R.A. Baker
CH101 Home  |  Bio page  |  Statement of Faith

Chapter Downloads Chapter 1  Introduction Chapter 2  The Origins of Christian theoria Chapter 3  Technical Aspects of theoria Chapter 4  Theoria: Final Stage in the Spiritual Pathway Chapter 5  The Practical Aspects of theoria Chapter 6  Conclusion Addendum  Appendices, Bibliography

(You can now download the PDF of my Ph.D. Thesis, University of St Andrews - March 2001) I will present various sections of my research in summary form with very few citations. PDF files of each chapter can be downloaded above - these represent the "official" work with page numbers and footnotes - these should be used if you plan to cite this work.

Clement of Alexandria - The Origins of Christian Theoria

Guy Stroumsa published a collection of essays, Hidden Wisdom (SHR 1996), in which he investigates the existence of an oral tradition in the early Church. Stroumsa reviews a wealth of evidence drawn from the patristic writings to show a general acknowledgment of esoteric oral tradition within the Church, then discusses the disappearance of those same traditions.

In a review of Stroumsa’s work, Charles Kannengiesser complains that no evidence exists for these esoteric traditions:

Kannengiesser is correct on some points; he claims that most studies do not give hard data showing the content of these esoteric traditions. In fact, Stroumsa admitted that to try to do so would be seen as "speculative." The very nature of the subject makes this task highly problematic: finding hard data for a tradition which is both "secret" and "oral" is difficult. Although this argument does not satisfy the need and desire for hard data, objectivity demands that in the face of solid circumstantial evidence the lack of hard data should not preclude the existence of these traditions. Stroumsa’s circumstantial evidence was not vague; he cites numerous patristic texts, from the Papias fragments to comments by Augustine, including references from Origen and Basil, all showing that some kind of esoteric oral tradition continued in the Church at least through the fourth century. Kannengiesser fails to comment on any of these texts, and says that Stroumsa’s work is "entertaining [to] the less prepared reader." Unfortunately, some of Stroumsa’s citations justify Kannengiesser’s comment (a few of his citations are erroneous), yet his overall presentation is solid. One wonders if Kannengiesser’s basic problem with this study is that which Stroumsa addresses in his introduction when he states that both Catholic and Protestant scholars view esotericism with suspicion. From the beginning, secrecy was associated with heresy by Catholics, and Protestants have shunned Catholic traditions suspecting them of being tainted with esoteric doctrines.

We have already seen in Stromateis that Clement openly reports himself to be the recipient of some kind of oral tradition. It is perhaps impossible to know for sure whether or not his claim is true, but other evidence (such as Stroumsa gives in his work) can be taken into account and seems to verify that Clement is not the only early Father to believe in this tradition. After looking at some of this evidence from other sources we will come back to Clement.

The Papias fragments represent one of the earliest recordings of this oral tradition,

The eschatological content of this Papian witness is not critical for our purpose. The fact that he relates an oral teaching originating from the apostles, and that Irenaeus does not seem to discredit this report, is central to our discussion. Irenaeus reports this oral tradition here even though he argues against such a tradition elsewhere. Eusebius also reports that Papias claimed an oral tradition,

It appears from this entry that Eusebius had some of the Papian writings in front of him; Munck argues that his disagreement with the millennial view of Papias leads Eusebius to neglect the Papian writings. This evidence shows that the Eusebian witness is not dependent upon that of Irenaeus, but is an independent one.

There is also testimony of this paradosis after Clement in Origen. In Contra Celsum, arguing against the accusation that the Christian doctrine is secret, Origen makes the following statement;

It is very interesting that Origen makes this statement in the context of refuting a secret tradition, thus giving this reference an ambiguous tone (just as that of Irenaeus, see Stroumsa, p.35). Origen makes a much clearer statement on oral tradition in Contra Celsum VI.6;

Here Origen is arguing against the same claim of Celsus that the Christian doctrines are secret. This time rather than trying to refute Celsus (while trying to avoid the denial of oral tradition), he takes the other side of the argument. He cites the biblical examples of Ezekiel, John, and Paul in support of keeping certain teachings unwritten, then brings Jesus into the argument. "But what he said has not been recorded..." is a clear reference to some kind of oral tradition. Daniélou says that Origen’s position here is more pronounced than that of Clement,

We find good evidence of oral tradition prior to Clement (in Papias and Irenaeus) and after Clement (in Origen; for others see Stroumsa’s study). It makes the case for an oral tradition in Clement much more probable.

It is critical in this discussion to understand the difficulty which paradosis presented to the early Church. We have already noted in passing that both Irenaeus and Origen address this issue with some ambiguity. Oral traditions would often be tainted by the unorthodox which necessitated orthodox writings. Then the unorthodox would make claim to certain documents, forcing the Fathers to sometimes distance themselves from these documents. Irenaeus and Origen seem to be unwilling to deny such tradition, but are also wary of fully embracing it. Stroumsa reminds us that by the time of Augustine the Church had begun to deny the legitimacy of oral traditions:

The evidence of secret traditions and doctrines is well documented in the Nag Hammadi texts. The idea that the Church gradually had to distance itself from various oral traditions for protection against the Gnostics is Stroumsa’s thesis (pp.3-6), and the evidence he produces seems to make a good case. The only point which I would add to his argument is the development of the NT canon. It seems that the more standardised the written record became, the less the oral tradition was needed. This is, in fact, the context of Eusebius’ comments in HE III.25.1-7.

We now want to look more closely at Clement’s claim to a secret oral tradition. In the Clementine fragment known as the Letter to Theodore Clement makes some interesting comments which affect our understanding of oral tradition in second century Egypt. The fragment was discovered by Morton Smith in 1958 in the library of the Mar Saba monastery, a few miles outside of Jerusalem in the desert. The lengthy time between the discovery and his publication in 1973, some of his speculative interpretations of the fragment, and the fact that no other scholar has been able to see this fragment (Smith included black and white photographic plates in his 1973 publication) have all combined to make this document a controversial one. Although Smith offered strong internal evidence to show the authenticity of the fragment, the debate which followed questioned both the authenticity of the letter and the existence of a Secret Gospel of Mark, referred to in the fragment. Although the issue of authorship has not been fully satisfied, the fragment is considered by some as Clementine and appears in the 1980 Stählin edition. In the Letter to Theodore Clement is responding to questions asked of him about a secret gospel of Mark used by the heretical sect, the Carpocratians. According to Clement, this secret gospel was corrupted,

This evidence agrees with the evidence in Irenaeus, who says of the Carpocratians,

In this letter we see one of Clement’s approach to the problem of shared points with the Gnostics: he is aware of this Secret Gospel of Mark and believes it to have divine authority, but claims that the Carpocratians have added to it, thus making their copy useless. But he does not take the safe approach of rejecting the Secret Gospel of Mark; the authentic secret gospel “even yet is most carefully guarded,” says Clement, “being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.” The secret nature of this gospel is emphasised when Clement warns that “when they put forward their falsifications, one should not concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath.” The remainder of the letter contains Clement’s account of two pericopes which have been changed by the Carpocratians. He gives Theodore the actual reading of the Secret Gospel of Mark text, implying that it should continue to be used! This is evidence that Clement believed in an esoteric tradition, however this “secret” gospel was only part of Clement’s guarded gnosis which was to be committed to the advanced believers.

Whereas Irenaeus and Origen are wary of embracing oral tradition, Clement openly affirms an oral tradition (written, but esoteric in the case of Ltr.Theo.) belonging to the Church. In the opening chapter of Stromateis, after claiming that he learned from men who had preserved oral tradition, Clement says of Jesus:

He clearly states that he is committing this esoteric oral tradition to writing, fearing that it would be forgotten otherwise,

This intention of Clement is also recorded by Eusebius:

So we see that Clement’s esoteric tradition is both written and oral. His intention is that this now written tradition would be continued by those who follow him. Several times he outlines three goals of the gnostic; communicating this hidden gnosis occurs in all three texts. He also makes this intention clear in his opening chapter by quoting 2 Timothy 2:2 as his model, which is a call to continue oral tradition.

Clement Home Page  |  go to  -  The Minority Egyptian Tradition in Clement