and Ruwet, Clement 4o6f (neither of whom noticed, for ex ample, that Clement reportedly said Luke composed the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus : so Maximus the Confessor on Dionysius Areopagi tes, Μυστικής Θεολογίας i end). Of all important early Christian writers, Clement was the one most likely to have accepted a secret Gospel. His objection to a saying used by the heretic

Cassianus, Πρώτον μεν ουν eV το ις παραόεόομόνοις ήμΐν τβτταρσ ιν εύαγγελ ίοις ονχ εχομεν το ρητόν , άλλ' εν τώ κατ' Αιγυπτίους (II.238.27f), does not preclude his acceptance of a further, secret document to which he would not refer in public dispute. Compare his statement that the story of the rich young ruler is found in all the recognized

(άνω μολογη μόνοις) Gospels, which would exclude Jn. (III.163.13ff; cf. Mondesert,

Clement 1 18 n2). The attitude shown by the author of the letter is credible of Clement; it would be incredible of Athanasius, a century and a half later.

The letter not only has the same sacred literature as Clement, but also uses it in the same connections, for the same purposes (see the passages cited above, esp.

6. Barnard's conclusions must now be modified by the findings of Swanson, Text , who has argued that in the Stromateis Clement's use of a text of western type is demonstrable only in his quotations from Lk. In quoting Mt. and Jn. he demonstrably used a text closest to the Egyptian type (represented best by X). His quotations from Mk. have points of contact with the western text, but are not sufficient to permit determination of the type of text used. The long quotation of Mk. in QDS seems to have come from a mixed text (pp. 97-102, i67ff). These, at least, are the conclusions set forth by Swanson. I have not attempted to check his work in detail, but a number of its aspects — especially the choice of evidence

(see the notes to Appendix D) — do not incline me to be confident that these conclusions are conclusive.

Nevertheless, my thanks are due to Professor Metzger for calling my attention to Swanson's work.

THE LETTER

II. 14 and 18), and interprets it in the same ways. Its peculiar interpretation of Prov. 26.5 has been mentioned. It also shares with Clement the habit of using an OT quotation to follow and clinch one from the NT (II. 16). Further, it agrees with Clement in interpreting Jude as referring to the Carpocratians (Ι.βίΓ) and in asso ciating the Carpocratians with Nicolai tans of the Apocalypse (1. 5). The beginning of its peculiar tradition about Mark agrees with that which Eusebius found in Papias and Clement; moreover, in making Mark write during Peter's lifetime it agrees with Clement against Papias (1. 15).

It is in Clement, also (III. 162. 19-163. 12), that we find the quotation of a long, uninterrupted section of Mk., like the letter's quotation of the secret Gospel. Moreover, the section of Mk. (10. 17-31) quoted by Clement is adjacent to 10.34 and 46, where the letter locates in Mark the pericopae it quotes from the secret Gospel. And yet more: This was the one part of Mark in which Clement, for some reason, was especially interested. Stahlin's list of Clement's quotations from Mark is not reliable; it includes passages probably quoted from the other synoptics or from extracanonical sources. A revision of it will be found in Appendix D. The revised list shows no certain quotation of any verse prior to 8.38 (the last verse of ch. 8). The certain quotations are of 8.38; 9.7; 9.29 (?); 10. 17-31 and 14.61b Of the possible quotations listed by Stahlin there are 13 prior to 8.38, 25 from chs. 9 and 10, and 14 from 11.1 to the end. Allowing for the fact that 1 1 of the 25 occur in the exegesis of 10. 17-31 in QDS , it remains clear that Clement was extraordinarily interested in Mk. 9-10, particularly in 10, the chapter from which this letter quotes the additions in the secret Gospel. (The reason for this interest in Mk. 9-10 will be discussed later.)

Both the letter and Clement are much fonder of allusions and reminiscences than of direct quotations, and even when they quote directly they often do not specify the source. Stahlin recognized 79 quotations of Mk. as against 100 reminiscences

(and about 25 of his "quotations" belong in the reminiscence category — see Appen dix D). Of his 79 quotations only 2 carry with them explicit references to Mk. The letter has 18 quotations as against 19 reminiscences, and only one of the quotations is accompanied by a reference to the author (though, of course, the 4 quotations of Mk. used to locate the sections of the secret Gospel are themselves specific references).

The reason for the higher percentage of quotation and specific reference in the letter is its polemic content; in polemic passages Clement, too, makes more use of specific reference and allegedly precise quotation (1. 22). The less precise practice of reminiscence had an advantage which recommended it both to Clement and to the author of the letter: it made possible their favorite practice of multiple reference, of combining a number of OT and NT passages so as to suggest that each should be interpreted in the light of the rest and that all should be applied as the writer applied them (1.3^6,14-15; II. 13-19; further examples and comment in Ruwet,

Clement 253).

2. KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLASSICS

Besides scriptural learning, the letter shows considerable knowledge of the classics; for this Clement was praised by Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, Socrates, Anastasius of

THE LETTER

Sinai, and Photius (Stahlin, I.IX-XVI). The letter has three or four reminiscences of Plato (see Index II), one or two of Philo (1.2,4; II·1 1 , 1 2— 1 3) , and one each of Homer and Sophocles. Clement's favorite authors were Plato (10 columns of refer ences in Stahlin), Philo (7), Plutarch (5.5), Chrysippus (5), and Aristotle and Homer

(4 each), but Sophocles has more than half a column. As already remarked, Clement usually quotes Philo as the letter does — without acknowledgment. Of all the works to which the letter probably refers, there is only one (apart from the secret Gospel) to which Clement does not refer: Plato's Hippias Major.

Because they were learned in classical as well as Christian literature, both Clement and the author of this letter had to face the problem of contradictions between faith and worldly knowledge (Marrou, Humanisme) , and both met it by distinguishing two kinds of truth — the inferior being that recognized by human opinion, the superior

"the truth according to the faith," a phrase they both use (1. 9-1 1 ; cf. Osborn,

Philosophy 1 13). As possessors of this higher truth the Christians are a privileged group, illuminated, as both writers say, by the spirit (II. 17). Both writers call themselves and their fellow Christians "children of light" and like to follow unfavorable com ments on outsiders with favorable ones on Christians introduced by the complacent words, "But we . . ." (II.i6f).

3. KNOWLEDGE, FAITH, AND GNOSIS

Even within the Christian community, however, both writers distinguish higher and lower degrees. Both speak of Jesus as a "hierophant," a teacher of mysteries

(1. 23), and the Christianity of both has not only mysteries but "great mysteries," probably by contrast with the preliminary ones (II. 2). Both connect admission to the great mysteries with progress in "gnosis" (1. 21 ; II. 2; Stahlin, II.249.8ff; 367.1911;

373-374). Both, moreover, think that progress in this gnosis is effected by instruction, inter alia instruction as to Christian tradition, having as its point of departure exegesis of stories about Jesus (1. 25). This μυσταγωγία, as both call such exegesis, is not given to all Christians, but only to suitable candidates (1. 22; II. 2).

[Jacob Taubes remarks that one striking similarity between Clement and the author of the letter is the ambivalence of their attitude toward gnosticism; both combine violent abuse of gnostics with claims to enjoy the true gnosis and possess the true secret doctrine; among the fathers of the Church this ambivalent attitude is most typical of Clement and is better suited to Clement's time than to any later period.] Clement himself was almost certainly attacked, in his day, as a gnostic, and not without some reason (Buri, Clemens 16, io6ff). For the letter's use of γνώσις in both good and bad contexts, compare 1. 5 and I.21; for Clement's, the citations there and II.247.12, etc. H.C. suggests that the author's purpose in his catena of texts (II. 1 7-19) was partly to make clear that he, as a true gnostic, was free to handle the secret Gospel. Clement's demi-vierge position in the gnostic controversy can be seen by comparing his private excerpts from Theodotus with his attacks on the Valentinians in the Stromateis; see also the remarks of Photius (in Stahlin I.XIVf, on which Casey, Clement, and the suspicious scholion 1.317.36^ and such passages as

THE LETTER

III. 1 83.24, where Clement adopts the Valentinian concept, σπέρμα (further examples in Buri, Clemens 33, 3gf? 61, 73, etc.). Such ambiguities became rare after the work of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. After the middle of the third century, moreover, this whole complex of concerns — the inner circle of higher initiates, the secret apostolic tradition, the opposition of gnosis to mere faith, and so on — is overshadowed by questions of church discipline and organization. Later still it almost disappears as interest turns to the trinitarian controversy. The letter's con ception of Christianity and its main concerns are more like those of Clement than of any other Christian writer I know.

4. THE SECRET TRADITION

In the battle over gnosticism which raged throughout the second century and reached its climax at Clement's time, private letters played an important role.

Many were written; a few are preserved. References to the preserved examples are collected in Bauer, Rechtglaubigkeit 1 7 7fF. This was also, as remarked above, the great age of secret Gospels (Bauer, i8iff). So the literary forms no less than the content of these documents are appropriate to the time to which the heading attri butes them.

Neither Clement nor the author of the letter identifies the true gnosis (sc. his) with a purely philosophic position. This was already demonstrated for Clement by Daehne (60-67), who also pointed out what has since been generally recognized: that Clement claimed as the source of his gnosis a secret, oral tradition derived from Jesus through the principle apostles (Il.g^ff; 462.28ff; III. 199.2 iff'; further passages collected in Camelot, Foi goff). Exactly such a tradition is supposed by this letter (1. 22). As pointed out ifi the commentary (1. 23), Mondesert saw this claim was alien to Clement's inclinations and to the structure of his thought. Therefore the claim cannot be explained as Clement's invention; he must have accepted it because he found it established in the church in Alexandria. The letter implies that it was. Both the letter and Clement think this secret oral tradition contains the highest truth, which can be revealed only to the gnostic (see the passages cited above and I.26). Both agree that this tradition and other important elements of Christianity should be hidden, not only from outsiders, but even from catechumens and unworthy

Christians: it is a Christian's duty to conceal the truth (1.18,22,27; H-2, 1 3 — 1 5) Clement makes clear that he has no intention of writing down the innermost secrets

(II. 1 1. iff) and in his published works will exercise such discretion that only the careful student will be able to make out the significance even of what he does say — a promise he kept too well (II. 1 i.gf). This policy he describes and defends in words strikingly similar to the letter's description and defense of Mark's actions (1. 16— 18).

However, both from Clement's writings and from the letter it appears that some works containing at least important hints about this secret doctrine had been written, and some of these written works had fallen into the hands of the unworthy (I.21;

II. 6). The least worthy are the heretics, the worst heretics are the gnostics, and the worst gnostics are the libertines — on these points Clement is explicit (

Stromateis

THE LETTER

III), and the same judgments are implied by the letter in its initial sentences. The letter agrees with Clement that the knowledge claimed by these gnostics is false and their alleged freedom is slavery to the passions (I.^fF) . Both the letter and Clement accuse the gnostics of corrupting the Christian tradition by interpretation and by interpolations (I.n and 14; Buri, Clemens 21-23), and both profess to refute the gnostics by quoting the exact words of genuine documents (II. 20 and 22).

5. ATTITUDE TOWARD THE CAR POOR ATI ANS

Of all libertine gnostics, the particular sect of most concern to the letter and to Clement, but to no other known Christian writer, are the Carpocratians. Clement, in his major attack on all gnostics in Stromateis III, took the Carpocratian sect as the outstanding example of libertine gnosticism (cf. Buri, Clemens 19). It is therefore plausible to suppose that they are referred to by many of his slurs elsewhere at unspecified libertines; sometimes they certainly are (III. 143.20). In the works of Irenaeus they are less important than the Valentinians. In Tertullian and later heresiologists they are of quite minor importance. In Alexandria itself they seem to have been almost annihilated by the great persecution which drove Clement from the city (about 202?). Origen, a generation later than Clement, said he had never been able to meet a Carpocratian in spite of his efforts (

Contra Celsum V.62).

The letter is entirely concerned with them. Clement and the author of the letter are at one in referring to them the abusive passages of Jude (1. 3), in associating them with the Nicolai'tans attacked in the Apocalypse (1. 5), and in declaring that they have cast themselves into darkness (1.6). It appears from both Clement and the letter that Carpocrates worked in Alexandria and the sect arose thence (II. 3).

6. DIFFERENCES, REAL OR APPARENT

So far we have seen that the letter has Clement's knowledge both of the Scriptures

(including the pseudepigrapha) and of the classics, uses them as Clement does, and adjusts them to each other as Clement does. It also has Clement's notion that within Christianity there is a secret tradition reserved for the few true gnostics

(among whom the author, like Clement, includes himself), and it consequently shares Clement's hostility to the competing gnostic groups, particularly the Carpo cratians. Now we must consider the differences to be found between it and Clement's works.

Of course there is much material found in Clement but not in the letter; a document of three pages is not likely to reflect all the content of a corpus of three volumes.

Of the material found in the letter and not in Clement, the most surprising part is the information about Mark's secret Gospel and the Carpocratian's corruption of it. The letter presents this as confidential and even directs that Markan authorship of the secret Gospel (or, at least, of the Carpocratian secret Gospel) is to be denied on oath (II. 12; see also the comments on κατεφευσμένα, II. 1 1). Therefore, if Clement were the author of the letter we should not find this information in his published works. To maintain that because it is not in his published works it could not have

THE LETTER

been in his private letters, one would have to maintain that Clement was extra ordinarily outspoken and veracious. But we have seen that he was not (commentary on II. 1 2). On the contrary, he thought the concealment of truth to be part of his

Christian duty — a part he said he intended to perform (Stahlin, II. 11). Among the texts Clement used to justify this opinion were some which the author of this letter used for the same purpose — 1.18,22,27; H-2, 1 3— 1 5. Accordingly, it is consistent with Clement's character that we should find in one of his private letters material at which his published works barely hint.

Moreover, the material found in the letter sometimes does seem to be hinted at by passages which are, or once were, in Clement's published works, and on other occasions it is supported by historical facts and by statements in the heresiologists.

(This does not imply that the heresiologists ever saw the letter, but does show that the letter's information about the Carpocratians has some claim to reliability, as Clement's certainly would— Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity 26ff). In the first place, there is reason for thinking the Hypotyposes contained the letter's statement that Mark went from Rome to Alexandria (1. 19). That Peter died a martyr would be common "knowledge." That the canonical Gospel according to Mark was designed for the use of catechumens (1. 17-18) looks like good tradition (Weiss, Christianity

690). That canonical Mk. omits or barely hints at important elements of Christian teaching, which Christians attributed to Jesus even before it was written, is clear from a comparison of Mk. with Paul and ζ) (this question will be discussed in the following chapters). That a secret Gospel according to Mark was circulating in Egypt, and that the Carpocratians appealed to Mk. for their claim to have the secret teaching of Jesus, were conjectures made by Harvey and Liboron from the statements of Irenaeus (1. 2 and 12). These conjectures are now confirmed. That the Carpocra tians practiced magic is asserted by Irenaeus and others (II. 4). Clement says that most of those who appealed to Jesus for help addressed him as "son of David" (II. 498.

32ff) ; this form of address is rare in the preserved Gospels, but the portion of the secret Gospel quoted in the letter adds another case. Clement says ού γάρ φθόνων

(compare 1. 27) φηοί, παρηγγειλεν 6 κύριος εν τινι ευαγγελίω, μυστήριον εμόν εμοι και τοΐς υίοΐς του οίκου μου (see above, on 1. 12) and the Clementine Homilies quote the logion together with material from Mk. (19.20. 1). Clement speaks of the rich young ruler as υπό του κυρίου συντελειου μένος and says εδιδάσκετο δι* αγάπην μεταδιδόναι

(II. 22ΐ. 27); the secret Gospel represents him as loving Jesus, receiving him in his house, and then being initiated by him. Trying to prove the Catholic Church older than the heresies, Clement says that, after Marcion, Simon Magus was for a short while an auditor of Peter's (III. 75. 18-76.1). Since this is clearly false the passage has to be emended, and a number of scholars have conjectured that Μαρκίων should be corrected to Μάρκος; cf. Stahlin, ad loc., who rejects this emendation but marks

the text as corrupt. It may be that a phrase has fallen out after συνεγενετο. Perhaps

Μάρκος δε τω Πετρω και τω Παυλω ώς νεώτερος συνεγενετο. The letter goes to confirm a conjecture of this sort: it shows why Clement, when the secret, "gnostic" tradition of the Church was in question, appealed to the authority of Mark — not Matthew or even John. Finally, the Carpocratian version of the secret Gospel had an account

THE LETTER

of Jesus' teaching a favored disciple the mystery of the kingdom of God privately and γυμνός γυμνω. Clement, though he wrote to Theodore that this phrase did not stand in the true text of the secret Gospel, nevertheless chose to note down, when he was reading the gnostic Theodotus, the statement '0 σωτηρ τούς αποστόλους έδιδα σκβν, τα μεν πρώτα τυπικώς καί μυστικώς, τα δε ύστερα παραβολικώς καί φνιγμενως, τα δε τρίτα σαφώς καί γυμνώς κατα μόνας (III. 1 28.24ff)· Did he note with approval?

As remarked above (on III. 13), his usage of γυμνός was usually metaphorical.

These are trivialities to none of which, taken alone, one would attach importance.

But given the document which confronts us, and taken together, they may be thought significant.

More significant are the obvious differences which at first sight look like contra dictions between statements in the letter and statements in Clement's published works. Clement says the true Christian will never swear; the letter recommends use of an oath to deceive. But we have seen that Clement's statement is so hedged by modifications as to be compatible with the letter's recommendation (II. 12). Clement says the founder of the Carpocratian sect was Carpocrates' son Epiphanes, who died at the age of seventeen after having written a blasphemous book from which the Carpocratians derived their doctrine (II.197.26ff). The letter says the doctrines of the Carpocratians are derived from the secret Gospel of Mark, which Carpocrates got from a presbyter of the church in Alexandria and corrupted by his own inter polations (II.3-10); there is no mention of Epiphanes. Obviously the account in the letter admits that the position of the Carpocratians is considerably stronger than it would appear from the account in the published work.7 Their teachings come not from the philosophizings of an adolescent, but from that same secret Gospel reserved by the church of Alexandria for those being initiated into its "great mysteries."

Of course the Carpocratians are said to have corrupted this Gospel ; but even so the admission is obviously embarrassing. We should need no explanation of its nonappearance in the published work, even if the letter did not order that it be kept secret (an order which, as we have seen, is in accord with Clement's character and teaching). Moreover, as shown in the commentary (II. 3), it appears from Irenaeus that the Carpocratians did claim to derive at least some of their doctrines from secret apostolic teaching. Why did not Clement discuss this claim in his published work?

Was he ignorant of it? Or was it too embarrassing? We also saw that Clement, after disposing of Epiphanes, spoke of Carpocrates as the lawgiver, if not the founder, of the sect. It should be remembered that Photius said the Hypotyposes contradicted the Stromateis in many points (Stahlin, I.XV inf.; cf. Casey, Clement). The letter supposes

Carpocrates had doctrines of his own by which he interpreted and corrupted the Gospel to produce the mixture from which it then says the Carpocratian doctrines

are drawn (II. 9) ; it cannot be carefully worded. So the statements in the letter and the statements in the Stromateis could have come from the same man.

The most important thing about the apparent contradictions between the letter and the Stromateis is that they are apparent — at first glance they would cause a reader

7. The Stromateis was not an esoteric document — Molland, 9; Volker, 31 ; to the contrary, Lazzati, 35.

THE LETTER

familiar with the Stromateis to doubt the attribution of the letter to Clement. Therefore no imitator who intended to pass his letter off as Clement's would have included these contradictions unless he were ignorant of what the Stromateis said on these subjects, or unless the points made by the contradictory elements were his main concern. But the letter is so close to Clement in style and content that ignorance cannot be supposed

(especially since it is closest of all to Stromateis III, where the material on Epiphanes and Carpocrates is found). And the contradictions are partly on what seem to be side issues. An imitator could have substituted Epiphanes for Carpocrates or could have avoided the apparent recommendation of perjury without altering the main import of the text.8 Therefore it seems most likely that the letter is not an imitation: it resembles Clement's work in many trivial details which an imitator might neglect; it differs in conspicuous points of content which an imitator would never have neglected; and all of its differences can easily be explained — if it is genuine — by its private character and stated purpose, but they would be difficult to explain as consequences of any purposes which could plausibly be attributed to an imitator.

Who could such an imitator have been? And why would such an imitation have been produced ? Munck's suggestion, that the text was produced to glorify the church of Alexandria as possessor of the true secret Gospel written by its founder Mark

(commentary on 1. 15), would be credible only if the church of Alexandria ever had claimed to possess such a Gospel. (Otherwise the church would have been faced with the charge of having lost this invaluable document.) But so far as I know, the church of Alexandria never made any such claim. Therefore, given the absence of any plausible explanation as to why this document would have been forged, and the absence of any strong evidence in the document itself to indicate forgery, and the many strong reasons reviewed above for thinking it genuine, we can proceed on the assumption that the manuscript's attribution of the letter to Clement is correct.9

8. Contrast, in this respect and in the matter of obvious contradictions, the forgeries of Pfaff

(Harnack, Pfaff 'schen). Learned forgery was not rare in the eighteenth century, but was customarily edifying and tendentious; this text is neither.

9. This conclusion is further supported by the character of the Gospel fragment which the letter quotes. To this I have not referred above because a reference would have anticipated the argument of the following chapter. However, I quote here the comments of Stendahl, to whom I submitted only the chapter on the Gospel fragment: "Not having seen your part on the Clement problem as such, let me volunteer the impression that I cannot imagine a late forgery (of the Clement letter) containing this type of Gospel text. Nor could such a text originate in a time when Mark was definitely canonized. So, indirectly, all I have seen strengthens my trust in the letter. If this material be related to baptism it may well be an Alexandrian piece which was so related and believed by Clement to be properly Markan.

Whether Mark had been in Alexandria is another question to reconsider."

* *

THREE Secret Gospel During the academic year 1962-1963 this chapter was discussed in several meetings of the Columbia

University Seminar for the Study of the NT ; my thanks are due to the members of the Seminar for their consideration of the material and for helpful suggestions. Professors Pierson Parker, Cyril Richardson, and John Reumann were especially generous in giving my work close study; it has been much im proved by their advice. A. D. Nock read the first section of the chapter; the whole was read by Professors H. J. Cadbury, W. M. Calder III, H. Koester, C. Moule, R. Schippers, and K. Stendahl, and by Dr. T. Baarda. I thank them not only for the major observations hereinafter bracketed and initialed, but also for many small corrections.

A. Text and commentary, 97 B. Synthesis of findings, 122 1. Influence on the western text, 122 2. Vocabulary, phraseology, and grammar, 123 a. Vocabulary, 125 b. Phraseology, 130 c. Grammar, 133 3. The major parallels to the canonical Gospels, 135

4. The frequency of parallels to the canonical Gospels, 138 5. Conclusions from the stylistic evidence, 144

A. Other miracle stories of the same type, 1 46 B. The Lazarus story, 148 C. The order of events in Mk. and Jn., 158

D. Relation of the new material to the structure of Mk., 164

ns,

1. Position in the "historical outline," 164

2. Parallels to the transfiguration and passion stories, 165 3. Relation to the baptismal concern of Mk. 10.13-45, 167

a. Clement's statement as to the purpose of the longer text, 168 b. Clement' s preoccupation with Mk. g and 10, 168 c. Clement's association of the longer text with baptismal formulas, 168 d. The longer text stands in Mk. where baptism does in the paschal liturgy, 168 e. Details and order in Mk. 10.13-34 ani ^ ^e longer text reflect the baptismal service, 169 . tic comparison withthe canonical Gospels, 97

↑ Back to top