Apotheosis and Clement of Alexandria
 

Apotheosis (humans becoming gods) is an important part of my current research. I stumbled across this yesterday.

ναί φημι, ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, ἵνα δὴ καὶ σὺ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου μάθῃς, πῇ ποτε ἄρα ἄνθρωπος γένηται θεός

The writings of Clement are vast and interesting. He was clearly well read and worked to incorporate both Hebrew scripture and Greek literature into his writings on Christianity.

One of my favorite of his tracts is "The Rich Man's Salvation" where he explains (to the relief, I'm sure, of the rich who had begun to accept Christianity in big numbers) that the story of the Rich Young Man (Mark 10.17-25) was symbolic - not literal. Jesus doesn't really want us to sell all our stuff. Instead, he wants us to get rid of our wants and greed and lust. Those are our only "possessions." Everything else belongs to God, so we should hold onto the good stuff (houses, money, etc.) Indeed, if we give too much to the poor, we can't do very much good and we just end up wishing we had more stuff - both sins. So, jet the bad desires and keep the nice possessions.

It's as fine of a piece of rationalization as you'll ever read.

Where did you find the quote?

Sorry - I forgot to put the citation in. I edited the post.

That's a wonderful quote. I love the vernacular too. I warn you, however, that Clement is the very essence of what FARMS would call an agent of the Great Apostasy.

Note, this is an automatic response setup to respond to SU whenever he mentions or implies that FARMs believes hellenization is the cause or driving force behind the apostasy.

-----------
I don't think FARMS is monothilic about this. For example, in the recently published FARMs book, Early Christians in Disarray, Noel B. Reynolds (a big name in FARMS) writes the following:
-----------

To stay on topic: nice find Solon.

you don't know what you're talking about. FARMS always quotes stuff like this to support their contention that deification was taught in the early church.

Oh really, FARMS is a fan of Clement? Did you know he died after 200? Your heros at FARMS of course claim that Greek influence=Great Apostasy, as we've established (grant you, Pelagius, embarrassed by such manifest ignorance, has tried to show a split opinion within FARMS on this). Moreover, I thought you disagreed that the early pristine Church had any Greek philosphy in its DNA.

"He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians. He developed a Christian Platonism.[1] Like Origen, he arose from Alexandria's Catechical School and was well versed in pagan literature.[1] Origen succeeded Clement as head of the school.[1]

Clement is counted as one of the early Church Fathers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

Chino, you're a dumb ass.

I will fully admit that in times past Hellenization has been held out as a big part of the apostasy. I seem to recall that Elder Maxwell spoke this way on occasion. However, there has been a shift in the last few years away from Hellenization and towards the Reynolds understanding. Namely that “LDS scholars today conclude increasingly that the root causes of the apostasy were the abandonment or breaking of sacred covenants by the Christians themselves.” Reynolds thought is not idiosyncratic here. Early Christians in Disarray builds on the Reynolds thesis throughout the book and this is FARMS flagship book about the apostasy. FARMS really has shifted away from blaming hellenization.

There is a decent review of the book here:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2783

And to bring the discussion back to Clement, here is a link to an article by Reynolds about Hellenization and Clement. He essentially argues that Greek Philosophy was a tool that Christians used to cope with the effects of the apostasy and he uses Clement as an example.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/disp...nsights&id=220

whoopy dooda. some teachings survive, some don't, fool.

The Greek was always there, and remains, even in the Christianity practiced by Mormons, though virtually all Mormons don't know it. Paul, a Hellenized Jew, was writing his epistles in Greek when the public started calling his sect "Christianity" and his followers "Christians." Later, after destruction of the Second Temple, over forthy years after Christ's death, the Gospels were first written, apparenlty not by men or women who knew Christ, but certainly by expert practitioners of Greek philosophy and language. They were originally writtien in the "Kings English" of ancient Greek. The Greeks were a but for cause of Christianity. Solon's quote from Clement is not an example of a belief in deification of any human but Christ, and it is an echo of Philo's writings on the Logos. Philo, who probably never heard of Christians, has been for over a thousand years counted as one of the "Fathers of the Church." Again, this is as simple as saying British values and culture were a but for cause of the American Republic.

Without denying this perspective, it is oversimplified.

For example,

From Eusebius. . .

quote:For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Papias worked in the first half of the second century, over 100 years after Christ died, and Eusebius in the late third century, early fourth.

I think you are being unfair here: to mormons in general and FARMS in particular. No one here (although no doubt you can find your fair share of Mormons who deny Greek influence but you can probably find Mormons that Believe Jesus spoke in Jacobian English so that is hardly remarkable) is denying the importance of Greek thought or influence upon early Christians. However, when Mormons usually talk about Hellenization they are talking about more of a full embrace. For example Reynolds' clearly has in mind articulating "Christian belief and understanding using the content and methods of philosophy" in a systematic way.

Also, some of your paragraph is false. For example,

This is clearly not true for all of the gospels. Find me some reputable scholars that actually believe that Mark wrote in sophisticated Greek. Every scholar I read says that Mark's Greek is awful. In fact, Matthew and Luke often correct Mark's poor Greek when they use Mark as a source.

Note this is not to deny the importance of Greek culture and language to early Christianity. However, it does point out that you are overstating things a bit and like all of us here there appears to be some gaps in your understanding of Christianity.

I provide you with evidence that FARMS is moving away from understanding the apostasy through the lens of Hellenization. This should make you happy. SU and FARMS are aligned. You could go write for them. However, you continue to rail against position that doesn't really exist anymore.

john is considered much better Greek, but Mark the first of the synoptic gospels is considered very poor koine Greek, with Luke and Matthew improving but not that much better.

I'm glad at least you and I (and perhaps some at FARMS) agree on the material stuff. The quality of Mark's Greek is of course a trivial point. He wrote in Greek for a Greek speaking audience, employing Greek traditions. I've read many times that by and large the Gospels were written in excellent Greek, but it's Greek to me. Here's the main point:

"Audience

"The general theory is that Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire. Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42). Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36).

"Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes use of the Old Testament in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance, Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14. Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18–20); Mark 7:27; and Mark 8:27–30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems.

"The gospel of Mark contains many literary genres. Paul's letters were already surfacing around 40–60, and the Gospel of Mark came at a time when Christian faith was rising. Professor Dennis R MacDonald writes:

"Whether as a response to the Jewish War (66–70) or to the deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. Its dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.[33]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Excellent Greek? They wrote in Koine Greek which is much simplified. The most complex of the four is John, which employed some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew thought in the logos discussion.

Even I, a complete idiot on Greek can see how Matthew, Mark and Luke are fairly unsophisticated in comparison to difficult passages of Homer, or Plato.

Honestly SU, I get the feeling that you are arguing against intellectual thought in the church when you left it rather than intellectual thought in the church today. I don't think my view is idiosyncratic when it comes to these things in intellectual Mormon circles. It would have been 30 years ago. I just don't think you will find hardly any Mormons versed in these issues that would deny that you must understand the influence of Greek culture and thought (as well as Hebrew thought) to understand Paul. This is really uncontroversial. I spoke up not because I disagree with you broadly speaking about the importance of Greek language and learning but because in my view you continue to impugn FARMS when as near as I can tell you basic agree on this point.

Arch, I think your signature ironically applies to the conversation in this thread (except for the original post by Solon).

Its from 1998: 10 years. 30 years is Hyperbole on my part. The Early Christians in Disarray is clearly newer (2 years old now) and in my view more accurately reflects the "FARMS View" on the apostasy (do you really want to argue that you are in a better position to assess the mode view from FARMS?). It a series of articles rather than a single paper 10 years ago. Surely, we should give more weight to a recent multi-author work that argues for the Reynolds point of view rather than a article from 10 years ago.

You keep trying to hijack. The point is that they were educated by Greeks, writing for Greeks, employing Greek invented philosophy and dramatic methods. The point is that Christianity as known and practiced by humans in recorded history, ever since before it was called Christianity, is a fusion of Greek culture and Judaism.

So? You're stating the obvious. Welcome Mr. Strawman. It also adds Roman influence down the road.

"I know that ... it's so funny you think I don't know that."

Query: Where is the original pristine Gospel (presumably written in Aramaic or Hebrew) adulturated during translation into pagan languages by these pagan influences?

Resurrect a dead man who transmitted it orally, and I'll present it to you.

Mark actually represents a more Palestinian presentation. Some say Roman, but his presentation is quite interesting, especially if one deconstructs some of the add-ons.

JS should have found that man, not plaigarized the Greeks and the English. JS added nothing to our understanding. He detracted from it, tragically.

I'm not going there, even though you're laying the bait.

For the record, BYU's professors involved with studies of Early Christianity with whom I've interacted are huge fans of both Clement and Eusebius.

If we've learned anything from FARMS and from SU, it is that we shouldn't give excessive credence to agenda based scholarship.

I don't need to point out the obvious on this, do I?

Pulling stuff out of your yewt again. To spare you another trip to the ER from your assisted living facility, I won't say anything after this background information on the quote. He clearly was talking about the deification of man.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sf5...LUcciH98&hl=en

Your link doesn't say that.

I can't believe we're back to Hellenism and Apostasy. I thought this was well-plowed ground.

First, it doesn't hurt anyone's position to acknowledge that the Gospels and the letters the make up the NT were written in Koine Greek, for a Greek-reading audience. As such, certain intrinsic features are manifest, especially in the use of religious/philosophical images and vocabulary. Scholars, theologians, and others are going to argue until the end of time about what those words "mean" in context - whether the writers were using old language to express Jesus' innovative concepts, or whether they were just using the old language to indicate the same-old, same-old ritual, tradition, and belief.

Second, to credit FARMS with anything like a consensus or a regular voice is, in my opinion, lending far too much credence to a group of antiquarian minded apologists. There are some sharp minds, to be sure, but they are hamstrung both by their affiliation to the BYU (and thus the LDS church), as well as the nature of apologetics that establishes conclusions before undertaking investigations. If you find their writings interesting, great. They're producing for a specific audience. The affiliation with a university makes me a little uncomfortable, but that affiliation is more harmful to the university than to FARMS. The publications of the Heritage Foundation or National Review are ideologically driven in much the same way. The readers usually know exactly what they're going to get.

The beauty of LDS teachings on THE GREAT APOSTASY is that they can be construed to defend or attack any teaching, belief, or philosophical tenet. Cherry picking "correct doctrines that survived" and discarding "heretical apostate teachings of men that crept in" is pretty easy to do. Like most apologia, knowing the correct conclusion makes it easy to decide what is useful and "true" and what is not.

Third, LDS have often changed their teachings on THE GREAT APOSTASY, from Talmage's The Great Apostasy (1909) that blamed philosophical heresy and gnosticism to McConkie's belief that Catholicism represented the "Great and abominable church." Judging by how different today's LDS church is from its 1830 version (even down to its name), I think it's probably pretty problematic for LDS to establish a chronological point where the priesthood authority was lifted and the doctrines had changed enough to merit the appellation "apostasy." The idea of a great, Christian world-wide apostasy is a question for broad strokes, in my opinion, where LDS are better off looking at overall trends over big chunks of time.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (overseen by BYU, GA's, and with contributions from several FARMS writers) states "A complex religious and cultural milieu both nurtured and transformed early Christianity. many factors must be taken into consideration in analyzing this transformation of Christianity. For example, some have put the blame exclusively on Greek philosophy and the influence of philosophy on Gnosticism fo rthe rise of the great apostasy. But asceticism . . . played a major role in the apostasy of the early church, and extreme asceticism is characteristically Oriental. Moreover, much of Greek philosophy has been found to be consistent with the gospel." (s.v. "Apostasy," pg. 58)

In the end, faithful LDS will work backwards from their understanding of "truth" and find kernels of it lodged throughout antiquity. Secular scholars will identify and recognize the confluence of multiple religious traditions and cultures, and raise an eyebrow at the buffet-style scholarship that apologists employ. Since they're arguing from two different planes, the only means for resolution is for one camp to cross into the other.

I should note that I have no problem with members of either camp, as long as they recognize which side of this fence they're on.

Fourth, I consider Clement to have been talking about the deification of Christ, a common theme in Greco-Roman tradition for great men of mortal/immortal parentage. Most early Christians, in my opinion, would have considered this eventuality well beyond their humble (and sinful) station. There is some talk of deification in Athanasius and other fourth century writers, but I think it necessary to consider it in context of Athanasian Trinitarianism - God and Jesus are one substance (no body), unity with them is ultimate salvation. This is pretty different from "as man is, god once was . . . ".

But if some people feel that this is a kernel of truth that survived the apostasy (for awhile), they're welcome to it, for all I care.

Here's a problem I have with the Great Apostasy concept.

If Christ taught for the limited period of two years, and if one accepts the forty day ministry of Acts, it seems extremely presumptuous that such limited time period was sufficient for a fully developed theology to have been distributed and taught.

Of course, we don't know the fullness of what was taught. However, it is my naive view, if we taking a believing perspective that Gospel essentials were taught, a beginning structure was introduced, but that time and distance made it difficult to expand the spread.

I can hypothesize that Peter never really conferred any authority upon Linus, I believe the first bishop of Rome. Or that subsequent corruption of a Papal line, such as the anti-popes, could have interrupted legitimate authority.

However, the Talmage or McConkie concept that all doctrines and principles were revealed at Christ's coming doesn't seem likely. He was trying to (a) atone for our sins, (b) teach repentance and baptism, and (c) teach charity. He would have also set up limited aspects of governance and transferred authority.

Now did people morph the original concepts when discussing them into regions not explained by the Master? Probably.

And if one were to accept that revelation were not continuing, to the extent things morph with the introductions of new traditions, they change. And new traditions are introduced to address not previously considered.

Baptism. What does one do if one doesn't have a pool in which to baptize? Well, Hebrews washed, so a washing must be good enough.

I really didn't want to discuss Hellenism and the Great Apostasy. I actually don't find the great apostasy that interesting. However, I do object to SU continued harping on it and treating FARMS as some sort of boogeyman particularly when what he said about FARMS is manifestly false. SU read one article and has been harping on it for 6 months. That's fine, but his beef is with Robinson and not the group as a whole. If he changed his snarky first post to "Clement is the very essence of what [Stephen Robinson] would call an agent of the Great Apostasy" there would not have been a peep out of me. That is a true statement unless he has changed his view recently.

The rest of the thread is an absurd combination of me agreeing with SU's in general but pointing out that if anything many FARMS authors have come around to agree with many (but not all) of his points about hellenism and early Christianity so using FARMS as his whipping boy is obtuse in this context.

Why did I defend FARMS? No particularly reason other then I thought SU's hand grenade was unfair and that I had previously presented substantial evidence that it was unfair. If he is not going to update his prior based on new evidence (very fundamentalist and unlike SU in general), I am going to lob some back.

FARMS is a mixed bag for me. I am not that interested in apologetics. I am not wedded to any particular model for understanding the "great apostasy."

Don't worry about SU. We all know he is Dorkus Maximus.

Excellent thoughts, Solon. The problem, of course, is that I am going at this 180 degrees from the perspective of some here. I like to see the two strands of metaphysics that begat Christianity--Judaism and Greek culture--as converging in Judea (thanks to Alexander and Ptolemy, etc.) and creating an offspring called Christianity, and then project on forward and see the impact of this metaphysical Christ child on our world today. The Greek sperm was there impregnating the Jewish egg at the Christian zygote's conception. Christianity's mother and father were the product of millenia of "evolution." To me this is a lot more fascinating than a magical world view, but I realize that's just me. I submit that if you pull a single strand out of the elaborate tapestry of our civilization you can't predict that a complete tangled mess rather than an elegant tapestry will result. It's a shame to be unable to see wonderful workmanship in any part of it, which is why I'm equally unimpressed with Sam Harris' and Chris Hitchins' word view. Ideas such as the Great Apostasy just distort the rich tapestry beyond recognition which is a shame.

I love your posts.

For the most part, this concept is passe in Mormondom, but you go ahead and keep beating that drum and knocking down those strawmen.

Yes, Robison may make a comment or two, but pelagius will show you constantly that FARMS is not monolithic.

You probably have a file on apotheosis, Solon, but I have tons of quotes and might be able to save you time.