Clement of Alexandria and the Mystery of Secret Letters: Analyzing an Omission in Translation
The Passage and Its Omission
The passage in question from Stromateis V, as translated in the ANF, states:
"For I know," says the apostle, "that when I come to you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ;" Romans 15:29 designating the spiritual gift, and the gnostic communication, which being present he desires to impart to them present as "the fullness of Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery sealed in the ages of eternity, but now manifested by the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all the nations, in order to the obedience of faith," that is, those of the nations who believe that it is.
However, this translation omits the Greek phrase οὐ γὰρ δι' ἐπιστολῆς οἷά τε ἦν ταῦτα μηνύεσθαι, which translates to "for such things as these should not be disclosed through a letter."
The Significance of the Omission
Andrew Criddle highlights the importance of this omitted phrase, suggesting that it directly impacts the interpretation of Clement’s stance on disclosing Christian mysteries. The omission might explain why Clement’s explicit prohibition against revealing such mysteries in letters has been largely overlooked in the debate over the authenticity and implications of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
Scholarly Reactions
Various scholars have weighed in on this matter, noting the broader implications for Morton Smith's work on the Secret Gospel of Mark. Stephen Goranson points out that Morton Smith, in his extensive studies and publications, did not mention Clement’s prohibition against disclosing secrets in letters. This absence is intriguing, given Smith's deep engagement with Clement’s works.
Interpreting Clement’s Stance
The core question is whether Clement was specifically prohibiting the disclosure of mysteries in letters or if he was commenting on the limitations of letters in conveying deep, spiritual truths. Secret Alias argues that Clement might be suggesting that letters are inherently inadequate for explaining profound mysteries rather than outright forbidding their discussion in written form. This interpretation aligns with the idea that oral communication was preferred for conveying such intricate theological concepts.
Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark
The discussion also touches upon Morton Smith’s scholarly abilities and his approach to the Greek texts. Some, like Secret Alias, defend Smith’s capabilities in Greek, asserting that he would have known about the passage but chose not to emphasize it. Others, like Stephen Goranson, suggest that this omission raises questions about Smith’s handling of Clement’s texts.
The Broader Debate
The broader debate involves the interpretation of the Secret Gospel of Mark and the context in which early Christian writings should be understood. Andrew Criddle and others point out that the Mar Saba letter, attributed to Clement, breaks off just as it promises to provide a mystical exegesis, leaving readers without the full context. This abrupt ending fuels speculation about whether the letter intended to reveal deeper mysteries or if it adheres to Clement’s caution against such disclosures in letters.
Conclusion
The omission of the phrase prohibiting the disclosure of mysteries in letters from the ANF translation of Stromateis V is more than a minor oversight. It has significant implications for our understanding of Clement of Alexandria’s views and the ongoing debate about the Secret Gospel of Mark. As scholars continue to analyze these texts, the importance of accurate translation and context becomes ever more apparent. Whether Clement’s caution was about the medium of letters or the content they conveyed, this discussion underscores the complexity of early Christian writings and their interpretation.
Comments
Post a Comment