Clement Of Alexandria
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
gnostic sects. This may be due to the prominence given it in the accounts of Irenaeus and Clement, not to knowledge of its actual size.
The later fathers furnish repetitions and confusions.
Filastrius ' Florian Carpocratians are the most conspicuous confusion.
Praedestinatus is exceptional. His report must have come from some Acts of Barnabas
(not the preserved text) written at a time and in a place where the Carpocratians were important enough to call down the pseudo-apostle's rebuke, and old enough to make it seem possible. Third-century Cyprus would be a likely guess.
"Cyril's" Discourse on Mary is another exception. It shows that Ebionite and Carpocratian literature lived on in fourth-century Palestine and was developed in accordance with the developing superstitions of the time. "My mother the holy spirit" of the Gospel according to the Hebrews has now been identified with Mary and Michael! But the Carpocratians and the Ebionites are still connected, and the retort, "Harpocrates used to cast out devils" is probably the last item which should be added to our picture of this all-too-primitive Christian.
D. Studies This review of the evidence has shown the connection of Carpocratian doctrine with the original libertine tradition of Christianity. Both connection and tradition were ignored by the principal studies of Carpocrates in the past century. The tone was set by the DCB article (1877) which saw in Carpocrates a Platonic philosopher, discussed the Platonic elements of his work in some detail and paid little attention to the rest. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte (1884), followed the same line, adding discussion of the sources and defending the historicity of Clement's account against the unlikely hypotheses of Volkmar. Classic statement of the conservative position was given by Kruger's article in RTK (1901), supported by a full collection of references to the sources. Bareille in DTC added nothing; nor did Bousset's extensive study of near eastern mythological elements in gnosticism (
Hauptprobleme , 1907) contribute much to the background of Carpocratianism. His material on marking initiates
(286ff) and, more generally, on baptism (278ff), on the saviour (238ff), and on obscene mysteries (314Q either deals with peripheral details or does not reveal close connections, and this fact is significant: Carpocratianism had its background not in mythology but in magic, an adjacent but not identical field. Neither its basis in Palestinian practice nor the veneer of Platonism it acquired in Alexandria was dependent on mythology, and its most obviously mythological elements — the cosmocratores, for instance — probably began as mere demons over whom the magician gained control and were made cosmic powers by secondary development. That secondary development had already taken place in Col. 2, and did not substantially change the character of the essential practice.
THE BACKGROUND
Leclerq's article in DACL recognized the connection of Garpocratianism with magic, but spoiled the recognition by attempting to attribute to Carpocratianism the Eighth Book of Moses (. PGM XIII. iff), which has nothing in common with Carpo cratianism save its alternative title, Monas , and the usual characteristics of magical literature. By contrast, de Faye, Gnostiques (19131, 19252), tried to deny the rela tion between the Garpocratian school and the work of Epiphanes which Clement quoted. This is not impossible, but not likely. It is more difficult to suppose that Clement confused two Carpocrates than to suppose that the doctrines of Epiphanes'
On Justice and of Carpocrates as reported by Irenaeus were somehow reconciled.
Irenaeus reports on the Marcellinist branch of the sect after a generation of devel opment in Rome, and Clement, apart from his quotations of Epiphanes, shows us the Alexandrian branch after two generations of development there; differences are expectable.
Fendt ( Gnostiche Mysterien , 1922) did not deal directly with Carpocratianism, but his study of other obscene interpretations of communion is helpful for an under standing of the libertine tradition and its consequently secret doctrines. Buonaiuti's
Fragments (1924) followed the usual line, adding the unlikely suggestion that the statue of the teaching "Christ" in the Museo delle Terme might be of Carpocratian origin (p. 57). Leisegang, Gnosis (1924), did little more than translate the principal testimonia and add a brief account of the Greek tradition concerning transmigration of souls. Dolger's valuable study, Sphragis (1929), has been discussed above.
Liboron (Die Karpokrati anise he Gnosis , 1938) wrote the first monograph on the Carpocratians, giving a sensible if somewhat superficial account of the sect. An important advance from earlier studies was the recognition that the Carpocratians would have found many elements in the Gospels congenial to their doctrines (pp.
45ff: Liboron selects Mt. 5.2iff; 4.8; 16.25; Jn* 8.23f and 44; 15.19; 17.25; Mk.
9.23; Mt. 22.40; Jn. 13.34; Mk. 4.1 1 ; Mt. 13. 11). All that was lacking was the realization that these are not chance similarities, but that the Carpocratians derived from and continued the primitive libertine Christian tradition; this is why they have neither the elaborate cosmology of the philosophic gnostics like Basilides and Valentinus, nor the fantastic mythology of sects like the Naassenes and the Ophites.
Failure to realize this led Liboron (p. 52) to treat the sect as a simplification of gnosticism, whereas it was in fact a slightly philosophizing continuation of a sort of Christianity which often developed into or took up gnosticism. (Consequently works on the nature of gnosticism — recently Jonas, Religion , and Wilson, Problem
— have relatively little to do with Carpocratianism. It was closer to magic, and while magic was an important element in many gnostic systems, it was not itself a system, but a practice, older than gnosticism and more widespread.)
Bardy in his articles on Carpocrates and Carpocratianism in DHGE (1949) recognized the connection of Carpocratianism with magic, but not that with Chris tianity (though the latter is proved by theological structure and constant use of the dicta of Jesus and Paul). Peterson, in Enciclopedia Cattolica (also 1949) added
references from Michael Syrus and the Apostolic Constitutions and explained the Carpocratians' exegesis of Mt. 5-25f and of their use of images (which he connected
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
with pagan use of amulets). Schoeps, AFZ (2β2ίΓ — 1950), emphasized rightly the number and variety of libertine sects in early Christianity and also the connection between libertinism and the notion of deliverance from the world, but he failed to realize what these facts indicate as to the early, eschatological origin of the libertine movement. By contrast, Kraft, Gab (1952), began with historical error ("the tiny and insignificant sect of the Carpocratians," p. 434) and progressed by hypotheses for which there is no reliable evidence (the sect's identification of Christ with Harpo crates) and by neglect of part of the little evidence there is (the material in Clement and Irenaeus outside the primary passages) to the absurd conclusion that Carpocrates never existed. This thesis need not be discussed; it has been refuted by Chadwick,
Alexandrian Christianity (1955, p. 27), who also gives a good survey of the discussion of Volkmar's lunar theory (26, cf. Bolgiani, Polemica 95 m3) and a clear account of the major sources. Kretschmar, RGG3 (1959) adds nothing.
Perhaps the best evaluation of Carpocrates, however, was that by Danielou, Theologie (1958, pp. 97Q. He recognized that Carpocrates might have got from Judaism the notions that the world was created by inferior angels and that the soul could ascend above them. He also saw that Carpocrates, by his belief that Jesus was a normal human being begotten by Joseph, was connected with the Ebionites rather than the later gnostics, and that his treatment of Jesus as a model for other men was a further Jewish-Christian trait. He therefore suggested that even the sexual indifferentism and the notion of reincarnation might have come from Jewish sources. (For evidence of Jews who believed in reincarnation he refers to Origen,
Commentarii in Euangelium Ioannis VI. 7.) His conclusions (p. 98) deserve quotation:
"Consequently the case of Carpocrates is quite remarkable. He seems to depend essentially on a heterodox Jewish gnosis, which admitted that the angels had created the world and that metempsychosis took place. But on the other hand he has no relation to Samaritan gnosticism. We have to do with a strictly Jewish gnosticism.
Moreover, Carpocrates is a heterodox Jew become a follower of Christ, but after the fashion of the Ebionites, that is to say, he sees in him only a prophet and a model. Finally, he seems to have been affected by Zealot messianism. His son,
Epiphanes, will Hellenize this Jewish gnosticism, as Valentinus will, at the same time, the Samaritan gnosticism, and Justin the orthodox gnosis." This lacks only the realization that Jesus also was a heterodox Jew. Both Danielou's observations and Chadwick's study were neglected by Camelot, whose article in LTK (i960) follows Kraft instead of the evidence. This is what comes of relying on "the latest study of the subject." Mention should be made in conclusion of the penetrating remark by Grant, Gnosticism 96 (1959), that in Carpocratianism "counsels of eschato logical perfection have been transmuted into a kind of Cynicizing gnosis."
FIVE The History of the Text I. Egypt and Mark , 279 II. Evidence for the existence of the longer text of Mk., 281
III. The acceptance and disappearance of the longer text , 282 IV. The history of the letter of Clement , 285
I. Egypt and Mark The preceding discussion of the magical and libertine elements in early Chris tianity, and of the practices of secrecy they entailed, was necessary because these elements and practices have commonly been ignored (so Clasen, Arkandiziplin 56ff, iooff). They have been ignored because the adherents of the Pauline and Matthaean forms of the religion, the forms which ultimately triumphed, destroyed the documents and denied the authenticity of the competing traditions. The extent of the destruction can be judged by the poverty of Christian literature from the century between 35 and 135 and by the evidence collected in Bauer's Rechtglaubigkeit.
Because of the loss of the documents it is impossible to write a history of Christianity before the latter half of the second century. Therefore in the preceding chapter I made no attempt to present a history of the libertine side of the religion or to define precisely the affiliations of the longer text of Mk. to the various parties within Christianity. Restraint was dictated by what Weiss, quoting Harnack, has called
"our nearly complete ignorance of Christianity in Alexandria and Egypt before the year 180" (Christianity 658). This Egyptian darkness has not been much illumi nated by such works as I have seen (Bauer, Rechtglaubigkeit , 1934; Till, Gnosis , 1949;
Bell, Cults, 1953; Roberts, Christianity , 1954; Plumley, Christianity, 1957; Hornschuh,
Anfange, 1958, and Studien, 1965; Barnard, Stephen , i960, and Mark, 1964; PericoliRidolfini, Origini, 1962).
Moreover, besides our general ignorance of the history of Christian groups in Egypt, we ignore the particular circumstances which produced both canonical
Mk. and the longer text. The study in Chapter Three led to the conclusion that
the preserved sections of the longer text were written by someone who knew most of the canonical text and was anxious to cast older material, perhaps from an Aramaic
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
source, in the same style. Hornschu's arguments for a Jewish Christianity, perhaps of Essene background, in early second-century Egypt (
Studien 7gf, 93ff, iiiff, ii6f) would make it not unlikely that an Aramaic text should have been reworked there.
But we were also led to conclude that canonical Mk. showed traces of revision which could best be explained by supposing it had been produced by abbreviation from the longer text (so, the addition of εμβλεφας αύτω ήγάπησεν αυτόν in Mk. 10.2 1 — above, pp. 1 7 1 f ; the omission of something from Mk. 10.46 — above, pp. i88ff; the cross-reference to the longer text in Mk. 14.51 — above, pp. 1 76f ) . It would seem that canonical Mk. is the end product of a number of editorial reworkings, in the course of which it was sometimes expanded, sometimes cut down. That the preserved evidence would suffice for determination of the details of these reworkings is im probable, and the attempt to determine them would involve a complete restudy of canonical Mk., which cannot be undertaken here. For the present, the origin of the longer text must remain part of the larger unsolved problem of the origin of canonical Mk.
At most, the appearance of the longer text in Egypt is some reason for thinking the canonical text may have originated there and for questioning its traditional connection with Rome, a connection which might have resulted from an apologetic concern to authenticate the Gospel by attaching it to Peter. The traditional argu ments for the Roman origin of Mk. must be re-examined and against them must be set the evidence connecting Mark with Alexandria. Supporting evidence may be found in the fact that the Christians seem to have introduced the codex form of manuscript into Egypt (Roberts, Codex),1 but the strongest element remains the early tradition, of which the chief witnesses were collected by Parker in his afore mentioned report on the longer text; additional material has been pointed out by Pericoli-Ridolfini ( Origini 3 1 8fT) . Thus the following passages have been adduced:
Eus., HE II. 1 6f: "They say that this Mark was the first to be sent to preach in Egypt the Gospel which he had also put into writing, and was the first to establish churches in Alexandria itself. The number of men and women who were there converted at the first attempt was so great, and their asceticism both so extreme and so philosophic, that Philo thought it right to describe their conduct and assemblies and meals and all the rest of their manner of life. Philo is also said to have talked at Rome, in the time of Claudius, with Peter, who was then preaching to the people there." (The Philonic work referred to is the account of the Therapeutae.)
Eus., HE II.24: "In the eighth year of the reign of Nero, Annianus was the first after Mark the Evangelist to receive the charge of the community in Alexandria."
These passages are matched by two notices in Eusebius' Chronicon (ed. Helm, pp. 179, 183) and similar notices, with minor variations, in other editions and versions of the work. Jerome's Commentarii in Matthaeum , Prooemium 6 and De viris inlustribus 8 evidently derive from Eusebius and Papias; the conjunction is interesting if Eusebius' account also came from Papias, as was suggested above (commentary on 1. 15). A variant is provided by Ado of Vienne (died 875) Breviarium Chronicorum i. Followed by Barnard, Mark, with other (feeble) arguments in support of the tradition.
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT
6, which has Mark preaching first at Aquileia before going to Alexandria — an example of the adaptability of ecclesiastical tradition to local interest.
The Alexandrian Liturgy of St. Mark ( The Ante-Nicene Fathers, VII. 556), the Alexan drian Synaxarion , and the history of the patriarchs of Alexandria (bibliographical data in Pericoli-Ridolfini, Origini 3 1 7f) agree in representing Mark as the founder of the church in Alexandria; the Roman martyrology for April 25 makes him the first bishop of the city. This tradition is probably older than Eusebius; it might even be older than Papias, but this is a matter for which there is no direct evidence.
Other reports which perhaps, in spite of their considerable differences, derive from the Alexandrian or Eusebian traditions, are Epiphanius, Panarion LI. 6; Apostolic
Constitutions VII. 46; Acta Barnabae end; and prefaces to several MSS of the Vulgate
(Wordsworth and White, p. 173). Particularly interesting in the light of the new evidence is Chrysostom's statement that Mark composed his Gospel in Egypt
(. Prooemium in Matthaeum) ; whatever source Chrysostom may have had for the statement is unknown.
It must be added that these passages adduced by Parker and Pericoli-Ridolfini do not exhaust the early evidence for the tradition of Mark's work in Alexandria.
Others can easily be found— Eus., Theophany IV. 6; Ephraem, Commentary on the Diatessaron (Armenian version) end; the Acta and Martyrium Marci (
Acta Sanctorum Aprilis III, Apr. 25) ; the Doctrine of the Apostles (ed. Cureton, ASD , pp. 32f of the Syriac text). But none of this material is reliable and nothing can be built on it.
II. Evidence for the existence of the longer text of Mk.
Wherever produced, the longer text was known at a very early date. The indications that it was used by Mt. (above, commentary on II. 24 and III. 1—2, and pp. 17 if) and Lk. (above, p. 188) are inconclusive, but suffice to establish at least the likelihood of its use by Mt. On the other hand, Clement's statement that it was used by Carpocrates is probably correct and implies a date before 125 (above, p. 90); I believe this is the earliest at which any knowledge of Mk. in Egypt can be demonstrated.
Soon thereafter must be dated the influence exercised by the longer text on the western text of the canonical Gospels. For this the evidence seems to me almost conclusive (above, pp. i22f) and accords with the supposition that the western text arose in Egypt before 150.
The similarities between the longer text and Hippolytus, Methodius, De resurrectione, and the Epistula apostolorum (above, p. 174), the Gospel according to the Egyptians (the role of Salome), and Coptic texts on the transitus Mariae (p. 191) do not suffice to prove knowledge of the longer text: it seems a priori almost certain that in early
Christianity similar traditions circulated independently, and all these works may have derived from similar traditions. On the other hand, this possibility does not suffice to disprove knowledge of the longer text. The question must be left open and perhaps — for the older Egyptian material — the hypothesis of knowledge may be thought the more likely. By contrast, the Acts of Lazarus hypothecated by
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Baumstark and the Iohannis Euangelium Apocryphum Arabice (above, pp. 1 74Q probably derived from similar traditions, as did Actus Petri 29 (cf. pseudo-Hegesippus, De bello iudaico 1 1 1. 2) : A boy whom Peter raised from the dead would not leave him; since Peter, though invited, would not go to his house, he went to spend the night at the house where Peter was. This transfers to Peter the story told by the longer text of Mk. about Jesus, as Acts 9.36-42 transfers to Peter the story told about Jesus by canonical Mk. 5.35-43.
Celsus charges that Christians persuade boys to go apart with them privately iva to τελειον λάβωσι (Origen, Contra Celsum III. 55). This may reflect hearsay knowl edge of the longer text, as may his statement that the "Harpocratians" derive from Salome (V.62) and Irenaeus' reference to Carpocratian documents reporting the secret teachings of Jesus (Harvey 1. 20. 3 = Stieren 1. 25. 5), a reference to which Clement affords a parallel (III.199.19ff).
On the other hand, direct knowledge of the longer text is probably reflected by Theodotus, quoted in Clement, III. I28.24ff: 6 σωτηρ τους αποστόλους έδιδα σκεν, τά μεν πρώτα τυπικώς καί μυστίκώς, τα δε υστέρα παραβολικώς καί ·ρνιγμενως, τα δε τρίτα σαφώς καί γυμνώς κατα μάνας. By comparison with the Carpocratian γυμνός γυμνώ (above, pp. 185Q this looks like secondary allegorizing, κατα μάνας is certainly physical, referring to the conditions of the teaching, not the exposition; therefore γυμνώς at first was probably also physical. Theodotus or some earlier Valentinian has provided the preceding exegesis to transform γυμνώς into a metaphorical descrip tion of the content of the teaching and thus explain away an element of the tradition which might otherwise be an occasion of sin. Clement, always puritanical, welcomed this interpretation and therefore quoted it from Theodotus, although he or some predecessor had deleted γυμνός γυμνώ from the longer text of Mk. used in his church.
The Carpocratians kept the original text (in this respect) and remembered the original magical significance. This is, at least, a likely reconstruction of the course of events.
This brings us to the time of Clement and his statements concerning the text.
It also completes the list of passages which seem to reflect knowledge of the longer text or of similar traditions. From the list it appears that the longer text was influential at a very early date: Mt., Lk.(?), Carpocrates, the western text. Knowledge of it persisted in Egypt, in esoteric circles: Epistula apostolorum^?) , G. Egyptians (?), Celsus
(hearsay), Theodotus, Clement. Elsewhere, only Irenaeus has heard of the Carpo cratians having such a text. After Clement there is no certain trace of it — to my knowledge. Now that the text is known, references to it may be discovered in later writers. For the sake of the argument, however, let us suppose the last reference to it is the account in the letter of Clement.
III. The acceptance and disappearance of the longer text This poses two problems: First, how did Clement's church come to use this text; second, how did the text disappear from later Christian literature, especially that of Egypt?
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT
As to the use of the text by Clement's church: For lack of evidence there can be no history of the parties in Egyptian Christianity before Clement's time. Even
Clement's church is a vague entity. Its use of the longer text in its "great mysteries" was probably an established practice before Clement joined it (commentary on I.23). The letter apparently distinguishes between "those being instructed" (or "the catechumens," 1. 18) and "those being initiated" (or "perfected," 1. 22); the latter are probably "those being initiated in the great mysteries" (II. 2). This suggests two initiations — the second perhaps a second baptism for the true gnostics, distinct from the rank and file.
Such a practice might have resulted from the coming together— perhaps under the pressure of persecution — -of congregations originally distinct. A more hellenized congregation, holding to a philosophical interpretation of the religion and familiar with the practices of the mysteries, might have tried to maintain its individuality as an ecclesiola in ecclesia and have admitted candidates from the larger church only after a special course of training, and administration of its peculiarly significant sacraments. Another possibility is that we have here a late example of the way many Christian churches first quarantined and then eliminated the libertine tradition.
The dangerous secrets of realizable eschatology — of the immediate accessibility of the kingdom and the liberty of those who entered it — were limited to a few, shut away from the rest by special requirements, and at last quietly forgotten. It is recognized that the disappearance of realized eschatology (and of much that went with it) is one of the fundamental differences between the Christian explosion of the first century and the Christian organization of the third. Perhaps in Clement's letter we have one glimpse of a church in transition.
Such speculations are indemonstrable. The facts are that Clement's church in Alexandria had the longer text of Mk. and that thereafter nothing was heard of it. How is the disappearance to be explained?
Again we have no certain information; any answer must be speculative. A basis for speculation is Eusebius' report ( HE VI. 1) that a persecution under Septimius
Severus hit hard in Alexandria, and that Origen at 18 became head of the catechetical school because all older teachers had been driven out of the city (VI. 3. 1-3). In this persecution both Clement's church and its "official" copy of the longer text of Mk. (letter, 1. 28— II. 2) may have been destroyed. Whether or not other copies existed in orthodox circles is uncertain. They would not have been numerous and all may have been wiped out at the same time. Book-burning was a regular feature of ancient religious conflicts (/ Macc. 1 .56^ etc.) and was conspicuous in Roman persecutions of the Christians (Eus., HE VIII. 2, etc.) as well as intra-Christian disputes (Acts 19.19, with Wetstein's commentary) see below, p. 345.
Besides, as Bickerman has pointed out to me, ancient books were so perishable that any work not copied would normally disappear within a generation or two.
What usually requires explanation is not the disappearance of an ancient work,
but its preservation. Why was it copied? Clement's letter shows that the "secret
Gospel" was an occasion of some embarrassment to him, particularly because the Carpocratians also had it and evidently found in it material to support the libertine
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
interpretation of Christianity. Moreover, as Mondesert remarked, appeal to secret traditions ran counter to the philosophic conception of Christianity as the teaching of universal reason, and to the more important institutional definition of Christian tradition as that determined by the bishop (
Clement 57Q. Also, most of the competing Christian sects had their own Gospels, of which many were represented as transcripts of secret traditions. Thus, appeal to such authorities was discredited, not to say discreditable. In these circumstances what had preserved the longer text of Mk. in Clement's church was probably its ritual use in "the great mysteries." But the raison d'etre of these mysteries was the existence of an inner circle with special teachings — libertine or magical or philosophic or all three. If this circle was broken up by the Severan persecution, there would have been no further ritual use in Cle ment's church for the longer text of Mk., and its disappearance would probably have followed from mere neglect, if not from precaution. (Consider what Clement says of the danger of secret writings falling into the wrong hands— II. 1 i.4f). How many other churches had copies ? We do not know.
As for the disappearance of the longer text outside Egypt, the only strong evidence we have for knowledge of it outside Egypt is Irenaeus' report that the Carpocratians had such a document and the indications that it was used by Mt. and perhaps Lk.
(above, section II). For the disappearance of the Carpocratian text no special explanation is required. What has become of the rest of Carpocratian literature, or of the many gnostic documents used by Hippolytus in his Philosophumena — most of them apparently unknown to all other Christian writers (Stahelin, Quellen 7ff) ?
For the disappearance of the text used by Mt. and Lk. we have the analogous problem of the fate of Q, discussed by Kilpatrick, Disappearance. The connection of the longer text with the libertine and magical side of primitive Christianity, which the developing organization was more and more anxious to disown, is sufficient to explain the disappearance. (I refer again to the importance of charges of libertinism in persecutions of Christians: Justin, First Apology 10, 23, 26, 27; Second Apology 12;
Dialogue 17. And in spite of the claims of the apologists, the libertine tradition remained a danger even within the "orthodox" Christian organization; compare the claims of Tertullian before he became a Montanist — Apology XXXIX — with his charges afterward — De jejunio XVII.)
Returning to the disappearance of the longer text from Egypt: The strongest evidence for dating this at the Severan persecution is Origen's ignorance of the text.
Admittedly, he did not write down everything he knew, and much of what he wrote is lost and more is edited. Nevertheless, had he known the text we should have expected a reference. But if the text disappeared early in the Severan persecution when Origen was about eighteen (on Eusebius, HE VI. 1-3; cf. Barnes, Origen;
Koch, Origenes 1037), and if Clement was driven out of the city at the same time,
Origen may never have known the text. That he was a pupil of Clement is dubious, in spite of Eusebius' claims (Munck, Untersuchungen 1 73fT; cf. Volker, 36). They differ in their canons of scripture (for example, Clement accepted as Petrine the Kerygma
Petri and Apocalypse of Peter , which Origen rejected — Kutter, Bgff), their textual traditions (Clement used a western text at least for Lk. — Swanson, Text ), their
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT
exegesis of many particular passages (e.g., Prov. 5.16 — cf. II.116.27ff with Origen,
Homilia in Genesin XIII. 4; Homilia in Numeros XII. 1), and major aspects of their theology (Clement did not believe in metempsychosis). Such differences might be due to the independent development of Origen. More important is the fact that Origen, when speaking of his predecessors in the philosophic interpretation of Christianity, specifies Pantaenus but says nothing of Clement (Eus., HE VI. 19. 13).
Apparently he never mentioned Clement, since Eusebius, attempting to prove that Clement was Origen's teacher, is forced to argue by inference from their temporal proximity ( HE VI. 6) and to quote a letter of Alexander of Jerusalem to Origen in which Alexander refers to Clement (then deceased) as formerly known to Origen and as one through whom he himself had made Origen's acquaintance ( HE VI.14.8f).
But this only makes Origen's silence about Clement more significant. It would seem that the two were not close, and that if Clement ever was Origen's teacher, it was only for a short period when Origen was fifteen or sixteen. Consequently Origen's ignorance of the longer text is understandable.
IV. The history of the letter of Clement As a result of the early disappearance of the longer text, our knowledge of it depends almost entirely on Clement's letter. The date and destination of the letter are alike uncertain. Its many parallels to Stromateis III suggest that it dates from about the same time, that is, roughly the last decade before the Severan persecution; but the parallels are largely due to the subject matter, and Clement may have long continued to say the same things about the Carpocratians. That the letter was found in Palestine suggests that its recipient, Theodore, lived there. This suggestion is supported by the facts: (1) that the name Theodore (translating names like
Nathaniel) was popular with Christians of Jewish ancestry; (2) that Clement had studied in Palestine under a Christian teacher of Jewish ancestry (II. 8. 23 = Eus., HE
V.n.4f); (3) that one of Clement's warmest admirers, Alexander, afterward became bishop of Jerusalem, and Clement dedicated to him a work against Judaizing heretics ( HE VI. 13.3; Photius 1 1 1) ; (4) that a collection of Clement's letters existed at Mar Saba when John of Damascus, who worked there from 716 to 749, quoted three passages from the collection in his Sacra Parallela (Stahlin, III. 223-224; cf.
Stahlin's notes, III.LXff); (5) that no certain trace of Clement's letters is found anywhere else. Accordingly, we may suppose that the letter to Theodore was sent to some address in Palestine.
Sometime after its arrival in Palestine the letter was incorporated into a collection of Clement's letters. This is almost certain from the heading of the present text, εκ των €τηστο\ών του αγιωτά του Κ\τ]μ,€ντος. The collection known to John of
Damascus had at least twenty-one letters (Stahlin, III.223f). The making of the collection may plausibly be assigned to Clement's friend, the bishop Alexander.
He had ample precedent; collections of the letters of eminent Christians had been
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
common ever since the appearance of the Pauline and Ignatian corpora. Clement used a collection of Valentinus' letters (II.223.12), and Eusebius knew collections of the letters of a number of Clement's contemporaries ( HE VI.12.1; 14.8; etc.).
Moreover, Eusebius reports that Alexander founded the library in Jerusalem and that it was rich in collections of letters, which he himself used for his history ( HE
VI. 20. iff, on which Ehrhard, Bibliothek 2 1 7f) . But if Alexander made the collection or had it made, and if it was in the Jerusalem library which Eusebius used, how are we to account for the fact that Eusebius did not know it? He would certainly have mentioned it had he known it. Dubious material in one letter would not have pre vented his using the others or his including the collection in his list of Clement's works (HE VI. 13. iff). Perhaps the book had been misplaced or mistitled or somehow separated from the library and thus escaped his attention. Alternatively, one might suppose that the collection was made elsewhere (Ehrhard, Bibliothek 219) or at a later date.
A later date might be suggested by the use of άγιώτατος for an ecclesiastical writer, found in the heading of the present text. This seems to appear first in the time of Athanasius. The use of ό στρωματβνς for Clement (except for the instance dubiously attributed to Sextus Julius Africanus) is even later (commentary on I.i). But the heading is conventional and might be the work of any excerpter down to the time of the present MS ; it cannot be used to date the collection from which the text was taken. And it is hard to find a later time at which Clement was sufficiently popular to occasion the collection. So, at least, one would judge from the rarity with which works of Clement were cited, copied, and forged. A cluster of citations comes from the late fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries (Socrates, Stephen Gobarus, John Moschus,
Maximus, Antiochus of Mar Saba, Anastasius of Sinai, etc.), but if the collection had not been made before then it is unlikely that any letters would have been left to collect. Early MSS of Clement are rare; the present text of the Stromateis depends for the most part on a single eleventh-century manuscript and its derivatives. Of the spuria given by Stahlin most are the result of misattribution, not forgery; forgery accounts only for the άποάζιζις rrepl του πάσχα (III.LII), the source of fragments
70-74, and possibly the homily on the prodigal son printed in Potter's edition. The οροί probably began by drawing on Clement for material and ended with misattribu tion (for ό φιλόσοφος see III.LXVI, on fragment 52). The three forgeries are evidently late and isolated; they do not testify to any general interest in Clement at any time when forgery of the present text would have been credible. Note the comparative rarity of references to Clement in Grant's account of the use of early fathers as authori ties ( Appeal i5ff). Accordingly, it seems more likely that the collection was made early and thereafter neglected, than that it was made late.
That such a collection should have existed for centuries without being cited, and that John of Damascus, who did cite it, should have passed over in silence the reference to the longer text of Mk., are phenomena paralleled in the history of Byzantine literature. Procopius' Secret History , for instance, was written in the sixth century but not referred to until the tenth. Far from collecting dubious traditions about Jesus, ecclesiastical writers were unwilling to preserve them. Epiphanius, for
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT
instance, when copying Irenaeus' account of the Garpocratians, deliberately omitted their report of Jesus' secret teaching (both Irenaeus' and Epiphanius' texts are given in Appendix B). In this matter Jerome was an exception; he translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews into Greek. But Jerome never mentions the Jerusalem library (Ehrhard, Bibliothek 247) ; perhaps even before his quarrel with the bishop of Jerusalem he had little access to it. And it is significant for the attitude of succeeding generations that his translation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews has not been preserved. The Gospel according to the Egyptians has also disappeared. So had the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter until they turned up in chance finds of ancient
MSS. We have already mentioned the disappearance of ζ) and of the gnostic works used by Hippolytus (a disappearance which led Stahelin, Quellen , into the error of thinking them fakes). The same principle explains the long list in Hennecke-Schneemelcher of Gospels which church fathers referred to by name, but of which they did not choose to preserve — or chose to destroy — the content. Theodoret boasted of having destroyed more than two hundred copies of the Diatessaron (
Haereticarum fabularum compendium 1. 20 end).
To prevent foreseeable stupidities, it must be said at once that the lack of reference to the letter is no argument against attribution of the letter to Clement. In the first place, even those who think it is not by Clement recognize it to be ancient.
Volker thinks it must date from the time of the gnostic controversy (the third century) ;
Nock thought it on stylistic grounds not later than the fourth century; Munck thought it propaganda for the church of Alexandria and would presumably not have placed it later than the Christological controversies of the fifth century. Even if we accept the latest of these dates we must admit that the letter went unmentioned for fifteen hundred years. So the attribution to Clement does not much augment — proportionately— the period of neglect. And the neglect is easier to explain if the letter be genuine than if not. If genuine it was, to begin with, a private and confiden tial letter of which no mention was to be expected in the years immediately after it was written — that is, if we have dated it correctly, the years before or after the Severan persecution (c. 201 ? or 210?). But if we can trust Origen (
Contra Celsum V.62) the Carpocratians must have become rare and insignificant shortly after that perse cution — perhaps as a result of it. Once they had become unimportant the letter would interest no one save a historian. But historians were few in the medieval
Church, and historians willing to report aberrant traditions from the early fathers were fewer. Thus the lack of any reference to the letter would be explicable. On the other hand, if the attribution to Clement be false and the letter a forgery, it must have been written and attributed to Clement for some purpose of propaganda; that is, it was intended to be circulated and to attract attention. In this event the failure of anyone to comment on it — or at least the fact that no comment has been preserved — is more difficult to explain. So the total neglect of the letter through seventeen centuries argues for its authenticity. Nor is the neglect incompatible with the literary activities of the monks of Mar Saba. They excelled in hymnody
and in the production of ascetic works and martyrologies ; see the accounts by Vailhe ( Ecrivains ) and Phokylides [Laura).