Gregory Thaumaturgus: A Re-examination of His Identity as Clement’s Addressee

All of this assumes, of course, the validity of my premise that Gregory Thaumaturgus, formerly known as “Theodore” before his baptism, was indeed Clement’s addressee in the Letter to Theodore. Θεόδωρος must have been a common name at the beginning of the third century CE. While Origen’s correspondences with his Theodore can be firmly dated to 230–235 CE, if Clement’s Theodore was the same person, it would necessarily have been before this period because he was referenced by his baptismal name thereafter.

Establishing the Timeline

Can it be established that Clement, Origen, and Theodore were all alive around 230 CE? The ninth-century Byzantine scholar George Monachus assumes that Clement and Gregory Thaumaturgus were contemporaries. George Syncellus furthermore identifies Eusebius as the reason we can’t develop the proper historical understanding for the period. The sixth chapter of his Church History is taken from his Apology for Origen, which he essentially forged in the name of Pamphilus. Jerome surmises that its association with a martyr’s name was deliberate. The information was now saintly and “sanctified.” Clearly though, as Syncellus notes, Eusebius’s reporting on the early third century focuses so much on Origen that the account displaces all other information from the period. This is why we lose contact with Clement. Eusebius puts the “spotlight” entirely on Origen.

Relationships and Contemporaneity

Regarding the relationship between the two men, Eusebius only says that Origen was “one of his pupils” when Clement sat as the head of the catechetical school of instruction in Alexandria. He also says that Demetrius appointed Origen to the same chair but not, as one might expect, that Origen succeeded Clement. Eusebius also says that around 230 CE, Alexander of Jerusalem refers to Clement in a letter to Origen. All this information can be taken together to infer that Clement, Origen, and Theodore were contemporaries at the time of Origen and Theodore’s correspondences.

I think we can even go one step further. The information also seems to indicate that, despite being Alexandrian contemporaries and teacher and student, Clement and Origen were not close. They may even have opposed one another.

Reconstructing Theodore’s Life

It might be useful then to take the three known letters of or by Theodore—Clement’s Letter to Theodore, Origen’s letters to Theodore, and Theodore’s Letter to Origen—and, coupled with the biographical information provided by Gregory of Nyssa, attempt to reconstruct a basic outline for the life of our proposed one and only “Theodore.” To facilitate matters, I will stop referencing Gregory Thaumaturgus by his baptismal name given that we are dealing with his life before 235 CE—i.e., when he was still “Theodore.” Henceforth, Gregory will be referenced as “Theodore” even where he is “Gregory” in the titles of the works (i.e., Epistula Gregorium, Vita Gregorium). This methodology not only avoids the problems associated with the change of name for the same underlying person but also avoids the confusion with his biographer, Gregory of Nyssa, and later Gregory Nazianzus.

The Homosexual Innuendo and Its Historical Roots

The investigation that follows will argue that the homosexual innuendo used to convict Morton Smith was already present in relation to the mysteries associated with the secret gospel at the time of Origen and Clement. The Alexandrian baptismal rituals were prone to misinterpretation, and anyone associated with them could inevitably end up “caught” in a web of suspicion. The discovery of the letter brought to life something akin to Howard Carter’s “Pharaoh’s curse,” a plague that lay dormant in Tutankhamun’s tomb only to bring bad luck to its discoverer once it was unearthed. If only Smith had known that his colleagues would not only accuse him of forgery and homosexuality but madness, culminating in the 2009 SBL debacle titled “The Secret Gospel of Mark, Sex, Death, and Madness; The Psychodynamics of Morton Smith's Proposal,” chaired by Peter Jeffery. One wonders if Morton Smith ever regretted opening Pandora’s box, recovering a lost chapter of early Christian history, and reacquainting us with the not-so-dignified world of the ancient Church Fathers. His reputation at least would have remained intact had he not gleaned the existence of this letter.

Naked Man With Naked Man (γυμνὸς γυμνῷ)

I am convinced that the “naked with naked” reference in the Letter to Theodore ultimately derives from Plato’s reference to the manner in which divine judgment is carried out in his Gorgias. The phrase γυμνὸς γυμνῷ can be employed without sexual overtones, as demonstrated by Dissertation 41 of Maximus of Tyre, a contemporary of Clement, who speaks of “naked to naked, friend to friend, freeman to freeman” (φίλον φίλῳ, ἐλεύθερον ἐλευθέρῳ). Jerome’s “nudus nudum Christum/Jesum sequi” is more ambiguous but connected, I believe, to the Origenist knowledge of the Secret Gospel of Mark.

What gives γυμνὸς γυμνῷ the hint of sexuality is Clement’s efforts to connect Theodore’s source about the secret gospel with the “carnal” Carpocratians. In other words, if we are to pair Origen and Morton Smith as victims of weaponized homosexual innuendo, Clement is Origen’s Peter Jeffery or Stephen Carlson.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the connections between Clement, Origen, and Theodore/Gregory provide a fascinating glimpse into the dynamics of early Christian scholarship and its complexities. The misinterpretations and weaponization of certain texts and rituals show that the challenges faced by modern scholars like Morton Smith are not new. They have historical precedents that reach back to the very foundations of Christian thought and practice.