Andrew Criddle, on the blog Hypotyposeis,makes an argument for the inauthenticity of Clement of Alexandria's letter To Theodore (aka the "Mar Saba letter", so called after the monastery where the scholar Morton Smith claimed he discovered it). He suggests that the letter describes a milieu in which theological texts are divided into two groups: one for education, the other for initiation. The educational texts may be read by anyone, whereas the initiatory texts require an esoteric reading, and are harmful if not read in that manner. Criddle uses an example from Proclus to demonstrate his point, trying to show common vocabulary between To Theodore and Proclus in the use of TELEIOUMENWN, "(those having been) perfected", in To Theodore, apparently used to describe a group of initiates distinct from others merely being "instructed", and TELESTIKON, "initiation", in Proclus.
I think that Criddle has pointed out a real problem in To Theodore. The author's division of gospel texts into those suitable for "instructed" listeners, and those suitable for "perfected" listeners, does seem to be unusual for its time. However, not only do I think his comparison with Proclus is insufficient, but I think there is a better explanation to be found in Clement's own writings, demonstrating the veracity of the Mar Saba letter.
---
I first note that esotericism itself assumes a division between exoteric readings and esoteric readings of the same text, so it's hard for me to really draw a line between esotericism
in general and the specific kind of "initiatory texts" Criddle describes.
Yet even if we can make this distinction, I still find it present in Clement. Stromata 6:15, For example:
"But prophecy does not employ figurative forms in the expressions for the sake of beauty of diction. But from the fact that truth appertains not to all, it is veiled in manifold ways, causing the light to arise only on those who are initiated into knowledge, who seek the truth through love."
Notice the reference to veiled truth (! as in To Theodore) and to initiation. True that Clement refers to MEMNHMENOIS here (probably not "MEMUHMENOIS" as in Migne??), but notice the half-echo with TELEIOUMENWN. And, just prior to this, at the end of 6:14, he says:
"Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed....For the comparative shows that there are lower parts in the temple of God, which is the whole Church....These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel— the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord....To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected [TELEIOQH], according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught."
So here we see different stages, or levels, of believers--and the highest level is attained by perfection, by way of the gospel. This book of Stromata is entirely taken up with the ways in which correct reading of Christian scripture leads to knowledge of the truth, which is equivalent to a mystical oneness with God.
Read also in 6:15 where Clement says:
"For many reasons, then, the Scriptures hide the sense. First, that we may become inquisitive, and be ever on the watch for the discovery of the words of salvation. Then it was not suitable for all to understand, so that they might not receive harm in consequence of taking in another sense the things declared for salvation by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies are veiled in the parables—preserved for chosen men, selected to knowledge in consequence of their faith; for the style of the Scriptures is parabolic."
Here we see that scripture, when misread, can cause harm! It can cause harm when read by those who are not "chosen", whose faith does not give them the necessary "knowledge" to read the "mysteries" present within the gospel text. (And notice another reference to veiling.)
If you're still not persuaded, look towards the end of 6:18, where Clement says of Paul:
"But he teaches that knowledge, which is the perfection [TELEIOSIN] of faith, goes beyond catechetical instruction, in accordance with the magnitude of the Lord's teaching and the rule of the Church."
Here, knowledge, a kind of perfection, is explicitly that which "goes beyond" mere "catechetical instruction".
---
There still remains one central point of Criddle's argument, namely that Secret Mark seems a very unusual text--it was not merely an esoteric reading of Mark, but also contained more than Mark--passages for those being "initiated", passages that themselves were not available to everyone, i.e. to those merely being "instructed". This, Criddle claims, is without parallel in Clement's time. Criddle makes an interesting observation, and we'll turn to it in the next post.
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
ReplyDeleteThe parallel in Stromateis book 6 to the Scriptures potentially causing harm is interesting but is IMO a rather different idea.
What the Stromateis is saying is that certain doctrines about God etc would disturb/harm the ordinary simple believer; therefore Scripture presents these doctrines as parables/metaphors/allegories; this means that the ordinary simple believer will not be disturbed/harmed while the advanced believer will (with help) realise what is really being said.
What I think the Mar Saba letter is saying is that certain doctrines about God etc cannot be expressed in a straightforward literal way and hence Scriptures dealing with these doctrines must approach them through parables/metaphors/allegories which will be harmful if understood literally; therefore these Scriptures must be kept from the ordinary simple believer (who will read them literally and be harmed) but made available to the advanced believer who will (with help) understand the true (non-literal) meaning.
One obvious question is whether or not I am correctly understanding what the Mar Saba letter is implying. I would welcome feedback on that point.
Hi Andrew--thanks for writing. You do raise a real and difficult issue.
ReplyDeleteI'll be posting a Part 2 soon that may help explain what I think Clement is doing. For now, re-read the Mar Saba letter where it says:
"he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue , lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils."
Note that Clement doesn't seem to think that canonical Mark contains any dangerous passages--it's Secret Mark that does.
But also note that Clement doesn't say that reading Secret Mark literally would actually cause any harm. Instead, it's Carpocrates who has distorted the contents of Secret Mark--*that* is where the harm comes from.
So, why is Secret Mark a secret? It does seem, doesn't it, that Clement shouldn't need to defend the secrecy of Secret Mark? He should be unafraid to share it freely, since the uninitiated will just read it literally, without danger of misinterpretation.
But, as you will see, I think Clement is trying to justify Secret Mark after the fact. Surely we are not willing to assume that the apostle Mark truly composed both canonical Mark and Secret Mark the way Clement says he did? So why should we accept Clement's story about their purpose? Instead, the practice of keeping Secret Mark a secret was in place long before Clement came on the scene. He's trying to defend it after the fact, using his framework and vocabulary. He's not completely successful, but this just means that the situation isn't as Clement portrays it; something else was going on.
Hopefully this will make more sense once I post Part 2.