A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Defending Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις as the Original Ending of Clement's Letter to Theodore

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Defending Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις as the Original Ending of Clement's Letter to Theodore

By Stephan Huller

A funny thing happened on the way to defending Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις as the original ending of Clement's Letter to Theodore. I uncovered an alternative ending of the Stromateis. Morton Smith always hhad the last word on his discovery, at least until people started imagining that he forged it. The good thing that came out of these wild theories is that we began to liberate ourselves from Smith's interpretation of the text. Morton Smith had such a towering influence over scholarship up to his death that his contemporaries could not see beyond his interpretation of his own discovery. The text and Morton Smith's exegesis were one and the same. Smith implied the text was about baptism. The Letter to Theodore was about baptism. Smith suggested in passing it might be about homosexuality, making the Secret Gospel of Mark a "gay gospel."

Over the course of studying the contemporary situation, I can’t help but think that Morton Smith must have enjoyed towering over his contemporaries. He must have loved being so influential during his lifetime. This greatness goes a long way to explain why, in the age after his death, the very same contemporaries who suffered under his glory for two generations abandoned scholarly protocol and started speculating about his sex life, his mental stability, and his ability to forge the very discovery he likely never properly understood.

Regarding the ending of the letter, Morton Smith discovered a manuscript written into the blank pages of a 1646 edition of Isaac Voss's collection of the Letters of Ignatius. Smith believed the manuscript was a fragment of a longer letter from Clement that survived a fire, hypothesizing it existed at Mar Saba since the time of John of Damascus. The absence of any reference to its content suggests it lay neglected in a single library, with the collection of Clement’s letters likely perishing in an early eighteenth-century fire. The fragmentary state of the letter suggests it was copied from an isolated leaf, preserved like other manuscripts salvaged from fires or inserted into other texts. Smith speculated that the surviving pages found in the 1646 edition were likely remnants from the salvaged materials after the fire, and someone at the monastery, noticing the surprising content, copied it into the back of the edition of Ignatius’s letters. He hypothesized that the original letter's content survived in a neglected corner of the library, escaping circulation and destruction, ultimately leading to its discovery centuries later.

It's a nice story. It could even be developed into a prologue of an Umberto Eco novel quite easily. But believing in “good stories” in terms of their entertainment value alone led to the situation we found ourselves in for an entire generation, choosing entertaining storylines for good scholarship. The whole “rescued manuscript from a fire in the monastery” thing is absolutely unnecessary. Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις is a fitting end to the Letter to Theodore. As I have outlined in a previous paper, it perfectly ends the difficult situation that Clement found himself in, defending the proper exegesis of the Alexandrian gospel, likely one and the same with the “Gospel according to the Egyptians” referenced in the Stromateis.

Clement of Alexandria understood that written letters were not suitable for revealing sacred mysteries, as highlighted in a passage from the Stromateis. Clement emphasizes that profound teachings should be imparted in person. The author of the Letter to Theodore, whether Clement or a later forger, adhered to this principle by avoiding detailed exegesis of the Secret Gospel of Mark. Clement cites a verbatim passage from the gospel without commentary, aligning with his practice in Quis Dives Salvetur. The letter starts by alluding to Paul’s “unspeakable words” and condemns the Carpocratians for revealing them, similar to how Church Fathers denied Marcion’s claims to know Paul’s heavenly revelations.

The seemingly abrupt ending of the Letter to Theodore with the phrase "Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις" aligns with Clement's practice of summarizing discussions in his Stromateis. It is the way Clement’s predecessors Thucydides and Josephus often end discussions in their historical narratives. The one thing I was missing to prove that Clement could end a written document with a sentence beginning with Ἡ μὲν οὖν was to find an example of any of the five surviving texts attributed to Clement of Alexandria ending with Ἡ μὲν οὖν. And then a funny thing happened.

As I was going through various ancient writers to see if they ended any of their texts with Ἡ μὲν οὖν, I read the following account of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis in Photios of Constantinople:

Οἱ δὲ Στρωματεῖς εἰσι μὲν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ὀκτὼ λόγοις καθ' Ἑλλήνων καὶ αἱρέσεων τὸν ἀγῶνα εἰσενηνεγμένοι, σποράδην δὲ καὶ ὥσπερ οὐκ ἐν τάξει τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων παράθεσιν κἀνταῦθα ποιεῖται, καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ὥσπερ ἀποδιδοὺς ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ ἑβδόμου λόγου αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως λέγει· Τούτων ἡμῖν προδιηνυσμένων, καὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ τύπου ὡς ἐν κεφαλαίοις ὑπογραφέντος, σποράδην τε, ὡς ὑπεσχήμεθα, καὶ διερριμμένως τὰ ζώπυρα τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως ἐγκατασπειράντων μαθήματα, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίαν εἶναι τῷ περιτυχόντι τῶν ἀμυήτων τὴν τῶν ἁγίων εὕρεσιν καὶ ἑξῆς. Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη, ὥς φησι, γέγονεν. Εὗρον μέντοι γε ἔν τινι παλαιῷ βιβλίῳ τὴν αὐτὴν πραγματείαν οὐχὶ Στρωματεῖς μόνον ἐπιγραφομένην ἀλλ' ὁλοκλήρως οὕτως· Τίτου Φλαβίου Κλήμεν τος, πρεσβυτέρου Ἀλεξανδρείας, τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων στρωματέων αʹ, βʹ, γʹ, δʹ, εʹ, ʹ, ζʹ καὶ ηʹ. Ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν πρῶτος μέχρι τοῦ ἑβδόμου τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσιν ἐπιγραφὴν καὶ ἑνιαῖοι τυγχάνουσιν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς βιβλίοις. Ὁ μέντοι ὄγδοος διάφορός τέ ἐστι καὶ τῇ ἐπιγραφῇ καὶ τῷ ἐδάφει. Ἔν τισι μὲν γάρ Τίς ὁ σῳζόμενος πλούσιος; ἐπιγράφεται, καὶ ἄρχεται οὕτως· Οἱ μὲν τοὺς ἐγκωμιαστικοὺς λόγους καὶ ἑξῆς· ἔν τισι δὲ Στρωματεὺς ὄγδοος, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἑπτά, ἐπιγράφεται, καὶ ἀπάρχεται· Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ οἱ παλαίτατοι τῶν φιλοσόφων καὶ ἑξῆς. Αὕτη δὲ ἡ τῶν Στρωματέων βίβλος ἐνιαχοῦ οὐχ ὑγιῶς διαλαμβάνει, οὐ μέντοι γε ὥσπερ αἱ Ὑποτυπώσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς πολλὰ τῶν ἐκεῖ διαμάχεται. Ἐπαγγέλλεται δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πεποιῆσθαι αὑτῷ συγγράμματα οὐκ ὀλίγα, καί γε καὶ ὑφ' ἑτέρων πεποιηκέναι μεμαρτύρηται, περί τε τοῦ Πάσχα καὶ περὶ νηστείας καὶ περὶ κακολογίας, περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν, κατὰ τῶν ἀκολουθούντων τῇ τῶν Ἰουδαίων πλάνῃ 111.90α ὃν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ Ἱεροσολύμων ἐπισκόπῳ προσειπεῖν. Ἤκμασε δὲ Σεβήρου καὶ Ἀντωνίνου υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ῥώμης βασιλευόντων.

This is plausibly translated by Rene Henry as:

The Miscellanies, in eight books, contain an attack upon heresy and the heathen. The material is arranged promiscuously and the chapters are not in order, the reason for which he himself gives at the end of the seventh book in the following words: 'Since these points have been thoroughly discussed, and our ethical formula has been sketched summarily and fragmentarily, as we promised, teachings calculated to kindle the flame of true knowledge being scattered here and there, so that the discovery of the sacred mysteries may not be easy to any one of the uninitiated,' and so on. This, he himself says, is the reason why the subject-matter is so unsystematically arranged. In an old copy I have found the title of this work not only given as Miscellanies, but in full as follows: Miscellany of Gnostic Notes in accordance with the True Philosophy, books 1-8. The first seven books have the same title and are identical in all the copies. The title of the eighth, however, varies, as does the subject-matter. In some copies it is called Who is the Rich Man that is saved? and begins, 'Those who...laudatory speeches,' etc.; in others it is called The Miscellanies, the eighth book, like the other seven, and begins, 'But not even the oldest of the philosophers,' etc. The work in some parts is unsound, but not like the Outlines, some of whose statements it refutes. Clement is said to have written several other works, of which the following are mentioned by other writers: On Easter; On Fasting; On Evil-speaking; On the Ecclesiastical Canons, and against those who follow the Erroneous Doctrine of the Jews, dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. He flourished during the reign of Severus and his son Antoninus at Rome."

At first glance, it seems to be about the way there are a number of different endings of the Stromateis. Photios makes reference to the last lines of Book Seven, first citing verbatim the sentences fourth and fifth removed from the ending and then summarizing the final three sentences before identifying two different versions of the eighth and final book of the tome. In some editions, the Stromateis had Who is the Rich Man Who Shall be Saved as Book Eight while he saw other versions of the Stromateis which had the current Book Eight of our one surviving exemplar.

Almost no one thinks that what is now the Book Eight of the Stromateis was the original ending. So, in essence, Photios’s commentary can be reconstructed as the earliest documentation of the changes made to the ending of the Stromateis. That there are two different Book Eights means there were two different endings to the book. And then I noticed that what Henry translated as “This, he himself says (i.e., Clement), is the reason why the subject-matter is so unsystematically arranged” begins with Ἡ μὲν οὖν viz. Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη, ὥς φησι, γέγονεν. I mused to myself, is it possible that Photios is citing the entire ending of the copy of the Stromateis he had before him throughout his entry?

In other words, when Photios announces that Clement presents “the ethics” of the Stromateis “in a scattered manner (σποράδην) and not in an orderly fashion (οὐκ ἐν τάξει) in terms of “the arrangement of the chapters” his appeal to “these exact words” (αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως λέγει) “at the end of the seventh discourse (ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ ἑβδόμου λόγου) extends from the direct citation of Stromateis 7.18.110.4 - 7.18.111.1 i.e., “Τούτων ἡμῖν προδιηνυσμένων, καὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ τύπου ὡς ἐν κεφαλαίοις ὑπογραφέντος, σποράδην τε, ὡς ὑπεσχήμεθα, καὶ διερριμμένως τὰ ζώπυρα τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως ἐγκατασπειράντων μαθήματα, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίαν εἶναι τῷ περιτυχόντι τῶν ἀμυήτων τὴν τῶν ἁγίων εὕρεσιν” but through to Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη, ὥς φησι, γέγονεν and then even to the first line of each version of Book Eight we’ve mentioned viz. “in some copies it is called Who is the Rich Man that is saved? and begins, “Οἱ μὲν τοὺς ἐγκωμιαστικοὺς λόγους…” and in others it is called The Miscellanies, the eighth book, like the other seven, and begins, “Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ οἱ παλαίτατοι τῶν φιλοσόφων…”

In other words, given that the entry for the Stromateis in Photios’s Bibliotheca is an extended, detailed, and ultimately verbatim reproduction of the transition from the seventh to the eighth book of Clement’s book, of “the very words Clement uses” (αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως λέγει) “at the end of Book Seven” (ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ ἑβδόμου λόγου) why would Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη γέγονεν merely be a summary of what appears in our Stromateis 7.18.111.1 – 3?

Everything else about the section indicates that Photios is producing the material verbatim from the edition of the Stromateis he has before him – i.e., the one which ended with Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved. This is evidenced by the structure of the citation where he places the ending with Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved first. Since Clement used a variant edition of the Stromateis it well could have ended with Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη γέγονεν. Indeed, Photios makes explicit that “in the others” of the copies of the Stromateis “it is called The Miscellanies, the eighth book, like the other seven” which implies that his edition of the ending of the seventh book, the one with Who is the Rich Man as the next book, there was no reference to the eighth book as a “Stromateis.” It read differently perhaps even with respect to the last line of the seventh book which now reads “Καὶ δὴ μετὰ τὸν ἕβδομον τοῦτον ἡμῖν Στρωματέα τῶν ἑξῆς ἀπ' ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ποιησόμεθα τὸν λόγον.”

Photios’s edition of the Stromateis necessarily went directly from the ending of Book Seven to Who is the Rich Man’s first line “Οἱ μὲν τοὺς ἐγκωμιαστικοὺς λόγους…” Why couldn’t his verbatim citation of this transition have included Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη γέγονεν as the original ending to Book Seven? It will be very important to analyze the Greek text. Yet before we do, I think it more important to “strip down” the obvious narrative additions in Photios’s account with underlining, and bold for the original passage cited from the transition from the end of Book Seven to the beginning of Book Eight:

καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ὥσπερ ἀποδιδοὺς ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ ἑβδόμου λόγου αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως λέγει Τούτων ἡμῖν προδιηνυσμένων, καὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ τύπου ὡς ἐν κεφαλαίοις ὑπογραφέντος, σποράδην τε, ὡς ὑπεσχήμεθα, καὶ διερριμμένως τὰ ζώπυρα τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως ἐγκατασπειράντων μαθήματα, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίαν εἶναι τῷ περιτυχόντι τῶν ἀμυήτων τὴν τῶν ἁγίων εὕρεσιν καὶ ἑξῆς. Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη, ὥς φησι, γέγονεν.

In my proposed reading of the passage, there are three important markers from Photios – (1) “these exact words” (αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως λέγει) before the citation of 7.18.110.4 - 7.18.111.1 (2) “and next” καὶ ἑξῆς, commonly rendered “etc.” after the citation and before Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη and (3) “as it says” (ὥς φησι) within the disputed line.

With regards to (1), we know that Stromateis 7.18.110.4 - 7.18.111.1 is cited verbatim albeit in a slightly different form to our received text – viz. Photios’s text has σποράδην rather than our "σποράδην τε," and δογμάτων instead of our "μαθήματα.” While καὶ ἑξῆς at the end of a citation can mean “etc” i.e. “so forth,” it can also be used as an indicator that what immediately follows is a continuation of the citation.

"For one proposition is 'In the beginning was the Word,' the second is 'The Word was with God,' and next (καὶ ἑξῆς) 'The Word was God.'"

I will suggest that when καὶ ἑξῆς is immediately followed by φησὶν or, stronger yet, ὥς φησι it increases the likelihood that what comes after is a continuation of what appeared in the original citation, something very close to a verbatim citation.

Let’s give some examples of this in Photios. First from the Bibliotheca:

"And next (καὶ ἑξῆς), instead of 'I desired,' he says (φησίν), 'I would rather be in condemnation, only that the sons of Israel might turn to the Lord.' For Paul, fearing the fall of the Galatians, says (φησίν), 'I fear that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.”

"This, therefore, signifies the following: 'Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about Christ,' and so on. The phrase 'And this we will do if God permits' converges to the same meaning, namely, that you should no longer start with the elementary teaching which those who first approached baptism were taught."

His Biblical commentary reinforces the same pattern too:

"Therefore, intending to address them with grace and peace from God, and having said 'to the called saints,' he immediately included all who call upon [Him] and next (καὶ ἑξῆς): 'And to you,' he says (φησί) 'may grace and peace from God the Father be with you all.'"

For the Jews said that they have God as their father, and the Lord said to them, 'If God were your Father,' and next (καὶ ἑξῆς) since the Lord said these things and showed them to be completely alienated, as we are accustomed to say of those who are greatly separated, he adds (ἐπάγει): 'You are of your father the devil, and the evil you do comes from your father.'"

"When he ceased his rebukes, then loosening the transformation toward himself, he straightway exhorted them, saying: 'Whether you eat,' and next (καὶ ἑξῆς). 1 Corinthians 10:33 “The benefit of the many,” he says (φησί) rather than my own.'

He says, 'The parts of the body that seem to be less honorable, we bestow greater honor and assistance upon.' And the parts of the body that seem to be less honorable..."

"Therefore, intending to address them with grace and peace from God, and having said 'to the called saints,' he immediately included all who call upon [Him] and then continued (καὶ ἑξῆς): 'And to you,' he says (φησί), 'may grace and peace from God the Father be with you all.'"

Then, after saying these things, he again brings them together into equality and harmony, so that, he says, there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another” (καὶ ἑξῆς). 1 Corinthians 12:31 The phrase (Τὸ) 'but earnestly desire the greater gifts' seems to me not to have been said as a command or decision;"

"Therefore, intending to address them with grace and peace from God, and having said 'to the called saints,' he immediately included all who call upon [Him] and then continued (καὶ ἑξῆς): 'And to you,' (φησί), 'may grace and peace from God the Father be with you all.'

"And someone could also arrange the statement differently, understanding it more readily in this way: 'It is more necessary for you to remain,' and next (καὶ ἑξῆς) 'And being confident of this, that it is more necessary, he says (φησί), I know that I will remain and continue with all of you.' Philippians 1:28

Philippians 4:11-18: 'Not that I speak in regard to need.' I said that I greatly rejoiced in the Lord that you have revived your concern for me. But do not think, he says, that I said this because of the need I had; for I, he says, have learned and next (καὶ ἑξῆς) I have been trained, he says (φησίν), in all things, and I do not complain even when lacking.”

"For just as through disobedience and next (καὶ ἑξῆς) he says (φησὶ) the fact, not that the law is the cause of sin, as: 'The law came in so that the trespass might increase.'"

Unfortunately, I cannot find another example of "καὶ ἑξῆς ... ὥς φησι" anywhere in the writings of Photios. But the phrase "καὶ ἑξῆς ... ὥς φησι" (and so on ... as it says) clearly indicates a direct or near-verbatim citation, suggesting close adherence to the original text. In contrast, "καὶ ἑξῆς ... φησὶ" (and so on ... he/she says) can be a more general reference or paraphrase, not necessarily preserving the exact wording of the source.

So now that we have identified the certainty of "καὶ ἑξῆς ... ὥς φησι" in the Stromateis reference of Photios, let’s spend a little time figuring out what it exactly means. In the study of ancient Greek texts, identifying the antecedents of pronouns is crucial for accurate interpretation. This paper examines whether the dative pronoun "αὐτῷ" in the sentence "Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη γέγονεν" refers to "τῷ περιτυχόντι" from an earlier clause. A detailed parsing of the elements and a thorough analysis of the grammatical and contextual relationships are necessary to clarify this potential ambiguity.

The sentence in question, "Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη γέγονεν," must be understood in the context of the preceding clause: "σποράδην τε, ὡς ὑπεσχήμεθα, καὶ διερριμμένως τὰ ζώπυρα τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως ἐγκατασπειράντων μαθήματα, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίαν εἶναι τῷ περιτυχόντι τῶν ἀμυήτων τὴν τῶν ἁγίων εὕρεσιν." This clause translates to, "so that it may not be easy for the uninitiated who comes across them to find the sacred things," and introduces "τῷ περιτυχόντι τῶν ἀμυήτων," meaning "the uninitiated who comes across them."

To determine the referent of "αὐτῷ," it is essential to parse the key elements of the sentence. The phrase "Ἡ ... αἰτία" can be translated as "the reason/cause." Here, "Ἡ" is the feminine definite article in the nominative singular, and "αἰτία" is a nominative singular noun meaning "cause" or "reason." The genitive phrase "τοῦ ... κατατάξαι" translates to "for arranging," with "τοῦ" being the genitive singular masculine definite article, and "κατατάξαι" being the aorist active infinitive of "κατατάσσω," meaning "to arrange" or "to set in order." The adverb "διερριμμένως" means "scattered" or "dispersed," and "αὐτὰ," in the accusative plural form of "αὐτός," refers to "them," implying the teachings or lessons. The pronoun "αὐτῷ" is in the dative singular masculine form, meaning "to him." "αὕτη" is a demonstrative pronoun in the nominative singular feminine, meaning "this," and "γέγονεν" is the perfect active indicative third person singular of "γίγνομαι," meaning "has become" or "has been."

Considering the contextual and grammatical evidence, it becomes apparent that "αὐτῷ" is referring to "τῷ περιτυχόντι." The prior clause introduces "τῷ περιτυχόντι τῶν ἀμυήτων," establishing the context of the uninitiated individual encountering the teachings. The pronoun "αὐτῷ" is in the same grammatical case and number, making it a plausible referent. Translating the phrase "τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ" as "for arranging them in this scattered manner to him" further supports this interpretation, as it logically follows that "αὐτῷ" refers back to "τῷ περιτυχόντι."

Therefore, the revised translation of the sentence, considering "αὐτῷ" as referring to "τῷ περιτυχόντι," is: "The reason for arranging them in this scattered manner for him is indeed this." This conclusion is reinforced by both grammatical agreement and contextual alignment, indicating that the pronoun "αὐτῷ" indeed references "the one who comes across them," i.e., "τῷ περιτυχόντι."

In summary, this analysis demonstrates that "αὐτῷ" in the sentence "Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη γέγονεν" refers to "τῷ περιτυχόντι." The grammatical agreement in gender, number, and case, combined with the contextual setup provided by the prior clause, confirms this interpretation. Thus, the referent of "αὐτῷ" is accurately identified, enhancing our understanding of the passage.

In fact, the fact that the current ending of Book Seven of the Stromateis was not original should long ago have been obvious given an earlier “promise” regarding the "τῷ περιτυχόντι” – i.e. the reader of the text:

Having thus extended our discussion and outlined the ethical subject in summary form, scattering here and there, as we promised (προδιηνυσμένων), the sparks of the doctrines of true knowledge in a scattered and diffuse manner (καὶ διερριμμένως τὰ ζώπυρα τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως ἐγκατασπειράντων μαθήματα), so that the finding of the sacred traditions might not be easy for the uninitiated.

The material that immediately follows these words in the last five sentences of Book Seven speak about “plants” and other things grown from the seeds. But Clement’s original “promise” had nothing to do with these things. Clement promised only to act as the “Good Sower” of the parable. Reading the Stromateis from beginning to end was to behold Clement’s playing the part of the Savior.

In the earlier “promise” at very beginning of Book One Clement emphasizes that the act of preaching, whether through physical action or spoken word, serves a divine purpose. Clement writes:

However, the science of preaching is somehow already angelic, whether it operates through the hand or through the tongue, benefiting; for the one who sows in the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit. Let us not grow weary in doing good; for it greatly benefits the passerby (τῷ περιτυχόντι) according to divine providence, providing the beginning of faith, enthusiasm for conduct, an impulse towards truth, a movement of inquiry, a trace of knowledge—in summary, it gives the means for salvation. Those who have been genuinely nourished by the words of truth, having received the provisions for eternal life, are winged towards heaven. Therefore, the apostle marvelously says, 'in everything, commending ourselves as ministers of God; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.' (Stromata 1.4.1)

In this passage, Clement underscores the transformative power of divine instruction. He suggests that the preaching of the gospel not only conveys spiritual truths but also initiates a profound change in those who encounter it.

The "passerby" (τῷ περιτυχόντι), or the uninitiated, benefits immensely from divine providence, receiving the seeds of faith, moral zeal, and a quest for truth. These seeds, once sown, can grow into a deep and abiding knowledge that ultimately leads to salvation:

“This, then, is the reason for arranging them in a scattered manner for him (the passerby)." to Ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ διερριμμένως αὐτὰ κατατάξαι αὐτῷ αἰτία αὕτη γέγονεν

Here, Clement explicitly states his intent to conceal the profound truths of Christian doctrine from those who are not yet ready to receive them. The scattered and seemingly disorganized nature of his writings serves a protective function, ensuring that only those who are genuinely seeking and ready to understand can piece together the deeper knowledge contained within.

In both passages, Clement uses the concept of the "passerby" (τῷ περιτυχόντι) to illustrate different stages of spiritual engagement and readiness. Initially, the uninitiated passerby benefits from the seeds of divine truth through preaching, which initiates their journey towards faith and salvation. Later, as they progress, they must navigate the intentionally complex and scattered teachings of the Stromata, designed to deepen their understanding and commitment.

And the Letter to Theodore

That the Letter to Theodore ends with a similarly “abrupt” ending:

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις

immediately after the citation of the Alexandrian gospel, a gospel of Mark, is of course very significant. Not only does it again reconfirm that Morton Smith did not forge his discovery, but it makes manifest that the structure of the Letter of Theodore bears an uncanny similar structure to the Stromateis. For as Photios himself notes, immediately after the seven veils of protection that this “chaotic” structure provided, had, in the eighth and most holy position a commentary on the Gospel of Mark.

Clement begins his treatise "Who is the Rich Man that will be saved?" by quoting a slightly misheard version of Jesus's words. However, he soon delves into a detailed, line-by-line exposition of what he calls the "true gospel." Clement's approach underscores his belief in the superiority of the Alexandrian text of Mark over other gospel accounts. He urges those who genuinely seek truth and brotherly love not to arrogantly dismiss the wealthy nor to flatter them out of self-interest. Instead, he encourages them to correct the misconception that the rich cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven if they obey Jesus’s commands. Once this foundational understanding is established, Clement then guides his readers through the steps and actions by which they can attain this hope, demonstrating that salvation is neither impossible for them nor easily obtained without effort. Through his meticulous exegesis, Clement aims to reveal the true teachings of the Lord as preserved in the Alexandrian gospel, thereby asserting its authority and accuracy.

In conclusion, the investigation into the original ending of Clement's Letter to Theodore reveals significant insights into the textual and exegetical practices of early Christian literature. By examining the phrase "Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν ἐξήγησις" and comparing it with Clement's known practices in the Stromateis, it becomes evident that Clement employed a consistent approach to conveying profound theological truths. This approach involved using seemingly abrupt endings and scattered teachings to protect the sacred mysteries from the uninitiated, ensuring that only those genuinely seeking deeper understanding could grasp the full extent of his teachings.

Furthermore, the alignment between the structure of the Letter to Theodore and the Stromateis underscores the possibility that the Alexandrian text of Mark held a special place in Clement's theological framework. This special status is reinforced by the deliberate citation and minimal commentary on the Secret Gospel of Mark within the Letter to Theodore, paralleling the practice seen in his other works.

By reevaluating the manuscript evidence and the historical context provided by figures such as Photios, this paper has aimed to demonstrate the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore and its significance in the broader corpus of Clementine literature. The careful analysis of textual transitions and the identification of Clement's methodological consistency offer a robust defense against claims of forgery, while also highlighting the distinctiveness and authority of the Alexandrian gospel tradition.

As we continue to liberate ourselves from the towering influence of Morton Smith's interpretations, it is crucial to engage with these ancient texts on their own terms, appreciating the intricate methods used by early Christian theologians to convey their profound insights. This ongoing scholarly endeavor not only enriches our understanding of early Christian thought but also reinforces the enduring relevance of these ancient writings in contemporary theological discourse.

This paper has laid the groundwork for future research into the intersections of textual criticism, historical theology, and early Christian exegesis. By fostering such interdisciplinary approaches, we can continue to uncover the rich complexities and nuanced understandings embedded within early Christian texts, advancing both academic scholarship and our appreciation of this pivotal historical period.